briantrash

My rating: 7.5 out of 10 (I really liked it)

I've read so many reviews of 'The Hunt for Red October' that argue over whether or not it portrays submarine operations believably, that criticize the actors for their inability to speak Russian or mimic the accent; but to focus on these things is, in my opinion, to really miss the point of going to the movies.

The point of movies is fantasy, not realism. You see, real life is usually pretty boring. I wouldn't want to watch a movie that was too close to real life. I love movies precisely because they take me away from real life; they create another world and then immerse us in it for a couple of hours. Therefore...So what if real submarines aren't capable of some of the things we see in 'Red October'? So what if a Russian captain speaks English with a Scottish accent? If 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek' can create worlds where you can actually hear lasers, explosions, and ship engine noise in the vacuum of space, then I say 'Red October' can create its world however it wants to.

'Red October' is a very well-made film – nothing particularly deep or profound, I suppose, just a suspenseful thriller and rousing adventure that keeps your interest from start to finish. It's very much a plot-driven movie. There are all kinds of movies – some that move the emotion, and some that engage the mind. 'Red October' is in the latter category...a movie that entertains us by putting a group of highly skilled characters into a series of dilemmas and then letting us observe the fascinating ways they get out of the dilemmas. As such, you won't find any character studies here because there just isn't much time for them; the script calls mainly for stereotypes. I don't say that as a criticism in this case; with a complicated plot, a large cast, and a lack of time to develop the characters, stereotypes and typecasting become somewhat necessary so that we the audience can more quickly and easily identify with them. And despite the possible pitfalls with this approach the performances are very competent, for the most part avoiding clichés, the leads so naturally charismatic that we easily care about them and root for them despite any lack in character development. Really, I'm probably making too much of this whole "character development" thing; the truth is that you really don't miss it in this case because the details of the cat and mouse game are just so interesting and absorbing.

If I have one quibble with the movie it would be regarding an action that Ramius takes early on. I won't spoil anything for anyone reading this, but let's just say that this deliberate action directly results in his entire crew very nearly getting killed, on multiple occasions. If he hadn't done it, his plan could have been carried out with complete ease, very little chance of danger...and of course, then there wouldn't be much of a movie. But still, it seems hard to believe a man in his position would really do this considering the potential cost, despite his very flimsy justification. Oh well, it didn't affect my rating at all, and I'm perfectly willing to concede that even highly intelligent people sometimes do very foolish things.

All in all, a very fine film that aims to keep you on the edge of your seat and succeeds. I give it seven and a half stars. Why no higher? Well, it's not because there are any glaring flaws. It's just that, like I said at the outset, 'Red October' is engaging but there's certainly nothing deep or profound here. Not that there has to be in order for me to enjoy a movie, of course. I guess it's just like food – everyone has their favorite kinds but that doesn't mean you don't sometimes feel in the mood for other things, too. My favorite movies are those that move the emotions, or better yet, both the emotions and the mind. I love the genres of science fiction and fantasy. I love great character studies. And no, 'Red October' isn't these things, so it will never be my favorite. But sometimes, after I've eaten my favorites over and over, I find I have the appetite for a good old-fashioned adventure, and 'Red October' more than satisfies.

My rating: 5 out of 10 (it was so-so)

Alright, consider yourself warned - I'm about to give an unnecessarily serious review to a 7 minute cartoon. Why? I have no idea. Maybe I just feel like wasting some time by writing something ridiculously pretentious. Anyway, here goes.

'Buy One, Get One Free' is one of the episodes in the 'What a Cartoon' series shown on the Cartoon Network in the 90's. I just happened to stumble upon it while searching YouTube, so I thought I'd go ahead and share my opinion. Now, to try and give this cartoon a serious review is pointless, and if I had any sense I would no more do that than give a serious review to a 'Looney Tunes' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon. And yet, here I am, doing it.

First of all, this is not high art; it is intended to be brainless fun. So the question is, does it succeed as brainless fun?

Well, as to whether or not it would be classified as "brainless", let's just say that no one's mental faculties are going to be particularly taxed in trying to understand the cartoon's plot. I mean, really…we're in 'Looney Tunes' territory here. It's not as mindless as Wile E. Coyote making endless attempts to catch the Road Runner, but this is a simple story, a variation on many that we've seen before. It begins with a man named Reilly answering a personal ad for a young woman who is looking for a relationship with a fellow cat-lover. Eventually, a bunch of cats wind up having a party in his bachelor pad while he is out on his date. I won't say any more about the plot, but let me just add that this cartoon follows the familiar theme of a character watching as events around him spiral out of his control, a theme that generally causes me to cringe rather than laugh. I found 'The Cat in the Hat' difficult to read and 'The Money Pit' difficult to watch for the same reason; I have never enjoyed watching people's lives and/or property slowly ruined.

And now for the second part of the question – is it fun? Well, since the story is treading no new ground, the interest is obviously going to have to be in the details. For instance, take the art direction. It's very much in a 90's Ren and Stimpyish style, and in fact several of the animators also worked on that cartoon. It's a style that many people apparently like. Unfortunately, the effect on me is a little strange and unnerving. I think it's mainly something about the eyes...they're kind of freaky.

Then there is the humor. Now, this really isn't a "detail" at all, but the actual crux of what makes this kind of cartoon a hit or a miss. 'Looney Tunes' and 'Tom and Jerry' were definitely nice to look at in the art department, but art was not what defined them. What defined them was the variety and creativity of ways in which the characters could make us laugh by crushing, burning, and pulverizing one another. And ultimately this is why I am only able to give 'Buy One, Get One Free' an "average" review...because it really didn't make me laugh all that much. Okay, I admit I did find it amusing when Reilly lost his cool at the end; the humor at that point contained the bizarreness that made 'Ren and Stimpy' so popular. But other than that, there really weren't all that many jokes, and what jokes there were didn't do a whole lot for me. In fact, some of them were slightly disturbing. For a cartoon to be brainless fun it really needs to be fun-NY, and I just didn't find enough "NY" in this one. I suggest watching some of the other episodes in the 'What a Cartoon' series...there were definitely funnier ones than this, and some that eventually became their own series.

Well, as promised, I just gave this cartoon a way longer and more serious review than any such cartoon could possibly deserve. I mean, it's only 7 minutes long for crying out loud. In the time it took you to read this, you could have just watched the cartoon on YouTube and judged it for yourself.

My rating: 4 out of 10 (didn't care for it)

'Chain of Command' is a direct-to-video actioner, the last film and dying breath of The Cannon Group.

Well, for those who watch these kind of films regularly I hardly need to describe it. It's merely a variation on the same movie you've seen many times before, par for the course. The script doesn't make much sense a lot of the time and the acting is flimsy with very little if any character development, but that's okay because those things only exist to provide a framework for lots and lots of low budget shooting, stabbing, and exploding.

Watching the action sequences, I started feeling kind of nostalgic because they are sooo 70's and 80's in style – lots of slo-mo. Slo-mo of guys flying through the air when a grenade goes off, slo-mo of guys falling from ledges after getting shot, slo-mo of bombs exploding…so dramatic! Anyone who grew up watching television in that era knows the style I'm talking about; I guess at the time we all thought it was very theatrical. I suppose that technique hasn't been totally abandoned today, but still...the way it's done in films of that time has a look all its own.

Another element of the style that I got a kick out of was the way the main character can stand right out in the open in a gunfight without a care in the world. Despite there being a group of at least 10 guys blasting away at him he never gets a scratch, and, of course, manages to easily shoot every one them. Silly...oh well, you can't complain too much because even great movies like Star Wars pulled that kind of stuff.

Funny, too, are such wonderful scenes as when the villain has our weaponless hero on the run and forces him to take cover behind a hotel bar. Does the villain, emboldened by the fact that he has two submachine guns and our hero has nothing, walk behind the bar and shoot our hero at point blank range? No! He proceeds to use up every last bullet firing at the bar, the drinks, the stools, the mirror behind the bar, and the ceiling, finally stopping when he runs out of ammo so that our hero can make a run for it.

What we have here is a case of little boys who like to play with little firecrackers growing up into big boys who like to make movies where they play with big firecrackers. Films like this are really for one purpose...destruction porn. The thrill of watching all kinds of stuff get smashed or blown up. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no different than the next guy. I love a good action movie. But I also like an interesting script and engaging characters.

I said before that the acting's pretty flimsy but I guess I can't totally rip all of the performers in this movie. Michael Dudikoff, a legend of this genre, is really not all that bad at times. R. Lee Ermey is in this! Now there's an instantly recognizable character actor. Ermey's main henchman, Todd Curtis, has some surprisingly good acting chops; I actually found him to be the most natural and believable. Looking on IMDb I see that his resume ends not long after this movie, though. I wonder what happened.

Anyway, to sum up...movies like this are made for people who LIKE movies like this, and who am I to judge? It's not my cup of tea, but if you love tongue-in-cheek action flicks then you'll probably get a kick out of this. It has all the right ingredients: the unstoppable hero, the hot girl, the cheesy dialogue, and a healthy dose of mayhem and destruction.