IN: Review: Follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit -- this time the first African-American (Cuba Gooding) after President Truman desegregates the Armed Forces -- through the U. S. Navy's deep-sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (Robert DeNiro). If the program weren't bad enough, it's got to be located in Bayonne, New Jersey.

There's nothing wrong with the performances. Robert De Niro activates his Southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. Cuba Gooding, raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the South, is the expectable paragon of rectitude. The girls -- one could hardly call them women -- are Charleze Theron and Lonette McKee. They have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. Other decent performers -- Powers Boothe and Hal Holbrook -- have even more perfunctory roles.

That's about it. Almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. A ship is called a boat. Robert De Niro salutes indoors, uncovered. After a brutal assault on hospital personnel, he's transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. Somebody shouts "I'm outta here" in the early 1950s. (Maybe it was a common expression at the time. If so, "my bad.") People address each other by rank -- "Lieutenant", "Boatswain's Mate," "Commander," as they do in the Army, whereas in the Navy they are simple "Mister" (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). I didn't bother to check if there was a rank called "Senior Master Chief" in 1950.

Cuba Gooding has a tough row to hoe. Everyone in the Navy, it seems, hates Negroes except for one guy from Wisconsin. He stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. It's like the scene in "Animal House", in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a Sikh, a black man, and a blind kid.

Gooding is an enlisted man, a second class petty officer. He manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. In one of their arguments she pleads with him. She just wants to be a doctor and he should join her, quit the Navy, and lead a quiet life. "And just let life pass you by?", he retorts. Yes. Yes, just be a doctor's spouse and let life pass you by. You can wave to it from the golf course in Boca Raton.

These kinds of flicks were common enough in World War II. "Bombardier," "Airial Gunner," that sort of thing. Cheap as they often were, they had some educational features. You learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. Here, the technical details are skipped over, perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except Boyle's law, which we learned in high-school chemistry).

I couldn't follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this wouldn't exist. If I got the mechanical problems right, it was because I guessed correctly. The direction is no help either. The movie abounds in close ups, so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. And the emergencies are confusing because they're ill focused.

Why go on? Want to see a better example of this kind of movie? Almost any will do -- except maybe "G. I. Jane", in which the abused hero is a heroin. Try the training camp scenes in "The Young Lions." There the victim is a Jew. Or try "From Here to Eternity," in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on, just like "Cool Hand Luke." No easy excuses are offered, because easy excuses are too easy.

Thoroughly formulaic, and not well done.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse?
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Before watching this film I had very low expectations and went to just see the cars. Eventually I even regretted going for that reason. Plot is almost non-existent. Character development is non-existent. So many cliches and so much jaw-dropping cheesiness existed in the movie that I could only stare and wonder how it was even released. If not for the exotics, I wouldn't have even rated this movie a 1. An attempt at a coherent story line is destroyed by the sheer absurdity of this elite racing cult and the laughable characters that make up its members. In fact, the movie's plot is so predictable and simple-minded that an average child could foretell the majority of the storyline. Bad acting, bad plot, bad jokes, bad movie.

Don't see it. Play Gran Turismo HD instead and it'll satiate your thirst for fast sexy cars without leaving a bad aftertaste.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of "Rivers and Tides." However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.

The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed "ethical" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this "artist," scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.

In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative