Reviews

I am not a hard core Motown fan, but I have to give this film a 10, because it's the best music documentary I have seen. With just the right mix of interview footage, historical photos, and live performance, STANDING IN THE SHADOWS OF MOTOWN takes its place alongside THE LAST WALTZ as a cinematic cornerstone of music history.

Musicians will especially like some of the technical discussions, such as details about how legendary bassist James Jamerson produced his famous groove.

The live musical performances are inspired, with modern singers covering Motown classics, accompanied by the Funk Brothers themselves. I have watched the DVD of this film, and more recently, the high-definition version on ShowtimeHD. The 5.1 soundtrack is impeccably mixed. You can hear every instrument clearly, but the vocalist is not drowned out. With this type of mix, you want to listen to your favorite numbers over and over, concentrating on a different part each time. And, you can rest assured that there is no lip syncing or studio overdubbing. This is real music for real people.

All of the vocalists are superb, creatively interpreting each song, while at the same time paying respect to the style of the original recording artists. Viewers will have their own favorite performers, but mine is Joan Osborne, whose powerful rendition of "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" brought tears to my eyes.

I recently saw a nicely restored print of this film on the Showtime cable network. The color is not the best, but certainly very good, and the monaural sound is probably better than what one would have experienced in a typical 1960 theater.

A few visuals:

The mission clock on the spaceship bulkhead has a huge "BULOVA" on the face. The "day" numerals on the mission-elapsed time display look like they was made from black electrician's tape. They only show numbers of days that could be displayed with numerals that had no curved lines: "1", "17", and "47".

The female astronaut carries a stylish black purse on board.

There is a very large indicator on the spaceship bulkhead that says "Oxygen Consumption", with a green light indicating "Normal" and a red one indicating "Excessive".

The astronauts have oxygen cylinders on their backs while on EVA, but there is no glass on their helmet visors; their faces are completely open to the atmosphere.

The shots of the Martian exteriors are really pretty cool, quite innovative for the era and the limited budget. Not only is everything a monochromatic red, but there is an interesting solarization effect, which adds a bit of surrealism and makes the backdrops look less cheesy.

Memorable lines:

"You know, I can't say that I recommend spacesuits for beautiful young dolls. What happened to all your curves?"

and the classic,

"I know you think I acted like a hysterical female there back at the ship, but I can assure you I'm perfectly capable of taking care of myself!"

The early episodes intrigued me, but eventually it became apparent that the chaotic plot will never be forged into coherency. Now, I compulsively watch each episode with all the relish of taking the next dose of an antibiotic. I hope I will be wrong, and King will deftly meld all the plot lines into a brilliant conclusion, but if his recent novels are any indication, the likelihood of a satisfying ending is slim indeed.

Kingdom Hospital has a solid cast. With her mature sexuality, Sherry Miller is especially appealing, and Bruce Davison is as dependable as ever. The talents of Diane Ladd and Ed Begley, Jr, however, are wasted on their characters, which are reduced to caricatures by the script.

Keeping up with the myriad of characters requires a written program. To make matters worse, ABC's having put the show on a two-month hiatus made it impossible for all but an idiot savant to remember all the characters and what had happened to them.

The trailer for next week's episode (7/8/04) says, "the final battle has begun." All I can say to that is "hallelujah"!

As others have remarked, I find it disappointing that this film has not been released on video. I recall seeing it in 1973, as a senior in college, on my portable black-and-white TV set in my dorm room. I was studying and sort of halfway missed the first half-hour, but eventually I was so intrigued that I set aside the books and watched the rest.

The transformation of the Stockard Channing character in the course of her accident and plastic surgery is so striking that I truly did not know that she played both the "before" and "after" versions until reading the IMDB credits and user comments today.

I can only echo the requests of others to please re-issue this film on DVD.

I thought TIMELINE started out a bit shaky, but before long I was hooked by the story. The characters are very appealing, and the action never flags. Granted, as medieval action flicks go, this is no BRAVEHEART, but it's a solid 7/10 in my opinion. I have no idea why the typically savvy IMDB users rated it so low.

It should be pointed out that the English language spoken in 1357 would not be understandable by any modern American other than a scholar of Middle English literature. Just glance over a little Chaucer (died 1400) to see how alien our mother tongue was 600 years ago. Also, keep in mind that this film was set before the Great Vowel Shift of the early 15th century, through which our language traded German-sounding vowels for the familiar modern forms. Crichton handled the language problem quite deftly in the novel. I wish the filmmakers had take a similar approach, rather than catering to the lowest common denominator.

The DVD has three nice "making of" documentaries, on top of a very pretty transfer from film to digital, so I recommend TIMELINE without hesitation.

I have not seen this film since its cable run in the mid-1970s, but I still occasionally enjoy a private laugh when I think about it. The filmmakers clearly had a good eye for the details of small southern towns (the setting was Texas, but it would have been just fine for my native Tennessee). There is an early scene at a classic roller rink, where the dough-faced, slack-jawed teens used as extras were just perfect for the parts.

As mentioned by other reviewers, the movie-within-the-movie, DISASTER '76, is a solid parody worth watching just by itself. If a DVD is ever made (unlikely, I'm sure), DISASTER '76 should be included by itself as an extra.

7 out of 10.

I have not seen this film since its theatrical release, but for some reason I was reminded of it recently while viewing The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003). Both films had interesting concepts that made attempts at historical juxtaposition; both had big budgets for action sequences and special effects; both were ultimate failures. One memorable scene that did show some originality was a depiction of a World War I German "Gotha bomber" as much, much bigger that the real thing, complete with a spiral staircase, a large wheel as on an ocean-going vessel, and a formally-uniformed commanding officer standing on the bridge. I hope that whoever imagined this did go on to bigger and better things.

I would echo most of the pluses and minuses listed by other user-reviewers, but I would add a bit of kudos for Peta Wilson. In the past, actresses played their Victorian heroine parts as "spunky lady rebelling against Victorian repression." Wilson took a different tack and kept her character aloof and reserved, as per the code of conduct at the time. As far as I know, no one else has pulled this off in an action-adventure film, and she did it quite believably. 5 of 10.

I recommend giving this show a little time to grow on you. Yes, the production values are bargain-basement, but the market is so balkanized these days that big budget sci-fi shows (Firefly, Farscape, Odyssey 5) can't seem to overcome cost-benefit obstacles anymore. Maybe the only way we sci-fi fans will ever get treated to a full run of a non Star Trek show is for something like Starhunher to sneak in under the radar.

I find the cast quite engaging. Michael Pare's character comes across as very down-to-earth (so to speak) as he deals with the loss of a young son years earlier and the current challenge of guiding his brilliant niece through her teenage years. Tanya Allen is lovely as the niece, although she seems a bit old to play a teen. It would be great to see her in a more mature role.

TiVo recorded this as a "suggestion" recently, and I realized that I

had never seen the film before. MAROONED was released in the

science fiction film dark age that stretched between 2001 and

STAR WARS, so I wasn't expecting much. In fact, MAROONED is a

gripping film from the beginning. The cast, headed by Gregory

Peck (geez, do we miss positive male authority figures like him!) is

uniformly outstanding. We get to see a young Gene Hackman,

years before his breakout in THE FRENCH CONNECTION, and

career-best performances from David Jansen, Mariette Hartley,

Richard Crenna, and James Franciscus.

The production values are first-rate, and the scenes set in NASA

facilities on the ground are the most realistic ever filmed, better

even than APOLLO 13. NASA apparatchiks sling around enough

acronyms to fill a family-sized box of Alpha Bits, and die-hard fans

of space travel won't be disappointed in the technical detail.

The pan & scan print I saw on Cinemax was superb; it looked

brand new. The sound was pretty much what one would expect in

an average flick from the late 1960s.

I have rated this film as an '8', a grade I rarely give. I would have

ranked it higher but for a draggy ending with cheesy EVA effects. I

still recommend this film highly, even for those with no particular

interest in space travel or science fiction. The dramatic core is

what drives this film, and there is no disappointment there.

This film had undoubtedly the worst sound mix of any big-budget action adventure film of the last 15 years. Submachine guns blare away, and all you hear is a whisper. The filmstock looks grainy and may even be expired film for the lack of decent color rendition.

Vin Diesel, whom I liked in PITCH BLACK, was wooden, unconvincing, and unintentionally humorous as a romantic interest. Nor was his leading lady any help in this regard. Asia Argento didn't have near the appeal to pull off the female lead in this type of movie.

The bad guy's plot to destroy the world was more laughable than anything Dr. Evil could ever concoct in an Austin Powers film. As for the musical score, I'm not sure if there was more than one song throughout the whole movie; it all sounded like the same ceaseless growling and screeching to me.

Much has been made of the stunts, but in an era of seamless CGI, how does one know what is a stunt and what it computer-generated? At least in a Bond film of the 60s or 70s you knew it was real.

My 17-year-old son liked XXX, but I think most adults, even those who enjoy action-adventure films as a guilty pleasure, would be well-advised to stay away.

3 out of 10.

All of the elements of this film are well done, but what really makes

it special is the performance of Diane Lane. The superb mixture of

mature sexuality and acting skill show why Lane is the most

underappreciated actress in Hollywood. Why she has not been

getting the kinds of roles that Jennifer Lopez seems to have a lock

on is beyond me. I hope the Academy will look Lane's way come

Oscar time.

This movie does genuinely pull on the heartstrings of any

family-oriented person without descending into two-hanky land,

but I recommend it especially for study of the technical points that

comprise the Lifetime Network canon of film making. Note the soft

pastels, the bright but gauzy backlighting in every scene, the

sumptuous but pointedly unoffending set decoration, and the

feminine-but-somewhat-retro hairstyles of the female characters.

These films provide an experience as reliable as attending mass.

The main character, played by Tracy Gold, is _very_ thin, so I can

believe that she has had problems with anorexia nervosa in real

life. In addition to her rather disturbing physique, the makeup

artists have done a fine job in making her face change in

accordance with the varying severity of her condition. The ending of

the film is uplifting; if only real cases like this should end so well.

Rating: 5/10

I don't think this inept script could have ever been produced without

the name of Tim Burton behind it. Science fiction aficionados

should take note that, unlike the original PLANET OF THE APES,

this non-remake makes no effort to lay any kind of logical

connection between the different time frames alluded to in the plot.

If you have ever seen any time travel films before, even mediocre

ones, you will have come to expect some logical inconsistencies

(reflecting that time travel is theoretically impossible in the first

place), but Burton seems intent on simply giving the finger to any

semblance of logic here. If you haven't seen the film yet, you have

probably been told to expect a surprise ending; I would tell you to

expect a surprisingly stupid ending that is surprisingly insulting to

the audience's intelligence.

Burton's fondness for dark sets is apparent here, but instead of

the decadent, wildly overgrown urban landscape of his Gotham

City, all you get here is sensory deprivation and an urge to nod off

during one of the film's frequent and lengthy periods of inactivity.

The ape makeup, which was groundbreaking at the time of the

original film, has not really improved much. Some of it is quite

good (Tim Roth as Thade), but it is otherwise uneven, as is the

acting.

Burton makes much of the difference in strength and agility

between apes and humans, but the way he shows this is not by

endowing the apes with natural animal-like grace, but by loading

them onto hidden catapults and launching them into the scene. It's

laughable.

The DVD has a few extras, including commentary by Tim Burton

and Danny Elfman, but I got the best laugh from the cast bio

section, which gives page after page of gushing plaudits for

Burton's untalented girlfriend, Lisa Marie, who is alleged to have

appeared in the film. Darned if I could find her though. Jeez, what

_won't_ Burton stoop to to keep his bed warm!

Rating: 3/10.

I admit that I have never been able to cultivate an interest in anime. While the visuals are stunning in their beauty and intricacy, the characters are all cardboard, and the plots don't make any sense. It's best to think of FINAL FANTASY as a very big-budget Japanimation film. The computer graphics are groundbreaking; one gets the feeling that this may be the TRON of the future, a so-so movie that showcases what the tomorrow will hold. The biggest problem is the plot, which deals with vague spiritual concepts that I think would leave hard sci-fi fans completely cold. Another film that comes to mind in this regard is Luc Besson's THE FIFTH ELEMENT, where a beautiful production was ruined by lazy plotting and puerile philosophical concepts.

I do recommend seeing FINAL FANTASY on the big screen just for the incredible visuals, but don't expect an engaging story.

Consider both Mrs. Spielbergs, Amy Irving (the ex) and Kate Capshaw (the current). Both were achingly beautiful ingenues with great leading lady potential 20 years ago. Both fell short of the hopes of their fans. Both married and bore children to gazillionare and archdirector Steven Spielberg. Both attempted mid-life comebacks after having developed an exceptional degree of character and full-bloom sexuality. But Amy Irving gets CARRIED AWAY (1996), one of the best small films of the 90s, while Kate gets this turkey.

One can almost feel the ghost of Spielberg haunting the set: "I want more padding on that nipple _now_!" What could have been the most memorable homage to mature sex since THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1981) was rendered chaste and sterile by script and direction.

The best scenes in the movie are those showing Geoffrey Rush fitting clients and cutting cloth in his haberdashery. Rush is an outstanding actor and clearly does whatever it takes to turn in a credible performance from even the weakest of scripts. Pierce Brosnan is also credible, perhaps a little too credible, as an unprincipled British MI.6 agent. The problem is that his character elicits no sympathy, which makes the improbable ending eminently unsatisfying.

Implausibility in films has bothered me a lot lately, but THE TAILOR OF PANAMA sets new heights in this regard. The writer asks us to believe that the United States would launch a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation based on the undocumented word of a single discredited foreign agent.

Based on poor script, glacial pacing, and inept editing, I rated this film a 4 of 10, which is the lowest I have given a theatrical release in a long time. I cannot recommend it even for video rental customers.

Sporting an excellent cast and appealing stylistic elements, ILLTOWN visits the theme of what happens when people trapped in a life of crime they began as kids are drawn by the normal maturation process to middle-class values. Like much good storytelling, this film starts with vagueness and confusion but gradually gels into a coherent story. The problem is that it falls apart again in the last third, and we are never sure what really happened to the characters at the end. Still, the film is eminently watchable, and if you can handle the irresolution, I would recommend it for rental.

This tight, consistent, clever script acted by the excellent Rob Lowe and the voluptuous Colleen Camp should have resulted in a 1980s WHAT'S UP DOC? Sadly, Lowe is no Ryan O'Neal, and Colleen Camp, while lovely to look at, shows why she typically plays the Friend and not the Leading Lady in her many films. Still, good direction could have saved the day, but Bogdanovich is no less miscast than his actors. The sense of comedic timing, so crucial to this or any type of comedy, is sorely lacking here. Possibly the lion's share of the blame should lie with the film editor, but the director is ultimately responsible for the failure of this film.

On the other hand, Colleen Camp gets more screen time in ILLEGALLY YOURS than in any film I can remember, so fans wishing to see more of her will want to view this flick. Rob Lowe fans, on the other hand, will find it more profitable to spend their time on his other, much better performances.

I predict that eventually JFK and RFK will be portrayed in Hollywood productions with medieval-style nimbuses around their heads. Both characters are brought pretty close to sainthood in this picture, the characterizations of which have all the depth of a 1940s-era comic book. The Kennedys and their "best and brightest" are smart, subtle, and preternaturally adept at perceiving internal machinations in the Kremlin. The bad guys, namely the Pentagon brass, do everything short of gnashing their teeth and twirling their moustaches to come across as cigar-chomping, one-dimensional villains.

On the plus side, the acting is reasonably good, and the military hardware is well portrayed. Period aircraft like the Vought RF-8A supersonic reconnaissance plane and the venerable U2 are resurrected with proper respect and startling verisimilitude. I think I even caught a glimpse of a Rockwell RA-5C Vigilante--very cool! The only technical error I caught was when a missile liftoff portrayed as an "Atlas test" was actually a Titan II.

The excellent documentary WOODSTOCK showed us fine musical performances onstage, and an innocent, funloving audience offstage. GIMME SHELTER is the flip side. This is certainly no concert film; all the acts, especially the Rolling Stones, sound atrocious on the poorly-mixed, near-monaural sountrack. The camera spends almost no time on any of the Stones other than Mick Jagger, and nearly all of the Altamont footage is shot from behind the band to feature the audience, which, as it turns out, is the stroke of genius that makes this movie so special.

The audience is the true "star" of the film. As opposed to the high-but-joyous Woodstock crowd, those who attended Altamont are wasted beyond comprehension, stressed to the max, and abjectly miserable. Forget the corny "this is your brain on drugs" shtick. GIMME SHELTER shows you what really happens when drug usage gets totally out of control--an onscreen textbook on poor judgement. If you really want to make an intelligent personal decision about the use of recreational drugs, just watch WOODSTOCK and GIMME SHELTER back-to-back.

Reading over the IMDB user comments, I am rather struck by the grinchiness that filters through. What exactly does one expect from a romantic film released at Christmastime?

THE FAMILY MAN explores the familiar "what might have been" theme by use of three-dimensional characters rather than the Dickensian caricatures that are typically used in this type of story. Nicholas Cage portrays a goodhearted Wall Streeter who cares for his employees at the same time he expects them to work hard. No Ebenezer Scrooge, that. Rather than giving Cage's character the clear evil-versus-good choice that Scrooge was given, the intelligent script guides Cage's character from a decent, rich life, to one that is even more fulfilled, showing that for fulfillment there must be sacrifice. Téa Leoni, who hasn't impressed me before, is excellent in her role of a wholesome-but-sexy wife and mother. The pacing of the film is good, especially for a romance, and the humor is subtle and rich. I can't imagine a better date/holiday movie than this.

RED PLANET is decent science fiction in a year that brought us some relatively weak competition in the genre. Outstanding special effects, a competent cast, great sound, and an artistic eye for set design are the film's strong points. After what seems like a long drought, it's nice to see the sleek Carrie-Anne Moss back on the screen. Serious, pragmatic, and physically fit, she is a natural choice for a mission commander. Some might argue that she and the other characters are somewhat wooden, but I would counter that coolness is a requisite trait in those individuals who are selected to fly such a mission. The director had to choose between verisimilitude and dramatic impact, and I applaud his riskier choice of the former.

Special effects and set design really stand out and are worth the price of admission. Just when you are thinking that they are going to use the typical cop-out of artificial gravity on a spaceship, the centrifuges fail, and we are treated to some of the best weightlessness scenes ever filmed. Other reviewers have complained that fire scenes in the ship look fake, but how are we supposed to know what fires look like in free-fall in the first place? I think the f/x people did a great job in speculating on how a fire would behave in such conditions. Scenes on Mars were breathtaking, I think better even than those of this year's earlier release, MISSION TO MARS. Also, this is the first film I can recall that tried to do anything with the fact that Mars gravity is about one-third that of Earth's. I realize that low-g is difficult to simulate on film, but I do applaud the filmmakers for the small (and humorous) attempt they made to accommodate it.

While I do recommend seeing this feature in theatrical release for the majesty of the picture and sound, this is not to say there aren't a lot of problems, some quite massive. Generally these relate to plausibility:

1. The ship design is totally outlandish. The thing is _huge_, with oodles of wasted space. There are two enormous counter-rotating centrifuges to simulate gravity for the crew; this makes the ship more on the scale of the space station envisioned in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This is for a crew of six! And with all that wasted mass, the Mars landing module is not much bigger than an Apollo lunar module. Was there any kind of space travel expert to advise the filmmakers on how ridiculous this is?

2. The Martian terraforming theory is completely at odds with what is known about the planet from probes that have been going there since 1976. The movie explains that nuclear weapons are sent to the polar caps to "melt" (actually sublime) the CO2 ice, which then acts as a greenhouse gas to heat up the atmosphere. When it's warm enough, algae are introduced to generate oxygen. The problem is that THERE IS NO WATER ON THE SURFACE OF MARS, GUYS. Algae can't grow without water. Then, there are other ecological aspects that are even more ridiculous, but to go into those gives away too much of the plot. Just be prepared to have your suspended sense of disbelief pulled out from under you.

3. Stupid little script errors that a little research could have avoided. First, don't try to do CPR the way Carrie-Anne Moss did it in the film; it's completely wrong. The geneticist remarks that his work is all about genetic code, you know, "A, G, T, and P." The problem is that THERE IS NO 'P'. It's 'C' for cytosine. Again, sloppy writing.

Now, I realize that there are perennially dyspeptic science nerds out there who can never enjoy a science fiction movie because of this or that little inaccuracy. Trust me; I'm not one of those, and I can suspend disbelief as well as the next person. But RED PLANET just pushes it way too far, to the extent that there is compromise of the movie-watching experience. If you know little about science and nothing about Mars, you may rate the film fairly high, but otherwise, be prepared for a jolt.

I admit I have a weakness for alternate history stories, from ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE to GROUNDHOG DAY to 12:01. Among those greats is this little gem. It's pretty difficult to get through MR. DESTINY without giving a nod of appreciation to each and every cast member, from the goodhearted James Belushi to the murderous Courtney Cox. This movie lacks the gravitas and scale to make it a great film, but it's a fine cheer-up on a rainy afternoon. It's also a great rental for an inexpensive date.

X-MEN should engender hope in the hearts of long-suffering comic book aficionados. Perhaps this film will raise the bar for this long-abused genre. Maybe the key is to have the screenplay written by a fan of the original comics, as was done here. Whatever the reason, X-MEN is a winner. This is a character-driven story that never sags, but just marches through from opening scene to the credits, skillfully incorporating just the right amount of action, dialogue, and scenery. There are plenty of great special effects shots, but they never overwhelm the characters. The quality of the fight scenes is also excellent, and they also don't overwhelm the story (in contrast to just about any action-adventure movie in recent memory).

Special accolades go to Hugh Jackman as Wolverine; perhaps this is a breakthrough role for him. This is not to detract from the other actors, all of whom handled their roles perfectly. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, having to work through tons of makeup as Mystique, still projects humor and personality into her character. I wish we had seen more of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, but unanswered questions in the story, combined with what appears to be enthusiastic viewer response, assures us of a sequel featuring both of these journeyman actors.