NON-STOP
5/10

The latest brainless Liam Neeson thriller -- which finds our star a drunken air marshal tormented by an unseen passenger on a flight bound for London -- is capably directed and stylishly filmed if nothing else. Unfortunately, what eventually turns into "Taken on a Plane" succumbs to a late-game plot twist so hilariously, inexplicably "politically correct" you can almost feel the filmmakers checking off a list to make ensure no foreign box-office revenue was lost due to religious or ethnic sensitivities. The cumulative effect not just makes the finale laughable, it's also downright insulting -- the bad guy isn't, say, an Islamic radical, but (SPOILER ALERT) a U.S. combat veteran who's father died on 9/11, and decides to take down an entire plane to prove how bad airline security is! (Yes, this movie is absolutely, completely, deadly serious). And of course, the sole Islamic character is a kindhearted doctor just along for the ride.

Suffice to say, at least the real terrorists are sure to be delighted by this venomously anti-American production funded by France's Studio Canal, which might explain its outrageous political bent.

AndyDursin wrote:NON-STOP
5/10

The latest brainless Liam Neeson thriller -- which finds our star a drunken air marshal tormented by an unseen passenger on a flight bound for London -- is capably directed and stylishly filmed if nothing else. Unfortunately, what eventually turns into "Taken on a Plane" succumbs to a late-game plot twist so hilariously, inexplicably "politically correct" you can almost feel the filmmakers checking off a list to make ensure no foreign box-office revenue was lost due to religious or ethnic sensitivities. The cumulative effect not just makes the finale laughable, it's also downright insulting -- the bad guy isn't, say, an Islamic radical, but (SPOILER ALERT) a U.S. combat veteran who's father died on 9/11, and decides to take down an entire plane to prove how bad airline security is! (Yes, this movie is absolutely, completely, deadly serious). And of course, the sole Islamic character is a kindhearted doctor just along for the ride.

Suffice to say, at least the real terrorists are sure to be delighted by this venomously anti-American production funded by France's Studio Canal, which might explain its outrageous political bent.

Based on that review I would give it a 1/10...lol...you were too generous! I did not see the movie but I have no interest in seeing it now.

Make that minus ten of ten if you can go any lower. Maybe in the interests of consistency we should see a remake of "Lifeboat" in which the German U-Boat captain becomes the hero of the story!

Eric Paddon wrote:Make that minus ten of ten if you can go any lower. Maybe in the interests of consistency we should see a remake of "Lifeboat" in which the German U-Boat captain becomes the hero of the story!

I gave it a 1/10 for being "capably directed and stylishly filmed" as Andy reported in his review. Reviewing a movie based on Andy's review...lol...

I was, personally, appalled by the picture...it's one of those situations where I would not recommend it to anyone but the first 60 minutes were reasonably well-done for what it was.

There's also a moment where the passengers are going to "storm the cockpit" so to speak -- and this time they're the villains because they don't believe Neeson in what he's doing!

Disgusting. To put it mildly.

I recently watched GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN; it wasn't as powerful as the original film but I enjoyed the monster battles in it. Clearly they needed to work on some of the moves and fighting positions (which they would "fix" in later films). I felt the human interest story was just not interesting. Not much to say about it - entertaining but not as memorable as the original.

I also watched THE BATTLE OVER CITIZEN KANE - the story behind that movie is endlessly fascinating to me. Hearst's hideaway was stunning - I still cannot get over how much money he must have had back then and how he spent it. Welles had quite a set of stones back then to take Hearst on, and it cost them both. Again, fascinating documentary. I am going to have to put CITIZEN KANE in again soon!

MALEFICENT
6.5/10

The gorgeously shot — kudos to director Robert Stromberg and cinematographer Dean Semler — but flawed “revisionist fairy tale” MALEFICENT takes the perspective of the title villainess (a perfectly cast Angelina Jolie) as she curses Aurora, the King’s daughter (Elle Fanning), to a lifetime slumber upon her reaching the age of 16. Until that time, Maleficent actually becomes — grudgingly — some kind of fairy godmother to the girl, who lives in the forest, secluded from the castle and her increasingly deranged father, who wants only to destroy Malefcent and her fairy kingdom.

“Maleficent,” the latest Disney live-action fantasy to follow in the footsteps of Sam Raimi’s “Oz: The Great and Powerful” and Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland,” falls inbetween the two in terms of quality. It’s livelier and more fun than Burton’s picture, yet not as satisfyingly scripted as last year’s sojourn to Frank Baum’s magical province. Part of the problem is its obvious identity crisis, wherein the film wants to place a more adult spin on “Sleeping Beauty” while retaining the wholesome qualities of a Disney production. This results in Maleficent herself being not “bad” but rather understandably outraged by the horrendous behavior of the king (a terribly one-note Sharlto Copley), who strips away her wings and the ability to fly.

Jolie is just fine in the lead, and Fanning is lovely as Sleeping Beauty — but other roles in the picture prove to be a bust, particularly the “three fairies” (played by Juno Temple, Lesley Manville and Imelda Staunton) who become the girl’s surrogate caretakers and would-be comic relief. Abrasively unfunny and obnoxious, they’re just as worthless as Copley’s gruff, wooden performance as the King — and the less said, the better about Prince Philip (Brenton Thwaites), who’s treated here like a refugee from the last “Twilight” movie.

Technically the film delivers: the effects are impressive and the cinematography, especially early on, delivers some striking, evocative shots of Maleficent sitting on the top of a hill, contemplating her existence with clouds billowing in the background. With first-time director Stromberg coming from a background in special effects animation, it’s no surprise this is a sumptuously designed picture that often looks, in its best moments, like a painting come to life, and adults can at least appreciate the pretty pictures even if the story (credited to veteran Disney scribe Linda Woolverton) doesn’t come together.

“Maleficent” also shows ample evidence of having being worked over in post-production — with a scant 97-minute running time, it’s obvious Disney executives poured over every aspect of the picture, with the entire opening having been reshot after principal photography concluded. This resulted in the deletion of Miranda Richardson and Peter Capaldi’s scenes as the King and Queen of the Moors, as well as India Eisley (Olivia Hussey’s daughter) being replaced by another actress as a young Maleficent in scenes rewritten and shot under the guidance of director John Lee Hancock (Eisley is on the right in the photo below, and looks much more like Jolie than the girl who replaced her on the left). While one can only imagine Disney executives didn’t like the direction the movie was taking, the finished product — tellingly — never settles into a comfortable editorial rhythm.

On the whole, "Maleficent" is a mixed bag with some memorable elements and numerous shortcomings, though between the visual design and James Newton Howard's effectively emotive score (which only hits a false note with an odd, "wicked witch" type of fanfare in its concluding seconds), at least it gives the viewer something interesting to look at and listen to.

If Disney execs are going to butcher a cut of the film in post-production, just stop hiring directors. Have the execs direct the film; that way you end up saving some money. I don't understand why there needs to be so much tampering.

Because after all the money they lost on THE LONE RANGER, unless there is someone in the director's chair who either has a track record with them or another studio, or a producer to protect them like Bruckheimer will with Verbinski or Bay, the suits at Disney fancy themselves filmmakers when all they are are bean counters and pencil pushers who made a few videos on their cellphones and now they think they are Spielberg...and they never will be. At least producers and studio heads back in the day had some rudimentary idea of how a film was made and WHY a film was made-for all the fiddling that Thalberg, Selznick and Zanuck did with their films at least they knew story and characters , something that today's studio execs know absolutely zilch about.

What irked me about Maleficent was its weird, half-baked anti-male stance, where every male character in the film is evil (Sharlto Copley's ridiculously one-note King), useless (the Prince who appears in all of TWO scenes, and spends the rest of his screen time being floated around by Jolie as a literal prop) or both. One critic even took the movie as a thinly-veiled rape revenge fantasy, and dubbed it "Disney's I Spit On Your Grave". It's fine to make a film that pokes holes in the usual Disney formula of meek, helpless princesses rescued by handsome princes, but it's one thing to have a princess that's a well-rounded character who can make her own decisions and shape the course of her own destiny, with men as basically sidekicks along for the ride (films like Mulan and Frozen come to mind), and another to cast all men as cartoonishly vile and/or nothing more than someone to walk in at the end and smile at the heroine. Like Andy, I loved the gorgeous visual palette of the film, and James Newton Howard's lush score is one of his best in years, but the underlying gender dynamics of the screenplay are disturbing on multiple levels without ever coherently dissecting the provocative ideas it presents.

They had a first-time director in Robert Stromberg (who, according to the FSM board, is the brother of composer/music reconstructionist William Stromberg), so on the one hand I can see them "messaging" this picture with all kinds of "hands on" alterations. On the other -- this is becoming an increasing trend in Hollywood. Instead of veteran, bona-fide filmmakers, they are hiring first-time directors, or (in Captain America 2) a pair of guys only known for a TV comedy -- part of it HAS to be they are doing whatever the studio wants. And that these movies are so carefully prepared, that it really doesn't matter who's calling the shots -- so long as they are following the marching orders of the executives and focus groups.

The Disney bean counters also were -- as Jeff said -- nervous after LONE RANGER, where they DID have a veteran filmmaker in Verbinski who is notorious for going over-budget (and they pulled the plug the first time on the movie because the costs were too high). MALEFICENT's budget was very high (about $160-$175 mil apparently), so they'll need a big play internationally to make money on it.

Still it is unusual to see a movie so obviously assembled in the editing room. I felt bad for India Eisley as I always enjoyed her on "Secret Life of the American Teenager" (a terrible series that did offer her and Shailene Woodley working together), and this was supposed to be a big break for her...and yet she was replaced along with the whole opening of the movie.

Like Andy, I loved the gorgeous visual palette of the film, and James Newton Howard's lush score is one of his best in years, but the underlying gender dynamics of the screenplay are disturbing on multiple levels without ever coherently dissecting the provocative ideas it presents.

Great point. Not to mention that the "true love's kiss" isn't between Aurora and Phillip -- it's between her and Maleficent! But this is par for the course with Disney and the whole "female empowerment" angle they are trotting out there time and time again. I felt FROZEN did the exact same thing, to be honest, and those same gender dynamics are at play in this movie also -- with unbelievably weak, uninteresting male leads. It's become cliche for Disney in these films, though over time, they might find that little boys are growing uninterested in the "fairy tale" genre -- whereas before, they tried to appeal to both segments equally.

AndyDursin wrote:Great point. Not to mention that the "true love's kiss" isn't between Aurora and Phillip -- it's between her and Maleficent! But this is par for the course with Disney and the whole "female empowerment" angle they are trotting out there time and time again. I felt FROZEN did the exact same thing, to be honest, and those same gender dynamics are at play in this movie also -- with unbelievably weak, uninteresting male leads. It's become cliche for Disney in these films, though over time, they might find that little boys are growing uninterested in the "fairy tale" genre -- whereas before, they tried to appeal to both segments equally.

The irony is, even though recent Disney Princess films like Tangled and Frozen are often "Girl Power" to the extreme, the advertising for them are EXTREMELY "boy-centric" (accentuating adventure and slapstick sidekick humor), right down to the titles that are incredibly generic and gender-neutral. Then again, The Princess & The Frog went whole-hog in advertising itself as a deliberate return to Disney's 90's period, and it barely squeaked past the $100 million mark in the U.S. With these recent films, they're just offering a different set of awful stereotypes for the ones of the past, and what kind of "progress" is that? How about a Disney film where the female and male leads are equally compelling and likable characters? I can barely remember the lead love interest guy in Frozen...he serves NO purpose whatsoever in the narrative except to give Anna someone to pair off with at the end. It's what I think of as "Even the stinky guy gets a girlfriend" syndrome, only gender-reversed. If one side of a romantic pairing is just there ONLY to serve that narrative function, why even bother? Is it really that bad to have a character -- male or female -- who isn't interested in scoring a Significant Other? Again, the Prince in Maleficent adds NOTHING to the movie except...crap, he was in Sleeping Beauty, so he have to shoehorn him in anyways as a plot MacGuffin?

Looks like MALEFICENT will do pretty good this weekend, Seth McFarlane will not have the hit he had with TED, and Adam Sandler's latest piece of merde continues to slide down, taking 5th behind the big guy...

http://www.thewrap.com/maleficent-leave ... ntactology

Cliffhanger

Yes, it's Die Hard in the mountains, but I think it is solid, entertaining, suspenseful and holds-up as one of the better actioners from the 90s. Stallone is great -- believable as always (not least because of that athletic body, and his performing a fair amount of his own stunts). Some of the optical effects work is less-than-convincing (as are a couple of the "exteriors" which are obviously sound stages). Alex Thomson's photography is terrific however, as is Trevor Jones' score.

Not looking forward to the remake and its CGI "stunt work" (or the Zimmer-esque soundtrack it's bound to have).

ROBOCOP (2014)
5/10

A remake of a movie that its creators seemingly didn’t care for to begin with, the strange, stoic 2014 version of ROBOCOP offers pretentious satirical components and a slow-going, downbeat story that’s surprisingly light on action.

Josh Zetumer’s script (the Verhoeven version scribes, Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner, are also credited) is set in the year 2028. Taking a page from today’s use of drones in the military, “Robocop”’s future sees a world where wars can be waged entirely by remote control. The movie’s resident “evil corporation” Omnicorp wants their robotic warriors to be able to function inside the U.S., and not just overseas, but voters - worried that a robot doesn’t have a soul – shun their best efforts to expand their military might. In an attempt to change the populist view, Omnicorp’s head (Michael Keaton) has his top scientist (Gary Oldman) develop a new program wherein a human and machine are melded together. They find their candidate in a Detroit cop (Joel Kinnaman) on life support after being shot in an undercover bust gone wrong, and promptly turn him into a mostly-mechanical fighting machine.

Despite its PG-13 rating, this “Robocop” is anything but a movie for kids. In fact, it’s hard to tell exactly who this movie was intended for. Director Jose Padilha opens the film with a deadly 10-minute parody of “The O’Reilly Factor” where commentator “Pat Novak” (Samuel L. Jackson) delivers a “Talking Points” segment that not only relays the film’s transparent messages but also threatens to put the viewer to sleep. It takes far too long for the story to kick into gear, and when Robocop does make his appearance, he has to muddle through a tedious military-conspiracy story played in such a dour, humorless manner that it’s hard to imagine what MGM saw in this audience-unfriendly treatment – or that they vetoed a proposed version from director Darren Aronofsky and writer David Self years ago before settling on producing this. The cast – with Abbie Cornish as Robocop’s wife (though the movie errs by having the character aware of her husband’s identity right from the get-go), Jackie Earle Haley and Jennifer Ehle co-starring – is superb, but the movie is sterile, dull and curiously detached.

MGM’s Blu-Ray includes a few minutes of deleted scenes, two featurettes, a DVD, digital copy, 1080p transfer and 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack featuring a score by Pedro Bromfman that opens with a quote from Basil Poledouris’ original score before settling into a typical modern array of musical cliches.