The_MOW Blog

Under discussion:

The Great Train Robbery  (1979)

Based on the movie's director Michael Criton's book about the real life events surrounding the world's first train robbery on May 15, 1855, where thousands of dollars worth of gold was stolen.

"Edward Pierce" (Sean Connery), along with his sidekick, "Robert Agar" (Donald Sutherland) and "Pierce's" lover (Lesley-Ann Down), plan to heist a moving train of gold meant to finance a war. First, the three must gain four keys, which have been separated for safety.

Now, the three have to get the keys, and get on board the moving train to get their prize.

The first thing you'll notice is the costumes worn by everybody on screen. They appear to be quite accurate, and some outfits appear to be thick and heavy. The outfits also appeared to me to be brand new on everybody. Not one outfit had that worn look.

The performances from the main cast is pretty good, as is the chemistry between the cast members. Connery is near perfect as the lead scoundrel who charms every one who comes across him, not knowing his true intentions. Sutherland is fairly laid back in his role, and can come across as boring at times.

The pace of the movie is real slow and deliberate. For many, it might be a bit too slow. I found it to be a nice, steady pace. It only picked up a little bit when the heist goes down.

If you are looking for a lot of action, there really isn't much in this film. The action kicks in a bit as the heist goes down, and you are rooting for the villains in this film.

Overall, this is not a bad movie. However, I wouldn't go out and rent it. Check it out if you come across it on television, or on Hulu.com.

Under discussion:

Trekkies 2  (2004)

I admit it. I am a professional wrestling fan (who hates the "Wrestling is fake" debate) and, believe it or not, I am a Trekkie. I am what the mainstream considers a nerd who, unfortunately, lives with his parents (only because I am physically disabled and uses a wheelchair.)

Trekkies 2 is a continuation of the 1996 documentary, Trekkies. It is hosted by Denise Crosby, who portrayed "Lt. Natasha 'Tasha' Yar" on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the granddaughter of Hollywood legend, Bing Crosby.

This film has a somewhat bigger budget. As the movie goes overseas to visit with European fans of one of the most beloved franchises in entertainment. In the original, they stayed in the United States.

It visits with some hardcore fans overseas and in the USA who live the life of a person obsessed with the franchise which began in 1966. One of those redesigned his apartment to somewhat look like it could be in the TNG (The Next Generation) era to the point where he built a "Transporter console", which he credits from preventing him going down a dark path when he wife divorced him.

You also get some interviews of people the crew came across at European and US fan conventions where people meet other fans, trade, sell and purchase merchandise, and embrace with world created by the late Gene Roddenberry.

You get to see how Star Trek is celebrated around the world. Although they are in the same fandom, each country featured in this film celebrates the franchise differently.

The producers were very respectful to fans who do not speak English. Instead of having Crosby do a voiceover explaining what the fan was saying, we get the text in subtitles in the now-famous Star Trek font.

In the film, they talk about the hard core fans who live and breathe Star Trek to the point that they seem to believe that they are in the Star Trek Universe. One of which is Barbara Adams, one of the fans featured in the original movie.

Adams made a name for herself when she wore her Starfleet uniform to court as an alternate juror in the Whitewater trial, which had former US President Bill Clinton and current US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as defendants. In the first movie, she claimed that her costume was a legitimate uniform and she had the right to wear it anywhere she wanted. The judge dismissed her because her wearing the costume became a distraction to the point that she was interviewed outside the court about it. She was under strict orders not to talk to media during the trial.

In this movie, she is part of a group discussing the hard core fans who seem to be out of touch with reality. One person brought her up, without knowing who she was at first, and said that she shouldn't have worn the costume to court out of respect and seriousness of the trial. She eventually asked another person in the discussion what's the difference between her uniform and the uniform of a soldier in the military. I would have loved to had the opportunity to respond to that question.

I was not too impressed with Crosby's performance as host. When she was talking with fans, she was quite comfortable as much as the fans were. But, when she read from the script it was painfully obvious.

I liked her interaction with the fans interviewed in this film. The fans probably did some hero worship when she came into the room when the cameras were off, but were very comfortable when the cameras were on them. You could see the passion they have for the franchise, and how comfortable they are with discussing it.

The fans who were interviewed were fantastic in this film. The majority proved that Star Trek fans are not nerds who live in their parent's basement at 34 years old. They discussed why they are fans, what Star Trek means to them and had some fun with showing their collections and costumes. Those who were featured in the film were quite interesting in fact.

One interesting segment is when the movie visits with people featured in the first film, and discussing their reaction to not only the first film, but how it was recieved. One, who now creates CGI effects for a living, discusses how the first movie created a sort of catchphrase for him, which he jokes about. He also talks about how a movie reviewer said in his review of the first movie how he (the fan) will never have sex. The punchline is that the woman who is now his wife is sitting next to him as his discusses what the reviewer mentioned. He even joked about how some people questioned his sexuality.

The music is completely original, and provided by a group of fans featured in the film. The majority of the tunes are only memorable due to the Trek-themed lyrics, which are filled with references from various shows in the franchise. If you are a fan of the franchise, you might just find yourself singing the tunes. However, if you aren't a fan, you will just think how nerdy these people are and just laugh at them.

This is not a high budget movie, so don't expect spectacular special effects. The most spectacular special effects are shown in clips from various fan-produced films, which can be viewed online. I have links on my computer to dozens of these fan-produced shows, and many have special effects which are surprisingly impressive. In one of these clips, it is obvious that the sets are actually green screen efects edited in in post-production, and it's obvious that they are computer generated.

If you think that people who go to fan conventions dressed up as a blue alien with white hair and blue antenna are virgins who live in their parents' basement, then you must see this movie to have your eyes opened up. This film, as well as the first one in this series, will prove to you that Star Trek fans are from all walks of life. They are parents, executives at major corporations, dentists, college students and even politicians.

Trekkies, some of which call themself Trekkers, are just like you. The only difference is that they are part of a unique fandom that has been around for almost 45 years. A fandom which believes in a peaceful future where there is, as said in the Star Trek Universe, universal diversity in infinate combinations. The world of a Trekkie is one where people of all races, creeds and sexual orientation are accepted, and hope that one day the mainstream will be the same.

Put this movie, and the original, quite high on your To See list if you are not a fan of the franchise. If you are a fan, then place this one in your Must See list.

Under discussion:

Of Mice and Men  (1992)

Two men, one mentally disabled (John Malkovich), the other (Gary Sinise, who also directed the movie) who swears to take care of the simple, but physically powerful man.

The two begin working on a farm, where "Lenny" (Malkovich) struggles to behave, as well as to try to remember that he has to be gentle as to not hurt anybody or anything since he is more physically gifted than mentally. All the while, "George" (Sinise) tries to put himself between "Lenny" and those around him to protect his traveling companion.

Based on the John Steinbeck book, of which I did not read, this is actually a pretty good movie with some pretty strong performances.

In fact, the performances are the only reason to watch this movie. The entire cast is near perfect. Malkovich and Sinise has pretty good chemistry as the two lead characters. Personally, I liked Sinise better than Malkovich, neither of which are my favorite actors.

There are also some strong performances from various members of the supporting cast. However, it appears that many of them were not given a lot to work with.

If you have not read the book, you may not think that the supporting cast was given much. I didn't think so either since I've never read the book. Personally, I would have liked to have seen a few of the supporting characters more.

There is some good chemistry with this cast, some better than others. You can really see where the chemistry was best by the scenes with the strongest performances.

The soundtrack is completely lacking in this film. In fact, I think I remember only one piece of music near the end of this film. And it sounded like they turned the volume down on that little piece of music that is completely forgettable.

The wardrobes, and other period pieces seen in this film, looks very authentic. It didn't appear that they tried to make it look like period clothing, it looked pretty authentic. They even went as far as making the clothing look like they were worn for some time, with little washing.

There is no spectacular camera work in this film. There are a couple of foot chases in here with some quick editing. The lighting is used well, and the angles are done nicely. There's just nothing memorable in any of the shots.

If you are looking for action, there isn't any worth looking for. This is pure drama, with no explosions or gun play.

Maybe because I never read the book, I kept looking away from my computer screen (I watched it on Hulu) because I was getting bored. If you haven't read the book, the only reason to see this is for the performances.

There is no reason to see this movie except for the peformances. In fact, I didn't even know it existed until it came up on my Hulu recommendations list. I am more familiar with the Lon Chaney, Jr./Bergess Merrideth version. This movie is only worth seeing once.

I do suggest that you read the book so you know what is going on. In fact, you may like it better if you familiarize yourself with the source material first.

Under discussion:

The Secret of NIMH  (1982)

A widowed field mouse (voiced by the late Elizabeth Hartman) has a sick child (voiced by Ian Fried) and two other children. They live in the garden of a farm where other animals live and feed.

They all need to move when it comes time for the farmer (voiced by Tom Hatten) begins to plow the field to prepare it for gardening. However, due to the sick child, "Mrs. Brisby" (Hartman) is reluctant to move.

She, with the help of of bumbling crow (voiced by the late Dom DeLuise), she seeks out the advice of a mysterious, but wise old owl (voiced by the late John Carradine). The "Great Owl" tells her to seek the assistance of the rats.

When she finds the rats, she is amazed at what she sees. They have the ability to use electricity, stolen from the farm, which a kind rat named "Justin" (voiced by Peter Strauss) frowns upon since stealing is wrong.

She learns of the rats story, where they lived at a place called N.I.M.H., or "NIMH" (which is short for the National Institute of Mental Health, a real-life medical organization in the United States), and gained an encreased mental ability thanks to experiments performed on them. She also learned that her late husband had his hand in the rats, and other animals, escape from NIMH.

The animation is real good in this movie, and holds up almost 30 years later. Though the majority of coloring is darker colors, the scenery and characters are animated fantasticly. Lighter hues are scarce in this film. The darker hues are best used with the "Great Owl", whose shot mostly in shadows so that his orange-yellow-tinted eyes stand out.

The characters are inhanced by the performers. Hartman made "Mrs. Brisby" kindhearted while in desperate need of saving her children. DeLuise made the crow a bumbling idiot, and was simply fantastic as the comedy relief.

Even though the parts were probably recorded separately, the on-screen chemistry is really good in this movie. Sometimes, you forgot you were watching an animated movie depending on who was on screen with whom.

The only major downfall of this movie is that the subplots of this film completely miss the mark. It is told in the movie that NIMH is interested in the rat population of the farm, but they are never seen on-screen as villains trying to recapture the rats. And the lead rat villain's (voiced by the late Paul Shenar) story of trying to take over the colony is completely relegated to a such a minor subplot, it's not even worth it. Personally, I would have tried to see the villain trying to create a stir by talking to others in the rat colony to envoke an uprising at just the right moment.

Character development is fairly weak in this film. Although there is some pretty good development in the main characters, the supporting characters are a miss. I didn't understand what many of the minor characters had to do with the plot, as they were really under developed. I really couldn't tell who was needed for more than just plot advancement, and who was not needed.

The music is pretty boring. I didn't even think it helped enhanse the action of the scenes. I remember at the end, just as the credits begin, there is one song with lyrics. This song would never be a Top 10 smash, or a Hollywood classic. In fact, it's pretty forgettable.

There is some mild violence, and one bad word in the entire movie. I might keep the Sesame Street crowd away from this movie because of these, and that the movie is not anything like a Disney movie.

I can just barely recommend this movie. It's almost a couple of notches above being skipable. Personally, I would check it on Hulu if there is nothing else to do.

Under discussion:

Sunset Pass  (1946)

A young outlaw (Robert Clarke) is accused of a murder he did not commit.

Now, an express company detective (James Warren), who is sent to the area to solve a bank robbery, is determined to find out the truth as payback when the outlaw saves his life.

Let me say right at the top that this movie is way too short. Lasting only 64 minutes, they had to rush the story.

Due to the movie's length, there was no chance for the story to develop as it should have. There was also many problems with the plot and various subplots.

The main plot does not show until the last part of the movie. We do see some development on the romantic level, as well as relationships between the main characters.

There were some impressive performances in this film. Warren was fantastic in one of the main leads. I also enjoyed Nan Leslie in the leading actress role.

As for the supporting cast, there were some good performances, and some bad. Only a small group of the supporting cast appeared to have just stood there as they said their lines, and were unbelievable.

Character development is completely horrible in this movie. The characters' individual stories were completely rushed, and I found it confusing trying to remember who was who, and how they were related to each other.

I was also not impressed with the soundtrack in this movie. You have two on-screen performances of a couple of short, boring songs. You also have some music during some horse chase scenes. Every piece of music is completely forgettable. In fact, even the two performances is as well. The songs which are performed on screen are slow, and the singer is completely boring.

As for action, there is only one real good gun fight at the climax of the movie. It too felt rushed though. You get some other gun battles, but they are tame in comparison to the one near the end of the movie.

The gun battles are not violent, due to the movie being produced in 1946. You don't get any blood at all to show gunshot wounds. All you get are the actors grabbing where they were hit after falling to the ground. In comparison to today's movies, the violence is extremely tame in this movie.

If you like Westerns, or Zane Grey, who wrote the novel this movie is based on, then I suggest you check this out. However, thanks to the length of this film, it's not the best. For the rest of you, this one is one you can skip.

I can only suggest this to the audience not into Westers only for the pretty strong performaces from the main cast.

Under discussion:

Lone Wolf McQuade  (1983)

Texas Ranger "John 'JJ" McQuade" (Chuck Norris) is a loner who bucks authority. However, he will work with some people when he knows it's needed.

During some down time from work, "McQuade" meets a beautiful widow (Barbara Carrera), who is with the mysterious martial arts expert "Rawley Wilkes" (the late David Carradine), who tries to get "McQuade", who has a reputation for using martial arts while trying to apprehend criminals he goes after. However, "McQuade" turns down the challenge.

Now, "McQuade", along with his new partner "Deputy Kayo" (Robert Beltran", slowly learns of "Wilkes" shady background and go after him. But, federal agents try to stop them. However, "McQuade" makes it personal when his daughter (Dana Kimmell) is injured when she and a boyfriend witness a murder.

Let me say first that this is not the best action movie, but it really is a pretty good movie. This is not a shoot'em up, fisticuffs film where there is only brief moments for the audience to catch their breath. It is, however an actioner where the action is needed.

I really liked Norris in this role. He played "McQuade" as a gentle man who perfered to be alone, but really loved those close to him. "McQuade" is one of those who only had to give you a look to tell you to back off, and Norris did a good job conveying it as well.

Many key supporting characters were barely developed, or not well developed. "Wilkes" and his boss (Daniel R. Frishman), a wheelchair-bound dwarf who has apparently crossed paths with "McQuade" many times in the past to the point that the Ranger knows when he tried to bluff him with an empty gold-plated pistol. The movie doesn't really tell us much about the two villains. In fact, I had to read online what "Wilkes" is as a criminal. Most of these supporting characters were just there to move the story along, and to give "McQuade" motivation.

As for action, as I said before, it's spaced out nicely through the movie. Maybe it's because this movie is almost 30 years old, the violence is pretty toned down. Of course, because of the two leads, there is martial arts fights sprinkled around more than gun fights and explosions. I would have liked to seen just a little more action than there was. However, the action scenes are handled well.

I wasn't impressed with the soundtrack in the movie, but the pieces of music is handled well and helps the scenes. I couldn't tell you any music from the movie if I heard it again, as the music is pretty forgetable.

Despite the flaws, I enjoyed this movie. I wouldn't put it in your Must See List, but I'd check it out if you catch it on television.

Under discussion:

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian  (2008)

Four siblings (William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes and Georgie Henley) are whisked back in time to the magical land of "Narnia" when the four are waiting for a train.

They find the land, in which they were declared royalty hundreds of "Narnia's" years before, in ruins.

They eventually learn that the prince (Ben Barnes) of the neighboring "Telmar" summond them with a magical horn, and decide to help him get to the throne as he was destined.

However, the uncle (Sergio Castellitto) of the prince, who is king of "Telmar", wants the prince dead. But, the siblings and the prince rally the "Narnians" into battle.

Let me say this first that this, and the last one in the series I watched (I think it was the first movie in the series, but that was long ago) is not making me want to read the books they are based on. I usually lean more toward science-fiction than fantasy, so that could be the reason as to why I don't want to read the source material.

I found the story long, and dragged on fairly slow. However, it never slowed to a crawl. In fact, though the pace was pretty slow, it was just fast enough to keep you from getting too bored. The begining of the movie was really slow, and made me want to turn it off. However, once the siblings got to "Narnia," the movie's pace picked up to something more bareable.

I wasn't really impressed with the performances in the movie, but the actors did a fine job. I did like how the chemistry between the actors worked out, especially those who were in the previous film.

One thing that must have looked amazing on the big screen was the scenery and special effects. From what I have read about this film, a good majority of the film's budget went to the special effects -- of which there is alot. In fact, this film heavily relies on special effects.

In this film, you get scenery that would be impossible, if not too expensive to make. You also get at least 99% of the cast as CGI characters.

I usually hate characters made entirely by a computer, but the ones in this film are simply the best I've seen. Usually, human actors aren't looking into the CGI characters' eyes when they are together on screen. However, it appeared to me that the CGI characters are lined up perfectly.

The only downside of the CGI characters is that hair and fur do not look realistic ever. Look at the animals in this film on close-ups, and you will see what I mean. This is especially evident with the lion "Aslan" (voiced by Liam Neeson). In close-ups, the fur on his body, not to mention his eyes, don't look realistic. However, the animation is amazing with all these characters.

The voice actors worked very well, including scenes with real people. Many times, I forgot that I was looking at a talking lion or mouse. I have to give props to the human actors who had to perform with the CGI characters. Their performances helped bring the CGI characters into reality really well.

I wasn't really impressed with character development with new characters in this film. The lead villain had only enough screen time to explain to the audience why he does what he does, but he doesn't get enough time on-screen to develop in a way to where you would not like him the instant he returns to the screen.

If I remember correctly, the actors portraying the siblings were pretty bad in the first film. There was some big improvement, especially with the youngest actors. If you ask me, the human actors really didn't stand out from each other.

Wardrobes in this film were great in this film. Human clothing mainly consisted of darker tones. There were no brightly colored outfits that stood out like a sore thumb. The clothing seemed to be really accurate for the time period.

The action was spread out through the entire film. None of which built to the battle between the forces of good and evil. There was one major battle, followed by a sword fight that was really hurt by it being placed right after the battle.

Because the world of "Narnia" is over a thousand years ago, you deal with weaponry that does produce blood. However, there is no blood where there should be. Parents will not have to worry about any serious amounts of blood, nor will they worry about any foul language.

Except for one particular piece of music, I really don't remember the soundtrack in this film. I do remember one song near the end of the movie because it's the only one I noticed with singing. Most of the music is just insrumentals that did help enhance the scenes. It was nothing memorable though.

Catch this on HBO if there is nothing else on. This movie, in my opinion, is not good enough to skip a favorite television program over. It almost comes close though.

Under discussion:

Tarzan  (1999)

Based on the famous series of novels written by Edgar Rice Burroughs (September 1, 1875 – March 19, 1950), Disney has come up with a pretty entertaining adaptation of the beloved literary character.

The first thing I must talk about is the animation. Disney has perfectly blended classic animation with computer animation. The computer animation enhances the classic animation with movement drawings couldn't do. In many scenes, "Tarzan" (child voiced by Alex D. Lintz; adult voiced by Tony Goldwyn) is sliding on large tree branches rapidly. In the classic animation style, they would not have been successful in "following" "Tarzan" through the trees as well as they could with computer animation due to the rapid movement.

There are very few dark colors in the scenery. In fact, the only dark colors were used for the gorillas, shadowing and human hair. Most of the colors are light gray, lots of green (it is in a jungle) and other brighter colors.

There are some pretty good performances in this film. However, none really stood out in my opinion. I was not that impressed with some supporting characters, as they had little screen time and thus had no time to develop. Rosie O'Donnell was a delight as "Terk," who was "Tarzan's" best gorilla friend.

If you ask me, they really missed the mark to make a memorable villain in this film. They had two chances, but killed one, and just did a horrible job making a human villain.

As for music, which Disney is known for, there isn't a lot performed on screen by characters like in previous movies. In fact, characters burst into two songs. The rest of the soundtrack is done mainly by Grammy and Academy Award-winning Phil Collins. The songs by Collins is easily alot more memorable than the rest of the musical score. In fact, all I really can remember is Collins songs. However, the Collins songs, which he wrote and performed, is not as memorable as some of the classic songs Disney is known for. Therefore, if you hear the songs by Collins, you won't be catching yourself singing these tunes, nor will you think of the movie when you hear the songs. The songs did fit well into scenes though.

The movie is well paced, however I did think the story was really rushed due to the 89 minute length of the film. They really rushed the part where "Jane" (voiced by Minnie Driver) and the team she was with tried to bring "Tarzan" back to civilization with some of the animal characters as prizes. They also did a pretty good job with the famed relationship between "Jane" and Tarzan. If this movie was a little longer, they really could have worked on many scenes, character development and the relationships between the characters. After seeing this movie, I am almost certain they made the animated television series based on this movie to better explore the relationships in the movie.

If you ask me, this is almost a Disney classic. But, in my opinion, it barely misses the mark to be up there with "Snow White" and others touched by Disney's magic.