TheCooperVane's reviews

Overall, not the best work from Sam Raimi (this should have been closer to Darkman in tone - much more compelling that way). The CGI is not quite right, the suspension of disbelief required is a bit too much (what, no one could figure out that something might be up qith the sudden emergence of Spiderman and the kid at school who can suddenly do all sorts of things he couldn't before?), and the last act of the movie is just plastic.

However, it was an enjoyable ride - it isn't fulfilling, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a pleasure. The first act in particular is great - establishment and discovery. Those early scenes provide the greatest charms.

The action's pretty decent, if you can bring yourself to care about two CGI characters duking it out. I think if there were more stunts and less computers, the mechanical feel of some of the set pieces would shed off, and I'd have been more excited by what I saw.

I'd see it again - it was fun! But it doesn't quite deliver on its promise. 7/10.

I first saw this film as a teenager. I was moved by the events depicted in the film, and trusted their accuracy.

I still see "Roger & Me" as a great piece of entertainment. But now I know how little of it is really solid fact rather than highly manipulative propaganda. Oh, sure, it is very true that Flint crashed and burned economically in the wake of the GM closures. I don't mean that. I mean the particular cases; the little moments that were the most effective.

It is a movie, not a documentary (which is why Maltin calls it a "documentary STYLE" film (emphasis added)). Moore's shown his hand in recent years by dropping the facade and coming out with his point of view. His most recent rhetoric in the wake of the terrorist attacks displays ignorance, posturing, and vitriol that makes me almost as mad at him as I am at those who destroyed so many lives in the city I live in.

Enjoy Roger and Me. But if you do even the smallest amount of investigation into the events depicted there, you'll get a very different story.

The movie is largely unfunny - it is impossible to watch the things that happen without feeling awful for the people it happen to (rather than laugh at the situation). But Rik Mayall does such a brilliant job as Fred that I still watch this movie from time to time.

For Mayall fans, there is a wonderful blend of Rick, Flashheart, and even a little Ritchie in the mix. Definitely worth a look, as I love every moment he's on the screen. It would actually be a good movie if the humor didn't feel so... tragic.

A mostly harmless spin-off (which I haven't seen in syndication in almost 10 years), this followed Jack Tripper to his new home - with a new cantankerous landlord who also happens to be the father of his live-in girlfriend. The jokes had grown old, and John Ritter started to look trapped in the Tripper persona. Not a show to be well remembered.

While Mary Cordette did an adequate job as Jack's love interest, I think it would have been much better for the show had, at the end of Three's Company, Jack and Janet realized there were deeper feelings for each other than had previously been recognized. The spin-off following them would have likely been more successful (and popular; I seem to recall that fans of the original show often clamored for a romance between the two characters who lasted the entire run of the show).

I understand why people think this is a dud compared to the rest of the Blackadder legacy. It isn't particularly remarkable. It isn;t as good as any of the series episodes of Blackadder (though it is better than the Christmas Carol special).

However, by the average standard for comedy, this is still enjoyable. It's cute. Admittedly, Blackadder was never good because of being "cute," but it works here. I suppose I liked it for the most part for the nostalgia value - 10 years after the last official episode, we see my favorite British comedians reunited (worth the price alone): Rowan Atkinson, Rik Mayall, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie... and all the rest. I was lucky enough to be in London during this show's run at the Millennium Dome, and now am proud to own it as part of the new DVD Blackadder set.

There are some great gags, and (for fans of British comedy) some great appearances. It's no "Bells" or "Dish or Dishonesty," but it makes me smile. And that's the important thing.

While many have drawn the parallels between this film and A.C. Doyle's master detective, all the reviews I've read have neglected to point out that this is really a direct homage to the first Sherlock Holmes short story, "A Scandal In Bohemia". It is more than a passing homage - the very language at the end of Zero Effect is the same as at the front of the Holmes story...

That said, it is perhaps bar none the best and most creative Sherlock Holmes adaptation I've seen, even including Jeremy Brett's astounding turn as the anti-social detective.

This is not a James Bond film. It isn't even remotely Fleming-inspired, either. This is a typical action film that could have starred Ah-nold or Bruce Willis. There's no style or color to seperate this film from the rest of the "action pack". And aside from the way in which the plot develops, once it is in gear it is a cookie-cutter plot with cookie-cutter action.

Dalton had a great Bond in The Living Daylights. Where did it go? Here he is an unpleasant person - why would either of the Bond girls in this film WANT to be anywhere near him? He's a depressing, dark bore. He lost his charm, his charisma.

The hardcore Dalton fans would say, "He's supposed to be brooding - his friend Felix is maimed, etc etc etc." This is true, but Bond becomes too much of an anti-hero archtype, one with which the audience can no longer identify.

The villian is minor, too. I mean, ultimately who cares if Bond thwarts his plot or not? It would have no affect on 99% of people's lives.

All said and done, Dalton made one of the best and one of the worst Bond movies. Unfortunately, if converted to present value dollars, BOTH films were failures at the box office. They're 2 of the 3 lowest grossing Bond films of all time (Licence To Kill is the lowest grossing Bond movie ever). A shame, as Dalton would have done well in a good movie and good script - like Goldeneye.

I hadn't seen The Living Daylights since 1987 - it seemed for a long time to be a rarity in video stores in my area. All I had to go on (except vague memories) was the appallingly bad Licence To Kill to rate Dalton. Now with the DVD special editions, I am finally reminded that Dalton was a good Bond and more importantly that the film is one of the best in years.

The plot is strong, unlike the films that immediately surround it (A View To A Kill and Licence). The action is top-notch. One weakness, however, is how dated it feels: even older Bond films don't feel as dated in some respects. I'm thinking in particular of a couple of gadgets: the "walkman strangling cord" and the "ghetto blaster" are silly and stupid. Way too topical and mid-80s.

That aside, however, I can say that The Living Daylights, in terms of sheer excitement, is the best Bond film from 1987 to present.

Dalton, too, did a better job here than in Licence. His Bond is more fleshed out - in Licence he is a bore: too dark, too mad, and just unappealing. Here, he has the darkness and "madness," but he actually manages to keep a grasp of charm and humor. I prefer Connery, Moore, and even Brosnan overall to Dalton - but in this one movie, Dalton actually outperforms all of them.

It was fun to watch Spinal Tap back in action 10 years on, and there was some humor in the (all too infrequent) interviews and bits. But it really isn't worth the effort to buy or put much time into finding this video.

It doesn't feel like a cash-in; the product is not some c****y cop-out. No, the problem lies more in the same range as the problems with watching a Weird Al concert video - the joke just doesn't work if you weren't there in person. It becomes, at best, something that makes you raise a slight grin... whereas in person, the show was probably a blast.

I'll be brief - enough people have commented already. But I concur with those who say that this film has moments of brilliance surrounded by a few bits of minor humor and stretches of misfires. It almost reminds me of the Kentucky Fried Movie, which had great moments as islands surrounded by long passages of weak or no real consistent humor.

All the same, there are enough laughs to make this worth a rental. But I wouldn't suggest buying it...

Woody Allen's 1960s stand-up was slapstick, yet intelligent. But his first two forays into film as the lead actor and director are not as developed as his later work or his earlier humor.

That's not to say Bananas is not very, very funny. It is. Standing by itself, it remains a comic classic. But up against the rest of Woody's work, Bananas looks weak. Not as funny as some later films and especially not as intellectual as his later work.

No one can blame Allan for this - he couldn't be as daring as he eventually got while he was still attempting to establish himself as a filmmaker without losing all studio backing. However, when looking at an artist who has worked over the course of several decades, one cannot help but look at early works in the context of later things. And with that inherent flaw, Banana seems a little feeble in comparison with films he made just a few years later.

But enjoy Bananas for a laugh - I still give it a 8/10!