lavaside-60237

Born on the Fourth of July (1989)

30 years later...

30 years later and I still can't get into it.

While you can see Stone's style in the editing of shots - the meat of the movie (actors, story, etc.) simply aren't engaging at all.

Certainly isn't one of Cruise's best.

Every character besides Cruise is a cardboard cutout - and the attempts to get you to care about the lead through a glimpse at his past is wasted on 'paint by the numbers' storytelling; with nothing witty anywhere in sight.

The build up to him losing his ability to walk is so cheesy, and once he loses his legs it's so depressing - I never end up finishing this movie.

None of it I'd call 'entertainment'.

Really this is a solid 4, but I'm giving it a 5 out of respect for the subject matter.

I remember them wanting this to be bigger than the actual reception it received in the theaters. It's gained nothing with the years.

Very Bad Things (1998)

Never End Up Finishing It

I've probably tried to watch this 4 or 5 times because the premise seems like it should be great, the actors it has should be great - but it just isn't.

Once the hookers dies, it's just 5 dudes screaming at each other for over an hour straight.

I decided on this last time that I would just skip to the end - and the end is dumber than the rest.

At least for the first 2/3s of the movie it seemed semi realistic.

Everyone keeps calling this a 'dark comedy' in this comment section, and I had no clue that's what it was supposed to be.

I think 'dark annoying' would be more appropriate.

Imagine 'Hangover' without anything that made it good involved, all around someone dying. That's this.

I start 'good for a one time watch' at 5 stars - so I'll give this a 4.

It had potential.

Cheers (1982)

40 years later

The greatest intro song of all time is fitting for this timeless sitcom.

An especially great retrospective watch for those who were fans of the other great show, Frasier.

This show is a great case study on the effects of changing writers, and having to move on with the loss of a major character.

Season 1 and 2 were written by the show creators.

Season 3 was written by Ken Estin and Sam Simon who didn't fumble the ball.

Seasons 4-7 were written by David Angell, Peter Casey and David Lee. These were some of the best years, and having the consistent quality of this writing team gets the show to move right along; through the loss of coach and Diane, and the introduction of Woody and Rebecca.

Despite the changing of hands - seasons 1-7 flow like a river. (Really remarkable, considering having to change the whole premise after the loss of Long.)

And then season 8 comes, and the show falls off a cliff.

David Angell, Peter Casey and David Lee would leave after 7 to make the semi popular show Wings.

They would be replaced by Bill and Cheri Steinkellner and Phoef Sutton. And the quality of the writing takes a nosedive. It simply isn't the same show, anymore.

My advice, just stop after season 7 and start watching Frasier.

I'm giving it an 8 despite its legendary TV status, because in the grand scheme of things - there are simply tons of funnier shows.

Ted Danson is so great playing the ladies man, it's hard to believe he never was one.

Sliver (1993)

Did Everything wrong, but still watchable

There were a few attempts in the 80s and 90s to make movies geared towards women with the story (female leads), but still being full of nudity.

None of them paid off.

'Desperately Seeking Susan', 'Single White Female', etc. - and Sliver was one of these attempts.

Turns out, the formula simply doesn't work.

Yes, women like sexy thrillers - about sexy dude leads.

Yes, men like sexy thrillers - about sexy dude leads.

A male lead the women want to be with, and the men want to be.

That's what works.

This movie tried to make money off of Basic Instincts success.

Clearly, the people who made this thought Basic Instinct was successful because Stone got naked a bunch.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fact is, it was a great movie.

This is not.

However, it does manage to be watchable for a one time viewing, so I'm giving it a 5. But it barely makes the cut.

And William Baldwin was a horrible choice, evident from his disappearance from getting real roles.

The only thing it had that Basic Instinct had - was Stone naked.

And no one is as thrilled seeing a woman naked the 2nd time around.

'Sex sales' is a fickle beast.

Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 (2024)

Wanted to Like It

I can't believe the same fella made this as Dances with Wolves.

After finishing it - I have no clue what the story is, or who any of the million characters are; nor what any of them have to do with each other.

Leaving that out of it - just on a scene by scene level, I can't think of anything that stood out as 'new or innovative'; not in dialogue nor event.

Lots of decent actors, many from previous Costner projects.

(Hatfields and McCoys, Yellowstone, etc.)

The score is 'meh'.

The direction is 'meh'.

Wardrobe and make up probably the most impressive aspect.

I kept watching because I couldn't help but feel like something had to have been worthy of the effort the project took.

But it never pays off. It just ends. Lol

And know this - I'm someone who likes Costner's work enough to buy this for $25 on Prime.

I'll put it to you like this - if someone said, "lets go get pie and talk about the movie." I'd respond, "no."

The Covenant (2023)

Same Ole

I've never seen an ME war movie that impressed me.

This one didn't either.

I'd rather watch any movie made about 'Nam - than any movie made about the ME.

Maybe it's the bleakness of the desert?

Maybe Arabs are just somehow less interesting than other enemies?

Not quite sure.

Even though I've thoroughly given up on them, I gave this one a chance - because of 'Guy Richie'.

I thought maybe he brought some stylized telling of ME war that would change the outcome of its peers.

Nope.

In a blind taste test - I would never guess this was a Richie film.

It might as well be the same as all of the others. Maybe worse.

Gyllenhall, is uninspiring, to say the least.

Like watching paint dry.

5 is where 'decent for a one time watch' starts for me.

This is almost that.

Seabiscuit (2003)

Had Potential

This couldn't decide if it was a movie about Toby's character, a movie about Bridges character, a movie about the times or a movie about the horse.

So it tried to do all of it - and ended up a movie that didn't feel like it truly delivered on any of the above.

The horse doesn't even enter the story until 50 minutes in.

Everything else about it is top notch - so clearly the problem lies in the creative process, not the production.

About an hour and 15 minutes in you start to feel like you're finally invested in something.

Toby is miscast, but does his best.

Bridges is just playing the Tucker character all over again. The portrayal is identical.

Good background noise movie. But that's about it.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)

Things better - Things worse

The first half is great, maybe even better than the first 2 films - because the production value is so much better in this.

When the kids enter the movie, it goes completely off the Mad Max rails.

But the ending is great, in true Mad Max fashion.

I think the kid part is why so many rate it poorly, while the rest is why so many rate it as good.

Either way, the whole franchise is 'extremely early 80s' in all things - and the OT have never been movies I want to watch more than maybe once a decade.

I would give them all a 6, this included; with the first having the most rewatch value.

But yeah - the kids sucked.

Spartacus (2010)

RIP Andy Whitfield

If Andy Whitfield doesn't die of cancer, this is an easy 10.

The first 2 seasons are both 10s, and the last 2 seasons with the replacements are solid 8s.

So I'm giving it a 9.

However, there were other things lacking in the last 2 seasons.

• Lucretia shouldn't have lived. They simply should have done something else. Season 2 was a good send off for her and Batiatus.

• Ilithyia was annoying, and even though it worked - I was tired of her by season 3.

• The Crixus and Naevia whiny story line drug on... and on... and on... and on.

• Spartacus's new GF constantly giving speeches to him is annoying as hell

The last 2 seasons simply weren't the same show, though they were still better than most.

Longmire (2012)

I have no clue what the 10 star people are talking about

The lead actor is one of the oddest choices I've ever seen.

Surely they could have gotten someone better, who would have done it for free.

Was the guy an investor who demanded to be the star?

On no level does the dude belong on screen.

I'm listening as I write this, and listening to it is better than having to see the face behind their casting choice.

Little cleverness in the dialogue.

Very A to B.

It's like a bunch of folks said "lets make one of those shows' - and they all showed up and painted by the numbers, phoned it in and collected their check.

It's not horrible by any means; it just doesn't have one exceptional aspect to which you could point at and say, "that's why they made it".

The Player (1992)

Decent, but not 7.5

What's crazy - is this is clearly a Hollywood pet project, as it was littered with big names for the time doing cameos - and yet for key roles, they picked some of the worst.

Fred Ward and Brion James were always C actors on their best day. Lyle Lovett is horrible. Cynthia Stevenson was a very odd choice.

So somehow, this movie switches from 'legitimate movie' to 'bad 80s movie' (made in '92) all throughout, based upon who's on the screen.

Whoopi shows up and makes it feel like a good movie again, right as it's going off the rails. Making the rest finish-able.

Decent for a one time watch, but I'd never watch it again.

Vikings (2013)

A 10 if an R rating

If it would have been on HBO or the like, this might have been the best of its genre.

Because it wasn't it sits at a 9; with Rome/Spartacus edging it out.

Still, a must watch, even though PG 13.

Things it does better than the others:

• Unlike most of these shows, it doesn't avoid battle scenes - it embraces them. Making one wonder why the others were so cheap. (Except the battle of season 4, episode 18, to which we are completely robbed of.)

• ALL of the characters in question talk in accents, and it actually switches to the actual languages when 2 different peoples are interacting. Making one wonder why everyone else is so lazy. (The ENTIRE entertainment industry is too lazy to do this.) I would build a monument to this show in that regard, alone.

• The production is amazing for all 6 seasons.

• Not one miscast in the entire show.

Mistakes it made:

• Killing off the best character in the show in season 4, Ragnar. (I was tired of Lagertha after season 1, and I wish they would have chose her.) It simply wasn't the same show for the last 2 seasons, though still decent. The sons and Lagertha couldn't carry Ragnar's water.

• The English story lines were the most boring of the show, dragging it to a crawl when they went back to England, all for no real payoff at any point. There was simply no reason to devote so much time to those characters. Especially when the show is about the vikings.

• It really needed nudity. It had all of the blood and guts of an R rated show; and with nudity, they wouldn't have needed so much filler, because they could have replaced it all with sex scenes - which would have been par for the course if produced by a company that can make R rated shows. It's basically in the same boat as Sons of Anarchy, in that regard.

For those who don't like 'the message' in stuff, this is probably the last of the good shows.

Towards the end of season 4, they suddenly start having a bunch of shield maidens matter to the story. And you can feel it forced. (Shield maidens were a myth, the only arguments over how the myth got started - and this show has them killing dudes by the dozens in open field battle. The most ridiculous being Lagertha, who is somehow one of the greatest warriors for all of the seasons. Lol)

But at no point are there vikings 'light in the boots' or 'straight out of Compton'.

Overall, worth a watch.

The first 4 seasons, at the very least.

Drive (2011)

Somehow artsy and empty at the same time

It's the better of the 'good for a one time watch' - so I'm giving it a 6.

Probably Gosling's worst film. He is beyond boring, as there is NO creative writing present in this flick.

The only person who does any real acting in the film is Oscar Isaac.

The director definitely has talent. But that's all this thing has going for it. And the slow burn scenes between Gosling and Mulligan staring dumbly are so over used, that it just drags the whole thing to a crawl - attempting to add depth where some decent writing should have been.

It's almost as if the director took a bet that he could make a watchable movie out of a script written by a middle schooler.

This thing having a 7.8 on IMDb is a blight to its reputation for rankings.

The only good thing that came out of this are the internet memes.

The Proposition (2005)

Inches away from greatness.

Everything is right there for this thing to be a 10.

The directing. The acting. The cinematography. The story. The writing.

Why isn't it a 10?

They had to shoe horn in a wife, and just like all of the others - every scene with her is tedious, serves no real purpose, and just slows the whole thing to a crawl.

Some scenes the music is masterfully done, but then there's a couple of parts where the choice was too out there, and it yanks you out of the moment.

I didn't like the choice of Danny Huston to play Arthur Burns. He wasn't bad or anything, I just think there's choices who would have been better. He's never been that guy who plays that role. He doesn't look the part at all.

Quigley Down Under (1990)

Barely Watchable then, Barely Watchable now...

Every so many years I'll give this another shot, because it's Tom Selleck - and him as a cowboy is a cool idea.

But each time I find it tedious to get through.

Laura San Giacomo's 'Crazy Cora' is as annoying as Jar Jar Binks.

Movie makes Alan Rickman one dimensional, so he doesn't even get to shine.

The whole story comes off as a 'Save the Aborigines' donation drive.

Make no mistake about it, the 5 stars are entirely Selleck; so don't bother putting it on if you're not a fan.

This movie drops to zero stars without him.

I have no clue who these people are giving it high reviews.

Even in a day and age where modern crap makes the most mediocre of older films seem phenomenal - this thing still falls flat.

The Tudors (2007)

When will people give up on ficitonal historical accuracy?

It's fiction. Lol Not a documentary.

There has NEVER been a fictional period production made that no one complained about historical inaccuracies - and yet, they're all still here complaining; as if a production that 'got history right' exists.

I imagine they howl at full moons. I digress.

Don't be deceived, this isn't just a show about Henry VIII's romances.

There's political backstabbing right up there with the first 3 seasons of Game of Thrones An interesting glimpse into the formation of the Church of England.

Excellent production value.

If it had focused more on the events of the time than the romances, I might have given it higher than an 8. But where it stands, solid 8.

And they made it well enough that I guarantee anyone who enjoyed it looked up all of the subject matter as far as authentic history goes; so the real history still gets told.

Firefly (2002)

B Team Sci-Fi done really well

First off, as far as world building goes - this thing is a 12 out of 10.

The premise is fantastic.

I can only imagine what they could have done with 10 seasons.

But it does have issues.

It feels 2nd rate at times.

Some shots/scenes feel as if it's a late 80s/early 90s show.

I think every character on the show was miscast.

(This is evident in the fact NONE of them became anything.)

EVERYTHING great about this show is a tribute to the creators, not the people they picked to act it out.

(They weren't horrible, don't get me wrong. But none of them were amazing as their role.)

But it's undeniably fun sci fi.

The reavers by far the best part, and should have been used more.

I would check it out if you like such.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014)

Fun Movie

Entertaining from start to finish.

Knows what it wants to be and nails it.

'Silly comedy making fun of the west'.

Humor is very vulgar, word to the wise.

Charize Theron is WAY too old for her part. Lol At some point she even says, 'we've been married since I was 8', or something to that effect.

I can't believe they missed the opportunity for him to respond, "so you've been married to Clint for 35 years?" A lot of clever writing, and I'm a sucker for such.

The jokes centered around the Christian couple verged dangerously close to being over done.

You never want to tell multiple versions of the same joke.

The Death of Stalin (2017)

Had potential.

Another movie dropped 2 stars because millionaire actors can't or won't learn an accent.

It is impossible to suspend disbelief watching this, because it's a bunch of obvious Americans dressed like 50s Russians.

And what's worse, every now and then - there is a genuine actor speaking with a Russian accent. Lol So it REALLY makes all of the rest stick out, especially the lead, Steve Buscemi.

All of them having horrible cliche Russian accents would have been better than what they went with.

My only other real complaint - is the horrible miscast of Jeffrey Tambor. He sticks out like a sore thumb.

I give 5s and 6s for 'good for a one time watch'.

This is the lower end of those - so it's a natural 5.

It was on sale for 4.99 on Prime, and IMDB had it at 7.3, so I figured 'why not?'

Honestly, I would have preferred to keep my 4.99.

MAJOR IMDb fail.

It is watchable, but barely.

Rob Roy (1995)

Good Period Piece

I don't see how anyone could give this less than an 7.

The acting, to sets, to costumes are all superb.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for historical flicks.

It's fun to read the comments, because it makes you realize the Scottish will complain about ANYTHING made about their history.

When you all start making movies to the point you're making them about other people - we'll all see how well you do.

Until then - go shag a sheep.

The hardest thing for me when it comes to this movie, is the catalyst for the story - which is the loss of the thousand pounds.

I find it hard to believe in such a time - anyone making such a move would not stick with their man to see every inch of the money's arrival, safely. Whether a note, or not.

It's so illogical that it takes me out of the movie every time I watch it.

It might as well be a turtle flying through the air, as they all look on.

Even if he's your best man - in a day an age where lords can murder you for one misstep, where highway men and bandits are everywhere, when your entire village is starving - you just 'head on home and hope for the best'? Entirely unbelievable.

It's so illogical that I can't give it more than a 7, even if I could never give it less than a 7.

The Wire (2002)

Never understood the hype

It's been a while since I watched this, but I remember not understanding the hype back then - and I can't believe it still has such a high score.

The first season was good, the 2nd season is absolute trash, and the 3rd season is great.

Maybe I never watched the 4th and 5th.

I can't remember thinking anything about them.

By the time this came out, there had been a thousand shows glamorizing black gangsterism - and a million cop shows.

It was just those 2 things combined.

Done really well (at least for 1 and 3); but nonetheless, nothing new.

To be ranked as one of the best of all time, I will never understand.

Hoodlum (1997)

Fun Movie

It's hard to grade movies, anymore.

In the 90s, upon its release - this probably would have been a solid 7.

But compared to contemporaneity cinema (2024) - this is a 10. Lol First off, if you're not a Fishburne fan, don't waste your time.

He always rolls dangerously close to 'hammy' with his acting style.

It holds nothing back when it comes to the ruthlessness of the 30s gangster era (for the weak stomachs); and has lots of racial slurs (for the thin skinned) - so you might want to avoid for those reasons.

Tim Roth plays a great Dutch Schultz.

Andy Garcia plays Andy Garcia. (Dude is literally the same guy in everything.)

Immortals (2011)

No Charisma

There's simply no charisma in this thing.

And it comes down to Henry Cavil.

He's one of those actors that is great for side characters, but a show can't be entertaining with him as the lead.

He was great in The Tudors, for instance.

In many ways, Mickey Rourke is in the same boat.

Rourke 'Iron Man 2' lame; Rourke 'Sin City' - great.

He's not the only issue; considering how fun of a subject Greek Mythology is - this thing just isn't engaging at all.

(And I've attempted to watch it a couple of times, trying to force myself to like it.)

4 is the best I can give for movies I wouldn't recommend for even a one time viewing, and this is definitely the high end of that.

You can tell a lot of money went into it.

This is somehow less entertaining than Alexander, which I wouldn't think possible.

There's simply not enough epics to choose from for them to be making bad ones. No one who likes epic movies would ever wish for one to fail. The makers have to go out of their way for that to happen.

The Last Duel (2021)

Had Potential

Really bad casting.

This easily could have been a movie that made a lot of money - being how cheap and easy one could film the 3 stories in one swoop; getting a full length picture for what amounts to a 3rd of a movie's worth of work.

The problem?

They cast 3 known Americans, who despite making millions for their roles - couldn't be bothered to learn French accents.

You would swear this was a movie made about middle age England.

I actually prefer that they used English, as subtitles make for a less enjoyable experience.

But they couldn't learn the accent?

If Ridley would have just got 3 French actors - he could have saved millions on one end - and made millions more on the other end.

From sets, to costumes, to shots - everything else about this movie is top notch.

Even if going with Americans - why hire the 'just a face' bunch?

None of them are renown method actors.

Ben and Matt are the same guys in every film (who would EVER put these 2 in a period piece?) - and the only good thing Adam Driver ever made was the oil tycoon on SNL.

It's like he wanted this project to fail.

First Knight (1995)

Not Identifying an Audience and Targeting Them

Who is going to be drawn to a King Arthur movie? Males.

Who likes romance stories? Females.

Who is going to go to a King Arthur movie that just tells the story of the Lancelot love triangle aspect?

NO ONE. Lol

This movie never stood a chance of being liked.

While Gere will forever be a sex symbol - he comes off as 'full of himself' leaning so hard into it, that it's more cringe than anything.

The actress playing Guinevere is probably the most solid of the film, as Connery is wasted.

There's nothing written in the script to show you why Arthur is awesome - you're just supposed to take the movie's word for it.

And what nailed the coffin shut - the villain is an 80s archetype in a '95 film.

Still, worth a one time watch if you're stuck in a hotel room and nothing else is on. But you'll never watch it again. I promise.

Solid 5.