Naomi Gonzalostein

Sort of like watching the paint dry on Microsoft paint; only worse.

Sort of like watching a 2 hour plus Folger's coffee commercial from the 1970's.

Undoubtably, the biggest disappointment is that no one is murdered by bees, or some other kind of stinging, winged insect. How can anyone possibly think of making a movie titled 'The Beekeeper', that is an action movie, and then have limited involvement by the bees themselves?! It simply makes no sense whatsoever. The big showdown of the movie, is that the titular character has to get by a hired thug who has a sort of Scottish, maybe South African accent ; the thug's friends - who we're told are the toughest of the tough - might as well have been made out of something extremely fragile. However, although he gets a few blows in, in contrast to his chums, mostly it's the thug's durability that extends the fight a few seconds longer than the other ones, and there are quite a few of other ones. Besides those guys, there were lots of navy seals/special forces/FBI types to dispose of. Nevertheless, in recent years, Hollywood has definitely repeatedly stated that South Africa is the most violent place on earth, or, at least, where the most violent people either come from, or live. I was watching a cam version of the movie, which, while somewhat less than HQ, I wouldn't imagine that the action sequences would be anymore coherent in the theater, or watching the thing at 1/2 speed on a DVD. Getting back to the subject of habitation, there's a couple of choices in Hollywood for such a guy as the beekeeper: either he lives in some kind of hi techy sort of domicile, or, what was picked, is that he has a relatively humble life living somewhere or other, and tends bees as a hobby - partially hence the name, title etc. It's always strange to see somebody with special skills - guess you could call them - being a next door neighbor type of guy, but I guess they've got to live somewhere. Tending bees is not the only thing about bees included in the movie: it's also a metaphor, and literal description, for the secret operation/organization the hero had been a member of, and the explanation of that, spread throughout the movie, starts sounding sillier as the movie goes along. So, guess what ruined the movie for me, is that I'd pretty much seen it all before, and since it's mostly action scenes edited into teeny weeny little cuts, it was tough to watch it at 2x or higher speed; oh, and the sound on the cam version made that difficult as well. Of course, that type of editing for action scenes is pretty much the manual for how to do it nowadays, and can increase the excitement level of those types of scenes, on the other hand, it can sometimes not be done especially well, resulting in things blurred into each other too much, which is what happened in 'The Bee Keeper'.

Looks like an infomercial for various people in the garment and entertainment industry. Although very few products are mentioned specifically, it definitely strives to hawk the wares of those participating in the documentary, by gushing lavishing praise all over them. You know, it might have been more interesting if more time had been spent on specific shoes, rather than just flying by over a whole bunch of different ones. Also, really nothing about the manufacturing process(es) involved, and some stats about shoe sales, and demand, that seem rather sketchy and more like propaganda .And when the topic of selling them comes up, it's given the same whisked away treatment. Adding to the waste of time, is the warped, fit to sell stuff now, sort of, history of shoes. One thing, if you like any of the 'Sex and the City' productions, or, rather, instead, like the buzz about them, you'll find the shoe movie an interesting add on; sort of like if you're a 'Star Wars' fan, and just need more of it, and got to read that 'Star Wars' comic or book, no matter how bad it is, or else. Which, funnily enough, is what the doc is really about: shoe addiction, and that it ain't that bad an addiction. Well, not if you're a shoe salesman.

It's the old Hollywood story of a real person -well, actually a fictionalized real person - being transported to the world of the movie screen. Of course, Hollywood has gone in the opposite direction, and made movies about movie characters stepping off the screen - sometimes literally - into the real world (actually, again, within the context of the movie). Plus, movies intermingling the the two. 'The Congress' doesn't add anything to the other movies, and most of its material seems appropriated from other sources; I guess that's the total problem with the movie: absolutely nothing original, new, and everything in it is very hack.

Very repulsive, and difficult to watch, and, also, sad, because it shows how conservative some people are, and how some people don't even consider the 4th amendment as being important. I suppose, some people would respond that the 4th amendment only applies to the US government. Also, a wee bit frightening, is that some of the people interviewed are those sort of what's called "underground" comic book writers and playwrights, and it's scary that they seem to be trying to infiltrate, and gain the confidence of, groups of people, who they apparently see as a threat to right wing values. The artists, if that's what they're called, do that by creating media with moderate political values, and then, as shown in the movie, egg people on to become more conservative, by mocking American values, that protect people's rights, like the 4th amendment. That's pretty much all I got out of it: it's a big pitch to turn the US into one big totalitarian mess. Other than that...well, I didn't get any other than that.

The question has been in some people's minds: "if Steven Seagal and Chuck Norris got into a real life fight, who would win?" Or: "can the martial artists we see in the movies and on TV really fight, or is it just smoke and mirrors?" Well, in 'High Risk', those questions aren't exactly answered but they are what propels the story line. After terroristish criminals hijack a celebrity studded gala taking place in a modern, high rise building in China, fictional action star Frankie Lone has to fight for his life, literally. Apparently, some of the thugs are Frankie's fans, since one of them wants to test the theory of whether Frankie really knows kung fu or not; and the thug uses "Frankie Lone" branded numchucks to find out. Of course, Frankie is up to the challenge and his girl is even more impressed now that she now knows that Frankie is not only a movie star, but he can kick people in the face to boot. Before that, she had been a wee bit shrewish towards Frankie, a typical romantic relationship in the world of Hollywood kung fu. Jet Li doesn't have much screen time nor does he do a heck of a lot in 'High Risk', so I guess you'll have to look elsewhere if you want Mr. Li 24/7/365. 'High Risk' has what could be called an acquired sense of humor; it's not the usual Hollywood jokes, but more particular to certain Hollwood Asian comedies. The action sequences are pretty good, but after you've watched a gazillion kung fu movies, everything in 'High Risk' seems like old hat. The appearance of the movie is certainly better than many kung fu movies. the final verdict is: I guess we'll never really know if kung fu movie stars can fight for their lives; maybe that's a good thing.

In the late '60's and early '70's, Hollywood tried to rectify it's historical wrongs in its depiction of the "Old West", by producing what could be called realistic Westerns. The result was movies like 'Bad Company' and 'The Missouri Breaks'. The reason I'm mentioning that, is because 'Meek's Cutoff' appears to be another one of those movies. It's got similar story pacing to the two movies mentioned above, and, like the other two, 'Meek's Cutoff' doesn't try very hard cinematographly. Pretty much by the '70's, the Hollywood Western, which had been the main focus of Hollywood from the mid '50's to the mid '60's had lost much of its appeal to Hollywood, so what we get nowadays is rehashes of the "realistic" Westerns, spaghetti Westerns, and John Wayne-rs, like 'Chisum'. However, although 'Meek's Cutoff' looks like it's striving for historical realism, it's got that basic story premise that's plagued many a Hollywood production: confusing settling with exploring. 'Meek's Cutoff' is about a group of settlers who get lost; in some ways, the story implies that settling, is, like getting lost in a hostile element. Problem is, that when the 19th C. settlers went to get their new homestead, they knew where they were going, what they were trying to accomplish wasn't what was going on in a movie like 'Burke & Wills'. It would be very difficult to get lost in the area depicted in 'Meek's Cutoff', for the simple reason that almost no one, for almost a century after the time the movie takes place in, wanted to go anywhere near there. Sorry, couldn't "suspend my disbelief" for this one; maybe Hollywood should have written a story around people like Burke & Wills, or, Lewis and Clarke.

'Sumuru' is one of those cases in which a remake is better than the original - well, maybe. That's only if you believe 'Sumuru' has anything to do with 'The Million Eyes of Sumuru', which maybe it doesn't, very much, since 'The Million Eyes...' is set on planet Earth and more of a spy movie, while plain ole 'Sumuru' is a sci fi-ish movie with space ships. Another big diff: 'The Million Eyes...' certainly shows its era of release by being distinctively more feminist than regular 'Sumuru'. So, those are your comparisons, now, what's 'Sumuru' got going for it? It's got that made for TV production look to it, plus, if you're a big 'Stargate'/'24' fan, you can get your Michael Shanks fix on, since he's 'Sumuru''s main star. The special effects are mostly CGI, and now we're talking those sparkly, flashy overlays used to simulate explosions and other violent eruptions. The female leads do not seem to have been chosen for 'Sumuru' mainly for their thespian skills; and the script calls for them to be ignorant about most things; then, again, the women in 'The Million Eyes...' weren't portrayed as being super geniuses all the time, either. I guess the upshot of the whole thing is: if you enjoy a film that's a synesthesia equivalent of eating a fast food meal, and, you can't get enough of Michael Shanks, you ought to enjoy 'Sumuru'.

Before there was 'The Shining', 'Poltergeist', and 'The Amityville Horror', there was 'Burnt Offerings'. Well, actually, there were many haunted house themed horror movies before the four already mentioned. The difference is, that, instead of people visiting, being paid to visit, visiting because of a bet, a house known, at least by somebody, to be haunted, the new batch of films are about a different sort of people, families, visiting a house which they discover to be haunted. Not 100% original, but the prominence of some of the four films makes it seem so. Because the protagonists are families, it adds a normalcy to the main characters, and, hopefully, makes the supernatural elements more distinct. One thing 'Burnt Offerings' did was push the horror genre up a notch on the Hollywood esteem ladder, basically through it's cinematography and casting oldies-Hollywood stars. The family in 'Burnt...' has a blandness not unlike 'The Amityville...''s family, so, obviously, it's not going to be the Steve Spielbergish family in 'Poltergeist', nor the slightly dysfunctional family in 'The Shining'; however, part of the story in 'Burnt...' develops around family disintegration, as in 'The Amityville...' and 'The Shin...' In terms of scares, and, I might add, movies don't scare me particularly, I'd say 'Burnt...' would be the scariest; of course it's a matter of taste. The frights in 'Burnt..' occur mostly at the end, and are delivered as a combination of jolting suddenness and gore. Pretty much shock effect. Like at least two of the other films, it builds up in stages. Adding to the scariness, is the fatal ending; no escape for nobody. Certainly helped 'The Shin..' and 'The Amity...', wasn't a feature in 'Poltergeist'. So, maybe if you liked any of the other films mentioned, or just can't get enough of haunted houses, you might like 'Burnt...'.