Starring Adam West (2013)

Not the cover, but a more interesting poster.

It blows my mind that this film was made, and I had no idea such a film existed.  I only found out about this film by reading my friend's movie blog.  I am HUGE fan of the original Batman TV show and have watched and greatly enjoyed the documentaries included with DVD release of Batman.  So of course I rushed right out to see this film.






This film did a great job of covering Adam West's career, especially highlighting his great personality, which shines through every time he speaks.  It was great that it covered the highs of his career so well, and didn't dwell on the lows.  Still, I would have like to have seen some footage of the El Kini Popo Show.


Adam West has an outstanding personality, being that he always seem kind to his fans and sometimes self depreciating.  He has avoided the ego problems many stars have.  From this film, I got the impression that he feels that acting is not a profession where ability is a significant factor.  It's uncommon for any actor to actually realize that their career is pretty much completely based on luck and the whims of the producers and the perception of the public.

I don't really care for the show Family Guy.  Most of the time it is just stupid jokes, mostly with Peter doing completely nonsensical things.  They do have occasional good episodes.  Still, I really appreciate that Seth MacFarlane hired Adam West.  I am glad to hear that he is getting work and some of the appreciation he deserves.

I am also very glad to hear that Adam West was given a star on the Hollywood walk of fame.  I hope that people will see his star (even decades into the future) and take the time to find out who he is.  I really wish they would put QR code or link to IMDB, Facebook or something on those stars, so that those people who are unfamiliar with Adam West (or any other star) could easily look up their career.  Now I just hope that Walter Koeing gets a star. (After googling, I found that Walter Koeing has already gotten his star.  Yeah!)

Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

I had been going through all the old musicals that I was aware of, and Fiddler on the Roof was one that I had never seen.  I have heard the music many times, but never seen the film 'til now.

I have heard the songs "If I were a Rich Man" and "Matchmaker" repeatedly over the years.  And even the song Tradition sounded familiar.  Strangely, it didn't seem like there were that many other songs in the film, especially not that many that really stood out.

The film is rather long, but doesn't feel overly long, even though I feel as if the story could have been told in a much shorter time period.

The story is simple, but one that has been covered many times before in various cultural settings.  One other kind of odd thing about the film is the daughters in the film are occasionally referred to as beautiful, but they don't seem to be particularly outstandingly good looking.

For most of the story, while we are aware they live in a Jewish settlement, most of what takes place and their costumes don't stand out as being very Jewish to me.  Not that I didn't feel they were authentic, but it seems that when people mention people as being Jewish in the past, one often congers up images of orthodox Jews.

It's some what surpring how compliantly the Jews left their homes when commanded to.  But I guess they had a choice between leaving on their own or being removed.

The concept of a fiddler on the roof and the meaning are never really explained, and a source of puzzlement.

Terminator 2 (1991)

First, I am one of the only people who didn't like Terminator 2, which reeked of sequel cliches.  The film was really just an attempt to out do the scenes and catchphrase "Hasta la vista, baby." from the original film.  So, it had a lot of spectacular stunts, but the whole concept was flawed because the new terminator.  The actions of that terminator were just made to take advantage of the new computer effect of morphing, which was a new capability at the time.  It wouldn't have been logical for the the T-1000 to continually take the shape of a human, which would not necessarily be best suited for the task of killing John Connor, nor does it make any sense that it would make sense to revert back to the the same human it was in the beginning of the film, as that cover was blown. 

One of the problems with ANY robot is that there is NO reason for the designer to put vital controling components in the head of the unit.  This means that shooting it in the head would have any signifcant effect to stop or slow down the terminator.  Yet, this terminator which doesn't have any vital components in it's head, is repeatedly shot in the head.

Another problem is that while after repeatedly shooting the T-1000, it was obvious that the T-1000 was not being damaged by those shots, so that every time it was shot in the film was a waste.  Such shots were just added to look cool, and look damaging.  This is just like any other movie or cartoon battle where the fighters never take significant damage until it's time for the conclusion of the fight.

But the most problematic was that it was some type of reunitable liquid metal.  There is no reasonable theory as to what would control the metal to command it to return to the larger grouping of metal (theT-1000).

Terminator Genisys (2015)

I intended to watch this film around the time that it came out, perhaps even in the theater, but ended up waiting quite a while to watch it.

Each of the sequels of the Terminator franchise seeks to up the previous film.  In this case the thing that was by having John Connor be turned into a terminator.  That made no sense as it didn't didn't give any useful advantage in the chance of success of an attack on Sarah Connor and even if it wasn't John Connor any terminator could have just mimicked John Connor.  Even odder is that after defeating Skynet (at the beginning of the film) John was attacked by a terminator.  Didn't they disable all the terminators with the destruction of Skynet?  Then where did that terminator come from, especially with such high technology which could have been put to good use against the human resistance.

One of the biggest problems of Terminator 2 is that the drops of liquid metal of T-1000 lacked any type of control unit, making him completely impossible.  What was commanding the t-1000's body to form the shapes it did?  What was causing those parts that broke off to rejoin his body?  This was much more plasuable in Terminator Geneisys, as the John Connor was made up of nanobots, which would have the abilities.

Still, it's quite odd that the John Connor (who was no longer human in any form) would keep reforming with very detailed muscles before covering himself in flesh.  That would obviously NOT be his means of locomotion and was just added to make a cool special effect.

Also, who on earth would steal a bus to escape?  It's extremely unweidly and was merely choosen allow the location of John Connor to be interderimnate to Sarah and Kyle.

Even stupider is that John Connor jumped on to the bus with a motorcycle. All that was.  All it really did was give away the element of surprise.  He could have pulled up behind the bus without Sarah suspecting she was about to be attacked.

Terminator Film series

The first film in the series was spectacular and of course Hollywood smelled money and demanded sequels.  The story could have continued, showing how the machines took over the world and through several films how John Connor fought back and won.  But that is not what we got.  Instead we were given half baked films trying to top the original film with ridiculous terminators and nonsensical fight scenes, and no story progression.

The Rise of the Machines (2003) was disappointing, as from the title it appeared it would show how the machines took over the world, which is exactly what the film did NOT show.  It did earn some points for going back to a more plausible terminator, one that was a robot with a solid skeleton.  Unfortunately, it relied on one of the lamest tricks in the book, to change a character to female, to try and make the film stand out in the franchise.  Still, it was really odd that this terminator showed the ability to morph slightly (much more plausible) which she only used at one point to distract a policeman by making her boobs bigger, which was the only time that ability was used, which was included only for comedic effect.








Terminator Salvation (2009):  This film seemed like it was going to cover the promises of Rise of the Machines, but got bogged down in unnecessary fighting scenes, as seem to be obligatory for today's films.  The giant robot was completely unnecessary and seemed to be added just to compete with the Transformers film series.

Black Mass (2015)

Of course, being set in Boston and knowing of a little of the history, I had to see this film.  I have heard various things about Whitey Bulger, including my father having repeatedly pointed out the location where Whitey buried several of his victims bodies, which was near where my father docked his boat.

Still, I only new a little about Whitey Bulger before watching this film.  Of course it was interesting to learn the history of what Whitey Bulger did and how it went on for so long.  While it shows a lot of vicious killings, I have been told the truth is far worse and more gruesome.

The setting and camera work of the movie were superb, as they completely captured the look and feel of Boston and, more specifically, Southie.

Most of the roles that Johnny Depp takes have him play a character who is are not even vaguely handsome, as he never relies on this looks.  I have always respected Johnny Depp for not taking the easy way out and just making pretty boy films, which with his considerable female fan-base would have provided ample box office returns.  

I don't understand why this film wasn't nominated for any academy awards.  I was shocked that Johnny Depp didn't get an oscar for his work in this film.  He did a much better job than decaprio, who should only get an oscar for acting not gay for all these years.

The entire time I was watching Black Mass I kept wondering if it really was Johnny Depp. Not once did Johnny Depp give any indication of who he was other than Whitey Bulger.  Even his contact lenses seemed like his actual eyes, which is odd because whenever you see some one wearing colored contacts in real life the stand out as looking unnatural.

This film certainly was interesting.  It would be hard to call it "enjoyable", as Whitey did so many horrific things depicted in the film, but it was certainly a good watch, and I recommend it highly.  Still, it is hard to say if some one not interested in Boston or learning more about Whitey Bulger would like this film.

Catch 22 (1970)

I had heard of the concept of Catch 22 and knew there was a film, so I figured at some point I had to see it.  

Apparently when writing the book, the author went through several different possible numbers before settling on 22, meaning that the number 22 has no significance what so ever.

The funny thing is, when I was a kid I saw an ad for the movie (when it was going to be shown on TV) and they showed the scene explaining the meaning of catch 22.  The scene is only a few seconds long, but the most notable part of the movie was already given away by the trailer.

The movie does feature a large number of recognizable faces, such as Orson Wells, Bob Newhart, Martin Sheen, Art Garfunkel and Norman Fell (Mr. Roper) among others.

The film did feature the most gruesome scene I have witnessed, more so for it's impact considering it was only shown for a split second.  There are horror movies that attempt to excel at grotesqueness, but those scenes have less of an impact on the viewer.

The problem with the film is that it really covers the same territory as MASH, and was released in the same year as MASH, meaning comparisons and competition were inevitable.  MASH is a more humorous, where as Catch 22 covers the absurdity of war and the ridiculous way the superiors handle various situations.

As a movie, I didn't find MASH to be all that entertaining, but the TV show was incredible in both its humor and its commentary on war.

Yojimbo (1961)

This film is regarded as a masterpiece and the inspiration for the hero with no name, as featured in the Clint Eastwood movie A Fistful of Dollars.

This film certainly was a worthwhile watch, but at times the character's actions seemed less than prudent, in regards to self preservation.  I was unable to understand why the owner of the izakaya would take Sanjuro in and feed him for free.  Also, while it was understable that farmer wished to thank Sanjuro, it was obviously at great risk to Sanjuro to do so, as it played out in the film.

I was also left wondering about some of Sanjuro's habits.  He continually put his arms inside his shirt (removing them from his sleeves)  It seems that this would put him at a disadvantage if he were attacked.  I wondered if it was cold and Sanjuro (or just the actor) was doing so to keep himself warm.

Kink (2013)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

When the Wind Blows (1986)

This was rather a dreadful movie.  While I say dreadful, it is not that it is a bad film, in fact it probably should have been watched by everyone, but it tells a sad tale of how misguided the government's provided information about nuclear attacks were. Thankfully, the danger presented by this film (and the dissemination of propaganda) has been greatly reduced.

I first heard of this film after finding out that Roger Waters had done music for the soundtrack. In fact the film had a number of notable musicians performing on it's soundtrack, including David Bowie.  It also attracted my attention as it is a animated film.

The film follows an older couple who take precautions prior to and after an nuclear attack.  It follows and shows the futility of their actions and their sort of "keep a stiff upper lip" attitude, attempting to ignore their inescapable fate.

Super (2010)

This was quite an odd film.  I read that it was released at about the same time as Kick Ass, and there was some concern that the two films would compete against each other but was later determined that the films were different enough so that was not a concern.  The funny thing is, the films do not appear to be drastically different in concept, so that there is no reason that the producers should have waylaid their fears.

I would guess that Kick Ass got a lot more attention mostly because of the negative press in regards to Hit Girl (a very young girl superhero) cursing with the worst possible words in English.  That was really a distraction from Kick Ass, which was by far a superior film to Super.

Super is still different from Kick Ass in three very major ways.  One is the "Hero" is middle aged man, and much less appealing as a character.  This is not the kind of character we can imagine ourselves being.  He is not a sympathetic character either and his actions are difficult to understand or defend.  Second is his choice of weapon.  He uses a weapon that is would do serious, mostly likely debilitating damage.  Third, his attacks are very questionable morally, as he frequently attacks unarmed  and unaware people, often without any proof of guilt.

One note worthy appearance was that of Nathan Fillion, who played the TV character of a christian superhero.

Superman: Son of Jor-El (fan edit of Superman 1978 + 1980)

This was an interesting take on the original.  It certainly cleared up a lot of the inexplicable and odd events of Superman and Superman II.  It removed a lot (perhaps all) of Lester's comedic attempts, most noticeable were in the battle of Superman against Zod.  It also removed all of the ridiculous powers (that never existed in the comics or any other media) of Superman and Zod, things such as his lifting people with ray from his finger.  In addition, it removed Superman's turning back time by removing one of the missiles, which in turn allowed for the removal of all the destruction of California.  (Which considerably shortened the film)  It also removed Superman's amnesia kiss, giving the film a bit of a darker ending, and creating quite a stumbling block for potential sequels.


This film is much like the Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, as it removed a lot of the sillier elements, but makes a less satisfying and less entertaining film.

The film ends with "To be continued..." which I take to mean the story continues with Superman Returns.  While I understand the editor's intentions, I was a bit confused when I originally watched Superman Returns, as I didn't know it was supposed to have been a sequel to Superman II, and thus ignored the event of Superman III & IV.  While it's nice to make a film that jibes with Superman Returns, the events of that film may also be best ignored.

Superman Returns (2006)

This film was the opposite of what the previous Superman films were.  It excelled in special effects, as well as showing more realistic feats (or at least allowing for the laws of physics) by Superman, but it came up short in character and story.

It was amazing to see Superman take off from the ground and follow him as he launched into the air, instead of flying off camera as was done in the original films.  Also, the trouble he had in handling the plummeting airplane was much more realistic than the simplistic depiction in the first film.  One other question that had gone unanswered is what would happen if Superman were shot in the eye, and this film covered that as well.

One other thing is the Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor was quite ridiculous and Gene's attempts to put humor into the character came up short.  It was utterly ridiculous for Lex Luthor to refer to himself as a "criminal" genius.  No one refers to themselves as a criminal.  On the other hand, Kevin Spacey did an excellent job as Lex Luthor, the one bright point in this film.

Also, the choice of muted colors for Superman's suit in this film, while understandable from an attempt to make Superman more acceptable to those who consider his suit ridiculous, still makes his suit appear too much like the colors worn by evil Superman in Superman III.

Superman (1978 Film Series)

A lot of people have criticized the films in the original series, especially the third and forth films, but I was impressed with them (not that I though they were great by any standard) becuase they took the character of Superman in a different direction and asked questions that hadn't been asked before.

The second film asked the question what would happen if Superman fell in love, and from watching the film you can see how disastrous that turned out, being that Superman was essentially no longer in existence for a while.   The funny thing is, Superman Returns was based around the concept that Superman had left Earth for an extended period of time, without any negative results.  The third film asked the question what would happen if a funny character was added to the film (George Lucas should have taken note).  It's a pity, because and understand that Richard Pryor was at the top of his career at that time, and odd that he was featured in this film but was not allowed to be in Blazing Saddles, because of concerns of his use profanity.  And of course in Superman III there was no profanity from Prior or any other characters.  It's also asked the question of what would happen if Superman were to turn evil, and the ensuing battle and personal conflict was the highlight of this film.  It was especially interesting, as Superman was forced to face himself after being encourage by the words of a child. The fourth film asked the question what would happen if Superman were to interfere with world politics, which once again answered the question with disaster ensuing.  One other small point of Superman IV is that it basically showed a character (who was cut from the final film) of Bizzaro, which made the film a bit more interesting and explained the creation of Nuclearman a bit better, making him fit with the original story of Superman better (though the second, non-cut Nuclearman did not resemble Bizzaro in anyway and had some powers that seemed really odd.

Quackser Fortune Has a Cousin in the Bronx (1970)

This was a bit of a odd, and rather unremarkable film.  It's one of those films that begs to ask the question, why was it made or what made them think it was worth making.  I stumbled upon this film after rewatching the original Superman films and looking up Margo Kidder.  Once I found that it also stared Gene Wilder and was set (and filmed) in Ireland (Northern Ireland, IIRC) I had to see it.

It was a odd choice of film.  Even the title is odd.  First, the main character's name is quite odd, but even the full title of the film gives an odd impression and tells you nothing about the content of the film.

One other reason this film is perplexing is it is an unremarkable story and neither were the characters.  They didn't do anything, and the reasoning for Margo Kidder's character to pursue a love affair (if it even could be called that) with Quackster Fortune was incomprehensible especially as another character was referred to as her boyfriend.  The story itself didn't go anywhere.  No great accomplishment was achieved and Quackster's fate had nothing to do with his own actions.

Still, it was interesting to here Gene Wilder doing an Irish accent.  It was subtle enough, that it didn't stick out and sounded authentic enough that I felt it was passable (no offense meant toward Gene Wilder, but being that I am not Irish, I do not feel qualified to judge an Irish accent, except a bad one).  There have been a few films that have had actors doing atrocious Irish accents, to the point that I didn't even know they were attempting to do an Irish accent  (Tommy Lee Jones in Blown Away stands out as a prime example).  Also, Gene Wilder did an outstanding duck impression.  It was interesting to see Margo Kidder slightly younger than she was in the Superman films (and I cannot recall seeing her in any films after those films either)