Change Your Image
Joshua Calvert
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Hoosiers (1986)
Watch if you ever played a team sport
A lot of reviewers have given their arguments already. All I can say is: this will bring joy to your heart if you have ever played a team sport. It's a feel good movie, and you should not be ashamed to feel good when you watch it. Three points! *** But it seems IMDb does not allow reviews of less than 10 lines. Sorry. The rest of the review is superfluous to what I said, but ... the mood in the locker room, the bonding as a team in opposition, Gene Hackmann's redemption, a coach actually making a difference with his personal style of how to train; it all resonated with me, a former (absolutely former) elite athlete, having experienced a coach not unlike the protagonist. Just watch, m'kay. I did tonight that for the third time, on a whim, and this movie still holds up.
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Mediocre, even for sci-fi fans
The Matrix fans hoping that "Revolutions" would satisfyingly conclude the trilogy are most likely going to be disappointed. We are served the same dish of pseudo-intellectual nonsense as in the predecessor, with a healthy amount of wire-action kung fu (well done, but tasted too many times before in 2003) as the main, meaty course.
The CGI is quite a bit more believable than for example the video game-like "fight against the 100 Smiths" in "Reloaded", but to yours truly all the explosions and giddy camera rushes became a bit tiresome in the long run, although impressive.
When the Wachowski bros want to show human emotion, my shoes were on the brink of ripping apart, so hard was I bending my toes. I guess the audience was supposed to be moved during one of the final - and among other overlong - scenes (spaceship, Neo and Trinity spill their bitter tears). Me, I sighed, even though usually, it's not very hard to make my eyes water in the theatre. Phoney, phoney, phoney.
The end did not exclude the possibility of a Matrix IV (or even V and VI - I wouldn't be surprised); that money could be better spent. All in all: the first Matrix was a smash hit, and deservedly so. The next two movies should be ignored by all other than die hard sci-fi fans. And you sci-fi freaks out there, you're gonna go see it, anyway, of course - just as I would've done, even if I read my own review beforehand.
Mark: 5.5 of 10, because the reviewer is a fan of the genre.
The Lord of the Rings (1978)
A review foremost for parents.
About this review: The reviewer talks alot about himself (paragraph A), then goes on to briefly analyze the movie (paragraph B), concludingly recommending it to children at the aproxm. age of six to nine years (paragraph C). It is his belief that those of older age than nine will probably already have seen the Peter Jackson films, and then there's no reason to bother. For parents of the very young, though, this is an excellent way to let them share some of the Rings hype, without emotionally scarring them with images of blood-crazed Uruk-hai chopping people in half.
A: Blahblahblah:
I first saw the animated The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) as a kid about 18 years ago, at the tender age of eight-ish; it was shown one evening in my school's Movie Club, on an old projector. When the end credits rolled over the screen my young life was changed forever.
At first, I hadn't planned to go to the school library for a movie that night. I figured the title must refer to something about the Olympics, maybe a documentary about Carl Lewis! When I told my mom I didn't intend to waste a clip on my "5 movies for 20 Kroner" coupon on some sports flick, she whole-heartedly convinced me that a) LOTR had nothing to do with 100 meter dashes or hammer throws, and b), that although she had not actually seen the movie, she had read the books when in college, and that she was sure I would love the story.
Ah well, fine, anything to please the ol' mom (or thoughts to that effect, 'cause at that age, I probably didn't formulate my inner sentences like that!). I went, absolutely not knowing anything about what I was about to see, not even that it was an animated feature - and not expecting much, in spite of mom's reassurings.
When it was over, Star Wars suddenly had a contender in my life. I hurried home and loaned the book from my parents' book shelf - and the rest, as they say, is history. Erm, in *my* life, anyway, and my old Danish teacher in high school would certainly have slaughtered me if I'd ever included such a long personal paragraph in a review. No matter now, it was a defining moment in my life, stirring my imagination in a radical way, and I will always look back on this cartoon, and the circumstances of the first time I saw it, fondly.
B: About the film:
First, let me make something clear: I cannot picture anyone other than kids truly enjoying this movie - or, of course, to some degree people who saw the film for the first time *when* they were kids. If, however, some adult had been living on the moon for the last couple of years, and had *not* seen Peter Jackson's trilogy, or had *not* read the books, and *never the less* liked adventure and fantasy - then maybe it could actually be a bit of ol' fun watching this flick along with the cubs! Below, I'll try to describe different aspects of the movie, from the top of my head.
The drawings/animation: this is not Disney, people, but not that bad, either. A feature that some reviewers on this page hate, namely the mixing of drawings with obscure footage of real actors, I find quite appealing. The infamous orcs, for example, are made very spooky by this technique, at least they were in my young eyes. This being said, it really is not particularily well drawn, and sometimes the characters moves around in too cartoonish a way.
The design: I'm not sure whether Bakshi, the director of this 1978 edition of the story, was trying to probe a bit of refreshingly unrespectful fun at the revered material by Tolkien, or if he just had incredibly bad taste. Anyway, as some would know, almost the entire cast in the story is male (Peter Jackson has added a few more feminine touches in his edition, for which I applaud him), and you see them running around in tights the entire movie, like some weird parody of ballet dancers. This *could* be regarded as a tad gay, and combined with one of the two most important characters, the hobbit Sam, acting a bit like something from TV-show "Will and Grace", most adult fans of the books will be irritated, it certainly ticks me - I don't think Tolkien would have approved. Erm, back to the design: the rest of the movie design is all right, the important Black Riders, for example, work as spookily as they should. The hobbits, though, are far too cuddly-wuddly and sweet for my taste, and seem clearly directed at kids.
Story/script: generally, Bakshi cut out the same things as Peter Jackson (The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Wights), and this works. For people who have read the books, of course, it will seem terribly compressed. Still, unfortunately, the movie ends about half-way through the story, after the Battle of the Hornburg, due to lack of funds, but maybe that isn't so bad after all: it certainly made yours truly want to know the end, and the only way to achieve this goal was to get on with it and read the book.
The score: Lots of cool percussion and eerie horns. Actually, the score is by *far* the best part of the film, I'm sure it would have had many more followers had the movie been successful. Enough said, listen to it on for example Amazon, and judge for yourself.
C: Conclusion:
The story in itself is thrilling, but not quite satisfying for people who have read the book, or rather adults in general. The visual side of the movie is not of the grandiose scale Tolkien requires, but some effects work, like the scary orcs and black riders. Kids age six to about nine or ten will most likely love this film, even if they've read the books. Furthermore, it will allow them to know what their older siblings are excitedly talking about, after having seen the new LOTR movies. Therefore, I gauge it to be a safe bet to buy or rent this flick if you have youngsters of that age. If they're older, sit by them and let them watch Peter Jackson's movies - children of the 90s are hardened, it seems, but it would be irresponsible letting them battle the Balrog, year 2001, without reassuring company at their side! The Balrog, year 1978, looks more like a walking lion, so that shouldn't distress anyone.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Not as mind-numbing as the first, but still an instant classic.
Yeah, it's great. And yeah, I'll see it countless times on DVD, already several times in theatres. There are so many beautiful and powerful images in this movie that it's ridiculous to reel them all off. All in all it's a masterpiece, second act of a whole that will probably stand as the greatest, most fantastic film epic for many, many years to come. And still I can't help being just a tiny little bit disappointed?! Now, how's that for being ungrateful! Two major issues concerning changes from the original story follow below, plus reflections on the difference between being a movie LOTR "virgin" and having a score of FOTR viewings in your backpack when seeing TTT!
Well, I have to say I am *really* looking forward to finding out what purpose that whole scene with Frodo showing the One Ring to a Black Rider was about. Doesn't the entire plot evolve around the fact that the Fellowship was supposed to go into Mordor *unnoticed*? I'm waiting for a reason for this scene, and a bit nervous about it, at that.
Also, I find the screenplay's approach to the Ent-moot a tad strange: why on earth do the Ents take several days to decide on whether Merry and Pip are who they are, and decide not to fight - and then come storming out of the woods, lined up for battle, immediately after a howl from Treebeard? I guess it was done for dramatic effect, to hold the "non-literary" audience in suspense - but I think it was a rather pointless change from the book, and making no sense in regard to Ent psychology.
Some CGI blunders seem as if they are the result of Peter Jackson's five-week award tour in 2002, haste in the editing forcing some irritating errors; there are many, some obvious - just look under Goofs at this page.
I must admit to sometimes sighing a bit inwardly, silently wishing for the camera not to flip and flap about so much during (the many) battle sequences, so that one could dwell a bit more on all the details of the combatants. I know there's a perfectly good directing reason for it, showing how the havoc really is havoc, so that's just me.
The score: it's great, I play it a lot on my stereo - and it's very much like the first one. Although not as varied, I think. When the three films can be seen in a row it will be very nice with the continuity, I'm sure, but right now it feels too much like the first to get me cheering.
These things being said, there is no doubt that the tiny bit of disappointment mostly comes from enormous expectations. FOTR was an incredible blast: I laughed, I cried, I didn't move for three hours, I went to the theatre NINE times, I became a fanclub charter member, I bought both DVD editions. I mean, you can't have that same new feeling to it when you see TTT, or any other movie - because now you *know* how the orcs look like, how Saruman looks like etc. Of course, everything is still visually magnificent in TTT, I'm just saying - NOTHING can surpass, for me, the very first viewing at the premiere of FOTR in December 2001, because that was witnessing a new film legend.
The Two Towers is a wonderful movie, I love it in spite of the minor flaws I see in it, and it's a definite 10 out of 10 stars from this reviewer.
Legend (1985)
The original version sucks, the dir. cut is a fantasy classic
Since I VHS-recorded Legend (in the European version) from television about ten years ago, I've seen it quite a few times: it had, and has, a wonderful mood to it, reeking oldschool fairy-tales in the Grimm tradition. That is, pretty dark! In the original script, Darkness (the big, red, horned Lucifer-like arch-villain) even f***ed the captured (and seduced?) princess; there's dark for you! That never made it to celluloid, but it is still hinted at (the dancing scene).
The forest, where much of the tale takes place, is incredible, and I was stunned to find, watching the DVD featurette, that it was a built set. That forest has a wonderful golden glow to it, with a constant swirling of pollen through the air achieving a great effect.
The Goldsmith score contributes to and completes the mood. Not much to say about it, it's just perfect for the film.
So, now, I've bought the two-disc Ultimate Edition DVD, where both the US and the European versions are on - so how is the aforementioned?
Well, do yourself a HUGE favour, and watch the European version before the US same, if even bothering to see the US one! The Tangerine Dream score is just plain boring (and not at all "dark", as I have seen it described) and many scenes have been cut out - because the people behind the movie panicked, and deemed it too "complex" for American teenagers!!! This notion must be one of the biggest insults to American youth I've ever heard of! In the US version, scenes, that made perfect sense before, have been cut ruthlessly, to the point where they are either diminished in beauty or now simply stupid. I'll spare you of a reeling off, and settle with two examples:
(SMALL SPOILERS, we're talking the beginning of the film)
1. When Lily (the princess) approaches the Unicorn in the European version, she sings a quite beautiful song, to calm it. It makes the scene believable (a magical beast like that should be lured in some way, and startled if you just trample up to it - princess or no princess!), and you begin to understand why the protagonist, Jack (a fittingly naive Tom Cruise) thinks Mia Sara is a hottie! In the US vers.: oh, two Unicorns, the only beasts of their kind in the world, can I clap you, horsie? Pah!
2. Starting with the US vers. this time: When Jack faces Gump, sort of a head pixie (or whatever) of the woods, Jack immediately tells the truth of him bringing Lily to the Unicorns; Gump freaks, but is all right a second after when Jack says he "did it for love". In the European version Jack tries to hide the truth, forgiveness comes much harder, and a riddle game has to be won to achieve this redemption; you sense that the consequences for Jack, should he loose, would be dire indeed!
(SMALL SPOILERS end)
All in all: go for the director's cut, with great score plus whole scenes and all, at all costs. I honestly don't understand people who recommend the films the other way round - but perhaps due to fond childhood memories of the US version, likely?
US: 5/10
Euro: 9/10 - the best pure fantasy film after PJ's The Lord of the Rings (which is 10/10 in my book)
Aleksandr Nevskiy (1938)
Far too much propaganda to enjoy
I became interested in this because I am a big Prokofiev fan; his music for the ballet Romeo & Juliet, for example, is one of my favorite pieces of classical music, indeed of all music genres.
So, how was the film?
To begin with the score, I wasn't too impressed. It comes nowhere near Prokofiev masterpieces like Romeo & Juliet, Love for three Oranges, and Symphony No. 1. The only time the music lifts off the ground is in the final part of the battle, where the notes become brisk and strong, full of an almost joyful vitality. Call me hypersensitive, but when the only really light-hearted part of the score accompanies the final slaughter of the panic-stricken foe, culminating with the unlucky, armour-clad sods going through the ice and drowning it just feels kinda creepy, you know?! This uncanny feel is blatant in the movie as a whole, which of course has to do with the fact that the film was produced under the iron fist of Stalin.
This flick positively reeks of how the Russians understood (and believe me, still understand, however hard that can be to comprehend) themselves as a MAJOR power, a mighty, dominant force in the world. This leads to quite the bunch of sort of entertaining lines from the stern Nevsky, who crosses his arms a lot and puts the Mongols, the treacherous, capitalist merchants, and just about everybody in his way, in their places with aloft, manly statements about the greatness of Russia.
The teutonic, Catholic Germans are described as pure evil, ruthless killers who snuff out an entire town's captured citizens just for the heck of it - with the much mentioned babies-on-the-fire scene. What with the Waffen SS entering the stage a couple of years later, that scene is a dark omen of what was to come. That Nevsky is merciful to the imprisoned German squires in the end is where comparisons with the real world stop, as I am sure the few German WWII survivors of Siberia will tell you.
All the propaganda, which is basically booooring, builds up to the battle. The cheerful, humane, Russian protagonists fight with vigour against the faceless (they all wear great-helmets) German evil, ultimately triumphing hope no-one feels that was a spoiler! For its time, the battle was no doubt spectacular for cinema, but honestly, it does NOT catch on today. The way the Russian protagonists stand dead-still in the close-ups, swinging their swords from side to side against the horde just outside the camera view (sometimes turning their heads for several seconds, doing conversation with blokes behind them!) seems plain friggin' silly, if you ask yours truly!!
All in all it was a hard time dragging myself through watching this. It should be checked out by people who are one or more of the following: Eisenstein die-hards, Prokofiev freaks, interested in Russian history (both 13th and 20th centuries), propaganda film masochists, or just suckers for everything in B/W and not English! For the few good moments of music, the involuntary smiles from the serious nationalism, the hilarious hair-dos of the German knights, and the foresight of the Hun destroying Russian land so shortly afterwards its production, I'll give this movie 4/10.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Oh boy, is it bad!
It's not that the undersigned isn't into sf and fantasy. On the contrary, I've done my bit of role-playing games through the years - and like most others with that interest, I've enjoyed D&D/AD&D. But not even for an established closet-nerd like me is there anything to come after here. The story SUCKS, and the acting is, if possible, even worse; it's absolutely horrible to behold the performance of otherwise solid Jeremy Irons who is overacting to an absurd degree. But hey, he got his fat pay-check, and now he's probably trying to forget this movie, as do I.
The dragons in the very end are pretty cool, but that's that. And considering the general standard of sweet-to-the eye CG effects in almost every new adventure movie these days, there isn't any logical reason to invest money in this fantasy edition of an American family sit-com.
No, if you're looking for fantasy releases, go watch "Willow" again, wait for the DVD special edition of "Legend" (out 21st May 2002), and of course run around in little circles in excitement about when the "LOTR:FOTR" special edition comes out!
The Black Hole (1979)
Saw it as a kid about 17 years ago ...
As mentioned, it's a long while since I saw this. It was showed one evening in my school's Movie Club, on an old projector. I remember being just old enough to follow the Danish subtitles, and a small pride that quite a few of the other kids couldn't keep up - my goodness, hope I'm a bigger person these days! ;o)
Anyway, I became extremely fascinated with the thought of what might be on the other side of a black hole, if anything. It was probably the first time a "scientific" (in lack of a better word) curiosity for outer space was stirred in me; wonderful Star Wars is more of an all-out adventure that could just as well have been set in a Fantasy world (almost).
I also remember something about cyborgs, quite the spooky concept for an 8-year old, actually!
All in all, it's all a bit of a blur for me these days, but I saw the DVD on an Internet auction a few minutes ago, and now I'll probably have to go and bid on it. Don't really know if the special effects and tempo is too out of date for contemporary children, but I'd give it a try if you're looking for a scifi for your kids.
Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
A nerve-wracking experience, it messes with your mind.
I saw this film alone in a "house container" in the middle of the night, during my 24H shift as the radio Duty Officer in a UN military camp in Eastern Africa. Maybe that's why it made such an impression on me, partly, anyway!
Whatever the unusual setting for viewing it, it must be said I'm a long time fan of Clive Barker and his universe(s), and that that of course helped in gearing up my imagination. In my opinion, the special Barker trademark, namely a mood of overwhelming and insanity-inducing Biblical horror, translates well to the screen in this film. The protagonist, played by Sheffer, remembered from another Barker movie, Nightbreed, is caught in a web that seems impossible to escape. Even though he's a real dumb b*****d, you just can't help feel a little sorry for him; the way he is manipulated by gruesome, hellish powers is almost too much. No way he can experience what he does without loosing his mind!
The acting isn't anything special, but I tell you, if you are capable of living yourself just a bit into the story, you'll feel like I did: That movie has warped my fragile little mind!
Advice: see it alone, tired, just before you are going to sleep, and with your senses alert to begin with - and you'll be ready to continue the roller coaster ride in troubled dreams afterwards. Disturbing! 7 out of 10.