1 contact is a film that tries to do several different things . it is intended to present a realistic picture of what alien contact might be like , to restore a sense of wonder and mystery to the issue of extraterrestrial life , to raise questions about science and faith and how they would be relevant in such a situation , and to tell a personal story of a romance between the astronomer dr . ellie arroway ( jodie foster ) and the religious spokesman palmer joss ( matthew mcconaughey ) . the film succeeds wonderfully at its first two goals . the portrayal of the communication from an alien world is much more reasonable ( albeit less immediately engaging ) than , say , the cold-blooded destructiveness of the invaders in independence day or even the complex process of abductions and genetic hybridization that forms the ongoing plot line of tv’s the x-files . the aliens in contact seem to be like us-they are more curious than anything else . they know we exist , they want us to know that they exist , and they would like to make the next step and communicate in person . the film wisely refrains from showing us the aliens directly , and between the characters’ ongoing speculation about the extraterrestrials and the outstanding visuals in the climactic yet enigmatic scene when arroway arrives on the alien world , that sense of wonder and mystery comes through with a force rarely seen since stanley kubrick’s 2001 : a space odyssey . most of the film , however , takes place on earth , where there is an extended public debate on how to respond to these aliens . scientists are enthusiastic , ultraconservative religious leaders are wary , and government officials are caught somewhere in between . the debate is fueled largely by dr . arroway’s atheism ; she seems the obvious choice to pilot the spacecraft for which the aliens have provided blueprints , but many are wary of sending an atheist as humankind’s representative to another species . the film is partly successful in raising and exploring these questions , especially when it reaches a conclusion that suggests that the two approaches – science and faith – could be viewed as complementary rather than diametrically opposed . still , the film falls a little short in its representation of this conflict as it exists in american society . the two ” sides ” are represented primarily by arroway and by far-right fundamentalists , but in reality probably 80% of americans are neither atheists nor far-right fundamentalists . palmer joss occupies something of a middle ground , but he ultimately becomes distracted by personal motives and comes across as a less-than-ideal spokesman for any ideology . then again , the film does concentrate mostly on public debate , which does , after all , tend to be dominated by extremists , rather than on dinner-table or college-dormitory discussions . contact is accurate in its portrayal of these issues , then , but only within the narrow scope to which it confines itself . the film’s one clear failure is in the portrayal of the romance between arroway and joss . for one thing , it resorts to the tired movie clich * that two attractive people will immediately fall in love as soon as they appear on the screen together , as there does not seem to be any other reason for their instant mutual attraction . the romance rarely , if ever , sheds any light on the characters , although it occasionally tries and fails – joss’s explanation that he quit the priesthood because of the celibacy requirement ( ” i guess you could say i’m a man of the cloth , but without the cloth ” ) , for example , is more like a punchline to a joke than character development . instead , the romance mostly seems to exist for the sake of later plot developments . granted , this is a plot- and idea-driven film and the characters are secondary , but this just seemed like laziness on the writers’ part more than anything else . the successes of contact , however , far outweigh its failures . even if the social commentary had fizzled altogether ( which it didn’t ) , the simple yet mysterious story of alien communication still would have made it a memorable film . contact doesn’t quite cover all the bases , but it covers about as much as one could hope for in a two-hour film , and its rejection of big-budget theatrics for a more realistic story is certainly admirable . and i would not be surprised if , ten years from now , contact is mentioned in the same breath as 2001 and blade runner as one of the finest examples of sophisticated and intellectually relevant science fiction .
1 billy bob thornton , who had a sudden rise to fame with 1996’s sling blade after spending years as a virtually unknown actor and writer , is becoming one of the most versatile – and most accomplished – american actors around at the moment . as jacob , the simple but at times very bright loser brother of bill paxton’s hank , thornton gives a performance which should leave an indelible mark on all but the most hardened viewers . three men , hank ( paxton ) , jacob ( thornton ) and their friend lou ( brent briscoe ) stumble upon a plane wreck which , upon closer inspection , yields a rotting corpse and a bag full of money . jacob and lou want to pocket the cash . hank , the smarter – and perhaps more naive – of the three , insists on leaving the money for the authorities to find . eventually , they agree to keep the cash safe until the plane is found , and then split the money three ways . things start going wrong , though , with greed and violence weaving their ways through their plan . disaster is sure to strike . director sam raimi , of the evil dead and darkman fame , has made an excellent and thought-provoking film , worlds away from the comic horror films which made his name . while there are a couple of moments which might remind one of his earlier work , raimi has made an intelligent and mature departure which will hopefully be a sign of even greater films to come . scott b . smith’s screenplay , based on his novel ( which i haven’t read ) is a fine example of escalating tension . while it does remind one of danny boyle’s shallow grave without the abundance of black humour , it keeps the drama that should really be a part of such a story on morality , or the lack thereof , found in a film with this subject matter . alar kivilo’s cinematography reminds one of joel and ethan coen’s fargo , with the bleak , snowy landscape almost becoming another character . danny elfman also does well with his moody , finely-written score . if there’s a flaw in the film , it’s that it goes on for just a little too long . just when we think that they are about to wrap things up , raimi and smith decide to let the film go on a little further . while this isn’t really a bad thing , it did become a little frustrating at times ( this may have been due to the fact that i had consumed a large sprite beforehand ) . the performances are excellent , with the usually annoying paxton in fine form and bridget fonda giving a scene-stealing turn as hank’s scheming wife . this is an excellent showcase for thornton’s fine skills as an actor and a great change in direction for raimi , who could very well have a career ahead of him as an accomplished director of dramatic films . fingers crossed , though , that this doesn’t stop him from making another evil dead sequel .
1 tibet has entered the american consciousness slowly during the past few years and burst into the forefront recently . the dalai lama has made speaking tours , tibetan designs and artifacts are showing up in shops , the plight of the people has captured the imagination of major actors and artists and now there are two big budget films within as many months . ” kundun ” ( ” presence ” , a name the monks call the young dalai lama ) opens in 1937 with the search for the 14th incarnation of the tibetan leader . a group of monks enters a village and a two-year-old child catches their attention . the young boy proves himself by identifying possessions of the previous holy man as ” mine ” . he and his family are then moved to a monastery in lhassa where he is to be prepared to take his position as the religious and political leader of the country . he is forced into difficult decisions when china invades the country in 1950 . the peaceful and isolated country is ill-equipped to fight off the intruders and diplomatic attempts over the next years yield no results . eventually he must make the painful choice to flee to neighboring india . comparisons to ” seven years in tibet ” are inevitable . both films cover much of the same ground although the earlier movie does so from a westerner’s point of view and features boxoffice draw brad pitt . ” kundun ” features only native actors and is more of an insider’s story . in some ways , this makes this film a superior concept , but it lacks the movement and spark that made ” seven years ” such an audience-pleaser . the actors contribute to the realistic feel of the movie ( filmed in morocco for obvious reasons ) . the only disappointment is chairman mao who looks like a wax dummy and moves as if he were a computer-generated character . on an intellectual level , it is interesting to see how two different approaches handle the same facts . some events are depicted differently and pitt’s austrian mountain-climber who was portrayed as a pivotal influence in the dalai lama’s life isn’t even mentioned here . glossed over in ” seven years ” , the problems with the tibetan political system is hinted at here as the dalai lama muses ” we were just about to change things ” after the chinese attack . the film is magnificently beautiful thanks primarily to the cinematography of roger deakins . his lingering camera shows the exotic tibetan culture with luscious detail . especially striking is an extreme moving close up of a sand mandala grain by grain . the visual treats more than make up for the movie’s faults creating a poetic meditation for the audience . walking out of the theater you feel like you have awakened from a transcendental experience . martin scorsese , known for his dark tales of the underworld ( ” goodfellas ” , ” taxi driver ” , ” casino ” ) has shifted gears . something of a thematic follow-up to his ” the last temptation of christ ” , this is his slowest film yet . oddly enough for a director with a history of graphic violence presenting a history filled with atrocities by the chinese , most of these events take place off-screen . his decision to not over-explain rituals is commendable . the stumbling oracle who spits out his prophecies while in a trance state is much more effective as a mystery than if we were spoon-fed interpretations . philip glass’s score is impressive although at times it is too overwhelming and distracting . i talked to a tibetan i met outside the theater who had just seen the film and was walking back in to see it again . hearing his description of how he escaped from tibet at the age of seven and how his father was one of the soldiers accompanying the dalai lama during his trip to india , i was struck by what was missing in the movie . as grand as it looks and as historically accurate as it is , there is a distance between the audience and the movie . the film is more concerned with visuals and history and less so with human beings . with the exception of a few scenes , involvement with the characters is slight . one of those exceptions is the portrayal of the young dalai lama , shown as a mischievous boy who can’t resist being a kid sometimes . an encounter with his older brother thubten j . norbu ( a retired indiana university professor ) who tells the young leader the chinese have ordered him to persuade him to accept communist rule or kill him is an outstanding moment , but there aren’t many of these . even with its problems , the ” kundun ” experience is phenomenal , but one that i fear most will miss . many people who saw ” seven years in tibet ” will have a ” been there , done that ” attitude . it’s likely that the film will miss a wide-spread appeal and public response will be the sound of one hand clapping .
1 i swear i have seen the edge before . in fact , it reminded me of the bear , the river wild , and other various films mixed into an entirely different film . however , the edge has done something that most action films should do , and that is add heart and characters we like to the plot . in doing so , the edge draws many more suspenseful moments out of cliched scenes than , say , the peacemaker . unfortunately , because of those overused moments , we can pretty much guess the outcome of the film . but leave it to screenwriter david mamet to add humor and a few surprises to mess with your head . one surprise , in particular , left me smiling just because mamet actually had the guts to add it to his script . action films are a dime a dozen in hollywood , and while they are somewhat successful at entertaining us , they lack the one thing which would make them a more respected genre : intelligence . even horror films have learned this , a genre which is probably the least respected of them all . the river wild was one of the best action/suspense films i have seen from the 90s . the intelligence of the screenplay , and the suspense drawn from the realistic characters is nearly unmatched to this day . the edge has the intelligence and smart characters , but this time the lack of originality is the downfall . i must admit that it was very suspenseful , and had an original third half , but the first hour and a half is riddled with cliches and plot holes . this is an example of the final act saving the film , instead of the other way around ( as in the lost world ) . if only the screenplay had maintained the final thirty minutes’ intensity , it could have become a great action film ( and i use the term loosely ) . the edge is pretty much a survival-of-the-fittest film . but taking scream’s lead , the edge makes fun of the genre’s cliches , and then uses them ( though not quite as effectively ) . charles morse ( anthony hopkins ) is the main character , a rich and very intelligent man who wonders what the accumulation of all this knowledge has brought to him . for once , we don’t immediately care for the main character . instead , we like bob ( alec baldwin ) , a photographer who is going to take pictures of charles’ wife , mickey ( elle macpherson ) , out in the wilderness . they board a plane and head to a cabin somewhere in the arctic . charles’ birthday is the same day , and he receives a gold watch from his wife , and a pocket knife from bob . as action films go , these items do have importance to the rest of the story , but quite a bit more than we first expect . soon , however , bob wants to find a native to shoot pictures of because of his ” personality . ” charles , bob , bob’s assistant steve ( harold perrineau ) , and the pilot head off to find him , and as shown in the previews , hit a flock of birds flying south for the winter . down the plane goes , the pilot is killed , and the three are left to survive in the wilderness . director lee tamahori is aware of the silly plot which is about to follow , and therefore has to create original ways to approach the situations . he succeeds often enough for us to enjoy the film . take , for instance , the entire man-hunting bear plot . this has been done many times in films with different animals , and even bears . but given the charles’ intelligence , and bob’s uncertainty , many of the cliches are given fresh twists . even charles himself seems to have seen these action films before . my favorite line of the film comes from charles : ” most people die in the wilderness because they didn’t do the one thing that could save their life . . . thinking . ” despite the predictability of the main plot , a subplot develops late in the film which took me by surprise , and made me smile when i realized that everything isn’t as it seems anymore . i have to write cautiously as to not reveal this surprise , so instead i will avoid it entirely . the first two-thirds of the edge have many humorous moments to push it along , and some of charles’ survival techniques seem possible , even making fire from ice . tamahori is able to create a lot of suspense from the stalking bear , but whenever the bear is present , the characters lose all sensibility . i have always wondered why characters in films walk over a log to get across water . why not do what an intelligent person would and crawl across ? i guess getting chased by a bear makes your thought process turn off for a while . thankfully , we already have begun to care for the characters , and so we let this small detail slide . but some of the technical details are awkward , such as the nice stitching done on the fur coat that charles and bob make ( where did they get thread and needles ? ) . the acting of the film is highly above average for a film of this nature , and borders on phenomenal . anthony hopkins gives a terrific performance , creating his most likeable and layered character since remains of the day . hopkins usually brings greatness to his roles , but here he exceeds at gaining the audiences’ sympathy , something he definitely did not do in silence of the lambs . alec baldwin gives one of his best performances i have ever seen ( it sure is better from his fair game ) . baldwin can be a good or a bad character , and here he succeeds at both in a way . you can never quite guess if he is a nice or a vllainous character until the end , and baldwin is able to handle the double-natured photographer . elle macpherson gives a good performance , albeit slight . she isn’t in the film all that much , but for the scenes she does have , she handles as an actress , not as a model . harold perrineau is a good actor , and his scenes are nice and underplayed . he is eliminated early , and i reveal nothing by saying this because it is inevitable and predictable . the edge is rated r for graphic violence , some gore , and language . some of the violence is a little too disturbing , even for me . this film is a nice change from the mindless action most of us are used to , but too many cliches bog it down . director tamahori has created a very smooth and suspenseful action film out of recycled parts . david mamet’s script , though , has a lot of humor to keep the first hour afloat , and the acting is solid . the best thing about the script is the ending which doesn’t end with the normal high-strung action sequence , but with a small detail involving a certain gift . it’s a nice touch considering what we have had to go through with the bear . and by the way , most people laughed when the film faded to black due to a large credit to bart the bear . way to go , bart .
1 one of the more unusual and suggestively violent films ever made , ” se7en ” is just a few steps away from brilliance . however , those few steps away are only a few steps from a level of evil and depravity that few people want to discuss . the film received mixed reviews upon release , but there’s an underlying sinister appeal and intrigue to this that many critics perhaps did not notice . at times it gets preachy about the horrors it seems to be criticizing , but the script and the ultimate pay-off are excellent . the shocking conclusion is just as unpredictable as the endings of most films are predictable . this piece of work is 100% intensity . it’s uncomfortable to watch , yet compelling . ” i want not to look , yet i cannot turn away . ” the story creeps along slowly and deliberately , crafted by visionary director david fincher . he has experience in tantalizing his audience with information and visions , but not giving away too much too soon . this is the guy who directed the ominous ” alien 3 ” . ” se7en ” is even more ominous because the threat is real . it’s human and , while the script takes some artistic licence , the way in which the diabolical killer works here is actually realistic . that is , if a human being could be so intelligent , patient , wealthy , and disillusioned . after the most bizarre opening credits i’ve ever seen ( refreshingly different in editing style and musical accompaniment ) , the initial character development takes place . morgan freeman stars as detective william somerset , a knowledgeable veteran who is ready to give up on his job and the sickness of society . brad pitt co-stars as detective david mills , the young hotshot who is brand new to this unnamed city and full of fury to catch the bad guys . these two fine actors give the film its human qualities ( along with the appealing gwyneth paltrow , who plays tracy , mills’ wife ) . however , none of them stands out above the material . no disrespect intended , but two other actors could have played these parts and the film probably would have been about the same . an ironic note is that somerset has only a week ( or 7 , that’s seven , days ) left on the force to train his young protege . the title of the picture also refers to the 7 deadly sins , as chronicled by john milton in ” paradise lost ” –gluttony , greed , sloth , lust , pride , envy , & wrath . incidentally , i wrote the sins in order of how each victim was found . it’s the last two sins that are the most intriguing and shocking , but i won’t give that away . as i said , this has a great ending and no one should spoil it . anyway , the brilliant killer sets out to make a statement to the world that these sins will no longer be tolerated and he makes the ” sinners ” suffer for it . the two partners stumble over the corpse of a grotesquely obese man . they learn that he was murdered–forced to eat himself to death . the killer leaves small clues at this and other murders and , of course , somerset and mills are smart enough to stay with him all the way . if they didn’t , it would be one short movie ! the deliberate pace allows for craftsmanship of detail and story . we see a lot of blood , but it’s not especially violent . the suggestion of what happens is far more disgusting than anything actually shown–like most of the violence in ” pulp fiction ” . ” se7en ” is gory , graphic , and disturbing , but all the gore is post-death . still , if you tend to get queasy , don’t eat food during this film . kevin spacey plays john doe , the avenging angel who claims that he’s the messenger who will right the wrongs with his teachings . like many crazy men , he has some fine ideas , but some sick ways of expressing himself . spacey doesn’t appear until the final 30 minutes and also doesn’t receive billing in the opening credits . however , it’s his appearance that turns this film upside down and for that he should have gotten an oscar nomination . a great villain manages to make you either root for him or feel compelled to listen to his ramblings regardless of whether you agree with him or not . this character is so well written that it’s hard to disagree when he says that what he is doing will be remembered by everyone . no serial killer has ever been so creative . ” se7en ” is blatantly unsubtle with its messages about the horrors of the world and it’s often a little too depressing . what it lacks in those areas , it makes up for with believable dialogue , top-notch screenwriting , unexpected twists , and realistic characters . the technical aspects of the film are unobtrusive . fincher uses lighting , music , and editing quite well , but his story is always the thrust of the film . fortunately , we don’t find out what happens to mills and somerset after the closing credits ( which are run backwards up the screen ! ) . it’s better to imagine what paths they will follow . this is not the kind of film you turn away from and quickly forget . it’s got a sinister message and john doe is right about one thing–the evils of the world aren’t going to cure themselves . ” se7en ” raises some tough questions and it’s intelligent enough to allow its audience to answer many of those questions for themselves . useless trivia–co-stars in 1995’s ” se7en ” , brad pitt and kevin spacey also competed for the 1995 best supporting actor oscar–pitt in ” 12 monkeys ” , spacey in ” the usual suspects ” ( for which he won ) .
1 there are some works of art that are almost impossible to review , not because of their own complexity , but because of their legendary status which prevents the reviewer to say anything original . one of such masterpieces is casablanca , probably not the best film in the history of the seventh art , but definitely the most popular one . its popularity can be measured not in a multitude of more or less disguised remakes that were made in more than half a century since its premiere , but also in countless tributes and references that movie makers use in their works to this day . casablanca is also a movie that has the very rare virtue of both being praised by the critics and loved by general audience . one of the things that makes this film even more unique was the fact that it was doomed to fail , at least judging by conventional movie-making wisdom of its time . it was based on a broadway play so mediocre that it hadn’t been produced on stage ; screenplay by three writers – julius g . epstein , philip j . epstein and howard koch – was beeing written as shooting went along ; the main actors were producers’ second choice , and , finally , man behind camera , michael curtiz was considered to be capable , but not great director . however , the movie was commercially successful and earned three ” oscars ” , including the one for the best film . until this very day , it is considered to be the best example of hollywood film- making in its own golden age . the plot of the movie was heavily influenced by the needs of ww2 propaganda , yet it also used rather complicated and now almost forgotten political circumstances of that global conflict in order to make intriguing story . in december 1941 , casablanca , exotic port on the atlantic coast of north africa is controlled by officially neutral , yet nazi-collaborating french vichy government . thousands of refugees from war-torn europe are stuck there on the way to lisbon and safety of america , and ready to pay any price for precious exit visas . many shady characters thrive on their misery , including the corrupt police chief , captain renault ( rains ) . his best friend is rick blaine ( bogart ) , who used to be idealistic anti-fascist , and now owns popular night club in casablanca and lives by his own cynical philosophy of ” sticking his neck for nobody ” . however , everything changes when he gets in possession of two precious extra visas . this event coincides with the arrival of two new refugees to casablanca . one of them is victor laszlo ( henreid ) , czech resistance leader who escaped three times from nazi concentration camps and became the legend of enslaved europe . he is accompanied by his beautiful wife ilsa lund ( bergman ) , with whom rick had a stormy affair in the eve of nazi occupation of paris . the couple needs visas , especially because of the gestapo major strasser ( veidt ) being on their trail . rick is now forced to choose between love , wounded pride , self-preserving interest and his own hatred of fascism . the casting for this movie seems influenced by divine inspiration – humphrey bogart , most legendary actor in the history of cinema , is one of the rare character actors who elevated his persona to the star status . bogart’s portrayal of rick as complicated man , torn between idealistic past and bitter present , was so perfect , that his icon would forever be connected with that character . another icon in his company is ingrid bergman , great actress of old hollywood , here in her artistic and visual prime . the cinematic coupling of bogart and bergman became one of the main symbols of that era of filmmaking – some happier times when the romance on the screen didn’t look childish nor trite like in some more contemporary works . for many people , casablanca is probably the best romantic film ever made . but the reason for that isn’t the romance itself – it’s the realistic story of people forced to make tough , and often wrong choices in their life . the casting of casablanca was right on target not just in a case of main leads . the supporting actors also did a marvellous job . sidney longstreet and peter lorre were here mainly to give a mystic flavour spotted in a previous bogart classic – john huston’s maltese falcon ; yet both of them managed to portray colourful and original characters . another shining example of good casting is now almost forgotten paul henreid as the weakest part of love triangle ; character of victor laszlo has believable charisma and looks like a somebody who could inspire millions of people to rise against nazi tiranny . unfortunately , the charisma that burdened laszlo , leaves little place for difficult choice , making his character forever overshadowed by rick/ilsa coupling . however , rick and ilsa actually have a serious competiton for most memorable character in casablanca . captain renault , brilliantly portrayed by claude rains in a role of a lifetime , was embodiment of perfect , almost unmatched balance between ethical corruption and physical charm . despite being the undoubtful villain in almost entire movie , rains managed to make renault sympathetic character , and his final conversion to the side of good , symbolized in not so subtle gesture at the end of movie looked unnecessary . rains also gave another dimension to the movie , making it even more ambiguous ; people who like to analyse movies to death discovered signs of homosexuality in renault’s relationship towards rick , and rick’s final words leave room for even more outrageous speculations . together with well-drawn characters and exciting story , the movie was good in creating his own atmosphere . professional nitpickers would probably have a field day in discovering numerous historical and geographical inaccuracies , but casablanca is still a shining example of hollywood ww2 movie that is beliavable , if not realistic . any way , even if we don’t see it as a historical document , casablanca is movie that can be source of entertainment as well as infinite inspiration .
1 like the great musical pieces of mozart himself , amadeus is a true work of art . it is one of those few movies of the 80’s that will be known for its class , its style , and its intelligence . why is this such a good film ? there are almost too many reasons to explain . the story : court composer salieri ( f . murray abraham ) feels waves of different emotions going through his head as wolfgang amadeus mozart ( tom hulce ) comes into his life as the young genius composer . salieri feels envy , and jealousy , but at the same time is fascinated with mozart’s brilliance and ingenious . we travel through mozart’s life as a composer , through his struggles , his triumphs , and ultimately , his demise . the acting : abraham is magnificient as salieri ; his acting range enables him to focus on each individual emotion and express it through his speech and body language . this performance earned him a well deserved oscar . tom hulce is interesting as well as mozart , a quirky , annoying bratty kid with an annoying laugh . he’s strong , but weak at the same time , and must be aided by his wife ( elizabeth berridge ) , who is good in her role , but lacks dramatic depth . jeffrey jones , in a smaller , more dignified role than such roles in stay tuned and mom and dad save the world , is cast perfectly because of his noble charm . the movie : every element of this movie works . the costumes and makeup are very memorable , as well as its stunning art direction , and unforgettable scores ( adapted from mozart’s original music ) . while wolfgang amadeus mozart was a genius at music , milos forman proves with his film that he is a genius of filmmaking . this movie is a classic that will be remembered for years to come . ad2am ” i almost lost my nose . . . and i like it . i like breathing through it . ” -jack nicholson , chinatown
1 armageddon , in itself , symbolizes everything that is wrong in modern filmmaking . stories have been replaced with special effects ; character development gets overshadowed by bad dialogue ; plotting consists of a bunch of shit getting blown up . armageddon is as stupid , as loud and as shallow as any movie you’ll see come out this summer , or maybe even any other summer . but i loved every freaking minute of it . believe me , i’m just as shocked as you are . hell , i don’t even know why i went to see it in the first place . the previews were so annoying that i predicted this was going to be the worst film of the year , or at least in the running . i’m sorry , but ” somebody dial 911 ! ! ! ” isn’t quite the tagging that’s going to sell a movie . it isn’t too wise either to market the film using the movie’s stupidest lines ( ” beam me up scotty ” – yeah , that sure is great writing . . . ) . i mean , let’s face it ; armageddon’s previews rival the truman show’s as being some of the worst of the year . neither of them even come close to doing their respective films justice . of course , you all know the story . when the earth is threatened with total annihilation via an asteroid the size of texas , nasa calls in the us’s top oil drillers ( ! ) to go into space ( ! ) and implant a nuclear device eight-hundred and someodd feet into the asteroid ( ! ) . in the coarse of all this mayhem , we are introduced to some interesting – and not so interesting – characters . belonging to the former group is rockhound ( steve buscemi ) , a horny little womanizing genius who’s always full of wisecracks , even when flying into space at a huge amount of g’s . also , there’s the always cool-as-hell billy bob thornton as dan truman , the bigwig at nasa who recruits all the drillers . he kind of reminded me of ed harris in apollo 13 , only without the intensity and great lines to deliver . then on the flip side of the coin is the tired , contrived character of harry stamper ( bruce willis , who does the whole movie employing with annoying accent i can’t quite place ) , the leader of the pack as well as liv tyler and ben affleck as the token lovers you must have in any summer movie . basically , that’s about it . as i said , this is hardly a film about plot . it’s another summer blockbuster with plot points that are beyond unbelievable and dialogue and characters that are mostly completely wooden . case in point : nasa doesn’t know that there is even an asteroid on it’s way until eighteen days before impact – huh ? another example : at one point in the movie , two children are playing with toy space shuttles in front of a poster of kennedy . how pretentious is that ? ? ? ! ! ! want another one ? okay ; before the oil drillers blast off into space , one of them starts singing ” leaving on a jet plane ” , and soon , all the rest join in . did michael bay attend the school of sappy filmmaking before he made this picture ? but naturally , all this sappiness , melodrama and special effects accumulate to one bitchin’ time at the movies . and don’t get me wrong – despite all of the things i found wrong with armageddon , i still very much enjoyed it . so even if you don’t win one of mcdonald’s free tickets , it’s still definitely worth checking out .
1 this is one of the most funny and entertaining comedies of the year and it just happens to be animated . there are some great voice over commentaries from hollywood’s most famous celebrities , some fabulous animation and a compelling story . this is the best we’ve seen from disney since ” beauty and the beast ” ( 1996 ) . this film begins an unspecified time following the happily-ever-after conclusion to toy story . in the aftermath of their earlier adventures , buzz ( voice of tim allen ) and woody ( voice of tom hanks ) are now fast friends and all the toys live in perfect harmony , content with their ” lives ” . one day , andy broke woody’s arm off , while playing with him . woody is now officially discarged and worthless , left with his nightmares , where he lies in a trash can with the other discards . later andy’s mother decides to have a yard sale , and she collects a few old toys from her son’s room . since one of these discards is a member of the moving toy gang , woody goes to the rescue , leaving the safety of the house for the uncertainty of the front lawn in order to bring the toy back . although his mission is successful , he is placed in a serious predicament when a toy collector named al ( voice of wayne knight ) spies woody while hunting through the wares available at the sale . the cowboy toy represents the final collectible needed to complete his collection of merchandise from the old tv series , ” woody’s roundup . ” if he can acquire woody , al can ship everything to a toy museum in japan for a huge profit . so , after andy’s mother refuses to sell the wooden cowboy , al steals him , and it’s up to the other toys , led by buzz , to go into the city to save their friend . and so , buzz , rex ( voice of wallace shawn ) , hamm ( voice of john ratzenberger ) , mr . potatohead ( voice of don rickles ) , and slinky ( voice of jim varney ) , go out on a dangerous journey to rescue their friend , they find themselves confronting things like busy streets and other buzz lightyear toys . there are car chases , gun fights and finally the confrontation between buzz and his nemesis ( who , by the way , resembles darth vader ) . meanwhile , woody learns that he was once a tv celebrity and has a family – a cowgirl named jessie ( voice of joan cusack ) , a horse named bullseye , and a father figure called the prospector ( voice of kelsey grammar ) . they offer him another life , as a celebrity — a toy in a museum in japan . he is now forced to choose between being loved intensively by andy for a little while ( before he grows up ) and be forgotten , or be admired by children for generations . the problem is , if woody escapes from al’s clutches and returns home , they will end up back in the lonely darkness of storage . a real effort is made in the technical department . the animation is rich and colorful , with lots of wonderful details . the ” cinematography ” is also extremely improved since toy story ; there are a lot of complicated swings , turns and close-ups that really make an impression . lighting and filters are used to create a mood ( as in a surprisingly emotional moment – jessie’s remembrance of her days when she was a beloved toy ) the film contains a lot of in-side jokes ( such as the one about videogames ) , and entertaining parodies on ” jurassic park ” and ” star wars ” . the film ends with the ” failed takes ” , the kind of scenes that we are used to see after comedy shows on tv . these outtakes are some of the funniest scenes in the film . but what in the end makes ” toy story 2 ” a memorable experience is not the jokes , its multiple parodies or marvelous animation . it is its heart and emotions — the story about the meaning of friendship , love and even life itself . it is not difficult to predict that ” toy story 2 ” would be a huge economical success , but its artistic achievement was unexpected . unexpected because the first film wasn’t much more than a demonstration of special effects . but mostly it was unexpected because disney hasn’t produced anything spectacular in years and is constantly surpassed by companies such as dreamworks and warner brs . but here the director has changed the atmosphere of the film , making it more accessible and interesting for persons older that 9 years . this is a big step-away from the ancient laws of disney-animation . off course , this is not ” antz ” , it is not as intelligent ; this is not a landmark and no masterpiece , but i promise that you’ll find it as funny and enjoyable as i have . whether this is the best animated film of the year , i dare not say . my choice would probably be ” the iron giant ” , but ( along side with ” american pie ” ) this is the comedy of the year . i almost lost my hopes for disney , but ” toy story 2 ” proves that disney hasn’t lost their ability to entertain .
1 not too many people know who james whale is , but it’s a safe bet that a good chunk of them have seen his movies . if we are to believe the semi- biographical gods and monsters , whale would have wanted it to be that way . this is an insightful , haunting exploration of the last days of the frankenstein and bride of frankenstein director , and it is notable for introducing one of the first complicated gay characters in a hollywood movie . gods and monsters has no interest in being a biopic of whale’s life because it tracks only the final few days of his life , and it’s probably a better movie for it . it’s focus is on whale’s ( ian mckellen ) untraditional and deceptive lust for heterosexual gardener clayton boone ( brendan fraser ) . it begins with whale ( a fairly talented artist , aside from being a director ) asking boone to ” sit for him , ” ( pose for a portrait ) . at first , boone doesn’t realize that whale is gay and grows fascinated with the old man . when he does discover whale’s sexual orientation from his dedicated and protective maid ( lynn redgrave ) , he is frightened , refusing to sit for the guy . but he comes back , only to storm out again , disgusted with whale’s ” locker room talk . ” boone returns yet another time , after whale promises to tone down the aforementioned ” locker room talk , ” and finds their platonic relationship to be strengthening . meanwhile , jimmy himself is suffering from hallucinations and mental attacks as a result of his stroke not long ago . his ailment leads to desperation and depression , which build to the point where he is forced to ask boone for an incredulously big favor . what is perhaps most sensational about gods and monsters is brendan fraser’s bravura performance ; up until seeing this film i intensely disliked the young actor because of his tendency to ruin the movies he is in ( blast from the past , for example ) . i was surprised how expressive an actor he proved himself to be here . this is impressive because his character’s dialogue is minimal , with mckellan doing most of the talking . that requires fraser to act through body language ; a difficult skill to master , but something he proves capable of doing well . this is not to ignore mckellan’s oscar nominated turn . he earned that nomination with his touching performance here ( although , at the risk of sounding like a philistine , i would have chosen his performance as the nazi in apt pupil for the nomination ) ; an understated , compelling gem . whale dreaded being remembered solely for his work in the hollywood horror genre , and he thought hollywood to be the equivalent of a battlefield . he rejoiced in being free from it , only reluctantly going to receptions with fellow movie people . in the end , perhaps , it is what killed him : the memories of hollywood and war blending together to form a living nightmare . ? 1999 eugene novikov‰ ;
1 when i initially set out to review this film , my tag line was going to be ” you too can believe whales can fly ” . then it was going to be ” you too can believe pastel triangles can fly ” . then , it was going to be ” you too can believe wood sprites can fly ” . finally , i just gave up trying to come up with a tag line and decided to say . . . there’s a lot of flying going on in this film ! as our first host steve martin tells us , the original concept behind fantasia was to bring it out every year with some old segments retained and some new segments added in . well apparently that plan fell by the wayside for a while , because approximately sixty years have passed since the original classic was released . part of this might have something to do with the cold reception the film got when it was first released in 1940 ( grossing somewhere close to $110 , 000 in its original month of release ) . subsequent re-releases of the film have elevated the popularity of the film to the classic status it has finally achieved ( and rightfully deserved ) . to celebrate the release of an updated version of fantasia , disney and imax teamed up to present the animated film in a fashion no one had seen before : six stories high . in an exclusive four month engagement ( from january 1st to april 30th , 2000 ) , fantasia 2000 can be seen at many imax theaters across the us . after the engagement is over , the film will be shown at regular theaters . is the format effective for the film ? with a few exceptions , yes . the first segment we are presented with is set to beethoven’s fifth symphony . it’s hard to describe exactly what this segment is about , but it involves a bunch of brightly colored butterfly looking triangles flitting about happily . everything seems to be going great for these little things until the ground erupts with swarms of evil , black bat-like triangles that attack and engulf their lighter counterparts . eventually , shafts of light from above help drive away the evil bat-like things and peace returns to the butterfly things . though this segment isn’t very story driven , some of the images are very visually strong , especially the scene in which the dark cloud of bat things ( who are all outlined in blood red colors ) begin to overtake the skies . the next segment is set to ottorino respighi’s ” the pines of rome ” . in this segment , some humpback whales swim happily through the ocean and eventually emerge from the water and fly around the massive icebergs that pepper the oceanscape . a whale calf gets into a scuffle with some nearby birds during the flight and ends up getting trapped in a giant iceberg he smashes into while trying to avoid the birds attack . he is finally saved ( by another liberating shaft of light ) and he and his brethren take to the skies and fly into the upper atmosphere where they frolic in the ” oceans ” of clouds . again , visuals are the key with this segment , especially where the whales are involved . reportedly the whales , as viewed on an imax screen in certain sequences , are shown as actual size . the cgi whales look incredibly life-like , except for some googly cartoon eyes drawn onto the images . one especially striking image involves the giant shadow of one of the whales being cast through the wall of an iceberg as the whale calf tries to find a way out to its parent . absolutely beautiful stuff . the third segment ( and the least of the eight segments ) is set to george gershwin’s ” rhapsody in blue ” . this segment is designed as a tribute to acclaimed caricaturist al hirschfeld , and intertwines four different stories about sad souls living in depression era new york . there’s a construction worker who dreams of being a jazz drummer , an out-of-work sad sack that dreams of having a job , a young girl that dreams of spending time with her parents instead of being hustled off by a schoolmarm , and a nebbish who dreams of being free from his overbearing wife . i won’t go into how everything works out , but in fine disney tradition there is a happy ending . unfortunately , the story drags quite a bit and the seems out of place within the hyper reality of the rest of the segments . segment four is set to dmitri shostakovich’s ” piano concerto no . 2 ” and is an animated version of hans christian andersen’s ” the steadfast tin soldier ” . a one legged toy tin soldier falls in love with a wind-up clock ballerina ( whom he assumes is also one legged because he can’t see her other leg extended out behind her ) , much to the dismay of an evil jack-in-the-box jester . the jester knocks the soldier out of a window and continues pursuing the ballerina . little does the jester know , the soldier has been deposited in the sewer and has journeyed through the pipelines only to be swallowed by a fish that has been captured and sold to the owner of the set of tin soldiers that the one legged one comes from . the soldier eventually saves the day and gets the girl . although the ending has been altered from the andersen story , ” the steadfast tin soldier ” is decently told with in the framework of a seven minute short . some children may find the jester to be a little frightening , but otherwise the segment is well made . segment five is the funniest of the bunch . set to camille saint-saens ” the carnival of the animals ” , this segment features a flamingo torturing his fellow flamingos with a yo-yo while they are trying to perform a choreographed dance number . while it is the shortest clip of the group and a throwback to the alligators and hippos dancing in the first fantasia , it is still well accomplished and a welcome bit of comedy . segment six is the only segment to be repeated from the original 1940 fantasia , and it’s the one that people remember most , ” the sorcerer’s apprentice ” . the story is the most recognizable , so the draw here is seeing it on the enormous imax screen in remastered stereo . unfortunately , the segment wasn’t made to be presented on large format film ( considering it was shot full frame ) and exhibits large amounts of grain . there were at least two occasions where images were very hard to make out due to the excessive grain . similar problems crop up on modern day releases when projected on screens too large for the image to be shown accurately ( but no one seems to notice for some strange reason ) , an anomaly common to many 18-plus screen theaters . segment seven is set to sir edward elgar’s ” pomp and circumstance march no . 1 ” and is the only other fantasia segment to feature a stock disney character . donald duck ” stars ” as an assistant to noah , whose task is loading all of the animals onto the ark . during the loading , donald and his wife lose sight of each other and both believe that the other one didn’t make it on the boat . they are constantly missing each other due to comic misadventures mainly involving donald being crushed by animals in various manners . despite the slapstick style of comedy in this piece , it displays more emotion in its final scene than many of the tear-jerkers foisted on audiences these days . powerful stuff . segment eight brings a whole new meaning to the clich ? ” saving the best for last ” . set to igor stravinsky’s ” the firebird ” , an elk awakens a forest sprite that proceeds to change the wintery landscape into a beautiful springtime landscape . trees bloom and flowers blossom and everything seems to be going well until the sprite becomes inquisitive about a large mountain housing a strange formation . when the sprite examines the formation , it awakens and becomes the titular firebird . in a stunning spectacle , the firebird rears back and unleashes and fire storm that destroys everything in its path , including everything that the sprite has worked to create . some amazing animation is present here , and well worth the ten dollars a ticket alone ( although brush strokes are evident in one scene due to the enlargement of the film ) . the host segments are largely ( no pun intended ) throwaways , although steve martin’s clip is pretty funny . be sure to stay through the credits for a little more humor from martin . penn and teller are usually funny , but here their gags seem routine and therefore uninteresting . the best segment comes from , of all people , bette midler , who gets to tell us about some of the abandoned segments that never made it off of the drawing board . pieces like flight of the bumblebee , a take on the four horsemen set to wagner’s ” ride of the valkyries ” , and a strange segment prepared in the ’40s by salvador dali that never was shown are all previewed here and teased that they may appear in future installments . for fans of visual stimulation or classical music , fantasia 2000 is a perfect way to spend the afternoon . the film is also decent family entertainment and contains little to no objectionable material . as i mentioned earlier in the review , if ten dollars seems like too much for you to spend on this film , fear not because after its run in imax theaters it is going to be brought out in regular theaters . i must stress that the best way to see this film is on an imax screen though . then you too can believe that whales/triangle things/sprites can fly . [g]
1 it’s tough to really say something nice about a type of person who’s so ethnocentric that any humanity they once had is now gone , but by god , ” american history x ” does it , and for that , i commend it . it not only takes balls but intelligence to make a human being out of a neo-nazi skinhead , a kind of person who dedicates their lives to hating anyone who’s not what they are , and this film wisely and miracurously pulls it off . the subject of this film is one of them , but he is worse than one of the blind followers that make up most skinhead members since he is the leader of the pack . he’s the one who instigates them to take a firm grip onto their rage , and then in another brilliant stroke , justifies it with political propoganda that makes eerie sense when he speaks . he’s so utterly convincing as a public speaker and so firm in his convictions that it comes as a shock when he actually goes through the rehabilitation process . his name is derek vinyard , and he’s played by edward norton with so much fire and intensity that when he speaks he’s almost as convincing and arresting a public speaker as , say , malcom x . when we first see him , he’s clean shaven , with a jet black swastica emrboidered on his left breast , a devlish goatee , and he’s attacking the black carjackers outside of his house dressed in nothing but his white boxers and carrying a handgun in his hand that never seems to run out of bullets , at least when he doesn’t need them . he so believes in his convictions that he’s willing to put his beliefs to the test , even if he knows it will mean a stop in prison , if only for a couple years . ” american history x ” is about derek , how he became a neo-nazi skinhead , how he rose to power , how he was rehabilitated in prison after murdering two black men in a fit of rage that was less to do with the stealing of his car and more to do with proving himself , and how he tried to save others , namely his younger brother , from making the same mistake . we see him at all of these stages – as a smart teenager , a vicious hate monger , a man having an epiphany , and the man who tries to correct what he’s done before – and in all of these , we get a portrait of a man from all sides . or at least , that’s the intention . the film’s framing device is his brother , danny ( edward furlong , perpetually looking about 13 ) , also now a skinhead , and how his principal , bob sweeney ( avery brooks , who i just found out was or is the captain on star trek’s deep space 9 ) , is trying to ” correct ” him . when the film opens , danny has just written a book report on ” mein kampf , ” landing him in trouble with sweeney , which causes him to make him write a paper on derek’s life and how it has gotten him nowhere . coincidentally , this day is the day derek is released from prison , and when we see him , he’s cleaned-up , not as buff , and has a full head of hair . he’s just as intelligent , but still very rough along the edges , but he’s wisened up . he’s no longer controlled by his anger at blacks and jews , and tries to persuade danny , who’s becoming what derek was before , to give up his lifestyle . but danny won’t . he goes to a large skinhead beer bash , meets with the skinhead leader ( stacy keach ) , and then discovers that derek is as opposed to neo-nazi-dom as he was for it a couple of years ago . the film circles around this , then spins off into non-linear flashbacks , all done in black and white . we mostly see derek at his prime as a skinhead , living in venice beach , organizing vicious and quasi-sadistic raids on local stores that no longer hire the white , middle-class teenagers since they can easily get cheaper illegal immigrants to do the same work , and mouthing off his theories on affirmative action and how illegal immigrants and blacks have destroyed the fundamentals this country was built on . to them , the white man is the one who has gotten the fuzzy end of the lolipop , and he not only speaks elloquently , forcefully , and intelligently , but he backs everything up with political reasons , justifying their rage at least to them . and frighteningly enough , much of what he says sounds true . ” american history x ” is a collection of really great scenes and moments , rather than a cohesive , great film that flows effortlessly from one moment to the next . in it , there are some of the best scenes i’ve seen all year . one scene features a dinner between derek’s family , and his mother’s newest boyfriend ( played with reserve by eliott gould ) , a jewish liberal who quietly disagrees with derek’s rightist views , launching the scene into a fit of rage and anger that builds unparalled emotions in the audience ( gould’s reaction to derek’s final summation is unnerrving ) . another scene uses humor and traditional macho sex talk to build a friendship and a nice connection between derek and a black co-worker ( guy torry ) while folding laundry in prison . and another soon-to-be-classic is actually divided in two : the murder of the two black men that winds derek in jail , which contains a final murder so nasty that it may be the most revoltingly shocking all year . there’s much more to appreciate , like the acting , which is uniformly good , with stand-outs coming from avery brooks , beverly d’angelo ( as the long-suffering mother ) , and gould ( who has one horrible line , but other than that , comes off with the best performance he’s given in what seems like a really long time ) . norton walks off with the film , though , coming off with such intensity that he reduces anyone not doing an adequate job to rubble . in only the fifth movie of his career , norton has invented himself as one of the most reliable and intense actors of his generation , and maybe the best . there’s nothing like it when norton really gets rolling in this movie , spewing out lines with such authority that he commands all attention from the audience , coming off with power similar to that of a young maron brando . that he allows the little emotions to seep through is amazing . sadly enough , this isn’t going to be the great portrait of racism that it perhaps hopes to be . it’s too unambitious and even a little contrived to really take off as either a powerful statement or an emotional masterpiece . the ending , especially , is pencilled in from other movies , tossed in just so the emotional keyboard can be trounced upon . some of the skinheads are reduced to mere cliches ( kevin smith regular ethan suplee fairs rather annoyingly as the ” fat skinhead , ” whose lines consist without fail of expressing his desire to eat more ) , and even the dramatic arc isn’t as well travelled . furlong’s danny never seems to really be learning a lesson , since the flashbacks refuse to show his point of view , and when he decides to make a change by the end ( which was inevitable ) , it doesn’t seem like it has actually arrived there . even derek’s descent into skinhead-dom doesn’t seem justified . though his fireman father ( william russ , the dad from ” boy meets world , ” and don’t ask me how i know that ) is killed by a black junkie , and even before he spoke against affirmative action intelligently , there never seems to be any real back story why derek became so intense about his beliefs . as such , one can see why the director , tony kaye , wanted to have his name removed . sorta . ” american history x ” is a very good movie , and i was very moved by it , but it could be a lot better , and the problem seems to be that the cut as it is is not up to what he claims to be his potential . somewhere , he claims , there lies a tony kaye cut , and that was to be the true cut until it was viewed by norton , who then ordered another cut , and that is thus . although he aimed for the directing credit to go to ” alan smithee , ” the resident name for any film that is to be disowned by its director , it wasn’t allowed to him , under the grounds that once you disown a film , you can not badmouth it ( but really , that’s the macguffin – no one really wanted a film this good to be given the alan smithee sign of disapproval ) . kaye’s right in that it’s not up to par , even if he’s not referring to normal par but rather his own personal par . this will not be a ” do the right thing ” for the late 90s . yet it still gets its point across intelligently , and backs it up with its story ( its message , that one cannot be so enwrapped in one’s own beliefs or pain and suffering will occur , is literally said over the narration , unfortunately ) . and even if it isn’t perfect , at least when avery brooks turns to norton after he has been beaten and raped in prison , and asks him if anything he’s done has made his life any better , it realy hits a nerve , not only in derek , but also in the audience .
1 synopsis : as a response to accusations of sexual prejudice in the armed forces , a female naval intelligence officer is chosen to be a test case . if she can survive the demanding s . e . a . l . training , she will open the way for other women to be permitted to follow in her footsteps . throw in a lot of political machinations , sabotage , brutality , water and sand and you have an entertaining movie . review : the title of this movie turned me off at first . i mean ‘gi jane ? ‘ ? ? ? ? ? the other titles which were considered were more promising – in pursuit of honor or a matter of honor would have been acceptable although navy cross or undisclosed are a little meaningless as far as i’m concerned . i went into this movie not liking the title and being one of those people who thinks that demi moore is absolutely ghastly as an actor . to my surprise i really enjoyed the movie . moore as lieutenant jordan o’neil is much more likeable than her washed out excuse for a gusty woman in a few good men . the storyline is simple . anne bancroft playing senator lillian dehaven is a ruthless , machiavellian politician with an agenda to push . using feminism to achieve political mileage , she forces the military powers that be to backdown and permit a test case to enter the highly intensive navy s . e . a . l . training . jordan is selected due to the fact that she has it all – looks , brains and strength . the training is gruelling and the indignity almost painful to watch . nonetheless , it’s one of those movies that makes me want to cheer out and encourage the hapless hero/heroine along in his/her endeavours . sure , there are the stereotypical elements – inhuman treatment , sexual innuendo , resentful peers , pained boyfriend and sexist commanding officer . stepping away from the stereotypes though , viggo mortensen as master chief john urgayle tries to get away from being nothing more than a brutal screamer . his character exercises a little more intellectual rigour than you would normally expect from such a character . jordan’s boyfriend royce is also in the military . although they both started at the same time , due to the fact that he has seen active service , he has advanced through the ranks much more quickly than she has . royce ( what is his surname ? do we care ? ) almost resents jordan’s attempts to advance herself , although he quickly settles down to being doe-eyed and supportive . his character seems to have been thrown in so that we know that you don’t have to be a lesbian to want to be in the military . in parts , this is a very silly movie , with gratuitous lines and scenes thrown in for effect which are so blatantly obvious or contrived that it’s hard not to cringe . i still liked it though . weaknesses in the script aside , this is a film which captures a heroic and reckless mood . as we watch jordan’s battle , it’s increasingly clear that it is a personal battle . this is an individual’s fight for self-advancement . we don’t have to have our teeth set on edge by didactic preachings , we don’t have to feel uncomfortable because we’re having ideology thrust down our throats . it’s enough that we can sit back and hope that this one person gets what she wants and we can admire her tenacity and determination without coming out and saying whether we believe women should go into combat or not .
1 the idea at the center of the devil’s advocate , which is , thus far , one of the three or four best films of 1997 , is that no matter what decision is made , evil will triumph — god is a trickster , satan is a humanist — ” the last humanist ” . he appears in many guises , and seduces many men and women — in his own words , ” vanity — by far my favorite sin ” . al pacino plays this role with relish , and gets to chew some delectable lines ( ” lemme givya a piece o’ inside wisdom on god . . . ” , ” i have a million names . . . ” ) , as john milton — the devil . the main idea — that he can appear as anyone , in any form ( in this case , a buisness man ) , harkens mainly back to terry gilliam’s the time bandits . but the film , is something else , something original . part of what makes it so very good , is that it never takes itself too seriously — it dabbles with morality , vanity , death , and child abuse , but doesn’t try to become any profound study of power . this is a marvelous confection — cocky , funny , thought provoking . it is also entertaining . there is no way you could possibly predict the ending — it pulls back upon itself , drawing purely out of the mind’s eye . the final shot is more creative , more daring , more challenging , then anything in cinema since the white sock in the coen’s fargo . the central themes are fascinating ( sometimes reminiscent of james’ the turn of the screw , and oates’ accursed inhabitants of the house of bly ) , and the product that is built around it really wows . its nice to know that things like this are still being made .
1 scream 2 , like its predecessor , is a genre-crossing film . it is about 50% horror film and 50% murder mystery . the mix worked very well last time and it continues to entertain this time . scream was also known for its self-referential tone . many inside jokes were made in reference to horror movies and wes craven . again , scream 2 follows suit with characters saying such things as ” sequels suck ” and ” the entire horror genre was destroyed by sequels . ” scream 2’s story is very similar to it’s predecessor’s . sidney ( neve campbell ) , having survived the killing spree in scream , is now in college . gale weathers ( courteney cox ) has written a book about the murders and that book is now being released as a feature film , called stab ( which for all practical purposes is the real-world movie scream ) . at the premiere of stab , two students from sidney’s college are stabbed to death , and a new story begins . the press descends on sidney and her college to get the scoop on this sequel killer . they want to know all about the links between stab , sidney , and the recent murders . the most complex self-reference i saw ( this should be an olympic event ) was the scene where gale weathers was asking questions at a press conference . the rest of the press was watching and videotaping weathers . the other survivors from scream were watching and videotaping the press . the audience was watching the whole , filmed scene . ( whew . ) the movie is packed with layers and self-references that make it a pleasure to watch . even better would be to watch a double feature of scream and scream 2 . that’s not to say that these references necessarily make scream 2 a deep , or even a good movie . the just add to the fun of watching it . i recommend it for other reasons as well . what i liked best about the horror aspect of the movie is that the monster is not supernatural . no werewolf or ghost or psycho with superhuman strength is responsible . it is a person in a mask and a robe , his only advantage the fear he strikes into his victims . no extraordinary leap of faith is needed to believe in the killer . the down side is that if you are frightened by horror movies , you have less grounds to say ” it’s just a movie . ” the whodunit aspect of the movie is not that great by itself – gale weathers and deputy dewey ( david arquette , also from the original ) track down a killer . they are likeable , but not outstanding . but in combination with the horror aspect , the whodunit is a perfect counterpoint . it was exactly a year ago today that i wrote the review for scream . the internet movie database says that scream 3 is in the works , so i wonder if i’ll be doing the same thing on january 1 , 1999 . if craven and screenwriter kevin williamson are able to keep the quality high , i’ll be happy to mark my calendar .
1 when i first saw the previews for ron howard’s latest film , my expectations were discouragingly low . a show about nothing ? sounds like ” seinfeld . ” a guy whose entire life is broadcast 24 hours a day ? sounds like ” the truman show . ” what is it with hollywood that no sooner than one production company puts out an animated feature about ants , another puts one out about bugs ? which is why i was pleasantly surprised by ” edtv , ” which turns out to be a fresh , insightful , and often times hilarious film about the follies of instant celebrity . the writing , by howard’s longtime collaborators lowell ganz and babaloo mandel , is right on the money and howard himself should be credited for giving the subject matter a fresh focus . in the hands of a less-experienced director , ” edtv ” could easily have had all the flavor of yesterday’s meatloaf . with their ‘true tv’ cable ratings being threatened by ‘the gardening channel’ ( apparently people would rather watch soil ) , the northwest broadcasting company is looking for a novel concept to attract viewers . program director cynthia topping ( ellen degeneres ) comes up with the idea of putting a nobody on the air and broadcasting his every waking and sleeping moment . the hook is to find a regular guy , someone normal that people can relate to . while scouting possible candidates , cynthia’s camera crew discover ed pekurny and his pig brother ray ( woody harrelson ) in a bar , where ray believes he has what it takes for his fifteen plus minutes of fame . but on watching the videotape , the show’s producers are more taken with ed than with ray . he’s cute , he says all the wrong things , and he’s 100% usda hick . cynthia’s boss , played by rob reiner , gives the show a week to deliver the goods and it’s tough going in the early stages . the most exciting thing that happens is ed brushes his teeth . ” action shot ! ” wags one of the production assistants when a couple of pop tarts jump out of the toaster . you get the idea . but soon enough , things–nielsen-boosting kinds of things–start to happen to this unassuming san francisco video store clerk and the ‘true tv’ cameras are right there to document it . ed’s privacy is no longer his own , his newfound fame starts having a negative impact on his family life , and what little dignity he has left is trampled on by the media . who should ed go out with ? you can be sure the pollsters have a list . not only is the film exceedingly well cast , but its performers are consistently excellent . matthew mcconaughey provides the face , the body language , and the lovable texan accent to fill the shoes of america’s latest phenomenon . he and harrelson look like they really could be brothers . sally kirkland is noteworthy in a difficult role as ed’s mother , and martin landau is one of the film’s highlights as al , ed’s ailing stepfather . jenna elfman ( from tv’s ” dharma and greg ” ) proves herself surprisingly worthy in the company of kirkland and landau , although those alpine eyebrows of hers get a little distracting . even degeneres and reiner are better than you’d expect . in 1979 , writer/director/comedian albert brooks made a zany little film called ” real life ” in which a small-time opportunist makes a real-time documentary about a typical american family . the scenes of ed’s family sitting around the dinner table feasting on kentucky fried chicken and waxing idiotic play like a big-budget variant on that film , paralleling its wickedly inventive humor . as with most films by albert brooks , ” real life ” was funny , but absurd . the funniest–and scariest–thing about ” edtv ” is that it is absolutely believable .
1 ingredients : james bond , scuba scene , car controlled by cellular telephone synopsis : warped media tycoon elliot carver ( jonathan pryce ) plots to start a war between britain and china in order to boost ratings by using a ‘stealth ship’ to fire a captured british missile at the city of beijing . super-agent james bond ( pierce brosnan ) uses trick gadgets , pluck , and charm in order to foil carver’s scheme . this time bond teams up with top female agent wai lin from china ( michelle yeoh ) . the film contains fights , chases , gadgets , and comedic moments . opinion : it does not have a casino scene or a ski scene , but tomorrow never dies is nevertheless a solid , enjoyable bond movie . it neither stands out nor disappoints . in old bond movies bond sometimes teamed up with american cia agent felix leiter . tomorrow never dies introduces a new character in the form of chinese agent wai lin . like leiter’s character , wai lin would be a sure bet for a cameo in a later bond movie . stars : michelle yeoh was born a leo in the western zodiac in the year of the tiger on the asian astrology calendar . i don�t believe in horoscopes . but at an airport i once browsed an astrology book with a section on leo tigers ( lts ) . ” leo tigers prefer enough solitude to grow at their own pace . lts are unbelievably courageous when facing adversity . the lt is also classy , and has an excellent sense of refinement , but she sees herself as an adventurer , and prefers freedom of movement rather than flashy status symbols . this person loves family and friends with a fierce loyalty . she delights in siblings , nephews , nieces and extended family – – but she must have her personal freedom to come and go as she pleases . sometimes annoyance at injustice drives her to take up one or two causes . in love life , the lt has an unfortunate mental block against committing to any partner who is less powerful than she . ” in real life , michelle yeoh is asia’s top female star . like jackie chan , she does her own stunts . she was born in malaysia – – a country of many languages – – and her primary language ( the language she speaks in her sleep ) is english . she was taught malay in school , and learned cantonese from bilingual parents . as an athlete michelle represented malaysia internationally . she enjoyed squash , diving , swimming , and rugby . she studied ballet at the royal academy of dance in london , but switched to drama after a spinal injury . in 1983 she won the miss malaysia pageant – – without really intending to , since a family member had entered her in the contest without her knowledge . notoriety from the contest led eventually to a movie career as an action heroine . michelle has survived a divorce with asian retail tycoon dickson poon ; a nearly fatal stunt accident falling from a freeway overpass which put her in the hospital for three months , and ; a retirement from the movies . her comeback from retirement , supercop ( 1992 ) became the top grossing film in asia that year . it is not clear what michelle�s martial arts style is , but it may be a theatrical version of wing chun . of her character wai lin in tomorrow never dies , michelle says , ” wai lin is the first bond girl who is on a par with bond , someone who can match up with him mentally and physically . ” my own opinion is that casting michelle yeoh as agent wai lin was an excellent choice .
1 it is always refreshing to see a superstar actor who gets paid more than enough to forget about working for a living to want to take a chance and play a less-than-savoury character as mel gibson does in payback . of course , if i was being paid $25 million for one month’s work , i’d probably be willing to take risks as well , but that’s neither here nor there . payback is based on a novel by richard stark ( apparently actually donald e . westlake , author of the grifters , itself a fine crime film ) which was also filmed in the 1960s as point blank starring one of the toughest of tough guys , lee marvin . the film opens with gibson having recovered from being shot several times in the back , by whom we don’t know yet . all we know is that gibson , as porter , isn’t a happy chappy and is hellbent on getting the money stolen from him back , and getting even in the process , no matter what the consequences . it turns out that the man he’s after is val ( gregg henry ) , his sometime partner with whom he stole a briefcase full of cash from a gang of chinese mobsters . obviously not having much of a crisis of the soul , val figures porter is dead and goes about using his share of the money to pay off a debt to his employers . porter , however , is the sort of man who holds a grudge and once on his feet , goes about exacting revenge on the double-crossing val . gibson gives a terrific performance in the sort of role which he was born to play , that of a slightly unhinged guy who doesn’t mind beating up or shooting people to get what he wants . you probably wouldn’t see other actors in his salary range take such an offbeat , out-of-character role such as porter ( jim carrey won’t be doing anything like this in a hurry after what happened the last time he tried – the cable guy , anyone ? ) . harrison ford’s idea of playing an unsympathetic character is presumed innocent ; the last time schwarzenegger played a villain was batman and robin , which we won’t mention further ; and has stallone ever really played a villain at all ? this is not to say that porter is a villain , per se . while he isn’t the sort of character you wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of , he’s nothing compared to some of the ones we are forced to watch in countless bad thrillers and action films where they kill innocent people in the blink of an eye or execute their right-hand men just to prove how mean they are . porter is only trying to get back what is not-so-rightfully his , which in a way is almost understandable . payback is an enjoyable dramatic black comedy-thriller which won’t be remembered as being among gibson’s most important work , but is still one of the finer films he’s done . the only real problem with it is that , while everything seems to work out in the end , i was left feeling something was lacking ; was that all ? the ending looks as if it was tacked on at the last minute , and the final voice-over doesn’t ring true , even though it was used to good effect elsewhere in the film-noir style the rest of the film embodies . the film just ends far too suddenly , after a huge build-up in the penultimate scenes . a fine film , even though it needs just a little something more to be the kind of a film that can be recommended without hesitation . just be ready for a possible letdown of an ending .
1 if you thought baz luhrmann’s radical take on _william_shakespeare’s_romeo_+_juliet_ was wild , wait until what you see what tony award-winning stage director julie taymor ( _the_lion_king : _the_broadway_musical_ ) does to the bard’s _titus_andronicus_ for her audacious–and very bloody–film debut . while luhrmann transplanted the star-crossed lovers to 1990s florida , taymor keeps this grisly tale of revenge in rome–but places it in a surreal temporal limbo . the colosseum suggests the proper time of imperial rome , but high rises and heavy duty kitchen ovens suggest the 1990s , while the vintage automobiles and some costumes are more ’40s and ’50s , and other garments are more gladiator-like . as tamora , queen of goths ( jessica lange ) exacts revenge on roman general titus ( anthony hopkins ) for killing her eldest son , and he does the same to her for the wrongs she commits , taymor obviously wanted to express the timeless relevance of the story’s underlying themes . however , the time convergence approach only works at times , for often it’s just distracting , as in one scene where tamora’s suviving sons ( matthew rhys and jonathan rhys meyers ) blow off steam playing video arcade games . taymor didn’t have to resort to such avant garde time tricks , for the story would have resonated just as strongly had she jettisoned them . she is a strong storyteller and a master visual stylist , the latter compliment encompassing all areas , makeup and costume choices as well as those in the editing and photography departments . she also has a sure way with actors ; hopkins’ titus is at once tragic and horrifying , and lange is sultry as the viperous tamora . the clear standout of the cast , however , is harry lennix as aaron , a moor who is tamora’s secret lover and a schemer in his own right . lennix brings great depth to a role that could have easily been played as a stock villain . a great villain he indeed is , but to leave it at that isn’t giving full justice to his powerful and multi-dimensional work . _titus_ isn’t a complete success , but it is never less than fascinating , and it announces the arrival of a fearlessly imaginative new cinematic voice .
1 meteor threat set to blow away all volcanoes & twisters ! summer is here again ! this season could probably be the most ambitious = season this decade with hollywood churning out films like deep impact , = godzilla , the x-files , armageddon , the truman show , all of which has but = one main aim , to rock the box office . leading the pack this summer is = deep impact , one of the first few film releases from the = spielberg-katzenberg-geffen’s dreamworks production company . following = the rather dismal showing of their previous two releases ; mousehunt and = amistad , deep impact shines with elements which could just make it one = of the biggest movies of the year . deep impact begins with the discovery of an earth bound comet during a = school astronomy outing by leo beiderman ( elijah wood ) which = subsequently stirred up the political community of the world . keeping = the information under wraps to prevent widespread panic , president beck = ( morgan freeman ) took it upon himself and his subordinates to execute a = highly secretive space project to destroy the comet before it hits = earth . while pursuing a sex-scandal story amongst the presidential = ranks , ambitious up and coming reporter , jenny lerner ( tea leoni ) = unfolds the wool that president beck has pulled over the citizens of the = world . as if the knowledge of the imminent annihilation of mankind is = not enough , jenny has to come to terms with her father ( maximillian = schell ) leaving the mother for a younger woman . =20 president beck announces the discovery and preparations to destroy the = comet exactly one-year later , with so much confidence that it left no = trace of panic within the american community . achieving fame from = announcement of the comet wolf-beiderman en-route to earth ( the name of = its discoverers ) , leo beiderman continues life in his small town as a = young celebrity . a team of astronauts , led by the ageing veteran = astronaut spurgeon tanner ( robert duvall ) , was secretly trained to carry = out the mission to land on the comet and create and explosion with a = nuclear device , with the hope of blowing it out of its current path = towards earth . despite him being the most experienced in the team , the = younger generation of astronauts in the team doubts tanner’s ability due = to his age . but these are just problems of individuals . life on earth = goes on as any other day , confident that the comet will be destroyed . when the attempt to avert wolf-beiderman’s path failed and caused the = comet to split into two : comet wolf and comet beiderman , the president = unfolds his contingency plan to evacuate part of the population , leaving = the rest to die . citizens are randomly chosen to live underground for 2 = years prior to impact , when the dust due to the impact around earth have = settled , by then all life on the surface would have died . jenny and leo = were picked but many of their loved ones were not , only a handful of = earth’s population will be saved from destruction . =20 deep impact’s moving moments occur in the least special-effect laced = scenes . while the effects are fantastic , they only form a small part of = the film , which indulges itself in the development of its main = characters ; leo , lerner and tanner . leo’s struggle when he learns that = his girlfriend is not part of the population to be saved , lerner’s = dwindling relationship with her father and her pain for the mother’s = loneliness , tanner’s strive to gain the respect he deserves from his = crew and his ultimate sacrifice , all form the backbone of deep impact’s = moving moments . deep impact smells suspiciously like the previous year = release contact despite vivid differences . i think its probably because = they both delve in a story of global proportions and indulges in the = premise of hope , faith and life itself . both do not depend heavily on = eye-candy in the form of cgi effects . director mimi leder ( who won = numerous awards directing television series , and made her debut with = peacekeeper last year ) is definitely a director to watch . =20 despite this being the first of the two meteor movies this summer ( the = other being armageddon ) , i think there will be stark differences in the = approach to the subject matter . while the premise of both may be the = same , execution and focus of the films will in fact show that deep = impact has more focus on human elements than armageddon , which is done = by the team which brought us bad boys , crimson tide and the rock . =20 deep impact should be able to satisfy a variety of audiences ; from the = most action-craving to those who just want to immerse into its = manipulative but nonetheless dramatic premise .
1 there is a striking scene early in ” city of angels , ” where all the angels who live unseen in our midst , gather at the beach to watch the sun rise . the camera moves above them , showing the endless rows of ethereal men and women , all garbed in black . then the camera moves in on the face of seth , an angel played by nicolas cage , and as the sun rises , he smiles and his entire face lights up . you see , the angels can hear music in sunrises and sunsets , but they cannot feel a human touch . it is an important scene for several reasons . first of all , it is one of many instances in the film that make angels seem thoroughly plausible . the film presents these fantastic beings as normal-looking people who drift amongst the inhabitants of earth , watching what goes on with little interference . there are none of the standard , hokey angel references used in recent films like ” angels in the outfield ” ( 1994 ) or ” michael ” ( 1996 ) . the angels here are stark and believable . this early scene on the beach is also an important scene of juxtaposition , for its shows how god’s angels can enjoy aspects of the earth that human cannot , and yet they are denied so many simple human pleasures , like feeling the sand on their feet or the waves lapping at their legs , or the smell of the salt in the air . there is an inherent tragedy in being an angel , although there is much beauty in it as well . they eternally walk the earth , listening to our thoughts , touching us in our pain , and leading the dying to heaven . like human existence , being an angel is often confused and unsure . ” city of angels ” is essentially a love story , between seth and a human , a beautiful but sad heart surgeon named maggie ( meg ryan ) . he first sees her when he is in her operating room , waiting to lead the soul of her dying patient to heaven . maggie is distraught , doing everything in her power to stop the man from dying on her table , and seth is moved by her efforts and , more importantly , her overwhelming sadness when the patient dies . angels have the limited power to soothe humans in time of misery and pain , and seth does what he can with his invisible touch , but it’s not enough . he wants to be with her and share her pain , not just stand back at a distance . he learns that the only way to fulfill his desire for human love and touch is for him to ” fall ” and become human . he learns this from another fallen angel , played by dennis franz ( ” n . y . p . d . blue ” ) in a touching and humorous performance . sitting at a diner together , franz tells cage’s character about how wonderful it is to be human – to be able to taste food , feel another person’s skin , smell the air , and most importantly , have a loving wife and children . of course , there is pain to go along with all this , but for seth , it will be worth it . ” city of angels ” is something of a reinterpretation of wim wender’s haunting 1988 film ” wings of desire . ” wenders’ film was more like a poem – it was the feeling , the emotion that truly mattered over what actually happened . the americanized version moves the location from divided berlin to broken los angeles , and the emphasis shifts onto the relationship between the immortal angel and the mortal human . and , unlike most foreign films that are re-made into hollywood fare , it doesn’t suffer extensive damage . this may be because director brad silberling ( ” casper ” ) and screenwriter dana stevens ( ” blink ” ) wanted to make ” city of angels ” its own movie – inspired by ” wings of desire , ” but not an attempt to copy it . and yet , ” city of angels ” is not a typical hollywood movie . it is beautifully filmed in lush colors by cinematographer john seale ( ” the english patient ” ) , whose sweeping aerial shots and golden lighting make los angeles into an almost unrecognizable new world . seale creates many striking visuals : in addition to the beach scene , there is a wonderful sequence in a circular library where all the angels appear at banisters all around , looking down at seth as he watches maggie walk by . while the film travels along a charted plot , it takes time to develop its characters and situations ; it sheds light on the boundaries between what is earthly and what is heavenly , and shows just how thin those boundaries are . both cage and ryan give soulful , soft-spoken performances . ryan , who is usually so bouncy and energetic , truly embodies a sadness that can only be alleviated by a heavenly touch . cage projects all his desire and longing to be human in simple , heartfelt gazes , and speaks with the comforting , knowing voice that only an angel could have . what is most striking about ” city of angels ” is that stevens has added a new ending to the screenplay , which is both unexpected and challenging . it’s not a formulaic hollywood ending , because it is both sad and uplifting at the same time . it doesn’t give the audience what it thinks it wants at the end of a romance . instead , it offers something much better , something that speaks to the depths of what it means to be human and alive . ____________________________________________ visit ” charlie don’t surf ! ” an eclectic collection of film reviews by james kendrick http : //www . bigfoot . com/~jimkendrick || e-mail : jimkendrick@bigfoot . com
1 star wars : episode 1 – the phantom menace ( 1999 ) review by matt pusateri few movies evoke nostalgia , enthusiasm , and affection like george lucas’ 1977 classic , star wars . the original blockbuster film and its two sequels not only evoked wonder and passion in a generation of filmgoers , but has deeply entrenched itself in american pop culture . arguably , more americans today can explain what ” the force ” or a ” jedi ” is than a budget deficit or a serb . so 22 years after the release of the original , and 16 years since the third film , the return of the jedi , how can any new star wars film withstand the weight of incomparable expectations and anticipation ? can a new storyline and a new cast of characters possibly compete with the legends of the first trilogy – luke , han solo , and darth vader -all cultural icons ? against this challenge , the fourth star wars film , episode one : the phantom menace hit the screens last week . and despite some early critical reviews in the major media , the film is neither a flop nor a disappointment . while the phantom menace is certainly not the finest film in the series , it is nonetheless engaging , exciting , and visually breathtaking . it is a worthy sequel – er , prequel – to the original star wars films . the phantom menace takes place decades before the setting of original films . as the film opens , obi-wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor ) , the wise old master who introduced luke to the force in the original star wars , is only a young jedi apprentice , still learning from his fellow jedi and instructor , qui-gon jinn ( liam neeson ) . the republic government has sent the two jedi to settle a trade dispute that has developed into a blockade of the planet naboo by a shifty trade federation . the jedi quickly find themselves not in negotiations , but in the middle of a planetary invasion , rushing to protect naboo’s young queen amidala ( natalie portman ) . later , after eventually rescuing amidala and helping her escape naboo , they are forced to stop at tatooine to repair their battle-damaged ship before bringing her to the galactic senate to make an appeal for justice . on tatooine , qui-gon discovers a young slave boy , anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) , who not only can help them get the parts they need , but displays uncanny intelligence , insight , and instincts . qui-gon senses the child is ” unusually strong ” with the force and begins to suspect that he may be ” the one ” prophesized to ” bring balance to the force . ” as anyone who has watched the original star wars trilogy knows , far from being a galactic savior , the innocent-looking 9-year-old will in time become the ruthless darth vader . complicating matters further is a mysterious hooded figure , darth sidious , is behind the trade blockade and invasion of naboo , and sends out a lethal apprentice , darth maul , to find and capture queen amidala . while amidala and the jedi fight to save her planet , they soon also have to deal with the deadly and relentless darth maul . if the plot sounds a bit complicated , it is . the phantom menace not only introduces an earlier generation of characters and an immediate crisis , but sets up the foundation for the events that will eventually lead to the fall of the republic , the demise of the jedi knights , anakin’s turn to evil , and the rise of the dark empire of original trilogy . but the complexity is not overwhelming . the story moves quickly , with the only drawback being that many questions , predictably , remain unanswered at the end of the film , setting the stage for the next episode . one of the reasons the film’s story seems hazy is not that it is too confusing , but too unfocused . it’s unclear whose story phantom menace is . in the original trilogy , the movies were clearly luke’s story , with the stories centering around his growth from farmboy to rebel hero to jedi knight . but it’s unclear whether this new film is anakin’s story or obi-wan’s . if this trilogy is centered on anakin , it’s a shaky foundation . lloyd , like many child actors , lacks the subtle acting skills of adult performers , and as a result , his character seems shallow and unimpressive . on screen , we see nothing that suggests a dark side lurking underneath his little-boy face , or for that matter , any presence that would make him seem so special that qui-gon is willing to believe he is ” the one . ” the rest of the cast does fine , though they often work with some iffy dialogue by lucas . neeson is perfect as an aging jedi knight . mcgregor is well-cast as obi-wan and conveys a balance of youthful energy and calm sensibility . portman fits the role of a young queen well , but her lines were often very formal , giving her little room to give her character much personality . the biggest problem with the phantom menace is not the plot or the characters , but the interaction between them . individually , the characters in this new film are no less developed than those in the original star wars , and the storyline is not more confusing than previous films in the series . but unlike the previous trilogy , lucas doesn’t do as good of a job playing the characters off one another . in star wars , there were immediate contrasts and memorable exchanges between luke and han , han and obi-wan , and leia and luke . the ensemble played off each other and immediately showed their distinct attitudes and personalities . in the sequence in where luke , han , and chewbacca attempt to rescue leia from her cell on the death star , the audience learns a lot about all four characters in the ways they react to the immediate problems and each other . there is no comparable sequence in the phantom menace to flesh out the characters and their relationships with each other . individually , they are interesting characters with clear motivations and interests , but lucas develops little chemistry or tension between the them . this is perhaps the most glaring weakness of this film , and is probably the reason it has disappointed many reviewers . but despite the need for a richer dialogue and stronger character interaction , the film is still very engaging . many of the wonderful elements of lucas’ previous films make the phantom menace both memorable and entertaining . first , of course , is the remarkably rich and imaginative universe lucas creates . the characters visit magical underwater cities , evade dinosaur-sized sea monsters , fight battle droids and menacing ” destroyers ” on venetian-looking planet of naboo , watch a spectacular event , part roman-chariot race , part nascar circuit , on the arid desert planet of tatooine , then head to corsucant , the gothic urban capital of the republic and home to the galactic senate and the jedi council . each location is elaborate and complex . lucas never settles for vague ideas about the look of his settings , he creates rich , spectacular landscapes , palaces , and skylines . most of the new special effects in his re-released special edition trilogy in 1997 were changes that allowed him to give the earlier movies the look and feel that just weren’t possible when the films were made . more than ever , in this new film , lucas’ universe is filled with a menagerie of creatures , robots with personalities , and a supporting cast of aliens who interact with the main characters . the best such character is watto , a greedy tatooine junk dealer who owns anakin and his mother as slaves . watto has a scratchy italian voice and a short , paunchy body with oddly mismatched wings that flutter like a hummingbird as he floats around the room . of all the computer-generated characters in the film , watto is the best done and most enjoyable . speaking of computer-generated characters , no review of the phantom menace is complete without mentioning the most controversial figure in the film : jar jar binks . with more than 80 minutes of screen time , jar jar is the realization of george lucas’ dream to include a fully computer-generated character into the cast of the new trilogy . jar jar , a clumsy amphibian and member of the gungan race , literally stumbles his way into the path of the jedi knights early in the film and becomes qui jon’s accidental sidekick . jar jar usually performs a comic-relief role in the film , lightening scenes with his mishaps and inability to stay out of trouble . the animation of jar jar is nearly seamless , and he interacts with the characters throughout the film as if he were really on the set with the actors . however , despite the technological magic that makes his character possible , jar jar isn’t completely convincing . he still moves and sounds too much like a cartoon to blend into a scene . throughout the movie , jar jar never transcends a ” roger rabbit ” -like presence . you accept that he’s there , but you never lose sight of the fact that he is an animated character . initially , i found jar jar annoying , but grew to enjoy the humor he added to the film . on my second viewing of the film , jar jar was a lot of fun and i didn’t mind him at all . a second reason this film continues the fine tradition of star wars movies is that the film is replete with humor and small details that flesh out the world lucas creates . despite all the film’s struggles between good and evil , and the sober musings about one’s destiny and ” the force , ” like all star wars films , the phantom menace never takes itself too seriously . fortunately , lucas hasn’t lost sight of the fact that his films are entertainment , not high art . from the bumbling jar jar , to a one-man , two-headed announcer team calling the action at the film’s thrilling pod-race sequence , to a cameo appearance by e . t . in the film , the phantom menace is simply a lot of fun , with lots of half-hidden jokes and humor that can easily be missed . and finally , the phantom menace works because , as in all his films , there is no shortage of speed and action . from beginning to end , there are light-saber battles , hair-raising chases , and thrilling duels between good and evil . the pod-race sequence on tatooine is one of the most entertaining and exciting scenes in any star wars film , and the final showdown between obi-wan , qui-gon , and darth maul is arguably the best choreographed , most thrilling fight sequence lucas has filmed . the phantom menace won’t win any major oscars . it probably won’t beat titanic’s box office record . and it’s not even the best star wars film ( i’d put it third , after the original and the empire strikes back ) . but it’s an exciting and entertaining film , far better than your typical summer blockbuster . the film can’t live up to it’s hype – no film , not even the original star wars , could have done that . but it’s still worth seeing . . . probably more than once .
1 the premise is simple , if not bizarre . a mad scientist ( trace beaulieu as dr . clayton forrester ) launches an average-joe ( michael j . nelson as mike nelson ) into space where he forces his subject to watch the most horrendous movies ever made . why ? it’s torturous , it’s maniacal , and it’s just plain fun . based on the cult-favorite cable television series , mystery science theater 3000 : the movie isn’t torturous , but as for being maniacal and just plain fun , it foots the bill quite nicely . mike nelson , on a dog-bone shaped spacecraft , spends his days as any young man would dream – indulging in sarcasm and horseplay , and seeing quite a few movies . the catch is , these movies aren’t the movies he chooses , but retched examples of film-making chosen specifically by dr . forrester in an attempt to break mike’s will to live . dr . forrester is convinced that one too many b- movies is all it will take to ruin a man , but with a couple of wise-cracking puppet buddies ( tom servo , voiced by kevin murphy , and crow t . robot , voiced by beaulieu ) , the torture becomes somewhat of a honorary party for all that is wrong in the world of cheezy cinema . the purpose behind mst3k is to exploit some of the worst films known ( even if by very few of us ) to man . we watch as the silhouettes of mike , tom , and crow sit in a darkened theater poking fun at the movie going on before them . in this case , it’s the 1954 sci-fi film this island earth . we basically watch as our three leads watch , only we get the pleasure of eavesdropping on their hilarious commentary . the plots behind the movies ripped apart are really quite irrelevant , but for the sake of those who might want to know , i’ll explain this one . this island earth is the tale of two scientists , a man and a woman , who wind up aboard a spaceship whose crew intends to destroy the earth . together the two fight to survive as well as save their home planet . to make mst3k work , the film-within-the-film naturally has to be as horrible as possible , and although the tv-series introduced us to several worse films than this island earth , it’s a bad enough flick to bring about some hysterical cruelty . mst3k , which doesn’t actually contain the complete this island earth , is a short 73 minutes , but this is a step very wisely taken . as funny as some of their observations are , it can only go so long . occasional breaks from this island earth also help the film tremendously . although it takes a second to get back into the right mode after this premise has been left for a moment , it’s better than overkilling the whole concept post haste . mst3k lovers will likely hail the film greatly , but if you don’t know what you’re in for , it could be a jarring disappointment . although i thought the sharp wit of this film was worth three stars , it is a movie to be seen on home video , late at night when your brain is not functioning to full capacity anyway , and with a large , saracastic crowd – new year’s at midnight for example , which is when i saw it . warning : although mst3k has more to its end credits than most ( the three leads use the credits to poke some more fun ) , they are actually more annoying than most . the name slandering and asinine one-liners were extremely unfunny , and after laughing for about 70 minutes straight , it put a heavy damper on the overall experience . most people will likely stay to see what the smart-alec’s have to say , but for me , it almost ruined an otherwise good film .
1 any movie about the underground music scene is a difficult beast to master . any meaning found in the underground is usually lost by the dumbing-down of the experience to make it ” more accessible ” to the general public . or the film is produced and directed by people that have about enough understanding of the subject matter that they ought to work as production assistants for vh1 . human traffic , a new film exploring the british underground party/rave scene and the people immersed in the world of clubbing , pubbing , drugs , sex , and the beautiful , beautiful music , is an example of how it really ought to be done . the film follows five brits in their young twenties during a wild weekend of parties , drugs , dancing , sex , pop culture discussions , relationships , and wanking off in front of a mirror while mum interrupts . the cast of character consists of jip ( john simm ) , our narrator , who has a bit of a problem with his willy , known as mr . floppy . koop ( shaun parkes ) , our black dj maestro , who has insecurity issues , afraid his girlfriend nina ( nicola reynolds ) is shagging other men . nina herself can’t stand her mcjob and longs for the freedom of the weekends . lulu ( lorraine pilkington ) , jip’s best mate , is tired of her cheating boyfriends . and moff ( danny dyer ) can’t seem to escape the black hole of his awful life . the film follows these five individuals during one weekend as each of them discovers love , friendship , and self-fulfillment , all against the raging party background . human traffic is proof that cinema can still tell us deep stories while being visually alive , as director justin kerrigan’s subtle use of the camera lets the audience become part of the action . the use of direct communication to the audience by the collection of characters works well , making the viewer the subconscious mind for the characters . dialogue is crisp and moves with an even pace , and the acting is confident . however , the two females leads tend to promote their relationships and dialogue with a bit of unneeded urgency that shows through when poignancy is needed . human traffic does not try to explain the rave scene . instead , it gives the audience the ability to listen to the people inside it , letting you choose your own convictions about this powerful musical movement that brings together strangers , friends , and lovers for one blissful night of music and peace .
1 steve martin took an extended vacation from all facets of moviemaking a few years back ; he spent this time writing essays and short stories for ” the new yorker , ” several of which wound up in his hilarious hardback compilation , pure drivel ( 1998 ) . much of the book spares tinseltown from mockery , although he does riff on the racist comments made by marlon brando during a larry king interview , in a fine chapter called ” in search of the wily filipino . ” now , as writer and star of bowfinger , he offers the masses plenty of good reasons not to pursue a career in the cinema , perhaps finally venting the frustrations ( ‘everything being made now is crap’ ) that led to his brief retirement from hollywood . martin stars as bobby bowfinger , a roger corman-wannabe on the cusp of fifty and desperate for some success as a producer , quality of the projects be damned . his accountant ( adam alexi-malle ) proposes a movie called ” chubby rain , ” about aliens who travel to earth in raindrops slightly fatter than regular raindrops . bowfinger latches onto the idea immediately , and convinces his troupe of actor friends to appear in the film , based on the lie that america’s top box office draw , kit ramsey ( murphy ) , has agreed to star . ramsey , of course , wants nothing to do with such low-grade material , so bowfinger , on the thinking that action stars need to run , not speak , decides to photograph the superstar surreptitiously . he sends his cast members ( who aren’t in on it , either ; they are told ramsey hates the sight of cameras and fraternizing with his co-stars ) to ramsey’s table at restaurants , asks them to follow him in parking lots , etc . , spouting script dialogue , all the while shooting the outcome from a great distance . the paranoid ramsey flees the scene nearly every time . ramsey is a member of mind head , a cultish self-help organization apparently dedicated to recruiting celebrities . ( as if that’s not familiar enough , mind head guru terry stricter ( terence stamp ) has been dressed and combed to resemble l . ron hubbard , founder of scientology . ) when he goes to mind head with tales of caucasian strangers appearing from nowhere to babble ” white code ” in his face , they fear the nervous breakdown of an important client and rush him off to a retreat , requiring bowfinger to find a stand-in . murphy will probably win more fans as jiff , ramsey’s adorable , ignoramus double , than as kit , but it is his portrayal of the latter that took courage . always surrounded by an entourage , suffering from a racial inferiority complex , murphy plays right into the tabloid image of himself . furthermore , consider the enemies he’ll make of popular scientologists . pacing stricter’s neutral-coloured office as if on an amphetamine binge and stripped of his bigshot veneer , ramsey is asked to shout inane personal affirmations repeatedly . murphy’s scenes with stamp are exactly what i imagine of a john travolta ” clearing . ” not that murphy is entirely responsible for this schtick ; bowfinger is steve martin’s invention . his script is surprisingly clever as satire , given that the pseudo-religion is a sitting duck , as is the entire los angeles film industry . ( the griffin mill-types take quite a beating , in the form of robert downey jr . as bigwig jerry renfro . ) martin’s decision to tell the story from a bottom feeder’s point of view is what keeps it fresh and innovative-never have we seen on screen a group of people struggle this hard to complete a motion picture . as expected , there are laughs only to be had insiders or buffs , such as martin’s crew of mexican border-jumpers , who gain unexpected appreciation for the classics from reading ” cahiers du cinema , ” or martin’s nonsensical explanation to dave , his loyal cinematographer ( jamie kennedy ) , that every movie , in the end , has a budget of two-thousand dollars ( ! ) . most of bowfinger is universally funny , however ; i defy any viewer to keep a straight face when christine baranski , one of our brightest comediennes , is on screen . bowfinger’s main flaw is a plot twist that has an insubstantial aftermath . we’re also asked to believe that a few simple close-ups of kit ramsey would redeem ” chubby rain , ” z-grade entertainment that would make ed wood blush . ( this aspect of bowfinger has much in common with the ludicrous oscar sequence in oz’s last directorial effort , the poorly conceived in & out . ) these are significant enough weaknesses that they distracted from my enjoyment of the piece . as i mentioned at the start of this review , bowfinger offers solid reasons not to do what heather graham’s character daisy does : hop a bus to hollywood in search of stardom . that said , it offers one fantastic reason to get on that bus : the sense of community between filmmakers who gel is awesome . martin gets sentimental by story’s end as he did in l . a . story , and how could he not ? for those who can hack it , the movies might be the greatest business in the world .
0 everybody in this film’s thinking of alicia . no , this is not a documentary on those of us after we first saw the ” cryin’ ” video . this is one of those erotic thrillers , but not like one starring shannon whirry or shannon tweed . first off , there’s zero sex , almost no nudity , and it’s not as well-plotted as one of those tweed flicks . well , anyway . the ” plot . ” alicia plays , well , the babysitter , who is taking care of some kids one night while the parents ( j . t . walsh and lee garlington ) go out to a party . the film , trying to be like one of those introspective erotic thrillers , shows every characters’ thoughts , except alicia’s . the thing is alicia’s in most of them in most cases , and the thoughts aren’t too kosher . first off , there’s her boyfriend ( jeremy london , who gave one of the all-time lousy performances in ” mallrats , ” and is only a notch better here ) , who’s a dorky kid who hangs out with a kind of bully , played by nicky katt from ” suburbia ” ( who shows he’s got that quiet creepiness down pat once again ) . they decide they want to crash her babysitting job , looking for the typical babysitting hanky-panky . somethine like that . the film intercuts between the subplots ( alicia babysitting , nicky and jeremy , the party ) and each characters’ thoughts . we get to see jeremy and nicky’s dreams of doing a little threeway with alicia , j . t . thinking of coming home to find alicia naked in the bathtub ( she has it all covered up , the little tease ) , and , worst of all , lee garlington dreaming of that hunk , george segal . it even shows them in bed together . yea . i so wanted to see george and lee garlington in bed , though i guess i’m used to george after seeing her and mary tyler moore fooling around in ” flirting with disaster . ” the ending is some kind of big tragedy thing , but come on . like we care about any of the characters . the only interesting one is alicia , mainly because she’s alicia , and we mostly see her in the fantasies . so i guess she’s some kind of mystery or something . but she is never explored further . so , basically , this film is just a series of mastabatory images , sometimes featuring a non-nude alicia ( once again , sadly ) , sometimes featuring a scantily-clad george segal ( once again , sadly ) . i watched this on one of those free previews of showtime or cinemax one night , and let me tell you , it is the only way to watch this film . i mean , there’s a reason they put these kinds of films on late at night : they’re just as good as sleeping pills . and this one is one big fat waste of time , even for an alicia film .
0 star wars : ? episode i — the phantom menace ( 1999 ) director : george lucas cast : liam neeson , ewan mcgregor , natalie portman , jake lloyd , ian mcdiarmid , samuel l . jackson , oliver ford davies , terence stamp , pernilla august , frank oz , ahmed best , kenny baker , anthony daniels screenplay : george lucas producers : rick mccallum runtime : 131 min . us distribution : 20th century fox rated pg : mild violence , thematic elements copyright 1999 nathaniel r . atcheson a fellow critic once stated his belief that a reviewer should not speak of himself in his own review . i’ve attempted to obey this rule in recent months , but to do so would be impossible in this case . the fact is , nearly every person who goes to see the phantom menace brings baggage in with them . the original star wars trilogy means so much to so many people . for me , they calibrated my creativity as a child ; they are masterful , original works of art that mix moving stories with what were astonishing special effects at the time ( and they still hold up pretty darn well ) . i am too young to have seen star wars in the theater during its original release , but that doesn’t make me any less dedicated to it . on the contrary , the star wars trilogy — and the empire strikes back in particular — are three items on a very short list of why i love movies . when i heard that george lucas would be making the first trilogy in the nine-film series , i got exited . when i first saw screenshots from the film , well over a year ago , i embarked on a year-long drool of anticipation . and when the first previews were released last thanksgiving , i was ready to see the film . but then there was the hype , the insane marketing campaign , and lucasfilm’s secretive snobbery over the picture . in the last weeks before the picture opened , while multitudes of fans waited outside of theaters and stood in the boiling sun days in advance just to be the first ones in the theater , i was tired of hearing about it . i was tired of seeing cardboard cut-outs of the characters whenever i went to kfc or taco bell . i just wanted to see the movie . reader , do not misunderstand . i did not have an anti-hype reaction . the hype was unavoidable . i understand and accept the hype — it’s just what happens when the prequel to the most widely beloved films of all time get released . five minutes into the phantom menace , i knew there was a problem . ” who are these jedi knights ? ” i asked . ” why are they churning out stale dialogue with machine-gun rapidity ? ” ” why aren’t these characters being developed before their adventures ? ” ” why is there a special effects shot in nearly every frame of the entire film ? ” these were just some of my questions early on . later , i asked , ” where’s the magic of the first three films ? ” and ” why am i looking at my watch every fifteen minutes ? ‘ by the end of the film , i was tired , maddened , and depressed . george lucas has funneled his own wonderful movies into a pointless , mindless , summer blockbuster . the phantom menace is no star wars film . take away the title and the jedi talk and the force , and you’re left with what is easily one of the most vacuous special effects movies of all time . it’s an embarrassment . i looked desperately for a scene in which a character is explored , or a new theme is examined , or a special effects shot isn’t used . there are a few of each , but they’re all token attempts . the fact is , george lucas has created what is simultaneously an abysmally bad excuse for a movie and a pretty good showcase for digital effects . this is not what i wanted to see . i didn’t want to leave the phantom menace with a headache and a bitter taste in my mouth , but i did . the story centers mostly around qui-gon jinn ( liam neeson , looking lost and confused ) and his apprentice , obi-wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor , who scarcely has a line in the film ) and their attempts to liberate the people of the planet naboo . naboo is the victim of a bureaucratic war with the trade federation ; their contact on naboo is queen amidala ( natalie portman ) , the teenage ruler who truly cares for her people . after picking up jar jar binks ( a completely cgi character , voiced by ahmed best ) , they head to tatooine , where they meet young anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) and his mother ( pernilla august ) . qui-gon knows that the force is strong with young anakin , and so the jedi knights take the boy with them on their journeys . the bad guys are darth maul and darth sidious , neither of whom have enough lines to register as characters . there isn’t anything particularly wrong with this story when looking at it in synopsis form . the way lucas has handled it , however , it unsatisfactory . first of all , we don’t learn one single thing about qui-gon jinn . not one thing . what was his life like before this film ? well , i imagine he didn’t have one . that’s why he feels like a plot device . this probably explains why neeson looks so hopeless in the role , and why he’s recently retired from film ( i don’t blame him , honestly ) . obi-wan , a character i was really looking forward to learning more about , is even less interesting . mcgregor has just a few lines , so anyone hoping to see the engaging young actor in a great performance is urged to look elsewhere . since these two men are the focus of the phantom menace , lucas has served us a big emotional void as the centerpiece of his movie . things start to pick up when our characters reach tatooine ; young anakin is perhaps the only truly fleshed-out character in the film , and lloyd does a thoughtful job with the role . i was also hugely impressed with the sand speeder scene ; rarely is an action sequence so fast and so exciting . and when anakin says goodbye to his mother , i found it moving . also fairly good is portman , and she manages to give a little depth to a character where no depth has been written . jar jar binks is one of the most annoying characters i’ve ever had to endure , but he’s more interesting than most of the humans . as soon as the relatively-brief segment on tatooine is over , it’s back to the mind-numbing special effects and depthless action scenes . i’ve seen many movies that qualify as ” special effects extravaganzas , ” but the phantom menace is the first one i’ve seen that had me sick of the special effects fifteen minutes into the movie . the reason is obvious : george lucas has no restraint . i can’t say that i didn’t find the effects original , because i did — the final battle between darth maul , obi-wan , and qui-gon is visually exceptional , as is most of the film . but i also found the effects deadening and tiresome . my breaking point was near the end of the picture , as anakin is getting questioned by yoda and the other jedi masters ; in the background , we see hundreds of digital spaceships flying around through a digital sky , and i wanted that to go away . can’t we have one stinking scene that isn’t bursting at the seems with a special effects shot ? i got so sick of looking at the cgi characters and spaceships and planets and backgrounds that i really just wanted to go outside and look at a physical landscape for a few hours . and then there’s the question of magic . what was lost in the sixteen years between the phantom menace and return of the jedi ? i have a feeling that lucas was so focused on how his movie looked that he forgot entirely the way it should feel . john williams’ familiar score is no help , nor is lucas’ direction . i think it comes right down to characters : there are none here . i longed for the magnetic presence of han , luke , and leia , but i got no such thing . and what about the ridiculous expectations ? mine weren’t that high ; i simply wanted a film that showed me the roots of the films that i grew up loving , a story that had a few characters and a few great special effects . instead , i got two hours and fifteen minutes of a lifeless and imaginative computer graphics show . i don’t hate the phantom menace as much as i resent it : i’d like to forget that it exists , and yet i can’t . it’s here to stay . i can only hope that episodes ii and iii have something of substance in them , because if they don’t , then lucas will have pulled off the impossible task of destroying his own indestructible series .
0 the lives of older people in the twilight of their years attempting to come to grips with their shared histories and possible futures is a fascinating topic . finding an all-star cast for such a film is a stroke of genius . combining all that with a three-time oscar-winning director ( robert benton of ” kramer vs . kramer ” ) and creating a decidedly mediocre movie is the stuff of disappointment . in yet another noir mystery set in hollywood — how many of these have we seen during the past few years ? — the atmosphere is moody , the actors enjoyable to watch and the story goes nowhere . over-70 harry ross ( paul newman ) is a washed up cop-turned-private eye-turned man friday trying to figure out how to live what remains of his life . he’s screwed up things pretty well ( ” i had a wife and daughter . now , i’m a drunk ) and is at a crossroads . a couple of years ago , he traveled to mexico to bring back mel ( reese witherspoon ) , the under-age daughter of jack ( gene hackman ) and catherine ( susan sarandon ) ames and now lives with them . the ames are former movie stars , past their prime and the three have become fast friends . one gets the impression that ross is just hanging out waiting for something to wake him up . to fill his time , he does odd jobs for jack and falls in love with catherine . jack is in even worse shape than harry . he’s dying of cancer with only a year to live . things do turn more exciting when jack asks harry to drop off a sealed manila envelope for him . instead of the routine errand that ross expects , he walks into a barrage of bullets from the gun of another ex-cop who is , himself , full of bloody holes . this unsettling event gives the former detective a project to throw himself into and launches an investigation that revolves around the mysterious disappearance of catherine’s first husband 20 years before . through a series of very complex and convoluted plot devices that involve murder ; blackmail ; guns ; mel’s mexico traveling partner and his parole officer ; ross’s former cop buddies , ex-lover and would-be sidekick , the tale finally ends up exactly where everyone expects it to . it’s a film noir tradition that the story twists and turns down side roads for an unexpected finale , but here the journey meanders towards an ending that no one cares about . the only surprises are exactly whose face fits which role in the scenario . by the time they show you , it doesn’t matter . the storyline gets goofier and goofier exemplified in ross’s relationship with rubin ( giancarlo esposito ) , a partner wannabe . these scenes are obviously designed to be comic relief , however they are neither . rubin and ross have some past relationship but either it’s not explained or i didn’t care enough at that point to remember . a running joke about where harry was supposedly shot while in mexico is probably meant to mirror his questions about whether he is still able to perform . it’s also not funny , doesn’t connect and keeps on showing up long after it has run its course . on the positive side , it’s often enjoyable to watch the seasoned actors on the screen . the three leads all have well-deserved academy awards and turn in accomplished , if not extraordinary jobs . newman is a grand actor , but doesn’t seem quite suited to the dark film style . he is a bit too clean and understated to come across as desperate and down and out . hackman , also low-key , is believable but lacks sparkle . sarandon comes across well as an sultry older babe although she is one-dimensional . the actors do what they can with lame dialog , but they can’t pull the film out of the hole it’s dug for itself . james garner who plays ross’s old buddy ex-cop raymond hope is always a treat , but even he half-heartedly struggles through lines like ” i’m glad they didn’t shoot your pecker off . ” the best part of the film is the look at old friends , how their relationships change over the years and the difficult choices they must make . the genuinely easy and casual interactions among the actors hint that being on the set was much more interesting than what ended up on the screen the film doesn’t run very long before the audience realizes that it’s hopeless . the only reason for watching is the actors . it reminds me of disaster movies such as ” towering inferno ” where the star power is supposed to make everyone ignore the film’s problems . in a better world , there would have been second-rate actors in this second-rate movie and the ones here would have been saved for something better . of course , we don’t live in that better world , but you could make yours a little nicer by choosing a different movie .
0 martial arts master steven seagal ( not to mention director ! ) has built a career out of playing an allegedly fictitious martial arts superman who never gets hurt in fights , talks in a hushed tone , and squints at any sign of danger . he’s also the most consistent individual in hollywood today , since all his movies suck . they basically represent his egotisitical tendencies about his art ( that is , martial art ) . i’m sure the guy’s good , and he seems like a nice guy on talk shows , although a tad haughty , but these movies he makes are all the same : a guy who is basically indestructable , is maybe wounded supposedly mortally , then comes back with a vengeance and goes buddha on all the baddies asses ( although i kinda liked ” under siege ” ) . of course , this one , as a change , has a ” message ” that is drilled into our mind . . . of course , after he blows up a lot of stuff and kills a bunch of people . so why do i watch his crap ? i usually don’t . i will never , and you can hold me to this , i will never pay to see this man’s movies , unless , and only unless , he’s in a supporting role ( i . e . ” executive decision ” ) and i’d definitely pay if he dies ( i . e . ” executive decision ” ) . but this one has a special place in my heart . this doesn’t mean it’s good or that i even liked it . this was the last movie i watched with my deceased uncle , and we had one hell of a time ripping it apart a la ” mystery science theatre 3000 , ” and this was a couple years before i had heard of ” mystery science theatre 3000 . ” in this one , seagal plays a worker for a mining factory set in alaska and run by the greased-up typical shallow villain , this time played by an oscar-winner to give the movie some more clout – michael caine . it seems that caine wants to do something with his oil factory that includes him dumping oil all over inuit land . around the 20-30 minute point , seagal speaks up to him in what seems to be the typical speech to all the vain entrepeneurs ( what with his new ” fire down below , ” another ” message film ” ) , and caine has him bumped off . . . or does he ? seagal is rescued by some inuits , and falls in love with one of them , played by joan chen , who can act , hypothetically , but , for some reason , not here . one of caine’s cliched henchmen ( played here with a lot of overacting by john c . mcginley ) shoots the cheif of the inuit clan , and chen and seagal go on a voyage to take down the oil factory . . . literally , of course . at one point , seagal gives a wonderfully hysterical speech about how he doesn’t have any options but blow stuff up . he even goes as far as to say , ” i don’t want to kill someone , ” and in the same breath , he asks some guy where the arsenal is . i have no problem with violence . i’m a huge john woo fan , but he paints his films with suspense , skill , style , depth , characterization , and just plain cool violence . in the films of seagal , the suspense mainly consists of the baddie attacking him stupidly , and him either wounding or killing them . at some points , they use the cliche of the talking villain , where the villain has the advantage , can shoot seagal , but begins talking by either telling him his big secret plan , or saying a corny line , to which seagal says something hokey back , and has had enough time to devise of a way to do away with them , and does . this would be okay if there were any suspense or if it didn’t take itself seriously at all , like in the case of this summer’s ” con air . ” but seagal is serious about his skill , and of course , his message . i wouldn’t mind if this was a message film in the way that they present it to you with evidence . but seagal has no idea how to present a film where the message is subtle , not pounded into the viewer’s mind . the villain is totally shallow and cartoonish , thus we can’t take him and his motives seriously , and while seagal talks about being kind to the environment , he also goes ahead and blows up a square mile of rig , and kills some workers who were just doing his job . then at the end , he spends a good 10 minutes giving a speech , just in case you didn’t get the message from the trailers . what seagal doesn’t realize is that no one takes his films seriously ( although maybe a couple do ) and any message he has is no only redundant , but doesn’t comfortably fit in his film , which is filled to the brim with hokey violence , crap suspense , stupid melodrama , and characters who have about as much emotional depth as a petri dish . as far as seagal and his acting , he’s rather boring . he squints , he kills . period . nothing else . oh , yeah , there’s corny one-liners ( ” i’m gonna reach out and touch someone ! ” ) . of course , he’s the star , and we’re supposed to root for him and all , so he makes all the villains unbelievably stupid and a bunch of jerks . michael caine , who’s a great actor , is just supposed to yell and look cold . he does it well , i guess , but this is no ” alfie . ” of coure , no one was expecting that caliber of performance from him . his big henchman , john c . mcginley is kinda boring as well , but is not horrible . and we even get a small performance from that god of drill sergeants on celluloid , r . lee ermey ( from ” full metal jacket ” ) as a hired assasin squad leader who gets to say the obligatory speech about how dangerous seagal is , just for the movie trailers and for seagal’s ego . and also , look for billy bob thornton as one of ermey’s assasins . anyway , to conclude this all , to judge one of seagal’s movies is to judge all of them ( except for ” under siege ” and ” executive decision , ” though the latter is not really a ” seagal movie ” ) . they all have this same formula , they all have the same action , same villain , same plot , but this one has that message , which makes it more excrucitating to watch . i mean , if you do rent it , and i don’t reccomend you do , make sure you just skip the last 10 minutes . but i have to put it to seagal for creating a film so bad , that the last film i viewed with my uncle was a pleasurable one . my ( extra star for the fun it is to watch and mock )
0 arye cross and courteney cox star as a pair of bostonians who meet in a bar , go to the movies , fall in love , move in together , etc . review ====== well , if you haven’t seen when harry met sally or he said , she said , or if you don’t watch love & war on television , you might think this is the most inventive film to come along in ages . however , if you’ve seen any of these , than you have seen most of this film . this of course doesn’t mean its bad . some of it is amusing , but overall , i just had to ask what’s the point ? arye cross is the stereotypical single male who falls in love . kevin pollack is the stereotypical female-fearing best friend who make a lot of rather sexist and vulgar jokes , most if which weren’t very funny . couteney cox is the stereotypical career-minded woman who falls in love . julie brown is the stereotypical bizarre best friend of said woman . ( notice the frequent use of the word stereotypical . this film uses a lot of formula , the plot is basically known from the opening credits . ) so what is good about the movie ? well as i said there are a few amusing moments . surprisingly , julie brown , who i usually find just plain goofy , was the best thing in the film . also there are several very funny sequences involving analysis of the human mating ritual . gee , this is really short . not much to say about the film really . it is just kind of there . watching it on video might not be a complete waste of time , but i wouldn’t recommend hiring a baby sitter or spending a lot of money to see it at the theatre .
0 _soldier_ is hands down one of the worst movies a person could ever have to sit through that doesn’t have jean claude van damme in it . i could liken it to the sci-fi cheese that was the hollywood product-of-choice back in the early 80s , but that would be too much of a compliment . if there is a movie theater in hell , this film is playing there 24 hours a day . the story , such that there is , revolves around todd ( kurt russell ) , an automaton of a man who has been raised from birth to be a merciless soldier in a not-too-distant ultra-conservative future ( is there any other kind ? ) after years of desensitization at a military academy full of other boys just like him , todd becomes a ground fighter in a series of wars all over the galaxy . who the enemies in these wars are is never revealed , but the few glimpses of todd in battle show that it doesn’t matter , because innocent hostages are wiped out as indifferently as the bad guys . after ten minutes of this nihilistic trash — yes folks , there’s more — we see todd as a buff , scarred adult , now so accustomed to the carnage that no confrontation at all causes him to break a sweat . there’s a new wrinkle , though . todd and his brethren are declared obsolete , and a new batch of soldiers takes their place . after losing a sanctioned battle with _dragon_’s jason scott lee , the seemingly dead todd is dumped by a flying ice-cube tray ( well , that’s what is looked like ) on a remote garbage planet . if you predict that todd meets a bunch of outcast settlers on this planet , and that they band together to fight a bunch of bad guys coming to destroy them , you’re way ahead of the game . the renegade society on this trash heap is so clich you half-expect tina turner and master blaster to come strolling into frame any minute . it’s surprising that _soldier_ is the brain-child of _blade runner_ co-writer david webb peoples . unlike that mind-twisting classic , this film contains just barely enough dialogue to fill about three double-spaced pages . add into the mix the _mortal kombat_’s paul anderson inept direction , and it’s easy to see how _soldier_ turned out so bad . and the special effects ! remember the flying steam irons in hardware wars ? gary busey is in this movie . ’nuff said . _soldier_ is proof that hollywood still has plenty of bad ideas sitting in its script vaults . that this sad film made it to the silver screen should encourage plenty of aspiring screenwriters out there that there is hope after all . now if you’ll excuse me , i have to go weep for the future .
0 it’s a sad state of affairs when the back box blurb is more exciting than the movie contained within it . such is the case for the 1990 paul mayersberg film _the last samurai_ . though the blurb alludes to ” a jungle filled with political intrigue , uneasy alliances , and murderous enemies at every turn , ” the story of the movie is actually quite simple ( and prosaic ) : a middle-aged japanese businessman named endo ( played by john fujioka ) and his assistant , both of whom have samurai aspirations , travel to africa in search of his ancestor , who went to bring buddhism to africa . he hires the services of down-at-the-heels vietnam veteran pilot johnny congo ( the redoubtable lance henriksen ) and his girlfriend ( arabella holzbog ) , and travels to the camp of an arms-merchant-cum-safari-host- cum-islamic-missionary ( john saxon ) and his wife ( lisa eilbacher ) . they are all kidnapped by an african revolutionary guerilla with witch-doctor aspirations to conceal a pre-arranged arms deal , which subsequently falls through . congo escapes , finds endo’s ancestor’s sword , and comes back , guns blazing , to free the rest of them , and endo kills the revolutionary with the sword . the end . _the last samurai_ is one of those movies that is neither bad enough nor good enough to be enjoyable . it is merely _there_ . the murky plot is filled with subtexts that are never elaborated , subplots that are never explained , and many scenes that make very little sense at all . the film is shot through with all the tired old ” inscrutable japanese samurai ” and zen stereotypes that are to be expected from an american movie . it is quite slow-paced , with only a bit of action near the end , and the final duel between endo and the terrorist is quite anticlimactic . most of the acting is fair , with the possible exception of congo’s girlfriend . lance henriksen is his usual scene-chewing self , and is one of few possible reasons anyone might conceivably have for seeing this movie . the only other bright spot is the sweeping african scenery . i paid $3 for this film , from the discount rack at best buy , and halfway suspect i overpaid for it . if you are in the mood for samurai , read a clavell novel or watch a kurusawa movie . skip _the last samurai_ unless you are a die-hard henriksen fan .
0 birthdays often cause individuals to access their lives . are we doing what we want to be doing ? what happened to our dreams ? with the new millennium , our collective big birthday , just around the corner , some people are sensing a certain dissatisfaction with their existence . the old standbys of traditional religion and science aren’t doing it for many anymore and they’re looking for something else . we’ll be seeing more and more films with a metaphysical theme over the next few years . ricky hayman ( jeff goldblum ) is having a career crisis . the programming director for the good buy home shopping network , he’s going to be fired unless sales increase dramatically . new producer kate newell ( kelly preston ) is supposed to whip things into shape . when the two are fixing a flat , they almost run down new age pilgrim ” g ” ( murphy ) . g wanders onto the television set and connects with the viewers by telling them that they don’t really want all that commercial crap . in some unexplained manner , this causes sales to sour . ricky is saved . the movie tries to be too much at once and fails at it all . it’s not an over-the-top comedy or a heart-warming message of humanity . it _is_ a mish-mosh of poorly directed scenes made even worse by insipid dialog . i am willing to put up with preaching from a film , but the messages here are old hat . you should take time to smell the roses . selling your soul for cash is a bad idea . golly . i’m glad i saw the movie . i never would have thought of these . the opportunity to poke fun at the goofy products is mostly missed . when g takes a chainsaw to the set , there’s an obvious chance for murphy to be hilarious . it doesn’t happen . the bits are so subdued and overly-long that there’s only a hint of laughter from the audience . murphy has changed his roles in recent years and not for the better . there are hints of promise in this one . the only time the film picks up even a little is when his shaved-headed character in the long flowing white caftan shows up on screen . the others are horrendous . goldblum has episodes of brilliance in his career , but here he seems to have been replaced with a lifeless pod from his ” invasion of the body snatchers ” . his relationship with kate makes no sense . they move from antagonism to love somewhere off screen . preston is as uninteresting as she could possibly be . somewhere hidden deep inside of this film is about ten minutes of value . an attempt to satirize stupid television , we get a self-parody instead .
0 m : i-2 , the sequel to mission impossible , is a james bond wannabe film , but it fails to even come close to that film in wit , humor , and entertainment value . it tries to be a spy/romance movie , but without any suspense the film just looks like it’s an extended commercial for dudes who think they look cool in throwaway sunglasses . it is a film that prefers techie gadgets to anything human . the coolest thing about this movie , was all the holes it had in its story and the most trite thing about the movie , was the usage of doves throughout as peace symbols . the film plays as if it was a wet fantasy dream about techie violence . except for the choreographed action sequences , the film was dull for three-quarters of its time , filled with too many dead spots in its story to garner concern about its wooden characters or the superficial romance that developed . as for the action scenes , they might look good to those who are converts to violence in their films , but their advertisement for sadistic responses , is nothing short of mindless cartoon violence , which makes it very difficult to sit back and applaud without feeling put off by the gratuitous cruelty seen . m : i-2 opens and closes with fast-paced action scenes , but it is hard to get past the middle part which just drags on in banal dialogue . the film looks as if it had been invaded by a computer virus , at that point . the only thing that kept me awake , was the horrible music composed by hans zimmer that became very loud at any of the film’s supposedly momentous action scenes and seemed to make an uninteresting scene even more noticeable in the wrong way . it’s a mega-buck film adapted from a popular high-tech gadgetry tv series . but its artistic success is an impossible task to accomplish because it hired the wrong director and actors to star in it , and it failed to produce a story that had any substance . john woo ( ” broken arrow ” / ” face/off ” ) is good at doing car chases , choreographed fights with midair flips and kung-fu kicks , slo-mo shots of two guns blazing , and of fire explosions , but he just can’t seem to handle dialogue and suspense . the star of the film and co-producer , tom cruise , and his romantic interest , thandie newton , are miscast . cruise is no james bond and looks more like a yuppie than a superhero in his stylish long hair and innocuous smile , as he tries to carry off this macho role , while thandie is not an action-film girl , and seems like a fish- out-of-water in this one . their romance didn’t work , not only was it tepid and not sexy , but it wasn’t convincing . the film opens with dizzying speed , perhaps with the hope that a befuddled audience is its best bet for success . we will be in three different locations instantaneously : sydney , the american southwest , and seville . first , we are in sydney , australia , where a scientist with a muffled russian accent , dr . nekhorvich ( rade ) , mentions that he created a deadly killer virus called chimera and an antidote for it . he also mentions that every hero needs a worthy villain . which explains the film’s mythic theme . . . as we enter the world of comic book myths on good and evil . the one who played the villain , dougray scott , does so in a one-dimensional gruff tone , which did not distinguish him in that role . at least , if the film got the villain part right , it might have had some fun with this nonsense . soon the diabolical scientist is on a plane talking to someone he trusts called dimitri , but then the plane is taken over by terrorists who set it on automatic pilot and crash it into the rocky mountains . before they crash the plane and parachute out of it , the one who was posing as dimitri , turns out to be sean ambrose ( scott ) , a rogue member of the imf , which is a cia-like clone . he steals the package with the antidote , peels off a latex mask , which is a replica of the hero of the story , ethan hunt ( cruise ) , who had posed as dimitri to the scientist before and had thereby gained his trust . sean and his group of terrorists carry out this attack because they plan a virus plague on the world and then to sell the victims the antidote at marked up prices . we already saw the gimmick of peeling masks used in face/off and in the original mission impossible , which as convoluted a plot as that film had , it was still a superior film to this sequel . woo has run this peeling mask routine into the ground , as it is used so often in this film by both sides , so much so , that it blurs any ethical character differences between good guy or villain . it makes it seem as if anyone could be another character , which distorts the reality of the film and makes it impossible for the film to make much sense . next we are in a mountain range in the american southwest , and ethan is on vacation , hanging by his fingertips while climbing and looking cool , when a helicopter with his boss anthony hopkins aboard , delivers via a rocket launcher , a pair of talking sunglasses . hunt learns his next mission is to retrieve the chimera package and he is allowed to pick two regular imf agents to help , billy baird ( john polson ) and luther stickell ( ving rhames ) , with luther running a high-gadget computer , but he also must get a jewel thief named nyah hall ( thandie ) to join his team . he is told , as an incentive to recruit her , all her criminal charges will be dropped . hopkins then signs off with the tag line : this message will self-destruct in five seconds . actually , with the departure of hopkins , it was this disposable film that actually self-destructed at this point . in seville , hunt recruits nyah into the team in the middle of a jewel heist and a subsequent car chase , where he nearly runs her audi sports car over the side of a mountain road . he also falls for her when this was only supposed to be a business deal , and learns that she is valuable because her ex-boyfriend was sean ambrose and that he still wants to f * ck her . the imf team then inject a location tracer chip into her to spot sean so she can go f * ck him , as she leads them to his hide-out in the seaside of australia in which he shares with his sneering villainous cohort , the south african , hugh stamp ( richard roxburgh ) . robert towne , the screenwriter , who contributed to the first ” mission , ” who is noted for doing ” chinatown ” — writes a colorless , pedestrian script , one that fails even to be funny in a camp way . the terrorists , who aim to rule the world , are interested in owning 51 percent in a biotech company and in getting stock options , as they plan to infect sydney with the virus and have their company sell the antidote , insuring that they will make billions on the stock . ethan comes to the rescue of the world and of nyah , with his only conflict being who is more important to save first . ethan does this rescue against all odds , as he finds a way to penetrate a security tight biotech company , fight it out with sean and the other terrorists , and rescue nyah , who injected herself with the virus to hinder sean’s getting it , as the only way to transport the virus is through another person or from the vaccine needle . ethan rescues her by doing stunt riding on a motorcycle , using kick-boxing , winning a shootout , throwing a full john wayne supply of grenades at the terrorists , making some more use out of that peeling mask bit , and by being completely fearless and larger than life , while he kick’s everyone’s ass . if i was only entertained by this . . . i could have lived with it . but this film was so badly made , that it was like watching a highlight film of a basketball game , seeing only the slam-dunks , but with the game itself being excluded from the telecast . in any case , this is a critic-proof film , and will in all probability do well in the box office , as it was made to appeal to all the demographics who find commercial ventures like this one easy to buy into .
0 ex-universal soldier luc has to battle a group of newer-model engineered fighters gone bad . the review jean-claude van damme has a one-liner early on in universal soldier : the return , his latest attempt to remain relevant , that sums up this entire movie ; he says ” been there , done that . ” no film critic could possibly sum up van damme’s recent film choices any better . while other ageing action stars have wisely moved into other film genres ( schwarzenegger makes as many family comedies as he does action films ) , van damme stubbornly persists in sticking with what used to work for him : martial arts and guns . this unwillingness or perhaps inability to move into new genres has caused van damme to enter the straight to video world , with legionnaire never seeing the inside of a multiplex . he joins fellow martial artist/action star steven seagal as they watch their film careers rapidly fizzle away . universal soldier : the return is truly poor . the plot is a complete copy of several action films from this decade , specifically terminator 2 : judgement day and the similarly named soldier . soldier’s kurt russell was an older model super-soldier sent off to retirement when circumstances forced him to battle his successors , for the good of a planet ; schwarzenegger’s terminator in t2 tried to save john connor from a newer model killing machine , the t-1000 ; and jean-claude , a former universal soldier , has to save the planet from the rampage of a group of , you guessed it , newer model soldiers . considering the poor box office performance of soldier , it’s amazing that this project was ever given the go-ahead . luc devereaux ( van damme ) was the sole remaining universal soldier ( or unisol for short ) , until he was returned to a normal , if muscular , human form . in this sequel ( technically the fourth film in the series , following two straight-to-video duds that were ignored here plot-wise ) , luc is now a human trainer/consultant of sorts for the unisol program . working with dylan cotner ( xander berkeley , who interestingly also appeared in t2 ) , the unisol program has engineered a tougher , fiercer fighting force with the help of super-computer seth . unfortunately , upon hearing that the program has been axed by the government , seth takes control of his soldiers , killing everyone in the building except for luc , his partner maggie , his daughter hillary and erin , a reporter trapped inside . the rest of the film involves luc trying to keep them all alive , while beating up a group of near-indestructible soldiers , most notably romeo ( popular wrestler goldberg ) . there are lots of fights , gun battles , lame plot developments and a noticeable lack of plausibility . there are so many clich ? s in this film that it is almost painful to watch . luc gets saddled with the task of saving erin the reporter early on , and in the course of a single night , they go from bickering to falling for each other , to kissing . erin is a pathetically-written character ; people are getting brutally gunned down all around her , and yet , not only does this not seem to frighten her , but she finds time to remind luc that she ” isn’t leaving without her story ” . whatever . other laughable moments include a ) luc going to a strip club to get internet access ( what ? ) and b ) a group of rangers , who after having been given good advice ( luc tells them that their weapons are useless , and shows them a specific gun which should work better ) , choose to go into battle with their useless weapons anyway ( guess who wins the battle ? ) . not one single scene in universal soldier : the return has any originality to it . when fuelled by don davis’ loud , driving music score , the film’s many fights become almost passable , but mostly are full of the same ol’ jean-claude moves . director mic rodgers ( a former stunt co-ordinator ) keeps the action coming at a rapid pace , with only a few token serious moments to be found . his past work is evident in the many moments when characters are thrown through windows , tossed off of buildings or sent flying through the air thanks to an explosion . if only jean-claude weren’t getting so old and slow compared to younger martial arts film actors like jet li , rodgers could probably have made a decent action film . to place the blame squarely at van damme’s feet , however , is an injustice . i’m not sure that anyone , not even robert deniro or edward norton , could make writers william malone and john fasano’s script sound good . one particularly painful scene is when erin asks luc how he is so sure that the aforementioned strip club will have internet access . he cringes , looks down and mutters ” uh . . . uhm . . . they all do , i saw it on 60 minutes . eh he he he ” the script’s and indeed the entire film’s only saving grace is goldberg . he chews up every scene he is in , obviously enjoying his role immensely . he even gives the film a few laughs , as he mutters things like ” i really don’t like that guy ” every time he fails to kill luc . sadly , his presence is not enough to turn universal soldier : the return into anything better than a below-average action film that truly deserves to have joined its fellow sequels by going straight-to-video .
0 the plot of big momma’s house is martin lawrence in a fat suit and a dress . that’s not just the high-concept premise ; it’s the fully-realized , all-encompassing plot . such an emphasis is not unheard-of in the world of hollywood summer entertainment . one need merely look back to last summer , when the plot of big daddy was adam sandler being an incompetent surrogate parent . the trap inherent in such an approach is that the high-concept plot idea better be pretty well-realized , or rest on the shoulders of an extremely talented performer , because you can bet there will be nothing else worth a second of your time — not a developed character , not a provocative theme , not a witty twist . you will get 90-plus minutes of martin lawrence in a fat suit and a dress — nothing more , nothing less . those who find martin lawrence more than an occasionally amusing screen presence may have a shot at enjoying the one-note dud that is big momma’s house . others will simply stare , mouth agape , at its sheer unapologetic laziness . lawrence plays fbi agent malcolm turner , an undercover expert on a stakeout assignment with his partner john ( paul giamatti ) . dangerous convicted bank robber and murderer lester vesco ( terrence howard ) has escaped from prison , and the feds think he’s headed for his former girlfriend and presumed-but-never-proved accomplice sherry ( nia long ) . sherry , however , has fled with her son trent ( jascha washington ) , possibly to visit her grandmother hattie mae ( ella mitchell ) , better known as big momma . indeed , sherry appears to be on her way , but big momma is headed out of town without knowing sherry is coming . that leaves master of disguise malcolm to go under very heavy cover as big momma and find out what sherry knows . big momma’s house’s bloodlines are certainly traceable to mrs . doubtfire — director raja gosnell edited that film , and the makeup effects were similarly created by greg cannom — but there’s just as strong a whiff of tootsie in the main character’s attempt to use his alternate identity to get closer to a woman . unfortunately , big momma’s house makes a ridiculous decision neither of those other films made : instead of having the protagonist pose as a completely manufactured character unfamiliar to anyone elses , it places malcolm in the position of playing a friend and family member to several other characters . suspension of disbelief in big momma’s house requires you to believe every other person in the film is blind and/or stupid , since no one notices that one big momma looks or sounds absolutely nothing like the other . of course , laughs trumps logic every time , and big momma’s house probably still would have worked in spite of its utter disdain for common sense if it had just managed to be funny . and it misses its best possible opportunity for some great farce by ignoring the simple fact that the real big momma is set up as a foul-tempered beast , while malcolm has to be nurturing in order to get the information he wants out of sherry . unfortunately , no one involved appears to have the faintest idea how to deal with the comic gold mine involved in one real person pretending to be another , very different real person , so they fall back on an endless parade of sight gags : malcolm reacting violently to big momma’s explosive diarrhea attack ; malcolm-as-momma schooling a pair of cocky teens in basketball ; malcolm trying to avoid detection as various prostheses give way at inopportune moments ; malcolm delivering a baby because big momma is the town midwife ( one of the few sequences that works ) . martin lawrence can be likeable enough at times , but there’s no reason to care a whit about his budding romance with sherry because malcolm is never an independently significant character . he’s just big momma without the makeup on . i won’t waste time commenting on how ineptly the set-up of the escaped convict is employed , since it was clearly a waste of time to the film-makers . there are a few token scenes of lester looming as a threatening figure , but he’s ultimately a distraction in a film that’s really about its central visual incongruity ( and the accompanying lascivious glances at nia long’s posterior ) . i’m never prepared to underestimate how appealing that idea may be to other people — several million of them apparently found adam sandler as an incompetent surrogate parent appealing — but i know that when a film-maker tries to throw a concept at me and pretend that it’s an entire film , i duck out of the way . the gross implausibility of big momma’s house might have been tolerable if it was seasoned with more big , cleverly-constructed laughs . its lack of big laughs might have been tolerable if its characters were at all relevant . big momma’s house is ridiculous _and_ not funny . it’s just a sad exercise in the jaded presumption that any scene should be considered wacky and hilarious if it involves martin lawrence in a fat suit and a dress .
0 starring william baldwin ; cindy crawford & steven berkoff all right , the first problem that fair game has is the casting of supermodel cindy crawford in the lead role . not that cindy does that bad , it’s just that anyone who watches this film knows from moment one that that little bit of casting was not done because of cindy’s extraordinary acting skills , but for her extraordinary ability to look drop dead gorgeous in any situation . and in fair game most situations tend to find cindy either soaking wet or very hot and sweaty , but i’m sure that that is just a coincidence , no doubt that these situations were essential to the plot and the fact that cindy looks great wet , well , that’s just a happy coincidence . sure . william baldwin isn’t a bad actor . unfortunately , he just doesn’t demonstrate it at all in this movie . i’m not sure if that’s because most of his lines were just so hokey , or if he was trying to make cindy’s acting look good . if it was the latter , it worked . cindy does a surprisingly good job here in her first movie . which is not to say that she doesn’t have room for improvement . although to be fair to cindy , her lines were kinda cheesy in places . so right about now you are no doubt asking yourself what sort of movie does cindy crawford , arguably the most beautiful woman on the planet , chose for her foray into the world of cinema ? well , i’m glad you asked that question . cindy plays a lawyer who by some convoluted plot twists becomes a target for former elite kgb agents . why woud they target someone as likable as cindy , you ask ? by the end of the movie you won’t care . the story is so contrived it isn’t funny . anyway after cindy gets blown out of the window of her house , without getting so much as a scratch i might add , she is placed into protective police custody under the watchful eve of william baldwin . who’s character , max kilpatric , a police detective , seems to possess the skills of some sort of fighting machine ( my guess is that the writers have seen way too many of steven seagal’s early films ) . the point is that the idea of the crawford and baldwin’s characters of the run from these killer russians isn’t all that bad of an idea , it’s just everything around that basic idea which kinda stinks out loud . the supporting cast members are nothing more that over acted stereotypes . if i was baldwin , i’d hope this film disappears . as for crawford , she may indeed have some acting ability . unfortunately , any she does have is obscured by writing that goes beyond bad . this movie was obviously written with cindy in mind , since the writers spend most of their time finding ways to capitalize off of her looks . it’s too bad they hadn’t spent more time on a half decent plot , since ms . crawford is more than capable of looking just fine all by herself thank you very much . unless you are a huge fan of either baldwin or crawford this is a movie that will only disappoint you .
0 take a look at the following equation . . . . a christmas carol+ghostbusters=scrooged yes , scrooged is the odd mixture of sentiment , comedy and horror you would get if you mixed those two elements toghether . scrooged is alternatively sick , gross , funny , and then sickly soppy . bill murray plays frank cross , a t . v executive with a horrible personality . he’s evil to secretary , actors , crew , everyone , except the t . v’s station’s boss , of course ( played by the late robert mitchum ) however , he is then visited by a very dead exec , who warns cross that he will be visited by three ghosts , past , present and future ( who is called the ghost of yet to come , for some reason ) sure enough , they arrive , show cross how much of a s . o . b he is , and he changes his way . however , throughout this simple plot , we’ve got to suffer outlandish special effects , poor comedy , and an very , very mean performance from bill murray . frank cross isn’t ‘funny’ mean , he’s just mean . he also isn’t very good at emotional scenes , and totally destroys the last ten minutes of the film , with an utterly desperate speech saying how great christmas is , and how he has changed . however , the supporting cast are ok , with good performances from mitchum , allen ( who plays his girlfriend ) and john glover ( who plays cross’s ‘partner’ ) the ghost of christmas past isn’t that bad either . sadly , though , the audience has to suffer 25 minutes of ‘home alone’ style violence from the ghost of christmas present , played by carol kane . whoever thought smacking that kane smacking murray in the head with a toaster was funny , should be fired straight away . and the audience also has to suffer bobcat goldthwait ( the guy with the annoying voice in police academy 3 , if i remeber correctly . . . . ) who , thankfully , dosen’t say much . the script is horrendous . michael o’donaghue churns out terrible , bad taste jokes ( which i guess is the whole point really ) then changes direction completely to emotional scenes . and he must of been on some drug when he wrote the final ten minutes , which are awful . the special effects look nice , but do nothing for the film . there’s some impressive make up effects also . the music is also good , which is scored by danny elfman . but great effects and make up don’t make a great film . scrooged is an appaling attempt to inject some christmas spirit into the audience , seeing as the first 1 hour 20 minutes of the film are so depressing anyway , and the last ten minutes had to make up for it with an godawful speech . why didn’t cross just look out his exec window , and ask a young boy to buy a goose for him ? overall , then , you’d have a much better christmas if you avoid this film like something that should be avoided ( perhaps a plague )
0 synopsis : a maniac , crazed by virulent microphage , slaughters more than twenty people , including a street gang and heavily-armed troops , with a small knife . even with a handgun , however , he can’t take out the two cops who are after him , despite having shot one of them a total of seven times . comments : the most notable aspect of adrenalin : fear the rush is that it marks a striking career move for natasha henstridge . not only does she manage to keep all her clothes on ( her trademark in earlier films such as species and maximum risk was to strip naked as often as possible ) , but she actually puts on even more clothes as the film progresses . this will probably disappoint many henstridge fans , but i welcome the change because henstridge is an attractive , capable actress who deserves less exploitative roles ( though , i admit , it doesn’t show in this mess ) . henstridge , just like every other actor in the film , delivers a wooden performance in this monumental turkey . ( the cast also includes christopher lambert , who has appeared in the highlander and mortal kombat films . ) how on earth this movie got two big-name stars to appear in it is beyond me . adrenalin : fear the rush is set in boston ten years in the future ( 2007 ) . boston has changed dramatically in those ten years . it is now home to a bunch of interred foreigners and policed by cops who drive around in small cars with ” policia ” printed on their doors . some guy has a really bad virus , and he’s killing people because of it . so , the brave good guys ( lambert and henstridge ) go after him . that’s it . 76 minutes never seemed so long . this is a drawn-out chase scene through dimly-lit abandoned buildings turned into an entire movie . the plot development is nil ; we learn absolutely nothing about lambert’s character and very little about henstridge’s character . the dialogue is littered with unnecessary obscenities and concerns mindnumbingly idiotic arguments over who will go down the next dark corridor/tunnel/airduct next and who will carry the flashlight . a subplot does exist involving henstridge’s character’s illegal attempt to get her son out of boston . in her opening monologue , a monologue which sounds as though henstridge was reading from cue cards , we learn that she has gone to great lengths to secure a fake passport for her son . twenty minutes into the film , i wondered if the movie would have been better if it focused on this plot . in a defining scene of the movie , however , i changed my mind . this fake passport drops to the ground . lambert’s cop immediately recognizes it as a fraud from six feet away . must not have been a good fake . this emphasizes another fault with the film . things just defy common sense . lambert’s cop , for instance , is shot seven times , yet he is still able to talk and slide about . adrenalin : fear the rush ends in a trite manner that doesn’t seem to even fit the mood that the filmmakers were trying for . i found myself rather bored with this film , which will disappoint both sci-fi/horror fans and fans of henstridge and lambert . don’t fear the rush . fear the movie . watch something else .
0 post-chasing amy , a slew of love-triangle movies : this month we have kissing a fool , co-starring amy’s own lee , and april brings us the object of my affection , which may as well be titled chasing allan , for it is the story of a woman who falls in love with her gay roommate . ( to be absolutely six degrees of kevin bacon about it , that film stars schwimmer’s friend jennifer aniston . ) if only kevin smith could write them all . . . schwimmer stars as womanizing chicago sportscaster max , who falls in love with his best friend jay ( lee ) ‘s book editor samantha ( avital ) a mere twenty-four hours after meeting her . they are soon engaged , and max , because of his own raging libido , grows suspicious of samantha’s fidelity . he convinces jay to flirt with samantha during the development of his book , to ” test her ” . the trouble is , jay might be secretly in love with her . to stretch this flat , sitcom premise to feature length , the plot is framed by a climactic wedding , at which bonnie hunt recounts the triangular tale–the events leading up to the nuptials–to an annoying fat man and his silly girlfriend . hunt has the best comic timing of anyone in the film ; schwimmer can spin bad dialogue into mildly humorous dialogue ; and lee , poor lee , is miscast . so hysterically funny in chasing amy , here he is forced to repress his comic instincts : to swear , to yell , to talk about oral sex . . . the script’s idea of a character trait is to stress that jay is a ” sensitive man ” , and then show him drinking pepto bismol when he’s stewing over his girl trouble . as for avital , an israeli actress , she is warm and sweet , but we don’t know anything about her character other than that it takes her an incredibly long time to realize the most obvious things . she also too closely resembles the stunningly beautiful kari wuhrer , who plays schwimmer’s assistant and personal temptress , turning that particular subplot into an unintentional riff on vertigo . there are a handful , a smattering , of good scenes in kissing a fool . i enjoyed a moment in a comedy club , during which jay gets up and asks ” has anyone here ever hated their girlfriend so much you wanted to kill her ? ” over and over until he’s booted off stage . there are also a few obviously improvised lines that are fresher than anything that’s on the page . kissing a fool is never as clever as the thursday night joke-machine friends that spawned schwimmer’s movie career , so save yourself eight dollars and watch three episodes of that series back to back .
0 yet another brainless teen flick , this one is about , surprise , drugs and sex . stars katie holmes and sarah polly couldn’t look more bored . their characters are cardboard cut-outs of every cliched teenager out there . one thing you need to know is i really hated this movie . everything about it annoyed the hell out of me . the acting , and script , the plot , and ending . the director ( of the fluke hit swingers ) could have very well directed a bunch of no-name actors and had a watchabe film . the ” big ” stars of go pretty much drown the project of any originality . i felt like i was watching dawson’s creek episode 200 . although the film still would have stayed at red despite its cast . the ” surprise ” ending was sooo predictable . since when is a male character’s sudden outing of the closet considered a surprise in hollywood anymore ? ? go is dawson’s creek + varsity blues – she’s all that = go home and watch something else .
0 set in harlem during the great depression , rival gangster ” families ” go to war over control of ” the numbers ” , an illegal gambling lottery . ” runners ” take bets from potential lottery winners and deliver them to private locations for drawings . the undisputed leader of the harlem numbers is the madame queen ( cicely tyson ) who is challenged by dutch schulz ( tim roth ) , a ruthless hoodlum . by turning against the queen , dutch defies his partner , the infamous lucky luciano ( andy garcia ) , who wishes to respect the queen and keep the peace . the queens’ army strengthens when an acquaintance , ellsworth ” bumpy ” johnson ( lawrence fishburne ) is released from prison and becomes a bodyguard for her . he proves himself worthy in short time as he thwarts an assassination attempt ( on himself and the queen ) , and later takes control of the queens army when she is jailed for tax evasion . bumpy’s reign is not as restrained and subdued as the queen and he declares all out war on dutch . bloody gang warfare ensues . bumpy faces many obstacles during his reign . his new army questions his methods . his girlfriend ( vanessa l . williams ) and the queen disagree with his violent solutions . most importantly ( in his eyes ) , dutch has become a more formidable foe than he imagined , and seeks help from lucky luciano to assassinate him . there have been so many movies dealing with organized crime that it must be hard to write an original story dealing with it . this movie is not original at all . in fact , i was angered by how many similarities there was between this film and , arguably , the best gangster movie of all time , the godfather . if you are going to borrow ideas from another movie and not give credit , why not borrow from a lesser known movie ( say , millers crossing ? ) . how could the credited screenwriter chris brancato not give credit to mario puzo himself ? here are just some of the major similarities ( i stopped counting at 10 ) . crooked cop assaults blood relative of the leader . gang extracts revenge on crooked cop . wife ( or girlfriend ) questions her partners’ murderous activities and leaves him . high ranking ” officer ” betrays the leader . blood relative of the leader murdered . war erupting between the ” families ” . high-ranking officer disapproves of the leader in front of other family members . new leader runs family differently from previous leader . large meeting with all families involved . the setup in this movie is done rather well . i enjoyed the portrayal of the network of ” runners ” sprinting through the streets collecting bets for the queens lottery . this was the way of life in harlem , and most people involved with the queen did so because it was the only way to support their families and put food on the table . number running was the only way for the harlem population to find work . i also enjoyed the interaction between the angry , violent dutch and the calm , patient lucky . after about the 30-40 minute mark all of the similarities with the godfather start appearing , one after the other ( and in short order ) . it was a huge distraction , and an insult to my intelligence . who was the screenwriter kidding here ? some of the individual performances were well done . andy garcia was very convincing as lucky , unfortunately his screen time is reduced to a supporting role . tim roth effectively plays the cocky villain , much like his roles in ” the cook , the thief , his wife and her lover ” and ” rob roy ” . the good performances and convincing setup during the first third of the movie do not make up for the lackluster story that follows . a couple of coincidences is one thing , over a dozen is an insult . directed by bill duke ellsworth bumpy johnson . . . . . . . lawrence fishburne dutch schultz . . . . . . . . . . . . tim roth lucky luciano . . . . . . . . . . andy garcia the queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . cicely tyson francine hughes . . . . . . . . . . vanessa l . williams illinois gordon . . . . . . . . . . chi mcbride written by randy turgeon , january 22 , 1998
0 at first glance , i thought that the sword and the sorceror had promise . its plotline goes like this : the evil king cromwell , desiring to take over the world , resurrects an evil , ancient sorceror , xusia for power . he attacks the kingdom of eh-dan and kills young prince talon’s parents . given a triple-bladed sword ( which can shoot bad guys , like a gun ) by his dying father , talon vows for revenge . eleven years later , when he’s established his own army , the mercaneries , he vows to take back his kingdom . along the way , he meets up with alana , whose village is attacked by drunken guards and her brother is kidnapped by cromwell . talon vows to help , and , after a series of minor escapades , eventually ends up rescuing alana’s brother ( and several other prisoners ) , only to be captured himself ( in other words , put on a cross to be crucified ! ) . fortunately he frees himself , rescues alana from marrying cromwell , defeats xusia , and then cromwell , all with his triple bladed sword ( during the final battle , the blade breaks , but talon finishes cromwell off by using a hidden dagger in the blade ) . then , everything ends happily . unfortunately , the sword and the sorcerer is not even half as good as it sounds . what would have been a great film is completely destroyed by uneven plot jumping , bad acting , and gruesomely gory , bloody scenes . never once does the story seem to connect together , it just jumps around repeatedly . this problem is extremely noticeable in the opening scene where cromwell resurrects xusia . after telling him that he needs his help , he leads the warlock out into daylight , but then stabs him and sends him careening off a cliff afterwards . wait a minute , didn’t the plotline say that he needs the help of xusia in order to invade eh-dan , which he cannot do by military force ? if that is the case , why does he dispose of xusia after resurrecting him ? and why does he manage to take over eh-dan anyway ? these questions are just never – no , never – answered in the film . another example is that one moment we see talon fighting for his life , another moment we see him just about to be crucified during alana’s wedding to cromwell ( ! ) , and finally at the end , instead of settling down with alana , he just tells her to ” wait ” , and then he just rides off ! in addition to the extremely bloody scenes , this uneven plot jumping completely destroys what would have been a great fantasy adventure . even some attempts to make it exciting , a few fire scenes , battle scenes , don’t work . it just completely fails altogether miserably . the only good thing about this film is its musical score , contributed by david whittaker , who had an ( extremely ) short music composing career . the score is boomy and adventurous , powerful , and a billion times better than this film is . my suggestion : steer the hell away from this bloody mess and buy the soundtrack album instead ( if you can find it ) . ironically , though , before the film’s credits roll , there is a message indicating that a sequel , tales of the ancient empire , would follow . to my relief ( and delight ) , it never got into production , because the sword and the sorcerer laid an egg at the box office , grossing only $39 million . critics were right on in slamming the sword and the sorcerer , all right . leonard maltin rightfully called it ” second rate in scripting , and acting ” and at-a-glance film reviews called it ” a confusing , stupid , unimaginative , unengaging , bloodfilled bore ” . i totally agree with these reviews , all right , and i hope that this piece of #$% ! will be forgotten about . there are far better fantasy movies than the sword and the sorcerer . i hope you get a good laugh out of this review , but i am not laughing . in fact , my insults don’t even come close to the gruesome sickness that this film gave me throughout its 100 minute running time .
0 this movie stinks ! although it is professionally crafted and there are some decent performances , the plot is so bad it drags the film into the abyss . i knew i was in for trouble when , during the opening establishment shots , we see a detailed close-up of warrant officer paul brenner’s ( john travolta ) military identification card and it is the wrong color . this might seem like a minor detail , but anyone who has spent anytime with the military knows that active duty identification cards are green and dependant cards are yellow . and what about the senior military officer whose uniform shirt is so wrinkled he looks like he is a recruit on his first day of training . or what about when brenner tells a suspect that , because he is in the military , he doesn’t have the right not to answer his questions even though these rights were central to military law well before the miranda decision . how hard is it to get someone familiar with the military to check these facts ? now details like this could be overlooked if the underlying story held up , but this story is so full of holes it is painful to sit through . for example , at the beginning of the film , paul brenner , an undercover army investigator , gets into a gun and knife battle at his off-post houseboat and winds-up killing an arms dealer he had been investigating . the local police investigating the death are openly hostile to the military and they discover that brenner has been lying to them about the killing . but instead of arresting him , or at least take him into custody for further questioning , they release him . duh ! ultimately , brenner gets assigned to investigate the murder and possible rape of the commanding general’s daughter , a young captain also assigned to the post . when brenner finds graphic sex tapes featuring the general’s daughter , does he use them to generate a suspect list and begin grilling suspects . no , his instinct is to suppress them because they might be potentially embarrassing . eventually , brenner discovers that this murder is related to a violent gang rape at west point eight years earlier . i won’t even go into the totally unbelievable rationale for the army’s suppression of this horrendous crime . i will just mention one final flaw . brenner is investigating a crime that occurred in georgia . the rape occurred in west point , which is in new york . he is under a very tight ( and totally implausible ) 36-hour deadline to solve this case . he needs to discuss the rape with a psychiatrist at west point . does he phone the doctor ? no , he travels ( via some unexplained very fast transport ) to new york to question the psychiatrist in person , and then he returns to georgia ( again by the miracle transport ) , without once worrying about the impact any of this will have on his deadline . you have been warned , stay away from this one .
0 ” it was not scary . ” these are the first words that came to mind after it was over . when a movie is called _vampires_ , ” not scary ” aren’t words that should be associated with it . but that wasn’t my only gripe . john carpenter is a name associated with cutting-edge cinema , as in the intense scares of _halloween_ , _the thing_ and _the prince of darkness_ , or the offbeat action of _they live_ and _escape from new york_ . unfortunately , the only thing that is cutting edge about _vampires_ is the level of boredom the movie is able to reach . with an anemic plot and not-quite-kosher special effects , _john carpenter’s vampires_ has barely enough substance to slake the thirst of even the least discerning genre fan . the film is at first concerned with a group of roaming vampire slayers , led by james woods , of all people . like some sort of holy a-team ( they even have their own souped-up van ) , the bunch invade and wipe out a nest of vampires in a new mexico shack . their method is amusingly innovative : the blood-suckers are reeled out with harpoons so they can flare up in the sun like matchsticks . to commemorate their victory , the loutish band decorates a motel room with hookers and parties the night away . their celebration is short-lived , however , as a master vampire named valek ambushes and single-handedly destroys most of the team . woods’ jack crow and buddy montoya ( daniel baldwin ) escape with their lives , along with a woman named katrina ( sheryl lee ) . although the woman has been bitten , montoya and crow decide to keep katrina for her psychic link to the master vampire . the rest of the movie is concerned with the boys’ hunt for valek ( thomas ian griffith ) , a freaky marilyn manson-type who’s on a mission that dates back 600 years . along the way they pick up a priest named guiteau ( tim guinee ) , a character who serves pretty much the same purpose as the jittery cpl . upham in _saving private ryan_ . some stuff happens in the middle of the movie , but i can’t remember most of it , because i often found a twitching hair in the corner of the frame more interesting than what was happening on screen . _vampires_ finally starts to pick up about 90 minutes into the mix , as crow , guiteau , and montoya assault an abandoned prison-turned vampire nest . only then does the film begin to even resemble a carpenter flick . but it’s too little too late . we get the inevitable final confrontation , but it seems tacked on and rather anti-climactic ( come on , we’re dealing with _the_ master vampire here ! ) interestingly , last summer’s vampire actioner _blade_ was derived from a comic book , and _vampires_ from a novel , yet the latter seems more steeped in campy cheesiness than the former , a more deliberate superhero flick . woods’ jack crow spouts glib off-the-cuff one-liners and strolls away from exploding buildings with that oh-so-cool stride . and his motive for killing vampires ? take a wild guess . ( hint : a ______ killed his _____ when he was just a _____ . ) at least _blade_ had decent action and slick stylishness . _vampires_ lacks even cheap thrills to mask its gossamer-thin plot . to make up for this , the movie resorts to other ” shocks , ” such as its generally condescending attitude towards women ( crow slaps them around for the fun of it ) and an overplayed contempt for religion ( crow teases guiteau incessantly about whether his vow of celibacy has made him prone to ” getting woodies . ” ) it can be argued that maybe i wanted too much from this movie . if not scary and gory , i wanted tense , relentless , and exhausting . _john carpenter’s vampires_ is none of these . i can only recommended it for the hardcore carpenter fan . for the rest of you looking for a good scare , beware : _vampires_ is a film with no teeth .
0 perhaps best remembered as the recently departed news anchor on saturday night live who always started the segment with ” . . . this is the fake news , ” norm macdonald , at times , could elicit some laughter by blurting out semi-offensive phrases in his raspy voice , coated with a condescending attitude . his shtick was marked by crassness . in this movie , for example , when his girlfriend says that she’s kicking him out because he’s been fired from 14 different jobs over the last 3 months , he tries to calm the situation by saying , ” maybe you’ll feel better after we have some dirty sex . ” this kind of humor can only go so far , but certainly can’t go the distance in a full-length feature . ” dirty work ” , is nothing more than a sophomoric comedy about two best friends who grow up only physically . emotionally , they’ve never outgrown their pubescent years , which is somewhat amusingly explored in a beginning flashback . although having no apparent real world skills , the one thing that these two have always been adept at is getting back at people . if the meter maid was unjust in giving you a ticket , then dump a bunch of unpopped kernels of corn onto the engine block and watch the car burst apart . mitch ( norm macdonald ) and sam ( artie lange ) need to come up with $50 , 000 in a period of two weeks so that sam’s dad ( jack warden ) can have a heart operation . their idea is to start a revenge-for-hire business where they’ll do your dirty work . in the funniest scene ( and possibly the only funny scene ) of the movie , they take advantage of a live television shoot at a nearby used car lot . their presence is established , but when a less-than-honorable real estate developer hires them and then reneges on the payment , the two go to work to exact their sordid brand of revenge . by default , dirty work should treat us to some outrageous revenge plots , but it delivers jerky boys level material . except for the bit at the used car lot ( and possibly another episode that involves frat brothers ) , the dirty work is uninspired and becomes about as funny as a prank phone call . already weak on material , it further spirals itself towards the video store by having jack warden constantly blurt out that he has an unsatisfied libido and needs ‘broads’ and also includes a very unfunny chevy chase as a bumbling doctor with a gambling addiction . but what’s really painfully evident is that norm macdonald has no versatility as an actor . relying on his trademark of speaking into his personal recorder and saying ” note to self ” ( ” note to self : learn to fight , ” he says after getting beat up ; ” note to self : there’s always beer , ” he says after hitting rock bottom ; etc . ) , we feel like we’re just watching an elongated rehash of his not-so-glorious days on saturday night live . much like the television show , for 90 minutes we get one or two funny bits . the rest of the story is just dead space .
0 summer movies are , by nature , dumb affairs that are usually made for some quick enjoyment and to make money . wild wild west , the latest will smith affair , follows much the same formula , except that it is dumber and less enjoying than most summer movies . will smith plays jim west , a black sheriff with a nice line in sunglasses . he is called by president grant ( kline ) to go on a mission to find out why top government scientists are disappearing . west is paired up with scientist artemus gordon ( kline again ) and the two track the missing scientists to a legless mastermind , named dr . loveless ( branagh , with a zany moustache . ) before i pile on with the many negatives in this sorry affair , i’ll give it a chance with the positives . there’s a nice credit sequence , the production design by bo welch is pleasing to the eye , and the special effects are decent enough . there’s also a pleasant soundtrack . buried deep in the dross are one or two amusing jokes . and salma hayek pops up as the female interest , which is always nice to see . apart from these factors , though , nothing else in wild wild west works . firstly , there’s little chemistry between smith and kline , who appears to be in it purely for the money . one would expect zingers passing between the two : none arise . both of them plod through the below standard plot , knowing that there is a pay cheque waiting at the end . not even kenneth branagh provides much entertainment : although he is over the top , the material doesn’t present much opportunity for branagh to be truly crazy . therefore , he just comes across as loud as obnoxious . the only enjoyable performance comes from the sexy salma hayek , who is given so little screen time it’s embarrassing . she appears to be in the film to merely show off her body , and be ogled at by kline and smith . her character also changes at a whim to fit the mechanics of the script , and there is no sense of realism about the character . the ‘humour’ in the film is also very off . will smith put a little spin to his daft lines in men in black , here , not even smith could save the humour on display . the script largely boils down to insults that aren’t very funny , and one-liners that barely raise a smirk . it’s also somewhat racist , although it doesn’t intend to be , with one scene with jim west trying to wisecrack his way out of a lynching , and actually says slavery is good to save himself . it’s not a funny scene , and the whole thing comes off rather uncomfortably . the film also makes the tragic mistake that a man ( in this case kline ) in a dress is automatically unfunny , it isn’t , but the wild wild west makes this joke even more painful to watch through pure ineptness . there’s also problems with the plot . jim west and artemus gordon get caught up in all kinds of sticky situations , but the way they get out of them are always unsatisfying , and rely purely on luck , rather than audience pleasing skill . plot elements are introduced into the film , and then thrown away just as quickly . the main piece of the story , a 80 foot mechanical , steam driven spider devised by loveless looks rather impressive , but there’s no particular reason why it should be built . why not loveless build a great big tank , instead of an ungainly , fragile piece of machinery that’s just begging to be blown up ? director barry sonnenfeld always has a breezy look to them , with some nice camera tricks , but even this is missing from this stilted affair . wild wild west could have benefited from sonnenfelds whacked out style of directing , but not much of it is evident , making this film drag out even more . it’s a sad thing when _four_ ( credited ) screenwriters , a talented director and a willing star can’t make a film work , and eventually wild wild west collapses under it’s sexist , mildly racist , unfunny weight .
0 what were they thinking ? nostalgia for the seventies is bad enough , but do we really need an eighties film ? robbie hart ( adam sandler ) used to want to be a rock and roll star , but in 1985 he’s singing at weddings and having a good time . a romantic at heart , he loves weddings and is just about to get married to his high-school sweetie . when she leaves him waiting at the altar , his tune changes to ” love stinks ” . he meets waitress julia ( drew barrymore ) who is engaged to a junk-bonds salesman and you know that they are going to get together . in fact you know everything that is going to happen during this movie . sandler is somewhat adequate in his leading man role , but there is no spark . barrymore doesn’t seem to be able to convey anything other than a pretty face with nothing behind it : beauty but no attitude . both characters are just there . bit parts by steve buscemi and jon lovitz steal the show . the eighties are shoved in our face . references to deloreans , madonna , ” dallas ” , ivana and donald , burt and loni and ” miami vice ” get old fast . the filmmakers must have realized that there wasn’t much entertainment to the story and thought they could dazzle the audience with humorous period allusions . they’re not funny and it doesn’t work . with change on all fronts accelerating more and more , nostalgia appears to have a great appeal , but don’t you think we could have more than 14 years before we yearn for the past . maybe we can look forward to a film next year waxing nostalgically about el nino . ( michael redman has written this column for over 23 years and he knows that nostalgia is not what it used to be . )
0 and just when you thought joblo was getting a little soft around the corners , not rating anything lower than your standard ” this movie sucks ” , along comes this cinematic atrocity and he’s forced to take out his secret weapon and spray it with a stench so thick , even the bravest movie-goer would think twice about seeing this waste of time . yes , despite being a third sequel to a successful original movie , the latest highlander doesn’t seem to have anything going for it . oh stinky movie , let me count thee ways . . . plot : ( from what i understood ) a really bad highlander dude comes to the present looking to whack out the nice highlander dudes in order to gain their power and become the mightiest immortal . . . or something along those lines . critique : a complete and utter mess . disjointed , incoherent , boring , corny , filled with bad dialogue . . . and that’s just the first thirty minutes ! this film doesn’t seem to know what to do with itself . it’s confusing to anyone who doesn’t know the series ( i include myself in that group ) and apparently idiotic to those who do know the series ( i include die-hard highlander fan the arrow in that group ) . the film doesn’t explain anything about itself . . . it just goes from one inexplicable situation to another . one moment they’re in the present time , the next moment , they’re in italy in the 1600s . why ? who knows . what are they talking about ? no idea . flashbacks mixed in with the present , mixed in with a few spontaneously cheesy fight sequences every now and again , and i even remember seeing one flashback scene which went even further into its own flashback scene ! ! hullo . . . ? ! ? confused yet ? i was and i basically stopped giving a crap about anyone in the film when i realized that neither the writer or director was interested in presenting me with any kind of semblance of a story . random swordplay , mad max-like dudes showing up in motorcycles in the 1800s ? or were they in the present at that time ? who knows . . . and to be honest . . . who seriously cares ! this series should have been shot in the head and put out of its own misery a long time ago , but sadly , someone at the studio decided that it still had a little life left in it . please , please . . . for the love of god and all that is holy in the world of movie-making , and mostly out of respect for those who loved the original film , put this series to bed and end it ! even christopher lambert knew enough to play second fiddle to adrian paul in this one . the director also tries to do the best he can with the muddled material , but all he could come up with is plenty of slo-mo action , some fast-motion fight scenes and lots of smoke everywhere . and is there anything spectacular about the sword-play or fight scenes ? nope . and i think we all could have done without all those zooming lambert face close-ups . . . yipes , the man is not aging gracefully , is he ? oh boy , and i haven’t even gotten around to the greatest piece of over-acting that i’ve seen in years . the man who plays kell in this movie , bruce payne , should get a ham trophy for literally chewing up every piece of scenery that he gets near . overacting is not a hobby for this guy . . . it’s a living ! he’s also very funny , not purposely though . all in all , the movie stinks . nuff said .
0 `bats’ is an insulting slap across the face for any dedicated horror movie fan . to pull something like this off , you need to have a sense of wit and style , with a heavy dosage of humor to back up the process if the fright factor ever declines . something like the underground worm thriller `tremors’ had just the perfect mixture of these elements , and in return , the film was tremendous fun . with the notable exception of a wisecracking supporting player , `bats’ mainly plays it’s premise for straight-arrow horror . judging by the ridiculous premise , this was not exactly a wise move . the movie attempts to capture the essence of alfred hitchcock’s `the birds’ , but fails miserably . done right , it could have been adequately amusing halloween cinema . unfortunately , `bats’ is a prime example of a formula movie done terribly , terribly wrong . the only thing amusing about this festering pile of guano is in how intelligible the filmmakers anticipate their core audience to be . i will recite the following paragraph in a manner that will reach the audience of individuals to whom `bats’ is aimed toward . those guys in hollywood have made a movie about bats . these bats are not very nice , because they eat a lot of people . boy , are these bats ugly . they are infected with this bogus virus that makes them super-duper smart . they’ve got big claws and red eyes and they are not very friendly at all . a whole bunch of people in texas get killed , so a sheriff guy and a scientist lady are brought in to kill the bats . they have big guns and other cool things to fight them with , but the bats are pretty smart , so it’s sorta hard to do . the bats swoop down and they shoot at them to make they go away for good . but no , `bats’ is probably too violent for pre-schoolers . the film , directed by louis morneau , should have ventured straight into video stores . on the small screen , perhaps more fun could have been derived with lower expectations . but sitting through this crapper on the big screen is almost awkward ; although at a few moments it becomes a guilty pleasure , the film is poorly written , poorly acted and executed with glaring ineptitude . even the bats themselves are cheesy , and the attack sequences too rushed and jittery to be properly enjoyed . the sheriff in the story is emmett kimsey ( lou diamond phillips ) , who embodies every pathetic stereotype a small-town authority figure usually portrays ( he chomps on a cigar , struts contentedly in his boots , etc . . . ) . the scientist is dr . sheila casper ( dina meyer ) , who specializes in flying mammals and is classified as `the best in her field’ . meyer uses a lot of technical terms designed to make the movie seem more intellectually capable , but everything about dr . casper is recycled beyond recognition . her memories of how she became hooked on the topic of bats sounds suspiciously like oceanographic student matt hooper’s tale of how he became infatuated with sharks in `jaws’ . everything revolving around `bats’ is tired drivel , which desperately requires some directorial style or acting capabilities to spruce it up . the supporting cast could have been constructed out of straw , with voices dubbed in later . in fact , that may have worked out better in the end . take one glance at casper’s bat-loathing sidekick jimmy ( leon ) , and you’ll have immediate deja vu – he’s the exact same humorous buddy caricature from every other movie , constructed specifically for timed comic relief . unfortunately , none of his comic interludes are funny . in the role of deranged mad scientist dr . mccabe , the reliable bob gunton gets cornered with the most hideously idiotic character in the bunch . mccabe `accidentally’ released two experimental test subjects , and the virus spread to other bats . the entire town of gallup , texas is under attack from an enormous swarm of the creatures , but gunton appears to be inconspicuously contemplating something else . something like : `when is the damn movie going to be over ? ? i just want my money . ‘ the bats are ugly , i must say . there’s the occasional moment where they look moderately convincing , but mainly , the swarm is represented in cheesy digital imagery . only bits of the bloody action even hint at the campy fun the film could have been , but by the absurdly stupid climax , it’s way too late in the game for a decent recovery . characters experiment in slaughtering the bats with gunfire . let’s explore the logic there : is this really a very efficient way to decrease the bat population ? ? you could empty an entire clip at the flying winged serpents and not even wound one , and after that there are only 18 , 000 more of them . this kind of behavior represents the regular level of intelligence behind `bats’ .