This is a three stage review. In this one, I'm reviewing the movie Star Trek Beyond, I'm reviewing the screening format that I saw the film in at this theater, Barco Escape 3 screen projection, and I'm reviewing the theater itself for Tripadvisor, in this order..
So my thoughts on Star Trek Beyond are as follows:
It is one of the better and most epic movies I've seen in 2016.
One of the things I loved about this film was the visual effects. The entire composition of Yorktown, the Swarm, and the planet were absolute top notch. It is a spectacle to watch.
For the characters, we have the crew, who are all on point with their interactions with each other and have great chemistry, and we got the villain, who is very nasty and very effective.
It is a great movie.
My thoughts on the Barco Escape projectors are as follows:
This is basically what I'm terming Cinerama 2.0, Cinerama Light or Diet Cinerama. The basic idea for Barco Escape is, like the classic Cinerama you'd want to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in, it uses three projectors. For the theater I saw Star Trek in, the main Barco projector for it and normal screened movies was in the booth behind the auditorium as normal, but Barco Escape, instead of a curved screen, uses three movie screens, with the outer two angled and conjoined with the middle; it's got a corner rather than a circle. The other two projectors are in little surveillance camera sockets on the ceiling up front and aimed at the other two screens.
What did I think of this format?
It was really cool and unique. I was lucky to have the screening room all to myself and shift to various parts of the room to see what the experience was. You really do need to pay attention to everything going on in the room to get the full experience. My advice: pick a seat up-front in the stadium section, but maybe take a front seat in the little "arc" of the screens if you wish.
Now for the theater.
I've gotten to like the Santikos movie theaters, and this one is very nice. This western-themed locale isn't as nice as the Palladium by virtue of it being older and a bit smaller, but it was still comfortable, the staff were still very nice, and I still liked the popcorn. I'm a bit disappointed by there being no Freestyle soda machines, but it's still good to have self-serve soda fountains. The rooms are a little darker, so keep that in mind.
So I recommend all three parts of this review: the movie Star Trek Beyond, the Barco Escape format, and the Santikos Silverado if the Palladium is booked out or too crowded, or both.
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie review. Show all posts
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Saturday, October 17, 2015
San Andreas review
This is a pretty movie, but I was also pretty bored by it. One of my problems is this movie managed to hit every single disaster movie cliche pothole. Every. Single. One.
First was the estranged family, though this one barely meets that word since they are still on good terms. They might as well have still been married, and of course, they are together at the end.
Second was the "villain" character played by the original "Mr. Fantastic". That character was completely pointless. He does leave the daughter behind, but then he really has no purpose in the film afterwards since he doesn't meet the other characters, appearing on the street twice before getting crushed by a tanker. And how does he react to that? Exasperated. Not screaming, annoyed. If they wanted to lob a shot at big business, this is one that misses by a mile. This wouldn't scare Donald Trump in his sleep.
Third was the science of this movie was out of whack. Tsunamis were pretty inaccurate in this film.
I think this is one of the most laughable disaster movies I've seen yet, and I've seen 2012. That had some entertaining destruction and lines. San Andreas doesn't
Cue my Jeffrey Katzenberg quote: "It didn't work at all."
First was the estranged family, though this one barely meets that word since they are still on good terms. They might as well have still been married, and of course, they are together at the end.
Second was the "villain" character played by the original "Mr. Fantastic". That character was completely pointless. He does leave the daughter behind, but then he really has no purpose in the film afterwards since he doesn't meet the other characters, appearing on the street twice before getting crushed by a tanker. And how does he react to that? Exasperated. Not screaming, annoyed. If they wanted to lob a shot at big business, this is one that misses by a mile. This wouldn't scare Donald Trump in his sleep.
Third was the science of this movie was out of whack. Tsunamis were pretty inaccurate in this film.
I think this is one of the most laughable disaster movies I've seen yet, and I've seen 2012. That had some entertaining destruction and lines. San Andreas doesn't
Cue my Jeffrey Katzenberg quote: "It didn't work at all."
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Alright, my review of Casino Royale.... the 1967 spoof version, sadly; this is one of the most infamous films of all time.
The Nostalgia Critic once said to review a bad comedy is one of the toughest things to do (and so is making a comedy) because you can only go, "That isn't funny", so many times before you get up and leave the theater. This movie is one of the worst examples of comedy, and they had the cajones to soil James Bond while they were at it.
First things first; before I get into the review, I have to give this movie a special stance called [[Echo Synth]] THE WAGGING FINGER OF SHAME [[end echo mod]]. If you watched Ebert & Roeper's review of the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror, you would know that they awarded this to movies that the studios were too embarrassed to screen in advance for film critics. The 1967 Casino Royale was not screened for critics.
Anyway, the opening theme to the movie IS pretty catchy, but some of the music does feel inappropriate.
The opening scene of the movie feels disjointed, and the scenes in the castle feel even worse with overheavy accents, bad dancing, and pointless scenes until everyone starts falling down. Are they dead or unconscious? Who cares? And even that has no point.
Bond is one of the most famous womanizers in every other movie, but this spoof turned him into an old prude and drastically altered his character. This is James Bond in name only; even Austin Powers makes a better 007 that this one does, and that's saying a lot.
It only gets worse. The villain group, a take on SMERSH, has a cheesy battle map with a guy running the place named Dr. Noah, who turns out to be Bond's nephew, Jimmy, a character played by the not-British Woody Allen when the real Bond and the top impostor are played by Pink Panther's David Niven and Peter Sellers, and this is a character that's only mentioned once prior to his reveal at the end of the movie. SMERSH is behind everything, which leads to Sir James Bond taking over MI6 and the heavily-accented people who run it, and hiring a bunch of impostors, including his illegitimate daughter, whose mother is Mata Hari, the World War spy. She has a good intro scene, but that's it.
Her mission in Berlin is where if you were taking the movie seriously up to that point, you stop here, because the bidding scene didn't seem to have much purpose, or any they made clear. The main impostor Bond, Evelyn Tremble, gets himself into Casino Royale and his game with the only major villain from the book, Le Chiffe, played by Orson Welles, the second horror vet to take the role after Peter Lorre did in an early 50's TV movie. This version of the character is a way-too affable magician and not a spy, Soviet or SMERSH agent, or even a good gambler; he's cheating, and while we do know how he's cheating, it's not used against him, and he and the fake Bond are killed in his little "torture machine" which Tex Avery uses.
Eventually, the bad guys kidnap Bond's daughter, bringing the real Bond to the casino and into SMERSH's headquarters; Jimmy Bond is poisoned with a pill that will blow the place sky high at this point, and, while the good guys do get the right idea of actually leaving, a brawl that turns the casino into a ridiculous and childish Cowboys and Indians game just. Stops. Them. Cue Jim burping 400 times, cue the building blowing up and wiping out the cast. The world is saved, but that's an anti climatic and ridiculous way to end the whole thing.
This movie is filled with all the cliches of the Bond series (after only 4 films with a 5th to follow in 2 months, at that) played badly. And I just remembered, M supposedly died at the beginning, but this movie is written so badly, they never explain it and thought to trust us to take their word for it. There are several other bad explanations, and a lot of the conversations have no emotion to them. As for the pacing and feel, the movie starts very slow, and just devolves into an insane concoction of action right out of Tex Avery. Makes you wonder what drugs the makers were doing. I wasn't expecting much, but if you're going to use Bond, do something that's not a poor-man's version of Pink Panther. The special effects are bad, some things in the film, like the U.F.O., were not dealt with in a manner to where we're supposed to laugh or take it seriously, and the dialogue can be laughable. It says a lot when the Austin Powers movies can show more emotion and, for their ridiculous plots, be more believable.
There are two good things about this film. The title track from Herb Albert is pretty catchy, and I kinda liked the scene with the introduction of Bond's daughter, Mata Bond. There was some good to decent choreography there. The rest of the film is a Frankenstein's Monster patchwork of scenes, and one thing that should tip you off to this being bad: there are 5 directors credited. Outside of the music, I really can't remember much; this version of Casino Royale is sadly an enjoyment-free dead zone, and it convinced the guys behind the real James Bond series to fight hard against something like this happening again, which set the stage for some nasty legal work that was only settled for good two years ago. This movie's from 1967; my father was in high school.
I cannot recommend this one at all; it makes no sense, and it's shoddily edited and directed. It's a very poor version of one of the Roger Moore films, and those are still somewhat competent. THIS is one of the biggest turkeys ever crafted in Hollywood, and I just know, when The Nostalgia Critic gets to Bond movies, which I see happening with a new one coming in November, this movie will be one of the movies he reviews.
The Nostalgia Critic once said to review a bad comedy is one of the toughest things to do (and so is making a comedy) because you can only go, "That isn't funny", so many times before you get up and leave the theater. This movie is one of the worst examples of comedy, and they had the cajones to soil James Bond while they were at it.
First things first; before I get into the review, I have to give this movie a special stance called [[Echo Synth]] THE WAGGING FINGER OF SHAME [[end echo mod]]. If you watched Ebert & Roeper's review of the 2005 remake of The Amityville Horror, you would know that they awarded this to movies that the studios were too embarrassed to screen in advance for film critics. The 1967 Casino Royale was not screened for critics.
Anyway, the opening theme to the movie IS pretty catchy, but some of the music does feel inappropriate.
The opening scene of the movie feels disjointed, and the scenes in the castle feel even worse with overheavy accents, bad dancing, and pointless scenes until everyone starts falling down. Are they dead or unconscious? Who cares? And even that has no point.
Bond is one of the most famous womanizers in every other movie, but this spoof turned him into an old prude and drastically altered his character. This is James Bond in name only; even Austin Powers makes a better 007 that this one does, and that's saying a lot.
It only gets worse. The villain group, a take on SMERSH, has a cheesy battle map with a guy running the place named Dr. Noah, who turns out to be Bond's nephew, Jimmy, a character played by the not-British Woody Allen when the real Bond and the top impostor are played by Pink Panther's David Niven and Peter Sellers, and this is a character that's only mentioned once prior to his reveal at the end of the movie. SMERSH is behind everything, which leads to Sir James Bond taking over MI6 and the heavily-accented people who run it, and hiring a bunch of impostors, including his illegitimate daughter, whose mother is Mata Hari, the World War spy. She has a good intro scene, but that's it.
Her mission in Berlin is where if you were taking the movie seriously up to that point, you stop here, because the bidding scene didn't seem to have much purpose, or any they made clear. The main impostor Bond, Evelyn Tremble, gets himself into Casino Royale and his game with the only major villain from the book, Le Chiffe, played by Orson Welles, the second horror vet to take the role after Peter Lorre did in an early 50's TV movie. This version of the character is a way-too affable magician and not a spy, Soviet or SMERSH agent, or even a good gambler; he's cheating, and while we do know how he's cheating, it's not used against him, and he and the fake Bond are killed in his little "torture machine" which Tex Avery uses.
Eventually, the bad guys kidnap Bond's daughter, bringing the real Bond to the casino and into SMERSH's headquarters; Jimmy Bond is poisoned with a pill that will blow the place sky high at this point, and, while the good guys do get the right idea of actually leaving, a brawl that turns the casino into a ridiculous and childish Cowboys and Indians game just. Stops. Them. Cue Jim burping 400 times, cue the building blowing up and wiping out the cast. The world is saved, but that's an anti climatic and ridiculous way to end the whole thing.
This movie is filled with all the cliches of the Bond series (after only 4 films with a 5th to follow in 2 months, at that) played badly. And I just remembered, M supposedly died at the beginning, but this movie is written so badly, they never explain it and thought to trust us to take their word for it. There are several other bad explanations, and a lot of the conversations have no emotion to them. As for the pacing and feel, the movie starts very slow, and just devolves into an insane concoction of action right out of Tex Avery. Makes you wonder what drugs the makers were doing. I wasn't expecting much, but if you're going to use Bond, do something that's not a poor-man's version of Pink Panther. The special effects are bad, some things in the film, like the U.F.O., were not dealt with in a manner to where we're supposed to laugh or take it seriously, and the dialogue can be laughable. It says a lot when the Austin Powers movies can show more emotion and, for their ridiculous plots, be more believable.
There are two good things about this film. The title track from Herb Albert is pretty catchy, and I kinda liked the scene with the introduction of Bond's daughter, Mata Bond. There was some good to decent choreography there. The rest of the film is a Frankenstein's Monster patchwork of scenes, and one thing that should tip you off to this being bad: there are 5 directors credited. Outside of the music, I really can't remember much; this version of Casino Royale is sadly an enjoyment-free dead zone, and it convinced the guys behind the real James Bond series to fight hard against something like this happening again, which set the stage for some nasty legal work that was only settled for good two years ago. This movie's from 1967; my father was in high school.
I cannot recommend this one at all; it makes no sense, and it's shoddily edited and directed. It's a very poor version of one of the Roger Moore films, and those are still somewhat competent. THIS is one of the biggest turkeys ever crafted in Hollywood, and I just know, when The Nostalgia Critic gets to Bond movies, which I see happening with a new one coming in November, this movie will be one of the movies he reviews.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Cocktail movie review
This is an old movie; it's from 1988, the year I was born, but it's not a goodie....
Okay, my first instincts on Cocktail is it does have a good soundtrack going into the movie. It's typical teenage behavior, and a reunion that could use more of an emotional connection. And, so, it has a decent vibe going in, and I like Tom Cruise and Bryan Brown's energy. But I do feel it's hohum until we get to that job interview and first bartending scenes, where we get one of those cliches that really doesn't work unless it's a full-blown comedy (Hint: Clip-show mind screw). Last I checked, Cocktail is a love story.
A lot of the character interactions seems awkward to me. The drunk walk is one of those examples.
Bad poem in the "Cell Block". Too narmy and nonsensical.
The movie is rather uneventful, being really only a music video for the accompanying soundtrack and maybe a travel brochure for Jamaica. I think there is a little bit of tension when the baby is mentioned, but I didn't really feel like sitting through the whole movie.
Now there was a small second-run movie palace in Houston called Bel Air, like the ritzy neighborhood in Hollywood, that had a bar with windows into one of the auditoriums. If I were an adult in 1988/1989, and I went into the bar before going to the box office, and I saw Cocktail playing behind the glass, well, good news! It was a free showing! You would NOT be missing out on watching the movie without sound from the Bel Air's bar, because there's nothing going on. I can get more entertainment talking to the theater's barman. Too bad they don't make movie theaters like that anymore as a safety net for other bad movies.
The only good thing about Cocktail IS the soundtrack, and this movie was the debut of the only post "Good Vibrations" big hit from The Beach Boys, which was "Kokomo". That song and the songs in the soundtrack are classic, and you do need to buy this movie to hear the soundtrack.
I only did this one because I played barkeep in New Mexico, and I felt it would be appropriate. Well, I've got a review for one of the lamest 80's films (and the Worst Picture 1988 Razzie winner as I discovered) under my belt, so there's an accomplishment. If you wanna argue the point, this movie may help pretraining for any aspiring bartenders (there's fun in catering at parties, which I'd rather do over watching this movie.).
There is good news. Disney and Touchstone had a considerably better choice in moviemaking with Roger Rabbit the same year. Spend your money on that.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1004420-cocktail/
Okay, my first instincts on Cocktail is it does have a good soundtrack going into the movie. It's typical teenage behavior, and a reunion that could use more of an emotional connection. And, so, it has a decent vibe going in, and I like Tom Cruise and Bryan Brown's energy. But I do feel it's hohum until we get to that job interview and first bartending scenes, where we get one of those cliches that really doesn't work unless it's a full-blown comedy (Hint: Clip-show mind screw). Last I checked, Cocktail is a love story.
A lot of the character interactions seems awkward to me. The drunk walk is one of those examples.
Bad poem in the "Cell Block". Too narmy and nonsensical.
The movie is rather uneventful, being really only a music video for the accompanying soundtrack and maybe a travel brochure for Jamaica. I think there is a little bit of tension when the baby is mentioned, but I didn't really feel like sitting through the whole movie.
Now there was a small second-run movie palace in Houston called Bel Air, like the ritzy neighborhood in Hollywood, that had a bar with windows into one of the auditoriums. If I were an adult in 1988/1989, and I went into the bar before going to the box office, and I saw Cocktail playing behind the glass, well, good news! It was a free showing! You would NOT be missing out on watching the movie without sound from the Bel Air's bar, because there's nothing going on. I can get more entertainment talking to the theater's barman. Too bad they don't make movie theaters like that anymore as a safety net for other bad movies.
The only good thing about Cocktail IS the soundtrack, and this movie was the debut of the only post "Good Vibrations" big hit from The Beach Boys, which was "Kokomo". That song and the songs in the soundtrack are classic, and you do need to buy this movie to hear the soundtrack.
I only did this one because I played barkeep in New Mexico, and I felt it would be appropriate. Well, I've got a review for one of the lamest 80's films (and the Worst Picture 1988 Razzie winner as I discovered) under my belt, so there's an accomplishment. If you wanna argue the point, this movie may help pretraining for any aspiring bartenders (there's fun in catering at parties, which I'd rather do over watching this movie.).
There is good news. Disney and Touchstone had a considerably better choice in moviemaking with Roger Rabbit the same year. Spend your money on that.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1004420-cocktail/
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
My RT review of Tomorrowland.
Oh, boy. This is going to be the most complicated review I've written on Rotten Tomatoes yet. Head's up.
First off, while I like George Clooney as an actor, he came across as a bit too much mean spirited when he shows up halfway through the film. Blasting the girl with the door was a bit too much for me. Plus, he doesn't have enough chemistry with the other actors besides Hugh Laurie to be effective as Frank Walker.
But, why did we need all the end of the world stuff? I saw a preview of this movie in the Captain EO theater in the Tomorrowland zone in Disneyland last May, and the sneak preview looked really cool. It detailed how Frank Walker got to Tomorrowland, and I think a story of him growing up and putting his mind to work there would have been a cool, inspirational story to tell. Sadly, it looked like the scenes from the Disneyland sneak preview were the best scenes in the film, as it shifts tone for probably the wrong reasons to being an on the run urban movie, and it takes too long to get back to the fantasy. We didn't see enough of Tomorrowland to really get how that world works, and I think that's a missed opportunity.
The story also committed another sin in regards to the future world's existence, and this is where the film could be considered as having nuked the fridge. We start to talk about the end of the world through several means, including but not limited to global warming, icecaps melting, tornadoes, flooding, nuclear explosions, to name a few. Putting this particular plot point in, I think, was a big mistake.
Some of the characters need work too. You don't particularly care for the ones who die, and they are not written cleverly enough. It all leads to an unenergetic climax and ending, which really let me down.
And of course, the movie had a massive budget. This is the third Disney film in recent years to suffer this problem after John Carter and The Lone Ranger, which I have not seen. If you're going to have a James Cameron-sized production, the writing and action needs to be on the level of Titanic and Terminator. Tomorrowland wasn't.
Disney was hoping for a futuristic, invention themed film, but after seeing this, I'm afraid they have instead crafted their own equivalent to Universal's Waterworld, which is a very bad thing. Yeah, this film has the same potholes as 1995's Waterworld. Amazing how mistakes people have made back in the 90s are resurfacing now.
If you're just interested in decent action, you may want to give Tomorrowland a shot, but it's got the same style-over-substance problems from Waterworld, along with the overbudget from it and 2005's Sahara to match. I'm not going to really recommend it. Skip to after the end of the world with Mad Max if you DON'T take your kids, or go for a second dose of Avengers if you do.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
The Great Mouse Detective
So what do I think of The Great Mouse Detective. This:
This is one of my childhood films, and I do still enjoy it. Do love Vincent Price.
If I had to pick a "dark age" Disney film to lump in with the classics, it's this one. The characters are very good, and play each other off very well. It's very entertaining, and it works.
This is one of my childhood films, and I do still enjoy it. Do love Vincent Price.
If I had to pick a "dark age" Disney film to lump in with the classics, it's this one. The characters are very good, and play each other off very well. It's very entertaining, and it works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)