It's got a world of problems, 13 November 2017
A powerful businessman starts a crusade aimed at shutting down the local video arcade. He's concerned about the effects the arcade is having on his daughter. The arcade's Manager, a nerdy employee, and a slovenly obese gamer will do battle to save their arcade.
I remember seeing Joysticks in the 80s and "enjoying" it. I use quotes because I'm not sure I ever found it all that great, just a decent enough time killer. Re-watching last night, the movie doesn't hold up for me. I know that based on a lot of the schlock I watch, you might think a movie like Joysticks would be right up my alley. Unfortunately, it's got a world of problems that keep me from finding much in the way of entertainment. Chief among my issues with the movie is it's actually pretty boring. For a sub-90 minute film, this thing seems to go on and on. The drawn out video game contests, the community hearing scenes, and all the lame attempts at humor that completely miss their mark really put a drag on things. And I found the scene where the nerd and the fat guy end up in the lady's bedroom troubling and disturbing to watch. There's nothing funny at all about the idea of raping a semi-conscious woman. You might have been able to get by with this kind of thing in the more innocent 80s, but by today's standards, it doesn't fly.
I generally enjoy Joe Don Baker, but not so much here. It's too obvious he's only in it of the paycheck. Instead, the lone highlight of the film for me is Jim Greenleaf as Dorfus. His fat dude shtick is occasionally laugh-out-loud funny.
3/10
Parts of it are minimally entertaining - not much of an endorsement, 12 November 2017
A meteor forces a small plane to make a crash landing. For the six passenger, their problems are just beginning. The survivors have landed in the middle of a giant spider invasion. Hold-up in an old, abandoned house, they'll have to use all their resources if they are to make it out alive.
No beating around the bush here - Arachnia is bad. Everything about the movie scrapes the proverbial bottom of the barrel. The special effects are totally lame. The spider in Earth vs the Spider, made 45 years earlier, is more convincing. The acting is even worse. Most of these people have absolutely no business being in a film. Bevin McGraw as Trina is the worst. I'm not sure when I've seen a poorer performance. I've seen lines of dialogue in a 3rd grade play delivered more believably. Speaking of dialogue, these people say some of the most nonsensical things. They all sound like idiots. This is a complete mess of a movie.
However, there are some things to enjoy. Granted, most of it is in that "so bad it's good" sort of way, but I found myself enjoying bits of the movie despite all the problems. The enjoyment was minimal, but I can see how a group of friends with enough alcohol might find some entertainment.
3/10
I still don't understand the purpose of these things, 12 November 2017
In the third Norman short I've watched, Norman faces adversity in a public restroom. If it can go wrong, it does for Norman. From lacking the change needed for the pay toilet to no toilet paper to getting locked in the stall, Norman is the definition of Murphy's Law.
I usually rate shorts with a two pronged rating system - was the short entertaining and was the short successful. Entertaining - I suppose if you enjoy watching a man's life turn into a car wreck, then yes, it's fairly entertaining. My favorite bit had to be when Norman reaches under the stall wall in a failed attempt to find toilet paper. The result is cringey to the max. I'd give it 3/5 for entertainment. Successful - I really don't know. I've seen three Norman shorts and I still don't know their purpose. They're presented as educational shorts, but what are they trying to teach? If the purpose of Krasner, Norman: Beloved Husband of Irma is to enlightened the viewer on the possible mishaps that can occur in a public restroom, then I suppose it works. So, not being 100% sure of what I was supposed to get out of the film, I'll give it 1/5. Adding everything up, I'm left with a rating of 4/10 - which seems about right to me.
4/10
Not my Doctor, 11 November 2017
Dr. Who (Peter Cushing), granddaughters Barbara and Susan, and Barbara's boyfriend, Ian, are accidentally transported across time and space in the the Doctor's latest invention, TARDIS. They find themselves on a planet ruled by the evil Daleks. It becomes clear that Dr. Who and company must leave the planet if they are to survive. However, the Daleks pose a threat to the future of a peaceful race known as the Thals. The Doctor decides they must help the Thals defeat the Daleks before they make their retreat back to Earth.
I'm not a super fan of Dr. Who, but I enjoy what I've seen. I'm also a big fan of Peter Cushing. Put the two together and you should end up with a winner. Unforutnatley, Dr. Who and the Daleks isn't the Dr. Who from the television show. Cushing's Doctor is a normal human being - not a Time Lord. And he really doesn't do much. His youngest granddaughter, Susan, does more of the heavy lifting than does the Doctor. My other complaint is with the Daleks. They look good and they're appropriately evil, but they do way too much talking. When their limited to shouting "Exterminate!" over and over, that's fine. But here, they have a lot of dialogue - and I mean A LOT of dialogue. And with their computer voices, it's very difficult to understand. There are some scenes where a Dalek seems to be delivering an important soliloquy or something and I had no idea what was being said.
With the unexpected changes to the Dr. Who story-line, a Doctor who is basically ineffective, and large portion of dialogue I found unintelligible, a 4/10 is the best rating I can give Dr. Who and the Daleks.
4/10
"I know all about you, 007. Sex for dinner, death for breakfast.", 11 November 2017
When I first saw A View to a Kill back in 1985, I thought the Bond series had hit rock-bottom. I didn't think it possible to make a Bond movie I would like less. However, in 2002, I witnessed the hot mess that is Die Another Day and realized that, yes, you could make a Bond movie that would make A View to a Kill look like a masterpiece in comparison. This movie is so bad and makes me so mad that I actually prefer listening to Tanya Roberts yell "James' from the back of that firetruck than watch this junk.
The plot - what's the point - it's as stupid as the rest of the film. I could literally write multiple pages detailing all of the issues I have with this blight on the Bond series. Instead, I'll do the now familiar laundry list:
1. Let's start with a big one - DNA replacement. The whole notion that a Korean dude could turn into a white Englishman in just a couple of years by using something preposterous sounding like DNA replacement is ridiculous. I can't believe anyone actually wrote this and thought viewers would just buy into it.
2. Madonna's title song - There have been a lot of great songs to appear in the Bond opening credits - Shirley Bassey in Goldfinger, Sheena Easton's song in For Your Eyes Only, Paul McCartney's Live and Let Die theme, and Garbage's The World is Not Enough (a real favorite of mine). Madonna's song, in comparison, is BAD. It's a trendy, auto-tuned pile of dung. It will never appear on this list.
3. The Invisible Car - Plain old stupid. And the way Bond uses it (or doesn't use it) and the way it's discovered - again, plain old stupid.
4. Jinx - Fron the moment Halle Barry does that over-the-top swivel-hip walk out of the water, I knew instantly she would be a horrible Bond girl. Her character reached a real low with the "Yo Mamma" joke.
5. The villains - These guys are more cartoon characters than super-villain. They're impossible to take seriously.
6. Pierce Brosnan: the Quipping Machine - Some of Bosnan's quips would make even Roger Moore groan in pain and disbelief. A lot of the sexual innuendo would be more at home on Three's Company than in a Bond movie. It's too silly for words.
Seroiusly, this could go on and one. I haven't mentioned surfing Bond, the crappy CGI effects, Madonna's acting, the ice hotel, John Cleese, Bond's unbelievable escape from the death ray, a bloated run-time, etc. And if I could be bothered, I could probably come up with another bunch of things that bother me about Die Anotern Day. Combine it all together and you end up with what I consider the poorest entry in the Bond franchise. As I alluded to before, I don't just hate this movie, it makes me mad watching it. Die Another Day came as close as anything to destroying the Bond franchise.
Despite my dislike for Die Another Day, I've still rated the film a 3/10. I do so because in the end, it's still James Bond and there are a set-piece or two throughout the film that work for me.
3/10
I"d rather be watching Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, 6 November 2017
Mobster Nicky Rocco is gunned down in the middle of a Louisiana swamp. With his dying breath, he vows revenge on all of those who did him wrong – including pregnant girlfriend Ruby (Piper Laurie). Some 16 year later, Ruby lives at and operates an out-of-the-way drive-in with some of the former gang members she's given jobs to. Also in Ruby's household is Nicky's teenage daughter, Leslie – a very troubled girl. Things start to get really weird when Nicky's former associates begin dying horrible, unexplained deaths. Leslie's demeanor also begins to change until one fateful night when her body is fully possessed by her long dead and wronged father. Through Leslie, Nicky repeats his vow of vengeance.
Overall, as my wife would say, Ruby is pretty much hot garbage. While the movie has its fair share of reasonably spooky moments, there's too much here that I didn't care for to give the film a positive rating. The plot is a mess, the dialogue is often silly, and there are long patches of the movie where nothing much happens. It wasn't until the final 10-15 minutes that anything really peaked my interest. The acting is all over the place. Piper Laurie chews enough scenery to choke on. Her overacting really got old. The usually reliable Stuart Whitman, in contrast, plays his part so understated that Laurie literally runs him over. No one in the cast really stood out to me. Also, the film is supposedly set in 1951. I've seen a number of goofs listed on IMDb about the film's setting. My issue is that it just doesn't look like 1951. The way Ruby was filmed, it has a distinct 1970s look to it that no manner of old cars or old clothes can hide. I don't know any way to say it other than I never felt like I was watching a movie set in 1951.
Finally, the movie we see projected on the drive-in screen is Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. It says a lot about my feelings on Ruby when I say that I would have much rather been watching Attack of the 50 Foot Woman.
3/10
"I don't know about homicide, but you've definitely got me for raising my voice in a public library.", 5 November 2017
Scream 2 is set two years after the events in Scream. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) has moved on and has tried to put things behind her. But her new life and her old life soon cross paths as a new killer shows his face (well, not really - he's wearing a mask). Sidney's friends are being picked-off one-by-one and she in a fight for life.
For me, Scream 2 isn't as good as Scream, but for a film that was rushed into production and had the difficult task of following a modern horror phenomenon, it's really a decent film. I'll give a lot of the credit to the director, Wes Craven, and a talented group of actors. Craven was a real pro. The fact that he was able to take this bloated script and turn it into something watchable is almost a miracle. He does an excellent job creating tension and atmosphere with several of the kills. I'm probably most impressed with Randy's death scene given that it takes place in broad daylight in a crowded common area. Nicely done. As for the acting, it's a strong cast for a film like this. Campbell is joined by actors like Liev Schreiber, Timothy Olyphant, Jamie Kennedy, Courteney Cox, Jerry O'Connell, and Laurie Metcalf - all more than capable. Very nice. You know, if it weren't for an overload of self-referential nonsense, a 2+ hour runtime in desperate need of editing, and the ridiculous opening movie theater sequence, I could easily see rating Scream 2 much higher. Still, it's entertaining enough to warrant a 6/10.
6/10
