Friday, September 27, 2013


 Well here we go, the last "Back To The Future" film of the trilogy.

In 1955, after Marty successfully completes his mission, the hover Delorean gets struck by lightning causing the time circuits to over load thus sending the Delorean and Doc in it to the year 1885. Marty then receives a letter from Doc stating that he's living happily in 1885 and leaves the time machine in a cave for Marty so he can travel back home. However, it turns out that Doc gets killed by gun slinger Mad Dog Tannen a few days in that time period and Marty goes back to save him. However, the Delorean gets damaged during his travel and now Marty can't bring the Delorean up to 88 Miles per hour to send him. Doc and Marty must now figure out a way to get the Delorean to work. Meanwhile Doc finds love, Mad Dog is getting ready to kill both Marty and the Doc and Marty is now in deeper trouble to being name called. Again, well written and never ever runs out of plot. However, people seem to dismiss this film because of it's setting in the wild west. Is it a sequel that will damage the whole trilogy? Before I get started, I will NOT be reviewing it in time periods since the majority of the film takes place in the west.

Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are once again great at reprising their roles as Marty and Doc and to still have the same magic and comedic timing that they had in the previous films definitely shows how much they're willing to make a third film has good as 1 & 2. It also shows that no one and I mean no one can play these characters as good as Fox and Lloyd. On top of it, this is also the closet that Doc and Marty have ever gotten. They spend time figuring ways to get back to the future, they help each other in bad situations, they spend most of their screen time together, they give the same comedy we know and love between them and they even switch places. In other words Marty acts more like Doc while Doc acts more like Marty. It's very fun and enjoyable to see them closer than they were ever before and it's one of the main aspects that make the movie good.

Aside from the relationship between Doc and Marty, there's another great relationship in the film and that's the love between Doc and Clara (Mary Steenburgen). Some people find Clara annoying and find the love story to be a plot device for filler but to be honest I don't see any of that. Mary Steenburgen as Clara isn't just perfect for the part but she makes the character very fun, lovable and interesting. The chemistry between her and Lloyd is so beautiful and heartwarming that you can feel the love between them as well as knowing that the two were made for each other. It's a beautiful subplot for the film and really gives Doc more personality as well as bringing us a fresh new character that's just as interesting as him.

The films main villain Mad Dog Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson) is an awesome villain. He's mean, he's tough, he's always ready to kill you and of course carry's the same idiotic personality that the different versions of Biff have. He's so mean that he kills Marshall Strictland in a deleted scene in front of Strictlands kid, man give this villain some freaking credit. Mad Dog is just as great as all the different variations of Biff and to see him as a western gunslinger makes him even more awesome.

While some people dismiss the film for it's Western theme, my question is have you ever seen the film? Granted maybe it's not as great the previous two because the film does suffer from a few problems. For example, while the film has some great jokes and pays great homage to western films most of the jokes are mostly rehashed jokes from the first two films only portrayed in a different way. To me it just feels like the writers are running out of ideas and jokes and I guess are making these jokes to just reference the previous films then trying to write new ones.There's also this song by ZZ Top (Who by the way make a cameo in this film) called "Double Back" and while being a good song, it's not as great or memorable as the songs by Huey Lewis. Anyway those are my problems with the film. Now here are the things I do like from this film aside from main characters. Again while rehashing most of the jokes from the previous films, the new jokes are really funny, my favorite being the "Wake Up Juice" that they use on Doc. The action is very promising and the whole climax really held me on the edge my of seat like the Clock Tower scene for example. The Western setting works really well here and really gives the film it's western feel and look with it's score, atmosphere, homages to the Western classic and seeing the characters living there. Even Pat Buttram plays one of the residents in the town, can't get any more Western than that. It's also nice and interesting to see the history of Hill Valley and learning about the characters ancestors. The character who I find very enjoyable and fun throughout the whole film is Doc because he spends most of the film inventing stuff and talking about science which is always fun to hear from him. The film also nicely ends the trilogy with it's morals on the future (Epically with Marty's subplot on being called a name).

While kind of lacking the full enjoyment that the previous films had, it's a great cap to the trilogy and should get more appreciation for what it achieves. However, there are people who seem to either love or hate the third film, all I can say is, if you hate the third film then you must of not enjoyed the second film either.



This trilogy is one of the best trilogies ever made! The characters and performances are unforgettable, the jokes are great, the different time periods our heroes go to is creative, it's methods on time travel are very realistic and the stories are solid! In fact these films have so much going for it that people can countlessly talk about not only the characters, scenes and jokes but also the little details that are shown, the behind the scenes stuff, it's overwhemling impact on popular culture and more! It's a trilogy that gets better and better every time I see it and to me it's one of the best film trilogies of all time.


Well I reviewed every movie and spin off of "Back To The Future", did I miss anything?


Thursday, September 19, 2013


For those of you who are wondering why, I'm not waiting till next year to review the remake, I decided to screw waiting to review remakes, sequels and seasons from shows and films for next year because I feel like it's holding me back. From now on if I feel like reviewing a sequel, a season or remake the same year as I review the first film, last season or orginal, I'll do it! So just recently I changed two rules and I'm happy with it and I hope you're happy with it too.


Not to along ago, I did review on the first popular "Talkie" film "The Jazz Singer" starring the great Al Jolson. I found the film amazing with it's story, lead, use of sound and music, catchy songs and cinematography. When I heard of the remake starring the great Neil Diamond I was both upset but interested in seeing it. So is it a good modern remake or is it a remake that should have never happened? Well let's take a look at...

Neil Diamond plays Jess Robinson, a Jewish cantor who sneaks to play at clubs to sing rock to going to California to make it to the top. Along the way he meets a women named Molly (Lucie Arnaz) who promotes him and a friend named Bubba (Franklyn Ajaye). However, his father (Laurence Olivier) wants him to stay and continue his singing as a cantor and he has a wife. While carrying some of the aspects to the original classic, it actually could have been better if it was entirely different film. First of all, our main character doesn't sing Jazz, so the films title shouldn't even be called "The Jazz Singer"; remake or not. Second, most of the plot devices that are taken from the original film, feels forced, corny and is just trying to either poorly homage it or just make the reference. None of the plot devices that was used in the original film doesn't feel needed here and feels a bit dated. In fact, if the writers just take away the plot devices from the original and just make it about a musician who starts from the bottom and makes it big while probably having conflicts with his girl, friends, band and family, star our main lead while giving the film a different title, it could work.

Neil Diamond as our main character Jess Robinson, come on he's not acting; he's playing himself and I have to admit even if he was in a film playing himself, I still don't think his acting can cut it. It's not terrible but it's very one sided and bland. The character he plays is really not likable at all. In the original, Jolson's character pursued his dream and left his family because his Father forbidden him to sing and whipped him for it and when Jolson makes it to the top, he tries to please his Father when his Father doesn't want him and in the end redeems himself to his father by singing as Cantor at the synagogue while his Father is dieing and is happy to hear his son giving up a performance for him. Here, the character neglects his Father while the Father wants him back, becomes a bit of an asshole when he becomes famous, leaves his friends and new wife to just hit the road so the film can have some time killing filler and only goes back to his Father because his Wife tells him too. See what I'm talking about people? Here it's a different side of the coin, I feel bad for the Father not our main character! It should be the other way around.

Lets now talk about the songs. Well it's been said that Neil has been called "The Jewish Elvis", well here it shows whenever he performs. His voice is great, his style and songs are both soothing and rockin and his stage presence brings an Elvis like feel. In fact his songs such as "America", "Love On The Rocks", "Jerusalem", "Hello Again" , "Hey Louise", "Songs Of Life" and even his Razzie nominated song "You Baby" are all great and wonderfully sung and performed by Diamond. While praising the music and his stage performance, I still have problems with it. The songs are great, don't get me wrong but I feel like the films trying to put as many of Diamond's songs as possible to promote the soundtrack then the actual film. While his on screen concert and recording performances are good. it makes me wish that this was a concert film or a film with a completely different plot because as I said earlier the films take on the classic is poor. By the way, if you hate Jolson's blackface performances in "The Jazz Singer", well Neil actually puts on blackface at the beginning of the film when he first performs. Not only is it a poor "Homage" or one of the aspects taken from the classic that feels dated, but it's also done more for comedy while Jolson's was a metaphor on the suffrage of different race performers. As a result, his song "You Baby", became a Razzie nomination for Worst Song because of this scene.


Now for the supporting characters. The great Laurence Olivier as the Father is really awful. I'm sorry but it's true. His acting is a bit over the top and lame, his Jewish accent is more funny than serious, his relationship with Diamond's character is really corny and on top of it, the character as I said earlier is all backwards when being compared to the original. He doesn't hate Jazz, I mean rock, he doesn't abuse his son, he just wants him to stay in N.Y. with his Wife, take care of him and continue his singing as a cantor then being a Jazz, I mean rock singer. He's not even mean, he's really innocent, helpless and sweet, the only reason why he leaves Diamond is when he sees his new wife which causes him to throw a hysterical fit, that's it. He doesn't even die at the end, the two get back together because he has a kid now, that's it, not because he sings as a cantor for one night (In fact, he doesn't give up a performance to cantor either). Lucie Arnaz as the love interest Molly, may have a bit of spirit to her role and may have better acting skills then Diamond and Olivier but her acting doesn't interest me and the scene when she tries to make Diamond cheat on his wife really made me hate her even more. Franklyn Ajaye as Bubba is actually the only character I like in this movie but sadly he doesn't really save the movie.

Overall, the film is a really poor remake on a classic, the acting (Epically from Olivier) is no where near good, the characters aren't likable or memorable and the film's music is only there to promote Neil and the films soundtrack. Overall, buy or download the soundtrack, look up clips of Neil performing and stay away from this bomb.


Wednesday, September 18, 2013


Here's a British animated short that was nominated for Best Animated Short called...

The film is only 5 Minutes and 46 seconds long, so expect this to be a short review. The film is directed, animated and narrated by Oscar Winner Bob Godfrey (Who won an Oscar for his animated short "Great (Isambard Kingdom Brunel)") and is about the day of an old man. There's really no plot to this short, it's just a bunch of jokes that are either surprises or unusual turn of events. It starts with him meeting a punk, to getting a ticket from a cop, to seeing the Queen of England and ending with him talking about his day at a bar with a drunk. Yeah not much of a plot is it. It actually feels like watching a compilation of different shorts starring this character. The jokes and surprises, their funny but at the same time they're not as Oscar worthy gold as you think they'd be. As for the animation it's a good and typical style and the atmosphere well it's very mild. The film is not what I call Oscar worthy nor does it have anything impressive, it's just a plan and simple film with no plot. I don't know if you should see it or not but I guess if you're bored or something this is a film that's worth a look because it is entertaining.