1 what’s shocking about ” carlito’s way ” is how good it is . having gotten a bit of a bad rap for not being a big box office hit like pacino’s previous film , ” scent of a woman , ” and not having as strong a performance as he did in that one ( he had just won an oscar ) , ” carlito’s way ” was destined for underrated heaven . that’s what it is : an underrated gem of a movie . and what a shame because pacino and de palma both do amazing jobs with it , and turn it into a great piece of a pulpy character study . ” carlito’s way ” deals with , well , carlito brigante ( pacino ) , a puerto rican ex-drug kingpin , who gets out of a long jailterm when his coke-addicted , curly-haired lawyer ( sean penn ) points out a legal technicality . of course , carlito was actually awoken in prison , and has decided to go straight , even if he’s really a crook at heart . carlito , like barry lyndon , is a man who is trapped by fate at every turn , and can’t escape into something he is not . carlito’s attempts at a clean , legal life are thwarted at nearly every turn . when he first gets out , a friend of his ends up leading him into a big shoot-out , where he has to kill a couple people to survive . he’s constantly getting bugged by the government to see if he’s doing anything illegal , and his lawyer finds himself neck-deep in a pile of shit , needing him to try and help him out , which includes him doing some prison breaking . carlito , like ratso rizzo , wants to go to miami ( since , according to film logic , that’s where it’s at ) , but needs some funding . being a legend , he is quickly able to get a nice job running a big dance club ( this is the 70s , by the way , and since some of this takes place in night clubs , we get to hear all sorts of 70s classics , including several k . c . and the sunshine band tunes – my personal favorite ) . he gets a bodyguard ( the great luis guzman , at his best ) , and is soon running a pretty good business , even if he’s constantly attracting underworld young thugs , like benny blanco ” from the bronx ” ( john leguiziamo ) , who is more than once pointed out to be a young version of carlito . on the other side , the symbol of promise and hope , is gail ( penelope ann miller – what happened to her ? ) , his girlfriend from before prison . she’s a goregeous ballerina , and a stripper , and soon carlito is trying to get back with her , and take her with him when he finally leaves for miami . while this relationship is never fully defined or anything , we get a sense of love between them , and they have some truly interesting scenes between them ( she never gives him addresses or locales – he always has to track her down ) . all of these elements clash together at the end , in a brilliantly executed , emotional climax , which is inevitable . when i say inevitable , i mean we see it at the beginning and then backtrack , putting a great spin on it . sure , it’s going to eleveate some of the tension , but it gives the film a lot of depth , as carlito is seen trapped by fate . what’s amazing is the big chase sequence ( amazingly done by de palma ) has a lot of tension and thrills . like ” apollo 13 , ” we know what’s going to happen , but we’re still thrilled by what happens in the middle . it’s also very emotional , thanks to a great script by david koepp , and amazing performances by pacino and miller . de palma is famous ( or infamous ) for lots of violence in his films . his earlier flim , ” scarface ” ( which starred pacino in the lead ) , has a ton of it , especially at the end ( and a nasty chainsaw scene towards the beginning which i’m still not over ) . but de palma actually reigns in more quieter scenes . to me , the best scene in the film is when carlito is on top of a building , looking down into the room where gail is doing ballet . this is the most brilliantly done , and most emotionally stimulating scene in the entire film , and probably the best in de palma film history . with a gorgeous soprano duet in the background , and rain pouring down onto a trashcan lid covering carlito’s head , and a saddened , remorseful look on pacino’s face , it’s a tear-jerker ( well , for me , i dunno about you . . . ) . the acting from all is great , especially from the three leads . pacino was panned for his performance , chiefly because his accent wasn’t puerto rican enough and , well , it wasn’t as ” strong ” as his oscar-winning role in ” scent of a woman . ” well , his ” scent of a woman ” performance was great and all , but it was nothing really but , as comic kevin pollack said , a ” foghorn leghorn impression . ” in ” carlito’s way , ” he’s emotional , and strong , despite the fact that he’s remorseful over his entire lifestyle , which he cannot change . i felt more for carlito brigante than i did for the tango-dancing , insult-throwing blind guy in ” scent of a woman . ” as i said , penelope ann miller is great , and she and pacino actually have very good chemistry . and they’re scenes are well-written , with some good clever dialogue which adds some interest to an otherwise bland relationship . and sean penn is amazing as the coke-addicted rat attorney . every scene he’s in , he has great energy , and even measures up to the greatness that is pacino . in smaller roles , john leguiziamo and luis guzman are great . ” carlito’s way ” is one of those films which you heard about briefly , but when you finally watch it , you’re absolutely blown away . it’s a wonderful film , a highly underrated little masterpiece which was shelved after it didn’t do so hot . but trust me and check it out . it’s a great little film , and proof that the residential critics and mass populus are not always right .
1 life is beautiful is a rare treat : a lighthearted comedy that tackles a very serious subject without committing the sins of being disrespectful , or , even worse , humorless . it combines a charming romance with a dash of farce , stirs in a little poignancy , and ends up a very enjoyable movie . it’s an italian film , but don’t let that discourage you . subtitle-phobes will be missing a wonderful experience . life is beautiful opens as a sweet romantic comedy , with the clownish , but good natured guido ( roberto benigni ) arriving in a rustic italian town to work as a waiter for his uncle . the year is 1939 , and guido literally stumbles into the girl of his dreams , dora ( nicoletta braschi ) . their romance seems to be picture perfect , with only one stumbling block : she’s already engaged to another man . can guido overcome the odds and win his girl ? what do you think ? however , five years later , things have taken a turn for the worse in italy . the fascists have stepped up their race initiatives , which is bad news for the jewish guido and his new son giosue ( giorgio cantarini ) , who are rounded up and shipped off to a concentration camp . unable to protect his boy in any other way , guido attempts to shield his young son from the horrors of the labor camp . he pretends that everything is all an elaborate game , with points awarded for such tasks as hiding , being brave and being very very quiet . as you can tell from the description , life is beautiful has two very different tones , but manages to excel at both of them . as a romantic comedy , it is sweet and funny . as a bittersweet tale of hope amid despair , it is touching . roberto benigni’s work here has been compared with some of the best of chaplin’s , and it is easy to see why . he is able to run the gamut of comic expression , from slapstick to farce , with a warm-hearted feeling that celebrates his downtrodden hero’s ” triumph of the underdog ” spirit . life is beautiful treads a thin line when it turns its attentions to the holocaust . however , it is able to successfully navigate the minefield , without demeaning the gravity of the horrors involved , nor without losing its humorous edge that allows you to smile through the tears . with life is beautiful , benigni has created a triumphant , but bittersweet comedy . it’s quite simply one of the most enjoyable times i’ve had at the movies this year .
1 you’ve probably heard the one about the priest and the rabbi , but never with the same dosage of featherweight charm that is sprinkled over `keeping the faith’ . it’s a fluffy comedy , thoroughly glazed with a sense of innocuous innocence and good cheer , regarding two moral topics — love and religion — and how a romantic triangle causes the two to collide head-on . as youngsters , brian finn , jacob schramm and anna reilly were an inseparable trio . while their friendship progressed , anna always had the compassion to shower them both with the same love and support , so neither would feel excluded . but tragedy soon struck , as anna was forced to move away . now adults , brian ( edward norton ) and jacob ( ben stiller ) hold similar but contrastive jobs . the likable and kind-hearted father brian is a catholic priest , while the spry and outgoing jacob acts as a jewish rabbi . on the basketball court , they refer to themselves as `the god squad’ . in the relationship field , brian abides by his catholic principle of celibacy , but jacob has reached the point where finding a jewish bride is practically mandatory . everything changes when anna ( jenna elfman ) returns to new york to visit her childhood chums . now a workaholic , she devotes endless hours per week to her business , but does find spare time to reminisce with brian and jacob – both ecstatic about seeing their elementary school sweetheart once again . with these oddball ingredients tossed into one cocktail , there’s bound to be some awkward romance between our three central characters . predicting the outcome is not entirely difficult , but `keeping the faith’ is open , entertaining and refreshingly relaxed as it travels en route from point a to point b . edward norton has emerged as one of the finest , most flexibly versatile actors in hollywood – a success story sparked by his critically lauded debut in the 1996 thriller `primal fear’ . after shockingly bitter roles in `american history x’ and , most recently , david fincher’s vicious `fight club’ , a quaint romantic comedy might seem like a peculiar choice . not in the least . norton slips into the director’s chair for the first time with `keeping the faith’ , and here his incisive , resourceful approach helps add additional craft to a surprisingly perceptive screenplay by stuart blumberg . weighing every aspect , it is unanimously an impressive directorial debut . in addition , norton pushes all the right buttons with the sheepish sweetheart brian , generating a thoroughly likable screen presence . stiller ( the zipper guy from `there’s something about mary’ ) is firm and funny , boasting a fully-ripened comic maturity . elfman’s perky repetition can grow tiresome ( such is occasionally the case on tv’s `dharma and greg’ ) , but she seems perfectly rambunctious here . the remaining cast members offer fine support , from anne bancroft as jacob’s animated jewish mom to milos forman as an elderly priest quick to contribute intelligent advice . `keeping the faith’ is the perfect date flick . . . though perfection is not a word to associate with the film in general . there is turbulence during the process of lift-off , as numerous failed attempts at establishing the situation cloud the projected comedy ahead . once the film does settle in , it is often funny and always cheerful . stiller , norton and elfman have created three enormously lovable personalities . we enjoy their interaction , understand their various dilemmas and feel humbled to realize everything rings perfectly true . this is excluding the ending , which is acceptable and all , but seems to lack the charm and spontaneity of the preceding romantic entanglements . nonetheless , a narrowly mishandled finale certainly won’t wipe the smile off your face , nor anyone else’s in the audience . `keeping the faith’ is a highly enjoyable romantic comedy , although one that is more observant while surveying the questions of love rather than religion . aww , what the hell . the quality is not quite heaven-sent , but this little charmer could revive our `faith’ in a potentially tired filmmaking genre .
1 naturally , at the core of leon gast’s ” when we were kings ” is the fight itself , for what a fight it was . thanks to the business savvy of don king , an ageing muhammad ali was pitted against the formidable hulk of heavyweight champion george foreman . fans were treated to an 8 round battle of endurance and strategy , as much as brute strength , that immediately entered boxing lore . with the benefit of the first-hand recollections of that old ex-pug norman mailer , this classic conflict is brought back to life . but ” when we were kings ” tackles issues that are harder to pin down than the simple facts of a boxing match . questions of political power and social justice appear throughout this documentary . gast could hardly choose otherwise , considering the vocal , uncompromising politics of muhammad ali . a member of the controversial black separatist movement the nation of islam , ali opens gast’s film with a forceful swipe at the united states . when ali hollers ” damn america’ , the audience knows the imprecation is heartfelt ; the brutal yet casual way it is uttered leaves no doubt that ali is speaking his mind . his decision to buck the draft for vietnam is defended with the same admirable fury : ” no viet cong ever called me nigger ” , ali reasons . despite showcasing ali’s proud unequivocal politics , one of the most impressive features of ” when we were kings ” is the subtle way in which the documentary considers the difficulties inherent in the overarching philosophy of black unity and black symbolism that ali and his supporters champion . listening to the film’s numerous commentators , it is clear that the geographic location for this ” rumble in the jungle ” is etched more in the imagination than anywhere you could place on a map . spike lee tells us that the event was a pilgrimage , a ” coming home ” to africa . foreman reminds us that africa is the ” cradle of civilisation ” . fair enough , but this homeland is a specific nation cursed with a less than inspiring reality . it is the newly founded zaire and it is ruled by president mobutu , a brutal dictator . while ali respects mobutu’s ability to forge an independent african state , mailer notes that beneath the stadium in which the titans battled lay hidden the presidents well-stocked torture chambers . mailer’s insights are lost on most of the film’s commentators . george plimpton recalls that he always felt he was in the congo , rather than the newly christened zaire . with admirable restraint , gast quietly suggests that for many the grandeur of myth and history all but obscured the reality of zaire’ s squalid ruling elite . mobutu is not the only dubious character to benefit from the heady symbolism of black power . don king , resplendent in yellow kaftan and at ease with the ” messiah ” label attributed to him by a loyal disciple , passes himself off as the voice of a new black international solidarity . understandably , foreman believes he has gotten a raw deal . he may be , as one sympathiser notes , ” blacker ” than ali , but he is denied the iconic status shared by ali , the thuggish mobutu , and the tacky huckster don king . africa , zaire , inspirational leader or vicious dictator , all is left undifferentiated , unconsidered , in this optimistic celebration of black unity . little wonder that the people of zaire were shocked to find that ali’s opponent wasn’t white . admittedly , these issues are only hinted at , rather than substantially explored . the audience must consider the significance of these issues themselves , in their own time . there is just too much to cover , too much that is truly worthy of celebration , for a protracted political analysis to be justified . the excitement of james brown and b . b king in concert , for instance . and of course there’s always ali to consider , as he shamelessly , and hilariously , hams it up in front of the camera , shadow boxing and uttering one inspired rhyme after another – ” we gonna get it on coz we don’t get along ! ” . doubtlessly , considering the multi-faceted nature of the extravaganza they chose to cover , the makers of ” when we were kings ” faced numerous difficulties in deciding what issues , and what personalities , best deserved their attention . fortunately , by refusing to simplify their complex subject matter , they have captured the richness and excitement of this unique event .
1 kolya is one of the richest films i’ve seen in some time . zdenek sverak plays a confirmed old bachelor ( who’s likely to remain so ) , who finds his life as a czech cellist increasingly impacted by the five-year old boy that he’s taking care of . though it ends rather abruptly– and i’m whining , ’cause i wanted to spend more time with these characters– the acting , writing , and production values are as high as , if not higher than , comparable american dramas . this father-and-son delight– sverak also wrote the script , while his son , jan , directed– won a golden globe for best foreign language film and , a couple days after i saw it , walked away an oscar . in czech and russian , with english subtitles .
1 anna and the king strides onto the screen in full regalia , wearing a brilliant suit of sumptuous landscapes , deep , vibrant colors and an epic storyline . it’s true beauty comes from it’s subtle ruminations on the politics of power , whether it’s between governments , or the interplay between a man and a woman . anna ( jodie foster ) is a widowed british schoolteacher with a touch of wanderlust trying to grasp her quicksilver feelings concerning the recent death of her husband . with son in tow , she takes the employ of king mongkut ( chow yun-fat ) to tutor his son in the english language . mongkut sees the strength of the british and correctly surmises that his country’s future lies in opening itself up to the ways of the western world . anna function is to help provide that link . the core of the film , of course , deals with the blossoming love between anna and mongkut as it attempts to germinate in the unfriendly soil of a shifting political climate . foster plays anna with equal parts clenched jaw and wide-eyed wonder . she is assertive , yet , respectful of the king as she initially tries to impose her western sensibilities upon him . it is one of foster’s strongest performances since silence of the lambs in a role she could not have played earlier in her career . she brings a mature self- awareness and determination that might not have come across from a younger foster . it’s a joy to watch her cagily bargain for her own measure of influence within the realm of mongkut’s monarchy . when she makes her entrance into a politically charged banquet mid-film , she exudes a hypnotic beauty that is deepened by her textured performance . chow-yun fat’s king mongkut is every measure of foster’s anna , perhaps even more so . this is the chow yun-fat that hong kong cinema has been in love with for nearly twenty years . he is imposing , yet vulnerable , playful , but stern . it is an impressively assured and nuanced performance . precious time is stolen from the movie’s 155 minutes running time by an unengaging subplot involving one the king’s concubines ( bai ling ) and her love of a commoner . it strikes with the subtlety of siam’s fabled white elephant as it stomps through the leisurely paced story . some may be put off by the action filled climax of the movie . although a bit inconsistent in tone from the rest of the film , it fits within the established subplot of a perceived siege by neighboring burma , a country backed by the british . anna and the king transcends being a predictable , traditional love story by avoiding mawkishness . it shows a seduction of intelligence . ever mindful of each other’s positions , anna and king mongkut negotiate a maze of social customs , conflicting world views and lost loved ones to connect on a level that ultimately proves deeply satisfying , if not achingly bittersweet .
1 while screen adaptations of john irving’s novels have been disappointingly uneven , the films have all shared one particular strength : key casting . who can forget john lithgow as roberta muldoon , the transsexual quarterback of ” the world according to garp , ” or nastassja kinski as susie the bear in ” the hotel new hampshire ” ? a lot of good casting decisions have gone into the making of ” the cider house rules , ” an adaptation of irving’s poetic 1994 novel about a restless young man called homer wells . among those sound judgments was the decision to have the splendid tobey maguire assume the pivotal role ; the decision to cast michael caine as his mentor and father figure , dr . wilbur larch , the ether-addicted head obstetrician of the st . cloud’s orphanage , maine ; and the decision to offer jane alexander and kathy baker supporting roles as his head nurses . then there are the brethren who populate the apple orchard where homer wells finds himself shortly after leaving st . cloud’s , including delroy lindo , oscar ? -worthy as the foreman of the migrant work detail that drifts up and down the coast as the seasons take them . there’s kate nelligan as the matriarch of the cider house , and charlize theron as candy , the lovely , lonely wife of a wwii bomber pilot ( paul rudd ) sent away on a mission overseas leaving candy to set lobster traps with homer wells , a man who’s never seen the ocean before let alone a lobster . am i forgetting anyone ? yes . kieran culkin and paz de la huerta as dissolute orphanage residents who make you sit up and take notice every time they’re on the screen . but with ” the cider house rules , ” the good people decisions don’t end with the cast . irving has written his own screenplay in order to get it right this time ( last year’s ” simon birch , ” loosely based on his ” a prayer for owen meaney , ” was a big-screen example of irving handled sub-standardly ) ; the author appears fleetingly as a stationmaster here . rachel portman , a composer of such sweet and lyrical tenderness , provides a score that’s absolutely right for the project–sweet , lyrical , and tender . there’s impressive new england photography by oliver stapleton too . last but by no means least is ” my life as a dog ” director lasse hallstr ? m , who shows enormous skill in pulling this collective together and helping bring irving’s marvelously touching story to life . for the many beloved who pass away in ” the cider house rules , ” it’s an extraordinarily life-affirming story . and now , thanks to these talented individuals , it’s an extraordinarily life-affirming film .
1 scream 2 has a titillating little scene that lays down the unwritten law of horror movie sequels quite well . during a film-class discussion , windsor college students articulate what these inevitable laws are , and why sequels never live up to the originals . a few rare exceptions are noted , but they left out one . . . scream 2 ! 1996’s surprise horror blockbuster scream became an instant hit and developed an obsessive coterie of fans which included almost every teenager in america ! a sequel was unavoidable , but luckily the re-teaming of writer kevin williamson and director wes craven gives us nothing to fear in the way of lost entertainment . in fact , at the risk of sounding sacrilegious to all the adorning fans of scream , i would say that scream 2 might even be the better film ! sidney prescott ( neve campbell ) , the sinuous heroine who survived a series of murders in woodsboro , ca in the original scream , is now two years older and off to college , majoring in theater . meanwhile , tv journalist gale weathers ( courtney cox ) , who covered the murders in the first film , has since written a book about the dreadful events ; a book titled ” stab ” , which has been developed into a major motion picture . as scream 2 opens , a crowd of overzealous teenagers are piling into a crowded movie theater for the premiere of ” stab ” , and before long , a young couple are butchered to death , unnoticed in the midst of hysteria . this marks the beginning of a new murder spree as an unknown ” copycat ” sets out to repeat what’s been done . . . and finish what hasn’t ! of course the killer is just as obsessed with movies as the killer in the first film , and yes , movies play a huge role in the bizarre psychological outlook the murderer holds as he/she goes about slaying an assortment of gorgeous twenty year olds , but this * is * a sequel , and without deviating from the original groundwork we are still given a fresh outlook on horror movies . this is in large part due to williamson’s deliciously written script , which will easily leave you satisfied . as much as the film condemns the use of cliches , it is riddled with them , but it is done so effectively , and with skillful direction by craven , that you’re not bound to complain . i will note , however , that the ” whodunit ? ” did wind up being the first person i suspected , but believe me , i kept changing my mind as i tried to stay one ahead of the movie . all the actors outdo themselves here . we’re not talking oscar performances , but cambell , cox , david arquette as dewey riley , and jamie kennedy as randy all give surprisingly satisfying performances that go beyond their last outing . the characters remain true to their roots , and yet show a clear sign of development over the last two years . we can see how the events in the first film has affected them , but we don’t lose any of the luster that made them such a delight to watch in the first place . the nice thing about scream 2 is that it doesn’t seem off-kilter from it’s predecessor . it’s a natural , smooth , and believable ( as far as horror films go ) transition from film to film . we skip two years , but there doesn’t seem to be any holes or shortcuts taken in connecting the two flicks . it flows so well that you feel more like you’re reading chapter two of a book ( long chapters , eh ? ) than just revitalizing a cast of familiar faces . while main characters are usually the only connection in sequels , scream 2’s entire plot structure correlates * completely * with the first , making for immediate fondness and absorption . as i said before , scream 2 easily lives up to , if not surpassing , it’s precursor . the only reason scream will likely be hailed above scream 2 is because it was the first . this doesn’t mean that it overcasts the unique , whimsical humor or overall caliber of it’s sequel , it just means that scream will forever be known as the movie that mocked it’s own while maintaining it’s sought-after qualities . if ever a film followed it’s original so well , it would be scream 2 , and it makes this a definite must-see for all those unbridled scream fans out there . scream 2 fits snugly alongside scream , and will hopefully receive as many high remarks . it would top off the series quite well , if it weren’t for the fact that two movies don’t really make a series . it’s unlikely to assume that a scream 3 won’t appear in the next few years , but if they do decide to turn this into an undeniably acclaimed horror-trilogy , let’s hope they can keep up the fantastic work . like they say , don’t mess with perfection . . . but when a money-making smash-hit is almost guaranteed , who’s gonna listen ?
1 devotees of robert a . heinlein , be forewarned : paul verhoeven’s starship troopers is less an adaptation of heinlein’s novel than it is a literary satire . the author’s jingo-all-the-way militarism and his tendency to create plastic characters with plastic conflicts had me expecting a soulless , faceless parade of carnage from the film version . and i suppose that’s exactly what verhoeven delivers , with sometimes hilarious results . heinlein’s basic motifs are so faithfully rendered that their flaws become a source of amusement , while their strengths become the stuff of high-energy entertainment . outlining the plot of starship troopers is a fairly silly endeavor , since it’s basically a big bug hunt . . . aliens in broad daylight . sometime in the future , humanity is threatened by giant , malevolent insects which have evolved into twenty-foot-tall action figures ( arachnids with super-impaling spikes , beetles that spew forth lava , dragonflies with guillotine legs ) . among those who sign on to save the earth are a group of high school classmates from buenos aires : conflicted rich kid johnny rico ( casper van dien ) ; his math whiz girlfriend carmen ( denise richards ) ; dizzy ( dina meyer ) , who secretly carries a torch for johnny ; and carl ( neil patrick ” doogie howser ” harris ) , who not-so-secretly carries a torch for dizzy , and also has a talent for speaking telepathically to ferrets . while carmen heads for flight school and carl joins military intelligence , johnny and dizzy become mobile infantry , their various battles intertwining with romantic sub-plots out of a third season episode from ” beverly hills 90210 . ” so if starship troopers is another movie where one-dimensional characters wade through trite situations on their way to killing a bunch of aliens , what makes it any better than , say , independence day , a movie where one-dimensional characters waded through trite situations on their way to killing a bunch of slightly different aliens ? for one thing , you sense that the film-makers are aware of the pulp nonsense they have as source material . the very absence of major stars in the cast feels thematically appropriate , not just fiscally prudent . if starship troopers had been turned into a tv-movie , aaron spelling would have produced it . it’s a story which requires emoting , not acting ; it’s a prime time soap opera with big guns , played for all the dopey melodrama it’s worth . the no-name cast also plays into verhoeven’s treatment of heinlein’s most controversial conceit . in this society , we learn , one can only be a full citizen after completing some sort of federal service , military for most . verhoeven pays the notion plenty of lip service , then proceeds to skewer it with brilliant mock recruitment ads ( named after the world war ii-era ” why we fight ” series ) in which youngsters are indoctrinated into the joys of firearms , or the pleasures of stomping cockroaches . these characters really are just ” fresh meat for the grinder , ” as one character puts it , which makes their lack of familiarity all the more fitting . it’s not that starship troopers is anti-military , because it never treats the true horror of war as anything but a great big , violent video game . in fact , the characters are living the propaganda ( particularly johnny , who receives so many field promotions he may not remember his own rank by the time the film ends ) . verhoeven is actually having it both ways — he’s making fun of gung-ho boosterism even as he fires his fresh-faced recruits into battle on a gung-ho booster rocket of visual effects . if that makes starship troopers hypocritical , at least it’s enthusiastically staged hypocrisy . there may not be a person worth caring about in the whole film , but it moves like nobody’s business . verhoeven stages some thrilling action sequences , sending swarms of bugs after the anonymous grunts then having various body parts strewn about the screen like landscaping . it is that rare special effects blockbuster which demonstrates a sense of pacing to match its budget ; i was caught up in the action enough of the time that i wasn’t perpetually groaning over the absence of real human beings . i wish i could find it in myself to work up more outrage over the callous way humans are dispatched in starship troopers , but it didn’t work out that way . that would be punishing verhoeven for getting to the heart of his material .
1 no , it is not a bad film , in fact it is so good in achieving its = purpose , i actually wished for the film to end itself quickly . event = horizon is not your run-of-the-mill sci-fi film , i’m sure many who have = watched this will agree with me . it is not even original in that sense , = and it does borrow heavily from films like alien , hellraiser and even = blade runner . the magic of this film lies in its unorthodox setting and = methodical build-up that makes it wonderfully horrifying . the story brings us to the year 2050 , where space travel have since = enormously progressed . the event horizon is actually a ship built for a = secret experimental purpose ; it has the ability to fold time and space = thus making it possible for travelling distances not reachable in a = man’s lifetime . the ship disappeared as soon as it went into operation = but after 7 years , it reappeared again within the orbit of neptune . a = search and rescue team led by miller ( fishburne ) is given the task to = check for survivors of the event horizon . the designer of the ship , dr . = weir ( neill ) follows along to satisfy his curiosity on what actually = happened to his otherwise technologically impressive ship . event horizon is a sci-fi horror film , much truer to the word than say , = alien would ever be . while in alien , the crew has to cope with a = ferocious creature while encased within tight spaces , in event horizon , = the forces which goes against the crew is undefined but yet so powerful = and horrifying . the story unfolds itself slowly and the suspense buildup = is superb , up till the point where i really felt like saying out loud = `enough ! i can’t stand this anymore ! ‘ . there are more than enough jolts = to send your adrenalin pumping overtime . the story in itself is not = exactly something very exciting and also , the acting is only at most , = average by most commercial standards . even so , the essence of horror is = carried out very well in this film , thanks to its well-paced = storytelling , disturbing set designs and some really gory sequences = ( which incidentally , has been quite generously removed by our censorship = board ) . =20 director paul anderson ( who did mortal kombat ) and his team of = `atmosphere’ creators have done well in keeping event horizon within the = bounds of the term `horror’ . this picture did not do very well in the us = box-office most probably for the dread-factor impact it has on most = audiences ; people will not see it again and not many would recommend = their friend to watch this . although on the face of it , event horizon is = mostly molded for mass-entertainment ; many thrills , spills and suspense = to keep audiences in focus . however , the offbeat horror element which it = ultimately convey audiences is very disturbing . my friend and i could = not say a word to each other for quite a while after going through the = `experience’ of event horizon . i guess it was just the immense feeling = of dread which the film had cast upon us . be forewarned , this film is not for the faint-hearted nor for pure = entertainment . be prepared to be disturbed if you should decide to watch = this film ! event horizon is highly recommended=85=85but at your own = risk ! it has been a long time since good-horror embraced the big screen , = and event horizon is one .
1 the ” italian hitchcock ” and acknowledged master of the giallo murder-mystery dario argento again offers us a fascinating turn on the formula in pheneomena . this time the twist comes in the form of jennifer corvino ( jennifer connelly ) , a bright teenager with gift for telepathically communicating with insects . sent to a girls boarding school in switzerland , she soon learns of a series of bizarre disappearances and at least one murder that has the school’s population terrified . a chance meeting with a brilliant entomologist ( donald pleasance ) leads the two of them to team up and solve the mystery with the aid of her remarkable gift . phenomena is an imaginative , original thriller . writer/director argento creates several sequences of surreal , haunting beauty here , including a masterfully shot sleepwalking episode and a striking scene when a swarm of flying insects descends on the school at jennifer’s beckoning . the plot takes some wonderfully bizarre turns and the killer’s identity is genuinely shocking and surprising . the director took a big gamble with a soundtrack that mixes elements as diverse as heavy metal band iron maiden , ex-rolling stone bill wyman , and argento’s favourite gothic/electronic outfit goblin . but it gels surprisingly well . the film’s opening music reccurs several times , an eerie and evocative score that perfectly sets the overall tone . argento fans beware : the film was released outside europe in a terribly butchered form re-titled as creepers . this deleted nearly half an hour of footage , mainly of key dialogue scenes .
1 film adaptation of hunter s . thompson’s infamous semi-autobiographical hallucinogen-fueled book of the same title . director terry gilliam of twelve monkeys ( 8/10 ) and brazil ( 7/10 ) fame , took over the helm of this project after fellow director alex cox ( sid and nancy ( 7 . 5/10 ) ) ” apparently alienated everyone associated with the movie ” , according to gilliam . plot : writer thompson ( depp ) heads down to las vegas with his attorney dr . gonzo ( del toro ) to cover a motorcycle race . during their trip , they systematically consume ” two bags of grass , seventy-five pellets of mescaline , five sheets of high powered blotter acid , a salt shaker half-full of cocaine , a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers , downers , screamers , laughers , a quart of tequila , a quart of rum , a case of beer , a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls . the movie presents us with the results of that heavy drug use . critique : i have given this movie two separate ratings because i believe that the enjoyment of this psychedelic picture is highly correlated with the amount of drugs or alcohol that would be floating around in the viewer’s own mind , whilst inhaling this cinematic vision of excess . if you are prepared to get high or intoxicated before watching this film , i would say that this is one picture that you will thoroughly enjoy on a multitude of colorful levels . if , on the other hand , you decide to stray from the addition of nefarious elements to your system , i could not imagine you truly appreciating much of this drug-induced picture’s entire ride ( 5 . 5/10 for all those sober dogs ) . note : i have not read thompson’s book . having said that , joblo did engage in an alcohol-based consumatory session before ( and during ) the viewing of this film , so his critique of the film should be appreciated on that level . this movie relies heavily on style and peculiar humour , rather than substance or plot . it moves admirably from one scene to the next , without much basis of their being , while presenting us with the two days in the life of writer hunter s . thompson during which he seemed to consume more drugs and alcohol than anyone could ever imagine . it was 1971 , and the times were apparently ” a’ changing ” in the states . johnny depp chews into his role like an overgrown child sucking on a chocolate lollipop . during the filming , depp apparently become fast friends with real-life writer thompson , and was known to wander off the set from time to time , for the sake of checking out the newest barmaid at the local watering hole . i thought he did seem to exaggerate his walk a little bit too much , but then again , this movie is supposed to be a wild exaggeration of everything and anything , so who am i to talk . the one thing that did blow my mind was the actual physical transformation endured by actor benicio del toro for his role as dr . gonzo . i couldn’t believe that this fat , samoan lawyer , was the same guy who played the slick mumbling criminal in the usual suspects ( 7 . 5/10 ) . word on the street is that gained over 40 pounds for this role , and i must say that his look was deliciously reprehensible . plenty of cameos also pepper this kaleidoscopic moving picture in the form of ellen barkin , christina ricci , tobey maguire and cameron diaz , along with a bunch of others . other than that , the soundtrack was expectedly eclectic , the style was not as wild as i thought it would be , and the ending was certainly not much of a barn-burner , but then again , who really noticed . this movie is about visions of bats floating through your head , johnny depp looking goofy and being bald , and the cornucopia of drug-ravaged scenes filling your own intoxicated system with ideas of anarchy , rebellion and the lost american dream . and for all those who plan on seeing this movie without the partnership of a mean drink or a mighty doobie , i suggest you move further down the aisle , buy yourself a ticket to godzilla ( 6/10 ) , and enjoy the visual fabrications manufactured for the unstimulated mind . little known facts : depp and del toro snorted plenty of powdered milk instead of cocaine . bill murray also portrayed a thompson-based character in the film where the buffalo roam . johnny depp turned down roles in the three musketeers , speed ( 7 . 5/10 ) , and legends of the fall ( 7 . 5/10 ) , for smaller and quirkier roles in benny and joon ( 6 . 5/10 ) and what’s eating gilbert grape ? ( 7/10 ) . in 1988 , depp told rolling stone magazine that he’d tried every drug by the age of 14 . johnny hung out with some of the members of oasis while filming the uncompleted divine rapture in ireland , and later played some slide guitar on the 1997 album , be here now . johnny was born in kentucky , is a high-school dropout , has nicknamed himself ” mr . stench ” , has been engaged to four women until now ( including actress winona ryder , whose ” winona forever ” tattoo had to be altered to ” wino forever ” after their breakup ) , currently plays guitar in a band called ” p ” , and owns the viper room nightclub in l . a .
1 what is freedom ? how does one determine who is free ? in 1839 , those questions were more difficult to answer then they are now . yet , the mistakes of our forefathers must be examined in order to rectify current situations . that is , in essence , what steven spielberg’s gripping drama ” amistad ” is about . through its various dramas , spielberg presents a case about a group of africans , who , after being seized from their home , were forced onto a ship and sent to the united states aboard ” la amistad ” . on their way there , the slaves , led by cinque ( djimon hounsou ) , rebelled , killing off part of the crew . however , the ship was still directed towards the united states , where the africans were brought to trial under murder . in the court , various factions claim ownership of the slaves , and therefore try to seize them away . the united states government , led by president martin van buren ( nigel hawthorne ) , and secretary of state secretary forsyth ( david paymer ) , try to ship the africans to spain , where an 11 year old isabella ii ( anna paquin ) wants them back . the two spaniards who own ” la amistad ” want the slaves for themselves . the american ship that found the slaves also wants them . in the midst of this are two abolitionists ( stellan skaarsgard and morgan freeman ) , who want the slaves to be free . they enlist the help of lawyer matthew mcconaughey , who tries to free them . through various legal proceedings , the case appears before the supreme court , where it is argued by ex-president john quincy adams ( anthony hopkins ) . the film itself is a visual wonder . spielberg favorite janusz kaminski sets the film in a dark , somber mood when appropriate , and a visual setting when appropriate as well . at times , the film is very slow , and very methodical . however , spielberg is not at his finest here , because the courtroom scenes have a tendency to lag . the film is , in essence , a courtroom drama , one whose events are oversimplified . the characterization is also weak , displaying weaknesses in building up characters such as the lawyer baldwin ( mcconaughey ) , and especially morgan freeman’s abolitionist . but spielberg’s finest work in the film , the opening scene , a scene of cinque’s family , and the brutal voyage of the slaves to america , is altogether stunning . it is this emotional force that carries the film . mcconaughey is superb as the lawyer defending the africans , hopkins is sensational as the old adams , freeman is outstanding when used ( spielberg vastly under uses his supreme talents ) , and the rest of the cast is stellar . the movie , however , belongs to hounsou . his emotional intensity is brilliant . spielberg manages to make even the slowest scenes sparkle with focus on hounsou , and the film’s extraordinary power is simply captivating . the film is flawed , for most of the supporting characters are merely cardboard . but that doesn’t matter . the story is a gripping one , and one of extreme importance . kudos to spielberg for finding it , finding the right men for the job , and letting the audience listen to the words of cinque . a good job all around .
1 your friends and neighbors is a rather bizarre film about 6 people , who hop in and out of bed with each other . written and directed by neil labute , who’s first film , ” in the company of men ” was simply marvelous , disappoints a bit here with this one . the story involves two couples ( ben stiller & catherine keener and aaron eckhart & amy brenneman ) , an artist assistant ( nastassja kinski ) , and an egotistical women abuser ( jason patric ) . the character’s names are not apparent and are not mentioned in the entire movie . each of the characters has their own sexual style and they don’t seem to ” merge ” together well . so the group experiments behind their respective partners back . there are some hysterical scenes , one involves jason patric , aaron eckhart , and ben stiller’s characters . they are all in a sauna , talking about their best ” lay ” , when jason patric’s character makes a surprising confession . the whole scene is hilarious and exceptionally well written and acted . the enjoyed this movie , although it seemed a tad lengthy ( even though it only runs 99 min . ) . the film’s cast is exceptional with oscar caliber performances by catherine keener , aaron eckhart , and jason patric . i would not recommend this film , to people who are offended by conversations that are very sexually explicit . it did seem to offend people , more than half of the people in the theater left during the film . although your friends and neighbors doesn’t have the power of labute’s earlier film it still manages to be somewhat entertaining and funny , while maintaining a melancholy philosophy on human relationships .
1 i love this movie , and i’ve just seen for the umptenth time . unfortunately , it is also completly unknown and very few have seen it . it’s my mission in life to spread the word : see this movie ! fred , george , doug and howie are reaching middleage . three of them have a wife , kids and a house in the suburb with a mortgage to pay . only fred is still a bachelor . together they take the local train every morning to work in town . on one of their organized thursday evenings at a bar , fred tells them of his boss and the arrangements he has made to keep a mistress . he has gotten an apartment in downtown where he can meet her but has told his wife that he needs the apartment to spend the night after staff meetings every thursday night . since they always split everything four ways , they decide that they should get an apartment with a young woman as well , kathy . however , kathy isn’t completly honest to them . in fact , she is a sociology student writing a thesis about the sex life of the suburban male . with these four species she believes that she will make a very good paper . ok , have one thing clear though . the romantic rendezvous’ between kathy and each of the men are completly innocent . the script stays above the waist – or to be precise , above the neck . noboyd claims that kathy is their mistress , the four guys call her their ‘companion’ . the censorship board here in sweden considered it to be suitable only for people above 15 years , but that only shows how long ago 1962 was . small children could watch this without being corrupted . kim novak is as lovely as always in this movie , even if she seems to be a bit too old for a student . james garner is the playboy just like in many other movies . i liked howard morris the best as howard the accountant who has to diet to support his wife . tony randall is funny as always . 1962 was more than 35 years ago . how many accountants , copywriters or investment bankers can today afford to live in a house in the suburb with a lot of kids and a wife who does not work ? this is the white middle class , i can’t remember that i saw any blacks on the commuter train they use . these are the people who can count on their kids to live an even better life than themselves . perhaps this should also be a subject for a thesis in movie sociology ?
1 i remember seeing the trailer of the black cauldron on the pinocchio video . it really scared me , and i didn’t want to go see it . however , after i heard about how wonderful it was , i wanted to see it . i didn’t get a chance to do so , until now . the film , disney’s 25th animated feature , opens with a menacing shot of a great black cauldron unshrouded by mist as a narrator begins to tell the tale : a long time ago in the land of prydain , there was a king so evil , that his spirit was captured in the cauldron . it has been hidden for centuries , and whoever possesses it will have the power to conjure up an army of deathless warriors , and with them rule the world ? and destroy it . then , we meet a farmer-wizard , dallben , and his young apprentice , taran . taran dreams of being a warrior instead of being a `pig-keeper’ ( they have a pig named hen-wen ) . one day , as he gives hen wen a nice warm bath , the pig goes crazy , and dallben then realizes , after watching hen wen’s thoughts through a bucket of water , that taran must hide hen wen in the forest . an evil ruler known as the horned king is searching for the black cauldron , and only hen wen has the power to show its location . taran leads hen wen into the forest , but of course , he loses her , and tries to go find her . along the way , he meets up with a mischievous little creature named gurgi , who desires `munchings and crunchings’ , much to his dismay ( besides , he stole an apple that taran was trying to use to bring back hen wen ) . when he hears hen wen’s squeal from far away , though , he races to her rescue ? only to see her get kidnapped by dragonlike gwythants . taran chases after the gwythants and finds himself staring at the horned king’s castle from far away . taran climbs the castle walls , and brings himself into the castle , where he attempts to rescue hen wen . he manages to do so , but he is himself captured and thrown into the dungeon . there , he meets princess eilonwy ( and her magic bauble , another thing which the horned king was hoping to use to find the cauldron ) , and the two escape through the deep castle walls . along the way , taran finds a sword in a burial chamber , and they rescue a comic bard named fflewdurr flamm , who has a harp whose strings break whenever he tells a lie . the three manage to escape the horned king’s castle , but not before taran realizes that his sword is magic . as they rest in the forest , gurgi reappears , claiming to have found hen wen’s trail . he leads taran , eilonwy and fflewdurr , by way of `pig tracks’ , to a whirlpool . suddenly , they all get sucked under , and they meet the fairy-like fairfolk . taran is reunited with hen wen , and informed that the black cauldron is hidden in the land of morva . he then devises a crazy idea that if they can destroy the cauldron , it would prevent the horned king from destroying their world . with the help of a grumpy fairy named doli , the four travelers manage to find themselves at a mysterious cottage . it turns out to be no ordinary cottage ; three comically strange witches inhabit the place . when taran tells them that they are searching for the black cauldron , they agree to let him have it ? in exchange for his sword . taran agrees , much to eilonwy’s horror , but at least they get the black cauldron . but ? the cauldron can’t be destroyed , only its evil powers can be stopped . the only way to do so is for a living being to climb into it of his own free will ? never to return alive . things take a turn for the worse when the horned king’s henchmen capture taran , eilonwy , and fflewdurr , along with the black cauldron , and lead them back to the castle . taran , eilonwy , and fflewdurr watch in horror as the horned king unleashes the supernatural powers of the cauldron to ressurect his army of deathless warriors ( this is the most horrifying scene in the film , because here , a dead army comes alive ? ) . just when all seems lost , though , gurgi reappears , and rescues taran , eilonwy , and fflewdurr . taran is about to jump into the black cauldron , but gurgi stops him , not wanting him to throw his life away . gurgi then jumps into the black cauldron , and the deathless warriors decay . taran tries to find a way to rescue gurgi , but he is forced to do battle against the horned king . he kicks the horned king away , who is then magically sucked into the black cauldron , where its powers immediately destroy him completely . taran , eilonwy , and fflewdurr manage to escape from the horned king’s castle just as it self-destructs . the witches then reappear and attempt to take the now useless black cauldron away , but fflewdurr stops them , saying that they `never give anything away , they bargain’ . in response to this , the witches offer taran his sword back , but taran instead has a new trade : the cauldron for gurgi . the trade is made ; gurgi’s seemingly lifeless body reappears before the heartbroken group . as taran cradles him in his arms , though , gurgi stirs-he is not dead after all ! the happy group then returns home , where hen wen ( brought home by the fairfolk once the dangers are past ) , dallben , and even doli , await their triumphant return . as spectacular as it sounds , the black cauldron really suffered a lot in its past times . before ron miller was fired from his position as chairman of walt disney productions , he had bought a novel by lloyd alexander called the black cauldron , a sword and sorcery tale for the studio . bringing this book to the screen was the studio’s fondest dream . miller , who entitled himself as the executive producer , promised that they would do so after they had proved themselves on other projects . when micheal eisner and his executives arrived at the disney animation studio , the animators were struggling to complete the black cauldron . by this time , things had gone really rocky for the animation department . many of the studio’s old men had retired or died . therefore , the animators suffered a hard time making this film . originally budgeted at $25 million , the costs raised to $40 million because of constant changes on everything ? and when it was finally released on june 24 , 1985 , the black cauldron was greeted by praising reviews from some critics , but somehow the film flopped . the film was rated pg and the film , although `disneyfied’ from lloyd alexander’s chronicles of prydain ( which is what this film is based on ) , was much more scarier and darker than disney’s other previous efforts , such as the rescuers and the fox and the hound , which is probably why so many people considered it too scary and stayed away from it . in addition , other critics rejected it for having `no heart’ and `unmemorable’ , compared to other disney animated features . but whatever the real reason , the black cauldron was a financial disaster , grossing only $21 million . the failure of the film grounded the studio’s animation department , and exiled the animation team to annex buildings in nearby glendale , and it seemed like animated features would no longer become a part of the studio’s reputation . the next two disney animated features , the great mouse detective and oliver and company , although a little more lighthearted than the black cauldron , didn’t do much better ( although oliver and company grossed much more than the black cauldron and the great mouse detective ) . only with the little mermaid did the studio regain its reputation for successful animated features . as for the black cauldron , it was rereleased in some cities for a temporary time under the title taran and the magic cauldron . finally , the studio locked the film in the film vault and denied that it ever even was released . because of all this , you might ask yourself , was the black cauldron really such a bad movie ? the people who had seen the film didn’t think so . in fact , many people had calls to buena vista home video requesting for the film , but of course , they denied it . for a while , it seemed like the black cauldron would never be released to video ? until september 1997 , disney released the black cauldron to video in the united kingdom . few people imported the video from england and converted to ntsc ( including me ) and for those who hadn’t seen the film yet ( i am included here ) , they got quite a treat . but people who had bootleg copies of the black cauldron noticed that in the scene where the horned king raises his army of deathless warriors , about 12 seconds of ghoulish looking skeletons were slightly trimmed so that the film would get a u rating ( in the uk , the u rating means universal : suitable for all ages , kinda like their own version of g ) . somewhere online , a team of diehard the black cauldron fans signed a petition that said , `bring back the black cauldron ! ‘ , and because of that , disney finally decided to release the video to the united states . before that time , rumors online had been made that the video would be trimmed , like the uk video , so that it would get a g rating , and that they would add in songs . those rumors were put to rest when the walt disney company announced that the black cauldron * would * be released in its pg rated version . even still , when it was finally released to the us , some reaction was mixed . some felt that it was indeed cut , but some felt that it wasn’t . but these where only minor criticisms which seemed laughable , since a film that was absent for thirteen years was finally available . as for myself , when i saw the movie for the first time ( on converted ntsc video ) , i didn’t expect much at all . in fact , i had heard so many mediocre things about it , that i didn’t think the film would ever be such a good film . much to my surprise , when i saw the first few minutes of the film , i was asking myself , ” this is the same film everyone saw ? the one that flopped at the box office ? the one that critics and filmgoers alike called ” a bad movie ” ? this doesn’t seem like all of the above . instead , it’s a classic in its own right . the film has a wonderful cast of characters . there’s taran ( grant bardsley ) , an assistant pig keeper who would rather be a warrior than a pig-keeper , the story’s hero . the critics have said that taran is not likeable at all , but the opposite is true . he is brave , loyal , and eventually learns a lesson about friendship later on . there’s a likeable character here ! not that he’s the only likeable character in the film . there’s gurgi ( john biner ) , a lovable little , uh , thing who remains loyal to taran , even though they don’t quite hit it off at first . but another likeable character is the bad guy comic henchman , a dwarf named creeper ( phil fondacairo ) , who is loyal to the film’s imaginative and sinister villain , the horned king ( voiced gruesomely by john hurt ) , yet he also fears his neck . the other characters , including the sidekicks , a spunky , but sweet princess named eilonwy and the comic bard fflewdurr flamm , and three comically wicked witches who hide a dark secret , although pleasant and likeable , aren’t quite as well rounded as they should be . the story itself is an adventurous one , a quest involving the mystical pig , hen wen , the black cauldron itself , and an army of deathless ones with everything : a hooking opening to a spectacular finale . elmer bernstein’s music also tells the story perfectly , in a dark , yet calming manner . the animation itself is surprisingly good considering that this film was created in the darkest time of the studios . even though there are some occasional effects that are not quite good , like the ground opening when the black cauldron rises out of the earth , the animation overall is top notch . overall ? this film is an entertaining endeavor . fans unfamiliar to the lloyd alexander chronicles of prydain will get a kick out of this one , except young kids . there are some extremely scary scenes which are more darker than disney’s other films ( although some consider the stampede sequence from the lion king and frollo observing esmeralda in the fires of hell in the hunchback of notre dame are just as scary ) , which is the main reason why this film is rated pg . fans familiar to the lloyd alexander series will recognize the differences between the novel and the movie . even though it doesn’t have all of the ingredients of a true disney film , this film is a classic in its own right , and deserves a far better chance than what it has been given . that better chance has finally come . whatever reason about why the black cauldron was such a big failure seems to have disappeared , and the film has finally achieved its place among disney’s most proudest achievements . i can’t help but think though , whatever would have happened if the black cauldron * was * a box office success ?
1 quiz show , an almost perfectly accurate true story , is based upon the events of the popular television show of the mid-50’s , ” twenty-one ” . on this trivial game show , contestants were placed in isolation booths and then answered questions corresponding to a category of their choice , on which they wagered an amount of points on . the game went on until a player reached twenty one points on felt they had earned enough points to win . but , after ratings began to fall when players were struggling to break the zero mark , the producers decided to fix the game by giving the answers to a contestant before the game began . quiz show illustrates the true stories of two particular contestants , herbie stempel and charles van doren . stempel ( john turturro ) , a former g . i . and your jewish man raising a family . stempel has been the reigning champion on ” twenty-one ” for many weeks and has accumulated thousands of dollars . in his mind , he is the best thing on television and the people love him . although , in the mind of the show’s producers , herbie stempel is getting old . dan enright ( david paymer ) , in particular , feels that the people are tired of seeing a ” jewish guy from queens with bad teeth ” and that the kids need someone better to look up to . therefore , they need to find another contestant whom would be a worthy role model and the people will look up to and cheer to win . someone who can defeat stempel , even if they have to resort to cheating . enter charles van doren ( ralph fiennes ) , a well-educated professor from a widely recognized family . van doren had decided to try out for the game show ” tic tac dough ” because his friends thought he would be good at that sort of thing . but when albert freedman ( hank azaria ) , enright’s assistant , spots van doren , the two decide that they have found their soon-to-be-ruler of the ” twenty-one ” kingdom . van doren is not too keen on the idea of receiving the answers ahead of time , so enright tells stempel that he is going to give the wrong answer , on purpose , in order to lose the game . after stempel loses the ” throne ” to van doren , he starts to feel cheated ( which he should ) . meanwhile , on his own , dick goodwin ( rob morrow ) , a harvard law graduate , has decided to start an investigation on ” twenty-one ” to try and find out if there have been any wrongdoings . his investigation yields shocking results and leads to a trial for enright and the others involved . quiz show is an extremely well done movie , and robert redford’s direction is especially superb . the performances turned in by john turturro , ralph fiennes , and rob morrow are very good , although it seems that turturro stands out more than any . quiz show is also very precise when it comes to explicating the true events that inspired the film . definitely a film you should not miss .
1 is jimmy stewart the greatest actor of all-time ? it’s quite possible . his career spanned over 40 years , and he acted in more movies than most actors ever could . yet , when he is talked about in the media , he is generally thought of as an actor who played one type of role : the nice guy . and that’s really a shame . ” the naked spur ” features jimmy stewart in a role completely different than what people would expect from him . it’s a western , which stewart specialized in around this period , and it casts him as a desperate man out to collect a bounty on a man who used to be his friend . before he finds that man , though , he runs into two men who agree to help him , thinking he is a sheriff . when the criminal is eventually caught , the two men discover stewart’s secret , and decide they want a piece of the action too . the rest of the film is a suspenseful journey in which each man suspects the other constantly . also featured is the woman travelling with the criminal , well played by janet leigh . we’re never too sure who’s side she’s really on until the end . leigh is an actress probably best known for her role as the ” shower lady ” from ” psycho ” , and that’s unfair . she gives a strong performance as a woman who is pulled between these two men . stewart gives a performance unlike anything i’ve ever seen from him . he usually keeps cool no matter what occurs , but here , he gets downright hysterical at times . i think perhaps he took this role to prove to the public that he was more than just a ” nice guy ” . his performance borders on psychotic at times , but i loved watching every second of it . it’s roles like this one that make me admire him as much as i do . he was an actor unafraid to take chances , and even ruin his public image .
1 every once in a while you see a film that is so effective in delivering the goods that it is easy to forget , and forgive , its glaring imperfections . such is the case with ? good will hunting ? , a subtle character study about a socially inept mathematics genius who struggles to find his path in life . despite some serious character problems , this is still a very good film . you probably know about the plot so i ? ll make it quick . will hunting ( damon ) is a janitor at m . i . t . , he ? s really smarter than einstein but nobody knows it . he likes to go out with his friend chuckie ( affleck ) and their other working-class buddies and drink beer . he ? s good-looking , charismatic , and witty but has a terrible time with authority and stiff college folk . after getting into a tiff with the law , a distinguished professor ( skarsg ? rd ) discovers will ? s genius and offers him a chance to clean up his record and avoid jail time , at a price : he must attend weekly sessions with a therapist and work on various mathematical problems ( that have stumped the academic elite ) with the professor . after outsmarting and scaring the hell out of a couple of different psychologists he meets his match when hooked up with a once-promising therapist named sean maguire ( williams ) who has his own problems . in the meantime will meets a british medical school student ( driver ) and they begin to fall in love . the story starts out well enough and is a pretty original basis for a film . even though we ? ve seen movies about misunderstood , erratic prodigies before ( ? shine ? ring a bell ? ) , the script here creates a complex narrative that doesn ? t just focus solely on one character . alas though , this is not a perfect film , as much as you feel like it could ? ve been while watching it . the one real problem i had with it is the unrealistic nature of the main character . is it possible for a lowly janitor to be this intelligent ? of course . is it possible for him to be estranged from any deep , human relationships ? usually , yes . but , is it possible for him to also be so handsome , funny , quick with the tongue , and city-street tough ? not very likely . come on , usually these guys are total nerds who can ? t even buy their own shirts , much less talk down a harvard student in a hip pub while picking up phone numbers from pretty med . -school girls . will is just a little too perfect , and in order to accept the character your disbelief suspension needs to be in excellent working condition . the heavy-handed , anti-war statement made by will at a government job interview late in the film is also boorish , overlong , pompous , and completely unnecessary . all this sounds pretty bad , but the film somehow makes up for it in other ways . damon ? s acting overshadows the fact that the character is slightly unbelievable , his performance is truly extraordinary . which leads me to the really good part of the review . the strength of this movie can be summed up in one single word : acting . i can ? t recall seeing a film recently that was so well-acted from top to bottom . from minnie driver ? s frustrated lover to ben affleck ? s laid-back best friend , and all the small roles in between , the performances are magnificent . robin williams ? skill is a given as a bereaved psychologist who could ? ve had a legendary career but was knocked off the path somewhere down the line . the real gem though is stellan skarsg ? rd ? s turn as professor lambeau , an award-winning mathematician who feels reduced in comparison to a younger , smarter will hunting . the scenes between williams and skarsg ? rd , as two old college pals who ? ve been brought back together by this enigmatic kid , display some of the best acting i ? ve ever seen . when i say delivering the goods , this is what i ? m talking about . watching these two work is what going to see movies is all about . gus van sant ? s ( to die for , drugstore cowboy ) cold , urban direction is right on , as well as danny elfman ? s sauntering musical score . i highly recommend ? good will hunting ? . despite its faults , it is still an intriguing and fascinating film and you are not likely to see a better acted one this year .
1 men in black is an explosive mix of science fiction , action , and comedy that hits the target in every possible way . although another alien movie , men in black succeeds in every way that independence day didn’t , and towers above many other movies of its type . the brilliant acting , especially by tommy lee jones as agent kay , is also as good as it gets . director barry sonnenfeld , who was behind the camera for the addams family movies and get shorty , has crafted a masterpiece . the story behind men in black is just as interesting as you would want it to be . the men in black , or mib , are a top-secret governmental agency that is not known to exist . the mib are responsible for ” saving the world from the scum of the universe ” . a though job , indeed . the film opens with a truckload of illegal aliens ( the human kind ) being transported across the mexico border and into the united states . presumably , these ” aliens ” are all migrant workers . that is , until the mib show up and begin interrogating them . agent kay selects a particular suspicious worker and takes him away from the other local authorities to discover that he is not an illegal human alien , but a real extra-terrestrial alien . when the alien makes a run for it , agent kay is forced to eliminate the alien with one of the mib’s very unique weapons , and after one of the local law enforcement officers witnesses this bizarre occurrence , agent kay is forced to use another very unique device on them . the device , described as ” out of state ” , eliminates the memory of anyone it is used on . >from here , we are introduced to james edwards , played very well by will smith . edwards , a police officer , is chasing a fleeing criminal . the criminal gives a very good chase , and at one point when edwards confronts him , the criminal pulls out a very different looking weapon that disintegrated when it hit the ground . edwards continues to chase the very athletic criminal to the top of a building , where the criminal informs edwards that he must let him go , because someone is after him . edwards doesn’t take this seriously , but when the criminal shows very non-human characteristics and leaps off the building , he begins to wonder . back at the police station , agent kay shows up to ask edwards a few questions . he informs edwards that is was , in fact , a non-human that he was chasing , and that the gun he pulled out was definitely not man-made . he has edwards identify the gun , and asks edwards to come to the mib headquarters the following day . edwards arrives and finds that he is involved in a recruiting process , along with various other men who seem a bit more qualified than he . after goofing up for half of the time , edwards puts on a show at the firing range , and agent kay notes the reason why he feels edwards should be the man to join the mib : he chased down the ” criminal ” on foot , which is something that no one is supposed to be able to do . in the meantime , an upstate new york farm has a very close encounter . edgar ( vincent d’onofrio ) , owner of the farm , investigates a strange crash landing and is attacked by the inhabitant of the flying object , which presumes to jump inside edgar and use his body as a human transport . the ” bug ” , as he is called , is an intergalactic terrorist who has come to earth to attempt to kill two ambassadors . and it up to the mib , with newly recruited agent jay ( formerly james edwards ) to exterminate the bug and save the planet from intergalactic war . men in black delightfully combines fast-paced action with often hilarious comedy , which is usually from will smith , although tommy lee jones opens up his comedic personality in this film . the special effects are also very well done and are not the entire source of the plot , as in another big alien film from the past summer . screenwriter ed solomon , writer of super mario bros . and the upcoming x-men film , has surely struck gold with this story . all ages will enjoy men in black . it is an extremely fun film that you will want to see again . although it runs a very quick and speedy 96 minutes , the entire film from beginning to end is a non-stop adventure . the ending of the film , which ties up a few loose ends for one of the main characters , is also very well done . a sequel is already being planned , so there is more to look forward to !
1 ralph fiennes is carving out a nice niche for himself in the genre of period piece romances . for his followup to the academy-beloved the english patient , he has once again turned to a love story , this time directed by accomplished australian film maker gillian armstrong ( little women ) . despite some obvious overplotting , oscar and lucinda is a mostly effective and often affecting motion picture that touches our hearts while daring our minds to balk at its implausible coincidences . the film opens in the mid-1800s , with parallel storylines in new south wales , australia and devon , england . as the helpful narrative voice of geoffrey rush informs us , lucinda leplastrier ( cate blanchett ) is a headstrong young woman being raised in the australian outback . meanwhile , half the world away , oscar hopkins ( fiennes ) has broken with his puritanical father over religious issues , and has gone away to school to study to be an anglican priest . lucinda is fascinated with glass ; oscar is obsessed with theology . lucinda is rich ; oscar is poor . lucinda is forward and self-assured ; oscar is timid and uncertain of himself . yet one characteristic unites these two diverse individuals — the compulsion to gamble , whether it’s on horses , dogs , cards , or the flip of a coin . and fate has decreed that they will one day meet . that day doesn’t occur until 45 minutes into the film , when oscar boards a ship bound for sidney , australia , where he hopes to change his life and minister to anyone in need of his help . another of the passengers is lucinda , who is returning from england where she was shopping for machinery to equip her newly-acquired glassworks factory . at first , their relationship is that of a reverend and a confessor , but it doesn’t take long for both of them to recognize a kindred spirit in the other . a friendship is born , and , once they reach australia , it develops into something more potent . but oscar is uncertain of lucinda’s affection , and feels he must do something to prove himself worthy of her . oscar and lucinda isn’t beyond a little manipulation to get the desired emotional response , and there are times when the storyline curves in preposterous directions . on more than one occasion , it’s apparent that events are occurring specifically to funnel the characters into a position where there is only one possible route . coincidence is a crucial plot device ; without it , this movie can’t go anywhere . the voiceover narration ( never one of my favorite techniques ) is too verbose and breaks into the story at undesirable moments . ( however , without it , the final twist , which i will not reveal , would not be as poignant . ) yet , despite these quibbles , i enjoyed oscar and lucinda . storyline faults pale in the light of two such finely-realized characters . thematically , the film is also strong . the unifying motif — that everything in life is a gamble — is successfully delineated . oscar and lucinda don’t just wager their money , they bet their hearts , minds , and souls . a card game they engage in shortly after they first meet could easily be considered a form of emotional ” strip poker ” where defenses are peeled away to reveal their shared , secret passion . oscar does not see gambling as a vice . in fact , he believes that the greatest chance one takes in life is betting one’s immortal soul on the truth of a religious faith . ralph fiennes , who normally plays strong , confident men , is very much at home as the fumbling , insecure oscar . the actor brings a variety of nervous tics to the part , all of which subtly add to a vague sense of discomfort whenever oscar is on-screen . as good as fiennes is , however , he is eclipsed by cate blanchett . the actress , who appeared earlier this year as one of the leads in bruce beresford’s paradise road , is mesmerizing as lucinda . she gives this liberated woman her flash , and feeds the chemistry between the two lead characters so that it sparkles rather than fizzles . effective support is provided by ciaran hinds ( the male lead in jane austen’s persuasion ) as lucinda’s close friend , tom wilkinson ( the full monty ) as oscar’s mentor , and clive russell as a self-serving adventurer . there’s a real magic in the way armstrong develops the story , keeping things moving in unexpected directions without lingering too long on any one moment or sequence . ( in fact , i wish she had devoted a little more time to the luminous middle act , which has oscar and lucinda together . ) with the skill of a consummate storyteller , she weaves romance , friendship , passion , humor , and tragedy together into a complete package . the characters , with all of their human foibles and neuroses , are wonderfully developed by fiennes and blanchett . so who cares if the storyline is a little ripe and unwieldy ? oscar and lucinda still offers abundant pleasures to reward the viewer .
1 in october of 1962 the united states found itself on the brink of nuclear holocaust when u2 spy plane fly-overs of cuba revealed that the soviet union was actively deploying and installing medium range ballistic missiles 90 miles from the us . president john kennedy ( bruce greenwood ) and his staff must face this major threat to world peace and stop soviet expansionism in director roger donaldson’s dramatic recreation of the most dangerous crisis in american history in ” thirteen days . ” one of the highlights to come out of made-for-tv movies was a 1974 entry called ” missiles of october ” that also recreated the historic event that almost embroiled the us , ussr and the world in an all out nuclear showdown . that teleplay , starring william devane and martin sheen as john and bobby , showed the political tensions of the period that brought to the fore the danger the world faced in those two weeks in 1962 . now , a quarter of a century after the landmark tv movie , director roger donaldson and producer kevin costner team together again ( the last time was for the taught spy thriller ” no way out ” ) to re-enact the events of that most dangerous time in america’s and the world’s history . taken from the viewpoint of special assistant to the president kenneth p . o’donnell ( costner ) , donaldson and crew recreate that volatile event , once again , as the country is plunged into what could have been total nuclear war . as o’donnell gets ready to head to work one october morning , he deals with the usual family crises and problems . meanwhile , a u2 spy plane photo mission over cuba has produced some startling images – medium range nuclear missiles in the first stage of deployment . suddenly , ken’s routine day switches into crisis mode as the president and his key advisor bobby begin to muster the considerable forces of the us military to face the soviet threat . where ” thirteen days ” differs most from ” missiles of october ” is , as expected , in the scope of the project . there is a big difference , budget-wise , between making a television docudrama and one that goes to the big screen . it shows as the makers of ” thirteen days ” craft a recreation of the cuban missile crisis that encompasses not only the political intrigue within the white house , it also depicts the events that took place as america girds itself for nuclear confrontation . the cast , a true ensemble , is led , surprisingly , by bruce greenwood as jfk and not by kevin costner . costner’s o’donnell represents the family guy thing as the drama of the crisis has its impact on him and his family . this puts a personal spin on the film as we see both the crisis and america’s preparation for war and the pressure it brings to bear on those in the know . kenny reassures his wife and kids that all will be okay and they will be safe , but he knows that , if the crisis comes to a head , his family will be no more . the meat of ” thirteen days ” is in the big picture , not the microcosm of family , though . this is where the film stands out as we see the workings of our government on the highest levels . the story does not just cover the face-off between the world’s two most powerful countries ; it also depicts the animosity between the president and the military/cia . the disaster of the bay of pigs invasion the year before left a distrustful taste in the mouths of the generals and admirals who blame the kennedys for not backing the cuban expatriates fighting fidel castro . the missile crisis becomes a struggle for power as the army/navy/air force want to flex their might and invade cuba , while jfk wants to end the confrontation peaceably but with america’s dignity and world leadership intact . while the internal battle for power rages in the white house , with air force chief curtis lemay ( kevin conway ) advising the president to bomb cuba into the stone age , our armed forces are set into motion to stop the soviets with a blockade of offensive weapons to cuba . this is where the political intrigues of high office are replaced by exciting action . when the first confrontation takes place between a us warship and a soviet freighter , the tension is palpable . the most involving action sequence takes place late in the game as another u2 is sent up to shoot some snaps of the buildup and the fully prepared soviet forces launch an anti-aircraft attack on the hapless pilot of the spy plane . this is a sweaty palm sequence to say the least , making you squirm in your seat as you try to help the pilot avoid those missiles . the ensemble cast places greenwood as the first among equals with like weight given to all the principle players . greenwood does not play act at being a caricature of jfk , foregoing the typical kennedy boston accent . instead , he plays the man as a powerful figure who has to maintain the dignity of the office , directing his subordinates but giving them the latitude to make clear all of his options . kennedy used this decision by committee method to good effect as his senior staff uncovers all the options available to the president . costner , as ken o’donnell , is really a supporting cast member as a kennedy crony brought on board as a personal political favor . costner plays o’donnell as if he crammed on old jfk speeches with a forced kennedyesque twang to his speech . the rest of the players are first rate from start to finish with steven culp looking and sounding just like robert kennedy . the rest of the familiar players in this drama are uniformly well cast , too . standing out are michael fairman as the beleaguered us ambassador to the un , adlai stevenson , who was forced to become the challenging voice of the united states in the united nations and i remember the confrontation vividly . the filmmakers capture the accusations laid down by stevenson with accuracy , using old style video footage to good effect . dylan baker has the look and feel of the intelligentsia as the brainy secretary of defense robert mcnamara . kevin conway gives his general lemay the right ” bomb them to hell ” attitude . also notable is christopher lawford as navy pilot william ecker who , with his wingman , takes on the dangerous mission of a low-level photo recon into the heart of cuba , bravely challenging kenny o’donnell’s admonition , ” don’ get shot . ” tech credits are superb across the board with an admirable depiction of the us armed forces being placed on a war footing . it’s an impressive production with the careful use of period aircraft and ships that gives the film a veracity fitting the event . solid costuming by isis mussenden is subtle but has the look of the kennedys . there is the usual array of vintage cars from the period to make things look right . the special f/x of the u2 sequences are a nice crafting of computer imaging . the cuban missile crisis is probably the most intense two weeks that the united states has ever faced in its survival as a world leader . helmer donaldson and his fine crew and cast have given the depiction of this crucial event with the care and attention to details that make this one of the finest docudramas of the year . i give ” thirteen days ” an a- .
1 true faith and its expression through organized religion is a difficult subject for a motion picture to tackle head-on , which is probably why so few of them do it . even the most religious directors – like martin scorsese or ingmar bergman – usually address issues of faith in implicit rather than explicit religious terms . so it’s not hard to see why it took robert duvall fifteen years to get ” the apostle ” onto the big-screen . as a matter of fact , even after fifteen years he still never managed to get financial backing , and he ended up paying for it with $5 million of his own money . he also wrote the script , directed the film , and starred as the central character , a fiery texas preacher named euliss ” sonny ” dewey . few filmmakers have the courage and sheer audacity to take on that kind of financial , technical , and creative responsibility single-handedly , and it’s testament to what an intensely personal project this was for duvall . and , thankfully , every bit of that personal investment translates on-screen into power and honest emotion . sonny is an energetic , pentecostal preacher who has been speaking ( actually shouting ) from behind the pulpit since he was twelve . he spends much of his time traveling about the country , evangelizing with other preachers at tent revivals . unlike most hollywood characterizations of intense preachers , sonny is not a phony or a swindler , and the film’s purpose is not to unearth hypocrisy and sin in either sonny or the church . duvall makes it abundantly clear that sonny truly believes in what he says , although like all humans , he has weaknesses . one of his weaknesses become apparent when he finds out that , not only does his long-suffering wife , jessie ( farrah fawcett ) , want to leave him for another man in the congregation , but the two of them have secretly plotted to remove him as preacher . faced with the loss of two things he loves passionately- his church and his family – that same raw power that allows sonny to get entire congregations rocking and swaying transforms into a violent temper . at his son’s baseball game , sonny snaps and smashes his wife’s lover in the face with a baseball bat , inflicting a wound that may be fatal . not knowing what else to do , sonny disappears . he throws away his identification , drives his car into a lake , and takes a bus to louisiana , hoping to start over again . in the tiny , mostly poor coastal town of bayou boutte , sonny once again finds his calling . after befriending a simple auto mechanic ( walt goggins ) and tracking down the town’s ex-minister ( john beasley ) , sonny sets up his own church , the one way to heaven temple . re-christening himself as ” the apostle e . f . , ” he quickly draws together an eager congregation , and together they realize real change in each other’s lives . but , always , sonny’s past is lurking a step behind him , waiting to swallow his progress . duvall has made his intentions in making ” the apostle ” clear . in a recent article in ” newsweek , ” he wrote : ” filmmakers hardly ever depict spirituality with such a strong emphasis on the holy spirit , and when they do , it tends to be patronizing – full of charlatans and snake handlers . . . but what i really wanted to do was try to understand what these preachers go through and what they believe , and to portray it in an accurate way . ” the strength of duvall’s convictions turn out to be the strength of his film – ” the apostle ” always rings true , even in the most painful moments , because we know he’s being sincere with the subject matter . after fifteen years of traveling the country , listening to all shapes and sizes of ministers and taking studious notes on what they said , duvall has captured the energy and vitality of what it means to be truly spiritual . his sonny is a man who speaks directly to god and expects to be spoken right back to . ” i’ve always called you jesus and you’ve always called me sonny , ” he says . when neighbors call and complain that he is being too loud one night in one his rants with the man upstairs , sonny’s mother ( june carter cash ) just hangs up on them because she knows there’s no sense trying to interrupt him . the main theme to emerge from ” the apostle ” is the fact that good can come from any situation . sonny’s act of violence toward another human being is inarguably a horrific thing , and duvall never shrinks from that fact . however , that very same act of violence is what brings sonny to bayou boutte , where he finds people whom he desperately needs and who desperately need him . in his short time in louisiana , he does a world of good , and when the police finally show up to take him away , he goes quietly , knowing that he deserves the punishment that is awaiting him . and , as a scene during the final credits shows , he even turns his punishment into a positive opportunity for change and betterment . it is that strength in sonny’s character that makes him so appealing and magnetic to others – he is flawed , but he is powerful enough to overcome those flaws . weak men are the ones who simply accept their weaknesses and lack the desire to better themselves . watching duvall on-screen , it’s not hard to imagine that he would have been a magnificent preacher if he had chosen that vocation over acting . as sonny , he completely inhabits the character , and his performance is certainly the best of the year . because he spent so much time absorbing the traits , methods , quirks , and personalities of real preachers , duvall was able to create a complete character who always feels indelibly human . as a director , duvall feels that less is more . his camera simply takes in what goes on in front of it , with very little intrusion . there are no fancy crane shots or extended dollies or excessive close-ups . duvall knew that the power of the film’s characters ( enhanced by the fact that he cast mostly non-professional churchgoers and actual ministers ) didn’t need to be artificially enhanced . in this way , ” the apostle ” almost plays out like a documentary , not only in its technical simplicity , but more importantly , in its sense of reality .
1 when a someone journeys to the theater to see a comedy , he always risks having to sit through inanity such as what we recently saw in films like edtv and office space . it really is too bad that comedies are so hit- and-miss , because when a moviegoer goes in a theater expecting to be amused , it really is a shame when the alleged comedy fails to deliver . but weep not , dear readers , because the latest comedy out of the hollywood movie mill is nothing less than a sure bet . austin powers : the spy who shagged me is one of the funniest things i’ve had the pleasure to see in a long time ; a completely looney , delightful parody of the often pretentious james bond flicks . if all comedies ( or even half ; or – – what am i saying ? — even a fifth of them ) could be this consistently hysterical , i would take up residence at my local multiplex . even more to this movie’s credit is the fact that it is a sequel to the 1997 sleeper/cult hit austin powers : international man of mystery . the original came out of nowhere ; it was a low-budget , eccentric movie that many expected to flop like a leslie nielsen parody . all of a sudden it was being quoted by teenagers all over america . ironically , powers’ ” yeeeeah baby , yeah ! ” has almost become an icon of the late 90s . thus another installment was inevitable , but it’s also undoubtedly welcome . the spy who shagged me is one of the most unrestrained , over- the-top comedies i have ever seen in my entire life . it brings back most of the characters from its predecessor ( even if only briefly ) and adds new ones . austin powers ( mike myers ) , a swinging hipster from the 60s transported into the 90s has to go back to his own time to get back his mojo ( oh , you’ll figure it out ) , which dr . evil ( meyers again ) has stolen . he enlists the help of a gorgeous secret agent felicity shagwell ( now that his prior sidekick vanessa has been properly disposed of in a hilarious opening sequence ) , played without much distinguishable gusto by heather graham and together they go back to the 60s to defeat dr . evil yet again . surprisingly , the real star is dr . evil rather than austin . he gets most of the screen time because he was so popular in the first movie . perhaps this is true because he is portrayed and written so affectionately . instead of being the scheming , villainous mad scientist we might expect from a character like this he is a bumbling , often sweet mad scientist wannabe . the spy who shagged me has much of the same stuff we saw in the original , but that’s okay by me because the original left us wanting more . by the time that one was over we haven’t had nearly our share of shag jokes , crude puns and powers’ antics and this sequel satisfies our appetites . even by its conclusions , i’m still not sure i’ve had my fill of bits like ” do you smoke after sex ? ” ” i don’t know , baby , i never looked . ” this may seem awfully immature of me , but understand that the austin powers series , unlike most of the crap hollywood feeds us these days , is genuinely funny . i don’t know if i’ve ever laughed harder at any movie than i did during the jerry springer send up or the indubitably hilarious ” just the two of us ” rendition by dr . evil and his new miniature clone named ” mini-me ” . i don’t have any pretensions that this is particularly smart social satire or anything of the sort . indeed there is little beyond the joy a viewer feels when he sees something that is able to entertain him as much as this movie did . but as far as i’m concerned , that is enough . ? 1999 eugene novikov ‰ ;
1 almost a full decade before steven spielberg’s saving private ryan asked whether a film could be both ” anti war ” and ” pro-soldier ” , john irvin’s hamburger hill proved it could . lost in the inundation of critical acclaim that greeted oliver stone’s platoon , this excellent film was dismissed as ” too militaristic ” . it’s hard to understand exactly why—unless irvin , in assembling his motley collection of young men who for predictable ( and often naive ) reasons ” chose to show up ” for the vietnam debacle , —has refused to present us with the stone killer , drug-stoked psycho and ruthless opportunist who have become to vietnam war epics what ” the polack , the hillbilly and the kid from brooklyn ” became to wwii movies . hamburger hill , based on a true story , is not an easy film to watch . there is a scene that will have graying anti-war activists squirming in their seats , or moved to genuine tears . and the climactic final assault on the ” hill ” in question is visually confusing . gristly realities are presented in brief flashes , as if the brain dared not acknowledged what it had encountered . and in the mud and smoke officer and enlistee , veteran and ” newbie ” , black soldier and white , become almost indistinguishable from each other , as they do in the chaos of actual combat . the acting throughout is solid with an absolutely stellar performance rendered by courtney b . vance as doc–in a role that will have many flatly disbelieving that this is same actor they cheered as ” seaman jones ” in mctiernan’s red october . if you’ve seen private ryan , you owe it to yourself to see hamburger hill–if only to determine that the all the valour and horror of spielberg’s vision was as present in the ashau valley as it was at omaha beach .
1 in these days of overlong movies ( meet joe black , the thin red line , the mask of zorro ) it is a shame that films like waking ned devine can’t be longer than a paltry 90 minutes . this is just a cute movie , even through its mildly risque subject matter . old friends jackie ( bannen ) and michael ( kelley ) try to find the lottery winner ( they deduce must live in their dinky town of about 60 ) so that they might kiss up to him and share the winnings . through process of elimination , they find that it must be lovable old ned devine , who they find sitting in front of his tv , clutching the winning lottery ticket in his cold dead hand . what results is thuroughly amusing , as jackie tries to convince his wife that not claiming it would be wrong , and that they could really benefit . after all , old ned won’t miss it . rather than divulge the later twists and turns , i’ll stop here merely pointing out that jackie and michael get into all sorts of trouble in their little sleepy irish villiage . bannen and kelly are a perfect pair . one slightly stout , the other as thin as a rail . both getting on in years , they make such a cute pair of old codgers . waking ned devine may even be seen as a ” full monty ” for the geriatric set , especially since kelly gets buff-o for one amusing scene . waking ned devine is by no means perfect , but it is so sincere and touching that it looks so much better than most films . the performances by everyone in the town are great , particularly the two leads . there is one twist at the end which i find unnecessary , but it hardly ruins the picture . writer/director kirk jones should be held up as an example to all those hollywood screenwriters . scripts as creative and endearing as this should be the norm , not the exception . perhaps it makes us appreciate this wonderful film even more . had i held off on my year’s best/worst list for another day , waking ned devine ( officially released in late november of 98 ) surely would have graced the short group of the year’s finest films . it is light , but thought provoking and sweet . i can’t think of anyone who shouldn’t see ( or wouldn’t enjoy ) this film .
1 dark city is such a rare treat : it ? s a stunning , hyperkinetic vision of a place where our reality is fused with noir , science fiction and the darkest nights in manhattan and london . to boot , it is accompanied by an intense , well written and thoughtful story . movies of this caliber and idea aren ? t made too often , and it ? s unfortunate that i waited this long to see it . alex proyas , who ? s previous film the crow looked good but couldn ? t cover up the terrible acting or story , here shows a near masterpiece ; a combination of metropolis , edward hopper and phillip marlowe , fused seemlessly . at times it moves beyond film into artwork . it is the story of ? strangers ? , aliens from another planet ( and we know they ? re aliens because they shave their heads and wear overcoats ? one of the detractions of the film ) who experiment on humans to discover what makes them live , what makes up our ? soul ? . these aliens are superior to humans because they have mastered the ? ultimate technology ? of shaping matter with their mind , called ? tuning . they are aided by a human scientist , played by kiefer sutherland , who has ? betrayed his kind ? and at the start of the film watches as the entire city stops at exactly midnight . during this time , john murdoch , played swiftly by rufus sewell , wakes in a bathtub in a room with a swinging overhead light ( a terrific visual effect – not only is murdoch confused , but so is the audience ) . without a memory and a strange guilt that he may be a killer , he receives a phone call to flee , as the strangers are after him . i don ? t want to proceed to much further with the explanation of the story ; one of the pleasures of the film is watching it develop , in a way regaining murdoch ? s ? identity ? along with him . it ? s a pleasure to watch the characters develop through the cinematography . murdoch ? s wife , anna , is introduced through a stunning beam of light : she is a lounge singer who sings into a bright spotlight . shadows , outlines of men in hats watch , as she gently curves through the shine . we see the outline of her body from behind , an hourglass , as she sings a slow , rhythmic song . a great entrance . however , a film such as this is only successful if the morals and themes behind it are strong enough to leave the viewer satisfied . the city is nice to look at , but if it ? s a poor story then it ? s not worth watching . blade runner was popular not only because it ? s visuals , but it ? s story and themes were thought out and provoked strong response from the audience . it is discussed it and argued , therefore a success . other science fiction films of recent times , such as the fifth element , are nice to look at , but are dropped and forgotten because the cookie cutter moral behind them is so flimsy . we ? re left with ? love conquers all ? after finishing the fifth element . dark city is not so easily explained away . as the strangers discovered , locating the human soul and discovering what makes us survive is not such an easy task . where is reality ? dark city is certainly the best science fiction film of the 90 ? s , and ranks along with the best made in the 80s , such as blade runner and the two aliens films . perhaps it ? s the best of the both decades ; it had the darkness of the aliens films , as well as the visuals and compelling story of blade runner , but moved beyond , i think , because the themes behind it were much stronger . anyone who wants to make an argument for better science fiction films please feel free to write , i ? d love to hear it .
1 anyone who saw alan rickman’s finely-realized performances in truly madly deeply and sense and sensibility will be unsurprised that the actor-turned-director is a bit of a poet at heart . however , for those who recall him only as the maniacal villain of die hard and robin hood : prince of thieves , this recognition may be something of a shock . nevertheless , ” poetic ” is an excellent term to describe rickman’s feature debut as a director , the winter guest . the film has a simple , unhurried rhythm that uses all of the available elements to fashion a successful whole . the result is an occasionally haunting , sometimes magical , and always insightful human drama . the winter guest isn’t about resolving plot threads and advancing a story line ; it’s about exploring relationships and examining life in all of its stages . the winter guest does not tell a traditional tale , nor does it ascribe to a conventional narrative structure ? there is no real beginning or end . instead , we are given an opportunity to observe one day in the lives of eight humans . they represent both sexes , multiple generations , and a variety of relationships ? male and female ; young , middle-aged , and elderly ; friends , would-be lovers , and kin . we see expectations fulfilled and disappointed , emotional boundaries eroded , and truths unveiled . there is comedy and tragedy . most importantly , much of what transpires during the course of the winter guest will find an echo in our own lives ? in this fiction can be found much truth . the setting is small town in scotland on the coldest day of the year . it’s so frigid that the sea has begun to freeze over . the onshore wind cuts like a knife and snow blankets the beach , giving the terrain an alien appearance . it is against this backdrop that the relationships of the film are captured . there are four pairings , and , although there is some interaction between the different twosomes , the winter guest’s focus is on the dynamics internal to each relationship . the first , meatiest pairing is that of elspeth ( phylida law ) and her recently-widowed daughter , frances ( emma thompson ) . these two have a stormy relationship . they love each other deeply , but both are stubborn and willful , and neither is willing to admit that they need the other . much of their interaction is argumentative , but , during the course of a long walk to the frozen shoreline , they come to an unspoken understanding of how much each means to the other . frances’ adult son , alex ( gary hollywood ) , is a lonely young man who has been caring for his mother since the death of his father . on this day , he meets a girl , nita ( arlene cockburn ) , who has secretly been spying on him for weeks . although their first encounter is antagonistic ( she throws a snowball at him ) , both quickly become aware of an undeniable attraction . once they retire to a place where they can be alone , however , things don’t go exactly as planned . lily ( sheila reid ) and chloe ( sandra voe ) are a couple of old friends who are frequent funeral attendees . death is a topic of endless fascination for them , perhaps because they are so close to it , and they spend their spare time scanning the obituaries , looking for the next funeral or cremation in the area . it doesn’t matter whether or not they knew the deceased . it’s the ceremony that they’re interested in . sam ( douglas murphy ) and tom ( sean biggerstaff ) , a pair of schoolboy chums , are spending this cold february day cutting classes and hanging out at the beach , horsing around , building a small fire for warmth , and walking on the frozen water . unlike lily and chloe , these two have their entire lives ahead of them . they are young enough to still believe in magic , but old enough to recognize that the process of crossing into adulthood robs life of the simple joy that only children can experience . the acting is strong and believable . the mixture of veteran performers and first-timers is effective , with the most successful choice being the casting of real-life mother and daughter phylida law and emma thompson in the most prominent roles . there is a chemistry in their interaction that would be hard to replicate with two different , non-related actors . and , of course , the physical resemblance makes it that much easier to accept elspeth and frances as parent and child . the winter guest began its life as a stage play in 1995 , with rickman as the director . four of the film’s principals , phylida law , arlene cockburn , sheila reid , and sandra voe , appeared in the theatrical version before moving to the film . unlike several recent motion pictures adapted from plays , the winter guest has been successfully opened up . the rough , bleak scottish countryside becomes as much of a character as any of the eight humans . in fact , considering how important the climate is to every relationship under rickman’s microscope , it could be argued that this is the single most important element of the movie . if you appreciate character studies , the winter guest is a solid effort with enough power to stay with you after you have left the theater .
1 i want to correct what i wrote last year in my retrospective of david lean’s war picture . i still think that ” the bridge on the river kwai ” doesn’t deserve being the number 13 in the american film institute’s list of the 100 greatest american movies . and i think that ” 12 angry men ” , ” witness for the prosecution ” and ” paths of glory ” would have been better choices for the oscar for the best picture of 1957 . but i can’t deny the importance of ” the bridge on the river kwai ” – cinematically and in its contents . the film is set in burma in 1943 . a batallion of british soldiers in japanese war captivity is forced by the japanese to build a strategically momentous railway bridge over the river kwai . but the british commanding officer , colonel nicholson ( alec guinness ) , insists – corresponding to the geneva conventions – that his officers needn’t work as simple workmen . struggling toughly , col . nicholson forces the japanese commandant , col . saito ( sessue hayakawa ) , to give way in this respect . afterwards col . nicholson assiduously commits himself for the building of the bridge . he considers it an opportunity to raise his men’s morale , and he wants to prove superior british capabilities to the japanese . but the british high command sends a few soldiers who shall destroy the bridge , among them the american shears ( william holden ) – an escapee from the japanese prison camp – and the british major warden ( jack hawkins ) . . . a flaw of the picture is the clich ? d characterization of the japanese people . they are presented as if they were intellectually inferior to the british – as if the japanese were incapable of building a bridge . and the film doesn’t consistently question the military spirit as kubrick does in ” paths of glory ” . lean seems rather fascinated by the military hierarchies . this is also perceptible in the conversations between col . nicholson and col . saito . in this regard it is symptomatic that shears , who doubts the military logic , is presented as a somehow unpleasant person . the audience is supposed to applaud col . nicholson’s perseverance concerning the question if his officers shall work on the bridge or not . the spectators are supposed to neglect the risks col . nicholson takes for his men . ( the plot by-passes these risks . ) that means , the picture isn’t perfect . but it has a lot of virtues as well . ” the bridge on the river kwai ” shows the ” madness ” of war and what it can produce in people’s minds . it shows how colonel nicholson becomes possessed by the idea of being a hero and that others ( like shears ) get cynics . and lean’s film is an interesting study of characters with clashing interests . these points and the sometimes ironic dialogue make this film an anti-war film ( despite inconsistencies in the treatment of this theme ) . david lean’s direction is really effective and atmospherically perfect . his film is highly suspenseful , especially in its dramatic ( if not wholly plausible ) showdown . the film is also well-photographed and has an apt score . alec guinness does a magnificent job of bringing col . nicholson to life and making him such an interesting character . the other actors deliver fine performances as well . i like this extraordinary film despite its weaknesses . ( c ) karl rackwitz ( klein k ? ris , germany , 1999 )
1 recently i read 4 reviews of pleasantville-one from entertainment weekly , one from a newsgroup , and two from different online resources . each review compared this film to the truman show . why ? the only reason people compared pleasantville to truman is due to the fact that their lives are on television . other than that , the two movies are completely different from each other . reviewers seem to love to pick one movie ( i . e . the truman show ) , obsess over it , and make it a guideline for other movies . when pleasantville and edtv opened , all critics seemed to treat the two films like they were subjects of king truman . the same goes for the thin red line , as well . when it opened in decemeber , probably 98% of reviews compared it to stephen spielberg’s saving private ryan , giving thin line no chance whatsoever . critics loved private ryan so much , that they automatically decided no movie is good enough to reach its standards . this is why i think pleasantville was underrated . if the truman show had never been made , pleasantville probably would have received better reviews , done better at the box office , and would be remembered after it’s long been on the video store shelves . sure , it wasn’t perfect , and it wasn’t very believeable , but neither was the wizard of oz or star wars , and there stands two of the most prominent movies in history . with the exception of don knotts as the annoying ” tv repairman ” the film is cast perfectly : the ice storm’s tobey maguire is david in real life ; he watches the old 50’s sitcom ” pleasantville ” to escape from his feuding parents . his twin sister , jen ( reese witherspoon ) is a popular slut who ( steriotypically ) smokes and wears revealing clothes . but what makes her character believeable is the dialogue-those excessive 90’s terms such as ” like ” , ” whatever ” , and ” cool ” make her sound like the total dimwit she’s supposed to be . the twins , with a little help from a tv repairman ( casting don knotts in this role was obviously a cameo-esque cast rather than a true acting one ) , are sucked into pleasantville by a magical new remote . their new parents , played by william h . macy and joan allen , are perfect in every way . their new names are bud and mary sue , and right away they start to corrupt the town of pleasantville . after the siblings fit comfortably in their new roles , the movie begins to take form . it’s just like watching a sitcom in itself ; you don’t want it to end . ” mary sue ” has sex with her date , the school basketball champion ; when he tells all his friends about it , they stop preforming perfectly at basketball , and things start to take color . soon we learn that these people don’t know how to express true emotions , and when they learn to do so , they eventually turn into color . this eventually sparks a racial war between the ” coloreds ” and the ” black & whites . ” entertainment weekly reviewer lisa schwarzbaum claims the movie has , ” none of the depth , poignance , and brilliance of the truman show . . . ” yes , the truman show was maybe a little more intelligent . but the racial setting-intensified by the forcing of the coloreds to sit in the upper box of the courtroom-certainly classifies as deep , considering it’s what i least expected . gary ross did not try to create an intelligent , award masterpiece-he just tries to convey moral messages within his work . take for example big and dave , his past films . big-be careful what you wish for . dave-good or bad lying is still lying . did these movies win big awards ? no , but they won the heart of millions . pleasantville could have done that too , if it wasn’t for snotty reviewers who set precedents with preceeding films . pleasantville : a- ad2am ” i almost lost my nose . . . and i like it . i like breathing through it . ” -jack nicholson , chinatown
1 note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . the teaser trailers for my best friend’s wedding scarsely gave reason for hope – it looked like the sort of goofy , light-hearted comedy than might put julia roberts back in the limelight , but little more ; i’d frankly rarely seen a trailer place such an emphasis on people falling over for laughs so often . it was then to both my surprise and my delight to find that my best friend’s wedding was such a success – a strong , bouyant romantic-comedy with some decidedly unconventionally quirky comic aspects , featuring a triumphant performance from ms . roberts . the heroine of my best friend’s wedding is julianne potter ( julia roberts ) , a successful new york restaurant critic , and we open the film with a whimsical revelation to her editor george downes ( rupert everett ) that years ago , she had made a pact with her dear best friend and ex-lover michael o’neal ( dermot mulroney ) , a sports writer , that if they both hadn’t married by the time they reached 28 , they had promised to marry each other . both julianne and michael are both single , of course , and when george inquires about michael’s age , julianne realizes that he’s mere weeks away from his 28th birthday , and is quite distressed when she receives a phone call from michael later that day . however , she finds herself even more distraught when michael’s call is in regards to his impending marriage to heiress kimmy wallace ( cameron diaz ) , and when he asks julianne to fly down to chicago for the wedding , julianne suddenly realizes that she loves michael , and resolves to break up the wedding and steal the groom by any means necessary . the setup for my best friend’s wedding , then , is a fairly conventional one , and in many ways the film’s storyline is formulaic – but only to a certain extent : the film was directed by p . j . hogan , whose first feature , muriel’s wedding , had quite an offbeat tone for a traditional uplifting ugly-duckling story , and the same holds true for my best friend’s wedding , which confidently combines traditional romantic-comedy elements with a really eccentric sense of humour . the film is innundated with sly mischievousness which seems clearly the influence of mr . hogan . for example , there’s a heartfelt , emotional exchange between julianne and michael late in the film – with a trio of teenagers , inhaling helium and sounding every bit like alvin and the chipmunks , harmonizing in the background . my best friend’s wedding opens with an inspired opening credit sequence which sets the tone for the film , and there are scenes where actors spontaneously burst into song to good comic effect – it could almost be argued that this film is nearly as much of a musical as woody allen’s everyone says i love you ; i’d even assert it’s a more successful one . my best friend’s wedding keeps breaking conventionality with its characters as well . in a typical romantic-comedy , kimmy would be portrayed as a snooty , conniving ice queen , and the audience would be cheering for julianne to rescue michael from her grasps ; this film is smarter than that – here , kimmy is sweet , sincere , and innocent ; julianne even admits at one point that had she not resolved to utterly destroy kimmy’s life , she’d actually like her too . the george character is almost a staple of recent film – the homosexual male friend of the heroine who acts as a confidant and provides the guiding voice of reason – but in my best friend’s wedding , he gets to have a playful , mischievous and charming personality . throughout the film , the formulaisms one often sees is romantic-comedy are given little twists , and the result is a film which is compelling all the way to its somewhat unorthodox conclusion . there is a lot of smart writing in the well-paced screenplay by ronald bass ; we’re given four interesting , vivid , and likeable characters , with some good dialogue and some genuinely charming and touching moments . my best friend’s wedding marks a strong career rebound for julia roberts , who turns in a top-notch , confident and reassured performance as julianne . this isn’t the sort of role one usually associates with ms . roberts – the julianne character’s neurotic , fumbling characteristics are more in line with a meg ryan role – but ms . roberts works wonderfully in the film and demonstrates her aptitude at comedy here , remaining compelling and empathetic to the audience , if not entirely sympathetic , even when her deeds done to destroy the wedding plans of her best friend are less than honourable . even better than ms . roberts though is cameron diaz , who turns in a shining performance in my best friend’s weddding . with a smile which lights up the screen , she effectively conveys kimmy’s insecurity and utter sweetness in an endearing manner , and never hits a false note in the film . she even sings – i won’t soon forget her charming serenade of ” i just don’t know what to do with myself ” . rupert everett is given a very juicy role as george , and he makes the most of it with a hilarious turn which makes his character perhaps the most vivid and most memorable in the film . his george is a bit of a devilish rogue , entirely affable , and mr . everett’s performance is a delight to watch ; he’s clearly having fun , and his joy is infectuous . dermot mulroney is adequate in a thankless role – unlike the other characters in the film , he’s not given a lot to do , but there is a genuine onscreen chemistry between ms . roberts and mr . mulroney , and consequently the longstanding friendship between his michael character and the julianne character always seemed completely authentic . when julia roberts’ lustre began to fade , and she was usurped from her title as ” america’s sweetheart ” by sandra bullock , i thought it was a canny career move on her part to take supporting roles in prestige projects like michael collins and everyone says i love you to raise her profile . while that didn’t quite work out , it’s near-certain that her successful return to the genre which made her a big star back in 1990 , the romantic-comedy , will once again raise her ante in the hollywood game . my best friend’s wedding marks a return to form for ms . roberts , and cements p . j . hogan’s reputation as a skilled director of comedy .
1 robocop is an intelligent science fiction thriller and social satire , one with class and style . the film , set in old detroit in the year 1991 , stars peter weller as murphy , a lieutenant on the city’s police force . 1991’s detroit suffers from rampant crime and a police department run by a private contractor ( security concepts inc . ) whose employees ( the cops ) are threatening to strike . to make matters worse , a savage group of cop-killers has been terrorizing the city . on murphy’s first day of duty , after his transfer from another precinct , these cop-killers brutally murder him by shooting off his limbs one by one . ( orion pictures had to edit this extremely graphic scene in order to get an r rating from the m . p . a . a . ) after the emergency room staff at the hospital cannot save murphy and declare him clinically dead , s . c . i . recruits his remains for their new ” robocop ” program . using the remains of murphy’s body as a foundation , their scientists build a cyborg , made of both flesh and metal . the cyborg ( robocop ) is half human ( murphy ) and half robot ; the s . c . i . engineers have erased murphy’s memory and replaced it with a computer program ( or so they think ) . with his lightning quick reflexes , immense strength , and impenetrable armor , s . c . i . envisions robocop as an indestructible super-cop : the solution to detroit’s problems . the remainder of the plot follows robocop’s crime-foiling and vengeance on his murderers . as a science fiction action-thriller , robocop is extremely effective . dutch director paul verhoeven combines gritty action with suspense , shocking gore , and spectacular special effects . several sequences in the film , such as the one in which robocop employs his extremely precise aim to stop a rapist , are destined to become cult-classics . because robocop is so visually and emotionally rousing , it demands to be seen on a large screen with an audience–in other words , in a movie theater . although the special effects and action are exciting , they do not by themselves set robocop apart from other films in the genre . rather , robocop stands out for its accurate and biting satire of american society . the movie makes a mockery of the star wars defense initiative , terrorism , board games , and television news broadcasts with air-headed anchors . these news broadcasts , which are exceptionally clever , recur periodically throughout the movie and help to provide comic relief from the intense action and gore . the satire in robocop , however , is almost as frightening in its own way as the suspense and blood . 1990’s america , as portrayed in the film , may seem far fetched but is in actuality ( i think ) only a slight exaggeration of the current state of american society . the humorous satire in robocop is simultaneously credible and absurd . verhoeven adroitly balances the satirical comedy with the gory action to create an entertaining and enlightening piece of science fiction/social commentary . unfortunately , robocop possesses several flaws which prevent it from qualifying as a classic within the genre . the movie lacks the lasting impact of such films as the road warrior , the terminator , and aliens . robocop’s main problem , aside from its dumb title , is that it does not sufficiently develop murphy’s character . we never learn the degree to which murphy ( as robocop ) is human and the degree to which he is a robot . does murphy have any human spirit or free will left , or is he merely a computer following a program ? the script halfheartedly raises these issues but then abandons them in its climactic flurry of gory action . moreover , it almost completely ignores the question ( and tragedy ) of denying a man his right to die in favor of turning him into a machine . robocop also contains several bothersome loose-ends . as you watch robocop , you experience deja vu ; you feel as if you have seen the film before . in many respects , robocop is reminiscent of several other films , including the terminator , return of the jedi , and even death wish . however , to its credit , robocop easily has enough originality and unique personality to avoid becoming a cheap rip-off .
1 probably the most popular and praised film of all time , turned out to be a primitive and predictable costume drama with a dose of social criticism . everyone knows about the greatest and most famous shipping disaster of all time . and the actual catastrophe is masterfully crafted by director james cameron , combining visual -and sound effects , he re-creates the frightening atmosphere of the sinking ship in the middle of nowhere . i liked very much the emotional and brutal contrast between the first and the third classes . while their cabin is slowly filling up with water , a mother is telling her children a fairytail — ” . . and they lived happily ever after . . ” . and then the ship goes down and the few survivors are left alone under the stars and the chilling air . however , the actual disaster is happening almost at the end of the movie , while the first two hours are just beautiful sets and bad dialogues . in the present day , the rms titanic is explored by brock lovett ( bill paxton ) , a treasure seeker looking for the coeur de la mer diamond , lost during the sinking . somewhere inside the ship , lovett’s crew discover a sketchbook of an artist long dead . here , in the shape of a nude young lady , is a window into the distant age of 1912 . lovett is extremely surprised when he get’s a phone call from rose dawson , claiming that she is a model . she is immediately helicoptered onto the vessel , and she gets the first glimpse of the fated ship in 80 years . as the memories come flooding back , she once again becomes rose dewitt buketer ( kate winslet ) , the fianc ? e of wealthy cal hockley ( billy zane ) and daughter of ruth dewitt bukater ( frances fisher ) . on board there are rich and poor , everyone trust in the ship’s designer ( jonathan hyde ) and her master , captain e . j . smith ( bernard hill ) . on board the ship , rose , unhappy and restless meets jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) – a young american artist , poor , brave and attractive . a love story slowly emerges and the two lovers must not only experience the difference between the social classes , but also face the greatest power on earth – death . cameron could as well have called his picture ” the never ending love ” or ” love at first sight ” , as he concentrates all his energy on the young couple , and not on the disaster itself . the plot is anything but original and the dialogues sometimes resemble a television soap-opera . the director doesn’t even try to overcome his empty script . because of its primitive and predictable plot , titanic is totally depending on the visuals that truly are breathtaking . russel carpenter’s rich , majestic and incredibly detailed cinematography is certainly award-worthy . everything from art direction to visual and sound effects are a top notch . but it doesn’t help much when the costumes are more convincing than the actors who wear them . the actors are not to blame , because their characters are more like caricatures , in other words – fake . jack is a man with many talents : he is a talented artist , handsome , brave , honest , strong , funny . . . you name it . he doesn’t have any dark side , he doesn’t make any mistakes , that for a second would make him human . jack is perfect , but he is – poor . on the other hand we have cal . he is a bastard that treats rose as an odalisque and not as his wife-to-be . he lacks everything jack possesses , but he is — rich . this childish contrast between the social classes is one of those things that makes titanic nothing more than a mediocre picture . cameron knows precisely what we want to see . his film therefore contains certain minimums to draw an audience – attractive actors , a ” tragic love story ” , beautiful visuals ( including expensive special effects ) , a dose of social criticism , a fascinating historical event ( we love true stories ) and last , but not least – an incredible media support , which proclaimed an average picture the ” greatest film of all time ” . on the outside titanic looks perfect , but behind that sparkling curtain of incredible visuals – is emptiness – nothing to think about . the main weakness of this film , which ironically became its success , is simplicity . cameron enables our basic and if you wish – primitive emotions : love , hate , fear and helplessness . everyone understands the power of love and the threat to our beautiful couple is likewise imaginable – a sinking ship . titanic is a typical hollywood production , totally and completely dependent on visual perfection to hide its primitive plot . it’s a good picture , but absolutely not a masterpiece . it’s among hundreds and thousands good films released every year , not better or worse than the average american film .
1 cinema has been around for about a hundred years now . ? it’s not my job to recap this century every time i talk about a new film , but i’d like to think that i’m beginning to understand the art more as i watch more films from before my time . recently , i’ve seen the films of hitchcock , capra , fellini , godard , kurosawa , chaplin , lang , and many others . ? those men were talented artists , and their films reflect their genius . ? they are likely to be remembered for . . . well , quite a while . ? i like this film , too . ? yes , it’s a disaster-slash-action movie . ? true , its budget is a lot more money than i’ll ever see in my lifetime . ? and there’s not a doubt in my mind that the only reason it was conceived was to make a lot of money . ? in fact , i bet the producers of armageddon would have worked towards a lousy film , had they thought it would’ve been more profitable . i certainly don’t care what their intentions were , because michael bay ( the rock ) is such a skilled director that i doubt he’d ever make a film that is difficult to sit through . of course , skillful direction doesn’t complete the package , but the rest of armageddon manages to keep everything together . the story is well-thought out ( and perfectly paced to provide for an abundance of action sequences that never feel out of place ) , the acting is terrific , the script is sharp , and — get this — there are characters . yes , you read that right . armageddon actually has characters you can care about ! if you don’t like this film , then you have a problem with the genre itself : armageddon is as good as a film like this can be . if you’ve seen deep impact , then you know the basic framework for the story . it turns out that an asteroid the size of texas is going to strike the earth eighteen days from the start of the film . so , it’s up to the u . s . government to stop it . ( why the u . s . is always exclusively saddled with these problems is never fully investigated . ) their plan — to send a group of experienced oil drillers up to the asteroid , drill down several hundred feet , and detonate a nuclear warhead within . the head driller is harry stamper ( bruce willis ) . his group of men is a colorful bunch , including a . j . ( ben affleck ) , chick ( will patton ) , and rockhound ( steve buscemi ) . there’s also an interesting triangle formed between a . j . , harry , and grace ( liv tyler ) , who is harry’s daughter . a . j . and grace are , of course , romantically intertwined , and dad isn’t too happy with the situation . it’s absurd to wish for a complicated story in an event movie or a special effects movie or whatever it is you’d like to call armageddon . it’s not about story — it’s about viscera and action , and thrills-a-minute , and all that stuff . it’s incidental , really , that the story is cohesive and even remotely believable , because most people will be too wrapped up in the explosions to give two seconds’ thought to what actually happens . but bay is the one to congratulate in this case , for he has made a film so entertaining and so visually sharp that i doubt any director could have done it better . i think most of the budget went to cameras alone , because bay films every action sequence from about thirty or forty different angles . take the spectacular opening scene , for instance , in which a meteor shower obliterates new york . a meteor flies out of the sky and crashes into a building , which sends fireballs erupting into the air and cars spinning like tops upon other cars . the action itself might take five seconds in real life , but bay edits so quickly that we get the same scene in six different ways . i like his quick-edit style , because it’s abrasive and exhausting to watch . it’s also very loud , and obnoxiously noisy at times . but it’s fun to be obnoxious sometimes . the special effects in this film put every other 1998 blockbuster to shame . deep impact , visually , has absolutely nothing on armageddon , and to offer a comparison between the quality of this film and godzilla is simply laughable . special effects are very important in a film like this : if they’re not good , then the image is not convincing , and the film doesn’t work . everything here looks bright and explosive — from the little meteors bursting through skyscrapers , all the way to the shots of the earth through the jutting rocks on the ominously approaching asteroid . the effects that don’t look totally real are still a pleasure to behold , and i credit everyone involved for creating the first blockbuster so nice-looking that it actually qualifies as art . of course , all of this would add up to little more than an above-average light show , if i didn’t get the feeling that bay cares as much about his characters as he does about his action . the film is two and a half hours long , and not all of that is spent submerged in numbing action . much of the film is dedicated to developing the various characters’ subplots . i won’t suggest that these are complex characters , but their problems are real , and the emotions aren’t put forth in a sentimental and overbearing way . in fact , there are three or four scenes here that had me pretty choked up , and that’s a lot more than i can say about deep impact , which was banking on the feel-good parts of its story . bruce willis is terrific , and i’m glad to see him bigger than life again ( recent turns in films like mercury rising have been very disappointing ) . tyler and affleck are great together , and make a convincing couple — all of the scenes between them work on a comfortable level . patton , who is a magnificent actor , thankfully is not wasted here , and the minor subplot revolving around his ex-wife and son is very moving . the comic relief from buscemi and peter stormare ( who plays a crazy russian astronaut ) is nifty , and keeps the film lively and funny . i wasn’t challenged to think real hard while watching armageddon , and i don’t mind too much . but the film doesn’t insult my intelligence — it’s pitched perfectly to entertain , which is what all it really wants to do . it’s not mindless and escapist , but well-crafted cinema . it might have been created for the wrong reasons , but men like michael bay have my respect for showing me that they are interested in making something good , in spite of the producers and the budget . i’m not saying that films like this are risky moves . what i am saying is that armageddon is a big , loud , expensive motion picture that reminds me that art often comes in the strangest of forms .
1 it’s no secret in the motion picture industry that the relationship between a script and the actors involved often makes or breaks a movie at the box office . a poorly-written script can be bested by a superb acting corps , and a well-written piece can be mangled by a group of amateurs . in directing his latest action-comedy , director brett ratner ( money talks ) takes a relatively mediocre piece of standup comedy and turns it into a funny as all get-out buddy cop movie . in addition , rush hour serves as a first-class example of directing a movie with conservative attitude – a feature that is sure to draw in crowds of all types . the two lead names share equal screen time here , mostly because they spend it together . jackie chan , in his first completely american production , makes an impressive debut by mixing dialogue with martial arts . the other martial arts flick from a few weeks ago , knock off , stands no chance against the content of this one . chan manages to make every fight scene exude grace and poise , and there’s no doubt that a large percentage of video sales for this movie will come from viewers who couldn’t believe their eyes the first time . chris tucker , on the opposite side , relates a hilarious comedic approach which smoothes out the rough edges to chan’s performance . he works perfectly with the script , and it’s quite likely he lent scribe jim kouf a hand with some of his lines . almost essential to the action genre , the plot is nonexistent . we’re quickly introduced to detective james carter ( tucker ) is a maverick officer for the lapd . cut forward to another scene where the daughter ( julia hsu ) of the american chinese consul ( tzi ma ) is kidnapped by a gang of swarthy characters . the fbi is quick to the rescue , but the consul insists that one of his men , detective inspector lee ( chan ) , be brought on the case to help . the fbi resists , but then requests that lapd send a man over to babysit the chinese detective . it’s here that carter and lee hook up , and the two unwittingly solve the case while the fbi rushes in to back them up . rattner does a fine job of going the extra mile to get his movie to move a step up , but it doesn’t quite reach the top tier of action-comedies like last year’s grosse pointe blank . there are moments where the plot strays too far off the straight line it sticks almost exclusively to , and if not for the comedic interactions between tucker and chan , this might be a major drawback . also , some supporting characters are almost entirely along for the ride , and others are there simply to look menacing . however , none gives a standoffish performance and they mostly mesh into the background . almost every member of the cast displays some reservation at one point or another – whether it’s tucker’s toned-down routine or chan’s tight rein on his action sequences – and that contributes greatly to this being a watchable movie for all types . a recommendable visit to the theater , indeed .
1 when andy leaves for cowboy camp , his mother holds a yard sale and scrounges in his room for old toys . one of these toys is wheezy , a penguin with a broken squeaker . woody ( tom hanks ) saddles up andy’s dog and rides out into the yard to rescue wheezy . woody succeeds in his mission , but doesn’t make it back to the house before al , the unscrupulous owner of al’s toy barn , recognizes woody as a rare collector’s item and steals him . buzz lightyear ( tim allen ) leads hamm ( john ratzenberger ) , mr . potato head ( don rickles ) , slinky dog ( jim varney ) , and rex ( wallace shawn ) into the city to find their friend . meanwhile woody discovers the reason he was kidnapped . al has collected every piece of merchandising from the 1950’s tv puppet show ” woody’s round-up ” except for a woody doll . now that the collection is complete , al plans to sell woody and his round-up gang-bullseye the horse , jessie the cowgirl ( joan cusack ) , and stinky pete the old prospector ( kelsey grammer ) -to a toy museum in japan . the gang is happy about the move ; they’ve been in storage for years waiting for woody . if woody doesn’t go with them , they’ll be closed up in a dark box again , possibly forever . trying to convince him to stay with them , jessie tells woody how she was abandoned when her owner grew up , and woody realizes that his days as a beloved toy are numbered . while woody ponders whether to go to japan or to go home to andy , buzz and the boys invade al’s toy barn , where the buzz we know is replaced by another buzz who doesn’t know he’s a toy . the new buzz generates the movie’s biggest laughs as he leads the other toys in an assault on ” zurg’s fortress ” ( i . e . , al’s apartment building ) . the original ” toy story ” won me over because its central themes reflected a grown-up sensibility rather than the usual this-is-what-we-think-kids-want-to-hear . while most kids’ movies take the position that every person is special and has an extraordinary destiny to fulfill , in ” toy story ” buzz discovered that he wasn’t special , that he was just like everyone else . buzz sank into a suicidal depression , but woody showed buzz that being a toy was worthwhile because a toy is loved and a toy makes a child happy . in other words , it’s okay to be ordinary if you have love and a purpose in your life . most of us probably come to the same conclusion when we realize that we’re not space rangers and we’re never going to be . ” toy story 2 ” addresses the question raised by the conclusion drawn by the first movie . woody is forced to recognize that andy will grow up and forget him and that he will likely be discarded , abandoned , or sealed up in a dark box in the attic . this is another big grown-up theme : everything ends . the theme is introduced early in the movie when woody’s arm is torn and andy places him on a shelf rather than taking him to cowboy camp . on the shelf , woody meets wheezy , who’s dusty , broken , and forgotten . the other toys are shocked that woody has been ” shelved , ” and they worry that woody’s ride out to the 25-cent box at the yard sale is a suicide attempt . after he’s stolen , woody has to decide between a long life in a display case and an uncertain future with andy and his pals . of course , in spite of the heavy themes ” toy story 2 ” explores , it’s also very funny . most of the laughs come from the toys’ assault on al’s toy barn and on the apartment building . the brief substitution of a new , still delusional buzz was a welcome surprise ; i’d wondered how a sequel could be as funny as the original without the pompous attitude buzz displayed in the original . most of the vocal performances are first-rate . tom hanks stands out for the level of enthusiasm he puts into his work . however , one voice-over also stands out as horribly miscast . kelsey grammer sounds nothing like an old prospector . although he does a lot of voice-over work in commercials and on ” the simpsons ” ( as sideshow bob ) , grammer only makes slight variations on his own voice . he doesn’t have the range to pull off a role like stinky pete . the animation is even better than in the first . especially impressive were the textures of the figures . we can now see the difference between flesh and plastic ; in the first movie the people looked just like the toys , but now human skin looks soft and has a slight bluish tint . we can also see that bo peep is porcelain . as you can tell from the long-winded phrasing common in the merchandising — ” disney and pixar’s ‘toy story 2’ ” — this is pixar’s coming out party . to celebrate they appended their first project , a hilarious short about two desklamps and a rubber ball , to the beginning of the movie . they made the short in 1986 , which is incredible when one considers the relatively primitive level of computer technology available then . on the downside , ” toy story 2 ” follows the formula of the original so closely that the sequel comes off a bit stale , and some sections tend to drag . overall , though , i had a great time and found ” story 2 ” to be a worthy successor to the first ” toy story . ” bottom line : this one really is fun for the whole family !
1 david lynch’s ” blue velvet ” begins and ends with colorful , bright shots of flowers and happy americans mowing their lawns in a seemingly perfect american town . however , what lies inside this nominally safe atmosphere is a ” strange world ” of drug dealers , sadists , and murderers . the opening and closing shots are a wonderful contrast to the rest of the gloomy , disturbing film . they show not to make assumptions from first glance and that oddness is common in all places under all circumstances . odd would be a perfect adjective to describe this film , its characters , its direction , and its story . thankfully , the obscurity that ” blue velvet ” relies on is enough to make this film enjoyable . since its elements are so originally weird , you never know what will happen next . this is the main goal of a movie ; to be spontaneous and surprising . ” blue velvet ” miracuously succeeds at this even though it contains mediocre acting . lynch creates such a hypnotic world that it is hard to resist his style of story telling . the film starts off with the discovery of a severed ear by a college boy ( kyle maclachlan ) . from this point maclachlan finds himself involved with a lounge singer ( isabella rossellinia ) who has lost her son and husband to a kidnapping . the plot is much more detailed than the aforementioned and this is what makes david lynch’s story telling so amazing . maclachlan becomes involved in a forbidden relationship , in another relationship that could have been taken straight out of a high school flick , and he is put into the shoes of a drug dealer who has some wild adventures with some wild friends . through these multiple stories , maclachlan lives multiple lives and as we follow maclachlan , we are introduced to a variety of interesting subplots . lynch masterfully builds these subplots but he does not piece them all together in the very end and make a convenient crowd pleasing conclusion . instead he leaves some ambiguity and forces those curious enough to get the real meaning to watch the film several several times . lynch has been known to do this with a number of his films meaning he may be too esoteric for some hoping to get a hollywood ending where the good guy gets the girl and everything turns out fine . however , for fans of odd difficult indies , ” blue velvet ” could be just what they are looking for . it is very hard to discuss ” blue velvet ” without discussing the performance of dennis hopper’s sadistic frank . most of the other actors in the film were not very memorable . kyle maclachlan lacked one important aspect for his role , a personality . laura dern was consistently annoying . but dennis hopper stole every scene he was in . his evil character was just plain old frightening in his mannerisms from his obsession to velvet to his incessant breathing from a gas mask . frank is a character that comes along once in a blue moon . many producers know this and have inevitably begun to typecast hopper as the bad guy . just like his villain in ” speed ” , hopper is over the edge with cursing and screaming every chance he has to speak . this harshness is exactly what frank is , so weird and twisted that it is hard not to look at him , even if he theatens you to look away . ” blue velvet ” has characters and stories you will never see in a movie again . for this sole reason it is recommended . but also see it to admire lynch’s obsession to avoid the norm . even if this film is a little too weird for you , it’s hard not to congratulate a guy for trying something new and sticking to it .
1 if chris farley had strapped some fake mutton-chop sideburns to each side of his head , spoken with a thick irish accent , and tried his damnedest to play it straight , he wouldn’t have been nearly as funny as brendan gleeson in ” i went down . ” gleeson , who’s not dissimilar to the late ” saturday night live ” alumnus in terms of physical attributes , plays a character named bunny kelly in this delightful irish film . bunny is sent to county cork to ” retrieve ” one frank grogan for an irish gangster called tom french ( well dressed like all good gangsters should be and menacingly portrayed by tony doyle ) . bunny is to accompany git hynes ( peter mcdonald ) , recently released from prison and obligated to tom for disfiguring one of his cronies . that tom french is a mean bollocks . he wants frank back . and a small matter of some ? 25 , 000 that tom’s wife was supposed to have given to frank . for this he won’t break anyone’s thumbs . maybe . inventively and engagingly written by conor mcpherson and directed by paddy breathnach , ” i went down ” follows the trials and tribulations of git and bunny as they knock around peat bogs , dimly-lit pubs , and seedy hostelries trying to stay alive and out of trouble . mcdonald is a newcomer and a promising one at that , but gleeson has been in over a dozen movies , most recently as father bubbles in another film with a very irish accent on hilarity , ” the butcher boy . ” even if you can’t comprehend half of what they’re saying , gleeson and mcdonald together make ” i went down ” a trip worth taking . the film is in many ways reminiscent of another ” little ” independent feature , 1991’s ” highway 61 . ” that film , too , was a road movie and it shares the same kind of wry dialogue and humorous situations as mcpherson’s tale : whimsical observations on life , carefully-crafted vignettes , deadpan conversational asides , and scenes that’ll make you laugh out loud . witness the episode in which our good-natured protagonists bind frank ( played by peter caffrey ) to a hotel bed , leaving him with only the tv remote for company . that sequence alone is on a par with satan locking himself out of his car in ” highway 61 . ” what’s also charming about ” i went down ” is how the relationship between buddy and git develops . their trip becomes an education for both of them , but the way it’s handled is neither sappy nor labored . the only thing in the film which approaches clunkiness is the culminating explanation , via flashbacks , of the relationship between frank and tom . it’s a little too hollywood , and what makes ” i went down ” so refreshing is the fact that it rarely panders to traditional conventions of hollywood gangster movies . sure it’s gritty–make that grubby–but it’s also pretty goofy . although ” i went down ” emphasizes the comedic elements of dis-organized crime , there are a couple of fairly brutal scenes in keeping with the subject matter . don’t let these deter you , though ; ” i went down ” is a little gem . it’s only playing at one philadelphia-area theater–and i suspect it won’t be there for long–so catch it while you can .
1 ” you leave little notes on my pillow . i told you a million times i can’t stand little notes on my pillow . ‘we are all out of corn flakes – f . u . ‘ it took me three hours to figure out that ‘f . u . ‘ was felix unger . ” — a frustrated oscar madison ( walter matthau ) running down a list of his complaints against his roommate felix unger ( jack lemmon ) , in the odd couple . the classic neil simon comedy ( based on his own stage play ) about suicidal felix ( lemmon ) , who is persuaded by his poker friend oscar ( matthau ) to stay with him in his apartment after felix’s wife throws him out and files for divorce . the hook : oscar is messy and likes his apartment that way , while felix is an obsessive/compulsive neat freak . the two men , despite their friendship , instantly clash . movies just aren’t as delightfully funny as this one is . every line of neil simon’s dialogue flows like comedic poetry , and all the actors are just perfect in their performances . lemmon is at his best as the anxiety ridden felix , but it’s matthau who shines brightest as oscar , whose world is being invaded and rearranged , mostly against his wishes ( the type of character i always enjoy identifying with ) . and who can forget that catchy score by neal hefti ? the best thing about the film ( and this is a testament to the quality of the writing ) is that it’s a comedy with substance . these two men , even while at each other’s throats , genuinely care for one another as friends . when they clash , it isn’t cartoonish hatred being displayed , but genuine frustration with the fact that they are such good friends but just cannot manage to co-exist . movies nowadays , take grumpy old men for example , just don’t have that extra spark there . these days it’s just animosity for the sake of comedy . a television series followed ( starring jack klugman and tony randall ) , which i’ll admit i’ve never seen an episode of in its entirety , and neil simon even scripted the sequel , the odd couple ii , which was released in 1998 . neither of them compare to this comic masterpiece though . it’s one of the best comedies of all time and easily earns its spot in my top ten favorite films .
1 ingredients : lost parrot trying to get home , friends synopsis : a russian janitor named misha ( tony shalhoub ) discovers a little old parrot languishing in the basement of a science research facility . ” paulie the talking parrot ” ( the voice of jay mohr ) soon regales misha with his life story . as a young bird paulie is raised by marie ( hallie kate eisenberg ) , a little girl with a speech impediment . by attending marie’s speech lessons , paulie learns to act/speak like a regular person . unfortunately , after being unfairly blamed for an accident , paulie is taken to a pawn shop and sold . paulie’s biggest wish is to return to marie . many years later , and after a succession of memorable owners ( gena rowlands , cheech marin , and jay mohr ) , paulie falls in with a bad crowd and is apprehended in los angeles trying to steal jewelry . he is sent to a cruel research facility , where he refuses to participate and is imprisoned the basement . will misha help paulie get back to marie ? opinion : every time people watch movies that portray animals as beings with cute human personalities , some well-meaning audience members go out next christmas or birthday and buy a dalmatian or whatever creature is currently popular . soon enough , ” birthday kid ” loses interest and the purchased pup ends up at the local pound , a victim of neglect . my sister owns a real paulie : it thinks like a parrot , bites like a parrot , and requires as much attention as a newborn human infant . please think twice before buying one . okay . back to the story . in movies , parrots usually play support characters , but paulie might be the first movie where the ( animatronic ) bird gets main billing . paulie , like those side characters in disney cartoons , is cute and sassy , a strutting , miniature human . actually , paulie is the voice of jay mohr ( he played jennifer aniston’s boyfriend on picture perfect ) doing his best buddy hackett impression ( which is interesting , since hackett himself cameos as the pawn shop owner , and mohr doubles as a customer ) . paulie is for kids . while watching paulie you hear little tykes in the theater laughing hysterically when paulie calls the cat a ” stupid furball . ” sometimes , however , there are statements the kids don’t get . for example , when paulie’s elderly owner ivy ( gena rowlands ) dies , paulie explains , ” well , one day , the cat got her . ” and you hear kids exclaim , ” what cat ? ! ” imagine lassie come home , except with a doll-sized human dressed as a bird , and you’ll have a good idea of the plot and characterization . bird tries to get home . bird meets elderly friend . bird loses elderly friend . bird meets eccentric friend . bird loses eccentric friend . bird meets bad influence . and so on and so forth , with paulie meeting friends and saying goodbye at a meandering pace until he finally makes it back to marie ( trini alvarado ) . the bottom line ? break out the popcorn money , moms and dads . paulie may be the low end version of lassie , bambi , or babe , but he’ll do . sometimes the wisecracks go over their heads , but i’m sure youngsters can appreciate a story about a little person ( paulie ) trying to get home , meeting friends and experiencing moral lessons on the way . and good luck explaining what it means when paulie says of ivy , ” well , one day , the cat got her . ”
1 tempe mills cinema , az–this movie had us in non-stop stitches from beginning to end . all those promotional clips that have been on tv for the past month came from the first five minutes of the movie . if you thought they were funny , see the rest of the movie . it’s hilarious . how does one go about making a movie about a couple guys whose only claim to fame is synchronized head-bopping on snl to exactly one song ? easy . write an interesting script around tried-and-true ideas , add some good lines and satire , and voil ? , you end up with an excellent , well-done , very entertaining flick . will and chris are idiot brothers forced by their father to work begrudgingly in the family flower business during the day . at night they pursue their life-long ambition to loose their virginity in failed attempts to get into the roxbury in beverly hills , ca , the only disco act worth going to . the only problem , the place is so popular and the waiting line so long that by the time the brothers make it to the front door , the roxbury closes , all the while bearing witness to guys with one-hundred-dollar bills and movie stars like richard grieco who get past the doorman without fuss . the script authors ( steve koren , will ferrell and chris kattan ) cleverly devised a way for our boys to get into the roxbury . their flower-shop van is rear-ended by richard grieco , who fears a law-suit and is surprised to see the idiots are too star-struck to think about the car accident they just had , but not about getting into the roxbury . grieco happily takes them in , even introduces them to the owner , which has the added benefit of enhancing the financial appearance of the idiot brothers in the eyes of a couple of gold diggers ( elisa donovan and gigi rice ) who bet their time and bodies on will and chris . what follows are some of the best slap-stick dancing routines ever . the music is superb , and could have only been made better had the producers added patrick hernandez’s born to be alive . the choreography at times was a parody of an era gone by , for example , the bee gees and their stayin’ alive . it is nostalgic for those of us who remember that far back , and the technique is a clever adaptation that worked well in forest gump . one of the funniest scenes is when the gold diggers discover that will and chris don’t have any mone y , and dump both on the spot , even expressing violence and anger that they gave sex away . an art-imitates-life poke at shallow women . it’s a scene that’s an approximate parody of the vinegar’s own rolf luedeke’s editorial this week national organization for men ( nom ) replaces now . ted ” unabomber ” kaczynski , himself rejected for not having money , will identify well with this scene , if he ever watches the movie . of course , the script wouldn’t be complicated enough without adding molly shannon , the girl next door who has had a crush on will since they were kids , and who will has had an aversion to in quest of good-looking disco blondes ( proof that men will turn down perfectly good women when there are bay watch babes always lurking nearby ) . nevertheless , will’s father wants him to marry molly anyway , but thinks idiot chris is standing in the way and sends him into guest-quarter exile . during the wedding ceremony , will’s heart isn’t exactly into getting married , and when his brother appears on the balcony with a ghetto blaster and more head-bopping music , will thinks worse of the knot-tieing idea and runs to chris . definitely an snl parody of the graduate where katharine ross changed her mind for the screaming dustin hoffman in the church balcony . i found this scene a riot , however , it went over brandi’s head — she was born seven years after the graduate first appeared . the scene has a good punch line when molly shannon marries , instead , the step-in buddy/weight-lifter ( who looks like he could pass for the son of gary busy ) and who has been lusting for a good-looker for a long time , but ready now to take anyone . more art-imitates-life stuff — not even muscles can substitute for money in the real world . the idiots’ mother is played by loni anderson , whose barbie-doll looks don’t play well anymore ( she’s a bit old ) , and whose cleavage looks like someone botched a tracheotomy too low down . i recommend this movie for anyone who wants to have a lot of fun or in need of a lot of laughs . go with a date . brandi laughed non-stop , as i did , and a deaf-mute might have concluded i was tickling her continuously for 105 minutes .
1 there is nothing like american history x in theaters or on video . no other feature film takes such a cold hard look at the lure , the culture , and the brotherhood of white supremacy . nice guy ed norton jr . ( who sang in everyone says i love you ) plays derek , a twenty-year old skinhead . dad’s subtle racism grew large in derek , after gang members killed his father . dad was fighting a fire when they shot him . now derek keeps his head shaved and has a giant swastika tattooed over his heart . derek is more interested in the ideas of white supremacy than in its culture of violence . at a basketball court , black and white tempers flare . derek channels the aggression into a game , black versus white , for ownership of the courts . when the choice presents itself , derek goes for game point instead of the sucker-punch . cameron ( stacy keach ) steps in to derek’s life as a surrogate father . he takes derek under his wing and nurtures his racist feelings . keeping his own criminal record spotless , he uses derek as a leader and organizer for high-visibility racial intimidation . derek obliges by leading his younger and dumber friends in race-motivated mob crimes . at the bottom of the chain , derek’s younger brother danny ( edward furlong , made famous in terminator 2 ) joins the skinheads not for ideological or intellectual reasons , but because he admires his brother and he wants to belong . one night three black youths break into derek’s truck , which is exactly what derek has been waiting for . outside in his shorts and his tattoo , he shoots them all . the third would-be thief , unarmed , is only wounded . in the key scene of the film , derek commands the kid into a position where he can be killed with one glorious , enraptured , awful stomp . ( the fun-spoiling nc-17 of orgazmo seems even more inappropriate , considering american history x was rated r . what sort of country is this that says sex comedies are a bigger threat to our youth than brutal , ecstatic violence ? ) the police arrive just as derek kills the last thief . derek does not resist the cops , and as they spin him around to cuff him , the film slows down . derek raises his eyebrows and smiles at his little brother in a chilling , sadistic , satisfied grin . now in prison , derek faces new challenges . as the black man in the laundry tells him , ” in the joint , you the nigra , not me . ” there is a clique of swastika-wearing skinheads , but they are not interested in the ideology of white supremacy . they only use the symbols as a means of intimidation . derek finds himself truly alone , truly in danger , and truly afraid . when derek finally gets out of prison , he finds that his friends from the gang have also changed . without derek’s leadership , they have shunned the white supremacist ideology for the white supremacist culture . it is the final factor that makes him realize how badly he’s screwed up . in the end , he spends quality time with is brother trying to undo the respect and admiration he had earlier inspired in danny . the film ends a little too deliberately , too neatly after the unchained emotion and violent glee of the rest of the film , but it barely detracts from the overall experience . edward norton gives an oscar-worthy performance . although some of his dialogue seemed to be written without enough conviction , norton’s performance compensated . ( an example that comes to mind is his pep talk before looting the store . ) he also captured the essence of an older brother . he took his responsibility as a role model to his younger brother very seriously , very lovingly , both before and after his change of heart . though clearly not for all tastes , this film is bold and daring . the subject matter is ugly , cruel , and at times hard to look at . nevertheless its subjects are part of humanity’s great face . kaye gives us a good look at this fascinating , if distasteful , american subculture .
1 john von neumann , progenitor of the computer age and critically important mathematician on the manhattan project , pointed out long ago that there is a great way to explore the cosmos , even without recourse to faster-than light travel . you send out self-replicating robot ships which explore and radio back information . it may take decades , centuries , or millennia , but it can be done with achievable technology , and doesn’t require a magical faster-than-light drive . in the fifties , british astronomer fred hoyle improved on this plan by suggesting that it would be better to radio plans for a complex computer and a program for it ; any civilization capable of receiving the transmission could build the computer , which would then engage in a real-time dialog with the aliens , exchanging information and technologies , and hopefully arranging to send back what it had learned . about thirty-five years ago , the bbc contracted with astronomer/writer fred hoyle and writer frank elliot to create the scripts for a mini-series called a for andromeda . afa concerned the reception of a hoyle transmission , the construction of a huge computer , the computer’s analysis of life on earth , and its creation of an apparently human intermediary to facilitate communication . she was played with ethereally inhuman perfection by the then-unknown julie christie . audience response was so strong that the bbc contracted for a sequel , andromeda breakthrough , which played to equally high ratings . dennis feldman , whose previous credits include the golden child , has never been noted for coherent , well-structured movie scripts ; they start out great , and then disintegrate into a morass of chase and action , mitigated only by the presence of the obligatory beautiful girl . feldman writes good scenes , but has no idea how to tell a story or write a movie , even with a previous version to use as a model . now , in species , we have a mundane retread of the andromeda plotline , derailed by a preoccupation with removing the clothes from the leading lady and further ruined by a mediocre attempt to emulate several recent horror films in terms of splatter , gore , and chases . species features ben kingsley , who is completely wasted in a badly-written portrayal of a feebly amoral scientist . forest whitaker and alfred molina are also served poorly by the script . the species story is relatively simple ; we have been radioing information about ourselves and our dna out into space since 1971 , and have been receiving answers for two years . ( note that , in the 1970’s , we really didn’t know diddly about the human genome structure , and were hardly in a position to radio out a set of blueprints for human beings . even today , all we can do is give information about dna and how it works , not a copy of human dna , because we don’t have it analyzed yet . ) the answers we get from the unknown alien source are plans for recreating a member of the alien race , and doctor xavier finch , played by ben kingsley , is placed in charge of the attempt . the script begins to go off the deep end at this point , when the result is a beautiful young girl who can shape-shift into any of several ugly alien life forms . the first half of the film has something to offer , as ” sil , ” the alien girl , struggles with her multi-form existence , changing from beauty to lizard to giant cockroach and back again , all while trying to understand her own place in the cosmos . she seems oddly knowledgeable about human society , with glaring gaps where her social skills should be . her instincts are to mate and procreate , and some of the best scenes deal with her attempts in this area . escaping from her birth laboratory in utah , sil is pursued by a team of drafted civilians with orders to find her and kill her . she goes on an eating binge , spins herself a cocoon , and emerges as an adult , played by natasha henstridge , who goes a long way toward re-creating the sheerly inhuman beauty julie christie achieved in 1960 . the pursuers : michael madsen is an assassin/exterminator ; forrest whitaker is a convenient empath/psychic , just as though the u . s . government actually had such people on call . neither is able to do much with the writing and directing provided . whitaker’s role seems to be aimed at making whitaker a male copy of star trek : the next generation’s ” counselor cleavage . ” the other members of the strike team are played by marg helgenberger and alfred molina . kingsley and whitaker are both consummate professionals , too good to not work to the best of their abilities ; but the performances donaldson elicited from the rest of the cast are disappointing and bland , and it is apparent that the direction was a bit weak . h . r . giger’s design for the main form of the alien creature is actually a bit boring when we finally get to see it , although previous digital effects were done quite smoothly . the main fault of species is lack of originality ; it starts out with a wonderful , albeit borrowed , premise , and then doesn’t live up to it . all we get are chase scenes and a few nice sex scenes , with a few monsters tossed in . there is no buildup of tension and suspense , no climax worthy of the name ; species is just a sequence of ” scare ” scenes stuck together . the movie is carried by its chase and sex scenes , but not rescued by them . on the other hand , as an exercise in sci-fi action/ adventure , it certainly beats the ichor out of judge dredd . species earns an extra rating point or two for having ben kingsley and natasha henstridge on board , but by and large , it’s fun only for those of us who really like this sort of thing . my personal rating is three stars , but knock one or two of those off if you don’t enjoy pretty unclothed ladies and bloodthirsty alien monsters . mpaa classification : r ( violence , gore , nudity , sex , language ) stars : ben kingsley , michael madsen , forest whitaker , alfred molina , marg helgenberger , natasha henstridge directed by : roger donaldson produced by : frank mancuso jr . and dennis feldman typed by : dennis feldman cinematography : andrzej bartkowiak music : christopher young run time : 108 minutes aspect ratio : 2 . 35 : 1 from mgm , opens 7 july 1995
1 as the small boats rock slowly toward the shore at omaha beach normandy on d-day , the weary , seasick soldiers take a deep breath and open the large protective shield at the back of the boat . they are unaware of exactly what is going to happen . one man kisses the crucifix that hangs around his neck . as the flap falls , the battle begins . they are trapped like rats in a cage and proceed to be blown to pieces in the wake of enemy gunfire . amid the chaos of this massacre , stands a shot that , at least for me , hangs in the air like the girl in the little red coat in schindler’s list . a soldier , clearly missing an arm , wanders around the body-strewn beach like a lost puppy . we are not invited to know what he is searching for until he finds it himself . he bends over , picks up his arm and starts to carry it , probably not bothering to ask himself ; ” what now ? ” saving private ryan is a masterfully composed film . the direction is out of this world , surely the type of command that can win spielberg another directing oscar . the cinematography , by janusz kaminsky , is also astounding . but be forewarned , this is the most violent and graphic film i have ever seen . the articles you read and the warnings you see are justified ; saving private ryan is visually as disturbing as a film can get . the question is , ” does the story and its realism justify the excessive use ? ” the answer from my point of view is ” no ” . braveheart was a truly gritty , and , one would imagine , realistic battle film . ryan is ten times worse . expect disembowelments , sucked in skulls , heads blown to bits , arms and legs flying across the battlefield . many in the theater could not bear to watch . and it is a shame , too , because this is otherwise by far one of the standouts this year . but such graphic displays may turn away even the most loyal spielberg supporters ( and academy members ) . saving private ryan takes us from the attack at omaha beach on d-day , 1944 , through into the film’s primary mission . captain miller ( hanks ) assembles an 8 man crew and sets off to find a missing solider , private ryan , whose three brothers have already been killed on the battlefield . the government goes to great lengths to make sure that mrs . ryan doesn’t recieve a fourth letter of condolences about her sons , that no person should suffer such injustice . miller’s crew is not in favor of the mission and they begin to harbor a secret hatred for ryan , though they don’t yet know him . they resent having to trudge out to bring home one soldier who doesn’t have any more or less right to live than any of them . this film manages to keep up a rapid pace and , though there is a lot of set up between battles , the story continues full speed to the end . the pacing and dramatism of the extremely well choreographed battle scenes is really in a league of it’s own . spielberg , though not a student of the ” quick cut ” school of filmmaking , takes a stab at it here , and does it better than michael bay or any of his mtv counterparts could ever hope to do it . bay should pay close attention , take copious notes . if you want to jump cut every two seconds , do it the way spielberg does it in ryan . in the end , the extremity of the gory violence is not justified by the ” importance ” of the film . schindler’s list taught many people the truth about the holocaust . it opened eyes , sparked debate and study . though the battle scenes in ryan have never been portrayed as realistically before , they don’t amount to anything as serious or thought provoking as the schindler’s list . overall , this is just the truest depiction of the old adage , ” war is hell . ” but braveheart-dosage would have fit this movie much more appropriately , and would have made the difference between me getting up the nerve to see it again some day and realizing that this is something i doubt i could endure again . masterful work marred only by excessive gore .
1 ” the faculty , ” the heavily-hyped and advertised sci-fi/horror film that has teamed up director robert rodriguez ( 1995’s ” desperado ” and 1996’s ” from dusk till dawn ” ) and screenwriter kevin williamson ( 1996’s ” scream ” and 1997’s ” scream 2 ” ) , is being called a cross between ” invasion of the body snatchers ” and ” the breakfast club , ” and i don’t think i could describe it any better than that . the film sets up the six central teenage characters who do not seem to have much in common , and then the science-fiction aspect is added , involving the fear that the faculty at herrington high school are actually aliens who are quickly transforming everyone in the town . the six characters , as in ” the breakfast club , ” can be easily labeled as a stereotype , but as they are developed , they become far more complex : casey ( elijah wood ) , the much picked upon nerd ; stokely ( clea duvall ) , a goth outcast who hides behind the false facade of being a lesbian so everyone will avoid her ; zeke ( josh hartnett ) , a drug dealer who turns out to be a science whiz ; stan ( shawn hatosy ) , the star football quarterback who is considering quitting the team to concentrate more on academics ; delilah ( jordanna brewster ) , the popular cheerleader and newspaper journalist ; and marybeth ( laura harris ) , the sweet ‘n southern new girl in town . although the characters are only slightly connected ( i . e . casey is delilah’s photojournalist assistant ; marybeth tries to become buddies with stokely , since they both don’t have friends , etc . ) , when they all begin to suspect the teachers due to some grotesque and strange occurrences , the only people they can count on for help is each other , even though they aren’t really even sure if they can trust one another . ” the faculty ” is another smart and pop-culturally hip film from williamson , although it does not equal up to his best film , the original ” scream , ” and rodriguez , whose ” from dusk till dawn ” is still one of the more original genre films of the 90’s . williamson and rodriguez are so assured at their professions , respectively , that the idea of teaming up together is pretty much a no-brainer . the plotline of ” the faculty , ” involving aliens taking over other people’s bodies , has been done quite a lot before , from ” invasion of the body snatchers , ” to ” the puppet masters , ” to ” invaders from mars , ” so one of the obstacles that williamson and rodriguez had to overcome was to somehow make the idea seem fresh , and by setting the goings-on at a high school and having the protagonists be a group of teens , they were mostly successful . surely , the conventions of the story are still the same , and the climax was inevitable , but there were a few surprises along the way , including the question of who were the aliens , and who weren’t . the epilogue was also a refreshing change-of-pace as it did not set up a sequel but ended on a note that probably could not have been any better . the performances in ” the faculty ” were a treat throughout , since there were so many recognizable actors in roles that were the polar opposite of what they usually do . one exception were the teens , who , aside from elijah wood , are not very well-known , but they all aquit themselves nicely , particularly wood ( the seasoned pro ) , clea duvall , and jordanna brewster . as members of the faculty , robert patrick ( ” t2 : judgement day ” ) was creepy as the gym coach ; piper laurie was amusing and threatening as the drama teacher ; bebe neuwirth actually was somehow able to look like an alien ; and salma hayek , as the school nurse with a bad case of the cold , was very funny in a small role . the standout , in my opinion , of the whole cast was famke janssen who turns in an oddly touching performance as the shy and meek english teacher who , after turning into an alien , becomes the sex bombshell . if there was any problem i had with the faculty , it was that some of them were given no real payoff in the climactic sequence . since the teenagers realize that in order to save everyone they must kill the ” queen ” alien , many of the faculty members disappear . it might have been more fun if they had to face every one of the teachers , although the finale is still pretty impressive , and includes some showstopping creature effects , especially for a relatively low 15-million-dollar budget . although not one of the best horror or science-fiction films i have seen , ” the faculty ” is still an exciting and worthy film that dimension films was smart to release around the holiday season when this type of genre offering is usually not released . while the story is as old as the hills , it is also , in a way , timeless , because everyone , i think , has suspected at one time or another that a certain person simply did not act right , as if they really weren’t human . and by putting this idea in the setting of a small-town high school , it perfectly contrasts with the alienation that most teenagers usually go through when relating to adults and other peers . + note : the ad and poster campaign for this film is hugely misleading , as it features r & b artist usher raymond as one of the main characters . in actuality , he only has a small role as one of stan’s buddies who becomes quarterback after stan resigns from the team . if i were one of the heads from dimension , i would change this advertising at once , since it is unnecessary and rather deceiving .
1 the central focus of michael winterbottom’s ” welcome to sarajevo ” is sarajevo itself , the city under siege , and its different effect on the characters unfortunate enough to be stuck there . it proves the backdrop for a stunningly realized story which refreshingly strays from mythic portents ( ” platoon ” ) , racial tumultuosness ( the risible ” the walking dead ” ) or a tinge of schmaltziness ( ” schindler’s list ” ) . the two leads , stephen dillane as a reporter and emira nusevic as an orphan with a plight few can identify with , are extremely believable ; not one moment with them involved rings false . the question is not what went right . the question is what went wrong . for one , the film fails to provide a political overview of the war as it progresses ( the dillane characters reports an american plane departing from sarajevo as it departs , and that’s about it . ) . the assortment of high-profile supporting actors , ranging from woody harrelson as a yankee reporter ” into ” liquor and cigarrettes to marisa tomei as a huggable children’s aid or somesuch are incapable of rising above the sketchiness of their characters , albeit they strive . the interrupted use of authentic war footage somewhat hampers the rest of the film , it makes the fictional characters seem powerless by comparison . still , winterbottom eschews mawkishness through flashy , frantic editing and imaginative use of music . and it’s a plus , because he doesn’t toy with our emotions with sentimental blandness . he wants us to know that in war , no one is victorious . the sweet hereafter starring ian holm , sarah polley , bruce greenwood , tom mccamus , gabrielle rose , arsinee khanjian , alberta watson , maury chaykin , caerthan banks . produced by atom egoyan and camelia frieberg . script by atom egoyan ( based on the novel by russell banks ) . directed by atom egoyan . running time : 110 mins . rated r . __________________________________________________________ atom egoyan’s powerfully meditative ” the sweet hereafter ” is as anything as haunting and transcendental as i’ve seen this year . it not only explores the aftermaths of a terrible tragedy with magnificent subtlety , with cold , and stunning shots of the backdrop of this mistfortune but also by telegraphing the sense of devastation that has permeated the small town with an enormous amount of dignity and respect for each and every soul affected . ian holm as the somber , lonely lawyer seeking compensation for the townspeople , has a decency and a restraint uncommon with lawyers , he’s a lion for the wrong reasons : the pain for having lost his daughter ( she’s a druggie who frequently calls him begging for money ) is reflected on the town . and in some mesmerizing flashbacks , we witness how she lost her purity . it’s one of the most strikingly breathtaking takes on the loss of innocence i’ve ever seen . but the most astounding part goes to sarah polly , the peaceful , benevolent girl who , in contrast to the other characters , remains the most mentally stable during past , present or future . her ability to convey concealed pain and unconditional love is the opposite , yet near-revolutionary role that won emily watson an oscar nomination for ” breaking the waves ” . both women are torn apart by an extraordinary incident but it is only then that we truly see , truly feel , their wordless , omnipotent love . ” the sweet hereafter ” though , is atom egoyan’s movie and as of now , he is emerging as the definite face of independent cinema . after surging to worldwide recognition with 1994’s ” exotica ” , ” the sweet hereafter ” makes him something few people in this industry can call themselves : an artist . he interweaves time with a delicacy and sees a soul with a purity that is just not common .
1 after the average mouse hunt , the silly small soldiers and the entertaining antz , dreamworks try again with the children’s film market with this stunning adaptation of the moses story . as the film warns us at the beginning , it’s not the full story , and some liberties have been taken , but generally this the bible story we all know and love , featuring burning bushes , the plagues and the parting of the red sea . the only thing missing is charlton heston . instead , we get val kilmer voicing moses , an hebrew who is placed in a river by his mother and rescued by the queen of egypt ( helen mirren . ) we flash forward several years to see moses and brother rameses ( fiennes ) all grown up . moses soon finds out from brother and sister miriam and aaron ( sandra bullock and jeff goldblum ) that he isn’t really the son of the pharaoh seti ( patrick stewart ) and that it his destiny to free the hebrews from the egyptians tyrannical rule . he soon sets about this , along with his wife tzipporah ( michelle pfeiffer . ) rameses and his two wizard friends ( voiced by steve martin and martin short ) try to stop moses completing his task . while the plot is familiar and somewhat exciting for adults , for children reared on aladdin and hercules , this film could be the most godawful thing they’ve ever seen . gone is the quick fire humour and standard , easy to follow plot . but , spectacularly , and to dreamworks credit , nearly every child in the audience was captivated by the story and events happening on screen . jeffrey katzenberg , who produced this film , certainly knows how to keep a child interested . he’s included some songs in the film , plus some comedy , and a exciting chariot chase , to keep the children interested . and somehow , himself and the directors still manage to get all the drama and intensity of the story across , without ever being boring . it’s a remarkable achievement . also remarkable is the animation , which puts hercules , an almost ‘slap dash’ effort , to shame . relying on hand drawn and computer animation , the backgrounds and characters are amazingly detailed . the film seems a little caught up with it’s amazing visuals by showing a lot of sweeping visuals and ‘moving’ shots , but they _do_ look incredible . the final ‘plague’ where god kills every first born child , and the parting of the red sea have to be seen to be believed . kudos to the animators . the vocal talent is also very good . val kilmer does a fine job as moses ( although he doesn’t sing ) and ralph fiennes is superb as rameses ( and he _does_ sing . ) sandra bullock and jeff goldblum are great , and steve martin and martin short are very good , but not in the film long enough . finally , michelle pfeiffer does excellent work as moses wife . kudos also goes to the voice of god , who instead of booming and bombastic is quiet and subdued . sadly , he is uncredited , and i couldn’t quite work out who the voice was . ( but e-mail if you do . ) the songs are good , ranging from the usual love sonnets to the traditional big production number . they don’t disturb the movie , and while not particularly memorable , they are nice to listen to ( they’re well sung aswell . ) the musical score is suitably epic , with some beautiful tunes . coupled with the superb visuals , the prince of egypt is a visual and aural treat , backed up with a great story . entertaining both for kids and adults , this film is a must see . a david wilcock review ? 1998 ” you know , for kids ” – norville barnes
1 i have seen several ( but not that many ) woody allen movies . i didn’t particulary like radio days , the purple rose of cairo , play it again , sam . i quite enjoyed manhatten murder mystery and everything . . . sex , and i loved might aphrodite . however i found bullets over broadway to be a snoozing bore . and bullets got some very raving reviews , but i didn’t think i’d like . but i finally saw it ( double feature with ready to wear i think ) and hated it . since . . . i love you also seems to be getting raving reviews i wasn’t sure if i’d want to see . . . thankfully i did ! people burst into singing and dancing , something i hardly ever like . but this movie is so infectious . and funny ! and entertaining ! ( and unlike evita , they only sing when they need to . ) sure some of the actors may not be great singers , but they seems to be having a great time , and so does the audience . that’s all i have to say . really , if you think that is going to be a dull movie , you’re probably dead . and dead people should not be forced into movie theatres . is mark leeper dead ? he said that ” this is an almost ghastly misfire ” . the movie is rated r , for * one * use of the word motherf * * * * * .
1 fritz lang’s first american film since leaving nazi germany , is an eye-opener about a lynch mob in a small town . joe wilson ( spencer tracy ) is a regular joe , a hard-working stiff , a decent guy , who is living with his two brothers , tom ( walcott ) and charlie ( albertson ) , in chicago . he is engaged to katherine grant ( sylvia sidney ) , but can’t save up enough money to marry her . she takes the train west for a better paying job as a teacher . before she departs , she gives him the wedding ring her father gave to her mother , sews up his ripped trench coat , corrects him when he mistakingly says the wrong word for memento , and kisses him goodbye . a year goes by and joe buys a car and tells katherine that he will meet her to get married in capitol city , that he has quit his job and hopes to open a gas station . driving through the rural backroads and camping out at night while going to met her , he arrives at a near-by town called strand . but the deputy sheriff ” buggs ” meyers ( walter brennan ) comes upon him waving a shotgun and arrests him . he accuses him of the kidnapping of a little girl . the sheriff ( ellis ) finds salted peanuts on him just like the kidnapper had in his pocket , he also has a five dollar bill on him that matches one of the numbers of the ransom money , and he fits the general description of the suspect . locked in jail , he waits for the district attorney to look at his claim of innocence . in the local bar , the town citizens go into a rage when learning that an arrest has been made in the kidnapping . fueled by angry talk about getting back at the kidnapper and of having the deputy inadvertently telling them of the ransom money found on the suspect , a mob storms the jail , burns it down and dynamites it when they can’t get through to the prisoner’s jail cell . the sheriff called the governor for the national guard , but one of his political advisers countermanded that request , saying it wouldn’t look right for the governor in an election year to call out troops for those he wants to vote for him . somehow joe escapes , but his dog rainbow dies . katherine hears what has happened on the radio and rushes to the neighboring town of strand only to see him engulfed by flames in his cell , and becomes convinced that he died . the next day the newspapers announce that the guilty kidnapper confesses . joe makes his way back to chicago and tells his brothers , who are startled to see him alive , that he wants revenge . he thereby supplies his brothers with the names of the 22 leaders in the lynch mob . an ambitious district attorney ( walter abel ) prosecutes the 22 for murder . katherine , not knowing he’s alive , remains in a state of shock , but is asked to be a witness that she saw joe burning to death . the defense claims that it can’t be a charge of murder without a corpse . the trial proves to be interesting , as the citizens in this close-knit , respectable community , lie under oath , providing alibis for each other to prove they couldn’t have been at the jail . the sheriff also lies , saying he can’t identify anyone in the mob . but proof comes by way of a newsreel cameraman who caught the whole incident on film . as for proof of the corpse , an anonymous letter is addressed to the judge enclosed with the wedding ring katherine gave joe . in the note , memento is misspelled , which makes katherine realize that joe is alive . when the sentence is announced , 20 of the accused are found guilty of murder , but joe marches into the courtroom and gives a pious speech about what happened . katherine forgives him , and this very strong film ends on a weaker note than i think it should have . but don’t blame lang for all the changes in the film , of trying to take the town off the hook by introducing this wild revenge motive . mgm couldn’t bear to have it made the way lang wanted it , that is , by having tracy die in the lynching . instead they wanted to stop short of condemning so many small american towns where lynchings actually do occur , and they thereby meddled throughout the entire script . to lang’s credit , even if this film failed to be a masterpiece because of the interference , it still did not let the good citizens off the moral hook . his portrayal of the attempted lynching was powerfully done and was not compromised . you couldn’t help get the feeling that the citizens didn’t care that much that they almost lynched an innocent man , but cared more about protecting the reputation of their town and would do anything to keep their 22 vigilantes from going to jail , even perjuring themselves . their reaction to seeing joe alive was satisfying only in that it meant they weren’t going to be convicted . lang by no means implies that the town has learned its lesson from this incident . he does imply that a dark side to joe wilson has been exposed , and the innocent , jovial good-guy , seen in the beginning of the film , has been largely altered forever by this traumatic experience .
1 veteran actor clint eastwood has never looked as grizzled as he does in true crime , his latest directorial effort . when steve everett ( his newest character ) gets angry at someone , he glares them down with those famous dirty harry eyes , furrows his brow and frowns like a grizzly bear who’s just lost his cubs . eastwood has played some particularly despicable characters in his time , but everett could just take the cake . he gets my vote , at least , partly because `ev’ is a drunken affair-a-week womanizer who has many relationship problems , very few of which are with his wife ( diane venora ) . when his colleague at the oakland tribune is in an ugly car wreck and dies , everett must take over for her at a vital interview session . the interview is with frank beacham ( isaiah washington ) , a death-row inmate set to die at midnight for the murder of a pregnant convenience store clerk . eastwood furrows his brow . as everett gradually finds information , he realizes that beacham could very well be innocent . he interviews a key witness ( michael jeter ) , who claims that he burst in the door at pocum’s foods because his car had overheated , only to see beacham standing over the dead woman’s body , blood on his suspenders , gun in hand . but everett protests : how could he have seen the gun , which was lowered by his side , with the potato chip rack in front of him ? jeter doesn’t know what he’s talking about . eastwood furrows his brow . crinkled expressions and all , clint is the centre of energy of true crime . the film is by no means a standard action/suspense yarn , but a thoughtful human story in which the characters come before the shoot-outs . isaiah washington has a break-out performance as frank beacham , and scenes with him and his weary wife ( lisa gay hamilton ) are truly heartfelt moments . but the best scenes are ones that feature eastwood duking it out with those in authority over him . denis leary , as everett’s editor and boss , has more than a few memorable moments of restrained anger ( you see , ev is sleeping with his wife ) . but hands down , the most enjoyable segments of the film are when james woods is on camera . playing the big boss alan mann , woods and eastwood create amusing chemistry and laugh-out-loud punchlines . when true crime opts for a high-speed chase to the governer’s house at the finale , the quality of film-making takes an abrupt nosedive . eastwood was so successful with colorful character portraits that he didn’t need to switch lanes . true crime is a tension-building , intriguing drama showcase for the talented director and star . this is a road block he could have easily dismissed ( i furrow my brow ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 those of you who frequently read my reviews are not likely to be surprised by the fact that i have not read victor hugo’s novel les miserables . i don’t know if a lot of people have , though i imagine many are familiar with the popular musical based on the novel . i haven’t even seen that . going into this film , i had almost no knowledge of the story or its characters ( i even expected the film to be a musical ) . walking away from it , i’m kind of glad i had no prior experience with the material . writer/director bille august’s film version is a straightforward , beautifully told film . liam neeson stars as the miserable jean valjean ; in the beginning , he has just been released from a 19-year prison sentence . he is allowed to stay in a convent by a kindly priest despite his rude and destructive behavior . the priest’s words of wisdom influence him , and he makes a vow to change himself . nine years later , we are informed that he is now the mayor of a town called vigo ; nobody knows his real name , and that he is wanted for skipping his parole nine years ago . conflicts arise when inspector javert ( geoffrey rush ) is assigned to vigo . valjean remembers javert as one of the prison guards who constantly beat him , and javert remembers jean to be a convict . javert is hell-bent on upholding the law , and he does everything in his power to bring jean to justice . along the way , valjean meets and falls in love with a peasant woman , fantine ( uma thurman ) , and vows to take care of her daughter , cosette ( played later by claire danes ) . les miserables is visually a solid and often striking picture . the production design by anna asp is authentic and vast , and the sets don’t look like sets ( they look like real towns and villages ) ; gabriella pescucci’s costumes are noticeably spectacular . basil poledouris’ soundtrack is thick and usually well-placed ( though it does get a bit heavy at times ) . many scenes in the film have a memorable photographic quality , such as the climax , which takes place next to a dark river in the grey obscurity of early evening . augusts keeps the story simple ( which i hear is a good thing , since the novel is so complex ) and easy to follow . he manages to develop the main characters and most of the subplots adequately . i was also impressed that he didn’t go overboard with flash and style , which is something so many directors seem to be doing to classic stories these days ( such as baz luhrmann’s vicious tragedy william shakespeare’s romeo + juliet ) . this film feels solid and whole , and each scene has a certain amount of importance and vigor that keeps the audience interested . liam neeson is terrific in the main role ; neeson is the kind of actor who does solemn desperation extremely well , and valjean is certainly a man who clearly fits that adjective . thurman , in her small role , is very good , and proves that she has a lot of range and can perform in a very non-glamorous role such as this one . rush is absolutely incredible as javert ; i don’t remember ever feeling so strongly about a villain as i do here ; he adds depth and complexity with subtle glances and nuances , and effortlessly makes each of his scenes intense . i can’t be as charitable for danes , however ; though i know she is a talented actress , here she tends to overact when it might have been better to underplay the character a bit . les miserables is , as i’ve said , a solid , intelligent motion picture . my only complaint is that it feels a bit too easy , and perhaps too staged . each scene is grand and huge , and exploding with poledouris’ score , but i didn’t always want them to be . for the most part , les miserables is not a subtle or deep picture . it’s a good movie , and tells its story well , but august tends to hand-feed us themes and scenes that would have worked better had they been more subtle . however , in a film this exciting and well-produced , a few minor flaws are easily overlooked .
1 this is a stagy film adapted from roger rueff’s play ” hospitality suite . ”its about three travelling salesmen attending an industrial convention , whose chicago company has sent them to wichita , where the company has paid all their expenses for them to rent a hospitality suite on the 16th floor of the hotel , where they aim to score a substantial account from the big kahuna , someone named dick fuller , who is the head of a big industrial corporation . he is someone they have never met before , but they want to sell him industrial lubricants and they want desperately to land this new account , it is their only reason for coming to the convention . ” the big kahuna ” revels in salesmen-talk among the three white christian males , two of them , larry ( spacey ) and phil ( devito ) , who are veteran salesmen , having teamed together for the last twelve years , while bob ( facinelli ) is a young man who has just recently been hired by the firm and works in the research department . these three are virtually imprisoned in their small hospitality suite waiting to meet the big kahuna , as the focus of this claustrophobic film is on their interactions in the hospitality suite . the three salesmen have different things on their mind that is troubling them and a different attitude to their job , and they are each going through internal changes that are profoundly altering their life . the outstanding cast tries to figure out in their own way what they are doing and why . what comes into question is their opinions on life and death , on god and morality , and on how they make a living . these are tough questions and the truth seems to be somewhere in their sales pitch . their dialogue is acerbic , witty , and analytical . following in the long tradition of salesmen films — from death of a salesman , the tin men , and glengarry glen ross , as this film tries to get you to see what there is about salesmanship that gets these men high . in this case , it is landing the big kahuna . they each are trying to see why he’s on top and why they are chasing after him . what makes this film different than the others , is its blatant religious message , comparing orthodox religion to what they do , as both must sell their product . and how after each one’s psyche is stripped clean by the other , there is a pause and some lesson about life has sunk in that is pertinent to each . the goal in the movie is not in literally landing the big kahuna , but in finding out what bill of goods they sold themselves that made them be salesmen . larry and phil have one way of doing things and have no qualms of incorporating a sales pitch as part of their life . bob thinks he is above the fray and he pitches every chance he can get about his belief in jesus christ . his vacuous character and smug outlook on life are covered by a disarming smile and an eagerness for him to prove in his actions the words of jesus he literally believes in . bob is a baptist , who takes a very non-questioning and literal attitude about religion . to just look at another woman and lust after her is a sin , according to the way he reads the bible . when asked by larry why he married his wife , he seems puzzled and can’t even say because he loves her , only that marriage is something sacred to him . the contrast in their personalities is stark . larry is all business , he simply wants to close the sale . he comes into the room pumped for the convention , using his attack mode to establish how serious he is about being a salesman . he criticizes phil for being so placid , for getting such a small suite , for having the cheap food tray of carrot sticks rather than the one of stuffed shrimp , and for being burned-out . he tells him to go on a vacation . get a woman . while phil is reflective on where all his best years have gone for him and is contemplating a career change , now that he is 52 and is painfully divorcing his wife , after having lived too lonely a life on the road for too long . he now finds himself suffering from some troubling dreams and questioning what he believes in . he has always been a charmer , shaking everyone’s hand , trying to please his clients while trying to make the sale . larry is more aggressive as a salesman , he is always a heart attack away from every big sale . in contrast , bob is only in his twenties and everything seems fresh to him . this is his first time for him on the road . when dick fuller doesn’t arrive at the party the salesmen throw , larry becomes confrontational and asks phil if he spoke to the man himself about the gathering . when told that he spoke to the secretary , larry throws a tantrum and is resigned to going back to their home office without the new account . but when they start talking to bob , whom they forced to act as the bartender , they are surprised to learn that fuller did indeed come but was wearing another man’s name tag and that bob spent the entire evening consoling the tycoon over his recently deceased dog and then talking to him about jesus . bob then tells the boys about a private party fuller is attending afterwards , and that he invited bob to attend . larry and phil can’t fathom how bob didn’t make a sales pitch . but they soon take another tact and decide to prep bob on how to get fuller’s attention about their company’s product as they sent him off to meet fuller , and will await his return in the hotel room . these two sharp salesmen are reduced to waiting for this smug kid to come back and tell them he saved their ass . the irony of their situation is played out in the darkness of the hotel room , as they stay up late into the night trying to make sense out of their lives . these three performers were outstanding , each understanding what their role called for , each coming through with a marvelous performance . the only problem with the film , is that its more of a play than a cinematic experience . but the insightful dialogue and refreshing dramatics , give it an intelligent selling point and make it a good product to see .
1 the coen brothers are back again , this time with homer’s ” odyssey ” as the backdrop in their tale of three fugitives from a mississippi chain gang who trek across the south to find a secret treasure in ” o brother , where art thou ? ” right for the beginning of ” o brother ” the coens grab your attention with a chain gang of prison inmates breaking rocks along the road in unison to a work song . the camera flows around the hard toiling men , giving a visually exciting symmetry to the scene that ends with our three heroes – ulysses everett mcgill ( george clooney ) , delmar ( tim blake nelson ) and pete ( john turturro ) – escaping across a cotton field . it is the beginning of a journey that takes on different meanings and urgencies to each member of the trio . a strong suite , as always with the coen brothers , is the depth of character of the folks they create in their films . their characters are goofy and comical , like nicolas cage in ” raising arizona ” ; or , dramatic , as albert finney and john turturro in ” miller’s crossing ” ; and , even a mix of the two with frances mcdormand in ” fargo . ” in all cases , and in ” o brother , ” too , the characters populating their films are three-dimensional people . ulysses everett is a handsome , hair-obsessed petty criminal with a silver tongue and not a lot in the brains department . but , he seems like a genius when compared to the simple , sweet delmar and the maladjusted pete , who follow their self appointed leader to a promised treasure of $1 . 2 million . their odyssey takes on the mystical proportions of homer’s original material as they meet all manner of people along the way , including those dangerous sirens who beckon them onto symbolically rocky shoals and a cyclops who beats them and takes all their money . there is magic , too , when delmar believes that pete was turned into a horny toad by the sirens . the story meanders through the different vignettes of the boys’ adventures , giving the flick a choppy , episodic feel that disrupts the overall flow . some of the interludes are an epiphany , though . the trio becomes a quartet when they pick up guitar-playing tommy johnson ( chris thomas king ) and visit a radio station in the middle of nowhere , run by its blind owner ( stephen root ) . they become the soggy bottom boys for the sightless radio station man and , without their knowledge , are recorded as they sing the traditional tune , ” i am a man of constant sorrow . ” it is a wonderful moment of moviemaking and gives us , in my mind , the best movie song of the year . contrasting this and other wonderful moments ( the sexy seduction by the sirens comes to mind ) are some pretentious bits that detract from the overall quality of ” o brother . ” in particular , near the end , is a scene where ulysses , delmar and pete crash a ku klux klan rally to save tommy from being lynched . the scene is overblown and flashy and reeks of ” the wizard of oz . ” they don’t say ” lions and tigers and bears , oh my ! ” and there’s no dorothy , but it is the land of oz we’re seeing here . the highs and lows of the story flow are tempered by fine acting on several levels . george clooney is funny , charming , a little dumb and one of the handsomest actors in the business today . he has the charm of a 30’s movie idol and is able to put himself into silly situations with dignity . ulysses has an ongoing obsession with his hair , risking life and limb to get a particular brand of pomade and a supply of hairnets . his vanity will come to plague him as it would any mystical hero-wanderer . while clooney is the name draw for ” o brother , ” the show stealer is tim blake nelson as delmar . the heretofore unknown nelson is terrific as the simple convict who , at one point , hears the word of the lord and joins members of a church congregation in their mass baptism . delmar is saved and dedicates his life to doing good and provides a richness to his simple character that makes him shine . the taciturn pete , as played by longtime coen collaborator turturro , is the sullen member of the trio and gives them the necessary angst . all together , the tuneful triumvirate is a mix of the three stooges and the three musketeers as they prove to be buffoons , albeit brave ones . the colorful supporting cast is rampant with homerian characters to meet and get to know along the way of the boys’ odyssey . charles durning appears as incumbent governor pappy o’daniel , who keeps crossing paths with them in his bid for re-election . john goodman is wicked as the one-eyed bible salesman and con artist , big dan teague . michael badalucco is manic and outrageous as outlaw and bank robber extraordinary , george ” babyface ” nelson . stephen root is amusing as the blind dj , rep’ing one of the many references to the sightless that abound in the film in mystical ways . holly hunter is wasted in the small role as ulysses’ estranged wife , penny ( and the real reason for this adventure , not secret treasure ) . techs are , as expected in a coen brothers venture , first class . cinematographer roger deakins , who has worked on five previous coen films , captures the sultry atmosphere of the south . the photography complements the lush period production and costume provided by dennis gassner and mary zophres , respectively . once again , roderick jaynes – the alter ego of ethan and joel coen – is on board as editor . the high points outweigh the low through most of ” o brother , where art thou ? ” with particular praise for the wonderful selection of period and traditional music . i give it a b .
1 contact ( pg ) there’s a moment late in robert zemeckis’s contact where i was reminded of why i started writing movie reviews in the first place . we see a scientist , dressed in a silvery space suit , walking tentatively across a narrow walkway leading inside a compact , spherical space pod , unaware of what awaits when the ball literally drops . anticipation , excitement , anxiety , fear–the audience experiences it all the emotional tension right with the character , nervously , breathlessly eager to see what lies ahead . it is this sense of discovery , the anticipation of which and its accompanying exhilaration , that makes this adaptation of the carl sagan novel such magical , captivating entertainment . jodie foster stars as dr . ellie arroway , a brilliant astronomer who dedicates her entire life to searching outer space for extraterrestrial radio signals . and i mean life–after losing her entire family when she was young , the only thing occupying ellie’s world is this quest to discover life beyond this earth . after dealing with much skepticism on the part of government officials and wealthy financiers , ellie receives her vindication when she stumbles upon an incoming radio transmission from the distant star vega , which includes instructions on building an interstellar transport . from this synopsis , contact does not sound too different to most films about alien contact , but there is a whole lot more to this intelligent film than the sci-fi hook . the alien contact angle generates a great amount of suspense and awe , but perhaps more than anything else , contact is a character study of ellie , whose obsession with empirical , scientific evidence has erased all belief in a higher power . the irony is that , while admitting to having no religious faith , she holds onto her belief in extraterrestrial life with such passion and conviction that it becomes , in a sense , a religion in its own right . it would be easy for scripters james v . hart and michael goldenberg , in trying to paint a positive image of the heroine , to champion her scientific beliefs over religious ones , but they wisely eschew easy answers , giving equal time to both sides , and in so doing depict ellie as not completely sane . in the end , there is no right or wrong , nor is there one side that comes off more positive in the other , even slightly so–there are just two very viable points of view , each with their own merits , each with their own faults . the complex role of ellie is an actress’s dream , and foster , a virtual shoo-in for yet another best actress oscar nomination next year , more than rises to the challenge . she conveys intelligence , determination , warmth , and , in a gutsy move , always on edge . we root for ellie and feel for her , but we also feel at times that she goes too far . contact is clearly foster’s vehicle , but others are given their chance to shine in smaller roles . matthew mcconaughey , who receives outrageously high billing for his smallish role , holds his own as the religious counterpoint to ellie , spiritual scholar and government adviser palmer joss ( however , his main storyline , the tentative palmer-ellie romance , is the film’s weakest subplot ) . john hurt is effectively creepy as s . r . hadden , the wealthy eccentric who provides ellie with her research funding . angela bassett continues to impress in her bit role as white house aide rachel constantine . most memorable of all , though , are tom skerritt and james woods , who play rival scientist dr . david drumlin and national security adviser michael litz , respectively ; both , especially skerritt , embody these asshole characters that the audience hissed just about every single one of their appearances . zemeckis comes off of his three-year break in top shape . always known as a director of effects-laden extravaganzas , it comes as no surprise that contact’s visual effects are quite stunning . the central space journey is more than a little reminiscent of the close of 2001 : a space odyssey , but with more advanced technology at his disposal , zemeckis’s voyage is even trippier than stanley kubrick’s yet more wondrously pure . and zemeckis doesn’t resist the urge to use the always-interesting incorporate-actors-into-existing-film-footage effect , which is every bit as seamless here as it was in forrest gump . effects , however , are confined to only a few scenes and clearly take a back seat to the drama , emotion , and pure wonder , which zemeckis proved to be quite adept at in gump . it says a lot that , in a summer science fiction film such as this , it’s not so much the effects that stay with you as it is the drama and the issues that are raised . the thought-provoking , two-hour-plus contact is a much-welcome change of pace from summer no-brainers , but the fact that it is a smart film does not mean that it also isn’t entertaining . for all the interesting questions it asks , the film is still what it’s being sold as– ” a journey to the heart of the universe . ” and what a fascinating , unforgettable journey it is .
1 satirical films usually fall into one of two categories : 1 ) long-term satire where everything , including the jokes , is somehow related on a large scale ( i . e . ” dr . strangelove ” ; 2 ) situation satire in which the comedy and themes are derived moment by moment and scene by scene ( i . e . ” men in black ” ) . what’s unique about ” wag the dog ” is that it doesn’t necessarily fit either of these descriptions , and yet is both at the same time . the result is a clever comedy based on an original , smart premise , even if the focus does tend to wander a bit . if there’s anything that affects americans the most it’s politics and showbusiness . in this age of information and technology , we’ve been so conditioned by the media and the entertainment industry in our ways of perceiving things , it’s gotten to the point that we are practically controlled by it . we need the media to bring us the most up-to-date news , but we also need the escapism of hollywood to counter all that thinking . this film starts off well by quickly establishing these ideas , and then presents an interesting scenario : if politics , the media coverage of politics , and the entertainment industry are so closely related , couldn’t someone with the power and authority to manipulate one of the aspects manipulate them all ? that’s the idea conrad brean ( de niro ) , a professional washington spin doctor , comes up with in order to restore the president’s good name who has been accused of child molestation just weeks before the election . brean , along with the president’s top advisor , winifred ames ( heche ) , fly to california to meet up with hot-shot movie producer stanley motss ( hoffman ) . they pitch him an idea to ” produce ” the image of a war with albania ( it’s a country no one’s heard of so they people will buy it ) . soon the wheels are in motion and the film’s riffing satire comes into play . we’re inundated with the hollywood mind set as motss brings in a number of experts to help manage the situation , such as a folk singer , visual and sound effects technicians , and a modern style expert known as the fad king ( leary ) . the initial atmosphere is rich with numerous pop culture references where everything somehow relates to something on tv , in the movies , or in the news . the characters’ dialogue is witty and funny , although some of the actual jokes and gags seem rather sitcom-esque . for example , one scene shows motss and brean’s production crew filming an actress portraying a poor albanian refugee . motss ordered a kitten for the girl to carry , but instead wound up with a dozen different dogs . since it’s all computer-enhanced anyway , she ends up cradling a bag of tostitos with the kitten to be inserted later . this demonstrates the film’s ability to take a relatively ordinary situation and make it smart and funny just through the premise . but then there’s the gags and one-liners that , although are humorous , seem a little gratuitious in the long run such as motss not being able to remember the actress’s name , or , whenever a problem emerges , always responding with , ” this is nothing ! ” by the time the film makes it to the midpoint , everything that is going to happen in terms of plot happens . the first act is quickly paced , while the second act contains most of the jokes and is the core of the film . every ten minutes or so a new problem crops up that motss and brean must deal with , and it’s always fascinating to see what they do and how they do it . the screenplay provides good characterization and actually deals with most of the problems head-on in realistic manners . however , it does have a tendency to avoid things and shift its focus from the election campaign and false war smokescreen to something a bit off the subject . as the third act rolls around the satirical nature becomes more concerned with the situations and less so with the big picture . what had started off as a brilliant , somewhat harmless conspiracy to fool the general public begins to seem more like something that would happen in a movie . still , the situation comedy is quite funny , especially a montage showing the entire country flinging old shoes into trees to honor sgt . willie schumann – a war hero motss and brean concocted . truly great satire manages to create for an entertaining story that makes you laugh at the time , but think about afterwards and ” wag the dog ” at least succeeds in this respect . however , in retrospect it seems like so much more could have been done , namely by extending the running time and filling in the plot holes . then again , it’s a valiant effort .
1 after sixteen years francis ford copolla has again returned to his favorite project , making the third installment in the godfather-trilogy . this new film has been underrated for no reason . it is as intellectual and majestically made as copolla’s pervious films . it is also more psychological , pessimistic and more tragic than the first two . the only regret is the unconvincing performance by the newcomer sofia copolla and some ” unfinished ” developments of some characters . the film elegantly begins with nino rota’s recognizable musical score , the beautiful skyscrapers of new york and michael’s voice as he is writing a letter to his children : ” the only wealth in this world is children . more than all money and power on earth , you are my treasure ” . the year is 1979 and michael corleone has used the time since the ending of ” part ii ” to make his father’s dream come true – making the corleone family legitimate . michael sold all his casinos and invests only in gambling . constantly haunted by the past , his only reason to live is his children . the family has amassed unimaginable wealth , and as the film opens michael corleone ( al pacino ) is being invested with a great honor by the church . later that day , at a reception , his daughter announces a corleone family gift to the church and the charities of sicily , ” a check in the amount of $100 million . ” but the corleones are about to find , as others have throughout history , that you cannot buy forgiveness . sure , you can do business with evil men inside the church , for all men are fallible and capable of sin . but god does not take payoffs . the plot of the movie , concocted by coppola and mario puzo in a screenplay inspired by headlines , brings the corleone family into the inner circles of corruption in the vatican . there is a moment in ” godfather iii ” where michael says : ” all my life i have been trying to go up in society , where everything was legal . but the higher i go , the crookier it becomes . . ” . visually this film is as spectacular as the first two . gordon willis’ rich cinematography , carmine copolla’s beautiful composition and alex tavoularis’ wonderful art direction could not be better . but copolla’s first two godfather-films were more famous for their deep , intellectual plots , tree dimensional characters and incredible acting , than for their visual perfection . the third installment has only the plot and visuals . some characters could be much more developed and the acting , although good , never accomplishes to reach the same height of the first two films . the biggest miscasting is sofia copolla , who is so unconvincing and unemotional that she manages to ruin several scenes throughout the movie , that could have been grander and more emotional . the best performance comes unsurprisingly from al pacino , who should have got a nomination for best actor at the oscars . andy garcia is powerful as sonny’s son , strong , focused and loyal . violence is natural to him . he suffers no pangs of conscience when he takes revenge on his family’s behalf , and in this he is supposed to be strong in the uncomplicated way don vito corleone was . however both kay ( diane keaton ) and connie ( talia shire ) are useless . and characters like vito corleone and tom hagen are really missed . the good part is that michael is again reunited with old friends , that you remember from the first and second films . in the third film michael has become almost like his father , vito in the first film and vincenzo resembles michael when he was much younger . this parallel could be more interesting if vincenzo’s character was more developed . many have pointed out that making the third film , was unnecessary . i disagree . it is a beautiful film of great importance , completing the tragic saga of the corleone family . the first film showed some horrible results of corleone’s life . it showed michael making a choice ; the second showed a man damning himself for his choices and feeling the impact of changing times . a man desperately trying to keep his balance , focus , family and sanity , while everything is crashing all around him . the third film is a terrifying conclusion – a result of michael’s life . the life he chose for himself is like quicksand – one wrong step and you are doomed . there is no turning back . and no matter how hard you try to get out of it , to free yourself , no matter how powerful and wealthy you are , you are helpless – sinking deeper and deeper till it swallows you completely . the beautifully directed last sequence is also the powerful climax of the film , when michael is sitting alone in his chair , left by everyone , surrounded by emptiness and memories of his friends and family members long dead . here he dies – alone , miserable and unforgiven
1 bruce willis is a type-casted actor . in die hard , he played john mcclaine , a rough and tough chicago cop who gets caught in the wrong place at the wrong time . again , in pulp fiction , as butch coolidge , an over-the-hill boxer , he steps on the wrong guys toes . in luc besson’s the fifth element , willis plays korben dallas , a new york cabby who takes in the wrong passenger at the worst possible time . a stylish science fiction epic , the fifth element’s complex plot begins right away , in the deserts of egypt ( think stargate ) in 1914 . an enormous spacecraft lands above a pyramid where the ” 5 elements ” are stored and takes them away , vowing to return them when the evil comes back . cut to present day , which is our future . the year is 2023 , and new york is the city . the only basic differences between besson’s futuristic depiction and the real life new york is that the smog is thicker , the buildings are higher , and the traffic floats ! anyway , the ” evil ” comes back as a ball of fire to wreak havoc on the fair citizens of the earth , so back come the tortoise-like aliens to return the ” 5 elements ” to earth , in order to defend themselves against the ” evil . ” in the process , however , the ship is intercepted by 2 fighter pods and is destroyed before landing . when officials arrive at the site , all that remains is a hand . what can you do with a hand ? hey , its the 21st century here-dna reconstruction ! this hand turns out to belong to a beautiful , but mysterious woman named leeloo ( milla jovovich , dazed and confused ) . she escapes and , attempting to escape the police by swan diving off of an enormous skyscraper and crashing through the roof of korben’s floating cab . it’s love at first site , as korben and leeloo elude the lazy-as-always cops . when leeloo begins mumbling about a cornelius ( ian holm , night falls on manhattan ) , korben searches the ” yellow pages ” and delivers her to the door of the good reverend , the only man who knows of her background and duties . now , korben , leeloo , and cornelius must journey to a foreign planet to board a cruise ship ( special effects were spectacular here ) to find the remaining four elements . it is here , where they discover that they have been followed by the evil jean-baptiste emmanuel zorg ( gary oldman , murder in the first ) . he , too , wants possession of the elements , as do a group of pig-like warriors ( think the gamorreans in return of the jedi ) . in a spectacular ending , with time running out , leeloo is faced with a problem-why should she save a people who live to destroy each other ? the question is a good one , and one that could be pondered . but enough of that . when korben points out his love for her , leeloo is inclined to become the ” 5th element ” and save the world from total destruction . the fifth element features good performances by willis and holm , an excellent portrayal of a comedic villain ( who reminded me a lot of jack nicholson’s the joker in batman ) by one of the masters of villainy , oldman , and a heartfelt offering by relative newcomer jovovich . the supporting cast , which includes brion james ( tango & cash ) , tim ” tiny ” lester ( no holds barred ) , luke perry ( buffy the vampire slayer ) , and chris tucker ( friday ) , added a comedic effect to the film . although besson’s the fifth element can be criticized for the outlandish use of cliches , it is a solid motion picture with a definite point . some other directors ( like anaconda’s luis llosa ) should take a lesson from this guy-using ideas from epic motion pictures the right way . ideas from star wars and stargate were utilized for the improvement of this film . sci-fi fan or not , any movie-lover should see this wonderfully stylish motion picture . ,
1 there must be some unwritten rule that states , one gets enlightenment not in the way one expects to get enlightenment but in the commitment given to seeking wisdom , even if it is a foolish road one is on and it seems to be leading nowhere . in the exotic morocco of 1972 , a 25-year-old english hippie mother , julia ( winslet ) , of two sweet young girls , the 6-year-old lucy ( carrie ) and the 8-year-old bea ( bella ) , has arrived for a year’s stay , with the self-absorbed mother oblivious to how her daughters might be adjusting to this foreign experience while she is searching for a change of life from her unfaithful poet husband ( she is not officially married to him ) and her cold one-room london flat , and is sort of looking for the eternal truth in the sunny climate of marrakech . at least she says she is , as she is making some attempt to contact a sufi sheikh there who has all the answers . she has not planned things out too carefully , having no money , and the trip doesn’t seem like it’s much fun , more like a misadventure , with some romance with a local moroccan thrown in . drugs , a world-wide youthful phenomena during this period , where many westerners came to morocco to smoke the good hashish found there and to live the ‘good life’ cheaply , and to be in a spot where they did not have to worry about being hassled by the local authorities , even though drugs are illegal there . but this is not shown as one of her reasons for being here . in this film , the subject of drugs is never broached , only hinted at in an off-handed but slurring way , as the hippie commune is shown in a negative light , strumming on their guitars and bragging about the hits of acid they have taken . even the ones coming here for spiritual reasons , to follow the mystical sufis , seem lost following a culture that is far different from where they were coming from . the film is based on the novel that contained the autobiographical experiences of sigmund freud’s grand-daughter , esther freud , who traveled here in the 1960s with her mother and sister . it is written by the director’s brother , who has previously directed regeneration , the playboys , and trojan eddie . the title of the film comes from the squealing giggles that saying hideous kinky gives the little girls . with julia strapped for cash and not receiving a needed check her husband often forgets to send her , she is prevented from seeing the greatest living sufi who is located in algeria ; so instead , she meets an acrobat street performer in the bazaar , bilal ( said taghmaoui ) . he becomes her lover , taking the place of her husband as a father figure for the girls . the girls readily accept him , and there is no big-to-do made about their openly sexual relationship , but the girls really don’t know what to make of the relationship . it especially bothers bea , who is embarrassed by her mother’s loose attitude and wants to go home . things go surprisingly sour when bilal takes them to stay in his small village . it seems only that bilal’s charm is matched by his shiftlessness , as he has a wife who still lives there . this scene didn’t make too much sense as to why he would take them there knowing the situation , unless the uneducated man was totally uneducated in the customs of his people , also . but i doubt that . the family is now stuck without money in a backward area trying to decide what to do next , as they hitch a ride away from there with a truck driver who nearly kills them when he falls asleep by the wheel . lucy takes it all in stride and has a good disposition for travel , while bea just wants to go to a school and learn something and be a ‘normal’ girl . the beauty of marrakech is matched by the terrific performance of kate winslet , as the film accurately encapsulates the timeless city and its bustling street scenes , expansive views , illustrious mosques , and grand sunsets . kate enacts the feel of what it was like to be a westerner , living out the countercultural experiences while awaiting to gather her sensibilities again and was fortunate enough to be able to go home the better off for her experiences , as many a drop-out reluctantly had to do after their stay ran out of money and purpose . the background music from groups like america and jefferson airplane , provided further nostalgia for this easy to look at and easy to grasp film . the only hope was that the two innocent girls would not be permanently harmed while on this sojourn , a venture that should be reserved only for those of college age or older who choose to go there for themselves . the family’s travel , which is on the edge , has julia waking up screaming from dreams that are bleakly haunting ; but , when she gets up , all there is , is this splendid emptiness all around her and a vacuous life that is starting to bother her . that marrakech is disarmingly gorgeous and that london is old hat to her , is starting to wear thin in her thoughts . it will dawn on her , when bea takes ill , as she reflects on what the sufi guru tells her , whom she finally meets and is driven to tears in his presence . he is the guru who replaced the one she wanted to see but who died before she got a chance to see him . the new guru is grounded in reality , something she is not grounded in , and seems to tell her what she couldn’t comprehend from anyone else , even comforting her , by telling her that her tears are memories- a gift from god . the film’s weakness was the empty feeling i got from watching the story unfold in its risk free tenor ( she was there basically to be just escaping from her situation ) and how unappealing the love affair seemed between bilal and julia . the storyline about a helpless single parent , detracted from the vibrant experiences many others of her same baby-boom generation had during their trip to morocco , who were taken in by the mystical culture of sufism , a teaching that has a lot to offer its followers , contrary to the impression the film might give , seemed to pass her by . her knowledge of that trip is only surface deep , at best . she perhaps would have been better off not taking the kids along , smoking some hashish , and have been less assured of herself but to have behaved more like a hippie and she wouldn’t have been so uptight all the time and had some fun on her journey . after all , the mystical trip is the journey . the film’s strength is in how all the characters are shown for what they are , and no one is that good or that bad , or judged too harshly for their shortcomings . bilal is unreliable but is capable of generosity . the little girls are precocious but they are lovable . julia , the cornerstone the film is built on , is a mother who cares about the children but doesn’t know how to take care of them without unintentionally harming them . she was trying to escape from reality and that by returning to london , she has another chance to see if she can find the key to this world or whatever world she is looking for and should no longer have nightmares about where she’s at . this is a very freudian way to look at things , as this sudden realization , that things are not right puts an an end to her eastern hippie odyssey , at least , for the time being . and , after all is said and done , who’s to say if the children are also not better off for surviving their experiences , just like she probably was !
1 did claus von bulow try to kill his wife sunny in their newport mansion ? that is the question reversal of fortune asks you to consider as it opens in a hospital ward , with a comatose sunny von bulow . she is the main narrator of the film , in a narrative trick that was extraordinarily risky for schroeder . the dramatic trick works , as sunny von bulow narrates a compelling story of murder , sex , unhappiness , and a lawyer’s moral dilemma as he takes a case he thinks he cannot win . jeremy irons is claus von bulow , in what is his finest role , and one of the most devastingly evil performances in history . he is as hated as any man alive , as cold as a cucumber . his remorse for his wife’s comatose condition is nonexistant , and it is no wonder that even his children have difficulty accepting his version of what happened during christmas , 1980 . the background to the case is such . during christmas of 1979 , sunny von bulow fell into a deep coma from which she recovered and awoke . the same situation occured in 1980 , only sunny never woke , and probably never will . when examined , it was found that she had 14 times the normal amount of insulin within her blood . claus von bulow is then accused of attempted murder by his stepson , convicted , and freed on bail . he immediately hires alan dershowitz , the renowed harvard law professor , to acquit him . ron silver is magnificent as a moral lawyer who cannot stand what has happened to him . we follow him through two very different cases ; the case of the johnson case , where two innocent kids are standing on death row for a crime they didn’t commit , and von bulow , who he still hasn’t figured out . dershowitz doesn’t know what happened to sunny , and he is extremely hesitant to take the case . nevertheless , he does , based on certain things which happen during the investigative process that deeply upset him . together with a group of law students , dershowitz concocts a defense and ultimately get the verdict reversed . silver’s performance is one of a handful of solid roles in this deep film . schroeder directs on many different levels , with multiple plot lines which blend in wonderfully in the mind of alan dershowitz . there are flaws ; at times , the film gets overly theatrical . yet , due to glenn close’s troubled and brutally honest performance as sunny von bulow , the use of her comatose body as a narrator works here fairly well . the flashbacks are good , but at times schroeder doesn’t fill in the blanks . the movie could have benefited with the increased attention of certain developments during the film , and it could have used a better ending . the film progressed wonderfully before ending suddenly , without any intelligent conclusion . the supporting characters are often neglected , and dershowitz’s team should have been allowed to grow character wise , but schroeder over-simplifies the story and the characters . yet , for all these flaws , the film is deeply engrossing because of irons . as von bulow , he is brutally evil . anti-semitic , prejudiced , arrogant , protective , he is a rotten , lying monster , whose conviction may have been wrong legally , but morally he was to blame . irons plays him to a cold perfection , with pathetic attempts to gain moral support for his claims to innocence . he is an adulterous liar and a cheat who in all likelihood committed the murder . however , the genius of reversal of fortune comes in its distinction between moral culpability and legal responsibility . there is no doubt von bulow is responsible for his wife’s death by years of neglect and coldness . however , legally , did he do the murder ? schroeder dares the viewer to make up his own mind . with all the character flaws , reversal of fortune is an engrossing puzzle because it is intelligent ; he wants the viewer to make up his own mind . schroeder taunts the viewer with contradictory revelations , and then mentions that the answer to this compelling puzzle shall be revealed when we join sunny von bulow , in death . for all the failed dramatic theatrics , this is one that works beautifully . we don’t know what happened . that sense of legal ambiguousness , along with von bulow’s obvious moral guilt , is why reversalf fortune works . in the end , von bulow is as sadistic as ever . irons is haunting , and that is why reversal of fortune is so good .
1 driving miss daisy takes its sweet time to tell a small , intimate story . it’s a quiet film , a slow film , a deliberate film . but if you’re patient with it , the movie offers innumerable rewards , such as a pair of self-assured performances by morgan freeman and jessica tandy . driving miss daisy is based on alfred uhry’s pulitzer-prize winning play of the same name , which first opened in new york four years ago . the play has garnered international acclaim with productions in chicago , los angeles , london , vienna , norway , and the soviet union . uhry himself wrote the screenplay for the film adaptation of driving miss daisy ; he also penned the wonderful sleeper , mystic pizza . the film , like the play , is set in atlanta , georgia , and it revolves around two people in their twilight years : a cranky , 70-something jewish widow who feels guilty about her wealth and a 60-something black man who becomes her chauffeur . the movie relies on character , rather than plot , to propel the action . in fact , the movie has no discernible plot in the traditional sense ; it doesn’t present a linear story in which all the scenes flow together . rather , driving miss daisy is made up of the routine activities of everyday life : shopping , listening to the radio , visiting the cemetery , eating fried chicken , and so on . the film also incorporates into the story line actual events in atlanta’s history , including the 1958 bombing of the temple ( the city’s oldest jewish congregation ) and a 1965 ceremony honoring the reverend dr . martin luther king , jr . the story begins in 1948 with daisy ( tandy ) crashing and wrecking her packard as she pulls out of her driveway . the insurance company cancels her insurance , and her son , boolie , decides to hire her a chauffeur . freeman , reprising his role from the play , plays the chauffeur , hoke . the film chronicles the warm friendship that slowly but surely blossoms between the chauffeur and his reluctant passenger . driving miss daisy is a movie about human nature , aging , prejudice , and a great many other things , but more than anything it’s about a relationship : one that spans 25 years , 4 cars , the advent of civil rights , and one gravely important 33 cent can of salmon . daisy is strong-willed and set in her ways , and , from the outset , she is utterly opposed to the idea of having a chauffeur . initially , she treats hoke with contempt , refusing to let him drive her anywhere . once she does get in the car , daisy is the ultimate back-seat driver . to make matters worse , she is extremely self-conscious about what others might think if they were to see her being escorted around town by a hired hand . eventually , however , daisy is worn down by hoke’s good-natured charm and infectious cheer ; she softens and opens up to him . tandy plays the part of daisy exceedingly well , but unfortunately this feisty , cantankerous character is just a smidgen too commonplace . we’ve seen this woman countless times before in other incarnations , from on golden pond to cocoon . nevertheless , tandy manages to put enough of a personal stamp on the familiar character to make it her own . freeman , as hoke , on the other hand , gives the more distinctive of the two performances . there is something profoundly moving about the way hoke maintains his pride and dignity in a society which forbids him from using public rest rooms because of his skin color . hoke is uneducated and illiterate , but freeman always suggests that there is something more to this man , an inner strength beneath the simpleton exterior . both freeman and tandy seem to be in their element , in full command of their natural charisma . they flirt with the camera and dominate scenes without overtly calling attention to themselves . they bring a light touch to their humorous banter and to the movie’s gentle humor . at the same time , tandy and freeman provide more than a few moments of truly poignant drama . in his first dramatic role , dan aykroyd is surprisingly chubby and unexpectedly effective as boolie , tandy’s loving and patient son . drama seems to agree with aykroyd ; taking a break from comedy seems like a good move for the actor , especially when you consider the wretched comedies he has made recently ( ghostbusters ii , the great outdoors , my stepmother is an alien ) . the only other significant characters in the film are daisy’s housekeeper , idella , marvelously played by esther rolle ( ” good times ” ) , and boolie’s pretentious wife , played by patti lupone . under the direction of bruce beresford ( crimes of the heart , tender mercies ) , driving miss daisy seems a bit stagey now and again . but fortunately , beresford never forgets he’s shooting a movie , and accordingly , he offers plenty of striking cinematic touches , such as gorgeous shots of flowers , trees , and tomatoes . in adapting driving miss daisy from the stage to the screen , the filmmakers have achieved a delicate subtlety . uhry understands that what his characters do not say can be just as important as what they do say . beresford wisely exercises restraint in the film’s dramatic moments . the movie tugs at your heart , but it never goes for the jugular . the only sap in driving miss daisy is in the trees .
1 when people are talking about good old times , they actually want to make some bad times look better . nice example of such behaviour is contemporary attitude of popular media towards the 1970s . for new generations , superseventies are the lost golden age of chic fashion , cult tv shows and sexual freedom unchecked by aids . for people who actually had to live in that period , it was the gloomy decade , marked by lost ideals of 1968 , rampant inflation and unemployment , international terrorism , fuel crisis and loss of faith in almost anything that previous generation stood for . feelings of despair and nihilism found its reflections in many films of that era . martin scorsese’s taxi driver , which symbolises both the glory and despair of the seventies , is most celebrated of them all . the movie’s protagonist is travis bickle ( robert de niro ) , 26-year old former marine who takes the job of taxi driver in new york city because he can’t sleep at nights . the job gets him exposed to the dark side of apocalyptic megalopolis , and travis gradually gets alienated from the rest of world . the only bright spot in his life is betsy ( cybil sheperd ) , attractive woman working in senator palantine’s presidential campaign . their date ends as humiliating fiasco because travis makes fatal mistake by inviting her to porno movie theatre . losing his only link to better side of the world , travis gradually descends into psychosis , becoming convinced that his mission in life is to battle scum on the street . he purchases a formidable arsenal of guns and begins physical preparations for the inevitable conflict . that conflict finally comes when he takes personal interest in iris ( jodie foster ) , 12-year old prostitute who temporarily took refuge in his taxi . as many great movies that got cult status through the years , taxi driver became the object of many interpretations . for some critics and scholars it is an exploration of universal subjects that date back to dostoyevski – loss of moral compass in a bleak reality of dirty , overpopulated industrial cities ; the story could have been set in 19th century same as in our times . for others , the movie uses raskolnikov-like figure in order to portray burning problems of 1970s america – its apparent inability to deal with the consequences of rapid social changes that occurred in previous decade . brilliant performance of robert de niro in role of a lifetime can give arguments for both sides . his travis bickle has a lot in common with most of the average viewers of today – many of us share his feelings of isolation , loneliness and outrage towards crime , drugs , prostitution and senseless street violence . his pathetic attempts to establish some kind of human connection with the people around him , sometimes in most unusual circumstances – like with secret service agents , pimps or job interviewers – make him a person too goofy to be the hero , and too pathetic to be the classic villain . however , most of the average viewers are sensible enough to recognise the tin line that separate concerned citizens or troubled souls from fanatical madmen . but despite anything , average viewer at the end actually cheers for travis – his crusade against ” scum ” is something that average person wants , but doesn’t have a stomach/lack of brains to do it . while de niro’s travis might come in and out of particular times and places , other persons that appear in the film ( mostly played by the character actors ) give it distinctively 1970s feel . wizzard ( played by peter boyle ) presents the only link with america’s better past ; but only because he is the oldest taxi driver in company and therefore everybody assumes that he ” knows stuff ” . his obvious inadequacy in giving advice to troubled travis illustrates the inability of pre-1960s generations to find answers to the problems of gloomy decade . other characters , on the other hand , show the bad side of new age . matthew ” sport ” ( keitel , who befriended real-life pimps in other to prepare for his role of a lifetime ) is dressed like a hippie ; iris found excuse for her escape to the world of drugs and child prostitution in a ideology of counterculture . porno movies , that should be the element of new times of sexual freedom , are too much even for supposedly ” liberated ” betsy . even the politicians , like senator palantine , are lost in post-vietnam and post-watergate mess ; his broad and senseless ” messages ” that cover the lack of any serious program can’t fool even such idiots like travis . the past is gone , the present is bad , and even the future seems bleak , and the feeling of pessimism can’t be washed away even by ironic happy end . travis and his world found themselves in a desperate situation , and martin scorsese uses the best of his cinematic skills in order to spill the gloom of schrader’s screenplay into the silver screen . new york city in the night is portrayed as a hell on earth , and the red light and steam coming out of sewers give it surreal , almost stygian atmosphere . another important element of the atmosphere is score of great bernard herrman , whose efficient use of jazz elements gives some melancholy that softens the brutality of motion picture . one of the greatest ironies of taxi driver is the fact that the movie was , same as his protagonist , famous for the wrong reason . instead of receiving cult status because of his artistic merits , for many years it was tabloid-fodder because of hinckley and his real-life re-enactment of events in the movie . now , more than two decades later , when some other ” life imitating art ” incidents get more attention , we can finally enjoy taxi driver in all its artistic glory .
1 note : ordinarily , moviereviews . org will not give away any critical plot points of a film that could be interpreted as ” spoilers . ” however , being that music of the heart is based on a true story and that moviereviews . org feels the film can not be properly credited without such revelations , plot giveaways will appear in the following review . if this bothers you , please note the 3 star rating of the film and stop reading now . ” what does it take to play carnegie hall ? practice . ” it takes two hours for music of the heart to ” play carnegie hall , ” both figuratively and literally . like the children it portrays , the movie starts from the dark realms of awful cinema and works its way up to a show-stopping performance at the legendary concert hall . roberta guaspari ( academy award winner meryl streep ) has two kids , a husband who left her and 50 violins she bought from a small shop in the mediterranean . her life desperately needs a jump start and gets one when she meets a man who introduces her to a job as a music teacher at an east harlem elementary school . she soon finds her job is on the rocks as the men in her life continue to rotate through revolving doors . that is the pattern-like plot of this production . ultimately , the film chooses a zero-sum answer to these problems and finds her music career at an all-time high when the men in her life finally vanish . the first hour of music of the heart is rather painful . roberta’s character lacks development and consequently seems to be flat . also lacking depth is the film’s ” bad guy , ” a narrow-minded music teacher ( josh pais ) who rejects roberta out of principle ( the movie never explains exactly which principle that is ) and conveniently comes and goes from the plot according to when it might be dramatic to have a villain around . the next 15 minutes of the film are mediocre . they are highlighted by one child’s return to roberta’s class ( coming after the great old hollywood scene where he explains be can’t be around anymore because ” my mom said . . . ” ) and a glowing concert . not knowing the running time , you may expect the credits to role at this point . but they don’t . instead the film uses the next 45 minutes to finish its journey from bad to mediocre to excellent . director wes craven , known for his works of horror , uses some old sentimental tricks to get the audience tearing . one romantic break up scene is highlighted by the classic ” but . . . last night . . . ” and roberta’s two children also have textbook conflicts with their single mother regarding their father’s absence . the city of harlem plays a strong role in the movie . roberta’s mother is initially reluctant to see her daughter move to that part of town and the film does nothing to combat that stereotype . the noise tracks for these scenes are dominated by sirens ; predictably one of roberta’s students is gunned down and killed off screen . one thing the film does lack is subtlety . the fact that a little boy was playing ” we shall overcome ” on his violin after the aforementioned shooting was a cute and discreet reference . the fact that the entire orchestra begins to play it over and over soon after is an overdone reference that shows how little credit he gives the audience . ( of course , in horror films the foreshadowing and between-the-line moments are meant to be overdone , so perhaps he too is just learning to play the game . ) even with all its flaws , music of the heart is a beautiful film . that is not an excuse for the movie’s poor beginning . but as i watched the scenes in carnegie hall , i thought of some of the great acts that have taken that stage . in december of 1979 a comedian named andy kaufman put on a show that will forever be remembered as one of the most original in theatre history . the performance included a dead-on elvis impression , robin williams in disguise and a moment at the end when kaufman announced he would take the whole audience out for milk and cookies . so , how did this comic genius choose to open the show of his life ? he had a character named tony clifton take the stage for the sole purpose of irritating and angering the audience . perhaps it is okay for music of the heart to start off rusty because just as kaufman had santa’s favorite food , this movie has an amazing finale .
1 seen april 16 , 1999 at 10 p . m . at crossgates cinema 18 ( guilderland , n . y . ) , theater #15 , by myself for free using my hoyts’ critic’s pass . [theater rating : * * * 1/2 : very good seats , sound and picture] do you realize that every time you encounter a new person you’ve just become part of a story ? everyone has their own life story , both past and present , and every time two or more interact , they become part of each others’ story ( not necessarily an important or even significant part , but a part nevertheless ) . that seems to be the basic theory behind `go , ‘ where several characters’ chance encounters all effect each other in extreme ways . in order to test this theory screenwriter john august and director doug liman assemble a cast of characters that wouldn’t usually be the types to have an entire film revolve around them , such as a teenage supermarket cashier , a bottom-of-the-drug-food-chain dealer and two struggling soap opera actors . these types of characters might not sound all that original , but consider that they will all be somehow effected by a strip club bouncer and his psychotic father , a mid-level drug dealer , a narc obsessed with multi-level-marketing , horny wedding guests , a zen lovemaker , two shrimp-scarfers and a cute normal teenage girl to round things out . how they will all come together is the process the film deals with . i’d imagine the concept to the film started out as the creators’ testing themselves to see if they could actually pull it off and the outcome is a terrific achievement in filmmaking and the craft of fiction in general . the film starts out as anything else , with little indication of what’s to come . we meet ronna ( polley ) , a depressed los angeles checkout girl who doesn’t seem to have much desire to do anything except work just to pay her rent . she’s not very charming , especially to her customers , but this is played mostly for laughs rather than characterization and it works . maybe this is because she’s not a very afeminite character , but she’s far from masculine – a creative character indeed . things start to progress when ronna reluctantly agrees to take the hours of the goofy , hyperactive , yet likable simon ( askew ) , an english teen into vices for the sake of the experiences . this agreement starts a three-pronged storyline as it allows simon to go to las vegas for the weekend with his friends and in turn drags ronna and her friends into buying and selling an experimental drug . the process of which will not only bring ronna close to being arrested but also to death . nearly the same can be said for two other characters , zack ( mohr ) and adam ( wolf ) , who we don’t think much of when they first appear as supporting characters , but later will become major players to the film’s makeup – another process used by the filmmakers to elaborate on the theory of how significant insignificant interaction might be . once the pace is picked up the film really begins to show its mettle . when the title screen `ronna’ is flashed shortly after the aforementioned turning point scene , it’s clear this film isn’t going to employ the standard linear method of storytelling . considering how good it is up until that point , it’s a long overdue change of pace needed in movies today . and so the film begins to take shape , first by following ronna and her friends on a one-night adventure that begins with a drug deal instigated by zack and adam ( who were actually looking for simon ) , which doesn’t exactly go as planned , but that’s what keeps it all so interesting . the second storyline starts at the same moment as ronna’s story , but this time the camera chooses to follow simon instead . simon and his three friends head to ? vegas for a night on the town and in the process experience things they never would have imagined . the third arc , about zack and adam , again overlaps with ronna’s story telling much of the same story but from a completely different angle . we’re shown things we never would have expected were going on while following ronna . and many of the events that do happen to ronna because of zack and adam aren’t even their fault – they just happened to be where they were when they were . i’d really like to dissect each of the three storylines and especially how the film wraps up in the end , but that would take up too much time and space and spoil everything for those who haven’t seen the film . perhaps the greatest element to the film is its constant surprises and unpredictability , and not due to plot twists or a confusing screenplay , just through great filmmaking . still , i can list and analyze nearly everything the film does so well : ? direction : trying to piece together such a complex story is no easy task and for a rookie filmmaker such as liman , it’s a great accomplishment . he doesn’t just depict a story , he wraps us up in it all , pulling us into the fray so that we experience every high and low . ? screenplay : besides being chiseled with detail and creative in general , it’s clear the script has been inspired by many sources , with both obvious and subtle references , yet it never screams `rip-off . ‘ ? tone/mood : where other hollywood films have failed to bring the charm of the independents to the mainstream , this one is able to create its own sense of the macabre . it’s not overly-dark or twisted and the comedy isn’t so satirical for it to be considered a black comedy , more like `macabre light . ‘ ? cinematography/art direction : able to photograph both the intense and the lighthearted in the same manner . ? characterization : for nearly every character introduced , no matter what role they play in the big picture , we’re able to get a sense of who they are , what they’re thinking and how they came to be in their situations . even when their actions are surprising , it never seems very out of synch . ? performances : every actor nails their role ( see above ) . ? theme/theory : the film doesn’t seem to be concerned with conveying any kind of political or social messages , instead , it’s more of a philosophical experiment . in fact , it might not have meant to do that intentionally , but there definitely is something existential to it all . . . . and to think that `go’ is just a big comedy and adventure ! ( 4/23/99 ) [see also : `the big lebowski , ‘ `clerks , ‘ `jackie brown , ‘ `pulp fiction , ‘ `true romance ; ‘ also by liman : `swingers’]
1 mars attacks ! ( 1996 ) – c : jack nicholson , glenn close , annette bening , martin short , danny devito , rod steiger , pierce brosnan , sarah jessica parker , michael j . fox , jim brown , pam grier , joe don baker , natalie portman , christina applegate , lisa marie , tom jones . this is director tim burton’s finest film to date . many will compare this tale of martians who invade earth to independence day , but even though the stories are similar , they really are two distinctly different films . however as a whole , mars attacks is much more entertaining than id4 , and i loved id4 . you really have to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy this film . it is completely wacked-out and unlike anything you’ve ever seen . once the silly tone of the film is set , it’s easy to just sit back and throw logic out the window because logic and comedy just don’t mix . the plot is simple : martians invade the earth . but it’s different than any other invasion film . usually it’s the evil aliens versus the heroic humans . this time however , it’s the goofy aliens versus the equally goofy humans . the martians , who are all computer generated , are just about the funniest things i’ve seen in a long time . they look funny , they move funny , and their ” language ” is hilarious . and about the special effects . the effects in mars attacks ! are just about the most flawless ones i’ve seen to date . the computer animation of the martians combined with the goofy personalities they are given makes them seem 100% real . there are just a couple of scenes that don’t work , mainly those involving sarah jessica parker and pierce brosnan on board an alien ship . also , glenn close overacts tremendously in her ( thankfully ) very limited screen time , so much so that i actually applauded silently when her character meets her demise . but there are many big laughs in the film , as i said , if you are in the right mood . could it have been funnier ? certainly . was it funny enough ? yes . was i entertained ? absolutely . on a personal note , i’d like to thank whomever cast rod steiger ( my favorite actor ) in the film as war-crazy general decker . finally , after many very small parts in direct to video garbage and minor tv roles , steiger is back on the big screen in a real movie that many people will see . while he’s not given the type of role that you can give a real ” performance ” in , he does the job well and has some good lines of dialogue . the preview audience i saw the film with really seemed to enjoy him .
1 when i was asked to see this movie with a friend , my initial reaction was ? not hugh grant ! ‘ i was perhaps wrong to be so harsh , but after his insidious flirtation with a street hooker , i just could not picture him in any romantic lead . what makes this movie a wonderful experience is not the fact it stars hugh , but because it stars julia and carries with it a brilliantly written script . this writer richard curtis , whose exceptional first work ? four weddings and funeral’ shows us that he is a master in the domain of the romantic comedy , with splashes of drama thrown in between . hugh and his hair , is almost identical to the character that made him famous in ? four weddings’ . he plays an ordinary guy who is down and out on his luck . unfortunately , he is type cast in this role , but fortunately it works well for him in this movie . if only he would dither a little less . julia knows this role well . the glamorous movie star who is searching for true love . there are moments in this movie , that you almost weep for her pain felt loneliness . how sad it must be to be so wealthy and beautiful , but to have no one to share it with . the writer deals with difficult issues of love and social class on various levels . how differences in social standing can make it almost impossible for love to grow in such a harsh environment . how the media can be as cruel as it can be attentive , and how fulfilment in life and love can be found in forgiveness and sacrifice .
1 you’d think it would be easy to spoof star trek , but try spoofing it without cruelly mocking it . that’s a bit more difficult . the farfetched sci-fi series is , after all , enormously popular , what with its gigantic fan base and ongoing installments both on television and in movies . if you’re not nice to it , you lose . galaxy quest is to star trek what mel brooks’s spaceballs was to star wars , an affectionate , riotously funny parody that freely takes jabs at various elements of its subject but never seems mean-spirited or malintentioned . ” the show’s been cancelled , but the journey is far from over . ” that is the current tagline of ” galaxy quest , ” a star trek – type show that’s no longer produced but lives on forever in reruns . it also lives on in conventions , gatherings of the show’s obsessive fans who never fail to dress in ” galaxy quest ” costumes and ask absurdly logical questions about its delirious technobabble . jason nesmith ( tim allen ) played ” commander peter quincy taggart ” on the show and is the only one of the cast who still gets excited about the gigs they have to do . the attitudes of the rest — tommy webber ( daryl mitchell , gwen demarco ( sigourney weaver ) , fred kwan ( tony shalhoub ) and alexander dane ( alan rickman ) — range from indifference to utter contempt . dane , who played a spock-like alien , is especially disgusted , considering himself above his demeaning job and stubbornly refusing to recite his character’s cheesy trademark line ” by grabthar’s hammer , you shall be avenged ” ( or something like that ) for his die-hard fans . one day , nesmith is greeted by an especially fanatical group of ” galaxy quest ” followers . they are actually aliens from a planet known as thermia . they have mistaken the ” galaxy quest ” episodes for historical documentation of actual heroic space travel . the next day , the thermians whisk nesmith away to a spaceship to help them defeat the evil sarris ( named , in one of the film’s only mean-spirited gags , after village voice film critic andrew sarris ) . nesmith thinks it is only an elaborate gig , and sort of blows it off , but when he is transported — or i should say shot — back to earth in a rather celestial manner , he believes . next thing the cast knows , they are being dragged by nesmith to this spaceship . of course , they all think he is out of his mind and once he does convince them that there really is a spaceship , what they want to do is get out of there as fast as the transporters will take them . but after some persuading , they stay on to fight the icky sarris and find a way to provide a peaceful existance for the flailing thermians . i was quite surprised how well this comedy , which came off as utterly brainless from its marketing campaign , worked . taking shots at both the obvious and not-so-obvious elements of star trek and its fandom , galaxy quest never goes for cheap laughs , opting instead for broad but smart parody . nothing is safe — not the cliches , not the fans , not the absurd taglines — but on the other hand , everything is safe , since galaxy quest treats its subject with utter respect and sometimes even subtle admiration . the highlight of the movie is tony shalhoub’s fred a . k . a . tech sergeant chen who , when in character , is the complete opposite of scotty from the original star trek . while scotty , who was the technician for the enterprise would constantly yell ” i need more power down here captain ! ” , chen’s cry for help is more to the tune of ” the core , like , won’t take it or something . ” it’s a hoot , but it doesn’t stop there : weaver , whose character has the menial task of repeating everything the computer says and rickman , with his relentlessly holier-than-thou attitude aren’t far behind . galaxy quest succeeds as a funny parody of star trek and while it’s not a masterpiece — it tends to falter in its more serious moments — it is immensely entertaining fluff and excellent counterprogramming to all the sober oscar contenders being released this holiday season . by grabthar’s hammer , this is a hell of a movie .
1 in my review of there’s something about mary , i said something to the effect of ” laughter isn’t everything . ” i now need to make a brief addendum to my postulate : laughter isn’t everything , unless i’m watching a jim abrahams film . see , spoofs are easy with me . i love movies , and i love movies that make fun of movies that i love . sometimes i’m the only one in the theater laughing . sometimes i laugh so hard that i embarass myself because my laugh is so high-pitched in comparison to my speaking voice ( it cuts right through everyone else’s laughter ) . sometimes i laugh so much that my cheekbones are sore by the end of the film . abraham’s latest film , mafia ! , induced this kind of hysteria upon me . it’s gotten some mediocre reviews , but , hey , i’m the guy who laughs at everything . there may be a lot of jokes that flop in this film , but there are far more that work , and i laughed so frequently that the failed jokes usually occurred as i was recovering from the previous bout of giddy madness . i enjoy films like this because not one second of it is serious or thought-provoking . most lighweight films that pose as comedies try to do other things , like develop characters , shape stories , and other such nonsense . mafia ! has no pretentions about characters or story , and it exists for no other reason than to make people laugh . the film begins on the perfect high note , with a mockery of the opening of casino . our hero ( jay mohr ) is seen walking from a casino and getting into his car , which subsequently explodes and sends him flying through the air against a backdrop of flowing fire . to describe the story of mafia ! is absurd and pointless , but i will mention that it basically follows the framework of the godfather films , with a lot of casino references inserted throughout . along the way , the parodies seem arbitrary , and rarely victimize mob films : pictures like the english patient , forrest gump , and jaws undergo severe and hilarious bashing . movies like this rely on just a few things , but the most important element is direction . abrahams has been down this path many times before ( hot shots ! , top secret ! , airplane ! , and any other film with an exclamation point in the title ) , and so i hold most of the success of mafia ! to his experience . he takes just the right attitude in each scene , and manages to wring at least a bit laughter out of even the most oddly placed references ( one inexplicable moment seems like it wants to make fun of titanic , but it never develops ) . the actors are all energetic , which helps a lot with the tone of the film . mohr ( suicide kings , paulie ) , who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors , is so good here . he looks like he’s having so much fun that he’s containing his laughter in every scene ( watch his face in the sequence by the swimming pool ) . he’s probably the only performer in the cast who manages to urge laughter without the help of the material . lloyd bridges does a decent imitation of brando’s godfather , while pamela gidley is dead-on in a full-blown mockery of sharon stone . the hard thing about writing reviews for comedies is that i’m supposed to give examples of things and be specific . unfortunately , i was so constantly blindsided by laughter during mafia ! that i can’t remember a lot of what made me laugh . but that’s a good sign : mafia ! is so funny that i wasn’t even given time to apply any of the scenes to memory . i laughed so hard that it shut off my brain . i know that doesn’t sound particularly complimentary , but when watching a dumb comedy like this , the first thing i want to do is shut off my brain . finally , a film that does this for me .
1 showgirls is the second major outing for the production team of pual verhoeven , director , and joe eszterhas , writer . their last effort , basic instinct , played like the most sumptuous of classic hitchcock , with a dash of raw sex and sensuality that made it come across with a hit like curry-spiced tabasco sauce ; a dish not to everyone’s taste , but certainly a well-crafted movie . possibly that movie’s greatest strength was that the most important events happened offstage , prior to the movie , during the movie , and after the movie . . . and that , after bringing all the plotlines together neatly , it left the viewer with full knowledge of what * would * happen in the characters’ future , so there was no need to film it . there was actually about four hours’ worth of screen story there , but eszterhas found ways to get it all on-screen in two , by leading his audience into analyzing what was really going on ; and by still holding their interest with clever misdirection and false trails . the major elements that made basic instinct work so well are present in showgirls . we have attractive , sympathetic , but still highly repellent characters ; we have shows for the eyes and the ears , plotlines that play on several levels , we have beautifully delineated characters who are drawn from life and very believable , and we have a story of an innocent ( who may not be so innocent ) who’s trying to play straight , trying to improve her station in life , who slips into behaving the way those around her do . . . but recovers with a flourish , and quits a winner . in this sense , the movie is a bit of a departure for verhoeven , who’s not known for treating his characters well ; but nomi , the part played by elizabeth berkley , definitely opts out of the game in a positive way , and we’re left feeling good about her future . this is not one of the great movies , but it’s far better than we’d been led to expect by all the negative pre-release publicity . verhoeven got his first oscar nomination in 1971 , and in the last quarter-century has pushed farther and farther , experimenting with the socially-acceptable limits to movie-making . his most recent three movies , robocop , total recall , and basic instinct , have been a progression of back-door access to american culture , moving from the fantastic through the merely psychotic to the underlying basic drives ; and now he’s exploring the sleeze . this movie may be the first movie ever made for which the director’s contract contained a specific provision that he would not have to deliver an r rated movie . ( verhoeven had to cut several parts of basic instinct to get an r rating , although his original version is available on video . ) many reviewers have taken the politically-correct stance that any movie which uses naked ladies as scenery is a bad thing ; but they miss the fact that this movie is not about naked ladies , it’s about people in an environment where naked ladies are common , and why such an environment should exist . it’s about the scum who use other people as power-trip toys , and the need to escape their power . it’s about a world where sex is nothing and normal human values don’t pertain ; and the lack of sexual excitement and passionate heat in even the most blatant scenes is something of an accomplishment . an nc-17 movie which isn’t sexually exciting says a great deal about the phoniness and emptiness of a social stratum where sex has been robbed of any kind of beauty , power , or value . the one scene in the movie that * could * have been a good sex scene , berkley and maclachlan in a swimming pool , is not exciting , because by then we already know his character is a callous manipulator . if anything , it’s a rape scene with a victim who’s been duped into cooperation . you don’t make a movie about the history of black people in america without using a few black actors ; you don’t make a movie about world war ii without a few guns going off and a few people getting killed ; and you don’t make a movie about las vegas showgirls without showing a few las vegas showgirls . . . and in an awful lot of vegas shows , an awful lot of ladies wear very little clothing . this is a legitimate portrayal of a rather seamy side of the entertainment industry , in a town where sex is simply a negotiable commodity . showgirls de-glamorizes the las vegas show and sex industries with great effectiveness . nomi is played , in a very good performance , by elizabeth berkley , who gives us a solid picture of a woman with limited talents who’s at the end of her rope , desperate to live a life better than the one she’s known . she has nothing to market except her body and her limited dancing ability , and is trying desperately not to to be a hooker , trying to be something better than she seems destined to be . when nomi realizes she’s gone too far for too little , she catches herself just in time to save the most essential part of who she wants to be . gina rivera plays molly , a dressmaker and costumer who befriends nomi , providing her with what may be the one solid , positive relationship in nomi’s entire life . molly is the one who makes the difference , and provides the role model and framework nomi needs to verify the value system she’ll be using for the rest of her life , and nomi’s feelings for molly are the spur that forces nomi’s decision . gina gershon plays cristal , an aging , but still very attractive starring dancer , a reflexively competitive manipulator who’s become a villainess by internalizing the ethos of the crooks and scum around her . gershon plays cristal as a cross between ava gardner and raquel welch ; a fading talent made bitter by self-awareness . her character is very well drawn and performed ; in a major scene in a hospital room , she acknowledges what she is , and , in essence , passes the torch to nomi . the relationship between the two of them is the most honest one in the movie , and provides part of the impetus nomi needs to follow a different path . it is no accident that the three important parts in this movie are women of different stripe ; molly is an honest , hard-working person who means well , and nearly dies because she confuses the glitter and the image with reality . cristal is a talented dancer who’s compromised her ideals and sold herself to be a co-operating part of the system , exchanging self-respect for the species of stardom that can be had in las vegas . nomi believes she can make it without selling herself , succumbs to a degree , and then realizes she can make it without selling herself , and doesn’t need las vegas or its brand of ” stardom . ” the male parts in this movie are simply props ; they exist only to demonstrate and explicate the cultural milieu against which showgirls exist . kyle maclachlan , whose single best previous work was as an inhumanly emotionless cop in the hidden , gives us a nicely reptilian bit of pond scum on two legs , camouflaged as a nice guy . glenn plummer plays a dancer who’s working as a bellboy , and provides a bit of alternate perspective . plummer’s character is the only one in the movie who’s maintaining an interest in dance as a performing art , but even he’s succumbed to the cult of manipulation . plummer’s character is the closest thing to a sympathetic male character in the whole movie . some of jost vacano’s cinematography is fantastic , and one particular delineation of nomi’s character alteration , a no-dialog scene using nothing but color changes in the lighting , is utterly terrifying . this movie is rated nc-17 due to language , sexual situations , full frontal nudity , violence , and probably the costuming as well . i don’t see a way this particular story could have been told well without it , and i regard it as a legitimate exercise in movie-making . but don’t go see it if you’re not in a tough mood ; the only person it’s possible to like in this movie ends up in an i . c . u . on life support , and there is probably not one character in this movie you’d enjoy meeting in person .
1 it has been three long years since quentin tarantino stunned the cinema world by claiming the cannes film festival’s palme d’or , a $100 million-plus box office gross , and an oscar nomination ? all for his sophomore outing , pulp fiction . since then , the talented film maker has been virtually invisible , surfacing briefly as a co-director of the wildly uneven four rooms and the screenwriter of the gory vampire-fest , from dusk till dawn . in between , he has moonlighted as an ” actor ” with several decidedly unmemorable performances . now , with much fanfare and anticipation , tarantino has returned with his third directorial effort , jackie brown . and , while this motion picture , adapted from elmore leonard’s novel , rum punch , offers solid entertainment , those expecting another bravura outing from tarantino will leave theaters disappointed . for the most part , jackie brown is a pretty ordinary crime movie . the story , which starts out slowly , develops into a twisty affair , with double-crosses and triple-crosses . and the movie is littered with occasional tarantino trademarks : witty dialogue , unexpected gunfire , ’70s pop tunes , and close-ups of womens’ bare feet . yet , for all of that , the production is something of a letdown . the sheer , in-your-face exuberance that marked reservoir dogs and especially pulp fiction is absent . the mostly-straightforward chronology of jackie brown doesn’t match up favorably to the non-linear style of tarantino’s previous efforts ? an approach that added tension and edginess to the narratives . and there aren’t nearly as many deliciously offbeat conversations this time around . there’s a samuel l . jackson monologue about guns , a jackson/chris tucker argument regarding the merits of hiding in a car trunk , and a jackson/robert de niro exchange that recalls some of the jackson/travolta material from pulp fiction , but that’s about it . jackie brown’s lone ” innovation ” is its presentation of a crucial sequence from three different perspectives . this isn’t exactly an original technique ? it has been done numerous times before , most famously in akira kurosawa’s rashomon and most recently in edward zwick’s courage under fire . however , while in those two movies ( and others ) , there was a legitimate plot reason for the multiple points-of- view , tarantino’s sole purpose for using it appears to be because it’s unconventional . had the scenes in question been shown from only one of the three vantages , nothing would have been lost . as a result , this aspect of the film is little more than a curiosity . for the second picture in a row , tarantino is attempting to revive the career of a ’70s icon . this time around , instead of john travolta , it’s blaxploitation queen pam grier ( foxy brown has become jackie brown ) . in one of many nods to the most famous segment of grier’s career , tarantino uses a ’70s song to accompany her first appearance during the opening credits . there are also several instances during jackie brown when the director offers a sly wink towards certain conventions of the blaxploitation genre ( although grier never does any butt-kicking ) . grier is jackie brown , a flight attendant who gets caught transporting drugs and money into the united states . she’s working for gun dealer ordell robbie ( samuel l . jackson ) , but she keeps her mouth shut under questioning , despite pressure from ray nicolet ( michael keaton ) , a federal official . no longer sure whether or not he can trust jackie , ordell arranges for a bail bondsman , max cherry ( robert forster , tv’s ” banyon ” ) to post the necessary $10 , 000 , then plans to shoot jackie if she proves disloyal . jackie passes ordell’s test , however , and soon the two of them are plotting a way to smuggle $500 , 000 of ordell’s money into the united states without tipping off the feds . soon , just about everyone is after that money , including jackie , max , ray , ordell’s perpetually oversexed and drugged-out girlfriend , melanie ( bridget fonda ) , and his right-hand man , louis ( robert de niro ) . unsurprisingly , the most memorable performance is turned in by samuel l . jackson , but ordell isn’t nearly as invigorating or compelling a character as jules from pulp fiction . in addition to looking fantastic , pam grier is also quite good , although hers is not an oscar- caliber performance ( although she might get a nomination ) . robert forster and michael keaton are solid in their tough-guys-who-rarely- smile roles . bridget fonda is around for three discernible reasons : to look sexy in a bikini , to provide a little twisted comedy , and to satisfy tarantino’s foot fetish . robert de niro is criminally underused in a part that could have been played equally well by any grungy- looking , middle-aged actor . the film , which clocks in at several minutes over the two-and-a- half hour mark , is probably too long for the material , but the plot is convoluted enough to keep us guessing throughout ( although the payoff is a letdown ) . tarantino keeps things moving along nicely , with a heavier dose of humor and less violence than in pulp fiction , but , on the whole , this movie seems more like the work of one of his wannabes than something from the director himself . when it comes to recent caper films ( like the grifters and bound ) , jackie brown is a second-tier effort . it’s an entertaining diversion , but not a masterpiece , and certainly not an oscar contender .
1 one of the biggest cliches of any serial killer film is also one of the most believable . you know , the one where the detective looks at a wall of pictures and other police information , and suddenly spots the clue which reveals who the killer is . sure , it’s been used over and over , but for some reason , it is always fun to watch . this cliche pretty much describes the level kiss the girls works on : overused , but always fun . one of my personal rules about watching a film is not how original the film is , but how it goes around giving its story . this rule applies highly to kiss the girls . there is something psychologically stimulating in a well-crafted serial killer movie , and kiss the girls is certainly well made . however , the whole film screams of unoriginality , and so it relies on the power of its actors and the technical detail to pull it through . well , not only are the actors capable of pulling it through , but they add so much to the film that nearly every flaw is covered up . unfortunately , one of the most revealing and rather insulting choices by the filmmakers ( one that seven , a film a lot like this one , knew not to make ) was to put the name of the killer in the opening credits . that may give the actor credit for the role , but throughout the film , hidden in my mind , i was waiting for him to appear on screen , which spoiled the mystery . however , credit must be given to the director for suspending this knowledge through most of the film . plotwise , kiss the girls shows almost no originality . we are introduced to detective alex cross ( morgan freeman ) , a forensic psychologist , and immediately we are given the cliched scene establishing him as the hero . he gets a call about a woman who has shot her husband and is now threatening to kill herself . obviously cross succeeds at getting the gun , but this scene is quickly forgotten during the next scene . at his house , cross is told that his neice , naomi ( gina ravera ) , has been missing for four days . this provides the motivation for cross to find the killer , but we are never given a chance to establish the relationship between the two , and as a result , we can’t sympathize with detective cross . however , what makes kiss the girls slightly original is the introduction of one of the abductees . . . before she is abducted . dr . kate mctiernan ( ashley judd , the actress of the judd family ) is a smart , athletic woman , and because of these traits , becomes a target for casanova–what the serial killer likes to call himself . because of these character-developing scenes , we care for mctiernan , making the abduction scene all that more suspenseful . after being abducted , mctiernan wakes up and finds herself in a cell somewhere in the woods . remembering that the killer gave her certain rules , she decides to break one of them by calling out . when casanova comes to punish her , she breaks out and escapes by jumping over a waterfall . after she is found , she begins to help cross find his neice . from this moment on , kiss the girls takes on the form of every other serial killer film , as the two leads search for the rest of the victims held captive . many people will compare this film to 1995’s seven , another killer film starring morgan freeman , but i presume that the similarities are intentional . the screenplay , by david klass , is adapted from the novel written by james patterson , and yet i don’t quite see how this story could have worked in novel form . what makes kiss the girls so good is the acting and the technical and visual impressiveness . the cinematography , by aaron schneider , is reminiscient of seven , and sometimes i felt that many of the shots were trying too hard to impress us . sometimes a simple shot is the best one . however , many of the shots are stunning , and unlike seven , most of them take place during the day , in sunlight . the scene when ashley judd is running through the forest is extremely well done , in more than one way . the camera work is terrific , but the editing makes this scene work so well . the chaotic and mtv-type cutting gives the audience a sense of confusion and unawareness , exactly what judd’s character is experiencing . however , the best aspect of kiss the girls is its actors . morgan freeman is one of today’s most powerful and believable actors . detective cross is a very good character for him , although it is just a similar one to the character in seven . because of freeman’s powerful presence , he carries half the film by himself . the other half is carried by ashley judd , one of today’s most promising dramatic actresses . in fact , her performance is better than freeman’s , if that is even possible . her character is more original than freeman’s , and she handles it wonderfully . we finally have a female character in a movie like this who does more than just scream . the supporting cast is highly underdeveloped , but the cast members do as much as they can with it . cary elwes portrays a cop in north carolina , and unfortunately has scraps for a character . tony goldwyn fairs slightly better , but we don’t really get to know his character either . gina ravera gives a good performance , but again she isn’t in many of the scenes . so as a result of all these small supporting parts , the weight of the film lies on the two leads , and they do a phenomenal job . some of the best acting of this genre , and some of the best acting of the year . two other essential aspects of the film are quite good . director gary fleder does a good job of controlling his actors , but the second half of the film loses believability , especially during the revelation of the killer . he also doesn’t handle the suspenseful scenes as a better director would have , losing a lot of tension during many scenes . however , to his credit , he does manage a terrific first half . part of the blame falls on david klass . i’m sure the book developed many of the lesser characters more , but klass focuses on the two main parts . while this may give the two leads more screentime , many of the small characters are one-dimensional , and the killer , when revealed , is extremely implausible . thanks to the smart dialogue adapted from the novel , kiss the girls always seems intelligent . none of the conversations are laughable , and all move the plot forward without seeming forced . one of the biggest problems i had with the movie was the motive of the killer . i blame this mainly on the casting director , because the killer’s motive is because of rejection from women ( or so i assume from the opening monologue ) , but the killer himself is very attractive ( one of my friends is a , shall we say , big admirer of the killer ) . kiss the girls is rated r for terror , violence , language , and suggested sex . with all the implausibilities of this film , and with the mediocre second half , kiss the girls somehow manages to thoroughly entertain . in fact , i had the urge to see it again just for the performances . the cinematography adds a lot of mood to the already creepy tone , and the script is usually smart . this is clearly one of those movies which rely on the acting to pull it through . morgan freeman is possibly today’s most convincing actor , and ashley judd adds another notch on her acting belt . i must also say that i loved the ending . the showdown between good and evil was quite tense , and the resolution of the scene makes almost anyone cheer . perhaps it may not be possible , but most of the film isn’t anyway .
1 i was originally going to give the spanish prisoner two and half stars . from my first viewing , i noticed that david mamet’s film was intense and clever at times but boring and cliched at other times especially at the beginning . from my second viewing however , i noticed that mamet’s script was actually a masterpiece . the spanish prisoner , like the usual suspects or chinatown , begs for the viewer’s complete attention . miss a scene or even a small detail , and you could miss the meaning of the entire film . also like the aforementioned films , it rewards its viewer for paying attention by delivering a surprising and memorable ending . mamet is success doing again what he once tackled in 1987 when he wrote and directed house of games . like his past gem , the spanish prisoner fools the audience as much ( or even more ) than the victim . because we were deceived just like the victim , we feel a strong attachment to the main character and consequently are more interested in the film . mamet has the talent of not completely ending a film gift wrapped , but rather leaving some ambiguity towards the end . the power that he has in forcing the viewer to determine who the good guys and bad guys are once the film is over , without giving a right answer , is unique and ingenious . the spanish prisoner will leave you seriously puzzled and intrigued . after seeing the film again , i noticed that the details mamet uses are so incredibly accurate it is frightening . his direction is very subtle ; as he leaves so many clues explaining what is going on and who is who but it is still very difficult to tell what exactly is happening even if you see all of them , or think you see all of them . the story follows a young up and coming businessman , joe ross , ( campbell scott ) who has just created a mysterious and lucrative ” process ” that everyone is trying to get their hands on . soon ross does not know who he can trust or who is after his ” process . ” through his journey ross meets a number of mysterious characters : the rich and popular jimmy dell , a secretary who has a huge crush on ross , and ross’ boss mr . klein . played by steve martin , rebecca pidgeon , and ben gazarra respectively , the supporting cast is very solid especially martin , who deserved an oscar nomination for his commanding and manipulative role . the most interesting character in the film , though , was campbell scott’s joe ross . the character’s transformation from an ingenuous and polite rookie to a paranoid veteran is very apparent and justifiable . david mamet’s script is so interesting because we know people don’t actually talk like the characters in the film , yet we feel so connected to some of them . his beguiling style could fool any viewer up for the challenge . this is a must see , for those interested in solving a complex puzzle of a movie .
1 an unhappy italian housewife , a lonely waiter , a goofy masseuse , lots of love , and gorgeous scenery all come together in bread and tulips , which proves charming despite its covering of predictable , well-worn material . the story concerns the aforementioned housewife , rosalba barletta ( licia maglietta ) who accidentally becomes separated from her immediate family while on vacation . instead of waiting for a ride home , rosalba opts not to go home to her italian town , but to instead hitchhike to venice . upon arriving , she tells her self-centered husband , mimmo ( an excellent antonio catania ) that she’ll be home in a few days . of course , that doesn’t happen , as rosalba quickly gains a level of independence that has been unattainable in her past life of scrubbing floors and buying groceries . in what seems like days , she moves in with lonely , suicidal waiter fernando ( bruno ganz ) , gets a job as a florist , learns the accordion , and befriends her neighbor — a wacky holistic masseuse named grazia ( marina massironi ) . rosalba , who is first seen wearing a gaudy stretch pants outfit , starts wearing sexy dresses and getting closer to fernando . i can think of at least five other ( american ) movies ( including fried green tomatoes and an unmarried woman ) that are more than similar to bread and tulips . but maglietta and ganz , who act with restraint and care , help bread and tulips from becoming a tired retread . ganz plays the suicidal waiter role with a solemn , sometimes playful dignity that is a joy to watch , while maglietta never overreacts to her growing comfort with the outside world . throughout the movie , maglietta has an easygoing , confident demeanor , which makes it very easy to root for her and her growing attraction for ganz’s character . the gorgeous scenery of moonlit town squares and sparkling rivers provides a perfect love story backdrop — you just might want to ask the attractive stranger in the seat behind you for coffee after the lights come up . director and co-writer silvio soldini must get credit for sprinkling the movie with effective goofy humor . the cheap mimmo , desperate to find his wife ( after all , he needs his shirts ironed and his mistress won’t do it ) , hires a job applicant ( giuseppe battiston ) at his bathroom supply firm to do the job . the reason ? mimmo discovers that the prospective plumber loves detective stories . the novice detective’s various misfortunes , including him saying goodbye to his weepy mother , are very funny . unfortunately , there are flaws that somewhat spoil bread and tulips’ cheery tone . rosalba is bothered by several surreal dreams during her time in venice , which bring the movie to a halt . it’s like putting a gunfight in a nora ephron movie . several details in fernando’s life also never get proper closure , including his suicidal tendencies . early in the movie , he nearly hangs himself before rosalba knocks on his apartment door . after that , fernando’s step towards death is never made reference to , probably because soldini wanted to include a lukewarm , underdeveloped subplot about fernando’s stormy past . it seems more like a desperate attempt to pump up the drama in a plot that doesn’t need any . but there aren’t a lot of overwhelming negatives in bread and tulips . the movie is fun and romantic , with beautiful scenery and characters whose lives we’d like to live if we had the nerve . . . or if our passports weren’t missing .
1 after the terminally bleak reservoir dogs and the brutally violent pulp fiction , jackie brown seems like something of a light-hearted departure for quentin tarantino . it’s more of a ho-hum heist story with characters that speak the tarantino language . luckily , his showcase of actors convert every morsel of possible enjoyment onto the screen , and jackie brown has no trouble entertaining the average viewer . the story introduces us to a street-wise black woman named jackie brown ( pam grier ) , a flight attendant who smuggles money and drugs from one destination to another . she works for a bottom-of-the-barrel airline and receives a minimal salary . but one day , she is picked up by a pair of federal officials ( including michael keaton as the tough-nosed ray nicolet ) , and found with a handsome load of cash and a small bag of smuggled dope . jackie is working for a weapons dealer named ordell ( samuel l . jackson ) , who pays her bail money but suspects her of tipping off the feds about their operation . soon jackie and ordell are plotting a way to smuggle $500 , 000 through to them under nicolet’s nose , with the help of ordell’s oaf of a partner ( robert de niro ) and drugged-out lady friend ( bridget fonda ) . also entering the picture is a bail-bondsman named max cherry ( robert forster ) , who takes a liking to jackie and agrees at one point to make the situation even more complicated ( how i won’t say ) . the big drop-off is undoubtedly the high point of jackie brown , in which numerous double-crosses take place and many clothing store bags ( filled with cash ) switch hands . it’s unfortunate that tarantino takes his sweet time getting there , and doesn’t offer anything extremely compelling while doing so . there are , as always , amusing exchanges between characters . the funniest repartee is between de niro and fonda , as he becomes annoyed with her constant bickering while making fun of his iq , or lack thereof . the most interesting relationship is between max and jackie . a 56-year old white bail bondsman and a 44-year old black flight attendant with believable chemistry ? you’ve got to commend the acting . jackie brown is a seriously dragged-out exercise enlivened by such fine acting . the film clocks in at a lengthy 2 hours , 35 minutes . tarantino’s talky style manages to hold your attention heavily , but there are more than a few dramatic lapses and crucial lulls in the storyline . also , fans of the director should be prepared for a lighter side to appear . jackie brown has four major shootings , and two of those take place mostly off-screen , so don’t be expecting a typical tarantino bloodbath . you can expect frequent foul language , mostly coming way of ordell , who ( much to the dismay of spike lee ) uses the `n’ word as part of his regular vocabulary . the acting is the glue that holds everything together . grier , making a sudden comeback from her reign in the 1970’s , is more than adequate for the title character . in fact , she’s flat-out great . another comeback comes from former tv star robert forster , who does a grand job as max cherry , and is perfectly cast in doing so . michael keaton makes his presence felt , albeit in small but dignified moments , and de niro is ideal in playing the lug-head who goes over the edge . speaking of that , bridget fonda has relatively little to do as ordell’s bikini-clad beach babe , and yet she manages to look fairly occupied . there’s not a single sign of misplaced dialogue or snubbed line throughout the entire movie . which is a life-saver for mr . tarantino . the story barely holds together in the meantime , and we merely get a small tremor whenever there should be a defeaning earthquake . but oh well . jackie brown manages to be an enjoyable detour from quentin tarantino , even if it is lacking the glaring and original bite of his previous work . let’s just hope that the director hasn’t gone soft on us .
1 upon taking a seat at the theater , and surveying the crowd , i soon realized that i was the only person under forty in the premises . i’m twenty-two , but have been accused of looking sixteen . yet as the film began , any consciousness of setting shifted to the home of five close-knit , yet troubled sisters . director pat o’connor ( inventing the abbots , circle of friends ) weaves a quiet yet affecting tale of loss , need , and the bonds between five sisters . the family is ruled by kate ( meryl streep ) , an unconsciously strict schoolteacher , who is completely conscious of the deterioration of her family . there is very little background given to the viewer , as we are thrust into a tense but loving home . squabbles take place one after the other , caused by years and years of history . perhaps one of the best things about this film , is its naturalness . no situation is over-wrought , and characters react as real people do , to real problems . this probably is a result of the film being from a stage play . the play was in turn is based on a time in the life of the playwright . what seems to be an underlying theme are the pagan rituals and dances of peoples , both in lughnasa and africa . in fact , dance seems to be the glue that holds the family together and most expressively shows their closeness . legs tap , and bodies sway even in the midst of impending disaster . only after the music stops , and the characters stand breathing heavily do we sense any trouble . in the quiet after the music we muse that it’s sad that music has to cease , and families falter . the movie is framed by a scene of michael mundy , the narrator of the movie , as a young child flying a kite . he trips over a bump and loses hold of his string , and the kite floats off farther into the distance . drawn on the white diamond of the kite is a face that looks at once pained , and at another glance mischievous . the mundy family itself follows a similar fate to that of the kite , and kate’s hold of the family isn’t strong enough to hold off the winds of change . as michael stands , staring at his kite fly away , we hear the adult michael , looking back at the season that his world changed forever . the movie is not overpowering , but it gives us a beautiful window into the life , love , and trouble of a household of lonely women . note : this is the first movie review i’ve ever written , any responses on it would be greatly appreciated . : )
1 in may of 1977 , just 2 years after steven spielberg’s success with jaws and 3 years after francis coppolas’ the godfather , a risky , ambitious young director named george lucas went for the same unpredictable box office success . little did he know that star wars would become the greatest science fiction epic in the history of film . in january of this year , lucas re-released star wars on its 20th anniversary . in this new , remastered version , the added effects , which range from leathery desert beasts inserted into already existing shots to an awkward new scene in which hans solo bargains his way out of a jam with a computer-generated jabba the hutt , don’t do much but call attention to themselves . other than these , the film is exactly the same . why pay to see it in the theaters , you might ask ? simply because when this movie was released , most of us were a few years short of being born . we should all get up and go to the movies for the experience , especially if you haven’t seen it . the plot is basic but in the same way , complex . it has many themes , but the one rotates around luke skywalker ( mark hamill ) and his quest to become a jedi knight . his mission begins when a droid named r2-d2 plays back a secret message recorded by the beautiful princess leia ( carrie fisher ) , which tells him to contact the mysterious obi-wan kanoby ( alec guiness ) . he and kanoby then , joined by two inter-galactic renegades , hans solo ( harrison ford ) and chewbacca , and skywalker’s two droids d2 and c3po ( the voice of anthony edwards ) , wage war upon the corrupt empire , commanded by an evil general ( peter cushing ) and the traitorous darth vader ( the voice of james earl jones ) . skywalker defeats the evil empire by rising out of himself to embrace something larger : the force . the film is obviously quite star-studded . but how was lucas to know that ford would become one of the most sought after men in hollywood and jones’ voice would appear so many more times in the future ? it just happened to work out for him . the magic of star wars lies in the way that skywalker’s triumph is symbolized by the audience’s sense of becoming something larger than life itself-a universe of fans , young and old , recreating a movie atmosphere that will impress generations forever . ,
1 `strange days’ chronicles the last two days of 1999 in los angeles . as the locals gear up for the new millenium , lenny nero ( ralph fiennes ) goes about his business of peddling erotic memory clips . he pines for his ex-girlfriend , faith ( juliette lewis ) , not noticing that another friend , mace ( angela bassett ) really cares for him . this film features good performances , impressive film-making technique and breath-taking crowd scenes . director kathryn bigelow knows her stuff and does not hesitate to use it . but as a whole , this is an unsatisfying movie . the problem is that the writers , james cameron and jay cocks , were too ambitious , aiming for a film with social relevance , thrills , and drama . not that ambitious film-making should be discouraged ; just that when it fails to achieve its goals , it fails badly and obviously . the film just ends up preachy , unexciting and uninvolving .
1 there’s a thin line between satire and controversy , and mike nichols ( the birdcage , wolf ) has directed a sharp and very honest look at a us presidential election . based on the book written by ” anonymous ” ( actually former ” newsweek ” writer joe klein ) , john travolta plays governor jack stanton . but he doesn’t actually play stanton . he plays bill clinton ; just the same as emma thompson no doubt plays the first lady and billy bob thorton is the campaign manipulator james carville ( although the credits will of course say otherwise ) . the film is taken from the perspective of henry burton ( adrian lester ) , a morally correct and somewhat hesitant new advisor to stanton . he searches for justice and dignity in the ugliest possible situations , and whether it be keeping the history of his boss’ pants under wraps or contemplating digging up dirt on another politician , he approaches his work with a keen desire to skillfully serve his country and his fellow workers . richard jemmons ( billy bob thorton ) and daisy green ( maura tierney ) team up with henry as the would-be president’s advisors , and hire lesbian veteran libby holden ( kathy bates ) as the campaign’s eccentric ” tougher than dirt ” incriminator . together they face all sorts of sexual allegations , the irritatingly discourteous media and other witty politicians in the election race . in its satire and controversy , primary colors is a similar film to wag the dog : they both are not afraid to wipe their noses in the nitty-gritty and take a bold look at something that will never has honesty as a virtue . but whereas wag showed us how much affect a few people can have on the media , primary colors is much more concerned with fleshing out it’s characters , letting us understand what they want and why , and making us truly appreciate the humanity and rectitude that they graciously represent . seeing john travolta play bill clinton so confidently and justly is enough to make the film more than worth a look . and the rest of the cast also make superb performances – adrian lester sharply portrays the intellect of henry whilst kathy bates is perfect as the robust and energetic libby holden . at occasions , you can’t help but feel that these terrific characters are going to waste . there are long slabs of time where john travolta ( unquestionably the most interesting to watch ) is missed from the screen ; and since it is awkwardly structured as henry’s story we are often forced to watch scenes that perhaps are not so necessary to the central plot – or even the point of the film . having said that , make no mistake – primary colors is always enjoyable to watch . but frequently we have to ask ourselves – exactly what are we watching ? most of the first half of its duration is a lightheaded look at melodramatic confrontations that seem so genuine we cannot help but laugh , but the way primary colors chooses to finish tackles aspects that are very contrary , and almost unsuitable , to the rest of the film . but as i mentioned before , there is a thin line between satire and controversy – and for the most part , primary colors delivers an entertaining indulgence of political matters combined with a far-from-overpowering look at winning the public’s opinion . although at occasions the film may jump around a little too freely , focus is never lost on how important and vulnerable the subject matter really is . thankfully , it is clear to make the distinction on what is entertaining movie cosmetics and what is a provocative documentation of something so really it’s scary .
1 it was only a matter of time before a dilbert-esque office comedy hit the screens . however , rather than coming from dilbert creator scott adams , office space is instead based on the work of another animator , mike judge , creator of beavis and butthead and king of the hill . in his live-action directoral debut , judge aptly spoofs corporate culture . the story is certainly not very involved , but there is plenty of truth and humor to fill the gaps . peter ( ron livingston ) is a programmer working at the initech corporation . every day in his mundane life is worse than the one before . . . in other words , every day is the worst day in his entire life . he’s stuck in a boring job with eight different supervisors , all obsessed with administrative trivialities . he’s smitten with joanna ( jennifer aniston ) , a local waitress , but hasn’t the guts to even introduce himself . everything has simply made him a complete , nervous wreck . but all of that changes when , after an unintentionally over-effective visit to a hypnotherapist , peter loses all of his inhibitions . he realizes his lifelong dream : to do absolutely nothing . he begins to blatantly disregard the nonsensical instructions of his boss , bill lumbergh ( gary cole ) , doing whatever he feels like . peter’s friends and co-workers , samir ( ajay naidu ) and michael bolton ( david herman ) . . . no , not that michael bolton , are perplexed by their friend’s sudden change in attitude . but , they have larger things to worry about : rumors about that initech is about to begin downsizing . . . as bleak as much of this sounds , let me assure you that office space is a comedy , and quite a funny one . although it shares the same absurdist office humor of the dilbert comic strip , office space is actually based loosely on the series of milton cartoons which aired on saturday night life . each mundane detail , taken by itself , seems completely , regrettably , plausible . yet , when combined into a whole , the picture which results is absolutely surreal . ron livingston tackles his role straight-faced , and becomes much funnier because of it . his character isn’t simply being a clown lampooning around the office , but rather seems possessed by a zen-like clarity . he is operating on a higher plane , where everything suddenly makes sense , and from this vantage point , he allows the audience to smirk at the absurdities of life . anyone who has had to deal with the inefficiencies of corporate bureaucracy , or who has ever been frustrated with the technology of modern life , will recognize many of the characters and situations in the film . in fact , in addition to being wildly humorous , the film may actually prove to be cathartic . the animated roots of office space show in the film’s lack of complexity . most of the characters in the film can be quickly summarized by a particular personality quirk . one employee , milton ( stephen root ) , is practically a flesh-and-blood cartoon . however , despite their simple nature , the characters still manage to be surprisingly funny . it’s not required to have a corporate background to enjoy this film ( though the situations may seem exceedingly far-fetched if you are unfamiliar with just how close to reality they really are ) . the film is flimsy and absurd , but also very funny .
1 all those who were offended by there’s something about mary should not tread in the waters of american pie , a gratuitously sexual rollercoaster ride of raunch . and while this uproariously funny , gross-out summer movie is basically an exercise in bad taste , it also demonstrates a surprising sweetness in the end . american pie is the latest entry to the offensive teenage-targeted fare this season . i must question the studio that releases a movie like this . the producers are aiming these films at the 15-24 crowd , but while pushing the limit of possible sex and violence in an r-rated film . some have even been narrowly avoiding the dreaded nc-17 , a rating the mpaa gives when the adult content surpasses even that of a restricted movie . american pie was threatened with an nc-17 , but after snipping a few scenes from the finished product , it was given an r . but at least this new addition is not as careless and unforgiving as something like south park . it is sick , perverse , and ultimately disgusting – not to mention extremely funny . american pie is about four desperate teenagers who make a pact to lose their virginity by prom night . jim ( jason biggs ) , kevin ( thomas ian nicholas ) , oz ( chris klein ) and finch ( eddie kaye thomas ) are a quartet of high school students in their senior year who think sex is something they must experience to be successful in their lives ahead . jim inquires what it feels like when you reach third base , to which one of his friends replies : `like warm apple pie . . . ‘ . of course , this prompts the scene unfairly exposed in the trailers , in which jim and a freshly baked pie have a very intimate moment in the kitchen corner . there are many moments , such as this , in which director paul weitz uses a game-plan similar to the one frequently displayed in mary : to cause the audience to break down laughing in disgusting disbelief . american pie is a hard-fought effort that has replenishing rewards if you manage to stick with it . i loved the young cast in this movie . consider the subject matter that these actors have dealt with , obviously suggestiveness never rivaled in any of their previous projects , and you should appreciate their performances . biggs is more than enjoyable , and chris klein ( who recently played a similar jock in election ) is obviously a young talent on the rise . but in a teen-dominated movie , the best performance comes from comedian eugene levy ( of television’s sctv ) , who is unexpectedly brilliant as jim’s uneasy father . scenes in which the familiar father-son conversations are brought to interesting new levels are the funniest moments to be found in american pie . after levy discovers jim’s new use for apple pie , he tells him , `i did a fare share of that sort of thing when i was your age . but i never used baked goods . ‘ it is performances such as his , and bill murray’s in rushmore , that are often unfairly dismissed when awards are handed out . there are some less-than-original aspects of the film . a bathroom incident involving finch and a bottle of ex-lax is something we’ve seen before . if weitz is planning to take after the farrelly brothers , then this is a decidedly unwise move : the same prank was pulled in the brother’s dumb and dumber , and used to greater effect . secondly , the characters are forced into a half-hearted climax that seems more artificial than amusing . but at one point , in which we discover that american pie does have a heart of it’s own , biggs asks his buddies why he’s going through so much pressure for something that’s `not very important anyway . ‘ and so we realize that while the film is expressive about a subject that is hardly appropriate , it still manages to be mature . in it’s own way .
1 albert brooks saves the day , just in the nick of time . with a very poor summer for movies , brooks is just what audiences were looking for to cheer them up , and does so in a positive way . while this may not be his finest work , ” the muse ” still shakes up some delightful humor . in albert brook’s latest comedy , he tells a story of a troubled screenwriter ( brooks ) who’s losing his edge , as his business partners say . in desperation , he goes to see his friend jack ( jeff bridges ) , who has been a very successful screenwriter in the past . he asks jack for some help , and recieves word of a real life muse , that has helped him and many other directors throughout their career . so brooks seeks the muse named sarah ( sharon stone ) , and is suckered into buying her expensive , food etc . as a sort of payment . the real punch line however , doesn’t come until the end . it really makes you wonder , how screenwriters really get their ideas , could it simply be from a friend or a bum in the street ? the idea itself is provoking and brooks does it in a hilarious manner . speaking of brooks , he was absolutely hysterical as a screenwriter . every time he graces the screen , i can’t help but start laughing . albert has a very unique sense of humor that makes him a very likeable character . the real problem with the film lies with sharon stone . she wasn’t likeable at all . brooks had the right idea with her occupation , but she never pulled through . in a way , she drained energy from the once funny atmosphere and left it bleak . luckily brooks could clean up the mess , and cover for stone’s mishap . it was a shame that the film went slightly downhill after her appearance , because ” the muse ” had the potential to a be a very authentic comedy . on a brighter note , andie macdowell was also charming as brook’s wife . she is always a nice addition as a supporting actress , because she has that charisma that seems to complete the atmosphere to any film she’s in . the funniest moments in ” the muse ” in my opinion were the cameos by james cameron and martin scorsese . i mean imagine , brooks seeing these big named directors in his back yard seeking sharon stone for advice , like it was something out of the ordinary . it was just plain hilarious . it just adds to the satire joke , of how directors get ideas . brilliant move by brooks . as i mentioned before , the film is a satire much like it’s proceeder bowfinger , which came out a few weeks before . unlike bowfinger , this is not a mean spirited film that’s desperate for jokes , it’s rather a witty and humorous look at hollywood . ” bowfinger ” had it’s moments , but had quite a few problems that were never worked out , but ” the muse ” still managed to keep the laughs despite a bit of a detour . by the end of the film , you’re glad to see a good hearty comedy come out of it . for once i’m not fully disappointed , because the film didn’t slow down , it kept moving , even with some flaws . thumbs up to brooks for his brave effort . i think he’ll still manage to keep his edge around well into the future .
1 for more than a decade , anjelica huston has been one of america’s finest actresses . in her directorial debut , bastard out of carolina , based upon dorothy allison’s largely autobiographical book on child abuse and poverty in the south , huston displays impressive proficiency behind the camera as well . the film tells the story of ruth anne boatwright , nicknamed bone by one of her uncles at birth , in post-world war ii south carolina . through voice-over ( narration done by laura dern ) , we find that she nearly didn’t survive birth , as her single mother anney , played by jennifer jason leigh , was thrown through the windshield during an automobile accident . that’s just the beginning of her troubles . bone is deemed illegitimate on her birth certificate , a social stigma which her mother and her large poor family obsesses over for years to come . anney meets and weds lyle , a kind man and good stepfather whom gives bone a baby sister before dying in an automobile accident . anney’s brother earle , played by michael rooker , introduces her to glen , played by ron eldard , a co-worker at the mill . glen , the black sheep of a wealthy family ( ” when are you gonna make your daddy proud ? i’ll tell you when – never ! ” he’s told ) and filled with bitterness , courts anney and eventually wins her , despite warnings of a violent temper . when anney miscarries with his much-prized baby boy , glen loses his capability to supress his violent outbursts and begins to direct them at bone , beating and abusing her , while the love-dependent anney tries to turn a blind eye and justify his behaviour . things turn for the worse when glen loses his job and the family of four sink into impoverishment . while set several decades ago , this story remains completely relevant in today’s society , where abused wives return to their husbands , and abuse committed against children by one spouse is routinely overlooked by the other . the real star of this domestic drama is not top-billed jennifer jason leigh , but child actress jena malone , who plays bone in a wrenching and wholly impressive debut performance . her work is of award-calibre , and in this age in which a preponderence of superb child performers have emerged ( kirsten dunst , tina majorino , anna paquin , natalie portman , christina ricci , elijah wood ) , malone’s performance stands up well . leigh’s performance in bastard out of carolina is fine , although she’s not really given much to do , and ron eldard work is very solid , skillfully manouvering his character’s moods in and out of explosive rage . one can always sense that underneath his glen is a pressure-cooker ticking away . of the supporting cast , special note must be made of the criminally underrated michael rooker’s performance . there’s a bit too much generic formulaism in the screenplay for my taste , from the various characters spouting off country bumpkinisms , to the familiar sight of a dried-up uptight wise old granny ( played by grace zabriskie ) sitting on the porch rocking chair , to impassioned soliloquies better suited for a stage performance . still , it cannot be denied that anne meredith’s screenplay contains a wallop of emotional power . huston’s direction of the film is surehanded and impressive , giving the film good pacing and eliciting good performances from her cast , particularly the young malone . her sequences of child abuse are shot in a hard-hitting emotional , rather than graphic , manner , and are very effective . huston’s talent with camera positioning is wonderful , from a visually striking shot done through a fan , to an extended sequence in the front seat of an automobile . the film has the toned-down feel of a television production ; bastard out of carolina was originally composed and cut for broadcast on the tnt cable station , who ended up declining the film due to sentiments that scenes of abuse and rape in the film were too disturbingly realistic for their audience . perhaps some sequences of the film may be unpleasant , but as a whole bastard out of carolina adds up to a powerful viewer experience worth seeing .
1 razor blade smile running as part of the vancouver international film festival played october 2nd and 4th , 1998 . official release : halloween reviewed by vince yim `you think you know all about vampires . . . believe me . . . you know f * ck all . ‘ with these words , we are brought into the world of a sultry vampire seductress by the name of lilith silver ( played by eileen daly ) . made into an immortal a century and a half ago by the sinister ethan blake , she continues to alleviate boredom with her state of being . so , what’s an undead girl to do , except squeeze into the tightest fitting clothes possible , get out her guns , seduce a few guys , and kill a few people for money and blood ? with that out of the way , let me say this . this film is bad . this film is really , really bad . yet somehow , it is strangely enjoyable . with all the elements of a direct to video horror flick ? buxom babes , gore , cheesy dialogue , and bad acting ? any casual film viewer would be more inclined to spend their money on renting innocent blood or going to see blade . still , it is considered to be one of the finest british vampire film . agreed , it might be , but is far from being the best vampire flick ever . period . razor blade smile has some rather high production values , shown by the nice overall tone to the film . the film is also a bit of a departure from popular vampire lore , with a vampire that can go out in broad daylight without disintegrating , doesn’t sleep in a coffin ( but leaves one next to her computer ) , and sees religion as the `opium of the peoples’ ( hence , immunity to crosses ) . but aside from that , it doesn’t stray too far away from horror film conventions . that is , unless that is intentional . razor blade smile literally goes for the throat , then pumps the wound full of processed cheese . you can’t help but laugh when a female vampire gets decapitated and her severed head goes flying into a puddle . you’ll laugh even harder at the hideously contrived situations ( to distract two female guards , lilith tosses a cellular phone towards them and dials the number ) . you’ll laugh the hardest when a murder witness recants the tale and suddenly starts sobbing uncontrollably . and then , there’s the sudden twist ending ( i have enough heart not to give it away ) . the film refuses to take itself seriously , which is a good thing , as by the time lilith zips up her skin-tight body suit and then unzips it just to show the right amount of cleavage , you’ve most likely forgotten the main point of the story . but in case you really care , she’s been assigned to kill a bunch of people who belong to the so-called illuminati , and she’s leaving a huge mess behind for the police to find . as much as my criticisms , this movie works best as a guilty pleasure or as a film that you watch with your friends and within groups . almost destined for cult-status , the film’s campy , cheesy overtones actually work towards the film . while this may not necessarily be the film you’d want to be seen watching by yourself , it makes for a fun time at the movies .
1 pitch black is a sheep in wolf’s clothing . it is full of darkness , danger and violence and if you buy into the marketing hype , an unsettling and scary film going experience . don’t be fooled . pitch black is a morality play masquerading as a scare-fest . it starts off with blistering intensity . a cargo spaceship crash lands on a planet apparently leeched of life by the scorching heat of three suns . among the survivors is fry ( mitchell ) , the ship’s pilot , who spends the film wrestling with the fact that she tried to jettison the other passengers in her effort to land the craft safely . there is imam ( david ) , an islamic leader whose faith in his god is tested repeatedly throughout the film . there is a law enforcement officer in the form of johns ( hauser ) , who attacks every situation with square jawed authoritarian zeal . and there is riddick ( diesel ) , a menacing , muscle-bound convicted murderer who’s being brought back to justice by johns . the group quickly sizes up the situation and each other . confident in their assessment of matters , a plan is set in motion to escape their hellish environment . those plans are shredded by the appearance of one of the planet’s wildlife , a predatory , sometimes winged , species that enjoys the taste of blood and flesh . fortunately , the creatures are light sensitive and are forced to live in networks of catacombs under the planet’s surface . unfortunately , the group has managed to land on the planet moments before an eclipse is about to occur , taking away their one protection from the monsters . the group’s savior comes in the form of johns , whose decisive leadership looks to deliver them from purgatory . or does it ? pitch black deviates from the standard sci-fi fare by avoiding some of the stock ” escape the boogieman ” conflicts the genre typically serves up . just as the planet gave a false facade of lifelessness , first appearances given by the survivors proves to be just as false . the excitement of the film comes not from the danger posed by the creatures , but rather from watching the shifting allegiances and emotional growth of the characters as the planet serves as a deus ex machina of sorts to catalyze emotional growth . a recurrent theme runs throughout the movie of faith , whether it be religious or in a person , and how that powers their motivations . i found it telling that an accidental death occurs early on due to the misperception of a self professed atheist . conversely , imam constantly contributes any good fortune to allah . one by one , his perceived heaven sent blessings are taken away and crushed . imam is forced to reassess his faith . another character expresses belief in god , along with a life long hate . yet another character makes a decision that echoes the sentiments of christ about selflessness and has lasting repercussions for several of group . it is a fascinating character study hiding under the guise of a scare flick . special mention should be made of vin diesel , who intriguingly conveys feral menace combined with a truly mesmerizing presence . his character could have easily slipped into a parody of the baddass killing machine , but twohy and diesel add surprising depth to riddick . they can be excused for the two or three shwarzenegger-like catch phrases that growl their way out of diesel’s mouth . the movie has its flaws that can be nitpicked . the creatures do look derivative of the ones in alien . the dialogue isn’t the freshest at times , reminiscent of a bad comic book . yes , the appearance of riddick’s vision skills are more than a little timely considering the situation . these trappings are on the periphery of the story twohy is really trying to tell . twohy may have lured you in under the pretense of scaring you with film fabricated boogieman , but he shows the real boogieman to be the prejudices and beliefs we use to direct decisions in our lives .
1 seen february 15 , 1998 on home video ( borrowed from chris wessell ) . when it comes to modern gangster movies , it’s really difficult to describe and review them without making comparisons to other films of the genre and/or just using the word ” routine . ” i’ve always subscribed to the philosophy that any idea ( no matter how many times it’s been used before ) can provide for a good story and ” donnie brasco ” clinches this idea . it’s not unlike most of the great films of the genre , yet it never apes another’s style as it has a good layer of authenticity , even if its core is a tad stale . the film starts off in typical fashion by defining its atmosphere of new york city in the late 1970s and the mobsters who inhibit it . we meet lefty ( pacino ) , an aging wiseguy who can still walk the walk and talk the talk . he and his associates go through the generic motions you expect to see in crime films like this . somehow he comes across donnie brasco ( depp ) , a younger guy with a lot of spunk who isn’t afraid of lefty and his rep , and even manages to befriend him after lefty was ready to kill him . it’s clear donnie is new to the life and lefty recognizes this immediately , telling him all the tricks of the trade . i have never seen this technique of actually revealing the mafioso idiosyncrasies done before and for this the film deserves credit . however , we soon realize donnie is actually joe pistone , an fbi agent working undercover – a character who symbolizes the viewer as he will soon be purged into the lifestyle and treated as a newcomer . the first act works as a guided to ot of rhetoric about wiseguy honor , a brief history of the mob , definitions of their slang , and where their money comes from and who it goes to . the screenplay is rather sketchy on the details surrounding these elements , however , the fact they are mentioned at all is quite original . most gangster movies seem to be made with the notion the viewer already knows how the mob works ( probably from watching other gangster movies ) , and although this attitude comes across , the film tries to fill in all the holes where and when it can and the effort is appreciable . thankfully the film doesn’t become too caught up in the tedious details of organized crime , and instead opts for character development . much of the story is told simply through the interaction between lefty and donnie . pacino is outstanding here as the pathetic hood who speaks of his job in the same manner any blue collar worker would . he’s old and exhausted but seems to enjoy what he does , just as anyone loyal to the same employer for over 30 years might be . we learn of his accomplishments , which are quite impressive within their context , and when he complains about not being made top boss , it’s easy to sympathize with him . newell constantly plays up this aspect , making it a major theme which works well in the long run . as donnie is constantly impressing and even one-upping lefty , it’s hard to tell which emotion is more powerful : the fact donnie is getting closer to nailing the mob ; or the fact lefty has once again been over shadowed . most of the film tells the story of donnie’s life in mafia , which creates for many sub-plots and individual conflicts , but doesn’t always seem to come together as a whole . the storytelling is genuinely interesting throughout , even when the motions the characters go through seem familiar . the resonance to donnie’s actual assignment varies , he often reports back to the feds with detail of his progress , but it doesn’t always seem to have much meaning . back home , his wife maggie ( heche ) is ready to divorce him because he’s never a and the family is suffering . since this is based on a true story i wouldn’t doubt this would happen , although the way it is handled often borders on the melodramatic . my only major complaint is the film seems to have no final act , or at least any real sense of closure . a climax of sorts does occur , but there’s little feeling of a payoff . we get a happy ending , which is good , but perhaps a sad ending would have been more powerful . aside from a few minor , general flaws , ” donnie brasco ” manages to be a solid piece of storytelling and character development . it may be routine , but it’s good , and that’s respectful .
1 ” sometimes the ‘green mile’ seems sooooo long . ” indeed . and any filmmaker with a three hour movie who ends it with that gem of dialogue should expect to see it quoted in a review . on a more positive note , let me add that sometimes the green mile is almost good enough to make us forget its length . the mile in question ( green due to its faded lime-colored linoleum ) leads from the prison cell to ” old sparky , ” the electric chair where executions were carried out at louisiana’s cold mountain penitentiary in 1935 . paul edgecomb ( tom hanks , you’ve got mail ) is the head guard of e-block , otherwise known as death row . keeping his prisoners calm as they await the carrying out of their sentence is his primary responsibility . it is a responsibility which he capably delegates to the other guards on his watch by insisting they ” talk to ” the convicts instead of yelling at them . this practice leads to an unusual camaraderie between the guards and the men behind their bars . into his charge comes one john coffey ( michael clarke duncan , armageddon ) , a seven foot tall gentle giant who has been convicted of the rape and murder of two young girls . immediately , paul senses something different about this prisoner . perhaps its the way he asked for a night light because he is frightened of the dark . or perhaps it is the mystical healing powers he demonstrates as he ” takes back ” paul’s bladder infection thereby restoring him to health . based on steven king’s 1996 serialized novel , the green mile does offer other characters who have stories to be told : eduard delacroix ( michael jeter , patch adams ) , is a frail cajun convict who befriends and trains a mouse to do circus tricks ; percy wetmore ( doug hutchison , a time to kill ) , is a young and sadistic guard sitting on a transfer to a more lucrative position because he has yet to see a prisoner ” fry ” up close ; and hal moores ( james cromwell , babe : pig in the city ) is the compassionate warden for whom , despite all the executions he’s witnessed , death never loomed as large as when his own wife was diagnosed with a tumor . while it is mr . hanks ” everyman ” performance at the center of the film which gives it the anchor to hold our interest for 180 minutes , it is the performances of his supporting cast that are most worth noting . all involved do credible work in their respective roles , most especially mr . duncan , who turns in an impressive , fully realized characterization . if only the story were more credible . writer/director frank darabont ( the shawshank redemption ) has crafted a flawed fantasy/allegory of sorts ; one which is more spiritualistic than spiritual , relying on a preternatural mysticism rather than a genuine and godly spiritual power . mr . darabont also overplays his hand considerably in the manipulation of our affection towards and association with his characters . was it an accidental omission that the first two inmates who walked the green mile were being punished for crimes never disclosed ? by not knowing the reason for the condemned convicts’ presence on e-block , the audience never gets the sense of the justice which is being carried out , making the death penalty appear cruel and unwarranted . this is especially true during the gruesome depiction of the second execution which was horribly botched . much has also been made of coffey’s christ-like ability to heal but unlike the numerous healings which are recorded in the scriptures , coffey’s powers are shrouded in mystery , taking on the feel of a circus trick , coupled with a voodoo-like ” i feel your pain ” transference . in contrast , there is no mystery associated with the healing that is from god . the genuine ” gifts of healing ” listed in 1 corinthians 12 is just one of the nine manifestations of holy spirit and can be operated by any spiritually instructed man or woman in accordance with the knowledge and wisdom of god . true spiritual healing ( with few exceptions ) requires the committed believing of both the healer as well as the one being healed . such believing comes not from the shrouded secrets of mysticism , but from the revealed word of god .
1 i guess there are those who have never been kissed before ( a rare and dying breed ) , except if you’re child ? in which case it would be called experimenting . rarer still are those who have never been kissed before they reach the twenties . hardest to believe still , is that drew barrymore has never been kissed . despite all these hard to believe tit bits , there are people out there who have never truly been kissed , and who are still waiting for that right person to give them the wet , sloppy warm feeling of tongues intermingling , reassuring them that their search for true love is over . well , this movie is about a girl waiting for the right boy to give her the kiss of her life . and it’s sweet . drew barrymore who shone in ? ever after’ is wonderful as ? josie , grossy’ , the high school dweeb who becase a professional editor , before being assigned by her paper to return to school as an undercover reporter . it addresses the issues of how a dweeb , becomes a prom queen and finds the man of her life all in one sitting . hard to believe , but possible . there may also be those who have been kissed before , but in fact , never truly been given the kiss . so this movie can be watched by those who are waiting for true love or those who are still searching for it . either way , it is one enjoyable sit , with a fairytale ending .
1 note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . ” all the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players they have their exits and their entrances and one man in his time plays many parts ” – excerpt from as you like it , act ii , scene 7 when william shakespeare penned this passage , he could not have possibly envisioned a world in which the domestic activites in an abode would be broadcast across the continent , or where women would install webcams in their apartments in order to convert voyeurism into cash . this is the world of today , and it is the perfect climate to unveil a prototypical high-concept project like the truman show . truman burbank ( jim carrey ) seems to have the perfect life . he has a pretty , doting wife meryl ( laura linney ) , a comfortable insurance sales position , an immaculate suburban home in the idyllic island community of seahaven , a reliable childhood buddy marlon ( noah emmerich ) — except for the dog that paws a greeting to him every morning and his hydrophobia , this is paradise . or so it would seem . bizarre , inexplicable incidents begin to crop up in truman’s life . a lighting fixture unexpectedly plummets from the sky . a rainstorm which gives new meaning to the term ‘isolated’ follows him around . a radio broadcast appears to be describing his every move . for the first time in his life , it is beginning to dawn on truman that things are not what they appear to be . the truman show , directed by peter weir and written by andrew niccol , is a remarkably well-constructed film , paced perfectly with every scene fluidly leading into the next . balancing drama with humour , thoughtfulness with abandon , this is a film which addresses an intriguing and intricate concept with just the right mixture of sermonizing and whimsical fancy . in many ways , mr . niccol’s screenplay mirrors the spirit of his previous gattaca — both films focus on the theme of triumph of the human spirit over oppressive adversity , with pivotal , character-defining moments occurring at sea . although the film’s rather conventional climax doesn’t sustain the inspired dynamic achieved in the first two-thirds , and ultimately just falls short on delivering the intended emotional punch , there are moments through the truman show which are genuinely stirring and moving as truman attempts to make sense of his unraveling world and grasp the implications behind his discoveries of deception . despite the multitude of pertinent issues being broached by the film , it remains foremost a finely-crafted piece of entertainment , constantly light and accessible . the tone achieved is far too sunny for any sense of fearful paranoia to legitimately intrude , and as the carefully-stacked seahaven house of cards tumbles down , the film eschews any psychological ramifications for a man discovering that the fundamentals of his entire existence have been false . the end act of the truman show essentially boils down to a rehash of the reliable , crowdpleasing underdog vs . the system formula . while the film is an impressive realisation of an inspired concept , some elements are lacking . the device of mysterious lauren/sylvia ( natascha mcelhone ) as a contributing impetus to truman’s growing awareness isn’t exactly convincing . there’s not much of a discernable spark between either the two characters or the actors themselves , and the scenes in which she indignantly confronts the megalomaniac christoff ( ed harris ) with regards to the moral ambiguity of his actions unnecessarily spells things out for the audience , thankfully avoided elsewhere in the film . in fact , although the film smartly restricts the number of scenes depicting the real world outside truman’s artificial utopia to a mere handful of select reaction shots from enraptured gazers , it might have perhaps been even more indicting and damning to immerse itself even * more * deeply in the insulatory seahaven world , with the resultant effect that the repercussions felt as the film finally shifts outside the imposed bubble are all the more startling . still , the scathing commentary issued by this film is on target , and its insidiously oblique manner of delivery is far more effective in conveying the message than the more forthright anti-voyeuristic tirades such as that of the recent costa gavras film mad city . i’ve always believed that the versatile ms . linney possesses a tremendous comic gift — she has always seems to have a impish gleam in her eyes — and in the truman show she runs rampant with her duplicitous character , mischievously flashing a glazed , insanely jovial grin as she perkily recites impromptu product placement slogans . cheerfully going over the top , it’s hilarious to watch her — who would have ever guessed that she’d have the opportunity to outshine the reigning king of comedy in the laughs department of a film ? ms . linney is a delight in the film . but it is mr . carrey who rules the show here . he may not have been intuitively the most obvious choice to portray underdog hero truman burbank — the role is seriously lacking in any of the frenetic comic interludes which typify his traditional parts — but he brings to the character tremendous energy and eminent appeal : it’s difficult not to root for truman . in a commanding performance , mr . carrey lends our protagonist an inherent sense of decency and integrity which makes him a genuinely engaging presence , and acquits himself impressively in this dramatic turn , demonstrating admirable restraint — there’s an early scene where he’s down on his knees gardening , and given his past track record , one almost instinctively anticipates mr . carrey to pull one of more infamous , and in this case , wholly inappropriate sight gags . it’s almost poetic how this notorious look-at-me actor successfully tones it down to play a character who’s constantly the centre of attention . in addition to the fine performances by the bulk of the cast — mr . emmerich is particularly noteworthy for issuing his character a sense of sturdy trustworthiness — the film is immeasurably aided by wonderful production design by dennis gassner in creating truman’s antiseptic , white picket-fenced smalltown utopia , and by burkhard dallwitz’s original score . technical credits are first-rate all around . while the truman show is clearly a definitive high-concept film , it’s not exactly a dazzlingly innovative one — obvious predecessors utilising common elements abound , ranging from 1965’s secret agent through to the groundbreaking british 1967 tv series the prisoner . all the same , this is a visionary , award-calibre film : entertaining , provocative , and intelligent . the curious ( and possibly disturbing ) thing may be that although upon first glance the plausibility of the film’s concept seems unfathomably outrageous , it’s abundantly clear that our society is rapidly approaching , if not actualisation , at least permissiveness of such a scenario . perhaps the highest compliment which can be paid to mr . weir is that his depiction of this bizarro state is so convincing that we accept it without question . perhaps we recognize a bit of ourselves in this world .
1 in chocolat , a chocolate shop owner tells her customers to look into a spinning object of obscure textures , patterns , and lines , hoping she’ll be able to foresee the kind of chocolate they’ll most enjoy . some scoff the idea , but everyone who gazes into the complexity of the spinning object winds up seeing something different than the next , revealing personality traits which the person may not have known they had before . this can easily stand as a model for chocolat as a whole : on the surface , it appears to be a light , fluffy fable with no depth or true worth , but when one takes a second , deeper look , chocolat’s true colors begin to shine through . making a bold statement about organized religion and those who practice it , lasse hallstrom’s chocolat is flawlessly acted and meticulously crafted-not to mention one of the best films of the year . what gives chocolat its magic , much like hallstrom’s 1999 winner of two academy awards , the cider house rules , is its willingness to say what’s on its mind without holding back to prevent offending audiences . the bold and honest message hallstrom conveys with chocolat will no doubt outrage a select group of viewers , but those who are willing to suspend their bitterness because they feel they are being intimidated or attacked should find themselves to be in agreement with what the film says about narrow-mindedness . chocolat centers its story around the small french village of lansquenet , where majority rules , and the majority lives by only one law : religion . the bulk of the townspeople ( with few exceptions ) are preparing for the sacred time of abstinence , lent , but when the independent thinking , seemingly non-religious vianne rocher ( juliette binoche ) and her daughter anouk ( victoire thivisol ) make the village their home , the people will be tempted beyond belief by the mouth-watering confections in the chocolate shop vianne opens . many are predictably opposed and deeply offended by vianne’s opening of the chocolate shop just in time for lent , especially the mayor , comte de reynaud ( a cartoon-like alfred molina ) , who will stop at nothing to put her out of business . on the other hand , the shop is a delight to others , including the cranky armande voizin ( judi dench ) , who sits day by day in vianne’s shop , telling the single mother about her unfortunate detached relationship with her grandson ( aurelien parent-koening ) , which comes as a result of his mother ( carrie-ann moss ) believing armande is a bad influence , as she does not hold the same , strict religious beliefs that she does . also a fan of the chocolate is the nervous wreck josephine muscat , whose husband is constantly beating her , to whom vianne offers a home and befriends . juliette binoche is charming and honest as vianne , genuinely capturing her character’s determination to turn the narrow-minded townspeople into more happy , independent human beings , but most of chocolat’s success is unquestionably a result of the remarkable performances of the supporting actresses . lena olin , previously nominated for an oscar in 1989 , deserves her second nomination for her earnest , moving portrayal of a lost , scared woman torn between staying true to her battering , manipulative husband or leaving him to live the life which for which she longs . judi dench is sharp , incisive , and occasionally greatly touching as armande voizin . carrie ann-moss , in what is likely to be her first largely noticed ( and acclaimed ) role since the matrix , shows a more solid side of her acting skills not previously seen , crafting a character that the viewer both sympathizes with and despises simultaneously . victoire thivisol shows much promise as anouk , a young girl hoping her always-on-the-move mother will eventually settle down . a trade ad for chocolat sums up best the power the actresses have on screen with the tagline : ” five extraordinary women , one extraordinary movie . ” that’s not to say the men don’t do their share , though : alfred molina makes for a sly and utterly repugnant antagonist , hugh o’conor adds quite a bit of comic relief as the priest who seems to not even know why he is who he is , and johnny depp gives a strong performance as the pirate roux , who enters the film late in the game and sparks the romantic interest of vianne . the technical aspects of chocolat are strong across the board : lasse hallstrom directs his enchanting fable with great care , perfectly balancing the elements of each genre to be found within the film . cinematographer roger pratt brings an atmospheric , fairy tale look to the film , and rachel portman’s masterful score is her best and most memorable since the cider house rules . chocolat , adapted by robert nelson jacobs from the joanne harris novel , is a wonderful little treat of a film , one that will most likely win over the hearts of audiences and the votes of academy members this winter , and the aggressive backing of miramax films assures the latter . while not as powerful as the cider house rules , lasse hallstrom’s chocolat is a film which works on all levels-as a drama , a comedy , a fable , a romance , and a fairy tale . and it even lives up to its name : it is delicious to savor the taste of , easy to digest , and , like all excellent chocolate , it is memorable for days afterward . the bottom line : chocolat is pure pleasure .
1 while alex browning ( devon sawa ) waits at jfk to leave for a school trip to paris , bad omens seem to surround him . as soon as he buckles into the plane , he has a vision of the plane exploding seconds after take-off . when the vision begins to come true , alex bolts for the door , dragging several students and a teacher in his wake . the plane takes off without them and explodes just as alex predicted . he becomes an object of fear and suspicion among the community , and the tension only increases as the survivors begin to die . alex and another survivor , clear rivers ( ali larter ) , investigate the suspicious ” suicide ” of a friend , and a mortician ( tony ” candyman ” todd ) clues them in to the truth : alex interrupted death’s design by saving people who should have died in the explosion , and death will want to claim its rightful victims . in order to save himself and the others , alex will have to figure out death’s new plan and thwart it . of the countless horror films that have competed for a piece of the ” scream ” audience , ” final destination ” is the best so far . talented young screenwriter jeffrey reddick offers a fresh variation on a familiar formula . we’ve seen hundreds of movies where a group of teenagers are murdered one-by-one by a faceless slasher , but reddick cuts out the hockey-masked middle-man and makes the villain death itself . first-time feature director james wong made the most of that premise . every scene is permeated with creepiness and foreboding , reminding us that death is everywhere , can come at anytime . everyday objects and events vibrate with menace . the most amusing harbinger of doom : john denver’s ” rocky mountain high , ” which is played several times in the movie before someone dies . ( the link is that denver died in a plane crash , and the song includes a line about fire in the sky . ) the performances are stronger than those usually elicited by teen horror . devon sawa , who previously starred in another horror flick , ” idle hands , ” gives a frantic and convincing lead performance . kerr smith is carter hogan , an antagonist of alex’s whose quick temper causes him to pulled off the fatal plane . smith plays carter as filled with anger and confusion that constantly threatens to bubble over into violence . seann william scott , who’s also in theaters right now in ” road trip , ” plays the somewhat dim billy hitchcock and provides a needed counterpoint to the intensity of alex and carter . tony todd’s one-scene cameo is delicious but all too brief . bottom line : watchable teen fright flicks are few and far between , but this destination is worth visiting .
1 assume nothing . the phrase is perhaps one of the most used of the 1990’s , as first impressions and rumors are hardly ever what they seem to be . the phrase especially goes for oscar novak , an architect who is the main focus of three to tango , a delightful , funny romantic comedy about assumptions and being yourself . novak ( matthew perry ) , a shy , clumsy , chicago based architect , along with openly gay partner , peter steinberg ( oliver platt ) , fights for projects day in and day out . one of these is the job of restoring a popular building for charles newman ( dylan mcdermott ) , a rich , well-known businessman . charles immediately takes a liking to oscar , as he enjoys his personality and sense of humor . seeing oscar as someone he could trust , charles asks him to watch his girlfriend , an unpredictable , adventurous girl named amy post ( neve campbell ) , who makes a living by blowing glass . charles wants to know who she talks to , what she does , and where she goes . the point ? to make sure she’s not seeing someone else , of course . oscar gladly takes the job , and meets amy at an art show of hers , and sparks fly between the two from the get go . oscar feels he has found the one meant for him , and he is content with the idea of being with amy . well , another popular phrase of the 90’s is ” all good things must come to an end , ” and this stays true for oscar as well . charles walks in on amy and oscar having a drink one night , as oscar and amy have become great friends , but he doesn’t seem to mind . why is this ? he thinks oscar is gay . he’s not afraid to share this with him either . oscar stands in shock after the words , ” i swear if you weren’t gay oscar , i’d have to kill you , ” are muttered flamboyantly from charles’ mouth . the word spreads instantly through town . will oscar ” come out ” of his supposed gayness , or will he tell everyone that he isn’t ? one would immediately think he would deny the fact , but numerous occurrences come to oscar , which result in the fact that if he denies the fact , he could lose his job with charles . matthew perry doesn’t escape his character as chandler on the already classic t . v . comedy ” friends , ” as both oscar novak and chandler are clueless , shy , and sensitive . nonetheless , perry is hilarious here , and shows that he can handle drama , as obviously , his character suffers quite a bit here . it’s wonderful to see neve campbell outside of a horror movie , ( she was the star of scream 1 and 2 , and the upcoming scream 3 ) as she handles comedy superbly here . her voice , smile , and personality are more than perfect for romantic comedies- stay with this genre , neve . neve is delightful as her conflicted character , who feels love for oscar , but knows , based on rumors , that he is gay . as usual , campbell is likable as her likable character . unlike the other two leads here , dylan mcdermott is flat in his dialogue , and is never convincing . when his character his present , mcdermott sets a dull tone to the scene with his horrible acting . stick to the t . v . drama , the practice , dylan . the major weak spot in three to tango is the direction of damon santostefano . no originality or technique is used whatsoever . three to tango is lucky that the script is so edgy and that perry and campbell are wonderful in comedy , or else the film would have been a disaster , as it is just plain boring to look at . three to tango is a film done many times before , as the plot is suspiciously close to 1998’s the object of my affection , but the plot has never been completed so well . three to tango’s script , written by rodney patrick vaccaro and aline brosh mckenna is fun , fast , and funny , delivering not only original , hilarious gay jokes ( not your run of the mill material ) , but a certain snappiness in the dialogue between characters that always keeps you smiling . unlike last summer’s south park : bigger , longer , and uncut and 1997’s in & out , three to tango is a comedy in which the gay element is not crude or vulgar . the script is wise to take this route , as gays can’t ( i don’t think so , anyway ) be offended by this light , playful comedy . ( to prove this , a gay couple was in the audience who were laughing constantly . ) three to tango’s climax is a hilarious , clever scene that is pure irony based on the outcome of most romantic-mistaken identity comedies . three to tango is a gem . the bottom line : three to tango is a light , sharp , snappy romantic comedy with a superb ending , and great stars . one of the better romantic comedies of 1999 .
1 the question isn’t why has grease been reissued . the answer to that one is easy : to celebrate the movie’s 20th anniversary and to make more bucks for paramount’s coffers because john travolta is once again a hot commodity . no , the question that ought to be asked is : should grease be reissued ? the answer is not an easy one . grease is a fun movie , an entertaining fantasy of the ’50s , embodying all the cliches of that era . the music is lively and the dance numbers , choreographed by patricia birch , are energetic and high-spirited . travolta was at his pinnacle as a sexual icon , cool , but non-threatening . but grease didn’t break any new cinematic ground . it was not a milestone in movie history such as citizen kane or easy rider . what grease is – or has become – is the highest-grossing musical in film history . ok , let’s not be a spoilsport . grease is a fun and entertaining movie , even though it stretches credulity to see such performers as travolta , olivia newton-john , taxi’s jeff conaway and the multi-talented stockard channing try to act like high schoolers . it’s nostalgic to recall how good a dancer travolta was , and it’s sad to think of what could have been had not a few missteps sidetracked his career . he could have become a musical comedy star in the tradition of gene kelly . cinematically , the musical comedy has basically gone the way of the dinosaur . between grease and 1996’s evita . , you can probably count the number of movie musicals on one hand . two reasons have contributed to the demise of the genre : the first is that movie audiences have become more sophisticated , no , make that cynical and jaded . today , if a character began to dance and sing with no orchestra in sight , he or she would probably be hooted off the screen . today’s audiences lack the innocence , that belief in movie magic that is required for a musical to succeed . secondly , a lack of talent . performers with the charisma , the style , the larger-than-life panache of fred astaire , gene kelly , ginger rogers and judy garland are gone . most singers and dancers remain on the stage , and those who do succeed in movies usually wind up in serious dramatic parts . a good example is gregory hines , one of the greatest dancers in the world . he danced a bit in the cotton club , tap and white nights , but those were essentially dramatic vehicles . so , perhaps the reissue of grease can serve a purpose . if audiences show enough interest , meaning if the re-release earns the studio enough revenue , it may spark a revival in movie musicals . perhaps not original musicals such as singin’ in the rain , an american in paris or seven brides for seven brothers , but for broadway properties that have been in the planning stages for film adaptations for several years . at one time or another , according to the industry rumor mill , hollywood has been set to create an animated version of andrew lloyd webber’s cats , a filming of the popular phantom of the opera as well as les miserables and chicago , the latter reportedly to star madonna . so , let this grease be the forerunner of an armada of movie musicals . let grease be the word that sparks this revival .
1 let’s face it : since waterworld floated by , the summer movie season has grown * very * stale . with no new eye-candy for four weeks straight , we’ve had to sustain ourselves on the quasi-nutritional value of cheatin’ husbands , traveling chocolate salesmen , and computer- generated serial killers . sigh . thank god for desperado . the freewheeling sequel to el mariachi–director robert rodriguez’s notorious $7000 debut–stars a cool antonio banderas as the returning guitarist with no name . he’s a man in black with revenge on his mind , and an arsenal in his case . ( the woman he loved was killed in the first film . ) so , he spends the entire story shooting drug dealers ; sort of a tex-mex version of the punisher , if you will . there isn’t much of an emotional core to desperado . rodriguez is having too much fun finding new and innovative ways to pay homage to john woo . ( and sergio leone . . . and sam peckinpah . . . ) some may wince at the body count–at least 100 graphic killings is a fair estimate–but it’s all played for laughs . big , broad , hispanic laughs that , for me , recall the physical comedy of blake edwards and his pink panther films . sick , slick fun .
1 if beavis and butthead had a favorite movie , from dusk till dawn would probably be it . scripted by quentin tarantino and directed by robert rodriguez ( desperado ) , the movie panders to the very worst in sex and violence — and is incredibly fun to watch . it starts off as a pulp fiction-type crime story , with criminal brothers george clooney and tarantino robbing a convenience store . because this is a tarantino movie , however , it’s not just a case of pull the gun and take the loot , it’s a case of a hole being shot through someone’s hand , a man on fire jumping out behind the counter and the entire store blowing up as they drive away . the opening scene sets the tone for the rest of the movie — everything overdone and nothing as it seems . clooney and tarantino bring a hostage to the motel and then hijack an rv with a family in it . harvey keitel plays the backslidden ex-preacher and juliette lewis his daughter , whom registered sex-pervert tarantino eyes endlessly . you know you’re mentally unbalanced when you find lewis the least bit attractive , although she’s not nearly as obnoxious as usual in from dusk till dawn . the first half of the movie has the criminals and hostages trying to get to and through the mexico border , clooney’s strategy involving hiding in the rv shower while lewis is on the toilet . it does its trick ; the border guard takes one look at lewis relieving herself and immediately goes blind , never noticing clooney or tarantino . once they get to mexico , it’s time to wait at the rendezvous point , a topless bar called titty twister where we’re once again reminded tarantino wrote the movie as he drinks champagne off the foot of a stripper . finally , after about ten minutes of intercut boob shots and clooney forcing keitel and lewis to drink with him , the stripper turns into a vampire . soon half the people in the bar are vampires and the other half fall or fight back . that’s right , we’ve come all this way to see a vampire movie . but like everything else , tarantino takes this age-old genre and twists it to his own ends to produce over-the-top entertainment . so we get holy water condom balloons , heads rolling , quadruple impalement on an overturned table and keitel getting bitten by a vampire and announcing he only has a few minutes left before he becomes ” a lap dog of satan . ” the from dusk till dawn dialogue is 100% tarantino , hovering between absurd and disgusting ( as when they’re entering the nightclub and cheech marin announces the main attractions of the titty twister ) , but always entertaining , and is a huge reason the movie is so much fun to watch instead of being one more second-rate gorefest . clooney , keitel and especially tarantino are so over-the-top with their delivery that the dialogue is that much more hilarious , ensuring not one second of from dusk till dawn is taken the least bit seriously . stuff like this would be terrible in any other movie , but tarantino and rodriguez know exactly what to do to entertain people , even if there’s absolutely no message or meaning to from dusk till dawn . pulp fiction had the vulgarity and violence for a reason , but this movie just throws it out for cheap entertainment . from dusk till dawn isn’t the classic of modern cinema that pf is , but is does prove you can do a good job making a really bad movie .
1 the small-scale film , in limited release , ” waking ned devine ” is a pleasant excursion to a time and place which allows the audience to absorb the full texture of a small town . filled with breathtaking scenery , ‘characters’ , and delightful music , the movie would be interesting even without a plot . the story contains several surprises which are best left unmentioned in a review . the film starts out with a sharp opening , which gives us a taste of what is to follow : country folk with an inclination for a bit of larceny . what gets things going is the fact that a winner of the lottery is apparently one of the residents in the small town ( pop 52 ) of tullymore . who that person is , and how to share in the good fortune is the mission of two longtime friends jackie ( ian bannen ) and michael ( david kelly ) . part detectives , part scalawags , they have to stay alert to the changing circumstances they face as the story unfolds . the village consists of several amusing characters . a clueless pig farmer , temporary priest , and a witch . there’s also the lotto man who must be satisfied that everything is on the up-and-up . there are no hollywood touches to this film – except for the outer space introduction [ ! ] . pacing is right . towards the end , it runs a bit out of steam , but that’s okay because for most of the 90 minutes we’ve been interested in the goings on . a mixture of laughs and ( occasional ) sentiment – all the right emotions are engaged . in one brief dream sequence – you’ll know it when you see it – a fantastic combination of color and music transports the characters to a place you really hope exists . one of the key moments in the film . the music , available on cd ( london 289 460 939-2 ) follows the same arc as the movie and is well worth considering . a fine film that’s for everybody except action fans . somewhat like ‘the englishman who went up a hill and came down a mountain , ‘ . . . but livelier .
1 warren beatty’s ” bulworth ” is a caustic political comedy that doesn’t attack any particular political group , but rather the ingrained insincerity that has infected the american political system . some might think this film is vulgar , and in many ways it is . however , as loud and raucous as it is , ” bulworth ” speaks the truth , which is almost always ugly to hear . beatty , who directed the film and co-wrote the script with jeremy pikser ( ” the lemon sisters ” ) , stars as incumbent u . s . senator jay billington bulworth , who has one of the best politician names in cinema history . bulworth is a democrat , and in beatty’s view , he is symbolic of everything that has gone wrong with the current democratic party . once an ideological liberal ( like beatty still is ) , bulworth has long since succumbed to the materialistic pressures of washington . instead of waging the battles for the impoverished and the downtrodden , which was once the calling card of democrats , bulworth has become another sell-out money hound – if he’s not accepting illegal bribes from the insurance lobby or taking campaign contributions from the chinese , he’s making wind-bag speeches that start with the amusingly clintonesqe statement , ” america is standing on the doorstep of a new millennium . . . . blah , blah , blah . ” when the film opens , it is a few days before the 1996 primary elections , and bulworth is sitting at his desk weeping because he realizes how corrupt he has become . in a fit of desperation , he takes out a $10 million life insurance policy from a dirty insurance rep played by paul sorvino ( part of a shady lobby deal to kill a threatening bill in committee ) , and then hires a hit man to kill him , although he doesn’t know who the assassin will be , or when the hit will take place . knowing that he will soon be dead , bulworth unleashes his own brand of political rhetoric on the world , which is made up of politically incorrect truths about the state of american politics and the society in general . at a compton church , he tells the group of african-americans that they will have no power in the u . s . unless they ” put down that malt liquor and chicken wings , and get behind somebody other than a running back who stabs his wife . ” later , in a particularly hilarious sequence , bulworth mixes with the hollywood elite , then insults the quality of their movies and informs them that the only reason he’s there is because ” my guys always put the big jews on my schedule . ” all throughout this physically and politically suicidal escapade , bulworth’s chief of staff , dennis murphy ( oliver platt ) , follows behind in a state of constant shock and bewilderment . platt has some of the movie’s funniest scenes , as he makes murphy into a politically savvy but nonetheless clueless assistant who is forced to watch his own career teeter at the brink of being flushed down the toilet . his constant half-truth-telling and spin-doctoring to cover bulworth’s stampede is equaled in its perversion only by a self-righteous reporter ( nora dunn ) who acts like murphy’s refusal to explain bulworth’s actions ( something he really cannot do ) is somehow an act of treason . when bulworth decides he wants to live after all , and therefore must constantly evade a grim-looking assassin to be who’s trailing him at every turn , he hides out in the ghetto , complete with a stereotypical gangsta wardrobe which he wears to one of his television interviews . at this point , beatty abandons much of the political aspect and dives into a cartoonish exploration of the black inner-city experience . bulworth becomes friendly with a young black woman named nina ( halle berry ) , who he meets at the harlem church rally . she has a tough-talking brother who is deep in debt to a local gangster named l . d . ( don cheadle of ” boogie nights ” ) , who also becomes involved in bulworth’s campaign . some of the scenes in the ghetto ring true , but much of it feels like a lighter version of scenes depicted in more intense inner-city films like ” boyz’n’hood ” ( 1991 ) and ” menace ii society ” ( 1993 ) . ” bulworth’s ” chief liability is beatty’s insistence on having his character adopt a clumsy style of rap as his new communication device . instead of speaking at political rallies , he breaks into a kind of rhythmless rap style that is a reminder of why almost all hip-hop stars are black . it’s hard to tell whether beatty is being humorous by being so bad , or whether he’s actually that incompetent . at any rate , the rap sounds more run d . m . c . than snoop doggy dogg , which makes the film seem dated instead of contemporary . beatty would have been better off simply adopting some of the inner-city lingo and working that into his speeches , instead of trying to sound like l . l . cool j . other than that , ” bulworth ” hits all its targets with wry , hilarious accuracy . the film is like a letter bomb to the democratic party , and even if you don’t agree with beatty’s liberal message about the unrequited duties of the federal government , it is hard to deny the impact the film has in exploring the monetary and moral debauchery that infests modern politics . unlike ” primary colors ” which opened earlier this year , ” bulworth ” doesn’t try to tip-toe around the truly painful issues that hit close to home – instead , it takes them dead-on .
1 when i saw the trailer for this film , i laughed harder than i had in quite some time . while i was therefore pretty well psyched to see it , i was ever mindful that a trailer can make even the most mediocre film look good . i’m happy to say that there’s something about mary is not one of those trailer let-downs . in fact , watching this film was quite a fine way to spend two hours . the film opens up in flashback to 1985 , at a high school in cumberland , rhode island . ted stroehmann ( ben stiller ) is a social reject who can’t seem to get a date to the upcoming prom , until he comes to the defense of the mentally retarded warren ( w . earl brown ) , who’s being harassed by one of the school jocks . it seems warren’s sister is the campus queen , mary jensen ( cameron diaz ) , who is impressed with ted’s willingness to stand up for her defenseless brother , despite a very real chance of getting beaten up . mary takes an immediate liking to ted and asks him to the prom . ted was just flattered that she even knew his name . unfortunately , prom night is ruined when ted has an accident with his zipper ( at which every man in the theater will wince ) , and is sent to the hospital . fast forward to the present , where ted has cleaned himself up , now writes for a magazine , but has weekly therapy sessions in order to deal with his obsession of the past 13 years : mary , whom he hasn’t seen since that fateful day . with the help of his friend dom ( chris elliott ) , ted hires slimy private investigator pat healy ( matt dillon ) to track down his only love . however , when pat finds mary , he falls for her too , and soon the both of them are competing for her affections . there’s something about mary is directed by bobby and peter farrelly , who brought us dumb and dumber and kingpin . not exactly intelligent comedies , they are of the guilty pleasure variety where you might not want your friends or co-workers to think you had such a great time watching them . with their current film , the farrelly brothers have come up with something you’ll not only enjoy , but also won’t mind talking about the next day at the water cooler . the film succeeds in employing a pretty wide range of comedic styles , from the subtle to the ridiculous , and while a few of the gags might be offensive to some ( seeming like residuals from the farrelly brothers’ last two films ) they almost all work . i have not seen many movies in the recent past that shoot for the mark and so often hit it dead on . one minute you’ll be laughing at something ted says , and the next you’ll be howling at the sight of a dog dragging him across the floor of mary’s apartment . one of the great things this film has going for it is ben stiller . he is perfectly cast in the role of ted , because he’s a guy who just looks awkward in almost every situation . ted’s a nice fellow and tries to do his best , but for some reason or another things just don’t always work out . it’s comical , but also has that kind of appeal where you really feel for the him and want him to come out on top . actually , i’ve liked stiller since he did a short which aired on saturday night live back in the mid-eighties . the film was like a theatrical trailer for a spoof on the tom cruise/paul newman film the color of money , entitled the hustler of money . in it , stiller played wince ( not vince ) who is taken under the wing of an older man ( played by john mahoney ) to become a big-time bowling hustler . it was parody at its finest , more of which showed up in the short-lived ” the ben stiller show ” on the fox network in late ’92/early ’93 . like ” the critic ” ( which aired on abc , then fox ) , i still mourn that show’s cancellation . cameron diaz is absolutely enchanting for most of the film , although her character seems obsessed with perfection in the men she dates , and some of the qualities she looks for make mary look paper-thin at times . however , diaz pulls the role off with such panache and charm , that you can still see why she’s got guys just falling over each other to be with her . heck , i even found her laugh to be cute , even though i thought it was annoying during an appearance she made on the tonight show last week . my girlfriend remarked that matt dillon doesn’t change , and you know , it’s really true . he and ralph macchio must hang out or something . maybe they live in dick clark’s pool house . anyway , here’s another good piece of casting , as dillon slips beautifully into the role of the guy who tries to worm his way into mary’s heart . the supporting performances are also good . chris elliott has a bigger part than in the abyss ( yes , check it out next time ) , and less annoying than in cabin boy . lin shae , who plays mary’s neighbor magda ( and also appeared as the landlady in kingpin ) , provides some good laughs , especially in scenes with her benji-like dog , which acts as the focal point for a few of the funniest moments of the film . lee evans , as mary’s friend tucker , displays a flexibility in acting and accents which surprises and contributes to an interesting plot twist . the farrelly brothers and scriptwriters ed decter and john j . strauss keep the comedic pacing going so that there aren’t any noticeable times where the film drags . the only problem i saw was their use of a couple of musicians who provide segues between several key scenes . they appear out of nowhere and actually sing plot-relevant information right toward the camera . it’s a device which was amusing for about three seconds when they opened the film . after that it got a little annoying , and it’s unfortunate that those spots interrupt what would otherwise be a smooth flow . fortunately , filled with sight gags , humorous lines , and solid comedic acting , there’s something about mary will still have you laughing after you leave the theater .
1 plot : a young recruit gets plucked out of nowhere by the number one gangster in london and quickly becomes a staple by his side . but this new guy is not like all the others , he’s got ambition , he’s got goals and he loves everything he sees about being the number one gangster . violence , lots of swearing and betrayals ensue . critique : a very good , serious-minded , unique british gangster flick which misses the ” great ” mark by way of an annoying voice-over popping up throughout the film and a so-so ending . here’s yet another cool crime movie that actually manages to bring something new into the mix . okay , so it’s not entirely new , but it’s definitely original when all put together as done here . the thing i liked most about this movie was its authentic portrayal of the time period in which it was taking place . it’s 1968 and these dudes are looking good ! yes , it’s all about the suits , fellas . . . the italian shoes , the cufflinks , the ties and the birds ( that’s ladies , for those uninitiated ) hanging around you . here are a bunch of horrible men , gangsters if you will , looking sharp , talking shit and busting heads all over the place . but that’s not the basis of this movie . the basis of this film comes in the relationship between the number one gangster in the group , the excellent david thewlis , and one of his cronies , paul bettany , also extremely good in this film , and how the power , sex appeal and coolness of one , affects the other . you know how there are always these ” hanger-on ” gangster types who latch on to the godfathers , the leaders , the top dogs of every crime organization ? well , most of the time , these dudes are screened beforehand and are loyal to only one person . . . that is , their boss . so all the gangster number one needs to worry about is his enemies on the other side of the fence . but this film brings the betrayals , the messed up loyalties , the honor codes among bad guys into play within the same group and presents it in quite the stylistic package . of course , director paul mcguigan isn’t trying to be guy ritchie here , and doesn’t over-stylize his presentation , jazz it all up with a hip soundtrack or add any humor to the mix . nope , he goes straight for the serious stuff and develops at least two particular scenes which are still embedded in my mind as i type this . the first is a confrontation sequence between bettany and a man from which he’s attempting to sway some information and it is downright nasty ! ( ” look into my eyes ! ” ) in fact , the last time that i’ve seen a guy so scared in a movie was john turturro in that forest scene from the coen brothers’ miller’s crossing . scary shite . but there’s an ever better scene than that in this film . this one features bettany , once again , slowly torturing , hacking and beating the living piss out of a rival gangster ( from that man’s point-of-view ) , but not before turning on a quaint little tune in the background and removing all of his own expensive clothes , one by one ( that’s right , he ” does ” the guy in his underwear ) . that scene is also in tune with some of the obvious phallic and homoerotic undertones present throughout this film , especially in the relationship between bettany and his boss ( why does he get so upset when he falls in love with that woman ? ) . but the flick’s not perfect . in fact , i didn’t mind malcolm mcdowell’s voice-over narration at first , but as the film grew into a major flashback ( most of the film is presented as such ) , he came in every now and then , and rarely added anything of interest to the plot . all he seemed to do was swear and call people the c-word umpteen times , and even described one scene as it was happening ( ” . . . so i opened the door , then went up the lift , etc . . . . ” -it’s like , yeah , i know that already , i could see it on the screen ! ! overdone . ) . i also didn’t quite ” buy ” the ending of the movie , which despite being original , seemed a little unbelievable , especially when you consider that it’s supposed to be taking place 30 years later , and folks still seem to be holding grudges , still in love , still living in the same apartments ? ? ! ? i mean , c’mon . . . it’s 30 years , man ! ! i don’t know , somehow it didn’t work all that well for me . but one of my favorite genres has always been the crime movies , and this one is a decent addition to the lot . forget the lame title and malcolm mcdowell’s narration of the obvious plot points , and concentrate on the film’s stronger attributes such as its style , the exquisite atmosphere of the time period , its original look at the gangster dynamic within the same group , its memorable sequences and the solid performances from its two main leads , bettany and thewlis . incidentally , unlike a few of the gangster flicks that i mention below , this one is in no way a parody or homage to this genre of films . . . it’s the real deal ! note : this film is packed with strong accents all around , which makes it hard to make out some of the words from time to time . it’s also quite violent and i don’t remember any film that used the c-word as much as this one , so leave the kids at home for this one . . . ; ) where’s joblo coming from ? american psycho ( 10/10 ) – a clockwork orange ( 9/10 ) – donnie brasco ( 8/10 ) – fight club ( 10/10 ) – get carter ( 7/10 ) – godfather ( 10/10 ) – godfather ii ( 10/10 ) – goodfellas ( 10/10 ) – lock , stock & two smoking barrels ( 8/10 ) – pulp fiction ( 8/10 ) – reservoir dogs ( 9/10 )
1 bruce lee was a bigger-than-life martial artist ( and ) actor . bruce’s unique character ( i . e . , self-produced sound effects , etc . ) and seemingly perfected martial art and physique were all well portrayed by the actor , james lee . the story is told from his wife linda’s point of view where she put a lot of family and practical side of bruce lee’s life . however , you can’t help but like , whenever the fight scenes are on , what he can does with his body and that familiar bruce attitude and character . i also like the little bits of insight scenes about bruce lee’s life before he became famous : scenes like bruce practicing pronunciation of english . it seemed as if he was no better than anybody else . scenes like bruce delivering chinese food as a delivery boy ridding a bike through the american college looking at the ( all-white ) students , cheerleaders , and athletes . it seemed he too wished for the american dreams and hopes . in conclusion , the movie was well made , it produced a realization of who bruce lee was , and actor james lee was so much like bruce you have to remind yourself that he is just an actor . and the fighting scenes were all excellent . so go see it and enjoy the movie . p . s . if you have seen the movie unforgiven by clint eastwood , then the feeling left after dragon was very much like the feeling you got after the unforgiven .
1 clint eastwood , in his ripe old age , is cashing one talent in for another . midnight in the garden of good and evil is an eastwood-directed film clint isn’t even in , and it’s damn good . adapted from a best-selling john berendt novel based on true events , this movie is set in the bizarre georgia town of savannah , where people walk invisible dogs and attach horseflies to their head . and that’s just the mayor . as director and producer , eastwood contributes a self- indulgent but very competent 150 minutes , neatly balancing drama , suspense and humor . like all great movies , midnight in the garden has a lot of funny moments that spring from the characters themselves , and not from some contrived , juvenile intrusion . the acting , from big-time stars john cusack and kevin spacey , is as good as you’d expect , but it’s the supporting stable that gives the movie its offbeat charm . cusack plays a free-lance reporter sent to savannah to write a fluff story for town & country magazine about one of eccentric millionaire spacey’s parties . lots of food , beverages and gunplay . yes , an employee of spacey’s has a huge argument in front of cusack and later turns up dead . it seems like a simple matter of self- defense — the guy threatened spacey , shot at him , missed , then spacey took him out — but being a movie , there’s much more to it than that , and cusack decides to stay in town and write a book about the murder , a book which will eventually become a movie he will star in . the weird circle of entertainment . this is where the stable of supporting characters comes in . there’s the requisite sexy woman ( alison ” nepotist’s daughter ” eastwood ) , the strange piano player , the voodoo woman and the transvestite . miss chablis deserves a paragraph of his/her own , as the stealer of every scene she appears in — what would this movie be without the castilian scene and her testimony ? chablis , playing herself , is five times funnier than reigning drag queen rupaul , but never seems exploited as the movie’s comic relief or out of place in a basically serious movie . there are also a fair share of courtroom scenes , which these days almost never seem welcome in a movie , but even here clint manages to keep the movie fascinating . certainly the characterizations of the judge and spacey’s lawyer both help immensely , as does having the fly-guy as the jury’s foreman . it’s here we realize the case boils down to an indictment of spacey’s homosexuality . yes , spacey had a sexual relationship with the dead man — before he shot him , of course . midnight in the garden of good and evil isn’t a classic , but it is one of the better celebrity-directed , true-story best-seller adaptations out there . likewise , no one from this movie will be getting any oscar nominations , but the performances are all great . in fact , i’d almost recommend that the academy add a best supporting transvestite category . serving america for more than 1/25th of a century !
1 meet joe black is your classic boy-meets-girl , boy-likes-girl , boy-gets-killed-in-horrible-accident , supernatural-entity-takes-over-boy’s-body , supernatural-entity-falls-in-love-with-girl story . based on the 1934 film death takes a holiday , meet joe black is a well acted romantic drama which explores the meanings of life and love . william parrish ( anthony hopkins ) is a billionaire businessman on the brink of his 65th birthday . he has built a huge media empire , and raised two beautiful daughters , allison ( marcia gay harden ) and susan ( claire forlani ) . william has been able to negotiate his way out of many tough spots . . . but he has suddenly begun fearing his own mortality , the one situation he won’t be able to talk his way out of . and he has good reason to fear , for death himself is stalking him . however , death has a deal to make . death has taken possession of a man who has recently died ( brad pitt ) , and wants william to be his guide in a holiday among the living . in return , william gets to live a few extra days . of course , he agrees . death , under the human name of ” joe black ” , gets to experience life as a complete innocent . he never before has experienced the simple pleasures of a springy matters or peanut butter . and he’s not quite compared for the more complex pleasures when he and susan fall in love . but , is their affair doomed to an early demise ? at nearly three hours in length , meet joe black is a little bit on the leisurely side , though it never gets boringly lengthy . instead , the film gets a chance to develop some nicely textured characters and situations . you get to soak in and enjoy the atmosphere , rather than being hurriedly rushed through it . the romantic angle works well , though , surprisingly , the interactions between joe black and william parrish are more interesting than those with his daughter . this is most likely due to anthony hopkins , who once again displays his superb acting skills . william is a desperate man who has had a seemingly ideal life , and doesn’t want to let it go . by contrast , claire forlani is merely the romantic interest . she gets to show joe the ropes of love , but is hardly as interesting a character . as joe black , brad pitt seems a bit stilted . granted , he’s supposed to be out-of-place , but the overly formal technique used by pitt begins to distract from the role . still , he is able to hold his own , and over the course of the three hours , his character begins to grow on you . the main character who seems out of place here is drew ( jake weber ) , an ambitious executive in williams’ company who is joe black’s main rival for susan’s affections . weber plays the character with a hammy relish reminiscent of snidley whiplash . this cartoonish foil an aberration in a film filled many more dimensional characters . the supernatural elements of the film are handled murkily , but never distractingly so . we never learn what is the exact nature of death , or why he’s never done something like this before . it actually gets a bit creepy when death talks to the dying in their own voices/accents . ( his initial conversations with hopkins sound shockingly like hannibal lecter . . . ) and the ultimate resolution to one of the film’s supernatural problems seems , well , somewhat superficial . still , even with the film’s length , it was a pleasant time at the movies , something you wouldn’t necessarily expect from a film about death . . . but one which meet joe black delivers anyhow .
1 buffalo ? 66 is a very rarely known movie that stars vincent gallo and christina ricci . gallo plays a very troubled man , who was sent to jail for gambling . once out of jail , he must visit his parents , who he told he was married . the truth is he isn’t married . to try to impress them , he kidnaps a girl ( christina ricci ) from a tap dancing class to act as his wife . the film is very cheaply made , and it shows it throughout a lot of the movie , but you don’t need money to make a good film . buffalo ? 66 doesn’t always stay with the realistic concept , and sometimes goes through outrageous events . gallo’s parents , played by angelica huston and ben gazarra , are two very strange individuals . the mother plays a football fanatic and the father plays a quiet man with odd habits . gallo and ricci arrive at his parent’s house , and some extremely funny scenes take place within the house . ricci’s performance during the scene at gallo’s parent’s home are very well done . there is constantly humor involved in the interesting dinner table scenes . the way the movie was filmed in this particular part of the movie were interesting and creative . they seemed very mediocre , but they worked out just fine . gallo’s character is developed very well . the impression that he is very depressed and confused is very clear . gallo gives a performance that makes you believe what the character is going through . his character goes through many , many problems , just like many people in real life . this character seemed very realistic to me . ricci’s character is funny and different . she doesn’t care much that she has been kidnaped , in fact , she falls in love the man who kidnaped her ! ricci is a very wonderful actress and she is starting to get the recognition that she deserves . buffalo ? 66 isn’t all laughs though . many scenes are very dramatic and depressing . gallo’s character was so realistic , he was extremely disturbing . some scenes are supposed to come off as funny , but they actually seemed sad and real to life . the film sometimes drags along , not giving much material . i really would have liked to see gallo’s parents a lot more , and i would have liked to see the characters developed more . overall , buffalo ? 66 isn’t as good as some people put it up to be . the bottom line- a few hysterical scenes save this film from sinking to the bottom .
1 after being hypnotized , a man believes there is a ghost in his house . the review two low-key summer horror films have become surprise financial successes this year : the blair witch project and the sixth sense . each has made well over $100 million in north america , based on a combination of strong word of mouth and clever advertising . if a film’s box office take were based primarily on its quality , stir of echoes would join blair and sense in grossing far more money than expected , for it is as scary , if not scarier than the other two . writer/director david koepp has given artisan entertainment , the folks who distributed blair witch a second creepy hit . the story gets going after tom witzky ( bacon ) , an average blue-collar dad , gets hypnotized by his wife maggie’s ( erbe ) sister lisa ( douglas ) at a party . while the hypnosis goes as expected to the party-goers , it triggers something in tom’s head . things begin to change around him ( blinking red lights let off a strange hum , for example ) , and he fights to stay in control of his own senses . where these experiences take tom , maggie and their son jake ( cope ) , who tom thinks might have some answers , is down a dark path that will scare and disturb you . david koepp keeps the action localized ; the majority of the action takes place at tom’s house or just down the street . by keeping things at home , koepp is able to proceed without having to resort to any clumsy segues ( montages of driving down roads as we move from one city to another etc . ) . unfortunately , the dread and spookiness of stir of echoes are frequently interrupted by moments of levity . humour can take the tension away from a scene faster than any shoddy special effect or poor acting . several tense moments become completely diffused by a few misplaced jokes . also , there are a couple of plot developments that are left unresolved , though to mention them would be to give too much away . kevin bacon handles the duel task of playing an everyman and a man losing his sanity admirably . his total lack of understanding of what is happening to him is believable , as are the reactions from his wife maggie . kathryn erbe is given a role meatier and better written than that of most ” wife who can no longer handle her husband ” parts . while it is still a supporting role , her maggie is moving as she watches both her husband and her son enter what she calls ” a private club that i’m not invited to ” , where they whisper about things all day long . as jake , zachary cope equals the performance of haley joel osment in the sixth sense , but gets less screen time . both children manage the same trick , making the audience creeped out by their apparent acceptance of the way things are . fans of blair and sixth sense will almost surely love stir of echoes . it combines the dread of blair , a creepy closed-in feel thanks to cinematographer fred murphy and great performances by the whole cast , specifically bacon , to give the fall its first genuine scary film . if only they had let up on the unneeded funny bits and tweaked the plot a bit more , this could have been one of the year’s best .
1 being the self-proclaimed professional film critic that i am , i am somewhat embarrassed to admit that i had not seen lawrence of arabia ( coming soon to dvd ) until only recently . after all , it’s considered by just about everyone to be the masterpiece epic of director david lean , who also directed films such as bridge on the river kwai , and doctor zhivago . so one day , a friend of mine loaned me a copy of the video and i sat down and watched it . i was initially skeptical that something made almost 40 years ago would be able to keep my attention for the butt-numbing 3 1/2 hours of its duration . but now i fully understand why this has become the film that other epic films are judged against — the winner of seven academy awards in 1963 for best picture , director , editing , cinematography , art direction , music , and sound . after watching the film again , i am convinced that it is simply one of the finest works of cinematic genius to ever illuminate the big screen . based on the autobiographical writing of british officer t . e . lawrence during world war i , lawrence of arabia depicts lawrence ( played by then-unknown actor peter o’toole ) as a lieutenant lacking any sort of military discipline whatsoever . bored with his assignment of coloring maps for the british army in a dimly lit headquarters building , lawrence jumps at the opportunity to be re-assigned as an observer for an arabian prince fighting against the turkish army . lawrence quickly sees just how caring and great these desert dwelling people can be and ends up rallying the various tribes together to fight the turks and help the british turn the tide of world war i . shot in panavision’s famed super 70mm format , the film beautifully illustrates the definition of the word epic . it is absolutely breathtaking . using stunning cinematography , costuming , and direction , shot in the most uninhabitable location on the face of the earth , i can only imagine what it must have been like to sit in a theater in 1962 and watch this story unfold before my eyes . every shot is choreographed as a portrait — a living tribute to a great land . david lean put his reputation on the line to get this film completed , and the fact that it was even greenlit in the first place says something about the ideology of the motion picture industry at the time , a far cry from its pathetic , uncreative existence today . after watching the film , the first thing that came to my mind was , ” i’ve got to do a remake of this film ! ” but then i thought about trying to pitch the idea to a modern-day movie executive : ” okay , it’s going to be almost four hours long and shot over three months on location in the sahara desert . we are going to need to blow up a full-size train because computer-generated effects probably wont do it justice . and we are not going to use any big stars , and won’t have any female actors since there’s no love story . ” yes , my friends , the velvet curtain fell on the golden-era of hollywood a long time ago . but at least we still have the proof to show all would-be producers and directors out there just how good a film can be .
1 my summer was recently saved by two very different movies . on opening night , i saw american pie 2 and laughed like a moron . then a few nights later , i watched and thoroughly enjoyed joel hershman’s greenfingers even though it didn’t feature a trip to band camp , girl-on-girl action , or seann william scott . however , i felt just as good leaving american pie 2 as i did after leaving greenfingers , which tells the offbeat tale of british murderer colin briggs ( clive owen of croupier ) . after spending roughly half of his life behind bars , he is transferred to a more lenient facility , edgefield . the picaresque , rustic prison allows its inmates to learn a trade , while enjoying accommodations generally found at most colleges . at first , briggs doesn’t want to be there . he’s used to living as a prisoner and wants to be left alone . however , his ailing roommate , fergus ( david kelly of waking ned devine ) , wears briggs down through his benign nature . the two become friends , with fergus giving colin a packet of violet seeds as a christmas gift . briggs is astonished when the violets grow in the limestone soil , and begins a fight with three other prisoners when an errant soccer ball smashes his beloved flowers . after the prison’s governor ( warren clarke ) reprimands them , he’s awed at what briggs has accomplished . and he’s struck by an idea — briggs , fergus and the other men will grow a garden on the prison’s grounds . greenfingers , which is ” inspired by actual events , ” becomes a bit like a sports movie after that . despite their differences , the men come together and through hard work and love earn a spot at the big game — in this case a prestigious garden show . one renegade , in this case , briggs , will prove to have talent . of course , love will also rear its head ( no , not ” prison love ” ) . to hershman’s credit , he doesn’t pump up the drama or try for cheap laughs , like last year’s lame marijuana comedy saving grace . i had to keep pinching myself when i didn’t see a single scene of a hardened con sneezing over a pot of pansies , or the men giving high-fives over a particularly stunning batch of wildflowers . the movie deals with people and scores on that concept . it’s wonderful seeing briggs turn from a bitter prisoner to a man who cares again . give credit to owen for keeping his cool in a part that begs for overacting . his speech to the parole board about being reborn through gardening is the best scene of its kind since morgan freeman’s last stand in the shawshank redemption . owen’s bedside scenes with kelly , who lends the film a human touch , are a marvel to behold , emotionally gripping without being sappy . written by hershman , greenfingers contains plenty of laughs . most come courtesy of helen mirren , who shines as the world-class gardener who works with the inmates but fears for her daughter primrose ( natasha little ) when she starts dating briggs . the mother can’t believe what he’ll do if her daughter ” burns the sunday roast . ” nothing is forced in greenfingers . the funny lines come forth naturally in conversations and not from punch lines . primrose and briggs’ relationship takes awkward steps . even when briggs decides to go back to edgefield , it’s done for reasons of loyalty , not because the movie requires him to do so . after grimacing through the forced screwball antics of movies like america’s sweethearts and the princess dairies , it’s an almost indescribable pleasure to see a director taking his time to tell a story very well .
1 so many students strive to get into schools such as harvard of princeton , but they just don’t get the good grades . so many students would do anything to reach their goal of getting into this schools . legend has it that if your roommate commits suicide , the remaining roommates will get an automatic 4 . 0 . chris ( michael vartan ) and tim ( matthew lillard ) are two guys who really want the 4 . 0 to get into harvard . how far will they go to get their 4 . 0 ? chris and tim are also roommates with rand , played by randall batinkoff . the two scheme to murder rand , make it look like a suicide , so they can supposedly get their 4 . 0 . they have heard this rumor many places , and they are willing to take the chance to find out . rand is a very , very mean person . he treats his girlfriend natalie , played by tamara craig thomas , like she doesn’t matter at all . she is very afraid of him , and she especially afraid now that she must tell him she is pregnant . she does tell him , and he becomes enraged . that night would be the last night of rand’s life . tim and chris give rand a bottle of rat poison , making him think that it is beer . rand drinks down the poison , and then dies . now , tim pushes him off of a mountain with a suicide note near the site to make it look like he killed himself . it does not take long until the suicide note is found , but the body isn’t found . the police question chris and tim about rand to try and find any information . feeling extreme guilt , chris is having a very hard time , especially with his girlfriend , emma , played by keri russell . she wants to know more , but he will not even speak with her . will he give in ? will tim turn chris in ? will chris turn tim in ? will they turn themselves in ? all of these questions were running through my mind while watching this slick suspense film . the events in the curve are very surprising , original , and fun . the plot sounds much like dead man on campus , but that is not the deal with this film . this film is a very serious one , with not many laughs . there are many twists and turns that make this film different from most films . the ending in particular is completely unpredictable and satisfying . it is a terrific , suspenseful ending that i could never predict would happen . hands down to dan rosen who wrote this wild ride . the sound really stood out in the film . it is quite eerie and it really adds to the feel of the film . the way the movie is filmed is also great . all of the technical aspects , as well as the acting and directing aspects are very well done . the performances in the curve are very good . matthew lillard gets to play another creepy role , just like in 1996’s scream . ( a+ ) he is very strange in this film as well . i like him in this sort of role , rather than the roles he has been playing in comedies such as senseless and she’s all that . michael vartan is fantastic as chris , who has extremely mixed emotions about the entire murder and the 4 . 0 . michael vartan was also superb in never been kissed , where he co-starred with drew barrymore as a teacher who fell in love with his student . keri russell also gives a great performance . she should be a good actress in the horror department of the film . tamara craig thomas is also realistic , especially coping with the death of her boyfriend . some very strong supporting performances came from smaller roles , such as bo dietl and anthony griffith who play two detectives investigating the case . the bottom line- i might just have to curve that a- into an a . * note- the curve premiered at the sundance film festival in early 1998 . it was decided the film would not be released widely . it is now available at blockbuster video only , and for rent only . see you at the video store !
1 available for rental – october 12 , 1999 10 things i hate about you is an update of the classic play , the taming of the shrew . that said , drop any pre-conceived notions of what shakespeare’s work is supposed to be like and welcome yourself to padua high school , home of a student counselor ( allison janney ) who obsesses over the male penis ; a slightly too hip and racist african-american english teacher ( daryl mitchell ) ; a new kid named cameron ( joseph gordon-levitt ) ; a model named joey ( andrew keegan ) , the subject of cameron and joey’s crushes ; bianca ( larisa oleynik ) ; and bianca’s sister – the shrew ( julia stiles in a marvelous performance ) – whose name is katarina , kat for short . with movies about high schools similar to these running through projectors like water down the nile , it would be quite easy to write off 10 things i hate about you as just another doltish comedic-romance . yet , you must realize that the story is timeless , and a few hundred years later it is equally as witty and comical as when elizabeth gleefully looked on , groundlings below and stuffed brassieres on stage . the first reminder of the original scribe can be found in katarina and bianca’s last name : stratford . their family is run by walter stratford ( pretty woman’s larry miller ) , a doctor who is all too familiar with teenage pregnancy and guards his children accordingly . in what he thinks to be a moment of ironic humor , the family ” no dating ” policy is amended to ” bianca can date . . . when [katarina] does . ” with prom just ahead , bianca’s fate is grim ; unless , of course , she can tame the shrew . don’t think this mission to be a simple one , as bianca kindly points out , her sister ” . . . is a particularly hideous breed of loser . ” getting katarina to date is complex and oftentimes confusing . when cameron , who likes bianca , learns of her father’s new rule , he is quick to consult a friend for advice . the scheme they dream up is to fully exploit ” someone with money . ” in this case , that is joey – the other guy with a crush on bianca . cameron’s friend , a loser by teenage verdict , convinces joey to pay someone who has enough guts to take the shrew out . the solution lies no farther away than the second blatant reminder of the master scribe : patrick verona ( heath ledger ) . this verona is far from fair ; rumor has it that he previously laid his scene in prison . moreover , katarina openly opined to the aforementioned english teacher that ” hemingway was an alcoholic who hung around picasso , hoping to nail his leftovers . ” the laws of high school cinema inexorably turn patrick and katarina into romeo and juliet . providing a constant reminder of the fact that this isn’t exactly what shakespeare had in mind are the elements obligatory to a high school comedy : a party polluted with liquor , a best friend’s betrayal , and prom . it is the latter that has become infamous for closing films like drive me crazy , american pie , never been kissed , carrie , she’s all that , and can’t hardly wait . yet surely even these practices have roots in shakespeare ; falstaff was a drunk , romeo and juliet met at a party , and caesar learned about loyalty the hard way .
1 my filmcritic . com colleague norm schrager nailed session 9 , brad anderson’s throwback to spooky horror films from the 70’s . it worked as an eerie homage without being self-referential or smugly postmodern . genre aficionados will acknowledge the similarities in tone to stanley kubrick’s the shining and george romero’s dawn of the dead without being taken out of the engrossing narrative ( i . e . , a psychologically addled waste management team clears out an abandoned lunatic asylum ; unspeakable dread ensues ) . in a double-whammy for 2001 , anderson shoots and ( mostly ) scores again with his eclectic riff on time-travel episodes from the twilight zone , appropriately titled happy accidents . much like session 9 , the cards are played very close to the vest here . is boyish , eccentric ” sam deed from dubuque , iowa ” a futuristic voyager from the year 2470 or just your run-of-the-mill psychologically disturbed nutcase let loose on the present-day streets of nyc ? as played by wonderful character actor vincent d’onofrio ( full metal jacket ) , it’s up in the air whether or not we should accept his detailed monologues about life after the polar ice caps have melted . the question proves to be moot , at least for a time . even if the whole thing proves to be a creative delusion , one agrees with the character judgment passed down on him by his new girlfriend , ruby ( marisa tomei ) : ” he’s a freak , but he sure tells a good story ! ” neurotic ruby thinks she may have found true love after a series of nightmarish dating disasters ( the junkie , the fetishist , the artist , the frenchman , etc . ) , but isn’t quite sure how to handle ” sam deed ” when he starts explaining the barcode on his arm , his elaborately constructed fake identity , his pathological fear of dogs , his ability to speak five different languages , and his mission to change a crucial moment in time that may have ramifications on time’s alternate realities . ( don’t ask . ) it’s all a bit much to take in . ruby’s close friend gretchen ( cuz ya can’t have a love story without the token friend , though nadia dajani invests the thankless role with warmth ) chalks it up as a sexy role-playing game , but her cautious therapist ( holland taylor ) warns her that co-dependency is rearing its ugly head again and she’s in over her head with yet another doomed relationship . who ya gonna believe ? despite her winning an academy award , marisa tomei has always struck me as an annoying and unwelcome screen presence , one that undermines the pleasure of watching happy accidents . her brassy new yawk attitude never really meshes with her desperate desire to appear ” cute ” to her adoring fans . being loud and flashing a ( disingenuous ) smile does not necessarily equal ” substantial and sexy . ” it takes more than a crack team of hair and wardrobe people to imbue her with personality . then there’s that damned voice , which strains to be oh-so-adorable . look , this stuff is purely subjective . some people feel this way about richard gere , others cannot bear to watch robin williams’ hyperactive schtick . for my money , it’s m . tomei with a bullet . happy accidents is a romantic comedy filtered through twelve monkeys ( or , more appropriately , chris marker’s la jetee , especially with those still framed ” memory ” photographs anderson employs as a stylistic device throughout ) . modern manhattan is filmed with an otherworldly , vaguely alien eye with a color scheme oddly reminiscent of logan’s run . as the stranger in a strange land , d’onofrio walks slightly out-of-step , wonderfully affable but often inscrutable with his wayward expressions and bemused detachment . this is science fiction told mainly via the power of suggestion ( though it often falls into the sci-fi trap of having entirely too much forced exposition — we want deeds , not words ! ) at least twenty minutes too long , happy accidents eventually gets around to a race-against-time scenario that puts ” sam deed ” to the ultimate test . no movie can live in ambiguity forever , but anderson seems terminally unable to provide satisfactory conclusions to his otherwise well structured recent narratives . ( let’s pretend the loathsome and predictable next stop wonderland never happened , shall we ? ) there are also some slow , repetitive stretches as ruby and sam go over the same arguments again and again over whether or not he’s crazy . the premise is strong enough to sustain interest , but it’s enough to throw a nod in the general direction of rod serling for wrapping up his ideas in half-hour time slots , commercials included .
1 what i look for in a movie is not necessarily perfection . sometimes a movie has such strong ideas that despite whatever flaws it may have , i will prefer it to a better-made film that is not as thought-provoking . the thin red line is flawed but it provokes . terence malick returns to filmmaking 20 years after days of heaven and produces this meditative look at war . unlike this year’s saving private ryan , which dwells on war as a necessary evil and explores the moral ambiguities thereof , the thin red line simply says war is waste . while that might seem obvious to some , only after experiencing the film do you realize how profound a waste it is . saving private ryan has an underlying and practical acceptance that war will occur and it has a great cost ; the thin red line says idealistically avoid this at all costs . one message is not necessarily more correct than the other . it just depends on one’s point of view . in malick’s film , war is set in a tropical paradise , and john toll’s cinematography is beyond lush . the setting poses the question , why are we fighting in the face of such beauty ? in saving private ryan , the capture of a german soldier presents the moral quandary of whether to let him go . in the thin red line , the japanese present the moral quandary of war in the first place . they are just like the americans — frightened and angry , grieving and praying . all that separates them is war . the flaw in the thin red line comes in the voice-overs . unbelievable as coming from the characters and sometimes pretentious , sometimes corny , the voice-overs tell us what the images before us already do and are completely unnecessary . dispensing with them , malick could have achieved a tarkovskian grandeur . instead , he gets distracting self-consciousness . aside from that , malick’s direction is stunning . the tracking shots across windswept hills and around transports speeding toward shore are extraordinary . sean penn , elias koteas , and nick nolte give the best performances . penn is subtle as a sergeant trying to hide his humanism , koteas is genuine as a compassionate captain , and nolte startling as a colonel whose blood vessels are about to burst if he cannot win his battle . john travolta and george clooney are the worst in cameo roles . ultimately however , the thin red line’s interest is not in the characters and it is not in drama . it has been frequently criticized for its lack of dramatic structure , but malick clearly has different things on his mind . has no one ever thought that getting dramatic entertainment from war is exploitative ? what malick is working with is theme , and in that , the thin red line is most provoking .
1 mike myers , you certainly did throw us a ? frickin’ bone here in what you call ? the biggest austin powers adventure yet . ‘ austin powers : the spy who shagged me is the sequel to the 1997 smash comedy austin powers : international man of mystery . many are skeptical about sequels , saying that the sequel is never better or as good as the original , but austin powers : tswsm goes beyond the first film . austin powers : the spy who shagged me stars mike myers in three different roles . he reprises his role as the title character , austin powers , the shagadelic spy whose body was frozen in 1967 , and unfrozen in 1997 to stop his long time nemesis dr . evil , also played by mike myers , from destroying the earth . tswsm leaves off where the original stopped , with dr . evil’s ? frisch’s big boy’ space capsule floating through space . dr . evil returns back to earth by ejecting from his capsule , plotting to go back in his time machine to the year 1967 , in which he plans to steal austin powers’ ” mojo ” , what keeps austin going with spy talents . upon his return to his secret lair , which is now a starbucks coffee shop , dr . evil learns that his evil henchman , which includes the returning robert wagner as number 2 and mindy sterling as frau , have created a 1/8 size clone of dr . evil , which is later named mini me . the evil mini me replaces scott evil , played by seth green , as dr . evil’s son in the madman’s mind , because dr . evil thinks of scott to be only ” quasi-evil . ” dr . evil has always wanted a son that is evil just like him , and now he has one . dr . evil tells mini me , ” you complete me , ” in a loving manner . dr . evil loving ? wow ! mike myers’ third role is as fat bastard , a scottish henchman of dr . evil’s , who is sent to steal the mojo from austin powers’ frozen body . austin powers learns of dr . evil’s trip back into the 60s , and uses his own time machine to take him back to 1967 , to try to save his mojo before fat bastard gets a hold of it . once arriving in the year 1967 , austin travels to his ” pad ” , his smashing home/dance club , where he meets felicity shagwell , played by heather graham , a cia agent who is willing to help him in his journey to stop dr . evil . as the film progresses , hilarious one liners are thrown at us , mainly by dr . evil , for example , ” don’t go there , girlfriend ! ” to the president of the united states . many witty gags take place , note the entire tent scene , and just plain , funny scenes which are so stupid- they’re funny come a dozen per fifteen minutes . take for example , scott evil going on the jerry springer show complaining about how evil his father is . the way austin powers : tswsm uses its humor is clever , throwing a hilarious scene at you , followed by five minutes of one liners , followed by another outrageous scene , so you never stop laughing . there was honestly not one moment in austin powers : tswsm where i wasn’t laughing . the last film that i laughed so hard in , was well , austin powers ! it is apparent that mike myers knew how funny this film was while writing it . the film even makes fun of itself in a line , something along the lines of , ” it’s funny how england and southern california look nothing alike . ” tswsm was filmed in southern california , but was supposed to take place in england . i can tell you one thing- he is having a lot of fun with this enormously popular character , which is all over television , newspapers , magazines , and the movie theaters . i believe that dr . evil got more attention in the tswsm than austin powers did . dr . evil provided more laughs , more memorable moments , and more interesting dialogue than austin did this time around , who seems to missing the funny touch that he had in the first film . i felt that austin really did have his mojo taken away , but from screenplay writer mike myers , not fat bastard . also making a great addition to the series is mini me , who is played by verne troyer . even though the midget actor is 30 years old , he is adorable by dr . evil’s side constantly . the first austin powers film had barely any sentimental quality , such as lack of character development , barely any detailed plot characteristics , and barely any good acting , but austin powers tswsm actually shows some quality behind the frequent humor . mike myers , with his three roles , acts as eddie murphy did in the nutty professor , disguising himself completely in one of the roles . ( fat bastard ) all three characters are different , and mike myers does do a good job handling each one of them . heather graham made a great addition with her talent to tswsm , and does a much better job than elizabeth hurley did , who gave a very flat performance in the original , speaking her lines without any feeling or emotion . speaking of hurley , she can be seen in tswsm for a few brief moments . hopefully , graham tags along for future austin powers adventures . the bottom line- a groovy sequel that mike myers put all of his mojo into writing .
1 it is with hesitance that i call ” apocalypse now ” a masterpiece . certainly , it had the pedigree to be one of the greatest films ever made , with a director known for producing masterpieces with ease , and some of the finest actors of the 1970’s . the plot , an adaptation of joseph conrad’s ” heart of darkness ” , was set in vietnam , and the timing of the film was supposed to be brilliant , coming on the heels of the end of the war . ” apocalypse ” certainly has its moments , some of which are the finest in film history . the plot is fairly simple . captain willard ( sheen ) , is a troubled soldier who came back to hanoi for a 2nd tour of duty . his mission is simple : take a boat up to cambodian territory , and destroy the command of renegade colonel kurtz ( brando ) ” with extreme prejudice ” . along the way , willard runs into a series of adventures , including one with lt . col . kilgore ( duvall ) , and a strange encounter with playboy bunnies . willard’ s four person crew finally make it to kurtz’ compound , where he discovers kurtz has set himself up as a god among the natives . willard’s experiences with kurtz take up the last half-hour , with a confrontation and eventual ending . the movie is visually breathtaking . the battle scenes are exquisitely done , and the score is brilliant , setting a murky mood of darkness that is first-rate . the collage of disturbing images that coppola presents is at times both astonishing and sickening . the vast amount of detail poured into every war scene is stunning , and there are many episodes that are deeply powerful which resonate through the entire movie . the journey to kurtz’ camp is quite a ride , with psychosis setting in on almost every character . the most interesting one is kilgore , the lt . col . who cares more about the surf than about the mission . it is at times revolting , psychotic , and incredible , and it is one hell of a movie . the scenes are bold , inventive , and powerful , and the acting is stunning , especially be sheen , duvall , and fishburne . the narration is exquisite , as is the mystery of kurtz . coppola sets about a hallucinatory ride through vietnam , kind of like ” saving private ryan ” on lsd . the film is jarring in its implications , and psychotic in its execution . the problems come when the film slows down . one of the major scenes in the film , where the boat arrives at the final army checkpoint before they start their search for kurtz , is a colossal mess . the dialogue is confusing , the lighting is atrocious , and the scene drags on for 10 terrible minutes of film . the true problems happen after the crew does come into the kurtz compound . the film slows down to a drag . sheen seems forever captured by a madman , played by brando is a lazy performance that is not deserving of the accolades it received . brando is in the film for no more than 15 minutes , but is bathed in shadows the entire time , making the last half hour of the film visually pathetic . the scenes are poorly done , the dialogue is muffled , and the whole mess is utterly confusing beyond all belief . sheen seems to adore this man , but why the viewers are never told . the entire journey is supposed to be a prelude for a stunning entrance of this god-like kurtz , but the scenes fall way short of expectations . granted , it has its moments , which are brutally horrific , but the general feeling is one of confusion . brando mumbles his lines in a incoherent stir , and my feeling was that this could never be a great man , this could never be a man who inspires hundreds to follow him , so why do they do it ? there are moments of brilliance , but the visual confusion dilutes the power of the scene . there are too many questions left unanswered with the character of kurtz to have a satisfying ending . the finest scene at the end is sheen’s escape , and his entrace into the temple . his rise out of the water , with the smoke coming off of his slicked head , is a brilliant 30 seconds of film . yet , you cannot shake the feeling that there is so much more this film could have done . the psychotic ride is unforgettable at times , and indeed the film on the whole is very good . it is a stunningly flawed expression of film , for it addresses major issues , such as man’s mental stamina during bouts of war . but one still cannot shake the feeling that this film could have so much more powerful , had the character of kurtz been more explored , and had sheen truly succumbed to the fate that the viewer thought he was destined for . there is too much good material in here not to be called a masterpiece , but it could have been so much more rewarding .
1 the verdict : spine-chilling drama from horror maestro stephen king , featuring an outstanding , oscar-winning performance from kathy bates . geez , french and saunders had a field day when they set to work on parodying this ! sorry , non-british readers may not be familiar with french and saunders – my apologies . the pair are british comediennes ( jennifer saunders later went on to become edina monsoon in ” absolutely fabulous ” ) , who did a series of film spoofs a few years back , including alien , the exorcist and misery . needless to say , amidst her chucklesome impersonation of kathy bates ( the resemblance was quite uncanny ! ) , dawn french got pretty nasty with her sledgehammer when in reach of jennifer saunder’s legs ! but despite the lingering memory of their sketch , and although i’ve now seen the film a couple of times now , that ” hobbling ” scene was no less disturbing ! i’m still left screaming at the telly in revulsion ! that may be the most memorable scene , but it’s certainly not the only worth watching . stephen king , whose film and tv adaptations tend to vary in quality , strikes gold with this simple yet strikingly compelling tale . it’s a nicely crafted psychological horror , which effortlessly succeeds in drawing you into the plight of writer phil sheldon ( james caan ) . rescued from a car accident by annie wilkes ( bates ) , who introduces herself as the writer’s ” number one fan ” , he soon becomes her prisoner . both the script and kathy bates’ beautifully masterful performance ( for which she won an oscar ) work arm-in-arm as we quickly begin to realise that beyond her bubbly exterior the woman is basically as nutty as a fruit-cake ( or is that fruity as a nut-cake ? ) . bates relishes her demanding role , and her performance is nothing short of a masterpiece . at times she seems like an innocent victim of her own obsessive behaviour , at times she’s a rather tragic character , and more often than not she’s just damned scary ! this is basically a very simple tale , but it achieves a large degree of eloquence in its simplicity . it’s an involving , engrossing experience – and considering it’s basically a two-hander , mainly set in one locale , it’s a remarkable piece of cinema . there are no jazzy special effects or cheesy action sequences – this one relies solely upon rob reiner’s stylish directing and the wonderful performances of bates and caan . oh , i haven’t really mentioned caan yet – he does a good job as the writer who’s a prisoner of his own success ( annie is obsessed with him and his books ) . but , as you no doubt gathered from the above – bates is well and truly the star of the show . along with the pig , of course ! anyway , the tension is built-up with masterful aplomb , and some scenes are almost agonisingly tense . there’s the dinner scene where seldon goes to nerve-shattering lengths to poison her wine . he succeeds , but . . . she knocks the glass over ! i bet you threw a pillow at the screen as well ! in the immortal words of homer j . simpson – ” d’oh ! ! ” other nerve-wracking scenes include the bit where annie has gone off to town and sheldon starts snooping around the house . we cut to annie in her car – she’s on her way home . . . he realises this and tries to get back to his room . . . cut to the car again , she’s getting near . . . will he make it ? ok , so these sequences aren’t exactly original , nor perhaps unpredictable – but they work ! boy , do they work ! if a film has you on the edge of your couch , biting your nails and shouting at the screen in suspense , then it’s doing something right ! of course , the most nauseating sequence is the aforementioned ” hobbling ” ! annie realises her captive has been out of his room , and she’s going to stop him once and for all . cue a block of wood placed strategically between his ankles and a huge sledgehammer , and . . . i feel ill just thinking about it ! nasty . it all builds up nicely to the final scene where sheldon finally gets the upper hand , and once and for all tries to kill the crazy psycho ! and then we’re given one of the most ridiculously over-the-top fight scenes i’ve ever seen . she gets hit over the head with a typewriter , set on fire , head smashed against the wall – and she just won’t die ! sheldon isn’t in terribly good shape either . if it weren’t so gorey it would almost be laughable . but it’s a terrifically effective film , and therefore the daft climax is easily overlooked . misery is a tight , tense , intense and chillingly entertaining thriller . the directing is first-rate , and the performances – bates in particular – contribute to making this a suitably nightmarish little gem . wonderful stuff . ? – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – for more regularly-updated film and tv reviews , check out my site ! http : //www . geocities . com/hollywood/bungalow/4960 – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
1 an indian runner was more than a courier . he * became * the message he was carrying . what danger is a bear , to a message ? i used to think sean penn was an immature , arrogant , photographer- punching , madonna-marrying , loudmouth . but all that has changed now . the guy has grown up . and that’s not all . it seems that sean penn has talents both as a writer and a director , if this film is any indication . one might imagine a movie with plenty of ruthless rage and showy machismo , given penn in charge of bronson and and hopper . but , no . this film is about a real struggle , and the victories and defeats are not simple . penn lets the story unfold at a pace dictated by the lives of the characters , without unnecessary rush or flash . the focus of the story is two brothers . david morse is the brother who has grown up in the small midwestern town in which they were raised , tending a failing farm and finally becoming a police officer . viggo mortensen is the wild brother , whose wild behavior seems to be a reaction to some ancient pain that he can’t name , much less resolve . the film picks the story up on the day when mortensen returns from vietnam , and morse coincidentally encounters an armed youth fleeing for the state line . it becomes clear that some kind of conflict threatens the link that the brothers once shared . the film is unobtrusive , simple , direct , plain , and sincere . it isn’t exactly perfect , but its sincerity is well invested in the struggle of the two brothers to identify the sickness before it destroys them . life seems to move forward a little faster than they can get a handle on their problems . this is a good film without big budget sets , or big name stars pushed into your face . in fact , i’m reviewing it because i suspect that it may not get much marketing . there were perhaps 10 others at the showing i saw . i thought the structure was clean and not oversimplified , though there are a few free-form sections which also work very well . the obligatory 1960s music seemed a little cliche , but what are you going to do–this movie * does * take place in the 1960s after all . in my opinion , it is worth full-price admission .
1 seen july 8 , 1998 at the crossgates cinema 18 , ( albany , ny ) , theater #7 , at 8 : 15 p . m . with my mom using hoyts cinema cash . [theater rating : * * * 1/2 : very good sound , picture , and seats] it’s very rare that any medium of entertainment can give one an authentic , vivid sense of reality and life . all stories are about select moments of time and places in the characters’ lives , but only the truly great ones are able to define their realities well enough so the audience can experience it just as the characters do . therefore , ” gone with the wind ” deserves accolades for its ability to tell the epic story it does , in such a crafted , intricate , and entertaining manner . it’s a crowning achievement , not only in filmmaking , but for storytelling itself . the film takes place in georgia before , during , and after the civil war . this plays a major factor in the film’s success . to use such a historic setting presents many possibilities and problems since no one was alive at the time to verify its accuracy . it might also seem cliche , boring and other such deterent factors to potential viewers . can a story set so long ago be relatable now ? the film confronts all these problems , paradoxically , by not cronfronting them . it doesn’t simply plug in the ” right thing ” at the ” right time , ” it creates an entire reality where everything makes sense and said concerns are irrelevant . building a strong foundation is important to all forms of media , without which , what is there to build on ? we’re given some backstory here and learn a little about our characters , especially our main character , scarlett o’hara ( leigh ) , a beautiful southern belle with a will of steel , a cunning wit , and a tremendous sense of liberty in such an oppressive time . she knows how her society works , wherein everything she does can and will play a role in the shaping of her life and those around her . right from the beginning we realize how determined she is to have her way no matter what the consequences may be . being the most sought-after woman allows her to manipulate men ( and their women ) to ensure she gets her way , whether it be obvious ( i . e . who will be the one to get her food ) , or subtle ( i . e . getting married just to spite someone ) . the man she claims to love is ashley wilkes ( howard ) , a modest gentleman who does not seem to have the same passion for her as she does for him . he isn’t so arrogant and demanding as scarlett , in fact , he’s engaged to a woman with a personality much more like his . her name is melanie ( de havilland ) , and she is one of the sweetest , kindest , and most likable characters one will ever see . she and scarlett become very dear friends , but she never suspects the jealously scarlett has for her , and the love she has for her husband . her meekness is both her strongest and weakest characteristic – it defines who she is , but doesn’t give her much emotional self-defense . acting a catalyst to the love triangle , and to the story as a whole is the daper , stong-willed , cunning , cocky southern business and military man captain rhett butler ( gable ) . he’s quite a character all right – everyone listens to what he has to say even though he’s got a bad reputation . butler makes no apologies for his vast amount of money nor his behavior . he tells everyone the much-needed truth in the rigid caste-like society where freewill doesn’t seem to exist , everything is done out of honor and tradition . for example , in his first appearance butler tells his fellow southerners there’s no way the south could defeat the north if war were to break out . this angers them , not for his lack of faith , but because he has the gall to say it aloud and boastfully at that . ” do we have ammunition factories ? do we have food ? do we have a navy ? all we have is tobacco . ” all true statements and yet the south still insists he’s wrong . butler is a shifty character to be sure , but he takes such pride in his arrogance it’s appealing . scarlett notices this too when she first sees him , and from the look butler gives her , we know he’s not going to stop until he has her . but scarlett can’t get past her need for ashley , and during a scene which sets the stage for the grand story , butler learns of this and continues to throw it back at scarlett forever . and so the story goes on , with scarlett being thrown obstacle after obstacle in her life . the conflicts she must overcome range from taking care of her entire family to finding a proper husband , especially after she is ” marked ” for life when her first husband dies . this gives the film many opportunities to bring in more characters into the epic story . some are vital for only a few scenes , but their true signifcance will endure throughout the film . in most films only a few characters exist for support in background , but this film is more realistic and believable as it incorporates a supporting cast the size of a small town and everyone has signficance . even people in the background seem more than just extras wandering the set . the costuming design is outstanding so that the film makes for a real sense of time and place . the filmmakers could have easily set more scenes indoors and narrowly focused to avoid having to show the outside , real world , but these types of simple approaches are never taken . the first half of the film depicts the traumatic experience the south faced at the last days of the civil war . fleming is able to convey the horror of it all by painting an image of destruction and letting the viewer decide just how bad it is . one scene has scarlett working as a nurse at a military hospital while we hear a soldier in the background screaming , ” no ! not my leg ! don’t cut off my leg ! ” another scene shows her simplying trying to cross a street , but as the camera pulls back , we see that her path is blocked by hundreds of wounded soldiers , but it is their moaning that’s more graphic than all the bloody gore could ever be . as the second half begins , the film concentrates more on scarlett as a completely independent woman who single-handedly takes care of her family and melanie just to spite the tyrany of the north . she manages to resurrect the family plantation , but all the willpower she has can’t help her when she must pay exuberhant taxes set by the north after the south’s ultimate defeat . this brings rhett butler back into the picture and thus begins their torrid love- hate relationship . most of the second half of the film is somehow related to the relationship ( or lack thereof ) between rhett and scarlett . each uses the other for personal gain , but at the same time they still feel an intimate connection with each other . scarlett continues to use her manipulative powers over men to get what she wants and because rhett can’t help but want her more every time she tries to one-up him such as marrying another man and taking over his business . they say opposites attract , but the conflict between rhett and scarlett goes way beyond opposing personalities , it borders on magnetic polarization . they need each other and know this , yet they never seem truly happy together . perhaps they mistake love for passion , and the film leaves it up to us to make this call . both have things the other wants and vice versa , but when they compromise , is it just to get their own way or because they actually care for each other . love and the perception of love are two completely separate things and throughout the final act of the film , we’re left wondering if rhett and scarlett ever truly loved each other and why . gable and leigh do have great chemistry , always leaving the viewer wondering which emotions were authentic and which were manufacture . all ? none ? either way is possible and it’s a mystery that cannot be solved even upon repeated viewings . it’s safe to say most of us won’t live such overly dramatic lives as those in ” gone with the wind , ” but it’s still a masterpiece for its ability to give us a sense that we’ve just experienced a life’s worth of joy and pain .
1 not since attending an ingmar bergman retrospective a few years ago have i seen a film as uncompromising in its portrayal of emotional truth as secrets & lies . like bergman , director mike leigh is interested in probing his characters’ inner depths through hypernaturally blunt confrontations . also like bergman , leigh engages in frequent closeups of his characters’ ravished and wracked faces . and the prominent mournfulness of a cello on the soundtrack recalls bergman’s own use of a bach cello suite in an earlier film . all that is missing is a discussion of god . which is not to say that secrets & lies is nothing more than an homage to the swedish master . in fact , it is quite possible leigh had no such intentions in mind . nonetheless , what we get is so far removed from the average moviegoing experience — even from the reason we go to the movies in the first place — that it takes some effort to adjust to the film’s rhythms . once the adjustment is made , however , there are great rewards . one such is the chance to see life on the screen as it really is . though leigh may have adopted some of bergman’s stylistic touches , most obviously in an early scene of terse cross-cutting during a married couple’s strained conversation , as well as in that somewhat obtrusive score , the overall feeling of the film is that it eschews any ” style ” at all . whereas bergman uses artifice as a tool to expose reality , leigh makes the camera a mere observer , almost as in a pbs documentary . the effect of this is to focus all of your attention on the actors . it is a tribute to everyone involved that , despite such scrutiny , only infrequently are we aware that anyone * is * acting . much has been made of brenda blethyn’s performance , and rightly so , but it is only when you remind yourself that you are watching a fiction that you realize how good she is . there are a few missteps . for one , except for one scene ( tragicomic , as it happens ) , there is scant humor in the film . this leads to a certain monotonous tone throughout . and occasionally ( as with bergman ) the bluntness of the situations can seem forced . for all that , this longish film manages to keep hold of your attention . it is unfortunate that the audience for secrets & lies will most likely be limited to an intellectual elite , for there is nothing inherently intellectual about this film . in fact , it might easily resonate more strongly for millions of working class filmgoers who will likely never see it . there is even a sweet but significant irony in the film’s unspoken take on race relations , something an american audience at least would do well to observe . nonetheless , secrets & lies is not for the faint of heart . though there is nothing physically horrific to make one squeamish , the exploration of common human frailty can be so raw and unsparing that it is tempting to turn from the screen . needless to say , it is also very depressing at times . but for many of us , of course , so is life . and though the film is too honest to tack on a phony happy ending , that same honesty allows it to admit that things can also get better .
1 after a successful run in australia last year , and with much critical praise heaped upon it , muriel’s wedding opens into medium release this weekend in north america . muriel heslop is a withdrawn , overweight young woman living in porpoise spit , australia . she is often the target of her father’s frequent rants at the family , and drowns out her feelings of inadequacy with abba music and fantasies of marriage . her self-loathing is such that only being wed shall she prove herself to be a success ; marriage will transform her into a new person who is respected and admired . after her four cliquey friends dump her , muriel plots to follow them to a resort where they are celebrating the honeymoon of one of the girls , and muriel’s wedding unfolds from there . toni collette plays muriel in a winning performance , conveying both the sadness of her character and her desperate eagerness to be accepted . collette gained a frightening 43 pounds in order to play the chubby title character . she has a natural screen presence and exudes charisma , easily winning the audience over with an honest , painful performance . collette basically carries the film , appearing in almost every scene . muriel’s father , bill ” the battler ” heslop , is portrayed by bill hunter as a slick politician/developer . while chumming around with young fans and crowing ‘you can’t beat progress’ ( his slogan ) , bill labels his family as worthless and embarrassments . rachel griffiths plays rhonda , who becomes muriel’s cheeky new friend in the film . she has good chemistry with collette , and the film suffers when griffiths is off-screen . muriel’s tormenters , played by pippa grandison , rosalind hammond , belinda jarrett and sophie lee , are two-dimensional caricatures , all saucy , vain and bumblingly spiteful , though that is probably due to hogan’s scripting muriel’s wedding is essentially a genre teen comedy with more intelligence and a lot of charm . hogan’s use of abba tunes ( which virtually comprises the entire soundtrack ) is interestingly appropriate , although its repetitiveness tires after awhile . hogan’s script is right on the mark in terms of proportionately mixing comedy with muriel’s earnest quest for acceptance , and the gorgeous scene with muriel window-shopping beautifully illustrates the wonder that marriage has for her . the glaring pastel colours worn by the performers is an interesting touch . muriel’s wedding features a fine performance by toni collette and a charming , if a bit too straightforward and conventional story by p . j . hogan . on my four star scale , i give muriel’s wedding three stars .
1 every once in a while , a film sneaks up on me and takes me completely by surprise . i don’t necessarily mean in terms of quality ; rather , i’m referring to the mere knowledge of its existence . usually i know what films are on the way a year in advance , but two weeks ago i had never heard of princess caraboo . it has slipped rather quietly into limited release , and appears destined to slip out just as quietly . that’s a shame , because princess caraboo is a delightful fable , romantic , gentle and very appealing . what’s more , it’s surprisingly insightful and provides a sharp-witted lesson in english social history . princess caraboo is based on an actual event in early 19th century england , involving a young woman ( phoebe cates ) who is found wandering the countryside . apparently unable to speak any english , she is taken in by good-hearted gentlewoman mrs . worrall ( wendy hughes ) . her banker husband ( jim broadbent ) is none-too-pleased about this strange houseguest , until the worralls begin to believe that the woman may be royalty from an east indian island , the princess caraboo . this development inspires plans for a lucrative trading venture for mr . worrall , and an introduction into elite social circles for mrs . worrall . however , local journalist john gutch ( stephen rea ) is not convinced that the woman is what she seems to be , and sets out to find out the truth about princess caraboo . as a social satire and comedy of manners , princess caraboo is a winner . it takes place in an era when it was common practice in england to jail vagrants and hang beggars , and that practice comes in for an obvious hazing . but it is handled most effectively through the character of mr . worrall , a drunken womanizer whose bank is in deep trouble thanks to his corruption and ineptitude . he is worse than one of the idle rich ; he is one of the actively odious gentry so eager to distance themselves from the lower class they think nothing of simply eliminating them , and since the house and money are all from mrs . worrall , he is a bit too close to them for comfort . while hypocrisy is an easy target for ridicule , director and co-writer michael austin keeps the treatment too light-hearted to be heavy-handed . he also takes a unique stab at the trendiness of the upper classes , as the princess becomes a ” sensation ” at court . in one of the film’s best sequences , princess caraboo is the guest of honor at a party hosted by the prince regent ( a wonderfully foppish turn by comic john sessions ) , and the lords and ladies end up following her around in a thoroughly silly native dance . it is then that princess caraboo shows how easily people are swept up in ” sensations , ” an idea that takes on a timeless quality ( and makes the film an interesting companion piece to the current quiz show ) . social commentary aside , princess caraboo is simply an eminently enjoyable entertainment . the performers are mostly delightful , particularly phoebe cates , who is radiant in a part that requires a gift for pantomime . her supporting players are also appealing : wendy hughes as the patient and kindly mrs . worrall ; kevin kline as frixos , the worralls’ suspicious and superior greek butler ; stephen rea as the world-weary but ultimately romantic gutch . only john lithgow is a disappointment , turning in a limp performance as a scholar who attempts to verify the princess’s identity . the story twists and turns just enough so that the question of whether or not the princess is really a princess is always in some doubt , without becoming gimmicky . it is unfortunate that the growing attraction between gutch and princess caraboo isn’t given more time to develop , because the potential seemed to be there . when it finally does blossom , it seems too quick to be plausible . princess caraboo is patient enough in establishing its sense of time and place that it might seem a bit slow to viewers seeking a fantasy romp . still , it has both escapist and intellectual appeal , and is well worth seeking out . it is the kind of film that makes my job its most rewarding–a hidden gem .
1 ” through a spyglass , i could see everything . ” king louis xvi was beheaded on january 21 , 1793 , but instead of visualizing this act of regicide , legendary auteur eric rohmer’s the lady and the duke observes from afar . consider it a view to a kill made abstract . a proper british ( yes , british ) gentlewoman , grace elliott ( lucy russell ) , and her loyal maidservant gaze from a lofty terrace in meudon at the glistening city of paris , where raucous crowds seem tinier than ants . the maid narrates what little she sees of the execution through her telescope ( often muttering , ” i don’t know , ” ) as the sound of cheering patriots and revolutionaries echoes through the air . what we don’t see might not be able to hurt us . just close your eyes and think of england . during times of revolution , the aristocracy may feel a false sense of calm in their parlor halls , discussing tumultuous events over glasses of sherry until the walls cave in on them . adapted from elliott’s memoirs , journal of my life during the french revolution , rohmer’s latest artistic tour-de-force may seem far removed from his domestic comedies ( tales of the four seasons , etc . ) , a period film set during the most violent changes in french history . resisting the temptation for grand-scale theatrics , much of the lady and the duke is about quiet , decisive moments between members of the cultural elite as they determine how to proceed as the world implodes . grace elliott makes for an unlikely protagonist : a headstrong , snobbish blueblood , one unprepared for the machinations of history that sweep her along . a foreigner who accepts the french king as her own , grace’s life seems defined by fancy attire and lively political debate with her former lover , the king’s hot-blooded cousin , prince philipe , duke of orleans ( jean-claude dreyfus ) . the times are changing , though , and the gears inch ever closer toward violence . during the september massacres of 1792 , she is encountered by a procession of rioters brandishing the head of the duke’s sister-in-law on a stake . rohmer makes a harsh transition from tranquil , old fashioned , almost stagy parlor scenes to the swell of an angry mob . in doing so , he achieves what braveheart and the patriot could not : the face of death . when grace sees her friend’s disembodied head on a pole , rohmer’s attention drifts from the societal change to one woman’s reaction shot , laden with hot tears . grace finds herself taking in a fugitive from justice , sheltering him from the mob . through her relationship with the duke , she seeks a passport for this one activist’s escape . grace doesn’t even understand her own actions ( and the duke reacts in stunned disbelief at how she places herself in such danger ) . she endures persecution from robespierre and his gang of thuggish equalizers , ceaseless police monitoring , house searches , even a brief imprisonment for harmless international correspondence . maintaining her stiff upper lip and pampered life ( her imperious attitude to the servants never changes ) , she becomes a heroine through circumstance . the events themselves are intrusions upon her person , her home , and therefore her values . aristocracy proves a glass house , one that can barely withstand the upheaval of stones . the duke is called to vote on the king’s punishment , and despite his hours of deliberation with friends and advisors , talk means nothing in the face of bloody action ( or futile inaction ) . the episodic structure creates a wobbly , jarring detachment from the events of the french revolution , which serves as metaphor but also disconnects potential audience identification . lazy viewers ( and critics ) may also complain that knowledge of french history is required for enjoyment of the lady and the duke . that’s foolery , but brings up the valid criticism that rohmer’s characters occasionally become didactic . rohmer’s imperfect but assured push toward the future remains staunch and notable for casting a cautious eye upon the past while taking bold steps forward into an uncertain future . what may arouse interest in the lady and the duke outside of foreign film enthusiasts with literary and historical passions is rohmer’s use of cutting edge digital technology as a means of exploring the theme of artifice as safety net or coping mechanism . the actors were filmed against a bluescreen , then placed against painted backdrops recreating the vastness of 18th century paris . this recreation calls attention to itself in every shot , a technicolor dream of fanciful buildings and wide-open streets . it looks as phony as titanic , but unlike james cameron’s debacle , the lady and the duke plays with the notion of false security in those walls of stone . why ? they aren’t real . the very foundation rohmer’s characters stand upon is false , and in their groundlessness they must discover themselves , in all their insubstantial glory . screened at the 2001 new york film festival ( feature coming soon ) .
1 wong kar-wei’s ” fallen angels ” is , on a purely visceral level , one of the most exciting films i’ve seen in a long while . unfortunately , wong seems more interested in experimenting with his camera than creating tangible characters for the audience to root for . ordinarily , that alone would be enough to sink a movie , but in the case of ” fallen angels ” , this is not so . every shot in this film is exciting just to * look * at . wong does really interesting things with the camera , but he doesn’t allow the pyrotechnics to completely take over , as was the case with last years dismal ” knock off ” ( which contained a shot of a foot entering a shoe . ugh . ) the movie follows three pairs of lost souls as they struggle to find some meaning in their lives . i can’t say much more than that as i didn’t really know what was going on most of the time . in fact , it wasn’t until about halfway through the movie that i was able to distinguish between each character . the constantly moving camera doesn’t really allow for the audience to associate with any one character . we’re always kept at a distance from these people , i suppose in order to further add to the feeling of alienation felt by the characters . ” fallen angels ” is a refreshing change-of-pace from most hollywood films , which never bother to try anything different , at least on a visual level . in fact , i’d go so far as to say that ” fallen angels ” is more challenging visually than any mainstream hollywood film i’ve ever seen . sure , there’s directors like robert rodriguez who enjoy turning violence into operatic orgies of death , but to see a filmmaker like wong who actually assaults the senses with images is truly something worth celebrating . but if wong wishes to become a legendary filmmaker , he needs to work on incorporating an actual story into those awesome images . there were far too many instances during ” fallen angels ” in which i asked myself , ” now who are these people again ? is this that first couple or the second couple ? ” it was impossible to keep track . perhaps he could let the audience know right away which character is which , by introducing them to us with ” name cards ” , as in scorsese’s ” mean streets ” . that’s really besides the point , though . wong kar-wei has proven himself , through very few films , that’s he’s a movie-maker to watch . let’s just hope that he hones his storytelling skills with his next few movies .
1 city of angels is the kind of love story that i enjoy the most : thought-provoking , moving , and completely unsentimental . i find it interesting that this film has been released the same day as my giant , which is a film that is undone completely by its wretched sentimentality . city of angels is a wonderful film , enhanced by interesting and well-rounded characters and some of the most immersive imagery of the last couple of years . it’s a love story that takes the familiar angel themes and makes them new and necessary to the story , and avoids most of the cliches we’re so used to seeing in films like this . city of angels is an apparently loose remake of wim wenders’ 1988 film wings of desire . i have yet to see wings of desire , so i am , unfortunately , unable to make a comparison of the two . i have heard , however , that city of angels is dissimilar from the original in numerous ways , which makes me glad that this film isn’t a rip-off of its source material . nicolas cage stars as seth , an angel who , like all of his angel counterparts , is present to lead the dying to heaven ( or somewhere just like it ) . one day , he is forced to take the life of a patient of dr . maggie rice ( meg ryan ) , and his attention is called to her . the angels can make themselves seen to humans , but they can’t experience any of the senses ( most importantly , touch ) . he shows himself to maggie , and she falls for him , unaware that he is slightly unavailable because of his apparition status . seth wants to become human so he can feel her . that’s when he meets nathaniel messinger ( dennis franz ) , ” former celestial messenger and recent addition to the human race . ” ( as a side note , i found messinger to be the most fascinating character , for i can only imagine how incredibly liberating it must be to live knowing what lies beyond death . ) messinger explains to seth that it is possible for angels to become human . seth manages to convince maggie that he is an angel ( i know , it sounds ridiculous , but the scene in which she finds out is exceptionally well-done ) ; after much deliberation , she tells him that she could only be with a man who can feel . this , of course , is when seth decides to take the plunge ( literally ) from a building ; when he wakes up from the fall , he is human , and happy to feel what it’s like to have a split lip and blood oozing from his forehead . since i love this film so much , i’ll make a minor note that it certainly isn’t perfect . although it is original and mesmerizing , it does fall prey to a few of the cliches of the genre . the plotting of the story by writer dawn steel is rather formulaic ( though the details are what make the story excellent , and steel has done a great job with them ) . the ending , too , could have been more powerful and less predictable . these elements are minor , though , and barely detracted from my overall enjoyment of city of angels . the acting is superb from everyone involved . this is perhaps my second-favorite performance from cage ( my favorite being the rock ) . he’s quiet and pensive , and his eyes are engaging when he speaks his softly-toned words . he’s perfect for a role like this , and at the same time he reassures us he’s not bound by playing the psycho ( though he is good at it , as he shows in face/off ) . meg ryan is a powerful , enticing , and appealingly-chirpy actress , and her work here is some of her best . dennis franz , however , steals all of his scenes as the energetic former-angel . what i admire most about city of angels is its overall presentation . director brad silberling is a talented man , and he knows that a story like this is driven by the characters , rather than forced sentimentality . his direction is steady , and he shows this in just about every scene : near the beginning , maggie has to tell a mother and her two children that their father is dead . there is no music or elaborate camera work ; we simply see the reactions of the characters to the information . this is the way stories should be told , and the strength of scenes resonates more completely when the emotions are real . the film also appeals to the senses in a way that few love stories do . cinematographer john seale ( the english patient ) provides some of the most stunning images i’ve seen on the big screen : hundreds of black-clad angels stand on a dim beach in the early morning hours ( just as an example ) . the music , by gabriel yared ( also of the english patient ) , is perfect for this film : it’s quiet and moody music ( but not sentimental ! ) , and adds to the atmosphere and tone nicely . the visual presentation of city of angels is easily the best of 1998 so far . all of this adds up to a film that is instantly set apart from other members of this genre . it’s a film that relies on character development and imagery to get the story across–the excellent actors and the professional production values make city of angels one of those rare films that both entertains and instigates thought simultaneously .
1 have you ever wondered if death is something that simply happens naturally , at any given moment , in life ? or if it is an occurrence that is predetermined by some much larger force within the world , or outside of it ? these thought-provoking questions are the subject of ” final destination , ” which is the most riveting horror-drama since 1999’s ” the sixth sense . ” stylishly filmed and tautly directed by ” x-files ” alum james wong , the film deals with several fairly heavy topics that are discussed truthfully by teenage characters ( in accurately written ” teen-speak , ” rather than overwrought , highly intellectualized dialogue that even harvard scholars wouldn’t use ) , all the while developing into a darkly foreboding , severely eerie thriller that successfully leaves you uneasy from the horrifyingly real opening twenty minutes to the less-successful , but still suspenseful epilogue . at the start of the film , 17-year-old high school senior alex browning ( devon sawa ) is about to leave with his 40-student french class for a field trip to paris . progressively getting a case of preflight jitters , he spots several mysterious ” coincidences , ” including the departure time being 9 : 25 , the same as his september 25 birthday , as well as hearing the john denver song ” rocky mountain high ” over the sound system in the airport bathroom . ” john denver died in a plane crash , ” alex grudgingly mutters to himself . once seated , alex suddenly gets a horrific premonition about the plane exploding upon takeoff , and after causing a ruckus onboard , he , as well as six other students and a teacher , are thrown off . arguing in the airport lobby , alex’s suspicion comes true when the plane really does explode in flight , killing all 300+ passengers , including the rest of their classmates . as two investigators interrogate alex about how he knew the plane was going to explode , the fellow survivors , whom he has saved , treat him in varying manners . carter ( kerr smith ) , the hotshot jock , holds him in contempt because he believes that it is only he himself who can decide his fate . alex’s best friend , tod ( chad e . donella ) , wants to stand by him but can’t because of his fearful parents . the teacher , mrs . lewton ( kristen cloke ) , is frightened by him , believing that it was he who somehow caused the disaster , as well as in a state of guilt for giving up her seat on the plane to a fellow coworker . only outsider clear rivers ( ali larter ) , who unboarded the plane due to a sudden connection to alex’s premonition even though she had never even spoken to him before , is sympathetic and thankful to him for saving her life . that is only the setup of ” final destination , ” and the less said about what follows , the better . suffice to say , the film does , indeed , turn into a slasher film , albeit one that is more thoughtful than most , and replaces a knife-wielding maniac for the never-seen granddaddy killer of them all , the grim reaper itself . the setpieces in any horror movie are the death scenes , and ” final destination ” surely boosts some of the most inventive ones to grace the silver screen in years . graphic and brilliantly orchestrated in a rube goldbergesque manner , they manage to occasionally be so intense you don’t know whether to shrink down in your seat , tap your feet in nervousness , or turn away . devon sawa , a rising star who put his physical comedy skills to good use in 1999’s underseen slasher-comedy , ” idle hands , ” is even more of a charismatic presence here . the conflicting emotions he feels for his survival , which he comes to believe he wasn’t meant to do , as well as the loss of the other passengers , is superbly and subtly acted on his part . one scene , in which he is watching a news report on the crash and slowly begins to break down is especially realistic and powerful . ali larter ( 1999’s ” varsity blues ” ) , in the other central role , is also effective , as a girl whose life was going well until her father died in a convenience store shooting years before , leaving her stuck with an increasingly uncaring mother who married a loutish man–the exact opposite of her now-deceased father . the other roles are not as fully written , and most remain rather one-dimensional . the movie is mainly sawa’s , however , and the rest of the actors equip themselves well in limited roles . tony todd ( 1992’s ” candyman ” ) , as an arcane morgue attendant , pops up for a five-minute cameo , but his appearance is rather supererogatory . and the aforementioned dialogue occasionally hits the bullseye , while at other times it hovers over being just a little too stilted and campy . ultimately , what is so good about ” final destination ” is that , within the confines of the slasher genre , writer-director wong and screenwriters glen morgan and jeffrey reddick have created a premise that has never been seen before in this manner , and a film that has the ability to both surprise and frighten–two things that are rarely found in today’s horror films . if anything , it’s safe to say you will never ever look at flying in airplanes the same way again .
1 originally entitled dancing about architecture ( i . e . ” talking about love is like dancing about architecture ” ) , but changed because it sounded too much like the recent box-office dud dancing at lughnasa , this film slaps together a stunning cast of hollywood names , playing interesting and well-written characters , within a vignettes-styled plot arrangement a la robert altman . plot : follow the lives of several couples falling in and out of love , finding themselves , regaining a clearer understanding of the people that they are , and who they want , and appreciating the fine emotional art of love . critique : charmingly effective romantic drama , this film offers insight into various types of relationships , presents us with interesting characters and excellent performances from the cast , and scratches beneath the surface of love and its many complex subtleties . how do people fall in love ? why do people fall out of love ? how do people fall back into love , once they’ve been hurt and left to join the lonely hearts club ? all of these questions and more , are touched upon in this film , within several types of variant relationships . meet a hip , young couple going through their first date . a divorcee attempting to date again after her many failed relationships . a married woman ” finding herself ” while cheating on her husband . a husband letting go of his inhibitions . an older couple dealing with a past ” love ” of the man , a secret recently uncovered . a son dying from aids , joined by his mother at the hospital . there are many nuances to this picture , and many ideas and quotes to which we could all relate , but more importantly , there is diversity . diversity of relationships helped me and my gang of friends enjoy this film on many levels . some related to the younger couples’ issues . others with the married . there’s a little bit of everything for everyone in here . and i would bet dollars to donuts that if i were to watch this film again in a year , i would relate myself to yet another predicament . just like love itself , this movie is distinct and appreciated by all on many different levels . the actors in this film are all also very , very good . sean connery is solid as the older man with some issues to resolve , as is gena rowlands , as the aging wife with trepidations . jolie comes out of this film a star with a great performance , while philippe is as pretty-boy as ever . anderson leaves scully far behind with her wonderful portrayal of a damaged woman trying to re-ignite her love life , opposite a surprisingly admirable performance by former talk-show host , jon stewart . even dennis quaid manages to step outside of his overacting shoes in this film , and offers a convincing show of a man lost within his own imagination . the only piece of this puzzle which left me somewhat detached , was the part surrounding jay mohr , the man dying from aids , and his mother , ellen burstyn . the actors were fine , but somehow , the piece seemed out of place within the realm of everything else . the ending of this film was also a little too saccharine for me , but i guess that’s just hollywood . this film is actually a lot like your friends and neigbors ( 5 . 5/10 ) and happiness ( 4 . 5/10 ) in concept and style , but its complete anthesis in regards to character relatibility and likeness . the characters in those films were too unique and inhuman for anyone to care , as opposed to this film , which offers rich and believable characters , living real lives and talking about real issues in today’s relationships . all in all , this movie offers many interesting characters , talking and living genuine and engaging love lives , wonderful performances by its solid cast , too sweet of an ending , but an enjoyable and rewatchable movie nonetheless . little known facts about this film and its stars : according to a story in the london sunday mirror , sean connery asked for only $60 , 000 for his role in this movie , as compared to his usual fee of $14 million , because he liked the script so much . on top of that , he convinced his co-stars ( including gena rowlands , gillian anderson , ellen burstyn , et al . ) to do the same . this is director/writer willard carroll second real foray into the world of ” adult films ” . before this , he had written and produced many children’s movies . gillian anderson stands 5’2 . angelina jolie’s full name is angelina jolie voight . she is actor jon voight’s daughter . she has trained and performed at the lee strasberg theatre institute . she divorced actor jonny lee miller of trainspotting ( 8 . 5/10 ) fame in 1997 . they were married in 1995 . actor ryan phillippe’s full name is matthew ryan phillippe . he stands 5’9 , and spent his childhood in new castle , delaware . his acting career started on tv’s ” one life to live ” . he portrayed daytime television’s first gay teenager . jon stewart’s full name is jonathan stewart leibowitz . this film was originally entitled if they only knew and dancing about architecture . watch for movie posters from swingers ( 8 . 5/10 ) , chasing amy ( 7/10 ) and the texas chainsaw massacre ( 8/10 ) at the movie theatre where the characters of joan and keenan go on their first date .
1 ” well this is not mission : difficult , mr . hunt , it’s mission : impossible . difficult should be a walk in the park for you . ” —agent swanbeck ( sir anthony hopkins ) , the series’ new agent phelps , takes ethan hunt ( tom cruise ) down a notch . a russian scientist ( rade serbedzija ) has created a new virus ( and its antidote ) called chimera that destroys its host within twenty hours of injection . a rogue imf agent , sean ambrose ( dougray scott ) , wants to use the disease and cure to blackmail a pharmaceutical company into selling him enough stock to make him owner of the company ( he knows it will soon be worth its weight in gold thanks to the outbreak of the virus he is going to cause ) . posing as ethan hunt , ambrose gains the confidence of the scientist long enough to get only the cure , not realizing that the scientist had injected himself with the virus to prevent exactly what ambrose was trying to do . the real ethan hunt is called in from his vacation to persuade beautiful thief nyah nordoff-hall ( thandie newton ) to assist the imf team in retrieving the stolen goods . ethan and nyah fall quickly in love , but ethan soon finds himself in a real dilemma when he learns that his new love has only been hired because she was a former lover of ambrose’s . reluctantly , he sets up nyah to be rescued from prison by ambrose so she can infiltrate his compound and send back intelligence to the team . ethan must race against time to keep ambrose from obtaining and spreading the virus and prevent any harm from coming to nyah . although the first mission : impossible film was a moderate box office success , audiences panned it because they felt the plot was too confusing and there wasn’t much action ( although being a fan of the series both old and new , i thought the movie was pretty decent and especially gutsy to make phelps a bad guy ) . that problem has been rectified in the sequel by making the plot more accessible ( courtesy of one of the writers of the previous entry , robert towne ) and by turning the film into one gigantic action set piece under the steady hand of action film guru john woo . the end result is one of the most entertaining ( yet simple ) action films made in a long while . unfortunately , the first forty minutes or so are relatively slow , dwelling mainly on ethan and nyah’s quickly blossoming romance and seeming more in place in a james bond film than with the less glamorous mission : impossible tv series . ethan’s conflict is a compelling one , but it seems very rushed ( and comes about because of a near fatal car wreck that ethan himself causes ! ) . john woo handles all of this with an artistic flair that seems out of place , featuring a great deal of slow fades and dramatically framed close-ups . the surreal nature of these sequences are distracting and ultimately a detriment to the film . thankfully though , at the point ambrose discovers nyah’s deception , mission : impossible ii becomes very entertaining and action-packed . robert towne’s screenplay takes some of the conventions set up in the first film and parodies them during a sequence where ethan must break into a high-rise building and retrieve the remaining specimens of the virus . after that , the action scenes just begin to build in intensity , as is the case with many of woo’s previous high-octane films . the final half hour is an all out assault of action ( a good deal of which is ruined by the trailer , unfortunately ) . as far as summer entertainment goes , mission : impossible ii is serviceable fare . anyone looking for hardcore action won’t be disappointed ( except for during the first half of the film , perhaps ) . even if you weren’t a fan of the first film , this entry deserves some checking out . [pg-13]
1 robert redford is very good at playing characters who have incredible , god-given gifts , but are able to act like ordinary people . in ” the natural ” ( 1984 ) , he played the fallen angelic character of roy hobbs , the baseball player who was destined to be ” the best there ever was , ” but still acted like a humble farm boy . in ” butch cassidy and the sundance kid ” ( 1969 ) , he was the most dangerous shot in the west , yet he came off like a nothing more than a boyishly good-looking charmer . even in ” indecent proposal ” ( 1993 ) , where he played a man who was so good at making money that he believed he could buy love , redford was still able to exude an aura of shy decency , especially when reciting a tale of lost love . in his latest film , ” the horse whisperer , ” based on the best-selling novel by nicholas evans , redford again plays such a character . redford also directed the film although he swore up and down that he would never direct himself in a movie – i suppose the character of tom booker , a man who has the amazing gift of understanding and somehow communicating with horses , was just too good to pass up . despite his enormous and rare gift when it comes to training troubled horses ( a magazine article coins the phrase ” horse whisperer ” to describe his uncanny talent ) , booker sees himself as an everyday cattle rancher whose greatest fear is growing old and no longer having a purpose in life . booker’s talents are taxed into service by annie maclean ( kristin scott thomas ) , a new york magazine editor whose daughter , grace ( scarlett johansson ) , was recently in a horrible accident . the accident , which is filmed with gut-wrenching horror , happens when grace and her best friend are out riding horses – an eighteen-wheeler kills grace’s friend , severely wounds and traumatizes grace’s horse , pilgrim , and causes grace to lose part of her right leg . annie believes that if pilgrim can be healed , grace will be healed as well , which leads her to booker . at first , she tries to get booker to come to new york to see the horse , but that doesn’t work . instead , she packs up grace and pilgrim , leaves her husband , robert ( sam neill ) behind , and heads for the rolling hills of montana where booker runs a ranch with his brother , frank ( chris cooper ) , and his sister-in-law , diane ( dianne wiest ) . in many ways , the film is like a journey , both literally and symbolically . the move out west has always been a great american tradition of renewal , and it’s hard not to see annie and grace’s leaving manhattan for montana as a variation on the classic theme of city vs . country . in ” the horse whisperer , ” country is clearly the victor . the city is characterized by claustrophobia and unhappiness , and it is not until the characters arrive in the wide-open spaces of montana that grace’s anger at being physically and emotionally crippled begins to dissipate , annie’s controlling nature begins to relax , and pilgrim once again learns to trust people . redford is just as in love with the grand montana country in this film as he was when he directed ” a river runs through it ” six years ago . in many ways , ” the horse whisperer ” comes from the same poetic vein as ” river , ” and the movie could probably be a good fifteen minutes shorter if redford had decided to spend less camera-time on the grass and mountains . but then , that would ruin the magic . much of the film’s photography is truly elegant , and it creates a palpable sense of the sheer expansiveness of the land . to further emphasize this , redford and cinematographer robert richardson ( ” natural born killers , ” ” platoon ” ) cheated a bit by shooting the beginning of the film – which takes place in new york – with mostly cold , harsh bluish filters and a more squarish 1 . 85 : 1 aspect ratio ; when the action shifts to montana , richardson switches to soft-focus and natural lighting , and the screen widens to a 2 . 35 : 1 aspect ratio . in terms of the story itself , ” the horse whisperer ” gives us the same romanticized view of adultery found in david lean’s ” a brief encounter ” ( 1945 ) and clint eastwood’s 1995 adaptation of robert james waller’s ” the bridges of madison county ” ( richard lagravenese , co-screenwriter here also adapted ” bridges ” ) . although ” the horse whisperer ” has a strong romantic sensibility , i still find something oddly troubling about this kind of story . it seems to me that there should be some sympathy for the husband who’s being left behind for this brief , heart-sweeping affair , but there rarely is . in ” the horse whisperer , ” the thankless role of being the fuddy-duddy husband falls to sam neill . he plays the character as a decent , hard-working man who is a good husband and father ; his only failure is that he loves his wife more than she loves him . he is at risk of losing annie to booker not because he did anything to drive her away , but simply because he happens to be a normal , fairly uninspiring man . there is one scene that is particularly telling of how the movie feels about each character . it shows booker and robert going into a horse pen – booker is dressed like a classic cowboy with hat and all , while robert looks somewhat frumpy and out-of-place in a baseball cap . as they enter the pen , booker assuredly swings over the fence , while robert hesitates , then opens the gate and , in a goofy moment , forgets to close it behind him . it’s a small scene , but it clearly demonstrates the movie’s thorough love of the booker character for his romantic roughness . after all , booker represents everything good about the city while robert represents everything banal and unnatural about it . the best scenes in ” the horse whisperer ” tend to involve not the building romance between booker and annie , but rather the healing process of grace and her horse . although booker’s horse-training methods are mythical and unrealistic , the scenes with him and pilgrim are strangely mesmerizing . these are paralleled by the scenes between him and grace , some of which are humorous , and all of which are tender and true . at some point , i wished the movie would drop the whole romance angle and focus on grace more . nevertheless , redford is obviously a romantic at heart , and he brings a light touch to the erotic moments in the film . there are no dramatic sex scenes , but there is a moving scene when he and scott thomas are slow-dancing , always moving ever closer together , that is far more erotic than any scene of sweaty bodies grinding together . although the movie is longer than it should be and is essentially a melodramatic tearjerker with an unsatisfying conclusion that guarantees unhappiness for just about every character , there are enough moments like that which make ” the horse whisperer ” worth the price of admission .
1 in roger michell’s romantic comedy notting hill , william thacker ( hugh grant ) leads a rather dreary life maintaining his flagging travel bookshop in the quaint section of london which lends it’s name to the film’s title . one day , american movie superstar anna scott ( julia roberts ) walks in to purchase a book on turkey . quickly enamored of each other , the two embark upon an on-again , off-again love affair replete with romance , humor , and the occasional lump in the throat . the film opens with a non-verbal cue to anna’s stardom as the title credits appear over a montage of slow motion sequences featuring the actress’s appearances in films and at premieres – coming out of limousines , walking the red carpets and such . without words , this sequence gives us a background to her character . following , however , is a set-up narration by william indicating what he does and where he lives . i don’t know why the filmmakers chose to go with a narration which tells us nothing we couldn’t have figured out by watching the first ten minutes of film , and which never resurfaces after the movie’s beginning , but there it is . if there were ever a clear case for ” less is more , ” this would be it . the film is told nearly first person from william’s point of view , as he is in every scene . by nature of this arrangement , we get a very definite sense of what he is all about , and his nice guy personality wins us over easily . in fact , much of notting hill’s strength lies in the great dialog written for this character by richard curtis . a scene where william is still in shock over the fact that he’s even talking to a silver screen goddess is made golden by the way bumbles through his attempt to offer her some honey-soaked apricots from his refrigerator . or take an instance where anna kisses william and asks him never to tell anyone for fear of the incident hurting her image . william assures her he wouldn’t say a word , then adds , ” well , i’ll probably tell myself now and then , but i’d never believe it . ” great stuff . the downside to spending so much time with william is that we don’t get to see enough of anna to make their relationship whole and plausible . we’re constantly exposed to william’s thoughts , feelings , actions and desires , but don’t actually get the sense of how much anna really feels for him . there are a couple of instances where she declares her obvious interest , but they nearly come out of nowhere due to the fact that we’re not sure what she’s been thinking all the times in between . this , combined with the sheer iniquity of screen time between the two , makes this hugh grant’s film hands down . he gets the great scenes ( look for one in which he has to portray an interviewer from horse and hound magazine in order to speak with anna ) , the great lines , and gives an overall wonderful performance . julia roberts fans will probably be disappointed by the actress’s top billing and subsequent lack of involvement in the film ( ala sandra bullock in a time to kill ) along with her detached performance which is only worsened by her character’s unpredictable behavior . anna doesn’t get a lot of our compassion . this romantic comedy leans a little more toward the comedy than the romance , much of it supplied by grant himself , but with considerable help from the supporting cast . most notable is rhys ifans as spike , william’s eccentric roommate , who is in the film for no other purpose than to make us laugh . hugh bonneville , emma chambers , james dreyfus , and gina mckee bring up the guard as william’s friends and family , particularly shining in a scene where william brings anna to his sister’s birthday dinner , and we get to see how these common folks react to the presence of a movie star in their midst . it’s a scene most of us will probably think would play out in our own living rooms were we faced with a similar situation . roger michell’s use of visuals doesn’t sweep us off our feet , but does give us more than your typical movie of this type . for example , there are a couple of instances in this film where large amounts of time pass . whereas some films are content to simply put in a caption saying ” eight months later , ” michell presents us with more interesting cues , such as william’s walk though his neighborhood while the seasons change around him . another memorable shot occurs in a park where the camera is lifted from ground level to a couple of hundred feet in the air . we’re generally used to scenes where our point of view is lifted from the earth to treetop level or so , but in this case , the camera just keeps going up and up until we have a bird’s eye view of the ground below . music is used rather glaringly as an enhancement to many of the film’s scenes , and some of this might have been better toned down , but in other areas it works to full effect . it’s kind of a mixed bag , but still fares better than many of today’s lighthearted movies which are so influenced by the mtv fare that the film becomes one long music video . at least this film has some pretty good music that for the most part remains relevant and appropriate . notting hill’s grant and roberts will not go down in history as one of the all-time greatest film pairings , but the chemistry is decent and the comedic aspects of the movie more than make up for it . for a couple of hours , you should expect to laugh more than cry , and that’s not so bad , now is it ?
1 ingredients : man with amnesia who wakes up wanted for murder , dark science fiction city controlled by alien beings with mental powers . synopsis : what if you woke up one day , and suspected you were not on earth , and instead were part of an experiment in a giant space terrarium manipulated by intergalactic alien zookeepers ? in dark city john murdoch ( rufus sewell ) has this problem . dark city starts out like a 1940s noir amnesia detective mystery . poor john wakes up with amnesia in a hotel room with a dead dame in one corner . a mysterious phone call tells him to get the heck out of there , and soon enough john is chased all over town by a murderous army of pale people in black trench-coats , as well as by the police , and the dogged inspector bumstead ( william hurt ) . is john a murderer , and what can his missing memories tell him ? he searches through his own wallet for possible contacts and clues . but when the clues don’t fit , it doesn’t just confuse him ; it causes john to go so far as to question the whole nature of reality in the dark city . to john , something is fishy , and very unreal about this city . how come it’s always dark , and nobody seems to remember what they did this morning ? and how come nobody seems to remember how to leave the city , or how to get to nearby shell beach ? every night , around midnight , john notices that the whole city enters a state of suspended animation , and at this time , creepy alien experimenters known as the ‘strangers’ come out and do nasty things like inject fake memories into people’s heads with big hypodermic needles . the strangers have the ability to ‘tune , ‘ or warp reality using telepathic powers . turns out , the city is not on earth at all . and the reason why john doesn’t fall victim to the nightly suspended animation , is because he is a human mutation that possesses the same god-like reality-warping abilities as the strangers . even with the help of scientist dr . daniel schreber , can john take back the dark city ? opinion : director alex proyas ( he also directed the crow ) mentions this in the dark city press kit : in films , science fiction is always ” used to have big spaceships blow up cities . i think we’re a little tired of that . ” according to director proyas , probably the most interesting thing about dark city is its layers . it’s designed so that you can watch the film over again , and examine it from the perspective of a main character other than murdoch . it’s a philosophical piece . cinematic science fiction is basically a thinly disguised shootout between the good humans and the bad aliens ( whether they be klingons , giant bugs , or proponents of the dark side of the force ) . but science fiction in books reaches beyond the ‘shoot-em-up’ level and targets the big questions , questions like who are we ? what is the human condition ? what is ethical ? what would a true human being do ? far from comic book style on the order of spawn , batman , or the mutant ninja turtles , dark city not only features the showdown between good humans and powerful aliens , but it also asks questions worthy of films such as brazil or blade runner . dark city is what philosophers would call an existentialist screenplay . a little more than 200 years ago , the world was filled with unhappy peasants – – unhappy because nearly every aspect of their lives was controlled by totalitarian , military , conformist , medieval regimes . the people took refuge in religion , the idea being that earthly life was a time of suffering , but after death , heaven would be available . meanwhile , the state used these same ideas to prop up their regimes ; the king was often head of the religion and therefore sanctioned by heaven . when science finally overturned religion , the medieval dictatorships came tumbling down and were replaced by democratic governments . but the new fear was that the power of science and experimentation would be used to create a world order as darkly totalitarian as the old . this is the time period when writers and philosophers such as freud , kant , kafka , nietzsche , and dostoevsky pondered what society should be , and what place the individual had in it . the existentialists’ in particular wrote about the power of the lone individual against what may be a hostile , indifferent , or alienated universe . in dark city , when the last dying , defeated alien asks john murdoch why the aliens’ scientific experiments on the human beings’ brains failed , murdoch replies , pointing to his head , ” because the human condition isn’t located in here . ”
1 every once in a while , when an exceptional family film comes along , i will attempt to champion it by challenging parents to put their money where their mouths have been ; with all the hubbub over the lack of films suitable for children , it is remarkable how many non-disney films disappear in a couple of weeks . now i see that in so doing , i have unfairly ghettoized these films . so i am issuing my challenge not just to parents , but to anyone who wants to support smart , funny , energetic film-making : see matilda . see it in a theater , rather than shrugging and waiting for it on video . see the best film i have seen in 1996 . not the best children’s film . . . the best film . period . based on a story by roald dahl , it tells of young matilda wormwood ( mara wilson ) , an extraordinarily bright girl whose great misfortune it is to have a pair of deeply stupid parents : harry ( danny devito ) , a crooked used car salesman ; and zinnia ( rhea perlman ) , a simple-minded bingo addict . the wormwoods barely notice matilda exists , and when they do , it is only to scold her for spending too much time reading books . when they finally do send her to school , it is to crunchem hall , a bleak place run by cruel , child-hating miss agatha trunchbull ( pam ferris ) . but things begin to look up for matilda when she discovers a sympathetic teacher , miss honey ( embeth davidtz ) , who nurtures her natural inquisitiveness . matilda also discovers another special talent — the ability to move things with her mind — which allows her to help herself and miss honey to overcome miss trunchbull’s cruelty . it was this spring’s james and the giant peach which inspired me to note that the best and most lasting tales for children tended to have more than a hint of darkness to them , and you can bet that the roald dahl responsible for the gleeful ghoulishness of james and willy wonka and the chocolate factory has more of the same in store with matilda . and just as james benefited from the dark sensibilities of henry selick and tim burton , matilda soars on the cock-eyed direction of danny devito . devito made black humor a key element in throw momma from the train and the war of the roses , and he contributes some memorable images . in one scene , an unfortunate girl is made an example of by miss trunchbull when she is picked up by her pig-tails and flung through the air like a throwing hammer ; later , an overweight boy is forced to eat an entire massive cake after he is caught stealing a dessert . matilda is just twisted enough to be a perfect fairy tale . it is also characteristic of the best children’s tales that they manage to teach lessons in such a way that children almost don’t realize that they are learning them . there is a hilarious moment when matilda’s television-addicted father snatches away the book she is reading ( in a wicked joke , he thinks _moby dick_ is pornographic ) and forces her to watch an inane game show ( hosted by jon lovitz ) in which contestants are smeared with adhesive and placed in a booth filled with cash blowing around . matilda is a story which promotes the value of intellectual curiosity over passive entertainment , and it does so while poking holes in that most frustrating of notions for a child — that because ” i’m big and you’re little , i’m right and you’re wrong . ” more specifically , it has as its heroine an intelligent , self-confident girl who struggles successfully against other people’s notions of how she should behave . it is no coincidence that matilda was co-written by robin swicord , who contributed the superb recent adaptation of little women . finally , matilda has that quality i find rarest and most treasured in family entertainment : it is family entertainment in the truest sense of the word . devito knows enough to make matilda fast-paced and appealing to children , taking a deliciously nasty performance by pam ferris as miss trunchbull and making it the focal point of some priceless physical comedy , including a great chase through her dark house . the child actors are winning but never obnoxiously adorable , with mara wilson making matilda a clever and extremely likeable character . but there are also many , many delights for adults , including my favorite scene in which matilda uses her powers to frighten miss trunchbull by having chalk write on a chalkboard by itself while matilda’s classmates recite in sing-song fashion ; there is also a deadpan cameo by paul reubens as an fbi agent staking out matilda’s father . i can’t imagine anyone of any age leaving matilda feeling as though his or her intelligence had been insulted . matilda is a film which left me glowing with good feeling . i will see it again , and years from now i will watch it with my children . and now i will stop , because somewhere near you matilda is about to begin , and there is a seat in that theater you should be in , if you have a child or ever were a child .
1 usually when one is debating who the modern queen of the romantic comedy is they will bring up names like julia roberts or sandra bullock . others will mention meg ryan . but for me , it’s not even close . janeane garofalo is not only the queen of the romantic comedy , she is the best comic actress in hollywood right now . and it’s a good thing she’s starring in the matchmaker , because without her presence the movie would be bland , unfunny , and dull . garofalo stars as marcy tizard , a top aide to boston senator john mcglory , who is suffering in the polls . in an attempt to capture the irish vote , he sends marcy on a mission to a small irish town called ballinagra in search of other mcglory’s that never moved to america . unfortunately for marcy , her visit coincides with the town’s annual matchmaking festival . things get off to a rocky start for marcy though . she has no hotel reservations ( for no rational reason ) and the tiny confined room ( tired old cliche’ ) she has to stay in has a visitor in her bathtub . his name is sean , and marcy finds him repugnant at first , so you can obviously tell where this is headed . the movie runs into a few roadblocks . for instance , the story is very thin . none of the characters ( except the old local matchmaker ) are nearly as interesting as garofalo . some of the characters , like the political aide played by denis leary , have wandered in from a completely different movie . i think the director realized this and decided to throw in numerous shots of the beautiful irish scenery , and several close-ups of garofalo’s winning smile . the strange thing is that it works . garofalo’s charm and the irish scenery could carry the thinnest of stories , and it carries this one .
1 susan granger’s review of ” bread and tulips ” ( first look pictures ) in this delightfully frothy italian romantic comedy , after accidentally being left behind by a tour bus while on a family vacation with her cranky husband and two cynical teenagers , rosalba ( licia maglietta ) , an unhappy housewife from pescara , finds herself – and love – in venice . for the first time in years , rosalba’s on her own when she’s abandoned at a highway rest area . although her philandering husband ( antonio catania ) , a plumbing-supply dealer , orders her to stay there until she’s picked up , she impulsively accepts a ride to venice , a bohemian paradise which she’s never visited . rosalba finds refuge and romance with fernando ( bruno ganz ) , a gruff icelandic waiter who offers her a spare room in his modest apartment and prepares breakfast for her each morning . to support herself , she gets a job working with a florist ( antonio catania ) . film-maker silvio soldini gently explores the blossoming of this bored , middle-aged , middle-class woman with warmth and affection , savoring special moments such as when rosalba starts playing the accordion again and abandons her maroon stretch pants , silver jacket and orange sneakers for a simple , new red-and-white dress with platform-soled espadrilles . the superb actors slip into their roles seamlessly , particularly luminous licia maglietta and low-key bruno ganz , along with marina massironi as her nosy massage-therapist neighbor and giuseppe massironi as the inept plumber-turned-private eye who’s sent to retrieve her on orders from her frantic husband – who’s discovered that his mistress has no interest in doing his laundry or cleaning the house . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , ” bread and tulips ” is a beguiling , escapist 8 . as the summer ends , it’s a magical getaway for mature audiences . .
1 ” i know what you did last summer , ” the first high-profile slasher thriller to be released after 1996’s ” scream , ” and written by the same screenwriter , kevin williamson , is a stylish , effective horror film that became 1997’s biggest hit of the fall season . while ” scream ” was a more knowing film about the genre , ” i know what you did last summer ” is more reminiscent of a straight-forward slasher flick , but it is far more intelligent than such bottom-of-the-barrel guilty pleasures as all nine of the ” friday the 13th ” films ( well , okay , ” jason goes to hell ” was pure hell to sit through ) . the film starts off with four talented , aspiring teenage friends who have just graduated from high school in their small boating town of southport , n . c . it is the 4th of july , and they will soon be heading their separate ways . kind-hearted julie ( jennifer love hewitt ) , and outsider ray ( freddie prinze jr . ) will be headed off to college , while helen ( sarah michelle gellar ) , who has just been honored croaker queen in the town , and her ignorant jock boyfriend , barry ( ryan phillippe ) , are going to new york to become an actress and football player . when the four of them travel to a nearby mountain-side beach for the evening , they are dismayed after hitting a man in the road on their way home . distraught and confused , they decide they can’t go to the police because they will be charged with manslaughter , so they devise a plan to throw the apparently dead victim off a peer into the ocean , in hopes no one will find him . julie is apprehensive about it , but is forced into it by barry . switch to exactly a year later , julie , still unable to come to terms with what she did , reluctantly returns home from college to find that all three of her old friends are still in the town because their career plans did not work out . almost immediately , julie recieves an ominous letter that simply reads , ” i know what you did last summer , ” and that is the start of their problems as they find themselves being terrorized by a mysterious figure dressed in fisherman gear and yielding a giant hook . ” i know what you did last summer , ” is a successful horror film for a number of reasons . the cinematography by denis crossan could very well be described as hitchcockian , as it put shadows , fog , steam , and other clever devices to add atmosphere to the proceedings . the characters , particularly julie and helen , are realistically written , and the film amazingly deals with their broken relationship in a few scenes , which is largely uncharacteristic in films of this sort . and last , the film creates a few dazzling and scary set-pieces that are some of the most memorable i’ve seen in a horror movie , particularly the suspenseful , superbly shot sequence involving helen at her family’s store with the killer inside with her . perhaps the best character is that of missy egan ( anne heche ) , a lonely backwoods woman whose brother was the one julie thinks they hit . heche’s performance is a standout , as she is able to create a full character in only about ten minutes of screen time . ” i know what you did last summer , ” could have been a great horror movie if not for a few problems . prinze jr . gives a performance to be desired here , and much of his dialogue sounds wooden coming out of his mouth . also , the climax of the film almost completely loses its frightening grip after it unveils the mystery killer , who is a decidedly bad actor and should not have been given any lines . luckily , the penultimate scene saves the disappointing finale , which includes an expertly crafted ” jump-in-your-seat ” scare . in the main roles , hewitt and gellar are highly talented , and hewitt , especially , is one of the best screamers i’ve ever heard . she honestly could give jamie lee curtis a little competition for the best ” scream queen . ” and gellar is touching as a young woman who , in the course of one year , finds her dream of being an actress ultimately shattered . although not up to the level of either ” scream ” movies , or the more recent , ” urban legend , ” ” i know what you did last summer ” is a respectable , smartly-scripted slasher film that firmly proved good horror movies were once again being made .
1 labelling is sometimes everything . in original mad max , the opening title set the plot of the movie in near future , thus making it one of the science fiction classics , despite the future world being almost exactly like our own . walter hill wanted the same opening title for his action classic the warriors . producers weren’t thrilled by that idea and consequently the movie lost all of its futuristic overtones . on the other hand , producers were right on the mark ; walter hill was accused of actually promoting some disturbing trends that were quite visible in contemporary america . to make the movie even more distant from future , plot was loosely based on anabasis , historical book written by xenophon , greek mercenary soldier who had described his adventures in ancient persia 2400 years ago . instead of ancient persia , movie begins in contemporary coney island , where cleon ( dorsey wright ) , leader of the warriors , local youth gang , gets invitation to the great gathering of all youth gangs from the city . the gathering , organised by gramercy park riffs , most powerful gang in the city , is taking place in bronx . that is far away from warriors’ home territory , but small and unarmed delegation of the warriors gets there safely thanks to the general truce . on the gathering , cyrus ( roger hill ) , charismatic leader of the riffs , announces his grand plan to unite all the gangs and take over the city . crowd is enthusiastic , but the small gang of rogues , led by psychopathic luther ( david patrick kelly ) uses the opportunity to assassinate cyrus . police simultaneously raids the gathering , and in the commotion warriors get blamed by the killing , and their leader gets killed by riffs . the remaining eight , led by cleon’s lieutenant swann ( michael beck ) , must now try to get to coney island , but this time unprotected by truce and instead being chased by all the gangs . upon its release , despite the controversies and even some youth riots that were allegedly inspired by it , the warriors enjoyed immense popularity and very quickly received some kind of a cult status . however , despite being one of the best movies of that year , and being directed by talented action director walter hill at the peak of his career , the movie failed to leave as strong impression to the future generations as some other cinematic achievements of that same year . the reason for that probably lies in a fact that this movie aged very quickly . if walter hill’s idea was to warn the public about problems of urban america , he failed miserably . the future was much worse than his vision . the youth gangs , as presented in the warriors , are far from shadowy armies , able to take over entire cities . their members seem more interested in unorthodox fashion and their little petty feuds than such prosaic , and for the public more annoying , matters like crime . in their vocabulary , word ” arms ” is reserved for small knives and blunt objects , and only few of them use heavy artillery like handguns . they even have their own , very strict and detailed laws , upheld more strictly than some governments do with their own . many people in american cities would be more than happy to see their young criminals behaving like those in the warriors . some of the critics who accused hill of actually praising youth crime had a lot arguments in their favour . despite those objections , the warriors have all the elements of a very good film . the plot is simple , and serves as good basis for numerous action scenes . the fights are brilliantly choreographed and quite realistic , although there isn’t much bloodshed or gore in the movie . editing is superb , events happen at quick pace , with the exception of middle , when boring moralistic exchanges between swann and his would-be-girlfriend mercy ( deborah van valkenburgh ) drag the plot from straight action to social drama territory . the soundtrack by barry de vorzon is very suggestive and recognisable . yet , the trademark of this film are the actors who showed great talent , although most of them later sunk into anonymity . best known of them is david patrick kelly , whose superb and original performance in this film later subscribed him to the roles of psychopathic villains . michael beck as cool , almost statesman-like leader of a gang , is also very good , and james remar gives good contrast as his hot-shot contender for top spot . all in all , this movie is perhaps dated , yet in its hour and half can give a lot more entertainment than most of the contemporary movies .
1 for those who associate italian cinema with fellini and ” high art , ” the son’s room is an inventive , subtle alternative . written by , directed , and starring nanni moretti , it takes us through the slow , complicated path of bereavement . slow is the best description for the film at first . it takes its time in establishing the habits of what appears to be a normal , happy family . father and mother both work but still find the time to support their son and daughter through homework and after school activities . they laugh , spend free time together , and reprimand the kids for innocent wrongs with a sigh and soft pat on the shoulder . you get the feeling there is open communication and unconditional love amongst the foursome . but suddenly , the son is found to be dead after a diving accident . the family dynamics begin an unpredictable descent that gives the narrative strength when you least expect it , but can also be trying on the attention span . though the film drags and even repeats itself , this can be somewhat excused as influenced by the process of grieving . though nanni moretti wore several hats for this production , it doesn’t come across as a vanity piece . one might wish he hadn’t picked the profession of analyst for the father , giovanni ( which he stars as ) , if only because this makes his character’s reactions so predictable . what saves it is a well written script , with spare dialogue and an eclectic variety of human interaction . the potency of the film lies in the recreation of the tiny details of everyday life that alter due to the death of a close relative , or that remind a depressed person of loss . you start to take notice of the cracked dishes , ignored when familial bliss was in full swing . you remember bonding during the routine jogs around the block , and not necessarily huge events like graduation . even better are the role reversals that take place within the household . while giovanni and paola ( laura morante ) do check up on their daughter irene ( jasmine trinca ) , there is a sense of being on autopilot . not only does irene begin to take care of her own needs more , she’ll make her parents breakfast in an attempt to crack their new shells to life around them . these scenes provide interesting portrayals of various coping mechanisms , frequently crossing a boundary as to how much you can help yourself versus others during drastic , unexpected change . respectfully , gender issues never enter the picture . self-propelled isolation is universal in terms of dealing , so moretti intelligently uses this tool to separate the family . though giovanni does stop paolo from discussing andrea at a party with friends , there is never a sense that he or she is more stoic , or more correct in the search to restore a sense of a balance to their lives . most films that broach the topic of death utilize annoying melodrama , speeches , and conciliatory issues to get the waterworks flowing . in contrast , the son’s room captures a more realistic depiction of the effects of death on a family by graciously flowing among the five stages of mourning ( denial , depression , anger , bargaining , acceptance ) through each of its main characters . it’s not the most engaging 100 minutes , but it is certainly easy to relate to .
1 the word ‘rest’ in the title should be stressed since this is a movie that lacks any action scenes at all . what does takes place is more based on character development . the film starts right in the middle of the lives of four people : nick , beth , carol and sid . what they have done earlier is for the most part only hinted at . nick and beth have a relationship and have decided to move from enfield , arizona to butte , montana . ( and i who thought that butte was pronounced slightly different . . . ) carol is nick’s ex-girlfriend and beth’s best friend , sid is a joint-smoking painter that comes to repaint their house before the new tenants move in . obviously based on a stage play , the problem with the movie is that there’s a lot of things left out . it’s not obvious that nick and beth are in love with each other , the reason why nick was fired from his job isn’t mentioned . and why nick suddenly decide to go visit his parents remain a mystery , when he hasn’t seen them for many years . set in a small ( fictional ? ) town in arizona was a good move , since this makes the film focus on the four characters and not on their surroundings . the name of the city is not important , this could take place anywhere with four young people in a house discussing life and the future . particularly impressive is bridget fonda as beth who end up in bed with sid when her fiance nick leaves her . not an actress that i have found interesting earlier or seen many pictures with , but i’ll keep an eye on her in the future . interesting trivia : this was rated r in the us but rated ‘barntill ? ten’ in sweden wich means that anyone at any age can see it .
1 airplane ! is considered among many to be the epitome of satire film-making . after all , it’s brought to us by one of the best known satire writing/directing teams . even if most people don’t recognize the names behind the films , they are bound to recognize the titles : airplane ! , top secret , the naked gun , and hot shots to name a few . but although the zucker/abrahams/zucker team was first introduced with the kentucky fried movie in 1977 , airplane ! remains the true cornerstone of their work , and their directorial debuts . in the seventies , disaster films seemed to be at an all time high . films like earthquake , the towering inferno , and the poseidon adventure were big hits . there was also a series about the disasters that can arise when traveling by plane – a series that spanned the entire decade . and so , in 1980 , we were introduced to a new airplane disaster film . this time the disaster had nothing to do with a maniacal hijacker or crashing into the ocean . . . it had to do with bad fish . airplane ! is the story of ted striker ( robert hays ) – an ex-fighter-pilot who has never gotten over the fact that a decision he had to make in the midst of war led to the death of six , er , seven comrades . unable to stop living in the past , ted’s world fell apart . he spent his time moving from city to city without ever having a stable job , and eventually , as we begin this film , is getting dumped by his lover , flight attendant elaine dickinson ( julie hagerty ) . in a desperate attempt not to lose her , ted buys a ticket for the same flight elaine is working . unfortunately , she is unsympathetic and even criticizes ted for following her , which leaves him wallowing in self-pity . in the midst of it all , something happens . someone gets sick . then another . then another . soon , the whole plane is full of deathly-ill chicago-bound people . . . and when the pilots get sick ( played by peter graves , kareem abdul-jabbar , and frank ashmore ) , who will save the day ? ( gee , i wonder ) of course the main draw here is the non-stop ” whiz-bang ” comedy , with a hefty dose of both visual and spoken gags . although i had seen this movie a few times before , i was still laughing thru the entire thing . the most fun character by far is the doctor , played by leslie nielsen . he’s a dry , subtle , sterotypically straight-faced doctor that ends up saying some of the funniest lines of the film . in a film like this , you’re not really expecting an elaborate production , so one can’t complain about the amateurish quality . what you can complain about is the absolutely annoying johnny , played by stephen stucker . this character is pointless , nauseating , and very unfunny . i don’t know why he was put in there , and i don’t think anybody will find a good excuse . and when the film nears an end , it slows down quite a bit , almost getting old . you gotta give it to a movie that only runs 88 minutes and can feel two hours long . aside from that , airplane ! is really a top-notch spoof that will likely forever be known as a spoof classic . it would be a good choice to pop in the vcr with a group of friends , especially if they haven’t seen it . and if they ask what the plot is , just tell ’em ” it’s a synopsis of the basic storyline of the film , but that’s not important right now . ” if you’ve seen the film , you’ll understand ; – )
1 this is the movie not the perfume . a slow moving , stylish psychological thriller in imitation of hitchcock’s vertigo . it is adapted from an original story by brian de palma and paul schrader , and is directed by de palma and scripted by schrader . set in new orleans , 1959 , it shows the wealthy michael courtland ( cliff robertson ) sitting on top of the world , celebrating his tenth wedding anniversary with a party in his mansion , as his lovely wife elizabeth ( genevi ? ve bujold ) and young daughter amy ( blackman ) , both look up to him beaming with joy . his real-estate development partner bob la salle ( john lithgow ) proposes a toast to him and to their prosperous business , while his high society friends give him their best wishes . upon retiring for the night , his daughter and wife are kidnapped in their bedroom and he is left with a ransom note to deliver $500 , 000 tomorrow or they will be killed . inspector brie ( stanley reyes ) comes up with a plan to put in phony money and a transmitter in the briefcase exchange , as that will lead them to the kidnappers . but the kidnappers burst out of the house surrounded by the police , taking the two victims with them and in the pursuing police chase , the kidnapper’s car explodes and goes over the bridge , where none of the bodies were found . grieving the loss of his wife and child , the guilt-ridden michael builds them a tomb on the expensive land they were to develop . sixteen years later he goes with his partner bob on a vacation and he revisits florence , italy , where he met his wife . when he goes to the church where they met , he sees a young girl who looks exactly like his wife . her name is sandra portinari ( genevi ? ve bujold ) and she’s working there restoring art that is decaying . he falls instantly in love with her and doesn’t heed bob’s warnings that she might be a gold digger and decides to take her back to new orleans and marry her . sandra becomes his second chance to prove his love , as he thinks he can finally put the past behind him . the surprises to come weren’t really all that surprising , as the beauty in the storytelling is almost exclusively in the understated acting by the soul stricken cliff robertson , the emotionally impactful performance by genevi ? ve bujold , and the competent acting of john lithgow . it plays too much like a rehash of the master’s work , to break any new ground , yet it is still thrilling in its own way .
1 the farrelly brothers’ third film , after dumb and dumber ( 7 . 5/10 ) and kingpin ( 8/10 ) , brings together the real-life couple of cameron diaz and matt dillon , some nasty humour , a cute dog , and a mix of love , fate and romance . plot : high-school nerd ted gets lucky when the cutest girl in his class asks him to the prom . unfortunately for ted , he accidentally gets a part of his male anatomy ( ouch ! ) caught in his zipper , and misses the big night . thirteen years later , ted still can’t get mary out of his mind , and hires a private detective ( dillon ) to find her . once found , it turns out that mary has more than one suitor , and that’s when the real fun begins . critique : likeable comedy with a few extremely funny scenes , some funny looking people , and a plot that won’t ever put you to sleep . having said that , i must admit that i did like the farrellys’ two previous films more than this one , but that is saying a lot , since i really did love those earlier pics . this one is also quite funny , but it didn’t really blow me away like the others . then again , maybe my expectations were too high . then again , maybe i should shut up , and write a little more about the film , and less about my supposed subconscious reasons for liking/disliking the film . continuing where their other pictures left off , the farrellys’ create a cutesy world of people with strange and endearing qualities , and a simple plot by which to tie them all together . this one also includes plenty of toilet humour , but also some borderline fun-making of the disabled and mentally-challenged . i must admit that i really wasn’t sure whether to laugh at some points or not . not a good place to be . having said that , the scenes that did tear through the audience , and yours truly , were extremely hilarious , and went on for several minutes after the punchline . the laughter practically killed out the next scene for one of the best ones in the movie ( something to do with hair gel ) . on the negative end , i did not like the musical interludes of jonathan richman that ran through the entire picture . i found them quite useless , unfunny and distracting . also , i found that a lot of the funnier scenes had already been shown in the film’s trailer . and of course , i never quite buy the fact that these beautiful , intelligent , single women still can’t seem to find the ” right guy ” ( see kiss the girls ( 7/10 ) . i did really like all of the actors in the film , especially ben stiller , who appears to be solidifying his mark as a great comical actor with this picture and one of my favourites from 1996 , flirting with disaster ( 8/10 ) . i also liked matt dillon with his big teeth , and lee evans with his superb faux-sympathy british accent . funny stuff . also , make sure that you stay for the credits , because there is an entire montage of outtakes from the film that plays under a lip-synched version of ” build me up buttercup ” , which is really cool . overall , a cute comedy with a decent premise , and a few particularly hilarious scenes . little known facts : the farrellys big break came when they somehow got a copy of their script ” dust to dust ” into the hands of eddie murphy via ? murphy’s neighbour . they only found out about murphy’s interest , when they saw eddie mention the script on the david letterman show one night . matt dillon is a high school dropout . in between acting gigs , dillon has branched out into the restaurant business . close to home in his native new york , he co-owns both a bar called the whiskey and a swanky uptown eatery called the falls . cameron diaz stands 5 ” 9 , started working as a model at the early age of 16 , and loves cats . ben stiller’s father is jerry stiller . he played george costanza’s ( jason alexander ) father on tv’s ” seinfeld ” . peter farrelly has written a novel entitled ” outside providence ” which is currently being filmed starring alec baldwin . rob moran , who plays the cop in this film , also played the millionaire bowler in kingpin , and the bartender in dumb and dumber . he is old friends with the farrelly brothers from college , and is currently married to entertainment tonight anchor/correspondant julie moran . harland williams , who plays the nutty hitchhiker in this film , also played a state trooper in the farrelly’s earlier dumb and dumber , and was the star of the unfortunate rocket man .
1 when jim henson passed away , he left behind diverse legions of fans and a company whose ultimate success , it now seems , hinged on his input . jim henson productions and the creature shop are still thriving financially , but as the last two muppet films ( or that silly computer-generated monkey from lost in space ) demonstrate , the thrill and genius are gone . i’m not sure the dark crystal , made today , would generate from an audience of kids five to fifty the same awe-filled response . an all-powerful crystal has cracked , causing the leaders of the green world to split apart into two beings : the big , gentle mystics , and the vulture-like skeksis . the mystics send jen , a naive gelfling boy , on a mission to find the shard that cracked away , which must be reinserted into the crystal before the skeksis become eternal rulers , before the great ” conjunction ” of three suns . along the way , jen encounters and teams up with the only other gelfling alive , the rebecca demornay-like kira , an ogre-witch named aughra , who removes her eyes to look at things , and a spastic-but-friendly , tumbleweed-like animal named fizzgig . much of the beauty in the dark crystal , which is a simple tale ( though it does not condescend to any viewer ) , lies in its art direction and creature design . the puppeteering is phenomenal–observe the scenes in which jen plays his flute , or the landwalker chase–but i must stress that any thoughts of strings and hands and remote controls all but vanish in the opening moments of the picture , a delicately-narrated ( by john baddeley ) , absorbing prologue . the voice work in the film , by muppet regulars and irregulars , is tone-perfect . as well , trevor jones’ score should not be discounted : it contributes to the film almost as an unseen character . i suppose , due to the complexity involved in executing a movie of this nature , that it couldn’t be helped , but i wish the film was longer . jen and kira have wonderful . . . well , chemistry , and more scenes of them quietly conversing would have been appreciated . the dark crystal has a very small cult following . the weaker labyrinth is probably better-known , which is upsetting . a friend of mine related a story to me that henson was pressured into planting humans among labyrinth’s creatures due to the financial failure of people-less the dark crystal . that film never quite found its footing ; it played like an acid-trip episode of ” the muppet show ” with david bowie as guest-host , borrowing from tolkien and pandering to tolkien’s fan-base . ( i suppose i just made labyrinth sound appetizing to a certain sector of the public . ) the dark crystal deserved ( and still deserves ) a bigger audience . it’s the best kind of children’s entertainment : elegant , fantastical , and courageously un-hip . brian henson , fortunate son , keep looking back at this , your father’s masterpiece .
1 bob the happy bastard’s quickie review : the mummy brendan fraser’s stuck in the past again , but at least this time he has something better to do than to quote sitcom lines and try to woo alicia silverstone . . . fraser is the lead star of the mummy , the second directorial effort from action director stephen sommers ( who also brought us the decent thrill ride that was deep rising ) . it’s a rough adaptation of the 1932 film , and i say rough because it focuses more on special effects than on some guy in bandages , like boris karloff was engulfed in . but who cares , the movie has a sort of swashbuckling quality to it you can’t get from , oh , say , godzilla or armageddon . fraser plays a soldier who gets a premonition during a battle with soldiers in an egyptian ground . basically , it’s a little sign from the mummy buried underneath- a priest named ihmoetep who was buried alive for taking part of murdering the king and making out with his mistress . his plan- wake back up and wake her up also , making him invincible . of course , fraser returns to the site years later with a librarian ( rachel weisz ) and her brother ( john hanna ) , along with a former buddy of his ( deep rising’s kevin j . o’connor ) and some ” americans ” . . . and guess what ? yup , ihmoetep ( arnold vosloo ) awakens and wreaks havoc . fire flies from the sky , flesh-eating beetles crawl about , and , well , ihmoetep’s plan begins to unfold . ok , so it’s not really all that new a story , but the way sommers tells it is entertaining enough . the special effects from industrial light and magic are top notch , and the acting from fraser and weisz isn’t half bad either . the action is pretty intense ( favorite scene : the sandstorm ) and there are a few shocking scenes just to jolt you horror-loving folks as well . no , it’s no phantom menace beater , but if you’re looking for a solid warm-up to the summer movie season , you won’t find a better film under wraps than the mummy . if this doesn’t give fraser forgiveness from blast from the past and encino man , then nothing will .
1 the laserman : somehow the title of writer-director-producer peter wang’s film conjures up images of superheroes , like ultraman and spiderman . you kind of expect an adventure flick about a crime fighter who can shoot laser beams from his fingertips . as it turns out , the laserman _is_ about crime and about laser beams , but there aren’t any superheroes . instead , wang’s film is populated by a group of refreshingly off-beat characters living in the ultimate cultural melting pot : new york city . the laserman is a comic brew which celebrates ethnicity , eccentricity , and electricity . the film tells the bizarre story of arthur weiss ( marc hayashi ) , a chinese-american laser scientist whose life becomes incredibly hectic after he accidentally kills his lab assistant in an experiment . he loses his job but finds work with a mysterious company which secretly plans to use laser technology to commit dastardly deeds . arthur’s professional life is cluttered with moral dilemmas . his personal life , on the other hand , is cluttered with colorful friends and quirky relatives . in fact , arthur is by far the blandest character in the film , despite a charismatic performance by hayashi ( the san francisco-based actor whose films include chan is missing and the karate kid ii ) . it’s the auxiliary characters who give the laserman its unique spark . arthur’s not-so-typical jewish mother , ruth , for example , is convinced that a chinese soul is trapped in her jewish body . she has dyed her red hair black , she takes herbal medicine daily , and she is perpetually cooking up strange delicacies , such as matzo balls in soy sauce–the ultimate fusion of jewish and chinese cuisine . veteran stage actress joan copeland takes the part and runs with it , almost stealing the movie in the process . she plays ruth as a driven woman , determined to overcome her genetic heritage by immersing herself in chinese culture . arthur’s girlfriend janet ( maryann urbano ) is a kooky free-spirit who would rather meditate than copulate ; her ultimate goal is orgasm through zen meditation . arthur’s best friend , joey ( tony leung ) , is a small time thief who hustles everything from microwave ovens to machine guns . joey is married to arthur’s jewish sister , but he is also having an affair with a chinese immigrant who works in a whore house . arthur’s 11-year-old son , jimmy , played by the amazingly adorable david chan , is–horror of horrors–bad at math ! he finds it impossible to meet his father’s lofty expectations . the various people in arthur’s life come together to form a rich tapestry of humanity . like wang’s earlier film , a great wall ( about a san francisco family visiting relatives in china ) , the laserman revolves around cultural differences . every character in the film is , in some way or another , trying to find his identity–struggling to negotiate a balance between his native culture and the american way . the movie also offers a provocative look at technology . wang appears in the movie as lieutenant lu , a detective who is fed up with machines , even though he relies on them to do his job . the film views technology with a wary eye , acknowledging its necessity while at the same time realizing its potential dangers . wang raises the time-honored question of whether scientists should be held responsible for their inventions . was einstein responsible for the a-bomb ? is arthur weiss responsible for his lasers ? the movie pits spirituality against technology , man against machine , and the result is a draw . according to the film , technology has its place , but we must employ it with great forethought and caution . ironically , by its very nature , the laserman is a triumph of technology–the technology of filmmaking . wang’s direction is exquisite , especially during the tense finale in which the director frantically cross-cuts between the various subplots , perhaps in homage to d . w . griffith . cinematographer ernest dickerson , who has worked on all of spike lee’s films , gives the laserman a distinctive , artistic look . mason daring’s score , which includes a send-up of bach , is right on target . the laserman is an ambitious endeavor , which is to be applauded , but it’s sometimes ambitious to a fault . wang serves up so many slices of life in the film that it’s hard to digest them all . for instance , one character ( arthur’s sister ) has negligible screen time , and consequently we just don’t care about her marital problems . in weaving his web , wang has included a few too many strands . overall , however , the laserman is a charmingly eclectic concoction . on the surface , the film is a light and bouncy comedy-thriller , overflowing with whimsical humor and visual style . the heavier issues emerge only when you take a deeper look at the film . you can ponder the moral questions or you can just sit back and enjoy the absurdity of life in china town .
1 imagine this . you’re given a sword and a shield and very basic , minimal training . a man you don’t know tells you that this will be the last day that you will live . you are thrown into an arena with thousands of spectators wanting to see you die . you frantically monitor several closed doors which , in seconds , will release vicious enemies prepared to destroy you . you watch as the innocent friends you made in the last few days are murdered in cold blood . if you are lucky enough to survive this chaos thrown at you , you know you’re going to have to do it all over again tomorrow . eventually know matter how strong or skilled you are , you’re going to die . this is the life of a gladiator . you’ll never have to be a gladiator and after seeing ridley scott’s powerful gladiator , you’ll be thankful for that . with his new film , scott has returned cinema to the fascinating age of the ancient roman empire . and like those preceding it , spartacus and ben hur , gladiator has nearly everything going for it – a strong lead actor , a wonderful supporting cast , eye-catching special effects , and a great script . since the two aforementioned films came out before the prime target viewers of gladiator ( teenagers to thirty-year-old males ) were around , a whole new genre may just be reborn and revisited . >from a weak beginning , the film starts off extremely gloomy and inauspicious . rome’s best general maximus ( russell crowe ) , who has helped the empire conquer nearly everywhere they have attempted , is currently ( in the year 180 a . d . that is ) waging a war against germania . scott shoots the gory battle in an awkward style , similar to that of saving private ryan but much less effective . it’s blurry , in slow motion , and the sound is muted . as soon as this artistic method began , it was hard to tell what was what and who was who . it’s a good thing scott stops this after the first twenty minutes or else gladiator would have been torture to watch . instead , the general swears he will get out after this battle . he wants to go back to his family and his crops , he wants a quiet life . but , unexpectedly , he gets anything but that . the dying emperor of rome , marcus aurelius ( richard harris ) , decides to have maximus appointed new emperor of rome once he dies . he asks maximus to restore the republic by giving more power to the senators . all of this does not go well for aurelius’ son , commodus ( joaquin phoenix ) who was expecting his father to name him the new emperor . jealous and upset , commodus kills his own father , names himself emperor , kills maximus’ wife and son , and attempts to kill maximus . but maximus is able to escape his own death and vows to kill commodus and fulfill marcus aurelius’ wishes . now a slave , the only way he can win his own freedom and complete his goal is to become a winning gladiator , who eventually are released for their success . a story of betrayal and promises , gladiator is more than just a mindless action flick . you actually care about the characters , sometimes even the evil villain commodus , who is just a young man as determined to make rome one way as maximus is determined to make it the other way . phoenix plays his character brilliantly . think of commodus as the percy wetmore ( of pant-wetter the green mile ) of the roman empire – a whiny , sleazy , ” respect-me-because-my-father-was-a-good-man ” brat who hates when he’s not the center of attention . every scene we see commodus , he’s either crying or he looks like he has just been crying . phoenix has definitely matured as an actor since to die for , and gladiator shows he’s more than just river’s little brother . crowe is also excellent as the film’s grisly-faced hero . maximus is one of the few characters in recent cinema who actually has emotions . this guy actually acts like a anyone in his situation would act , he’s no invincible superhero who only blurts out one-liners , he ( believe it or not ) acts like a human being ! the rest of the cast , including richard harris , djimon hounsou , walter hill , derek jacobi , and connie nielsen are also first rate . ridley scott , using outstanding special effects , has brilliantly recreated the roman coliseum , the loudness of the roman mob , and the city of rome in general . the visuals are breathtaking and voluminous , like a cleopatra of the year 2000 . the costuming is also wonderful from the detailed shields and armor to the exquisite dress of the upper-class politicians . gladiator is another movie you have to see on the big screen to get the most out of the experience . along with u-571 , action fans should have plenty to see in theaters this week and should expect much more excitement to come this summer of 2000 .
1 so here is the second of 1999’s remakes of classic horror movies . the first was the dumb , pathetic but ok remake of the classic ‘the haunting’ . now comes the highly awaited remake of house on haunted hill . the classic which starred vincent price as a man who pays a group of people 100 , 000 to stay in his house . if they survive the night they get the money . if not well you get the jurisdiction . having not yet seen the film ( dvd on its way ) i wasn’t sure if i would really like the remake . but sure enough it comes through and has a great storyline to fall back on . geoffrey rush ( in a fantastic role with an incredible performance ) is steven price , the owner of an amusement park destined to scare the wits out of people . his wife evelyn price is throwing a party with her friends . steven dismays at the idea and makes his own list . somehow someone , or something changes that list and five other people are invited to the party . eddie ( taye diggs ) an ex-baseball player , sarah ( ali carter ) an ex-assistant who can re-wire anything , melissa ( brigette wilson ) a talk-show host in sorts , dr . blackburn ( peter ghallager ) , and watson ( chris kattan ) a smart-mouthed humorist in ways . what he is gonna do is pay these five people 1 , 000 , 000 dollars if they can survive through the night . if they can they get the money , if not well they don’t . the house on haunted hill used to be an insane asylum . years before mental patients broke out and killed the dr . there , forcing him to lock the place up because if he died , so did they . everyone who was in there burned to death . now it is steven price’s home and he is throwing this party for these five people . what starts out as a seemingly normal night , turns into a horrifying , blood splattering night . the deep dark secrets of what really happened in that asylum and why those guests are actually there are revealed . one-by-one the people start to disappear . conspiracies start to turn up , and steven price finds out that his house may be alive after all . the people find rooms , which once held mental patients . rooms which once had people dying . rooms which may still contain these people . now these five people must try and survive the night and try and survive the house , and they must survive each other with terrorfying results . since i officially haven’t seen the original i can’t say which is better . i can say however i liked this movie . geoffrey rush gives a one in a million performance as the rich steven price , and does a great job doing a vincent price role . famke jansen as his wife was great and even kind of eerie at times . ali carter and taye diggs sort of become the main characters and ali carter who debuted in varsity blues gives a fantastic performance here as does taye diggs . chris kattan gives us great comic relief and the movie contains a lot of comical lines . peter ghallager and brigette wilson were great as well and gave commanding performances as potential victims . the plot was well conceived and was very absorbing . the movie has atmosphere the whole way through that is disturbing and creepy , and even sometimes downright scary . i found even the opening credits to me a little ominous . one thing i knew not to expect was a ‘haunting’ type movie with special effects galore . even though it had fantastic gore and special effects , the movie has only a 19 million dollar budget , which doesn’s show all the way through but you can tell . the movie was written well , and it’s only major flaw is the under-developed characters and plot holes that we are left with . the ending is quite clever and some may not even get it . i must say house on haunted hill was a surprise . i was expecting another haunting with special effects , no scares and a dumb ending . instead i found a good halloween movie with gore , scares and great acting . house on haunted hill is one of those movies you really can’t take seriously . though it is a well-made movie with a good storyline it still has some flaws . but besides that the movie is fun , smart and scary and makes us wonder why remakes like this can’t be made all the time !
1 apollo 13 is simply one of the most dramatic film this summer ( apart from swashbuckling braveheart ) . director ( and former actor ) ron howard ( splash , backdraft , far & away ) , most noted for his dramatic film making , displays again his brilliance in creating drama and suspense in apollo 13 . being the second largest box office hit in the us this summer ( with more than us$150 million in the states alone ) , this film is his most successful effort yet . perhaps one of the most appealing feature of this film is the pool of talented actors such as tom hanks ( gump himself ) , kevin bacon ( footloose , tremors , a few good men etc . ) , gary sinise ( forrest gump ) , bill paxton ( aliens , true lies , boxing helena ) and ed harris ( the abyss , just cause ) . . all of whom gave good performances in their respective roles . apollo 13 was the second worst accident ever to occur in the history of us spaceflight ( the worst being the challenger accident ) . jim lovell ( hanks ) , the mission commander , together with his crew , fred haise ( paxton ) and last minute replacement tom swigert ( bacon ) are put to the ultimate test when part of their command module explodes on the third day of the mission , more than three quarters way to the moon . suspense and drama ensue as the three men are left in space with their spaceship out of control and the problem of surviving the journey home . . . if they ever reach it . ed harris and gary sinise who play , respectively , the man in charge of the entire mission control and the astronaut who was supposed to fly but was diagnosed with measles , both delve into their roles superbly . audiences are shown the chaotic and worrisome state of the entire ground control crew , as they frantically attempt to come up with ideas on how to save the astronauts from hurtling into space . also , there are quite a number of real news footages which were broadcast during the accident which took the entire us nation into 5 days of drama in 1970 . the special effects by digital domain are up to standard and the music suits the suspense and drama very well , thanks to film-music maestro james horner . watch out for the launching sequence , it is simply one of the most breathtaking scenes of the film . a bad point though : apollo 13 features much technical jargon and many physics concepts in its script . those who consider themselves `scientifically illiterate’ might have a slight problem understanding what caused this and what caused that during the course of the show . this is however , just a minor point , just forget all those technical bullshit and immerse yourselves into the drama and suspense throughout the film . you should enjoy it .
1 in _daylight_ , sylvester stallone breaks no new ground , cinematically speaking , but he covers familiar territory quite well . yesterday , as i was going about my business in the university bookstore , i noticed this stand with these _daylight_ movie posters on it . i had never heard of the movie , so i stopped by to check it out . it turned out that they were giving away free passes to the movie for people who had or applied for the credit card they were offering . so , i shrugged , thought , ” hey , they probably won’t give me the card anyway , and i could always use a free movie , ” so i signed up . all in all , i don’t think i got that bad of a deal , either . rob cohen , who has previously brought us such films as _dragon : the bruce lee story_ and , more recently , _dragonheart_ ( gee , i wonder if he likes dragons for some reason ? you think ? ) , now brings us a very nicely executed disaster picture , with fx by industrial light and magic , about the after-effects of an explosion that collapses a busy tunnel between new york and new jersey . sylvester stallone plays kit latura , who is essentially a carbon copy of the character he played in _cliffhanger_ : a paramedic on the outs because he made a mistake that got people killed . when the crisis hits , he is in the right place at the right time and takes it upon himself to go in and get everybody out . there are other similarities to _cliffhanger_ , too ; perhaps the only real difference is that _cliffhanger_ had a villain , where _daylight_’s bad guy is mother nature . in fact , had the two movies been made in hong kong , this might have been titled _cliffhanger ii_–it bears the same relationship to that film that most hk film ” sequels ” do to their predecessors . the first half-hour of _daylight_ is setup . subplots are woven , and the mechanism of the disaster is assembled . we meet all the important people . . . toxic waste disposal truck drivers ; a young , frustrated , jilted , rejected playwright ; a family struggling to stay together ; an older couple and their dog ; a truckload of prisoners ; an ad agency executive ; a tunnel police officer ; stallone ; and others . we watch the trucks trundle toward their destination ; we watch stallone and so many others driving toward the tunnel for their various reasons . and then , thirty minutes into the film , _boom_ . and it’s a big one . >from there on in , it’s sly stallone to the rescue . and rescue he does , enduring batterings , beatings , falls , repeated immersion in 34-degree water , explosions , mud , rats , and constant setbacks , before going on to save the day , sly-style . again . . . there’s nothing new here . and yet there doesn’t need to be . the fun of _daylight_ is not in the story but in the execution . the special-effects are first-rate , thanks to industrial light and magic , and the ensemble cast works well together . once the film hits its stride , it carries the viewer right along to the finish , with very few jars along the way . this review is copyright 1996 by christopher e . meadows . permission granted for distribution through rec . arts . movies . reviews and all associated archival . permission granted for free redistribution via cyberspace as long as this message remains attached . all other rights reserved to the author .
1 perhaps the most dramatic changes in the motion picture industry in this decade have to do with special effects . there is no question that action-adventure and science-fiction/action movies are now judged by the character of their light and noise . whereas classic adventure pics of the last twenty years , such as raiders of the lost ark , were made in grand traditional fashion ; contemporary films like jurassic park are multimillion-dollar creations of computer technology . the latest in this visually awesome series of movies , the wachowski brothers’ the matrix , is a testament to the skilled use of special effects and its ability to enhance a movie’s story . unlike many sci-fi movies which promote themselves as effects-heavy blockbusters but fail to deliver on that promise , the matrix is a carefully constructed special effects event . it runs 135 minutes in length and employs a countless number of computerized tricks which range from gimmick to grandiose , and the quality of the effects remains constant throughout the film’s length . contrary to popular trend , the matrix commits itself to being a spectacle of light and sound . in this regard , the movie is something like a card sharp . with its flashy mass stripped away , the matrix would be quite shallow and untalented . the script is characteristically weak , and the dialogue suffers in lieu of a far more innovative visual approach . but , like the card sharp , the matrix wows its audience to such a high degree that actual content is irrelevent . the viewers don’t care about what the matrix has to say as long as the next special effects sequence is right around the corner . and right around the corner they usually are , for the script tells a fast-paced , albeit frequently revisited story . as the movie explains , the world as we know it is nothing but an elaborate computer program constructed by an artificial intelligence for the purpose of placating mankind . billions of human beings lie in this dormant state while the intelligence — the matrix — ” farms ” our life energy . only a select group of individuals knows of the ” real ” world , and a particularly ingenious squad of these rebels is led by ultra-cool morpheus ( laurence fishburne ) . morpheus and his crew recruit a computer expert named neo ( keanu reeves ) , believing he is a prophesied individual who will help them overthrow the matrix and return peace to earth . the cast plays out this story in stylish fashion . the set design is very dynamic , running the gambit between cramped and dreary to bright and airy . the costumes , as well as the actors who wear them , add to the roles . for instance , the manifested antagonists in the movie , a group of ” agents ” created by the matrix in its computer program , all dress in matching secret servicewear ; the rebel fighters , on the other hand , dress in rich hues of leather . the casting cannot be criticized , for the typically stoic reeves isn’t required to say much and laurence fishburne gets plenty of time to be so damn cool . supports in carrie-anne moss , joe pantoliano , and hugo weaving are all effectual . one of the best comparisons to thw matrix is last year’s science fiction masterpiece dark city , particularly if one ponders how this same premise would’ve worked from a different approach . the alex proyas film was far more dark and introspective , requiring a bit of thought before themes became clear ; here , the wachowski brothers have managed to construct a thrill-ride motion picture with little abandon and much noise . the better picture between the two depends on the viewer , but the key to the success of the matrix is that the noise did not get in the way of the fun .
1 let me open this one with a confession : i love cop movies . i adore them with such an unwavering , near foolish passion that i was actually one of the first in line to see 1998’s one tough cop starring the smirkiest of the baldwin brothers , steven . was it any good ? well , just about as good as baldwin’s steven seagal impression ( for those i’ve confused the answer is a resounding no ! ) . now let me clarify , i don’t love just any cop movie ; i’m not too keen on the smug buddy cop flicks that were so in vogue in the 80’s and now slowly ( gulp ) returning thanks to jackie chan and chris tucker . i’m partial to those gritty , earthy cop dramas like serpico , donnie brasco , and the french connection . problem is these films come along just about as often as george w . bush makes a cogent point so whenever a ” true ” cop movie does hit multiplexes , i come running towards it like an eager puppy ? ? ? and inevitably i leave , head bowed , tripping over my squiggly tail . so what is it about cop movies that transform me into a moron willing to shell out $7 . 50 for a movie called one tough cop ( which actually sounds a lot like a wiseguy spin-off , no ? ) ? truth is i’m a sucker for those barren streets , that gritty , graffiti strewn modernist jungle where dangerous criminals lurk and cops , like modern day knights , must shield us from their iniquitous clutches . yes it’s all very corny and awfully boys clubish , which , i’m guessing , is precisely where these feelings come from . as little tots us boys are brought up to create our own wars with gi joe’s , enact cops and robbers or cowboy and indian fantasies , etc . the best gritty cop films tap into those gleeful adolescent fantasies , and heighten them , turning it all into an existential nightmare of thin moral lines and psychological chaos . as an adult my tastes haven’t changed all that drastically ; sure i can get a cerebral high from the emotional complexities of a krzysztof kieslowski film , but i still delight at the promise a ” guy ” film could potentially bring . now what if it’s the cops who’re the corrupt ones ? ooh that one really gets me going , these protectors using all that at their service , taking advantage of others for their own gain . throw a courtroom drama ( yech ! ) into the pot and you have the tremendously absorbing sidney lumet film prince of the city . how absorbing is prince of the city , you ask ? so damn absorbing that when the film shifts from gritty undercover cop drama to courtroom drama ( a sub-genre i loath the way kristy swanson must loath sarah michelle gellar ) i remained completely and utterly involved . the film stars treat williams , who gives the kind of performance that should have skyrocketed his career up to the level that brad pitt currently resides at . since i was hatched a mere two years prior to the release of prince of the city , i cannot provide an answer as to why it didn’t . ( though judging from his recent roles in tripe like deep rising and dead heat i would guess that it probably has something to do with quite a few bad career moves ) . like mickey rourke and eric roberts ( both of whom are currently doing time in direct to video purgatory ) williams is a talented leading man who didn’t make it to where he should have . ( if there was any justice in this dog gone world keanu reeves would be the one banished to direct to video hell ) . here , the actor is given a role not all that dissimilar from al pacino’s in serpico ( also directed by lumet ) . williams plays danny ciello , a member of an elite squad of police officers who take down drug dealers on the gritty pre-juliani streets of new york . they work without uniforms or hours much like paid vigilantes . and that analogy is more than apt seeing as how the bunch are kinda sorta forced into using corrupt means to get the job done . the squad relies entirely on informants ( low level junkies ) to gain access to the big wigs , and in order to obtain the info they seek , they sometimes have to provide the junkies with the junk of their choice . danny has done this , and though he’s a fairly honorable guy , who took the job in order to do good , his intentions have gotten a bit skewed along the way . he seeks redemption and concludes that the best way to go about getting it is by talking to internal affairs who then convince him to go undercover as a ” double agent ” . he does so with one condition : he will not rat on his partners . right away we know that that is exactly what he’ll have to do . and watching the movie build to that is thrilling in the way that any great character driven story can be . undercover cop films are almost innately exciting , even the kind that pull out all the cliches ( like in too deep ) . how can one not be moved by the issues of betrayal , ambiguity , and the danger in putting oneself in such a risky position ? prince of the city takes all this and charges it with a perceptive , hard boiled script and taut unintrusive direction by old pro sidney lumet , as well as a handful of intense performances , most notably by treat . lumet’s greatest contribution to the movie is how he lays back , and lets the camera soak up the action . his scenes transition rapidly from one to the next building layers of tension , and he rarely holds for reaction shots , instead he clicks away at precisely the moment a character stops yakking . lumet’s worst tendency is one that many film makers ( especially oliver stone ) tend to overuse : he relies a little too heavily on actors shouting their lines at each other presumably in order to ratchet up the tension . this isn’t as much a problem here as it was in night falls on manhattan , lumet’s most recent cop \ lawyer endeavor , a movie that nearly gave me an ulcer from just watching . though of late lumet has made several really awful career choices ( maybe he and treat should get together for a drink or something ) , the most recent a completely unnecessary remake of gloria , here he was on , sustaining tension in a film that runs for 167 minutes with not one dull spot . some of the formula pictures i like the best are the most simplistic . hollywood often forgets how easy it is to make these kinds of pictures even tolerable . of course cop movies aren’t popular anymore ( yes buddy cop flicks are popular but those are more like extended sitcoms with gunfire amid the punch lines ) , but just look at the average hollywood action movies , flicks so bloated and full of unnecessary fat like the boring love interest that serves no purpose other than to stall the action and demonstrate that our hero isn’t gay , the lame comic relief character who’s never funny , and on and on . for all its moral ambiguities prince of the city is a back to the basics cop \ courtroom drama that leaves out all the crap and really thrills . it focuses completely on its story , and its characters all of whom are completely believable from the cops to the lawyers to the junkies . there’s a great scene early on where an irate williams shouts at an ia officer and looks as if he’s about to go into one of those corny braveheart inspirational speeches , but instead he breaks down in front of the cop and begins sobbing . this is a scene that would never make it into a michael bay film ( even though bruce willis sacrifices his life at the end of armageddon , not one damn tear ) it would be cut out because the director would say oh that makes him too human , excuse me , weak . in the very next scene danny speaks in a hushed raspiness , straining to get the words out . he’s lost his voice . does that little itty bitty detail matter ? maybe not to most , but it sure made my night . and in a sprawling epic of corruption , greed , betrayal and violence it’s nice to see that someone is paying attention to the little things .
1 carla gugino graduates from high school and instead of staying in her small farming town , she goes to college in california . there she meets the residential advisor pauly shore , who is a city boy . when gugino goes back home for thanksgiving , she brings shore with her , and her parents ( lane smith and cindy pickett ) are less than thrilled . dan gauthier , gugino’s boyfriend from high school , proposes to gugino . gugino isn’t ready for anything like this so she makes up the story that she is engaged to shore . she and shore have to make it look like they are engaged while her parents try to make it end . forget jurassic park , cliffhanger , the firm and last action hero , son-in-law is the film to see this summer . son-in-law is a great romantic comedy that should please the viewers , especially fans of the wiez . when son-in-law is long gone and forgotten , the blockbuster summer films will still be playing and you will have a chance to see them then . this film could also make great video fare for those that are leery of spending seven dollars on it . nothing will be lost by watching it on a television screen . although the basic story line has been done many , many times before , the film is still fun to watch . the laughs are plentiful , especially when the wiez is around . the way some of the jokes are done are new , even though some of the jokes are old . there are also several new jokes that , at least , i haven’t seen before . still , when presented right , even old material can be funny still . this film is just basically a light comedy that is great to see if you are in the right mood that doesn’t contain much violence or any nudity that is definitely worth full ticket price . the cast for this film does an excellent job . pauly shore ( encino man ) is the star attraction of this film . he is great , and knows how to entertain the audience . pauly shore just seems to take over the entire screen when he is on with expressions and comments that are hilarious . this film would definitely not have been as good with anyone else in this role . carla gugino does a very good job as the farm girl gone city girl . she makes her character believable , on some levels , yet interesting at the same time . the person who played the grandfather ( mason adams , i believe ) also does a great job . the way he delivered his lines kept me laughing throughout the time that he was on the screen . patrick renna , who played gugino’s little brother , was a little annoying , but no where as near as macaulay culkin , and for only part of the time , so i can forgive him . tiffani-amber thiessen ( a killer among friends , ” saved by the bell ” ) does a reasonably good job for the time that she is on screen . she shows that she may have a potential in movies if she can get out of the corny young adults programming on television . she wasn’t given overly much to do in the film , but what she had , she does a good job with .
1 the soldiers of three kings have taken their cue from movies about vietnam . ( fitting , since the media-saturated gulf war became a pop entertainment . ) while driving through a long , flat iraqi desert ( in a humvee with a bart simpson hood ornament ) , one of the men under special forces sgt . maj . archie gates’ ( who’s steering ) command requests a beach boys tune . these men want their apocalypse now moment , only instead of surfing , they bop to the music and skeet shoot out the back of the vehicle , armed with automatic rifles . our three kings ( okay , four ) are good fighters , but they don’t necessarily take operation desert storm seriously-it’s a reprieve from their hellish day jobs . they are gates , new father sgt . troy barlow ( wahlberg ) , sgt . chief elgin ( cube ) , and pvt . conrad vig ( music video director jonze ) . at story’s start , president bush has declared a ceasefire , and american troops are tying up loose ends . barlow , elgin , and vig discover during a round up of iraqi captives an ” ass-map ” that points to a bunker filled with gold bullion . gates leaves his jurisdiction to commandeer the situation ; he proposes-demands-that barlow , elgin , and vig join him on a treasure hunt . ditching his escort , a relentless reporter named adriana cruz ( nora dunn ) , is easy . so is finding the treasure , until the four men realize the magnitude of discord still breathing in iraq : saddam’s men are threatening the dictator’s detractors ( citizens of his own country ) with violence . when gates and company arrive at the bunker with a stolen truck , ready to loot , the unarmed rebels want help . ( bush encouraged them to rise up against the government , but provided no military support for such cause . ) gates convinces the vault’s guards that this is a post-war mission , and even accepts their assistance in loading the truck . the situation could go off without a hitch : the former enemies bear no grudges . but the money hungry gates has a conscience , and when one female bystander is shot by a sadistic grunt before these americans have left the scene , he orders barlow , elgin and vig to open fire on the surrounding arab forces . the result : barlow is kidnapped , and the filmmakers imply that these would-be kings are seeing more action than they ever did during wartime . barlow is eventually locked in a dank room and wired up to a shocking device . his interrogator lost his family to the bombs , and he wants barlow to imagine the demise of his own wife and child . ( he does , in chilling , lasting images . ) i liked these scenes best , because the political became personal . it’s one thing to champion the plight of thousands ; it’s another to see a ceiling cave in atop a baby in a crib . russell has shocked us before : his first film , spanking the monkey , is about a young man’s affair with his bedridden mother . ( it’s great . ) his second , flirting with disaster , features a character who has an armpit fetish . one could argue that it’s easier to make an audience react to such sexual deviance than explosions , though ; russell disturbs us in three kings by being no-nonsense about the violence . when barlow conjures the detonation of his suburban home , russell mutes the sound-we’re paying attention to the debris instead of thx bombast . three kings is russell’s first visually arresting picture . stylistically , it stands apart from other war dramas . newton thomas sigel’s cinematography of the exteriors is overexposed and extremely grainy , which is , of course , entirely appropriate . one practically breaks out in sweat staring at the screen . ( a friend enthusiastically added , ” it’s like having sand in your eyes . ” ) this also helps to blur the fact that the actual locations are far removed from the persian gulf facade . ( three kings was shot in arizona , california , and mexico . ) russell throws plenty at sigel’s camera for it to observe-as was the case with russell’s previous efforts , the most absurd moments are also the film’s most realistic , even the most poignant . ( we watch a bullet puncture an organ from the inside . ) if anything , three kings settles down and stops surprising us . its climax is pure hollywood , no doubt the answer to why a major studio felt comfortable getting into bed with the indie-minded russell . subsequently , the characters become more cartoonish-barlow’s post-torture revelry felt phony , and chief , a strong presence in the first third , fails to escape the god-fearing-ultra-serious-anti-racist-black-man-of-power clich ? -so much for cube avoiding token status . ( the arab players , on the other hand , duck stereotype . ) clooney , too , transforms into a blandly heroic protestor-marching with the rebels , i waited for him to shout , ” let my people go ! ” hayseed vig notwithstanding , the protagonists are very intelligent , and self-serving , too ; i had a glimmer of hope , based on russell’s filmography , that our antiheroes would revert to their greedy selves at some juncture . ( it’s not spoiling much to write that . ) then again , what historical importance would such nastiness serve ? ( there’s already enough cynicism in the film’s mentioning of kuwait’s oil-infested waters . ) russell offers the masses a primer on the oft-dismissed gulf conflict , and pulled off a neat trick : a war tale full of battles that takes place after a truce has been declared . if he set out to make something socially/culturally/politically/globally significant , he succeeded . with flair .
1 bill condon’s ” gods and monsters ” is a fascinating look into the last days in the life of gay director james whale ( ian mckellan ) , who made the horror classics ” frankenstein ” and ” bride of frankenstein . ” since i was unfamiliar of whale prior to viewing the film , there is no way to know how accurate the film is , but i suspect that much of it only came from whale’s inner fantasies and hallucinations . whale , who fought in wwi and then went on to become known for his work on horror pictures , decided fifteen years before his death at age 67 to quit filmmaking once a homosexual scandal broke out involving him . as the film tells it , during the end of his life , whale , at his large home in l . a . , became infatuated with the tall , handsome , and much younger man , clayton boone ( brendan fraser ) , who was working as the gardener at his home . james whale , we learn quickly was , what many people refer to him as in the film , ” a dirty old man . ” in one of the opening scenes , a young film enthusiast visits whale’s home to interview him and whale agrees , on one condition : for every question he answers , the young man must take off an article of clothing . because of this episode , we know exactly what it is whale wants when he asks clayton to pose for him for a painting , later making the excuse that his bright , white shirt is disracting only so he will take it off . clayon agrees , and doesn’t really think much of this , much to the warnings of his friends , becoming more and more intrigued in the stories whale tells him about his past . certainly , the relationship between whale and boone is headed for a downfall , since whale starts to grow a deep love for this young man , even though boone is not gay , and whale himself realizes he is nearing the conclusion to his life , as he begins to seldom suffer mild strokes and moments of true catharsis . ” gods and monsters ” is an intimate and seemingly respectful portrait of a director who was forced to become somewhat of an outcast , due to his sexual preference , and never got the recognition he would have liked , since he longed to be referred to as a ” motion picture director , ” rather than a ” horror director . ” and in one heartbreaking scene , he attends a party with boone being his guest , held by director george cuckor , and finds that many of the other attendees do not recognize him anymore . it is evident that whale’s first love in his life was making movies , and when his career ultimately fell apart , so did his passion in life . as played brilliantly by ian mckellen , james whale comes off as a sad , but dignified man , and a person who was not afraid to stand out from others , just as long as he knew he was being true to himself . he never hid the fact that he was gay , however , even if it meant threatening his filmmaking profession , and it was this unblinking honesty that made him a great person . through the complicated relationship that develops between whale and boone , boone , of course , only things of whale as a possible friend or someone he can talk to , while it means so much more to whale , who sees boone as sort of his salvation in life . although boone is only in a dead-end job as a gardener of people’s homes , whale views him as the ideal man , not only one that is good-looking , even though it is this attraction that first begins his feelings , but one that will actually listen to him . since whale lives with only his loyal , but disapproving maid ( touchingly portrayed by lynn redgrave ) , it is boone that whale can talk to in his ultimate reclusion from the world , and the only reason whale finally decides to attend the gathering of george cuckor . although an extremely fine and mature picture , a few small elements hold the film back from ultimate greatness . it is appreciated that the film does not pull for any obvious or overly dramatic story developments , but it is a little thin , and the structuring of the ” on-again-off-again ” friendship at the film’s center is fairly predictable . we know early on where these two characters are headed , and we can guess that there will be a final confrontation between the two as the tension slowly builds . in lesser hands , this set-up might have felt too calculated , but it is not in the surprisingly deft treatment and writing that helps the film to be much more than this . also , a subplot is briefly brought up between clayton and a waitress working at a bar ( effectively played by lolita davidovich ) , but abruptly dropped and never brought up again . if the film was not going to follow up on this side story , then it , perhaps , should have been taken out altogether . ” gods and monsters ” is a heartfelt and intelligent motion picture , impressively directed by bill condon , who , i sense , relates to or fully understands the meaning behind the curious relationship between whale and boone . the film also plays as a tribute to a fine man who met an untimely end . walking away from ” gods and monsters , ” it was ian mckellen’s marvelous and astounding performance that left the most impression on me , and i doubt there could have been anyone who could have stepped into the role more fully and believably . it is a sad testament when a person’s true talent and love is unfairly taken away from them , based on the scrutinization and judgement of their personal life , which , ironically enough , is no one else’s business in the first place .
1 i must admit that i was a tad skeptical of ” good will hunting ” , based both on the previews and the first fifteen minutes of the film , in which the main character will hunting ( matt damon ) , an mit janitor in his early twenties , is discovered to be an einstein-level closet genius when he solves two extraordinarily difficult math problems overnight . the only problem is that will is a tough street kid who’s had his share of run-ins with the law , and before long he’s being hauled in for assault after a parking lot fight . professor lambeau ( stellan skarsgard ) , who had brought up the math problems in his lectures , tracks him down and strikes a deal with the police : will is to be released , provided he works with lambeau on his math research regularly and attends therapy sessions . this sounds like the formula for mildly charming fluff , but ” good will hunting ” rises above its fairly mundane premise to deliver a poignant and clever drama . a conflict gradually emerges between lambeau and will’s therapist sean mcguire ( robin williams ) – lambeau wants to get will to use his brain , while sean wants him to listen to his heart , both of which he has been largely neglecting . will finds that the former is much easier than the latter , so much so , in fact , that he gets bored with it and grows increasingly resistant to lambeau’s attempts to recruit him into the academic lifestyle . he also has his share of problems with his girlfriend skylar ( minnie driver ) , an mit student who is moving to california at the end of the school year and would like a reluctant will to come with her . what makes ” good will hunting ” work so well , aside from the strong performances ( especially from damon and williams ) , is the depth of characterization and the representation of the conflicts in will’s life . the script’s sympathies seem to lie more with sean mcguire than with lambeau , but neither of them is presented as completely right or wrong . lambeau , while he may seem a little cold at times , is still written well enough that we like him as a character even when we’re not sure if we like what he has to say . and sean , for all his warm-heartedness , has , as lambeau and later will point out , not lived up to his full intellectual potential either ; the therapy sessions turn out to be just as revelatory for sean as they do for will . will’s reaction to this situation , and the way in which he slowly becomes more receptive to skylar and to sean , is presented in a believable fashion and in a way that forces the audience to consider all the characters’ opinions , rather than setting up an obvious ” right ” and ” wrong ” side and beating them over the head with it . for a film with such an extraordinary character , ” good will hunting ” presents itself as remarkably ordinary ; it achieves the difficult task of making the next albert einstein into an everyman , a character to whom the audience can easily relate and who must make choices similar to those that almost everyone faces at one time or another . this film gives us real drama when it so easily could have given us merely melodrama , by having the government kidnap will to use him in covert spy missions or introducing some other equally far-fetched situation . ” good will hunting ” also has its share of fun humor , such as when will , in an early therapy session , pretends to be hypnotized and smoothly parodies the alien abduction scenarios that have become so well known in popular culture . and in the one scene in which government agents do in fact appear , will blows them off with a hilariously scathing accusation of human rights violations in africa . will’s relationship with his friends , most notably chucky ( ben affleck ) , is usually rather amusing , if somewhat crude ( the film has 100+ uses of the ‘f’ word , which was most likely the reason for its r-rating ) , and lends itself well to the development of will’s character . add all this to the fact that ” good will hunting ” even manages to pull off an uplifting happy ending without getting excessively sentimental , and you might be wondering why i haven’t given this film four stars . well , for one thing , no matter how well damon and affleck , who wrote the screenplay , and director gus van sant pull it off , the story is still rather contrived and not particularly original . there are also a few scenes that did feel a bit formulaic , including one that was supposed to be emotional but really just seemed like the obligatory crying scene for any movie involving therapy sessions . still , ” good will hunting ” takes its premise a lot farther than i thought it would , and is definitely one of the better personal dramas i have seen in the last few years , and as of right now it stands as one of the top five on my list of ’97 films .
1 a cinematic version of one of john irving’s novels is always cause for celebration even if , as in the case of ” simon birch , ” the treatment is merely ” suggested by , ” rather than strictly based on , the book . suggested means that irving , author of the acclaimed ” the world according to garp , ” sold the rights to his novel ” a prayer for owen meany ” to the disney machine for $1 million , but wouldn’t grant them permission to use either the title or any of the character names . that’s an odd decision–irving claims it’s to protect both himself and the novel–but it’s one that doesn’t unduly harm the finished product . irving’s books are rich and complex works , full of intriguing , colorful characters . ” a prayer for owen meany ” is no exception ; it tells the story of an unusual boy–called simon birch in the film version–who is uncommonly small in stature and possesses a high-pitched falsetto voice , ” like strangled mice . ” simon believes himself to be ” god’s instrument , ” placed on this earth to somehow effect god’s plan . simon is played by ian michael smith , who suffers from a rare enzyme disorder known as morquio syndrome which , among other things , prevents bones , ligaments , and joints from developing normally . smith’s debilitating disease makes him an obvious physical choice for ” simon birch ” ; however , the producers unwisely favored form over function–smith’s acting abilities are limited at best . another drawback is that in the book , simon’s condition is described the way irving describes any of his characters–in careful , loving detail . watching ” simon birch , ” however , creates a different feeling altogether ; the audience is forced into a voyeuristic relationship with the character , surely something irving would not have intended . simon himself tends to be too cute and irritating , a combination of smith’s rookie status as an actor and the precocious one-liners he’s forced to deliver , courtesy mark steven johnson , the film’s director and screenwriter . fortunately , simon birch isn’t the real star of the film that bears his name . simon is more of a catalyst , allowing his co-stars to shape the story , and the actors who fill those roles to turn in outstanding supporting performances , saving the film from an obsequious , manipulative destiny . first and foremost is joseph mazzello ( ” jurassic park ” ) , who is nothing less than remarkable as simon’s best friend , joe . mazzello turns in a wonderfully layered performance for a 14 year old , ripe with laughter , pain , and tears ; he is certainly an emerging talent . ashley judd positively beams in her role as rebecca , joe’s single mother , and oliver platt is warm and tender as her boyfriend , ben . david strathairn and jan hooks play the town’s reverend and sunday school teacher respectively and their contributions uphold the high standards set by the others . there’s even a surprising yet effective uncredited cameo performance from . . . well , that would be telling . perhaps ” suggested by ” the novel is the appropriate way to go after all , since ” simon birch ” only focuses on one chapter , one year , of simon’s extraordinary life . the film also changes the book’s ending to one that is more melodramatic , yet necessary given simon’s lot . the flavor of irving’s original novel remains , however–the passions , friendships , and insecurities that come with a change of seasons to the little community of gravestown , maine , and the engaging oddballs , both big and small , who reside there .
1 the only historical figure that has been written about more than william shakespeare is jesus christ , which explains why the bard’s materials are such a popular source for remakes , revisions , rewrites , inspiration , subtlety , credit , and dispute . indeed , in recent years , american contemporary cinema has been swamped with a wash of shakespearean products . including this year’s upcoming a midsummer night’s dream , shakespeare’s material has been the cause for twenty-six big screen productions since 1990 . but for a change of pace , mrs . brown director john madden gives us a story of the bard himself in the wonderfully vibrant shakespeare in love . marc norman and tom stoppard’s story is largely fantasy , although as the viewer soon learns , shakespeare in love is not a movie that takes itself seriously . ( will shakespeare of the 1590’s would’ve been married to anne hathaway , and he would’ve had a teenage daughter and two young sons ; here he is a bachelor played by joseph fiennes . ) will is a writer struggling to come up with a great play , and his current comedy in the works — ” romeo and ethel , the pirate’s daughter ” — just doesn’t quite seem right . with the help of the great writer christopher marlowe ( rupert everett ) , and the inspiration of true love with noblewoman viola de lesseps ( gwyneth paltrow ) , he changes things around and writes one of his greatest tragedies , ” romeo and juliet . ” the love story between will and viola loosely parallels the story of romeo and juliet , to great effect . fiennes and paltrow develop a sexy chemistry as the two lovers which gives the movie much momentum ; this momentum smoothes out the bumps in the unfinished and largely unsuccessful comedy . the supporting roles are well filled out , from geoffrey rush as will’s worrisome agent , philip , to tom wilkinson as the producer hugh fennyman . even ben affleck , leading the troupe of actors , manages to make a favorable impression ; and judi dench lends some brief moments of screen time as queen elizabeth i . gwyneth paltrow is by far , however , the standout of the lot , creating a large percentage of the forementioned vibrance . the story is well-crafted if nothing else , although it has dangerous moments where it flirts with the ” let’s make a movie ” -genre . the dialogue is breezy and lighthearted , and certainly accessible by the audience’s lowest common denominator . there’s something for everyone in this romantic comedy , making it prime date flick material . although certainly not inspiring in any regard , it revels in a wholesome , well-rounded atmosphere that has been absent in many of 1998’s pictures ; the true-love story is one of the best around . certainly recommendable when the traditional slew of indifferent year’s-open releases is just around the corner .
1 in 1912 , a ship set sail on her maiden voyage across the atlantic for america . this ship was built to be the largest ship in the world , and she was . she was also build to be one of the most luxurious , and that she was . finally , she was built to be unsinkable and that unfortunately she was not . to get a ticket for this voyage you either : spent a life’s savings to get to america to start life anew , were part of the upper class and had the money to spare , or finally were lucky enough to have a full house in a poker match by the docks like jack dawson . jack dawson makes the trip , and happens to be at the right place at the right time . rose dewitt bukater , a first class passenger , climbs the railings at the aft of the ship with thoughts of jumping . thus is started a tale of romance and intrigue , and a tale of death and tragedy . . . this movie is about a tragic event that took place a great many years ago , an even that should not be taken lightly as any other bit of historical trivia . the movie titanic shows what happened , maybe not with a 100% degree of accuracy , but it still shows it very realisticaly . now the titanic is both a story on its own and a backdrop for a story . it serves as both admirably , brining forth an interesting story that although simple in its most simple premise is very captivating . this movie is very emotional simply because of what it is , but that alone is not enough . the story is brought out with a certain style that makes is so much more emotional and so much more effective . movies such as this will not be forgotten all too quickly and unfortunately then are not something that is produced by hollywood with any great frequency . the attention to detail that was paid is remarkable . the whole premise for the telling of the story is interesting , with the showing of brand new footage from the wreck of the titanic adding much flavor to an already good movie . part of the magical chemistry behind this story is the acting , and for this movie its extremely good acting from the whole cast . the performances put in by the main stars is something to be admired . the characters were played out so memorably that both leonardo dicaprip and kate winslet should receive at the least nominations for their roles . looking at the acting done in the movie it seems as if they aren’t acting but are actually the characters in the movie . the casting for the movie could really have been better , in my humble opinion that is . one character that will most likely not be mentioned by any other review or commentary about this film is that of the ship itself . yes , you read correctly , the ship is a character . how is the titanic a character ? you ask well simple , a ship had a certain character about it and as most sailors and boats men will tell you . this character is everything about the ship from its specifications to its luxuries and the titanic was no stranger to this . mr . cameron brings the ship to life in an almost literal sense . all this adds to the movie in a certain way that most hollywood productions cant seem to grasp . now , to produce the effect that i mentioned above and to sink the ship itself are feats that are accomplished by special effects wizards . the effects in this movie range from marvelous costumes to beautifully rendered scenes of the ships sinking . in some respects you cannot tell that the effects are there , you simply think that what you see is what happened or what is happening ( if your imagination is good ) . the technical wizardry done in this movie is just spectacular and actually getting new footage from the wreck of the titanic is unique . the movie will leave you amazed at the effects , and that is a feat since there is no monsters or aliens in this movie , just humans and an oversized ship . the movie will amaze you and it will pull on your emotions , the theater that i went to had a few people leaving with tears in their eyes . now that is not a feat accomplished by most movies , now the fact that the tragedy actually occurred is brought home with something of a punch , i wont spoil the ending and say what happens regardless it is an interesting movie from beginning to the very end . the historical value of this movie is quite high , and honestly is something that should be watched for the sake of seeing it and seeing the tragedy , for it is extremely well done . the method of telling the story is also good , maybe not totally unique but effective none the less . regardless of anything mentioned above this movie is a grandiose production and the sheer size of the project undertaken is something to be marveled at . the simple fact that the movie is smashingly successful at what it aims to achieve is just astonishing . if you get the chance to see this movie go ! ! ! it might not be the best movie in the world . . but it ranks fairly highly and is well worth the time spent watching it . during none of the 3 hours and 13 minutes of the movie are you bored nor does your attention wane from the movie .
1 the start of this movie reminded me of parts from the movie stargate . people are looking around in an egyptian temple reading about some dangerous thing that is going to destroy earth in the future . after a sort of confusing bit involving fake-looking cyborg things , the movie jumps into the future and the movie improves by leaps and bounds . the basic idea behind the movie is that every once in a while ( make that every 1000 years or so ) an evil force comes to destroy earth . the things needed to defend against this menace are the four elements of nature plus the fifth element . the plot in this movie really isn’t that important to the thing though . this movie has very good special effects , for the most part . the techno-ish music in the background fits the mood very well . bruce willis is an illegal taxi-cab driver in a futuristic new york city . one day a lady draped with a few bandages drops down into his trunk . this movie is about what happens . the plot twists are interesting and the movie never fails to present the viewer with a variety of different locations . also there is a fair bit of action in the film , particularly towards the end . some characters are just plain strange including a highly-energetic deejay in drag . bruce willis does his normal job of blowing things away like he always does . the movie is definitely watchable and rarely slows down . it is one of those sci-fi films where you’ll be saying ” cool ” followed by a ” what the hell ? ! ? ! ” . i give the fifth element .
1 note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . james toback’s return to directing after a eight-year layoff , two girls and a guy , is a film which is comprised , more or less , of just that : one guy , blake ( robert downey jr . ) ; two girls , carla ( heather graham ) and lou ( natasha gregson wagner ) ; one primary setting ( blake’s absurdly spacious bachelor apartment ) , and a great deal of dialogue . embracing a near real-time approach , this is a highly theatrical feature that completely hangs upon the performances of its three actors and the quality of the dialogue written by mr . toback for his bantering characters . fortunately , the film’s cast is up to the challenge , and the wordy exchanges between the triad of characters , while admittedly variable , are occasionally wickedly amusing . the film’s setup is fairly generic in nature , and opens rather unpromisingly . we meet self-possessed blonde carla and feisty brunette lou , both waiting outside a soho loft . as they engage in idle chatter , it is revealed that they’re both waiting for their respective boyfriends to return from the airport , and it doesn’t take long for them to come to the realisation that they’re being two-timed by the same guy . more indignant with him than catty with each other , the duo break into blake’s loft and await his arrival for a confrontation . it’s when blake returns to his abode where the film hits its stride . played with magnificent bombast by mr . downey jr . , blake is a cad , all right , but a captivatingly dynamic , blusterous , and stealthy piece of work that bursts onto the scene and raises the stakes to new heights . it’s fascinating to watch this character in his natural habitat , and perhaps the film’s best choice was to have his two girlfriends scamper off into hiding upon his return , allowing us to size up blake not with his interactions with others , but by his own innate behaviour . whether he’s flamboyantly behind his piano in a rollicking rendition of vivaldi , or on the phone leaving messages to his beloveds ( carla , lou , and his unseen sickly mother ) , it’s never less than wildly entertaining and insightful . though at this point i almost hoped the film would transform into a one-man show — a typical afternoon in the life of blake , if you will — carla , and then lou , reveal themselves , and the sparks begin to fly . ( one of the great touches in the film is how blake , when startled by carla’s unannounced appearance , begins to both verbally and physically backpedal even before he realizes that the cat’s out of the bag . ) double-teamed by the understandably aggrieved women ( who are more smirkingly inquisitive than ferociously vengeful — they want a justification for his ongoing hypocrisy ) , an increasingly-flustered blake weakly defends himself with apologetic and even self-righteous declarations against their verbal jabs . surprisingly delightful in the waltz of scathing witty banter shared by its trio of characters , two girls and a guy concludes its first sequence with an unexpected apoplectic act of such outrageous audacity that it seemed nothing was off-limits for this film . however , it’d be unfeasible to attempt to string along carla and lou’s outrage to full feature-length , and it’s as the movie gradually transforms into the sharing of exploratory profundities on the nature of fidelity and relationships that it slowly but surely begins to unravel . the dialogue becomes less and less engaging and clever , the film’s tempo loses its liveliness , the dynamic between the characters evolves in unconvincing fashion , and several sequences fall flat . subtle and not-quite-subtle allusions are made ( a poster of jules et jim hangs prominently on the wall ) , and secrets are revealed which barrel the film toward an uncompelling weepy finale . one key turning point in the film is the kinky sex scene between blake and carla . two girls and a guy was embroiled in a bitter , long-running dispute with the mpaa with regards to this scene — contractually-obligated to deliver an r-rated film , mr . toback was forced to resubmit fourteen scaled-down versions of the steamy interlude before the mpaa withdrew their nc-17 rating in favour of an r — and while admittedly titillating , the net effect of the vignette on the film’s thematic narrative is rather dubious . if anything , two girls and a guy serves as a showcase for the phenomenal talents of mr . downey jr . , whose versatility is put to the test in this film . he plays the gamut from indignant to humbled , from self-assured to disconcerted , yet his acting gears shift so smoothly as to not be registered . it’s a wonderful performance in a role custom-tailored for him ; mr . toback wrote the screenplay in four days shortly after mr . downey jr . was arrested on drug charges , and it’s hard not to see echoes of reality seeping into his character — in a monologue to his mirrored reflection , blake’s self-chiding to ” get [his] shit together ” is disquieting in its resonance . while mr . downey jr . ‘s showstopping performance is undoubtedly the primary strength of the film , both actresses are solid in more broadly-observed roles . ms . graham is quickly becoming one of america’s more daring actresses , involving herself in three successive risky projects — two girls and a guy and boogie nights are both quite sexually frank , while lost in space has a screenplay penned by akiva goldsman . she’s quite appealing here , playing a character at once both dainty and sultry . meanwhile , ms . gregson wagner initially portrays lou with such an unwarranted spunk that audiences are likely to find it either annoying , or , like me , endearing . she tones it down substantially as the film progresses , but i found her more fun to watch as the artificially excitable chatterbox . the film was reportedly shot in eleven days , filmed mostly in sequence , and the resultant artifacts of this rapid shoot are evident throughout . two girls and a guy has an agile , spontaneous sort of feel , and one senses that mr . toback encouraged a good deal of improvisation from his three actors . while the film could be transposed directly to the stage more or less intact , it doesn’t feel constricted ; the expansive apartment setting is well-used to vary the background , and mr . toback allows his camera to wander and linger on his characters in an effective manner . two girls and a guy falls short of its potential , but thanks to some stellar work by mr . downey jr . , it’s still often an enjoyable , bitingly funny romp , particularly as we watch the surprisingly-resilient blake evasively try to rationalize his behaviour and even turn the tables on his girlfriends . ” i’m an actor , ” he tells them at one point , using the ol’ tried-and-tested occupational-hazard defense . ” actors lie . ” but not , they all seem to agree , denzel washington .
1 robert altman’s cookie’s fortune is that rare movie that does not depend on sentimentality to be uplifting and to make its viewers feel good . it is a sunny , delightful , dreamy comedy , filled with lovely performances , skillful direction and topped off with an understated , clever , extraordinary script . as this is an ensemble piece , it is forced to start of slowly as it introduces us to its characters , all of them residing in a southern town called holly springs . first we meet willie ( charles s . dutton ) , an honest man with a slight drinking habit . we then see that willie takes care of an elderly lady nicknamed cookie , who is slowly losing her grip on sanity and is being filled with loneliness , despair , and want of her dead husband . we cut to camille ( glenn close ) who is obsessively directing a play with her sister cora ( julianne moore ) . then we briefly get acquainted with emma ( liv tyler ) , an apparent relative of cookie , who is a down-but-not-out teen outcast , still full of love and hope even though she has no real place to live . we also fleetingly see emma’s lover jason ( chris o’donnell ) , an ambitious but far too excitable young cop . we are now about one quarter through the two hour picture , and robert altman decides that it is time to set the plot in motion . we see the ecstatic cookie stare hopefully at a picture of her husband . she exclaims ” here i come ! ” and then puts a pillow to her face and shoots herself . soon after , her niece camille stops by to get a fruit salad bowl , comes upstairs , finds cookie dead and flips out . convinced that suicide is a disgrace and that she will have none of that in her family , she eats the suicide note and convinces her slightly slow ( yet sweet ) sister that it was a murder . she makes sure that she stages it like a murder as well ; scattering jewelry all over the floor , breaking a few cabinets , windows and doors , and then throwing the gun out in the back yard . the only reasonable suspect is willie , who immediately gets taken into custody , and put in a jail cell ( they all know he didn’t do it , so the cell stays open and he plays scrabble with the sheriff and the faithful emma ) . meanwhile , the unperturbed camille continues her none-too-subtle manipulations trying to further cover up for the murder while at the same time making her easter play a success . so begins cookie’s fortune , a film aptly described by critic scott renshaw as ” a southern spin on fargo , ” except that this one is far funnier and much more enjoyable than the coen brothers’ darker , somewhat disturbing and slightly overrated escapade . robert altman’s slight picture is in some ways reminiscent of something like midnight in the garden of good and evil as well , in that both films focus ( on and off ) on the eccentricities of the residents in a southern us town . indeed , most of the characters in cookie’s fortune are loads of fun to observe , and a portion of them are fascinating and surprisingly multi- dimensional . glenn close turns in an insubstantial ( in terms of her career ) but magnificent performance as the conniving camille and is also the source of a good portion of the many laughs that we enjoy in this movie , and she is perfectly cast as the prolific ” aunt alexandria ” character , endlessly obsessed with family dignity . the equally essential role of willie is handled with an intangible grace by veteran thespian charles s . dutton ( mimic , a time to kill ) there is nothing like a movie which leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy inside hours , even days after the film ends . cookie’s fortune is such a movie . i loved the light , kindhearted approach altman ( whose last project was the dark , intense drama the gingerbread man ) took towards the tricky subject matter . i enjoyed the talented ensemble cast . i even liked the trite ” in the south everybody is related to everybody ” cliche that is inevitably employed by the time this movie draws to a close . i’m not sure why cookie’s fortune had such an all-around pleasing effect on me . perhaps it’s that good ol’ southern charm .
1 well i’ll be damned . . . the canadians can make a good movie . the world is coming to an end . we don’t know why or how , but apparently there is no way to stop it . the world has had this information for months , as most of the rioting and other assorted chaos has passed and governments have shut down operations . yet for a handful of toronto citizens , life goes on . they aren’t going crazy or attacking people in the streets . instead they are simply preparing themselves for the end . . . some engaging in activities they’ve always wanted to do , some gathering with family and friends , and others just seeking to be alone . these people’s lives however all intersect during their final six hours . writer-director-star don mckellar has crafted a highly unique and emotional film . all of the main characters are compelling as they try and do whatever it is they need to do on their last night on earth . craig ( callum keith rennie ) tries to fulfill all his sexual fantasies , a gas company employee ( david cronenberg ) calls every customer letting them know the gas will be flowing until the very end and thanks them for their business , and patrick ( mckellar ) just wants to be by himself but isn’t having much success . even minor characters keep popping up where you least expect them to , tying everyone even closer . things seemed a little hokey towards the beginning of the film , but ultimately everything comes together nicely ( although it’s not a happy film . . . some moments are understandably gut-wrenching ) . the story is enhanced by some unexpected humor and very realistic performances , particularly from sandra oh , whose character is just trying to get home to her husband before the end . i have absolutely no problem that the reason for the end of the world is never given , nor does it bother me that the world is ending at exactly 12 midnight ( in toronto anyway ) . but i do wonder why the sun never sets . come midnight , the sun is still shining brightly . maybe the sun is crashing into the earth . . . who knows . also , it’s comforting to know that in mankind’s final moments on the planet , people will still gang up on the street for the sheer purpose of pushing over a car or a bus ( that’s not a shot at this film mind you . . . i know people are just stupid and truly would be out in the street tipping over cars ) . last night is available on dvd from universal home video . it contains the film in fullscreen format and includes the original theatrical trailer . [r]
1 hedwig ( john cameron mitchell ) was born a boy named hansel in east berlin . as a teen seeking his ” other half , ” he reluctantly agrees to a sex change operation in order to marry american g . i . luther ( maurice dean wint ) . the operation , performed by a hack surgeon , is botched , and the ” angry inch ” is all that’s left . now a ” she ” , hedwig comes to america , is abandoned by luther , forms a rock band and falls for her 17-year old lover/prot ? g ? , tommy , only to be rejected by him later , too . she and her band , the angry inch , shadows the now-famous tommy gnosis across the us ( for revenge ? ) , but hedwig is really in search of her lost other half in ” hedwig and the angry inch . ” first time helmer john cameron mitchell , along with composer/lyricist stephen trask , created and starred in their acclaimed off-broadway production that has become the movie . and quite a movie it is in its eclectic variety of songs , outrageous costumes , sets and makeup and , especially , a riveting performance by mitchell as the title character . mitchell and trask have reinvented the movie musical and couple it with the underlying story of just whom hedwig is and what she is looking for . i am , by far , not a big fan of musicals . sure , there are exceptions , like bob fosse’s ” all that jazz ” and ” cabaret , ” but , for the most part , they are just not my cup of tea . ” hedwig and the angry inch ” is an exception , though , with its combination of humor , wit and a collection of tunes that covers musical styles ranging from ” the rocky horror picture show ” and meatloaf to david bowie to the sex pistols . the original songs , by stephen trask ( also appearing as one of the members of the band the angry inch ) , are full of energy and variety and , even though it’s not my kind of music , i found every one entertaining and fun . the audience i saw ” hedwig ” with thought so , too . the main attraction to this one-man/woman show is the presence of its star . john cameron mitchell gives a solid , sometimes fun , sometimes angry performance as a person searching for self-enlightenment and love . as a young boy growing up in east berlin , hansel is abused by his g . i . father and raised by his german mother in a tiny flat so small that ” mother would make me play in the oven ” where he listened to pop music on armed forces radio . later , as a young man , he meets luther , another g . i . and is swept off of his feet . the ensuing angry inch incident comes soon after . flash forward to a trailer park in junction city , kansas , and luther is leaving hedwig for another boy . frustrated and broke , she takes on baby-sitting and the odd ” job ” to make ends meet . she also forms a band with four korean housewives and the musical talent of hedwig is born . she meets , falls for and loses young tommy , who steals her songs and goes off to become a rock sensation . jealous and angry , hedwig and her new band begins a campaign to shadow tommy’s tours and , with the help of her manager , phyllis stein ( andrea martin ) , is trying get a law suit going against the star for stealing her songs . hedwig and the angry inch get gigs , not coincidentally , at a chain of seafood restaurants that just happen to be next to the forums where tommy gnosis is playing . things finally come to a head , so to speak , in new york city . the popularity of the off-broadway musical and its offshoots have garnered a ready-made audience base for ” hedwig . ” the wit , humor , music and search for identity has great appeal to young adults , but the charismatic presence of mitchell makes this a cut above what it could have been . it is this one-man/woman show that casts its spotlight on its ” internationally ignored ” rock star and mitchell is outstanding in the role . there isn’t a lot going on with other characters , though there are amusing little sidebars , like hedwig’s backup singer/lover , yitzak ( miriam shor ) , deciding to break away from the band to join a polynesian road show of ” rent ” as a puerto rican drag queen . the low budget that the moviemakers have for the production belies the quality of the film . attention to details – hedwig’s costumes and outrageous ” cabaret ” -like makeup ; the seedy trailer park setting ; and , the kitschy seafood restaurants – are loads of fun to watch and lend the appropriate air to the proceeds , all on what has to be a beer budget . ” hedwig and the angry inch ” may not be for everybody , but the energy of the effort , the songs , the imaginative sets and costumes and a fast steady pace make it a pleasure to watch . if you’re a fan of contemporary , edgy music , it is an even bigger draw . i give it a b+ .
1 niagara niagara ( r ) bob gosse’s niagara niagara follows a blueprint not unlike a lot of young-lovers-on-the-road movies . wild marcy ( robin tunney ) and calm seth ( henry thomas ) meet cute , literally running into each other while shoplifting at a local store . a mere couple of scenes later , the two embark on a journey to toronto from their small , unnamed american town in pursuit of a rare doll that marcy desperately wants . along the way , true love inevitably blossoms . what sets niagara niagara apart , though , is that marcy is afflicted with tourette’s syndrome , a neurological disorder that causes sudden muscle and vocal tics . tunney , displaying an acting range not hinted at in the teenage witch thriller the craft , delivers an astonishing performance that won her the best actress prize at last year’s venice film festival . to term her work a tour-de-force is not to imply that she attacks the scenery ; tunney’s effectiveness lies in her modulation and vulnerability , which makes her depiction of marcy’s illness–which often causes her to act violently–that much more convincing and tragic . she and the nicely subtle thomas develop a sweetly innocent and beguilingly off-kilter chemistry . their journey hits a few rough spots creatively along the way , mostly the fault of writer matthew weiss . a detour involving a kindly widower ( michael parks ) who takes the couple in brings the story to a screeching halt , and the key character of a trigger-happy pharmacist ( stephen lang ) is highly unbelievable . but these missteps do not blunt the power of tunney’s bravura turn , which carries niagara niagara to a level of poignance it would not have otherwise achieved . ( opens march 20 ) ” i didn’t know what to expect . it’s like something you chase for so long , but then you don’t know how to react when you get it . i still don’t know how to react . ” –michael jordan , on winning his first nba championship in 1991 . . . or , my thoughts after meeting him on november 21 , 1997
1 notice : this is a review and analysis of exotica . the first part of this piece is the review , the second part contains some analysis of the movie which might be construed as spoilers . if you have not seen the movie and after reading the first part you intend to do so , then save the second part for the discussion afterwards . starring : bruce greenwood , mia kirshner , elias kosteas , don mckellar , arsinee khanijian , sarah polley director : atom egoyan screenplay : atom egoyan exotica is a film that grows on retrospection . exotica keeps the viewer guessing about the relationship between the various characters in the film . all of the people know each other , but apart from that , there seems to be no other reason why to select such set and follow them in this fictional account . the director hints for possible solutions , using a multi-line plot , so popular with critics in mystery train , and used to good advantage by quentin tarantino in pulp fiction . exotica reaches a whole new dimension using this technique . at the end it is surprising to see how well the pieces of the puzzle fit together , in spite their apparent unconnectedness and even misleading features . the out-of-chronological-order technique has become ever so popular , perhaps even de rigueur , for biographical films . similarly , we can now expect to see more movies in the future which will use , to varying extent , converging multiplots . on a first glance , once the multi-plot puzzle in exotica is solved , there seems to be little left to look at . but perceptive minds which take the time to dig further will be rewarded with interesting views on life or rather , commentaries on views of life . exotica is very much worth seeing . it opened to critic’s praise worldwide ( i first saw it in mexico city , last december ) . in canada , it broke records for a movie of its kind , which prompted the american distributor to go for a wide release . apart from a strong plot , acting is very convincing , and the soundtrack seems as if made for the movie . the spoon-fed-entertainment crowd may not appreciate this movie , and thus it might last little on screen . but if you want to try a movie a cut above the crowd , with an originality that is ever so rare , by all means see exotica . analysis ( * * spoilers * * ahead ) what is behind the complex plot in exotica ? first , a common theme of the quest for gratification by monetary means . the lone tax-auditor , the repressed homosexual pet shop owner , the pregnant woman which runs the nightclub , the rich man which has the club remodeled , the audience at the movie theatre , all use personal wealth to buy palliative relief for the penuries of the soul . . . . then we have the quest for gratification through visual means by most of the same people , including those who sit watching exotica . . . . in that regard exotica stands for onlookers at a nightclub , for the rich man looking through silver mirrors , and poor-rich people looking at other’s people lives through a silver screen . exotica also stands for unwanted society attention into the lives of other people , such as the tax auditor and the pet shop owner . exotica is the customer agent looking at the pet shop owner , which in turn is looking at the core of the problems between the strip dancer and the tax auditor through the detached eye of a gay person ( no attraction to the strip dancer ) , and only interested on avoiding jail ( no personal relationship with the tax auditor ) . in exotica everybody is watching , and what is worse , everybody knows . second , exotica is about isolated people holding back their feelings ; about people which by voluntary or involuntary means transfer their view of reality to other characters . the strip dancer becomes the proverbial daughter , the dj becomes the proverbial killer by means of breaking the relationship between the father and the proverbial daughter . the niece becomes the baby sitter , the baby sitter becomes the dancer , and the dancer becomes the proverbial daughter . the pet shop owner becomes the proverbial dj , by finding the proverbial daughter . a chain made of real and imagined links coming around full circle , just as everything comes around to a fitting whole at the end of the movie .
1 i actually am a fan of the original 1961 or so live-action-disney flick of the same name starring hayley mills twice as a pair of twins , separated at birth by divorcing parents , never to come in contact with the other so the parents never have to meet again . and everyone should know how i feel about remakes , especially of films i happen to enjoy ( my fallacy : unless you’re going to either capture the same exact spirit of the original or do something different with it or maybe even both , just wrack your brain and come up with a * gasp * new idea ) . this remake was not originally on the top of my viewing list , and was actually quite the opposite . contemporary live-action-disney films are not one of my favorties , anyway : they’re usually unfunny , alienating , and a big fat bore , at least to anyone over the age of 11 and above the iq of 10 . this one , however , is shockingly not bad . in fact , it’s actually good . not the original good , but what’s great about it is that it doesn’t necessarily retread the original or capture the same exact spirit as it does become entertaining for the same exact reasons the original was entertaining . because it’s cute and innocent fun . because it has a pretty killer plot that is endlessly fun to follow along with . because the lead star is immensely appealing . because the parents are also immensely appealing . and ( i’m repeating myself ) because it’s cute and innocent fun . there’s nothing too risque about it , save the plot ( the idea of separating twins and denying them the truth for years is ominously selfish , but that is precisely the point of the movie ) , and it’s aimed directly at either kids , adults who want to remember the original , or young adults who want to remember what it was like to be a kid . i , personally , am somewhere between the second and third . i can vividly remember when my taste in movies wasn’t so weird or diverse ( the names godard and kubrick weren’t even a glimmer in my right eye back then ) , when i would tune in every sunday night for a couple years to see abc’s ” wonderful world of disney , ” where they’d show you a live-action and/or made-for-tv disney flick an hour per week . i can remember my mom taking my sister and i along with all my friends and their mothers to see all the rereleased disney films ( like ” lady and the tramp ” and ” pinnochio ” ) . and , most sadly , i remember every single christmas , without fail , there were a barage of children’s animated half-hour shows , made exclusively for the christmas season , that i wouldn’t dare missing . i can even remember seeing the made-for-tv ” parent trap ii ” on tv one night , and after i had seen that one over and over and over again , i saw the original ” parent trap . ” it’s more of a late childhood movie , because it deals with the issue of divorce , but it deals with it in a disney-ized version . it’s playful , and witty , and charming , and if i saw it for the first time right now , having never experienced that part of my childhood , i’d probably dismiss it . i’d probably do the same for the new version of the same movie if i hadn’t seen the original at such a perfect age . watching it , i could remember what fun it was to watch a disney film , and how divorce for me started to get me thinking about the possibilities of my seemingly-perfect parents splitting up , and how it affected my adolescence . and also how it brushed that fear off with a smooth stroke , and pointed out that even in the most fucked-up of situations , things could always work out if you , well , manipulate things a bit , at least for the better . this new version did that for me , but it’s also charming in its own way . it has a new cast , a contemporary feel , and , for the first time in awhile for a live-action-disney flick , a tone that isn’t corny or condescending , but just right . the moments that would otherwise seem corny are actually affecting in a safe kind of way . and for the first time since the original film , the kids actually know better than the foolish adults . the story is basically classic by now , repeated almost as many times as kurosawa’s ” the seven samurai ” : a pair of twins ( played here by lindsay lohan , just like they were played by hayley mills in the original ) are separated at birth by their divorcing parents . one , annie , is sent to live with the mother ( natasha richardson , resembling her mother , vanessa redgrave , more than i had ever noticed ) in london , where she lives with her parents and her devoted , foppish butler ( simon kunz ) , as she works as a swingin’ fashion designer . she grows up refined and classy , but also with a keen knowledge in sports and poker-playing . the other , hallie , is sent to northern california with her father ( dennis quaid ) to live on a vineyard with their pseudo-maid ( lisa ann walter ) , and grows up rugged yet charming . they both meet at the same camp , one that annie wants to go to to become more rugged . they feud because they look all-too similar , and are thus in tight competition , which results in some nasty pranks , which winds them in seclusion together in a private , out-of-the-way cabin . there , they become friends , then learn about eachother . once they know everything , they concoct a scheme to switch places so the one can meet the other parent , whom they’ve only heard of . they learn about eachother’s lives in detail , they make sure they look alike ( which requires hair cutting and , notoriously , ear-piercing – a scene which is like the kiddie version of the hypodermic needle scene in ” pulp fiction ” ) , and when the end of summer comes , they switch and hope for the best . lindsay lohan doesn’t necessarily copy the acting style of hayley mills in the original . but she comes off just as appealing as she did once . she does , though , add a couple new things : she makes the california twin a little more appealing and the london twin a bit more frank and snobbish than the snotty and proper original , respectively . she also adds on an american and british accent to each one , with one faking the other accent throughout , and if you really take notice , you can see that the fake ones’ accents aren’t exactly perfect . she’s also incredibly appealing , not merely cute , which is especially notable since this is her first feature film , and we know how notorious child actors are , especially in their first films . she makes a great protagonist , and it only helps that the supporting cast is equally appealing . dennis quaid , in fact , hasn’t been this likable in about a decade – his big dumb smile and near cocky attitude is what has made him a notable actor in the past , not just that he’s mr . meg ryan . ditto natasha richardson ( except that she just hasn’t ever been this likable period ) . the two make a winning couple , maybe not so winning as maureen o’hara and the late brian keith in the original , but they still work for this film . instead of the bickering that ensued in the original , the film adds another dimension and another angle to their characters that was amiss in the original : during the opening credits , we see glimpses from their courtship on the qe2 , where they fall quickly and madly in love with eachother , and when back together again , the film’s more smarmy scenes come off as actually sentimental , but in that great way , not the migraine-inducing way as in many such films . this all brings this new ” parent trap ” to a level of entertainment that hasn’t really existed since , well , the original film years ago , still my money the best live-action-disney flick of all time . this is because it has a form of intelligence and wit that makes such plot points as an otherwise standard villainous love interest subplot ( a gold-digging sharon stone type , played by elaine hendrix , who’s deliciously tormented by the twins later on in the film ) a treat instead of a bore . like the original , this film transcends all the crap that it very well could be ( case in point : ” it takes two ” starring the olsen twins ) because it treats the children as the smart ones , and the adults as the silly ones , not the other way around . and because , above everything , it knows exactly how to be charming without biting off more than it can chew . however , in comparison with the original , it could be a bit better . certain scenes work well , but not nearly as well as they worked in the original . i liked the way the parents fought over past dilemnas and then fought over falling in love again better than i liked watching two old flames getting back together over a bottle of wine – somehow , feuding is always more cinematic and pleasing than mere reminscing , a lesson extracted from the howard hawks/cary grant films of yesteryear . and as much as this film transcends mere cutedom , compared to the original , this film almost drowns in cutedom . the original , though not gritty , was far more stylized and just as suitable for adult audiences as it was for young audiences . as such , this remake may never be nearly as great or classic as the original film , but it at least knows how to treat its source material with dignity and respect , and how to create virtually the same effects without bordering on plagerism or petty annoyances .
1 gere , willis , poitier chase each other around the world the jackal a film review by michael redman copyright 1997 by michael redman when the soviet union imploded , the western countries lost their shadow . with the united states friendly with the russians , we no longer had an entity to blame for the world’s problems . this showed up in hollywood films as the communist government was no longer the easy bad guy . it’s time to rejoice because we’ve found our new villain . now it’s no longer the russian government who sends killers out into foreign lands , it’s the russian _mafia_ . a perfect solution , it combines the dread of organized crime and the still-present uneasiness with the former eastern block countries . best of all , the villains are still foreigners : fear of the other always plays best . so it is a crime lord in moscow that sends legendary hitman the jackal ( bruce willis ) to assassinate a highly placed us government figure in retaliation for the death of his brother during a nightclub raid . the fbi is at a loss as to how to protect the target from someone they’re not sure even exists . coming to their rescue is former ira operative declan mulqueen ( richard gere ) who is temporarily released from prison to assist fbi agent carter preston ( sidney poitier ) and russian major valentina koslova ( diane venora ) . mulqueen’s ex-girlfriend basque terrorist isabella ( mathilda may ) is the only person who has seen the elusive jackal . ( presumably there is an exclusive international terrorist club somewhere where the three met . ) the film follows two parallel tracks as the jackal prepares for his $70 million hit and mulqueen attempts to locate him while preston makes sure that the irishman doesn’t slip away . crossing numerous borders and donning various disguises for both himself and his mini-van , the killer is always one step ahead of his pursuers . being very loosely based on the same book the 1973 thriller ” the day of the jackal ” , comparison between the two films is inevitable . there is no doubt that the original is the better movie , playing the story for suspense rather than the current action/adventure . as a mystery , ” the jackal ” has enough holes in it to ruin the tale , but if you can accept it for what it is , there’s entertainment to be had . holes ? let’s see ? a pivotal clue for mulqueen is so obscure that he must possess psychic powers to pick it up . for a 20-year veteran that can command the big bucks , the jackal is an incredibly poor shot . the final scene between gere and willis occurs in a location that should be mobbed with police , but it’s just the two of them . willis’ disguises usually look like bruce willis and are just as interesting as val kilmer’s in ” the saint ” . ( and lest you misunderstand , that’s not a compliment . ) but the three stars are fun to watch . it’s good to see gere in something other than a business suit . willis has a mixed history in picking projects , but his characters are always watchable . poitier is by far the superior actor , but has limited screen time . the problems in logic are flaws , but don’t ruin the experience . occasionally there are movies that transcend their blemishes . this is one of them . [the appeared in the 11/20/97 ” bloomington voice ” , bloomington , indiana]
1 it’s terribly unfortunate that ” stir of echoes , ” tautly written and directed by david koepp ( who made one of 1996’s unsung treasures , ” the trigger effect ” ) , should be released little more than a month after ” the sixth sense , ” which is still going strong at the box office . these two films are undoubtedly going to be compared ( judging from practically all of my fellow audience members last night ) , and although they have eerily similar storylines , ” stir of echoes ” is more of a straightforward psychological horror film , while ” the sixth sense ” is closer to a psychological drama . additionally , while ” the sixth sense ” had a shocker of an ending that undoubtedly has been one of the major factors in its recent repeat business , ” stir of echoes ” is more conventional and predictable in its final twist . and where ” the sixth sense ” was disturbing , ” stir of echoes ” is just plain scary . i have a feeling most viewers are going to come away unimpressed because of the unavoidable similarities , and will foolishly forget to judge this film on its own respectable merits . adapted from a novel by richard matheson that was written some forty years ago , ” stir of echoes ” opens with a cute six-year-old boy named jake ( zachary david cope ) who is taking a bath . he is speaking directly at the screen , but we immediately have a feeling someone else is there . finally , he asks , ” does it hurt to be dead ? ” apparently jake sees the ghosts of dead people , but unlike ” the sixth sense , ” this young child isn’t the focus of the picture . instead , tom witzy ( kevin bacon ) , a chicago lineman , is our protagonist . jake is his son , and maggie ( kathryn erbe ) , whom has just discovered she is six weeks pregnant , is his hard-working wife . one night while at a party with their closest friends , tom convinces maggie’s new-age sister , lisa ( illena douglas ) , to try and hypnotize him . it unexpectedly works , and before long , tom is seeing things he wouldn’t normally see , including a deceased teenage girl ( jenny morrison ) in his house who happens to have been missing for the last six months . seeking help from lisa , she tells him that , while he was under hypnosis , she told him that after he awoke , his mind will remain clear and free , like an opened door . she didn’t expect it to work , but it did , and the only way to stop it is for tom to somehow find a way to help this girl he sees . ” stir of echoes ” isn’t a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination , but in the thick , atmospheric mood it conjures up , it is a terrifically eerie domestic horror-drama , and is not only effective on a technical level , but is impressive in its portrayal of a struggling working-class family . kevin bacon and , especially , kathryn erbe ( 1997’s ” dream with the fishes ” ) , are top-notch and exceedingly believable as a loving married couple who nonetheless have their fair share of problems . after tom is hypnotized and starts seeing ghastly visions , he is completely taken over by his desire to solve this mystery of the disappearing girl whom he has seen lurking in his house , and instead of maggie not being understanding , she instead believes what tom says , and aside from being a little worried by what he is going through , does not try to stop his pursuit . bacon and erbe are not traditional hollywood stars like tom cruise and julia roberts , and therefore , are easier to relate to and always plausible as a struggling couple who have to work overtime at their jobs just to make ends meet . in a masterfully-done , entrancing sequence , tom is hypnotized by lisa , but instead of watching him , we instead see what he sees , starting from his view as he closes his eyes into darkness . lisa tells him to visualize being in an empty movie theater , and so , we , as audience members , are watching a movie screen from inside a theater , which is also showing a movie screen in a theater . telling him to move closer and closer to the screen as a fuzzy word in black letters pops up on the screen , we begin to float closer and closer to the front of the theater until we see that the word is ” sleep . ” never before have i seen a hypnotism scene as mesmerizing and brilliantly-construed as this one . truthfully , this set-piece , and another in which tom wakes up from a nightmarish dream only to quickly discover he is reliving what he has just dreamt , are worth the full price of admission alone , just to see them on the big screen . having loads of fun with her small role as maggie’s sister , lisa , illeana douglas ( 1995’s ” to die for , ” her last great character ) is a delight , but rarely used to her full advantage in feature films . funny and enjoyably offbeat , douglas gets to utter the best line in the film : while talking to maggie about tom’s visions of the girl , she remarks , ” i wouldn’t be worried about him seeing another girl , although the fact that she’s dead gives one pause . ” also of note are jenny morrison ( 1994’s ” intersection ” ) , who is truly poignant in the last half of the film when we flash back to see what really happened to her missing character , and liza weil , remarkable in 1998’s ” whatever , ” as morrison’s grieving teenage sister , debbie . if the resolution of ” stir of echoes ” does not live up to its obviously frightful full potential ( and it doesn’t ) , what comes before is both involving and appropriately gritty . the music score , by james newton howard , and unsettling use of whispers and ghostly sound effects , successfully compliment and foreshadow the off-kilter frame-of-mind that tom is put into , and director david koepp proves once again that he is a director with a knack for creating almost unbearably tense situations that revolve around realistically-written characters . ” stir of echoes ” isn’t as good as ” the sixth sense , ” but why should it need to be ? both films are fully capable of standing on their own two feet , and ” stir of echoes ” really is a spinetinglingly good horror film .
1 usually when a blockbuster comes out , it’s loaded with effects , stars , bad scripts , and plenty of action . mystery men may contain an all-star cast , and efects , but the clever script and characters are what really works , which is rare to see this year . the film is based upon the comic book series ” the flaming carrot ” by bob burden , in which 3 wanna be super heroes try and fight crime , only to be out done by the real hero of champion city , captain amazing ( greg kinnear ) . things go a little haywire , when the sinister casanova frankenstein ( geoffrey rush ) is released into the city , where he captures captain amazing , and plans to wreak havoc upon champion city . well , the trio decide to take matters in their own hands , by saving the city , but first they need some assitance . this is where the film takes a turn for the better . in the beggining , there were only 3 wanna be heroes . ” blue raja ( hank azaria ) , ” mr . furious ( ben stiller ) and ” the shoveller ( william h . macy ) . sure they were enterataining , but their acts grew old fast . that is until they aquire ” invisible boy ” ( kel mitchell ) , and ” the bowler ” ( janeane garafalo ) and ” mr . splein ” ( paul reubens ) , 2 of which rescue the film from becoming a disastorous mess . thankfully , the original 3 heroes become amusing , with some support of reuben and garfalo on screen . the whole premise is rather ridiculous , but packs a few punches to keep interest . for one , the film is considerably clever . it literally pokes fun at super hero films , like batman and robin , superman etc . in fact , many scenes are similar to batman and robin , including the opening sequence , only altered in a humorous and superior way . a part of the cleverness comes from the cast . sometimes a film with such talent is overblown , but the acting is what keeps it alive here . while azaria and macy were enteratining , 2 characters really stood out . one was paul reuben . no matter how disgusting or revolting ” mr . splein ” may be , you still can’t help but laugh . it’ so incredibly moronic , it’s just a riot watching reuben relieve himself of bodily functions . janeane garafalo also was an interesting character . she seemed to be the most outgoing and convincing character on screem , due to her enthusiasm , that kept the film flowing . men is worth seeing alone , for those 2 troubled heroes . on the downside , a few of the heroes and especially the villain never really lift off . kel mitchell and geoffrey rush , were both utterly useless . their parts were so limited , they’d be lucky at all to be on screen for more than 20 minutes . ben stiller too was wasted , mostly because of his unlikeable power and dialogue . none of these characters get a rise out of anybody , but happily they are lost in the charming flow of the film . as far as the budget goes , it was wisely spent on the cast , not the effects . while the set designs and action all look nice , i’m glad there was a seperate aspect , that the film focused on , and for that i applaud . slow at times , and rather pointless , mystery men still delivers . it forgets about money making , because it’s not likely to make a bundle like it’s proceeders , and that’s what works . stupid ? maybe , but for once i’m not disappointed . no one expected an intelligent film , but you get a film thats wit captures your attention and makes you forget this miserable year .
1 review- peter jackson’s the frighteners has received some notice for setting the record for most computer effects ever in a movie , and still coming in at the extremely cheap $30 million price tag . but for those who were dismayed by this year’s blockbusters like twister and independence day , the frighteners has much more to offer than special effects . and for those worried wether or not peter jackson would compromise to hollywood you can rest easily . the frighteners is as far removed from hollywood as a high-profile movie can get . michael j . fox stars as frank bannister , a con artist who can speak to ghosts . he uses this ability to set up a scam in a small town where his ghost buddies scare the hell out of people , then he comes and pretends to get rid of them . this is how he has made a living ever since his wife died in a car crash 5 years ago . frank’s latest customers are a young couple , played by trini alvarado and peter dobson . when dobson ends up dead , alvarado starts to take an interest in fox . but dobson’s spirit is still around as he refuses to beleive he’s dead . this leads to a very awkward and amusing dinner date between fox and alvarado , with dobson tagging along as a ghost . things start getting complicated for fox when he is accused for a series of murders taking place in the town . fox sees someone named the soul collector crushing the heart of the victims , but noone else can see that . so when fox shows up to try and save each victim , naturally people suspect he is the killer . fox sees that alvarado is next on the soul collector’s hit list , and the last half hour of the movie deals with fox’s attempts to save her from this evil spirit . there are many wonderful twists and turns in the screenplay written by peter jackson and frances walsh . the movie starts off as a black comedy , and ends up a horror-action film . the mix between these genres are perfect . no laughs are sacrificed in the name of horror , and vice versa . one point of contention might be a lackluster score by danny elfman . but that hardly seems like a flaw when you have such a diverse cast all in top form . michael j . fox delivers one of his best performances to date as a man who hides the sorrow of his wife’s death , and then is forced to confront this later on . alvarado , looking like andie macdowell , makes a great frightened , tough , and smart heroine . and jeffery combs , as a paranoid fbi agent , is brilliantly bizaare . the frighteners never once feels like it is running long . the first hour is as funny as any comedy this year , and the last half hour is as thrilling as any of the big budget blockbusters . this movie is probably what casper would’ve looked like if david lynch directed it . it’s easily the best film of the year , so far .
1 before you read my review , you gotta know that i love woody allen . this is a very important note because allen’s films are generally an acquired taste and definitely not for everyone . i know folks who believe him to be a complete genius , while others see him as a dirty ol’ schnook who keeps making the same movie over and over again . i love most of his films , but will admit to having been quite disappointed by his recent crop during the 90s . in fact , why he felt the need to make 10 movies in those 10 years is beyond me ! if you look at the quality of those films , you’ll hear what i’m saying . the only two films of his that i really liked during that time were bullets over broadway and husbands and wives . in fact , i secretly hoped that he would take some ” time off ” at the turn of the millennium , just to re-energize or something , but it doesn’t appear as though he has any intention of doing that . so here i am again , reviewing yet another woody allen movie and hoping that it brings back the woody from the days of old . plot : the year is 1940 and woody allen is a top-notch insurance investigator . his methods are very old-fashioned and apparently out of date . a new employee ( hunt ) has just been hired to streamline the operations for greater efficiency . the two do not like each other . one night , they are both put under a hypnotic trance by a magician , and unbeknownst to them , placed under his control . soon thereafter , jewels are stolen , words of love are exchanged and everyone is looking for an answer . critique : a wonderful recreation of the 1940s style movies , with the fast-talking witty banter between co-workers , a catchy jazz score moving things along , film noirish elements such as the veronica lake-type sexpot , one-liners galore and a fluffy , if inconsequential plotline . on the downside , the film actually starts off pretty slowly , with the first hour tossing only a few guffaws out there , but never really generating any kind of steady flow or energy . the sets , on the other hand , were amazing , the production design and costumes were perfect , and the casting ideal , so i kept hoping that the film would pick up and not turn into yet another mediocre outing for the man . but it wasn’t not long before i was fully engaged by the characters , entertained by the many zingers delivered back-and-forth between allen and hunt , and actually interested in the resolution of the flick . i also appreciated how allen played the fine line between homage to the films of old , parody and actual reinvention ( note theron’s entire female persona that is drenched in film noir- very cool ) . of course , films like this ( with little or no real tension in the plot ) need solid actors to keep you interested in the quick-fire dialogue , and once again , allen does a great job in playing his character , who for once , isn’t his typical new york jewish neurotic cheating insecure husband dude . he actually plays a ” macho ” guy here and handles it pretty well , especially the scenes in which he’s hypnotized . but the bigger surprise for me in this film was helen hunt , an actress who i was openly ” sick of seeing ” in movies late last year ( sorry babe , you were just in too many at the same time ! ) . anyway , she’s really great in this film as the headstrong woman looking to a new era of equality amongst men , and doesn’t miss a beat of allen’s fast-paced dialogue . i didn’t care much for her running joke about him ” dying ” whenever he left a room , but overall she was really good and i especially liked the way that her sweaters clung to her breasts as they did . . . yum , yum ! harumph , but i digress . so let’s recap . a great looking picture with a nice jazzy score , some funny one-liners , especially in the second half , a decent plotline , although you shouldn’t expect a real mystery or anything , and some solid acting all around . i can’t say that this is even remotely close to any of allen’s best work , but i certainly believe it to be a step in the right direction , especially after the dinky decade of films that he just went through . it’s probably better geared towards allen fans more than anyone else , but i would still recommend this film to anyone looking for a cute , ” old-school ” kind of vibe , with chemistry between the leads , zippy dialogue and a satisfying conclusion . little known facts about this film and its stars : annie hall ( 10/10 ) – celebrity ( 5/10 ) – everyone says i love you ( 5/10 ) – husbands and wives ( 9/10 ) – mighty aphrodite ( 5/10 ) – small time crooks ( 7/10 ) – when harry met sally ( 10/10 ) – you’ve got mail ( 4/10 )
1 susan granger’s review of ” legally blonde ” ( m . g . m . ) it’s a ” pretty in pink ” / ” clueless ” coming-of-age story for the new millennium as elle woods ( reese witherspoon ) , a perky southern california sorority queen , switches from fashion to law in order to win back her yuppy boyfriend ( matthew davis ) . the girl-power story begins as this sweetheart of delta nu is unceremoniously dumped by a bonehead who says : ” if i’m going to be a senator by the time i’m 30 . . . i need to marry a jackie , not a marilyn . ” determined to prove she’s as smart a snobby brunette ( selma blair ) from country-club connecticut , elle not only applies to harvard law school but gets in , much to the amazement of family , friends and faculty . once there , this flaxen-haired fish-out-of-water not only survives but tenaciously thrives , befriending a local manicurist ( jennifer coolidge ) , dazzling a professor ( victor garber ) and rescuing a defendant ( ali larter ) in a celebrated boston murder trial , plus finding a more worthy beau ( luke wilson ) . in the tradition of teen-comedy film-maker john hughes and his disciple amy heckerling , there’s wit , cheerfulness , a fidelity of observation and a penchant for problem-solving . first-time feature director robert luketic is blessed with reese witherspoon who’s joyously incandescent in this utterly formulaic light comedy written by karen mccullah lutz and kirsten smith , based on a soon-to-be-published novel by amanda brown . the supporting cast is terrific , particularly raquel welch and holland taylor – and i particularly got a kick out of the gag of elle distributing scented resumes in pink , her signature color on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , ” legally blonde ” is a frivolous , funny , feel-good 8 . filled with ditzy blonde ambition , it’s a movie for high-school kids that their parents would be happy to have them see .
1 what do you get when you combine clueless and dumb and dumber ? to answer the question , you get director david mirkin’s new comedy romy and michele’s high school reunion . romy white ( mira sorvino , mighty aprhodite ) and michele weinberger ( lisa kudrow , tv’s friends ) have been inseparable buddies since they graduated from sagebrush high in 1987 . however , when former classmate heather mooney ( janeane garafolo , the truth about cats and dogs ) confronts romy about the 10 year reunion , she is astounded that she forgot . watching pretty woman for the um-teenth time , they are reminded of how they wouldn’t let julia roberts’ character shop in the expensive stores because of her appearance . then it hits them : they are not successful . what are she and michele going to do ? romy’s instant solution is lose some weight off their already slender frames , ” bag a couple of boyfriends , ” and get jobs . romy says this will be easy , but michele retorts that if it is so easy , why hadn’t they already done it . robin schiff’s script keeps the show moving with some nice one-liners . one of the best has romy reminiscing about her life’s battle against the bathroom scales . ” i was so lucky getting mono , ” she says looking at her thinnest high school picture . ” that was like the best diet ever . ” the casting for the film is so perfect that one begins to suspect that the leads were chosen and then the script was developed . romy and michele use their high school yearbook to discuss the caste system at their high school . the film’s editor david finfer dissolves the stills from the yearbook to live action flashbacks which makes the past come to life . at sagebrush high , the hierarchy consisted of the a group ( cheerleaders ) , the b group ( drama club ) and the c group ( nerds ) . romy and michele were none of the above . ridiculed as ” the weirdoes , ” they were constant targets for abuse . even though they were quite attractive , they had so much fun being together that they did not care about the others . that they make their own outlandish clothes helped keep the wall around them . complementing romy and michele’s lightness , is janeane garofalo as the dark , pudgy heather mooney . heather , who invented a new cigarette paper for cigarettes with ” twice the taste in half the time for the gal on the go , ” has the success and the money that they would like . heather was even more of an outsider than they were in high school . garofalo’s one-dimensional role is only a side show . this is a two person film with the other characters there merely for the two leads to bounce their lines off of . the genuine chemistry between sorvino and kudrow makes for a sweet and sometimes touching comedy . they have so much fun acting out their parts , their enjoyment spreads to the audience . ,
1 martin scorsese’s triumphant adaptation of edith wharton’s the age of innocence is a stunning film for the quintessential new york filmmaker , the man who brought the streets of taxi driver and mean streets to life . it seems like an odd choice for scorsese to do a period piece in the early 1900’s , but the fact that he pulls it off so brilliantly is a wonder , and a testament to the greatness of scorsese as a filmmaker . this is a gorgeous visual experience that it surely one of scorsese’s finest . newland archer ( day-lewis ) is a prestigious lawyer who is engaged to may welland ( ryder ) , a somewhat empty and shallow new yorker , who belongs to a prestigious family and is quite beautiful . the marriage is one which will unite two very prestigious families , in a society where nothing is more important than the opinions of others . on the day that archer is to announce his engagement to may , countess ellen olenska ( pfeiffer ) , cousin of may , walks into archer’s life . archer is immediately captivated , and finds himself in love with ellen . archer is also bound by the limits of new york society , which is an intrusive as any other in the world . archer finds himself having a secret love affair in his mind with countess olenska , attempting to keep her in his mind while trying not to lose his social status . the film’s subject matter may seem alien to scorsese , but the theme is definitely not . it is a theme of forbidden romance , guilty pleasures , and the consequences causes because of those actions . there is a painstakingly flawed hero , and his choice between the life he wants , and the life he is destined for . in truth , it is a film about a society the audience doesn’t know about , but wants to find out more , much like the society of goodfellas or even kundun . the performances are absolutely breathtaking . day-lewis portrays more mental anguish in his face than one man should be forced to take . pfeiffer is marvelous as countess olenska , a mix of passion and beauty that the audience would die for as well . ryder is probably the gem of the group , for it is her quiet presence that overwhelms the plot , and slowly pushes day-lewis closer and closer to his eventual ending . the supporting cast is also wonderful , with several characters so singular that they are indelible in one’s memory . scorsese definitely has a passion for filmmaking . his lavish and sumptuous set design and marvelous recreation of new york is a wondrous sight . he literally transports the viewer to another world with incredible imagery . his script is also excellent , slow in buildup , with a rapid conclusion and a fantastic ending that has to be seen to be believed . it is difficult to make a period piece gripping : scorsese , however , does it beautifully . the famous cameras of the legendary director are also everywhere . he is patient , but he films everything and anything remotely important . the cameras sweep , pan , track , and do more than they’ve ever done , but they are so subtle , one doesn’t realize he’s watching all the scorsese hallmarks until a 2nd viewing . the central tracking shot is probably longer and more complex than the famous goodfellas shot , but the viewer doesn’t notice it , because we want to see more of this gorgeous world . there are a few deft touches of filmmaking that are simply outstanding , and joanne woodward’ narration is exquisite . not a fast film like goodfellas , this shares more in common with kundun than anything else . and like kundun , this is a slow-starting film that truly shines , when given the chance to fully breathe and bloom in the end . a beautiful film by a director continuing to challenge himself year after year .
1 plot : a dude and his brother are driving cross-country and decide to fool around with a trucker on their cb radio . it isn’t long before their little prank gets someone put into a coma ( long story ) and the next thing you know , the trucker is following them too . lotsa nuttiness ensues and then , they pick up their other friend , venna , a girl who the dude has a crush on . but what’s this . . . ? the trucker is still on their tail and is now harassing all three of the young whippersnappers . . . ? you bet ! buckle up , dorothy . . . this is gonna be one bumpy ride ! critique : a good ol’ time at the movies ! here’s a film that actually gives away most of its plotline in its trailer and doesn’t really bring anything ” new ” to the forefront ( if you’ve seen flicks like duel and breakdown , you’ve crossed this path before ) , but still manages to entertain you gangbusters , with realistic situations , believable characters , funny moments , thrills , chills , the whole shebang . let’s give it up for director john dahl , who continues to put out solid films every other year ( if you haven’t seen red rock west , do yourself a favor right now , and jot it down on a piece of paper and rent it at your earliest convenience ) . and much like that film , this one has an excellent premise and sets everything up at an even pace . it gives you a little bit of background on each of the main three characters , and then shows you how one small prank , can lead to a whole lotta trouble for everyone ! paul walker really surprised me in this movie , since i’ve never much thought of him as anything more than a pretty face ( and damn , is it ever pretty or what ? ! ) but here , he actually manages to put some depth behind the looks and that’s always appreciated in films in which you are so closely tied to the main characters . sobieski is also good , but she isn’t in the movie for as long as you’d think , but the man who really takes this film to another level , is steve zahn . if you’ve loved this guy as the ” goofball ” in most of his previous roles , you’ll appreciate him even more here , as the dude who starts off as one of the most manic and excited human beings i’ve seen in quite some time ( ” this is so awesome ! ! ” ) , only to turn into a man scared out of his wits by the end of the flick . and speaking of the ending , boy , does this movie deliver some chilling moments during its final 15 clicks or what ? ! ? the arrow and i were practically in each others arms ( well , maybe i’m exaggerating , but you catch my drift ) as each minute brought about another turn of events which in turn , took it all to an even higher level . once again , kudos to director dahl for being able to generate that type of intensity , suspense and tension , with a great score , editing , style and camerawork . plot-wise , i too did wonder how the ” bad guy ” was able to track them so well , but it didn’t really bother me all that much ( you can assume that he had bugged their car ? ) . but pretty much everything else in the story stuck like glue and i couldn’t help but put myself in their shoes and appreciate their thoroughly desperate circumstance . a great movie with an even cooler ending , this film will likely be remembered as one of the better thrillers of the year . ” this is amazing ! ! ! ” where’s joblo coming from ? american psycho ( 10/10 ) – deep blue sea ( 8/10 ) – eye of the beholder ( 4/10 ) – the fast and the furious ( 7/10 ) – final destination ( 8/10 ) – the glass house ( 6/10 ) – no way out ( 8/10 )
1 wyatt earp has a lot to tell and little to say . this story of the legendary lawman runs three hours and nine minutes and that’s too long for this epic-wannabe that plays more like a tv mini-series than a movie . the story opens on the earp family farm , with young wyatt ready to run away from home . he wants to fight in the civil war , but his dad ( hackman ) has different ideas and wants his son to study law . time passes and wyatt heads west , returns home to marry , and , after a spell , begins his career in law enforcement . by the time he ( costner ) and his brothers ( madsen , david andrews , and linden ashby ) arrive in tombstone , wyatt has tried his hand at everything from hunting buffalo to dealing cards . wyatt earp is very appealing in places– such as cast , costumes , and cinematography– but an overstated story and overpowered score deaden most of the emotional impact . who can be moved by scene after scene after scene of swelling strings and suffocating speeches ? somber is fine– just ask clint eastwood– but this film that boasts not one , not two , but three , count ’em three , hammy death scenes ! still , a little bit of earp goes a long way and the life and times of the legendary lawman are from uninteresting stuff . his , uh , unusual relations with women , for example , are an intriguing contrast to his character’s credo of ” nothing counts as much as blood . ” equally amusing is a buffalo-hunting ( and skinning ! ) sequence that is decidedly non-pc . director lawrence kasdan takes a refreshingly realistic approach to the gunplay . the infamous gunfight at the ok corral is both brutal and brief , devoid of almost any theatrics . don’t look for much glorified violence here . despite some large exclamation points in the story , the characters * do * come to life . the diverse cast includes everyone from betty buckley ( ! ) to mackenzie astin ( ! ! ) . kevin costner is very good in the title role . dances with whitney nevers get as steely as the role requires , though , but his transformation from lighthearted law student to stoic sheriff is fun to watch . he was tougher in a perfect world . his foil is dennis quaid , who pulled a deniro by losing 40+ pounds to play the tubercular terror doc holliday . gaunt * and * gamely , he’s a scene stealer who’s seen too little . other familiar faces include tom sizemore ( looking like bruce mcgill ) , bill pullman ( looking like jeff daniels ) , and lea thompson ( looking like someone other than lea thompson ) . both gene hackman and isabella rosselini appear and disappear like magic , while late entries catherine o’hara and jobeth williams are surprisingly solid . though the story and score should’ve tried ” less is more , ” all other credits are technical tops . production designer ida random , art director gary wissner , and costume designer colleen atwood are some of the vips who helped spend what must’ve been an enormous budget . clearly no expense was spared .
1 when i first heard that kevin costner was making a movie called ” the postman , ” i thought , ” an american version of ‘il postino ? ‘ starring costner ? god help us ! ” when i found out that it was not a remake of ” postino ” but an postapocalyptic epic , i thought , ” ‘landworld ? ‘ please , god , make him stop ! ” as it turns out , ” the postman ” is a much better film than i had expected . despite being set in 2013 , the movie is , at heart , a western : a band of thugs terrorizes peaceful villagers ; a wandering hero opposes the bandits and inspires others to fight back . the setting , however , allows that familiar plot to take on greater significance : american society has collapsed due to plagues and wars , and survivors live behind barracades in isolated villages . the struggle of a dead society to be reborn has a grand quality and deserves the epic scale costner grants it . costner’s nameless character , a wandering actor , rides in from the vast wasteland and is soon shanghaied into the service of general bethlehem ( will patton ) , a former copy-machine salesman turned bandit king . our hero escapes and discovers the body of a dead postman . taking the uniform and bag of mail , he passes himself off as a representative of ” the restored united states . ” he is shocked at the hope that he inspires in the people he meets . one young disciple , ford lincoln mercury ( larenz tate ) , organizes a full-scale postal service . ford spreads the postman’s message of hope until bethlehem finds that the once-meek villagers are beginning to resist his rule . as war breaks out between bethlehem’s army and the postal workers , costner’s character steps into the legend he created and goes from self-centered loner to leader of the revolution . his lie of the restored united states becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy . ” postman ” is an odd blend of a bleak setting and a message of wide-eyed optimism ( sort of ” sergio leone meets frank capra ” ) , but its treatment of hope and renewal is compelling . what could have been another knock-off of ” the road warrior ” ( like ” waterworld ” was ) surprises the viewer with a sensitively told story of nobility emerging from rubble . tate is the stand-out in the movie’s large cast . ford lincoln mercury ( self-named ) is the polar opposite of o-dog , tate’s character in his debut film , ” menace ii society ” ( 1993 ) , and tate makes ford’s innocent belief in hope as convincing as o-dog’s cynicism and brutality . his performance sells the movie . interestingly , as tate moves from his usual street-smart roles to youthful optimism , the soft-eyed patton , who usually plays nice guys , proves a disarming villain . olivia williams makes her film debut as the postman’s love interest , abby . when they first meet , abby asks him to father her child because her husband is sterile . predictably , the husband is soon eliminated by the bandits , and abby is thrown back into the company of the hero . however , their relationship develops slowly as the emotional conflicts of both characters are explored ( she , torn by grief , guilt , and anger ; he , resisting his destiny ) . ” the postman ” is costner’s best work thus far . perhaps that alone gives us hope for the future . . .
1 in zoolander , the world’s most successful , influential and intellectually-challenged male model derek zoolander wonders , ” is there more to life than being really really really good looking ? ” obviously , the film’s creator and star ben stiller asked a similar question when crafting a feature-length movie out of his hilarious vh1/vogue fashion awards short-film subject : can there be more to this film than being really really really silly ? no , of course not , and it never aspires to be anything more . much like derek , zoolander is a sweet simpleton of a movie . it’s not complex in either its social commentary or its comedy , and it never produces any gut-busting laughs ( except maybe a scene when derek’s model roommates all die in a tragic ” gasoline fight ” accident — a riotously funny take-off of tommy hilfiger ads ) . but it has a satisfying handful of strong chuckles , wild characters and performances , and mildly harsh potshots at the fashion industry to keep you amused . better yet , this exaggerated version of the original three-minute skit is only blown out to an efficient 95 minutes — just enough time to string together its goofball plot without exhausting the gag . zoolander opens with several fashion bigwigs plotting to assassinate the prime minister of malaysia , since he wants to abolish child labor in his country and thus driving up their costs . fashion designer and criminal mastermind jacobim mugatu ( will ferrell ) drafts a plan to brainwash the dumbest fashion model to carry out the evil deed . enter derek , whose career is slumping as newcomer hansel ( owen wilson ) takes the spotlight . on the trail of mugatu’s plot is time magazine reporter matilda jeffries ( stiller’s real-life wife christine taylor ) , and she’s hoping to use mugatu’s pawn derek to ultimately foil the scheme . much like the austin powers films , zoolander relies heavily on the strength of the talent involved , and this zany comedy features some of the funniest people in entertainment today . wilson is hysterical as the young , vain hansel . ferrell nearly steals the show from everyone as the flamboyant , freakish mugatu in the same way dr . evil upstages everyone in austin powers . jerry stiller — ben’s dad who’s best remembered as frank costanza of seinfeld — makes a priceless turn as derek’s slimy agent maury ballstein . even ben stiller show alum andy dick shows up as a deranged , large-assed masseuse . as for ben stiller , it seems his derek has one gag : he’s stupid , which plays out in some uproarious one-liners . unfortunately , taylor seems out of place and out of her league here . maybe it’s just because i can’t stop seeing her as marcia brady ( who she played in both brady movies ) , making her unbelievable as a dowdy , brainy plain jane who hasn’t had sex in two years . she leaves me pining for the cynicism of janeane garofolo , who would’ve added real comic substance to the flimsy role . while zoolander is hardly highbrow , its screwball humor is welcome during these trying times , especially considering the gross lack of decent pickings in the theaters these days . zoolander’s no masterpiece , but a very worthy distraction .
1 originally titled ‘don’t lose your head’ , this parody of the scarlet pimpernel story was the first carry on to be produced by rank film productions . two english fops , the ‘powdered , be-wigged , be-ribboned’ sir rodney ffing ( sidney james ) and his counterpart lord darcy pew ( jim dale ) decide to travel to revolutionary france in an attempt to rescue their fellow french royalists and aristocrats from losing their heads by the guillotine . due to a series of machinations and disguises , they are largely successful . ffing becomes known as ‘the black fingernail’ because he leaves a calling card behind which shows two fingers sticking up , one with a black fingernail . after the fingernail rescues a prominent royalist the duc de pommfrit ( charles hawtrey ) , citizen robespierre ( peter gilmore ) orders the head of the secret police citizen ‘the big cheese’ camembert ( kenneth williams ) and citizen bidet ( peter butterworth ) to follow the fingernail to england and do away with him . ( in fact , darcy and ffing are their coachmen ! ) once at calais , the fingernail meets jacqueline ( dany robin ) and they fall in love instantly . he tells her his identity and gives her his locket . when camembert realises that the fingernail is nearby , he searches the inn at calais and captures jacqueline , thinking that she is wearing a diguise and is really the fingernail ! jacqueline is imprisoned in the bastille and camembert , his love desiree dubarry ( joan sims ) , and bidet all travel to london in pursuit of the fingernail . they pretend to be of noble stock , calling themselves the duc and duchesse de la plume de ma tante ( with bidet their assistant ) and are invited by darcy to a ball held by ffing . desiree finds out that ffing is the fingernail by wearing the locket around her neck , but she ends up falling in love with him . ffing attempts to stall camembert so that he can return to the bastille to rescue jacqueline , camembert has her moved to the ‘chateau neuve’ , and a climactic sword-fight decides who will lose their heads at the end of the film ! a more complex story than most carry ons , this film enjoys good production values ( sets , costumes ) and an on-form cast . sid james is excellent as the english fop and black fingernail , kenneth williams excels as the evil camembert , and peter butterworth expertly plays the substantial part of camembert’s thick-witted crony . other acting honours go to joan sims who is perfect as desiree and charles hawtrey who is excellent as the french aristo pommfrit . although it suffers from a disasterously over-long sword fight at the end of the film , it is largely successful due to the performances of the main stars , its slick and professional production , and its better-than-usual script . definitely one of the best of the series and a joy to watch .
1 if there is one thing that bothers me about hollywood films it’s their predictable endings . the devil’s advocate has the atypical hollywood ending , when everything that should happen does . unfortunately for the devil’s advocate , this ending nearly collapses in on itself , and ruins the entire film . nevertheless , the film does provide two and a half hours of pure entertainment ( note to self : kill whomever was in charge of the previews for this film ) . i don’t think i was quite prepared for this movie because the trailers made it appear to be some supernatural horror film about satan . well , it does contain this element , but what is not mentioned in the ads is the other plot elements ( and seemingly more interesting ones at that ) . the devil’s advocate begins in florida with an ongoing trial in session . kevin lomax ( keanu reeves ) is the defense attorney , working for a client whom has been accused of raping a young girl . he ends up with a not-guilty verdict , despite an emotional testimony from the victim ( heather matarazzo ) . he leaves the courthouse with his lovely wife mary ann ( charlize theron ) where he is approached with an offer to travel to new york city to help choose a good jury . he accepts ( mainly after seeing the paycheck he will receive ) and he flies to new york with his wife . after proving his worth for selecting juries ( and his perfect winning streak in court ) , the head of the firm , john milton ( al pacino ) , asks him to work permanently as a criminal lawyer . he graciously accepts , where he is treated almost as a god . he is given an incredible apartment ( which is bigger than my entire house now ) , and a hefty paycheck . his life seems to be on the rise . and of course , his life suddenly begins to waver and slowly decline . he is attracted to fellow employee christabella ( connie nielson ) , and his wife begins to feel very lonely in her large apartment . mary ann takes up a friendship with a neighbor who always gives advice , especially if it is not wanted . meanwhile , kevin nabs a case surrounding alexander cullen ( craig t . nelson ) who apparently murdered three people . he spends hours upon hours with this case , while forgetting his loving wife , who may or may not be going insane . all of this while john milton may or may not be the devil himself . after a while , things turn completely upside-down , as kevin’s wife claims to have seen monstrous images superimposed on her friends . a fellow employee is murdered in the park , and his mother ( judith ivey ) reveals information about kevin’s real father . is it all just a big nightmare ? or is john milton really satan , playing tricks with kevin’s life ? the devil’s advocate plays out fairly straight-forward , but for some odd reason , the screenwriters wanted to surprise everyone by giving us something we don’t expect . is this surprise conclusion supposed to make us feel good and go home without feeling depressed or disturbed ? if so , the devil’s advocate messes up completely , and ironically , i felt more depressed because of the ending as is now , than i would have if it had ended ten minutes early . i went into the devil’s advocate expecting a shocking horror film , and that is exactly what i got . i was settled in to be disturbed mentally and emotionally , and that is what i got . but what was the most disturbing and horrible aspect of the movie is the poor ending ( did i mention that i didn’t like the ending ? ) . the producers of this film take you on a thrilling roller coaster ride and just as it is ending , they pull the rug out from under you . films like se7en and the usual suspects can survive with this surprise ending because it is expected , more or less . we know it is going to end in an unpredictable way . the devil’s advocate , on the other hand , ends unpredictably , not from us knowing a lot , but knowing nothing at all . if that is confusing , i recommend watching the film , and then reading that again . as for the film overall , i enjoyed the entire first two hours , being drawn in by a terrific character study and then adding the supernatural plot to increase the tension build from the character study . the film runs like a well-built clock , slowly building until finally exploding with a highly charged climax ( and an unpredictable one at that ) . and then you settle in for a nice resolution , which does not occur . it was at this point that i felt cheated . taking us on a terror ride of intrigue , we follow kevin lomax around , as he is the centerpiece of the film . everything occurs from his perspective . he is our representation on screen ( sort of ) . but we are forced to witness a conclusion which makes most of the film seem like a game . i don’t want to spoil the ending , so all i can say is go see the film and decide for yourself . perhaps the most shocking thing about the devil’s advocate is the extreme amount of everything . it earned its r rating for a reason . there is plenty of nudity , sex , violence , gore , and then you have gore , violence , sex , and more nudity . this film really isn’t subtle about anything , showing us everything . it actually surprises me that this film did not receive an nc-17 rating , as it is quite harsh . however , the movie does have its merits , and nudity and sex are among those . i don’t condone sex and nudity in films , but if its there , i might as well enjoy it . the biggest merit of this film is also the most interesting to watch . the confrontations between kevin lomax and john milton are entertaining , but what stands out amidst this extreme hatred is the decline of the wife , mary ann . portrayed by the extremely effective charlize theron , mary ann’s problems are incredibly intense , and i found myself wanting to witness her decline . this may sound uncaring , but i wanted to watch because i felt sorry for her . she is the most interesting character on the screen , who is forced into a world where she is not wanted . something the devil’s advocate contained actually shocked me for reasons other than extreme violence and nudity , especially for a film of this nature . the story actually has something to say about humanity . in one of the last scenes , john milton explains to kevin lomax the game god plays with his children ( he is satan , of course ) . he comments that it is human nature to lust and loathe in vanity . then , god sets up rules which contradict human nature . this semi-religious bashing is more humorous than frightening . what milton says is so true about our society that i found myself laughing out loud , partially thinking it was funny , but patially realizing it was true . these moral dilemmas are present throughout the devil’s advocate , giving it an added depth many films skip over in their writing ( but i’m sure they came straight from the novel it was based on ) . when a film has something to say about our society , it deserves to be watched . the cast of the devil’s advocate is one of the highlights , as we see memorable faces , and they put spins on those memorable faces we don’t expect . heather matarazzo makes a brief appearance as the terrorized victim in the opening court case , and she does a great job . probably the big surprise of this film is keanu reeves . he has proven himself an uneven actor ( successes such as speed and bombs such as johnny mnemonic ) , but he tops himself with this performance . i have never seen him more believable to date . al pacino is of course the scene stealer . his devilish performance is equal to those of jack nicholson ( the witches of eastwick ) and max von sydow ( needful things ) . he could have easily gone too far over the top in many scenes , but he remains completely believable ( if that is the correct term ) . jeffrey jones ( mostly known as the principal in ferris bueller’s day off ) also gives a good performance as eddie barzoon . judith ivey manages a credible performance as the mother who holds a secret to kevin’s past . connie nielson is very effective in her role , and she also appears naked several times . one familiar face with a twist was ” coach ” star , craig t . nelson , who gives a very good performance . the devil’s advocate is rated r for sexuality , nudity , violence , language , and some gore . at 144 minutes , this film moves along fairly quickly . for the first two hours , i sat completely engaged in the good performances and strong characters . the technical quality is also remarkable , with great special effects and a good musical score . director taylor hackford has managed to create a very disturbing motion picture , only to ruin a good chunk of tension with the final fifteen minutes . i guess my biggest problem with the ending is the fact that i went into the theater expecting a disturbing film , and hackford gave me just that for a long time . but just before the end , he got jitterish and relied on the hollywood safety net in order to make his film more mainstream . personally , i would have preferred it ending fifteen minutes early .
1 ingredients : down-on-his-luck evangelist , church synopsis : sonny dewey ( robert duvall ) is a tireless texas pentecostal preacher who unexpectedly catches his wife ( farrah fawcett ) in bed with another guy . in a regrettable crime of passion he takes a baseball bat to the guy’s head , and suddenly finds himself a fugitive for murder , and estranged from his wife and two kids . to atone for his sins , sonny flees to a rural bayou town in louisiana and baptizes himself as a new creature – – the apostle e . f . as the apostle e . f . sonny’s main mission is to revive an abandoned church community and preach the gospel at the local radio station . soon he sets about resurrecting the one way road to heaven holiness temple . but sonny knows his time is short ; one day the police will find him . opinion : this movie is a thought-provoking look at an evangelist in real life terms . i believe that robert duvall ( who is the producer , director , writer , and main star of the apostle ) deserves an oscar for his performance as sonny the religious crusader – – a performance which is so complex and realistic it ranks as one of the finest acting performances on film . duvall’s portrayal of a true believer is authentic , superb , and inspired ; it offers the audience a completely honest look at southern religion , as well as a portrait of a fallible , complicated man driven by his beliefs . incidentally , in real life duvall was just as ‘driven’ in getting the project underway . since no major hollywood studio wanted to risk financing a complex movie about an evangelist , the apostle as a project lay dormant for almost 13 years before duvall was able to get it done , paying for its production with his own money ( about five million dollars ) . in terms of hard-hitting realism and character portrayal the apostle would rank as one of the best movies of this decade , and i emphatically recommend the apostle for connoisseurs of stage and fine acting on film . similarly , those with a steep background in pentecostal christianity would find the apostle a thought-provoking experience . on the other hand , the apostle’s main strength – – duvall’s preaching – – is also what limits the apostle’s target audience . in terms of plot and pure entertainment value , the apostle is definitely not for everyone . teenagers , action fans , comedy fans , and people who find church completely boring should stay far away from this movie , since three quarters of the film is watching sonny preach at church . in other words , the apostle is a four star performance , but with a very limited audience .
1 the most amazing thing about paul cox’s innocence is how unlike a movie it is . i mean that as the highest compliment . if most studios were to profile an elderly couple who rekindle a 40-year-old romance , i’d want to run and hide . the sex scenes would be handled as a farce , producers would shed 20 years off the characters’ ages ( so susan sarandon and harrison ford could star ) and true love would shine through any obstacle without explanation and consequence . along with a charming romantic story , the australian/belgian innocence shows how an increasing sense of mortality combined with revisiting the past while being entrenched in the present can make something that seems so right seem downright questionable . the romance gets started when former musician andreas ( charles ” bud ” tingwell ) , learns that his true love , claire ( julia blake ) , lives nearby . they decide to catch up on old times , but soon find themselves in a reinvigorating affair . complicating matters is andreas’ frail health , and claire’s longtime husband ( terry norris ) , who can’t understand why he’s suddenly become obsolete . in my mind , the movie is less about the relationship between andreas and claire , than the feelings of everyone involved . john , claire’s husband , endlessly questions what he did wrong . claire initially insists she’s a grown-up , but admittedly behaves like a child , a prospect that thrills and disappoints her . andreas , an agnostic , begins to question his fate , a message cox delivers in a memorable dream sequence . cox litters the movie with flashbacks , including the repeated vision of a roaring train . it’s a reminder of andreas and claire’s past love ( as young lovers , they met by train ) , but as it recurs , we get the feeling that the past and the present have clashed . a pall is cast on the whole affair . a master of the understated , cox strings together a series of memorable moments . in andreas’ dream sequence , amidst the roar of the train and conversations , we get the whole picture of andreas and claire’s love . we also get glimpses into john and claire’s relationship . during a silent candlelit dinner shortly afterward , claire admits to john about her indiscretion , telling more than any monologue could . all that’s heard is the scraping of forks against plates . the characters are unlike anything i’ve seen — they’re people . so many times , movies and especially television portray senior citizens as gratingly spunky . or they’re reduced to comedic buffoons . ordinary people with a pile of emotions , claire and andreas aren’t sure what the next step is . they do want to be happy , which consists of an entirely different set of conditions than what they’ve known throughout their adult lives . bravo to cox , who wrote the script , for not making john a monster , so that claire’s affair is automatically justified . norris is so effective as john that he makes andreas and claire’s love difficult to accept . we feel for him . he’s a decent man . sure , he may have become complacent , but he never expected this , especially now . with so much presented to the audience , it’s only expected that the material gets a little drawn out and repetitive , which it does . however , in bringing up tough questions and not offering easy answers , cox displays a skill and ? lan isn’t likely to be surpassed by anyone anytime soon .
0 disney’s ” air bud ” tells a boy-and-his-dog story with a twist — the pooch is quite an accomplished basketball player . granted , for a family comedy , it’s not a very funny or successful idea to begin with , but it doesn’t seem to matter — ” air bud ” is surprisingly solemn . save for occasional moments of forced slapstick , the movie wags its tale with a straight face — not a very enjoyable approach . if ” air bud ” had realized its own absurdity , then it possibly could have been better . here , we’re actually asked to cheer a moment when the dog marches out to save the big game , clad in two pairs of sneakers and even a jersey . its number ? k9 . yeah , whatever . the movie opens as golden retriever buddy ( as himself ) escapes from his current owner , abusive clown-for-hire norm snively ( michael jeter ) . he ends up in fernwell , washington , where mopey new-kid-on-the-block josh ( kevin zegers ) is trying to cope with the move and the recent death of his father . buddy , kevin . kevin , buddy . once the dog proves his on-court prowess , kevin’s self-esteem rockets . they both win places in the school’s basketball team , with the animal as their mascot . but before they can make it to the finals , snively surfaces to reclaim buddy . everything plays out just as one would think : heavy on predictability , light on an actual story . the movie follows a calculated chain of events — kevin’s gloom fades , snively gets his comeuppance and buddy contracts rabies and must be executed old yeller-style . okay , that last one’s a lie , but at least it would have been a quicker send-off than ” air bud ” ‘s courtroom climax — no joke ! there’s even a faux-cute musical montage where a reluctant buddy gets cleaned-up to ” splish splash . ” paint cans are spilled and newspapers are buried , all in the name of formula . the end credits note that ” no special visual effects were used in the basketball sequences of this motion picture . ” that very well may be true , and although to see a dog sink shots is quite a sight , a movie cannot exist on feat alone . but ” air bud ” doesn’t seem to be interested in anything else . a friend of mine insists he saw buddy a while back on a segment of david letterman’s ” stupid pet tricks . ” i can’t think of a more appropriate connection — this movie is a stupid pet trick .
0 a few months before the release of star wars episode 1 , the phantom menace , 20th century fox decides to release another space film , that is a complete rip off of star wars . what is the point of this ? i do not know , but i wish it hadn’t been done , considering wing commander is definitely the year’s worst film so far . to attract people to this horrible movie , they attached the full trailer for the phantom menace . wing commander will draw large crowds , because this is the only film where you can find the phantom menace full trailer attached at this time . the trailer for the phantom menace was certainly the best part of the movie experience i had tonight . many people do not know that wing commander is based on a star wars computer game . i found this very interesting , considering this fact almost says that wing commander is a star wars movie . it is nowhere near the level of the star wars films though . freddie prinze jr . stars in the film as christopher blair . wing commander was a huge mistake for freddie . this was definitely his worst performance to date . after january’s she’s all that , i actually saw a good actor in freddie , but now all those visions have been crushed . ( for now anyway . ) christopher blair is a pilot who is a part of the battle to stop the kilrathi , a group that is trying to destroy the earth . blair’s parents also fought in the space battles , and also died there . his parents were pilgrims , so many people disrespect him because of this . blair is under the command of ” angel ” , played by saffron burrows , and he is friends with another pilot , todd ” maniac marshall ” , played by matthew lillard . matthew lillard seems to play the same role in every movie , and he does in this one too . his character as stu in 1996’s scream ( a+ ) , was a great one , but now , it seems like that same role is being played again , only in a space movie . the three are just a small part of a large group trying to stop the kilrathi before they take over earth . this plot is very flimsy , and doesn’t give a whole lot to work with at all . this explains why wing commander drags on , seeming like there is no point to any of the events that are going on . the acting is horrible in wing commander . many lines seem out of place , and are completely meaningless . the acting and dialogue was so terrible , i even found myself laughing at it . the other things which are very bad about wing commander are the special effects and the music . the special effects are very unrealistic . when looking at two ships flying side by side , it is simple to tell they are hanging and a blue screen is behind them . the explosions look very unrealistic as well . a ship will be blown up , but there will only be fire present four about one half of a second . this is very unrealistic . music pretty much accompanies the film the entire time . the music also felt like video game music , and it was very corny and annoying sounding . after we are given the plot , the film repeats itself for another hour , without any plot twists , interesting scenes , or anything important to the film . blair is forced to make jumps over other planets , and he must also fight against the kilrathi aircraft . for the entire length of the movie , it takes place in space . it is truly like you are in a video game , because you are just watching people shoot at each other in ships for a long , extended period of time . it’s not much fun to watch at all . if i wanted to watch people shoot at each other in ships , i would go watch star wars at home . at least star wars pays attention to people , myth , feelings , and has some real plot to it . the bottom line- bring on the phantom menace 20th century fox !
0 bad movies described as ” a swift descent into sinful pleasure , decay , and debauchery ” are hard to watch . bad 2000’s movies that resemble bad 1980s films are even harder to watch . shadow hours falls into the latter category , a mish-mashed train wreck of b-movie actors ( including michael dorn , aka star trek’s worf ) , an uninteresting plot , vain attempts at capitalizing on the ” underground ” scenes of seedy los angeles , and really , really bad directing and horrendous music video-esque ballistic editing that was taught to me in film school right before i decided to drop out . the film revolves around the life of michael holloway ( balthazar getty ) who is trying to restart his life with his one-dimensional wife chloe ( rebecca gayheart ) after a nasty bout of drug and alcohol addictions . michael takes a job of working the graveyard shift at the local gas station and is bombarded by the ugliness and weirdness of the nightlife of l . a . one night , he meets a strange gent named stuart ( mr . buckaroo banzai , peter weller ) . he drives a porsche , smokes french cigarettes , and drones on about life , eventually coaxing mike into exploring the ” underbelly ” of l . a . together , a tour of punk bars , s&m clubs , and bare-knuckle fights . the film then throws in a murder mystery with a cop played peter greene , acting like he wants to get the chance at a reprisal of his role in the mask 2 . the film then simply dissolves into a cheap rip-off of dante’s inferno mixed with an old stephen j . cannell television pilot . the pace of the film is jarring and utterly without focus . other horrors include the endless montages of people pumping gas and the charlie sheen , johnny depp , richard grieco-esque acting of balthazar getty . peter weller clearly knows his career is completely gone and doesn’t give two shits about it . and after the cheap exploitation of bondage clubs , dance clubs , and brothels – damn , isn’t anyone safe any more from the ugly eye of hollywood ! ? way back in 1984 , a great but crazy director named abel ferrara made his worse film and called it fear city . shadow hours reminds me of an almost perfect sequel . director/writer : isaac eaton producers : peter alevey , andrea mia , shon greenblatt , balthazar getty starring : balthazar getty , peter weller , rebecca gayheart , peter greene , frederic forrest , brad douriff , michael dorn
0 bruce willis needs to stay away from straightforward action pictures . mercury rising adds to a growing list ( including such stinkers as the jackal , last man standing , striking distance and the last boy scout ) of stale actioners he has headlined . and though mercury rising tries to spice things up by throwing an autistic kid in the mix , it is every bit as stale . art jeffries ( bruce willis ) is your typical tormented fbi agent . you know the type , haunted by his job , yet so good at what he does that even physically assaulting another agent merely gets him a slap on the wrist . enter simon ( miko hughes ) , an autistic boy , who , like rain man and all other autistic people , is a savant . he can merely gaze at a super-encrypted message , and , while little computer beeps go off in his head , he can understand what it says . naturally , this talent has brought him to the attention of the federal government . lt . col . nicholas kudrow ( alec baldwin ) , an nsa official bubbling over with evil , has spent countless time and money implementing the newest ” unbreakable ” code , mercury . however , when two of his underlings ( robert stanton and bodhi pine elfman ) publish a mercury-encrypted message in a puzzle magazine as a final test of its effectiveness , simon cracks the code . naturally , this infuriates kudrow , who sends a terminator-like hitman ( l . l . ginter ) to eliminate the security hazard . and that’s where art jeffries comes in . for some reason that’s never explained in the film , the fbi is called in to help , and through a series of intricate machinations , art becomes the sole protector of the young autistic boy . in a few unrealistic sequences , he enlists the aid of a stranger , stacey ( kim dickens ) , to help out , but she is given very little to do overall . the central concept behind mercury rising is ludicrous . why bother trying to kill the kid . . . i mean , who would know ? it’s not like the kid ( or anyone else for that matter ) knew he was cracking a government super-cypher . and even if he is eliminated , what does that help ? he’s already proven that mercury can be broken . there’s always the chance that someone else would crack it . . . but i guess without a kid in jeopardy , there’s not much of a movie here . for all its faults , the film actually starts relatively well ( once you pass the painfully familiar teaser ) . the film flirts with developing real characters , and a semblance of a plot . . . then mr . terminator the hitman appears and everything begins going downhill . . . quickly . miko hughes does a decent job , for his age , at creating a touching performance . however , don’t go to this film looking for any new insights into autism ( not that many people will ) . instead he merely becomes the latest unique partner in a routine buddy-cop movie ( think cop and a half . . . with a twist ! ) willis and baldwin are just overplaying to type . rather than creating a nuanced character , baldwin simply oozes sliminess . and for willis’ part , he simply recycles the stock role of the loner cop/fbi agent ( which he has honed in the die hard series ) . as almost an afterthought , about halfway through , the film carelessly gives him a character trait ( an addiction ) , and then drops it in the next scene . but the biggest problem with mercury rising is the screenplay . this film wasn’t well thought out at all . the film goes to extraordinary lengths to pad in as many convenient coincidences as possible . the carbon paper scene alone is unworthy of the most gullible audience member . at first the bad scenes just trickle in , but by the gruesomely bad finale they’re a veritable flood . the film’s few decent moments come in the form of bad jokes ( mainly from the geeks who developed the supercode ) . but they’re not nearly enough to make the film worthwhile . mercury rising is a thriller that you’re more likely to groan at than cheer .
0 capsule : godawful ” comedy ” that’s amazingly shabby and cut-rate , and rather bereft of laughs . i was having a bad week in my life when i saw austin powers : international man of mystery . i desperately needed something to cheer me up , or at least distract me so i could get a clear head . get some perspective . even dumb movies can do that for me , sometimes . i tried hard not to let my dejection affect my judgment , but i am certain now that austin powers would have also sucked rocks through bamboo shoots on the day i won the lottery . michael myers has taken a character that would barely have supported a five-minute sketch on saturday night live and stretched it to the length of a feature film , padding it out with toilet jokes and the sort of props-strategically-positioned-between-naked-actors-and-camera gags that benny hill got tired of fifteen years ago . the plot , what little there is of it : back in the swinging mod hep sixties ( i don’t think i’m doing a disservice to the movie’s attempted early look and feel by describing it that way ) , sexy british secret agent austin powers tangled with his nemesis dr . evil . evil launched himself into orbit and cryogenically forze himself to return decades later , when powers was out of the picture . powers also had himself frozen , and he wakes up to find the nineties a very hard time to deal with . the basic gag , that of powers’ total inability to cope with the nineties , is not so much exhausted during the course of the movie as never even really dealt with . the bulk of the movie is taken up with dumb jokes of several basic rubrics : james bond gags ( of which this movie has no end , right down to the silly character names ) , inept slapstick , toilet humor , and strategically placed props . . . the movie’s amazingly bereft of ideas , come to think of it , with a couple of bright exceptions . one is dr . evil’s son — there is a sidesplitting scene where father and son go to an encounter group , chaired by carrie fisher — and the other is a throwaway gag where austin mimics various forms of transportation from behind a couch ( it’s a visual gag — hard to describe , and hard to recommend seeing the movie for ) . a lot of sixties kitsch has been resurrected and thrown on the screen for this movie , but it’s desperate rather than clever . instead of skewering the whole thing , it’s a rather bloodless and unfunny tribute . myers himself is also desperate : he’s given an idea to play , not a character . plus , the attempts to make the character work by giving him a relationship with another sexy ( albeit ” nineties ” ) agent are a waste of time . i wanted to have the movie end with him trying yet again to get it on with her , only to have her deck him one . with a couple of exceptions , the movie misses all of its own best moments . the movie even looks cheesy , and not in a good way : i kept wondering if it had been transferred down from hi-def video or something , so grainy was the film stock in a good many scenes . the whole thing has the air of being done on the cheap . my definition of comedy is simply : did it make me laugh ? the few times that i laughed in austin powers were completely offset by the time i spent cringing and wanting out . the most damning thing i could say about the movie is that wayne and garth would most likely have shoved it into mike tyson’s shorts and sent it sailing .
0 battlefield earth is the worst film of 2000 , and i guarantee you that nothing else this year will even come close . in fact , i’ll be surprised if i see anything this bad in the next ten years . based on the novel by scientology guru l . ron hubbard , battlefield earth begins and we immediately find out two pieces of key information . it’s the year 3000 , and an alien race called the psychlos ( which sounds like a tag team of mexican wrestlers ) conquered our planet in nine minutes . ok , we are all of 10 seconds in and i have a zillion questions racing through my mind . when were we conquered ? the audience is led to believe that this happened about 1 , 000 years earlier , and if that is the case then we’re going to get into a whole bunch of problems later ( trust me . . . keep reading ) . also , why don’t we get to see earth get conquered ? how the hell do you make a popcorn sci-fi flick and not deliver the goods on the one event that sets up the film ? humans now live as cavemen or slave labor , and for the film’s first act we focus on one particular cavemen group outside of denver , colorado . they grunt and groan and babble about monsters . so , when the psychlos conquered earth , were the only humans not captured a herd of newborn babies that crawled their way to safety in the hills ? none of these characters have any knowledge of the planet being conquered ( whenever that was ) . this is definitely not the way to start an action/sci-fi film . one of the humans wanders out into the wilderness and stumbles across what he thinks is a monster , and he begins to fight it . the ” monster ” turns out to be a dinosaur from an old miniature golf course . he turns around and sees all sorts of other characters from the golf course , with some shrubs growing over them . so , in 1 , 000 years this stupid little golf course has stood the test of time , with only a few weeds growing over it ? anyway , some of the humans are captured by the psychlos led by terl ( john travolta ) a smarmy and opportunistic alien planning on stealing a recently discovered gold deposit . the cavemen ( led by barry pepper ) are forced to do their bidding or whatever , but eventually they gain the upper hand and reclaim the planet , or something . so these cavemen are able to do what earth failed to do 1 , 000 years earlier ? and , we’re supposed to believe that earth was conquered in nine minutes by a group of buffoonish aliens who can’t even handle a few cavemen ? one of the ways the humans reclaim the planet is by taking control of abandoned air force jets and using them to fight the psychlos . so jets left unattended for 1 , 000 years are still able to fly ? please , if i leave my car unattended for two weeks i have to replace every fluid and hose under the hood . why did the psychlos leave jets around anyway ? shouldn’t they have destroyed military installations during their massive nine minute campaign against us ? the psychlos refer to humans as ” man animals ” but yet dogs are still ” dogs ” . why aren’t they ” dog animals ” ? the psychlos are after mining earth’s precious resources , but for 1 , 000 years are unaware of fort knox ? why do i even care at this point ? i’m a fan of travolta’s and i’m glad to see he’s back on the a-list in hollywood ( despite the fact that he occasionally puts out crowd pleasing dreck like michael and phenomenon ) . but how did he possibly think this was a good movie ? and how did he think he was giving a good performance here ? he’s more than capable of making a menacing villain ( see broken arrow and face/off ) but whenever his character came on screen i couldn’t hold back my laughter . now despite the different facial features members of this alien race seem to have , travolta just looks like travolta . all of the other aliens have weird foreheads or other pointy bones on their face , but travolta just has a goatee . also , travolta’s acts with a sort of phony upper-class snooty accent and constantly whines about bureaucratic nonsense back on his home world . ooooo , scary villain . as a producer he should know better and as an actor he should definitely know better . you can make a dumb but good sci-fi film ( i love independence day for example ) , but there is absolutely nothing entertaining about battlefield earth . i did everything i possibly could to stay awake during the screening . . . i cleaned my glasses , walked around the theater , made a grocery list , chose my lottery numbers for the week , replayed super bowl xxv in my head ( with commercials ) . . . and still was compelled to scrutinize the insides of my eyelids . by the time we actually reach the year 3000 , people should still be avoiding this film . folks , save your cash . . don’t go see it , don’t rent it , and don’t buy it . you’d be more entertained by taking the money you’d use for this movie and just throwing it into the wind , watching it sail away ( hell , send it to us here at the jacksonville film journal . . . we’ll entertain you plenty with that kind of money ) . unless of course you’re just captivated by countless slow motion shots of barry pepper running , which is just about all you’ll come away with from this movie . that , and a headache . [editor’s note : for some reason though , the day after my screening i converted to scientology . i’m not sure why . . . something just made me feel compelled make the choice . ]
0 jet li busted onto the american action movie scene , when he stole the show in 1998’s lethal weapon 4 , with his wicked looks , his nasty moves and his undeniable charisma . it only took another two years for mega-producer joel silver to set him up in an all-american movie , primed to take over some of the empty action-hero seats left by alleged coke-head van damme and that pudgy guy named steven seagal . would this film take li past his rival asian action counterparts , namely chow yun-fat and jackie chan ? let’s find out . plot : rival chinese and black gangster organizations fall further out of favor from one another , when members of their respective families start turning up dead . that’s when badass jet li blasts into the picture to find out who the men were behind his brother’s death and to exact some of his own style of revenge . critique : three words : not enough action ! simple enough ? not enough hong kong kickass jet li action to compensate for a horribly predictable screenplay , bad actors , crappy dialogue and oh-so many over-the-top melodramatic moments . and a romance angle ? why , one must ask . . . why ? i love fight scenes and i really dig jet li too , but this little ditty barely contained three memorable action sequences , and jet , well , the poor dude was barely in the movie . and i thought this was supposed to be his big break ? how ’bout giving the slickster some more opportunities to show us his kung-fu fighting chops , slap him in a few more scenes , and give him more chances to practice his acting/english abilities ? what a letdown . even black mask was more entertaining than this glossed up , empty shell of a film . in fact , i am sure that more time was spent gathering the ” hits ” for the soundtrack of this film , than were on the so-called ” screenplay ” . i felt like i was watching a soundtrack rather than a movie most of the time . the sad part about the bad script is that it wouldn’t matter so much if the film actually had some decent actors spouting out the tacky lines . but no , save lindo and aaliyah , who weren’t too shabby , i thought the rest of the cast was picked primarily from their inability to deliver lines convincingly . and what was the deal with the whole nfl franchise deal run by some 15-year old looking guy , acting like he’s the overlord of a drug ring ? ! what a mess . then again , i don’t want it to seem like i’m complaining solely about the story which was completely foreseeable , since we all go to see these movies for the action anyway , not the story . well , i guess that’s what disappointed me the most out of this film . there were a couple of cool fight scenes with li , but simply not enough to satisfy my overall craving . also , as much as i love the way they incorporate wires and special effects in some of their stunts , a couple of the exaggerated fight scenes were simply too obvious a stunt . it should be seamless , fellas , not necessarily against the laws of gravity ! the one cool thing that was original in the movie was the way in which the director showed us some of the inside cracklings of the human body when penetrated by a blow , but that simple creative touch couldn’t save the rest of this film’s uninteresting plot movements . i’m disappointed for jet li that this film didn’t give him the real opportunity to star in a good story with many great action scenes . hopefully , the next time will be a charm for this charismatic actor . for now , i just hope that for his sake , the film’s title isn’t a premonition of the movie’s ultimate fate at the box-office .
0 one night , during a torrential downpour that flooded the streets , we went to see — what else — hard rain . ” so , are we all going to die ? ” the sheriff ( randy quaid ) asks in the story’s opening line as he evacuates his flooded town . the answer is pretty much yes , but not nearly soon enough . and to add insult to injury , the supposedly dead , regretfully , often turn out not to be so . populating this bad tv-movie-of-the-week material are a host of talented actors . one can only hope they were rewarded handsomely for acting in this hopelessly muddled picture . besides the obvious hardships of acting most scenes while dog paddling in the water , they will all receive black marks on their records for appearing in this dismal movie . graham yost’s script serves up one cliche after another for the actors , who thankfully managed to mumble quite a few of the lines . director mikael salomon’s staging is so confusing that you may have trouble figuring out what is happening . the befuddled presentation is exacerbated by peter menzies , jr . ‘s dark and ugly cinematography . the plot concerns an armored car that gets stuck in the raging water . onboard are guards tom and his uncle charlie . christian slater , who is much better in his tender roles as in untamed heart , plays tom . edward asner drops by briefly to take on the role of the soon to be dead charlie . coming to their ” rescue ” is a gang headed by jim , played on autopilot by the great actor morgan freeman . he views the loot , three million dollars worth , as his retirement plan . the entire movie is one big watery chase with the sheriff and his posse tracking jim and his gang , who are in turn after tom . along the way , tom picks up a love interest in the person of a crucifix-weapon wielding woman named karen , played in a totally wasted performance by minnie driver . the action sequences are repetitive and without much interest . they do feature lots of explosions and gunfire to keep you awake . christopher young’s emotionless score for the film has a single trait , ear-shattering loudness . the plot holes are as big as the ones in the dam that breaks , submerging the town . the characters have an infinite number of bullets and rarely do they have to bother reloading their guns . the weapons and the ammunition spend most of the time under water or being rained on but always fire perfectly . when one of the bad guys drops a gun into the water , it stays in the same place until much later when tom swims to get it , even though the swift water is so strong it is uprooting large trees . counting these improbabilities is one of the more enjoyable ways to spend your time as you wait for the characters to kill each other . the show has a single , but unprintable , good line . betty white plays an incessantly bossy wife , and , when her hen-pecked husband finally told her off , our audience roared with laughter . the show concludes with a sickening set of twists . the best that can be said of the picture is that it is merely stupefyingly awful as opposed to laughably bad . hard rain runs 1 : 37 . it is rated r for violence and would be fine for teenagers . ( the two families behind us shockingly had a half-dozen preschoolers among them . )
0 it was with a huge lack of something to do that i decided to watch this on good old upn on sunday afternoon , when the only good things on tv are the second-rate movies they show ( some are good : they showed ” total recall ” before this one ) . if you know me , i think seagal is probably the most boring action star to ever live . and this includes keanu reeves . what do i hate about seagal ? i hate how he uses one facial expression for every single threatening and non-threatening situation ( the squint ) . i hate those scenes in every movie where he goes around , bullying people up , saying stupid lines with a brooklyn accent more fake than burt reynold’s hairpiece in ” boogie nights . ” i despise how he never gets a bruise in any of his fights . i hate how every single plot twist leads to just a melodramatic fight between he and the chief villain . i hate his non-satirical messages ( in the beginning of this one , he slaps on a quote from arthur miller , which has nothing to do with the film , except it’s about brooklyn where this film takes place ) . and i hate how he’s so narcissistic that he thinks that he can actually fucking sing ( during the end credits , he has a good old hill billy rock tune sung and penned by him ) . sure , the guy’s probably a nice guy in person ( i actually found him very non-threatening when he was on letterman not too long ago ) . but the guy makes worse films than reagan did . so what’s the plot of this shit-terpiece ? well . . . something about him trying to catch a stupid-ass crook ( william forsythe ) who shot and killed his partner in broad daylight . i couldn’t believe how bad this scene was – the guy was conveniently with his family so we get the maximum emotional effect ( ahem ! ) . and forsythe even said some stupid lines to him before he took off . i’m sorry , did anyone ever hear of concealing one’s self ? so in comes ex-brooklynite seagal , who dedicates his life to catching this guy . and i just wished he had caught him in the beginning , then ended the film . but noooo , this drags on , as he bullies forsythe’s family members ( including a stupid bar-owner , and none other than gina gershon as his other bar-owner sister ) . and forsythe more than once threatens his family . at one point , he actually comes to their house and stalks them like a non-threatening nicholson in ” the shining ” ( complete with them all hiding in the bathroom , but with an added bonus of one girl conveniently loosing her cool and screaming to give them away ) . seagal paints himself as a lovable person , with a son , and a fiancee . he even shows him hanging with his son , checking up on his homework , and then about to take him out for a bit of ” catch , ” when he’s conveniently called away on assignment . i dunno about you , but playing ” catch ” with seagal was one of my childhood nightmares . he also shows him as that bad-ass he wants to be , with scenes of him bullying crooks around , and taking out people who are stupid enough to attack him even after he’s unarmed a chinese guy swinging bats with a pool cue . serves them right . this film , as some of his do , has an interesting supporting cast of actors who are actually talented , but don’t appear to be in this film . i already mentioned gina gershon ( who’s pretty horrible in this one ) , as well as william forsythe , who over-acts terribly . i know this guy can act : he was awesome in ” raising arizona ” as goodman’s partner in crime . but he’s just awful here . jerry orbach gives the only credible performance in the film as the police chief who checks up on segal after things have gone down . why is he the only one who gives a good performance ? well , because his role is small enough and sporadic enough to not tarnish his credibility . he seems to be in here just to give it a cool ” law and order ” feeling ( even if it’s not a ” cool ” feeling ) . and in cameos are b-rated erotic-thriller-cinemax-style stars , shannon whirry ( as ” terry malloy , ” which is more of a bad joke than a clever one ) and athena massey . oh ! and ” er ” ‘s julliana margiulles has two scenes . ” out for justice ” just proves once again that american action films just suck . i know that there’s such a good thing as good action – he’s called john woo . but if you’re in the mood for some good old no-brainer , fun-yet-dumb action , don’t bother watching this . it’s so stupid that it’s boring .
0 vampires starts out almost in the style of a spaghetti western with an attack on a small homestead in new mexico . the house has a nest of vampires and jack crow ( james woods ) is leading a team of vampire hunters in to clean them out . while the initial imagery is a little over-dramatic , it gives way to what is a fairly decent action sequence . that is enough action to last us a while and we could , director john carpenter would let us , get to a story line . but it is not very long and there is not much plot until the next big action scene . then there is only a bit more of plot before the next action scene after that . the plot is kept to a minimum and the interesting ideas in the plot really get the short end . and that is something of a pity because the film , based on the book vampire$ by john steakley , gives us a myth for the origins of vampires and explains why vampires are so intertwined with religious imagery . this could be an interesting departure from the standard vampire film , but carpenter decides to tell us about it rather than to show it . what carpenter saves his serious screen time for a sequence of spectacular fights between hunters and vampires . there is a lot of fighting and lots of gore . anything intriguing is kept to a minimum to so it does not get in the way of pleasing the action film fans . this has not always been carpenter’s style . his 1981 version of the thing has action but also challenges the viewer to do a little thinking about the film’s central science fictional question . jack crow heads a vampire swat team , cleaning up nests of vampires with high-tech spears and crossbows . in the early part of the film his team is wiped out by a particularly mean vampire valek ( thomas ian griffith ) who has been tipped off to who crow is . now crow team is gone and he is down to himself and his sidekick tony montoya ( daniel baldwin ) . to make matters worse , he does not know the people on his own side , tony and his backers , he can trust . meanwhile jack is sure the vampires are looking for something that must be hidden somewhere here in new mexico . if this is sounding like a very tired police corruption plot with a few obvious substitutions , that’s exactly what it is . the same story looks just as well with two partner cops looking for a gang of hood who are themselves looking for a packet of heroin . but carpenter goes against a familiar principle of film : show people , don’t tell them . just about everything in the plot other than the fights we are told about in the dialog and not shown . fundamental questions in the plot like where does crow get his funding , why are the vampires in new mexico–what do they want and why do they want it , what is the connection of the vampires and the catholic church , how did crow come to be a vampire hunter and why devote his life to it ? the answers to any of these questions could have been dramatized , but instead are revealed through dialog . now if all this was not bad enough , carpenter misuses the james wood persona . woods plays a particular sort of cool lowlife very well . but carpenter leads off the film by having woods do some sergio-leone- style mythic posturing . while his crew prepares for an attack he stands staring fixedly through shades at the house that will be his target . woods does not work as a larger than life mythic hero . that is not his style and it just does not work very well . there are some simple things that carpenter should be looking for as director that he misses . in one scene we are looking at a motel room with dead people on the floor . one female corpse is on the floor in front of a chair so that there is about an inch of daylight between her and the chair . as the actress breathes the gap widening and narrowing makes it obvious her arm is moving up and down . one also wonders how the existence of vampires is kept secret . these vampires do not maintain a low profile . there are arguably logical flaws in the film . there is some question in my mind whether carpenter has a consistent policy on what effect bullets have on vampires . it would take some rationalization to explain why in some scenes sunlight has a dramatic effect on vampires , yet in a scene toward the end a vampire can walk under a burned roof that lets him be swept by beams of sunlight . i suspect that the book on which this film was based was better thought out . while i might recommend this film to an action audience i would say that what i look for in a vampire film vampires rates a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale . perhaps i will read the book .
0 when considering david fincher’s latest film , ” the game ” , four words come to mind . ” don’t believe the hype . ” this michael douglas vehicle , from the director of ” seven ” , isn’t nearly as clever or innovatively suspenseful as it would have us believe . the film draws us in with an intriguing concept ( aided no doubt by the riveting trailer ) where a jaded millionaire ( douglas ) is presented with the opportunity to enter into a living fantasy . this isn’t simply virtual reality . this is real life with a deadly twist . on his 48th birthday , nicholas van orton ( douglas ) is invited to dinner by his underachieving younger brother , conrad ( sean penn ) . conrad has a special birthday present for his brother . he hands nicholas a gift certificate and tells him to contact a company called consumer recreation services . ” they make your life fun , ” conrad tells him . nicholas humors his brother , telling him he’ll call , but it’s clear he has no time for any foolish , ” fantasy role-playing , ” as he calls it . then , for reasons that are never really made clear , nicholas decides to go to crs and see what they’re all about . he ends up spending a whole day going through their screening process , which to me made no sense considering the tight schedule he keeps claiming to have . nevertheless , when it seems nicholas has been rejected as a crs client , the weird things start happening . of course , when we’ve only covered about 30 minutes of screen time , what else should we expect . douglas has built his modern career around playing powerful , violent and unlikable men being manipulated by unseen hands . one of those films , ” basic instinct ” , came from the creative minds of writer , joe eszterhas and director , paul verhoeven . the premise of ” the game , ” is not unlike the concept of another verhoeven film , ” total recall . ” in that case , the premise was implanting someone else’s memories as a way to enhance one’s own life through a dream vacation . yet , in both films , the real goal is to create a vicarious bond with the audience . we live the adventure along with the protagonist , reacting to each twist and turn . in theory , the key to the suspense is not being to tell what is real and what isn’t . all we can do is hang on until the end of the ride , when the truth is finally revealed . now , for those of you who forgot , let me say this again . ” don’t believe the hype . ” ” the game ” is not a thrilling roller coaster ride . as a suspense-thriller , it doesn’t do much but spin in circles . by the third reel , i was fighting back sleep and checking my watch as i endured the predictable plot . is it any wonder douglas won’t be able to resist the charms of a mysterious , potentially life-threatening blonde ( ever heard of glenn close ? no ? well , how about sharon stone ? thought so ) . if anything in this film surprises you at all , i would guess you haven’t seen that many films . there is no suspense here . trust me , i looked hard to find some . i had to settle for contrived gimmicks and ridiculously implausible situations . fincher aim’s for hitchcock but lands somewhere just north of joe eszterhas . there are those that might say ” the game ” is not intended to be viewed literally . i would submit that is exactly the way i tried to view the film . the film simply does not have the teeth to bite into any real psychological issues . there is a moment early in the film where van orton , realizing his game has begun , smiles as he walks through the airport trying to figure out who’s in on the whole thing . he is charged by his paranoia . he is looking at the world through new eyes . it is the last thought-provoking moment in the film . from there on , the director only wants to stay a step ahead of us . any significant archetype that is set up in the beginning of the film is simply turned into a plot device . at the outset , we’re told each ” game ” is tailored to the individual . ultimately , this ” game ” is supposed to work like a crucible , trying this obscenely wealthy and emotionally detached aristocrat by fire , proving his soul . yet , as douglas endures his personal gauntlet , we’re given very few pieces of the puzzle to illuminate us on who this man really is . i wanted to like this film more than i did . i look at it as just anothergreat idea , poorly realized . i can think of at least two other superior films where watching the film didn’t mean we were seeing what was really happening . bryan singer’s ” the usual suspects ” for one , a film that was truly unique in its ability to get you lost in the details before pulling back to show you the full masterpiece on the canvas . also , there is the underrated ” jacob’s ladder , ” with tim robbins , a film that really has to be watched twice before you recognize the significance of all its symbolism . here are two examples of films that don’t simply manipulate for manipulations’ sake . there are films that use their labyrinth structure to lead us to a meaningful place . one major issue that comes up in ” the game ” is whether or not the whole ” illusion ” is just a highly sophisticated con game . well , i can tell you right now , after you’ve spent your $7 dollars , you may be asking yourself the same thing .
0 weighed down by tired plot lines and spielberg’s reliance on formulas , _saving private ryan_ is a mediocre film which nods in the direction of realism before descending into an abyss of cliches . there ought to be a law against steven spielberg making movies about truly serious topics . spielberg’s greatest strength as a director is the polished , formulaic way in which every aspect of the film falls carefully into place to make a perfect story . but for a topic of such weight as combat in the second world war ( or the holocaust ) this technique backfires , for it creates coherent , comprehensible and redemptive narratives out of events whose size , complexity and evil are utterly beyond the reach of human ken . in this way spielberg trivializes the awesome evil of the stories he films . _saving private ryan_ tells the story of eight men who have been detailed on a ” pr mission ” to pull a young man , ryan ( whose three other brothers were just killed in fighting elsewhere ) out of combat on the normandy front just after d-day . ryan is a paratrooper who dropped behind enemy lines the night before the landings and became separated from his fellow soldiers . the search for him takes the eight soldiers across the hellish terrain of world war ii combat in france . there’s no denying spielberg came within shouting distance of making a great war movie . the equipment , uniforms and weapons are superbly done . the opening sequence , in which captain miller ( tom hanks ) leads his men onto omaha beach , is quite possibly the closest anyone has come to actually capturing the unendurably savage intensity of modern infantry combat . another pleasing aspect of the film is spielberg’s brave depiction of scenes largely unknown to american audiences , such as the shooting of prisoners by allied soldiers , the banality of death in combat , the routine foul-ups in the execution of the war , and the cynicism of the troops . the technical side of the film is peerless , as always . the camera work is magnificent , the pacing perfect , the sets convincing , the directing without flaw . hanks will no doubt be nominated for an oscar for his performance , which was utterly convincing , and the supporting cast was excellent , though ted danson seems a mite out of place as a paratroop colonel . yet the attempt at a realistic depiction of combat falls flat on its face because realism is not something which can be represented by single instances or events . it has to thoroughly permeate the context at every level of the film , or the story fails to convince . throughout the movie spielberg repeatedly showed only single examples of the grotesque wounds produced by modern mechanized devices ( exception : men are shown burning to death with relative frequency ) . for example , we see only one man with guts spilled out on the ground . here and there men lose limbs ; in one scene miller is pulling a man to safety , there’s an explosion , and miller looks back to see he is only pulling half a man . but the rest of the corpses are remarkably intact . there are no shoes with only feet in them , no limbs scattered everywhere , no torsos without limbs , no charred corpses , and most importantly , all corpses have heads ( in fairness there are a smattering of wicked head wounds ) . the relentless dehumanization of the war , in which even corpses failed to retain any indentity , is soft-pedaled in the film . ultimately , _saving private ryan_ bows to both hollywood convention and the unwritten rules of wartime photography in its portrayal of wounds and death in war . rather than saying _saving private ryan_ is ” realistic , ” it would be better to describe it as ” having realistic moments . ” another aspect of the ” hollywoodization ” of the war is the lack of realistic dialogue and in particular , the lack of swearing . anyone familiar with the literature on the behavior of the men during the war , such as fussell’s superb _wartime : understanding and behavior in the second world war_ ( which has an extensive discussion on swearing ) , knows that the troops swore fluently and without letup . ” who is this private ryan that we have to die for him ? ” asks one infantrymen in the group of eight . rendered in wartime demotic , that should have been expressed as ” who is this little pecker that we have to get our dicks shot off for him ? ” or some variant thereof . conversations should have been literally sprinkled with the ” f ” word , and largely about ( the search for ) food and sex . this is all the more inexplicable because the movie already had an ” r ” rating due to violence , so swearing could not possibly have been eliminated to make it a family film . however , the most troubling aspect of the film is the spielbergization of the topic . the most intense hell humans have ever created for themselves is not emotionally wrenching enough for steven spielberg . he cannot just cede control to the material ; he has to be bigger than it . as if afraid to let the viewer find their own ( perhaps unsettled and not entirely clear ) emotional foothold in the material , spielberg has to package it in hallmark moments to give the war a meaning and coherence it never had : the opening and closing scenes of ryan and his family in the war cemetary ( reminscent of the closing scene from _schindler’s list ) , the saccharine exchange between ryan and his wife at the close ( every bit as bad as schindler’s monologue about how his car , tiepin or ring could have saved another jew ) , quotes from abraham lincoln and emerson , captain miller’s last words to private ryan , and an unbelievable storyline in which a prisoner whom they free earlier in the movie comes back to kill the captain . that particular subplot is so hokey , so predictable , it nigh on ruins the film . nowhere in the film is there a resolute depiction of the meaninglessness , stupidity and waste which characterized the experience of war to the men who actually fought in combat ( imagine if miller had been killed by friendly fire or collateral damage ) . because of its failure to mine deeply into the terrible realities of world war ii , _saving private ryan_ can only pan for small truths in the shallows . .
0 if you’re going to make a two-hour hollywood in-joke , why bother releasing it to the general public ? if you’re going to create a film that will appeal primarily to big-name actors and people who know woody allen , then why waste the time of the rest of us peons by playing it in theaters ? while watching celebrity , i realized that allen had only marginal interest in creating a story about real people . what he really wanted to do was continue on his recent kick of conceited self-deprecation . celebrity is yet another film in which allen tells a story about himself , living in a world that he’s familiar with , dealing with people like the ones he actually knows . allen recruited poor kenneth branagh to bumble through this picture , in an imitation of allen so perfect that it almost made me like the film more . branagh plays lee simon , a journalist-turned-screenwriter who divorces his wife , robin ( judy davis ) , shacks up with some hot women ( famke janssen , charlize theron , winona ryder ) , and goes about trying to get big stars ( melanie griffith , leonardo dicaprio ) to read his script about an armored car robbery . the usual elements of recent allen films are all here , including the sexual insecurity of the main character , lots of self-loathing women , and a tiring continuum of episodes that are only loosely related to one another . unless you work in the film industry or know woody allen personally , it’s not likely that you’ll find a whole lot of interest in celebrity . aside from all the in-jokes , the story falls far short of compelling , and the characters are all empty and lifeless . branagh proves once again that he’s a superb performer , nailing his imitation of allen flawlessly . the problem is that he’s the same character allen always plays , a character who’s getting more than a little dull to watch . i mean , come on , how many times have you seen this guy ? — he hates his work , and he can’t be satisfied by any one woman , and , at the end of the movie , nothing has been solved . he brings all of his problems upon himself ( crashing his car because he’s receiving fellatio , and other such stunts ) , so it’s pretty hard to care about him . in addition , isn’t allen capable of creating characters who aren’t just like him ? i know he is , but he didn’t do it in celebrity . the vacant emotional attachment with the main character is not recaptured in the supporting performances . davis , playing the same woman with low self-esteem that she played in deconstructing harry , has a few touching moments , but ends up the same despicable celebrity-type that fills the rest of the movie . some of the actresses are saved because of their beauty — theron and ryder , especially — but they’re not likable people . only famke janssen , as a book editor interested in simon’s new novel , has any life . the men in the picture don’t do much better — joe mantegna is pretty dull as the man who remarries robin , while dicaprio , as a christian slater/johnny depp-type spoiled young actor , is funny but disengaging . what’s really insulting about celebrity is how dull and standard its ” themes ” are . allen seems to think that he’s making an insightful movie about the way ” normal ” people look at celebrities . the main problem with this is that the character with whom we’re supposed to identify , simon , is not a ” normal ” guy — he’s just as entrenched in the hollywood image as the rest of the characters . the other problem is that the image we get of these celebrities is no more enlightening than the view the media gives us — none of them register as realistic , interesting characters ; they mostly just function as set pieces for boring dialogue . in addition , allen decides he needs a scene in which the theme is expressed explicitly ( robin , in this scene , says something like , ” it’s interesting to see the way we all look at the people we celebrate ! ” ) . celebrity is arguably allen’s biggest misfire to date . it does have a few good scenes — theron’s super-orgasmic model character is kind of funny , and the last scene might have been moving had the rest of the film shown us a character or two . but celebrity is a failure at the core , unless allen’s point was to make a self-indulgent movie about himself and his friends . if he wanted to make his audience feel like they were on the outside of a big joke , then he succeeded in that . i , for one , don’t enjoy feeling like an outsider .
0 it used to be that not just anyone could become a vampire . usually , you had to be an aristocrat – a count such as dracula or karnstein . to qualify , you’d have to have a modicum of sophistication , so you’d at least look cool – or suave – when biting into some young damsel’s throat . but today , in our overly politically correct world , any scuzzy-looking , long-haired , unshaven lout or any spiked-haired harridans can put the bite on you . by the same token , to be a vampire hunter , one had to have some sort of medical training and knowledge of the occult or maybe perhaps be some sort of professional soldier , or at least one who retired with honors . not in these times . all you need are some sharp weapons , some bullets forged from silver and any yahoo can be a buffy – or a blade . without sounding elitist , the fear of vampires has greatly diminished because of this lack of exclusivity . which brings us to blade , the latest in a long line of vampire movies in which , it seems , half the population is putting the bite on the other half . not only are there thousands of vampires , but they seem to move from city to city , pay off police departments and , most importantly , establish their own exclusive after-hours raves in which the highlight is the sprinkler system going off and dousing all the occupants in a blood shower . with all that blood , you wonder why they have to hunt for victims . you also wonder when they get the time to get their clothes dry-cleaned and why no cleaner ever complains about all the bloodstains . blade , which is based on a marvel comic book character , is , like a comic book , all visual . the plot is basically blade repetitiously slashing his way through the vampire army seeking their leader , deacon frost . it’s all hokum and nonsense , of course . but the filmmakers play it straight . unfortunately , at least at the advance screening i attended , the audience didn’t see it that way and laughed through much of the proceedings . you know a movie is in trouble when the scenes of blood and gore that should elicit screams of fright instead evoke peels of laughter . another tell-tale sign is when the audience seems to be admiring the hero’s costume more than the hero . also it seems it’s not enough for today’s vampire merely to have fangs . he must also be proficient in the martial arts . why a supernatural being , one of the undead , needs such skills is beyond me . ( of course , this concept dates to the 1974 hammer films-run run shaw production of legend of the seven golden vampires , in which dracula is defeated by seven karate-chopping siblings . ) wesley snipes is buff as blade . he growls his lines -the few he has – and spends most of the time glowering – as if he was suffering from indigestion or having second thoughts about starring in and co-producing this turkey . blade is just another example of how the vampire film , a once honorable member of the horror family , has gone downhill . this dud mostly makes you yearn for those quaint old days when christopher lee could be stopped just by dangling a crucifix in his face . today’s vampires lack the panache , the style of a bela lugosi or a christopher lee . they are not even worthy enough to carry those great bloodsuckers’ capes . they are more farcical than frightful . this whole enterprise is one dull blade that could have used lots of sharpening .
0 hav plenty , as we are told in the beginning and reminded during the film , is a true story . life itself is a series of true stories , but most are not movie material . as scripted , directed , and acted by cinematic newcomer christopher scott cherot , hav plenty limps along at best . its dialog is so stilted – ” you know what they say , ‘no women ; no cry . ‘ ” – that the actors are content to read the screenplay rather than invest much energy in trying to act it . in the story , lee plenty ( cherot ) is a 28-year-old author and teaching assistant . the movie , which happens mainly over the new year’s holiday , consists of a series of incidents in which various single and married women try to kiss lee or take him to bed . since he consistently refuses , caroline gooden ( tammi katherine jones ) figures that he must be gay . eventually he and havilland ” hav ” savage ( chenoa maxwell ) get together , proving that he wasn’t gay after all , just picky . sexy women can sit on his lap and ask him to go to bed with them , but he will not even kiss them . he’s a man who knows his mind , which he frequently shares directly with the audience in a series of trite and overly cute monologues . filled with wealthy african-americans , the story is closest in tone to love jones , which was better . hav plenty’s story doesn’t go anywhere . at the end it subjects us to lee plenty’s new film , which is a movie of the movie we’ve just seen , but with even worse acting . ” remember folks that , as outrageous as this all seems , this is a true story . ” hav tells the camera , but the problem is that it’s not outrageous at all or even the least bit interesting . hav plenty isn’t so much a bad film as it is a total waste of the audience’s time . hav plenty runs 1 : 32 . it is rated r for profanity and would be fine for most teenagers .
0 it seems that i’ve stopped enjoying movies that should be fun to watch . take payback , for example , a movie that most people seem to like . however , it’s horrible schlock , straight out of hollywood’s vast talent for sucking creativity out of movies . it was written and directed by a guy who should have done better ; however , maybe he did do better , after all , 30 percent of the movie isn’t his own . mel gibson , that hollywood zombie , decided he didn’t like the ending and had another director reshoot it . what a crock . if you sign on to do a movie , then do it the way the script calls for . why film a movie and then look at it later and say , – no , i changed my mind , i don’t like the ending . you’re fired . let’s get someone else to do it . – i suppose honor is dead in hollywood . the end of the film is , of course , hollywoodized . which is to say that it’s happy and the guy you root for beats impossible odds to win his prize . in this case , as is most victories in hollywood movies , gibson’s prize is a blond and money . i miss originality in film , i really do . i think audiences are so starved for it that they’ll flop down a lot of money in hopes that a movie will be original . payback’s tagline – get ready to root for the bad guy – promised an original idea , but it was far from the truth . while gibson’s character certainly broke the law , he was a character that had honor ( odd that gibson himself seems to have very little of it ) , wouldn’t kill in front of children and protects his blond woman . there’s nothing bad about him – he’s a hollywood character , a person who could never exist in real life . and gibson knows it – he spends his time trying to act like a ” bad guy ” , and instead comes off as pretentious and arrogant . the story involves gibson being double-crossed by his partner ( who is a real bad guy , which made me wish that we could root for him ) over $70 , 000 . gibson recovers from multiple gunshots , is pissed ( naturally ) , and will do whatever it takes to get the exact amount of money back – no more , no less . he makes a point of it that it’s strictly 70 grand . a real bad guy would have made his ex-partner pay 25% interest . this idea is completely stretched out . gibson ends up going after his partner and the chicago mafia that his partner is affiliated with . what i didn’t understand – this is the chicago mafia . $70 , 000 is like spare change to them . they’d probably just pay the guy rather than go through the trouble of dealing with him . i think they’d respect a guy going through this much trouble for a simple $70 , 000 . maybe i’m being too hard on the movie . perhaps the filmmakers were just trying to make a simple popcorn movie . i read roger ebert’s review and he liked gibson in the role because he is a comic at heart playing a bad guy . that’s why we’re allowed to root for him . and it’s true – gibson walks the movie as if he’s smiling at a joke he just heard . but he’s wrong here . i wanted a lee marvin or old-time clint eastwood or somebody who wasn’t a comic , just an ass kicker . as a side note , i’ve just checked the internet movie database and discovered that i am the 38th person to post a newsgroup review of payback . after this many reviews , why would anyone want to read this ? really , i don’t care . i’m just trying to gain membership into the on-line film critics society by posting as many reviews as i can .
0 note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . ” quick , robin ! the anti-shark repellant ! ” – adam west in the 1966 batman feature film , casually kicking at a pathetic-looking rubber shark attached to his leg i had never thought that an entry in the modern incarnation of the batman feature film would approach this level of campiness , but in many instances batman and robin nears , and at some point even exceeds this standard . this is a disasterously bad film , easily the worst in the series to date , and fairly epitomizes a cinematic definition of the word excessive – it’s loud , garish , and obnoxious , with pointless , gratuitous action sequences and set pieces which clutter up the screen with elaborate production design to the point of overkill . batman and robin features the caped crusaders ( george clooney debuting as batman , with chris o’donnell returing as robin ) squaring off against another bevy of chemically-induced villains – the nefarious ice-cold mr . freeze ( arnold schwarzenegger ) , armed with a weapon which freezes everything in its sights , and the slinky poison ivy ( uma thurman ) , who has the ability to blow powerful love dust into the faces of men in order so that they will fall helplessly in love with her ( not that the dust is really necessary to accomplish this result , but whatever ) , and then dispatch them with a poisoned kiss . by ivy’s side is the giant steroid monster bane ( jeep swanson ) , a grunting hulk of a beast . the villains’ goals are noble ones – freeze steals diamonds to power his climate suit ( in order to keep his body temperature at zero degrees ) , so that he can survive in order to devise a cure for his beloved wife ( vendela ) , dying of a degenerative disease and frozen in suspended animation , and ivy’s intent is to restore the dominance of plant life on earth , albeit by destroying all human life . meanwhile , on the homefront , life at wayne manor is thrown into upheaval by the illness of butler alfred pennyworth ( michael gough ) , and the arrival of his niece barbara ( alicia silverstone ) . akiva goldsman’s screenplay for the film is ridiculous and laughably bad , with astonishingly terrible dialogue , lame jokes , and an awful by-the-number plot which simply coasts along and fails to generate any genuine excitement . it makes goldsman’s screenplay of batman forever , which i thought was dreadful , look positively inspired in comparison . i am still astonished that a cheesy plot device which i’d seen used in – no joke – an episode of gilligan’s island somehow make its way into a multimillion dollar blockbuster production . joel schumacher’s direction of batman and robin is horrific , with a terrible balance of flashiness over substance . there is a clear conceit towards neon in this film , even moreso than with his previous batman forever , with the revamped batcave helpfully sporting gigantic glowing emblems for the dynamic duo ( just in case , i suppose , if they ever happen to forget that the batcave is the headquarters of batman and robin ) , and with neon prominently figuring in an utterly-pointless fight sequence with bane and a street gang over ivy’s chosen new abode . another action sequence which fails to serve any useful point other than to chew up five minutes of screentime involves an incredibly uninvolving late-night motorcycle race with barbara and some gotham goons . mr . schumacher’s focus for batman and robin appears to be to make the film as visually striking as possible , to the detriment of the story – there are drastic shifts in the tone of the film between all-out camp and heartfelt drama , with the latter completely unconvincing and ineffective . it is perhaps not the most promising of signs when the group i was with burst out laughing within twenty seconds of the film’s opening , even before a single line of dialogue had been uttered . is batman and robin supposed to be campy ? i think it is – it’s hard to imagine that the filmmakers could have intended many parts of the film to be taken at all seriously . ( one of my favourites was when bane helpfully grunted ” bomb ! ” each time he laid down an explosive device in the gotham observatory . ) is it supposed to be as overly campy as it turned out to be ? i somehow doubt it – the subplot involving afred is delivered so solemnly and with such graveness that the impression is made that the film isn’t attempting to be the utter farce which it is . arnold schwarzenegger is top-billed in the film as the villainous mr . freeze , and is bland and uninteresting , perhaps the worst thing that a villain can be . mr . schwarzenegger’s attempts to be menacing are laughable , and his attempts at conveying pathos are laughable ; frankly , everything he does onscreen is laughable . by the end of the film , i was stifling a chuckle every time he simply appeared onscreen . the bulk of his performance consists of uttering near-unintelligble puns and one-liners featuring every possible permutation of ” cool ! ” in the least inventive way . george clooney has been given very little to do in batman and robin , being overshadowed by the villains , and consequently he looks rather uncomfortable in the film . his batman is hardly an imposing figure . chris o’donnell is unimpressive in a one-note performance , while alicia silverstone lackadasically fails to make any impression at all . the film’s one saving grace ? undoubtably uma thurman’s entertaining performance as sexy villainess poison ivy . her work in batman and robin is certainly over-the-top , but in a controlled fashion which works splendidly within the tone of the film . ms . thurman’s comic timing is impeccable , and reminds us that it takes skilled performers to make campiness work successfully . ( i’m already starting to positively reassess jim carrey’s performance in batman forever . ) her amusing poison ivy is the most entertaining character in the film , and when she’s offscreen the film greatly suffers . i figure that if one has to die , being kissed to death by uma thurman isn’t a half-bad way to go . while batman and robin was hardly a ride of pulse-pounding excitement , i must admit that i was not bored watching it , although i did glance at my watch repeatedly through the screening – my attention was kept through anticipation of the utterance of yet another terrible pun or one-liner , and by awaiting yet another scene to fall flat . it’s been a long time since i’ve laughed so much at a movie . ” at ” , of course , is the operative word .
0 everything about this ninth trek movie seems on the cheap , from the roger corman-grade special effects to its highly derivative and ugly ad campaign ( the poster is nearly identical to that of star trek vi : the undiscovered country ) . but piller’s not-quite-half-baked screenplay should ultimately claim responsibility for insurrection’s failure . i’m about to give the same advice to rick berman and co . as i’ve given to the financiers of james bond movies : it’s time to breathe life into this workhorse by hiring solid genre writers and a real director . ( while we’re at it , put that visor back on laforge ! ) for three hundred years , the ba’ku species ( who look just like humans ) have lived on a ringed-planet that might as well be called the fountain of youth . six hundred of them occupy the briar patch , the area affected by metaphasic radition , a positive energy that reverses the aging process in the elderly . but evil ru’afo ( this is probably abraham’s last stop before performing ” amadeus ” at a dinner theatre near you ) , leader of the son’a ( who look just like burn victims after reconstructive surgery ) , wants to relocate the ba’ku and movie his people onto the briar patch in their place , in order to replenish his dying breed . the federation is all for this , but picard feels this is a direct violation of the prime directive : to not interfere with the development of an alien race . ( never mind that the ba’ku didn’t exactly evolve-they went wandering in the universe one day and stumbled upon the magic world . ) every time frakes gives an interview lately , he seems to top whatever ludicrous statement he last gave regarding this installment . he has called it a comedy , a thinking man’s picture , a throwback to the old series , and , most grievously , he has likened it to a john ford western . ( i presume that’s some john ford he went to school with , not the director of the searchers . ) he has also gone on record as saying paramount recut the film from his version . that’s no excuse-someone generated this footage . muddy cinematography and sitcom sets are the least of its problems ; star trek : insurrection appears to have been beamed in from the planet plotholia . consider such curiosities . . . picard’s love interest , anij ( donna murphy ) , can slow things down by staring at them ( such as a waterfall or falling rocks ) -her scientific explanation for this ? ” don’t ask . ” worf gets a pimple ( he’s re-experiencing klingon puberty thanks to the time-defying atmosphere ) , laforge regains his eyesight ( trust me , levar burton’s real eyes are scarier than those electronic lenses he wore in first contact ) and troi brags about her firm boobs , but picard remains as bald as an android’s butt . most suspiciously , what exactly is the problem with letting this endangered race have a little fun in the sun ? the filmmakers cloud the issue with some nonsense about a family feud of sorts , and they also turn ru’afo into a completely power-mad superfreak , just so the characters will have something to do in the climax . ( and if you’ve seen return of the jedi , you’ve seen the ending of this movie . ) didn’t picard himself previously disobey the prime directive when he prevented the borg from assimilating millions ? frakes lucked out with first contact , and repeat viewings of that film reveal the seeds of what went wrong in his direction of insurrection : he has no sense of comic timing , and he mines for acting chemistry where none exists . ( take a look at the painful ” troi gets drunk ” scene in fc and you’ll get the general idea of insurrection’s unsuccessfully jokey and hollow tone . ) even the worst shatner and co . treks , like the final frontier , maintained a watchability thanks to the effortless , charming comaraderie between kirk , spock , and bones . neither first contact nor insurrection has any idea what to do with crusher ( gates mcfadden , whom i must say maintains a fabulous physique ) , troi , or laforge . and all three next generation films spend too much time on data , who is the franchise’s answer to urkel . need a cheap laugh ? have data say something sexual , or start singing , or lift up a four hundred pound boulder as if it’s the hunk of styrofoam it really is . here’s my proposed title for number 10 : data star data trek : data data data data data . in this movie , data will become preoccupied with learning to blow his nose , while crusher and troi watch silently from 500 yards away and laforge points his sinister gaze at the android in doubly robotic observation . star trek : insurrection had one nice , eerie , silent moment that hints at a better , darker film . i’m not saying all of them should be star trek ii : the wrath of khan , but this one boldly went where no movie should go again .
0 this is one of the worst big-screen film experiences i’ve had for a while . with this film , plus `showgirls’ and `basic instinct’ , paul verhoeven has stamped himself as currently one of the worst blockbuster directors . his celebrated film `total recall’ was ? i admit ? successfully scripted , but it nonetheless contained directorial flaws . obviously nobody wanted to invest too much money in a production from someone like verhoeven , the result being that much of the special effects in `starship’ seemed fake . but not everything bad in the film was the director’s fault , even though he was one of the guys who employed the actors . it is surprising that none of the actors received nominations for the razzie awards ( i expected five for the acting categories ) . casserole vanity devoid , dense ribald , dingy miasma , and jackass bushy are in serious need of acting school . no , they have to pass primary school drama classes first . while `total’ was written well , `starship’ is purely pathetic . all right , it is supposed to be a fast-paced entertainment film , and you’re supposed to turn off your intellect ( completely ) and enjoy the action sequences and special effects ( that is , guts and gore ) . as a matter of fact , i found the activity incredibly boring , a complete waste of more than two hours . half of the film was a bad episode of `beverly hills 90210′ ( dina meyer was in ” beverly hills ” ) , while another quarter was simply nothing ( things like presenting irrelevant information in an irritating way on the web ) , and the rest was a display of humans fighting computer-generated images . the battles were all the same ? jumping around , shoot or get stabbed ? and on barren planets that only had giant insects . there weren’t even any stunts , which i consider slightly more exciting than pictures running around . i wonder what the insects eat , if there’s nothing but them on the planets ? there is so much laughable treatment in this film , and it is frankly not amusing when jokes are intended . this type of story is obviously aimed at 10-year-olds , who can’t see it anyway because of the violence and some sexuality . but then , there are always 16-year-olds who have that frame of mind . the pointless plot begins when johnny’s ( vanity devoid ) girlfriend carmen ( richards ) decides that she wants to join the troopers to fight the insects who are throwing asteroids at earth . johnny then signs up as a trooper also , after an overacted argument with his parents . but there is another girl , dizzy ( meyer ) , who likes johnny and then there is another boy who likes carmen , which results in a love quadrangle , which isn’t better , because it means augmented worse-than-stereotyped soap opera , increased bitchiness , and more bad beverly hills + melrose . and the result of this love quadrangle at the end is also rather stupid . anyway , getting back to the thing you might call plot , johnny is too stupid to be a pilot and has to join the infantry , while his girl and the other dude are in the same league . dizzy comes chasing johnny and joins the infantry also . they then start training , which contains what roger ebert calls ips ( idiot plot syndrome , moments when only an idiot would have made such obvious mistakes ) , then real combat . and guess what ? that’s about as complex as it gets . oh , and one of their friends , carl ( neil patrick harris a . k . a . doogie howser m . d . ) , becomes involved in war intelligence , and his abilities at the end are really corny and make me want to spray insecticide on someone for it . he’s my fifth nom for a razzie . the troopers fight , fall in love , die , kill , and try to act . naturally , they win , or sort of half-win . of course , in between ( and at the end ) there are soldiers chatting and smiling while carrying grievous wounds caused by bug legs . the bugs also suffer from ips : why would you release hold of your captive before killing it ? isn’t it also amazing that earthlings haven’t invented better hand-held weapons by then ? the only question that remains is why i gave it one star instead of zero . well , maybe a-quarter ( of a star ) for the originality of the co-sex shower scene and the ( very ) brief moments of suspense , another quarter for copying `zulu’ and letting the good guys ( the bugs ) win , and half a star for the sucking-out of the brain of one of those people who call themselves actors ( but there should have been more , the troopers deserved to die ) .
0 phew , what a mess ! for his fifth collaboration with director rich- ard donner ( lethal weapon i-iii , maverick ) , mel gibson plays a motormouth , maybe mentally ill new york city cabbie , jerry , whose wild conspiracy theories are all but ignored by alice ( julia roberts , acting all serious ) , the justice department employee that he has a crush on . she not interested , but another person is : a cia psychiatrist ( patrick stewart ) who promptly kidnaps him . is one of jerry’s conjectures correct ? * is * the metal strip in the new $100 bill being used to track your movements ? is oliver stone still alive , because he cut a deal with george bush to spread * dis * information ? is this movie really about * any * of the crazed cabbie’s theories ? no , no , and no . as it turns out , there’s some other nonsense going on here , involving and revolving around jerry’s background . ( hint : pay attention to an early scene where jerry blacks out and flashes back , in quick succession , to images of an interrogation room , hypodermic needles , and ms . roberts herself . ) the * initial * premise is pretty good and is played , for a while , at a delightfully dizzying clip . mel is wider-open that we’ve ever seen him and , if his character’s relationship with roberts’ initially strains credibility , their combined star power is blissfully intoxicating . ( the highest wattage of the summer , perhaps ? ) even when the plot contrivances begin to intrude , the two remain a randy dandy screen pair . there’s a great scene in jerry’s fortress , er , apartment , with alice trying to act casual as her hyperactive host tries to remember the combination to a locked coffee bean container . ( which he stores in another locked con- tainer , his fridge . ) other hilarious moments , of which there are many , include a trio of memorable convention-breakers , where alice ditches a tail , jerry cold-cocks someone , and , later , eludes a foot pursuit , each in a uproariously unexpected fashion . ( that’s donner’s own ladyhawke playing in the theater , btw . ) let’s see , other pleasures include . . . a brilliant title sequence , a jazzy score from carter burwell , and the worth-paying-to-see sight of roberts pumping lead into one bad guy and slamming another’s head into a wall . oh , pretty woman ! getting to the latter , however , requires slogging through an increasingly overburdened and ultimately unappealing story . the last hour of conspiracy theory devolves from tolerable to torturous to almost unwatchable . more stuff happens of the stupid shit variety than is worth mentioning here , except , perhaps , for a late sequence that has alice locating jerry in an abandoned wing of a mental hospital by hearing his voice carrying through the air ducts . and here i thought it was wabbit season . good god , who rewrites these movies ? and do they arrive in nondescript black vehicles ?
0 in french , the phrase ” film noir ” literally means ” black film . ” webster defines it as ” a type of crime film featuring cynical malevolent characters in a sleazy setting and an ominous atmosphere that is conveyed by shadowy photography and foreboding background music . ” classic film noir , including such memorable fare as ” the big sleep , ” the original ” cape fear , ” and orson welles’ striking ” a touch of evil , ” employed black and white photography to emphasize the long shadows associated with the genre . color came into play with neo-noir films like ” chinatown ” and ” blade runner . ” ” l . a . confidential , ” easily the best film of 1997 , is a wonderful piece of contemporary neo-noir filmmaking . for a textbook example of how to take all the elements of neo-noir and create an absolute mess , there’s ” palmetto . ” based on ” just another sucker , ” a short story written by british author rene raymond under the pseudonym james hadley chase , ” palmetto ” shows what happens when a filmmaker puts style ahead of substance . director volker schlondorff ( ” tin drum , ” the handmaid’s tale ” ) stated ” we weren’t even sure for a long time if it was going to be a thriller or a comedy . ” it shows . ” palmetto ” is too preposterous too be taken seriously as a thriller and too ponderous to work as a comedy . the story begins when journalist harry barber ( woody harrelson ) is released from prison . someone turned state’s witness and revealed that harry was framed , a ” reward ” for blowing the lid on corruption in the small florida town of palmetto . bitter and broke , harry plans to hitchhike to miami and start his life over , but ex-girlfriend nina ( gina gershon ) appears to return him to palmetto . while hanging out at a bar , he notices that a beautiful woman has left her purse in a phone booth . harry pockets her cash , only to have the woman reappear and catch him with her money in his pocket . no problem , though . the radiant blonde is rhea malroux ( elisabeth shue , ) the young wife of a very rich older man with heart problems , and she has a proposition for harry . rhea needs ” a threatening voice and someone to collect the ransom ” for the staged kidnapping of her teenage stepdaughter odette ( chloe sevigny . ) the girls want to bilk a half-million dollar ” ransom ” from the old man and will happily give harry $50 , 000 for helping with the scam . things go wrong , of course . odette is found dead , leaving harry frantically trying to dispose of the corpse and cover his tracks . in an ironic twist , harry is asked to work for the local d . a . ‘s office . they need a press liaison to field questions about odette’s kidnapping and feel that harry is the perfect man for the job . not a bad set-up for a noir film , if only schlondorff knew how to handle the material , but he never settles on a consistent tone . the actors don’t know what to do with their characters either , muddling the proceedings even further . as if that wasn’t enough , the story suffers from major problems in logic . woody harrelson is a talented actor with an admirable willingness to take on risky parts , but he’s lost here . presented as a crusading journalist who was horribly wronged , it makes no sense that harry would be stupid and dishonest enough to get caught up in this scheme . harrelson clearly doesn’t know what to do with harry’s character , so he spends most of the film glowering , sweating and generally acting miserable . meanwhile , elisabeth shue gives a goofy performance , behaving like a vamp on nitrous oxide . as the stepdaughter , chloe sevigny lays on so many slurpy quirks that she comes off like juliette lewis jr . despite a number of steamy scenes , there’s no chemistry between harrelson and the women . to make matters worse , schlondorff badly dubs in dialogue while the character’s lips are running over each others bodies . two particularly bad scenes highlight the film’s problems . while driving with a body in his trunk , harry has a minor car wreck and a cop shows up . the officer wants to help change harry’s flat tire and asks him to open the trunk . harry’s pathetic attempts to keep the trunk closed might have worked if played as comedy , but under schlondorff’s grim direction , the scene is just embarrassing . the film’s nadir comes when a bad guy prepares to kill harry and nina . we’re supposed to be horrified watching our hero dangling over a bathtub filled with acid , but by this point the film has foundered so badly that the scene is merely reminiscent of when jessica and roger rabbit were suspended over a vat of dip . had ” palmetto ” been played with tongue firmly in cheek , it might have been an entertaining shaggy dog story . but under the harsh direction of schlondorff , the film is just a sluggish paint-by-numbers exercise in neo- noir cluelessness . avoid this nonsense and go see ” l . a . confidential ” instead .
0 plot : lara croft is british , rich and kicks a lot of ass . she also likes to raid tombs but when the illuminata discover that all nine planets are about to stand in alignment for the first time in 5000 years , and that lara holds the key to time , well , needless to say , they want to nab it from her . oh yeah , lara also likes to sport a lot of tight shirts . . . hummana-hummana-hummana . . . critique : angelina jolie was great in this movie . there were also about three ” action scenes ” that were pretty cool to look at in this film . uhhhhhm , unfortunately the rest of the movie sucked ! bad dialogue , generic sidekicks and bad guys , a lame mystery , yoda-esque moments with mumbo-jumbo being sprouted about and even some crappy cgi near the end . all in all , this movie wasn’t the horror show that some of the early reviews had warned us about , especially since every other scene does feature jolie’s torpedoes begging to burst out of her lucky shirts , but it was quite the letdown nonetheless , especially when you consider the major opportunity that the filmmakers had here to create a cool , hip woman hero , based on a popular video game . i don’t know , i guess you have to put most of the blame on director simon west , who didn’t really tie the whole movie together all that well . the film lacked energy , a consistent pace and well . . . a fun time ! i felt kinda depressed while watching this movie . all that ” father ” crap was horrible and the dialogue given to poor john voight to recite was just plain embarrassing ( and i’m not even gonna mention his moustache . . . hehehe ) . why have this shite in the movie at all ? ! ? i especially hated the scenes in which some ghost-like figure , friend or child would ramble on about lara croft’s father while all the time , i’m not giving one ounce of crap as to what they’re talking about . i guess that’s called lack of ” character development ” , right ? that’s when a movie builds enough background into the characters on the screen , so that we could actually ” get into ” it and care about them . i didn’t care about anyone in this movie , and was bored during most of its ” let’s explain why we’re doing all this gobbledygook ” moments . and even though i thought that jolie kicked some mighty ass ( damn , did she look sexy blasting those guns or what ? ! ? ) , everybody else around her was so goddamn boring ! her butler was a throwaway with no personality , her side-kick was supposed to be funny but just annoyed me every time he said the word ” bugger ” ( and he says it a lot , trust me ! ) and all of the so-called bad guys just spewed one-dimension ! they had no spark , no energy amongst them , and even though a few of the action scenes in the movie were cool ( see the trailer and you’ll know which ones i’m talking about ) , the overall picture was lame and the dialogue and mystical bull-crap just buried it even further . also , for a movie that’s supposed to be about all of these exotic locations , i wasn’t necessarily impressed by any of its exterior shots , and even less so with its interiors , which all looked like they were shot in the same room . mind you , i won’t go as far as to say that it’s the ” worst movie of the year ” ( remember that i actually have to go see freddie prinze jr . movies also ! ) , but it’s definitely the worst film that i’ve seen during this summer movie season ( of course , it’s still early and i’m sure there are a few more garbage heaps coming down the pike ) . skip this one altogether and rent any of the indiana jones movies instead . . . trust me , you’ll miss the boobs but end your night with some rock-solid porn and it’s all good ! where’s joblo coming from ? raiders of the lost ark ( 10/10 ) – the mummy ( 8/10 ) – lost in space ( 7/10 ) – the mummy returns ( 6/10 ) – the general’s daughter ( 3/10 ) – romancing the stone ( 7/10 ) – wild wild west ( 3/10 ) – mission impossible 2 ( 7/10 )
0 it happens every year — the days get longer , the weather gets warmer and the studios start releasing their big-budget blockbusters . this year’s crop already seems inferior to that of past summers , even 1997’s lackluster trio of batman & robin , the fifth element and the lost world . the marketing blitz in 1998 has been centered on godzilla ( ” heeere , lee-zerd , lee-zerd . . . ” ) , which doesn’t make me optimistic about future summers . godzilla is , of course , based on a series of cult movies ( translation : really bad movies only a few people can tolerate ) from japan that turn up really late at night on ted turner-owned cable stations . that this big-budget remake won’t rise above its roots is fairly obvious . the credits show us the origin of godzilla . in five words : nuclear explosion creates giant lizard . sounds like an enquirer headline , doesn’t it ? the mushroom cloud is followed by the inevitable ” discovery ” sequence . this time , a japanese guy is eating noodles with chopsticks while watching sumo wrestling ( if that ain’t a stereotype . . . ) when he discovers the telltale radar blip . people die . cut to our protagonist , played by matthew broderick . he makes his first appearance wearing headphones , warbling along to ” singin’ in the rain . ” it’s a none-too-subtle sign that he wishes he were in a classier movie . no dice , bueller . from the beginning , poor matthew has to do embarassing things like fondle giant earthworms and stand in godzilla’s enormous footprint . every disaster movie has to have a know-it-all scientist , and this time broderick is it . as the world’s leading expert on radiated earthworms ( and wouldn’t you love to have that printed on your business card ? ) , broderick is invaluable to the government . he immediately dispels vicki lewis’ theory that godzilla is a dinosaur because , hey , you can’t take seriously the intellectual arguments of ” newsradio ” cast members . broderick instead hits the nail on the head , announcing godzilla is a radiated lizard . ” the radiation isn’t an anamoly , ” he announces , and lightning strikes . ” i believe this is a mutated abberation , ” he continues , and lightning strikes again . it’s vocabulary lightning , you see , activated by words of four syllables or more . meanwhile , we’re introduced to our new york cast , headed by an ambitious broadcast journalist ( maria patillo ) , broderick’s former love . gee , what are the odds their paths will cross again at a dramatically important time ? poor patillo has been trying to get ahead in the news business for years but has been held down by heartless anchorman harry shearer . italian cameraman hank azaria tells her she’s not ruthless enough : ” nice doesn’t get you anywhere in this town . it’s dog eat dog . ” actually , it’s lizard eat city , as godzilla emerges from the atlantic to begin a rampage on the big apple’s core . the filmmakers provide us with a one-note drunk fisherman who hooks godzilla . ” i think i’ve got a bite , ” he announces as a gigantic tidal wave begins rushing toward him . you can guess what happens next . similar reactions spring forth as the monster prowls the city . hearing the rumble of approaching footsteps , one new yorker remarks , ” please don’t tell me that’s another parade . ” please don’t tell me that’s the best line you could come up with . mayor ebert is not pleased . played by the principal from ” head of the class , ” he continually makes the wrong decision when given an option , and bickers with his assistant gene . i guess the filmmakers knew they’d be getting two thumbs down from the critics and didn’t even bother to kiss ass . the problem is , if you’re going to attack siskel and ebert , you should at least make it funny . dialogue like , ” didn’t we agree that we weren’t going to have any sweets until after the election ? ” followed by , ” back off , gene , ” just doesn’t work for me . other lame running jokes include everyone mispronouncing the broderick character’s last name and frenchman jean reno’s inability to find a good cup of coffee in new york . there’s even more fun to be had as godzilla progresses . as the beast heads back into hiding , broderick suggests the military lure it out with food . cue twelve dump trucks , all dropping fish into a new york intersection . ( broderick : that’s a lot of fish . ) that ambush fails , but broderick soon figures out why godzilla came to new york by buying $50 worth of home pregnancy tests and running lizard blood through them . yep , godzilla’s with children , which makes you wonder just what kind of creature would be horny enough to have sex with godzilla . that’s until broderick explains that godzilla reproduces asexually , like linda tripp . godzilla comes to us from the makers of independence day , so it has a lot of dumb action scenes , destructive special effects and shallow subplots . look no further than patillo’s betrayal of broderick ( patillo : what have i done , animal ? what have i become ? ) and the climactic ” godzilla’s nest ” sequence in madison square garden . the main difference is , independence day was about the experience . it had a real global , patriotic element to it , and some genuinely fun characters . godzilla has lots of rain and lightning , reptilian action ripped off from jurassic park and endless product placement from the likes of kodak , blockbuster , juicy fruit , swatch , sprint and bumble bee tuna . yes , bumble bee actually paid to be known as the official tuna of godzilla . that fact alone is twice as interesting as anything in the movie .
0 i heard actor skeet ulrich discussing this film in a couple of interviews , and in both instances , he felt the strange compulsion to compare it a little series of films called lethal weapon . now , i personally remember those films as a ) starring a major motion picture star b ) being funny c ) having great action sequences d ) great chemistry e ) decent character development . hmmm . . . . okay . . . now on to my review of chill factor . plot : a graveyard shift regular working joe and ice cream truck driver fall onto a malicious plan by an ex-army general , to propose a nuclear device to international prospects . when the device suddenly falls into their reluctant laps , they must keep it cool on ice , and rush it over to an army base , before the contraption ticks over 50 degrees fahrenheit , and kills millions of people . critique : ” speed on an ice-cream truck ” is probably the pitch that was used to sell this one-tone movie to its backers , but unfortunately , the only way that anyone could compare this film to that tension-filled , original two hours of cinema , is in its distinct honor of being the complete opposite of what that film , and the lethal weapon movies , stood for . this film is seasoned in cliches , with plenty of badly written dialogue , over the top acting from cuba gooding jr . , zero chemistry between the two leads , and horribly tacky bad guys , tossed in to complete an overall bad movie recipe . my friend and i enjoyed watching this movie to a certain extent , because some of the lines in it were so bad and obviously ” written ” , that we just had to crack up . that , and the formula for the film’s script which followed the proverbial 1-2- , and you guessed it . . . 3 scenario ! and what about all those catchy , hip names to get us to relate to the characters . . . . ” elvis ” and ” nighshift ” , oh what talent lies in the minds of these screenwriters ( and yes , it actually took two guys to come up with this regurgitated drivel ) . it is unfathomable to me as to how actors skeet ulrich and cuba gooding jr . got involved in this one-week-old-blue-cheese-smelling project . did they actually think that it would boost their careers , or did they know that the script sucked , but discounted any fall from grace , knowing full well that the stack of cash in their back pockets would pad their fall ? most probably the latter . have you seen either fled or bulletproof ? well , despite the slight differences in plot , the essentials are basically the same here . you get a black guy and a white guy being chased by a bunch of people , having no choice but to work together to get somewhere , hating each other at first , but over time , learning to respect one another as individuals . yawn . add to that , the fact that our film actually has bad guys who are all dressed in black , drive black cars and black vans , and run around with all kinds of telecommunicative devices sprinkled around their head . not too conspicuous , eh ? call me a party-pooper , but as much as i like a nice cheezy movie as much as the next guy , this film just doesn’t even try to do anything original or reasonably entertaining . one cool scene with a boat careening down a mountainside , and another with a nuclear device obliterating everything on an island , do not a fun , buddy-action flick make . show cuba the money , everybody ! : ) little known facts about this film and its stars : this is not a little known fact or anything , but damn , is it just me or does skeet ulrich look an awful lot like great-looking actor johnny depp ? skeet’s real-life nicknames include chester , skeeter and mosquito . he stands 6’1 ” , was born in north carolina , and got married in 1997 to that sex-kitten actress from clay pigeons ( 7 . 5/10 ) , georgina cates . they own a farm together in virginia and seven dogs . skeet has a long scar on his chest from open-heart surgery done when he was 10 to correct a ventricle defect . actor cuba gooding jr . was born in the bronx , new york . in 1984 , he break-danced during the closing ceremonies of the olympic games in los angeles . he stands 5’10 ” . actress hudson leick , who plays one of the ” bad guys/girls ” in his movie , is better known from her role as ” callisto ” on the popular tv series ” xena : princess warrior ” . this film reportedly had a budget of $40 million ? ? i’m not exactly sure where all this money went , but it certainly did not register onscreen . interestingly enough , director hugh johnson , who makes his big screen debut with this film , was the cinematographer on the 1996 film white squall and the 1997 demi moore vehicle , g . i . jane ( 6 . 5/10 ) .
0 it is with some sad irony that i screened fright night part 2 on the day that one of it’s stars , roddy mcdowall passed away at the age of 70 . mcdowall was one of the most talented and prolific actors in hollywood , having a career that spanned over 60 years and appearing in more than 100 films . fright night part 2 probably will not be counted among his more memorable roles . this is really sad considering how good the first fright night film was . william ragsdale and roddy mcdowall both reprised their roles as the somewhat reluctant vampire killers who seem to be the only ones that realize that vampires walk among us . ( at least in the movies anyway . ) it has been several years since charlie brewster ( ragsdale ) and b-movie actor turned late night horror film host , peter vincent ( mcdowall ) came face to face with a real live vampire who just happened to be charlie’s next door neighbor . charlie and peter won that battle , but apparently even vampires have relatives who get pissed if you kill members of their family . apparently charlie’s former bloodsucking next door neighbor had a sister who was none too pleased to find out that some kid and an aging actor staked her sibling . so she decides to exact a little bit of revenge . this ends up forcing charlie and peter to battle the forces of darkness yet again . one of the things that made fright night such a success was chris sarandon who played charlie’s stylish next door neighbor with a taste for blood . fright night part 2 tries to duplicate that modern style but it falls sort . while they are stylish , the vamps in this film just don’t have the personality of the undead in the first film . with the exception of a werewolf who adds some much needed comic relief to a few of the scenes . one bright spot , speaking from a strictly sexist point of view , is traci lin , who plays charlie’s very skeptical girlfriend . it’s really a shame that her career hasn’t been better since she made this film . ragsdale does a fair job in this film , but doesn’t give nearly the performance that he did in the original . roddy mcdowall makes the most with what he is given , which unfortunately isn’t much which is a shame because his character was a lot of fun in the original movie . i guess i would have to say that the first film was a superior product in every way . the original always left you feeling danger was lurking right around the corner , part 2 had more of the feel of a music video . never a good thing for a horror film . another minus for part 2 was the traditional scenes that leave the audience on the edge of their seats waiting for something to jump out of a shadow where very rare . for that matter , they were almost nonexistent . if i was going to watch a horror film , this would be far from my first choice . the first fright night , on the other hand , would be right up near the top of my list . if i was in the mood for a roddy mcdowall film i’d probably head to the science fiction section of my local video store and rent planet of the apes . either way fright night part 2 would most likely not enter into the equation .
0 sometimes a stellar cast can compensate for a lot of things , and ” pushing tin ” certainly features some name stars who are going places : billy bob thornton , cate blanchett , angelina jolie , and oh yes john cusack who might not realize it at first , but he’s actually the * veteran * among this quartet of fine-looking people . sometimes a terrific cast like this can compensate for a lackluster screen treatment of an idea that has ” hip comedy ” written all over it , compensate for workmanlike but uninspired direction , compensate for an obnoxious score that would have anyone but the tone deaf screaming for the exits , compensate for clich ? d characterizations , compensate for embarrassing ” you have to be joking ” situations . etc . in ” pushing tin , ” thornton , blanchett , jolie , and cusack don’t have an earthly . from the opening sequence the film is in big trouble : squiggly , ” quirky ” credits , fake-looking passenger planes circling new york , and anne dudley’s in-your-ear music making us wonder how she ever got that best original score nomination for ” the full monty , ” let alone won it . but i , for one , wasn’t ready to walk just yet . so quickly we descend into a tightly-edited air traffic controllers montage which screams to us in large capital letters these people have a difficult job , yes , what with their frantic , mile-a-minute instructional personas , juggling planes and passenger’s lives like some huge , real , mid-air video game . hip , cool , demonic auctioneer nick ” the zone ” falzone ( cusack ) is the best in the biz . of course . until some hipper , cooler , leather-clad flyboy assist in the guise of russell bell ( thornton ) shows up to challenge falzone’s finite air space . boys will be boys and some heavy duty testosterone starts exuding , then the macho one-upmanship begins . it doesn’t stop with seeing who can juggle three 747s within a cat’s whisker of each other . oh no . there are some broken hoop dreams , some wanna-see-how-fast-i-can-drives , and then the ultimate showdown : was that my wife i saw you with last night ? director mike newell ( ” four weddings and a funeral ” ) must have read a different draft of this script because the one that’s being acted out up there between newark , jfk , and la guardia doesn’t have an ounce of subtlety , and newell has made some awfully good-and funny-movies before . the antics of these air traffic controllers will make you cringe . they’ll make you frown in disbelief . they’ll have you constantly looking at your watch . but wait ! there’s still 100 minutes to go ! ! the film’s only saving grace is blanchett , whose connie falzone is a spunky , brash , long island housewife who wants to better herself by taking art classes . this is a wonderful accomplishment for the fine actress who has previously played a red-headed australian gambler ( ” oscar and lucinda ” ) and a tempestuous british monarch ( ” elizabeth ” ) . but she’s not enough to save the picture . thornton looks terrific and performs solidly but his character is a joke . jolie ( as russell’s knock ’em dead wife ) isn’t bad , but the up-and-coming actress disappoints by allowing herself to be displayed like a plaything . cusack cracks gum , dons shades , and acts hip throughout but , like everything else in the film , his performance is forced . in the last ten minutes or so , for some inexplicable reason , things start coming together and you begin to get a sense of how this film might have been , like the trailer teases . but it’s too little too late . a fine cast aside , ” pushing tin ” is nothing more than an embarrassment .
0 the most depressing thing about the depressingly pedestrian james bond film ” the world is not enough ” is its final frame : white letters on a black background proclaiming ” james bond will return . ” oh i certainly hope not . with pierce brosnan in his third and reportedly last go-round as james bond 007 , ” the world is not enough ” is the best example to date that ” ‘enough ” is enough . in this , the 19th chapter in the seemingly-endless franchise featuring ian fleming’s debonair british secret agent who likes his martinis–and his nemeses–shaken not stirred , the sub-inspired screenwriters have chosen to rehash all of the setups , stunts , and sexy encounters of the previous 18 bond flicks rather than coming up with anything the slightest bit original . we’ve got previously-used speedboat chases , ski chases , and sticky situations aboard nuclear submarines . we’ve got a couple of hot-to-trot babes without an ounce of acting ability between them . we’ve got a post-cold war megalomaniac bent on world domination slash destruction ( here played by a skinheaded robert carlyle with mean , lean panache ) . and , as has been the case since 1977’s ” the spy who loved me , ” we’ve got a plot that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything conceived by mr . fleming . we’ve also got a main title song by garbage to which , with very little effort , you can fit the lyrics to * both * songs from ” tomorrow never dies . ” while originality was never the series’ strong suit , the films were almost always fun , with at least some thought going into the nonstop stunts . i can’t think of one memorable set-piece in the entire–and very dull– ” the world is not enough . ” in addition , michael apted ( yes , the respected director of such films as ” coal miner’s daughter , ” ” nell , ” and the ” 28up ” documentary series ) takes embarrassing advantage of the full range of bond clich ? s . you get the ” talking killer ” plot device–you know the scenario : the bad guy has the good guy at his mercy yet waxes poetic just long enough to die of old age . and you get a slew of high-priced assassins who can’t hit a barn door at 20 paces : in the film’s opening minutes ( of an endless 128 ) , bond chases a sultry sniper along the thames and the leather-clad lovely fails to hit bond’s souped-up ” fishing boat ” with a bazooka when he pulls within a few feet of her . later , she takes off in a hot air balloon with bond dangling from a guy rope beneath her but is still unable to take him out . these reliable absurdities are more frustrating than usual since there are no distractions other than occasional ads for luxury automobiles , vodka , or credit cards . in and among the rampant product placements , brosnan grapples with carlyle , ” braveheart ” ‘s sophie marceau ( as former kidnap victim slash heiress elektra king ; she’s terrible ) , ” wild things ” ‘ denise richards ( as a nuclear physicist lord help me ; she’s laughable ) , and judi dench as m . dame judi brings the only shred of dignity to a series that has long since jettisoned its self-respect ( about the time roger moore inherited bond’s walther ppk ) . brosnan goes through the motions with the grace and charm you’d expect of the former ” remington steele ” star , but even he has to be thinking there’s more to life than an easy paycheck . he’s given plenty of wiseacre asides to deliver , but only one of them– ” i don’t know any doctor jokes ” –made me chuckle ( although ” i thought christmas only comes once a year ” is more in keeping with the series’ penchant for grown-worthy puns ) .
0 when walt disney pictures announced a live-action feature based on the ’60s cartoon series of ” mr . magoo , ” special interests groups representing the vision-impaired let out a cry of dismay . mr . magoo , they claimed , would be an insult to the men and women they represented . in fact , they were wrong . mr . magoo is not just an insult to the blind and near-blind , it’s an insult to every human being who has the misfortune to suffer through this dreadfully unfunny , 90 minute atrocity . it’s stating the obvious to remark that disney appears to have run out of original ideas . look at their roster of 1996 and 1997 releases , and you’ll see a shocking list of retreads , including 101 dalmatians , george of the jungle , jungle2jungle , that darn cat ! , flubber , and now mr . magoo . the best of these ( george of the jungle ) was mildly entertaining . the worst , mr . magoo , exposes just how painful a bad movie experience can be . the first problem with mr . magoo is the script . despite the collaboration of naked gun scribe pat proft , mr . magoo is comically barren . from beginning to end , there’s not a laugh to be found . every attempt at humor — and there are lots of them — falls flat with an audible thud . you’d think that out of the dozens of gags jammed into this film , at least a few would work , but that’s not the case . i’ve had more laughs during ingmar bergman pictures . then there’s leslie nielsen , who looks , sounds , and acts absolutely nothing like the animated character ( memorably voiced by jim backus ) . in the past , nielsen has proven his comic aptitude with roles in movies like airplane and the naked gun . lately , however , he has been getting lazy , taking parts in the likes of dracula : dead and loving it , spy hard , and mr . magoo . even if nielsen was in top form , it would take an incredible stretch of imagination to see him as magoo ( especially since we’re reminded of the original by the short cartoon segments that open and close the film ) , but ” top form ” is not a phrase i would use to describe his performance here . this is strictly a take-the-money-and- run operation . the story , which , like many disney stories , can be described in one long sentence : magoo is the only witness to the theft of a rare jewel from a museum , and , as he is trying to apprehend the thieves on his own , the police mistake him for the robber . the cops are played by ernie hudson and stephen tobolowsky , who take their lumps early and often . the bad guys are kelly lynch ( who does a lot of martial arts-type kicking ) , nick chinlund , and malcolm mcdowell ( who has the good sense to look embarrassed ) . matt keeslar portrays one of magoo’s sidekicks — his nephew , waldo . the bumbling man’s other , more interesting companion is a dog named angus . most of mr . magoo’s humor comes in the form of failed slapstick . the cartoon violence level in this film doesn’t approach that of home alone 3 or flubber , but it’s still pretty acute , with characters getting hit on the head with sledgehammers and knocked off snowy precipices . there’s a non-violent bit with magoo preparing a chicken dinner that could have been funny if it was handled better , but , compared to mr . bean’s recent , similar misadventure , it doesn’t hold up well . then there is the series of lame jokes that result from magoo’s near blindness , such as the occasion when he mistakes a wild animal for a baby . i’m willing to cut director stanley tong a little slack . tong , a hong kong film maker trying to break into the hollywood market , has helmed several jackie chan movies , including first strike , rumble in the bronx , and supercop . his chief talent , that of choreographing martial arts fights , is wasted here ( despite some high kicking by kelly lynch ) . like john woo ( hard target ) and ringo lam ( maximum risk ) before him , it appears that tong has been consigned to the purgatory of making a bad movie as his entry into the american mainstream . it is worth noting that , unlike many disney films which hold a perverse appeal for the under-10 crowd while driving parents to distraction , mr . magoo appears to bore viewers of all ages . the screening i attended was wall-to-wall kids , and , for the most part , they didn’t seem to be enjoying themselves . when the film was over , i asked one little girl what she thought of it . her pained expression confirmed the adage that a picture can indeed be worth a thousand words . mr . magoo is the kind of movie that should be rejected by any potential viewer , sight unseen .
0 david spade has a snide , sarcastic sense of humor that works perfectly on the tv sitcom just shoot me . it also served as a good showcase for him when he co-starred , opposite the late chris farley , in tommy boy and black sheep . lost and found marks the comedian’s first attempt at going solo in a movie , and it also reveals that when spade doesn’t have a reliable back-up system , his brand of humor seems more desperate than one may expect . david spade is not the problem with lost and found . he plays dylan ramsey , the sweet main character , to the best of his abilities . the story revolves around dylan’s obsessions with his beautiful new neighbour , lila dubois ( sophie marceau , from braveheart ) , and her terrier named jack . dylan believes that the best way to a woman’s heart is through her dog . and so he kidnaps jack , planning to stage a fake rescue , in hope to win lila over . there are three good things about lost and found . the first is spade . the second is sophie marceau , a lovely actress who’s been planted into the wrong movie . lastly , there’s the dog , who is used here in a similar context to puffy from there’s something about mary . unfortunately , director jeff pollack finds more humor in putting jack through a cycle in the drier than he does with simply making him look cute . this kind of physical humor is dead . pollack does everything but beat the poor pooch with a baseball bat to get laughs , and this procedure is cheap , unfunny and resoundingly cruel . this is where i start to get fuzzy . also in this unusual blend is ( apparently ) a sweet-natured love story between dylan and lila . given the mean-spirited comedy that the movie is obviously striving for , i found this hard to swallow . and , why does dylan even deserve someone like lila , after kidnapping her precious dog and putting it through such pain ? predictably , lost and found opts for a happy ending , one that feels so sentimental , gooey , and rings so false that it sets off a siren in your head that makes you feel a bit cheated . david spade ( who also co-wrote the movie ) tries hard , so very hard , to make this project amusing . there are some choice scenes that are quite funny , but the movie is only sporadically funny . patrick bruel plays the stock character of rene , the pompous jerk who also wants to win lila over , with his good looks and money . jon lovitz and martin sheen are welcome additions in two tiny supporting roles . despite a few positive attributes , lost and found just doesn’t work . if you’re searching for an enjoyable romantic-comedy , you could do far better than this obvious , misguided failure that shows a blatant disregard for what it’s trying to present .
0 9 : its pathetic attempt at ” improving ” on a shakespeare classic . 8 : its just another piece of teen fluff . 7 : kids in high school are not that witty . 6 : the wittiness is not witty enough . 5 : the comedy is not funny . 4 : the acting is poor . 3 : the music . 2 : the poster . 1 : its worse than she’s all that ! 10=a classic 9=borderline classic 8=excellent 7=good 6=better than average 5=average 4=disappointing 3=poor 2=awful 1=a crap classic
0 sometimes i wonder just what the censors are thinking . take this film , ” naked killer ” , among it’s ingredients are heavy doses of violence , rape sequences , straight and lesbian sex scenes and what our system calls ” coarse language ” . but what do those intelligent people at the censorship bureau choose to remove in case someone will get offended ? one word – penis . that’s it . in spite of everything else in the movie the one thing that the censors decide is too much is ” penis . ” . it really restores you’re faith in the system , huh ? anyway , that’s just a side point . when naked killer was released in the local independent cinemas around melbourne , it was advertised ad nausuem as a hip , cool , controversial thriller . what they forgot to mention was that it isn’t very good . the plot involves male cop tinam ( simon yam ) , investigating a series of brutal murders . while getting a haircut he meets and finds himself attracted to a girl named kitty ( chingmy yau ) , who , after extracting revenge on the man who killed her father , falls in with professional killer sister cindy ( svenwara madoka ) . realising kitty has potential , cindy decides to train kitty in several unusual and ridiculous ways and gives her a new identity . however in the course of his investigation tinam ( who believed kitty had disappeared ) , runs into her again , but isn’t quite sure if it’s her . to complicate matters the actual serial killlers , princess and baby , who a former students of cindy , and have been told to kill their old master and her new student . from then the action ensues . . . all in all , this is not a well done movie . the script is awful , the direction all over the place , the editing is jerky and confusing and the subtitling is surprisingly poor . however the are a few stand alone pieces that do entertain . the shoot out in the car park is almost woo-like in adrenaline . the fight scenes are energetic and i guess it must get a few points for trying something a little different . let me put this way , if you like action – get something else , if you like strong women in movies – get something else , if you have do decide between this and ” black cat ” for your hong kong female action – don’t get either . even for curiosity value it just isn’t worth it . let’s face it – if ever the was a movie that became popular on it’s subject alone , this is it .
0 after seeing blaze and driving miss daisy , i was ready for some mindless fun–oh , maybe something like tango & cash . maybe not ! mindless fun is one thing , but brain-dead slop is another matter altogether . tango & cash has ” lowest common denominator ” written all over it . the movie stars sylvester stallone and kurt russell as rival undercover cops in l . a . russell plays cash , a reckless slob who dresses in jeans and tee shirts . stallone plays tango , a wealthy investor who works on the force strictly for the thrill of it ; he doesn’t need the money . in an effort to change his image , stallone goes for a yuppie , gq look in the film , wearing spectacles and three piece suits . the two detectives reluctantly become partners after they are framed for murder and have to break out of prison to clear their names . tango & cash is unbearably noisy . for starters , there’s harold faltermeyer’s annoying synthesized score , which gets old after four notes . to make matters worse , the filmmakers seem to think that when it comes to loud explosions and screeching cars , the more the merrier . in fact , the movie begins with not one but two car chases . there’s nothing like a good old car chase to introduce the characters in a movie . screenwriter randy feldman’s brain must have gone to mush from watching too many cop shows on tv . his shockingly stupid screenplay undermines anything and everything the movie has going for it , such as stallone’s efforts to convince you that tango is an intellectual . in a movie with the iq level of an amoeba , even a great actor is going to have trouble looking intelligent–and stallone is no lawrence olivier . it’s hard to imagine anyone reading feldman’s script and thinking , ” i want to be in this movie . ” the film’s plot doesn’t have one original bone in its body , and–again–you have to point your finger at the screenwriting . feldman’s story line succumbs to every crime thriller cliche in the book , making tango & cash altogether generic and predictable . they simply could have called it ” action movie . ” every character , every twist and turn , is stolen from television or from other movies . adding insult to injury , tango & cash is about as believable as a ” road runner ” cartoon . action movies don’t have to be realistic , but they should absorb you enough so that you’re not thinking about the lack of realism . the only artistic aspect of tango & cash is the cinematography . there are some spectacular shots , especially during the rainy nighttime prison break in which tango and cash slide to safety on electrical wires . the film’s main draw is the chemistry between stallone and russell . unfortunately , their relationship rarely progresses past macho competition as they endlessly bicker about who packs more meat in his pants . the dialogue consists of nothing but one-liners , and consequently the attempts at character development are embarrassing . it’s a shame because with a workable screenplay , russell and stallone could have turned tango & cash into a charming ” lethal weaponesque ” adventure . tango & cash tries to maintain a light tone , and you do laugh about once every five minutes . seeing russell in drag is the movie’s funniest moment , but you probably already have seen it in the commercials . furthermore , the light tone does not sit well against the relentlessly brutal violence . machine guns and torture generally don’t mix well with comedy . jack palance appears in tango & cash doing what he does best : playing a sleazy , conniving villain . his character , however , is run-of-the-mill , except for his strange obsession with mice . like many movie villains , palance likes to play games . in fact , he sets a ridiculously elaborate trap for tango and cash , a trap which sends the two detectives to prison so they can be beaten and electrocuted by some meanies in the boiler room . you have to wonder why palance doesn’t just shoot the detectives in the head ! the story would crumble if any of the characters were to do anything intelligent . teri hatcher plays stallone’s sister and russell’s love-interest , and she is just as pretty as can be . but regrettably , hatcher’s acting is not on par with her exceptional beauty . every time she opens her mouth , you cringe ; corny dialogue and atrocious acting are always a fatal combination . there’s really very little , if anything , to recommend in the film . and , more to the point , tango definitely isn’t worth a penny of your cash–so don’t bother .
0 in ” the 13th warrior , ” arab poet ahmed ibn fahdlan ( antonio banderas ) finds himself kicked out of baghdad for feeling up the king’s old lady . with his translator ( screen legend omar sharif in a small role ) , ahmed heads north to act as ambassador to the northmen ( vikings ) . he finds a group of warriors mourning the loss of their king . a messenger soon arrives from another kingdom requesting assistance . a soothsayer says that thirteen warriors must answer the summons , twelve northmen and one outsider . thus , ahmed becomes the ” 13th warrior . ” on the trip , ahmed manages to learn the vikings’ language by listening to their fireside conversations . a bit far-fetched , it’s true , but we have to swallow it if this flick is going to manage a few lines of dialogue amidst the grunting . ahmed , who’s called ” ibn ” by the vikings , forms friendships with herger the joyous ( dennis storh ? i ) and the viking leader buliwyf ( vladimir kulich ) . when they arrive in the other kingdom , the thirteen warriors discover that they’re facing an army of supernatural cannibals that live up in the caves . hereafter , most of the movie is battle scenes : the cannibals attack the vikings , the vikings attack the cannibals , the cannibals attack the . . . well , you get the idea . just to add some action , there’s also a viking vs . viking duel . other movies insert scenes between the fights ; these scenes are called character development . i suspect that ” the 13th warrior ” had a better script at one time and that it fell through the cracks because of the tag-team direction . the movie started off in the hands of john mctiernan ( you’ll notice a lot of similarities between ” warrior ” and mctiernan’s ” predator , ” including the chittering jungle sounds ) . somewhere along the line , mctiernan bailed and michael crichton took over . crichton , whose novel ” eaters of the dead ” is the basis for ” warrior , ” has directed a small assortment of goofy science-fiction ” thrillers ” : ” westworld , ” ” coma , ” ” looker , ” ” runaway . ” their result of their consecutive efforts is a murky and pointless movie . perhaps what ” the 13th warrior ” needs more than anything else is a villain . the ” eaters of the dead ” are a faceless mob in blackface . they have no personality , and by the end they don’t even seem particularly threatening . the audience has no target toward which to channel its aggression . mctiernan should know about the importance of an interesting villain ; it was his ” die hard ” that made villains seem fun and attracted big-name stars to the evil roles in action films . ” the 13th warrior ” suffers from a lack of vision . it wants to be ” predator ” meets ” braveheart ” meets ” the magnificent seven ” meets ” dances with wolves . ” with so many competing goals , all it can do is echo what it might have been . it might have been a satisfying action film . it might have been a beautifully-rendered medieval epic . it might have been a thought-provoking examination of the meeting of cultures . what a shame it turned out to be nothing in particular . bottom line : if you want to see antonio swing his sword , rent ” the mask of zorro . ”
0 there isn’t much good about this movie . not much i can say about the acting , directing , or writing that would make you consider seeing this movie . so i’ll get my one good comment out of the way , at least joel schuemacher ( batman & robin ) didn’t direct it or it would be titled ” technicolor city ” . in fact there is nothing colorful about this movie , its dark and depressingly gloomy right down to the bitter end . the plot has a tendency to be interesting , but all that passes while your laughing at the ridiculous things thrown into what could have been a fascinating movie . the plot is impossible to explain due to how senseless it gets , so i will just touch on the bare minimum . john murdoch ( rufus sewell ) awakes in the bathtub of a cheap hotel , only to find out he has forgotten everything . john must find out who he is before the ” strangers ” ( a . k . a . mind erasing aliens ) find him and use him for their own evil conspiracy . during the film some interesting points are raised about human individuality , and the existence of inherently evil people . any of these points however are completely ” erased ” from your mind as you watch the actors stumble through the dreadful script . as i mentioned earlier , nothing but the atmosphere is right in this film . the acting is bland , and since there is virtually no character development no one seems to care . the special effects are low budget and some even hilariously fake , a sign of a true ” b-movie ” . the direction is poor and there is little continuity , not that you would expect it in a movie switching realities constantly . lastly the script is weak and has no concept of reality , and doesn’t deserve to have the word ” science ” in science-fiction . if i haven’t got my point across , i’ll say it more plainly : this is a bad movie . lets hope the next movie by alex ” i wish i was tim burton ” proyas is at least tolerable .
0 ” varsity blues ” is the best film of 1999 thus far . unfortunately , it is also the first film i have seen from 1999 . it is another one of those small-town sports movies that involves a flawed , but good-heartedfrom 1999 . it is another one of those small-town sports movies that involves a flawed , but good-hearted protagonist ; a rough and meanspirited coach ; and the ” big game . ” by the end , will the underdog overcome great odds and triumph ? will everyone in the town turn against the coach ? will the team win the climactic game ? do cats bathe themselves regularly ? the so-called ” hero ” in question is john moxin ( james van der beek ) , a senior at west canaan high school who plays for the varsity football team , but is really just hoping to get a scholarship at brown university so that he can get out of the dead-end town . at least he’s got the right idea , since west canaan , texas is portrayed in the film as , frankly , pathetic , with the whole town treating the weekly football games as the second coming . heck , in one scene , the front page of the town’s newspaper is proclaiming about the west canaan badgers’ big win the night before . when the team’s star quarterback is severely injured , tearing the ligaments in his leg , john finds himself taking over as the team’s leader , but his few minutes of glory do not last long , as he begins to have problems with his girlfriend ( amy smart ) when she discovers he spent an evening with another girl ( ali larter ) . and after staying out all night with his drinking buddies at a strip joint ( all of the teenagers in the film are portrayed as raging alcoholics ) , the team loses their second-to-last game , putting john at feuds with the coach ( jon voight who , like gary oldman , is overstaying his welcome in the typecasted role as the ” bad guy ” ) . worse yet , the coach is threatening to ruin john’s scholarship chances if the badgers don’t win their final game . the plotting of ” varsity blues ” is as old as the hills , and contains every cliche in the book . admittedly , i was never exactly bored while i was watching it , but i hasten to add that i was rarely ever entertained . throughout , all i could really think of is how virtually the same exact story had been filmed with a great deal more thoughtfulness and maturity in 1983’s ” all the right moves . ” one of the biggest problems i had with the film is how little of interest any of the characters actually were , least of all certainly not john , who , played by van der beek ( of tv’s ” dawson’s creek ” ) , is pretty much a bore without any engaging qualities . while i probably shouldn’t blame this on van der beek , since the inauspicious and ” by-the-numbers ” screenplay by w . peter iliff isn’t of any help , he is still certainly not in the league of tom cruise in ” all the right moves . ” the story revolving around john , meanwhile , is extemely thin throughout , particularly for its 104-minute running time , and it alternates between uninspired comic relief ( as in when the students see their sex education teacher working as a stripper at the club ) and heavy-handed melodrama . the romance between john and his girlfriend had the potential to be an adequate subplot , but we also learned very little about her , which is unfortunate since amy smart , whom i don’t think i’ve seen before in past films , is probably the only character written with any sort of intelligence . smart does not allow her character to become the ” passive girlfriend , ” instead coming off as a young woman with her own ideas and opinions . it’s too bad the camera didn’t linger on her long enough so we could hear some of those thoughts . the adult characters probably fare the worse of any , since they all must play residents of a dim-witted town that cares about nothing but football . john’s relationship with his parents can also be telegraphed far in advance . his father is set on him becoming a football player at a university , but john doesn’t want any part of that . his mother stands beside her ” big , strong husband ” and is a passive female . finally , jon voight plays the stock bully coach character and he does nothing to make the thankless role any more than one-dimensional . saving ” varsity blues ” from being a total washout are a few amusing sequences , including one set in the sex education class , which did get a laugh out of me . the scenes of playing football were well-shot and thankfully didn’t overstay their welcome , as many sports films fall victim to . but leaving the theater , the question i had in my mind was why did this film need to be made ? i seem to be asking this question quite a lot lately , since the same old stories seem to be cranking out of hollywood . do we really need another high-school sports film ? no , we don’t , and certainly not one of this low-caliber , which felt like a cut-and-paste job of spare parts from much better , but similar , films . ” varsity blues , ” no doubt is the first one , however , to include an earnest scene in which one of the characters is only wearing whipped cream on their private parts .
0 for a film touted as exploring relationships and black sexuality , trois is surprisingly tame . despite it’s lurid subject matter and it’s passing nod to fatal attraction , it moves along with flat , uninspired dialogue as it sets up a surprising climax that tries mightily to overthrow the considerable dead weight of the rest of the film . freshly moved to atlanta , jermaine ( dourdan ) and his wife , jasmine ( moore ) , have the trappings of a perfect life . they have a beautiful house in suburbia . jermaine is a lawyer on the fast track at his firm . jasmine is his supportive wife , who is finishing up her college degree . in an opening montage via a home video of the pair , we see the unremarkable story of their marriage and early marital triumphs . this is a couple that has it all . into this eden slithers the lure of lust . despite his outward appearance , jermaine reveals himself as selfish and covetous of his wife more as a possession than a person . a glimmer of his true nature peeks out during an early sex scene with his wife as he goes about his business , oblivious to jasmine’s concerns . we also find that he has been relentlessly asking jasmine to participate in a menage- a-trois , much to jasmine’s dismay . as jermaine puts it , ” don’t you want to be sexually free ? ” jermaine shares his desire with co-worker terrence ( smith ) , who obligingly sets jermaine up with a woman who might be interested in just such an encounter . the woman , jade ( palmer ) is a direct counterpoint to jasmine . jade , at one point was a college student , too . unlike jasmine , she found herself pregnant , dropped out of school and now struggles to make ends meet . to further reinforce their differences , it’s revealed that jade is involved in a custody battle over her son . inevitably , through liquor and a touch of duplicity on jermaine’s part , the forbidden act is consummated . the aftermath of the encounter sidesteps into fatal attraction territory as acts of violence are perpetrated upon jermaine’s property with the hint that the violence may escalate . by this point , trois shows itself to be a soap opera without the requisite melodrama : a fatal attraction without the social significance . the exploration of relationships is strictly superficial and stereotypical . jermaine comes off as insincere , sexually driven and selfish . jasmine is bland and subservient . jade comes off a bit sympathetically , but that is negated by her moral bankruptcy . yet another tale of a sexually aggressive ” dog ” of a man who imposes his will upon his accommodating , innocent mate . the last 10 minutes will undoubtly throw you a curve , but by this point , will you even care ? if the rest of the movie was as dynamic as the ending , perhaps there could have been some freshness to it . as it stands , trois is pretty standard fare .
0 ” mission to mars ” is one of those annoying movies where , in the middle of the movie , you get the sneaking suspicion that the reason the trailer looks so good is because they showcased all the best parts of the movie : all five minutes of it . ” mission ” * does * give you payoff ; but when it does come , it’s too little , too late . ” mission ” has some good ideas , but they get lost in the unbearably boring delivery , dime-a-dozen dialogue , and spate of good actors wasted in cardboard-cutout roles . i’m sure the director and writers were very proud of each hallmark moment they came up with , so they stretch each dramatic moment out like silly putty until it loses all its charm . glances don’t communicate any deeper emotions just because you draw them out for five hours on end . the film spends an hour on this kind of stuff , building to its climax . a lot of it is a cliched glorification of family relationships , marriage , friendship , unite we stand divided we fall kind of crap . there are some spectacular special effects sequences in this film , and i give it points for trying to stay true to the science i know ( trying is the key word here ) . the sequence with the martian demonstrating their history is oddly beautiful and touching , but as mentioned by then we’re so sick of the goddamn thing we want the movie to be over . great design , good intentions , but no cigar . if you’re not a die hard sci-fi , fx or jerry o’connell fan ( his character is the only one who has some semblance of character ) , don’t waste your eight bucks on this . and what the hell , tim robbins died halfway through the movie , in a stupid way too . that’s just unforgiveable .
0 my friend here in film school just made a two minute-long film for one of his classes that includes a staged anal rape scene , done by two guys and shot on the shadow of the incident , with a banana being used as the instrument of penetration . as sick as this all is , watching it is one of the most admittingly hysterical moments i’ve ever witnessed . sure , it may be in bad taste , but what the hell is bad taste other than something that may be offensive to some but is riotously amusing to the rest ? then there’s ” caligula . ” this film features incest , necrophilia , beastuality , anal rape , homosexual felatio of both sexes , elaborate and lengthy orgies , a greased-up fist forced up a man’s rear , wine poured down a man who’s had his urinary tracts tied off , a penis chopped off and fed to hungry dogs , etc , etc , etc . this could very well be a respectable film , and if could have been had the following not occurred : a ) the events were graphically shot in clear view ; b ) the tone was not that of trying to shock comically but to , well , show ” historical accuracy ; ” c ) the film was a 20 million dollar production with lavish sets , a rather impressive cast , and a whopping 2 1/2 hour running time . produced and funded by none other than bob guccione , owner of penthouse magazine , ” caligula ” comes across as the most hysterical dramatic picture since ” plan 9 from outer space ” because underneath there’s a sense that everything this film is doing is not only accurate and justified , but also brilliantly entertaining . after all , it’s not really the fact that this film features the aforementioned disgusting moments , but that it actually believes in them as dramatic weaponry . no film should be discarded because its content , because film is never about what it’s about , it’s about how it’s about ( as the old cliche goes ) . those who bash this film for content are glancing over the biggest and most obvious problem with ” caligula , ” and that’s that it’s nothing but overdramaticized bullshit from start to finish , without a second of credibility in its mammoth running time . ” caligula ” allegedly tells the true story of the evil roman emporer of the same name , a man who was so insanely decadent that his assasination came as a blessing . . . or so i guess , even though almost every single roman emporer was assasinated as well and for much the same reasons . the film opens on the wrong note , of course , with a quote from mark appearing before any image graces the screen , using the over-used passage ” what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world an dlose his own soul , ” depite the fact that the opening scene of the film is of the emporer before he was an emporer , fucking around with his own sister in a field ( i suppose if one has to lose their soul , one has to have a soul in the first place ) . the plot is so incomprehensibly done that all i or anyone else can make out of it is that caligula ( disastrously played by the great malcom mcdowell , a performance that does the opposite that his performance in ” a clockwork orange ” did ) is next in line for the throne but can’t wait for the current emporer , tiberius ( peter o’ toole – ditto , only for his performance in ” lawrence of arabia ” ) , his grandfather , to die . . . so he kills him and ascends to the throne . then he abuses his position , marries a woman ( helen mirren , who retains her dignity as an actor by not exactly acting ) so he doesn’t just have to sleep with his sister ( a dreadful teresa ann savoy , there to be pretty , naked , and willing to hop in the sack with mac or anyone he asks her to hop in with ) , abuses his position a little more , a little more , and a little more , and then , i believe , invades england , then is killed off . the filler , instead of recounting his life , is supposed to be , as guccione claims , the ultimate portrait of decadent pagan rome , complete with orgies , vicious deaths , and lots of nudity . but instead of being the historical accurate film it really really wants to be , it instead becomes guccione’s twisted masturbatory image of what it could be like . oh , isn’t it great that they just loved having sex ? and that they killed people so disgustingly ? and wouldn’t it be great if i could make a couple bucks by selling this shit off as accuracy even though it’s so blatantly real bad porn that i’ve completely convinced myself that it’s not . i mean , why not just show a roman orgy when i can spend a good ten minutes examining every single facet that makes it up . and it’s not just that it’s disgusting or vile or whatever adjective you want to use to describe this film – it’s that in a film where the entire feel it’s going for isn’t felt , it’s also the sloppiest expensive movie of all time . the sets are lavish , but so blatantly innacurate that i wonder if no historian wanting to have his name on this film explains this . but that doesn’t matter since the cinematography is so dark that you wonder if a light meter was used at all , making this not only dark and ugly , but just plain dark . the camera operation is also the worst i’ve ever seen in my entire life . not only does this film hold the record for the most unnecessary zooms in one single shot ever , but often the camera will lose its subjects and pan around till they find them , then have them out of focus . the editing is so sloppy that some scenes are absolutely impossible to follow . there is no writer to speak of ( what the hell does it mean that it’s ” adapted from an original screenplay by gore vidal ? ” ) , but nevertheless , the dialogue is shit , so laughably bad that i can’t in good faith believe that anyone with an iq over 5 could say them with a straight face ( my favorite being the line when caligula inquires the doctor about the health of the dying tiberius : ” he could go at any moment , but with care , he could last a year or so . ” ) the music in this film is mostly prokofiev and khachaturian ( they use his gorgeous ” adagio of spartacus and phrygia , ” ad nauseum ) , used in an attempt to give the film some emotion , but instead feels as if it was shipped in from elsewhere . the orgy scenes ( and one infamous lesbo scene between penthouse pets lori wagner and aneeka dilorenzo ) are the result of reshoots by guccione himself , which are so obviously removed from everything else in this film that it only adds to the embrassment ( every five seconds or so , the film cuts to random nudity , as if it was afraid its audience would forget this film is rated ” x ” ) . john gielgud represents the only voice of sanity , walking around in his brief role as if he was constantly the mantra , ” i’m going to kill my agent , i’m going to kill my agent . . . ” and so on and so on , for over 2 1/2 hours , making ” caligula ” about as exciting and enriching as a three hour college lecture class and twice as deliriously annoying . guccione , in his pursuit of historical accuracy has instead made a film that is such a painstaking , arduous task to watch in its entirety that i doubt anyone can sit through an hour of it without irreversible psychological damage . throughout the entire film , the presence of guccione is easily felt , as if he were standing there at the edge of the screen , pretentiously looking down upon us saying ” look what i can get away with ! and if you don’t like this , then you’re a prig , and worse than that , you know nothing about history ! ” uh huh . there’s a clear difference between historical accuracy and doing something that’s artistically good . a film which showed roman decadence as something that was perhaps liberating for some but could not last – that would probably make for a good film . but using historical accuracy as a licence to get away with any kind of disgusting-for-disgustingness’-sake acts is total , total bullshit , and all i can say is that guccione and the makers of this film have lost any kind of touch with either entertainment or eroticism , and have developed a pathetic and sadistic taste for both , judging from this film . there’s a film that came out in 1989 called ” the cook , the thief , his wife , and her lover , ” a magnifcent film by legendary cult director peter greenaway ( also starring helen mirren ) , which deals with graphic sex , heartstopping violence and gore , and even a little cannibalism for good measure . that film not only never patronized its viewers , but also handled them in a way that was shocking , yes , but also , in a bizarre way , entertaining and totally involving . there were real characters there in a real situation , and best of all passion and just the right amount of restraint as not to get off on the fact that it’s going to be offensive to many . that film achieved everything it wanted to do , and has since retained a status as one of those cult films that is not only popular but actualy good . and it’s everything ” caligula ” might have been but , alas , wasn’t .
0 remember back in the mid 1990s when crime and macabre movies were all the rage ? ” pulp fiction ” and ” fargo ” both managed to get oscar nominations for the best picture , and not surprisingly , a slew of rip-offs followed in the years thereafter . that fad seems to be over but here comes christopher mcquarrie writing and directing ” the way of the gun ” that at first glance looks like another of those wanna-be’s but upon closer inspection doesn’t look like anything comprehendable . it’s a crime story so wrapped up in its own little world it has a claustrophobic atmosphere – a film that won’t allow the story much room to expand outside its handful of characters and somehow still manages to turn a simple premise into something so complex its ridiculous . complexity should come as no surprise to anyone who’s familiar with mcquarrie , he wrote ” the usual suspects , ” which has become a cult favorite despite little critical acclaim . that film had a great story and was well directed but had such an elaborate , confusing screenplay it leaves many viewers scratching their heads after repeated viewings . you have to wonder if mcquarrie really had everything mapped out or if he was going for the hollywood idea that ” if it’s really confusing and about criminals and cops that makes it fascinating . ” with ” the way of the gun ” mcquarrie seems to be capitalizing on the same idea , but this time the story is far less commercial – a shame because maybe that would have helped . the film tells the story of two drifters with no ambition and barely a reason to live but aren’t hell-bent on death either ( played by ryan phillipie and benecio del toro ) . they get lucky when they hear about a scheme between a big-shot exec guy and his trophy wife who are going to have a baby through in vitro fertilization . they figure they can kidnap the surrogate mother ( played by juliette lewis ) and get a nice ransom . along the way we continually learn of the shady dealings between the exec , his wife , their hired goons and the ” bag man ” ( played by james caan – the only actor in the film who looks like he knows what he’s doing ) . the exec is some kind of money launderer so he obviously can’t call the authorities for help . his goons and the bag man are on the kidnappers’ trail and each make different offers to get the mother back . the exec’s son is a doctor who also gets pulled into the fray and wants to make sure his patient is all right . meanwhile each of these characters has something hidden up their collective sleeves and the double-crosses , secret love affairs and torrid pasts come as no surprise even though little of it has any relevance at all . mcquarrie doesn’t know the meaning of the word simple . he seems to be more interested in showing us how clever he is than making a good movie . everything has to be complicated and confusing , so much so that it’s to the point of surrealism . nothing is what it seems in this reality , it’s one of those movies where you get dropped right into the middle of the criminal world and are expected to know most of the industry’s rules and regulations . every scene with caan’s character exemplifies this perfectly – the kidnappers already know who he is and even chat with him , getting into conversations about ” the business ” and how it works and we’re hardly given a clue as to what they’re talking about . these characters are probably supposed to be great criminal sketches but they’re more like ideas ripped-off from sketches found in david mamet’s trash . no one here really acts like a real person , and the story is even further removed from reality . it’s like a dream without any appeal . take the opening scene for example ; the phillipe and del toro characters are in a parking lot across the street from a bar or a club counting their money and stuff . they sit on a brand-new mercedes and the car alarm goes off , the owner is waiting in line and yells at them to get away from his car but they don’t move . the guy and his loud-mouth , potty-mouth girlfriend and about 20 other people cross the street and gang up on them . you’d think phillipe ? and del toro are ? going to pull out guns and scare them away but they don’t , instead phillipe throws one punch and the two get beat down by a mob . there’s a lot of things i didn’t understand about this scene : first of all the owner of the mercedes isn’t some yuppie or old rich snob , he’s like a hippie straight out of the 60s . secondly , the two main characters seem to believe that they can actually take on the mob unarmed . lastly , it serves no purpose in the long run because later in the film the two are packing more artillery than a small country’s army . if they were suicidal they wouldn’t have gone on the kidnapping job in the first place ( and where they get all those guns is never explained either ) . there’s a lot more i could pick apart about this film but that would be an exercise in futility . what it all comes down to is that nothing here is what it seems – which would be great if this movie were about pretty much any other story than what it is . absolutely none of the characters are likable or believable . and it’s all coated with a thin layer of black comedy which is good for a chuckle here and there but this film is definitely not a flat-out black comedy and its use of such seems like a desperate attempt to kill screen time . with any film you see , whether you like it or not , you can at least understand what the appeal was to it , why someone would want to make it and why someone would want to see it . i can’t say either for ” the way of the gun , ” because it has very little going for it and i can’t imagine anyone intelligently defending it .
0 _dirty_work_ has a premise of deliciously mean-spirited potential . mitch weaver ( norm macdonald ) and his lifelong best friend sam mckenna ( artie lange ) are losers in life : they were constantly picked on in school , and now they cannot hold regular jobs . but as the trailer goes , ” there is one thing mitch weaver is good at–revenge . ” so he and sam parlay their unmatched skill in getting-even schemes into a marketable revenge-for-hire business called dirty work inc . this should be the groundwork for a wonderfully wicked black comedy , but for a film called _dirty_work_ , what ensues is rather clean of spirit . in fact , what makes mitch and sam start up their business is not a giddy desire to give bullies a taste of their own medicine , but rather a more sappy reason : sam’s father ( jack warden ) needs a heart transplant , and in order for him to move at the top of the recipient list , his compulsively betting doctor ( chevy chase ) asks the guys for $50 , 000 to pay off his bookie . so for all the scheming that goes on , beneath every underhanded plot is–gasp ! –a heart , which undercuts the inherent nastiness of the premise . not that there isn’t a lot of nastiness on display–there is , but of a different sort . there are frequent sexual references , most prominently in the form of prostitutes and sam’s impotent father’s ongoing lust for them . and for a film rated pg-13 , director bob saget ( yes , that bob saget , of _full_house_ and _america’s_funniest_home_videos_ fame ) and writers frank sebastiano , fred wolf , and macdonald himself , stretch the boundaries of good taste rather far–arguably a bit too much so ( was not one , but two separate instances of sodomy between animals really necessary ? ) . but the issue , of course , is not so much of taste as it is humor–as in , is it funny or not ? the answer is a resounding no . it’s not that macdonald isn’t a funny guy . he was one of the more consistently funny performers on _saturday_night_live_ before his much-talked-about firing , and his dry brand of smartass wit translates well to the big screen ; it also doesn’t hurt that he’s a natural , likable screen presence . he is able to give some of his lines a nice acid touch , but , for the most part , the oneliners , as written , are flat , and the broad slapstick gags just don’t work ( one running gag has him being literally tossed out of buildings–a real riot ) . still , macdonald’s few shining moments are just about the only moments the film has . the late chris farley , as hysterical as he ever was , is amusing in a cameo role , but , as a whole , the supporting players are amateurish and seemingly free from any directorial guidance . saget tries to juice up the proceedings with kitschy cameos by gary coleman , adam sandler , and john goodman , but their minimal novelty value cannot prevent _dirty_work_ from sputtering to the end of its brief 81-minute running time . the film closes on a sad note of desperation , an indulgent reel of outtakes from which only those involved in the production would derive any amusement . come to think of it , i cannot imagine anyone but those involved in the production to find much amusement in the entirety of _dirty_work_ .
0 america’s favorite homicidal plaything takes a wicked wife in ” bride of chucky , ” and their unholy matrimony is something old , nothing new . the burning question on the minds of most moviegoers , however , has nothing to do with nuptial specifics or even how the movie stacks up , but rather whether or not the duo gets down and dirty on their blood-soaked honeymoon . the answer is a sick-and-twisted yes – and viewers are treated to a shadowy glimpse of some hot-enough-to-melt-rubber ( or at least singe it ) lovin’ . guess they’re anatomically correct . chucky ( again voiced by brad dourif ) , of course , is the star of the ” child’s play ” series , a my buddy-type doll possessed by the spirit of a slain serial killer . in ” bride , ” the plot ( heh ) picks up with his girlfriend tiffany ( jennifer tilly ) resurrecting chucky’s remains ( he was blown up at the end of ” child’s play 3 ” ) with the help of a black arts manual called ” voodoo for dummies . ” silly mortal . before long , she’s also been reduced to shin-high figurine status , and the plastic incarnations of these one-time lunatic lovebirds hit the road to scope out some potential new human bodies . the rest of this rocky horror puppet show plays out as tiff and the chuckster stalk a young couple ( nick stabile and katherine heigl ) with conjugal plans of their own , leading them towards a new jersey grave where a magical , soul-transferring amulet allegedly lies in wait . along the way , our murderous barbie and ken go through post-marriage motions similar to any given pair of newlyweds – bicker , argue , kiss and make up . but when they squabble over who’s going to do the dishes , watch out . hey , even faux people have got to work through their problems . director ronny yu keeps the mayhem flashy and stages an inventive scene or two , but not even visual flair can make up for the fact that these creepy kewpies are neither scary nor menacing . when one of them charges , it’s nothing a good forward punt couldn’t take care of . and when a climactic chase scene is needed , one of the dim-bulb protagonists must _pick_chucky_up_ so the demonic toy can force his hostage to run at gunpoint . throw in some silly casualties and a ridiculous ending ( will ” son of chucky ” be next ? ) and this is a bizarrely bad 89-minutes at the movies . as is the thing to do in post- ” scream ” slasher cinema , don mancini’s screenplay slathers on the in-jokes and genre-parody . but little of the humor succeeds , proving self-reference can be completely worthless when it lacks bite . to be fair , though , most of ” bride of chucky ” is on auto-pilot , so it’s not quite right to single out one misfired aspect of the film . similarly shaky , the acting ranges from screeching camp to boring bland , the effects aren’t that special and the story is one big groaner . here’s hoping chucky and his entire clan – past , present and future – rest in peace .
0 this is the first film in what would become the most successful series of horror films of all time . a fair warning to those of you who might be inclined to watch this movie for the first appearance of everyone’s favorite goalie-mask-wearing homicidal maniac . jason , the guy who single handedly controlled the overpopulation problem around the crystal lake area , doesn’t start his quest to find the most interesting household item with which to kill someone until the sequel . while he does have a small role in this film , we the audience have to depend on another blood thirsty maniac to rack up the body count . the plot , like every other friday the 13th movie goes something like this — crazed killer murders as many unsuspecting teenagers as he/she/it possibly can in the space of a 90 minute movie . the reasons that the afore mentioned unsuspecting teenagers come into contact with the bloodthirsty killer are usually of little importance to the story . but for those of you out there that might actually care about such trivial matters in a movie such as a plot , here are the basics . a bunch of unsuspecting teens get a summer job at a long closed summer camp . they are days away from the arrival of the kids and they are spending their time fixing the place up and making sure it is ready for the kids . sadly , they start being butchered one by one by the bloodthirsty killer . at this point i would usually say something about the quality of acting , directing or maybe something about the high quality of the production . since i’m not going to do that , feel free to assume that if i did , it wouldn’t be positive . i will say that this movie looks as if it was made for about a hundred bucks , and that includes the actors’ salaries . if you are used to recent horror films like scream , you are in for a bit of a surprise . the only saving grace for friday the 13th is that it was really the first of its kind , with the killer taking real pride in their work . using as many methods of murder as they could . none of this single murder weapon stuff life that unimaginative leatherface in chainsaw massacre , or the creatively stifled imagination of halloween’s michael myers who just used brute force or a really big kitchen knife . nope , in the friday the 13th movies , you can always count on the killer taking great pride in his work . one fun fact about this movie is that the cast includes a very young kevin bacon , although after this movie it is a wonder he ever worked again . the main reason to see friday the 13th is if you want to watch all of the series from the beginning . if not , stick with the later films with jason , everyone’s favorite hockey fan . friday the 13th is the sort of movie that is fun to sit down and get a couple of scares from , just don’t sit down expecting a whole lot .
0 there’s a good , and timely , story trapped deep within the excess of murder in the first , a new movie about the abuses of our prison system . with a country wrapped up in feverish debate over the crime issue and the rights of the accused and the incarcerated in jeopardy , this expose would offer something rare to recent american movies–a point of view . but director marc rocco makes it clear from the beginning that pretentious , often nauseating , camera movements and slick , mtv- style lighting and editing are far more important . there’s not a moment in the picture where he surrenders technique for pure storytelling . and everything suffers . christian slater and kevin bacon star as defense attorney and alcatraz inmate , respectively . after spending an unprecedented amount of time in an isolated cell for attempting to escape , bacon murders another prisoner and faces trial . his young lawyer ( slater ) is fresh out of law school but determined to ” put alcatraz on trial ” for the abuses of it warden ( gary oldman ) . the result is the usual courtroom theatrics- imagine a stanley kramer production shot by hyperactive film school students . there’s very little to praise here outside of kevin bacon’s earnest overacting and the appropriate story . there’s a lot of overacting from everyone–you know you’re in trouble right away when r . lee ermey ( the drill sergeant in full metal jacket ) is cast as a judge , the center of reason and moderation . slater has never been convincing and certainly isn’t here and oldman is on a bad streak of hammy performances . but the worst feeling you get while watching murder in the first is that the man behind the camera could care less about telling a good story . there are long exchanges of dialogue where the camera is not even moving near the characters , let alone with them . how frustrating it must be for actors to work under these conditions . if there’s anything that has alway distinguished american films over the rest of the world , it is our ability to tell a good story . have we forgotten ?
0 this is the worst movie i’ve viewed so far in 98 . the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers > evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt . the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ? the same question was probably asked of last year’s stinker batman and robin . i feel the production got a little too smug , the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie . my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ? something that was a vital element of the 60’s tv serial of the same name . the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer’s nerves . one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality . connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes . his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality . if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice . for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title . i cannot understand how something so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you can’t see it coming until it hits you .
0 synopsis : big-breasted and dim-witted sculptress britt gets really mad at her grad student boyfriend because he spends too much time on his thought-transference experiments instead of her art showings . elderly , evil scientist everett longstreet switches minds with britt’s boy , in the meantime , and goes completely mental . comments : naked souls opens with a naked woman , and the movie makes no illusion that it’s a sci-fi vehicle designed to show pamela anderson’s , um , talents . if you are really interested in seeing anderson’s talents , however , i suggest you skip over this dud and watch the infamous pam and tommy lee honeymoon sex tape , now available on home video . at least with that ” movie , ” you don’t have to go through the painful experience of watching pamela try to pronounce multiple syllable words like ” eclectic . ” a premise does exist in the movie . basically , while anderson wears skimpy clothes which barely contain her talents , she practices her art — brilliantly slapping plaster of paris on naked women . her boyfriend , meanwhile , spends 20 hours a day in a morgue trying to view the memories of dead prison inmates because this will ” make a difference to humanity . ” whatever . the movie fails to explain how these two hooked up . be grateful . after we meet the evil everett longstreet , lots of technobabble and mystical mumbo-jumbo get tossed about , pammy has sex replete with cheesy make-out music , and minds get transferred . never fear , though , pammy uses her sharp mental abilities ( ahem ) to save her boyfriend in the end . unfortunately , no one saves the movie . avoid this would-be sci-fi thriller , unless you’re in for a good laugh or two .
0 mr . bean , a bumbling security guard from england is sent to la to help with the grandiose homecoming of a masterpiece american painting . the first two words should have said enough to let you know what occurs during bean’s trip to la , but if they didn’t look out because you are in for a rather interesting if not odd ride . heck depending on your humor you might end up laughing through the whole flick . either way look out america bean is coming . well , what can really be said about this movie , there is very little discernible plot . that much is not hard to grapple with for it is a slapstick comedy . it achieves that goal rather admirably , but because it is that , the plot is just screaming for help . the whole premise that the movie is based on is to say the least flawed . the movie had its funny moments but there was no real story line other than something that could be thought up on a whim and carried through and in many causes ad-libbed as you went . don’t go into this movie expecting and theatrical masterpiece . but if this form of humor floats your boat then you will truly enjoy this movie , even if you don’t like slapstick style humor you will end up laughing because something’s are just so stupid . the movie goes out and accomplishes what it aims , or so it seems . now when you look at the acting in this movie you have to think about two things , first was there any real acting and how hard is it to act in the slapstick manner . well , there was no real acting in this movie but some of the slapstick wasn’t the easiest i am sure . i have to concede that mr . atkinson’s acting in this movie is well done . although the role isn’t too demanding the slapstick is . i think that the character could have had a bit more dialogue , it would have added quite a bit to the overall effect of the movie . now the rest of the actors in the movie , bad acting and poor casting . i think that the role opposite bean could have been better , just seemed wrong for the movie . a different actor might have done a better job of it but i wont presume that wasn’t what was trying to be achieved . one thing that i must say , simply to get if off my chest is that i think transferring a sitcom to tv usually produces rather disastrous results . tv shows should do just that stay on tv , it will probably save some producers from getting ulcers . i can only think of a couple examples of tv going to the big screen effectively , the best known of those would have to be star trek . bean seriously fails to accomplish anything close to what that series gone movie achieved . now another thing that i have to state again is this movie has narrowed its target audience fairly tightly . the form of humor in this movie will not be liked by most people , these people will think like i did that this movie is stupid and pointless . but if you like the tv show you might actually like this movie . but to be on the safe side i am opting to recommend you save your money and not go to see this movie . there are many movies that are truly worth seeing unlike this one .
0 wonderland is a rather sugary romance film that is as subtle as a ton of bricks falling on you . you can see its plot developing from a mile away . you are lured into its benign story of a single 29-year-old girl looking for a soul mate in boston , as that city is depicted as a mini-wonderland for singles . this is a star oriented film , and the star who carries the film is erin ( hope davis ) . that this is a dating film , about singles who for reasons of fate or luck , or whatnot , have not had a successful match and are now putting most of their energy into fulfilling their careers , is nothing new , this type of film has been done often and better many times in contemporary films . the fictionalized documentary unmade beds did it more provocatively and with more of a sense of urgency than this film . the main quirk in the plot here , is that hope’s pushy mother ( hollan ) visits her in boston , sees her daughter’s live-in relationship with a radical protester ( hoffman ) breakup and decides to put a personal ad in the newspaper for her harvard medical school drop-out daughter , who works as a nurse . this is done without her knowledge . it is cornball sitcom stuff , but , at least , it is handled as best it could be by the actors and director . it is easy to like erin , she is bright , caring , and attractively blonde . it is equally easy to care for the soul mate she keeps missing contact with , the financially strapped , ruggedly handsome , intelligent 35-year-old alan ( alan ) , who no longer wants to work with his father as a plumber but is doing volunteer work at the aquarium and attending college to be a marine biologist . of course , he comes across as being so good ( though , he does kill some fish in the aquarium ) , that it is hard to believe he’s for real , or just some cardboard shining knight put into the story to give it an ideal to shoot for . the contrived story revolves around their near misses in meeting each other in such spots as , the subway , at a restaurant , or on the phone . alan’s brother answers erin’s ad with a few of his pals , as they each try to respond to her ad in a phony way , making a bet that the first who gets to tongue kiss her , that the others witness , will win the bet . this sub-plot was as obnoxious to see take place as it is to hear told . that we have to see erin go through several dates to prove the point how ego sick these guys are , each one more annoying than the other , culminating in the most obnoxious one of all , that brazilian lover ( jose ) , who is about as charming as a snake-oil salesman , who is actually the one she nearly flies away with for a holiday in brazil , was not only incredulous but downright contrary to the rich presentation of her character that was the heart of the story . anyway , as expected , all’s well that ends well , for this watchable piece of fluff , that comes over on screen better than it does when relating its story-line . the dialogue was actually not bad , those dating erin or trying to flirt with her seemed to be uttering authentic things they would actually say in their situation . and , oh , by the way , wonderland refers to the stop on the boston metro , it is where greyhound racing takes place .
0 be warned . . brit love story in the offing . effeminate , mild-mannered karl is about to take a beatng from a bunch of ruffians at school as he bathes himself under a shower , his genitals tucked between his legs in the manner of a posing transvestite . he is only just saved by prentice , who appears in all respects barring his protective attitude towards karl to be your average street-wise punk-in-the-making . the ensuing scene ends up with both boys being ridiculed and then unfairly expelled from the school . they do not see each other for another eighteen yeas . in that time , prentice has matured into a somewhat loveable , if brash and bull-heaed goon who screws up his jobs and relationships while gamely clinging onto perennial adolescence via lether jackets , motorcycles and punk rock music . karl , on the other hand , has grown up to become kim , a drabby , insecure woman who works as a verse writer for a greeting card company . chance brings the two together , and love , such as will inevitably blossom in your quirky british romantic comedy , is what this skewed little story is largely about . if at this point you think you’re going to get any cheap laughs with that gender-bending theme ( see the birdcage , to wong foo . . . , priscilla queen of the desert ) , you can just go home and brood on your own maladjusted sexuality you low-life deadbeat . kim is a post-operative transsexual , thank you very much . . . a new-born woman for all purposes , with confusions and sensitivities that deserve treatment with a touch of delicacy . personally , give me those cheap laughs any day . i’d rather enjoy obvious camp than endure the shallow exploration of a soft- hearted transsexual love story . different for girls comes up with a promising enough proposition , but does nothing that surpasses the merely workmanlike with it . by refusing to make the audience really uncomfortable with the notion of kim and prentice’s relation- ship , or at the very least feel uncomfortable for them ( prentice for example , doesn’t seem to give hiself all that much grief when he becomes attracted to kim despite being a fight-picking , beer-drinking , macho kind of guy , and kim , for all her insecurities and fears is always saved any truly disturbing victimisation in the film ) , and instead drawing them into a basically wimpy love story , the film manages to lobotomise itself . lightweight comedy as it’s doomed to be , it could’ve still have hacked it with the requisitive endearing couple . but this doesn’t either , since even mrs doubtfire is sexier than steven mackintosh’s kim foyle , and as either sex , he’s just plainly a simpering wanker nobody should like . prentice does though , and that’s never explained . but then rupert graves gives us so heroic performance as prentice , the guy who never grew up ( and if there is a bafta prize for most convincing portrayal of a rabid fan at a buzzcocks’ concert , he should win that too ) that i guess there’s no reason to explain why he’s so screwed up . if oddly enough you grow to like this show , you’ll be wanting your happy ending , and the film won’t fail you there either . snide underling at kim’s office gets her come-uppance . misogynistic police officer who beats up prentice gets his come-uppance . the couple prevail against a disagreeable society and come together in kim’s apartment . kim’s sister and her impotent sarge-type husband kiss and make up after a tiff ( tv movie sub-plot with incidental juxtaposition ) . and best of all , kim sheds her insecurities and learns how to ride the motorcycle and wear leathers , making prentice ride pilion . awwww . terrific closure . happy ending . but just what is it that’s differnt for girls anyway ? if you figure that one out , let me know . the flying inkpot rating system : * wait for the tv2 broadcast . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .
0 a silly film that tries to be a black comedy but plays more like lightweight comedy , with its main asset being a beautiful film location along spain’s mountainous coastline . howard pigeon ( jeff goldblum ) is a 40-year-old mineral water salesman who is married for 13 years to a wife constantly nagging him , elizabeth ( mimi rogers ) . after a surprise birthday party for him , where his wife bawls him out for coming late to his surprise party , he confides to his best friend that he can’t stand it anymore , and then tells him his plan to kill her while vacationing in the same barcelona hotel where they spent their honeymoon . jeff is going through a severe mid-life crises , worried that he looks older than his age . he incessantly talks to himself , mostly agonizing over his bitter marriage and chastising himself why he went out with elizabeth for a second time , and then why he married her just because she laughed at his jokes and was attractive . he stutters and acts like a man who has lost his confidence . things change on their vacation , as elizabeth makes an effort to be nice while jeff now becomes the grouch . he nervously rehearses his murder plan in the hotel room . by accident the gun goes off and into the pillow where he imagined elizabeth would be sitting . when other hotel guests and staff come to check about the gunshot , he nervously explains that it was the tv . realizing how unworkable his plan is , he places the gun in the shattered pillow and throws it into the ocean while he waits for elizabeth . but elizabeth found his behavior odd during the entire trip , and when after a great deal of effort to get a reservation at the hotel’s 5 star restaurant he insists on eating in the room , she decides she had enough of him and checks out without telling him . as a result , he goes to the police to report her missing . while with the police , a telegram comes from his wife saying she left him and is going away because she wants to be alone . his boss and all those he works with are sympathetic to him , and he gets a job promotion . but soon the pillow with the gun is fished out of the water , giving the police cause to arrest him and search his home . there they find letters he has written incriminating him to the murder . the police also find out from the hotel staff about the gunshot heard in his room . in jail , things look bad for him . no one believes him , including his friends and lawyer . his boss fires him and the papers have a field day with the headline story : pigeon : a jailbird . out on bail , he realizes that his only hope is to track down his wife . through a call placed on his credit card , he tracks her down to a mountain resort . once there he learns that she took a hike up the steep mountain and he gets a priest to be his mountain guide after telling him the true story . the film is watchable just for the antics of the jeff goldblum comic performance . he is someone coming apart by the seams , while mimi rogers is his perfect foil . it was mostly pantomine humor , with the comedy charged in the changing facial expressions of the characters and the absurdity of the situation . a very minor farce that might appeal to the sitcom crowd . the film just didn’t take its situation seriously and the story had many gaps in it , so it had no chance for black humor to develop . it instead played its set-up of the henpecked husband acting out his fantasy strictly for entertainment value to see how many chuckles it could draw .
0 * * * be warned . . . the following review contains some harsh language * * * the blair witch project . quite possibly the least scariest movie of all time . if you want to see real terror on the big screen go back and watch any scene with jar jar binks in the phantom menace , because this movie is not scary or even remotely creepy . my colleague and friend chuck dowling wrote that if less is more , then the blair witch filmmakers must have thought that nothing is more . and this worked for him . well , i’m sorry , but nothing . . . is nothing ! ! ! ! ! nothing is not more . it’s nothiiiiiinggggggggggg ! ! ! ! ! ! . i do not pay 5 dollars to see nothing . ” nothing ” is free , available all around the world at a location near you . i am absolutely in amazement that some people find this movie scary . i could just discount them and say , ” well , i guess they are just pansy chicken shits who are probably scared of their own shadow . ” but i have intelligent friends who like this movie and so that doesn’t hold water . there must be some other reason . ( then again , maybe my first thought is correct , i think i’ll try pointing their shadow out to them one day and test their reaction . ) when i hear people praising this film , i never hear them talking about what makes up about 97% of this movie : three kids bickering with each other about being lost . they only talk about what might make up possibly 3 to 4 minutes of screen time . this being a few very short night scenes where the kids hear some unscary sounds and another where they shout ” josh ! ! ” over and over . this film should not be called the blair witch project , it should more accurately be called three dumb and pisspoor filmmakers get lost . . . and argue with each other . oh ladies and gentlemen you will be so scared when you hear them shouting ” josh ! ! ” . and if you thought that was scary , wait till you see a pile of rocks , and then some tinkertoy lincoln logs , oh my dear lord you will be pissing in your pants with fear . oh yeah , and some goo on one of their backpacks . you’ve never seen terror like this folks , and you don’t want to . the chevy chase/goldie hawn comedy foul play is creepier than this film . ( for current films , i highly recommend the sixth sense or a stir of echoes for a creepy filmgoing experience . ) this film is an example of marketing with no substance . the marketing was brilliant , and the whole nation is in awe of just the premise for the film . they want this film to be good . and i think they are reaching and praising the wrong movie because they don’t have anything else to praise . that wonderful film that rejuvenates the horror genre may come along , but this is not it . this film could have been so much better . just think , if maybe there had been only 10 minutes of arguing about being lost , and 80 minutes of nighttime stuff . i saw this movie with a girl who was extremely pumped for it . she was sold on this film . and then , at one point during it , she turned to me and asked ‘ . . . are we supposed to be scared by this ? ‘ . i’ve heard one opinion that you ” have to use your imagination ” to create the fear in this movie . well , i thought that was what the filmmakers were supposed to do . use their imagination and create a good movie . i mean anyone can use their imagination and not pay 5 bucks for it . but even if you like this idea , then what are you imagining ? an entity called the blair witch ? some rednecks fucking with these kids ? are either of these things really scary when you think about it ? ? ? i’ve heard several people say that this movie makes them recall how scary it can be to be out in the woods and hear something . well sure thats scary in real life , but there are a lot of things that are scary in real life that are not scary in a movie nor even interesting . you could sit in your house and see a snake or a spider and it could be scary , but in a film it wouldn’t be . and no , a movie does not need a big budget or cgi special effects to be scary or creepy . actually the less the better ( see the equally awful remake of the haunting ) . but you have to do something . you cant just count on us all having nostalgic memories of how something like this could be scary , if it were real . and by the way , about the shakycam filming in blair witch . aren’t these supposed to be ” filmmakers ” who should know how to point a camera and shoot something without shaking the camera constantly ? i’m not even talking about the couple scenes where they are terrified , that’s justified . i’m talking about the other 87 minutes of the movie where they can’t seem to shoot anything smoothly at all . minor quibble there . there is a feeling in me that the people that like this movie are suckers . that the filmmakers are just laughing their asses off all the way to the bank . and i think there is a good chance they will see this film again and say to themselves ” what was i thinking ? ? ” . but , if they don’t , then thats fine . if it works for them then that’s okay i guess . i just lament that by making this movie a hit , we are going to be subjected to more of the ” nothing is more ” approach . pretty soon we’re going to get some movies like this : just a still shot of a prison jail cell . for 90 minutes . and we’ll have to use our imagination and think to ourselves , ” my god , wouldn’t it be scary to spend life in prison ? ! ! this movie is the scariest movie of all time ! ! ! ! ! ” . or , a shot of a coffin , with some funeral directors arguing with each other . ” man , do you know how scary it would be to die ? ? ? ! ! ! ! now this is the scariest movie of all time ! ! ! ! ” [r]
0 there were four movies that earned jamie lee curtis the title of ” scream queen ” in the early ’80s . two of them were halloween movies , but the other two — prom night and terror train — were the uninspired knockoffs that came directly after the success of halloween . the same ” god , i’m scared , there’s some guy in a mask coming after me ” routine she did in john carpenter’s classic , jamie lee copies here , with none of the urgency or suspense . terror train takes place on ( where else ? ) a train , charted by some pre-med students finishing their first four years of higher education . most of them won’t make it to med school , though , and it’s obvious from the foreshadowing done when the conductor complains , ” i wish to hell they’d put a radio on that train . ” the conductor character probably has the most lines of anyone , even jamie lee . from the beginning , he’s talking his head off ( he tells one of his co-workers ” think on this — when’s the last time someone built a shopping mall next to a train station ? ” as if it makes any kind of sense ) and it only gets better as he engages himself in an argument about the benefits of railroad over recreational vehicles . of course , the loudmouth conductor is the first person to find a bloody body , which is then gone when he brings a skeptical trainman back to view it . i forgot to mention the prologue . it’s a party three years earlier , with the same group of students . two of them play a trick on a geeky frat pledge , promising him he’s going to get laid . they send jamie lee up to stand behind the bed and talk to the geek as he comes in , noticing a form on the bed . she says , ” kiss me , kenny , ” and he kisses the body on the bed , which happens to be a cadaver . ( ” oh my god , they killed kenny ! you bastards ! ” ) it’s a sick trick , and one jamie lee wasn’t let in on . she still hasn’t forgiven the guy as they board the terror train ( ” you asshole , you can’t have a good time without hurting somebody ! ” ) . the killing starts before the train even leaves the station . since it’s new year’s , everyone’s wearing disguises ( a convenient plot device we’ve seen before ) , and someone stabs the guy in the groucho mask when no one’s looking . at least one of the characters says it’s a groucho mask ; when the killer dons it and steps aboard , it looks like gene shalit who , by the way , would make a great killer in a slasher movie . speaking of weird-looking dorks who still persist on the entertainment scene , one of terror train’s most famous gimmicks is the appearance of david copperfield ” as the magician , ” who regails those aboard with illusions set to disco music . then there’s his greatest trick — getting laid with hair that looks like that . for all its attempts at visual style and substance , terror train is more lionel than amtrak , more prom night than halloween , and nothing really worth watching . only die-hard fans of jamie lee curtis and david copperfield ( if he truly has any fans ) should even attempt to watch it . and it makes me wonder if a horror movie set in an rv could be much worse . i mean , when was the last time someone built a shopping mall next to a train station , anyway ? terror train is definitely the cinematic equivalent of a sleeper car .
0 according to hitchcock and various other filmmakers , isolated motels , diners , gas stations and similar establishments in american southwest can be rather dangerous place for weary travellers . at the beginning of eye of the storm , 1991 german- american thriller directed by yuri zeltser , one of such places becomes deadly for their owners who get murdered during the stick up . ten years later their son steven ( played by bradley gregg ) , who was blinded during the incident , still runs motel together with his older brother ray ( played by craig sheffer ) . hardly anything happens there until alcoholic and abusive william gladstone ( played by dennis hopper ) gets stranded there with his attractive wife sandra ( played by lara flynn boyle ) . their unexpected presence creates the chain of the events that would end in bloodshed . yuri zeltser , author of this film , was obviously inspired by hitchcock’s psycho , but he chose to add some new and potentially interesting elements to the original plot . instead of norman bates we have two brothers – one of them traumatised physically , another mentally . sexual tension between beautiful female patron and shy motel clerk is heightened with the presence of alcoholic husband . eye of the storm is impressive in visual sense , with photography by karl walter lindenlaub providing a lot of claustrophobic atmosphere . the acting is fine – hopper , gregg and boyle are comfortable with their roles , but sheffer at times overacts his psycho routine . unfortunately , eye of the storm , which was supposed to be intense psychological drama , deteriorates into cheap and predictable slasher flick during melodramatic finale . in the end , this film reminds us that original approach can’t prevent filmmakers from wasting too many opportunities . ( special note to the profiler fans : ally walker appears in the beginning of the film in the small role of killer’s girlfriend . )
0 if you’ve been following william fichtner’s career ( and there’s absolutely no reason why you should have ) , you might have noticed that he’s played some rather similar roles over the years . like sully in ” the perfect storm ” –tough , gruff , and a little bit scary . or law in ” albino alligator ” –tough , gruff , and little bit scarier . or colonel william sharp in ” armageddon , ” or dwayne engelman in ” strange days , ” or even his brief appearance towards the beginning of ” pearl harbor , ” as the abusive father of danny–here is an actor who gravitates towards tough , gruff , hard-hitting roles . which is why his performance in ” what’s the worst that could happen ? ” is such a shock , such a delight . in the film , fichtner plays a blonde haired , meticulously dressed , overtly effeminate , dog-loving detective . as alex tardio , fichtner’s performance borders on caricature but goes beyond it . it borders on offensive but doesn’t really manage it . and it borders on clich ? d stereotype but doesn’t quite succumb to that definition either . in a role so diametrically opposed to what the actor has played before we should have seen it coming , fichtner isn’t perfect–you can see him struggling a little at times , concentrating a little too hard on the look as he swishes his hand through the air , or nuzzles a coiffed canine up close and personal–but he’s pretty damned good , and silly , and without question the best thing in the film . in fact , had it not been for fitchner’s sudden and bizarre appearance , and his jarring screen presence thereafter , i would have walked out , for ” what’s the worst that could happen ? ” is mesmerizing in its awfulness , a poorly written , haphazardly edited , and totally unfunny ( yes , it stars martin lawrence and danny devito so how could that be possible ? ) moviegoing experience . fichtner’s performance doesn’t exactly save the film , and it’s not like i’m recommending ” what’s the worst that could happen ? ” solely on the strength of the actor’s dramatic turnaround , but his contributions do raise the film’s rating from no stars to one-and-a-half . thumbs up to fichtner then , and thumbs down–way , way , down–to everyone else involved in this sorry mess , a movie so dull and pedestrian and nonsensical it doesn’t even warrant discussion .
0 note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . it’s rather easy to start tuning out after about twenty minutes of finn taylor’s first feature film , dream with the fishes , when the plodding , tedious opening sequence finally pays off with a potentially provocative setup . any hopeful expectations , however , are soon vanquished as the film settles upon being an uninvolving mismatched-buddy movie which is rarely as funny as it aspires to be nor nearly as affecting as it eventually strives to be in the film’s latter half . the film’s central characters are terry ( david arquette ) , a depressed , lonely voyeur who claims to be despondent since the death of his wife in an automobile accident , and nick ( brad hunt ) , a carefree young street tough later revealed to be terminally ill . nick lives in the apartment building across from terry , who spies on the trysts between nick and girlfriend liz ( kathryn erbe ) with his trusty set of binoculars , but the two young men first formally meet at the bay bridge where a half-drunk terry precariously teeters upon the edge , unconvincingly vowing suicide . nick casually asks for terry’s wristwatch , and eventually cons terry into a trade – the watch for a bottle of pills . of course , terry finds that the pills do not end up having the presumed lethal effects , and he angrily sets out to find nick in order to retrieve his watch . learning of nick’s condition ( he only has a handful of weeks left ) , terry’s compassion kicks in , and the two eventually come to a distinctly peculiar arrangement – terry will agree to bankroll the dying nick’s lifelong fantasies , and nick will fulfill terry’s death wish by killing him . this is a promising premise , and mr . taylor’s film could have gone any number of ambitious ways from this point , but he instead chooses to capitalise upon the obvious inversion of the characters ( terry is a repessed , mournful character who wants to die , while nick is a free spirit with a joie de vivre who is dying but wants to live ) and takes the easy route out by turning dream with the fishes into a typical lark where the two characters engage in a series of generally dull exploits , and where the straight-laced character learns to enjoy and ppreciate life when hooked up with a quirky character . this is by-the-numbers plotting , buddy movie/road movie redux . however , dream with the fishes is most hampered not by its uninspired storyline , but by the characters which carry the story – it helps in such a film to have at least one of the protagonists be at least somewhat empathetic , if not likeable . unfortunately , that is not the case here , where both of the film’s leading characters are thorougly uninteresting and annoying , giving the audience very little to sympathise with their respective plights , and even less reason to want to follow their onscreen exploits . far from a romp , this fatal flaw makes dream with fishes more like a chore to endure than a playful jaunt , and undermines the attempts at emotional resonance in the latter stages of the film as the two men begin to bond . mr . taylor’s dialogue sporadically falls flat in dream with the fishes – while attempting to capture a quirky and clever tone , it too often comes across instead as hopelessly contrived ( witness such lines as ” you should have asked something more interesting , like ‘do you enjoy the pain ? ‘ – see , that’s provocative , leaves room for further questions . ” ) the film enjoys a few inspired moments – the urn scene , a session of nude bowling , the policeman joining in on terry and nick’s acid trip – but unfortunatetely these instances are few and far between , and for the most part the humour in dream with the fishes registers more as attempts rather than actual successes . this occurs particularly often during the film’s opening sequence – as terry is wrestling the bedridden nick for his watch in the hospital , i’m realising that this is * intended * to be funny , although nary a smile crept upon my lips – which is probably due to the obvious fact that it’s painfully clear to the audience from the outset that terry is going to be thwarted in his initial suicide attempts , sapping any element of surprise or amusement from nick’s scheme of tricking him ; this is not a film which has the wherewithal to kill off its leading star in the opening ten minutes . the entire sequence is , then , clearly an exercise for character exposition , with attempts at humour terribly diminished by utter predictability . among the cast , coming off best is david arquette , the current master in the portrayal of meek , squirming , stammering fresh-faced characters – he would have been terrific as the lead for george huang’s swimming with sharks – who gets to apply his adeptness for timidity as terry . mr . taylor ambitiously employs an interesting visual technique , where the portions of the film set in an urban environment have been processed to appear extremely grainy and heavily saturated , as opposed to a bright , crisp look for the smalltown scenes . the charge of dream with the fishes’s protagonists being wholly unempathetic is a bit of an odd one coming from me ; i seem to have a predilection for films with unlikeable characters , and indeed , in many cases have i been in the minority , supporting films which have been condemned as interminable due to the difficult , audience-unfriendly nature of their characters . for dream with the fishes , though , i did find myself on the flip side of coin , often hoping that the film would quickly conclude , and that the nick character would just hurry up and die .
0 for his directoral debut , gary oldman chose a highly personal family drama about a violent , alcoholic husband and father , and the various lives he affects . but while the characters , places and events may have special meaning to the writer-director , the audience is left in the dark . the center of this tale is the abusive raymond ( ray winstone ) , and the film focuses on him and the people who orbit around him . he spends his days hanging out with his friends at pubs and girlie bars . then , he returns home to his pregnant wife , valerie ( kathy burke ) and their five-year-old daughter . raymond demonstrates his violent tendencies ( and his paranoid delusions ) early on when he accuses valerie’s brother , billy ( charlie creed-miles ) , of stealing . raymond then proceed to beat ( and bite ) him to a bloody wreck . but these are the least of billy’s problems . billy is a heroin addict on the downturn , and it doesn’t seem that he’ll last much longer . billy and valerie’s mother , janet ( laila morse ) , is raymond’s nemesis . she disapproves of him ( and he of her ) , but is powerless to do anything about it . she merely struggles on , hoping her children will survive their respective torments . if this description seems bleak , i haven’t told the half of it . this is not a cheery movie , and most of the time it’s downright depressing . while at times it is interesting to watch to see just what makes raymond tick , and why no one ever simply calls the cops on him , in the end , it’s not quite worth it . there are too many scenes which randomly dot the picture with little or no purpose . take for example the extended sequence where one of billy’s scuzzy friends defends a stray puppy . the film is filled with these ” character moments ” that never really achieve anything . granted , there are a few genuinely powerful ( and sickening ) moments in the film , but their expression seems to be more of a catharsis for the creator than us . the actors do a fine job , particularly in the central roles . the good thing about an actor turned writer is that oldman knows how to write good scenes , and the actors in nil by mouth have some meat they can tear into . the bad thing about an actor turned director is that there’s no one to restrain oldman from making poor choices . a good character drama should mean something to those involved in making the film and the audience . oldman got it about half right .
0 my first exposure to the nightmare on elm street series of films was not this one , but in fact the third installment ( it was the first to gain a national theatrical release ) . i didn’t see the first film until much later . so looking back , the original didn’t hold a lot of great memories for me , since i didn’t think too much of it when i initially saw it . watching it now for a second time confirmed that it’s an overrated horror film that ultimately makes no sense whatsoever . you all know the story by now : child murderer freddy krueger ( robert englund ) returns from the grave by haunting the dreams of the children of those who burned him alive years before . this first installment does an adequate job with it’s low budget , but there’s some absurd dialogue and conceptual problems with the story . plus the movie’s ending ( understandably the result of the studio wanting the end of the film to have a ” hook ” for a sequel ) renders the rest of the film pointless . and does anyone understand what happens to nancy’s mother at the end of this film ? don’t get me wrong though . . . it’s not as if a new generation of horror films have spurned me away from the classics . most horror movies released today are just as inane as this film is . horror is a difficult genre to pull off credibly , and a nightmare on elm street just doesn’t cut it . a nightmare on elm street is available on dvd from new line home video . it is available both as a single disc and as part of the nightmare on elm street collection box set . the film is presented in both pan and scan and it’s original theatrical aspect ratio of 1 . 78 : 1 ( although on the disc that comes in the box set , only a widescreen transfer is provided ) . the film has been digitally remastered and includes two options for audio : a mono mix and a new dolby digital 5 . 1 mix . also included on the dvd is a full-length audio commentary track with writer/director wes craven , stars john saxon and heather langenkamp , and the film’s director of photography . other extras include the ” jump to a nightmare ” feature ( i’m sure you can figure that one out ) , the usual cast and crew bios ( which are from the film’s original press release kit , and notably leave out robert englund and johnny depp ! ) , and the film’s original theatrical trailer . some dvd-rom features are also included , but since i don’t have dvd-rom capabilities i can’t really get into that . the commentary track is entertaining and informative , but nothing spectacular . the first thing of note is that it’s the same commentary track that was on the special edition laserdisc from a few years ago . i’m not saying that’s a negative thing , just pointing it out . everyone seems enthusiastic about being there , with the possible exception of john saxon , who just doesn’t say much at all . most of the time you’ll forget he’s even there . everyone else talks really quietly though for some reason , as if because they’re commenting on a scary movie that they need to stay as quiet as possible . the bonus disc with the boxed set called the nightmare series encyclopedia features about 45 minutes worth of interviews relating to the first film of the series . also included is the original theatrical trailer and two alternate endings to the film . . . however you can only access one easily . the other is hidden in what’s called ” the labyrinth ” , which might possibly be the most annoying feature of a dvd ever created . basically , it’s an interactive game of sorts where you wander through different nightmare locations looking at objects which give you access to extra little snippets of footage , interviews , etc . somewhere in the labyrinth is the second alternate ending to the film . finding it though is both a chore and a bore . [r]
0 in 1989 , tim burton took the legendary comic book figure of batman and turned him into a huge box office hit with an atmospheric little film that created an utterly distinct feeling somewhere between film noir and the godfather . was it ” deep ” ? nope . however it was a perfect entertainment and the audience ate it up . it was natural that roger ebert trashed it writing that it was ” without the comic book uplift ” of the indiana jones and superman pictures . which was true . if what you were looking for was the tale of a heroic man’s escadapes and adventures you were looking in the wrong place . if those films were tom sawyer , then batman was huckleberry finn . some critics ( glenn lovell of the san jose mercury news and peter travers of rolling stone ) realized that it was something special ; mr . lovell gave it * * * 1/2 and wrote that ” this is batman as batman should be . ” ; mr . travers called it one of the ten best films of the year . the praise was deserved – from start to finish the film was enthralling , exciting , and superb in every respect . there was no doubt that there would be a sequel directed by burton . the result was batman returns which forgets that it wants to be fun within the first five minutes . the villains ( the hideous penguin and seductive catwoman ) take over , and our epectations are always left unfulfilled – when we wanted the penguin to bite off batman’s nose he simply gets mad , and when we want catwoman to slither over batman’s body she gets pushed off a building . i admire mr . burton for trying to do more then entertain , but the result is a mess . nothing works out as planned – it fails both to entertain and to enlighten . hints are made to the audience that this film could be a blast . alas , these are only hints . there are , don’t misunderstand me , several moments of cinematic genuis contained ; catwoman and batman understand eachother perfectly without a word on the subject being said ; christopher lloyd is trapped , by the penguin , within a giant cage ; a small basket is dropped into a large river ; but nothing is drawn together and burton is unable to make the film work on any regular basis . a weak followup , both career and sequel wise , batman returns is sometimes dazzling , but to often dissapointing .
0 and i thought ” stigmata ” would be the worst religiously-oriented thriller released this year . turns out i was wrong , because while ” stigmata ” was merely boring and self-important , ” end of days ” is completely inept on all fronts . it’s a silly , incomprehensible , endlessly stupid mess . for a guy like me who grew up watching arnold schwarzenegger at his best , it’s extremely disconcerting to see where the big man has ended up . for the first time in recent memory , an arnold action movie ( and ” batman & robin ” doesn’t count ) is no fun at all . ” end of days ” is a major stinker . the movie opens in vatican city , 1979 . some catholic priests have observed an ancient prophecy , which says that a girl will be born on that night that satan will have targeted for impregnation . if he impregnates her between 11 and midnight on december 31 , 1999 , the world will be destroyed . the pope orders protection of this girl , though some priests believe she ought to be killed . in new york , that very night , a girl is born to fulfill the prophecy . twenty years later , we meet jericho cane ( schwarzenegger ) , a suicidal ex-cop with a drinking problem . now working as a security guard for hire , he is protecting a local businessman ( gabriel byrne ) , who is actually possessed by the devil . an assassination attempt on the businessman by a crazed former priest leads him to the girl satan is after , christine york ( robin tunney ) . recognizing elements of his own murdered daughter in christine ( including ownership of the same music box , apparently ) , jericho swears to protect her against the devil and the faction of priests looking to kill her . there are so many problems with this film it’s hard to know where to begin , but how about starting with the concept ? casting arnold in a role like this was a mistake to begin with . schwarzenegger is a persona , not an actor , so putting him in a role that contradicts his usual strong personality is a bad idea . arnold has neither the dramatic range nor the speaking ability to pull off a character tormented by conflicting emotions . in other words , trying to give him dimension was a mistake . harrison ford , mel gibson , or even bruce willis could have played this role ( they’ve all played noble and flawed heroes ) , but not schwarzenegger . there are several scenes that attempt to establish jericho’s character ; one has him contemplating suicide , another crying over the loss of his wife and daughter , and even one in which the devil tries to tempt him into revealing christine’s location by offering him his old life back . none of these scenes really work , because arnie isn’t up to the task . the filmmakers would have been better off making jericho a strong , confident character ( like the terminator , for example ) , the likes of which schwarzenegger has excelled in before . this one isn’t at all believable the way arnold plays him . the supporting cast tries their hardest , and only gabriel byrne makes any impact at all . as the prince of darkness , he’s suave and confident . he acts like one would expect the devil to act . the problem is that the script has him doing things that make no sense ( more on that later ) and that undermines him as a powerful villain . byrne out-performs arnold in every scene they have together ( including the aforementioned temptation bit ) , but this is problematic when it causes the audience to start doing the unthinkable : root for the devil . byrne’s speech about the bible being ” overrated ” actually starts to make sense , mainly because arnold’s attempts at refuting it ( mostly of the ” ’tis not ! ” variety ) are feeble at best . the only problem is , arnold has to win , so in the end , nobody really cares . kevin pollack plays jericho’s security guard sidekick and tries to liven things up with some comic asides , but like most bad action movie sidekicks , he disappears after about an hour . robin tunney isn’t given much to do except look scared . in fact , all of the supporting players are good actors , but none , save for byrne , is given anything interesting to do . performances aside , it would be really hard to enjoy this film no matter who starred in it . this being an action blockbuster , it’s no surprise that the worst thing about it is the script , which starts off totally confusing , and when some of it is explained ( and not much of it is ) , it’s utterly ridiculous . why is the devil coming on new year’s eve , 1999 ? because it’s exactly 1000 years after the year of the devil , which isn’t 666 , it turns out . some nutty priest accidentally read it upside down , so the real year is 999 , so just add a 1 to the beginning , and you’ve got 1999 ! if you don’t buy this explanation , you’re not alone . it’s convoluted and silly at the same time . the method by which jericho locates christine york is equally ludicrous ( she’s christine , see , and she lives in new york , see . . . ) , and if that weren’t bad enough , there’s plenty of bothersome stuff in this film that isn’t explained at all . why can satan kill everyone he passes on the street , but when it comes to snuffing out one drunk ex-cop , he’s powerless ? is he impervious to only one kind of bullet ? how come he can’t control jericho or christine ? and how did those gregorian monks deal with time zones in their prophecies ? a clumsy attempt at a joke is made about this , but it’s never actually explained . usually , this sort of thing wouldn’t matter in a schwarzenegger flick ( i mean , don’t get me started on the time paradoxes offered up by the terminator movies ) , but this time the plot inconsistencies stand out even more than usual because the action is rarely exciting . there are several predictable horror film clich ? s present in ” end of days , ” complete with the old ” black cat hiding in a cabinet ” bit , not that we ever find out what the cat was doing in there . it gets so formulaic that it’s possible for those uninterested in being scared to close their eyes at the precise moment a ” boo ” will come . their predictions will rarely be wrong . the more grandiose action sequences are utterly charmless , partially because we don’t care about these characters ( due to the script’s pathetic attempts at characterization and setup ) , and also because they , too , don’t make any sense . there’s a scene where schwarzenegger gets thrown around a room by a little old lady . it’s good for a few chuckles , but not much else . supposedly we’re to believe she now has super strength by virtue of being controlled by satan , but the script never sets that up , so the scene is merely silly . none of this is terribly exciting , because all the action sequences are so badly framed that it’s often hard to tell why it’s happening in the first place , not to mention that they’re edited in full-on incomprehensible mtv quick-cut style . most of them had me scratching my head , rather than saying , ” wow , cool ! ” ” end of days ” is not only silly and confusing , but it’s also distinctly unpleasant to watch . the devil apparently doesn’t operate in the more subtle , i’ll-convince-people-to-kill-each-other fashion outlined in the bible , but instead enjoys killing people gruesomely in broad daylight . this doesn’t only make him an awfully predictable sort , but it also means that not a single scene in ” end of days ” goes by without unnecessarily graphic violence , or the odd kinky sexual encounter ( yet another bit that had me scratching my head ) . if violence is supposed to be shocking , it’s not a good idea to throw so much of it into a movie that the audience goes numb . scenes aren’t connected through any reasonable means , so a lot of the time , stuff gets blown up , or people get killed , and i had no idea why . reasons ? to hell with reasons ! let’s just blow stuff up ! isn’t it cool ? nope , not by a long shot . this film is thoroughly unwatchable . it’s dull , interminable , and unrelenting in its stupidity . perhaps arnold needs to make some movies with james cameron to revive his career , because it’s not happening with hack peter hyams here . ” end of days ” might have had camp value , if only it didn’t top itself off with an overly pious ending that nobody’s going to buy . if the movie is going to be serious , the filmmakers should have come up with a decent script . if it’s going to be campy , arnold shouldn’t be taking himself so damn seriously ( i didn’t actually see him put up on a cross , did i ? ) , and his character shouldn’t be such a sad sack . as it stands , ” end of days ” is just a bad movie , and an awfully gloomy one at that .
0 stephen , please post if appropriate . ” mafia ! ” – crime isn’t a funny business by homer yen ( c ) 1998 on a particular night when i found myself having some free time , i had a chance to either go to sleep early or to see ” mafia ! ” , a spoof of mafia and crime films such as ” the godfather , ” ” goodfellas ” and ” casino ” . at 84 minutes in length , i thought that i could enjoy a few laughs before getting a good nights sleep . but by my account , i think that my laff-o-meter only registered a few grins , one giggle , and maybe one chortle . i suppose that you could justify your time as homage to the venerable hollywood star , lloyd bridges , who just recently passed away and whose last performance was in this film . ” mafia ! ” chronicles vincenzo cortino’s ( lloyd bridges ) life . separated from his family when he was young , he escapes to america and tries to live an honest life . but as fate would have it , vincenzo grows up to be a powerful and klutzy crime lord . following in his footsteps are his two sons , joey ( billy burke ) and anthony ( jay mohr ) . like all siblings in powerful crime families , they squabble over power , the future of the family , fortune , and women . ” mafia ! ” is co-written by jim abrahams , who also contributed to some gut-busting funny spoofs such as ” airplane ” and ” the naked gun . ” but these previous movies were funny because the jokes seemed more universally understood and there was more of a manic silliness at work . as i write this , i also wonder how many people have actually seen the movies on which this spoof is based . crime movies in general contain a lot of profanity and violence . it’s a tough genre to parody . i was kind of hoping that they could somehow spoof the profanity used in all of those crime movies , maybe by having all of the tough crime lords say ” please ” as they decide which sector to take over , but this opportunity was never explored . there were one or two moments that made me smile such as the scene where vincenzo is dancing with his newly wed daughter-in-law . a gunman shoots him several times . the impact of the bullets cause him to make these wild contortions that force the wedding band to change music styles to keep up with him , from the samba to disco to the macarena . i think that i just gave away the best part of the film . oh well , that just means that you can go to sleep a little earlier .
0 die hard 2 is an altogether unfortunate fiasco , inferior to the original in every respect . place the blame squarely on the shoulders of steven de souza and doug richardson , who wrote the film’s pathetic screenplay . every line of dialogue reeks of either smarmy sap or forced humor . the plot is altogether implausible ; the convoluted story line involves a band of terrorists who take over dulles airport and shut down the control tower , leaving a dozen planes stranded in the air waiting to land . the film has zero credibility , and all of the characters come off as cliched , cardboard cut-outs . so much for the script . how about the action ? well , let’s put it this way : director renny harlin could learn a few things from john mctiernan , who directed the original , as well as the hunt for red october and predator–all standouts for their hair-raising suspense . by contrast , harlin doesn’t have a clue when it comes to choreographing action , and consequently , die hard 2 never picks up steam . die harder is impossible to take seriously even for a minute . in fact , the movie often seems deliberately campy , and it almost reaches the threshold of being so bad it’s good . you do laugh , but you laugh at the film , not with it . die hard 2 should have never been cleared for takeoff .
0 i admit it . i thought arnold schwarzenegger had a knack for comedy when he made twins and true lies . watching him in jingle all the way , i wondered why anyone ever thought he could carry such a lame movie targeted at susceptible kids . it was one thing to scare the crap out of kids with the pg-13 kindergarten cop , but parents who let small children see this movie will have to explain themes of violence , alcohol consumption , burglary , racism and child molestation . and you know they’ll burst out in tears when arnold punches one of santa’s elves . he later decks a reindeer . hey , man , why don’t you just kick the easter bunny in the nuts while you’re at it ? jingle all the way is formula crap that follows the if someone falls on his ass , it must be funny school of thought . arnold , sinbad and phil hartman crash to the ground more times in this movie than a special olympics hockey team , and the movie dredges up more cliche and less believability with each successive scene . what can you expect from a movie whose entire premise is that two parents can’t find a rare toy on christmas eve , and will do anything to get one ? arnold is , of course , one of the parents , a crack salesman who is never there for his son . he races from the office to his son’s karate game , only to find out he missed it . and his kid distrusts him because he’s never around . ( gee , we haven’t seen that in a movie before . ) arnold the absentee father becomes convinced that the only way to buy back his son’s affection is to get him a turboman doll , which his wife ( rita wilson , who will never be the breadwinner of the hanks household choosing roles like this ) told him to get weeks ago . so arnold sets out to find a turboman , which turns out to be more rare than the tickle me elmo was when jingle all the way came out . let me back up for a minute here — arnold’s kid is totally obsessed with this turboman character , which is unhealthy beyond belief . watches the show , eats the cereal , sleeps on the freakin’ turboman sheets . i’d try to discourage any further obsession myself , lest any kid seeing this movie think it’s a wonderful thing to con your dad into racing out to buy you any toy you want . but nooooo , the climax of jingle all the way has arnold dressed up as turboman in a parade , exonerating himself of all wrongdoing in the eyes of wife and son , who don’t recognize him until the last minute . this is a sad movie all the way through , but it only gets worse after the opening scenes of arnold and mailman sinbad stampeding through a store , racing off to the mall and hooking up with a santa ( jim belushi ) who runs a bootleg toy factory . most painful to watch is a scene at a radio station , where sinbad holds off the cops with a letter bomb after beating up the deejay ( an embarrassed martin mull ) who said he was giving away a turboman doll . capitalism has produced some pretty evil things ( chia pets ) , but this ode to excess and violent consumerism is one of the most shameful . never mind the subplot with perfect neighbor phil hartman trying to seduce wilson while arnold is off shopping ( ” your cookies are incredible ” ) , it’s the main plot of the movie that sends the message that it’s okay to do whatever it takes to get your hands on what you want . maybe that’s what christmas is like at the schwarzenegger house , but not at mine .
0 when the haunting arrived in theaters , all i kept hearing about was the overdone special effects and the fact that very often the unseen bumps in the night in a horror film are far scarier than those that you can put a face to courtesy of special effects . while i agree that this remake of the haunting goes a bit overboard in the visual effects department , i don’t think that they are completely to blame for this movie’s failure . it appears that some people have failed to take into account that the original haunting had the ” unseen ” terrors , and it was about as scary as a dust bunny . so special effects or not , if the story isn’t the least bit scary , you aren’t going to end up with a very frightening movie . the thing that interested me most about this movie was the caretaker of this building played by bruce dern . dern is always great , and even though he may have had only about 3 minutes of screen time he was still the most interesting element of the movie . as i sat through the seemingly endless , albeit fairly impressive , special effects , i kept wishing that this movie was about dern’s caretaker and not the one dimensional characters that populated the cast . never a good sign when a bit player is the best part of the movie . liam neeson plays a scientist who is conducting experiments on fear . he decides the best way to get results is to trick a group of fairly unstable individuals to spend a few days in a haunted mansion . he tricks them into participating by letting on that he is conducting an experiment on insomnia . and he also fails to mention that the mansion has a reputation for strange goings-on . catherine zeta-jones , lili taylor and owen wilson play his subjects . like the original , taylor’s character is the star of the movie . but since she doesn’t quite have the marquee power of liam neeson and ms . zeta-jones , their parts did seem to be a big larger than in the original . and let’s face it , probably half the people who see this movie will do so because of zeta-jones . i’ll admit that i would have never seen this thing if she weren’t in it . but the real stars here is the special effects combined with the fairly overdone sets . they take over the movie as the supernatural elements of the house start to interact with our hapless insomnia patients . there really isn’t much of a story here . just endless setups so director jan de bont can showcase all the nifty special effects that he got to play with . and the special effects are great . in many cases they are as good as you are likely to see anywhere . in other cases they are overdone and obviously thrown in just for the sake of hitting the ” cool shots ” quota . at no point in the movie do any of these things ever come close to being scary — funny , maybe . but not scary . then we have the set . when i first saw the house , i was very impressed with the very cool gothic look about it . but it only took a short tour by the characters around the place to see that the set designers obviously had as much money to burn as the visual effects people did , and decided to take the idiotically overdone route . this included a flooded hallway with books as stepping stones and a mirrored circular room that revolves . what part did these rooms play in the story ? absolutely none . they were just there to take our minds off the fact that there was neither a descent story nor a single scare in the entire movie . then we have the actors . lili taylor has never been one of my favorites . and when the fact that her character is mousy and pathetic is factored in , she comes in around the average or slightly below mark . i have no idea why liam neeson took this role . he basically reminded me of the ringmaster at an out of control circus . his character was in charge of this farce but it quickly got away from him . i have no doubt that liam will want to lock all prints of this movie in a very secure vault along with all copies of darkman . zeta-jones was cast because she is too hot for words . the fact that her character is bi-sexual is just icing on the cake . all catherine has to do in this movie is look good . fortunately that is something she does very well . while she does have a fairly good size part , it is obvious that her only purpose in the movie was as eye-candy . it’s too bad someone of her talents wasted them here . any random supermodel pulled out of a fashion show could have easily filled her role . the haunting is the antithesis of another of 1999’s horror movies , the blair witch project . the haunting had a seemingly limitless effects budget , while blair witch relies on piles of rocks for its scares . both prove quite nicely that special effects are irrelevant to a horror film . if the story sucks , it’s all downhill from there . my advice ? if you are looking for special effects , go rent star wars . if it’s scares you want , rent halloween . either way , it’s probably in your best interests to skip the haunting .
0 plot : set in the future , a courier has uploaded some data into a ” hard drive ” that resides in his head , and must now escape the bad guys who are after that very important information . since he overloaded his ” hard drive ” , he’s also racing against the clock before the information seeps into his brain and kills him . critique : incoherent , boring , one-act drivel with no suspense , horribly unbelievable futuristic environment , bad dialogue , career-defining bad acting by keanu reeves and a hilarious ending . it’s too bad because the premise of the film was interesting , but unfortunately for my friends and i , this movie turned out to be just as bad as everyone had warned us . it’s one of those films that makes you start laughing half-way through , when you realize that most of the actors in it suck , the location shots are filmed in dark ” junkyard ” type areas which they would like to have us believe to be futuristic ( whatever . . . ) , and all the sets look like . . . . well , sets . there is also absolutely no arc to this story . it basically starts off with keanu uploading info into his brain , and then a bunch of folks chasing him from place to place until a laughable ending puts a stop to the former uneventful proceedings . gibson should stick to writing novels and ” x-files ” episodes , since his segue into the paranormal tv series was much more entertaining than any of this garbage . some other hilarities of this film include dolph lundgren as some futuristic jesus character whose supposed to kick ass , henry rollins as a pumped-up cyber-doctor or something , and ice-t as some kind of a hobo dude with paint all over his face ( don’t ask ) . the ending is the funniest with some robot dolphin and a stupid ghost-lady from inside the computer doing some stuff that no one really cares about by that point . i’m ashamed to say this film was shot in my hometown of montreal , canada , but sadly enough for us all , it was . some of the cyber-travelling special effects were okay ( hence , the 2/10 ) , but overall , it’s one of those bad movies that’s just funny to watch and cringe at . thankfully for keanu , he redeemed his sci-fi career with 1999’s the matrix ( 7 . 5/10 ) . it’s too bad that he has yet to redeem his lack of acting talent . little known facts about this film and its stars : as of 1999 , director robert longo never directed another full-feature film . hmmm . . . now isn’t that odd ? : ) writer william gibson immigrated from the us to canada in 1968 , after being rejected for the draft . he lived in toronto at first , but since 1972 , has made vancouver his home . his 1984 novel ” neuromancer ” and its sequels 1986’s ” count zero ” and 1988’s ” mona lisa overdrive ” are generally considered to be the definitive works of the ” cyberpunk ” science-fiction sub-genre . this film garnered keanu reeves a nomination in the ” worst actor ” category in the 1996 razzie awards .
0 i am a steven seagal fan . i only say this now because ” mufti splenetik ” isn’t my real name and because i probably need to explain why i went into this film expecting great things . any proud seagal fan worth his beans will tell you that the seagal formula is something you can depend on . seagal films can always be counted on for minimal dialogue , heaps of expendable baddies with extemely crunchable bones ( which we’ll always hear when seagal does his limb-twisting thing ) , rarely a female co-lead in sight ( unless it’s a real-life model-wife who hasn’t worked since weird science ) and , usually the worst possible titles you can imagine . not to mention very straightforward plots , generally all-round bad dialogue and mr implacable leather-face himself in that same black outfit he’s been in since nico doing his ” my hands are sharp , nimble knives ” thing , seagal the stoic , sir petrified ponytail , duke of dull . in the glimmer man , seagal breaks out of this formula : he gets a * sidekick * , attempts to banter , and puts on a new vest . he’s also put on quite a lot of weight . small potatoes , you may say , a man should be able to accessorize and banter if he wants to , but damnit , if it ain’t broke , why fix it ? ( more on this disappointed person’s dashed expectations later ) . as jack cole , seagal is a homicide detective with a questionable past . while he and his partner ( played by keenen ivory wayans ) are investigating a series of ritual killings , cole himself becomes a suspect , especially when a background check run by campbell reveals practically nothing on cole . it turns out that cole is a former trained government assassin ( you just can’t trust these homicide detectives ) , someone whom victims used to catch just a glimpse of in the jungle before he pounced on them , and hence , well , you know , that ” glimmer man ” thing . an increasingly fishy homicide investigation in the present soon leads to the gradual uncovering of a larger , more threatening conspiracy that involves a crooked businessman ( bob gunton ) , cole’s former cia boss ( brian cox ) and deals involving chemical weapons . the glimmer man plot is pretty standard stuff , drawing ( as with his other films ) elements from the hotter films of the year ( eg , se7en ) . it’s the other changes that disappoint . for example , although there’s a fair amount of violence in this movie , there’s also the disastrous pairing of seagal with keenen ivory wayans , probably the best known of the wayans tribe ( how many are there , exactly ? ) from television’s ” in living colour . ” wayans plays whiney straightman to seagal’s bead-adorned and brocade-draped cole , keeping up his ” are you crazy ” part of the dialogue with wasted zest . as campbell , wayans confines himself to bemoaning his new partner’s eccentric habits , but the chemistry between the two is minimal , and seagal’s wooden comebacks make for painful watching . a cook in under seige 2 , seagal is now a buddhist who speaks chinese and wears prayer beads and intricate silk jackets over his normal black ensemble . he chants , refuses to fight unless truly provoked and introduces campbell to powdered deer penis to cure his allergies . again , a benign ( if trite ) plot device except for the fact that these new character traits require seagal to speak more than usual . heck , he has to deliver punchlines and carry a steady conversation with someone other than himself for a large part of the film . is that a lot to ask of the seague ? too much . seagal’s best characteristic used to be that he knew his purpose in this already complicated world of movies : to crunchily snap off bad guy appendages , and to do it silently , and alone . not for seagal , the snappy one-liners of arnold and stallone , nor the attempts to show that he can act , much less think . no kindergarten cop , no oscar , just simple , unadulterated deathblows . that’s really how it must have started : like-minded fans who knew what they wanted streamed in to watch the seague do his thing , knowing that never in the seagal universe would they ever have to see him do anything else . we trusted him . we got to know him . now , betrayal . i don’t know if i can watch another seagal movie without that little niggling doubt that he’s going to try to be funny again . i’ll try , but it won’t be easy . if you haven’t watched the glimmer man yet , you might want to wait for the video to come out . it’s easier to just fast forward the dialogue parts and linger on the action sequences . after all , if we can’t depend on our fantasies , what can we depend on ? the flying inkpot rating system : * wait for the tv2 broadcast . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice . mufti spelenetik is still a steven seagal fan . everybody makes mistakes once in awhile .
0 ” the 13th warrior ” comes at the end of as summer where we’ve already experienced man eating sharks ( ” deep blue sea ” ) , man eating crocodiles ( ” lake placid ” ) and even a man hunting witch ( ” the blair witch project ” ) . now , ” the 13th warrior ” presents a tribe of flesh eating men who believe that they are bears . the story , if that’s what you want to call it , follows ahmed ibn fahdlan ( antonio banderas ) an arabian poet who falls in love with his king’s wife and is banished from his home land . he then travels to the land of the vikings and becomes an ambassador to them . eventually the vikings are called upon to protect the people of the village who are being hunted by the flesh eating men . thirteen warriors are chosen to go on the mission , and as you guessed it , ahmed is chosen as the thirteenth . he’s not a warrior , and at first not well accepted by the vikings , but as the movie advances he’ll have to prove himself both on and off the battlefield . that’s basically the entire plot . there is also a romantic subplot that has been so badly mishandled and , one assumes , drastically cut that you begin to wonder why the filmmakers didn’t just edit out all of the scenes attaining to that part of the story . instead they chose to leave just enough of those scenes in to annoy the viewer . the film is basically non- stop action and when it pauses and tries to develop a story it becomes a laughing stock . the battle scenes , although well choreographed , are not involving and not the least bit exciting . we don’t get to know any of the characters and so we don’t care who lives and who dies . the film , which wants to be beowolf , comes across more as a failed action-adventure story aspiring to epic proportions but not achieving it on any levels . it was directed by john mctiernan who’s , ” the thomas crown affair ” is also playing in theaters currently . and it’s not that mctiernan worked simultaneously on both films but that , ” the 13th warrior ” was placed on the shelf for so long with the studio just waiting for a time to dump it on audiences . it belongs back on the shelf .
0 when i watch a movie like mike nichols’ what planet are you from ? i can’t help but feel like everyone is looking at me . it’s as if all the audience is gazing at the back of my head in the darkness , eyes shooting daggers , quietly blaming me for the fact that they paid hard-earned money to spend their time watching this . . . this . . . thing . i shift uncomfortably in my seat . i’m reminded of how i feel when i see a pair of second- or third-rate celebrities engaging in a teleprompted ” funny ” conversation to introduce the next blockbuster award . it’s not my fault , i know it’s not my fault , but dammit , someone’s gotta be embarrassed , because it doesn’t look like anyone on the screen is ready to take the blame . i’m about to give you a list of names of people who are gonna make a movie together : garry shandling , annette bening , john goodman , greg kinnear , mike nichols . do any of these names make you instantly shudder ? the answer i would have come up with before today is no , this is quite a list of talented individuals we’ve got here . granted , john goodman was in the flintstones , and greg kinnear has turned in some less-than-lackluster leading man performances in certified failures like a smile like yours , but even so , they’ve got proven power as excellent supporting players . garry shandling has two television classics under his belt , his ingenious little it’s garry shandling’s show and the larry sanders show . and for god’s sake , mike nichols directed the graduate , and annette bening is just walking away from american beauty . so explain this . . . this . . . thing . what planet are you from ? purports to be a comedy exploring the relationship between men and women satirizing the whole pop-psychology mars/venus phenomenon . but what this movie winds up being is a collection of unfunny cringe-inducing moments coupled with uninsightful cringe-inducing moments ; the end result is , unsurprisingly , an unfunny , uninsightful , cringe-inducing , thoroughly icky embarrassment . garry shandling plays an alien from a planet populated by technologically advanced but emotionally vacant males ( they reproduce through cloning , of course ) . his leaders put a select group of males through a series of tests designed to determine which one is most fit to fly off to earth , find a female of the species , and impregnate her . they’re taught how to pretend that they’re listening by nodding and saying ” uh-huh , ” and how to compliment shoes . imagine my delighted surprise when , oh heavens , all their carefully practiced tactics turn out to fail miserably , producing comedic results ! the lucky winner is fitted with a penis ( since theirs , after generations of disuse have long since shrunk out of existence . . . i will restrain myself from mentioning the implausibility of such a scenario since the population has stopped evolving due to the fact that they’re all just clones . . . whoops , too late . ) the penis , when aroused , tends to make a humming noise . the writers , when frequently strapped for ideas , tend to turn to this as a source of ” comedy . ” it isn’t funny the first time . it isn’t funny the eighth time . it isn’t funny the eighteenth time . if anything , it made me feel vaguely self-conscious . garry meets up with a coworker at a bank played by greg kinnear , who turns out to be a generic , unlikable scumbag . he’s meant to fill the part of unfortunate role model for shandling’s alien character , but he’s so flatly drawn that even the writers quickly give up and toss him aside . kinnear’s scumbagginess is demonstrated by the fact that he claims other peoples’ work as his own to worm his way into a vice presidents’ position and goes to aa meetings to pick up chicks . wow . what a magnificent bastard . nearly every man in the movie , in fact , is played as the same sort of sex-driven slimeball . when kinnear’s wife walks into the office , there isn’t a single guy who doesn’t trip , bump into a wall , or otherwise pratfall as if they’d never seen a woman before . the few guys that aren’t particularly slimeballs , such as john goodman’s detective character , are simply uncommunicative workaholics . shandling meets up with annette bening , who will inevitably prove to be the love he never knew existed , at one of kinnear’s aa meetings . shandling’s mission is to have a baby , and when he reveals his desires to her , bening instantly falls for him , and the next day . . . they get married . yup . the next day . cuz ya see , it turns out she wants a baby too ! bening’s character perhaps was the most difficult to watch , especially after seeing her come apart at the seams so effectively in american beauty . . . if her character here is supposed to be representing the female of the species as a whole , then woe , i say , to the species . she’s unfathomably insecure , and succumbs so easily to all of shandling’s lines and lies that it borders on tragic . there’s a point where , after thinking she may not be able to bear children , she learns that she is indeed pregnant . when garry comes home after nearly cheating on her , she strolls into the kitchen and sings ” high hopes ” ( you know , the uplifting ant and the rubber tree plant song ) to deliver the news , and then says to him , ” now you can’t leave me . ” we’re supposed to empathize with shandling’s discovery of the feeling of ” guilt , ” but instead i wanted to weep for bening that she was placing her entire life and soul firmly in the lap of a great big nothing . and eventually , shandling falls in love with her . . . for real , i suppose , though i’m not sure exactly what prompted it . what’s the message i derive from all this ? men are liars , inherently empty creatures , but if you hang around long enough . . . well , maybe something will click . ha ha . . . ha ? i’m thankful such broad cynicism isn’t frequently allowed to run so rampant . let’s all join hands and pray that the planet these folks are from is not this one . there’s also a subplot involving john goodman as an airline incident investigator that wades in the bog of stupidity . goodman , through a series of astoundingly implausible realizations , puts together the fact that shandling is a being from another world with a magic , vibrating penis . it has all the makings for a subplot of having shandling be discovered , that , thankfully , never comes to the inevitable hackneyed fruition . instead , it just dangles limply on the branch for a while , withers , and falls away . further proof that goodman should just stick to doing coen brothers movies . but let’s not dwell on this any longer , i’ve already wasted plenty of your time and my own . let’s move on , forget about what we’ve seen here , and get on with our lives . and to help us out , let’s end things on a happy note . . . congratuations go out to annette bening , winner of this week’s ” title ! ” award , for delivering the awkward line of dialog containing the movie’s name .
0 it seems like i’m reviewing cheeseball horror movies on a monthly basis now . scream revitalized a genre the studios are now intent on burying into the ground again-the serial killers in these new slasher movies have nothing on sony and miramax in the ” relentless ” department . i still know what you did last summer is a terrible film in many respects , but in the wake of the stupefyingly bad urban legend , it’s citizen hook . jennifer love-hewitt reprises her role as buxom teenager julie james-who apparently escaped certain doom at the end of the last movie by . . . waking up . she lives in fear of ben willis , the vengeful fisherman-victim of a hit and run by julie and her pals . paranoid and beat , she accepts a free trip to the bahamas from her friend karla ( norwood ) , winner of the local radio station’s 4th of july getaway giveaway . bikini-ready julie invites boyfriend ray ( prinze , jr . ) , who-and here’s the movie’s biggest mystery-turns her down , but changes his mind and plans to surprise her before take-off . until he gets a roadside visit from captain hell-liner himself , that is . unaware of this and feeling shunned , julie goes on vacation , anyway , with karla , karla’s boyfriend ( pfeiffer ) , and will ( matthew settle ) , a real boy-next-door type who’s sweet on julie . to make a long story short-i can’t believe it took a paragraph to describe the set-up for this gratuitous sequel-the trip is a disaster . not only is it storm season , not only is the desk clerk ( the frighteners’ jeffrey combs ) a jerk , not only are the few island residents and our heroic vacationers getting picked off by the resourceful willis one-by-one , but the karaoke machine isn’t working properly ! ( you think killing is hard ? try reprogramming a laserdisc so that gloria gaynor’s ” i will survive ” now contains the lyric ” i still know what you did last summer ! ” ) all is not lost-ray is on his way to save the day , and a helpful witch doctor is saying little prayers for julie and co . this picture is really about breasts : two of them . julie , like a good horror heroine , never does up her shirt to the collar , always wears white in the rain , and keeps sexy underwear on in case of a sudden desire to tan . based on the hormonal charge i got out of the movie , i can’t imagine what it was doing to the ten year old boy who sat next to me-he gets jennifer love-hewitt , and my generation got heather langenkamp ! lucky bastard . i didn’t like i know what you did last summer and i can’t say i liked this continuation any more or less . the pacing in both films is languid-how is it that so much time passes with neither murder nor character development ? i still know what you did last summer has a better sense of humour than the first one , though , and at least it explains away willis’s random selection of victims . ( i don’t think the hotel maid or the stoner dude had the slightest idea what julie did last summer . ) director cannon ( judge dredd ) is a competent filmmaker but not a particularly imaginative one-if there is a part three ( what on earth would they call it ? ) , and the fun denouement suggests there will be , here’s my suggestion : hire a filmmaker with flair , someone who can really energize this stillborn series-someone who won’t rely on so many shock notes . and let that person run wild with the camera . ( aside : if blandy [sic] must appear in the next one , try to keep the number of times she says ” baby ” to a minimum . thanks in advance . )
0 we’re back in blade runner territory with this one , conceptual artist robert longo’s vision of a william gibson-inspired future where information is the commodity to kill for . front and center is johnny ( keanu reeves ) , a ” cyber-courier ” who smuggles data via a ” wet-wired ” implant . he’s ready to quit the biz and get a portion of his long-term memory restored , but , first , he has to finish one last , dangerous job . . the pressing problem in johnny mnemonic is that keanu reeves seems to have forgotten how to play an action hero since his stint on speed . he’s walking wood in a forest of stiffs that includes henry rollins , ice-t , and dina meyer . ( dolph lundgren’s street preacher is in an acting category all its own . : – ) without a believable performance between them , all we can do is sit back and watch the atmosphere , which is pretty good in places . the vr sequences are way cool , but the physical fx–such as miniatures and mattes–leave a lot to be desired . watch out for those bad blue-screens ! we wouldn’t mind a minute of johnny mnemonic if the action played better . too bad the debut director isn’t very strong in this de- partment . his big finale is a sloppy , silly mess that runs twenty minutes too long , which is way past the time that most of our ” wet- wired ” processors have already shut down . bottom line : yatf ( yet another tortured future ) . skip it .
0 ok , i admit it–i find camp amusement with the spice girls . yes , the same spice girls of the gimmicky individual ” identities , ” they of the annoyingly infectious bubblegum pop hooks and cheesy unifying mantra of ” girl power . ” but not even their guilty pleasure appeal isn’t enough to carry their big screen debut , a junky mess which would be more aptly named shite world than spice world . the film begins amusingly enough , with a cheeky 007-esque title sequence in which the british quintet– ” scary ” ( melanie brown ) , ” baby ” ( emma bunton ) , ” sporty ” ( melanie chisolm ) , ” ginger ” ( geri halliwell ) , and ” posh ” ( victoria adams ) –are introduced one by one ( to , much to my surprise , excited and only slightly mocking cheers from the press audience ) as they croon the silky ballad ” too much ” ( a tune that would sound right at home in an actual james bond film ) . a few minutes and an elton john cameo later comes an introductory tour of the numerous plotlines that run through the film : ( 1 ) the spicy ones go on a european publicity tour leading up to their first live concert at london’s royal albert hall ; ( 2 ) a film producer ( george wendt ) and a screenwriter ( mark mckinney ) pitch various film ideas to the girls’ manager , clifford ( richard e . grant ) ; ( 3 ) a documentary film crew follows the girls ; ( 4 ) a pregnant ” mate ” ( naoki mori ) of the group rapidly approaches her due date ; and ( 5 ) a tabloid publisher ( barry humphries ) attempts to destroy the group with the help of a sneaky shutterbug ( richard o’brien ) . capped off by a live rendition of the girls’ bouncy hit ” say you’ll be there , ” a wealth of laughs and merriment is sure to follow , right ? wrong . it’s all downhill from there as spice world collapses into a series of misfired comedy sketches . i must give the girls credit for their refreshing willingness to make fun of themselves , but writer kim fuller and director bob spiers can barely come up with a funny joke between them , much less a organized framework for all the ” wacky ” goings-on . spice world jumps from vignette to vignette , subplot to subplot with no direction and little sense , at one minute having the girls meet with aliens ( no joke ) and at another having them stage a daring rescue of two young fans who fall into the water during a boat ride . while a decent joke slips through the cracks here and there–during a ” dance bootcamp ” scene , the girls sing the lyric ” we know how we got this far/strength and courage and a wonderbra ” –much of the material is not even funny on the chuckle level . some gags are just plain pointless , such as roger moore’s recurring role as the mysterious chief , who dispenses cryptic , metaphor-heavy advice to clifford . the only reason why i can think anyone would find that funny is the fact that moore once played james bond . ha ha . as weak as the script is , i think there’s one insurmountable problem with even attempting to make a spice girls movie , and that is the girls themselves . the point is not that they can’t act ( and , for the record , they really _can’t_ ) but that their individual personas , which works as a gimmick over the span of a four-minute music video , are too thin to survive outside of the truncated , video bite mtv world . posh ( who garnered the most enthusiastic cheers during the introductions ) comes off best by default because her persona ( rich bitch ) most easily translates into character in a film . baby’s persona ( young innocent ) , to a lesser extent , also works , but the remaining girls’ identities are a little harder to flesh out . there really isn’t much to do with sporty besides having her exercise every so often ( which is _exactly_ what fuller and spiers do ) , and , after all , what exactly entails being ” ginger ” or ” scary ” ? apparently , just their wardrobes . spice world manages to pick up some steam in the late going following a flashback performance of the spices’ signature hit , ” wannabe . ” the song is as grating as ever , but the energy of the number gives the proceedings a much-needed shot in the arm , setting the stage for a wave of self-referential humor stemmed from the screenwriters’ film ideas ( the film almost mirrors robert altman’s the player in the way the film snails into itself ) . this section of the film , involving all manner of derring-do involving a speeding bus , is perhaps its most effective , but it also points up how all the other storylines ( the publisher , the documentary crew ) lack a satisfactory payoff . spice world is harmless entertainment suitable for the entire family , and it will please the spice faithful . but this sloppy enterprise surely won’t win them any new fans , which is what the group sorely needs to bolster its rapidly waning girl power in the states . once the hype disappears , spice world will likely serve as the the spices’ final hurrah in america .
0 sylvester stallone has made some crap films in his lifetime , but this has got to be one of the worst . a totally dull story that thinks it can use various explosions to make it interesting , ” the specialist ” is about as exciting as an episode of ” dragnet , ” and about as well acted . even some attempts at film noir mood are destroyed by a sappy script , stupid and unlikable characters , and just plain nothingness . who knew a big explosion could be so boring and anti-climactic ? unless you saw ” blown away ” . . . ” the specliast ” of the title is none other than action star sylvester stallone ( in comeback #19 , i think ) , who plays a quiet , hermit-like bomber who was once a bomb expert with the army or something , but who suffered a change of heart when he and his assistant ( james woods , who shows us exactly what over-the-top is , other than another bad sly film ) accidentally killed some innocent people during a job . his credo is killing bad people , not innocents . and that’s why he makes big bombs . so anyway , into his life steps the seductive sharon stone , who is basically the girlfriend/moll of the stupid son ( eric roberts ) of a cuban/miami kingpin ( rod steiger , in an indecipherable accent , which is sometimes cuban , sometimes brando , sometimes scottish , etc ) . turns out sharon is actually using her boyfriend so she can kill him , since he killed her parents when she was young . so she calls sly , leaves messages with him , sends him e-mail , etc , about planting a bomb to kill roberts , which sly listens to obsessively , and while he works out naked . yea . also into his life , though again , comes woods , who has been tipped off by stone to catch sly . using the cops , he tries to set up traps , none which really work , so when sly calls him , he goes ballisitic on his ass over the phone , getting so worked up by saying his must-be-improvised speeches that he seems to pop the vein in his head wide open . these are the most exciting scenes in the film , and woods becomes the only ounce of entertainment in the film . the film tries to offer us a moody film noir , except with explosions , but comes up completely snake-eyes . it’s just a pretend film noir , making it a big waste of time . and for action buffs , the action scenes are pretty lame , with some really unrealistic-looking special effects ( a penthouse being blown off of a hotel looks like a piece of cardboard falling into a tub ) . then there’s the much-discussed sex scene between sly and stone , which are about as mispaired a couple as rachel and ross on ” friends . ” their sex scene is more nauseating then sexy , because it shows us more of sly than stone . now let’s guess who we’d rather see naked , okay ? stone’s small but perky breasts , which we’ve seen more times than harvey keitel’s dick , or stallone’s veiny ass , which isn’t usually shown for a very good reason ? i know i can’t really judge it as a flaw of the film , but come on . the worst flaw of the film is this : it’s boring . i mean , i was on caffeine when watching it , but my friend fell asleep only to be woken up by james woods ranting . but a good movie does not james woods going nuts make . if you’re in for some fun action , rent sly’s earlier ” demolition man , ” which sucks too , but in a much more entertaining fashion . skip this dull film , unless you want to see woods , or make fun of steiger’s accent , or see stone’s breasts again .
0 `the skulls’ is a laughably bad thriller , a teen-orientated doppelganger of `the firm’ so blazingly ridiculous that it caused me to drift into a hypnotic stupor . certain moments are so preposterous that i nearly herniated myself in an attempt to stifle laughter . i chuckled incessantly , all the way home . let me share . the skulls is a secret society conceived inside the walls of yale ( designed , i’m sure , to mirror the actual skull & bones from the same college ) . luke mcnamara ( joshua jackson ) , a townie and local varsity rowing championship victor for the third consecutive year , highlights the latest skull scouting report . despite some anxiety and caution from others , luke accepts entry into the organization . soon after , he finds himself surrounded by beautiful women , driving a new car and marveling at the $20 , 000 that somehow surfaced in his bank account . yeah , dude , pretty good deal eh ? but luke soon learns that the membership is somewhat suffocating ; when circumstances become extreme , there is no way he can leave the society – except maybe as a drooling vegetable . the premise , although lacking in originality , certainly offers its share of potential intrigue and suspense . unfortunately , `the skulls’ is neither intriguing , nor suspenseful , nor anything else you would associate with fresh or exciting . it’s just another abysmal teen prototype that has the soundtrack , the stars . . . . but not the script . `the skulls’ is so bad it attains a certain level of entertainment value , with the screenplay , by jon pogue , immediately becoming the basis for a slew of unintentional howlers . first off , upon their initiation into the skulls , each new member has to have a skull branded onto their arm . afterward they are supplied with a wristwatch that conveniently covers up the scar . will they never take this watch off ? and what if they forget it by their bedside ? perhaps their ? secret’ society was being a little too conspicuous when they decided to brand new members like cattle on an area of the body that is easily exposed . on top of this , they are each given a rulebook and a key to headquarters . gee , why not member t-shirts ? but my favorite bit is this : the voting committee for the skulls does not bother with individual ? agree’ or ? disagree’ notions when making collective decisions . they are given official skull paddles . when flipped to one side , they indicate the member agrees with the proposal . facing the opposite way means a disagreement . wouldn’t they merely express themselves verbally ? hell no . they have to retrieve the paddles for a proper vote , and maybe afterward they can play ping-pong . i’m still chuckling about these ludicrous details , but the humiliating dialogue is enough to send one into arrest . the cast , meanwhile , combines a pinch of veteran talent with a dash of the `dawson’s creek’ crowd , and fuses the two together , ensuring that the embarrassment will be a mutually shared union throughout . but not entirely . accomplished actors like craig t . nelson ( as skulls chairman judge litten mandrake ) and william peterson ( as fellow board member senator levritt ) are dealt pathetic villain caricatures , and look suitably embarrassed handling them . and then there’s christopher mcdonald , who has the capacity to be a fun , exciting actor . mcdonald’s charisma is totally diminished here as he sleepwalks through another perfunctory bad guy role ( yes , pogue makes it a hat-trick ) . i pray it was a `snatch-the-paycheck-and-run’ exercise for all these actors . the young troupe of performers involved fair moderately better . let’s cut the talented canadian lad joshua jackson some slack for maintaining believability within the confines of his character . paul walker , the strapping quarterback from `varsity blues’ , is bland but passable as caleb mandrake – the judge’s son . walker preserves a straight face , even when dealt the silliest dialogue in the movie ( `dad , i just killed a guy in the ritual room ! ‘ ) . some actual spark is generated by leslie bibb , who plays luke’s longtime chum chloe , and manages to successfully pull off some convincing dramatics . it really boils down to the actors attempting to puncture the surrounding plastic bubble of absurdity that cages them from minute one . or maybe not minute one , thanks to a decent set-up from director rob cohen , who films early sequences with a sense of atmosphere and style . it makes you wonder why he didn’t flee indefinitely from the project , because while enjoyable cheese like `dragonheart’ and the moderate stallone thriller `daylight’ aren’t superior cinema , they belong on the afi top 100 list when compared to this degrading trash . aside from unintentionally humoring the audience , `the skulls’ gets little accomplished . the thrills and action are lazy and mechanical . the story is stuffed with ridiculous , formulaic plotting that sheepishly overlooks the cool potential of a secret underground society flick . instead of gaining knowledge about the skulls as an organization , we are thrust into a lame video surveillance conspiracy that has developed barnacles from excessive usage . we’ve seen it all before , and better . `the skulls’ is a feeble little circus of stupidity , so miscalculated that — while it would serve as a clever pun — a term like ? boneheaded’ seems just too generous .
0 it’s difficult to expect much from a director whose greatest accomplishments to date are a handful of ” award-winning ” tv commercials , as is the case with bubble boy director blair hayes . that said , hayes’s feature film debut lives up to expectations , coming off mainly as equal parts offensive and moronic . but occasionally , bubble boy transcends its substandard roots with glimmers of humor and scathing social commentary . those moments of intelligence are delivered mostly by the film’s two stars , jake gyllenhall as the immuno-deficient jimmy and swoosie kurtz as his over-protective , hyper religious , reagan-loving mother . gyllenhall’s sweet-natured delivery of jimmy’s hilariously na ? ve narration serves as the backbone for an otherwise flimsy coming-of-age story : jimmy is a bubble boy , a kid born without immunity who could die if he comes in contact with a single germ — a plight explored more seriously in the john travolta tv movie boy in the plastic bubble and less so on seinfeld . his mom home-schools jimmy , filling his head with wildly twisted conservative propaganda and anti-sexual messages , until he’s befriended by chloe ( marley shelton ) , the beautiful girl next door . jimmy falls in love with chloe , but is afraid that his love will literally kill him , as evidenced in a scene when she drunkenly tries to enter his bubble for a kiss . but when chloe decides to marry her high school boyfriend , jimmy builds a bubble suit and embarks on a hijinks-addled cross-country voyage to stop the wedding by professing his love . the offensive bits have little to do with jimmy’s rare handicap ( regardless of what the film’s protesters would have you believe ) , but instead center on outrageous racial stereotypes , including a screaming chinese strip club owner and a devout east indian hindi . but even if you find stereotype humor funny , it’s hard to muster more than a giggle for these shallow gags . they even manage to bungle some potentially great moments with a group of carnival freaks . but a few of the harsh jabs manage to work , especially in the case of kurtz , who very bluntly shows the dark , hypocritical side of the religious right , and a wacky send-up of a cult called ” bright ‘n shiny , ” led by the inimitable fabio . unfortunately , a few giggles can’t make bubble boy the riotous , off-the-wall comedy it so desperately wants to be . honestly , it’s a mystery how on earth this movie was ever made , and i’m not just saying that because it’s so mediocre . how odd for disney to take a gamble on a film with an unknown director starring virtually unknown actors that doesn’t seem to appeal to any particular demographic and has the potential to offend so many . and now that the studio is suffering through a very public protest against the film by the parents of real-life bubble boy david philip vetter , maybe disney’s wondering the same thing . hope the opening box office take makes it worthwhile .
0 bats is this year’s camp flick . with the world’s worst dialogue , cheesiest premise and stupidest editor , this one should be heaven for those who enjoy films humorous in their inanity . as for the rest of us , well . . . i’d say skip it , but looking at the box office figures for this one , it seems as though most of america is following that advice anyway . follow their lead and you’ll spare yourself 90 minutes of your life and 8 bucks to boot . i love alfred hitchcock’s the birds , almost as much as i love the short story on which it is based . it saddens me even more , then , to see that american treasure ripped off so blatantly by wannabe horror/schlock such as bats . when mysterious bat attacks occur in a small texas town , the authorities call in a batologist ( dina meyer ) to investigate . it turns out that a creepy scientist ( bob gunton ) has genetically enhanced a couple bats that escaped from his lab , making them smarter and more vicious . why has he done this , you ask ? because , you see , it is apparently a scientist’s job to make things ” a little better , ” even if that means the death of all mankind . so the batologist , her wisecracking sidekick and the town sheriff ( lou diamond phillips ) have to kill all the bats and save the world . of course , that can’t happen before they wallow in some guamo ( bat shit , for the uninitiated ) , get up close and personal with some truly repulsive flying mammals and survive some of the dumbest situations ever seen in a professionally produced motion picture . consider , for example , a scene where two people are in a bat cave . the bats are all sleeping , but the humans are afraid they might wake up before they can get out . what do they do ? do they get the hell out of there as fast as they can ? nope . they stand there for a while , transfixed by the thousands of bats opening their eyes . what keeps bats from being scary or creepy is the hyperactive editing in most of the attack scenes . we don’t even get to see what’s going on ; the screen becomes a mush because the cuts are so quick . all we know is that bats are attacking . how they are attacking and what exactly is happening remains a mystery . a little technical proficiency does wonders for horror movies , and bats sure could use some . of course , director louis morneau tries to liven things up with some intentional humor , but it is so conventional it doesn’t really go anywhere . most of the ocmic relief comes courtesy of the batologist’s wisecracking sidekick ( leon ) , who takes every opportunity to sputter ingenious lines like ” i hate bats ! ” some of these are so bad that they take on a double quality : they may inspire a smirk by their very nature and a roaring laugh because they are so inept . i hate characters who exist for the sole purpose of spouting lame one-liners . playing such characters does not help actors’ careers . still , i suppose that if you’re looking for a movie that is ” so bad it’s good , ” you could do worse than bats . it does have a tremendous amount of camp value . i’m not ” recommending ” the movie because , quite frankly , it sucks , and i know that this might convince some people to go out and see it . more power to them .
0 starring shawnee smith ; donovan leitch ; ricky paull goldin ; kevin dillon & billy beck the blob is the remake of the 1960’s classic ( a term that i use very loosely to define the original ) about a really mean glob of goop that takes out anything that gets in its way . now the original version has the virtue of cheesy special effects which give it a kind of nostalgic campy feel . the fact that steve mcqueen was the star of the film doesn’t exactly hurt it either . fast forward to the late ’80’s . steve mcqueen isn’t in the remake ( this might have something to do with the fact that he had been pushing up daisies for years ) . nor is there any hollywood heavy hitters in the lead role . that is unless you count matt dillon’s brother kevin as a hollywood heavy hitter . the other thing that works against this new blob is that special effects technology has improved dramatically since the original . the only things you need now to have great special effects in a movie are deep pockets . it looks as if the produces of the new blob had a couple of holes in their pockets . the special effects in this movie are cheesy , like the original’s . unlike the original , they don’t look campy , they just look cheap . one bright spot in the movie from a purely sexist point of view is shawnee smith . she is very attractive and can actually act , which is more than i can say about some of her costars . in terms of plot , a little ball of pink goop falls from the sky . seems this goop was an experiment that was being housed up on a satellite . anyway , the pink stuff has a taste for humans . the more people it absorbs , the bigger it gets . and it isn’t the friendliest goop on the block either . anyway , it attacks this little town and it’s up to the attractive local teenage population to stop it . not really , but that is how it seems . this version attempts to recapture the camp of the original . as i’ve already said , this new version of the blob comes off more as cheap , badly acted , and badly written than campy . in the years since this film was made none of the cast have gone on to greatness . although , star shawnee smith had a very tiny role in armageddon . the reason that we have never heard of any of them again is quite simple — they all stunk out loud . although some of the film’s smaller roles are filled with some actors that , while not big stars , are doubtless people that you will recognize from their supporting roles in other movies and tv shows . it also appears that the producers of the blob tried to compensate for the lack of a special effects budget by making the scenes in which the blob makes meals of the townsfolk as gory as possible . sadly , it doesn’t work very well . if you want to see a big ball of goop terrorize a town , then i would say that you should skip the remake and rent the original . ( although that isn’t so hot either . ) this newest version is seriously lacking in any redeeming qualities .
0 toward the bottom of the ’80s action movie barrel lies action jackson , the only movie in hollywood history to show sharon stone and vanity topless within a span of ten minutes . this carl ” apollo creed ” weathers vehicle features the traditional cop vs . evil establishment crook , and relies on all the ’80s trappings , from the token heroin addict who needs a fix to the shouting superior officer . somewhere in between come the explosions and boobs , although there is a curious lack of exploding boobs . weathers is action jackson , a detroit cop known for all sorts of crazy vigilante techniques . speaking of one past criminal apprehension , jackson’s superior yells , ” you tore his arm off ! ” jackson replies , ” he had a spare . ” jackson has been busted down to a desk job because of past problems with auto manufacturer dellaplane ( craig t . nelson ) and now has to act as department liaison to a dinner honoring nelson . after hearing what jackson thinks of him , stone says , ” i take it you’re not one of dellaplane’s friends . ” ” not unless they changed the definition , ” jackson glowers . and of course it turns out stone is mrs . dellaplane . faux pas , jackson . . . not everything is happy in motown ; people are being killed and dellaplane has evil plans for the awa . it’s all up to jackson to stop it , and his only lead lies in vanity ( not his own ) . wherever she left off with prince in terms of exchanging sexual favors for career advancement she picks up in action jackson . she plays the heroin addict and chanteuse in dellaplane’s nightclub . after singing one particularly sultry number for him , she saunters over and complains , ” i expected a standing ovation . ” he responds , ” you’re getting one , ” and it’s damn clever because he’s sitting down at the time . prince wouldn’t even let out an innuendo that lame and he’s the king of the horndogs . . . or at least the prince . it’s a testament to the ’80s that sharon stone is killed off within the first 30 minutes but vanity survives the whole movie . action jackson is another variation on the ” unlikely partners ” buddy action flick , with jackson lugging junkie vanity around . this leads to some of the worst paired acting of the me decade , and with the dialogue they’re given , there’s not much room for improvement . my favorite is when vanity , feeling the effects of drug withdrawal , says , ” i feel like my teeth are hollow , my gums are made of dry rubber and someone’s trying to start a bonfire in the back of my bloody head . ” jackson’s response is , ” i think i felt that way once . they called it love . ” you’ll understand when i say watch this at your own risk . serving the world for nearly 1/25th of a century !
0 if anyone had been able in 1983 to forsee a late-night cable show hosted by gilbert gottfried showcasing some of the worst films of the 80’s , they’d agree d . c . cab is the quintessential ” usa up all nite ” movie . it’s one of those childish r-rated movies that kids would love but can’t see until it’s edited for tv . it’s also one of those pointless , almost plotless movies with hardly any laughs . and , strike three , it pairs mr . t with gary busey . i heard gilbert say d . c . cab had ” an all-star cast , ” but i’m still hoping there was some degree of facetiousness in that statement . when third-billing goes to a two-minute appearance by famed flashdancer irene cara ” as herself , ” you can’t say a damn thing about all-star casts . likewise for token appearances by marsha ” roz ” warfield , paul rodriguez and ” politically incorrect ” host bill maher , before he was somebody . appearing in d . c . cab pretty much had the opposite effect on everyone else , especially irene ” i’m gonna live forever ” cara . d . c . cab is an ensemble comedy from joel schumacher ( who would go on to direct batman forever ) about a bunch of misfits who drive cabs . you get the feeling if the police academy cadets had made a different career choice , this would be the result , except here you have such interesting characters as the ” token white guy ” ( busey ) who wants to get in tight with the blacks now before they take over the world , the token jive talker named tyrone ( charlie barnett ) who wears his hair in rollers and uses the word ” honkey ” as much as possible , the tough guy with the mohawk and gold chains ( mr . t — a real stretch for him ) , the aspiring musician waiting for his big break ( maher ) , the mexican gigolo ( rodriguez ) , the woman who actually wants to drive cabs for a living ( warfield ) and the guy who wants to own a cab company for a living ( adam baldwin ) . we’ve all seen dozens of bad comedies from the 80’s . some are fun to watch and some are actually funny . this one is more or less neither . you’d think plenty of comedic sparks would fly from the assemblage of talent ( whatever ) , but d . c . cab more or less falls flat on a continual basis , culminating in the usual contrived hollywood finale as baldwin is kidnapped and the other cabbies have to go to rescue him . it’s a shame no one was able to rescue this movie from the depths of stale jokes and unoriginality . d . c . cab has rightly earned its position on ” usa up all nite . ”
0 written by alex cox , tod davies , terry gilliam and tony grisoni directed by terry gilliam i’ve always preferred mushrooms to blotter acid . dropping acid is like riding a roller coaster blindfolded ; you have no idea where the peaks and valleys are , no idea when the next terrifying decent will send your stomach into your throat , and no idea how long the ride will last . then there’s the hard knot in your gut and the clenched teeth that come with ingesting a strychnine-laced dose . mushrooms , on the other hand , offer the psychedelic equivalent of a leisurely ride on a ferris wheel : a steady , reassuring assent , a short period of thrilling motion and color , and then a smooth landing . acid is for daredevils ; mushrooms are for refined seekers of joy . my point is that in fear and loathing in las vegas , director terry gilliam has made an acid movie , when i wish he would have made a mushroom movie . full of shocking sight gags , aggressive images and grotesque comic performances , the film certainly offers something for those fans of hunter s . thompson’s book who want to experience its twisted pharmacological world-view from the inside out . but for those of us who just want to enjoy a well-made film , gilliam has produced a mixed bag . fear and loathing tells the ostensibly true story of how self-professed ” gonzo ” journalist hunter s . thompson ( johnny depp ) and hispanic activist attorney oscar zeta actosta ( benicio del toro ) , came to las vegas to cover a motorcycle race and found themselves trapped in the middle of a district attorney’s convention while ingesting every conceivable drug available to a man of means in 1971 . operating under the pseudonyms of ” raoul duke ” and ” dr . gonzo ” , the two men careen into vegas on an acid and mescaline bender , then hole up in a hotel suite to binge on amyl nitrite , cocaine , tequila and a rainbow of multi-colored uppers and downers . they terrorize every one they meet , mostly because every one they meet terrifies them . duke hallucinates giant bats on the way into town , then is attacked by horrifying lizards in the casino lounge . dr . gonzo becomes enamored of a thick-bladed hunting knife and begs duke to throw the tape player into the bathtub with him just as jefferson airplane’s ” white rabbit ” reaches its climax . and these guys don’t just trash hotel rooms – they rape them , humiliate them and leave them for dead . that neither of them ends up dead or in jail is testament to blind luck or providence , depending on your point of view . thompson’s book , besides being a hilarious read , has stood the test of time as an important historical document . it simultaneously exposed the 60’s drug culture for the sham that it was and exposed las vegas as the place where the american dream came to die . pontificate all you want about how the film illustrates thompson’s message , but the truth is that , stripped to its bare essentials , what gilliam has wrought is a drug comedy . it’s a cheech and chong movie . you’re there to watch depp and del toro ingest a lot of chemicals and then laugh at the results : see johnny take drugs , see johnny fall down . there’s nothing wrong with this concept , but gilliam tries too hard . this is a frantic movie – all sweaty close-ups , wide-angle lenses , dutch tilts and other-worldly lighting schemes . there are times when gilliam really does put a convincing representation of an acid trip on the screen . but to what end ? much of the dialogue comes verbatim from thompson’s book , and there are some priceless comic observations . but you’re hard pressed to hear or digest them amidst all the jumbled camera work . this brings us to the performances , which strike me as all wrong . depp plays thompson as groucho marks filtered through george c . scott in patton – a gimmicky performance which works against the biting satire of thompson’s dialogue . in between his several puking scenes , del toro fares better as dr . gonzo , but he also mumbles and sputters so many of his lines that their weight is lost . watching these two made me wish that the movie had been made twenty years ago , with dan akroyd and john belushi as the leads – now that would have been something to see . it’s interesting to note that alex cox , credited as a co-writer on the screenplay , was originally slated to direct before gilliam took over . as much of a fan as i am of gilliam’s work , cox would have been the better choice . sid and nancy , cox’s best work , covered essentially the same subject matter , but cox was able to pull back and allow the characters of sid vicious and nancy spungen to carry the film . gilliam commits the compound sin of over-directing his film while being uncertain of his purpose . what kind of movie was he trying to make , anyway ? it doesn’t try to be a cautionary tale , and it doesn’t work as broad comedy . if he had considered more carefully his purpose , the result would have been a much more interesting film . but i don’t want to be too hard on it . there are some truly funny moments , and if you’re in a good enough mood you might get a kick out of it . i do , however , recommend watching fear and loathing in las vegas under the influence of your favorite controlled substance – i guarantee it will enhance the effect .
0 the best thing about , ” lake placid ” is that it’s only 80 minutes long and when it’s over you’re glad that you didn’t waste more than an hour and a half of your time . it’s nothing more than a bad rip-off of , ” jaws ” ( and i think that’s being kind . ) it was written by david e . kelly ( ” ally mcbeal ” ) as a horror-comedy but fails at both , miserably . i was never scared and i think that i only laughed once . the crocodile even fails in comparison to the snake in , ” anaconda . ” the plot begins when a man is eaten in half by the giant crocodile in black lake in maine . that brings the local sheriff ( brendan gleeson ) and a fish-and-game warden ( bill pulman ) to investigate . also , a paleontologist ( bridget fonda ) from new york is sent to look at a tooth and an eccentric millionaire/crocodile lover ( oliver platt ) flies in because he wants to swim beside the beast . soon there is tension between everybody because half the people want to kill the croc and the other half want to save it . there’s also an eccentric old lady ( betty white ) who lives by the lake and has a few secrets . as i mentioned before kelley and director steve minor ( h20 ) don’t go for a serious approach towards the material but they also don’t have anything sly or satirical or witty to say either . the betty white character is completely unfunny and none of the other characters are really that interesting , they’re all basically idiots . if they had any brains the croc wouldn’t have been that much of a challenge to catch and they wouldn’t have put themselves in half of the situations that they did . but then again , if they were smart there wouldn’t be a movie . basically , ” lake placid ” is best undiscovered .
0 that is , unless you’re one of those people who have seen the preview a thousand times on tv or in the theaters . i can tell you one thing now : they gave the entire movie away . why someone would want to base an entire movie on one premise and then give that crucial detail away in the trailers is beyond me . however , if they * hadn’t * given it away , the film would’ve still been suprisingly devoid of suspense given its subject matter . obviously , the producers thought they could remake ” the deep end of the ocean , ” throw in tommy lee jones and a couple of cliches and call it an action drama . ” double jeopardy ” offers solid acting from ashley judd and tommy lee jones , who got first billing even though he didn’t see to be on screen half as much as judd did . it also offers some genuinely funny , clever , or full-of-tension moments ( my favorite : judd waking up in the coffin ) , but none of that can salvage the film from its insanely predictable plot . half the time i’m wondering whether i’m watching one of those overhyped tv miniseries , which always turn out to be less exciting than advertised . judging by the beginning , end , and a huge chunk of the middle , i might have been watching a special hallmark presentation too . the movie’s stretching for an almost two hour long film with only 30 minutes worth of material . implausible material , no less . loose interpretation of one of the amendments aside , too many times in the movie i thought , ” that is * not * possible * . ” that kind of stuff is excusable in popcorn movies , but not one like ” double jeopardy ” that tries to pass itself off as serious drama . everything seems dragged out , overplayed . when they should’ve kept us in the dark , they let the cat out of the bag too early .
0 i had an epiphany today . it occurred to me while i was watching ” house on haunted hill . ” it is as follows : if a trailer makes the film it’s advertising look like a trashy , stupid movie , well guess what ? chances are , there * is * truth in advertising . too bad i didn’t trust my own instincts when something-or-the-other possessed me to see this movie . i blame it on my sudden craving for a scare and my anticipation of ” sleepy hollow . ” that and ” dogma ” started too late in the afternoon for my schedule . an hour of ” angel ” or ” buffy ” is scarier than this doozy that tries to be scary and shtick but falls flat on its face . i wish i’d seen it when it was halloween . at least i would have been forgiving . hey , tis the season . the movie was scary ( albeit very confusing , dizzying , and nauseating ) at first , but soon the horror got repetitive and downright laughable because the film obviously wasn’t going anywhere . now i truly appreciate films like ” scream , ” ” halloween , ” or any old hitchcock film where the scariness stems from situations that are at least somewhat realistic . that’s what spooks people out , the fact that it could happen to them or someone they know . there has to be a logical precedent for the situations they want to scare us with . sure , utterly unpredictable is good , too , but that’s different from utterly nonsensical . hohh ( house on haunted hill ) , on the other hand . . . well let’s just say i about fell off my chair laughing when they oh-so-cleverly revealed that everyone who got invited to the party was related to the psycho doctors who died in the house a couple of decades ago . riiiiight . y’know , that just sends chills down my spine . yeah . just like i wet my pants when they told me the house is evil . ooooooo . hint : blood and guts only work a few times . sooner or later people start to tell themselves that it’s just ketchup and props and you’ve got to come up with something better than that . there were just too many things in this movie that we’ve all seen before ; from the inevitable ” plot developments ” of strangers unwittingly trapped together ; strangers turning against each other ; the evil manifesting itself ; the dead coming back for a last scare . each was more predictable than the last . why didn’t these fools just stay together in one place anyways ? sheesh . was i grossed out ? yes . did i get spooked a few times ? yes . but why ? i get really disturbed when there is no why . when there weren’t random scares that were there for no other reason than for the visual effect ( which wasn’t that good either , trust me ) and the scare , the film was filled with drab , laughable dialogue . the characters were incredibly flat and cliched . not to mention downright annoying . you’ve got a bunch of people going nowhere in their lives ; of course they’re dumb enough to go to a party some stranger invited them to provided they win a million dollars if they survive the night . jeez , i thought no one fell for those ” you may already be a winner ” things anymore . and of course , all three gals are babes . i wonder how on earth the geoffrey rush of ” shine ” ended up in this movie . keep that up , geoff , and you’ll qualify for the next batman venture . the only single person i enjoyed was chris kattan because , well , he just cracks me up . and famke jansen ( sp ? ) because she reminds me of the delectable brosnan . pierce brosnan ( hey , i willingly endured ” dante’s peak ” three times for him : ) . all right , i concede . there were a couple of things i enjoyed . that perverted little amusement park at the beginning . i probably won’t ride a rollercoaster for a while . and the machine they used to drive geoffrey’s character mad ( see , i don’t even remember their names ) . the machine , not that stupid fishtank with naked wimmin in it . i kept waiting and waiting for that inevitable twist at the end of the movie . it wouldn’t have redeemed the film , but at least it would have made me feel better . but no , they opted for the beautiful sunrise ending . thank god they didn’t add a kiss at the end or i would have puked . god , there is no hope .
0 director andrew davis reworks his fugitive formula and the results are about as exciting as his last film– the dreadful comedy steal big , steal little– was funny . keanu ” i’d rather play music than play another action hero ” reeves is the grad student on the run , who , along with his superfluous sidekick ( rachel weisz ) , has been framed for a sabotaged science experiment that vaporized eight chicago city blocks . ( the mushroom-cloud explosion is a knock-out and easily the best part of the movie . or , as one audience member succinctly summed it up : ” whoa . ” ) false information implicates their involvement and boy and girl are soon on the run , fleeing over open drawbridges , across icy lakes , and through the corridors of power at a top-secret , underground energy facility . aiding and abetting is the team’s shady mentor , played in an excellent-but-so- what performance by morgan freeman . ( brit brian cox is also about , as the behind-the-scenes bad guy . he has some fun fiddling with a southern accent . ) unfunny , overscored , and without a single shred of suspense , chain reaction is * the * summer movie to walk out on . if you make it to the end , a mess of cross-cutting involving another imminent explosion , you’ll hear somebody say ” i guess it’s time to go . ” heed that warning .
0 one of the most blatantly obvious signs that often-acclaimed director sidney lumet’s ” gloria , ” a remake of the 1980 john cassavetes film , had absolutely no effect on me occurred when i was driving home from the theatre . suddenly , i realized that since i had stood up from my theatre seat five minutes before , i had not thought once about the film i had just invested nearly two hours of my life in . when a movie is over , aren’t we supposed to think about it for a while , and have a conversation about it with the acquaintances we have just watched it with ? i thought so , but , for one , i saw this particular picture by myself , and #2 , even if i had been with someone there wouldn’t have been anything to talk about in the first place . to be sure , ” gloria ” begins with a stirring , rather poignant prologue in which a seven-year-old boy’s family is brutally gunned down by mobsters , in search of a disc his father had with incriminating evidence on it . right before the men broke in , of course , his father gave him the disc to escape with . eventually , the boy , named nicky nunez ( jean-luke figueroa ) , is caught by the mobsters , and taken back to their apartment . meanwhile , gloria ( sharon stone ) has just gotten out of prison for a crime she didn’t commit and returns to her ex-boyfriend ( jeremy northam ) to recieve the money he promised her for covering up his crime . when he refuses to give it to her , and then hears the group of men talking about killing nicky , she leaves with him in order to save his life , but not before holding the men at gunpoint , stealing all of their money , and forcing them to strip nude . gloria is the type of fast-talking , smart-mouthed new yorker who always seems to get involved with the wrong people , and she never expected to be stuck with a kid , but she has a heart of gold ( don’t they always in this type of movie ) and is only trying to protect the boy , whom she quickly begins to form a close bond with . the previous incarnation of ” gloria ” by cassavetes and starring the luminous gena rowlands , remains unseen by me , but was no doubt superior , even though i can’t really imagine how this considerably dull story could be transformed into an entertaining one , regardless of the director or stars . there is no doubt in my mind that director lumet has stuck closely to the original , but the film itself is simply lifeless , with only an occasional laugh popping up here and there so that it isn’t completely unbearable to watch . i liked , for example , a very funny climactic sequence where gloria is deciding whether to leave the school she has left the boy at , and keeps turning the car around , then driving a little ways , then slamming on the brakes and turning around again . these bright moments , however , appear long and far between , and the majority of the film deals with the budding relationship between nicky and gloria , which is both painfully predictable and by-the-numbers . throughout , my mind was repeatedly asking the question , ” who really cares ? ” as gloria , sharon stone has adopted an over-the-top brooklyn accent that honestly doesn’t sound realistic at all . in the beginning , in fact , i was amazed at how amateurish stone’s performance was , but as the film progressed she got better . although not one of her better turns , stone does have a comic flare that refuses to be ignored . jean-luke figeroa was fine as nicky and a little more natural than the usual child actors who are so precocious they make you want to gag . all other actors who appeared were considerably wasted , none more than cathy moriarty , an entertaining actress in her own right , who is billed fourth and has all of one scene , as gloria’s friend whom she turns to for help . sony , the studio that released ” gloria , ” obviously does not have any faith in the film , and i don’t blame them . they declined to screen the picture for critics , which is never a good sign , particularly with the high-profile people involved . although how much money a movie makes does not determine how good it is ( just look at the spectacular ” in dreams , ” which failed to even make the top 10 last week ) , i have a suspicion ” gloria ” is going to vanish from theaters faster than ” ishtar , ” judging from the opening night 7 : 00 p . m . showing i saw it at , where there were about ten to fifteen people present , counting myself . although stone can be an impressive actress ( just watch her in 1995’s ” casino ” or 1996’s ” last dance ” if you don’t believe me ) and sidney lumet can be a respectable director , there is no reasoning for why they thought the cliched story of ” gloria ” was worth remaking or , for that matter , why columbia pictures agreed to finance it when they could have been making a picture that actually looked like it might have an inkling of a chance to be successful .
0 pre-review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is ” sex ” , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review . because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of ” sex ” ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and cannot comprehend , fret not , it’s most likely just another way of referring to ” sex ” . i think we’d all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review . though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what . body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you’d normally expect to see a violent attack . it’s about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it . these are things we all do , sometimes . the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts . their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed . it’s as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek . at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition . michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say . his characters don’t communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera . they voice simplistic platitudes like ” i like to come ” or ” sex without love equals violence ” . huh ? and yes that is as complex as this movie’s observations get . the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more . the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events . we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy . i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i cannot . i’m not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others . with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other– a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin . i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( ” sex without love equals violence ” ) . in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning . the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me . this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining . if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k-obsessed , fine , i don’t have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side . additionally that one side isn’t even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism . one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters . they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ? alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ? kidding of course ) , then , not only isn’t it erotic , it isn’t real . it doesn’t feel like an authentic sexual encounter . every f * * k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner . body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film . it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it . the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? ) over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow . the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred . the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off . this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i can’t think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80’s next to wall street . unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off . paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded . it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall-out of such a decision . the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them . he gave them heart . cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones . he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us . this is not the way to get any message across . why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin’ skins ? cristofer kind of does that , though without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
0 i’m guessing — and from the available evidence , it’s not a great guess — that burn hollywood burn began life as an insider satire of hollywood excess , stupidity , ego and power-mongering . if so , the film that ended up on the screen ranks as one of the most spectacularly ironic unintentional jokes in film history . it has already been well-documented that the original title , an alan smithee film , became a problem when miserable test screenings forced re-cuts against the will of director arthur hiller , prompting hiller himself to opt for the directors’ guild-mandated pseudonym of alan smithee . that left a film satire in the hands of writer joe eszterhas , as humorless a hack as ever put finger to word processor . and you could just smell the disaster brewing . if you’re unfortunate enough to sit through burn hollywood burn , you’ll still be smelling that disaster long after the lights come up . ostensibly , it’s a pseudo-documentary account of a director named alan smithee ( eric idle ) who loses control of a big-budget action film called trio starring sylvester stallone , whoopi goldberg and jackie chan ( all of whom appear as themselves ) . when the only recourse available to him is abandoning the project to be called ” an alan smithee film ” — which , of course , it already is — smithee steals the negative of the film and threatens to destroy it . among the parties interviewed are the film’s producer james edmunds ( ryan o’neal ) and studio boss jerry glover ( richard jeni ) , who spend virtually the entire film narrating the story while painfully unfunny things go on around them . it’s bad enough that burn hollywood burn has — literally — not a single laugh for its entire , blissfully brief 84 minutes . what makes it even worse is eszterhas’ insistence upon telling every bad joke not once , but twice or even three times . michael ovitz references , showgirls references , oral sex references , whoopi goldberg/ted danson references — all show up multiple times with all the subtlety that is eszterhas’ stock-in-trade . the reduncancy even manages to turn actively offensive with some frequency , notably with the hilarious use of the word ” feminist ” as an identifying caption for every single female character in the film . by the time coolio and chuck d show up as black independent film-makers the brothers brothers ( cleverly identified as ” bad a– ” and ” badder a– ” , among other unprintable things ) , you may be ready to walk out of the theater with your coat over your head to avoid being identified . those documentary captions , for all their leaden obviousness , allow the best insight into what’s so hideously wrong with burn hollywood burn . not content to stick any hollywood type with only one jab from his rapier wit , eszterhas fills the screen with bullet points every time a new character appears . the producer is a ” liar ” who ” slept in the white house ; ” the media are ” maggots ” and ” leeches ” working for publications like ” the new york slimes ” and ” newsleak ” ( with the camera zooming in on the altered title to make sure you don’t miss the joke ) . it doesn’t even matter that eszterhas tags ” penile implant ” after his own name when he makes a cameo , because it seems like such a desperate attempt to feign self-deprecation . this is a petulant schoolboy’s idea of satire — pictures of hollywood insiders to which eszterhas has taken a pen to draw little moustaches and black out the teeth . the last stomach-churning straw comes when burn hollywood burn closes with out-takes over the closing credits , the kind that show the audience how much fun everyone was having making the film that just sucked an hour and a half of your life away . perhaps it was just a final , desperate attempt by eszterhas to convince himself there was some purpose behind the film , or to convince everyone involved that a few blown lines warranted threatening to blow their whole career . pity everyone involved with this excessive , ego-driven ” satire ” of excess and ego . it’s too bad that only directors can remove their names from noxious material like this . otherwise , you might have seen credits for burn hollywood burn overflowing with alan smithees .
0 ” meg ryan is irresistible in the comedy that celebrates sisterhood ! , ” screams the television ads for ” hanging up , ” disastrously written by real-life sisters delia and nora ephron and sloppily directed by diane keaton . make me laugh again ! not only is ” hanging up ” misadvertised , since the film wholeheartedly focuses on middle sister meg ryan and gives her two co-stars , lisa kudrow and diane keaton , little more than extended cameos , but they don’t actually come together until the final ten to fifteen minutes . and we are supposed to believe their strong bond , and smile in the last scene when they rekindle their rocky relationship , despite them being apart for the majority of the running time ? excuse me , again , while i almost bust a gut at that truly delusional notion . eve marks ( meg ryan ) is the middle mozzell sister , still living in the california town where she grew up , and with a husband ( adam arkin ) and pre-teen son ( jesse james ) . her elderly , wisecracking father , lou ( walter matthau , in his brightest performance in years ) has just recently been put into the hospital , in the final stages of what i assume is alzheimer’s ( even though the film never enlightens us on exactly what is wrong with him ) . while eve’s relationship with her mother ( cloris leachman ) is nearly nonexistent , since she ran out on lou and her children years ago , she has had her fair share of up’s and down’s with lou , who used to be an alcoholic . her older sister is georgia ( diane keaton ) , an editor for the self-titled magazine , ” georgia , ” while maddy ( lisa kudrow ) is the youngest , a soap opera actress . interestingly , their professions are given , but we not once ever see them working at their jobs , or , for that matter , learn much of anything about them . maddy , georgia , and eve do not see each other much anymore , their adult lives gradually causing them to drift apart , but they do manage to consistently talk on the phone to one another . and they talk . and talk . and talk . . . in fact , the telephone is the major star of the film , even more so than ryan , as it appears in virtually every scene of this interminable 92-minute catastrophe that feels like its three hours long . if you are able to get through the opening half-hour , in which phones ring so much you feel like jumping through the screen and taking a sledgehammer to them , you will surely survive the rest . the question is , who would want to subject themselves to this resolutely irritating , self-involved pat-on-the-back ? how could a comedy-drama that has the star-power of meg ryan , lisa kudrow , and diane keaton be so very bad in so many different ways ? issues from the past involving the possible jealousy each has had for one of the others is fleetingly brought up , but the film isn’t mature enough to deal with such a thing in a thoughtful manner , and since we learn next to nothing about their childhood , it is a lost cause that comes off as nothing more than an afterthought . also , it is expected that the viewer quickly catch on to the tricky dynamic that the three sisters have with one another , but no dynamic metamorphosizes . and when they do reunite in the finale , their whole consanguinity is reduced to a repulsively annoying three-minute scene in which they argue like little children . you can see the impending death coming a mile away , and it conveniently occurs in the next scene , so that the three can quickly come to terms with themselves , and with each other . you think to yourself : ” the only thing left for them to do is have a playful food-fight , ” and like clockwork , it also occurs by the end credits . meg ryan is a versatile actress ( look no further than 1998’s ” hurlyburly ” or 1994’s ” when a man loves a woman ” ) , despite her various detractors who stubbornly believe all she can do is romantic comedies . with ” hanging up , ” the only thing she needs to do is completely sever her filmmaking ties with nora ephron , a writer/director/hack who shouldn’t be allowed to work in hollywood again after this big-budget , high-profile debacle . even if she knew what she was making was not exactly up to par in the quality department , she nonetheless is very good , and the two scenes that work , flashbacks to christmas 1988 , when she had a heartbreaking run-in with her mother , and to halloween 1993 , when lou crashed her son’s birthday party in a drunken stupor , are effective because of the realism ryan brings to the situations . diane keaton , as georgia , is better as an actress than a director here , but that is a wildly feeble compliment . what is more than a little far-fetched is that keaton is distinctly older than ryan and kudrow , although in the very brief glimpses we get at them as children , she is no more than five years ryan’s senior . yeah , right . lastly , poor lisa kudrow has been wasted once again in a big-screen venture , after her even more thin role in 1999’s ” analyze this . ” kudrow isn’t given enough time to create a full personality with maddy , so it isn’t her fault she doesn’t register until a few quiet moments sprinkled throughout where she is actually blessed with being given dialogue . if anything , though , kudrow is a real talent , and i anxiously await the next time she is given a role more deserving of her time , as in her brilliantly nuanced , oscar-caliber work in 1998’s ” the opposite of sex . ” if you are a fan of kudrow’s ( and who isn’t ? ) , do yourself a favor and rent this gem that puts more good use to kudrow in sixty seconds than ” hanging up ” does in its entirety . as eve’s hardworking husband , adam arkin is , predictably , squandered with a role that gives him next to nothing to do , until a subplot reveals itself midway through , only to never be mentioned again . cloris leachman , as with ryan and matthau , makes a small , but noticeable impression with her , albeit , very brief appearance , while edie mcclurg , as a rosy-cheeked woman lou had an affair with in the christmas 1988 flashback , manages one of the few laughs in this otherwise joyless production . nearly all the emotions displayed within ” hanging up ” are patently manufactured , and despite the movie wanting the viewer to care about the characters , aside from eve , why would you want to when they are all spoiled brats ? if , for some bizarre , ” twilight zone ” -type of reason , you find yourself in a movie theater showing this film , my suggestion would be to hang up on it before the opening credits are over . saying it is a waste of time is an understatement of epic proportions .
0 under any other circumstances , i would not be discussing the ending of a film to the extent that i will in this particular review . however , in order to fully explain exactly how and why this movie is so awful , a minute dissection of the ending is necessary . even though i will not reveal the details of the last scenes , do proceed at your own risk . the movie opens ( quite poorly , i might add ) as child psychologist malcolm crowe ( bruce willis , looking like he was dragged out of his trailer at the wee hours of the morning to shoot each scene ) and his wife are intruded upon by one of malcolm’s past patients . distraught , the suicidal man ( a cameo by new kid on the block donnie wahlberg ) shoots malcolm and then turns the gun on himself . cut to the ” next fall ” , as we find the good doctor quietly observing his latest case , a trouble young man named cole ( haley joel osment , one of the only child actors in a while i didn’t want to bludgeoned over the head with a blunt instrument ) . after about 45 minutes of seemingly unrelated freak occurrences , we learn that cole has ” the sixth sense ” , the gift of being able to communicate with the dead . and this , as they say , is where the healing begins . the sixth sense and its unexpected popularity is founded upon a twist ending that i knew going into the film ( one of roger ebert’s colleges was kind enough to give it away on a recent segment of ” siskel and ebert ” ) . although i was at first enraged that an established film critic could so callously ruin a film for thousands of patrons , i soon realized that this turn of events could in fact have been a blessing in disguise ; i’ve always been a sucker for surprise endings ( my favorite movie is the usual suspects ) and rarely dislike a film that sports one . here , since i knew the major plot twist that was coming at the film’s conclusion , the possibly of being bamboozled into loving a bad movie solely because of its ending ( something i’ve fallen victim to in the past ) was eliminated . and indeed , my viewing of the sixth sense did prove to be quite an enlightening experiment . stripped of the element of surprise , the film was put to the task of showing what it really had , instead of simply hiding behind a shocking conclusion . after seeing its true colors , i came to the conclusion that the sixth sense is , despite what the many champions of the movie may say , void of any real power . it’s a neat concept , but not one that justifies being made into a feature-length movie . in fact , the sixth sense relies so strongly on its finale that the rest of the film develops as a sort of prelude to the supposedly earth-shattering revelation that is yet to come . and when the final moments do come , it’s a huge letdown ; the end makes no sense at all . it stupefied me with the heights of its ineptitude and is completely idiotic on a fundamental and very rare level . i won’t go into any details , but suffice to say that , as far as i can tell , it negates to rest of the movie to such an extent that anyone who buys it even for a second must be suffering from a very acute case of attention deficit disorder . now , in all fairness , i cannot say for sure that i would have guessed the ending ( however stupid it may be ) had it not been revealed to me before hand . however , i feel very confident that i , as well as anyone who had seen a few ” twilight zone ” episodes , would have seen it coming a mile away . the fact that movie-goers nation wide are surprised by the ending still has me stumped . ironically , to fully appreciate the best scene ( that of cole and malcolm attending a little girl’s funeral ) , the viewer is required to be aware of a very rare psychological disorder called munchausen syndrome by proxy . i wouldn’t have even known about this mental disease if i hadn’t , by pure dumb luck , caught ” dateline nbc ” the other week when they did a feature story on it . despite being blessed with some really amazing cinematography and a brauva performance from osment ( where was this kid when casting calls were going out for the phantom menace ? ) , in the end , the sixth sense is too chalk-full of contradictions and just isn’t plausible enough to warrant even a slight recommendation .
0 brian de palma’s snake eyes stars nicolas cage’s evil twin , who confusingly uses the same stage name as his talented brother . like a foreign tourist who screams his lines in english to ensure that he will be understood , cage yells with the ferocity of a man with a bad case of caffeine overload . de palma , whose last great film , the untouchables , was crafted over a decade ago seems to have lost his magic . in snake eyes , he manages to elicit some of the worst performances possible out of a skilled cast . only gary sinise rises slightly above the hackneyed material . the rest of the actors become caricatures in this by-the-numbers thriller . ryuichi sakamoto’s atmospheric and melodramatic music dominates almost every scene . heavy on the long violin notes , its rhythm is punctuated by thunder . ( the script by de palma and lost world’s david koepp sets the action during a hurricane in an attempt to pump up the adrenaline level and the noise . only the latter is achieved . ) cage plays rick santoro , a corrupt atlantic city cop who shakes down criminals to get betting money . the movie takes place over a single evening when a world championship fight is being held . with a flashy , bad wardrobe and a gold cell phone , rick is an obnoxious cop who doesn’t know when to shut up . spouting cliched and ridiculous dialog , he screams such lines as , ” i was made for the sewer , baby ! ” actually the line is more apropos for the movie as a whole . sinise plays kevin dunne , a naval officer who is in charge of the security for the secretary of the navy , who has come to watch the fight . but most people in the film are not who they seem to be , and the thin script makes all of them easy to guess . the plot , which is told in endless flashbacks , concerns the assassination of the secretary through a scheme set up by some malevolent businessmen ? that adjective is , of course , redundant in hollywood thrillers . the flashbacks become repetitious with the same scene shown again and again , sometimes from a different perspective and sometimes not . although a brian de palma film requires a certain amount of gratuitous violence , this one is remarkably tame for the man who became famous when he made carrie . the movie’s outline has some promise , but the movie itself is leaden . the film takes itself all too seriously . at best , it is a 1940s-style b movie . a little humor would have helped the script some , but a complete rewrite would have been better . and , although i hate to say it , a different director would have been the biggest improvement . snake eyes runs 1 : 39 . it is rated r for violence and would be acceptable for teenagers .
0 a disappointing biography about the homosexual relationship of two famous 19th century french poets . the film managed to remove all the poetry from the poets and instead concentrated on their abrasive personalities . the result is merely an academic exercise , leaving an emotional vacuum that it couldn’t build on to show them as the poets they were . on paper , this shouldn’t have been so terrible — it had a talented director in agnieszka holland ( ” the secret garden ” ) , a proven screenwriter in christopher hampton ( dangerous liaisons ) , and a capable cast . but the film was done in by its inept script , the unappealing way the film was directed , and the miscasting of leonardo dicaprio as rimbaud . i found his performance to be the most risible one in the film , with him acting more like a teenage brat than a young genius , spouting obsenities without giving a hint that a true poet lies behind that facade . he , especially , looked bad because david thewlis as paul verlaine looked so good despite the turgid dialogue that was thrust upon him and how thin a character he was forced to be . but when the two of them were together , it looked like a mismatch . leonardo’s rimbaud only made the young poet look petulant and crude , yet we know from rimbaud’s poetry , that he must have had something going for him because his poetry was awe inspiring . the film opens in post-revolutionary france in 1871 , the 16-year-old rimbaud has sent the established symbolist poet verlaine a letter with his poems . he accepts verlaine’s praises and invitation to be a house guest in his splendid paris home , and rimbaud leaves his sullen farm in rural charleville . once there , rimbaud is disappointed in the bourgeoisie household , has an immediate conflict with verlaine’s busty 18-year-old wife mathilde ( romane ) , and finds to his regret that the drunken verlaine loves his rich wife for her body and that he lives off her family’s money , even though he has nothing else in common with her . when verlaine states , ” poets can learn from one another , ” rimbaud replies in a haughty tone , ” only if they’re bad poets . ” he will continue to treat the older poet like dirt for the rest of their relationship . verlaine proves to be weak-willed , beating his wife regularly , and plays just as despicable a character as rimbaud . when mathilde’s father kicks rimbaud out of the house , verlaine finds him in a rooming house and the two become lovers . it’s a real downer to watch this story unfold into a series of obnoxious behavior patterns on the part of the two poets , which leads them to traveling together and mathilde asking for a divorce . in brussels , verlaine gets arrested for sodomy and spends two years in jail . while rimbaud becomes angered at the literary world and never writes another poem after he becomes 19 . he instead goes to north africa and becomes an adventurer and a gun-runner , and after ten years there , comes home with a tumor on his knee and dies a changed man at the age of 37 . the hopeless relationship between the two is what the picture covers in detail and that was not very satisfying . the film ends on a whimper . . . with verlaine talking with rimbaud’s sister about her brother and the poems of his he still possesses , which the sister wants destroyed so as not to embarrass the family or ruin the name of her deceased brother if published . this film was especially annoying because rimbaud’s poems are filled with a visionary tenseness that are not even approached in this film , as the film only manages to skim the surface of the lives of these poets and completely ignores the value of their poetry . i have no idea what the filmmaker was trying to say in this film , but whatever it was , it just didn’t work . it certainly didn’t bring any light into understanding what rimbaud meant to modern poetry and why he earned the reputation as the so-called father of modern poetry .
0 in our time . in our modern world , where the cool rule , it’s hard to imagine that shakespeare is becoming ‘the man’ . and yet – film after film , after film , is based on his everlasting magic . in warner brothers’ latest production , shakespeare is kicking ass to a rap beat , while his magic and intelligence slowly fades away . though the producers of the matrix have vaguely based their picture on william shakespeare’s ‘romeo and juliet’ , its title sequence with a frightening rap song and a black limo making its way through the dark streets of new york , is very hard to associate with shakespeare’s poetry . the film takes place during a silent war between the two major mafia families in the city – the afro americans against the chinese . the youngest son of a chinese mafia chieftain is found murdered . the afro-americans are immediately suspected , but a peace treaty is signed between the two godfathers . it is at this point that han ( the romeo of the story ) finds out about his brother’s death . escaping from a prison in china , he returns to united states to avenge his brother’s fate . but before he can restore justice with his kung fu kicks , he falls in love with a mysterious beauty . the only problem is that she is the daughter of his enemy . . there’s only a weak echo of shakespeare’s talent in this disappointing production . and there are more problems besides its title . of course we don’t call it a deformation of a great masterpiece . we call it ‘modernization’ . it seems that the producers fear that the audience will not respond to lyrics , without any car chases and gun fights . this lack of respect for the audience i find very disturbing . kenneth brannagh has already proven that shakespeare doesn’t need to be updated , because his tales are grounded in the basics of life and human nature . and as long as love , hate , honesty and corruption do exist , everyone will understand and embrace shakespeare . i must admit that i found ‘rome must die’ very confusing . i can forgive andrzej bartkowiak , since it is his first attempt at directing . he manages to create an incredible atmosphere and directs with a firm precision . unfortunately he completely forgot about character- and story developments . his latest picture is therefore visually impressive , but intellectually hollow . the love story between han ( jet li ) and trish ( aalyah ) , and the mafia intrigues are undeveloped and simplified . jet li is one of the most amazing fighters to ever hit the silver screen and aalyah has a magical voice . their achievement save this film from being completely braindead , but they are not actors , and therefore can not act . they are nothing more than two celebrities put together . the other actors , including isaiah washington , russell wong , henry o and dmx all give the standard mediocre performances . delroy lindo is the only one that projects a coherent image of reality . but there’s more than acting to worry about . even with li’s incredible skills in martial arts , the action scenes ( though technically excellent ) are too long and story updates simply embarrassing . to make a long story short : ‘romeo must die’ is not intelligent enough to be a thriller , not sensual enough to be a love story and too serious to be a fun action film . it is certain that bartkowiak would be much better off with o this embarrassing and completely unnecessary parallel to ‘romeo and juliet’ , so the film is completely stuck – not sure of what to be . and in the end it’s nothing . there are no performances worthy of notice , no interesting character- or story surprises . so again , the only good thing about it is its technical achievement . this film can boast of great sound , fast paced editing , solid cinematography and some very well coordinated action sequences . the music is another factor that prevents you from leaving the theatre . it is mostly provided by aalyah’s enchanting voice and several carefully inserted rap songs by various artists , that create a kind of ‘ghetto feel’ to it . but when i think back , it’s not much i remember from this ‘production’ . as in almost every summer movie , there are some interesting scenes , but most of the moments that i remember are associated with massive special effects . it is not a film that will get any attention for its artistic qualities , simply because it doesn’t have any . for someone who has never read shakespeare , it’s another popcorn film . for those of us who has , it’s a waste of money , time and brain cells .
0 isn’t it the ultimate sign of a movie’s cinematic ineptitude when you can’t think of much to say about it other than ” it sucks ” ? one of the first official year 2000 releases , supernova is such a movie . i can’t seem to get past one-word adjectives with this one , although ” boring , ” ” stupid ” and ” absurd ” doesn’t amount to much of a review . a shame . i would have been able to save myself the chore of desperately trying to elaborate . but c’est la vie . here goes nothing . i’ll keep it short . i suppose the first bad omen for supernova came when director walter hill ( 48 hours ) removed his name from the movie , requesting that it be replaced with the pseudonym thomas lee . the film’s fate was sealed in many minds when struggling studio mgm declined to screen it for the press , an event usually signifying a studio’s lack of confidence in a particular movie . hill’s and mgm’s actions were prudent . when the captain of medical space vessel nightingale dies in a tragic hyperjump accident , a reformed drug addict who is also the first officer , for some reason ( james spader ) is forced to take command . the ship picks up a distress call from a nearby planet and , on arrival , picks up one survivor from an apparent accident in an abandoned mining colony . one of the crew members ( angela bassett ) knows this passenger , who is played by peter facinelli , and has some bad feelings about it — and we all know what that means . this intergalactic hitchhiker is carrying some mysterious cargo — a jellylike substance the purpose of which is unknown , though it seems to bring some form of pleasure to whoever touches it . another one of the crew members experiences this first hand ; after spending a few minutes partially inside this glob of goo , he does some impressive handstand pushups . evidently , touching this enigmatic egg-shaped thingie makes you younger and stronger . how ? why ? the movie never bothers to explain . soon enough though , spader and bassett are running around the ship like mad , being chased by the all-of-a-sudden-superhuman facinelli . to be honest , i don’t even remember exactly why . i just remember that i didn’t care . supernova’s plot suggested some more or less interesting ideas , such as the ball of goo being an intergalactic time bomb , but they are all dropped before they have a chance to develop into anything truly intriguing . in fact , everything is dropped just so the actors can have some fun running around what looks like an elaborate set . well , the effects are good , though there’s hardly a studio movie with bad special effects these days so i’m not sure whether that’s so remarkable an accomplishment . the performances are hardly worth talking about . i’m not even sure i can call what’s here ” performances , ” though angela bassett sure is good at giving people the finger . james spader is not a bad actor , but he proves to be one of the blandest action stars i’ve seen in a while , mostly because he isn’t given a character with a personality . the action scenes are just as bland , since they’re pretty much just rehashes of action elements that weren’t particularly entertaining the first time around . and since the action scenes are everything to this movie , it’s pretty much dead in the water . and for the life of me , i can’t figure out why it’s called supernova .
0 ” idle hands ” is distasteful , crass and derivative . if an original thought found its way into this horror-comedy it would die of loneliness . plus , you have to question the judgment and sensitivity of studio executives who would green light the release of a movie dealing with the slaughter of innocent teen-agers the week after the tragedy in littleton , colo . the movie is insulting to horror film fans and teen-agers . the plot , what little there is , deals with anton ( devon sawa ) , a high-school slacker who’s hand goes on a murderous rampage after becoming possessed . along the way the hand kills anton’s parents and his two best friends . the friends , also slackers , are so lazy that they return from the dead because the walk into the light was too far for them . that is the level of this’s atrocity’s humor . the movie treats death as a joke . ” idle hands ” is gruesome and morbid . the performances are stereotypical and cartoonish . i realize this is supposed to pass for comedy , but recent events have surpassed what is on the screen . it is not the fault of the filmmakers that real life has overtaken reel life . and i can only presume that the writers of ” idle hands , ” terri hughes and ron milbauer , were trying to make some statement about today’s young people and their values in a satiric vein . however , it’s hard to laugh at death these days , especially ones involving young people . with the real horrors of the world put before us on television , a stale pastry such as ” idle hands ” should be held from release for a few weeks or months to give us time to catch our collective breaths . ” idle hands ” is bad , no matter the circumstances in the world outside . but the context of recent events only heightens its shortcomings . the time is not right for this type of movie . and as far as ” idle hands ” goes , the time may never be right . this is a movie that shoud be consigned to the trash bin of cinema .
0 a movie about divorce and custody in 1995 seems about as timely as a movie about mood rings . family breakups have been an all too familiar part of the american landscape for nearly thirty years , and countless dramas have told stories of acrimonious court battles in hand-wringing detail . still , i can’t recall a comedy about the subject before bye bye love . and after it , i still can’t . bye bye love is rarely funny , more often a weak and melodramatic retread of common tv-movie fare . only a few moments which have nothing to do with the film’s main premise offer big laughs instead of cliched emotion . bye bye love follows one weekend in the lives of three divorced fathers who get weekend custody of their children . dave ( matthew modine ) , a father of two , is an inveterate womanizer having difficulty staying faithful to his latest girlfriend ; vic ( randy quaid ) is a foul-humored father of three about to go on a rare date ; donny ( paul reiser ) pines for his ex-wife and has trouble relating to his teenage daughter emma ( eliza dushku ) . over the course of the weekend , the three men face various crises , including vic’s blind date from hell ( janeane garofolo ) and donny’s growing estrangement from emma . the three lead actors form a rather unlikely combo , and the quality of their performances is of widely varying quality . randy quaid is the best of the three , bitter without being irritating , gleefully spiteful without being frightening . his run-ins with is ex-wife ( lindsey crouse ) are a bit over-played , though , and his confrontation with a pompous radio psychologist ( rob reiner ) is gimmicky and implausible . he does get bye bye love’s best sub-plot , a hilarious dinner date with a gloriously demented janeane garofolo , and he does a great slow burn . paul reiser really has only one character , his slightly befuddled , uptight nice guy ” mad about you ” persona , but he does it well . as a personality , he is appealing , but as a character , he becomes pretty boring here . matthew modine , is , quite simply , terrible . this isn’t a performance good enough to be called mailed-in ; he even forgot to put a stamp on it . modine lacks any charm in an appallingly under-written role , looks bored most of the time , and gets stuck with a trite little speech about how it’s all his father’s fault he’s such a cad . carolco’s executives , whose entire future is resting on modine’s bankability for the upcoming cutthroat island , must be sweating buckets right now . bye bye love basically comes off as a very confused movie , because it spends far too much of its time on the new relationships of its main characters instead of on the relationships between the fathers and their kids , making it just another ” dating in the 90s ” movie . when the movie does deal with the children at all , it is to have one of them scream out an accusation and/or cry , perhaps to be resolved later by a sensitive talk and a hug , perhaps not . even more confusing is a sub-plot featuring the late ed flanders as a widower who goes to work and a mcdonald’s and befriends a troubled youth . it is a sad end to flanders’ career , getting caught up in a truly annoying over-use of mcdonald’s as a location , a plot device and , apparently , a major advertiser . even if bye bye love had decided to spend its time focusing exclusively on the parent-child relationships , it still would have been pretty difficult to pull off , because ultimately there is very little humor one can wring from family break-ups and their effects on children . any way you slice it , it is a bad situation for kids , and the makers of bye bye love mostly go for the heartstrings when dealing with the single parenting issue . it is left to the dads’ romantic fumblings to probide what little humor there is , and it isn’t enough . there have been comparisons between bye bye love and parenthood , but parenthood was both genuinely funny and genuinely touching . bye bye love is a genuine shame .
0 according to the publicity material , with this movie the directors ” hope to restore good old-fashioned bowling to its rightful place in the mainstream of american consciousness . ” hmm . you never know , they just might be on to something . what with the rise of geek chic , lounge music and seventies fashion , the ever-contrary kids of the nineties might just latch on to bowling as another terminally unhip bastion of tackyana to claim as their own . but then , i doubt if kingpin will have anything to do with it . it’s cheesy all right , but connoisseurs of bad taste will find this film exudes that bland smell of stale jokes rather than the invigorating stink of true kitsch . that’s a shame , because , in the first ten minutes or so the film promises to be a lot more . woody harrelson plays the hotshot bowler on the rise , roy munson . the movie opens in the fifties with roy’s dad dishing out the reader’s digest/gumpian wisdom in scoopfuls , shifting to the 70s for a hilarious spoof of saturday night fever . the sardonic tone of the proceedings is much enhanced by the presence of bill murray , as the delectably slimy big ern mcracken . it’s thanks to murray that the first quarter of kingpin seems so good – he gives the wry , derisive edge to this otherwise rather unfocused comedy . mccracken dupes munson into a hustling job , then abandons him to an angry mob who mangle roy’s hand . then it’s fast forward 17 years later when munson is a fat , balding loser with a prosthetic rubber hand . he’s hopeless until he meets ishmael ( randy quaid ) , an amish amateur bowler that munson takes on as protege . so together they set out for the million dollar bowling tournament in reno , picking up pretty hustler claudia ( vanessa angel ) on the way . with the exit of bill murray , the filmmakers seem to have only one direction to go , and that’s . . . dumb and dumber . yes , indeed , kingpin is brought to you by those modern proponents of laxative humour , peter and bobby farrelly , the directors of the aforementioned jim carrey vehicle . so , prepare for much slaparound comedy with flying rubber hands , distended nipples , ridiculous hair and bull semen . get set for stock fish-out-of-water situations when city-boy roy puts on a beard and tries to blend in with the amish community , or when suaku straitlaced ishmael takes on smoking , striptease and unchristian neighbour-socking . now , don’t get me wrong , there’s nothing wrong with cheap humour , and i had my fair share of lavatorial laughs with woody and randy . the trouble is that these jokes aren’t bold or funny enough to drive a movie that bumbles along without much sense of direction . it lurches from sports movie to amish-mocking to road-trip to sentimental melodrama , ( pausing for a broadside spoof of indecent proposal , and many shameless plugs for the accompanying pop soundtrack ) , never quite getting it all together . some gags fall flat from a lack of build-up , while there are bits and pieces in the movie that simply don’t do anything . why the long , unfunny fight in the car park ? why two of these ? why does that guy wear mascara , or that guy have a glass bowling ball with a rose in it ? the film is full of these half-thought-through ideas that give the impression of any old gaffer , grip or makeup artist throwing in random stuff and saying , ” wouldn’t that be funny ? ” . well , no , actually . the actors don’t do the movie much favours either . woody harrelson comes off okay , plausibly acting dumb , smart , cynical or innocent when the implausible script calls for it , but randy quaid is a ceaseless ham , and vanessa angel has no talent ( like schwarzenegger , she seems more convincing playing a computer-creation than a human — take the tv series weird science . . . please ) . even murray hams it up when he reappears in the movie’s climax . all in all , a fairly useless attempt at comedy , and a certified no-hoper at kickstarting the bowling renaissance . we’ll have to look to a reinspired john waters , or perhaps somebody from down under ( ” strictly bowling ” , anyone ? ) for the definitive bowling comedy . the flying inkpot’s rating system : * wait for the video . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .
0 starring kiefer sutherland ; reese witherspoon & bokeem woodbine i used to think that the conversation was the worse film i had ever seen . freeway is giving me second thoughts . freeway is a modern retelling of little red riding hood . only in the nineties , little red riding hood is a foul-mouthed juvenile delinquent played by reese witherspoon , and the big bad wolf is a serial killer ( keifer sutherland ) . to top that pathetic premise off — reese goes to visit granny and you’ll never guess who’s waiting under the cover’s in granny’s bed . keifer sutherland is one of hollywoods most talented , yet underrated actors , and reese witherspoon is exceptionally talented and will most likely become a major star . so what are they doing in this movie ? after seeing the end result , undoubtedly they are both asking themselves the same question . you might be asking yourself why this is such a short review . the answer is quite simple — i dont want to waste any more of my time writing or thinking about this movie than absolutely necessary . i wasted enough of my time just sitting through it . note to keifer : you wonder why you aren’t a bigger star in hollywood ? because you keep making movies like this . note to reese : you were great in fear , what happened this time ? note to both : don’t worry about it too much , no one saw this movie anyway . bottom line — i’m still shaking my head . don’t waste your time on this turkey . if you want to see a great keifer sutherland movie , go rent flatliners or young guns . reese witherspoon’s abundant acting talents are used to their full potential in fear , a great thriller . do yourself a favor and rent one of these movies — but stay as far away from freeway as you possibly can .
0 synopsis : in ” sooner than you think ” america , the future of law enforcement resides in blade squad , a ragtag group of culturally diverse rollerblading cops with jetpacks strapped on their backs . a dangerous criminal , however , attempts to destroy blade squad after his brother dies while being chased by them . comments : so , what do an ex-gangbanger turned insubordinate traffic cop , a former prostitute with a substance abuse problem , and a junkie turned dennis rodman wannabe turned cop who crashed four police cruisers all have in common ? why , they’re all members of blade squad , an elite new crimefighting unit wearing black uniforms , rollerblades , and jetpacks ! they also carry video cameras so they can communicate with one another a la the marines in james cameron’s aliens . yes , it’s blade squad , the fox network’s wednesday night movie of the week . this ” movie , ” marking its dubious world premiere today , curiously has a number of guest stars . ” how can a movie have guest stars ? ” you may ask . well , blade squad is not really a movie so to speak but a 2 hour pilot for a possible tv series packaged as a movie . blade squad is dumb . blade squad is loud . blade squad is obnoxious . blade squad will probably be a ratings hit and spawn a long-lived tv series . why not ? after all , television has given its audience crimefighters with talking cars ( ” knight rider ” ) , fast helicopters ( ” airwolf ” ) , and super fast motorcycles ( ” street hawk ” ) , and viewers have eaten it up in the past . so , why not crimefighters with jet-powered roller blades ? to be honest , as a made-for-tv presentation , blade squad is at least watchable . the film has a relatively large cast of characters , a surprisingly intelligible albeit predictable script , and enough action sequences to keep one half-interested . i’d imagine adolescent males , probably the target audience of this turkey , would get a kick out of it . i tried to keep that in mind when i watched blade squad . i can remember liking ” airwolf ” and ” street hawk ” when i was 10 or 11 . and , although this isn’t saying much , blade squad is leaps and bounds better than the last fox network movie i had the displeasure of wasting time on : the insipidly awful generation x ( a huge disappointment considering the comic book’s terrific two-year beginning ) . but , i digress . despite its limited appeal , blade squad has a lot of kinks to work out if the movie is to become a tv series . one , it suffers from mtv syndrome : a lot of quick shots and weird angles continuously jar the viewer’s senses while a near nonstop generic rock soundtrack blares incessantly in the background . oh yeah , dylan’s ” knockin’ on heaven’s door ” and bowie’s ” i’m afraid of americans ” are used here , in rather poor taste . two , blade squad needs a new crew for the sound . the substandard sound editing irritated me to no end . characters’ dialogue , at times , sounded choppy and unintelligible . during one important scene , a song played loudly in the background . when a character spoke , the song’s volume dropped but did not disappear . as soon as that character finished speaking , the song’s volume immediately returned to its original level until the next character spoke . this sounds trivial , i’m sure , but it distracted me immensely . finally , this is commercial television . foul language is not allowed , typically , on commercial television . thus , don’t use foul language in a made-for-tv production because that foul language has to be censored in some manner . in an early scene of the film , for example , the lead good guy and bad guy have a minor confrontation in the streets . when the good guy spouts out a bad word , a driver conveniently honks his car’s horn off-screen to muffle the word out . in a ” seinfeld ” episode , this technique proved funny ; here , it seemed goofy and cut the dramatic tension considerably . perhaps future writers , if a show is spun out of the movie , could take a cue from marvel comics’ 2099 series of comics . make up a bunch of new bad words for the future . this way , you don’t need a bunch of honking horns or other silly devices to cover up foul language . compared to the usual crap broadcast tv networks have to offer in terms of movies , blade squad is a suitable exercise in camp . when compared to , say , a movie studio film , blade squad has a lot in common with a term which shares its initials : bs . ( review written august 12 , 1998 )
0 what a contrast ! in the space of two days , i saw shakespeare in love and hurlyburly . i’m not sure you could get two more different movies . while the former was all over the top , telegraphing everything , shoving its philosophy of life down our throats , hurlyburly was the complete opposite , wound so tight and with so much buried in its script , one could spend weeks thinking about it . this is one interesting movie . it’s very much in a similar vein to one of my favourite movies of ’98 , in the company of men , although not quite so nasty . there’s lots of talking and some scary insights into the world of men . hurlyburly doens’t contain much plot : we just follow eddie ( sean penn ) around as he tries to make sense of his life and the people around him . his big question is : does it all pertain to him ? and if it does , how is he supposed to feel about it all ? ” it ” means everything : television , friends , events that happen . i guess it could be summed up more crudely as : what’s it all about ? this is not a movie for answers . donna ( anna paquin ) gives some but they’re not really satisfying : they just lead to more questions . that’s what makes this movie stay on your mind . these are the sorts of questions that occupy our time . even when we push them to the background , however we resolve these questions influences everything we do . the performances are all superb in hurlyburly . i haven’t seen sean penn in much before ( in fact , i can’t remember seeing him in anything ) , but he is brilliant in this . eddie isn’t a likeable character , but sean penn makes him understandable . i don’t want to be his friend but i’d like to help him . chazz palminteri is also great as phil , making him an awful person . i’d never want to know phil but still i understand why eddie wants to be his friend . everyone in this film nails their performances , making this world real . it’s a nasty world ; it’s a sexist world . unlike shakespeare in love which is unfailingly politically correct , hurlyburly is a man’s world , seen unapologetically through the eyes of men . i find this fascinating and on two counts , depressing . first , it’s depressing that such a world exists . a large part of hurlyburly’s success is that it convinces me that such people are real and that this sort of environment exists every day in hollywood ; that there are a large number of men out there who believe women to be completely peripheral to their world , toys , playthings . sure , everyone is background to everyone else but in this world , women are a long way in the background . second , these are the movies that are being made : stories about men’s world . where are the stories about women’s world ? not the soap operas and the ” chick flicks ” that are meant to satisfy women , but the real stories that touch on the essence of life like hurlyburly does for men . hurlyburly is based on a stage play and that is evident from the moment the film starts . it’s very talkative , intelligent and static . while this can make the film drag a bit , and people sometimes sound like they’re quoting textbooks , mostly this is a good thing . not all films have to be filled with special effects and sweeping panoramas . not all films have to underestimate the intelligence of their audience . all it means is that hurlyburly is probably just as effective on video as it is on the large screen . it also means that you have to pay attention .
0 capsule : the running gag pair of characters from all of kevin smith’s films gets their own movie . the gags are sporadically funny . it is more than occasionally funny for teens who are fond of scatological humor and anti-gay jokes . the plot is weak and the leads are not a particularly funny comic team . the little inside jokes and digs at other entertainment and particularly at kevin smith films are the best features of the film . sadly for me they were just not funny enough to make the film worth watching . this feels like the high school skit that that the principal would not let the kids do on talent night . ( and it turns out he had very good reasons . ) , low 0 ( -4 to +4 ) a film needs a plot . it needs characters for empathy value . it needs a story and an emotional center . if a film is just a chain of jokes it can only be so good and any entertainment value will succeed or fail based on how funny the jokes are . kevin smith has now made two satisfying films , clerks and chasing amy . with dogma he tried to make a philosophical religious comedy and mixed with a madcap romp . peter cook and dudley moore did that very successfully with their bedazzled . but getting the combination to work is very hard to do right and kevin smith’s fecal monsters in dogma were not the way to do it . his remaining two films , mallrats and his new jay and silent bob strike back are aimed squarely at a teenage audience . jay and silent bob strike back is a compendium of gay jokes , penis jokes , flatulence jokes , film pastiches , and in-jokes . how funny the jokes are will be a subjective call . for me , the vast majority of the jokes were just not very funny . there was not enough cleverness or variety . it is funny at most once or twice to accuse someone of being gay . penis jokes work only so many times . showing up as minor characters in every kevin smith film jay and silent bob were a clever pair of human running gags . they were sort of the modern equivalents of naunton wayne and basil radford , the comic duo who showed up satirizing the english middle class in several good british post-war films including dead of night , the lady vanishes , and passport to pimlico . jay and silent bob were originally supposedly typical generation x stoners . as the series wore on they had larger and larger parts . in jay and silent bob strike back they are the leads . jay and silent bob ( played by jason mewes and kevin smith ) are chased away from the front of the convenience store where they were dealing drugs in clerks . this leaves them at loose ends . they are not sure what would be worthwhile to do with their lives when they hear that a comic book with characters visually modeled on them will be adapted into a movie . they decide to devote their lives to wrecking the movie or getting some of that big movie industry cash . so it is off to hollywood to shake down the movie company and having adventures along the way . the film is mostly about their adventures on the road and when they get to hollywood the problem with this comedy team is that neither really pulls his weight to make the film funny . silent bob , being silent , can only contribute to the comedy by reacting with that very expressive face of his . this makes his piece of the comedy even less than a straight man like a dean martin or bud abbott would have . jay has to be the comic . he could carry the load for both if he were extremely inventive . the problem is that he is not sufficiently funny . he is too bland to be the comic half and his lines just do not show any comic flair . so jay and silent bob are a long way from being a successful comic team . their starring roles and the low humor make this a comedy for those young at mind and for people who can laugh at gags they have seen before–sometimes just minutes before . like dogma before it , but definitely not like chasing amy , this film feels more like an amateurish skit than a real movie . certainly neither the plot nor the characters are at all involving . they are excuses for gags , many of which still fall flat . it is dogma without any of the humorous theological content . the film does not offer much to an adult audience . i rate it 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .
0 the previews for the movie are pretty good . they show a little plot , all the characters , and the emotional highlights , all spliced together to give a general impression of the script . unfortunately , the full movie adds nothing but 115 minutes . the residents of mystery love hockey . mystery and hockey go together like texas and high school football . the townsfolk love hockey so much that they even acquit a player who’s guilty of shooting another man ( yes , that’s one of the movie’s jokes . ) every saturday , the best players pair off for a game , and the whole town comes to watch . the town’s prodigal son charlie ( hank azaria ) wrote an article on the weekly game for sports illustrated . mystery’s national fame has the town abuzz . a week later , charlie actually shows up in person , and he brings with him an offer from the nhl . the new york rangers will come to mystery to play the locals . the mysterians see this as both good and bad . on the one hand , they’d love to have the fame and the money of such an exhibition . on the other hand , they don’t want to turn up as the butt of leno and letterman jokes . the movie follows a handful of lives that are affected by the proposition . biebe ( russell crowe ) has just been retired from the team and is asked to coach the boys , including his new replacement . he’s already resentful , and to top it off charlie has been making eyes at his wife . crowe is not given a lot of room to act in this film , so he’s just kind of stuck with constantly brooding . charlie , meanwhile , is resentful of having born in a town where hockey is the only measure of a man’s worth . his ” gift ” of the feature story , and of the new york rangers , was his way of compensating for not being a better skater . he hoped it would earn him some respect and merit , but the townspeople find reasons to continue disliking him . burt reynolds could have been interesting as walter , the judge whose courtroom was befouled by a moronic jury of hockey fans . walter actually has some experience with collegiate hockey , but he actively tries to put it behind him . he wants his son to take the game more seriously , but he wants his community to just get over it . reynolds could have been good , but sloppy writing and/or editing keep walter in the corner , and so reynolds never really gets to pull his performance all together . one character actually was interesting . biebe’s wife ( mary mccormack ) , like the judge , understood that there was more to life than hockey . but unlike him she has come to accept the skewed view of the community . she chose the town and her husband with her eyes wide open . her unique insight is verbalized once , and it lasts only a scene before it is gone , but her performance carries the hint of some deeper wisdom . mysterty , alaska follows a handful of other characters , but none are well developed or worth mentioning . the biggest problem with this movie is that there is no real heart to the story , no underlying thing that the movie is really about . instead , roach and screenwriters david e . kelley and sean o’byrne try to cram the entire human condition into this sports comedy . they try to make you laugh and cry , to feel outrage and pride . they present the framing and cadence for jokes , but there’s nothing truly funny . they show appropriately staged scenes of sadness , but they give you nothing to be really sad about . as columnist molly ivins would say , it’s all hat , no cattle . the perfect opportunity arises for roach to say what this movie is really about . there is a funeral scene , played with appropriate gravity and somber music . it is a chance for the characters to reflect on their lives and decide what’s truly important . russell crowe steps forward to speak , about to spell out the movie’s metaphor for us . he says that what really matters in life is ” community . . . . ” then adds ” and hockey . ” i guess these mysterians really are as shallow as they appear . only mildly bad , mystery , alaska probably deserves 2 stars . i even laughed out loud , genuine laughs in places . but i docked it an extra half star when mike myers , a friend of roach , turned up in a role that didn’t suit him . myers is a comic character actor . he puts on masks , becomes an outrageous caricature , and is funny . he’s great as austin powers , dr . evil , or any of his scottish characters . nobody else in mysterty , alaska is a comic caricature . all the other people have the feel of dramatic characters in semi-serious roles . for roach to bring in myers for a few cheap laughs shows incredible contempt toward the rest of his cast , toward his audience , and indeed toward the film itself . it’s an acknowledgment by the director that the film is not worth taking seriously .
0 a suave , cool , collected , rich , uptight bad guy = cliche . a clumsy criminal oaf to add to the laughs = cliche . a bad guy who owns a wild animal = cliche . a crooked , chauvinistic law enforcer type = cliche . at an intense moment , our main character tries to get away , but the car has trouble starting = cliche . complaining about cliches = cliche . ok , ok . so we always hear about cliches . but if there was ever to be a prime example , the real mccoy is it ! not one uttered word , not one frame of film , not one character in this whole movie isn’t a cut and paste example of everything we’ve ever seen . they might as well use this as a training film : ” how to make a bank robbery film in the 90’s ” . karen mccoy ( kim basinger ) is a bank robber who just got out on parole after a six-year stay at the state prison . she wants to make things right and go straight , especially with the fact that she has a six-year old son out there who doesn’t even know she’s alive . aware of mccoy’s bank robbing expertise , sniveling bad guy jack schmidt ( terence stamp ) uses the same six-year old to coerce mccoy into returning to her past . he wants mccoy to pull off an elaborate heist of 18+ million dollars at the same bank she got caught trying to rob six years earlier , which , by the way , is somehow due to schmidt . and if she refuses ? who knows what he’ll do to the kid . ( cue sinister laughter ) this movie is so pathetically pitiful that it’s hard to know where to begin . the aforementioned cliches are brutally abundant . i can’t stress enough how every single element , whether it be a character , the dialogue , a plot ” twist ” , etc . , is so damn generic that you’ll wonder if * anyone * is working behind the scenes , let alone in front of the camera . basinger is absolutely vacant . and where do they get off trying to make us emotionally attached to her ? here’s someone that spent their time robbing banks , and now as she heads onto the street , we’re supposed to feel sorry for her . as she confronts her son , who doesn’t even know who she is , are we supposed to break into tears ? ? especially when neither basinger nor zach english , who plays the kid , has any depth or emotional-radiance whatsoever . i suppose i should mention val kilmer . yeah , that’s right – he’s in it ! quite sadly too , seeing as how i can discuss everything about the movie and never mention his name . and he got second billing ! to be fair , i will admit that kilmer had potential in his role as the bumbling criminal wannabe j . t . barker . unfortunately the script doesn’t allow much room for improvement , and when his character is used like bookends ( he never shows up in the middle of the film ! ) , we have no time to appreciate what he might have brought to this project . the real mccoy just can’t keep it’s head above water , and soon , * very * soon , sinks into a cliched mess of movie . the actors are like dummies being moved about by an unenthusiastic puppeteer , and the dialogue , particularly schmidt’s trite dialogue , falls like the niagra . this is definitely one to avoid , folks . the real mccoy is anything but !
0 ironically , one of the themes of 200 cigarettes is that you should try to make the best of every moment in life . unfortunately i will no longer be able to say that i lived every moment of my life to the fullest , because i spent 95 otherwise perfectly good minutes , watching this sad excuse for a movie . actually smoking 200 cigarettes in the same 95 minutes couldn’t be any worse for you than it is to watch the movie . not only is it a pathetically bad film overall , but 200 cigarettes actually has no redeeming qualities whatsoever . the plot is scattered , thin and predictable ; the acting is monumentally bad ; and the style of film making resembles a home video . it is december 31 , 1981 and the big party is at monica’s ( martha plimpton ) house . but no one has arrived yet . her 8 invited guests and several people that they have picked throughout the evening are wandering the streets of new york city in various groups . some of them know each other through their common bond of having slept with monica , and some are total strangers . but they all are to face their own personal neuroses before night’s end . those who are invited are the ones that have the issues . it is up to those who aren’t to help them come to terms . first there is eric ( brian mccardie ) who is a former boyfriend of monica’s and is just getting over the heartbreak of their relationship terminating prematurely because of his sexual performance , or lack thereof . he is one of the most bland characters , in a film full of dullness , because he is so utterly predictable and stereotypical , a common trait of this poor production . bridget ( nicole parker ) and caitlyn ( angela featherstone ) who are both extremely sensuous young women looking for someone to handle their desires on new year’s eve and tag along to the party with them . they stumble across a nameless bartender ( ben affleck ) who is the one truly perfect character in a film of imperfections . he is nether sexually deprived , nor uncertain about his future , as he is in law school . his lack of flaws is both boring , unrealistic and painful to watch . as bridget and caitlyn make passes at him you are neither entertained nor humored by the sub-standard comedy . moving on , there is val ( christina ricci ) and stephie , ( gabby hoffman ) 2 teenage girls with fake identification and very different thoughts . val is monica’s cousin and a true fan of the new york scene . on the other hand , stephie is convinced that she is vulnerable to crime when the two venture out of their usual locations in search of the party that they just can’t find . paradoxically , it is 2 punks that they meet at a bar ( actually they attempt to flee from their presence , but aren’t successful ) who guide them through their fears and force a level of relaxation upon their warped minds . of all the insanely dull and uninteresting couples , only one approaches a level of decency in both acting and plot . wisely , the movie’s creators have put heavy emphasis on lucy ( courtney love ) and kevin ( paul rudd ) who are best friends and share the common bond of being dateless . paul has just broken up with long time steady ellie ( janeane garofalo ) and is starting to come to terms with his loss when lucy informs him that ellie had been sleeping around during their relationship . however , the only complexity to these two characters is that they seem to want to be more than friends , and that is reiterated when they attempt sexual intercourse in a bathroom stall on more than one occasion during this strange evening . finally , there are the two worst performances and worst sub-plot of the film . jack ( jay mohr ) and cindy ( kate hudson ) have been going out for a short period of time and jack just learned that he took cindy’s virginity the night before . while she attempts to play this down and be her usual self , he is a predictably self loathing male as he attempts to deal with a string of one night stands that includes the recently deflowered cindy . very often , when a film is as putrid as this production , there will at least be a decent quality of film making to reveal an occasional moment of glory . however , this film has neither the quality of cinematography nor the moments of glory to be highlighted . instead , what you get is a collection of rough and inconsistent cuts , bad continuity and inaccuracies . first , and most noticeable is that as the film goes from one subplot to another , there is no apparent order that it follows , and it is also weekened by unnecessarily edgy edits from scene to scene and shot to shot . at other times , objects seem to get up and move and hairstyles and costumes change from shot to shot . there are also at least 4 scenes in a taxi cab that go from start to finish . not in a single one of them does anybody pay the driver . and yet , no matter how miserable this film may be , and no matter how poor the acting is all around , there was a ray of a hope for these many bad plots . perhaps , if the makers had just decided to concentrate on one or two or , perhaps , even three , there might have been the time and opportunity for some character development , or quality acting , or even a decent plot payoff at the end . but it didn’t happen that way . the cast of quality name actors was forced into roles that not even one of them could convert into a mediocre performance , and every story line crashed and burned quicker than it takes for the ball to drop at midnight .
0 1990s would remembered as the era of binary movie events in hollywood – two movies dealing with the same subject , or , to be precise , same ” high concept ” . in summer 1994 , that ” high concept ” was ” mad bomber action thriller ” . in few weeks , ” thrillride of the summer ” actionfest speed was followed by rather action thriller blown away , so disappointing that most of the people these days associate the title with the 1992 thriller in which nicole eggert did few nude scenes . the movie begins in the prison in northern ireland , where gaerity ( tommy lee jones ) , ira terrorist with the great talent to make lethal explosive devices from almost any material , escapes from prison . he comes to boston , where he accidentally notices jimmy dove ( jeff bridges ) , dedicated bomb disposal expert within boston police . few people except gaerity know the dove’s violent past , when he used to be ira terrorist before becoming sick with violence , betraying gaerity and emigrating to america where he changed the name and started using his experience for good purpose . gaerity holds dove personally responsible for his captivity and begins the campaign of bombing terror , directed specifically at dove’s colleagues , friends and relatives . dove , who is just going to retire and start family , now must confront the mad bomber . while speed doesn’t even try to bother with plot and characters , using them only as an excuse for long and spectacular action scenes , blown away tries to be more conventional and provide the action with some back story . and that is the main reason why it is inferior to speed . badly written plot and badly written characters are sometimes worse than no plot and no characters at all . screenplay by john bateer and john rice , barely touches the complicated issues of northern ireland , using the tragedy only as the cheap backstory for even cheaper drama . the plot is , of course , full of implausibilities . the main one is the fact that movie fails to explain how the single individual , no matter how brilliant he is , can produce thousands of deadly devices and hold entire city at bay . those questions , same as in the case of speed , could be forgotten while the action goes on , but the pauses between action scenes are filled with cliched and predictable situation that should provide some background to the characters . because of them , movie seems a little bit too long , and boring at times . the most annoying element of the film , however , is tommy lee jones in the role of mad bomber . his acting is so over-the-top that potentially fascinating villain turns into pathetic caricature of himself . this role is in painful contrast with the strong performance given by that same actor in fugitive . the film have few bright points , though . some of the action scenes are fine , which should be credited to director stephen hopkins ( predator ii , judgement night ) . and forrest whitaker really shines in minor role of dove’s colleague . but , all in all , blown away is a film that was justifiably shadowed by its more famous , yet hardly unforgettable competitor .
0 don’t get me wrong — i tend to appreciate besson’s naive , unashamedly romantic worldview , an artsy european sensibility gone thoroughly hollywood . his 1994 leon is exciting and absurdly moving , thanks mainly to the interplay between jean reno and a young natalie portman , and 1997’s the fifth element is a goofy paean to love , l-u-v , that’s even more of a hoot on repeated viewings . but his joan of arc is a mess , despite some stirring battle scenes and the mostly knockout presence of a close-cropped milla jovovich as the maiden herself . jovovich , besson’s own personal muse through the making of his last two films ( though they’ve since separated ) , is magnetic and energetic enough to play a credible joan ( as long as you believe joan was not just a warrior , but also a fabulous , supermodel-level babe ) . and besson remains a servicable action film director , though not an especially facile one . leading her army against the seemingly impenetrable fortresses of the english , joan’s struggle against great odds is undeniably stirring , and besson helps you understand how the french could believe , fervently , that god is on her side . besson’s big mistake , i think , is trying to dramatize the interior life of his subject . yes , joan had visions — but i guarantee that whatever image a sympathetic audience conjures in its collective mind will be more compelling than the blue-eyed christ figure on display in besson’s hallucinatory dream sequences . the whole conceit turns into a disaster right about the time dustin hoffman ( billed as ” the conscience ” ) shows up , spouting platitudes and sending poor milla running around her cell , babbling like ally mcbeal . that’s kind of a shame , since she does quite well up to that point , charging into battle with a banshee wail that suggests the eruption of a sublimated bloodthirstiness . that darkly attractive aspect of her character — that she’s as likely a charismatic madwoman as the vessel of the lord — is more or less betrayed by the final reels , in which the conscience browbeats her over the killing she’s overseen and joan starts to look like little more than a very confused young lady who’s about to take a fall . as the story winds down , with joan condemned to a horrible death by fire , besson is aiming for tragedy and psychological significance . trouble is , he’s chosen a lurid , often jokey tone for the balance of the picture — including some blithe cgi bloodshed in the battle scenes — and it’s impossible to shake the feeling that this particular vision of the middle ages is , to a great extent , nothing more than a put-on . this glib , pre-fab version of such a great story makes me all the more grateful for dreyer’s the passion of joan of arc ( 1928 ) , a film whose dialogue is drawn from the actual transcripts of joan’s trial , and which stands as one of the most harrowing experiences in all of cinema . compared to that film , the messenger plays as a crime against history . ————————————————————– directed by luc besson written by besson and andrew birkin cinematography by thierry arbogast music by eric serra starring milla jovovich france/usa , 1999 theatrical aspect ratio : 2 . 35 : 1 ————————————————————–
0 delicatessen ( directors : marc caro/jean-pierre jeunet ; screenwriters : gilles adrien/marc caro ; cinematographer : darius khondji ; editor : herve schneid ; cast : dominique pinon ( louison ) , marie-laure dougnac ( julie clapet ) , jean-claude dreyfus ( clapet-the butcher ) , karin viard ( mademoiselle plusse ) , ticky holgado ( marcel tapioca ) , anne-marie pisani ( madame tapioca ) , jacques mathou ( roger ) , rufus ( robert kube ) , howard vernon ( frog man ) , edith ker ( granny ) , boban janevski ( young rascal ) , mikael todde ( young rascal ) , chick ortega ( postman ) , silvie laguna ( aurore interligator ) , howard vernon ( frog man ) ; runtime : 96 ; miramax/constellation/ugc/hatchette premiere ; 1991-france ) reviewed by dennis schwartz a black comedy set in the near future in a boarding house run by a depraved butcher . the comedy is played more in comic strip style for entertaining value than for deeper satire , as it features mostly zany sophomoric sight gags and relies heavily on special effects . the world has fallen on hard times and there are food shortages which include no meat , so the butcher serves up meat from human flesh to customers who pay with grain , almost as valued a commodity . that’s the big joke in the film and the novelty of that cannibalism idea wears thin mighty fast , as the characters are too absurd and sketched too thinly for us to care about them . this tasteless postapocalyptic french comedy is a first feature for the co-directors marc caro/jean-pierre jeunet . it failed to reach my funny bone and instead left me mostly annoyed at its slight story and its dark projections for the future . an ex-circus clown named louison ( dominique pinon ) , the film’s too-good-to-be-true hero , answers an ad for work as a handyman for clapet ( jean-claude dreyfus ) , and the butcher and landlord , offers him room and board in his house . the butcher’s clumsy and near-sighted daughter julie ( marie-laure dougnac ) falls in love with the skinny , weird looking clown , and the two make some music together , with her playing the cello and him a saw . they are the innocents , surrounded by a boarding house of misfits suffering from fear and watched over by her overbearing father , who has lured into his tenement the clown , as he has his past innocent victims , so that he can put his cleaver to him and then sell him as meat , which he intends to do as soon as the clown fixes up the tenement . the entire film takes place in the shabby tenement , and the tenants are an odd lot of bizarre malcontents , who do not trust each other . there are two youngsters ( boban janevski & mikael todde ) who do any kind of mischief they can . a frog man ( howard vernon ) who lives with water on the floor so he can raise his frogs and snails that he eats . two brothers ( mathou & kube ) who create little cow-moo novelty toys . a man ( holgado ) who sells a bullshit detector to the butcher for his piece of meat . a slutty woman ( karin viard ) , who lives with the butcher and only wants his meat . the aristocratic woman ( silvie laguna ) who tries numerous times to commit suicide but is too inept to do it right . the tenants are too afraid to come out at night because they know what the butcher is up to , so they are forced to communicate with each other through a pipe that runs through the building ( in one scene they are all in musical harmony to the lovemaking of the butcher and his gal , as their bedsprings squeak ) . there is also a sex-crazed postman ( chick ortega ) , who lusts for the butcher’s daughter and carries a gun while delivering the mail . there is also an underdeveloped subplot about a band of incompetent underground veggie fanatics , called trogolodistes , who have been summoned to rescue the clown and steal some grain . the directors overloaded the film with too many eccentrics , as the comedy seemed forced while the surreal look of the film added no dramatic intensity . delicatessen could have some appeal to the cult film crowd who like their meat sliced thin , monty python fans , and those who liked terry gilliam’s brazil , a film similar in spirit .
0 it’s a shame the execution of this concept falls very short of its premise . the movie is lacking and most unsatisfying . osmosis jones is crude , gross , disgusting , and was directed by the farrelly brothers – the twisted siblings behind there’s something about mary , me , myself and irene and a couple of other movies in which the humor is mostly targeted below the belt . not that there’s anything wrong with scatology . i bet even cavemen appreciated bathroom humor – such as it was . it’s merely that with osmosis jones , the farrellys humor is too juvenile , too predictable . you can almost foresee the puns just by viewing the part of the inner anatomy a sequence is drawn . osmosis jones looks like one of those old health class movies gone psycho . the trouble is , the animation may please the very young , but the jokes may be over their heads , while the teen-age audience may find it too tame for their tastes . adults ? well , let’s just say most will find it unappetizing . osmosis jones plays like a 100-minute infomercial for the eat healthy foods lobby . the live action sequences revolve around frank ( bill murray ) , who seems to be the grungiest human being in the universe . he continually looks as if he needs a shave and a shower . frank , much to the consternation of his daughter , is a fast-food addict , eating anything – and everything – that can kill you . he works at a zoo where the animals look cleaner – and presumably smell better – than he does . frank’s body is invaded by thrax , a lethal virus , after frank eats a hard-boiled egg that had fallen to the ground . it’s not gross enough that frank picks the egg up from the dirt and plops it into his mouth . nope , the farrellys pile it on by first having frank wrestle a chimp for the egg , wresting it from the primate’s mouth . like i said , the gross meter tips the scales on this one . after ingesting the egg , the movie begins its animated sequences . here , osmosis jones ( voiced by chris rock ) , a renegade white blood cell is teamed with drix ( voiced by frasier’s david hyde pierce ) , a 12-hour , painkiller cold capsule to battle thrax ( smoothly voiced by laurence fishburne ) . basically , what we have is a cliched cop-buddy movie , rife with all the clich ? s of that genre . and this is why osmosis jones doesn’t click . it merely falls back on tired , familiar conventions instead of creating new and exciting situations . the jokes and puns are lame : osmosis searches out a snitch , a former flu virus . after pumping him for information , drix tells osmosis , ” funny , he doesn’t look fluish . ” and the jokes don’t rise above that level . the live action scenes are no better . frank is such a slob , so unappealing that it is difficult to fathom how he ever married or even sired a child . he’s almost a bigger cartoon than the animated characters . osmosis jones is a movie that may be too violent for young children as thrax burns and dissolves blood cells right and left . the animation is rather two-dimensional and flat . it lacks scope and depth . it is an unappealing movie that will leave you scratching your head , and maybe leaning toward a shower after you walk out of the theater .
0 has hollywood run out of interesting characters and plot-driven suspense thrillers that we must spend two hours watching will smith and a gritty gene hackman exchange obtuse dialogue and run around dodging fireballs ? in enemy of the state , that is exactly right . a few parts the net , and a few parts conspiracy theory , enemy is about as exciting as watching smith talk to cgi aliens in 1997’s lame brained men in black . will this guy ever get a real role ? he has the bruce willis syndrome . the plot is bascially smith , playing a lawyer , getting into hot water with some high government murderers , who assassinated a powerful political figure earlier in the movie , when a tape of the killing gets into his hands . he inlists the help of an old conspirator ( hackman ) , and , at the end , er . . . you know . enemy was one of the worst films of last year . not only was it sloppy in telling its story and getting its facts straight , the acting was mediocre when it should have been energy driven , and i didn’t like how smith always magically out-smarted the badies when all the other extra characters , seeming more intelligent than smith , somehow got run over by a truck . enemy came out around the same time as the superior star trek : insurrection . i know these two films are different in , well , everything , but the fact that enemy outgrossed insurrection just baffels me . somehow , quality can’t overshadow quantity .
0 vegas vacation is the fourth film starring chevy chase and beverly d’angelo as the heads of the hapless griswold family . as with the other three films , their two children , rusty and audrey , are played by a revolving series of actors . this time ethan embry and marisol nichols fill the roles . also back , is cousin eddie ( randy quaid ) , the slob relative who seems to bring problems wherever he goes . in vegas vacation clark griswold ( chase ) decides to take the family on vacation to las vegas so that he and wife ellen ( d’angelo ) can renew their wedding vows . it is at this point when comedy is supposed to ensue . apparently the filmmakers thought that putting the griswolds into las vegas would be so funny on its own that they wouldn’t bother to write any jokes into the script . at least that’s the way it looks when watching this turkey . about half way through vegas vacation i began to have serious doubts as to whether there would actually be a single laugh in the entire film , since there had been none up to that point . by the end of the movie i had actually snickered a couple of times , and i had smiled at a couple of gags . i might add that none of the funny ( and i use the term loosely ) moments came as a result of anything chase , d’angelo or quaid were involved in . they might as well have stayed home for as much as they contributed to this film . the two best things in this movie were ethan embry and marisol nichols as the griswold kids , who manage to have a couple of their own adventures . rusty becomes a vegas high roller , providing most of the film’s best moments . every time chase and quaid were involved in a gag , it just made it more and more apparent that they should have stopped this series after the third film . which brings me to the best moment of the film . the griswolds are driving down the highway and holiday road ( the theme from the original vacation ) begins to play . christie brinkley and her red ferrari ( also from the first movie ) drive by . it was a cute moment , but all it really did was remind me just how funny the first film had been , and just how far that this series has fallen . too bad .
0 burnt money is the perfect festival film . it will show once or twice , and then no one , thankfully , will ever have to hear from it again . this film from the seattle international film festival 2001’s emerging masters series is easily one of the year’s worst . billed as a gay `bonnie and clyde’ , this gritty film from director marcelo pi ? eyro has its only highlight in a well-designed title sequence . two gay lovers get involved in a bank robbery that makes a gang leader , whose plan they screwed up , angry . this causes the gang leader to send his boys out to get the gay guys , one of whom may not actually be gay . hiding out in a prostitute’s apartment , the two men must fight off police and gang members in a very long showdown for the movie’s conclusion . if caught , they risk losing all the money , and their love . as an added emotional bonus , one of the gay men is dying . or something like that . everything that happens is so quick and confusing i was completely lost . clarity isn’t exactly this movie’s striving virtue , so it was a little hard to pick up . not much could have really happened though . the main events in this long two-hour film are explicit homosexual and heterosexual sex , graphic drug use , extreme violence , and strong language . lots of explicit material is never a bad thing when there’s a reason , but there’s no purpose to anything in this film . most of the sex and violence scenes come off as silly , while the heavy drug use comes off as ridiculous and depressing . it appears pi ? eyro ( who co-wrote with marcelo figueras , from a novel by ricardo piglia ) purposefully adds more blood and lovemaking for his own amusement . he makes the actors as sweaty and dirty as possible , makes them snort cocaine , gives them guns and condoms , and lets them go . burnt money is pointless . the performances are bad . it tries to thrill and shock , but only causes boredom . god forbid it will ever get a distributor . another disappointing film from this year’s so-called emerging masters series . pass on by .
0 claire danes , giovanni ribisi , and omar epps make a likable trio of protagonists , but they’re just about the only palatable element of the mod squad , a lame-brained big-screen version of the 70s tv show . the story has all the originality of a block of wood ( well , it would if you could decipher it ) , the characters are all blank slates , and scott silver’s perfunctory action sequences are as cliched as they come . by sheer force of talent , the three actors wring marginal enjoyment from the proceedings whenever they’re on screen , but the mod squad is just a second-rate action picture with a first-rate cast .
0 the haunting , a film so confusing that it forgets the true meaning of a horror film : to scare us . if you’ve ever seen a movie , which you probably have considering you are on this website , you should know about all of the trivia they post before a movie . they have things like illustrations and you have to guess the movie or facts about the film . but , the one i always like are the " ; other name" ; joke that try and rename a particular film . for instance , the one playing before the haunting had different titles for the film , small soldiers . they had titles like little infantry and can i get those fatigues in a smaller size ? well , after seeing the haunting , i had a few particular names for it as well . unfortunately , i can only post one of them , otherwise , i’d be getting some pretty angry e-mails from overprotective mothers . that title would be the confusing . ok , that is a pretty bad title , but it fits this film perfectly . it basically serves up no purpose , and combined with dry dialogue and a boring and confusing plot , it completes the formula for a cinematic bomb . liam neeson once again gets wrapped up in a film without any depth , but at least the phantom menace was exciting and had some depth . the haunting is nothing but trash , but unfortunately , will still make a boatload of money . before i rant and rave about how bad this film is , let me point out the few , and i stress the word few , bright spots in this film . first , the house is great- looking . it looks beautiful , but this is also a dark spot . it looks so great that it is hard to be frightened by it . this is something that rears its ugly head at all points of the film . things look so great , that you are looking on in awe instead of being scared straight . haunted house films have to contain one element to even be slightly successful and that is being eerie . the hill house is not eerie . it is beautiful , but not the least bit frightening . ever heard of lili taylor ? before this film i did not , but i am glad that i do now . she gives the only satisfactory performance in the film . despite the dry dialogue and boring/confusing concept , she manages to light up the screen every time she appears , but unfortunately , her co-stars are usually following right behind . owen wilson , who plays luke , is the only other cast member even close to giving an admirable performance , other then taylor . he is basically there for the comic relief , and his character development is poor in all other areas . all of the characters are desperately underdeveloped . wilson had potential as luke , but it seems they just needed him to add a few laughs . liam neeson and catherine zeta-jones suffer from the dialogue and plot and should not have been in this film . their characters must suffer from wicked mood swings because in each scene they turn from ruthless to compassionate to scared to brave and whatnot . they just are not believable and this is the final nail in the haunting’s coffin . the plot is terrible . the opening scene of the film is very important , but the director makes it too obvious by getting close-ups of all the things that will play a major role in the end of the film . as i sat through the film , i kept wondering what this film was trying to accomplish . nell , lili taylor’s character , goes from the hunted to the savior . it makes no sense and the director gives the audience no reasoning for the ridiculous changes that take place in the film . he forces the viewer to make various assumptions and does not give any in-depth information . for instance , the beginning of the film gives us a sense of why nell is getting involved in the program . but , we get zilch for the other four . plus , two of them get wiped out in the first ten minutes . and the worst part : most horror films have killings . for some reason , they kill off luke at the end of the film . no reason whatsoever , just off with his head , literally . overall , the haunting is the epitome of a bad movie . bad plot , confusing storyline and a waste of good talent . hopefully , liam neeson can rebound and get into a good film and be used to his full potential . hopefully , lili taylor will be recognized for doing such a great job in such a bad film . and hopefully , other horror films , such as the blair witch project and the haunting of hill house , will not be as bad as this one .
0 in 1989 , director edward zwick began his career with the powerful civil war drama , ” glory , ” but since then , he has made continuous disappointments , to me at least , with 1994’s ” legends of the fall , ” and 1996’s ” courage under fire . ” those two films weren’t bad , just not very good , but with zwick’s latest film , ” the siege , ” he has finally made one . ” the siege , ” is a modern-day action-thriller that focuses on terrorism that is sweeping through new york city . investigating the matter is fbi agents anthony hubbard ( denzel washington ) and frank haddad ( tony shalhoub ) , who are first hit by the ordeal when a city bus explodes with several innocent people on it . later , a bomb goes off in a broadway theater , killing even more . they soon meet cia operative elise kraft ( annette bening ) , who may very well hold the key to the identity of the arab terrorist . there are some movies that simply don’t need to be made , and , ” the siege ” may very well be one of them . oh , sure , zwick thinks he is making a ” meaningful ” action film , since he has added lots of exposition scenes in which the audience is basically lectured on the horrors of terrorism , but what he really has made is actually no more substantial than , say , ” die hard , ” which also starred bruce willis . this time , willis is horribly wasted as a general of the u . s . army , who puts a state of martial law over nyc during the climax . whatever points , ” the siege , ” earnestly tried to make , were obviously lost in the translation from page to screen , or maybe , zwick never really had anything serious to say in the first place . the role of the arab community is offensively stereotypical , just as women were in the recent , ” john caprenter’s vampires , ” by placing them all in the category of ” bad guys . ” ” the siege , ” contains three fine actors—washington , bening , and shalhoub—but washington is stuck with a character that contains not an ounce of even remote development . bening has slightly more to do , and has an intriguing character to work with , while shalhoub pretty much steals the show , even though , again , he has no real character . by the climax of , ” the siege , ” with washington giving a sermon to willis on the so-called ” message ” of the story , i felt like i had wandered into a sequel to , ” on deadly ground , ” in which steven seagal gave a 10-minute speech at the end about preserving the environment . ” the siege ” is constantly heavy-handed , not entertaining or insightful , and just goes to prove that not even the best actors can save a film that lacks a satisfactory screenplay .
0 i guess that if a very wild bachelor party had gone really bad , there would be broken furniture , traces of smack and cocaine on the floor , and a dead prostitute in the bathroom . i guess that if a movie had also gone really bad , there might be the same elements present . coincidence ? poor kyle ( a meek looking jon favreau ) . . . he is about to marry his radiant fiancee , laura ( cameron diaz ) . but before he exchanges his vows , he embarks to las vegas with his friends for one last blowout . but this bachelor party has gone about as bad as it could possibly get . the prostitute has met a horrible , though accidental death , and drugs are everywhere . the five friends agree that there is enough bad evidence here that will send them to jail for a very long time . a surprisingly calm robert boyd ( christian slater ) , who looks like he was groomed to make nefarious decisions , ponders their dilemma for a few minutes before deciding that the best thing to do is to bury the body in the desert where she’ll never be found . although they stomach the gruesome deed of getting rid of the body ( which also disturbingly involves dismantling the body using power saws in order to stuff it into suitcases ) , when they return from their trip , guilt and paranoia begins to set in which slowly consumes some of the five friends . one is adam ( daniel stern ) he grows increasingly agitated . whenever people look at his van or whenever a cop glances his way , his blood pressure increases . or that just may be because of his dysfunctional family . another is michael , who was actually responsible for her death . he tries to bury his feelings , but the burden of guilt begins to affect his judgment as well . boyd is the ? doer’ of the group . seemingly suffering from a long psychosis , when he feels as if his secret is about to be exposed , he is apt to take extreme measures to cover up his tracks . kyle just hopes that his wedding will live up to laura’s demanding expectations . then , there’s moore ( leland orser ) who speaks 5 lines and walks around with a puzzled look on his face . the problem with this reprehensible movie is that it wants to be a cruel comedy , but it presents things in a manner that just aren’t funny . drugs , mutilation , and killing your own friends isn’t something to be laughed at . as a straight psychological drama , i could see how it might have worked , as each one tried to maneuver and overcome the weight of their own guilt in their own sometimes-sick ways . but this movie insults us by assuming that we could simply discard our values for 2 hours . if you do like this movie , i don’t think that i want to know you . i did find slater a convincing leader who sways his friends to choose not the right thing but the ? smart play . ‘ and diaz adds some brightness to this film as a wedding-needing fiancee . but her talents are essentially wasted here . it’s obvious that the film maker is trying to strike a certain tone . but the way that he chooses to do it is tasteless . do not make a very bad decision by seeing this film .
0 i had been looking forward to this film since i heard about it early last year , when matthew perry had just signed on . i’m big fan of perry’s subtle sense of humor , and in addition , i think chris farley’s on-edge , extreme acting was a riot . so naturally , when the trailer for ” almost heroes ” hit theaters , i almost jumped up and down . a soda in hand , the lights dimming , i was ready to be blown away by farley’s final starring role and what was supposed to be matthew perry’s big breakthrough . i was ready to be just amazed ; for this to be among farley’s best , in spite of david spade’s absence . i was ready to be laughing my head off the minute the credits ran . sadly , none of this came to pass . the humor is spotty at best , with good moments and laughable one-liners few and far between . perry and farley have no chemistry ; the role that perry was cast in seems obviously written for spade , for it’s his type of humor , and not at all what perry is associated with . and the movie tries to be smart , a subject best left alone when it’s a farley flick . the movie is a major dissapointment , with only a few scenes worth a first look , let alone a second . perry delivers not one humorous line the whole movie , and not surprisingly ; the only reason the movie made the top ten grossing list opening week was because it was advertised with farley . and farley’s classic humor is widespread , too . almost heroes almost works , but misses the wagon-train by quite a longshot . guys , let’s leave the exploring to lewis and clark , huh ? stick to ” tommy boy ” , and we’ll all be ” friends ” .
0 the original babe gets my vote as the best family film since the princess bride , and it’s sequel has been getting rave reviews from most internet critics , both siskel and ebert sighting it more than a month ago as one of the year’s finest films . so , naturally , when i entered the screening room that was to be showing the movie and there was nary another viewer to be found , this notion left me puzzled . it is a rare thing for a children’s movie to be praised this highly , so wouldn’t you think that every parent in the entire city would be flocking with their kids to see this supposedly ” magical ” piece of work ? a tad bewildered , but pleased to not have to worry about screaming kids and other disruptions that commonly go along with family films , i sat back for 97 minutes and watched intently and with a very open mind , having great expectations for the film . looking back , i should have taken the hint and left right when i entered the theater . believe me ; i wanted to like babe : pig in the city . the plot seemed interesting enough ; after the events that took place in the original , babe the sheep-pig has become a legitimate national phenomenon . but after a fateful encounter with a water well , arthur hogget ( james cromwell , who the movie could have used alot more of ) has been rendered bed-ridden for a number of weeks and the farm begins to go under financially . the only solution that his wife ( magda szubanski , going from delightfully charming to downright annoying ) can come up with is to make an appearance with their new celebrity pet at a national fair ( i think ) and to use the money they earn to pay off the bank ( set aside for the moment the fact that they could get more than enough cash from donations if they just made their case known to the public ) . problem is , the fair is being held in the middle of the dreaded ” city ” , a completely foreign place to both the pig and his companion . setting the main plot in motion , mrs . hogget and babe travel to the unnamed city and shack up with a sweet lady who just happens to love to help animals , despite the law that you cannot keep them in hotels . it is here that we meet an array of eccentric characters , the most memorable being the family of chimps led by steven wright . here is where the film took a wrong turn . up until this point , i had being having a rather enjoyable experience . the beginning featured some smart writing and funny situations involving the farm animals from the first one and even an inspired moment at the airport where mrs . hogget is accused of smuggling drugs . unfortunately , the story wears thin as we are introduced to a new set of animals that reside at the hotel , none of them being even one-tenth as interesting as the characters from the previous babe . the main topic of discussion surrounding babe : pig in the city is the question of whether or not it is to dark and disturbing for small children , and i believe it is . at one point , a dog is hung from his neck and slowly starts to drown . at other times , we are treated to surrealistic flash-backs to mrs . hogget’s full cavity search at the airport . in fact , the overall tone of the movie is rather bleak and depressing . however , that is , as they say , neither here nor there because kids will probably not like the movie anyway . the animal characters and their plights were simply not intriguing enough to sustain my interest for an hour and a half , let alone entertain a child . another problem i found with the film was it’s sudden change of pacing and tone near the end of the story . if you’re going to make a darker and more sinister sequel , fine . it may not be my cup of tea , but at least it is a noble ambition . but to go from the downbeat feel of the rest of the movie and all of a sudden have slapstick finale with mrs . hogget swinging from wall-to-wall of a ballroom in elastic overalls ? it just didn’t feel right and was more painful to watch than it was funny or entertaining , and the same goes for the rest of the movie .
0 to put it bluntly , ed wood would have been proud of this . a totally ridiculous plot is encompassed with bad humor , hokey drama , zero logic and a crap screenplay . also , a beautifully anti-climactic ending . not to say it didn’t look intriguing when i saw the previews . so much for truth in advertising . roland emmerich , who’s later ” independence day ” would look like ” the 400 blows ” compared to this , co-writed and directed this inane sci-fi film which uses the cliche of there being some connection between eqypt and aliens . in a useless opening sequence , men find a stone in 1914 with hieroglyphics on it . it wouldn’t be till present day ( ’94 ) till they would actually figure it out . they’re decipherer ? a slightly-neurotic scientist ( nice twist ) , dr . dan jackson ( james spader , doing his best outside of erotic thrillers and some indy fare ) who’s life sucks so much that people walk out of his lectures after the third word . why do they use him to decipher what no one else could ? so there is a hokey ending ! duh ! he figures it out in about a minute . yea . and then they get a suicidal colonel or something , ” jack ” o’neill ( kurt russel , with his wyat earp locks in the beginning then a flat-top that would make howie long snap into a fetal position ) . why a suicidal colonel ? for the ending ! you’ll get the hang of this . they open the stargate , a bunch of them go through it with a bomb to blow it up if they find anything bad . after an overdone special effects thing , they’re . . . inside a goddam pyramid . so they went to egypt , right ? wrong . they’re on another planet that was filmed in egypt . they discover a cilvilization ruled by ra , the sun god ( the androginous jaye davidson , with a voice modifier to make him sound like barry white with asthma ) , and there are fights , explosions and a kiss between two people . yea . also melodrama , stupidity , hokey scenes and a bizarre language . an anti-climactic ending ends with stupid lines ( ” say hello to king tut , asswhole ! ” – the quintessential line , lemme tell ya ) and some convenient pesudo-pseudo-pseudo-character development . by the end , you just wanna go home and watch , i don’t know , the ” outer limits ” or something . the script’s terrible . the special effects are okay , but nothing great . the story’s so weak that it’s almost opaque . the whole experience just isn’t worth it unless you’re so bored that you’d consider watching a ” full house ” marathon . . . or this . i’d pick this , obviously , but still , it’s just not fun at all . and i can’t wait for it to premier on mst3k .
0 i wonder if budget is at all a criterion for whether or not a movie can be considered an exploitation flick . take the professional , for example . it boasts extremely glossy cinematography , a couple of recognizable name actors , and a couple of fairly impressive explosions . it’s also basically about violence and cheap titilation , and features a central relationship between a middle-aged man and a twelve-year-old girl with a decidedly ambiguous sexual dimension . the professional is all over the map , and its pretensions of being about anything more than its most unpleasant elements simply make it all the more unpleasant . the professional of the title is a new york hit man named leon ( jean reno ) , brutally efficient but also very isolated . one day he is forced to let someone into his life when a girl from his apartment building knocks on his door . her name is matilda ( natalie portman ) , and the rest of her family has just been killed by crooked and very wired d . e . a . agent norman stansfield ( gary oldman ) after matilda’s father tried to rip him off . leon reluctantly takes matilda in , then begins to teach her his profession when she says that she wants to avenge the murder of her young brother . the two become closer , which makes them all the more vulnerable when stansfield learns that they know too much , and sets out to eliminate them both . writer/director luc besson has gone this route before with his popular french import la femme nikita , a slick potboiler about a female assassin . there is no question that besson can make a great * looking * film ; with the assistance of cinematographer thierry arbogast , he has created a film chock full of moody close-ups and evocative lighting . but beneath the shiny wrapper , there isn’t nearly as much going on as besson would like us to believe . the relationship between leon and matilda never clicks because neither one is given a character to develop . leon is mostly a collection of quirky traits , all intended to show us that for a hired killer , he’s really not so bad a guy : he drinks lots of milk , takes meticulous care of a potted plant , and enjoys gene kelly movies . jean reno succeeds at giving leon a haunted and desperate quality , but he never makes an emotional connection to matilda . natalie portman is all wrong for a part that called for a much grittier quality , but she doesn’t have too much to work with , either . besson would have been better served spending more time trying to bring his characters to life , and less on feeble attempts at humor which are often embarrassing . a silly game between leon and matilda involving celebrity impersonations is completely out of place , as is a scene where matilda shocks a hotel manager by announcing that leon is her lover ; character is thoroughly sacrificed for a cheap gag . gary oldman’s entire part is something of a cheap gag , wild-eyed and way over the top , but at least he is interesting to watch . there isn’t a real person to be found anywhere in the professional , which isn’t always a problem in an action thriller , except that this one is trying to pass itself off as something more . a more disconcerting problem with the professional is that it plays around with the sexuality of a twelve-year-old in a really distasteful way . there were only two real choices for dealing with that component of leon and matilda’s relationship : confront it head on , or ignore it entirely . but besson flirts and teases the audience with the idea that he’s going to show them a forbidden love story , while choosing simply to focus his camera on portman’s rear end and dress her in skimpy clothing . this is to say nothing of the questionable decision to make it look like quality paternal time when leon is teaching a child to load a 9mm pistol , or the blood which is spilled aplenty . a great deal of the time , the professional is just plain sleazy , and all the soft filters in the world can’t disguise that fact .
0 one of these days , i’ll make good on my promise never to rent another abel ferrara movie . king of new york and body snatchers notwithstanding ( and bad lieutenant is only fit for a single , emotive viewing ) , his exploitation flicks have fallen into a rut of hoary art-house trappings . it’s a perfume-drenched , coke-addled visit to the seedy pornography shop , where beautiful models ( no , hookers — no , courtesans ) usher you through the silk curtains . ferrara’s only consistently smart move has been casting christopher walken over and over again , since walken can make a good movie great and a loathsome movie durable whenever he’s onscreen . his 8-minute scene in the addiction is the saving grace of that otherwise abysmal , unwatchable , and pretentious failure . when he starts talking about his vampiric bowel movements , or questions whether lili taylor has ever read naked lunch , there’s a much-needed dose of humor in an otherwise terminally unfunny affair . you know those gothic club kids who are too cool to smile and let you know they’re actually having fun ? the addiction is that movie . walken , sadly , does not appear in the blackout . the central role of matty , a junkie film star whose lightning paced hollywood life among the beautiful people is inevitably leading to his destruction , is played by matthew modine ( who takes what he can get after cutthroat island ) . much like the protagonists of michelangelo antonioni’s terminally bored cultural elite , matty is involved in a bitter pill ” relationship ” with high fashioned model annie ( at least i think she’s a model . ) matty’s lady is played by french actress b ? atrice dalle , arrested twice for cocaine possession during filming of the blackout — not that you needed to know that , but it lends credence to the idea that ferrara’s entire oeuvre has been filmed in a fucking blackout . no kidding . requiem for a dream has nothing on the junkie presentations seen in ferrara’s movies and his controversial urban lifestyle . matty and annie struggle over her decision to have an abortion without consulting him . no doubt , he was off chasing the dragon . in his despair , matty indulges in a chemical induced weekend of debauchery , tooling around the streets of miami with video filmmaker mickey wayne ( dennis hopper , in full ” dirty ol’ man ” mold smacking models on the ass and telling them to spread their legs . wider ! ) toward the end of the night , they pick up a teenage waitress also named annie ( sarah lassez ) , start shooting a hastily improvised sexual scene , then matty thankfully blacks out . something happened that night which haunts him throughout the rest of the movie , and it’s exactly what you think it was . suffice to say , there’s some confusion over whether he killed annie one or annie two , or anyone at all . the blackout is typical ferrara : no plot to speak of , plenty of raunch , and horribly vogue images of matthew modine downing a bottle of jack daniels and a beer while wrapping himself in a see-through curtain in his hotel room by the sea , by the sea , by the beautiful sea . cinematographer ken kelsch finds inconsistent glory in alternating gorgeous painterly sunsets with docu-style sleaze ( and we’re back to dennis hopper leering at girls in bathing suits . ” yeah ! ! ! yeah ! ! ! arrrghhh ! ” says mr . hopper . dirty old sod . ) it’s compulsive viewing in a tacky sort of way , leading to a ridiculous climax where modine seizes control of his destiny . how’s that for cryptic ? never fear — ferrara finds time for some female full frontal nudity to remind us what he’s all about . i can picture it now . ” take off yer clothes , kid — it’s essential to depict the inner maelstrom of my central protagonist , and you’re his visual id . you’re the soul , the heart , the bloodstream of the picture . take it off ! take it all off ! ! ! ha ha ha ! ” friggin’ vampire . yeah , you , ferrara . a final word about matthew modine : he’s actually a fine actor when properly cast , but there’s something too squeaky-clean in his demeanor . he’s ideally suited for sarcastic men in tightly controlled situations , such as his private joker in full metal jacket or the time-bomb nebbish in short cuts ( who is every bit as superb as julianne moore in that famous scene , though no one seems to notice him ) . [he was in that scene ? -ed . ] here , he’s asked to let it all hang out , sporting a three-day stubble and oily bangs . he throws around furniture like stanley kowalski , but it’s somehow lacking . modine lacks the feral intensity of brando , entirely miscast in ferrara’s flesh fair . better luck next time , matt . someday , you’ll be forgiven for cutthroat island , which wasn’t really your fault in the first place . maybe atom egoyan will find a place for you somewhere , and all will once again be well in your world .
0 making your first feature film ain’t easy . assemble a decent , if not , strong cast , as writer/director robert moresco has done with one eyed king , and you’re already ahead of the game . but rehash old plot lines , tired dialogue , and standard clich ? s , and a well-intentioned effort such as this one could jeopardize your chance at a second feature film . how many more movies do we need about a rough neighborhood full of lifelong friends hopelessly turned to crime or worse ? the enormous catalog of such movies might dissuade a filmmaker from making yet another , but here we have it . again . five irish kids in nyc’s hell’s kitchen make an overemotional pact over some stolen rings on an anonymous rooftop . with teary music . and slow motion . in the film’s first scene . the kids grow up to be fairly worthless adults , unable or unwilling to make their way out of the heat of the kitchen . leading the clueless pack is william baldwin as a good-hearted guy who watches out for his buddies and is in tight with local mob head armand assante . i’d like to say that his character gets involved over his head in some sort of blah , blah , blah , but all we seem to get are little tastes of possible plot points . he’s concerned about buddy jason gedrick’s heroin abuse . he sticks up for jim breuer after he impregnates baldwin’s character’s sister . he looks into who might be pushing the most moronic-looking counterfeit cash ever made ( a genuinely funny touch ) . but none of this ever really amounts to anything . it seems that moresco’s greater concern is to provide that intangible ” slice of life ” , that flavor of the neighborhood that everyone’s been trying to evoke since scorsese’s early work . so , we get the drunk guys , hugging and singing together at the local bar , to prove to us that they really love each other . ( do people actually do this ! ? ) we get a lot of tough street talk — usually mumbled for effect — and a whole lot of the f-word , whether it sounds like it fits or not . we also get a handful of good actors in small roles that seem to lack purpose . bruno kirby , chazz palminteri , you know , guys you’ve seen in movies just like this one before . assante is intelligent casting as the man that everyone fears , and baldwin’s performance is adequate , but most of the rest of the cast jump into the tough guy persona so thoroughly that it’s almost funny . moresco , a theater guy and sometimes tv writer ( including the series falcone ) , obviously labored over this one as anyone might a first child , but the content is probably too personal . as a result , the movie’s style is heavy-handed , in need of a considerable amount of toning down . nearly every time an action by the grown up gang recalls something they did as kids , moresco reminds us — boy does he remind us . with slow dissolves to the earlier scene , running in slow motion , complete with dialogue from the present , just in case we don’t comprehend the link to the past . moresco needs to either trust his audience’s intelligence , or have more faith in his own presentation rather than beat us over the head with it . his next project should have a little more personal distance , and a lot more subtlety . if he actually gets that chance . reviewed as part of our 2001 boston film festival coverage ( feature story coming soon ) .
0 whenever u . s . government starts meddling into other countries’ affairs , under the pretext of supporting human rights or preventing political , religious or ethnic persecution , the other side is ready to use mantra that says ” look who’s talking ! what have you done to the indians ? ” however , even the americans themselves are ready to use that dark chapter of their own national history when it suits their purposes . hollywood is just another example , with its revisionist westerns , made in early 1990s . those movies tried to exploit the emerging wave of political correctness , coinciding with the 500th anniversary of columbus’ discovery of america . one of such examples is geronimo : an american legend , 1993 western directed by walter hill , film that deals with one of the last conflicts between american natives and white settlers . the hero of the film is geronimo ( played by wes studi ) , leader of apaches , fierce warrior tribe that used to give hard time to white settlers during the second half of 19th century . when the movie begins , in 1885 , geronimo and his apaches made peace with u . s . government and try to live peacefully in arizona reservation . however , broken promises , injustice and violence against his people would make geronimo restless . with not more 30 or so of his followers , he escapes reservation and begins guerrilla campaign . general crook ( gene hackman ) , commander of u . s . army forces , respects geronimo and knows that even his 5 , 000 force isn’t enough to catch geronimo in the great spaces of the american southwest . instead , he turns to people who are more experienced with apaches – lt . charles gatewood ( jason patric ) and indian hunter al sieber ( robert duvall ) . together with young lt . britton davis ( matt damon ) they would begin mission aimed at capturing geronimo . geronimo : an american legend , like many movies made under the shadow of political correctness , try to tell the tale about oppressed minorities , but instead the real subject is the bad conscience of the oppressors . so , the story about geronimo is told from the perspective of his enemies . almost all of them happen to be his greatest admirers and use every opportunity to express how sorry they feel for having to fight him and his people . although such elements of john millius’ screenplay do indeed have some basis in history , they harm the story of geronimo . to be honest , walter hill does try to make geronimo the real hero of the film , but the movie segments that deal with the plight of apaches and the uprising are given too little time . instead , they turn out to be nothing more than the back story for rather uninteresting adventure story of gatewood and his band . to make even worse , hill has some real problems with pacing and style , and in the end we have impression that we are watching two films badly edited into one – story about geronimo and story about his pursuers . the movie should have been better if it turned to geronimo’s life before and after his last uprising , in many ways more interesting than the story about gatewood . the difference between those segments could be observed through the different quality of acting . wes studi , cherokee actor who was so impressive as magua in the last of the mohicans , was perfect choice for geronimo , not only because he resembles geronimo , but because he induces a lot of passion in his role . contrary to him , we have disinterested actors who sleepwalk through the roles of his white enemies . while this could be expected from someone like jason patric , it is shame when we have veterans like gene hackman or robert duvall . even hill’s directing is bellow expectations – battle scenes are too short and , like in many of his late films , force viewers to ask what had happened to the great action director of 1970s . even his old associate , music composer ry cooder , disappoints , with the score that shifts between indian motives and classic . on the other hand , photography by lloyd ahern ii , with the use of red lenses , gives somewhat dreamy atmosphere , ideal for this movie that was supposed to be melancholic epic . all in all , compared with some of the hollywood’s examples of political correctness , this film isn’t so bad , but we are left with the unpleasant impression that it could have been better .
0 aspiring broadway composer robert ( aaron williams ) secretly carries a torch for his best friend , struggling actor marc ( michael shawn lucas ) . the problem is , marc only has eyes for ” perfect 10s , ” which the geeky , insecure robert certainly is not . meanwhile , marc’s spoiled ( hetero ) female roommate , cynthia ( mara hobel ) , spends her days lying about their apartment and harrassing magazine editor tina brown . writer-director victor mignatti’s ” very romantic comedy ” ( as the ad campaign states ) is supposed to be ( pardon the pun ) a gay ol’ romp , but it’s hard to have much fun with these annoying , self-absorbed characters and their shallow personal problems : marc and cynthia have sitcom-level domestic ” crises ” ( such as trying to kill bugs–how hilarious ) ; robert and marc go to acting class ( how riveting ) ; the zaftig cynthia goes on eating binges ( how original ) . but more than anything else , the three whine . constantly . marc whines about his turbulent romance with an apparent ” 10 , ” david ( hugh panaro ) , the hunky musician from across the way ; robert whines about not being able to find the right guy ; cynthia whines about having to find a job ( horrors ) . the terrible trio whine their way to a happy ending that is wholly undeserved . add in overly broad performances and some laughable lipsynching by panaro , and you’re left with one astonishing piece of cinematic damage .
0 ” easely one of the worst films of the year . . ” with the millenium just around the corner , hollywood is playing with our insecurities concerning the biggest event of this century . this time it is arnold schwartzenegger against the powers of evil . the result is somewhat predictable . i didn’t have high hopes about arnold’s ” much anticipated ” return to the big screen . schwarzenegger fans will probably be pleased , action lovers won’t be bored , and the catholic league will be angry . everyone else will see ‘end of days’ for what it is : a deliciously bad motion picture . think of it as hollywood’s own y2k bug . did you know that if you turn the three diabolical numbers 666 you’ll get 999 , as in 1999 ? yes , you better believe it . . satan is here on earth , working on his latest project — the end of days . this time it is gabriel burne who gets the privilege to play lucifer and , although not al pacino , he is fun to behold . he coolly strolls through manhattan in the borrowed body of an investment banker , wreaking , as they say , havoc . the way it works is he smirks and something explodes . before the stroke of the new millennium he’s got to find and impregnate a certain woman in order to climb out from under a heavenly curse as spelled out in the book of revelations . only schwarzenegger’s cop attached to an anti-terrorist unit can stop him . films like this has one serious weakness — logic . no matter how you twist the ” plot ” , you’ll find it incredibly stupid ( even for a schwartzenegger movie ! ) . the incredible fact is that such directors never learn . after thousands of headless productions , this theme has become one big clich ? . here the devil looks more like a sex addicted maniac that has just got out of a mental institution . he is walking around n . y . , blowing everything up and killing everyone that gets in a 5 meter radius . all he wants is the girl , that is somehow special . but schwartzenegger is more clever than he looks , he has hidden her in a church , where satan dare not enter . so the evil one is forced to seduce the good cop in order to get the valuable information : ” you can have your wife and daughter back . . i can give you happiness that you can only dream of . . just give me the address . . ” indeed with a script like that , you could make a wonderful parody , but unfortunately the director is taking this subject very seriously , attempting to create a provoking an dramatic thriller . and for you who have awaited arnold swartzenegger’s comeback , will not be very satisfied . we’ve not seen him in a while . that’s because he didn’t have a worthy opponent . he has battled nuclear terrorists on earth and power mad conspirators on mars . he has taken on alien predators in the darkest reaches of the jungle and morphing cyberkillers that seemingly nothing can stop . so , after all those fights , what’s left for arnold schwarzenegger ? how about satan ? in my opinion , he has never quite overcome his first role as the deadly robot in cameron’s ” terminator ” . and that is schwartzenegger’s strength — muscles and no emotions . here he tries to achieve an artistic level , moving towards the oscar . this is called ” an adult turn ” if successful and ” a flop ” if unsuccessful . make a wild guess ! his character has lost his wife and daughter and has serious drinking problems . this requires at least some acting skills . regrettably , the only thing convincing about old arnold is his muscles . the rest of the cast are struggling with their so called characters . the movie is otherwise technically impressive , with a solid cinematography and fine lighting . but the movie doesn’t serve neither as a serious thriller ( because of its stupidity ) nor as comic entertainment ( because of its serious tone ) . the only real comic relief in this film is when swartzenegger tries to cry . the action sequences are all recycled and the effects are everything but spectacular . so i really have a hard time recommending this film to somebody . unless you are a die-hard schwartzenegger fan , stay away . as for schwarzenegger , he’ll be back .
0 these days , people have rather short attention span and hardly anything can satisfy them for the long run . 1970s nostalgia is already wearing off , and now , people are becoming more and more interested in 1980s . few years in the future , early 1990s are going to be regarded as next golden age of nostalgia . however , i doubt that people are going to be very nostalgic about the hollywood products of that period . one of the reason would surely be films like national lampoon’s loaded weapon 1 , that , in many ways , symbolise the biggest problem of contemporary american film industry – lack of originality and ideas . being made as some kind of parody on lethal weapon series , this film pairs two l . a . policemen – jack colt ( emilio estevez ) , burn-out alcoholic cop on the edge , and wes luger ( samuel l . jackson ) , by-the-book policeman , days away from retirement . two of them , following the murder of luger’s ex- partner , must confront evil general mortars ( william shatner ) , crime lord who is going to flood the market with cocaine stashed in wilderness girl cookies . the authors of this films ( whose director , gene quintano , worked on such projects like third and fourth sequel of police academy ) lacked any original idea before they undertook the projects , and that reflects in the lack plot , characters , and , even original lines . the plot , or what goes for the plot in this movie , is nothing more than a series of gags that make laugh of some popular films made in previous few years ( apart from lethal weapon series , this film ” borrows ” its female lead from basic instinct ) . the best gags , are , same as with many other similar movies , shown in the trailers . the rest simply doesn’t work . only those who used to watch a lot of hollywood products in that period would laugh . others would probably wince at the lameness of humour . some would be entertained by celebrity cameos that pop up every once in a while . but , at the end , spending hour and half in front of this disorganised mess of a movie is simply not worth the effort . the film was sometimes criticised for being the parody of a series that already had strong comic overtones . the authors of lethal weapon returned the favour by using the loaded weapon 1 joke in their fourth sequel .
0 paul verhoeven , the dutch auteur who dragged his violent , sexually aggressive aesthetic into american film , has never been what i’d consider a thoughtful director ( though some of his films , notably starship troopers , have been lauded as artistic achievements ) , but he is the kind of hollywood film maker who’s managed to , no matter what the budget , make his films distinctive and even sometimes smuggle stimulating themes into the lavish high concepts on which he toils . starship troopers was essentially a b-monster movie remake of his enthralling dutch war film soldier of orange ( a great film that’s nearly impossible to find on video , yet showgirls is everywhere ) , in which he cast a troop of stunningly attractive mannequins ; the square jawed casper van dien and denise richards ( who may actually be 45% silicone ) , in what feels like an american propaganda picture set to monotonous scenes of graphic carnage . it’s not a completely successful film , but as a failure it’s certainly an interesting ( and mostly entertaining ) one . my favorite verhoeven films were the ones he made before he hit our shores ; spetters , a dark near pornographic coming of age film set within the sub-culture of drag racing and the aforementioned soldier of orange ( haven’t yet gotten around to seeing the 4th man or turkish delight ) . i believe his best hollywood film to be robocop , a bleak super-hero satire with a robotic hero that’s as touching as schwarzenegger’s in t2 . that movie was violent but not in the overdone cartoonish manner of more recent verhoeven pics . its violence seemed to be there for a purpose , namely to create an atmosphere of unpredictable dread , not to simply titillate an attention deprived audience . there’s a jaw-dropping scene within the first ten minutes of robocop wherein the lead villain toys with a cop before snuffing him . he tortures the officer by taking glee in his victim’s every fearful tic . it’s a startling moment of barbaric , maddening violence that effectively sets the tone for the film that could be designated as splatter punk-noir . in hollow man kevin bacon brutally slays a dog because it just won’t shut up , he impales a co-worker , drowns another and so on . but why ? his character is introduced as a smug genius , the kind who’s always impeccably dressed and races a sports car while generic rock tunes blare from his stereo for the world to hear , sort of like a scheming uber villain from dallas or melrose place , though once the character becomes invisible , this film has him pull a 180 shift into a psychotic movie monster . the kind who just won’t die . hollow man’s protagonists are the completely bland but beautiful scientist linda ( elizabeth shue , acting as if she were rebecca of sunnybrook farm ) and her lover , a hunk of beef scientist played by josh brolin who’s saddled with the film’s worst lines ( ” i’ve lost cohesion again ! ” ) . they’re a typical aaron spelling couple , good-looking but as vacant as george w . bush’s republican national convention speech ( i . e . bush referring to clinton ; ” ? ? ? so much promise ? ? ? but to what end ? to what end ? ” — this actually got applause ! suddenly warren beatty doesn’t look so absurd ) . the rest of the film’s characters are all well past thirty , though act like annoying high school party animals insulting one and other with a series of strained one-liners ; is it just me or have labored insults become big budget hollywood’s new character developing technique ? ahh , what a cynical time we live in ? ? ? as the picture opens we meet cain ( kevin bacon ) , an egocentric scientist working with the crew of aforementioned irritating scientists on a top secret ( so top secret the government has only provided them with a dilapidated warehouse in which to perform their extensive experimentation’s ) project with the goal to make invisibility a possibility ( for what purpose is never hinted at ) . they’ve performed several experiments on animals and have nearly solved the quandary causing caine , in a twist worthy of the film’s 1950’s late show origins , to impulsively experiment on himself . caine neglects to let the pentagon in on his plans and somehow gets two of his co-workers to lie for him so the rest of the crew will think the pentagon gave the go ahead . our mad scientist is turned invisible ( after several fx-heavy complications ) , then he inexplicably ( it’s hinted that the process of invisibility has made the animals into more savage creatures , but this is never explored , and if that was the case why the hell would anyone be stupid enough to test this out on a human ? ) begins raping , assaulting and murdering anyone he pleases , always with a lame wisecrack ready a la freddy krueger . it grows abundantly clear with each new release that it’s verhoeven’s films that have become hollow . like the rest , this one is cold , heartless , and full of contempt for humanity , but in addition to all that it lacks any trace of wit , insight and makes no statement other than ” audiences will pay for anything these days ” . it’s an affront to anyone looking for something stimulating on an intellectual level , or even those hoping to spend a saturday night with a fun , thrill-a-minute ride . verhoeven has instead served up an utterly routine mad slasher flick with nobody to root for and no reason to care . the previews make hollow man look like an irresistible flick . how can one not have a good time at a film that utilizes state of the art fx to illustrate an invisible man getting down and dirty with his bad self ? a couple weeks ago , after seeing the trailer , a bunch of friends and i got into a long discussion of how invisible man flicks never go so far as to have the invisible individual indulging in their newfound ability . hollow man looked like the first film to do so and whoa , in a serious manner to boot . but oh yeah , it is directed by paul verhoven not atom egoyan or peter greenway . verhoeven delivers the sleazy ” goods ” , but not in a watchable or thrillingly disturbing manner , here it just feels icky and uncomfortable . the director keeps his camera trained at his nubile actresses , caressing their breasts with his lens all while faux-psycho music strains in the background . it’s plainly obvious that verhoeven isn’t exploring voyeurism ( like in the classic peeping tom ) but exploiting it and not even doing that very well . it’s funny that with all the technology $90 million can get you verhoven is stuck at trying to figure out how to show a woman’s naked breast manipulated by an invisible hand . most vexing is that the invisibility aspect is used simply as gimmick in yet another slasher movie wherein characters do stupid things just so the villain can pop up for more attacks . in fact it’s largely irrelevant that bacon is invisible since , by the end , most of his potential victims don infer-red glasses that track his body heat . as in every mad slasher film we get the killers pov ( a scene where he spies on his neighbor while she undresses triggered unpleasant memories of slumber party massacre ) , and lots of scenes where people are unknowingly stalked . the film only provides one moment that i found genuinely creepy . it happens when a lab assistant ( kim dickens , who looks like she stepped out of playboy ) in the middle of a chit chat with an invisible bacon , suddenly pauses . ” are you looking at me ? ” , she queries , obviously haunted . it’s a little moment in a big film with nothing to offer but ground breaking special effects set to a plot that should have run its course by 1982 ( the apex of the mad slasher craze ) . those special effects are so stunning they alone keep this from being as bad as urban legend or i still know what you did last summer . and they’re the only reason to check out hollow man , preferably as a mid-week bargain rental . you’ve been warned . but you probably won’t listen , will you ? tis’ a pity ? ? ?
0 fact that charles bronson represents one of the most important movie icons of the 1980s represents one of the biggest and almost tragic ironies of that decade . tragedy lies in the fact that the icon status was earned less by quality of his work in movies , but the quantity . most of those movies were produced by cannon group , company led by israeli producers menahem golan and yoram globus . those two men probably thought that they could be the next roger corman , b- movie mentors of future hollywood legends . unfortunately , that didn’t happened , and when cannon finally went bankrupt at the end of the decade , behind it stood the huge pile of cinematic garbage , that would require at least few centuries before it reaches the camp appeal . sadly for bronson , that garbage also contained numerous movies in which that capable character actor and action hero of the 1970s tried to raise their worth simply by being the main lead , and lowering his own reputation in process . on the other hand , bronson could take comfort in a fact that those movies were extremely popular , especially among the audience 3 or 4 times younger than bronson himself . one of such movies that seriously marred bronson’s reputation is death wish 3 , third sequel in the series which began with death wish in 1974 . in the original movie , bronson played paul kersey , mild-mannered new york architect who turns into deadly street vigilante after his family fell victim to urban violence . that movie was far from masterpiece ; yet , in it the director michael winner was skillfully offering the cinematic remedy for very real disease of growing crime rates of the time ( on the same lines like siegel in dirty harry ) . unfortunately , six years later cannon group got rights to the character of paul kersey and began destroying it by pumping out sequels ; even the presence of its original director didn’t stop the rapid decline of the quality . death wish 3 begins when kersey comes to visit an old friend , living in the urban wasteland of east new york , populated by young criminals and people too old or too poor to move out . before the reunion , kersey’s friend falls victim to the street gang led by evil fraker ( played by gavan o’herlihy , probably the only noteworthy role in the film ) . kersey decides to avenge his death and slowly prepares for his crusade , while the police inspector shriker ( ed lauter ) , ants to use him as a secret weapon in his losing war against the urban crime . bronson , the main asset in this movie , plays the character who is nothing more than an efficient killing machine . although bronson’s charisma does help in overcoming some implausibilities ( single man in his 60s and armed with a single pistol manages to wipe out dozens of opponents with superior firepower ) , the lack of emotions or bronson’s own commitment could be seen in a very few lines spoken in a film . the movie authors were somewhat aware of that emotional shallowness , so they added romantic interest for their hero – public defender played by deborah raffin and conveniently terminated in order to give some more motives for kersey’s crusade . on the other hand , emotions are much better played by confronting law-abiding , yet ethnically stereotyped citizens with their daily nemesis of street punks – ruthless enough to exercise their reign of terror on the entire city blocks , and stupid enough to be killed in droves by kersey . unfortunately , michael winner doesn’t know how to work out the plot , and after torturing the viewers with mostly uninteresting characters and cliched and formulaic situations , ends this movie with a bang . the big showdown at the end – that turns east new york into the sarajevo-like battle zone – is probably the worst part of the movie , because of the poor editing and the cheap sets and props that give away the low budget . in short , this movie could be recommended only to the most fanatical charles bronson fans or for the people who are already desperate for 1980s nostalgia . ( special note for trekkies : marina sirtis , the actress who played counsellor deanna troi in star trek : the next generation could be spotted in a small role of portorican wife ) .
0 overblown remake of the 1963 robert wise film of the same name ( based on shirley jackson’s novel ” the haunting of hill house ” ) stars lili taylor as one of three ” lab rats ” that participate in a supposed ” insomnia ” study being initiated by liam neeson . he is actually conducting a study on the causes of fear and why the human mind is still affected by it . he drags the test subjects out to a foreboding mansion where all types of ” creepy ” cgi effects scare the cast and try the audience’s patience . i know this question has been posed before , but why do people keep remaking good movies ? the original was a great psychological horror film . this new version is dull and very decidedly not scary . in fact , i feel it is downright impossible to make a modern day pg-13 horror movie that is scary . unless you find obvious computer generated special effects frightening , then there’s nothing in this film that will raise hackles . i nearly fell asleep twice during the film , and probably would have if they guy two rows behind me didn’t seem to have such a personal relationship with the characters that he felt he needed to discuss every decision they made with them as the film progressed . it’s sad to see such an amazing cast wasted so badly . owen wilson spends most of the film wandering the halls of the house , and the script does no justice to his wonderful comic ability . catherine zeta-jones ( always nice to look at ) is given the woefully underwritten role of a bi-sexual insomniac that gets to run out of her bedroom perplexed every time some strange noise occurs . liam neeson pops in from time to time to talk into his tape recorder and attempt to convince the others that he has as much knowledge about what’s going on as the rest of them do . finally , poor lili taylor , the center of the film , gets the brunt of the cgi effects thrown at her while everyone else gets to scream and try to rescue her . apparently , a subplot involving a tryst between zeta-jones and taylor’s characters was filmed but removed . that’s too bad , because it might have lent some better characterization to the narrative . this is jan de bont’s second straight misfire ( speed 2 : cruise control being the first ) . when is he going to learn that bigger is not always necessarily better ? robert wise knew that when he made the original and the makes of the blair witch project also knew that . one should not approach a haunted house movie with a twister mindset . if de bont and screenwriter david self had let our minds fill in the blanks as to what was happening instead of showing us everything , it would have served to make the film terrifying . what our mind fashions on it’s own can be a thousand times more frightening than having having it completely led towards everything . apparently , yet another version of this story is being filmed under it’s original title . i certainly hope that this newer rendition will not be hurt by the insanity of jan de bont’s version and that it will retain the psychological impact that the original release had . [pg-13]
0 ” tarzan and the lost city ” is one of the most anemic movies to come out in quite a while . not only it is poorly written , badly acted , and generally incompetent in all cinematic areas , it is thoroughly uninspired and insipid . unfortunately , it’s not bad in the way great , colossal misfires like ” heaven’s gate ” ( 1980 ) or ” ishtar ” ( 1987 ) were bad . instead , it literally drips off the screen like a movie nobody wanted to be associated with , which begs the question of why it was made in the first place . with all the good scripts lying around hollywood un-produced , how does needless drek like this make its way to the big screen ? of course , tarzan is one of the most filmed characters in all of motion picture history – he has appeared in over forty films , which have ranged from the very good ( 1984’s ” greystoke : the legend of tarzan , lord of the apes ” ) down to the really bad ( 1981’s ” tarzan , the ape man ” with bo derek ) . most of these films were just cheapie b-movies made in the thirties and forties , starring ex-olympic athletes and a lot of cutsie chimps . therefore , if another tarzan movie is to be made , one might assume that it would have something new to offer – a different angle , an original storyline , anything to set it apart from all the others . ” greystoke ” added a never-before-seen level of realism to the pulpy tale , and even ” tarzan , the ape man ” at least had the mis-guided audacity to sexualize the story as a vehicle for bo derek’s bare breasts . ” tarzan and the lost city , ” on the other hand , has absolutely nothing to offer but a bunch of recycled storylines and bad dialogue . the script , by bayard johnson and j . anderson black is about as formulaic and generic as they come . comic books have better plots than this . the movie is so bad , in fact , that it retains that ridiculous tarzan call that was so tirelessly mocked in last summer’s comedy ” george of the jungle . ” didn’t the producers think to leave that back in the old weissmuller pictures where it belongs ? the story starts with the legend of tarzan already firmly established : a quick opening narration tells of tarzan ( casper van dien ) being found in the jungle after having been raised by apes , and his return to england where he assumes his greystoke heritage . when the movie starts in 1913 , he is a civilized english gentleman ( without an english accent ) , and he is to marry jane ( jane march ) in less than a week . however , when a wicked archeologist/grave-robber named nigel ravens ( steve waddington ) begins hunting for the fabled lost city of opar , one of africa’s last great secrets , the witch doctor of an ancient african tribe summons tarzan back to the jungle . at first , jane refuses to go , pouting about how it will interfere with their wedding ; but after tarzan leaves she changes her mind and tracks him down , therefore assuring lots of lame smooch scenes between her and her ape-man . once the film gets going ( in its own sluggish way ) , it delves into a series of jungle adventures , as tarzan , jane , and the natives attempt the thwart ravens and his crew from discovering the city . most of the so-called adventures are cheesy , predictable , and unexciting , with no pace , tension , or action to speak of . there are sequences stolen from innumerable recent adventure movies , ranging from ” raiders of the lost ark ” ( 1981 ) to ” the goonies ” ( 1985 ) . when the movie is running short on action , it includes a few greenpeace-friendly scenes of tarzan freeing caged animals , releasing a baby elephant from a trap , and throwing ivory tusks into the river . the movie is also lacking even a remote hint of reality . for instance , when tarzan – who was raised in the jungle – is bit by a cobra , he doesn’t even attempt to suck the venom out like any semi-experienced weekend backpacker would do . instead , he ties a tourniquet around his arm and stumbles off into the jungle with no plan for survival . of course , one can’t help but notice how fundamentally misleading the title is . not to ruin the ending or anything , but there is no lost city . there is , however , a lost pyramid , which i suppose is all the resource-strapped fx department could come up with ( the special effects are not worthy of a made-for-tv movie ) . which also brings up the question of why the treasure hunters had to slog through numerous underground caverns to get to the lost pyramid , when it’s sitting right out in the middle of an open field ? strictly speaking , ” tarzan and the lost city ” isn’t even bad enough to have camp quality , although casper van dien’s laughably stiff performance comes real close . this movie proves what ” starship troopers ” only hinted at : he cannot act , but he sure looks well-groomed , even in the deepest heart of the african jungle . van dien is much too much of a pretty-boy to be an effective tarzan ; he’s a calvin klein model in a loin cloth . i also wondered what the make-up department was thinking when it outfitted him with that awful circa-1983 steve perry haircut . waddington makes a decent villain , although he’s like a charmless version of belloq from ” raiders of the lost ark . ” as jane , the ex-model jane march has little to do but smile and look pretty next to tarzan . she does fire off a gun at the evil treasure hunters a time or two , but whenever a snake comes into the picture , she is reduced to a hysterical mess . however , amidst all this complaining , i do have one piece of good news . ” tarzan and the lost city ” is so lacking in ideas both new and old , that it is unable to fill even an hour and a half of celluloid . so , we can say this much for it : at least it had the decency to be short .
0 everything in the phantom you have seen many times before and there is nothing new presented here . wincer displays absolutely no skill in setting up an exciting action sequence . billy zane is wooden as the hero . kristy swanson is given very little to do , and does very little with it . treat williams , looking like rhett butler but sounding like mickey mouse , is one of the worst villains i have ever seen in a movie . only catherine zeta jones , as one of williams cohorts turns in a good performance . she has energy and spunk , which the movie needed much more of . oh yeah , the phantom also has a secret identity but this is so poorly played out you won’t even care . about the only things i can recommend are a good performance by jones , and some colorful scenery . however , if youre looking for a fun family movie , go watch the underrated flipper . this is not a good movie .
0 a life less ordinary ( r ) while the extremely peculiar a life less ordinary does live up to its title , a more appropriate moniker would be a movie more misguided , for this confused , confusing attempt at romantic comedy is a most disarming disaster from the talented trainspotting team of director danny boyle , producer andrew macdonald , and screenwriter john hodge . at the core of this strange film is a fairly basic–and , yes , ordinary–premise . after robert ( boyle regular ewan mcgregor ) , an aspiring writer of trashy novels , is fired from his janitorial job at the naville corporation , he kidnaps naville’s ( ian holm ) spoiled daughter celine ( cameron diaz ) and holds her for ransom . the joke here is that celine is a willing victim–her father threatened to cut her off financially , so she wants revenge–and that she soon becomes not only an accomplice but the brains behind the scheme , teaching the inept robert a thing or two about kidnapping . . . and , ultimately ( didn’t we see this one coming ? ) , love . so far , so mediocre . but mediocre is better than dreadful , which this film is , thanks in no small part to the hodge’s contextual frame for the romance . it turns out that god is displeased with the divorce and romantic breakup rate on earth , so the chief of heaven’s police , gabriel ( dan hedaya ) dispatches two angels , o’reilly ( holly hunter ) and jackson ( delroy lindo ) , to earth to hook up celine and robert–or lose their angel status . this conceit might have worked if the angel dimension played an integral role in the entire picture . but it could have easily been cut without any clear loss to the film ; as it stands , it is simply a waste of time that distracts from the romance at hand . not that there is much of a romance to begin with . try as diaz and mcgregor may , celine and robert are too one-note to become very endearing characters . celine is rich bitch ; robert is a dullard . as such , it is quite hard for the audience to really connect with these two–then again , they never seem to really connect with each other . when celine and robert start to overtly act on their ” feelings , ” it comes off more like something scripted than anything natural . but i am not exactly sure if boyle and company’s point was romance ; honestly , i am not exactly sure what they were trying to accomplish . boyle juices up the visuals with his characteristic razzmatazz , but it remains just that–energy , not energy in service of a story or even acting . the cast seems lost , especially hunter , whose performance is so adrift as to be baffling . and then there are the many eccentricities splattered onto the film : some violent confrontations involving the angels , who are not exactly angelic–in fact , they end up staging their own ransom scheme ; some mystical hokum in the climax ; and a cutesy claymation epilogue . watching much of a life less ordinary is like being trapped in indie hipster hell , stockpiling quirks in the name of cool . instead , the film just gives quirky a bad name . my best guess as to what the filmmakers wanted to accomplish is an atmosphere of warped womantic ( yes , misspelling intended ) whimsy , which comes through in only one scene : an extended musical number where celine and robert sing ” beyond the sea ” at a karaoke bar . after a verse or two , the couple are magically dolled up in snazzy outfits and hairdos , and engage in a spirited dance routine on the counter . the scene works not only because of its relative simplicity but also because it does not try too hard , just relying on the innate charm of the leads , allowing them to build a romantic rapport . alas , not nearly enough is built , for this moment comes to an abrupt end . i applaud any attempt to bring something fresh and unique to movie houses , but sometimes even cleverness can reach overkill . a life less ordinary certainly delivers something ” different , ” but by the time the film was over , i was clamoring for a life more ordinary . ” i can accept failure . everyone fails at something . but i can’t accept not trying . it doesn’t matter if you win as long as you give everything in your heart . ” –michael jordan
0 how could a g-rated disney film based on meg cabot’s novel ” the princess diaries ” be anything but cute , harmless fun ? easy . take all the cute , harmless fun out of it . and while you’re at it make it borrr-ring . that’s what director garry marshall , screenwriter gina wendkos and , not to be outdone , producer whitney houston have done with the g-rated disney film ” the princess diaries . ” you couldn’t tell it from the audience though , a braintree , mass . of growing , glowing pre-pubescent girls ( and the odd parental , popcorn perched about their persons ) , who positively cheered when the end credits rolled ( ah the film had struck a lovely nerve with them but not with fuddy-duddy old me ) . well , i might have cheered that the utter tripe was now well and truly over , but that would have been too obvious . too obvious is the least of the problems with marshall’s film ( garry made a couple of other ” princess ” movies– ” pretty woman ” and ” runaway bride ” –but this one’s way without julia roberts so maybe * that’s * its problem ) . in addition to being predictable as molasses , ” the princess diaries ” has hardly got a laugh in it ( it’s a comedy ) , could bore the pants off an abyssinian for long , long stretches , and is so sloppily edited the principals refer to scenes we haven’t even seen yet ( and probably never will except , perhaps , in the dvd edition ) . marshall should take virtually all of the blame here , since he’s been at this for some time and should know when a scene or two isn’t working . . . and hardly * any * of ” the princess diaries ” works ( ” works , ” alas , implies cleverness and there’s none of that here either ) . newcomer anne hathaway stars as mia thermopolis , a bright but socially invisible san franciscan teen who learns that her single mom ( a wacky artist played by the likable caroline goodall ) had a bit of a fling with some royal member of some miniscule european country nobody ever heard of ( the filmmakers go out of their way * not * to call it serbia , which is pretty much what all miniscule european countries are called in the movies mark my words ) and now she , mia , is next in line to rule ” genovia ” ( hence the headphones/tiara combo in the print ads ) . julie andrews , with the luminous factor cranked to 11 , plays mia’s grandmother ( aka queen clarisse renaldi ) , who shows up out of the royal blue and lends mia much advice and direction in the eating , talking , and looking like a princess department ( although mia’s big makeover simply transforms her from ugly duckling to ugly swan ) . does queen julie lose her dignity for the sake of a good laugh ? not really . consuming a corn dog is about the worst that it gets . also on stereotypical hand are a brainless jock , an evil cheerleader , a dorky-looking best friend ( ” welcome to the dollhouse ” ‘s heather matarazzo ) , a sensitive auto mechanic/musician , and marshall mainstay hector elizondo as joe the driver , imparting wit and wisdom from the front seat of mia’s chauffeur-driven limousine at every intersection . a non-animated g-rated movie is a rarity these days but the rating here reflects the fact that all the guts , all the good stuff , has been exorcised from the finished product . lame , labored , and lamentable , ” the princess diaries ” is recommended for eight-and-a-half year olds of the feminine persuasion * only * ; all others would do well to avoid it ( like potholes , the plague , and ” the perfect storm ” ) .
0 the corruptor is a big silly mess of an action movie , complete with pointless plot turns and gratuitous violence . it’s not abhorrent , or even blatantly unlikable , but it doesn’t make a shred of sense . and whose idea was it to have the director of glengarry glen ross direct an action film ? james foley knows a lot about characters and acting , and those are the strengths of the corruptor . but the quiet scenes clash with the ludicrous action nonsense , and the result is less like a movie and more like a derailed train . at least we have chow yun-fat in the lead role . chow plays nick chen , a chinatown cop . he’s a good cop , as the first few scenes establish , and he’s very familiar with chinatown . that’s probably why the powers-that-be decide to team him up with a rookie named danny wallace ( mark wahlberg ) . nick and danny begin by stepping on each other’s toes , but finally end up liking each other once they both get a chance to save the other one’s life . what happens after that is kind of a mystery to me . i’m fairly certain that the villains are all part of the fukienese dragons , led by a young chinese psycho named bobby vu ( byron mann ) . i’m also pretty sure that nick is on the payroll of henry lee ( ric young ) , a gangster dealing in prostitutes and other neat stuff . i’m not quite sure why henry lee decides to employ danny , although this makes for some ridiculous ( albeit unpredictable ) plot twists along the way . there’s also an interesting subplot revolving around danny’s father ( brian cox ) , but it doesn’t have much to do with the main story . one of the problems , as i said , is that the movie doesn’t make any sense . i don’t blame this entirely on foley , because he’s obviously a good director . i’m more inclined to point my finger at robert pucci’s script , which doesn’t seem to be in tune to the way normal people act . one scene early on had me particularly annoyed : nick confronts his boss because he’s angry about his new white partner . he’s shouting and pointing his finger and stepping on the furniture , and i was thinking that i would have fired him if he had done that to me . ( in addition , the film takes a bite into race-related issues , and never develops them at all . ) there are a lot of scenes like this one , and none of them are very coherent . there’s also a considerable language barrier , given that chow and some of the other actors have thick chinese accents . the plot itself never straightens out . i’m not sure who or what the fukienese dragons are , or why henry lee is associated with them , or what they do as a group . the corruptor is an action movie , and so all these weird plot developments are decorated with loud and violent action sequences . the sequences aren’t bad , but they’re not new ; how many car chases through chinatown have you seen ? on that note , how many chinatown cop movies have you seen ? one too many , i’d imagine . foley’s strength is clearly in characterization , and he does a pretty good job here . the scenes between nick and danny are very good , and i actually got a feel for their characters ; a bond forms between them that holds parts of the film together . chow and wahlberg are both good actors ; chow is a pro , and can do this kind of stuff in his sleep . wahlberg seems less at home in this atmosphere , but he’s still fun to watch . i also liked the subplot involving danny’s father ; brian cox’s performance is powerful , and his character makes a compelling moral compass for danny . but the film ultimately fails , mostly at the hands of insane incoherence and overly-familiar action scenes . a complicated plot can be successful , but the story needs to make sense when it’s over . the corruptor never manages to make any sense — it just keeps spinning out of control until , finally , there’s nothing left to hold on to .
0 ” return to horror high , ” wants to be a couple different types of movies at once . the film tells the story of a low-budget horror movie being filmed at the closed-down crippen high , a school where a group of serial murders took place five years before . but what the cast and crew don’t know is that a real killer , maybe the same one that was never apprehended , is going into action again . on one level , ” return to horror high ” is a slasher movie , and it is at this level that it works the best on . watching the film , which was made in 1987 , i couldn’t help but take notice that the killer’s costume was almost identital to that of the ghostface in , ” scream , ” and ” scream 2 . ” on another level , the film wants to be a slapstick comedy , and there are many hints of this throughout . unfortunately , most of these jokes fall flat . and the last thing the film wants to be is a ” behind-the-scenes ” look at an exploitation film being made . the only problem is that , while much of it is supposed to be from the movie itself being made , no cameras are shown filming it , thus making it far more confusing than it had to be . and to top it all off , the ” twist ” ending makes very little to no sense whatsoever , and so we are basically left with feeling as if we wasted our time . there are story developments that are beyond ludicrous , and plot holes you could drive a winnebago through . if you see the film , or have seen it , you’ll know what i mean . the premise of ” return to horror high , ” is admittedly pretty crafty , and i liked the atmosphere of the school , which is where the whole thing takes place . but director froehlich , judging from this movie , is an incompetent director , except for being able to film the seldom suspeneful scene . well , come to think of it , there is only one scene that is actually scary , and it has to do with two actors being locked in a room as the killer tries to break in . but other than that two-minute distraction , ” return to horror high , ” is certainly no great shake . note : look for george clooney in a supporting role as one of the actors on the film . and strangely enough , he is the first character to get the ax . . . literally .
0 the art of woo attempts to be one of those films like breakfast at tiffany’s in which the audience is rooting for some sweet , vulnerable , irresistible woman to work out her problems and to find happiness . the problem is that helen lee who writes and directs seems to have written alessa woo ( played by sook-yin lee ) as neither sweet nor vulnerable and she is quite resistible . alessa is a young woman who happens to be a brilliant art dealer in the toronto art scene . this is some sort of alternate world art scene where people pay tens of thousands of dollars for paintings by talented beginners and dealers in these paintings fly back and forth to places like switzerland . one of the most knowledgeable of the art dealers is alessa . she also happens to be the center of adulation of her friends and every party has suitors camped outside her window . next door to alessa moves struggling genius artist and native american ben crowchild ( adam beach ) . he sees that behind the facade that there is really a sad little girl within alessa who really will not be happy with the rich art collector she is dating . ben gets emotionally involved with alessa . ( as alessa so delicately puts it , ” we were bosom buddies , now we’re fuck buddies . ” ) but alessa will have to decide whether she wants love with ben or wealth with her rich suitor . the real problem with the film seems to be helen lee’s inability to decide what she wants to be saying . she undercuts nearly everything she wants us to believe about alessa . alessa is looking for financial security but she makes decisions about large sums of money for her clients . this appears to be a high profile and well-paid job . we are supposed to care about alessa’s feelings , but she coldly refuses to visit her own ailing father . alessa cannot be portrayed as sweet and vulnerable if at an art auction she turns into our man flint . this is a charmless romantic comedy that bets everything it has on the appeal of its main character and comes up double-zero . i rate it a 3 on the 0 to 10 scale and a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale .
0 capsule : a science fiction allegory . at the millennium a lethal contagious virus has hit taiwan . officials have cut off water and other services to the center of contagion . life there devolves and degenerates . a man in an apartment has a hole in his floor and with it harasses his downstairs neighbor . a slow but harrowing film to be missed if possible . , low -1 ( -4 to +4 ) – the taiwan virus is ravaging taiwan and the part of the city that is the center of the contagion has been evacuated of anyone who will go . one apartment building still houses people . a woman , formerly an office worker , ( yang kuei-mei ) is tormented by her upstairs neighbor ( lee kang-sheng ) who has a hole cut by a plumber in the floor and is using it as a drain . neighbor runs a small failing grocery store . – to make things more depressing , it is constantly raining hard . – upstairs neighbor vomits through , pours water , etc . a small and almost entirely one-sided war starts . allegory about callousness and selfishness . – woman is living on a pile of rolls of toilet tissue . – incongruous songs added to show downstairs neighbors dreams . these are the songs of popular taiwanese singer grace chang . – apartment is falling apart . wallpaper is separating from walls . plumbing is failing . – boredom shown by long cuts in which nothing happens . a lot of film seems to be used up . – this story might have been done much better as a ten-minute animated film . – stars are considered to be great dramatic actors by one reviewer . – this film seems longer at 95 minutes most two-hour films .
0 seen december 2 , 1997 at 6 : 50 p . m . at the glenwood movieplex cinemas ( oneida , ny ) , theater #3 , by myself for free ( free pass ) . [theater rating : * * * : good seats , sound , and picture] there are many philosophies as to why we are so fascinated with cartoons . they provide a method of total escapism in which anything will work within their context , from the outrageous slapstick of looney tunes to the intensity of japanimation . watching ” flubber ” really clinched this idea for me , because it’s just a live action cartoon that presents itself as a regular comedy . it proves how painfully unfunny all those gags and slapstick would be in reality , and how important it is to actually have a story . the film wastes no time in establishing its lighthearted , cartoony atmosphere . we meet medfield college chemistry professor phillip brainard ( williams ) , the typical , supposedly likable mad scientist . within the first 10 minutes we get at least a half dozen jokes about how forgetful he is . phillip’s memory loss seems less like a cartoony gag and more like a real case of alzhiemer’s disease – isn’t this rather lowbrow comedy ? he starts teaching chemistry after walking in on a nude figure drawing class ( an inappropriate joke for a kids’ movie if i ever saw one ) . we learn he has stood his up fiancee , sara ( harden ) , twice at the altar simply because he’s forgotten . sara claims to love him , but says if he forgets the wedding again she’ll stop loving him ( a sign of childish attitude the film denies it has ) . but even cartoons must have conflicts to resolve , and it’s no surprise the major conflicts here are related . christopher mcdonald does and even worse version of his usual villain shtick as wilson croft , a scientist who not only wants to steal phillip’s ideas , but his woman too . what’s worse is that sara actually seems interested in him ! wilson works for a rival college that wants to buy out medfield , which is going broke , unless phillip can invent something to save the day . one of the first rules of filmmaking is to make sure the title has something to do with the film . the flubber is played for gags after it is introduced , but is all but forgotten about thereafter . it’s obvious phillip is going to accidentally invent flubber , a flying rubber compound that yields tremendous energy , and the promotions make the flubber look realistic and funny . unfortunately , the flubber , like all the special effects in this film , looks very fake and unconvincing . flubber also seems to have intelligence and a personality , and by the time it performs a song and dance routine , you give up wondering how life could spontaneously come to an inanimate object . most of the film wanders aimlessly as it relies on the flubber to make for the comedy ( since phillip’s absent-mindedness is forgotten about ) and somehow push the story along . but it’s clear how weak this premise is from the get-go and the film just gets worse . all the jokes involve people getting hit by fast-moving , flubber-powered objects including : bowling balls ; flying cars that don’t fly well ; and a basketball team capable of jumping 100 feet into the air . it’s all presented with complete logic , and no one believes flubber exists even when they see it with their own eyes . during the basketball scene , the coach for the rival team actually says , ” i think they might be cheating , ” to which the referee replies , ” there’s no rules about jumping too high . ” ” predictable ” doesn’t begin to describe the motions the film goes through , especially after the halfway point . and it’s not how terribly contrived the plot is , it’s the way it’s broken down scene-by-scene , with absolutely no transition . not only that , but all the actors here , especially williams , seem bored to tears . i’d say 80 percent of all the scenes were shot with a bluescreen , so it’s almost forgivable when you realize they’re talking to nothing and interacting with nothing . it’s safe to say everything that could be bad about ” flubber ” is . the only original element the film has is the world’s first romance between a machine and a human . but this aspect is quite twisted if you think about it , and , like the rest of the film , you won’t .
0 plot : a down-and-out girl moves in with some over-the-top models and falls in love with a goofy-but-loveable guy from across the street . aaaaaaaaah ! then one day , she sees him knock a woman upside the head with a baseball bat . ooooooooh ! she must then join together with her model-friends to find out whether or not this guy is really goofy-but-loveable , or a psycho killer . aaaaaaaaah ! critique : completely idiotic . okay , so maybe i’m being a little too nice . this movie starts off dumb , moves into the ridiculous and eventually graduates to idiocy . there . . . that’s more like it ! and how , you may ask ? well , it’s simple really . four of the dumbest stereotypical models in the world ( oh my god , i just found out that the actresses playing the parts are models in real life . . . yipes ! ) join monica potter ( in a role which can only be described as an obvious cry for help ) and freddie prinze jr . ( not the actor , but the character better known as freddie prinze jr . ) , in a plot so stupid and far-fetched , that you have to wonder once more , how crap like this gets by the hollywood bigwigs . this thing stinks to high-heaven . it’s just plain embarrassing for everyone involved . i even felt my iq dip below its usual low as toilet humor somehow worked its way into this so-called romantic-comedy-action movie ? ugh . what a pile of dung . hey , i’m actually starting to sound a little like harry knowles here , but i guess i could see where his frustration comes from time to time . it’s sad really . a movie which actually had quite a few people in my audience laughing at its idiocy , including the over-used ” folks hiding in the bathroom while someone else comes in to take a crap and fart ” gag . and how about that dumb blonde model who keeps running into things . pure hilarity ! or maybe i’m just too jaded , too much of a critic , not relaxed enough to enjoy this fluff-piece . . . uuuhhmmm . . . naaaaah ! ! this movie sucks the big one . it’s chockfull of stupid characters delivering inane dialogue fitting snuggly into a preposterous plot . this is the kind of movie that has one character inserting another character into a car headfirst to the floor only because . . . well , it’s supposed to be funny , see ? you see , that person then has their legs swinging in the other person’s face as they drive and that distracts the driver , see , and well , that’s kinda funny , no ? harumph . . . yeah , well . . . you get the picture ! anyhoo , freddie prinze jr . . . . nuff said . monica potter , a bad career move , but we might forgive you if you keep up the julia roberts bit . the rest of the model girls . . . well , thanks for being there so i had something to look at , but please apologize to the entire modeling community as a whole , for making them all out to be complete imbeciles ! ! so why the three points out of ten , you may ask ? well , it’s simple really . one point goes to the russian model girl and that cool accent ( don’t ask me why , but it actually turned me on ) . one point goes out to all of the model girls for being in the movie ( nice window decoration . . . natch ! ) . and one last point goes out to the makers of this film , who spared us any long sorted story , and made sure to give us the opportunity of leaving the theatre after only 90 minutes of manufactured garbage , so that we could run out as fast as we can , grab the next person that we see walking down the street and warn them of the devil that is . . . freddie prinze jr . . . i mean , head over heels . you’ve been warned , good people . ps : didja notice how i didn’t even mention rear window once in my entire review ? i didn’t want to taint the memory of the classic flick by having it uttered alongside this thing , but then again , i just did mention it , but i guess it doesn’t count in the ps section . . . or does it ? ooooh , whatever . . . i have a headache ! ( i think my brain is coming back to life ) where’s joblo coming from ? 10 things i hate about you ( 7/10 ) – coyote ugly ( 6 . 5/10 ) – down to you ( 6 . 5/10 ) – save the last dance ( 7/10 ) – she’s all that ( 6 . 5/10 ) – the wedding planner ( 4/10 ) – you’ve got mail ( 5 . 5/10 )
0 for those interested in the true spirit of moviemaking – or what’s left of it in mainstream hollywood – movie which are star vehicles are terrible things . as a rule , the ignore general principles of cinema because they are not made to advance the media but rather to advance the career of a particular actor . an actor might be chosen on the up-and-up , to give him exposure ; or he might be chosen on the way down to hand him a paycheck . generally , though , the actor doesn’t matter , and soldier , the latest from the beleaguered warner brothers , exemplifies this : the picture lacks pizazz . the star for the vehicle in this case is kurt russell , otherwise known as the man of thirty words or less . russell plays todd , a human trained from birth in the ways of waging war and becoming emotionally distanced from the carnage he has wrought . the movie lets us see this degenerate process , but by the time the real plot starts , we’re into todd’s later years . he’s about to be replaced by a new breed of soldiers , ones who , instead of being trained * from * birth , are genetically selected * before * birth . the pride of this class – caine 607 ( jason scott lee ) – will be our villain , and you know he’s the villain because he has a staring contest with our hero near the movie’s start . between the two leads , less than a full typed page of dialogue is spoken , and it’s possible to imagine a script which is ninety percent stage direction . director paul anderson , who helmed last year’s icy thriller , event horizon , doesn’t show any inventiveness here and instead is content to let the actions play out on screen ad nauseam . todd , upon being replaced , is left to die on a garbage planet ; but in order to stretch the running time out , the villains return to the garbage planet on a ” routine patrol ” and set the stage for the final firefight . events are predictable from the time that the setups are made , and neither anderson nor scriptwriter david peoples attempts to show any creativeness here . the most annoying plot facet is the reason that the whole of the movie comes to be : todd fails to show physical superiority against caine – in fact , not even todd and two of his companions can best the baddie – but near the end of the movie he shows remarkable prowess with automatic weaponry . it’s not as though todd undergoes any significant character changes throughout the plot of the story , and so the plot has a very canned feeling about it . the best route through this disaster is to take it lighthearted in spirit , and treat it as a parody of typical action fare , like universal soldier . a strict interpretation , however , reveals an unmistakeable and unforgiveable lack of style , class , or substance ; and by next year , a large percentage of the people who have seen this will have taped it off of network television .
0 director doug ellin’s kissing a fool , released earlier this year , is an aptly titled comedy about two plastic couples housed in an artificial story . like a sitcom with jokes so lame that it would be impossible to overlay a laugh track on it , the movie meanders along insulting the viewers’ intelligence in almost every frame . the script by james frey and the director is filled with vapid actors who read meaningless lines you’ve heard before . ( ” i’m not wearing any underwear , ” the bimbo tells the famous sportscaster , max , in what she assumes will be a sure-fire come-on line . ) max , chicago’s biggest playboy , decides to get married after a whirlwind love affair with sam , short for samantha . max and sam possess two irritating personalities , and they hold little chemistry for each other or the audience . max is played without any style by david schwimmer . schwimmer , whose acting talent is playing characters devoid of personality , makes an unlikely lover . his costar , mili avital as sam , is cut from the same cloth , so they can be argued to be a matched pair . after all , people of the same intelligence are naturally drawn to each other , ditto for similar looks , so why shouldn’t the personality-challenged be attracted ? the implausible plot has max asking his best friend , jay ( jason lee ) , to hit on sam as a test . jay is supposed to try to get her to sleep with him , but stop short of the actual act . max , being promiscuous by nature , worries that his future bride may have the same need to sleep around as he does . the idea of flirting with the beautiful sam makes jay so sick that he becomes unable to eat or work . neither the script nor the actors make this test believable . ” the 64 , 000 question is : how do you know you’re with the wrong person so you can avoid wreaking havoc on major parts of your life ? ” jay asks in one of the unsuccessful attempts at adding some seriousness to the film . finally , there is the film’s attempt at physical comedy . jay’s ex-girlfriend natasha ( vanessa angel ) becomes infatuated with jay again once she thinks he is going out with someone else . natasha rips jay’s shirt open after pushing him down onto the sofa . as she throws her hair on his bare chest , she demands he pull it . this is supposed to be funny ? most films have some saving grace . some bit part was done especially well or some scene managed to be funny even if the rest of the picture wasn’t . kissing a fool , on the other hand , has nothing to recommend it . kissing a fool runs 1 : 45 . it is rated r for profanity and sexuality and would be acceptable for most teenagers .
0 i am continually amazed at movies like this . that some producer would waste an abundance of talent and money on a script as abysmal as this one is mind-boggeling , but it seems to happen a lot nowadays . ” wild wild west ” is a beautifully filmed , well acted , and well directed piece of garbage ; and its insipid screenplay is completely at fault . in short , this movie is a comedy without laughs . so many jokes fall flat that it borderlines surreal . the high production values keep it from being a total fiasco , but it’s still pretty boring . will smith stars as jim west , an old western , r&b variation of the james bond character . west is teamed up with artemus gordon ( kevin kline ) , and they’re pretty much polar oppisites : west prefers to solve his problems with an array of bullets , gordon traditionally favors a more pacifistic approach . talk about deeply developed characters . at any rate , this leads to the inevitable conflicts between methodologies , none of which are funny . the year is 1869 . several top scientists have been abducted , and the suspected culprit is a disgruntled former confederate general , bloodbath mcgrath ( ted levine ) . president grant sends west and gordon to investigate . there’s evidence that mcgrath is attending some sort of confederate reunion in louisiana . west and gordon show up and learn that mcgrath is actually working for dr . arliss loveless ( kenneth branagh ) , another disgruntled former confederate . as it turns out , loveless plans to use the combined knowledge of the scientests to create the ultimate super weapon , which he will use to conquer the united states . i’d go further with the plot , but there isn’t any point . this film’s narrative is little more than a jumbled , unfunny mess . i only laughed at a couple of jokes , and then only lightly . there isn’t one truly uprorously funny moment in this film , and that’s pretty disasterous when you consider that it’s primarily a comedy . as i said , the fault is totally that of the script . when you consider their respective roles , will smith and kevil kline do as good as they could have possibly done . the leads could’ve been played samuel l . jackson and robert de niro and the film still would’ve been awful . no one , and i mean no one , can make a line like ” bye bye , mr . knife guy ! ” sound good . still , this film has a lot going for it visually . the set design is fantastic , maybe even oscar worthy . the cinematogrophy by michael ballhaus ( who was also behind camera in martin scorsese’s brilliant ” goodfellas ” ) , is absolutely stunning . he lends the film a much needed exciting , comic bookish look . i won’t fault barry sonnenfeld either . he does a fine job of directing the proceedings , but , like the rest of the people involved with the film , there really isn’t anything that he can do to correct its one major flaw . despite being beautifully made , ” wild wild west ” becomes quite boring after the half-way point . the appeal of the visuals ends long before the film does . if ” wild wild west ” didn’t look so good , it would be almost insufferable . as it is , it’s somewhat tolerable , but not very entertaining . it hurts to give such a well made movie a score this low , but there isn’t anything much worse than an unfunny comedy .
0 this talky , terribly-plotted thriller stars alec baldwin as dave robicheaux , an ex-new orleans cop who gets ensnared in a murder- mystery after a light-plane crashes into the bayou beside his fishing boat . he and his wife annie ( kelly lynch ) rescue a little salvadorian girl ( samantha lagpacan ) from the wreckage and that’s when the trouble begins . the other major players include a local drug lord ( eric roberts ) , his scheming wife ( teri hatcher ) , a soused stripper ( mary stuart masterson ) , and a shady dea agent ( vondie curtis hall ) . everyone knows everyone else and it makes for a collective that’s curious but never compelling . based on the book by james lee burke , heaven’s prisoners is so badly plotted that entire * scenes * seem to be missing . early on , we have no idea of why dave and annie keep the child to themselves . nor how they eluded both the coast guard and the faa . later , dave is reunited with a drug-abuser who appears seemingly clean and sober and without any explanation . huh ? the whole movie is like this , perhaps the result of some unkind cuts that happened during the eighteen months that the film sat on the shelf . whatever the reason , somebody should tell director phil joanou ( final analysis ) to recut this mess . in its present form , heaven’s prisoners runs only two hours plus change , but it feels like four .
0 spoiled rich kid kelley morse ( chris klein ) receives a new mercedes for a graduation present . he and his buddies take it for a joyride to a small nearby town , where he proceeds to torment the locals simply because he’s rich and they’re not . he ends up provoking jasper ( josh hartnett ) into a race and as a result , the local gas station and diner are destroyed when they crash into it . kelley is sentenced to rebuild the diner , and has to live with jasper in a spare room over his family’s barn . jasper’s girlfriend sam ( leelee sobieski ) soon takes a liking to kelley however , despite the fact that 1 ) it was her family’s diner that was destroyed and b ) all kelley does is sit around , sulk , and smart off to the townspeople . but when she sees him sweaty and shirtless , that’s apparently all she needs to lose her feelings for jasper ( whose only fault seems to be a perpetual case of hat hair ) . so sobieski soon falls in love with kelley , especially after the day she follows him through the woods and hears him giving his graduation speech ( which he was unable to deliver because he caused the destruction of property and nearly killed dozens of people ) . in the speech , kelley quotes a poem by robert frost , which just so happens to be sam’s favorite poem as well . awwwww . soon they’re frolicking around in the fields and for some reason waste no time letting people in town ( especially jasper’s best friend ) see them together . kelley continues to make an ass of himself in town , especially when he shows up at the town dance , drunk and steaming because sam went with jasper . kelley runs off and decides to leave town . sam catches up to him at the bus station and he asks her to come to boston with him . jasper shows up and tearfully confesses to sam just how much he loves her , and sam , without even breaking stride basically says ” see ya ! ” and takes off to boston with kelley . here on earth goes in so many wrong directions from the start that by the time its fairly decent ending comes around , its completely worthless . chris klein and leelee sobieski are two of my current favorite young performers , and it’s because of their presence that i watched this film in the first place . however , not long into the proceedings i wanted to just reach into the film and strangle them both . i shouldn’t have such feelings towards people i like , but their characters are so infuriating that . . . well trust me , you’ll feel the same way . even though both of the lead male characters are usually in the wrong , kelley is hands down the more unlikable of the two , simply because his jerkish actions are calculated . he intends to be a jackass each and every time he does it . jasper on the other hand , only reacts to kelley’s provocations , and afterwards comes across as being truly sorry for his impulsive actions . but , as in life , nice guys finish last . for the entire film we watch sam fall in love with the guy no one likes while the film’s only sympathetic character gets completely crushed . then , a cancer subplot comes into play ( where things get even more infuriating , if you can imagine that ) . what , things weren’t depressing enough for you mr . screenwriter ? who greenlit this project ? who ” on earth ” thought this would entertain anyone ? perhaps if the film had been structured where kelley perhaps felt some remorse after he caused the destruction of property and nearly killed dozens of people . but even after he’s destroyed these people’s lives he continues to be a snob to them , and ruins one more for good measure . here on earth is available on dvd from fox home entertainment . it contains the film in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1 . 85 : 1 and is enhanced for 16×9 televisions . extras include jessica simpson’s music video for ” where you are ” , a commercial for the film’s soundtrack ( which by the way is the only good thing about the film ) , the original theatrical trailer and five tv spots , trailers for other fox releases ( anna and the king , anywhere but here , the beach , drive me crazy , ever after , romeo + juliet , simply irresistible ) , as well as that new fox promo touting their upcoming dvd releases that i really enjoy . the picture and sound quality on the disc are fine . . . nothing that will challenge anyone’s audio/video systems of course . fans of this movie ( if any exist ) should enjoy the dvd release . here on earth is not entertaining nor is it compelling . no joy or entertainment value can be derived from any of the events of the film . it is merely a waste of time , money and talent .
0 some movies’ pre-release buzz is so insistent on their high oscar potential that when they’re finally released , everyone just goes along with it . thus sometimes , films unworthy of any award sans the razzie become oscar hopefuls and some even score nominations . last year it was the thin red line . this year’s ” winner ” is the hurricane , pure unadulterated tripe that is all of a sudden being received with critical plaudits and votes in the office oscar pool . acclaimed director norman jewison’s biopic retreads all the conventions of courtroom movies without any of the fun . and that’s supposed to be ok because , see , it’s a true story . it’s about rubin ” hurricane ” carter ( denzel washington ) , a legendary african american prizefighted who is unjustly convicted of triple homicide with the help of a ghastly ( racist ! ) detective ( dan hedaya ) who’s had it in for the ” big-shot ” hurricane ever since he arrested him for stabbing a white man with a knife ( in self-defense but who cares , right ? ) when rubin was only ten . he is to serve three life sentences with no possibility of parole . most of the film takes place when he is in his 15th year in prison . to the rescue — lesra martin ( vicellous reon shannon ) and his team of wanna-be detectives . lesra is an african american teenager taken in by three well-off canadian white people ( hanna , unger , schreiber ) to get an education . lesra and his buddies go to a book sale where lesra picks out his very first book — ” the sixteenth round , ” rubin’s autobiography . immediately thereafter , schreiber’s character tells lesra ” sometimes we don’t pick the books we read , they pick us . ” hmmm . after a few visits to the prison , they become convinced of rubin’s innocence and launch their own full-scale investigation even though two juries have convicted him . they meticulously go through all the files and revisit all the old witnesses ( i wonder if any of them might be cranky old women who slam the door in their faces ? ) and in the course of their relentlessy tedious sleuthing uncover obvious evidence confirming the hurricane’s innocence that was either ignored or never seeked out during the first two proceedings . of course , we’re already told that he’s innocent . a movie like this is especially frustrating because we’re not being shown everything significant that happened to carter during this period in his life . all too obviously , we’re getting the hollywood watered- down version . that would be ok except that the parts we are getting is milked for every single drop of melodrama that the filmmakers could possibly squeeze out of it . it’s almost cruel . the melodrama isn’t of the entertaining kind either ; it’s the hokey , rammed-down-your-throat variety where every emotion is exaggerated to the point of absurdity . witness the villain ferociously grinding his teeth at the final trial or the constant pseudo-saintliness of our four protagonists . the hurricane is your basic courtroom movie except it’s a no-frills courtroom movie . it’s formula stripped to the bare necessities . you have your wrongly accused black man . you have your melodramatic final courtroom scene . but there’s nothing else . you’d expect some sort of involving investigation . but that’s not necessary since we’re implicitly informed of his innocence . thus the whole middle portion of the movie is reduced to the protagonist brooding . brooding to himself . brooding to other inmates . brooding to lesra . brooding to lesra’s canadian friends . brooding in letters . i don’t think i’ll ever look at brooding the same way again . it wasn’t long before i got tired of hearing the hurricane’s exceedingly deep meditations on his condition . i wanted something to happen . as for washington’s performance in the title role — i figured i’d have to address it sooner or later considering the amount of attention it’s received — he is top notch , though still boring . how is that possible ? well , he does what jewison wanted him to do perfectly . unfortunately what jewison asked him to do is a load of crap . what a waste of a great performer . speaking of wastes , why the hell did john hannah agree to do this ? he’s an extremely talented actor and i love him dearly , but what is he doing here ? to call his character ( along with schreiber’s and unger’s ) a stick figure would be a gross understatement . all three of them come off as veritable mother theresas , as benevolent as do-gooders come . if they’re to play a major part in this movie , why not make them real people , with real feelings and emotions ? look : if you’re going to make a formula movie , don’t undermine the formula . courtroom dramas can be fun , but this is ridiculous . not only is it trite , it’s boring .
0 all feature film directors who cut their teeth on music videos , please raise your hands . thank you for identifying yourselves ; now would you all please go away . your influence has to rank as one of the most annoying trends in filmmaking in the last decade , and it shows no sign of abating any time soon . it isn’t just the strobe light quality of your twenty-cuts-per-minute editing , or the numbing over-use of popular music artists on the soundtracks which makes me suspicious of any film advertised ” featuring the music of . . . ” no , it is a kind of cynicism you have perfected , banking on the idea that no one will care about the lack of a story if you include enough bells and whistles . welcome to the club , scott kalvert . your adaptation of the basketball diaries is loud and one-dimensional , serving only as the vehicle for a performance by leonardo dicaprio that is better in pieces than it is as a whole . dicaprio stars as jim carroll , the new york poet/songwriter/ performer on whose autobiographical writings the film is based . as the film opens , jim is a budding high school basketball star given to petty thievery and getting drunk with buddies mickey ( mark wahlberg ) , pedro ( james madio ) and neutron ( patrick mcgaw ) . one night , jim graduates from inhalants to cocaine , and shortly thereafter to heroin . jim’s addiction to the drug starts him on a downhill spiral , as he is kicked off the basketball team by his coach ( bruno kirby ) , kicked out of his home by his mother ( lorraine bracco ) , and drops out of school . along with mickey and pedro , jim becomes a victim of the street , living from fix to fix and sinking lower and lower . the basketball diaries has been bouncing around as a project for years , but the sticking point has always been that jim carroll as a character was too unsympathetic and too much a loner . screenwriter bryan goluboff created the three characters who act as carroll’s posse , resulting in a jim carroll who is just as unsympathetic , but now with equally unsympathetic friends . as a film , the basketball diaries may be intended primarily as a cautionary tale , a 100 minute long ” just say no ” public service announcement , but as drama it is monumentally ineffective because it is impossible to care much about anyone in the movie . jim is sort of a jerk even before he becomes a junkie , but i suppose that his pseudo-sensitive poetry and his devotion to his terminally ill friend are intended to balance that out . perhaps we are expected to see jim as one of those ” good kids who falls in with the wrong crowd ” that every parent believes his or her troubled child to be ; i saw him simply as part of the bad crowd . without a character who changes in any appreciable way , the basketball diaries rapidly degenerates into a collection of crimes committed by jim and his strung-out cohorts , all choreographed to an oppressively loud soundtrack . director scott kalvert doesn’t have many scenes with intrinsic dramatic impact with which to work , so he substitutes silly slow-motion photography , self-consciously funky camera angles and choppy editing . on only one occasion , when a steady pan around a room where jim is trying to detox makes it appear that the walls are closing in , are any of the gimmicks effective . mostly , they just draw attention to how hollow the story is . they also don’t allow leonardo dicaprio’s performance to be as strong as it could have been . for every impressive moment , like his desperate attempt to get his mother to give him money , there is a scene where kalvert pulls too much of the focus to his own camera theatrics . dicaprio is most effective when he is playing off other actors , particularly a fine sequence featuring ernie hudson as an ex-junkie who tries to help jim straighten out , but kalvert won’t let character interaction define this story . he wants to turn dicaprio into a rock star , shooting him in dramatic fashion but denying him the opportunity to do much acting . at isolate moments , the basketball diaries is a fine showcase for dicaprio’s talents . far more frequently , it looks like kalvert is trying to imagine what a long form velvet underground video might have looked like .
0 depending on your degree of cinematic acumen , last man standing is either a ) a prohibition-era remake of akira kurosawa’s 1961 classic yojimbo ; b ) a prohibition-era remake of sergio leone’s 1964 classic a fistful of dollars ; c ) a prohibition-era action drama with a completely original story-line . new line is certainly counting on the fact that there are far more potential viewers in category ( c ) than in the other two combined , much as the recent remakes of diabolique and the vanishing counted on avoiding such comparisons . the fact is that there is yet another way of looking at last man standing , which is as the first film version of the story which nods to the _real_ source material , the dashiell hammett novel _red harvest_ . it also shows that kurosawa and leone knew better what to do with that material than hammett himself . this time around , the man with no name is played by bruce willis , a fellow with a shady history of an undefined nature who rolls into the texas border town of jericho one day on his way to mexico . by all appearances , jericho is well on its way to becoming a ghost town , with the few remaining inhabitants generally belonging to one of two bootlegging operations fighting for control of liquor coming over the border . one is headed by an irishman named doyle ( david patrick kelly ) ; the other is run by chicago-connected italian mobster strozzi ( ned eisenberg ) . calling himself john smith , the man decides that there is money to be made from the conflict , and hires himself out as an enforcer to doyle’s side . but smith’s allegiance is as uncertain as his name , and he begins to play the two sides against each other while trying to stay one step ahead of both of them . viewers familiar with both previous incarnations of this story will find virtually nothing radically changed from a plotting standpoint , and that alone should make last man standing somewhat more respectable than other recent hollywood remakes-cum-bastardizations . there is the happily ineffectual lawman ( bruce dern ) , the unhappily detained object of one of the bosses’ affections ( karina lombard ) , the barkeep who becomes our anti-hero’s only friend ( william sanderson ) , suspicious lieutenants ( christopher walken and michael imperioli ) to question the bosses’ trust in smith , a brutal beating , and a big fire . director walter hill gives the proceedings his usual injection of steroids , including a pair of guns for willis which have the ability to propel an assailant backward with sufficient thrust to achieve escape velocity , but at least he doesn’t try to turn the story into a slasher film or a buddy picture . what he _does_ do is nearly as big a mistake , and that is to provide a running voice-over narration by willis which rings of the standard hard-boiled style of pulp detective fiction . yes , that narration is full of cliches , but those are are not particularly troubling . the problem is that both yojimbo and a fistful of dollars succeeded largely on the inscrutability of their lead characters . they were a mystery , to the other characters in the film and to the audience , their motives never entirely clear even after they have acted , and that quality contributed to their almost mythical status . with john smith’s voice chattering on in the background and allowing us into his every thought , he becomes more mundane , just another tough guy trying to stay alive . it feels like a hammett novel , all right , and hill can plead faithfulness to his text for his choice , but it simply doesn’t work . the narration allows the man with no name to take us into his confidence , and the man with no name takes _no one_ into his confidence . even if you walk into last man standing as a blank slate , i can’t imagine it being much more than a heavily armed minor distraction . willis tones down his macho swagger as the taciturn smith , but there is still a level on which he always seems like he is counting on being tougher than everyone else rather than smarter than everyone else . christopher walken plays doyle’s brutal henchman as a slight variation on his gallery of soft-spoken psychos , and there isn’t another single character whom makes even the slightest impression . with no compelling antagonist for smith , there is no build-up towards the expected showdown , and when it does come , that showdown is over so quickly you wonder what all the fuss was about . cinematographer lloyd ahern ( who also did the only noteworthy work on hill’s 1995 flop wild bill ) creates some nifty sunburned vistas , but his work is only to keep the eye distracted between the spurts of gunfire and the next bit of counter-productive narration . sometimes when someone sees a lackluster remake of a revered original , they’ll wonder what all the talk was about . in the case of last man standing , it is those who know the originals who will wonder what all that talking was about .
0 okay , bear with me y’all , cause first off i have to get this off my chest : what the hell is up with that damn crab ? ? ? whew . okay . cause that same clip shown over and over again was beginning to get on my nerves towards the end , as cute as the crab maybe . even i know that you need more footage than * that * . and that wasn’t the only thing getting on my nerves . the cutesy gimmicks , saccharine sweet score / soundtrack and the pretty young faces of sarah michelle gellar ( as amanda ) and sean patrick flannery ( as tom ) might have held some appeal during , oh , say the first 10 minutes of the movie . at first the movie moves along at a quick , interesting pace . it is speedily established that something magical is about to happen to amanda when she encounters a totally random fairy godfather type person on the street , whose aforementioned crab follows her everywhere and just * doesn’t * die . a ridiculous concept , yes , but at this point i’m willing to accept it because i’m willing to accept that this is how amanda’s life is changed , how her powers are received . later on , the movie can’t seem to decide whether these powers come from this fairy godfather or from amanda falling in with tom . and this is why the clips of the crab were annoying ; they weren’t just repetitive , they were out of place and unnecessary . the plot stumbles along at an uneven speed , sometimes dwelling too long on a particular development ( amanda suddenly becoming a great chef , her falling in love with tom , etc . ) , sometimes moving on too quickly for its own good . some places the plot just doesn’t make sense , sometimes it’s way too contrived ( the crab bit , for example ) , and sometimes too corny ( peaches emitting dry ice . can’t beat that ) . all in all the plot seemed fragmented , unconnected . not romantic at all , and only funny in some places . so , okay , do the magic powers come from the crab ? or the fairy godfather ? she can * float * now too ? and all of a sudden , instead of just making dry ice come out of peaches , she can put her emotions into her food ? tom all of a sudden just accepts amanda’s ” witchcraft ” in the end ? would people really dine in a restaurant that resembles life after death in tupac’s video ? what the hell is up with that damn crab ? it is unfortunate , because i liked the basic premise of the movie , until it became too fantastical and tiresome . the film seemed to skirt around a serious theme or at least * a * theme for a while , but towards the end it resolved to show us long flashback clips and 5 minutes of people crying at their tables . the humor was good in some places ( nolan gets the funniest bits , including that incomprehensible , totally random thing with the dolls ) . gellar and flannery are qualified actors , and gellar has a particular charm , but i much prefer her playing the saucy buffy ( or even annette in the upcoming ” cruel intentions ” ) than this sorry excuse for a character . it’s almost funny sometimes to see these two trying so hard to make the dialogue sound better than it is , or trying to make the relationship seem more plausible . the supporting character nolan was a highlight , though he reminded me a bit of kevin in ” you’ve got mail ” ( see footnotes ) . and , as always , typical of a chick flick / romantic comedy , there’s a seemingly endless romantic soundtrack in the background , cued up at all the right places . this sort of got on the nerves after a while , too . ” simply irresistible ” is not hard to understand , light , funny in some places , and generally disappointing because it can’t draw the line between romance and protracted sap , between humor and tired slapstick . and how could i refrain from making a pun ? . . . ” simply irresistible ” is all too easy to resist . ( first viewing , 2/6/99 ) * did anyone else think this was a tad bit similar to ” you’ve got mail ” ( or ” the shop around the corner ” ) ? business rivals fall in love . female counterpart’s business is in danger of being shut down . female as mother- like figure guiding her . the annoying , hysterical ex-girlfriends . * i _really_ like sarah michelle gellar’s wardrobe .
0 i went to blair witch project 2 : book of shadows with the highest of hopes . the original film , released last summer , was genuinely scary and terrifying ; i hoped that this movie would live up to its predecessor . unfortunately , my hopes were soon dashed . as the movie opens , the audience is shown pseudo-documentary clips of burkittsville , maryland residents being interviewed about the sudden tourist influx to their town as a result of the original blair witch project movie . it’s a mostly humorous , self-aware poke at the media hype and hysteria surrounding the first film . during this segment , we are introduced to the protagonist , a young man who sells blair witch-related memorabilia from his website . the movie then cuts to a title that informs us that what we are about to see occurred one year previously . we see the same young man that was selling blair witch paraphernalia , but now he is confined in a mental institution the sort of which one only finds in bad horror movies . we see him having some sort of disgusting white goo unconvincingly forced down his nose while a cigarette-smoking doctor luridly leers above him . we see him throwing himself wildly around a padded room ; we see him cowering naked in a shower stall as a fire hose is turned on him . no explanation is provided for why he is in the mental institution ; in fact , these scenes are barely referred to again . i had a sinking feeling during these opening scenes ; generally , a hospital scene that is set with poor lighting , filthy interiors , and evil doctors is a sure sign that you are in the throes of a truly horrible movie . the movie cuts again , this time to the present . the young man , whose name is jeffrey ( played by jeffrey donovan — as in the first movie , the character names are identical to the actors’ names , although this movie admits up front that it is fictional , so there’s no reason for the practice this time around ) , is rounding up a group of people that he will be leading into the woods that weekend for the ” blair witch hunt , ” which is a promotional gimmick he came up with and sells on his website . we meet tristen and steven , a young couple who are writing a book about the blair witch experience . steven is a skeptic , believing the whole thing to be the result of mass hysteria . tristen , on the other hand , believes that there may be some truth to the rumors of supernatural occurrence . she is wan and soft-spoken ; she complains that the radio is playing too loudly . ( she also complains that she feels nauseated ; i knew immediately that the character was pregnant , and my intuition was confirmed a few scenes later when kim psychomagically susses it out . how did i know ? because in bad movies , nauseated women are always pregnant . ) the fourth member of their party is erica , a wiccan with flowing hair and wide eyes who wants to prove that the blair witch was a good witch , not evil . they pick up the fifth and final team member in a cemetery . kim is dressed completely in black , has extreme goth-style makeup on , and occasionally displays seemingly psychic abilities , but otherwise seems to be the most intelligent and reasonable person out of the entire bunch . presumably she wanted to be picked up in the cemetery just for dramatic effect ; it’s never explained . the party of five heads off into the woods as promised . they reach the crumbling ruins of the foundation of rustin parr’s house and set up camp , complete with extensive video equipment with which to record the night’s events . there is a brief encounter with a rival blair witch tour group who had planned to camp at that site as well , but after a few words are exchanged , the rival group huffs off and makes camp elsewhere . the movie veers off at this point to spend many long , long minutes showing the drinking party that ensues after the sun goes down . sexual innuendoes are tossed around , much hard liquor , beer , and pot is consumed , and nothing much else happens . this would be a great point to get up and go to the bathroom if necessary . the next day , the team wakes up and discovers that their camera equipment has been completely trashed , and that steven and tristen’s manuscript paper is fluttering down from the sky in shreds , like snow . the videotapes are missing , but thanks to a psychic intuition from kim , they discover the videotapes buried underneath the foundation of the house , ” right where the original blair witch tapes were found ! ” ooh . spooky . the team goes back to jeffrey’s house — a creepy old civil war-era warehouse in the heart of the woods — to regroup and review the tapes . they soon discover that the tapes mysteriously skip five hours of the night . wacky hijinks ensue . tristen starts having weird dreams in which she is the blair witch , everybody starts finding these weird rune-like burn marks on their bodies , steven and erica have some highly disturbing mutual hallucinations , and everything pretty much goes to hell in a handbasket . throughout the entire ordeal , jeffrey and the others continue to scrutinize the videotapes , which seem to have some kind of weird images on them at about the point that the time jumps ; eventually tristen wanders in , mutters something about ” reverse , ” and from this they somehow realize that they have to play the tapes backwards . when they do this , they discover what really happened during the five lost hours . ( one of the things they see on the videotape is footage of themselves burying the videotapes . okay , if the videotapes were being buried , then how were they recording themselves . . . oh , nevermind . ) this movie was awful . simply awful . the characters are broadly-drawn caricatures that are never allowed any depth or development . erica is the nature-loving wiccan . tristen is the weak and sympathetic woman . steven is the overbearing asshole . kim is the antisocial goth girl . old , tired cliches were used to illustrate these caricatures . how do we know tristen is weak and sympathetic ? because she’s pregnant ! how do we know kim is an antisocial goth girl ? because she wears a lot of eye makeup ! how do we know the local sheriff is a bad guy ? because he has jagged teeth and talks like he’s straight out of ” deliverance ” ! this is weak storytelling at its worst . rather than taking the time to flesh out the characters and make them truly sympathetic , the writer chose to give each one a few stereotypical characteristics , in an attempt to use some cinematic shorthand and thereby skip straight to the action . it didn’t work . on top of being poorly developed , most of the characters were either seriously unlikable or patently stupid . ( ” honey , you just had a miscarriage out in the woods and got medical attention at a hospital that looks like it belongs in a bad slasher movie . let’s get on a plane home . ” ” no . i am having these bizarre nightmares and seeing strange visions and i want to find out what’s going on . ” ” ok . ” ) frankly , by the end of the movie , i was rooting for the witch . i also felt that there was simply too much blood ‘n’ gore in this film . the first movie worked by never showing us the horror . the witch was a palpable presence in that movie , but we never saw it ; we never saw anything , in fact . the horror was all off-screen , and thus our imaginations worked overtime to envision what it might possibly be . this is the hallmark of a truly creepy and disturbing horror movie . blair witch 2 dispensed with such niceties and went straight for the gross-out . this was evident from the opening scenes of the mad doctors forcing white goo down jeffrey’s throat , and continued throughout the film as the audience is treated to occasional confusing and disorienting footage of what appears to be a ritual massacre of some sort . knives plunge into flesh , bloody fingers trail off into the darkness , and none of it is explained until the very end , when it was too late for me to care . this movie didn’t stop with showing us the gore , either ; it went for broke and showed us everything . by the end of the movie , there are no questions remaining about the missing five hours . it is all explained ; in fact , it is all shown on-screen in loving detail . i confess to being someone who prefers horror movies in which you never see the monster , or see only brief glimpses , mere suggestions of what the monster is ; it is not because i find the monster so terrifying , but because i find the absence of the monster to be infinitely more terrifying . i have seen interviews with the director in which he suggested that there is no ” monster , ” that all of the evil was perpetrated only by the human mind . i found this to be a miserably poor explanation ; if it was in fact the director’s intent , then he needs to have some words with the writer , because it was not made clear at all . ( i know a lot of people who like to go to parties and get drunk and stoned out of their minds ; none of them has ever gone on a murderous rampage and then experienced mass hallucinations with a group of other people for the next week or so . and if there was no witch , then what about the vanishing tree ? the snowfall of manuscript paper ? hm ? ) blair witch 2 : book of shadows was a horrible movie . from the poorly-written characters to the implausible story to the plot inconsistencies to the gross-out shots , it was a bad effort through and through .
0 i’m giving this stinker . normally , the worst that i would ever rate a movie would be . but the total waste of time that is blazing saddles is , compounded by the fact that this movie is incredibly offensive , helped me come to the big goose egg . i’m not sure what the hell mel brooks was thinking when he made this thing , or if he was even thinking at all . maybe in mel’s little mind a horse being knocked unconscious because of a punch to the face is funny . in mine , it’s not . or maybe mel graduated from the spike lee school of filmmaking . because only the self-righteous lee uses the n-word more often in his films than brooks did in this one . at least lee has the smarts to realize that nobody is going to find that term amusing . brooks bandies it about like he figures the audience will be rolling in the aisles every time they hear it . wrong mel ! i would call you a boob mel , but that insults breasts everywhere . this idiotic attempt at a comedy centers on the evil lieutenant governor’s ( harvey korman ) attempts to clear out a town so he can buy up the land cheap and sell it to the railroad . he sends his goons to run the townsfolk out . but the town appeals to the governor ( mel brooks in one of many uninspired , and unfunny roles ) to send them a new sheriff to protect them . the governor pawns the task off to korman’s character hedley lamarr . ( i can tell you are rolling off your chairs right now just thinking of all the humor in that name . ) lamarr decides to send the town a black sheriff ( gasp ) in the hopes that the town will be so disgusted at the prospect of a black man living among them that they will all just leave . hold on , i’ve got to stop while these gales of laughter pass . it’s just too funny . racism passing as humor — gosh why didn’t anybody ever think of that one before ? oh wait , i think somebody might have — they are called the kkk . i’m not calling brooks a racist — but i am calling him an insensitive bastard who wouldn’t know what was funny if it hit him over the head . but i digress . anyway , the black sheriff rides into town amid a flurry of townsfolk using the n-word . golly , will the hilarity just never end ? he ends up joining forces with a drunk ( gene wilder ) , who happens to be the former fastest gun in the west . together , they save the day from evil . not one person in this movie gives a decent performance . wilder looks like he is recovering from a head injury for most of the movie , and korman looks embarrassed to be a part of the movie . ok , he really didn’t — but he should have . the films star cleavon little goes along with the black jokes as if they were discussing the time of day . i did not laugh once during this whole sorry experience . i admit to starting to snicker on a couple of occasions . actually , the end started to look as if it was going to have some promise , but alas , it ended up being as crappy as the rest of the movie . i can say with full confidence that blazing saddles has no redeeming qualities whatsoever . mel brooks would be doing the world a favor if he burned every last copy of this film .
0 2 days in the valley is more or less a pulp fiction knock off . it basically involves how a bunch of quirky characters in the los angeles area end up having their lives become intertwined in some very unusual ways . i’m not going into much greater detail than that , since it would take forever to explain , and quite frankly , i’m not willing to spend any more time on it than the 2 hours that i’ve already wasted . while it tries very hard to be pulp fiction , 2 days in the valley falls way short . this is quite a condemnation considering the cast includes danny aiello , james spader and jeff daniels . while the story isn’t much , and the dialogue and characters rate only marginally better , 2 days in the valley does have a couple of bright spots . james spader’s character , while not much better than the rest , is at least fun to watch in a sick sort of way . and we do get to see a nice cat fight between uber babes teri hatcher and charlize theron ( in her first role ) . you know a movie isn’t that good when the highlight is a brawl between two women . even if they are both gorgeous . i will give the writers some credit for the fairly clever ways in which they managed to intersect the lives of this group of characters that would have otherwise never interacted . but marveling at that ingenuity is a far cry from actually enjoying the result . while some of the characters and their respective stories are fairly interesting , they inevitably are brought down as they intersect with the other half of the characters that i really cared absolutely nothing about . if i were to put a number on it , only about half of the story and half the characters in this movie were particularly interesting or otherwise enjoyable to watch . this is the sort of movie that only a huge fan of one or more of the cast members should rent , and even then prepare for disappointment . not even charlize theron being naked would get me to sit through this movie again . or at least not all of it anyway .
0 what would inspire someone who cannot write or act to pen and star in a movie ? a better question , what would inspire a studio to produce said movie ? if you have an answer , let me know . foolish , the new movie written by and starring master p is a jaw-droppingly horrible film , one with no redeeming value socially , cinematically or otherwise . comedically it has some potential , but only in its stand-up comedy moments , which i can turn on comedy central for . master p stars as fifty dollah’ ( beat that ! ) as a mobster ( i think ) who is trying to start a comedy club/act with his little brother foolish ( eddie griffin ) . but the two of them have to deal with an angry mob boss ( played by andrew dice clay , for the very first time entertaining ) , a stubborn club owner and family problems ( the latter in foolish is a perfect example of roger ebert’s ” idiot plot , ” if everyone here wasn’t an idiot , there would be no problem ) so what does foolish have to offer beside a bunch of idiotic character names ? not a hell of a lot . as i have mentioned , master p cannot act or write . he acts like the rapper that he is . the occasional despair that his script requires him to exhibit is excruciatingly forced , as are his warm and fuzzy scenes with his little bro . as for his script — well , i suppose he delivers what one would expect from a musical artist with no previous screenwriting experience . if you haven’t yet figured it out , that is not saying much . co-star eddie griffin ( really the star of the show ) is quite a different story . the fact of the matter is that griffin , whose most significant screen outing to date is probably the mildly successful tv show malcolm and eddie on the fledgling upn network , is an extremely talented comedian , stand-up and otherwise . he has much in common with chris tucker ( rush hour , money talks ) in how quickly and effortlessly his speech flows from his lips . he spouts profanity with impressive dexterity ( to the extent which that can be done ) , and while i hope that does not become his trademark it works in a few scenes in this movie . and indeed , i laughed at a few stand-up scenes here , but from a feature-length movie i expect more . foolish provided me with no reason to care for these characters . every scene which has any potential for dramatic impact is effectively diffused by either a stupid joke ( in a scene where tension escalates between the two brothers , foolish blurts out towards his jewelry-sporting sibling ” you lay one hand on me and this cemetary is going to be a gold rush ” ) or something even more idiotic such as foolish smashing his own car ( to which i said , a bit too loudly for the occasion ” huh ? ” ) after getting slightly upset with his wife . believe me when i say that there is nothing in foolish that warrants parting with your hard-earned $8 . you’ll get more laughs from watching 30 minutes of comedy central or any virtually any sitcom if you don’t have cable . eddie griffin fans may enjoy this derivative ( although offensive ) yarn , but everyone else should stay the hell away . ‰ ;
0 synopsis : a novelist struggling with his latest work buys a weird brain with a protruding eyeball encased in a jar . the brain exerts its evil influence upon the novelist and his secretary , while his wife disapproves . meanwhile , a loan shark in need of a shave tries to leave his profession . comments : why is this movie called possessed by the night ? it’s hard to speculate . most of this film takes place during the day , and the only thing possessing anyone is an icky , pulsating , bubbling brain thingie in a jar . in case you haven’t picked up on this yet , possessed by the night is a bottom-of-the-barrel ” thriller ” ( i use the term ” thriller ” loosely here ) which is really cheap and bad . the plot , which sounds like a cheesy pulp science fiction story from the 1950s , actually serves one purpose : to exploit nude women as often as possible . writing a movie review for a film like this proves oddly challenging . there’s really not much to say . the acting is lousy ; although , occasionally , the attempts at acting are so absurd that they garner a chuckle or two from the audience . most humorous is frank sivero , who plays murray , the novelist’s agent . he is so horrible in this role that one can’t help but be amused . the plot sucks . nearly half the film is devoted to a loser loan shark who wants out of the profession , even though he has only limited relevance to the movie as a whole . the dialogue stinks . a loan shark , for instance , tells another how much he loves bimbos , which is something the audience really doesn’t need to know . everything about possessed by the night is second rate , even the film credits . as the names of the not-so-talented film crew scrolled by at the end , joseph scales came up , credited as being ” assistsant to foley artist . ” someone could have used an editor ! to be honest , the film is basically an excuse to flash frontal nudity and show some sex scenes . playboy playmate shannon tweed , after all , is the star here . i suppose that if one wanted this sort of thing , he would like this movie . why did i give this turkey two stars and not one ? as a bad movie , it is unintentionally funny enough to keep someone passingly interested in the film . if you feel possessed to see possessed by the night , however , i’d recommend you exorcise this impulse and watch something else .
0 okay , okay . maybe i wasn’t in the mood to watch a mindless action movie ; i am the same person that liked lethal weapon iii , even while admitting that it wasn’t as good as the others . howewer , the latest segal picture didn’t look that bad , and since none of my friends would go see a woody allen movie even if i paid them , i went to see it expecting a mild die hard rehash . boy , was i wrong ! in the first half of the movie , we are already assaulted with segal’s acting , ( he is not simply wooden ; he is like a wall ) , gratuitous violence , an incredible plot , sexist and even more gratuitous nudity , and bad lines that obviously were meant as jokes . by the end , it is obvious that hundreds of navy men are no match for thirty armed special forces soldiers . not once in the movie did segal appear worried or undecided , which did not do much for increasing the unexistent suspense . of course , in movies like these , there must be a sidekick , and a love interest . in these one we are given a two for one package in the form of a playboy model ( in the movie ) , which only functions as a supposed comic relief ( by the way of extremely stupid unfunny lines ) , and to have watering eyes and look away every time something bad happens in the movie . oh , of course , she appears naked from the waist up , and , of course , segal kisses her at the end after no development of their relationship ; they did not even seem to be interested in each other . i have never seen so little chemistry between two people in a movie . often , the villain saves the movie ; unfortunately , the villains here are cartoonish , stupid and unfunny , unmenacing . how many movies have psycho ex-special forces bad guys ? too many . i was able to predict the action all throughout the movie , including the moment where the sidekick saves the hero from certain death , the scene where the bad guy can kill the hero but proceeds to explain his plan to him , the scene where we are shown the hero’s superiors are stupid , the scene where the bad guy loses his gun and has to fight the hero hand to hand , etc . . . simply said , this is movie-making by the numbers , boring , and potentially offensive in going for the lowest common denominator of the audience . my recommendation : if you go see it , bring a watch . you’ll be looking at it for most of the movie . my . rent die hard . read a book . stare at the sky . do not waste your time on this worthless piece of celluloid . the real sad thing is that there are a lot of movies out that i would rather have seen ; once again , dragged in by my friends , which by the way , liked the movie halfheartedly . they probably like wrestling too : – ) .
0 in life , eddie murphy and martin lawrence play two young men wrongfully convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison . after about an hour of watching this movie , you begin to realize how their characters feel . fortunately , for audience members there’s a chance to escape the nearest exit . this , undoubtedly , is eddie murphy’s worst movie and that’s an accomplishment . remember the golden child , harlem nights ? compared to life , they look like citizen kane . life is long , predictable , foul-mouthed and only intermittently funny . its 100-minute running time feels like 100 years . robert ramsey and matthew stone’s script basically consist of murphy and lawrence referring to everyone around them as ” motherf . . . s ” or ” n . . . . . s . ” you lose count how many times both those obnoxious , offensive words are used . and if that all it takes to write a script , than any illiterate jackass can sit at a word processor and compose a movie . but , like life , it will probably stink . to be honest , the screening audience surrounding me in the theater yucked it up . but these were the same people who howled at all the flatulence and fat jokes as well . life is as sophisticated as a belch . it’s crude and stereotypical . years ago , movies stereotypically portrayed blacks subservient , second-class people , good for being only maids and servants . for the most part , the lot of blacks and other racial groups have improved . but a new , more insidious stereotype is creeping into movies . in many recent films , through actors such as murphy and chris tuckers , blacks are presented as fast-talking , conniving , scam artists or hip-hop , gun-crazy , sex-crazed youths . both sets of caricatures are demeaning . and the fault does not rest with the actors . they have to eat , too . it is with the people who write the scripts , the studios who green-light the projects and the audiences who accept these portrayals without protest . life’s only redeeming virtue is the artistry of makeup legend rick baker who flawlessly ages murphy and lawrence into 90 year olds . otherwise , life is an embarrassment , a blot on the resumes of those associated with it . see it at your own risk .
0 there may not be a critic alive who harbors as much affection for shlock monster movies as i do . i delighted in the sneaky-smart entertainment of ron underwood’s big-underground-worm yarn tremors ; i even giggled at last year’s critically-savaged big-underwater-snake yarn anaconda . something about these films causes me to lower my inhibitions and return to the saturday afternoons of my youth , spent in the company of ghidrah , the creature from the black lagoon and the blob . deep rising , a big-undersea-serpent yarn , doesn’t quite pass the test . sure enough , all the modern monster movie ingredients are in place : a conspicuously multi-ethnic/multi-national collection of bait . . . excuse me , characters ; an isolated location , here a derelict cruise ship in the south china sea ; some comic relief ; a few cgi-enhanced gross-outs ; and at least one big explosion . there are too-cheesy-to-be-accidental elements , like a sleazy shipping magnate ( anthony heald ) who also appears to have a doctorate in marine biology , or a slinky international jewel thief ( famke janssen ) whose white cotton tank top hides a heart of gold . as it happens , deep rising is noteworthy primarily for the mechanical manner in which it spits out all those ingredients . a terrorist crew , led by squinty-eyed mercenary hanover ( wes studi ) and piloted by squinty-eyed boat captain finnegan ( treat williams ) , shows up to loot the cruise ship ; the sea monsters show up to eat the mercenary crew ; a few survivors make it to the closing credits . and up go the lights . it’s hard to work up much enthusiasm for this sort of joyless film-making , especially when a monster moview should make you laugh every time it makes you scream . here , the laughs are provided almost entirely by kevin j . o’connor , generally amusing as the crew’s fraidy-cat mechanic . writer/director stephen sommers seems most concerned with creating a tone of action-horror menace — something over-populated with gore-drenched skeletons , something where the gunfire and special effects are taken a bit too seriously . deep rising is missing that one unmistakable cue that we’re expected to have a ridiculous good time , not hide our eyes . case it point , comparing deep rising to its recent cousin anaconda . in deep rising , one of the creature’s victims is regurgitated back into view , partially digested and still alive . he shrieks in horror at his freakish appearance and pain , in a moment a bit too disturbing to be laughable . in anaconda , we also see a regurgitated victim , partially digested and still alive . he looks at another character . . . and winks . make no mistake , deep rising has anaconda beat all to heck when it comes to technical proficiency and pacing . it’s also gloomy , uninspired and not nearly enough fun . i don’t ask much of my monster movies , but i do ask that they act like monster movies . you don’t have to show me a fantastically impressive , massive beast with tentacles a-flailing . just show me the massive beast burping , and i’ll figure you get the point .
0 renee zellweger stars as sonia , a young jewish wife and mother frustrated by the constraints of her hasidic community in brooklyn . her husband ( glenn fitzgerald ) is a religious scholar whose all-in-a-day’s-work attitude on sex fails to tame the ” fire ” she feels within , as so she confesses to the rebbe ( after hearing her fiery confession , the rebbe suddenly gets frisky with his pleasantly surprised wife–and dies the next morning ) . sensing her frustration , her husband’s brother ( christopher eccleston ) gives her a job in his jewelry brokering business in exchange for raw , passionless sex that just fans sonia’s still-burning flame . on the job , sonia befriends ramon ( allen payne ) , a cool blast of hunky puerto rican water who does his own jewelry designs when not working as a grunt in an upscale jewelry store . can fire-taming be far be that far behind for the ever-smoldering sonia ? just about everything in writer-director boaz yakin’s rings false , starting with the improbably cast zellweger , who does an adequate enough acting job but simply looks too waspy for the role . a better fit would have been julianna margulies , who outshines zellweger as sonia’s take-no-crap sister-in-law . some of sonia’s baby steps toward liberation , such as indulging in a non-kosher egg roll in chinatown , come off as silly . yakin attempts to spice up the proceedings with a touch of magical realism–in the form of the recurring presence of sonia’s long-dead brother’s ghost–make the story feel even more trite than it already is . ” i didn’t know what to expect . it’s like something you chase for so long , but then you don’t know how to react when you get it . i still don’t know how to react . ” –michael jordan , on winning his first nba championship in 1991 . . . or , my thoughts after meeting him on november 21 , 1997
0 there’re so many things to criticize about i don’t know where to start . recommendation : turn off your brain – don’t be like me , decreasing the rating everyday because i think about it too much . a comet is about to strike earth , causing a catastrophe similar to the extinction level event ( e . l . e . ) that wiped out the dinosaurs . what follows is the story of a president’s bid to think for the good of his people , a rising reporter , the love story of two teenagers ( one of whom discovered the comet ) , and a team of astronauts on the ship `messiah’ to save the world . firstly , there is nothing outstandingly inferior about the making of the film ( nor is there anything outstandingly good about it ) , but the plot holes make the film corny and stupid . to be honest , i was more moved by the trailer than the film itself ( which isn’t saying much ) . mimi leder’s follow-up to `the peacemaker’ is equally incompetent , with all the big stars wasted . ( perhaps i’m just annoyed that the release of `the peacemaker’ in the us overshadowed a far superior thriller , `the assignment’ . ) it is very obvious that the title not only represents the big boom that will result from the collision , but also connotes the heavy impact on human lives . however , the film simply fails on that note . the effects are worn-out , the substandard screenplay limited the acting , and the director continued her sad run in terms of good-film-making credentials . she’s still making good money though . t ? a leoni’s unfortunate character , the news reporter , is the foundation of the story and of the cast . but the film suffers from too many characters that do not need to be explored . robert duvall’s aging astronaut is lifeless , and morgan freeman’s president is restricted to , well , a righteous president ( which means he’s not interesting at all ) . leoni’s character is the only appealing one , and is played with reasonable conviction ( but a rather peculiar showing when reporting for msnbc ) , but was definitely undervalued by the director and screenwriters . warning : spoilers included ( but a lot of it is irrelevant and predictable anyway ) . plot holes , plot holes , plot holes . now , e . l . e . is threatening to exterminate more than 99% of the human race , and they send eight puny little nuclear bombs up there ? where’s the logic ? leder could have at least made it plausible with 20 . and then it turns out that only a few percent of the world population actually perish , and those less selfish ones ( the ones that stayed at home ) were the victims . the film was almost mocking them , telling them they had died for nothing . i also fail to see how two teenagers , carrying a baby , would be the first to climb up the mountain/hill , even with a motorbike for a head-start . it’s unlikely that the dust will take just two years to settle , but that doesn’t really matter . building caves was a strategy mentioned in `dr . strangelove’ , which proposed that people lived underground for one hundred or so years . now that is a more practical use for caves . what is the point of living in caves ? there is no , unlike `dr . strangelove’ , any radioactivity outside to restrict exposure . how do plants grow ? if humans have the technology to keep plants alive in caves , there’s no reason why they can’t do it in the open . the president disclosed that other countries have been preparing their own caves . obviously this means that the other countries were informed a long time ago , and you can’t be serious to say that nobody leaked the news to the media . in an important mission like that of the `messiah’ , for that matter any mission , it is impossible that isn’t sufficient fuel for an extra couple of hundred metres , needless to say tens of kilometres . this is not deep impact ? it’s a frivolous cheap impact . but even with all that , some overacting , and a 3 . 4 rating , it’s still watchable , just don’t think about it . okay ?
0 don’t let this movie fool you into believing the romantic noirs of william shakespeare . no one will truly understand the heart and soul of this man except through his work , and this movie makes a vain attempt at that . any moves to ? glamorise’ his life , which hollywood has an annoying tendency to do , will only subtract from his achievement rather than expound on his greatness . this movie about his life , although well written , puts too much make-up on a man whose life was probably more pork and potatoes , rather than lobster and champagne . oh well , let’s fantasise onwards an assume that he was a bit of a flirtatious play-write , who falls in love with a beautiful woman ( gwyneth paltrow ) and from her inspiration , several plays develop – ? romeo and juliet’ , and ? the twelfth night’ . it is easier for me to believe that he had a wet dream and that’s how all his plays develop , but please spare me all of this unnecessary melodrama . but i guess my version probably wouldn’t draw a crowd or make a dollar on screen . so is there any justification in romanticising the man shakespeare , when all we need to do is read his work in order to find his soul . i think not . as for the oscars were they deserved by this movie ? i think not . in many aspects ? private ryan’ and ? life is beautiful’ were far superior movies , but one should never assume that this should be a criteria for winning an oscar , as time and again , for reasons unexplained , an undeserving movie will win the accolade . another sore point is the fact that gwyneth won the best female lead , over a more polished cate , but i guess if you go on enough about your grandfather dying and your nephew being hospitalised – people will start feeling sorry for you .
0 it’s a good thing most animated sci-fi movies come from japan , because ” titan a . e . ” is proof that hollywood doesn’t have a clue how to do it . i don’t know what this film is supposed to be about . from what i can tell it’s about a young man named kale who’s one of the last survivors of earth in the early 31st century who unknowingly possesses the key to saving and re-generating what is left of the human race . that’s a fine premise for an action-packed sci-fi animated movie , but there’s no payoff . the story takes the main characters all over the galaxy in their search for a legendary ship that the evil ” dredge ” aliens want to destroy for no apparent reason . so in the process we get a lot of spaceship fights , fistfights , blaster fights and more double-crosses than you can shake a stick at . there’s so much pointless sci-fi banter it’s too much to take . the galaxy here is a total rip-off of the ” star wars ” universe the creators don’t bother filling in the basic details which makes the story confusing , the characters unmotivated and superficial and the plot just plain boring . despite the fantastic animation and special effects , it’s just not an interesting movie .
0 in the year 2029 , captain leo davidson ( mark wahlberg , ” boogie nights ” ) is training ‘his’ chimp pericles to pilot a pod from the usaf oberon space station . when an electromagnetic storm is encountered and pericles’ pod is lost , davidson sets out unauthorized and lands thousands of years in the future on the ” planet of the apes . ” maybe if 20th century fox had set the proverbial 100 chimps in front of typewriters they would have gotten a better results than this adaptation of the pierre boulle novel by william broyles jr . ( ” cast away ” ) , and lawrence konner & mark d . rosenthal ( ” mighty joe young ” ) . director tim burton’s unique look and style are nowhere to be found in this silly , pointless remake . davidson no sooner lands than he finds himself being swarmed by savages running in terror , whom he wisely joins . however , he’s rounded up with the lot of them by the apes which rule this plant and handed over to slave trader limbo ( paul giamatti , ” duets ” ) . ari ( helena bonham carter , ” fight club ” ) , daughter of the illustrious senator sandar ( david warner , ” titanic ” ) and simian bleeding heart , believes humans should live with apes on equal standing , an unpopular notion . she takes a liking to leo , who she deems ‘unusual . ‘ general thade ( tim roth , ” lucky numbers ” ) is of the opposite opinion , wishing for declaration of martial law that will allow him to annihilate the race . he’s sweet on ari . it’s relatively easy to see where this ‘new’ story is going from the onset , yet its ultimate revelation has gaping logic holes . the much ballyhooed ‘surprise’ ending is a nonsensical let down . an attempt at a love triangle , conveyed by ari and the human daena ( estella warren , ” driven ” ) giving each other ‘back off’ looks over leo , fails because he never develops a relationship with either of them . the lone sex scene is some hilarious foreplay between elder orangutan senator nado ( glenn shadix ) and his trophy wife nova ( burton’s squeeze , lisa marie ) . guffaws will also likely greet charlton heston’s cameo as thade’s father , the one ape harboring a firearm ( ! ) who sputters some very familiar lines before dying . the only real success of the 2001 ” planet of the apes ” is rick baker’s makeup , and even that’s an iffy affair . no attempt was made to change the human whiteness of the actors’ eyes , a real distraction amidst some otherwise impressive work . roth , warner and michael clarke duncan ( as thade’s right hand man attar ) are given the most impressive makeovers . giamatti looks more like a skull than an ape and the female apes are too humanized to be given sexual appeal . tim roth delivers the most impressive acting job by getting the body language right – his nasty chimpanzee character leaps about , most spectacularly when mounting his steed , but even’s he’s undone by some obvious wire work . bonham carter delivers a goodly range of emotion from behind a stiff prosthetic , but is undone in turn by the silliness of the writing . most of the film has a set bound look which no amount of mist can cover . the ape’s city resembles a dank complex of tree houses . the apes’ military costumes ( colleen atwood , ” sleepy hollow ” ) as well as their field tents are reminiscent of eiko ishioka’s work on coppola’s ” dracula . ” that oriental flavor is also found in danny elfman’s tribal , percussive score . ” planet of the apes ” was the last blockbuster hope for the summer of 2001 , a dismal movie season that’s going to the dogs .
0 writing a screenplay for a thriller is hard . harder than pouring concrete under the texas sun . harder than building a bridge over troubled waters . and incidentally , a whole heck of a lot harder than writing a movie review . thrillers are all variations on a theme . you have a smart , resourceful , and powerful bad guy , who has a goal he has to meet . you have a noble and brave good guy , who has to protect the innocent , kill the bad guy , and not get killed himself in the process . the trick of thriller writing is doing all of this in an interesting and novel manner . this simple formula can lead to classic movies like north by northwest , high noon , or silence of the lambs , or big summer blockbusters like men in black , the fugitive , or air force one , or it can lead to utter dreck like masterminds , event horizon , kull the conqueror . . . . is anyone else getting depressed here ? point is , it’s not enough to follow the formula . you’ve got to throw in something extra , something good and new and better than the last version . something to surprise and move all of us people who buy the tickets and the popcorn and the happy meals . this is a hard thing to do , but it is absolutely necessary in every way . without that something extra — whether it’s a great plot or a well-written screenplay , or great special effects or great locations or great casting or great performances or great big hungry dinosaurs — the movie fails . that’s why the jackal , with all its starpower , with all its budget , with all its hype , gets a big fat f . bruce willis is the bad guy , the jackal , a legendary killer for hire . richard gere is the good guy , a former ira assassin with a vendetta against the jackal . the jackal is trying to kill someone . gere is trying to stop him . will gere be able to stop the assassination in time and kill the jackal ? ( i’ll give you three guesses , and the first two don’t count . ) there are no surprises awaiting the audience in the jackal , no moment when you say to yourself , ” i wonder what happens next ? ” the script for the jackal isn’t ripped straight from today’s headlines . it’s ripped off , straight from an episode of millennium . throughout the movie , we learn what the jackal’s plans are and how he intends to accomplish them . no surprise . the fun of a movie like this should come from richard gere figuring out what the jackal’s plan is and developing a clever plan to foil the bad guy . instead , we get two ( count ’em , two ) scenes where gere is sitting in an fbi conference room somewhere and instantly divines the jackal’s plan just as if he’s frank black ( or more likely , just as if he’s been handed a copy of the script ) . and we never get more than a superficial clue as to why gere has had this flash of insight . it’s like gere’s character is psychic , but neither he nor the fbi ( or the screenwriters ) seem to know it . and just like in millennium , the bad guy has an overwhelming need to go after the people the good guy cares about , whether or not they are important to what he’s trying to do or not . what’s more , in the last half of the movie , the jackal , supposedly a super-smart professional terrorist who never makes a mistake , comes down with a major case of the stupids . as for the performances . . . bruce willis manages to get through the whole movie without a wisecrack , which is a major achievement , but not enough reason to see the movie . his disguises are good , but not as good or as interesting as val kilmer’s in the saint . richard gere is made to talk the entire movie in an irish accent , which detracts from his otherwise lifeless and dull performance . sidney poitier is probably the most disappointing element in a overwhelmingly disappointing movie — not that his performance is bad or anything , it’s not , but it is sad that hollywood won’t use this talented actor in any part other than an fbi agent ( shoot to kill , sneakers ) . writing a good plot and a good screenplay , like i said , is hard , but it can be done . it wasn’t done here . it is our job as consumers to reward good screenplays and to denounce bad and uninteresting ones . do not go see this movie . you’ll only encourage the producers to make more just like it . instead , stay home and rent day of the jackal , or in the line of fire , or a fire safety video , for crying out loud . anything other than the jackal , which lives up to its name by gnawing the dead bones of other , better movies .
0 all right , all right , we get the point : despite all similarities to the best-selling story , speechless is * not * based on the romance between 1992 presidential campaign rivals james carville and mary matalin . in fact , the script was in development well before 1992 . still , the comparisons are inevitable , until one realizes a critical difference . no , it’s not that the speechless twosome are speech writers , not campaign managers ; it’s that carville and matalin’s story is actually interesting . speechless is a limp , poorly structured would-be romantic comedy . speechless is set during a new mexico senatorial campaign , where kevin vallick ( michael keaton ) and julia mann ( geena davis ) meet and get romantic one night when neither one can sleep . what neither one realizes is that they are on opposite sides of the campaign : kevin is a sit-com writer brought in to punch up the republican candidate’s speeches , while julia is the chief speech writer for the democratic candidate . at first each one believes that the other has an ulterior motive for the relationship , but eventually they let down their guard and become closer . but there are plent of obstacles in the way , including julia’s stud-reporter fiance ( christopher reeve ) and a series of stunts which continue to prove that all’s fair in love and politics . the standard formula for a movie like speechless would have the two principles starting out as antagonists and realizing only at the end that they’re crazy about each other . screenwriter robert king completely subverts expectations by throwing kevin and julia into each other’s arms in the first fifteen minutes , then developing the antagonism . it’s a noble attempt to shake things up , but unfortunately it just doesn’t work . part of the fun of watching sparring in a romantic comedy comes from recognizing the chemistry even before the characters do , but in speechless they already know they’re attracted to each other , and we’re left with waiting for the campaign to end so they’ll admit that they love each other already . there is such a herky-jerky feel to the constant bickering and making up that even king’s sharp dialogue can’t prevent speechless from becoming repetitive after about half an hour . inconsistency is also the defining characteristic of the performances of geena davis and michael keaton , and with those performances most of their scenes together . the problems begin with their initial courtship , which does virtually nothing to establish julia’s character and merely establishes that kevin is a wise-ass . davis is radiantly beautiful , and keaton is generally entertaining , but these characters are so plastic that nothing that happens to them seems to matter one bit . in a couple of scenes , like a quiet moment sitting at a fountain , they actually achieve some measure of connection . for the most part , however , they’re just actors spouting lines . you keep waiting for a little spark , and it never happens . perhaps most disappointing is that king and director ron underwood completely waste their premise by removing all the punch from speechless’s politics . the setting seems perfect for a high- energy battle of the sexes with partisanship thrown into the mix , but that’s never the tone that underwood is going for . he wants a warm , fuzzy romance compatible with marc shaiman’s flute-and-wind musical score , and the campaign which should have defined the conflict between kevin and julia fades into the background . it might as well have been a story about rival grocers , and every single character is about as uninspired as he or she could possibly be . i was about the only reviewer in the civilized world who seemed to enjoy robert king’s previous screenplay , the dana carvey flop clean slate , so i had some hopes for speechless . but while there is wit in the words , this is a script which was probably much better on paper . on screen , it’s still paper thin .
0 teenagers have a lot of power in hollywood . every year countless films will be made targeting that audience in particular , and rely on the entire teenage population to turn out on friday and saturday nights , wallets in hand . the formula is very simple , you make a film with a big name young actor or actress with sex appeal . you add a high school environment that features everyone from prom queens to math club nerds , and then a very simple relationship conflict that can be worked out in 90 minutes , the typical teenage attention span . the response is enormous as this part of the population will waste it92s money on almost any = film set in an environment they can relate to , and , most importantly , they don92t care to judge films=92 quality , so any piece of trash will = due . that is just what never been kissed , the latest film from director raja gosnell , is ; trash . josie geller ( drew barrymore ) is the youngest copy editor in the history of the chicago sun times . she has her own personal assistant , unlimited supplies , and her own office . but she is very much dismayed with her position in life . there is nothing she wants more than to be a reporter and go out into the field , where she can play a more active role in the chicago media . so when an assignment is quite literally thrown at her out of nowhere , she jumps at it with elation . constantly smothering josie in the work place is her friend anita ( molly shannon ) and her amicable superior , gus ( john c . reilly ) . the two of them are both stricken with horror upon hearing the news of her first assignment , as they both deem her to be an office worker and not a reporter . however , since this film is aimed at a teenage audience with little patience for character conflict , this otherwise interesting scenario is resolved within two minutes , and josie is headed for the field . obviously , the field assignment involves a high school . specifically , she is to become an undercover reporter at a high school , by enrolling in the senior class and ” becoming one of them . ” i don92t think that i = need to even begin to explain all the impossibilities of this situation ever occurring , so i won92t . the movie develops into josie trying to find the life that she never led in high school . interwoven flashback scenes show us just how much of a dork she truly was , and she appears to be heading down that road again . fortunately for this lame production , other characters do appear that make some of these high school scenes both humorous and remotely interesting . they include the predictable love stories , between both a student ( jeremy jordan ) and a teacher ( michael vartan ) , to show that josie is really two people in one body . also , her younger brother and opposite , rob ( david arquette ) comes into her new found life and even causes a rare scene that is mildly provocative . the humor found in this film is actually quite amusing . typical for teenage films , it is chalk full of sexual innuendoes and condom humor . one scene in particular features a certain classroom activity involving bananas and latex that is absolutely hysterical . most of the other jokes are straight forward high school humor that anyone who has ever been to high school can appreciate and will enjoy . but those still don92t = recover for the total lack of quality in this movie . following this trend of high school movie rules , comes the general acting . it is even worse than the trend of overplaying a scenario from film to film . in this case , drew barrymore is absolutely painful to watch . she is required to play her character on two levels , having some very black and white transitions . and although some scenes are written to be particular shades of gray , she seems to hold that color throughout all of her screen time . at one point she is alone with an obvious love interest on a ferris wheel , and is expected to him on an adult level , since he is one , her teacher . but she never seems to get out of the gray area , and in doing so she makes a mockery out of his otherwise good performance . following barrymore is the pitiful molly shannon ( saturday night live ) . she seems to be limited to playing an ecstatic character that no one can relate to , and draws the attention of an audience as simply unrealistic . it is these ” qualities ” that prevent the aforementioned condom scene from being one of the few decent . luckily there is one great performance to emerge out of this otherwise bleak film . david arquette ( scream ) takes home the prize for being able to stand out in an ensemble performance that is absolutely pathetic , and not have his brilliant acting ruined . and as a central character he gets to take on his own mini-plot , which is one of the few well done parts of never been kissed . in a dazzling cherry-on-the-sundae type piece of work , he does an absolutely hilarious tom cruise impression from the 1983 hit , risky business . never been kissed is a mediocre film at best . the predictable plot has become so overplayed in hollywood , that it is sickening to watch time and again , and this film is no exception . the acting is just as bad , but there is the one positive presence of david arquette to add some light . unfortunately , the bottom line is that the movie will be a success , because teenagers will pay to see any trash .
0 walken stars as a mobster who is kidnapped and held for ransom by four bratty rich kids . it seems that a woman has also been kidnapped–she is the sister of one of them ( e . t . ‘s henry thomas ) and the girlfriend of another ( flannery ) –and the asking price is $2 million , which said snots are unable to cough up alone . they even cut off walken’s finger to show they mean business , because they are desperate to save the woman’s life . suicide kings is a terrible film . walken aside , there isn’t a single appealing cast member . o’fallon creates characters that are functional types without any resonance . in an amusingly unironic scene , walken plays poker with the foursome and describes each of their personalities to a tee–it’s as if he was reading the summary sheet for a casting director . the plot is another issue entirely . o’fallon is someone whom i’m betting has seen reservoir dogs and the usual suspects too many times , for not only does his story veer off on bizarre tangents from whence they never return ( do we really need the scene where dennis leary beats up an abusive father with a toaster , which is entirely unrelated to both the story and leary’s character , or the numerous anecdotal sequences ? ) , but the central plot itself is a serpentine mess , filled with crosses and double crosses and triple crosses . . . by the fourth big revelation/twist , i had completely tuned out , wondering what on earth attracted these actors to the material . recently a peer , a fellow young filmmaker , informed me that he had an idea for a movie about four guys , the mob , and the fbi . it occurred to me then what’s wrong with indies like suicide kings : i suspect o’fallon has never met a mobster , is not a rich man , doesn’t deliver endless ” clever ” monologues to his friends about his favourite types of boots . . . in short , these guys are just riffing on other movies , and in doing that , making the same film over and over and over again . tarantino found his niche and now hundreds of genxers with movie cameras are trying to find tarantino’s niche instead of carving their own . -reviewed at the toronto international film festival
0 >from writer and director darren stein comes jawbreaker , the poorly told tale of what can happen when an innocent birthday prank goes wrong . at reagan high , four girls are sitting on top of the world . courtney shane , played by rose mcgowan , holds the title of meanest , most disrespectful soul in the school . everyone hates her , but everyone envies her due to her popularity . courtney is the ” leader ” of her clique , which also includes julie , played by rebecca gayheart , liz purr , played by charlotte roldan , and marcie , played by julie benz are the other three in the group . it is liz’s seventeenth birthday , and julie , courtney , and marcie concur that they will play a seemingly innocent prank on her , but the prank results in the death of liz . just like stupid teens in any teen directed film such as this one , the foursome decide to cover up the death to make it look like a murder committed by someone else . and also just like in other teen directed movies , one of the four don’t agree with hiding it , this time that character being julie . and finally , just like in other teen movies , there is a witness outside the group trying to hide the truth . this time that character being fern mayo ( judy greer ) , who is subject to many cracks from courtney’s group , as well as the entire school . >from here , jawbreaker turns into a predictable tale of revenge , bad morals , and at least trying to do the right thing . not only is the script weak , on a whole the acting is horrid thanks to a large amount of the main cast . judy greer is undeniably awful as her one dimensional , annoying character , as she overacts every line she has . also on the bad side of acting is julie benz , almost falling to the annoying factor that greer delivers . on the positive side of acting , rose mcgowan performs well here , but doesn’t match her wickedly clever performance as ” tatum ” , in 1996’s scream . mcgowan’s role is annoying , but this only adds to the film . she is wickedly mean , and even though she a well-written character , you downright hate her . faring even better than mcgowan is rebecca gayheart , who is always exceptionally believable as her roles . when the script feeds her a one or two dimensional character , she turns it into three , always putting strong emotion and power into her roles . gayheart isn’t given as much to do here as she was in 1998’s urban legend , but you can still get a strong taste of her acting skills in jawbreaker . jawbreaker drifts and mianders different sub plots throughout , hardly throwing anything for the viewer to get absorbed in . we get way off of the topic of the jawbreaker incident , and get into things that don’t have anything to do with the actual film . the beginning and ending are strong , it’s just the middle that needs a lot of help . during the body of the movie , it is undeniably repetitive , never progressing towards a conclusion . nothing to grab the viewer’s interest is around , and the same , extremely annoying song plays over and over again . jawbreaker tries to get off on the same time of humor used in the 1995 film clueless , but falls flat . the few gags that actually work die off quickly and die off with a bang . all in all , a horrible disappointment . the bottom line : the tagline reads , ” even the sweetest candies are sour as death inside . ” yes , that is too true . no matter how good this film may have looked , it fails to deliver .
0 well there goes another one . sadly this like other movies this year wasn’t good . this one being almost as bad as ‘the omega code’ but not quite . from the opening credits i had a good feeling this would be bad , and well i guess i was right . with bad excuses for acting , a horrible screenplay and straight-out bad direction ‘the bachelor’ is a terribly unfunny movie that doesn’t work on any levels accept that fact that rene zellwegar who does give a good performance . the two cameos by brooke shields and mariah carey are also good with brooke being the best . the movie is troubled from the start because chris o’donnell is hugely miscast and gives one of the worst performances to date . here is the stupid plot : chris o’donnell plays jimmie shelton a man who has just broken up with his girlfriend , he meets anne ( rene zellwegar ) they instantly hit it off and are together for three years . jimmie decides that he wants to bring their relationship a little bit up . he really doesn’t realize that anne thinks he wants to marry her ( what he wants i never did catch ) . so he proposes in a really bad way , and she shoots him down and is very mad . he of course tries to apologize but nothing seems to help any . then his grandfather dies and he learns that he has left jimmie 100 million dollars . . . . as long as he marries before the next day at 6 : 05 pm . now jimmie must find anne and try to marry her to get the money and because he loves her , or get married to someone else to get the money itself , leading to an un-funny and predictable ending that leaves a bad taste in our mouths . ok so maybe this could be one of the dumbest , cliched , silliest romantic comedy to date that has no real big laughs . even the supporting roles of artie lange , hal holbrook and ed anser aren’t even good . the plot was a good idea , but the script would have to have been written in less than five minutes and by a five year old . the choppy dialogue and bad directing don’t help things any . even though chris o’donnell gave an ok performance in the two batman movies , he does not give even a remotely good or funny performance here and i wanted to boo and throw my pop at the screen to get rid of him . rene zelweggar is a different story and gave a charming , sweet and likable performance ( as usual ) and really was the only thing that saved this confused movie from being a total huge washout . her sister played by marley shelton is also good and the two have good chemistry onscreen . brooke shields showed up in a funny little performance as a big-headed mogul who after a while became routine and old . one really can’t help but think that we have seen this stuff before . it’s not like this is an original idea and in the end , everyone knows what is going to happen due do its cliches and typicalness . ‘the bachelor’ works on no good levels and in fact doesn’t work at all . ed anser and hal holbrook were wasted in terrible roles and mariah carey can not act to save her soul , and this could be the only film of her movie career dispite her terrific music career . chris o’donnell is not as bad an actor as casper van dien but that is not saying a great deal . he seems held back and really doesn’t get into his character much and after even the first 30 minutes gets annoying and old . artie lange just to me seems like he is trying to another chris farley and was completely unfunny and un-nerving . why the filmmakers would want to waste such a cast in such a bad movie , with such bad acting and dialogue is a question only they will know . maybe they thought it would become a hit or a critical success , and sometimes i don’t agree with other critics on movies , even from the trailers for this film they made it look bad and showed all the mildly funny parts . its based on the 1925 silent film ‘seven chances’ which i am sure is very better than this mess . even though some may think of this as a good date movie , most who see this will want to pull out thier hair and scream for thier money back . besides being a terrible movie , ‘the bachelor’ is well a terrible movie . it has nothing worth recommending therefore i really can’t recommend this movie . i did not have a good time and i laughed only three times . the running time of the movie is 106 minutes which is wayyyy over time and needs to be shortened at least thirty minutes . parts of it seems to go on forever and parts of seem to not last enough time . being one of the worst movies of the year , we can be sure that i hope they will not make anymore stupid unfunny romantic comedies , and if they do they i give up on filmmakers .
0 my inner flag was at half-mast last year when nick at nite pulled ” dragnet ” reruns off the air . sure , i’d seen them all at least once , but i could always count on at least a few inadvertent laughs from ultra-serious jack webb when there was nothing else on tv . even though ” dragnet ” is out of circulation at the moment , we webb anti-fans still have the d . i . , a 50’s propaganda piece for the military that is almost as hilarious as the famous ” blue boy ” episode of ” dragnet . ” for anyone like me who got laughs out of webb’s rapid-fire speeches and straight-faced seriousness , think of the d . i . as what would happen if sgt . joe friday ever enlisted , because he plays exactly the same character here , a no-nonsense old fart who looks with disdain at the younger generation and loves to give long- winded , melodramatic speeches on any topic . in this election year , i’m more convinced than ever that webb and bob dole were separated at birth . the movie opens in characteristic fashion as one recruit after another knocks on webb’s office door and enters . he gives each one a different series of cranky criticisms before the credits come up . the ” produced and directed by jack webb ” card pretty much goes without saying . this is his movie all the way , and after the first twenty minutes of him chewing out his recruits for no reason , i was wondering if there would even be a plot . i certainly would have been entertained by an hour and a half of trademark webb rants , but the d . i . gives us more — much more . webb’s mission is to make a man out of private owens , the local screw-up . the captain gives webb three days to convert owens into marine material or , the captain will ” personally cut the lace off his panties and ship him out myself . ” ( whether the ” lace panties ” part refers to webb or owens remains unanswered . ) this , of course , gives webb an excuse to focus all his crotchety energy on making owens’ life a living hell . for those of you who haven’t been indoctrinated into the pleasures of webb watching , here’s a reprint of a typical monologue of his . i can’t duplicate his hilarious delivery on paper , but the words should at least partially convey what i’m talking about . . . ” now you listen to me , youngster . someday you’ll wake up fighting on a beach and you’ll pray to god somebody doesn’t get killed because of your foolishness . . . i’ve got a headline for you : every time you make one of those little mistakes of yours , you’re gonna turn around and i’ll be standing right there . ” i couldn’t write down all the reprintable dialogue from the d . i . ( nearly all of it belongs in the bad movie hall of fame ) , but i tried to include some of the more noteworthy lines , like one from the scene where webb unwinds from a hard day’s work by going to the local bar ( where he orders a tomato juice ) . he meets a woman who , coincidentally , also orders tomato juice but walks away from a typically-stimulating conversation with webb to flirt with his arch-rival , another marine d . i . webb marches over to the table , gets up in her face and says , ” just what kind of a dame do you think you are ? ” bogart he ain’t . the other d . i . gets one of the few memorable non-webb lines when he confesses to the girl , ” he’s a damn good d . i . . . . i guess i’m just a little jealous . ” join the club , we’re all jealous of jack webb’s way with women , which is showcased even more amusingly in a later scene , as webb finds his way to the woman’s place of employment , a lingerie store , and stands around looking incredibly flustered at the negligees on display . ” you expect me to talk to you . . . in _here_ ? ! ” he exclaims , no doubt intimidated by the barrage of bras . the woman goes off to help a customer , leaving webb to fend for himself once again in this palace of estrogen . a little girl spots him in the store and demands , ” what are you doing in here . . . you’re a man , aren’t you ? ” he doesn’t reply , but you know he’s thinking in his head , ” what an odd species of human — so small . must be one of those children everyone’s been talking about . ” this poor girl , scarred for life by her early encounter with jack webb , would later swear off the male gender entirely , just one of the many lesbian conversions he’s responsible for . the movie doesn’t focus too closely on webb’s romance , it also continues the owens subplot with probably the most memorable scene in the entire movie , where webb forces his platoon to spend the entire night searching the ground for a flea owens killed during one of their drills . after two privates hatch a scheme to present webb with the wrong dead flea , webb asks owens , ” was that flea you killed a male or female ? ” owens replies , ” a male , sir . ” webb yells to the platoon , ” this ain’t the one ! ” that such a scene ( along with the rest of the movie ) was intended to be taken seriously defies comment . but we know it was all presented with the utmost seriousness when a title card at the end thanks the marines not only for their cooperation in the making of the d . i . , but for iwo jima , guadalcanal and every other major battle of the first half of the 20th century . webb held the military in such high esteem that all the soldiers in the movie ( with the exception of owens ) were played by actual marines . someone wanting to parody this movie couldn’t do a more comical job than webb did . it makes it all the more ironic ( like raeeyain on your wedding day ) that the man had no sense of humor himself . there’s a scene in the movie where the guys are on their break time discussing something and one of them breaks into laughter . webb bursts in the room and shouts , ” what did i tell you about laughing ? ! ” to which the private replies , ” sir , only nine-year-old girls laugh , sir ! ” and let me tell you , i was as happy as a nine-year- old girl while watching this movie .
0 frank detorri’s ( bill murray ) a single dad who lives on beer and junk food with no apparent understanding of sanitation or hygiene , much to the dismay of his preteen daughter shane ( elena franklin ) . when he uses the ’10 second rule’ to retrieve a hard boiled egg from a chimp’s cage at the zoo and downs it , he introduces a lethal bacteria into his system . inside his skin , the city of frank is in turmoil thanks to the vote-pandering of mayor phlegmming ( voice of william shatner ) , so it’s up to one frank pd white blood cell ( voice of chris rock ) to save the day in peter and bobby farrelly’s ” osmosis jones . ” the city of frank is a brightly animated ( animation directed by piet kroon and tom sito ) cellular municipality where osmosis jones is a typical rogue cop looking for another chance . he’s inadvertently teamed up with drix ( voice of david hyde pierce , tv’s ” frasier ” ) , a cold capsule with 12 hours worth of painkillers to dispense . this quarrelling duo are about to go on a ” fantastic voyage ” in order to hunt down thrax ( voice of laurence fishburne ) , the virus intent on shutting down frank . while the animation is certainly colorful to look at , osmosis jones’ story is a hackneyed one . the story cries out for puny puns , but we only get occasional sprinklings of wit or bodily humor ( drix graduated phi beta capsule , he departs on a bus headed for bladder ) . neither the hero or villain is particularly interesting ( thrax looks like an animated ” predator ” ) , although hyde pierce is a delightful sidekick . adults can desperately keep their eyes peeled for small amusements the animators dot along the landscape . meanwhile , back in live action land , bill murray is reduced to nothing more than a walking gross-out joke . there’s no particular enjoyment to be found watching him vomit on molly shannon ( she plays shane’s teacher , mrs . boyd ) or hoisting his ingrown toenail onto a restaurant table . one must wonder how the climatic flatlining of a child’s father will play to the family audience as well . rest assured , the whole enchilada is wrapped up with a fart joke . while far less offensive than the farrelly’s last effort ” me , myself and irene , ” that film at least spiked some comic highs with jim carrey’s hijinx . ” osmosis jones ” will probably be ok for the kids , but the farrellys playing for the family audience is like watching marilyn manson croon a phil collins tune .
0 woof ! too bad that leap of faith was the title of a 1992 comedy starring steve martin and debra winger , because that’s what’s required to watch this incredulous howler starring bruce willis as–of all things–a psychologist . not since the reagan administration has there been an acting stretch of such magnitude ! alas , mickey rourke , we hardly knew ye . story opens with a campy kick–willis is treating a patient who abruptly steps out of the window to take the best flying leap since charles durning dove in the hudsucker proxy . she goes splat , he goes ugh , and his character spends the rest of the film colorblind . really . the good doctor then moves to sunny l . a . , where he rooms with an old college chum ( scott bakula ) , a therapist who’s getting death threats from someone in his monday evening group . buddy bites it in the second reel ( no surprise there ) and willis agrees to take over both the group and the death threats . for his troubles as therapy man , willis gets to share some cut-from-nc17 love scenes with the lover’s jane march while dodging nails , cars , and rattlesnakes . why’d it have to be snakes ? color of night is the worst movie of the year . period . forget north , clifford , or , heaven help us , even on deadly ground . here is a movie misfire so audaciously awful that you can’t help but wonder how the actors all kept straight faces while filming . for starters , the ” group ” is a collection of mixed nuts better suited to bob newhart than bruce willis . these are realistic portrayals of the mentally unhealthy ? playing a prissy obsessive/compulsive , cuckoos nest alumni brad dourif , alone , may set the psychology profession back ten years . the plot’s a wreck with laughable dialogue , pointless pov shifts , and the one big secret solvable in the first fifteen minutes . director richard rush , who once helmed freebie and the bean , doesn’t seem to mind . unfazed by the nincompoop plot and cuckoo characterizations , he overfills the film with enough canny camera shots and zany set-pieces to make the effort almost worth watching . his token freeway chase is ok , but the director has more fun with a vertiginous ending ala ( most recently ) fatal analysis . acting credits are across-the-board awful . willis can be forgiven because he’s filming die hard 3 as we speak . but what about ruben blades insulting presence as the cop ? or lesley ann warren’s stereotypical sex addict ? or worst offender jane march as a mystery-girl-who’s-no-real-mystery ? shudder . bottom line : how they all kept straight faces , i’ll never know .
0 there’s only one presidential election every four years , but it seems like every few months we get another presidential conspiracy movie painted as _the_ thriller of the year . in 1997 , we’ve had absolute power , air force one , shadow conspiracy and murder at 1600 . this one is about as lame duck as old gerald ford , trying to bring us a complex plot of cover-up and intrigue but copping out over and over again with rehashes of action flick standbys . here’s what happens this time . it’s night at the white house . a secretary is having sex with some unidentified guy with a cute butt . the next day she’s dead and hotshot detective wesley snipes is called in . how do we know he’s a hotshot ? we’ve seen the traditional action flick opener — the clever hostage negotiation scene . it’s not so clever this time , consisting of snipes disarming a suicidal ex-government employee holding a gun to his head in the middle of the street . snipes is off to the white house , where he finds the secret service head ( the shiny bald head of daniel benzali ) won’t cooperate with him at all . in fact , if not for the intervention of national security adviser alan alda , snipes wouldn’t have been allowed in the white house at all . alda helps snipes out further , assigning a sexy secret service agent ( diane lane ) to act as his liaison . . . a very dangerous liaison . well , not really , i just wanted to say that . almost immediately , a suspect is found , an eccentric night janitor seen flirting with the deceased on one of the security videos . snipes doesn’t buy it , and launches into an independent investigation of his own , one that reveals planted evidence and romantic involvement by the president’s son . snipes’ partner , an always- wisecracking dennis miller , calls him up every once in awhile with more news and lane , who at first doesn’t believe snipes , eventually and predictably comes around , and risks her ass to break into social security storage and break out some classified information . for the first hour or so , murder at 1600 looks like it could be going somewhere interesting . sure , we have to sit through the lame opening sequence and plenty more lame scenes after that , but the whole murder in the white house thing makes for an interesting premise that is never quite delivered upon . snipes and lane don’t make for a bad action team , but with nothing to work with , they’re just cogs in the bad movie machine . dennis miller might as well not even be in the movie ; they waste his talents more in murder at 1600 than they did in bordello of blood , and that’s saying a lot . when you get to the last half-hour , the movie has descended metaphorically and literally into a wet sewer , busting out the old break-into-the-building underground climax . and when they finally reveal who killed the woman and why , you’ll wish you never sat through this movie at all . the ” 1600 ” in the movie’s title doesn’t represent an address , it represents the number of satisfied customers worldwide . serving the world for nearly 1/25th of a century !
0 ah , and 1999 was going along so well , too . ” she’s all that ” has the dubious distinction of being the worst movie i’ve seen so far this year . and quite frankly , i doubt i’ll see anything equally bad . ( at least , i * hope * i don’t see anything equally bad ) . ” she’s all that ” tells the story of the most popular guy in school ( played by freddie prinze jr . ) who accepts a bet to transform the geekiest girl in school ( rachel leigh cook ) into the most popular . that , right there , is problem #1 . how many times have we seen this storyline ? as cook comments near the end of the film , ” it’s kind of like ” pretty woman ” , except without the prostitution ” . of course , had the filmmakers attempted to try something new with this material , the well-worn storyline would have been a device to propell the movie forward . as it is , though , ” she’s all that ” relies * completely * on the lame and overused formula to push it ahead . there’s not one original or interesting character in the film , either , and if that wasn’t bad enough , there’s not one good performance featured . the star of the movie , rachel leigh cook , is simply horrible . i usually don’t like to get so personal , but in this case , i think it needs to be said . cook wears the same expression throughout the flick and looks to be having as miserable a time as i was . i was never convinced that she was a ” nerd ” , and her transformation was unconvincing and unnecessary . the movie seems to be saying it’s better to be popular than to be who you are . as for freddie prinze jr . , an actor i ordinarily enjoy , he too is quite bad here . he coasts through the film on so-called charm , and never establishes a real character . kieren culkin is here , too , as the brother of cook . and for some indiscernable reason , he’s got hearing aids . no explanation is given and they’re never brought up . were we supposed to feel * sorry * for him just because he wore hearing aids ? i don’t think so . that single element of the film was one of the most offensive things i’ve seen in a movie in a long time . ” she’s all that ” sucks . that’s what it boils down to . it’s not entertaining , and it’s not even a good time passer . the hour and a half running time goes by slower than a 5 minute hair-removal system informercial . and what’s worse , it sends out a bad message to teens . it appears to be telling them , ” hey , it doesn’t matter if you’re happy the way you are . that’s unimportant . if you want to * truly * be happy , dress in the latest fashions and act like a bubble-headed moron . ” ugh .
0 michael robbins’ hardball is quite the cinematic achievement . in about two hours , we get a glancing examination of ghetto life , a funeral with a heartfelt eulogy , speeches about never giving up , a cache of cute kids ( including a fat one with asthma ) , a hard-luck gambler who finds salvation in a good woman and a climactic ” big game , ” where the underdogs prove to have a bigger bite than anyone ever imagined . all that’s needed is a guy getting hit in the nuts and a food fight to have the first film solely based on cinematic clich ? s . i can’t wait to see the deleted scenes when it comes out on dvd . obviously , hardball is a strikeout of a movie that never gets the bat anywhere near the ball . it stars keanu reeves as the aforementioned gambler , who seems to owe every bookie in chicago an amount of money that rivals the gross national product of guam . out of solutions , he begs his successful corporate friend ( the always welcome mike mcglone ) to lend him $5 , 000 . instead , mcglone offers reeves the chance to help him coach a youth baseball team from the projects for a nice weekly stipend . reeves , who wants to keep his fingers , accepts the offer , but discovers mcglone is only too happy to let him handle the team entirely . the drowsy-voiced protagonist must teach the sassy inner city kids the baseball basics in a life of absentee parents and merciless gangs . and maybe , just maybe , they’ll play in the big championship game . one of the glorious surprises in the screenplay by john gatins ( summer catch ) , adapted from daniel coyle’s non-fiction book , is that there aren’t any . the movie coasts from heartfelt moment to heartfelt moment like a zombie . that wouldn’t be so bad , if the characters had an ounce of subtlety or humanity to them . most of the kids’ time is spent yelling at each other , talking in slang and acting surprised . there’s little that’s naturally amusing about them , as they all seem to know the cameras are rolling . the worst of the lot is a tough-talking younger player ( dewayne warren ) whose sole purpose , as the movie unfolds , is being an emotional pawn , a tactic so utterly despicable i can’t find the right words to express myself . the adults also don’t fare well . reeves is impressively uninspiring as the down-on-his-luck loser . the character is poorly written , but reeves gives another charisma-free performance . every time he speaks , he sounds like he just got up from a long nap and is gradually waking up . kids are supposed to rally around this guy ? diane lane , who co-stars as reeves’ obligatory love interest , remains a glowing screen presence ( see my dog skip for better proof ) . it’s too bad that her role here consists of uttering lines like , ” these kids trust you , and they don’t trust anyone ! ” then there’s d . b . sweeney as an evil rival coach and john hawkes as reeves’ scummy betting buddy and other unoriginal characters you’ve seen before and hope never to see again . i wanted hardball to be good . robbins’ varsity blues was a funny and alternately taut tale of texas high school football that had ali larter smothered in whipped cream and jon voight sneering at everything that moved . i haven’t seen robbins’ goofy ready to rumble in its entirety , but i am intrigued that ” macho man ” randy savage and martin landau can exist in the same movie without there being serious worldwide repercussions . robbins obviously needs to go back to his forte — making sports movies for guys and not cutesy , cuddly pap such as hardball , which also manages to annoy and insult the audience . here’s hoping that happens in the immediate future .
0 you know something , christmas is not about presents . it’s about over-hyped holiday films with lots of merchandising and product tie-ins . at least that would seem to be the message of ” the grinch , ” which has been advertised since last christmas and whose logo is currently plastered all over stores . hollywood expects us to ignore this cynical greed as the movie scolds us about losing the true spirit of the season . you know the plot : there’s this evil furry green guy called the grinch ( jim carrey ) who lives on a mountain overlooking whoville . down below all the whos are preparing for their whobilation , but the grinch is determined to steal their christmas . the movie is , of course , a live-action version of the beloved children’s book , which was previously adapted into a 1966 tv special by looney tunes animator chuck jones . it’s rare that a big budget hollywood release is shamed by a thirty-year-old half-hour cartoon , but that’s the case when jones’ version is compared to ron howard’s . the tv grinch hit all the right notes : boris karloff’s soft , deep narration ; thurl ravenscroft singing ” mr . grinch ” ; max the dog weighed down by the gigantic antler tied to his head ; and the grinch’s wide , toothless grin . by contrast , the movie hits one sour note after another . first , there are the numerous bad choices that jeffrey price and peter seaman made in padding out the short book into a 105-minute movie . young wide-eyed cindy lou who ( taylor momsen ) is depressed about the misplaced priorities of her parents ( bill irwin and molly shannon ) during the holiday season . she begins to sympathize with the grinch , who turns out to be surprisingly sympathetic . cindy lou discovers that the grinch turned tearfully away from whoville in grammar school when he was publicly humiliated while expressing his love for the prettiest girl in the class , martha may whovier ( played as an adult by christine baranski ) . are we expected to like the grinch , hate the whos , and want him to steal christmas ? the grinch isn’t even the villain here ; that role is filled by the corrupt mayor of whoville ( jeffrey tambor ) who was the grinch’s rival for martha’s affection . not only are the characters needlessly complex , but the once-simple plot becomes so convoluted that the actual theft of christmas seems like an afterthought . the casting choices aren’t any better than the screenwriting decisions . jim carrey seems woefully miscast . while his face is so supple that the rubber make-up seems superfluous , carrey brings nothing else to the role . his accent keeps changing ; i assume he was shooting for karloff , but he ends up sounding like a weird slurry of richard nixon , sean connery , and cartman from ” south park . ” not knowing what else to do during his many scenes alone in the grinch’s home , carrey falls back on his stand-up comedy and clowns around ace ventura-style . needless to say , his wise-cracking antics don’t quite fit the character of the grinch , who is an embittered loner filled with hate . little taylor momsen brings little to role of cindy lou except big eyes and a cute smile . she would have been fine if cindy lou was limited to her original purpose in the seuss story ( finding ” santa ” in her living room stealing the tree ) . however , the expanded script makes cindy as important as the grinch , and momsen is not up to the challenge . bottom line : when you’re stealing christmas ( movies ) , leave this one behind .
0 in the mid-1980s , following the splendid debut in hugh hudson’s greystoke and relative success of first highlander film , it looked like christopher lambert’s acting career might go somewhere . but , it wasn’t meant to be , which became obvious following highlander ii . in this decade christopher lambert became associated with films with low budgets and even lower quality . very often such films were science fiction , which meant that the fans of that genre learned the hard way what to evade anything starring christopher lambert . whether it was because of real lack of talent , terrible miscasting or simple bad luck isn’t important – the end result was almost always horrible . the same can be said for fortress , 1993 science fiction film directed by stuart gordon , director who created cult following with his 1980s horror gorefests like reanimator and from beyond . the movie is set in 2018 . for some undisclosed reason , usa introduced strict population control and couples are barred from having more than one child . jake ( christopher lambert ) and karen brennick ( lori laughlin ) broke that law and are caught by authorities on the border . sentenced to 31 years in prison , they are both thrown into fortress , privately owned correctional facility , equiped with state-of-the-art futuristic technology and run by computer called zed . although equiped with gismos that regulate every aspect of inmates’ lives and make any escape impossible , prison authorities often use violence . jake survives many ordeals and earns respect of some inmates which would help him when he begins planing the escape . such escape should become necessity , because the warden poe ( kurtwood smith ) begins showing unhealthy interest in karen . after rather intriguing beginning and some interesting special effects that depict the futuristic settings of prison , this film soon starts sinking into mediocrity . the reason is in the screenplay that quickly degenerates into whole series of prison movie clich ? s and situations that are painfully predictable . by the time brennick begins his escape from fortress , those situations not only begin to look predictable , but utterly implausible too . of course , film never tried to explain why the country that lacks resources to support its present population happens to spend bucketloads of money on ultra-expensive supertechnology with sole intention of keeping alive most useless and dangerous members of the society . the initially interesting plot is done even more wrong by stereotyped characters , played by not too interested or talented actors . lori laughlin , although physically attractive , shows the acting ability of sequoia . kurtwood smith as prison warden is rather uninspired , capable of solid , yet forgettable performance . lambert’s performance is also good , but even the bigger talent couldn’t help this film , destined to end in oblivion .
0 susan granger’s review of ” the musketeer ” ( universal pictures ) hollywood launches another assault on classic literature with this $50 million adaptation of alexandre dumas’s novel that’s strong on action but weak on drama , fusing hong kong martial arts with 17th century swordplay . the story chronicles the adventures of the dashing d’artagnan ( justin chambers ) as he leaves his village of gascogne , headed for paris , to join king louis xiii’s elite guard , the royal musketeers , and to search for the man who killed his parents 14 years earlier . this puts him in conflict with the formidable febre ( tim roth ) , vicious henchman for conniving cardinal richelieu ( stephen rea ) . the traditional musketeer trio – aramis ( nick moran ) , athos ( jan gregor kremp ) and porthos ( steve speirs ) – don’t offer much help so he turns to the feisty francesca ( mena suvari ) , chambermaid to the queen of france ( catherine deneuve ) . scripter gene quintano and director-cinematographer peter hyams are primarily interested in the derring-do , as evidenced by choreographer xin-xin xiong’s elaborate – but not original – stunts , including a fast-paced stagecoach chase , a tavern brawl on rolling barrels , high-wire acrobatics with the combatants dangling from ropes , and a ladder-fight sequence . filmed in southern france , the scenery , sets and costumes are spectacular , but the lighting is too dark and editing is filled with choppy , restless mtv’ish cuts . as the swashbuckling d’artagnan , bland calvin klein model justin chambers buckles where he should be swashing , totally lacking on-screen charisma , not to mention acting skill . mena suvari , so impressive in ” american beauty , ” seems like a contemporary interloper in the royal court . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , ” the musketeer ” is a cinematic but shallow 3 . ” all for one and one for all ” ? not this time ’round .
0 note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . at the end of the day , those reflecting upon the debacle that is the avengers would do well to take note that warning clouds loomed on the horizon for the project well before warner bros . made the contentious decision to abandon preview press screenings and scrapped plans for a gala premiere . this highly-anticipated film rendition of the cult television show was originally slotted for an early june opening , where it would have gone head-to-head against the rival studios’ heavy hitters ; its eventual demotion to a less potent mid-august opening was an obvious early indication of the studio’s lack of confidence with the picture . and with good reason . this is a joyless exercise of a film , held together by a barely coherent plot and lacking any semblance of excitement , thrills or wit . remarkable in its banality and brutally uninvolving , the avengers is a catastrophic mess which immediately invites comparisons to last year’s case study in style over substance , joel schumacher’s much-loathed batman & robin . ( indeed , both films even feature appalling , ridiculous sequences which find central characters dressed up in fuzzy oversized costumes . ) uma thurman , who takes on the salacious role of the catsuit-clad , karate-chopping emma peel immortalized by diana rigg , was the only bright spot in the aforementioned schumacher disaster , imbuing her poison ivy with a dose of sassiness and sly wit that gave audiences something to smile at amidst the cinematic carnage . unfortunately , the same can’t be said here , where she and cohort ralph fiennes ( our new john steed , taking over for patrick macnee ) demonstrate no appreciable chemistry whatsoever , fatally crippling the picture as they volley fizzling repartee back and forth and trade double-entendres with all the enthusiasm of two actors painfully aware that they’re on board a sinking ship . at this rate , usually-splendid actor mr . fiennes may never make the transition from arthouse apollo to mainstream leading man — his tepid turn here will make as much of an inroad as his commendably seedy performance in the regrettably-neglected kathyrn bigelow film strange days . the duo * look * the part — and admittedly the avengers is , more than most , heavily dependent upon style — but they’re no fun to watch , and i found myself growing increasingly distant and annoyed by the lack of spark between the two cheekily ironic characters as they navigated through the picture’s caper-esque plot . when not checking my wristwatch or shifting restlessly in my seat , i began to alleviate the boredom by considering how this all might have played out had the filmmakers chose to go instead with that erstwhile emma as our mrs . peel — no , not kate beckinsale ( although the notion now intrigues me ) , but gwyneth paltrow , who was originally in the running for the part and can veritably handle a spot-on english accent . if nothing else , it’d at least be highly entertaining for the incongruous sight of the vaguely twiggish young actress kicking butt . the story , such as it is , involves the ever-bemused tandem of steed and peel combating the malevolent sir august de wynter ( sean connery ) , an eccentric aristocrat threatening the safety of the nation with his climate-controlling contraption . ( they also sip a lot of tea . ) overlooking some goofy cloning nonsense and quirky hijinx involving our protagonists’ superiors , it sounds far better than it plays , and is rendered almost indecipherable by blatant post-production tinkering ; it’s clearly evident that the picture has been cut to shreds . the avengers was never about gripping drama , and our heroes accordingly never take villainous sir august very seriously , but given the lack of cohesion in the plot and the lack of menace conveyed by the buffoonish maniac , it’s all decidedly uncompelling . mr . connery , who’s onscreen barely long enough to register an impression , approaches the role like a man fulfilling a contractual obligation , simultaneously chewing the scenery while unable to hide his disinterest . at least it all looks good . this is a genuinely handsome production , with fine costume design by anthony powell and crisply shot by roger pratt . in particular , the gleaming production design by stuart craig commands attention , adeptly drawing elements both old and new in order to depict this great britain . there are a handful of striking visual moments in the film , including an attack by a swarm of giant robotic bees and a nice shot of steed and peel finding a way to walk on water , but the film is so unremittingly dull that even these instances fail to stir interest or raise pulse rates . by the time the film’s climax had arrived , my interest was not with the sight of steed and sir august slugging it out amidst crashing waves and thundering rain , but with the quickest escape route from the theatre . not coincidentally , the enticing bits of visual bravura were the shots assembled into the movie’s remarkable trailer , a savvy piece of work which ironically is infinitely more appealing that the feature film itself ; the first promo which made the rounds in early spring is probably my favourite studio trailer so far this year . it’s everything that the avengers is not — saucy , clever , engaging , and entertaining . a crushing disappointment , the film is one of the worst outings of the year — too drearily awful to be savoured as gleefully bad , too polished to overlook its deficiencies . there may be upcoming pictures that are even more lifeless than the avengers , but i sure hope not .
0 stallone attempts to ‘act’ in this cop drama . the film is set in a neighbourhood pratically built by kietal , who’s nephew ( played by michael rappaport ) is involved in a car crash and killing of two black youths . keital dosen’t really want to get involved in anything , gets rid of rappaport , and stallone and de niro try to work out what the hell is going on . this film should be brilliant . it sounds like a great plot , the actors are first grade , and the supporting cast is good aswell , and stallone is attempting to deliver a good performance . however , it can’t hold up . although the acting is fantastic ( even stallone isn’t bad ) the directing and story is dull and long winded some scenes go on for too long , with nothing really happening in them . in fact , the only scenes that do work are action scenes , which i suspect stallone was trying to avoid . in this film , serious means dull . the dialogue is warbling , and basically just repeats the same points over and over , no matter who is delivering them . the plot , which has potential , is wasted , again just being cliched after a while . in fact , the only thing that does keep the film going is kietal and de niro , both delivering their usual good performances . however , stallone , although not given much to say , gives a good performance . however , it’s not all that bad . as said above , the action scenes are well done . theres also a very good ending , which uses the cinemas sound system well . in fact , the last 10 minutes of this 2 hour film are one of the best endings of 1997 . if only the rest of the film was as good as the ending . cop land , then , turns out not to be a power house film , but a rather dull , and not every exciting film . hugely disappointing , and i can’t really recommend it .
0 the first species was a moderately-successful science fiction yarn that diverted audiences with some nifty special effects , a few well- paced action sequences , and frequent views of model-turned-actress natasha henstridge sans clothing . however , it was definitely not a movie that cried out for a sequel . and , considering the quality of species 2 , it’s obvious that mgm should have stopped while they were ahead . the only thing that distinguishes species 2 is how awful it is . if you throw away the plot , which is characterized by a blatant disregard for intelligence , logic , coherence , and consistency , species 2 actually has a few things to recommend it to a select audience . of course , that audience is primarily comprised of teenage boys ( who , at least in theory , shouldn’t be able to get into an ” r ” -rated film ) and connoisseurs of bad movies . there’s enough blood , gore , simulated sex , and bare flesh in species 2 to prevent it from ever becoming boring . this is a grade z exploitation flick that’s ripe for the mystery science theater 3000 treatment . somewhere , someplace , i recall hearing species 2 described as ” erotic . ” i would love to know who used with that adjective for this movie , because he ( or she ) has a peculiar notion of eroticism . sure , there’s a lot of sex and nudity , but it’s almost always accompanied by the ripping open of a woman’s abdomen as an alien baby claws its way free , splattering blood and gore in all directions . anyone turned on by that is not someone i would care to be sitting next to in a theater . i suppose the main attraction in species 2 is natasha henstridge ( and , to get the obvious question out of the way — yes , she does remove her top , but only once , and only briefly ) . although the character she played in the original species is dead , government scientists still have the dna , and , out of what can only be described as a suicidal impulse , they decide to create another clone . this creature , dubbed ” eve ” by its creator , dr . laura baker ( played by marg helgenberger , reprising her role ) , is genetically engineered to be kinder and more docile . meanwhile , man has finally set foot on mars . a team of three , led by patrick ross ( justin lazard ) , has traveled to the red planet , but when they return to earth , they bring something with them . ross has become a half-human/half-alien hybrid , and he’s soon mating like crazy , collecting the blood-soaked children that are the result of each sex session . his intention is obviously world domination . standing in his way is that indomitable soldier of fortune from the first film , preston lennox ( michael madsen ) , and one of patrick’s fellow astronauts , dennis gamble ( mykelti williamson ) . but when patrick learns about eve , a female of his kind , there’s no damping his ardor . i’m not sure what the budget for species 2 was , but a significant portion of it must have gone into paying handsome salaries to several recognizable actors ( as opposed to being diverted into the special effects ) . michael madsen and marg helgenberger , both back for a second round , are clearly on hand to do as little as they can , grab the money , and run . ditto for james cromwell , who plays patrick’s father — ” underused ” is too kind a word to describe his involvement ( ” invisible ” would be more like it ) . george dzundza gets to do a little scenery- chewing as an angry-but-inept general . meanwhile , justin lazard’s performance as patrick is so flat that he makes natasha henstridge’s limited abilities look good by comparison . the only one in the whole production with any energy is mykelti williamson , who is cast in the part of the wisecracking black sidekick . complete with cheesy special effects , bare breasts around every narrative corner , and dialogue capable of producing howls of laughter , species 2 has been dumped into the marketplace without advance screenings for critics . director peter medak , a journeyman film maker with a significant list of mediocre movies on his resume , has added another forgettable title , but at least he appears to have had fun doing it , which is more than can be said of anyone trying to take this film with even a scintilla of seriousness . do i recommend the movie ? absolutely not , but i will admit that species 2 is dopey enough that it didn’t try my patience to the degree that some pseudo-intellectual bad movies do . here’s hoping there’s no species 3 .
0 a number of critics have decided that it’s open season on freddie prize jr . , slamming the young actor as an utterly talentless pretty boy on career cruise control in sound-alike , disposable teen fluff like ” head over heels , ” ” boys and girls , ” ” down to you ” and ” she’s all that . ” while the prinze oeuvre is hard to defend , his talent is not . i first saw him in the independent dark comedy ” the house of yes , ” where he gave a subtle , impressive performance as the younger brother in one of america’s freakiest families . prinze has the acting chops ; he just needs to take a few supporting roles in some grown-up movies to show the non-believers that he has what it takes . ” summer catch ” certainly won’t help his case . inoffensive , but utterly generic , the baseball-related romantic comedy does little more than kill time . the story deals with the love affair between tenley ( jessica biel ) , a wealthy cape cod girl and ryan ( prinze ) , a local boy from a working class family who dreams of becoming a big-time baseball star . ryan’s preoccupation with his new honey-bunny drives her elitist father ( bruce davison ) crazy and endangers his position as pitcher with a cape cod summer league team . it’s a wonder the kid has any time to pitch , as his time is occupied with making out with tenley , fighting with her dad , bonding with his own dad ( fred ward , who deserves better than this ) , fighting with his brother ( jason gedrick ) and carousing at a neighborhood bar with his teammates . the filmmakers desperately want to make a quirky , character-heavy baseball movie like ” bull durham , ” but haven’t got a clue how to get there . and so they glide from one clich ? to the next for 108 minutes . the only bit of originality comes from marc blucas in a minor role as a center-fielder from texas . in an early barroom scene , blucas , best known as demon-fighting riley finn from ” buffy the vampire slayer , ” hears a young woman compliment a guy on his ass , then turns to teammate matthew lillard and states , ” he does have a nice ass . a bubble butt . ” when lillard gives him an ” are you insane ? ” look , blucas calmly says , ” it’s nothing sexual , ” then goes on to evaluate the hind-ends of some other players , including lillard’s . speaking of asses , prinze does not bare his in the movie . the actor has a no nudity clause in his contract , so two stunt-butts were employed for a couple of semi-nude shots . blucas , whose character secretly dates a large woman throughout the story , gets another unique moment late in the film . sick of hearing teammates make ” fat chick ” jokes , he climbs on top of a table and loudly declares his love of amply-sized ladies . while his speech still ends up objectifying women , it remains a nice change of pace in a numbingly ordinary movie . trivial tidbit : ” summer catch ” marks a scooby doo summit . marc blucas appears in ” jay and silent bob strike back ” as fred from the scooby doo gang , while freddie prinze jr . plays the same character in the upcoming big budget film version of the old cartoon .