The_MOW Blog

A slow, well acted movie

The_MOW — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 02:28:02 GMT

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.

Kinda boring

The_MOW — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:12:29 GMT

A horse trainer (the late Charles Bronson) lives with a runaway just outside an Old West town where he has a rough reputation.

His rough exterior is challenged when a woman (Bronson's real life late wife, Jill Ireland) comes into his life.

From what I remember of Bronson's movies, there is always a good amount of violence. There is barely any in here. There is at least one fist fight, which lasts seconds, and not much gun play.

The pace of the movie is painfully slow and deliberate. Sometimes the action on the screen was so slow, my eyes began to wander away from the screen. I found myself getting bored frequently.

This was not one of the best acted movies I've seen lately. I did not feel chemistry between most of the cast. I did feel some between the boy and Bronson.

The story was choppy at best. In fact, it was so weak that it hurt the storyline. The supporting cast was there to slightly advance Bronson's background story, and that's mostly it.

The music was purely Country and Western, and not memorable at all in this movie. I couldn't even recognize any singer on the soundtrack.

Some of the scenery was pretty good. However, there were no spectacular shots. In fact, the scenery was kind of boring. The town, and the horse trainer's property was placed in a sandy area without any color. Wardrobes were just as boring.

This one you can pass on.

Like the original, Trekkies 2 gives respect to the nerds

The_MOW — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:28:05 GMT

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.

Horrible, unless you are in the target audience

The_MOW — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:27:32 GMT

This is easily the worst, most confusing movie I've seen in quite some time.

"Miyuki Minazuki" (Makiko Esumi), known professionally as "Stray Cat", is part of the Assassin's Guild, and ranked #3 in it.

She is given the job to kill the top assassin in the guild, known as "Hundred Eyes", and takes it.

This movie is very hard to follow, especially if you must use subtitles if you can't find a dubbed version.

The acting is horrible. Many times, the actors are overly dramatic, and act as if they should be on stage. There is a lot of rambling monologues that are quite confusing. None of the actors had any chemistry and appeared to be forced to work together on screen.

As for the camera work, it's not perfect. There are some shots with pans that are too dramatic and make no sense. Other shots are real good, and help with the story on a visual level.

For the subject of the story, there is very little violence and no blood in this movie. There is even little gun play in the film. Violence is kept to a minimum as well.

The soundtrack is forgettable. It reminded me of music heard in movies from the 1970's. I didn't feel that the music helped enhance the scenes at all.

There are some interesting visuals in this movie. At times I felt as if I was watching a stage play. A few times, the camera work helped enhance the scenes, but most of the time the shots were real typical.

This movie lacked the ability to keep my attention through out. I caught myself looking away from my computer screen numerous times because I was completely bored with the movie. I watched this movie on Hulu, and got even more confused when my screen saver popped up.

It was a hard movie to follow, especially since I had to read English subtitles. I really had a hard time following what was going on in this movie because my attention was focused on the bottom of the screen. It may have been the translation, but the dialog was pretty confusing at times, and I couldn't understand what was going on.

Unless you are into this type of movie, I have to say skip it. It isn't for every one.

Might be better if you read the book

The_MOW — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:23:33 GMT

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.

Not your typical war movie

The_MOW — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:22:13 GMT

Survivors of a military massacre during World War II are in the worse case scenario; no rations, behind enemy lines, exhausted and starved.

The four (Corbin Allred, Peter Asle Holden, Larry Bagby and Alexander Polinsky) come close to being captured many times while trying to get into allied territory. They finally arrive at a home where the owner lets them have some refuge, after coming across a British soldier (Kirby Hayborne). She also allows a German soldier, who happened to have met one of the Americans before the war.

Now the soldiers, one of which is carrying vital information, have to get back to allied territory or die.

This is not your typical war movie. Mostly because the story focuses on the relationships between the soldiers. There are battle scenes in this movie, but they're spread out through out the movie.

The battle scenes are pretty authentic. Loud, with lots of action. The blood shed is fairly tame, and there's nothing gory. One of the main characters is a medic, and has to deal with some bad wounds. However, the wounds are not graphic.

The strongest aspect of this movie is the performances of the main cast. The main cast is simply fantastic. You actually feel as if you are looking at people who have bonded after a long time, under intense circumstances. Their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I've seen recently. I can't say that one of the actors stood out from the rest, only because they are all great in their roles. Not one of them were unbelieveable.

The clothing was very authentic looking. In fact, the clothing, as well as weaponry and vehicles were provided by WWII collectors. Also, re-enactors were used in many battle scenes.

Music in this movie is used nicely. Many musical pieces are used nicely to enhance the scene. I can't remember any musical pieces though.

Some people may have a problem with the cast being a group of unknowns. This movie is a low-budget independent film, so a big name star was unatainable. However, this cast is fantastic in this film, and you quickly forget that you don't know these actors.

I would suggest that parents not allow younger children see this movie. There is some violence, and one character is suffering from battle fatigue which kids may not comprehend. There is no swearing in this film, with the exception of an era racial slur against Germans.

I watched this movie over on Hulu, where you could check it out on as well. However, if your connection is too slow to stream video, and happen across this film, check it out -- if your first couple of choices are not available. I wouldn't Netflix this, only because of the wait if you already have a long list for the company to choose from.

The secret is -- it's only a fairly good movie

The_MOW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:46:23 GMT

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.

Weak but pretty good

The_MOW — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:44:15 GMT

A soldier's daughter (Shirley Temple) is placed into an all-girls boarding school by her father (Ian Hunter), who is off to war.

Because of her father's wealth, and her charm, she is immediately sent to the head of her class and treated like gold by the majority of those in the school. However, things turn for the worse months later when her father is reported killed in action.

Now, the young miss refuses to believe that her beloved father was killed. She tries to keep all hope that her father is alive as those treat her wrong believing that she has lost all the money that supported her for most of her life.

Let me say first, that this movie is not my usual cup of tea. Shirley Temple movies are usually for young girls, which I am obviously not. I will say right off the top that this is a B movie.

Temple, in my opinion, is a legend in Hollywood, as she should be. However, she was not the perfect actress. She did a much better job than I expected her to have done in this film, but it did appear to me that she did have trouble saying a few lines. I don't know what it is, but sometimes it appears to me that struggles with a few lines. She sometimes appears to struggle getting her lines out, and the strain on her face to get the words to form is pretty evident.

As for the rest of the cast, their performances were pretty good given what they were. For the most part, the supporting characters are not developed well at all. This is most evident with the older student who belittles "Sarah" (Temple). For the most part, she was used to throw insults at "Sarah", and talk behind her back. She is basically there for little to no reason except to annoy "Sarah." For the most part, she, as well as the other girls, are mainly there as background performers used to fill the scenes.

We do get to see other characters a little bit more. But they are mostly used to advance the story -- some better than others.

There is a subplot where two of the teachers have a romantic relationship. This is under developed due to the two characters being taken out of the story for a good chunk of the movie.

The story itself drags along at a slow, boring pace for much of the movie. In these scenes, I thought the acting was very poor and boring.

The wardrobes looked pretty authentic, but was nothing special for an early Technicolor movie. For the most part, clothing and sets were of darker hues. The main colors being grey and black. Temple's perky performance, which was a trademark of her in her movies, was basically the only thing bright.

Shirley Temple movies were/are known to have some musical performances. In fact, she is known for tunes like "Animal Crackers in My Soup" and "The Good Ship Lolipop." Here we get two songs where are completely forgettable. And one of these songs gets an equally forgettable dance number.

The only reason to see this is if you are a Temple fan -- and female. There was little to nothing for the male audience. We do get a tiny police chase on foot near the climax of the movie, but it's nothing like you would see in a movie now.

However, believe it or not, I will recommend it. Providing you are renting it for your young, female child. If you have a young son, skip it.

Too short to work as well as it could have

The_MOW — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:32:01 GMT

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.

Price carries a fair movie

The_MOW — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:01:54 GMT

For three years, "Robert Morgan" (Vincent Price) has been trying to survive against those infected with a plague which has turned them into vampire-like zombies. It appears that he is somehow immune to the strange affliction.

During daylight, he goes out and kills those infected with hand-made stakes. Then, at night, he stays locked up in his house until the morning comes again as those infected try in vein to break into his home.

Once a scientist trying to find a cure for the disease, "Morgan" is now just trying to survive.

This is not the best movie I have seen recently. However, just to watch Price is worth it.

Price carries this movie for most of the film by himself. He is the focus for most of the story, and handles it well. The audience can hear his thoughts as he goes through the day, and it's done really well. Price uses his voice wonderfully in the voiceovers, and makes the movie pretty intriguing.

The big problem with this movie is that the infected are characterized as vampires. Yes, they are repulsed by the scent of garlic, and can't be in the sunlight. However, they can't stand looking at their reflection. Vampires, on the other hand, can not be seen in mirrors. They are more like zombies in my opinion.

The atmosphere is fairly creepy in this film. Many times, Price is the only person on camera. In many of these scenes they are enhanced by Price's voiceovers. You can feel how lonely his character is by not only his dialog, but how he performs on screen. With his movements, he shows a man who is desperate to survive, but is exhausted.

One problem in this film is the cast during flashback scenes. They are just not believable in these roles. A couple of the actors did not sound like they even tried to make their performances believable.

Another problem was the audio. During many scenes, the voices were obviously dubbed over.

The music and many camera angles really helped enhance the film. Sometimes the camera was limited to the space of the sets, but was used very well. The music really isn't memorable in this film, but helped enhance the scenes.

This movie is not scary at all. Just a little creepy. The violence is very mild due to the time it was produced. I would not suggest this for real young children who get creeped out easily.

It's not a perfect movie, but it is a pretty good time-waster.