I List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
I Am a Fugitive
from a Chain Gang (1932)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
9/13, 3/16
9/13:
I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is a heartfelt story about a decent man, down on his luck, who dreams of being
a civil engineer so he can build roads and bridges.
The on-screen portrayal of the chain gang was enough for the public to denounce the practice, and forever gone was it by 1955.
Paul Muni's performance is more than outstanding, and he clearly shows how much he's absorbed into the character of James
Allen. Unforgettable is the ending which is one of the best and the most haunting ever filmed.
All in all, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is a classic prison picture.
3/16:
Haunting and real, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is a true prison classic with a great Paul Muni performance.
Also, it's a landmark picture that banned the practice of chain gang in Georgia for good.
All in all, I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang proves what a film can do for social commentary.
I Confess (1953)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
4/06
4/06:
I Confess is a mediocre film, even by Hitchcock standards, although it has an intriguing plot.
If the mystery can be more drawn out for the sake of suspense, then it's a good remake candidate. The acting is fair, but
the dialogue doesn't help the thespians reach their potential. It's more of a waiting game to see what the priest will do.
By the end of the film, the air is deflated once the whole plot is figured out. Unquestionably, Alfred Hitchcock had
done better in The 39 Steps, Dial M for Murder,
and Rear Window because he kept the suspense taut throughout.
Somehow, there isn't a feeling of Ruth (Anne Baxter) being stuck since there shouldn't be any shame in her wrongdoing. So, I'm
more inclined to believe the husband would've already known, leading to the partial acceptance of Father Logan (Montgomery
Clift). Speaking of Monty, his superficialness, to an extent, kills the movie. In fact, he was drunk during the filming.
All in all, I Confess is a disappointing Hitchcock picture that's more boring than suspenseful.
I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
4/25
4/25:
What do you call a film that features four of the worst thespians alive: Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle
Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, and Freddie Prinze, Jr.?
I Know What You Did Last Summer. Scream was the beginning of a new
slasher cycle by putting capital H into hip. The rest of the films that followed did everything as possible
to ruin it through awful acting, manipulation, and stupidity. This one is no exception.
When Jennifer Love Hewitt screamed in the middle of the street, "What are you waiting for???," her credibility
as an actress instantly dropped to zero forever. I've always hated Ryan Phillippe since day one.
His character is a "college quarterback"? Ha! He'll be more believable as a gay porn actor. Sarah Michelle Gellar
and Freddie Prinze, Jr., are nothing but dopes with pretty boy/girl looks. And what do you know? They ended up
marrying each other.
It's quite hard to believe the three characters who had nothing to do with the July 4 incident got killed while
the four leads were able to be free and unbothered for so long considering they started the whole thing in the
first place. That being said, why do I have to care about them? They deserved to die. Murder? No, it wasn't.
Manslaughter is the correct word, but all would've gotten off the hook if they simply reported to the police
about what happened. That's because the guy was walking out of the blue on a desolate road in the middle of
the night.
Oh, boy...the manipulations. They are endless. One of them is Julie finding a dead body along with crabs in
the trunk of her car. The next minute, they are gone. Helen sees Barry being murdered on the balcony, and she
and a cop run to there and find nothing. By the way, is her hair supposed to be falling apart,
especially during the parade? Plenty of guys wear the same fisherman outfit despite the fact that I've never
seen anyone donning it in my whole life. Ditto for the cliff that will never be found anywhere on the
coastline of North Carolina. They are ice cubes inside the storage room that Julie climbed into? Uh, right.
Let me know when they feel chilly.
How about the explanation of what actually happened on July 4? I don't think so. It's a convenient way to
let everybody off the hook by saying they didn't kill anybody after all and the guy who got hit was a murderer
which happens to be called "hit and run." Duh. While they were freaking out about what's going on, I thought
Anne Heche's character might have done it despite the killer looking like a man the whole time. That would've
been par for the course.
All in all, I Know What You Did Last Summer is zero in everything, most especially talent.
I Know Who Killed Me (2007)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
7/08
7/08:
Ah...the infamous I Know Who Killed Me.
I just had to see the movie to believe the overwhelmingly bad reviews, and yes, they're true. As the plot got
stupider and stupider, the sheer incredibility of it was reflected on my face as I fumbled around for the remote
control to find out how much more time there's to go.
When I say this film is bad, I place a great emphasis on the adjective as in OH, MY GOODNESS IT'S SO BAD.
Afterwards, I had been asked to explain what the plot was all about. So, doing my best, I said:
"It's...uh about a girl who...uh...who's killed, and there's another girl who...uh happens to look like the
other girl who has some sort of amnesia and loses her leg and arm through some ordeal...and tries to find out
who killed the other girl...and whenever this girl is stabbed, she gets stabbed, too. Sometimes, her arm magically
comes back, but I don't think her leg does. In the end, she finds the killer and also the girl...who happens to
be her...uh identical twin that she didn't know she had. They both lie down in a burial plot to rest."
Does this make any sense to you? I didn't think so, either. Frankly, it's the gist of I Know Who Killed Me,
and I'm not lying. There's a high level of profanity going on. When the characters say them, the words don't come
out naturally. If they can be eliminated altogether, the film might be less hokey.
The characters show up and disappear. One minute, the lead female, whoever she is, has friends; and the next
thing I know, she's all alone. She has a boyfriend, and they have good sex. After that, he's gone. The FBI shows
up and has a theory which isn't followed through afterwards. Then, the agents do nothing else. The parents are
worried about their daughter, and later on, they stop caring anymore.
Julia Ormond, who still can't act, goes nuts with jealousy and starts to lust for Tristan Ludlow when Lindsay
Lohan does the wild thing upstairs. Speaking of the cokehead, a big part of the stripper job is nudity (in fact,
it's a requisite), but she never bares anything. So, what's the point of casting Lindsay Lohan?
For some time, I thought I Know Who Killed Me was going to be a David Lynch flick that's not directed by
the man himself, but as the story kept getting more ridiculous by the minute, I began to discard the theory. On
the other hand, if it's truly a David Lynch picture, the appropriate title should've been
Blue Velvet once again because there's a lot of blue everywhere for
seemingly no reason. Either somebody had an obsession with the color or there was a clearance sale going on.
All in all, I can't believe I saw I Know Who Killed Me.
I Love Trouble (1994)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
7/18
7/18:
The Surgeon General should've posted a warning: "Too much Julia Roberts can be hazardous to your digestion."
Indeed so. That's what happened during my viewing of I Love Trouble. Nick Nolte sinks to the nadir of
his acting career by agreeing to star with Julia Roberts who's 26 years his junior which creates an "ick" factor
during their kissing scenes.
Appearing in many solid films for so long, Nick Nolte had nothing to gain from this. In fact, this piece of
trivia is taken from Wikipedia: "According to Nolte, it's the worst film he has ever appeared in. He felt he
sold his soul by doing it, and he did it only for the money. As a result, he was tense while on the set and did
not have a good working-relationship with Julia Roberts."
They never got along with Nick Nolte calling Julia Roberts "not a nice person" and she labelling him
"disgusting." As for the film, I can't believe how ridiculous Nick Nolte made himself Mentos-like with the silly
Robert Redford hair and a goofy grin on his face. Was the money so important? Nick Nolte wouldn't regain his
form until 1997 when he appeared in Affliction. On the other hand, Julia
Roberts is an actress I've detested for decades, considering her to be nothing more than a square-jawed hick
from the backwoods of Georgia. Two hours of watching Julia Roberts is too much. Her brother is way more talented.
Saul Rubinek is the most typecast villain actor of the 90's. Any time he appears in a film, I automatically
know his character is up to no good. Saul Rubinek tried to play it off for so long in I Love Trouble,
but I had him pegged right from the start until he revealed his true intentions which turned out to be a "no
shit" moment.
The story is so convoluted (why the train derailment when a simple bullet in the head will suffice?) that I've
been squirming in my seat to wait for the entire ordeal to end already. How can Julia Roberts'
reporter character appear from nowhere, working on a major story, after failing to establish her credentials?
All in all, I hope Nick Nolte learned his lesson that sacrificing talent for money is too damning for the soul.
I Love You to Death (1990)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
12/13
12/13:
I Love You to Death reminds me of the odious picture by Alfred Hitchcock:
The Trouble with Harry.
I don't find anything humorous or appealing in the idea of a wife and her helpers shooting a husband to death and then
justifying the crime by saying he cheated on her.
Lawrence Kasdan must think I'm stupid. No wonder why he had been in a free-fall mode since he ripped off the story from
Return of the Secaucus 7 for The Big Chill.
All in all, I Love You to Death is insulting to my intelligence.
I Saw What You Did (1965)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
1/25
1/25:
You may notice Joan Crawford on the cover of I Saw What You Did, but she isn't the star.
She has a small role and is shown killed by being stabbed in the belly at her ugliest that's replete with
caterpillar eyebrows and stacked jewelry around her neck that resembles a chandelier. How her character is so naïve
to believe that she can blackmail the killer into marrying her if she'll keep what he did as a secret is beyond me.
Thus, Andi Garrett and Sara Lane have the honors of dominating the show from start to finish as two unbelievably
stupid teenage girls who make prank calls to various strangers who are randomly picked out of a telephone book. Of
course, bad things happen, and they manage to land a killer played by John Ireland. No matter what,
the catchy premise sets up the film as a black-and-white thriller.
Yeah, there's a moment in the shower which is straight out of Psycho, but
that's the farthest it'll go. Therefore, this is the best film of William Castle's career. Also, it's
much better than a 1990 film called Lisa. Don't be fooled by the picturesque
estate owned by the Mannerings as it was entirely constructed on a sound stage with the help of a fog machine.
By the way, what the girls did is illegal today. Take one scenario from the film
as an example. Somebody randomly phones a woman and says that she's being cheated on her husband with
the caller herself. What if the wife gets upset and decides to kill her husband? That shit will land
the prank caller in prison for felony murder.
All in all, if you want to see a fun, foggy suspense picture, then I recommend I Saw What You Did
by William Castle.
I Shot Andy Warhol (1996)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
10/11
10/11:
Although I Shot Andy Warhol is a pointless, messy film, it's Lili Taylor who's mesmerizing, making the time go
fast.
She also gives the best performance I've seen among leading actresses of 1996. The director does a great job of putting
everything together and making the Andy Warhol party scenes look natural, an element that's been missing in films of the
last twenty years such as 54 and The Last Days of Disco.
On the other hand, I like Jared Harris' performance as the famous pop artist because, in a way, he makes Andy appear superior
and somewhat mysterious to everybody else around him yet passes himself off as an ordinary person.
All in all, the only reason to see I Shot Andy Warhol is Lili Taylor.
I Spit on Your Grave (1978)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
10/12
10/12:
I Spit on Your Grave is a catchy title and sounds better than Day of the Woman which comes off as weak.
As for the film, I've never seen anything like it before and is one of the most unusual, being right up there with
Pink Flamingos and Sleepaway Camp. It's the feminist
Death Wish version of Deliverance.
Camille Keaton, who's although not the granddaughter but a distant relative of the legendary silent star Buster Keaton
despite their uncanny resemblance, gives a brave, courageous effort to play the role of a woman who had been raped by four
men, not all at once but four separate occasions. Not only is Camille naked, but she's also full-on naked
throughout the film. She running barefoot through the woods is impressive.
For sure, I Spit on Your Grave is as gruesome and degrading as it gets. What's interesting is Jennifer, over the
course of time, ceases to be a naked person but a thing that's all muddied up and discarded. It's good acting on Camille Keaton's
part. The rape is what it is, but the aftermath is more interesting.
Now, was the follow-up revenge predictable? I'll say no. At first, I felt disgusted and shocked by Jennifer's approach, but the
unconventionality of her actions adds more to the notoriety of the cult film which still resonates. Remember what Charlize
Theron's character did in Monster? What Jennifer did is ten times worse.
All in all, I Spit on Your Grave is a unique picture because Camille Keaton did what no respected actress would do.
I Still Know What You Did
Last Summer (1998)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
4/25
4/25:
Uh...should that be two summers ago?
Anyway, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is much better than the original. That's because Ryan
Phillippe isn't in it, so I don't have to put up with his constant screaming and horrible acting. He's one of
the two main reasons why I gave the original a '1'. Sarah Michelle Gellar is the other.
Instead, I'm given a strong supporting cast with a surprise cameo appearance by Jack Black. Mekhi Phifer and
Brandy Norwood get the most credit for setting up a lively pace. Jennifer Love Hewitt isn't bad this time, but
she keeps reminding me of Neve Campbell. Freddie Prinze, Jr., is still the same terrible actor who's thankfully
put out of the way at least 90% of the time.
The sequel is far more logically sound than the original. It's a common mistake to think of Rio de Janeiro as
the capital of Brazil which used to be that way for 200 years, but the country decided in 1960 to make the change
to Brasília. The ending can be safely thought of as a dream. My sole issue with the film
as a whole is the slow buildup; thus, about twenty minutes should be taken out.
All in all, although formulaic for the slasher genre while being too similar to
Scream movies, I prefer I Still Know What You Did Last Summer over
the original by a wide margin.
I Vitelloni (1953)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
6/12
6/12:
Having been lured to see I Vitelloni by virtue of Alberto Sordi's magnificent performance in
Mafioso despite not being enchanted by any of Federico Fellini's pictures, I'm laid a dud.
The story, my goodness...I Vitelloni should've been a ten-minute short film. It's all over the place with
different parallelisms going on at once. Just pick one and stick with it. Otherwise, I'm dulled by the goings-on per
stupid Italian wastrel. Really, I don't give a goddamn about any of them.
All in all, if you love Fellini's pretentiousness and vacuousness, I Vitelloni is the film for you.
I Wake Up Screaming (1941)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
12/15
12/15:
Originally titled Hot Spot, I Wake Up Screaming is a good, solid whodunnit noir thriller.
When the killer's identity was finally revealed, I wasn't surprised since I had the person pegged right from
the start. Still, it's nice to be part of the fun.
Apart from the story, the film's lone asset is Laird Cregar. Victor Mature isn't bad, but he was better
in Kiss of Death which starred Richard Widmark. Betty Grable is
better-looking than Carole Landis, but she's not much of an actress.
Laird Cregar is a scene-stealer, and his weird, creepy presence reminds me of Orson Welles in
Touch of Evil. Without him, I Wake Up Screaming would've been a subpar picture with
not much going for it. By the way, he lived to 31, having died of a heart attack after complications from a severe stomach
disorder by going through an unsupervised crash diet which saw his weight go from 300 to 200 lbs.
All in all, it's Laird Creigar who makes the biggest difference in taking I Wake Up Screaming to noir territory.
I Walk Alone (1947)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
6/24
6/24:
Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas did seven films together although
The List of Adrian Messenger doesn't really count, and
the very first one was I Walk Alone when their movie careers were just getting started.
It's a strong, fast-paced film noir picture with a straightforward story. But don't pay attention to the tagline on top
left of the movie poster because the dame has absolutely nothing to do with it. The writing is terrific with lines such as:
"You say that like it was spelled in capital letters" in response to "I'm Mrs. Alexis Richardson."
"Give a man a girl, a steak, champagne, and he's apt to open up."
"And you love it" in response to "You are hurting me."
"Stop trying to dizzy me up."
"I want simple answers, Dave. No diagrams."
"Don't worry about me, Kay. I just got out of prison...not college,"
"The bigger the house, the more chance the front door is open."
I love the editing which is always on the point. Tough guy Burt Lancaster steals the show, and Kirk Douglas isn't even in his
league, acting-wise. Supplying enough sex appeal, Lizabeth Scott is better than usual. The best scene is when Burt Lancaster
suddenly lost it after hearing so much of the corporate talk about what this Regent company does and what the other Regent company
does. That's when I knew it would be easier for him to beat up everybody just for the hell of it.
All in all, I Walk Alone should be seen because of Burt Lancaster who's at his film noir best.
I, Madman (1989)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
3/25
3/25:
Notice the similarities between I, Madman and Candyman?
The protagonist is a white female smoker with Aryan looks. An ugly male murderer is conjured through
supernatural means. Somehow, they have a special relationship. Over time, he kills her best friend.
The boyfriend/husband doesn't believe what the protagonist says, but she prevails somewhat at the end.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Yet Candyman, made three years later,
is so much better overall. Both murderers have their origins in print, and the atmosphere is neo-noirish.
So, what's the issue with I, Madman? It's mostly boring and slow in pace. Jenny Wright doesn't have
Virginia Madsen's acting chops. The material is too thin and thus needs more in order to evolve just like
Candyman.
All in all, you're better off watching the trailer for I, Madman and thinking no more of it afterwards.
The Ice Storm (1997)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
10/06
10/06:
The Ice Storm has great performances and an excellent direction and is a beautiful film.
At first glance, it feels WASP-infested, but going along with the story, the movie gets darker and darker in a sexual
way. Given the unimportant sex stuff, the true tragedy is everybody is suddenly reminded of the value of life and what
living should be about.
Christina Ricci is one of the most underrated actresses in the business, and she deserves every accolade
for her performance. Kevin Kline and Joan Allen are perfect.
All in all, Ang Lee gets the credit for making The Ice Storm a brilliant film.
Identity (2003)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
9/21
9/21:
I was thinking of either '7' or '8' after watching 90% of Identity, but the final 10% sealed my decision
to rate it '6'.
The correct genre placement of the film had been confusing at times: a suspenseful thriller or a slasher flick.
Ultimately, it's a dream movie which is annoying, and I hate them in general. Hence, whatever happened hasn't
happened because, you see, it's all in the mind and anything goes. The ending is stupid as if it's the ninth
part of Children of the Corn.
Although Identity has a lot of twists for the sake of twists, I'll say I was entertained much of the time
and knew it was a variation of And Then There Were None with a
bit of Bates Motel thrown in. The cast turns in believable performances,
but John Cusack and Ray Liotta come across as the most polished, seasoned actors. It's interesting to see both
in the same film.
My problem with the whole thing is, which is the most cliché to do, characters going separate ways
when sticking together all the time will increase their probability of survival. The editing is bad at the
beginning with several stalled moments which are ineffective as compared to
Goodfellas. I thought at first my DVD player broke down, but it wasn't
the case.
Larry said the probability of ten people having the same non-leap year birthday on May 10 is one in 10 trillion.
It's a high number, but the actual answer is 1/36510 which is one in 42 septillion, a difference
of twelve digits. In other words, it's equivalent to impossible. The trivia section of IMDb says, "About 1
in 115 sextillion," but it's somewhat incorrect because if you multiply 1/36510 by 365, it's under
the assumption the shared birthday can be any day of the year, but we already know for a fact that it's May 10.
All in all, the filmmakers might want to rethink the last twenty minutes of Identity to get rid of the
"dream" label; otherwise, everything that happened isn't real, and it's therefore a waste of time.
Idi i smotri (1985)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
3/25
3/25:
I wanted to find out what the most realistic war movie was, and many people pointed to Idi i smotri aka
Come and See from the USSR.
While watching it, I was like, "Are you joking me?" No wonder why I had never heard of it before. Granted,
there are improvements during the second half, but the movie is too long with the timeline jumping ahead a
lot and many close-ups of faces. When they, most especially Aleksei Kravchenko, stare blankly in front of
the screen, it's a poor attempt at conveying depth; in fact, I can't help but think it's a revival of an ancient
method from Bronenosets Potyomkin and plenty of other silent
pictures.
Horrors of war? I don't think so. It's rather tame and has been done better in
All Quiet on the Western Front,
Schindler's List,
Hamburger Hill,
Triumph of the Spirit, and
When Trumpets Fade. The last ten minutes is ridiculous and utterly
pointless. No matter how much the USSR wants to show what the Nazis did, let's not forget they also did
similar kinds of brutality, especially during Stalin's regime. How about that Katyn massacre? The Russians
killed 22,000 Polish people and then covered it up for decades.
On the positive side, the cinematography is top-notch throughout, so kudos to Aleksei Rodionov. If not for
that, sitting through Idi i smotri would've been much harder, and I'm not a fan of Soviet cinema. The
film's style is certainly a cross between Stanley Kubrick's and Andrei Tarkovsky's: slow, boring, mechanical, and
devoid of emotions.
All in all, don't be fooled by the praises sung on Idi i smotri; it's at best average and at worst
amateurish.
Idiocracy (2006)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
2/20
2/20:
The first fifteen minutes of Idiocracy is kind of spot on, and then it's downhill from there, never being funny
for once.
If there's no vegetation anywhere, people will die. Without plants, there's no oxygen for them to breathe because the
carbon cycle has been permanently disrupted. This means there will be no animals to feed on, either. Forget about growing
any crop; the soil is finished, and the damage is irreversible. Trees are necessary to filter the land of dangerous chemicals
and pollutants. With all of that being said, none of these people should be alive in 2505.
Have you been to a landfill before? Do you know how god-awful it smells there? Incredibly, none of the two transported morons
notices the heavy miasma that's produced by trash which is literally piled up everywhere. Where are the bugs and
rats? They're absent which isn't possible. Inhaling an intense amount of air pollution and toxic chemicals, new
and old alike, will lead to skin problems, respiratory illnesses, and many forms of cancer, yet everybody looks
great if zombie-like.
I've met stupid people all my life, and I'm familiar with where their IQ range should be at. The people of 2505 as shown in
Idiocracy aren't dumb enough. I can easily get 100 or 200 people beating these idiots in whatever. Criminality and
low IQ go hand in hand. So does sexual perversion. The amount of them shown in the film isn't high enough by any means.
Language changes significantly over time, even in 400 years, yet the English spoken by the characters sounds more or less
the same as today. The fact that they're able to sound out but mispronounce advanced words is a dead giveaway of their
average IQ still matching the average IQ of people today. In Idiocracy, a chart is displayed with the average IQ dropping
over 400 years until plateauing at 25 or so. That will be in the range of severe to profound mental retardation which means they
should be helpless and dependent in all aspects of life, having only basic nonverbal communication.
So, what the fuck, Mike Judge? Is he trying to be clever in a piss-poor way or something? There's a lot of potential, but
he misses the mark in everything after managing to get a lot right about the cubicle culture in
Office Space. The
quality is beyond awful as it looks 95% filmed in CGI. I didn't realize the current state of cinema had sunk so low. At the
same time, I'm surprised at some corporations like Fuddruckers, Starbucks, and CostCo for lending their image to be used in a
derogatory manner.
Back to the beginning of the film, it touches on two couples, one with intelligence and the other that's white
trash. When I said earlier that it was "kind of spot on," intelligent people tend to focus on themselves first career-wise,
so they'll be financially ready to start a family (thanks to the feminist movement which empowered women to seek higher education
and diverse jobs) while the dumb people are mass producing but aborting a great deal of babies to no end. So no...high IQ isn't
going to die out any time soon, but what's alarming is the caliber of the top 10% has been dropping as proven by SAT scores.
By the way, what the hell is Maya Rudolph supposed to be for her character? In real life, she's described as a mulatto
(oh, excuse me...to be in tune with the PC culture, I must use the word "biracial," but whatever) but looks Indianfaced up
the wazoo.
All in all, despite providing nice food for thought, Idiocracy fails abysmally.
The Idolmaker (1980)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
3/04, 12/21
12/21:
Before the invention of Auto-Tune, there was The Idolmaker.
One needed the look and stage presence while the rest of everything else didn't matter. Well, that's not totally
true. It would be a good idea not to have the baggage that came with Jerry Lee Lewis which killed his career during the 50's.
This time, The Idolmaker is mostly based on Frankie Avalon (who had talent) and Fabian (who had absolutely none).
The former is Tommy Dee while the latter is Caesare. Pulling the strings is the promoter Vinnie Vacarri
(Bob Marcucci in real life) who acts more like a slick salesman.
It's a well-made film with a strong performance by Ray Sharkey. Making their screen debuts just like Joe Pantoliano,
Paul Land and Peter Gallagher are unforgettable. The story is absorbing, and of course, what Vinnie
couldn't control is the human element. That's why Tommy Dee and Caesare ultimately grew out of him and moved on their
own once they had their first taste of big-time success.
All in all, there have been a lot of rags-to-riches music pictures, and The Idolmaker is among the best of them.
If Looks Could Kill (1991)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
9/03, 5/08, 5/25
5/08:
Armed with a great premise, If Looks Could Kill is the teenage pop version of James Bond films that's
funny during the first hour and then goes downhill in the final thirty minutes.
Although Richard Grieco had the looks and would've been a leading contender for the Sexiest Man Alive for several
years during the 80's and early 90's, his acting is sadly minimal. He can be annoying at times as a know-nothing
idiot. His one-liners sometimes stink and are corny. Unsurprisingly, Richard Grieco's career didn't take off like
how Johnny Depp's did even though both got big as a result of being in the same TV show
21 Jump Street.
The plot isn't bad but needs work. There should be more mystery added to the intrigue. Strange is that when X-ray
glasses are worn, nobody is shown naked. It illustrates an important concept that hurts the film: not enough of
going over the line. The ending is anticlimactic because after Michael Corben spent so much time chasing his
nemesis, Steranko went down without much of a fight.
All in all, If Looks Could Kill is sometimes fun, enjoyable, and wacky but needs to be edgy.
5/25:
Raising my rating from '6' to '7', I have to say If Looks Could Kill is a catchy movie with funny
moments.
I decided to watch it again because I was in the middle of 21 Jump Street.
Richard Grieco has done a good job although his acting goes downhill in the final half-hour. At any rate,
it's a shame how his career didn't pan out in the long run.
All in all, If Looks Could Kill is a decent addition to the espionage genre.
If.... (1968)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
2/14
2/14:
If not for Malcolm McDowell (who was good in anything he did), If.... would've been dismissed as a pseudo-babble
allegorical picture about England's school system.
Nothing makes sense. I was forced to watch the backwardness of the characters. There's an inexplicable scene when
the female faculty member walked naked in the boys' dorm. Explain that to me, but wait a second...I don't really care. Ditto for
the "tiger mating" scene with the nude waitress. It turns out Malcolm McDowell wanted to see Christine Noonan naked;
hence, he asked her, and the rest was history.
To solve the problem is to have a school shooting. Brilliant thinking. However, I'm confused: is school voluntary for many
students, and they can leave any time they want to? I read that some of the viewers found many
instances in If.... true when they were former students at these schools in England. Well, pity the fools for
doing nothing about it and letting the situation go. That's why the United States of America was founded: to escape the
backward Dark Ages culture.
Another annoying aspect is the back-and-forth between color and black-and-white. It's been mentioned the filmmakers ran
out of money and had to make do with the rest. The other reason is that they simply got lazy and shot the scenes in black and
white.
All in all, If.... is a ridiculous picture that was made for the delusional, pathetic fanboys.
Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
8/04
8/04:
The appropriate title of the film should've been The Bad, the Ugly, and the Boring.
I'm telling you: the movie is so fucking cheesy, stupid, boring, and slow that I felt like dying. As awful as the camera work
is, I've gotten sick and tired of being shown a close-up of anybody's face which would be held steady for a good minute.
All in all, The Bad, the Ugly, and the Boring is a long, boring, and pointless staring contest.
Il conformista (1970)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
1/18
1/18:
Oh, joy...here's another slow-moving foreign language picture: Il conformista aka The Conformist.
This time, I'm surprised Bernardo Bertolucci directed it. I thought he was
better than that. This is just too pretentious which is the fatal flaw of most European pictures.
What I like is the style which is largely helped by Vittorio Storaro's cinematography and Gitt Magrini's costume design. The whole
thing reminds me of Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Samouraï which came out three years earlier.
Following the same tradition of Alain Delon, Jean-Louis Trintignant exudes style which makes the show bearable to watch. Stefania
Sandrelli and Dominique Sanda aren't bad, either. By the way, you weren't dreaming because Gastone Moschin, who plays
Manganiello, was Don Fanucci in The Godfather Part II.
All in all, Il conformista has it all for a foreign language picture: slow, beautiful, boring, stylish, pretentious,
and overrated.
Il gattopardo (1963)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
7/20
7/20:
Luchino Visconti makes beautiful but dead pictures.
Il gattopardo, which is Italian for The Leopard, took me many days to complete. I couldn't watch more than
fifteen minutes at once because it was so boring and had no plot to speak of.
Burt Lancaster was more exciting for a minute or two in From Here to Eternity,
The Train, or Scorpio
than all of the three hours put together for this glacial picture that was made for viewers with no taste in art.
Come on, the ballroom scene is so long that it beats the tedium of the wedding scene in
The Deer Hunter. The battle scenes are laughable with nobody putting a genuine effort
into the fighting. After going through similar films, I have to imagine how much the power would've been lost if a Michael
Cinimo wannabe editor decided to add another five hours of desert footage for
Lawrence of Arabia.
As usual of Luchino Visconti, the cinematography is the focal point of Il gattopardo. If a motion picture shall be
judged this way, then the critics don't know movies well and therefore should be labelled as
pseudo-intellectuals. Beautiful scenery alone do not make masterpieces; there must be more than that.
Who are these porcelain-looking characters, and more importantly, are they going to crack any time
soon? Yes, there's Burt Lancaster, and there are Alain Delon and the beautiful Claudia Cardinale. But why do their characters
matter? I'm still scratching my head in search of answers. Oh, okay...it's about the long lost aristocratic era of
Italy. Uh...who cares?
Honestly, I picked up the film for Burt Lancaster; otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered with it. Initially, I thought,
"Oh, wow...Burt goes Italian in this." After watching him for a few minutes, I got disappointed; it's
hard to take him seriously, knowing he's speaking English, but it's really somebody else's voice. I would've appreciated it
more if Burt Lancaster learned the language, at least phonetically, for art's sake.
All in all, if you don't know what the expression "moving painting" means, then I present you Il gattopardo.
Il portiere di notte (1974)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
4/21
4/21:
Known as The Night Porter, Il portiere di notte is a bleak, dreary, and pointless exercise of European cinema.
This crapfest took me a week to complete; I thought of it as a fantastic sleeping pill. What a hard movie for me to stay
awake due to having neither focus nor direction. I failed to see the point, no matter how long I stayed
with it, and ultimately, there wasn't any to begin with.
In truth, Il portiere di notte is Closet Land all over again; this time, it's Dirk
Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling. Given the plot (or lack thereof) centers around a woman who's mentally tortured by a male, the
most astounding fact is that both films were handled by a female director.
I've seen Charlotte Rampling in many pictures, and she acts virtually the same with a great deal of rigidity. I was somewhat
under the impression this might be her best work. Well, the verdict is: there's no hope because
Charlotte Rampling is a baaaaad actress. As Lucia, she pretends to think and feel but is just going through her
scenes as painlessly as possible. Dirk Borgarde looks silly as well.
Speaking of the Holocaust survivors, I won't be surprised if they objected to being used this way for an arthouse picture and
thus dismissed Il portiere di notte as "absurd." It doesn't help when the filmmakers decided to take advantage of Nazism with
S&M tendencies. By the way, the makeup job of many who are supposed to be in a pallor state is disastrous.
All in all, controversial and routinely lambasted by critics, Il portiere di notte is terrible.
Il postino (1994)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
8/12
8/12:
Plenty of misconceptions abound for Il postino which is Italian for The Postman.
Many potential viewers may have seen the trailer that features a sultry, dark-haired female holding a ping pong ball in her
mouth which indicates it might be another 9½ Weeks. It turns out it's not that kind of
picture. Some might think it's about embracing communism. It's hardly the case. Perhaps it's a rip-off of
Cyrano de Bergerac, but it's not.
Additionally, Il postino had been billed as a "romantic comedy." Yes, romantic, but a comedy? Absolutely not. Now, what the
movie is is a simple friendship between a famous poet and a sycophant. Perhaps it doesn't mean much to the former but
means the world to the latter.
In a way, it can be ridiculous to watch Mario carrying on with the theme; however, it's an Italian film that's buoyed by Massimo
Troisi's performance with Philippe Noiret's help. Why I say it helps for Il postino to be Italian is that if it
was American instead, forget about it. Also, the gorgeous scenery of Italy is a winning feature. After a while, getting used
to the incipient plot and sensing the direction that it's heading into, the whole thing becomes easy to like.
An interesting trivia, as taken from IMDb, is: "Writer/co-director/star Massimo Troisi (only 41 years of age)
postponed heart surgery, so he could complete the film. The day after filming was complete, he suffered a fatal heart attack."
Now, that's what they mean when one dies by doing what he loves to do. Or maybe it was the ping pong ball moment that did it.
All in all, no matter how it's viewed, Il postino is an excellent picture.
Illegal (1955)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
2/24
2/24: Illegal is the story about the greatest lawyer in the world.
Edward G. Robinson dominates the show. W.R. Burnett and James R. Webb's script is the more the merrier. These two are what makes
the time go fast. Yeah, there's no story for a long while. When it appears, the tie-ins become apparent.
Hugh Marlowe gives a good performance as Ray Borden while the rest of the cast is decent. The paintings by Paul Gauguin,
Edgar Degas, Carolus-Duran, and Gladys Lloyd (Robinson's wife) as shown in the film are real as they were loaned by Edward
G. Robinson who's a well-known art collector.
When people were clapping or shaking hands with Edward G. Robinson afterwards in the courtroom, I won't be surprised if they
were complementing him for putting on a great performance. The title is apropos when a jughead walked past Victor Scott and he
punched him in the head just to prove a point. Victor drinking poison in another case is crazy, but I'm sure he researched the
length of time it would begin to take effect and therefore took a calculated risk.
In the meantime, feast your eyes on Jayne Mansfield who makes her debut in a Hollywood picture. At the age of 21, she started
appearing on screen in 1955 and would rival Marilyn Monroe as the best-looking blonde bombshell. Unlike Marilyn, she was
actually intelligent with the ability to speak five languages: English, French, Spanish, German, and Italian. Her film career didn't
last long, having died in an automobile accident in 1967. By the way, that's not Jayne Mansfield singing in Illegal as
she was dubbed by somebody else. If you pay attention to her while she's speaking, you'll notice how crooked her jaw is.
All in all, Edward G. Robinson is the reason to see Illegal while Jayne Mansfield provides eye candy.
I'm Gonna Git You Sucka (1988)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
10/05, 6/20
10/05:
I'm Gonna Git You Sucka is an okay comedy.
It starts off slowly until Cherry is introduced for the first time. After she literally takes off her body parts, it's been
a laughter after next until the shootout, giving the film a boring finish. Therefore, inconsistency has been a major problem
throughout.
There are many amusing characters. The winners are Anne-Marie Johnson, Antonio Fargas,
and Steve James. I've enjoyed Bernie Casey, Isaac Hayes, and Jim Brown, but what the heck happened to others like
Pam Grier, Ron O'Neal, and Richard Roundtree given the intended Blaxploitation theme?
One of my favorite parts is when Kung Fu Joe yelled, "So, it's just you 57 cops against Kung Fu Joe? Master of kung-fu, karate,
jiu-jitsu, and all kinds of other shit you ain't never heard of! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!" before he's all shot up by these cops.
Without doubt, the best in show is Flyguy. Boy, I've never seen anyone as original as he. His stuff is definitely straight
off from The Mack. How can I forget the scene where he's all pimped out and does the
Saturday Night Fever walk, sporting glass shoes that are full of water with
goldfish in them?
All in all, I'm Gonna Git You Sucka is best remembered for the unforgettable moments, but on the whole, it's not
a good movie.
6/20:
Although I'm Gonna Git You Sucka is a well-known spoof of the blaxploitation genre, it's unfortunately
not funny but has several memorable moments.
My favorite parts are the local Youth Gang Competition, Cherry's revelation of her secrets, and Flyguy with goldfish in
his shoes. They'll never get old, but everything else is blah. At least, it's reaffirming that I'm Gonna Git You Sucka
readily acknowledges the truth to these persistent stereotypes about what goes on in the black ghetto.
It's interesting to see Jim Brown, Bernie Casey, Antonio Fargas, and Isaac Hayes, but I wonder why they didn't also get
Richard Roundtree, Pam Grier, Ron O'Neal (who actually turned down the offer), and/or Fred Williamson (who also turned it
down). No matter what, the cast is decent. I just wish the movie was funnier, that's all. Now, I wonder if the reason why
Mr. Big is the bad guy is that he's white.
All in all, I would've loved it if Flyguy had his own movie.
Images (1972)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
3/20
3/20:
Robert Altman is the kind of director who can do ten stinkers in a row and then finally presents
a masterpiece that will bowl me over.
I was really hoping for the latter through Images, but damn...what a torture it's been. The
see-it-for-one-second-then-it's-not-there-anymore genre has been done to death for decades. I mean, what new stuff
am I supposed to discover in Images?
Although the dizzy editing and the landscape photography of Ireland are excellent, not much happens. The
dialogue is awful which somewhat reminds me of Roman Polanski's scripts for
Cul-de-Sac and Repulsion: just a lot of
bullshit to pass the time. The excerpts from Susannah York's children's book In Search of Unicorns are
wretched, too.
I can't rip the acting apart because it's nobody's fault for having to work with a terrible screenplay. However,
it's cute that all five principal thespians take each other's first name for their characters. Susannah York is
okay and has an easy face to look at, but I don't think her heart was in it during the entire time after
expressing reluctance to take on the role.
All in all, it's tough to endure a bad Robert Altman picture, but I'm still a big fan of his overall body of work.
Imitation of Life (1934)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
1/18
1/18:
Far ahead of its time, Imitation of Life is a classy picture with great performances by Claudine Colbert, Louise
Beavers, and Warren William.
This long forgotten picture is among the more interesting ones because it deals with a white girl who has a black mother
but wants to pass for a white person, regardless, which was a big topic back then.
However, the second parallel thread, which doesn't have much depth, is sometimes a detraction from the main thread: the
relationship between a white female adult and a black female adult. That's why I view Imitation of Life as a film
of two tales: one strong and the other weak.
At the same time, it's hard to stomach the servile portrayal of a black maid who's played by Louise Beavers. The lowest
point is when she was willing to give her white boss a foot massage. Oh, come on...have some pride. Another reason why
Imitation of Life was ahead of its time is the idea of a successful female entrepreneur. It's not something I see
often in films back then; the only one I can think of that comes close is Mildred Pierce
with Joan Crawford in 1945.
By the way, the featured movie poster is interesting and therefore embarrassing when the movie ironically
deals with race with good intentions. All I see is white faces and the names of white thespians (Henry Armetta...Alan
Hale...uh, who?) despite the fact that Louise Beavers and her young African American, actual or otherwise,
co-stars (most especially Fredi Washington) had bigger parts.
All in all, it's easy to see why Imitation of Life was considered socially groundbreaking in 1934.
Imitation of Life (1959)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
1/18
1/18:
Lana Turner was beautiful back then, and that much is evident in the 1959 film version of
Imitation of Life.
What she also had was considerable acting talent. Lana Turner had a comeback role after what happened with her 14-year-old
daughter's fatal stabbing of Johnny Stompanato (rumors still persist that it was Lana Turner who did it). Be sure to observe how
much effort she put into her mannerisms.
Douglas Sirk's films, even the remakes, rarely turn out well. His best and most crowning work is
All That Heaven Allows starring Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson. Other films in his
oeuvre are nothing but melodramatic soap operas, and I count Imitation of Life, the final film of Douglas Sirk's career,
to be among them. Regardless, his cinematographers sure knew how to shoot color like no one could.
Sadly, this one doesn't hold a candle to the 1934 version. It tries too hard to show race relations which keep sticking out
like a sore thumb. The various changes are significant and therefore distracting because the original had everything perfect
except for the mishandling of a subplot that dealt with the white daughter who's ashamed of her black mother and preferred
to pass for a white person.
All in all, because of Douglas Sirk's predilection for sappy melodramatic themes, his version of Imitation of Life
doesn't work, but Lana Turner's performance is superb.
The Immigrant (1917)
Rate: 1
Viewed:
11/07
11/07:
At the outset, The Immigrant looks like the father of Going Overboard but
settles down to be a typical Chaplin short.
All in all, there's nothing new to see in The Immigrant.
Immortality (1998)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
5/18
5/18:
Once upon a time, the original title of Immortality starring Jude Law was The Wisdom of Crocodiles.
Uh...? Now, this is a shining example of stupid minds at work. Not only is that but the writer has to go
so far to add layers of absurdities to make the film pass for "art." Hence, the plot makes no sense.
Jude Law's character is finally revealed to be a vampire. His real motive as unfolded in the last twenty minutes
suggests the writer took ideas from Paul Morrissey's Blood for Dracula which is
about a sick vampire who can't survive on non-virginal blood.
Jude Law's acting is more than adequate, and it's obvious he has theatrical experience. Yet he's too far good to be
bothered with such dreck. I don't like his co-star, Elina Löwensohn, who's unattractive and plain with a weird-looking
nose. Simply put, she's a poor match for the ever-handsome Jude Law.
To find the good out of a bad situation, Anthony Minghella's wife, the producer of Immortality, watched the daily
rushes, spotting the talent in Jude Law which eventually led him to be cast in The Talented Mr. Ripley, resulting
in an Oscar nomination for Jude law.
All in all, Po-Chih Leong should stay very far away from the director's chair.
Impromptu (1991)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
11/16
11/16:
Impromptu is quite similar to Gothic except it has a happy tone, doesn't include
drugs or hallucinations, and contains none of Ken Russell's bizarreness.
Instead of Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, Claire Clairmont, and John Polidori, the real-life characters are
George Sand, Frédéric Chopin, Marie d'Agoult, Alfred de Musset, Franz Liszt, Eugène Delacroix, and Felicien Mallefille.
Judy Davis is miscast as George Sand. She's ugly and unappealing. Somebody else other than her, say Helena Bonham Carter,
will be more believable. Hugh Grant is the true winner. His performance is excellent, far ahead of
anyone, and the harbinger of great talent as evidenced in future films such as
Four Weddings and a Funeral and
The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain.
Julian Sands completes the link between Impromptu and Gothic by starring in both
films. A below-average actor, he has appeared in one too many similar themed films such as
A Room with a View and Vatel. Ralph Brown puts on his
best imitation of Edgar Allan Poe. Mandy Patinkin is a tad overdone as usual.
Bernadette Peters is fun and has a nice scene when she explained to Sand how to win over Chopin. Emma Thompson does
her fair share to liven up the mood.
The story works, and the set-up of the atmosphere is a nice throwback to the early 19th century. But the film looks too
modern and the language doesn't fit the period. The best part is the makeshift play that's held for the host and the
hostess which is funny to watch.
All in all, Impromptu is an uneven period picture, but it has some winning traits and is much better than
Gothic.
In & Out (1997)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
12/21
12/21:
In & Out is one of those movies that were good back then but are stupid now.
In the pseudo Oscar-winning clip, Matt Dillon gives a horrendous performance; in comparison, he was way better
in Crash. Either it must have been a weak year or the quality of acting has degraded so much
that it requires no effort anymore. Now, what's with his laughable NSYNC look?
Mustache-less Tom Selleck's appearance is even worse. He used to be Thomas Magnum? On the other hand, who the fuck finds Joan
Cusack attractive? Anyone who plans to marry her must be getting a beard instead of an actual wife.
When Peter Malloy told Howard Brackett, "Yep, you are gay," I suddenly hated the movie. It feels so forced and inappropriate
because of the multitude of stereotypes. Only the guy himself will be the judge of it. By the way, the Oscar given to Kevin Kline
in the film was really his from A Fish Called Wanda.
All in all, In & Out can sometimes be fresh and funny but, on the whole, doesn't work and is more offensive than anything.
In a Lonely Place (1950)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
11/13, 1/25
11/13:
I never get tried of watching Humphrey Bogart films.
When I see the names of actors and actresses in the billing list, it usually takes some motivation for me to
take the plunge, but that's not the case for Humphrey Bogart. So, it was easy to get started with
In a Lonely Place.
This time, it's Gloria Grahame who steps up to the plate and matches Humphrey Bogart scene for scene. The
results are terrific. There's a good deal of Suspicion going on.
Of course, Humphrey Bogart steals the show because he's that good. Lots of credit go to Nicholas Ray for his
direction which is a lost art nowadays. The same is said for Humphrey Bogart's acting which explains
why his films are special, something that Marlon Brando never understood.
All in all, In a Lonely Place is a superlative suspense picture.
1/25:
In a Lonely Place still holds up well.
However, I'm going to have to say it's not a strong film noir picture. When I saw
Dead Reckoning, I remarked that Humphrey Bogart was a parody
of himself. But he's magnificent in In a Lonely Place, the very reason why he's a silver screen legend.
On the other hand, I'm surprised at Gloria Grahame's downfall which began five years afterwards.
She used to be a good actress, winning Best Supporting Actress Oscar for
The Bad and the Beautiful.
As for the story, what Dix Steele has is a case of bipolar behavior. Laurel Gray just
couldn't put up with it and ultimately left him. It isn't film noir enough but rather a psychological
drama. But the script is outstanding, having been penned by Andrew Solt via Edmund H. North's adaptation
of Dorothy B. Hughes' 1947 novel.
All in all, In a Lonely Place is the closest you can get to Humphrey Bogart's demeanor in real life.
In Bruges (2008)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
4/25
4/25:
In Bruges is funny but violent.
It's nice to see Colin Farrell working with Brendan Gleeson for the first time. I thought it should've
happened in Intermission. Adding Ralph Fiennes to the mix
is the more the merrier. I've never seen him be that way although he was Amon Göth in
Schindler's List. His character this time is, as they say, a "cunt."
How about the city of Bruges? It's located on the northern coast of Belgium near the border of
Netherlands and can be easily reached from London by boat. I'm sure after the movie was theatrically
released that its tourism industry shot up by at least 10,000%. At any rate, the cinematography is lovely.
The writing isn't bad and is rather catchy all the way through although it can be talky in spots. There are
plenty of twists, and the last thirty minutes is as brutal as it gets. Colin Farrell steals the show with
witty lines. I'm surprised he wasn't finally Oscar-nominated. Eventually, he got it in 2023 after
working with Brendan Gleeson again.
All in all, getting Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, and Ralph Fiennes is the key to the success of
In Bruges.
In Cold Blood (1967)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
5/12, 1/15
5/12:
These two killers in In Cold Blood ain't so bright, are they?
It may have been a revolutionary film back then, but today, it's passable. The heavy-handed need to explain their shortcomings
is too much for me. It should've been "it is what it is" because they were criminals. Aesthetically, the photography
is outstanding; it's shot very well for a black-and-white picture.
All in all, someday I'll read In Cold Blood and watch it again.
1/15:
Having recently read Truman Capote's book, I've decided to take a look at Richard Brooks' In Cold Blood one more
time to see how the film compares.
It's more or less a faithful adaptation without too much divergence from the truth. The first thirty minutes
is beautifully shot, especially in black and white. Right after the two would-be killers pull up to Clutter's house,
the momentum dies. Then, the pace becomes uneven, going back and forth between the two losers and the investigation.
Once in a while, the ill-advised reporter (who's a stand-in for Truman Capote) hangs around the scene like a vulture
and comes up with a bunch of psychobabble stuff to explain away the killers' motives in order to be sympathetic as possible. It's
annoying and a major insult to the victims. Finally, the description of the murders as shown is what completes the book for me.
I love the performances by Scott Wilson (who would've made a great substitute for Benoît Poelvoorde in
C'est arrivé près de chez vous aka Man Bites Dog) and Robert Blake
(who has his moments); they're both fantastic, perfectly capturing the spirit of their characters.
My favorite scene is when Perry tells a story about his father as the rain is falling against the window
next to him; it's almost as if he's crying. Hence, it's unbelievable how the light through the window projected the
raindrops on his face. Unfortunately, a lot of potential has been left on the table because both characters are underdeveloped
and don't get much of screen time. I put the blame squarely on Richard Brooks for his less-than-stellar direction.
Meanwhile, it's nice to know the filming took place at authentic locations including Clutter's house and the courtroom
where the two men were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death; it definitely gives the feel of being there.
All in all, if I have to choose, the filmed version of In Cold Blood is better than the book because
it's shorter with less drag.
In Cold Blood (1996)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
4/15
4/15:
I can't understand the need for most remakes and still don't.
Copying much of what happened in the book, In Cold Blood adds absolutely nothing new to what the original had already
covered. To make matters worse, it's three fucking hours long! That's ridiculous.
Even more so is Anthony Edwards letting his lazy eye do the work for his character and Eric Roberts putting on
his best Jim Varney impersonation while dragging his leg across the room as if it's made out of heavy oak wood.
Scott Wilson and Robert Blake had turned in unforgettable performances of their careers as Dick Hickock
and Perry Smith, respectively; hence, there's no need to redo them.
If there's an aspect that's unbeatable in the original over the remake, it's Conrad Hall's cinematography. It's, apart from the
principal leads, the only thing that's constantly missing from the telefilm. Also, I love how the director made a rush job at
the end, forgoing the case by heading straight to the hanging scene. Evidently, somebody told him that time's up.
Before seeing the remake, I knew of the key events that stuck out the most in the book, and one of them was Perry
dropping a silver coin in Nancy's bedroom. When the moment came during the telefilm, my sole thought was: "How corny." There are
many such scenes throughout; it has gotten obvious that the director wanted to include as much as he could from the book.
All in all, In Cold Blood is an unnecessary remake.
In Country (1989)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
7/17
7/17:
Hamburger Hill begins with a fast scan over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in
Washington, D.C., and In Country ends the shot by having a personal relationship with it.
For the most part, Emily Lloyd is the star, making it a coming-of-age picture for her character's generation by trying to make
sense of the war and what it did to her father and his people. The approach works although the movie does drag at times.
Sporting a good-looking tan, Emily Lloyd was doing so well for the first ninety percent of the film, but she got
gradually discarded toward the end although the last ten minutes was touching. It's a poor move on the filmmakers' part because
she's the central character. There should've been a closure for her.
Instead, the focus is switched to Bruce Willis. He helps somewhat, making things interesting with his horseshoe mustache,
but the reality is: the balance has been wrongly tipped over. Once the attention went to his side, the movie stopped working.
Hence, the question must be answered: is In Country Emily Lloyd's or Bruce Willis' picture? I understand the star power
the latter brings to the table, but the line needs to be drawn by forcing him to stay on the sidelines as a supporting actor.
Emily Lloyd was a good talent, and she could act. She went on to have another nice role in
A River Runs Through It. Then, it was all over for her as she descended to mental
illness. Today, Emily Lloyd is an unkempt, old-looking hag.
All in all, In Country may run too long, but the ending makes the wait worth it.
The In Crowd (2000)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
4/23
4/23:
A teen murder mystery film, the title The In Crowd has every indication of being snobbish and elitist.
It's actually better than I Know What You Did Last Summer. As usual, the cast
is fresh and hip but is full of nobodies. Susan Ward provides the most steam as she reminds me of Denise Richards with
a bit of Beverly Hills, 90210's Tiffani-Amber Thiessen. Lori Heuring isn't bad, either.
However, the editing is awful. The transitions from one scene to another aren't smooth. They've been jarring enough
to prevent me from understanding what's happening in the next scene. The last twenty minutes isn't good by succumbing to
the typicalness of 80's slasher films.
Back to the cast, the trouble is most either don't have a name that I can remember or are entirely forgettable. It was easier to
deal with numerous characters in Scream because each person was sufficiently developed. Regardless,
they're well-cast due to their yuppie look. Now, I'm wondering about Brittany's lip gloss container. Is that cocaine?
All in all, exclusive in a sexy way, The In Crowd is passable, but the editing needs work.
In Dreams (1999)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
6/25
6/25:
I must congratulate everybody involved with In Dreams for winning Most Overdone Movie of the Year in 1999.
The show was pretty much over about fifteen minutes into it with lots of unintentionally hilarious scenes,
forcing me to say, "My goodness...what were they thinking?" Memo to Hollywood: always use proper lighting because
dark cinematography is a big no-no. And another one to Neil Jordan: stop putting Stephen Rea in every film you do!
Annette Bening was giving a good performance to rise above the rubbish, but it came undone during the second
half, especially when Robert Downey, Jr., showed up. That's when the film started to nosedive big time, causing
my rating to go from '5' to '2'. Hence, he's a leading contender for Worst Supporting Actor of the Year.
By the way, that wasn't Robert Downey, Jr., the whole time; a different actor was used if he looked smaller.
A hybrid between Jacob's Ladder and
The Cell, the story is so stupid that it's convoluted. Neil Jordan
rationalized, "How people try and make sense of their own lives with the tools available like logic and a sense
of consequence, and these forces erupt into lives that make no sense." Uh...right; he just hit the nail on the
head. Mind explaining that to me one more time?
When the mother said she had the same dreams all her life, maybe she should've been more specific in her
description to catch the killer, huh? Of course, who cares about the husband whose face has been eaten by a dog
or the murdered daughter? What's with these lavish productions for elementary school plays that I've been seeing
in plenty of films?
All in all, if you're easily scared by apples, I suppose In Dreams will do.
In Harm's Way (1965)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
2/09
2/09:
Along with the most exciting moment which was the fatal car accident, the first ten minutes made it clear that
In Harm's Way was going to be a rip-off of From Here to Eternity.
But the action started too soon with over two hours to spare for the full-fledged soap opera fest of different vignettes,
converging to a single point which was the battle for Levu-Vana island. Barbara Bouchet and her swiveling hips made Pearl Harbor
look like a 70's swinging party until the Japanese attacked. By the time the infamy ended, the film felt trivially done. I
wouldn't say I was bored, but the ultimate meaning did dissipate during the final half hour.
The battle scenes at the end are so cheaply done that they make a total mockery of how a war should be filmed. Some special
effects are terrible, especially the smoke when in fact it's just a camera effect to make me believe otherwise.
Patricia Neal probably give the best job of anyone. The performances by John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, and the others are
fine, too. My, my...Brandon deWilde, who's famous as the boy in Shane, looks all grown up yet
is so ordinary-looking. It's disappointing to see Henry Fonda having like five minutes of screen time. However,
I like the sentimentality of the relationships among their characters.
Meanwhile, there's one scene that I couldn't believe my eyes when Kirk Douglas' Eddington forcefully grabbed, necked, and
raped(!) Annalee Dorne for no apparent reason. When she committed suicide thereafter, nobody gave a damn about her.
As for Kirk Douglas, I liked his character up to that point. Then, In Harm's Way somewhat fell apart from there
on but got torpedoed for good after suddenly losing the sight of its purpose by wasting so much time on whatever Otto
Preminger was trying to accomplish. Hence, there isn't a clear direction going on unless it's meant to be a by-the-numbers
war picture with sappy scenes.
After seeing the cover of the VHS copy, I initially thought the movie was going to be in color, so the sight of the
black-and-white photography left me misled. Really, it's better if Otto Preminger elected to go the
other way because the ships would look prettier. However, the decision may have been influenced by the scant
availability of black-and-white WWII archive footage. It's worse when the battle scenes don't look real which turns
out to have been done with plastic models (probably in the bathtub).
All in all, In Harm's Way is Battle of the Bulge on sea.
In the Army Now (1994)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
2/25
2/25:
I never liked Pauly Shore back then but didn't realize why.
After seeing In the Army Now, I think it's because of how he speaks which tends to be slow and
childish. Well, the movie isn't funny and keeps reminding me of Stripes.
The Rambo-like cover is misleading as the body count is shockingly
low which is...*drum roll* zero. Yep, nobody is ever shown shot or killed.
Pauly Shore is okay while Andy Dick is surprisingly tolerable, considering how much I hate him. The addition of
Lori Petty and David Alan Grier is a bit too much. Esai Morales used to be a respectable
actor during the 80's, having appeared in Bad Boys and
La Bamba, and this is what his career has come to? Yes, that was Brendan
Fraser to continue his connection with Pauly Shore, going back to Encino Man
and Son-in-Law.
The game at the beginning is called Return Fire for 3DO. Pauly Shore did have his head shaved for the
film although it's not fully shown in the famous scene. Afterwards, his career started to decline, and I remember
now how often his name was mentioned and then...no more.
All in all, In the Army Now baffles my mind in terms of why anyone would be a Pauly Shore fan.
In the Bedroom (2001)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
1/24
1/24:
They don't make movies like In the Bedroom that often.
It has all the qualities of a Best Picture but is doomed by not being tight enough. There are parts that drag too
much. Had the running length been at least thirty minutes shorter, it would've turned out better. Nevertheless, I'm
impressed with the cast of realistic-looking people. Hence, the performances are outstanding across the board.
Books tend to begin in a way that movies don't: a line or two which will encapsulate the whole story. It's
accomplished when Tom Wilkinson's character made the following moral about lobsters to the boy:
"See, the trap has nylon nets, called 'heads'—two side...side heads to let the lobster crawl in and inside,
what they call a 'bedroom head' to hold the bait and keeps him from escaping. Now, you know the old saying: 'Two's
company, three's a crowd'? Well, it's like that. You, uh, get more than two of these in a bedroom, and chances are
something like that's going to happen."
Perfect. Therefore, the bait is Natalie Strout (Marisa Tomei) which is actually sex. Battling for her are the
current boyfriend and the outed husband. One day, the latter has had enough and kills the former. That's the movie
right there which took a while to arrive at. At first, I thought the theme was about grieving parents who try to
come to terms with the tragedy. Ultimately, it turns out to be a revenge flick just like
Death Wish. I suspect that, like the mother slapping the wife in the face,
it'll be a temporary relief which isn't going to bring their son back.
Now, was it the boy's fault? I have to say no because he, despite stepping into a dangerous situation, wasn't old,
experienced, or mature enough to deal with it. He did confess to his mother that she was only a summer fling. After
waffling back and forth between being a fisherman and a college student, he finally went with the second choice as
an convenient excuse to break off the relationship.
I only have two questions. How many incidents had there been between the wife and husband? If it's a lot, then
yeah...it's her fault for not doing something about it earlier. How much time did the boyfriend have left? Was it
two weeks or less? I'm not blaming him for leaving the domestic squabble alone because he was mainly thinking of
not having to work for it once he left for school. By the way, the strange-looking husband is played by William
Mapother who's Tom Cruise's cousin.
All in all, although In the Bedroom is well-done, it just needs better editing.
In the Company of Men (1997)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
5/25
5/25:
According to IMDb, "Aaron Eckhart said in a podcast that after he went to see the film in theaters, an
angry woman came up to him and slapped him across the face saying: 'I hate you!' Eckhart tried to reaffirm
that it was his character that she hated but she replied with 'No! I hate YOU!'"
You go, girl. I had never heard of In the Company of Men until now and was like, "No wonder why," ten
minutes into it. What the fuck were these critics thinking when they praised the film? They must have a lot
in common with Chad and Howard. There's something wrong with the director by the name of Neil LaBute. The
movie wasn't funny at all. Why specifically a deaf woman when a hearing woman would do?
Either way, Stacy Edwards gives a weak performance. At the minimum, she plays a character who happens to be
hearing impaired, but there's absolutely no way she's deaf. Howard rates '7' or '8' on a scale of '1' to '10'
in terms of lip-readability with '10' being the easiest while Chad is a definite '1'. When Christine speaks,
it's not an authentic deaf voice. Neil LaBute could've gotten a truly deaf woman to play the heck out of the
part, but he's too much of a pussy only because of the hateful nature of his poorly written play.
For a bit while, I thought Howard had some potential for redemption, but when he had a chat with Christine in
the car, that completely went away for good. So, who cares about him? He's a loser follower. As
for Chad, he has that frat-boy mentality and probably raped a few drunk girls during college. Early on, I
thought he had to be having sex with hookers while seeing Christine, and technically, I turned out to be correct
when the twist was revealed at the end. I also thought Chad had to be gay, and he just proved it by asking a
black male co-worker to show him his testicles. How wonderful...not.
All in all, there's no reason for In the Company of Men to exist.
In the Custody of Strangers (1982)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
3/15, 4/22
3/15:
In the Custody of Strangers, although a telefilm, is among a handful of the most realistic pictures I've seen.
A lot of the situations as shown are a constant dilemma in the criminal justice system that deals with juvenile delinquents.
It's obvious Danny Caldwell should've been integrated with his peers at some juvenile detention center for social
purpose because forcing him to be alone in a cell without human interaction will make matters worse.
In fact, no one, I don't care how tough he is, can handle solitary confinement for a while. The longer he's confined,
the greater the drain is on the mind. Once his mentality goes, there goes himself.
Great performances are rendered by Martin Sheen, Jane Alexander, and Emilio Estevez, and they're all outstanding.
How each of them handles his or her situation psychologically is the reason why. The casting of the true father-and-son actors
is a rarity. Echoing what's wrong with the whole picture is perfectly summarized in the speech at the end.
However, it won't make much of a difference because the system can chew up a lot of people without regard for
their well-being due to chronic understaffing, limited resources, and a deluge of court cases (hence the need to plea bargain).
So, I don't sympathize with Danny because he's the one who put himself in the situation by driving drunk. He could've
killed somebody but was lucky that it didn't happen. Interestingly enough, this was never covered once during the entire ordeal.
It may be unfair to place the blame on the father for his son's downfall because he, who's although indirectly responsible
for Danny's temper, did not cause it to happen. My prognosis for Danny's future is he'll have a lifelong
psychological problem unless he seeks treatment because if he doesn't, he'll go back to the slammer.
All in all, it doesn't matter if In the Custody of Strangers is a made-for-TV picture because it's an excellent
piece of work showcasing how punishment is handled for juvenile delinquents.
4/22:
In the Custody of Strangers was clearly made by liberals.
It presents an extreme example of criminal justice system gone wrong. Here's my problem with the premise: why aren't
there juvenile detention centers? Everybody keeps saying they've never had a kid in jail, yet the probation officer
mentions, "We're understaffed. And there's always more kids coming." Exactly...so why isn't Danny Caldwell with them? Studies
after studies have shown solitary confinement with nothing to do makes people crazy.
I have to side with the judge on this issue because Danny belongs in jail. He drove drunk and has a bad temper. In
fact, I blame the father; it's an underlying issue that must have been there for so long. Consequently, Danny is a whiny brat
who can't seem to understand he's the one who put himself in the situation. Ultimately, he served only forty days...big deal.
My prediction is: Danny will be back again not because of his temper problem but because he isn't too bright.
The acting is fine for the most part, and it's interesting to see how much Emilio Estevez takes after his father. But he's
annoying all the time. Hence, the movie is unlikeable this way, and I don't have any sympathy for his character.
The following axiom is true: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Hence, Danny Caldwell is weak. As for the
speech at the end, I didn't want to hear it.
All in all, if you hate Emilio Estevez, you'll love In the Custody of Strangers.
In the Heat of the Night (1967)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
1/11, 8/15, 5/19, 1/22
1/11:
Growing up as a kid, I used to be a huge fan of a TV show called In the Heat of the Night because it had a great
cast with many memorable characters.
It was years later that I realized there was a movie before the show came out. Now, I've finally seen the movie like
I've never seen a side of it before. Certainly, there's a huge amount of difference between these two. I must say I
like the film version a lot.
Sidney Poitier has a terrific screen presence and has a commanding demeanor. Rod Steiger, of course, can handle
him because he's known for being in the same taxicab with Marlon Brando for what's considered the most famous scene ever.
The story, especially the drama, is equally gripping and shocking. The idea of a black man who's intelligent and
articulate throwing white people off in the town of Sparta, Mississippi, is a sight to behold. What's brilliant is the way
Sidney Poitier worked around the corpse. At that moment, he, all of a sudden, earned respect. Hence, I'm still surprised to this
day Sidney Poitier wasn't nominated for an Oscar, let alone winning it.
One scene shows a white man slapping Virgil Tibbs first in the face before being slapped back which leaves him crying as
Virgil walks away. It's a hilarious movie moment. That's Sidney Poitier, and you better make sure that you address him as "Mister
Tibbs," too. Although Rod Steiger won the Oscar for his portrayal of Chief Gillespie and is an excellent actor in his own right,
let's be fair...it's Sidney Poitier who gave a more superior performance by stealing the movie from start to finish.
What's interesting is, even in the face of grave danger and tremendous odds that are stacked against him, Virgil Tibbs
never backs off or shies away from the challenge of tackling a murder case that he's trained and qualified to handle.
Hence, he's a role model to many black people. There are a couple of negatives. One is I find it hard to believe
the town wasn't rocked to the core after the murder. Two is, at the end, there isn't a sense of closure among the
characters other than Virgil Tibbs and Chief Gillespie.
All in all, In the Heat of the Night is a can't-miss Best Picture winner.
8/15:
Seeing In the Heat of the Night again confirms my opinion that it isn't a masterpiece but a standard policier.
However, it's Sidney Poitier's performance that's first class all the way through. As unbelievable as it seems, Sidney Poitier wasn't
nominated for an Oscar when he should've won it. Besieged by racism, the emotions he showed through Virgil Tibbs
to overcome intolerance are brilliant. The best part is when his character was slapped in the face by Mr. Endicott, he
shockingly slapped him back.
Sidney Poitier's co-star Rod Steiger is okay; he doesn't do anything out of ordinary except to chew a lot of gum. But he's
an able actor who can hold his own when confronted by an actor with huge star power as he proved it in
On the Waterfront with Marlon Brando. My gripe is the murder mystery; the clues were
withheld, and I was in the dark the whole time. Then, the mystery got solved in a way that I would've never seen coming.
It's like an Agatha Christie novel.
All in all, when I think of In the Heat of the Night, I think of the great TV show and Sidney Poitier's powerful
peformance.
5/19:
Two acting powerhouses come clashing in In the Heat of the Night: Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger.
This time, I'm raising the rating of the film from '9' to '10'. What people don't realize is the murder is meant to be
ordinary, rather a throwaway, as the movie is about two men overcoming the difference of skin color in order to work together.
As great as Rod Steiger is, Sidney Poitier should've been the Oscar winner. He has two unforgettable scenes when his
character warned, "They call me MISTER Tibbs!" and slapped Mr. Endicott back after being slapped in the face. You could hear a
pin drop in the middle of the Deep South during that moment. The supporting cast is excellent. Warren Oates, Lee Grant, and
Scott Wilson are impressive. Sidney Poitier liked Scott Wilson's performance that he had him recommended for
In Cold Blood.
All in all, Sidney Poitier is magical in In the Heat of the Night.
1/22:
Sidney Poitier recently died, and the two films I immediately thought of are
Lilies of the Field and In the Heat of the Night.
He gave a fantastic performance in the former and was iconic in the latter. Both are a one-of-a-kind, thanks to
Sidney Poitier. The famous slap incident with Mr. Endicott remains unforgettable to this day, and so is
the line: "They call me MISTER Tibbs!"
Rod Steiger deserves credit. Sidney Poitier and he are one and two, but it's the trailblazer who owns the film because
of his commanding presence. Calling Chief Gillespie an outright racist might be an easy thing to do. He's truly dumb when it comes to
solving a murder case. I've thought about his character for a long while, but I'll say it's the culture he grew up in that's
deeply entrenched through his blood. Gillespie is racist, yes, but he's tough and fair but gives Virgil a chance while keeping
him on a short leash. Deep down inside, he felt Virgil was going to solve the case.
All in all, because of Lilies of the Field and In the Heat of the Night,
Sidney Poitier is the greatest black actor ever lived.
In the Line of Fire (1993)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
8/03, 4/18
4/18:
Frank Horrigan has one job to do in In the Line of Fire, and that's to stop John Malkovich from being such a
scene-stealer.
As much of an esteemed actor as John Malkovich is, he doesn't have many Oscar nominations to his credit, and one of his two
is from this movie. The other is Places in the Heart. I have to say,
yeah...John Malkovich is terrific, but he has done better in other films. The makeup team did most of the work for him.
On the other hand, I like Clint Eastwood, and he's always great. But watching him try to strike up a romantic
relationship with Rene Russo, who's 24 years his junior, is icky. He looks frighteningly old for her.
Anyway, it's a good story, which includes a tie-in with the JFK's assassination, being the primary reason why I was
drawn to the film given the long running time of 128 minutes. To add authenticity, it's the first time ever the Secret
Service gave full cooperation to Hollywood.
All in all, In the Line of Fire has plenty of intrigue, a strong story, and decent acting performances
to keep me watching from start to end without a break.
In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
10/07
10/07:
Every director invariably has an oeuvre of pictures that are either hits or misses, so proclaiming John Carpenter's
In the Mouth of Madness a huge miss is no brainer.
And what the heck happened to him? Save Escape from L.A., John Carpenter hasn't made
a decent picture since the late 80's. I wonder why. In In the Mouth of Madness, nothing works for me despite the camp
mood which only lasted briefly.
The acting is below standard, and Sam Neill is no great shakes. I've never liked him. He's either mimicking
Jake Gittes of Chinatown or trying to be Damien Thorn again so he can have his Satanic
powers back or something.
I can barely survive the film in one sitting. There's a story, but it's not interesting. The
numerous abstract twists and turns leaves me dead tired. How the movie starts isn't good, to say the least. The mood has
me going but never takes me for a ride. Mainly, I'm treated like an outsider unlike John Carpenter's all-time
classics Escape from New York, Halloween,
Prince of Darkness, and The Thing.
Sad to say, the 90's swallowed up John Carpenter, and he has never returned since then. His masterful touches have always
been the set-up of the atmosphere and the creation of suspense. Well, In the Mouth of Madness has none of them.
Glancing through the DVD cover, I noticed that Paul Wunder of WBAI exclaimed it's "the best film in John Carpenter's career!"
Either he hasn't seen the others or is a fucking hack critic.
All in all, I regard John Carpenter among the best horror directors in history, having seen his masterpieces
many times, but In the Mouth of Madness is absolutely nothing like them.
In the Name of the Father (1993)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
1/15
1/15:
Let's get one thing out of the way before I criticize the rest of In the Name of the Father: Daniel Day-Lewis is
excellent as Gerry Conlon and his acting skills are never questioned.
He puts most of the wannabe actors to shame except for Pete Postlethwaite who held his own opposite him. The two
offer contrasting characters, and it makes the father-son relationship interesting. However, the story
is long that's filled with many events while the editing work feels rushed.
When the father and son entered prison for the first time, there seems to be a change of editors because I felt difference
in the pace. Not much of substance is provided during their stay. So, it's safe to say Jim Sheridan's direction
is uneven. That's a shame because the first half works with the characters standing out. But during the second
half, they take a back seat and are thus rendered unimportant.
Only freedom, even though it's predictable and has been done many times in the past, for the parties involved is what matters the
most. Unfortunately, I don't care about the English-I.R.A. relations, having only watched the film for Daniel Day-Lewis' sake.
All in all, In the Name of the Father is an above-average film.
In the Park (1915)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
7/07
7/07:
In the Park is, like the rest of Chaplin's pieces of shit, forgettable.
I've already seen this before in his twentysomething shorts. But must he continue to produce more of the same crap?
I can automatically tell you what happens in this.
Charlie Chaplin introduces himself. Then, he walks around like a moron. Unavoidably, he meets a couple of people and starts to
entangle with them. There's a lot of pushing around. He wins in the end.
All in all, In the Park has me saying, "Charles Chaplin is the biggest moron ever lived."
Incognito (1997)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
3/21
3/21:
No matter how many films I've seen Jason Patric in, he just doesn't have it.
Incognito is another example, showing a lack of excitement. Jason Patric's chemistry with Irène Jacob
is nonexistent for the most part. Therefore, all left is the story which doesn't ultimately work. Often poorly directed,
the film is too long given the cardboard European setting.
Oddly, whenever Rod Steiger appears, he'll get emotional and break down. This is the same guy who was in the taxi cab
with Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront? Because of his bald-head look,
Rod Steiger is the splitting image of Cus D'Amato.
The best part is the demonstration of how art forgery can be done. Prior to the actual crime, I was thinking of
paint analysis, but I'm pleased to see the filmmakers covering that base. It's important to have
correct paint composition for whenever the period the painting is supposed to originate in. Ditto for the canvas.
Unfortunately, the movie is bundled with stupid moments. One is Jason Patric running away from security guards and others while
throwing the canvas into the fire (in broad daylight, no less). Like he will do that. Two is when Jason and Irène Jacob are
escaping from the cops, he does some Mission: Impossible stunt to pull it off. The
third, which is a real stretch, is when he had the chance to paint a masterpiece in front of the court for a day and then
abruptly gave up halfway through.
All in all, like the Rembrandt forgery, Incognito pretends to be a thriller.
Indecent Proposal (1993)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
10/03, 3/08, 6/21
3/08:
When Indecent Proposal first came out in 1993, it quickly became all the rage, shocking many people about the idea
of such thing.
Now, it seems so tame that many won't mind doing it for the money. Sadly, the movie is cheesy and
is more problematic when it comes to the "gas." Thanks to the can't-fail premise, the first half has a great amount
of energy. When the second comes, the movie sputters often like an engine that refuses to die. The ending is weak because
real human emotion has become too complicated for the filmmakers to tackle.
Mainly, Indecent Proposal is about the silly, trivial arguments between David and Diana and lots of
The Great Gatsby
stuff from John Gage. As matter of fact, when Robert Redford uttered the line, "He killed somebody once," I really thought he
was going to start saying "old sport" again. Instead, he has ten-dollar one-liners which make his character look more
ridiculous.
Demi Moore is okay, but her part is a typical failed attempt to achieve "seriousness" and "vulnerability." It's been a
consistent theme during her career. Woody Harrelson is Woody Harrelson who looks ready to get back behind the bar. The
sight of his face, after hearing John Gage is a "fucking stallion," is comical.
All in all, I admit Indecent Proposal has a good thing going for it, but that's literally all the movie has.
6/21:
Indecent Proposal has aged well by now.
The premise is literally everything, and it's very good. Back then, Indecent Proposal was a major
hit of the year, and nobody could stop talking about it. Almost all thought the proposal was actually decent. A million
dollars for one night? Hey, it's a no-brainer.
Demi Moore had been a terrible actress with no sex appeal for years because she couldn't make herself believable for the least
bit. But in Indecent Proposal, she's a lot better, finally getting into her character. Woody Harrelson is superb, but
Robert Redford is the most perfect casting choice. There's a lot of Jay Gatsby in him, too. And yes, that's Billy Bob
Thornton talking to Woody at the casino.
The movie moves well, but there's a corny stretch here and there and the ending is weak. It's hard to believe David
is cool with Diana the second time around given that he went crazy about one night of sex and she was seen
afterwards having a great time with John Gage at expensive places. The reality is, instead of a woman, John viewed Diana
as an objet d'art just like his vast collection of acquisitions.
All in all, it only takes a goldmine premise to make a movie, and that's how it happened for Indecent Proposal.
Indecent Seduction (1996)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
5/22
5/22: Indecent Seduction, which is otherwise known as For My Daughter's Honor,
may be a telefilm, but it scores 100% in believability.
The only national story I knew of the student-teacher relationship during the 90's was from the state of Washington. It was
disturbing news, but now, this sort of thing is a daily occurrence. It has a lot to do with the schools hiring credentialed
teachers of low caliber because the best ones refuse to put up with the abusive working conditions and have opted for a
different profession.
As for the movie, the genders may be reversed, but the result is still the same. The performances are generally fine, but
it's Gary Cole who stands out the most as Coach Nash. I've had such teachers like him: friendly, handsome, and stand-up; in
other words, they were popular because of their approach, but it didn't mean they were sex predators, just role models.
Hence, I can see Coach Nash taking advantage all of his perfect qualities to exploit female students. He also has a technique
that's honed to perfection. It's the way he talks, using certain words, to get Amy Dustin to come around; eventually, she
takes the bait, and the rest of the way is a hole she can't get out of. So, Amy has two choices: keep going or tell
someone. I can see how she might be embarrassed by all of this. Then again, she's only 14, a kid who doesn't know any better
and is merely confused.
If there's a negative to point out, I wish Amy wasn't a freshman; making her a junior or a senior is more
believable given how old-looking Nicholle Tom is. Then again, the real victim was a freshman. Sometimes, it's unbelievable
how brazen Coach Nash behaved in public with Amy and her friends. Witnessing any part of it is enough to call
the authorities. Speaking of that, the principal should be held criminally responsible for failing to report the teacher's
inappropriate behavior, and he had several chances but didn't do anything.
Interestingly enough, as sports is an underlying theme to all of this drama in an Oklahoma small community, the actor who
plays Amy's father is Mac Davis. He's well known for North Dallas Forty.
For a father, he's weak when it comes to handling the situation. His wife is a bit better, but she's weak, too. They
should've put their daughter first, not the community or football.
All in all, accurate for the most part, Indecent Seduction is based on what happened in Taylor, Texas, during 1986-87,
and the teacher-coach's name was Jesse Lynn Stroud, who now lives in Holland, Texas, as a registered sex offender for life,
while the principal (Eddy Lankford) and the superintendent (Mike Caplinger) repeatedly looked the other way; the following
link is the full story:
The Seduction of Jane Doe.
Independence Day (1996)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
6/04, 6/25
6/25:
Intelligence in Independence Day is absolutely zero.
From the get-go, I thought the aliens were technologically superior to mankind. It just wiped out 85% of
the United States' armed forces. So, what were the aliens doing for the next two days? Nothing. They just
let themselves be taken down. Yeah, right.
How about the unbelievable deus ex machina of having an alien spaceship stowed away in New Mexico for
five decades? And it's the key that finally defeats the aliens? And the aliens have invented Apple computers,
too, and they're installed on all of their spaceships? Sure, sure, sure...
I wonder how exactly Jeff Goldblum's character was able to link the connection between his laptop and the
mothership's operating system. Oh, oh, oh...anybody is able to tell the difference between a Studebaker and a
modern Corvette. Now, the same analogy can be applied to the captured spaceship from fifty years ago when it
showed up in outer space.
Everybody keeps saying the flying saucers over the cities are fifteen miles in diameter, but I never saw them
that large. They are more like one mile wide. If it's really fifteen, the fighter planes can't do much of damage,
right? It'll take tons of missiles. And remember 85% of the armed forces had been wiped out already. By the way,
the alien fighter planes, and there were many dozens, what happened to them at the end? On the other hand, the
stuff about performing an autopsy on the captured alien is a stupid waste of time. They already have three in the
liquid-filled containers; what more new details can there be?
Anyway, the movie seems high quality for the most part, but some of the performances are awful from time to time,
most especially from Will Smith, Harry Connick, Jr., and Randy Quaid. Bill Pullman acts more like a used car
salesman than President of the United States. The lines many say are cheesy.
The special effects may have looked great in 1996, but today, they're quite bad, setting up some unbelievable
situations such as Vivica A. Fox, the black boy, and the dog being able to escape the fireball by opening a
locked door inside the tunnel and to endure the heat for a while. A big disappointment is that only a few
buildings were blown up on July 2nd when there should be more. Of course, the filmmakers weren't going to have
the flying saucers right above the cities before they got blown up and fell down directly.
Another infuriating part is how the film is too U.S.-centric. It never feels epic for a minute. Here they have a
worldwide global impact, but the focus is rather on a few groups of people, about twenty in all, that
miraculously get together in one place. Traffic isn't even a factor, especially when driving from New York
City to Washington, D.C., in less than six hours with all the chaos going on (that will never, ever happen,
believe me).
All in all, Independence Day proves Roland Emmerich is a moron director.
Indiana Jones and the
Kingdom of Crystal Skull (2008)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
11/08
11/08:
I feel like I went blind after seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull (sheesh, what a long title
with many syllables).
Also, it has helped me make a decision I've been pondering for several years. It's this: I will no longer be interested in
movies made after the year of 2000 because the quality of cinema has deteriorated so much that it's not funny anymore.
Once in a while is okay, but I'll be very selective going forward. These movies have been turning my brain into mush lately.
That being said, this fourth installment of the Indiana Jones franchise shouldn't
have been made in the first place. It's best to let it die because Harrison Ford is simply too old. Forget about replacing
him, either, because there's only one Indiana Jones. In other words, it's time to move on.
Basically, everything in the film is anti-Indiana Jones, and that's the
worst part. I'm not sure if it's the DVD that's defective or it's how the producers wanted it to be viewed,
but my eyes had been forced to cross due to the ultra sharpness of the picture, giving me a massive splitting headache.
Again, because of the CGI crap, the action and everything else feel artificial. While typing this, I now have
a strong yearning to rewatch Raiders of the Lost Ark,
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,
and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
By the way, what's with the fake animals? How hard is it to use the video camera to capture a real animal?
All of the characters suck to the nth Kate Capshaw degree. They never make me feel like I'm having fun.
Where's the plot? What happened to the good, true old fashioned filmmaking that I love? What happened to the good, true old
fashioned stunt work that I love? What happened to the good, true old fashioned explosions that I love?
Mad Max and The Road Warrior are good examples of
what I'm talking about.
Who cares if the stunts cost money? At least, try to make the movie as realistic as possible. The most
important question to ask when it comes to green-lighting the fourth part is: "Why?" Is it about the money? What happened to
integrity? What happened to art for the sake of art? Hence, it's disappointing to see quality compromised to satisfy
greed. Shame on Steven Spielberg who used to be a reliable director. Now, he's officially a sellout.
All in all, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull has recycled everything from the previous three films
which is a strong indication that nobody in Hollywood is capable of coming up with an original idea.
Indiana Jones
and the Last Crusade (1989)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
12/03, 5/06, 3/16, 4/22
5/06:
Hands down, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade beats Raiders of the Lost Ark
in all categories (okay, maybe not the introduction).
So, think of the original picture as the beginning of the archeological action-adventure genre. Then, think of
the second part as special effects wizardry. Finally, think of the third as the most complete film of the trilogy.
Sean Connery didn't deserve the Academy Award, let alone a nomination, for
The Untouchables, but he was worthy of it here. For the third straight time, Harrison
Ford is marvelous as the famed Indiana Jones who's an irreplaceable movie icon. His meeting with Adolf Hitler is a priceless
moment. Denholm Elliott is fun as the bumbling idiot. Everybody else is excellent as well.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a perfect mix of everything: dialogue, story, subplots, characters,
and cinematography. It takes talent to make a movie like that, even on the neo-noir level.
Hence, I'm hard-pressed to find an equivalent film that works charmingly well for people of all ages.
All in all, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the most complete and satisfying picture of the franchise.
3/16:
I've now decided that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is no longer a perfect film and that
Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best film of the franchise.
I think it's because I got bored of some parts and the movie dragged in spots. Nevertheless, it's a great sequel, and I've
enjoyed the show. Petra, which is located in Jordan, is an amazing sight. Before the movie came out, a few thousand people would
visit there annually; afterwards, it had shot up to a million.
All in all, Indiana Jones still rules.
4/22:
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a much better movie than the previous sequel by going back to the same mood
as felt in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
However, it's not a masterpiece like the original because there are situations which are simply impossible. Sometimes,
there's a bit lull. Yet I like the adventure in search of the Holy Grail. Hence, it's so much better than
The Da Vinci Code with many great-looking exteriors.
River Phoenix does look like Harrison Ford while the famed actor is outstanding once again. I like Sean Connery as his father,
but it's not a super strong performance. At best, he's memorable and has nice moments. Oddly, both of their characters slept
with the same woman. On the other hand, the Cross of Coronado seems to be something that might have existed, but
there's no such thing.
All in all, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a fitting capper for the trilogy.
Indiana Jones and the
Temple of Doom (1984)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
6/03, 5/06, 3/16, 3/22
5/06:
Indiana Jones is back!
Of course, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom isn't any better than
Raiders of the Lost Ark because
of the annoying bitch who happens to be married to Steven Spielberg. If he could reduce the screen time for Ke Huy Quan
who plays Short Round, that would be fantastic.
While these two have tried everything to trample the movie to serve their characters' selfish interests, Harrison Ford
literally carries the film on his back and is still outstanding as Indiana Jones. There's a genuine neo-noir quality
at the same time.
Two scenes are unbelievable: Indiana Jones on the rope bridge and the roller-coaster ride in the mine shaft tunnel.
They're always thrilling. Of course, logic is often questionable, but it shouldn't be an issue because the movie
offers the most fun that anyone can have.
All in all, I wish Kate Capshaw was cut out of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
3/16:
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a fun action-adventure flick.
The biggest flaws are Kate Capshaw and the Vietnamese boy. They ruin it. At least, Harrison Ford is at his most
handsome as Indiana Jones who remains a silver screen icon. The best part is when Indiana Jones was on the rope bridge,
threatening to cut it down with his scimitar. The sight of the alligators doing the roll is funny; actually, only crocodiles
live in India. What does it matter if these people fall? They're going to die by impact anyway.
All in all, get rid of the two annoying characters, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom will be perfect.
3/22:
To be fair, Kate Capshaw didn't completely ruin Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but she did a lot of unnecessary
damage.
Steven Spielberg could've come up with a better casting choice. Ke Huy Quan is bad, too. Apart from these two, the
movie is mostly great. I don't get the controversy about the Indians, especially the Thuggee cult which makes for a great
story. The United States has its own, which is the KKK, and it's only a small sect. Hence, there's no difference
between these two.
I never pay attention to the ratings system, but it's a surprise that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was rated PG. I
recently saw A Few Good Men which received an 'R' because of...language?!? That's it;
there's nothing else. But Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is dark in tone with Mola Ram literally taking out the
heart of some poor guy. It's weird, to say the least.
The Busby Berkeley dance number at the beginning is ingenious, especially when the logo of the title is in front and behind
Kate Capshaw as she moves her hand around. The banquet scene at the Pankot Palace is funny with all these food being
unedible. "Ah, chilled monkey brains." Um, right...pass, and check, please.
All in all, going ahead with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom after
Raiders of the Lost Ark is a sine qua non.
Indictment: The McMartin Trial (1995)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
8/06, 6/20
8/06:
Indictment: The McMartin Trial is a riveting courtroom drama picture that remains a must-see today.
The story of what happened makes it gripping to watch. James Woods is brilliant, and ditto for Sada Thompson, Shirley
Knight, and Henry Thomas for their outstanding performances.
All in all, Indictment: The McMartin Trial tells a damning narrative about the longest and most expensive case in
U.S. history because of made-up stories, resulting in no convictions.
6/20:
Ever heard of the word "overcharged"?
Then, look no further than Indictment: The McMartin Trial. Over 300 charges were filed against the accused for child
abuse at their family-run daycare. They were tried for seven years, and the state spent over $15 million on the case.
Not one person was found guilty of a single charge, making it the longest and most expensive case in American history.
Ironically, the true criminals turned out to be Judy Johnson, the children, Jane Hoag, Kee MacFarlane, Wayne Satz, Robert
Philibosian, and Lael Rubin because of their political aims, false reporting, made-up stories, purposeful ignorance of
what was really going on, questionable interview techniques which involved leading questions and gross-looking dolls with
exposed genitals, sensational journalism, and misguided crusade to exploit sexual deviance despite no evidence of any wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, the accused never recovered afterwards and only won a total of $1 in damages after their successful
multimillion-dollar judgment against a family for slander. One of the supposedly molested kids confessed in 2005:
"Never did anyone do anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything. I said a lot of things that didn't happen. I lied.
Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn't like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they
were looking for. I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type
of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do."
The cast is excellent. James Woods is captivating as always. A special mention must be made to Henry Thomas,
Sada Thompson, and Shirley Knight for their superb peformances as the accused molesters. Naturally, they were denounced guilty
as hell right from the start because of how they looked.
All in all, Indictment: The McMartin Trial shows how the accused can be guilty until proven innocent.
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
10/13
10/13:
Inherit the Wind is a good courtroom drama picture but is nothing special.
The performances by Spencer Tracy and Frederic March are well-done, but Gene Kelly looks stupid. The most striking
aspect is the mockery of religion. I'm okay with it, but I think the filmmakers went overboard.
The movie can be long-winded at times, and the script feels loose. The arguments made aren't strong and logical enough.
Most of all, it, along with the play, perpetuates the myth of how the case actually went down.
All in all, Inherit the Wind gets the point across, but I'm not stupidly blind when it comes to the facts of the
Scopes Monkey Trial case.
Innerspace (1987)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
9/20
9/20:
I fondly remember Innerspace from the 80's that had a cool concept of being transported into somebody's body
to see the cells and the living tissue inside.
Watching it again, I have to say the movie holds up well, thanks to the visual effects which deservingly won an Oscar. However,
the side-by-side comparison of many things during the miniaturization is often out of proportion which kept bothering me
throughout.
When Tuck Pendleton's spaceship was sneezed out of Jack Putter's body, one of the lab technicians could see it on his
eyeglasses. How can that be when a red blood cell is slightly bigger than the ship and can be only observed with the aid of
a microscope?
Some parts are funny, and it's because of Martin Short's antics. He's a gifted physical actor. Dennis Quaid is okay, but he
doesn't make for a likeable character when he's a drunkard. However, these two develop a good relationship by working together
to keep the momentum going.
As usual, Meg Ryan stinks, has no talent, and is unable to develop chemistry with anyone. In addition to her poor acting,
the dragged-out chase keeps killing the film despite the excellent, clever but underdeveloped story that can't seem to make
up its mind in terms of which genre to stick with.
All in all, refining the plot, cutting down the running time, replacing Meg Ryan with a more competent actress, and sticking
to a specific genre will help Innerspace more although the visual effects are simply fantastic.
Innocent Lies (1995)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
6/20
6/20:
What's one trait that cinema masterpieces have in common?
The thespians are easily distinguishable. Well, that's not the case with Innocent Lies. I had a hard time
telling three (or were there four?) women apart and often didn't know their names. It's been the most frustrating part of
the film. I know I'll have to see it again to get them all straight, but unfortunately, the revisit will occur many years later.
The next problem is the script. It has no hook. Grab my attention, have a point, something, whatever...yet there's
none to be had. So, why am I watching this movie? Exactly, but kudos to Patrick Blossier for coming up big with the
nice-looking photography, no matter how many red herrings have been thrown at me.
It's getting to the point now that whenever Stephen Dorff is cast, the movie is bound to suck.
Cecil B. Demented,
anyone? Playing the dafty detective, Adrian Dunbar can be easily mistaken for Jeffrey Jones' son. Although uninspired much
of the time, the performances are fine.
One of the main themes is incest between siblings. For the record, if they both love each other and there's consent, I'm not
bothered by it although others will feel differently. Obviously, the prettier the siblings are, the easier
it is for them to get away with it. Hence, the movie is never shocking to me. The only problem from such a relationship
is the high probability risk of genetic disease for their offsprings.
All in all, a better script, especially with a hook, would've done more good for Innocent Lies.
The Innocents (1961)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
1/12
1/12:
The Innocents is a snoozefest that's filled with bad acting, lame storyline, and annoying children.
I couldn't wait for it to end which took me an entire week with lots of pauses when the sheer amount of boredom got the best of me.
All Deborah Kerr (can you say...old?!?) can do is keep her mouth and eyes wide open. And she calls it "acting"? O...kay. As for
the boy and girl, can their annoyance be topped by the Dead End Kids? Not yet, but they're nearly there.
As for the plot, what else is new? Are there 2,000 films in the supernatural genre that deal with spectres, paranormal sights
and sounds, and the like? I mean, what's so fantastic and different about each of them? They're all the same to me:
lots of camera manipulation to pass the time.
Incidentally, I read the novella The Turn of the Screw by Henry James, and I can safely say the film doesn't resemble
the story. So, there you have it: a pastiche. For a while, I surmised the governess' deep desire was to molest the boy and
sleep with him. It turns out that I was correct. So, in a way, the movie is a lot like
Lolita but subtle.
All in all, Deborah Kerr should've learned how to close her mouth for the sake of believability.
Inserts (1975)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
5/25
5/25:
Inserts is one of those "what the hell were they thinking?" films.
It's highly doubtful that Richard Dreyfuss was in the right frame of mind when he agreed to do this NC-17
borefest that takes place in exactly one room with four other thespians, three of them in the nude. If not for
Jaws coming out during the same year, he may have been stuck with this infamous
film on his résumé for a long time.
I get it: everybody can act. But the topic is of the "who cares?" kind. Anyone can make a porn film, and it
doesn't take any real skill or talent. To listen to everybody to drone on about "inserts" or getting the "rope" to
rise is tiresome. In other words, the writing is immediately stagy and will stay this way for almost two straight
hours.
All in all, everybody was lucky to see his or her career survive after Inserts.
Inside Man (2006)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
10/08
10/08:
Well, that was a waste of time.
Let me fix what I said: that was a major waste of time. I knew before I knew it because when I saw "Spike Lee" as the
director, I had an idea of what to expect. Spike Lee still can't direct, and it painfully shows here.
Inside Man is two hours of nothing but racist overtones: black men knowing exactly what to do, white
people acting like idiots, and white cops treating hostages like pieces of trash. So, why am I not surprised? When is Spike
going to grow up and realize racism is a made-up word?
The plot is stupid as ever. Come on, it doesn't make any sense. A man robs the bank for documents and diamonds in a tiny
safe deposit box. At the same time, an ex-Nazi financier is in possession of incriminating documents which are put in his
safe deposit box. But has he ever thought about burning them? Oh, I have a better idea: how about stealing the key from him
to open the box without fanfare? Hell, they can go Mission: Impossible while at it.
Meanwhile, Inside Man is strictly a New York picture for New Yorkers which is difficult to stomach.
It's their righteous and holier-than-thou attitude that I hate. I also hate Jodie Foster with passion, and seeing her in
Inside Man makes me want to strangle her.
What the heck is Denzel Washington doing? Has his career gone bonkers, or is he senile? In Inside Man,
Denzel plays a detective for the umpteenth time. How about something new for a change? Even better, how about stop working
with Spike Lee anymore? It's demeaning to see his character and partner making jokes about the hostages while they're in the
interrogation room. Willem Dafoe can do better than this mucky-muck.
All in all, Inside Man is among the worst films made.
Inside Moves (1980)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
6/20
6/20:
My hat is off to Richard Donner for making an unusual movie called Inside Moves.
Notice the old man with meat hooks for hands? That's Harold Russell, the only double Oscar winner for the same performance
in The Best Years of Our Lives. Inside Moves is his second movie ever.
Anyway, it's nice to see him again.
Speaking of Oscars, Diana Scarwid was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Well, it's a strange choice. So...she
got it for crying on cue perfectly? Let's be real: John Savage is the one who got robbed; he's the heart and soul
of the movie: absolutely special as Roary who's a great character.
There's also a good performance by David Morse. I'm shocked to see him this young, and I didn't know he was tall: 6'4''.
David once said, "In my first film, I was a basketball player. Like every good actor, I lied when they asked me if I could play."
My favorite scene is when Roary let his character know what kind of jerk he had been; it's an unsettling moment.
Unfortunately, Inside Moves is an uneven movie; there are slow spots between good yet long scenes. Often, it's John
Savage who steals the show, but everybody else is more or less okay. There are some schmaltzy parts, and the crude
pornographic language for a few scenes has to G...O.
All in all, without doubt, John Savage gives the performance of his career in Inside Moves, a one-of-a-kind picture.
The Insider (1999)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
2/13
2/13:
The Insider is the first and yet only Michael Mann stinker I've seen.
It's probably a combination of the uninteresting story and Russell Crowe. I've never liked his acting. Constantly, he'll
look all sad when I'm like, "Oh, grow the fuck up."
On the other hand, it's hard to care for some ex-tobacco exec who's in fear for his life because of the
possibility of divulging classified company secrets. My answer is, "Well, if you disliked what you were doing, then why did
you continue to work for the company? Come on, duh." Oh...I get it, Jeffrey...it's about the money, right? You like the money,
Jeffrey? You addicted to the money, Jeffrey? Is that why you shut up, so you can make enough until you're ready to get out
in time before blowing the whistle, right Jeffrey?
The funniest part is the ex-wife. Oh, the poor thing...the loss of income which means no more
manicured lawns and social gatherings. She has to hide in shame because her husband was canned from a seven-figure
salaried job. What a tragedy for her to give up the dream of being an housewife and face the reality of a 9-to-5 job.
It's what the film feels like: too much undeserved sympathy.
Meanwhile, Al Pacino does a good job as the master orchestrator of the show. He's an expert at it. The most
surprising is the unflattering portrayal of Mike Wallace, the well-known reporter from 60 Minutes. And
boy...Christopher Plummer is an awful actor. He pretends but fails at it miserably. I'll like to see
Mike Wallace playing himself instead. In the meantime, the shaky camera work during the first hour or so is tough to endure.
Finally, it calms down, but the blue color keeps dominating the screen.
All in all, watch The Insider only if you feel for the rich, snobbish, and emotionless people.
Insignificance (1985)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
7/23
7/23:
Here I go with Nicolas Roeg who made so many bad films that oddly ended up as part of the Criterion Collection.
Is there some kind of fetish going on here? Anyway, Insignificance is exactly what the title says. Made for
pseudo-intellectuals, it's a 108-minute waste of celluloid, giving me a hard time to think of Theresa Russell,
Gary Busey, Tony Curtis, and Michael Emil as Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, Joseph McCarthy, and Albert Einstein, respectively.
I don't think it's cool to see Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio together in the same film because the guy basically beat the
shit out of her. They would divorce nine months afterwards. Weirdly but maybe not, DiMaggio "kept company with a mannequin of
Marilyn, complete with 'an almost indecent authenticity to the breasts and other erogenous zones,' which he'd designed and had
manufactured for $10,000." On the other hand, it's hard to believe that Tony Curtis is opposite the fake Marilyn Monroe when he
starred with the real one in Some Like It Hot.
All in all, who was honestly excited to see a Nicolas Roeg film back then?
Insomnia (2002)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
8/05
8/05:
Insomnia is average.
The multiple differing directions have slowed down the plot, failing to create enough tension to keep me interested. Christopher
Nolan brings to the table almost the same kind of confusion from Memento. It's tiresome.
He inserts the same shot, which is a blood stain on some piece of cloth, over and over like ten times throughout the movie, but it
brings no meaning for me and symbolizes nothing. Additionally, I hate his tendency for quick cuts while the characters talk
rapidly.
In the interim, the acting is at best fair. Al Pacino has lost the touch as he can't command respect anymore.
Although great in dramas, Robin Williams doesn't do anything for me. Hilary Swank wastes her talent by being out of
element; somebody else can replace her and do a better job.
All in all, the only thing I learned from Insomnia is that there are twenty hours of daylight in Alaska.
Inspector Clouseau (1968)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
7/18
7/18:
That's weird.
Instead of Peters Sellers, it's Alan Arkin for Inspector Clouseau, the supposedly third film of
The Pink Panther franchise. Um, why? Was Peter Sellers so funny in
A Shot in the Dark that he had to be replaced?
It turns out he and Blake Edwards were busy making The Party although Sellers kept turning
down offers to reprise his famous role, so the Mirisch Company decided to start filming Inspector Clouseau without them.
As a result, it failed miserably at the box office. A lesson must be learned here: never fix, or rather replace, what's not broken.
Years later, Alan Arkin was interviewed by TCM's Ben Mankiewicz, who mentioned his work in Inspector Clouseau
for a few seconds, and he quickly dismissed it as a mistake by stating Peter Sellers knew how to be funny and he was no
Peter Sellers. I'll be fair and say Alan Arkin was funny at times, but most of the comedy he generated occurs only
during the first half. The second is disastrous which is full of convolutions. At the end, for some strange reason, the
bad guys get away quietly without resolve.
The idea, which obviously came from Mission: Impossible TV series, of disguising gang members as Inspector Clouseau
via masks is stupid, especially when they wear an inexplicably heavy black eyeliner. Regardless, Alan Arkin will
redeem himself during the same year by giving one of the greatest performances of his career in
The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter.
All in all, there's only one Inspector Clouseau, and his name is Peter Sellers.
Instinct (1999)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
5/25
5/25:
Instinct "explores the themes of civilization, family, and humanity with realistic effects and emotional
depth."
Uh...yeah, whatever. All I saw is a vengeful old man who hates authority and can't do anything about it after
witnessing the killing of mountain gorillas. In other words, it's shallow bullshit that happens to be the male
version of Gorillas in the Mist
with a ripped-off famous moment from The Shawshank Redemption.
Poor storytelling is part of the problem. It takes forever to arrive at the reason why the old man killed men. By
the time he finished explaining, the movie was over, rendering everything else at Harmony Bay Correctional
Facility pointless. Director Jon Turteltaub needs to rethink what's important and what's not without being
derivative.
Anthony Hopkins is fair, but this type of character coming from him has been done to death. Well-meaning at first,
Cuba Gooding, Jr., is superficial toward the end. When he had a big speech at the end in the hopes of turning it
into an Oscar-winning clip, I thought Anthony Hopkins would turn slowly and tell him, "Juha...nobody
gives a fuck about how you feel. Now, get out of here."
All in all, the tagline of Instinct should be: "Trust it by seeing
Gorillas in the Mist instead."
Intermezzo (1939)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
4/07
4/07:
Ingrid Bergman is the only saving grace of Intermezzo while the rest is nil.
Most of the dialogue feels airy, showy, and useless. The movie had a lot of potential to begin with, but the casting of
Leslie Howard is a poor decision. He's so out of his element that I've never been sure if it's part of the deal or not.
In short, Leslie Howard ruins the film due to lack of connection with Ingrid Bergman. It's almost as if he's either
faking it or thinking a movie character can be played the same way on a Broadway show.
Ingrid Bergman's raw talent is evident, and it'll be further polished before appearing in the timeless romantic classic
Casablanca. The girl, who plays the daughter, is the worst part and thus ruins the first
fifteen minutes. The spoiled brat thinks she's all that, but Intermezzo isn't about her. So, why waste time on the
foolish girl?
All in all, I blame the collapse of Intermezzo on the poor writing and the weak chemistry between Leslie Howard and
Ingrid Bergman.
Intermission (2003)
Rate:
6
Viewed:
4/25
4/25:
Colin Farrell and Colm Meaney in the same film?
Count me in. I like the Irish-heavy script; it's catchy and has funny parts. The characters are realistic
with some terrific lines. They can be hard to understand from time to time. Although there's no story, it
doesn't stop me from trying to put the pieces together. When they're finally into place, Intermission
isn't an interesting movie after all.
I think the problem is Colin Farrell and Colm Meaney should've gotten more screen time. They are the best
thing going. Shirley Henderson with the Ronnie is good, but her character becomes less effective
over time. I'm not a fan of Cillian Murphy and don't think he's anything special.
The rest of the cast is more or less on the mark. But why didn't they get Brendan Gleeson, too?
All in all, if you liked Pulp Fiction and
Snatch, then give Intermission a try.
Intern (2000)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
5/15
5/15:
The world of fashion doesn't appeal to me because it's superficial and pointless, but that doesn't stop me from seeing
Intern.
Notwithstanding the dreadful musical introduction, Intern turns out to be a well-done movie. The chemistry of the
ensemble cast is terrific, and the dialogue is smooth and cerebral.
Some people have labeled the film as a "parody," but I don't see it that way because I didn't laugh. Except for the
hideous-looking Joan Rivers, there are many great performances throughout, but the true standout is David Deblinger who
plays Richard.
Finally, Dominique Swain chooses well compared to the two fiascos she starred in which are
The Smokers and Pumpkin, and she fits the billing of her
character as the intern. As for the flow of the story, it can be uneven, occasionally drifting off before getting back on track.
Michael Lange's juggling of the dialogues, set pieces, plethora of characters coming in and out, and subplots is masterful.
All in all, Intern provides a unique insight into the fashion world, and the performers are convincing by maintaining
a high level of chemistry that makes it feel believable.
Internal Affairs (1990)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
10/05, 4/24
4/24:
The pairing of Andy Garcia and Richard Gere is the best thing going for Internal Affairs.
It's also stylish and sexy with lots of neo-noir traits. An additional treat is the appearance of William Baldwin.
Director Mike Figgis improved his craft a great deal after he did Stormy Monday.
This time, there's coherence, and everything is all together.
Although the story is compelling, I have to say Richard Gere's character, Dennis Peck, is hard to believe. However, his anger
toward Andy Garcia is for real, and they didn't get along during the filming. On the other hand, Laurie Metcalf isn't a proven
movie actress which is why she stayed with Roseanne.
All in all, Internal Affairs deserves a look.
Intersection (1994)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
8/20, 2/22
8/20:
I saw Intersection in 1994 yet didn't remember anything about it but the slo-mo car accident Richard Gere was
getting into.
A remake of Les choses de la vie, I have to say it's a fine drama with an European feel, great location photography,
and strong editing that tells a captivating nonlinear story by using flashbacks about what went wrong in one marriage.
Like the Mercedes 280SL roadster, what happened to Vincent Eastman is a tragedy. He was a likeable person, but driving over 80
MPH on a wet local road is going to cost a person his life every single time. However, Vincent's conflict with two women,
hence the title of the film, does put life into perspective, and he wanted the marriage to work and his wife just
couldn't see his way.
Once again, the always handsome-looking Richard Gere gives a charming performance, but his manners can be
repetitive at times although I don't mind it. I never thought Sharon Stone was a good actress, but she may have given
the performance of her career here. It's the mirror of her personality in so many films:
detached and unfeeling. Lolita Davidovich does a decent job as the third wheel.
If you've never heard of a Congreve clock, well...the movie will correct it for you. Invented by William Congreve in 1808
although there had been earlier versions, it's a pretty work of craftsmanship with the metal ball rolling along the zig-zag
track to operate the clock. Unfortunately, Congreve clocks are notoriously unreliable because the surface and the ball have
to be clean and dust-free all the time. Otherwise, they'll slowly lose as much as 45 minutes a day.
All in all, Intersection is a must-see.
2/22:
"We weren't a family. We were a corporation with a kid."
That's the main theme of Intersection. Flashbacks are used to pinpoint what went wrong. The present day is set for
Vincent Eastman to decide whether to save the marriage or drop it for good and open a new chapter. After a bit of
mind-wrestling with his decision, he chose the latter but stupidly cost his life by driving too fast on a slick local road.
The best part is character development. At the end, it's easy to feel bad after what happened to Vincent. Richard Gere is
terrific. Sharon Stone gives the best performance of her career. Lolita Davidovich is merely okay but is relegated to almost
a third wheel between these two to serve as a plot device.
Showing shades of American Gigolo, the style is impeccable throughout with fantastic
cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. Hence, it's why Vincent wanted to hold on to his beautiful-looking wife. The building is
the Museum of Anthropology which is part of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and the artifacts inside
are still the same.
All in all, Intersection is still an underrated movie that unfairly received a lot of bad reviews.
Interview with the Vampire (1994)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
12/05, 2/25
2/25:
Interview with the Vampire has aged well.
First, it's the narrative structure that makes the film absorbing to watch, thanks to Neil Jordan who heavily
adapted the screenplay from Anne Rice's novel published in 1976. Second, the unbelievable casting of three
superstars (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, and Antonio Banderas) is the difference-maker. And the more the merrier is them
giving very strong performances. It's hard to rank these guys because their characters have a distinct personality.
Third, the cinematography is mind-blowing. Without doubt, Philippe Rousselot was robbed of an Oscar nomination.
I only wish that New Orleans was shown more. Fourth, this is the best vampire movie ever made, and I've
seen a lot already with almost all of them stinkers. Its only competition is
Bram Stoker's Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola, but both are completely
different in nature. There's a great deal of humanity going on that's high on romanticism without ever being
about gore. Fifth, the special effects are extraordinary with hardly any trace of CGI.
If there's a small negative, the movie should be longer. I just couldn't get enough of it. Hard to shake
off is Lestat's ability to survive. He explained about feeding on the blood of alligators, snakes, and toads, among
others, after being poisoned with laudanum which should've weakened him. Then, he showed up at the house before
being set on fire and yet survived. How is that possible? I only ask this compared to the vampires who went
through a similar episode but perished in Paris.
Back to the cast, Tom Cruise sure dominates the show for a while. Then, there's Antonio Banderas at his sexiest
which will reach its peak in Desperado a year later. He's really Armand. My
favorite moment is Antonio Banderas doing this mouth thing when he moves his hand over a lit candle. It's so random.
Brad Pitt is an inspired casting choice. Armand summed his character the best: "A vampire with
a human soul. An immortal with a mortal's passion." I thought Kirsten Dunst was annoying the last time I saw the
movie, but she's fine now and was 11 years old at the time. However small his role is, Christian Slater is
perfect as the interviewer, hence the film title.
All in all, Interview with the Vampire is a rare beautiful-looking horror masterpiece.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
7/05, 6/07
7/05:
Anyone asking me this question, "Can you tell me the greatest horror movie ever made?", my answer will always be
Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
It's bar none the best horror movie I've ever seen. There's no monster, blood, gore, or violence whatsoever. It's the
beautiful use of subtlety to create frightening scenes which is an extremely hard thing to pull off. That's why the film
gets a loud adulation from me.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is disturbing. Fall asleep once, and you'll never wake up again, only to be replaced
by a human imitation that's spawned from a seed pod. The suspense reaches its zenith when the seed pods are discovered in
the greenhouse.
My favorite part is the transformation of Becky Driscoll which hits Miles hard and then he runs out for what's among the famous
scenes in movie history. When no one will believe him, the news of an overturned truck transporting seed pods
finally validates Miles' story once and for all.
All in all, I have an utmost respect for Don Siegel who was a true master director of cinema.
6/07:
The greatest horror picture ever made, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a work of perfection.
No monsters, no blood, no gore, no freak-outs, and no cheap camera tricks...it's just pure acting with straightforward emotion.
Kevin McCarthy gives the performance of his career as Dr. Miles Bennell, and he'll always be remembered for the famous
scene on the highway at the end.
Intended to be a B picture with a meager budget, low expectations, and a no-name cast, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a
sci-fi film noir masterpiece. There are many unforgettable scenes. The strong introduction sets the tone,
carrying me through until the sudden metamorphosis of Becky Driscoll. There's no letdown in suspense the whole time.
All in all, Invasion of the Body Snatchers gets everything right.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
10/05
10/05:
The only question I had on my mind was: "Why?"
The 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers starts off well but has me sleeping by the end. I was like,
"Just forget about the problem. You might as well join them."
Everybody's acting is fair for most part. But this version has me confused whether it's a sequel, a remake, or its own movie.
A lot of it feels like the characters knew what happened beforehand.
Although atmospheric, the remake isn't convincing or haunting like the original. It lacks the craftiness. Regardless, I
give it credit for the excellent job of creating shadows. One aspect I dislike the most is the camera technique.
All in all, there should be a Hollywood law that remaking classic pictures is strictly forbidden, and I pray that it never
happens to Casablanca and Citizen Kane.
Invasion U.S.A. (1985)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
11/07
11/07:
The Don't Fuck With Chuck series continues, and this time, it's Invasion U.S.A. which is one
of the most brain-dead action films I've seen.
It goes without saying the thespians were at the nadir of their careers when they agreed to do this.
When I saw the number of men coming out from the boats, I laughed and was like, "Are you fucking serious?" Does
the movie expect me to believe a good thousand of men can conquer the United States of America whose population
was two hundred something million during the middle 80's?
Anyway, it's safe to say Invasion U.S.A. is more like Invasion Miami, Florida. I'm not sure if
Chuck Norris qualifies as an "actor." Robot is more like it. Everything about Chuck—the way he moves, the way he walks,
the way he talks, and the way he fights—is monotonously mechanical. Steven Seagal has, if it's only an ounce, more
personality than him. At times, I wonder if Chuck Norris blinks.
If Rostov (is he wearing an eyeliner?) is worried about Matt Hunter, then I'll say there may be more than a
thousand of them in the U.S. Either way, he's screwed. It's hard to believe how Hunter can be in the right place
at the right moment nearly every time something happens. Hunter's line "It's time to die" has me wishing it was directed
toward him. Oddly, given the fact that Chuck Norris is a Christian, he wrote this junk.
Regardless, although the film is advertised as a bonanza of fireworks when it comes to action, I'm not shown much.
When Hunter's house was blown up in the swamps, I'm disappointed to see Hunter not taking the pet armadillo with him.
What kind of message is that? To Christians, I guess animals aren't important. Didn't Chuck read the story of Noah's Ark?
The scene of the guy with glasses holding a lady close to the truck while he's driving, won't his arm be tired after
a while? And perhaps if he lets her go, his driving will improve considerably? Another scene that has me puzzled is when
Hunter went through the street that's full of pimps, hookers, and lowlifes. They throw stuff at his truck while shouting
expletives at him. How did they know it's him? Is there supposed to be a subliminal Christian message at that moment?
At the end, when the bad guys are surrounded by the army, I'm surprised to see how many of them survived the
initial fire. If something like that happens in real life, it should be an instant slaughter within a minute. Again,
I have to make a comment in regard to the ending. What was that? Hunter kills Rostov. Cut, the end, and that's it. Awful.
The overpowering feeling I got from it is: I mean nothing.
All in all, to sum up Invasion U.S.A., one guy said, "The clerk at the video store looked at me like I was
an idiot when he saw what I was renting."
Invictus (2009)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
7/10
7/10:
Um...that wasn't a good movie.
Poor Clint Eastwood, he can't pull off a fun sport film. Also, it would help a lot if I knew a thing or two about rugby. The
sad fact is that I don't care about the sport. To make matters worse, Invictus is long and therefore
boring to watch. Plus, the stadium environment looks fake.
Meanwhile, I believe there are four parallelisms at play: Nelson Mandela, his possible assassination, the South Africa rugby
team, and the post-apartheid relations. I don't think any of them was successful. What Clint Eastwood failed to do is to
educate me about the members of the rugby team and their names. I don't know why I should be interested in Nelson Mandela given
he's a terrorist. Were there racial relation problems between whites and blacks in South Africa after the end of apartheid
and Nelson Mandela won the presidency? The film doesn't say, either.
Interestingly enough, after looking up information about the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the players on New Zealand All Blacks
team were food-poisoned the night before the final match and subsequently lost in a hard-fought battle after blazing through
their way through the tournament by defeating their opponents by a large margin.
In short, Invictus is disappointing and proves the material is beyond Clint Eastwood's capabilities.
John Huston or Euzhan Palcy would've done better. Worst of all, I have no idea what the word "invictus" means. Nobody in
the film bothered to explain it. Neither is the meaning of the word "scrum." And damn it, what the hell are the
rules for rugby? How am I supposed to know what the heck is going on if nobody cares about the sport in the United States?
I've stated many times that there's a particular scene in Lean on Me when Morgan Freeman was
behind bars and he just looked like Nelson Mandela. Well, he finally plays him in Invictus, but I have to say he didn't
do a good job. On the other hand, Matt Damon looks too buffed up, is boring, and makes me realize that he can't act.
To be honest with you, I don't care about anything in Invictus, but I'm rather interested in learning why South Africa
is the rape capital of the world where one in four is infected with AIDS and why it has one of the highest crime
rates anywhere. It might have been an interesting movie if Clint Eastwood would dispel the myth of Nelson Mandela. The truth
is: he's not a folk hero the media has made him to be. A staunch believer of communism and terrorism, Mandela took numerous
roles in violence, supported it, and made South Africa a divisive country. He's always been against democracy.
All in all, Invictus is an uninspiring sport picture.
The Invisible Man (1933)
Rate:
4
Viewed:
3/17
3/17:
I hate dumb films, and The Invisible Man is one of them.
Notwithstanding the running time of 71 minutes, it's slow-paced. Everything seems to be concentrated in one location
which isn't more than ten miles in radius. The Invisible Man can hop on planes, going from one country to another
anytime he wants to continue his reign of terror.
The acting is okay, but it's Una O'Connor, having too much screen time, who's annoying by virtue of her screams.
The special effect of making Claude Rains invisible has to be lauded, even for 1933. It's the only selling point of the
film. The following trivia is taken from IMDb:
"The first time Claude Rains' daughter ever saw her father in a movie was in 1950, when he took her to a showing of
The Invisible Man in a small Pennsylvanian theater. While the film was playing, Rains was telling his daughter all
about how it was made. The other theater patrons stopped watching the movie and instead listened to Rains tell how it was made."
Indeed. So, how did they do it? Sometimes, when the Invisible Man had no clothes on, the effects were done with the use of
wires. When he was partly dressed, Claude Rains, wearing a completely black velvet suit, was shot against a black velvet
background, and then the two reels, including one that's shot on location, were combined as one.
H.G. Wells, who wrote the novel, reportedly liked the film but didn't appreciate the idea of turning the Invisible Man into
a raving lunatic with bipolar disorder. Neither did I. I wish they would keep his intelligence intact, so he could come
off as a cunning villain. Then, the movie will be better off for it, thus being able to stand the test of time.
All in all, The Invisible Man is worth watching for the special effects alone.
The Ipcress File (1965)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
3/16, 4/25
3/16:
One of the earliest films of Michael Caine's long career, I thought I would see his best in
The Ipcress File, but unfortunately, that's not the case.
So, it's easy to see why Alfie first made him an international star. Because
of Harry Saltzman's connection, The Ipcress File, which is a hybrid of
The Manchurian Candidate,
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, and
Mission: Impossible, is an incomprehensibly dated spy flick.
Hence, it's not surprising to learn from IMDb that: "On the first day of shooting, Sidney J. Furie
gathered the cast and said, 'This is what I think of the script.' He then set it on fire."
All in all, I'll have to see The Ipcress File later.
4/25:
All right, I'm changing my tune for The Ipcress File after wanting to see it again so I can go ahead
with the next two sequels of the Harry Palmer franchise.
Last time, I wasn't prepared for the dense plot. I now understand what the issue is.
Not that the script is complicated, but it's rather tightly controlled, refusing to give any inch.
You'll have to sit through the film all the way to the end and get the explanation of what it's about.
The most valuable asset is the avant-garde camera work. If not for that, The Ipcress File would've
been a dated spy picture. The dialogue is very concise and to the point. I was never bored for a minute;
it's more of "what's all this?" On the other hand, Michael Caine as Harry Palmer is heaven, and he'll
go on to do more esteemed films. Nigel Green is great as well; I'm surprised he died young at age 47.
For a while, I thought Harry Palmer was being set up and Jean was keeping tabs on him for somebody else.
Then, there was a moment that caused me to say, "Maybe everybody is in it only because they hate Harry Palmer
for being a smug asshole." That didn't work logically because a couple of agents were killed along the way.
Hence, the ending as how it happened is suitable. It still leaves some questions behind. Why Radcliffe?
What about the other scientists? What's the point of draining their brains? Why not kill them instead? Ditto
for Harry Palmer. How could he see anymore, let alone shoot properly, after losing his eyeglasses?
All in all, The Ipcress File can go either way, but I recommend watching it at least twice.
Iron Eagle (1986)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
12/19
12/19:
Iron Eagle was a popular title during the 80's, but I never got around to seeing it until now.
I can understand why the movie worked back then. Yes, the first ten minutes, Iron Eagle looks like a rip-off of
Top Gun, but the former was theatrically released before the latter was. Never mind that, it's a
Toy Soldiers meets Top Gun story, which cleverly covers
all bases given its sheer stupidity, that wins me over.
Louis Gossett, Jr., is a fine actor in his own right. Hell, he won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor in
An Officer and a Gentleman. In Iron Eagle, he gives another special
performance and is sometimes better than he was as Mayo's drill sergeant. If not for him, I don't think the movie would've worked.
On the other hand, Jason Gedrick is impressive. He could've failed big time by giving a corny performance but did pull
through by being at once serious and believable. Because of him, Louis Gossett, Jr., and the power of storytelling,
Iron Eagle works out on the whole.
I have to mention one more actor on the other side: David Suchet as Colonel Nakesh, the Minister of Defense. He's a funny
guy who has the best one-liners. I'm not surprised he went on to play Hercule Poirot in the television series Poirot.
Despite seemingly shot on an actual base, the United States Air Force refused to cooperate because of the nature of the story.
So, the studio had to do it all in Israel. It's a good work by everybody to fool me. And don't worry about seeing the same
repeated shot of a plane blowing up because you need to make sure that Iron Eagle is to be viewed as a B movie.
All in all, unfairly compared to Top Gun, Iron Eagle is a well-done fighter pilot
movie with an absorbing story and fine acting.
Ironclads (1991)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
3/13
3/13:
The first ever battle between ironclads occurred during the Civil War.
It was the Monitor versus the Merrimack. Technically, the Merrimack was renamed as the
Virginia after the steam frigate was raised, restored, and outfitted as an ironclad. The names were used
interchangeably anyway. Neither survived long afterwards, and the term "ironclad" went out of favor about
three decades later. What came after them are battleships, dreadnoughts, cruisers, and the like.
I give Ironclads high marks for portraying the ironclads as how they looked during that time. There's nothing fancy
about it, and there's nothing fast in the action of the men involved. That's what I appreciate. On the other hand, the
subplot involving Virginia Madsen's character takes a lot away from the film. In fact, the whole thing is
unconvincing. Instead, the filmmakers should've showed the development of the two ironclads.
All in all, Ironclads is a good slice of U.S. history, but get rid of the stupid love story.
Ironweed (1987)
Rate:
5
Viewed:
10/23
10/23:
Ironweed is a Jack Nicholson movie I had put off for a long time because it concerns alcoholics which
is a boring topic if you ask me.
Okay, yeah...by the end of the show, it's exactly what I thought. What a surprise that Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep were
nominated for Oscars. Then again, maybe not since they're big names which wasn't enough to sell this overlong depressing film.
As a result, it was a big box-office bomb. The acting is nothing special, but Jack Nicholson is fine as usual.
Ironweed would've worked better if it focused solely on Francis Phelan, but expanding the narrative to include Helen Archer
was a huge mistake. Honestly, who cares about her? She died...the end. Obviously, Helen was suffering from either liver or
stomach cancer. Nobody is going to miss her anyway.
One critic said, "If you ride with the emotional undertow of Ironweed, there's no way you'll ever look at street people
in quite the same way." Uh, right...bums are bums, and they got there by fucking up their lives. Get out of here. Here's a
more honest assessment from somebody else: "I worked in a movie theater and the first night, we had a sold out audience. We
had to wake most of them up at the end."
All in all, in order for Ironweed to succeed, I have to care about the characters, but Héctor Babenco failed big time,
hence the death of his directorial career in Hollywood.
Ishtar (1987)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
9/13
9/13:
I knew what I was getting into when I decided to see Ishtar.
However, it's not that awful as the critics had claimed it to be. Ishtar is a stupid film that falls flat on its face
in every scene. There's a feeling of "yeah...okay" most of the time.
Comedy? I didn't laugh much except for several times during the first fifteen minutes. On the other hand, reading up
the history behind the scenes of Ishtar is more compelling with Elaine May never directing a movie again.
All in all, it's fair to say Ishtar should've never been made in the first place.
The Island (1970)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
5/20
5/20:
If you hate Michael Caine for selling himself out to appear in
Jaws: The Revenge, you'll like him more for taking the chance on The Island.
Based on Jaws author Peter Benchley's eponymous novel, The Island starts off well
with many witty lines. Then, about a half hour into it, things begin to change for the worse.
At that point, I thought Michael Ritchie may have sabotaged the film, but there's a nice recovery afterwards. Then, the
twist starts to make sense, despite the weird language, and from thereon, I'm with the characters all the way to the end.
Overall, The Island is a well-done movie that reminds me of Treasure Island. The bad guys are
meaner than the Smokers from Waterworld. They're pirates in the truest sense.
Now, I can't forgive the boy; he did kill the guy on purpose, right in the bull's eye of his forehead. When the
Maynards get home, the kid is going to develop psychological issues that will remain with him for the rest of his life,
so the father will have to be prepared for it.
The acting is pretty good. Michael Caine is the star of the show and may have signed up for the project so he can pull
off The Wild Bunch stunt which is fun to watch. David Warner is the king of the baddies,
and he's not bad at all but is perhaps a bit too normal. Besides, I'm surprised to see his thin body frame. Jeffrey Frank, the boy,
made his motion picture debut and then did one more film before disappearing completely. I wonder what happened since he showed
a good rapport with Michael Caine and had some talent.
All in all, buoyed by the beautiful water photography around the islands of Antigua and Abaco, The Island
is a strange film that'll reward the patient, open-minded viewers.
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
10/03, 9/14
9/14:
My head still shakes in disbelief, befuddlement, and shock all rolled into one.
Marlon Brando was a sex symbol in A Streetcar Named Desire and then reaffirmed
it in On the Waterfront. Fast-forward to The Island of Dr. Moreau forty years
later, he's a 500-pound indescribable vat of Larry Drake ugliness. Not only that, but Brando has also truly lost his mind for good.
To call Brando an actor will have to be laughable by now because if you notice his eyes, it's plain and clear he's reading the
lines from cue cards in different locations. So, I can't believe John Frankenheimer let Brando make an absurd deification
of himself. This is the same guy who dealt with Burt Lancaster for a while.
On the other hand, Val Kilmer has begun the unbelievable destruction of his career and most notably his physique to the
point of looking like a fat tub of lard which is kind of like making a full circle to meet Marlon Brando. He did make
The Island of Dr. Moreau interesting in the first twenty minutes, but it's been an interminable fog the rest of the way.
One of the big mistakes is casting David Thewlis and then granting him a lot of screen time, which is way more
than Val Kilmer and Marlon Brando combined, because his character comes off as arrogant and unlikeable and is therefore not worth
caring. As for the plot, makeup effect, and pretty much anything else, they're so unspeakably bad that I'm not going to
bother commenting on them. Instead, I want to point out some things that happened on the set:
Fairuza Balk tried to escape the production but was caught at the airport and was then sent back to the set.
Val Kilmer frustrated director John Frankenheimer so much, that, after shooting Kilmer's last scene
in the movie, Frankenheimer was alleged to have said: "Cut. Now, get that bastard off my set."
David Thewlis vowed to never watch the finished product because it was such a negative experience that he
skipped the premiere of the film. Richard Stanley spent four years developing the project only to be fired after four days.
Marlon Brando wore a small radio receiver to aid him in remembering his lines. Co-star David Thewlis claimed, "He'd be in
the middle of a scene, and suddenly he'd be picking up police messages and Marlon would repeat, 'There's a robbery at
Woolworths.'"
And finally, my favorite of them all: Marlon Brando once told Val Vilmer, "Your problem is you confuse the size of your
paycheck with the size of your talent." Ha! He should've said that to himself.
All in all, The Island of Dr. Moreau is an ungodly mess of epic proportions.
Island of Lost Souls (1932)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
7/25
7/25:
Island of Lost Souls is much better than the disaster of epic proportions:
The Island of Dr. Moreau with Marlon Brando.
The novel was written by H.G. Wells in 1896, and after viewing the picture, he said, "Terrible!" [My story]
was handled miserably. With all respect to Charles Laughton, who is a splendid actor, and others concerned in
the making of this moving picture...I must say that it was handled with a complete lack of imagination."
Well, that's a harsh criticism. I think the film looks great and hasn't dated at all but don't consider it as
horror which may have been drained by now. Rather, it's mostly sci-fi. There are a lot to like: the
performances, the makeup effects, the cinematography, the atmosphere, the story, and so on.
Director Erle C. Kenton milked as much as he could in seventy minutes of running time. Every scene has a
purpose which is something I can't really say for most films in existence. Because of what happened in
The Elephant Man, the Academy Awards had to create a new category:
Best Makeup. Had that been done sooner, Island of Lost Souls would've won it.
There's no doubt that Charles Laughton is iconic as Dr. Moreau. It's among his earliest
Hollywood films in a leading role, and the following year, he would win the Oscar for
The Private Life of Henry VIII. Not to be missed is the
fine performance by Kathleen Burke as Lota aka the Panther Woman which was earned by winning a talent
contest held by Paramount Pictures.
All in all, Island of Lost Souls ranks one of the most well-made pictures from the 30's.
It Could Happen to You (1994)
Rate:
8
Viewed:
5/24
5/24:
From time to time, Nicolas Cage will do a good film while behaving normally, and one of them is
It Could Happen to You.
The longer the show went on, the more I couldn't help but feel the Capra-esque quality which is to say "they don't
make movies like it anymore." Nicolas Cage is James Stewart, Bridget Fonda is Donna Reed, and Rosie Perez is Lionel
Barrymore. By the way, a fun fact is that all were born during the same year: 1964.
You can hate Rosie Perez's character all you want, but she gives the best performance of the show. If it wasn't for her,
there's no conflict and therefore no story. In fact, the incident did happen for real, but splitting up the winnings of the
lottery ticket instead of a tip was the furthest it went. So, the filmmakers decided to add more afterwards which is fine
by me. It's also a very New York City picture.
By the way, the lottery doesn't work that way as shown in the film. For starters, winners will have to pay a huge
amount of it back to the government for tax. Also, they don't get the full amount right away. If one wishes a lump sum now,
the final number will be substantially less. Otherwise, there will be an annual installment payment plan that's spread out
over, say, thirty years.
All in all, It Could Happen to You is a terrific, clean picture that adheres to the tradition of Frank Capra's pictures.
It Happened One Night (1934)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
4/14
4/14:
There's a good reason why Clark Gable was given the moniker: King of Hollywood.
It's because he was that good of an actor. The Best Picture Winner of 1934, It Happened One Night is very much
buoyed by Clark Gable's presence. It's also the same film that caused a massive drop in white T-shirt sales when he was
shown undressing without one on. And it would stay that way until Marlon Brando brought it back into fashion in
A Streetcar Named Desire.
Claudette Colbert is okay, but she's nothing special. Clark Gable makes her look good. The reason for my
low rating of '7' is that the premise is difficult to swallow. Because It Happened One Night
was released during the Depression, it's hard to believe the film garnered acclaim back then.
Personalities do not change after years of induration unless one has a traumatic brain injury. So, there's no way Peter Warne
would put up with the poor little rich girl female for any length of time after getting to know each other more. Billed as a comedy,
It Happened One Night is mostly not, but the pace can be lively. The funniest and best scene is when Peter Warne
pretended he's a gangster, telling the nosy passenger to scram and stay quiet for good.
All in all, It Happened One Night is an okay picture that Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert, both Oscar
winners as a result, had disliked being part of.
The Italian Job (1969)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
7/05
7/05:
The Italian Job is for dimwits.
It's so boring as hell that I had dozed off many times. Hence, the movie should be called The Doze Job.
The plot is retarded and predictable.
If Michael Caine's character wants to rob a huge sum amount of money, why does he hire idiots?
Poor jokes are in abundance throughout, and many of them have me constantly saying, "I don't get it."
If there's supposed to be a football match between two countries, where are the spectators? Why is there one police car
or motorcycle chasing the bandits? Should there be more of them? And what is the chanting of Bridger supposed to indicate?
I haven't been able to stomach the drab in/exterior sets. Also, it's unbelievable to see many cars,
especially the nice ones, be wrecked and then littered all over the beautiful mountainous terrain.
All in all, the British voted The Italian Job as one of the best movies made, and that alone tells me a lot about their
intelligence.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Rate:
10
Viewed:
4/09
4/09:
I remember during the Christmas seasons of the 80's and 90's that It's a Wonderful Life played on television
almost every night, sometimes on five different channels at the same time.
While listening to Frank Capra's presentation, I didn't realize the movie wasn't in copyright after 1974 and thus was transferred
to the public domain. What makes this interesting is the movie was subsequently forgotten after release as it was a box-office
failure, which is hard to believe, before being rediscovered on television. As a result, it increasingly caught the attention of
many and therefore was labeled as a timeless classic, becoming a permanent staple of Christmas.
As for the film, well...what can I say? It's a Wonderful Life is really the Christmas picture of them all. It also
captures the human spirit. The last twenty minutes is what transcends the film as a whole, hence the
repeated viewings. Any time you are confronted by a person who wants to commit suicide, the best answer is to tell him to watch
It's a Wonderful Life. This piece of advice will probably save his life by offering him a new perspective.
James Stewart gives the performance of his career. He made a lot of films, and many of them have been enduring classics.
But It's a Wonderful Life is what makes him stand out among the greatest actors in the history of motion pictures.
The supporting cast is perfect as well. Donna Reed can't be more magnificent. Lionel Barrymore is Mr. Potter. Ironically,
when the tide of the story changes, I don't get to see his reaction which is to say he's not important in the grand scheme of things.
Frank Capra said something else important that the positive feeling associated with It's a Wonderful Life is almost
nonexistent in movies today, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
All in all, it's impossible not to be moved by It's a Wonderful Life.
It's My Party (1996)
Rate:
9
Viewed:
7/20
7/20:
It's films like Star 80, Best of the Best, and
It's My Party that show everybody why Eric Roberts is one of the finest American actors.
Outdoing Longtime Companion in the department of homosexuals and friends who deal
with AIDS, It's My Party presents a perfect case of why there's nothing wrong with suicide so one can die with dignity. It's
because of this: what's the point of suffering if death is inevitable and there's no getting better during the process?
What a star-studded cast. The chemistry is palatable, and everybody has great lines and their flow with situation is instantly
natural. It's the number one reason to revisit It's My Party despite the sad theme. Of course, Bruce Davison will
come out for this, bringing along his experience from Longtime Companion.
Once again, Eric Roberts gives the performance of his career. All-natural and without reservations, he can make a career
out of acting by playing gay characters exclusively just for the hell of it. That's why Eric Roberts is so
talented. By the way, his ASL is excellent for somebody who's supposed to be an on-and-off signer.
All in all, The Big Chill for homosexuals, It's My Party is a wonderfully directed
picture by Randal Kleiser who drew a collection of great performances from his ensemble cast.
Ivan Groznyy I (1944)
Rate:
2
Viewed:
3/09
3/09:
Well, Sergei Eisenstein got one thing right about Ivan the Terrible, Part One (Ivan Groznyy I):
the film is indeed terrible...so terribly dated even by 1944 standards.
Worse than that, it's quite boring. Feeling my mind wandering more often than not, I had to pause the movie and
take a break by looking up the history of Ivan the Terrible which is extensive. Yet in this biopic, what I was seeing is plain
rubbish.
Although I like the interior pieces and the cinematography, it's limited for location shots. There are too many close-ups
of faces, and the characters are constantly looking up to the ceiling and sounding out their lines as if they're in a trance.
Hence, the acting is thoroughly stagy and outdated. At the same time, there's little plot development. I can't help but
ask, "Are there missing scenes or what?"
All in all, because I was impressed with Bronenosets Potyomkin, my expectations
got set too high for Ivan the Terrible, Part One, but this is a massive disappointment.
Ivan Groznyy II:
Boyarsky zagovor (1958)
Rate:
1
Viewed:
3/09
3/09:
Ivan the Terrible, Part Two (Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor) is beyond terrible.
Not only is the movie impossibly incomprehensible, but it's also impossibly and incomprehensibly boring! The editing is
clumsy, the acting is laughable, and the material is poorly put together. It's like watching a silent film but with
sound.
All in all, while watching Ivan the Terrible, Part Two, I kept yearning for the end of it all for the love of humanity.