Category Archives: Flickers

Ghosterbusters (2016): Don’t bother

From Mr. Boy’s impromptu review I suspect the movie would even gag a feminist. Well some feminists.

First off, he says, having seen it the other day, it isn’t that funny. Some laughs, but no big ones. Imagine. The first one was pretty hilarious.

Second, the feminist angle (the new ghostbusters are all women) is very heavy-handed. So much so that the men in the movie are morons. Especially the male secretary of the four principals. He’s pretty but stupid. A dumb blond who is played for cheap laughs.

“The bland lobotomized token male. Pretty much the only main character who was a man was turned into a stereotype. He was useless, annoying, fake, had an IQ below sea-level, and was clearly trying to pretend to be Brad Pitt, but with none of the acting talent. He also only got hired because of his looks,” says reviewer Girlycard L at IMBD.com

And finally, as Mr. Boy indignantly summarizes, the movie is hypocritical. The four stars not only have hired and kept a hot but stupid secretary, they hunger after him for his looks. You know, like men probably would for a dumb but sexy woman. Some feminists.

Nine years ago on Texas Scribbler

Texas as desert

May 27, 2007

Mouth of the Brazos makes a good point in reviewing the famous John Wayne movie “The Searchers.” Good as the story is, the landscape pretending to be Texas is Utah or Arizona, somewhere flat, dry and dusty.

I still run across Yankees who are amazed to discover we have trees and grass and rolling hills. All because of movies like that one. Good as it is. (But, not being a movie lover, I think Alan Lemay’s book was better.)

Ink

Ink is one weird movie, hard to explain, even harder to appreciate once it’s over because the plot is so trite. But you don’t really see the plot until the end. The way it’s structured you’re more or less constantly trying to figure out what’s going on.

The visuals, however, are stunning, especially the appearance of the, what? The evil ones? With their glass-pane faces and glowing goggled eyes? Director/writer Jamin Winans has a weird mind. But he’s produced a captivating story. Right up until the very end when you realize it was rather pedestrian all along.

I did like the fact that I was able to watch it on my Amazon Fire tablet, avoiding the house of the sticky floors. How many stars on the Stanleymeter? Three. Try the trailer first. It sucked me in. You might like the movie more than I did.

Movie: Less Martian, more NASA

The Martian is not the best scifi movie I ever saw, but it is reasonably faithful to the book for a change. Only a little tiresome with the manipulated tears. Funny how the tear ducts respond even when the brain is saying oh, come on now.

I rented the flicker via Amazon and watched it on my Kindle Fire tablet for about six bucks. The “Martian,” Matt Damon was exceptionally good. So were the young babes, unknowns to me, at Mission control and on the Hermes spacecraft, which was easily the largest thing Earth ever launched and with Starship Enterprise interiors.

I still think, as I did with the book, that the author was too much of a NASA and government fanboy. Damon being of and being rescued by a private space company would have been much more interesting. There were sequences that demanded some NASA involvement but those could have been finessed.

I did come away with less of a sense of the book’s story of one man’s ingenuity in the face of impossible odds. Damon always seemed to be plugging in available hardware rather than devising unique ways around his problems. More of the focus, certainly more than in the book, was on NASA and its (in this case) babe or black scientists and their ingenuity in working out a rescue. The group, rather than the individual, was a cause for celebration. Typical of a socialist worldview.

The movie, like the book, also annoyed me for its use of CNN as the major television channel that “brings the world together” when Fox has been No. 1 for more than a decade now. But that’s what you would expect from Hollyweird, where conservative commenters like the ones on Fox are verboten. CNN’s liberals obviously preferred. Just like the Hollyweirdos keep making unpopular leftist political message movies, somehow eating their losses.

So how many stars on the Stanleymeter? Four. Do I advise you to rent it? Only if you’ve read the book first, which is much more inspiring if much less tear-jerking.

Still my favorite movie: Wings of Desire

Angels are a persistent topic for us believers, not all of whom actually believe in angels, though I count myself among those who do.

And no movie expresses the angels idea better than Wim Wenders 1987 Wings of Desire about a cadre of trench-coated angels (typified by Otto Sander and Bruno Ganz) who watch over post-war Berlin and try to comfort the mortals.

Of course I also love the hymn to coffee and cigarettes. I’m surprised the irreligious federal nannies haven’t banned the flick for that reason alone. But they haven’t yet and you can still rent, or even better, buy it. Enjoy.

Top Ten War Movies

My list, mainly compiled from the choices at the post here and also the ones from the commenters there (they didn’t mention Twelve O’Clock High or Ran, but they’re my favorites):

10. The Lighthorsemen

9. Glory

8. Twelve O’Clock High

7. The Great Escape

6. Run Silent, Run Deep

5. Fort Apache

4. Bridge Over The River Kwai

3. Zulu

2. Ran

1. Das Boot