1 >from the man who presented us with henry : the portrait of a serial killer ( 6 . 5/10 ) comes a wild tale set within the elite and white trash of florida’s south coast . plot : guidance counselor ( dillon ) is accused of raping one of his students . she happens to be the daughter of one of the wealthiest women in florida . the counselor is brought to court on the charges , as another white trash girl ( campbell ) , also joins the rape finger-pointing club . as the story unfolds , we find that many things aren’t exactly as they seem ( that’s as much as i could say without ruining anything ) . critique : good little flick that slows down at certain points , and runs a tad long , but generates enough twists and turns to keep most people interested throughout . mind you , i could see many people not liking it because it takes ” one too many ” twists and turns , but hey , i happen to like that kind of thing . and besides , the twists and turns in this movie managed to remain within the realm of believability ( or scathingly close to ) , and even ” explained ” many of its turns with a showcase of missed scenes during the credit crawl at the end of the film ( do not leave the theatre before you see the credits . . . it really does clear up some stuff ! ! ) . other than that , the acting was good , with campbell transforming her ” good girl stereotypical ” role into a pot-smoking , goth-looking white trash chick out for a good time . denise richards ( from starship troopers ( 7/10 ) fame ) solidifies herself as hollywood’s jelly-donut pinup girl of the moment , and proves that all breast implants needn’t lead to lawsuits . bacon is solid , and so is dillon ( while continuing to prove his inability to age to the whole wide wondering world ! ! ) . sprinkle the story with a bunch o’ shots of alligators peeking through the swamp waters , bacon showing the world the size of his ding-dong ( do we really need to see this ? ? ) , a couple of lesbian kissing scenes , and a menage-a-trois , and you’ve got yourself a decent time at the movie theatre . on the down side , the soundtrack was not as prominent ( or slick ) as i thought it would be , and theresa russell ( real name : theresa paup ) seems to have lost her way in every which way possible . . . . ooooh , i almost forgot bill murray’s exquisite role as the down-trodden lawyer who agrees to defend dillon in court . murray actually added that extra little spice of humour that allowed this film to affirm its position as a quirky little noirish tale of sex , greed and mystery . little known facts : neve campbell specified a non-nudity clause in her contract ( she’s also born in guelph , ontario . . . go hoser ! ) director john mcnaughton says he deleted a scene that would have shown matt dillon and kevin bacon showering together , as it was gratuitous . kevin bacon plays in a band with his brother , called the bacon brothers , is married to actress kyra sedgwick , and has a game based on him called ” six degrees of kevin bacon ” .
1 how many of us would become strippers ? for those of us who wouldn’t , is it a moral reason , or purely a lack of confidence ? that’s probably not a fair question , and for a lot of us , it could very well be for neither of those reasons . as you watch the full monty , however , you may begin asking yourself these kinds of questions . would you be willing to grin and bare it to bring in some much needed dough ? in case you haven’t guessed , the full monty is about stripping , but striptease it ain’t . it’s actually quite a charming comedy that uses its ideas with a great deal of tact and sophistication . it is the story of six out-of-work , out-of-shape blue collar brits whose recent job losses have left the boys penniless , but not without need . what to do ? it hits our main character gaz ( robert carlyle ) as he notices the large crowds of women who pour into a local male strip club on a regular basis . it seems that simple : take it off and bring in the cash . eventually , gaz is able to convince his friends to join him in starting their own exotic dance routine despite their initial reluctance . these include the overweight , confidence-lacking dave ( mark addy ) , the uptight , overly-officious gerald ( tom wilkinson ) , the once suicidal lomper ( steve huison ) , and two additional fellows who gain their place among the group by audition : horse ( paul barber ) , an older gentlemen chock full of graceless energy , and guy ( hugo speer ) , a young well-endowed looker who compares himself to cary grant . when the sextet is complete , we’re given a hefty dose of physical comedy . we watch the bumbling middle-aged men choreograph pseudo-sexy dance numbers , all the while proving why none of them were strippers in the first place . as if there anti-appeal wasn’t enough , they decide to boost interest in the group by promising ” the full monty ” on opening night , which for us americans , means baring it all . . . and i mean * all * . the movie actually ends on opening night ; a hilarious applause worthy ending i might add . it’s sure to leave nothing short of a big smile on your face as you leave the theater . with the subject matter , you might not expect the fully monty to be such a feel-good , almost inspiring film , but it surprisingly turns out that way . the amount of light , touching drama also comes as a nice surprise , never feeling off-balance from the otherwise highly upbeat moments of the film . there’s a lot more to this movie than you might think in other words , and the ensemble cast couldn’t be better . each character is completely individual , interesting , funny , and most importantly , real . the full monty is never offensive , a very impressive attribute since its subject matter alone could’ve easily fallen prey to tastelessness . it’s one of those movies that is best described as a solid piece of entertainment , perfect for a great night on the town , or as a saturday night movie rental . either way you see it , it shouldn’t let you down in the slightest . and , pun heavily intended , when it’s all said and done , you’ll be smiling from cheek to cheek .
1 director dominic sena ( who made the highly underrated kalifornia ) and producer jerry bruckheimer ( the rock , armageddon ) bring us a slick and entertaining remake of the 1974 film of the same name that absolutely no one has ever seen . nicolas cage plays memphis , a retired car thief who’s ” pulled back in ” to the business by an evil car thief overlord ( christopher eccleston ) determined to kill memphis’ kid brother ( giovanni ribisi ) . memphis is ordered to steal 50 cars in four days time or his brother will meet an unfortunate demise , all while having to elude the detectives hot on his trail and a rival car thief who feels the job should have been given to him and his gang . memphis sets out to put his old crew back together , but discovers that most of them have retired as well . gone in sixty seconds does things right from the opening credits . in that sequence , we get a rockin’ little tune from moby , along with some simple back story told only with photographs and assorted objects . filmmakers can sometimes make or break a film just from its opening title sequence , and this one easily gets you in the mindset for an entertaining ride . and what follows doesn’t disappoint . . . cage turns in one of his good performances here ( he can easily go either way . . . good or bad . . . i don’t know how he does that ) , and his mannerisms and dialogue delivery carry the film along nicely . of the supporting cast members , angelina jolie as memphis’ former love is in the film just to provide eye candy ( she’s definitely the hottest looking grease monkey i’ve ever seen ) and robert duvall as memphis’ former mentor is just around to lend the film some class . also , i’m a big fan of will patton ( armageddon , the postman ) and would love to see him get a huge role someday . none of these three performers are given much to do unfortunately . some underrated performers however are given meaty supporting roles . delroy lindo ( get shorty ) shines as the exasperated detective in pursuit of memphis , as does timothy olyphant ( go ) as lindo’s partner . i just wish some of the other characters could have been as important . the only real gripe i have about the film though is its conclusion . . . mainly because you know how it will end before the opening credits even roll . there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that the 50 cars will be successfully stolen , and the filmmakers blew a perfectly good opportunity to add some suspense to the picture by using the ” rival car thief ” plot line . as it stands , that story line is wrapped up about halfway through the film in a tidy little package . but if i was making this film , i’d have had the rival gang trying to get to the cars before memphis and his crew , thereby making memphis have to improvise . . . thereby adding some meat to the plot . the finale is essentially just a big car chase , and there just aren’t ways to make car chases interesting anymore . it’s all been done . the chase is also shot and edited in that ” jerry bruckheimer action sequence ” kind of way that leaves the audience wondering what specifically is going on in the scene . sure it’s a car chase , but what exactly are the particulars of it ? it’s very hard to tell . finally , there’s a stunt during this scene that comes close to challenging the ” bus jumping the ramp ” sequence from speed in the ” oh , i don’t think so . . . ” department . despite those minor complaints , gone in sixty seconds is pure summer movie entertainment . it’s not thought provoking , but it’s shiny , loud and fun . . . just what a summer flick should be . [pg-13]
1 books could be , and indeed have been written about the star wars trilogy , and rightfully so . this is a set of movies that shattered all expectations of what science fiction could be in the late 70s/early 80s , inspiring literally dozens of clones , from battlestar galactica all the way up to stargate and independance day , and one could argue revitalizing the whole science fiction genre . the special effects were groundbreaking , revolutionary for their day and still eminently watchable well into twenty years later . literally millions of people have seen the star wars trilogy and been touched by it . and now , george lucas brings it back for a new audience to enjoy . much has been and is still being made of the fact that mr . lucas has gone back and revised his trilogy for rerelease now . some fans are angry that he has dared to meddle with what they consider perfection , while others are thrilled by the idea of seeing yesterday’s star wars updated with today’s special effects wizardry . either way , the special edition release means that star wars is back on the big screen , where it rightfully deserves to be seen . can there be anyone in the world who doesn’t know what star wars is about ? in a way , star wars is so much a part of our cultural heritage that it feels silly and almost artificial to try to summarize it . it’s a story about a young man’s coming of age , a fight for freedom against an oppressive empire , a tale of swashbuckling and derring-do the likes of which haven’t been seen on the silver screen in decades , strange new worlds with strange alien creatures and weird surprises around every turn , and the yearning within each of us to realize our dreams and make a difference in the world . it’s high adventure , incredible special effects , and . . . well , it’s just an _experience_ . something about this movie sparked the imagination of a generation . . . and it’s about to do so again . this new release of star wars comes as no surprise to many of the film’s devoted fans , who have been trading rumors and bits of information about it for quite some time now . interviews , trailers , leaks from within lucasfilm . . . all of these have been collected , collated , and placed on webpages for people to see ( pages such as http : //www . islandnet . com/~corona/films/details/sw4 . html or , my personal favorite , http : //leopard . cs . latrobe . edu . au/~koukoula/ ) . pictures of before and after have been placed side by side . . . even months before the movies were released , fans were making comparisons . in some cases , the changes were nothing less than phenomenal , and this can be seen from the comparison shots even before you go into the movie theater . the digital matte effects that were little more than a toy in forrest gump are put to excellent use here , unnoticeably sprucing up scenes that that george lucas was unsatisfied with in the original . for instance , in my personal favorite example , the ancient temple on yavin that was formerly a flat stone edifice now has deep , moss-covered carvings and etchings . and mos eisley spaceport is now a bustling , booming city , with more surprises and things going on in the background than you can notice on the first viewing . all the starships and fighters are now computer-animated , getting rid of glitches and artifacts of the special effects processes used when the film was originally made–and they look _fantastic_ . four and a half minutes of new or missing footage have been added , including a scene with jabba the hutt that had originally been shelved because the state of special effects in 1977 simply couldn’t do it justice . however , much of the ten million dollars that was spent on the star wars special edition restoration went into restoring the quality of the film itself . the negatives , badly damaged by the ravages of time , were brightened and returned to their original splendor . the audio tracks were remixed and reprocessed , with reworked sound effects by effects maven ben burtt , into glorious , booming , theater-shaking full-thx dolby digital stereo . and _that_ , more than the added scenes or new special effects , is where the real value of this new version lies . it’s really true what they say in the commercials : star wars loses _so much_ on the small screen . even letterboxing doesn’t make up for the decrease in size and definition . in regard to the star wars special edition , and to the other two films of the trilogy which have yet to be released , i’ll make this final recommendation : go and see it . go and see it more than once . . . it may be another twenty years before it comes back to the big screen after it’s gone this time . take along the youngsters who’ve never had the big-screen star wars experience–you’ll enjoy seeing it through their eyes as much as they will enjoy it for the first time . there’s magic in this movie–special edition or no , there can be no denying that it’s still star wars , and still has the power to thrill and enthrall children of all ages , from four to four hundred . let’s all return to that time long ago , and that galaxy far , far away . . .
1 eddie murphy has had his share of ups and downs during his career . known for his notorious late 80’s slump , murphy has still managed to bounce back with a handful of hits in the past few years . with the exception of the dreadful holy man , he appears to be on pace for a full-fledged comeback . life was a great move on the part of murphy and co-star martin lawrence , because it’s a great showcase for both actors that never resorts to slap-sticky drivel . director ted demme is smart enough to realize that the two comedians can generate enough genuine laughs on their own , and doesn’t insert a distracting plot to back them up . life is , in a sense , one great balancing act with murphy on one end and lawrence on the other . amazingly , the scale never tips in either’s favor due to the marvelous chemistry and wonderful contrast that each actor allows the other . as the movie opens , we’re introduced to ray gibson ( eddie murphy ) , a two-timing pickpocket who schmoozes his way into a club . there he meets a successful businessman named claude banks ( martin lawrence ) . somehow , after multiple contrivances , the mismatched pair find themselves on their way to mississippi on a moonshine run . when all is said and done , ray and claude have been framed for a murder that was actually committed by the town sheriff . hence the setting of life : mississippi state prison , where the main characters come to realize their unlikely friendship is important , and become set on finding an fool-proof escape plan . the film takes us from the 30’s all the way to the 90’s , presenting a difficult task in showing how the aging process affects ray and claude . luckily , rick baker handles the makeup effects of the two actors in a fantastic , academy award caliber manner . not only do we believe the characters look as if they’re 90 years old , but they sound like it , too . murphy and lawrence are completely convincing in the lead roles , even as crotchety old cons bickering over a game of cards . this is just one of the pleasant surprises that the film has tucked up it’s sleeve . while the ads are marketing life as a straight arrow comedy , there is a hefty amount of dramatic material hidden at it’s core . but the comedic aspects work wonderfully , wisely drawing strength from the talents of the two stars . the movie is more of a comedy than it is a drama , but in both senses , it’s an overwhelming delight . i could say a few bad things about the movie , but i don’t want to . it’s such a nice surprise , such a great vehicle for eddie murphy and martin lawrence , that it warrants a huge smile as the credits begin to roll .
1 cinematically speaking , gordon parks’ original 1971 _shaft_ is not a great film . a bit slow at times and more than a little rough around the edges as it builds to its climactic explosion of violent action , this spirited but formulaic yarn that initially brought ernest tidyman’s ” black private dick that’s a sex machine to all the chicks ” to the big screen hardly qualifies as groundbreaking filmmaking . yet nearly 30 years after its original release–and long after the genre it spawned , ” blaxploitation , ” died with that decade–the 1971 _shaft_ remains an extremely entertaining watch , never having completely escaped pop culture consciousness . the reason for this is the same one that explains the film’s connection with moviegoers far beyond the target african-american audience : the title character of john shaft . while the fact that the strong , smart , virile , and superbly suave shaft is black is the primary factor for his historical and cultural significance , his broad-based appeal stems from an idea that transcends race : he is comfortable , confident , and proud about who he is , and anyone who had a problem with that could simply kiss his ass . this fact also explains why john singleton’s y2g revival of john shaft is as enjoyable as it is . much like the film that started the franchise , this _shaft_’s plot doesn’t score points in the originality department , but the energy level and smooth attitude distinguishes it from standard crime thrillers . contrary to what has been reported over the past few months , this _shaft_ is not a remake of the original film , but more of a sequel/spinoff . the star audiences know and love from the original film and its first two sequels ( 1972’s _shaft’s_big_score ! _ and 1973’s _shaft_in_africa_ ) , richard roundtree , once again plays john shaft , who still runs a private investigation firm in new york city . however , the focus of the film lies on his same-named nephew ( samuel l . jackson ) , who , as the film begins , is a cop whose take-no-crap demeanor constantly leaves him at odds with his superiors . when a privileged young man named walter wade jr . ( christian bale ) accused of a brutal , racially-motivated murder is allowed to be released on bail , a disgusted shaft leaves the force and decides to take matters into his own hands as a p . i . but that’s easier said than done , for also standing in the way of shaft and his way of justice is peoples hernandez ( jeffrey wright ) , a dominican gangster who is hired by walter to rub out waitress diane palmieri ( toni collette ) , the only eyewitness to his crime . peoples–or , rather , wright is also the big obstacle in jackson’s way toward commanding this film . peoples is more of an outrageous comic character for most of the running time , and wright is insanely funny during these stages . however , he isn’t so funny as to make the character come off as goofy and buffoonish , and peoples’ eventual turn to more serious villainy is seamless and believable ( which probably would not have been the case had he been played by original casting choice john leguizamo , who bowed out before filming ) . it’s no easy task to steal a film from the jackson ( who is his usual captivating , charismatic self here ) , but that’s exactly what wright does–and makes it seem effortless . then again , with such a talented ensemble surrounding him , it is not too surprising that jackson’s impressive star turn doesn’t quite tower over the rest ; he is strongly complemented not only by wright but all his other co-stars . bale has already proven his ability to play an uppity killer in _american_psycho_ , so it only follows that his performance as a similar , less exaggerated character would be spot-on . collette lends the film some convincing and welcome dramatic weight as the frightened , conflicted diane . busta rhymes brings some good laughs as shaft’s sidekick rasaan . registering not as strongly–but through no fault of their own–are vanessa williams ( as tough narcotics cop carmen vasquez ) and a dismayingly underused roundtree ; they simply are given little to do in the script credited to richard price , singleton , and shane salerno . ( jackson also has little to ” do ” in a sense ; some throwaway footage during the opening credits aside , his shaft doesn’t even have one sex scene . ) that singleton once again proves his ability with actors is an especially good thing since he’s not really an action director . this is not to say that he does a bad job with the numerous gunfights and the requisite foot and car chases . they move well ( as does the film as a whole ) and are reasonably exciting ; it’s just that there’s nothing terribly inventive about them . these set pieces are functional in the way the script is : they work well enough , but they’re unsurprising and conventional . but if there’s anything that a _shaft_ movie does well , it’s make the familiar look cool–and this _shaft_ keeps that tradition alive . from the slick title sequence–scored , of course , to isaac hayes’ ever-infectious oscar-winning theme song , which singleton wisely sprinkles throughout the film–on , the film looks great and easily sweeps the viewer into its world with its energetic bravado . even a common visual trick such as employing fancy wipes for scene transitions not only feels unforced , it feels necessary . style doesn’t exactly make for a great film , but when it comes to _shaft_ , that’s of little consequence . what matters above all else is having a good time , and the latest _shaft_ should be just the first of many fun rides to be had with this bad mutha–shut your mouth .
1 uncompromising french director robert bresson’s ” lancelot of the lake ” achieves the exact opposite effect of sir thomas malory’s ” morte darthur . ” instead of enshrining the legend of king arthur and his knights of the round table , it dethrones them by revealing arthur as a weak , ineffectual leader and the knights as a group of jealous , bickering men who failed to live up to the legends prescribed to them . chivalry has no place in ” lancelot of the lake , ” except as that of a dying ideal . bresson begins his tale as the knights of the round table are returning , decimated , after failing merlin’s command to retrieve the holy grail , the mystical cup that was filled with christ’s blood . bresson immediately gives us his impression of the essential meaning of the grail quest : bloodshed and failure . the opening sequence is a series of clumsy , disjointed fights amongst anonymous knights — a head is hacked off , a stomach is impaled , a skull is split open , skeletal remains hang from trees , and burning bodies smolder in the ruins of a flaming house . since the film starts with camelot in near-ruin , and takes only an hour and a half to arrive at its inevitable conclusion , it doesn’t carry the grand , tragic resonance of other arthurian films . we never get to see camelot at the peak of its power , therefore there is no real downfall to witness . but , then again , it is not the name of camelot that is evoked in the title of the film . rather , it is lancelot , and bresson is more interested in the internal battle within his heart , than the external downfall of a kingdom . lancelot has always been a tragic figure in the arthurian tales , and bresson uses him as the central figure to explore the battle between the spirit and the flesh . the greatest of all knights , he was flawed only in his love for arthur’s wife , queen guinevere , and it was that illicit affair that eventually caused the downfall of camelot . even when lancelot attempts to end the affair with guinevere ( laura duke condominas ) , he only finds himself falling back into her arms against his better judgment . he knows it means the destruction of the idealized kingdom , but he is powerless in his passion . when sir mordred ( patrick bernhard ) accuses lancelot of the affair , other knights , including sir gawain ( humbert balsan ) spring to lancelot’s defense . it is this battle within the knights that is the eventual undoing of the round table ; the flesh wins out over the spirit , and the consequences are dire . bresson is an intensely personal filmmaker most interested in the interiors of men’s hearts and minds . ” lancelot of the lake ” is filled with his particular trademarks : a stripped-down , minimalist style , flat , expressionless dialogue , and a grand use of natural sounds in place of music . he uses background music only twice in the film , during an opening narration segment and during the opening credits . the music here is a heavy drumbeat and accompanying bagpipes , but the rest of the film is scored with natural sounds that punctuate the film’s thematic elements : the incessant clanking and creaking of heavy armor , the neighing of horses , the rhythm of hooves beating down dirt roads , and the natural chirping and whispering of the forest . like most of his other films , bresson employed nonprofessional actors who recite the dialogue in emotionless , flat voices . all the actors he used in ” lancelot of the lake ” had never acted before , and with the exception of patrick bernhard , they never acted again . never once do they raise their voices or put any emphasis on a given word . instead of using vocal inflection , bresson strove to create emotion through images . in some ways , this technique works ; in other ways , it doesn’t . the final montage of arthur’s men battling each other is quite marvelous , and the final image of the knights in shining armor reduced to a literal scrap-pile sums up the entire film in one moment . however , other times bresson’s uncompromising methods are distracting and questionable . for instance , during an important jousting contest , bresson films the majority of the action so that the only things visible are the horses’ legs . he does this repeatedly , opening each shot with the same few notes from a bagpipe and the raising of a different flag . while there might be symbolic value in this , the resulting experience of watching it can be bothersome . nevertheless , ” lancelot of the lake ” is a fascinating cinematic experience boldly made by a master filmmaker . bresson’s style may not be for everyone , but one has to respect his strength as an artist . by re-evaluating the arthurian legends and making them his own , he turns ” lancelot of the lake ” into something rare in modern cinema : a truly personal film .
1 capsule : the best place to start if you’re a jackie chan newcomer . roars along , never stops for breath , and frequently hilarious . to talk about jackie chan as a ” stuntman ” is to miss a million things . jackie is not only one of the most accomplished and fearsomely unafraid physical adepts on the screen today , but also a very funny guy . he reminds me of the way arnold schwartzenegger * used * to make me laugh — he’s funny just standing there , copping a look . supercop has jackie making us laugh , scream , duck , root , and gasp for breath , often all in the same scene . it’s actually the third in a loosely related series of movies , each with jackie playing kevin chan , a hong kong policeman who has a knack for getting neck-deep into trouble and then karate-kicking his way out of it . ( the others are also worth seeing . ) it’s a little slow to start , but once it gets moving , it’s a field day . the movie has a fairly sophisticated plot for movies of this kind . kevin is tapped for a dangerous dea assignment to be accomplished in mainland china , which requires him to collaborate with the attractive ( and ass-kicking ) chief fo chinese security ( played here by the ever-enjoyable michelle yeoh ) . there’s a fun chemistry between the two of them , especially in an early scene where she tries to brief him and he keeps making wondering comments about how great she looks in that uniform . kevin is assigned to help spring a known gangster from jail — all undercover , of course — and have him lead the two of them to a noted drug boss . the drug boss , however , has problems of his own : his wife’s on trial for many of his own crimes , and she’s got the key to an account with all of his drug funds . this means , of course , endless trouble — not the least of which is that kevin bumps into his girlfriend while he’s out in the field , and she sees him with this other woman , and . . . but that’s one of the movie’s unique pleasures : the way it crosses from action to comedy effortlessly . action . there is , of course , non-stop action in this movie — everything from one-on-one kung fu to all-out gun battles to a sppedboat with eight engines ( ! ) outrunning the hong kong coast guard . there is also a virtuoso climax , which features , among other things , jackie danging from a ladder tied to a helicopter , a wrong-way freeway chase ( which requires michelle to do an awesomely difficult handstand stunt ) , a fight on top of a moving train that also involves the ‘copter as well as a motorcycle . you get the idea . this is to action movies what a burger with everything on it is to fast food : quick , enjoyable , filling . watch it with friends . when they stop making movies like this , the world will be a tad greyer .
1 the calendar year has not even reached its midway point , but that hasn’t prevented columbia pictures from trotting out a lavish period drama more befitting of the winter oscar-bait season . bille august’s high-profile adaptation of victor hugo’s classic les miserables delivers everything one would expect from a classy hollywood epic–handsome production values , strong performances by a top-notch cast , a literate screenplay–with one critically missing element : emotional sweep . for those not familiar with hugo’s original novel or the hit stage musical it inspired , the hook of les miserables essentially boils down to something like a 19th-century french-set version of the fugitive . after serving 19 years in a prison work camp for stealing a loaf of bread , the brutish jean valjean ( liam neeson ) is paroled . immediately upon release , he steals valuable silverware from a kindly bishop who takes him in for a night ; he is caught by authorities , only to be forgiven by the bishop , who lets valjean keep the silver to start a new life on the straight and narrow . that he does , and in doing so breaks his parole , which sets the obsessively determined inspector javert ( geoffrey rush ) , who was one of the guards in valjean’s prison camp , on his trail . thematically , however , les miserables is a story about redemption , which valjean finds through his dealings with two women , the hard-luck factory-worker-turned-prostitute fantine ( uma thurman ) , and her illegitimate daughter , cosette . years after breaking parole , valjean becomes mayor of the town of vigau , where he forms a warm friendship with fantine after saving her from an unjust arrest by javert . valjean promises the gravely ill fantine he will rescue the young cosette ( mimi newman ) from her cruel caretakers , the thenardiers , and raise the child as his own . the ” father ” and ” daughter ” eventually land in paris , where the teenage cosette ( claire danes ) falls for dashing student revolutionary marius ( hans matheson ) . the decades-spanning story is the stuff that cinematic epics are made of , and the danish august turns in his most accomplished english-language work , following the underrated 1994 superstar soap the house of the spirits and last year’s stylish but highly preposterous mystery smilla’s sense of snow . he and screenwriter rafael yglesias bring the sprawling tale into clear focus and keep the events moving at a brisk pace . production designer anna asp , costume designer gabriella pescucci , and cinematographer jorgen persson give les miserables a sumptuous period look whose accomplishment is mostly matched by the efforts of the cast . neeson is commanding yet endearingly vulnerable ; rush’s finely modulated menace is far more rewarding than his overrated , oscar-winning theatrics in shine ; and thurman disappears nicely into her highly unglamorous role . the younger members of the cast fare less well . danes is convincing as cosette , but her overdone lip quivering during her crying scenes becomes a distraction ; and matheson , while competent , is a less interesting robert sean leonard . as technically adept and cerebrally engaging the film is , by the time les miserables was over , my emotions had only been superficially involved . while i was touched by valjean’s relationships with fantine and cosette , i was not moved . not even reaching the ” touching ” level is the cosette-marius pairing . my only previous experience with les miserables is with the musical ( as i am sure many others’ is ) , and i was dismayed to see eponine , a friend of marius’s who selflessly dies in the name of her unspoken love for him , almost completely jettisoned from this adaptation ( the daughter of the thenardiers , here she is only briefly seen as a child ) . her presence would have added some much-needed conflict and emotional heft to the youthful romance , but i suppose august and yglesias felt one tragic heroine ( fantine ) was enough . even so , as 1998 creeps into summer blockbuster season , les miserables is a thoughtful , well-made , entertaining film , one that will sate moviegoers hungry for a dose of drama before popcorn no-brainers invade the multiplex .
1 an entertaining 2 hours awaits the audience in this film set in the early 80’s . sevigny and beckinsale play disco chicks alice and charlotte , who are on the lookout for love . alice is mousy , shy , intellectual , charlotte is bitchy , out-going and fun . we join their adventures as they go through a variety of adventures , and men , all to the background of the local disco . whit stillman has both written and directed an interesting and believable story . alice and charlotte are both well written characters , and the actresses who play them aren’t bad aswell . sevigny delivers an honest performance , and makes the audience feel for her character . beckinsale plays extreme bitch personified , yet her character never becomes completely unlikeable . the huge supporting cast also play a part in making sure this movie is thoroughly entertaining . the dialogue is sharp and well written , with many funny set pieces . for example , there’s a great discussion about lady & the tramp by the main characters . the disco tunes playing in the background also make sure that this admittedly long film is good fun . the direction is good , bringing out the drama and comedy in the scenes . but their are slight flaws with the movie . firstly , although it is supposedly set in the 80’s , the characters are very , very 90’s . the way they dress and act have a very 90’s feel to them . although the male hairstyles look slightly 80’s , frankly the 80’s atmosphere just wasn’t conveyed , which is a shame . also , as mentioned above , the film is too long , and some parts do lag . the charm of the characters do help these moments , but generally the editing could of been a bit tighter . the plot also side-tracks into a silly cocaine dealing bust , which seemed out of place in this movie . finally , their are almost too many characters in the film , and despite the running time , the film never really spends enough time on them . some of the characters are very slight , which is a shame . the conclusion , while funny , is also surprisingly weak , and certainly not strong enough . but despite these qualms , the last days of disco is a funny , warm movie , which is certainly worth seeing , and is a fitting homage to the disco era of the 80’s . worth a look . overall rating= review by david wilcock ? 1998 ” you know , for kids ” – norville barnes
1 gordon fleming ( peter mullan ) is in a bind . he has a new , unexpected baby and his business , hazardous material removal , is in danger of going under . when he and his crew get a job opportunity at the long-abandoned danvers state hospital , he underbids the competition to secure the contract and promises to get the three-week job done in one . it will prove to be a fateful week for them all in ” session 9 . ” gordo gets the job to remove asbestos and other hazardous materials from the spooky old mental hospital in preparation for relocating town offices there . their guided tour of the facility by a local official , bill giggs ( paul guilfoyle ) , brings them through some of the creepier parts of the former asylum . but , a job is a job and , if they finish in a week , as promised , there is a $10000 bonus in store . as they get down to their work , things , normal and not so normal , begin to happen . gordon hears a disembodied voice beckoning him . phil ( david caruso ) is conflicted working with a guy , hank ( josh lucas ) , who is seeing his old girlfriend . mike ( co-screenwriter steven gevedon ) has discovered a cache of audiotapes and transcripts from old psychiatric sessions ( hence , the title ) with inmate mary hobbs , a multi-personality patient with a dark secret . gordo’s nephew , jeff ( brendan sexton iii ) , suffers from night phobia and is afraid to venture into the dark bowels of the hospital . as the agreed upon week draws to an end , hank mysteriously disappears from the workplace after a nocturnal confrontation with someone ( something ? ) in the hospital . tensions mount and distrust build among the rest as they watch their chance for the bonus start to slip away . but , there is more , much more , at stake as the hospital and its history of insanity weigh on them all . i don’t want to give away too much of the story of ” session 9 , ” so i’ll stop there . what we have here is a spooky horror flick that uses none of the jump-out-at-you-from-the-dark cheap shots that have become part and parcel with horror films since the advent of ” halloween ” and ” friday the thirteenth . ” there is no cat leaping out of the dark or the shock of suddenly seeing oneself in a strategically placed mirror . with the exception of one shadowy and chilling image at one point spooky interlude in the film , there is little that you can get your arms around as far as what , specifically , is ” frightening . ” as i watched ” session 9 ” i became aware of the subtle things that built up during the story that make it a true horror movie . the striking high-definition video camera work by uta briesewitz ( who worked with the director , brad anderson , on his ” next stop wonderland ” ) helps to build up tension with close-ups , fluid camera movement and odd angles in a way that would make alfred hitchcock proud . music , too , is used to intense effect , joining with the camera to make simple scenes frightening , even horrifying . couple these tech feats with an intelligent story that uses elements of ” the shining , ” ” the blair witch project ” and , even ” the texas chainsaw massacre ” and you get a decent , intriguing horror flick . additionally , the brilliant decision to shoot at danvers state hospital gives the film another starring character , the institution itself , which lends even more chills to the equation . acting is another factor that raises ” session 9 ” above the usual dreck presented in recent horror hits like ” scream , ” ” i know what you did last summer ” and their sequels . those films took good-looking , though generic , young actors and actresses and put them to use to build up a body count , substituting mayhem for real horror . anderson opted , instead , to use mature , experienced actors like peter mullan and david caruso to fill his characters’ shoes and the difference in casting quality is notable . mullan , in particular , puts an arc on his character , gordon , as the troubled guy who slowly and inexorably falls under the pressures of family , job and , finally , danvers state hospital . the rest of the small cast fit the bill as people , not just fodder for the mayhem . david caruso , as gordo’s senior man and near equal in the business , shows just how good an actor he is . he made the jump from tv’s ” nypd blue ” to film far too soon and his decisions in the roles he took ( i’ll never forget the horrendous ” jade ” ) were less than star making . he rolls his sleeves up and does the job well here . gevedon , lucas and sexton are more than fodder , too . the only problem with ” session 9 ” lay in the uninspired ending . it takes on a fairly conventional finale that covers old ground and is a bit of a disappointment after the terrific ( and inspired ) build up . the pleasure is getting there and i wish that anderson and gevedon had kept up the steam they had so ably built during the bulk of the film ” session 9 ” is an unusual feat . it is scary , doesn’t use cheap tricks and raises goose bumps with its intelligently rendered , subtle horror . because of the local interest of danvers , it should do well with the northeast crowd . i hope it gets the national distribution it deserves . i give it a b+ .
1 the latest epos from lars is a blast , although a rather moody one . this lovestory is situated in a small town in the rough dreary cliffs in the vestern part of scotland in the 1970 something . the church ( calvinistic ) is so strict that the church bells has been removed from the clocktower , they are considered being too unrestrained . in these surroundings we find the to-be-weds jan and bess , played by stellan skarsgaard and the remarkable new movie actress emily watson . jan is on leave from the oilrig and bess . . is just bess , a bit naive and innocent ( in every aspect of the word ) , at first . at the wedding party we are told an anecdote , illustrating her infinite kindness , she once lend a bike to an stranger , her best friends bike however . but bess is suffering in this scary religious society . we soon take part in a funeral where a man , fallen off the orthodox path , is laid to rest while doomed to hell . women are not allowed to attend funerals or speak up in the church . when the end of the honeymoon approaches we see bess idolizing jan in such an intend , almost manic , that her friends try to calm her down a bit . the time has come when jan is to return to the rig , bess is falling into the darkness of depression , her yelling of grief and sorrow are heard above the breaking of the waves . she can’t stand the thought of life without her husband . we witness her dialogues with god ( she speaks both parts , paranoia ? ) convincing god to return jan from the oilrig , and her prayers are heard . an accident on the rig bring him back , paralysed from the neck and down . now he can’t satisfy her need for physical love , he try to persuade her into finding a lover , with the ulterior motive to make her describe these affairs to him in every detail . at first she resist , but her love for jan and his assurance that this will make him recover more rapidly make her comply . imagine what this is doing to the poor girl ? the story is cleverly divided into eight chapters parted by beautiful pictures made by danish artist per kirkeby , accompanied by music from the era ; procol harum , deep purple , t-rex and others . the use of hand-held camera and lack of any make-up make the characters solid and help to separate this movie from others in the sentimental genre . the incredible performance from the actors makes the movie brilliant , though a bit too gloomy for my taste . i would say that it is in the genre of betty blue ( 37 . 2 le matin ) and bitter moon ( lunes de fiel ) . emily watson as bess and katrin cartlidge as her best friend dodo deliver outstanding performances , this must be the reason for giving it the ” grand prix du jury ” in cannes this year ( although we had hoped for the ” palme d’or ” ) . the screenplay is now available in print , the transformation being made in the period from ultimo may to july , just in time for the danish premiere .
1 anastasia contains something that has been lacking from all of the recent disney releases . . . ( especially hercules ) . . . emotion . all the wacky characters voiced by celebrities and fantastically animated adventure sequences aren’t going to hold anyone’s interest unless there is an emotional core to hold it all together . not since disney’s beauty & the beast has there been such a compelling animated film with interesting characters and drama that works . the story of the romanov family , the rulers of russia , and their downfall begins the film . anastasia , one of the daughters , narrowly escapes the mad monk rasputin ( voiced by christopher lloyd ) with her grandmother ( voiced by angela landsbury ) . but anastasia gets lost , and grows up with no memory of her royal origins . the grandmother lives in paris , hoping to someday find her beloved anastasia , the only member of the family to survive the russian revolution . a young woman named anya ( voiced by meg ryan ) runs across dimitri ( john cusack ) and vlad ( kelsey grammar ) , who are trying to put together a scheme to create an anastasia to fool the grandmother and get the reward money . they pick anya to pose as their princes , and of course , it is soon revealed that anya is in fact the lost anastasia . dimitri realizes that he can never win her love as he is a commoner , and meanwhile , rasputin is not dead , and plots his revenge against the last romanov . the plot is actually quite well structured . there are a lot of complexities that may have to be explained to the kids later , but it moves along fast enough that they’ll never have time to be bored . what this really means is that the adults won’t be bored by it either . there is a great deal of banter between anya and dimitri that is very funny , and their relationship develops quite naturally as the film progresses . there is , of course , lots of comedy for the kids , including rasputin’s pet bat , bartok ( hank azaria ) , who is easily the funniest thing in the film . however , the comical scenes never distract from the drama , but are worked into the plot almost seamlessly . the animation is gorgeous – the characters seem to come to life through the talented animators . not since beauty & the beast have animated characters had so much life to them . even without the voices , they act . the musical number in paris is a show-stopper , with some of the backgrounds rendered in an impressionist painting style . as with all recent animated features , there are songs , however , these songs do more than just provide fodder for top-40 singers to get on the radio ( although there are three of them during the end credits ) . the songs are all very catchy , and advance the plot , instead of just being showpieces ( except for the paris number , but that’s so much fun , it’s okay . . . ) . i can’t reccomend anastasia highly enough . it’s a wonderful film that ranks right up there with other animated classics . kids and adults alike will enjoy it , and it’s also nice to have a quality animated feature film from another studio besides disney .
1 i can hear the question already . what on earth do these two movies have in common ? to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors . as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers . but oh , how differently the packages affect their films . while ” everyone’s ” production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion’s imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones’ script is . i left ” everyone says i love you ” not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face . i left ” the portrait of a lady ” not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less . ” everyone ” features nothing allen hasn’t done before storywise . woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong–again . similar situations happen to his family and friends . some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his ” early , funny ” films . the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of ” take the money and run , ” his directorial debut . however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one-of-a-kind display of sheer good spirits . in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what’s most important . yes , the movie would have been better–among his very best , i think–if it had a meatier story . but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling . and what better way to express feeling than through music ? love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart . some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor , but i admired allen for even putting them in there . it also helps that as usual , allen has a top-flight cast working with him . their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) . but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience . granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders . jane campion , too , has a top-flight cast working for her in ” portrait of a lady , ” too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess , albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye-filling images that linger in the mind . unfortunately , what didn’t linger in the mind for me was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting . i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people . even worse , i don’t find myself feeling bad that i’ve forgotten . the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material . it was the script that couldn’t convince me to care about anyone . the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them . i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives . jones’ script never simply gave me that opportunity . in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film . in the end , the movie’s one strength ended up hurting it . so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them . why ? with both films , my head cared about neither story , but only ” everyone says i love you ” was able to make my heart sing .
1 you’ve got to think twice before you go see a movie with a title like maximum risk . the title is generic . it’s meaningless . and i can’t believe it’s good business . when you pick up the phone and dial 777-film , how in the world are you supposed to remember that the new jean-claude van damme movie , the one that looked kind of cool in the trailers and is directed by some chinese hot shot , is called , geez , maximum risk ? yuck . the movie itself deserves your attention . for sweet bloody thrills , this one beats the summer blockbuster competition hands-down . only mission : impossible came close to delivering as skillful a thriller , and i’ll give maximum risk the edge simply because it’s not as slick as the tom cruise picture , and therefore more gratifying in its execution . much to my surprise , van damme continues to develop as a pleasant , unpretentious action hero . his track record isn’t as solid as schwarzenegger’s , but he’s a hell of a lot more adventurous than arnold . in 1993 , van damme worked with hong kong’s premier hardcore action director , john woo , on a fairly lame movie called hard target . ( if you can find a bootleg copy , woo’s radically different director’s cut is much better than what was eventually released . ) this follow-up is directed by ringo lam ( city on fire , full contact ) , whose hong kong films are distinguished action pictures that have consistently played second fiddle to woo’s more operatic offerings . the surprise here is that maximum risk is a more effective hollywood action flick than either hard target or woo’s subsequent broken arrow . here’s the rundown . van damme plays a french cop named alain moreau who is shaken when a policeman friend ( jean-hugues anglade ) finds a corpse that’s alain’s exact double . turns out alain was separated at birth from his twin brother , michael , who has been killed by some russian heavies ( and some strangely american looking cops ) . alain does some investigating . he finds that michael had booked a flight to new york city , and received a message from someone there named alex bohemia . assuming michael’s identity , alain flies to new york and gets tangled up with michael’s girlfriend ( natasha henstridge ) , the fbi , and the russian mob in little odessa . that’s as much as you need to know . the story is adequate , but not overly involving — and the major plot points are basically explained to you twice , just in case you go out for popcorn at the wrong moment . there’s a love story , too , but i didn’t find it terribly convincing , partly because ex-model henstridge is too high-strung in her high-profile debut ( she had precious few lines as the alien ice queen in species ) . she’s great to look at , and she can certainly read a line , but what she does here can’t really be described as ” acting . ” of course , ” acting ” isn’t really what she was hired for ( i lost track of whether her shirt comes off more often than van damme’s ) . the movie is exceptionally violent , bordering on gratuity . ( keep that in mind when planning your date . ) the stunts are spectacular , and the fact that you can spot van damme’s stand-in makes his work no less impressive . there’s only so much you can do with a car wreck , but this movie makes crisp , effective use of pile-ups in a handful of frenzied destruction derbies . and lam has a surprising , innovative sense of exactly where the camera should go to catch any bit of action . the main difference between lam and woo , i believe , is that while woo relies on sheer spectacle to gas up his action show pieces , lam has figured out more about using cinematic space and double-barreled points of view to make things run . don’t get me wrong — when chow yun-fat soars through space pumping bullets out of two pistols and chewing on a toothpick with glass and confetti littering the air around him in woo’s hard-boiled , it’s an amazing moment . but it’s a moment that’s hard to reproduce in hollywood . ( for one thing , hollywood doesn’t yet have chow yun-fat ! ) while woo’s hollywood movies look like the work of a talented upstart , maximum risk is a surprisingly confident picture . the very first shot of the film is an awkward overhead view of a chase through the streets of a european city , but lam’s use of odd camera angles becomes more efficient later on . the film editing is a particularly savvy complement to lam’s shooting style , accentuating rather than amplifying the action . the performances could have used some fine tuning ( in particular , there’s an annoying , overwritten manhattan cab driver in the early scenes who should have been toned down or jettisoned completely ) , and the movie doesn’t always overcome the limitations of its genre . the story is a little mundane , although there are some effective moments involving van damme’s unrequited feelings toward the brother he never knew he had . but it’s not often that hollywood cranks out a truly satisfying action picture , and it’s doubly surprising that this one should come with a mere whisper of publicity . van damme fans should treat themselves to what may well be the man’s best movie , and international action buffs will no doubt savor this flavorful hong kong/hollywood hybrid .
1 in many ways , ” twotg ” does for tough-guy movies what la confidential did for police stories . there’s savviness in its writing and a mature patience in allowing the material to unfold . but , i suppose , we wouldn’t expect less from christopher mcquarrie , who was responsible for giving us ” the usual suspects ” . his writing talents are still in tact as he brings to us a bloody yet intellectual tale of two unabashed but dimwitted thugs and a plan gone awry . the two goons are parker and longbaugh ( ryan phillipe and benicio del toro ) . these two men show the hardened wear of those who have always had it tough . their troubled youths have forged two nihilistic souls who use their amazing gunplay skills to survive . given the choice of minimum wage or petty crime , they’ll always choose the latter . yet , they are incredibly foolish planners . actually , these two never really have a plan . they just improvise along the way , hoping that their bravado and arsenal of guns will take care of anything that they might have overlooked . their next scheme , which they cook up about as fast as a mcdonald’s burger , is to kidnap some surrogate mother named robin ( juliette lewis ) that was hired by some well-to-do family . if all goes well , they’ll receive a nice bit of ransom money and life goes on . what parker and longbaugh do not realize is that robin is carrying a baby for the chidduck family , whose patriarch is a feared crime boss . moreover , two bodyguards ( nicky katt and taye diggs ) constantly escort her . these two protectors find an eerie sense of pleasure when being confronted and tested in life and death situations . they would rather die than fail ; thus their bravado level is equally high . but it seems that the testosterone levels of parker and longbaugh are a bit higher , and they employ some unusual but fun-to-watch tactics to pull off the kidnapping and to outrun the pursuers in a sort of slow-motion car chase down a series of alleyways . the next hour or so , we watch the chidduck camp regroup and assess their situation . during this time , additional plot lines come into play and more and more details are revealed . because the chidduck’s can not go to the police and because of the special circumstances involving the kidnapping , we are introduced to more characters that will help to influence the outcome . we discover that not everyone in the chidduck camp is loyal to the cause . as a result , there are undercurrents of a conspiracy , and elements of betrayal and subterfuge . the sepia-toned atmosphere is made all the more fascinating thanks to a terrific soundtrack which emits velvet forebodings , shrills of intrigue and crescendos that tell us of life and death situations that are about to occur . the momentum and the coolness of the film , however , begins to fizzle in the last 30 minutes , which featured an overly extended shootout where our two desperados try to make their way off with the ransom money . you can expect lots of bloodletting and an odd denouement . in fact , you may admire this film more than you like it . yet , for the most part , ” the way of the gun ” stays on target . it feels cool with its elements of conspiracy and gunplay , and smart for its invective dialogue and tough guy poetry .
1 marie ( charlotte rampling , ” aberdeen ” ) and jean ( bruno cremet , ” sorcerer ” ) are a comfortable , sixty-ish married couple looking forward to a peaceful vacation at their second home in lit et mix . on their first , full day , marie sunbathes as jean goes for a swim . hours later , marie’s initiated a full scale search when jean hasn’t returned , but no trace of him is found . marie returns to paris and resumes her life , including chats with jean at the end of each day in francois ozon’s ” under the sand . ” marie’s ex-pat british friend amanda ( alexandra stewart , ” frantic ” ) and her french husband gerard ( pierre vernier ) try to snap marie out of her denial with a dinner party , where they introduce her to the handsome vincent ( jacques nolot , ” nenette et boni ” ) , yet marie suggests that gerard accompany her and jean to their gym the next morning . eventually marie does begin dating vincent , but she discusses him with jean and even smiles at jean , hidden behind a bedroom curtain , when she makes love to vincent . slowly , though , reality continues to chip away at marie’s fantasy life . her bank advises her that without access to jean’s account , she needs to reduce her spending . one of her university students ( she’s reading virginia woolf’s ” the waves ” ) turns out to be one of the young men who participated in the beach search . then police arrive asking her to identify the clothing of a body they’ve found washed up from the ocean . that night , jean’s not at home when she returns to their apartment . her mother-in-law ( andree tainsy ) cruelly insists that jean simply abandoned her out of boredom . finally , marie goes to the police , insisting on viewing the body . horrified ( she’s been warned it was in an advanced state of putrefaction ) , she laughs when handed a bagged watch , insisting that this is not her husband . ” under the sand ” is a character study and melancholy portrait of aging ( ‘i’ve lost my youth , ‘ marie declares ) and loss . charlotte rampling , given the chance to portray an older , yet still sexual , woman runs with it , bringing us into the mind of the character . her chemistry with bruno cremet is startlingly natural . as marie returns from her first date with vincent , she sits on the couch with jean . ‘did he kiss you ? ‘ he asks . the mood the two create is incredibly intimate and sad . ozon ( ” water drops on burning rocks , ” ” see the sea ” ) , who cowrote the script with emmanuelle bernheim , marcia romano , and marina de van , has turned in a more mature work than his previous , creepy ” see the sea . ” while he cleverly never lets us see jean enter the water that fateful day , leaving a number of possibilities – accident ? , suicide ? , escape ? – open , he definitely tips his hand towards a certain outcome . cinematography by antoine hiberli and jeanne lapoirie ( ” water drops on burning rocks ” ) glides around marie ( their 180 shot as she initially searches the ocean’s horizon for a sign of jean conveys her panic ) or captures rampling’s exotic face in mood divining closeup . in an inventive fantasy scene , marie imagines jean’s hands massaging her feet while in a state of auto-arousal . his two hands become four , then more combined with her own , becoming almost a one person orgy and recalling roman polanski’s ” repulsion . ” original music by philippe rombi quietly adds to the overall melancholy . ” under the sand ” is a unique portrait of loss . it would make an fascinating double bill with liv ullmann’s ” faithless ” from earlier this year , another character study of a woman facing loss for different reasons .
1 is it just me , or have disney films gradually lost their appeal ? i was almost stunned by the quality of ” who framed roger rabbit ? ” , a fun , unique look at a world where cartoons and people lived together . ” the little mermaid ” harkened back to , and perhaps surpassed , the classic disney animations from the first half of the century . however , the endless stream of ” the little mermaid ” wanna-be’s is getting to me . you know the spiel : a lame plot recycled from some well-known story , colorful , almost psychedelic animation , the lead character who learns a valuable moral lesson , the comedic sidekick/sidekicks , the seemingly unattainable love interest , a few catchy songs , a few in-jokes for adults , and the occasional out of place warner-brothers-coyote-fall-off-the-cliff type joke . it’s a formula , and like any formula , it gets tiresome . that’s why i’m delighted to hear that disney recently picked up the international distribution rights to the works of ghibli , a japanese cartoon studio . from what i’ve seen of their movies ( ” kiki’s delivery service ” and the already english-dubbed and american- distributed ” my neighbor totoro ” ) , foreign audiences are in for a treat . these movies , particularly ” kiki’s delivery service , ” are wonderfully original and entertaining . ” kiki’s delivery service ” starts with an unusual premise : kiki , upon hearing forecasts of clear skies , decides it is time for her to leave home . this is unusual because kiki isn’t a college student or a young adult making her start on the world , but a thirteen year old girl eager to begin her training as a witch . her mother is also a witch , and as thirteen is the obligatory age for such training , her parents treat her leaving understandingly and put up only token resistance . just the idea of a witch heroine may scare away some audiences , but no mention is made of the occult , and the subject is dealt with harmlessly throughout the movie : kiki’s mother acts as a village doctor , and kiki is able to do no more than fly on a broom . kiki must choose a city to move to , and what she chooses is the co-star of the movie : a german seaport town , far removed from the country life she has been used to . initially lost in the impersonal hugeness of her surrounding , she’s discouraged , and unable to support herself though her rudimentary skills as a witch . on the verge of leaving for a new town , she uses her power of flight to deliver a pacifier to a baby who dropped it . the favor eventually blossoms into her working as a courier , a one-persons delivery service . this is where the movie becomes shockingly good . kiki’s job is a catalyst for her realizing the beauty of the city and the world around her . the townspeople she is put in contact possess an inner worth that doesn’t seem forced or artificial , but merely derived from looking at ordinary people in a different light . they’re three- dimensional , impossible to quickly evaluate , possessing of faults , and understandably reserving in kindness towards a strange girl . however , each one has something about them , some interest or trait , that makes them interesting and unique . the personal beauty of the citizens is complimented by the beauty of the surroundings : the seaport town genuinely looks impressive , capturing the european charm of a medieval city adapted to the more modern needs of the 1950’s . this beauty is beauty with depth ; for every detail left in , dozens are only hinted at . i could probably go on all day , but i won’t ; suffice it to say that many of these minor details could have been the highlight of the movie . some of my favorites are kiki’s relationship with the baker’s husband : although he’s quiet , never shown speaking to kiki throughout the movie , and he initially scares her , his kindness wins her friendship . in the garage of a deliveree’s house can be found a vintage model t . two old ladies have a relationship evolving from master-servant to friend-friend . such details gives the impression that the beauty shown in the movie is only the tip of the iceberg . added on top of this is a lesson on the importance of self-worth . kiki initially seems to derive much of her self-worth from the beauty of her surroundings and the people around her , but an encounter with a rude girl crashes down her bewonderment , making her question the importance of such beauty . this causes kiki to lose faith in herself . however , kiki comes to realize not only the beauty of her surroundings , but the innate beauty inside her . seeing kiki regain faith in herself is marvelous , and the principal device used to do it is so sublime that i don’t even want to hint at it . the ending of the movie has a subtle charm combined with a sense of awe and , ironically , the most disney-esque moment i’ve ever seen ; if you don’t hold your breath in wonder you might want to get medical attention . the movie steers free of many of the disney conventions : there is no violence , however cartoonish , no song-and-dance number , and kiki’s pet cat jiji is more a friend than a comedic sidekick , although jiji is given many funny lines and scenes . however , i would be surprised if disney doesn’t give jiji more jokes , or at least the voice of some comedian . refreshingly enough , the moral lesson of the movie is not self-contradicted , a habit disney movies have gotten into . ” beauty and the beast ” ‘s beautiful belle , for instance , learned that beauty was derived from a person’s inside , and was then rewarded by having the beast turn into a handsome prince in snazzy clothing . kiki , on the other hand , learns to separate her wardrobe from her self-image , and nothing more is made of her early desires for better clothing than illustrating her increased maturity at the end of the film . another difference with disney movies is in the style of animation for ” kiki’s delivery service ” : not as colorful and dynamic as disney animation can be , but with a greater attention to realism and detail , it fits the movie to a t . this is particularly true with scenes of kiki’s flights . the extreme realism of the birds in flight near kiki is magnificent to behold , and helps these scenes capture the wonder of flight better than any other film i’ve ever seen . i’m not sure when or how this movie will be released in the united states . disney tentatively plans a theater release of ” monoko hime ” shortly following the summer ’97 japanese release , and should start releasing the other ghibli films after that . i’d guess that some will be released on video and some will be theatrically released in peak seasons with no competing disney release . although the wait is unfortunate , it’s good to know that it’s being released at all , for ” kiki’s delivery service ” is definitely a movie worthy of widespread promotion and release . watch this movie . along with ” man bites dog , ” and perhaps something by woody allen , this is the best movie i’ve ever seen .
1 insane ( but inspired ) musical about alferd packer , the first man ever tried for cannibalism in america . as the story unfolds we learn what events led to packer ( trey parker ) supposedly killing and eating the five men who got lost while accompanying him through the mountains of colorado in search of gold . throughout , packer must contend with evil trappers bent on stealing his prized horse , a tribe of `ute’ indians that doesn’t seem quite on the mark , and a terrible winter storm that leads to the eventual cannibalism . parker obviously knows his musicals very well , because the viewer is also treated to some of the most maddeningly catchy songs to appear in a film ( he would accomplish this again in his post-cannibal ! musical motion picture , south park : bigger , longer , and uncut ) . apart from the inherent interest of seeing a pre- ” south park ” parker and stone in their first effort , cannibal ! also offers up some pretty decent laughs . the aforementioned `ute’ indian tribe that packer’s group encounters is a definite highlight , as are two rousing musical numbers about snowmen ( one of which ends on a comedically deadly note ) . stone’s humphrey character steals the show , especially when complaining about the prospect of having to `eat butt’ or revealing what’s underneath his muff cap . jason mchugh’s character of mr . miller is the stand out performance though , as he offers a hilarious dissenting voice to the proceedings . as i mentioned before , parker’s songs are very catchy . you’ll be hard pressed to get `it’s a shpadoinkle day’ out of your head once you’ve heard it ( incidentally , the braniff logo that appears at the end of every ” south park ” episode is scored with a few notes from this song ) . other songs you’ll find yourself humming include `when i was on top of you’ ( a love ballad ) , `the trapper’s song’ ( the villains leit motif ) , and `hang the bastard’ ( the rousing finale ) . thankfully , none of these songs are quite as embarrassing to find yourself singing in public as south park : bigger , longer & uncut’s songs are . released as a pick-up through troma studios , the film is available on videocassette and dvd . the videocassette includes an intro by the beautiful jane jensen and an interview segment with lloyd kaufman , discussing his admiration for parker and stone and the fact that they had been hired for a zucker brothers film ( which turned out to be the hilarious baseketball ) . there are also multiple trailers for upcoming troma films . as for the dvd . . . well , that’s a different story . probably one of the best dvd packages of the year ( and potentially of all time ) , cannibal ! the musical ! the dvd is a massive achievement . presented in 1 . 33 : 1 ( full frame ) only , the disc has the usual troma inclusions : the tour of troma , the troma intelligence test 2 , trailers for upcoming releases , but where the disc truly shines is in its cannibal ! specific extras . the first thing i must note is , the transfer is about as beautiful as any i’ve ever seen on any disc . the picture is crisp , clear , and free from any noticeable artifacts . add to that one of the funniest commentary tracks i have ever heard , featuring trey parker , matt stone , jason mchugh , dian bachar , and andy kemler getting drunker and drunker as the track continues and you still haven’t scratched the surface of the extras . there’s also behind the scenes footage of the shooting of the film , a clip with trey , matt , and lemmy ( of the band motorhead ) from the film terror firmer , an index for easy location of all of the songs in the film , and finally , an index of all the songs as performed by the cast of a stage production of cannibal ! . it’s good to see this film finally get the treatment it deserves . kudos to the entire production staff at troma and aix for making one of the most entertaining dvds i have seen in a very long time .
1 allen , star of many a brian depalma movie in the early eighties , has a brief , throwaway part towards the end of ” out of sight , ” as the maid of a crooked financier . in keeping with her past performances , allen wears little more than a green velvet victoria’s secret ensemble which begs the question , did they really need a costume designer for this ? ” out of sight ” is not likely to secure ms . allen the kind of plaudits bestowed upon pam grier , who likewise returned from out of obscurity to appear in another recent elmore leonard adaptation , ” jackie brown , ” but it is intriguing to see her name kicking off the ” also starring ” credits given her limited screen time . the real stars of ” out of sight ” are george clooney ( ” batman & robin ” by way of ” e . r . ” ) and jennifer lopez ( ” selena ” ) , whose winning chemistry , coupled with steven soderbergh’s freeze-frame directorial technique , help the film retain the charismatic charm of leonard’s original work . with the success of ” get shorty ” three years ago , filmmakers have realized that adapting an elmore leonard novel can be an easier proposition than trying to dream up a storyline from scratch . in ” out of sight , ” clooney stars as jack foley , a career criminal who specializes in unarmed robbery–he just waltzes into banks and politely makes a withdrawal , claiming that his ” partner ” ( just another customer it so happens ) will shoot the manager if the teller doesn’t comply . for all of jack’s nice-guy charm though , he’s not very lucky . his latest scam lands him in florida’s glades correctional facility . federal marshal karen sisco ( lopez ) coincidentally arrives at the prison just as jack and his buddy ( ving rhames , typically appealing ) are breaking out . there’s a brief struggle and jack bundles himself and karen into the trunk of the getaway car . it’s in these cramped confines , pressed intimately together , that jack and karen start falling for one another . the mutual attraction continues as the couple on opposite sides of the law slip in and out of one another’s grasp . karen follows jack to detroit , where he’s about to pull off another heist , this time a cache of uncut diamonds from incarcerated businessman richard ripley ( played by a toupee-sporting albert brooks , almost unrecognizable in the prison scenes ) . it’s during this final caper-gone-awry that allen makes her scant appearance . clooney’s range as an actor is limited , but he has undeniable charm . lopez , too , is easy on the eyes , but she demonstrates more depth in her portrayal of karen , a tough yet tender professional . she dispenses with hit men as easily as she out-maneuvers sleazy pick-up artists in a bar . especially cute is a sequence in which karen fantasizes about jack in a motel bathtub . admirably supporting clooney and lopez are don cheadle as fellow felon maurice ‘snoopy’ miller , steve zahn as the perennially stoned glenn michaels , and dennis farina as karen’s dad , who affectionately buys her a piece . add a couple of uncredited cameos from ” jackie brown ” cast members and ” out of sight ” proves to be a lot of fun . not as hip and clever as ” shorty , ” perhaps , or as complex and colorful as ” brown , ” but loads of fun nonetheless .
1 synopsis : in phantom menace the galaxy is divided into power groups whose interests will inevitably collide in later sequels . there is an overarching galactic united nations-type organization called the senate presided by a weak chancellor . within the senate two camps are at odds : a bickering , isolationist alliance called the republic and their aggressive rival the trade federation . preserving law and order are a council of jedi knights who are meanwhile searching for a prophesied chosen one of virgin birth . manipulating events behind the scenes is a dangerous , reemerging clan called the dark lords of sith , so shadowy and secretive that they comprise a ” phantom ” menace . jedi knight qui-gon jinn ( liam neeson ) and his apprentice obi-wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor ) witness an invasion of teenage queen amidala’s home planet naboo and befriend a gungan named jar jar ( ahmed best ) . on the desert planet of tatooine the two jedi , jar jar , and amidala ( natalie portman ) attend a lengthy drag race involving the young boy anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) . the five protagonists try to solicit help for freeing naboo by visiting the city planet of coruscant where a lot of debate and political maneuvering takes place . can they free amidala’s helpless planet ? opinion : on tv last night i watched young , wannabe celebs pay $400 a ticket and come running out of theaters to bask in front of news cameras , gushing with testimonials of the phantom menace’s greatness in exchange for a few seconds of being on national television . given this kind of media mania i wondered if phantom menace , the most anticipated movie of 1999 , could possibly live up to the extraordinary hype that preceded it . does phantom menace match the exaggerated hype ? director george lucas answers , ” it’s only a movie . ” to me , any movie with russian-sounding accents for bad guys , jamaican accents for good guys , and middle eastern-sounding accents for seedy gamblers accents can be expected to be more tongue in cheek than profound . visually , star wars : episode i –the phantom menace ( 1999 ) is a kid show where parents can take their young ones to marvel at child-friendly cgi characters and wondrous backdrops even if the character dialogue ( mostly geopolitics ) is beyond the level of children . it is left to parents to patiently explain the conversation : droid origins , family lineage , the definitions of terms like blockade , appeasement , federation , alliance , symbiosis , satellite-controlled robots et cetera . at least this much is clear : there’s plenty of eye candy , and in the last few minutes it’s good guys and joe camel lookalikes versus a caped , horned red devil character and his mechanical hordes . weaknesses : weaknesses lie in the writing and in the performance . at first it seems like the film is to be an invasion story , but then phantom takes an hour-long detour to cover one chariot race before returning to the invasion theme . this dilutes the central story . additionally , smaller scenes seem written self consciously , as if they were added more to fill us in on extraneous background information for other movies rather than form an integral part of the present movie . veteran actors liam neeson and ewan mcgregor noticeably outperform the other acting leads . better ensemble chemistry between the five leads and background information that is central to a tight story line could have made have given phantom stronger performances and storytelling punch . strengths : on the bright side phantom menace as a big-budget production is far ahead of the competition in terms of making whimsical creatures , worlds and vehicles appear real . the film boasts sophisticated , top-of-the-line visuals and quality exotic costumes , a musical score entertaining enough to stand alone , and three worthwhile sequences in the second half . bottom line ? seeing the film is entertaining and informative , like a visual theme park with star wars filler information serving as dialogue between impressive money shots . we are bound to be completely inundated by star wars publicity , music and tie-ins for the next few months .
1 at one point during brian de palma’s crime epic scarface , the radiant michelle pfeiffer turns to a ranting al pacino and pops a question that the audience has no doubt been wanting to ask for themselves : ” can’t you stop saying ‘fuck’ all the time ? ” fucking good question , that . it may not be an honour that instills the filmmakers with pride , but as far as i can tell oliver stone’s script contains the said expletitive more times than any other film in cinema history . yet it would be a shame if bad language is all de palma’s scarface is remembered for , because this is a damn fine gangstar flick . the overall structure is similar to howard hawks’ 1932 original , but this time the scene has switched to miami , florida and our anti-hero’s chosen vice is cocaine traffiking . pacino , sporting a thick cuban accent , gives one the best performances of his career ( golden globe nominated ) as tony montana , a cuban refugee with a criminal past who flees castro and comes to america to live the american dream . and live it out he does , with lashings of violence , abuse , murder and the funny white powder . from his earliest jobs as a drug runner for various middlemen , tony montana makes it clear to everyone he meets that he’s not a man to be fucked ( sorry ) . soon he’s the king of the cocaine heap , but his hot head and an increasingly out of control drug addiction prove his undoing . ” never do your own stash ” , warns one character early in the film . as sure as night follows day , the emperor of miami eventually falls . writer oliver stone and director brian de palma make an explosive combination here . stone’s script offers solid storytelling and some fine character development . montana is fascinating ; uneducated but calculating , a straight shooter who speaks from the heart ; an ambitious , violent man yet one with a conscience . a man fiercely protective of his beautiful 20 year old sister , not wanting her to be sucked into the glitzy , dangerous world which he inhabits . pacino is dynamite , taking to the role with a brooding , bristling energy which in his more recent films has often degenerated into just simple overracting . pfeiffer also registers strongly as the gangstar mole with no inner life . only once does tony express real affection for her and his desire to have children , and even then you sense all he really wants is a regular screw and a beautiful object to show off to his friends , and she’s happy to oblige . this isn’t as meaty a role for pfieffer as sharon stone’s was in casino , but its an effective one nonetheless and she aquits herself well . as director , de palma sets up a number of dramatic scenes with his typical stylistic brauva . the escalating tension he creates in various mob situations – a drug deal gone wrong , an assination attempt – is often thrilling , and in this respect he is every bit the equal of scorese and coppola . where he differs from , say , coppola’s godfather trilogy is in his overall treatment . coppola gives his crime sagas an operatic sweep , whereas in scarface de palma opts for a grittier feel . and it perfectly suits the material . the only major botch is giorgio moroder’s mostly crap synthesier score . it’s just not right , and unfortunately compromises the impact of some otherwise good scenes . as expected , scarface is very violent at times , but you shouldn’t be watching gangster movies if that upsets you . at over two and a half hours in length it’s a true epic , and if you’re a fan of the genre you’ll love f * * k-filled minute of it .
1 for any groom on the verge of proposing marriage to his girlfriend , there are certain rules that he needs to follow . firstly , fill her life with happiness and romance during the courtship . secondly , buy her a beautiful ring that glitters as brightly as her eyes . thirdly , find the perfect moment and location to propose . finally , the groom-wannabe should probably get her parent’s blessing . of these four , the last one can be a nightmare . meeting parents is a rite of passage , fraught with unexpected questions , bouts of nervousness , the reality of being disliked , and the inability to make a positive impression . if you’re lucky , things will go smoothly . but , if you’re greg focker ( ben stiller ) , everything will go wrong . and with a name like that , how could it not ? when greg first meets his fianc ? e’s father , jack byrnes ( the grimacing robert deniro ) , greg immediately feels overwhelmed and is put on the defensive . when he tells jack that he’s a male nurse , the incorrigible dad shoots back , ” not many men in your profession , huh , greg ? ” it’s definitely not a good start . but greg is determined to win him over , and it’s this desire that fuels the movie . he first takes small steps such as agreeing to say grace before dinner . it doesn’t matter that he’s jewish . if daddy byrnes asks him to say grace , then that’s what he’s going to gamely do . ” oh god . . . you’re such a good god ” , he moons . his discomfort at trying to force out a simple prayer will make you chuckle , but when jack gives him the ” deniro squint ” ( that familiar , unsettling gaze that gives deniro that aura of invincibility ) , it’s pretty hard not to grin . things get progressively worse for greg . and that’s too bad because he’s a genuinely likable guy with a romantic heart . eventually , he begins to try so hard that he starts to mess everything up , committing a host of gaffes that embarrass , humiliate or injure other people . it’s a never-ending ordeal of missteps , miscues , and mistakes . he buys some champagne , but uncorking the bottle leads to disastrous circumstances . he tries to find jack’s missing cat . but his method of solving the problem leads only to more trouble . and there are several other episodes , each one trumping the next in outrageousness . the more our well-meaning beau screwed up , the more the audience groaned in sympathy . we liked greg . and , we liked this movie . ” meet the parents ” is a farcical comedy that certainly has its moments . just sit back and watch greg get into trouble . no matter what the situation , whether its playing a harmless game of water volleyball or sneaking a smoke on the roof of the house , things will horribly go wrong . we laugh at greg’s expense , but love often makes a person do dumb things , and ben stiller has the knack of playing the romantic fool . deniro is also affable , tough on the outside yet sentimental on the inside . their tug-of-war is often funny , the slapstick is elaborate , and there are several topical throwaway gags ( mostly targeted at the airline industry ) to make this film an amusing yet smart lampoon about future in-laws from hell .
1 i like movies with albert brooks , and i really like movies directed and written by albert brooks . lost in america and defending your life are two of my favorite comedies . his humor is of a kind that is not very prevalent in movies today , inundated as we are with films which revel in their aim toward the lowest common denominator . you will rarely see any slapstick in an albert brooks film , while the dialog will not be as oppressive as in some of the independent ” talk films ” which are finding their way into theaters . the situations in which his characters find themselves are ones we can often identify with , but even if we can’t , brooks has the talent to make them comfortable , and therefore we laugh . teenagers and jim carrey fans probably won’t find an albert brooks movie very funny , but people who look for more than what we could find on television probably will . put simply , brooks’ comedy is intelligent . mother is albert brooks’ latest film , and it does not disappoint . brooks plays john henderson , a middle-aged science fiction writer just coming off his second divorce . he makes an attempt at dating , but fails miserably . he then has dinner with his brother jeff ( rob morrow ) , a successful sports agent who seems to live the ideal life . jeff has a good job , a loving family , and most of all , a warm relationship with their mother beatrice ( debbie reynolds ) . after dinner , john witnesses a telephone conversation between jeff and beatrice , and is at the same time amazed and sickened by how hunky-dory the dialog is . in comparison , beatrice always hints at a fault in john and his career every time she talks with him , and john gives it right back to her . at the end of one of their conversations where beatrice has just picked apart john’s life , she says , ” i love you , ” and john replies with , ” i know you think you do . ” the thing is , beatrice is not overt with her criticisms , but instead gives them in that mothering way which is tantamount to nit-picking and guilt loading . it’s the kind that goes something like , ” yes , dear , i think you do that wonderfully , but . . . . ” it seems as though nothing he does makes her happy . there’s always the big but . john believes that his mother is somehow connected to his failed relationships with women , either because of his flawed self-esteem caused by his need for validation , or perhaps because he tends to unconsciously seek out women who remind him of his mother in an oedipal manner . he comes to the conclusion that since his problems are rooted in his boyhood home , he should move back in with his mother for a while just to see what kinds of feelings come out , and by that be able to sort out why his life is the way it is . ” a great experiment ” , he calls it . brooks’ own brand of humor really shines in this film , especially in the interaction john has with his mother . there’s a scene where john has just arrived at his mother’s house , and after having driven from los angeles to sausalito , and having explained to his mother about the ” great experiment ” , beatrice asks , ” now explain to me again why you don’t want to stay at a hotel . ” she still doesn’t get it , and it is absolutely hilarious . in the same scene , we get little glances at the life his mother leads when she tries to feed him food that is no longer fresh . she apparently buys in great quantities and refrigerates it until the lettuce is wilted and the sherbet is iced over . when john points out the ice on the sherbet , beatrice tells him not to worry about the protective glaze . ” you’ve named the ice ? ” asks john . he’s also surprised at the variety of items beatrice keeps in the refrigerator , such as a twenty-pound block of cheese . ” the freezer was a good invention , ” says john , ” but it’s not supposed to be used for everything . that’s why it’s smaller than the refrigerator . ” it’s something most of us find strangely familiar . brooks is also a master at employing the non sequitur . for example , in defending your life , his and meryl streep’s characters are in a comedy club having a discussion . when they’re finished and walk out , brooks cuts to the comic on stage who is just at the point of delivering his punch line , ” and so the moral is , if you have to fart , go outside ! ” you don’t know what the joke was because you couldn’t hear him during the entire scene , but i must have laughed for the next five minutes , it seemed so out of context . in this film , brooks uses the same trick a couple of times to open or close a scene . i don’t want to give them away , but suffice it to say they work just as well as they have in the past . john’s purpose for staying with his mother is to learn , and we as the audience learn right along with him . his mother is not the fascinating type to begin with , but as john spends more time with her , we learn things about her personality and her lifestyle that give her depth . watching the character of beatrice unfold is every bit as enjoyable as the humor that accompanies it each step of the way . on screen , brooks does an excellent job playing this kind of character : you get the feeling he often believes he is the only sane person in an insane world . in a way , he’s very much like yosarian of catch-22 , expect with something of an attitude . casting debbie reynolds as beatrice is perfect . she assumes the part with ease , even moving and speaking a little slowly , and is just so adorable it’s hard to get mad at her character . this only helps the audience to share the frustration john feels when dealing with her . as his first choice , brooks originally wanted to lure nancy reagan out from her acting retirement to play beatrice , but the former actress and first lady could not leave her husband , who was beginning to show symptoms of alzheimer’s disease . that may be just as well , since reynolds lends a softness to the character which enhances it immensely . rob morrow also does a good job at playing the younger brother who has always been mother’s favorite and , for all his success in his job and family , is slowly exposed as a mama’s boy . the only things that hold this movie back from being better are a couple of plot holes . a solid connection is not really made between john’s troubles and his reasons for living with his mother . additionally , the end results of the experiment do not necessarily jibe with the stated goals , and although this may have been sloppy screenwriting , how can you be mad at the guy who also wrote this ? : beatrice : you must think i’m some kind of moron . john : no , i think your someone who thinks i’m a moron . beatrice : well , it takes one to know one .
1 ( note : there are spoilers regarding the film’s climax ; the election , of course ) we see matthew broderick , a man torn to a primal state ; he’s been unfaithful to his wife , lied to and manipulated his students , and by the same token they’ve demeaned his masculinity , his self-respect , his desperate attempt at changing the world . and yet , he equates the cause of his pain , his torment , with tracy flick ( reese witherspoon ) . no matter how many students have come and gone , and disappointed him as an educator , she’s the real threat . about to give in , and divulge that she’s won by only a lone vote , broderick’s mccalister turns in defeat , sees tracy’s euphoric celebration in the outside corridor and says , ‘no’ . the fact that he simultaneously lusts after her ideologically further illustrates that freudian foundation of entitlement which all men , no matter how obscure , have in their relationships ; a traditional expectation of success , to usurp and surpass women as a proverbial industry . she can’t go higher than him . he won’t allow it . and what’s amazing about ” election ” is that every word of that criticism is drawn from a rather opaque metaphor . early in the film we learn that tracy was romantically , and then sexually , involved with a now departed teacher . it’s like payne and taylor , his co-screenwriter , have taken tracy , a girl desperate for friendship , loyalty , and almost perversely drawn the mythological pattern of kids who were so utterly rejected by their peers , that they found sitting at the teachers’ lunch table more fitting , to an unlikely extreme with her as the protagonist . and it’s amazing the compassion that we have ; it seems so real to us , and not merely because it’s happened before , splashed all over the front pages , but , because of the all around ” nice ” persona of these people , we easily dismiss the truly wayward deeds of the characters . it’s with mandy barnett’s ” if you’ll be the teacher ” playing winsomely over the closing credits that payne skewers the tenets of his detractors most ; a final , viscous injection of bittersweet irony . sexuality , though , is not the only basis for payne’s satire , or its success . it also makes a telling point about politics , friendship , and class boundaries . satire is required ( or ought to be , anyway ) to take itself seriously , or act so , while the audience does not . it’s a fine line to straddle , but some films ignore it altogether ( ” drop dead gorgeous ” leaps infuriatingly to mind ) . payne and taylor hit the right chord ; their characters are real people : neither is perfect , but rather both of the leads are flawed , misguided individuals who retain , somewhat , noble intentions at heart . we sympathize with them , but still , as a satire , their idiosyncratic behavior , and their wrongdoing , is taken to an extreme for the audience to knowingly chuckle , but also reflect and meditate , about . minus half a point , though , for payne admitting not to having seen ” ferris bueller’s day off ” . whatever .
1 martin scorsese’s films used to intimidate me . because of his reputation , i felt obligated to appreciate them as deep film art rather than as great flicks . as much as i enjoyed them , i usually felt like i missed something . i learned from scorsese’s casino that whatever techniques he uses are merely there to enhance the story . no mystical interpretation is required to appreciate his movies . for example , in casino he uses subtitles when robert deniro and joe pesci are using code words with each other . there was no meaning more exotic than that subtitles were the most succinct way for him to tell the audience what was really going on . or toward the end , when he uses three quick dissolves to compress a scene of a car backing away from a building . again , the simple , mundane explanation is that it helped the pacing . i don’t mean to say that his techniques are not creative or good-looking . but he simply uses the best tool for the job . it shouldn’t have surprised me , then , that kundun , a film about a mystical religion , actually turned out to be quite straightforward . the movie follows the life of the 14th dalai lama , the spiritual and political leader of tibet . the movie’s title is another name for the dalai lama which means ” ocean of wisdom . ” his story is told in strict chronological order and there are only a few cinematic visions to embellish the literal story . ( one of which makes an interesting statement : pay attention to the film’s opening shot and watch where it is repeated . ) we first glimpse the dalai lama when he is two years old . his curiosity and self-assuredness capture the attention of a monk wandering in search of the new lama . a test is arranged to see if this boy really is the reincarnation of the 13 dalai lamas who have gone before . several items belonging to the previous dalai lama are laid before the boy alongside some other items . the child is asked if he recognizes any of the items as his own . the boy picks correctly , proving that he is the new , and the old , dalai lama . scorsese and long-time editor thelma schoonmaker were kind enough to allow the possibility that the child was taking his cues from the monk . before selecting an item , he would look at the monk , perhaps for some sort of confirmation . sometimes he picked right the first time , and sometimes he made a second choice . either way , whether through reincarnation or quick human perception , the tibetans were assured of choosing a boy who could be a wise , perceptive leader . >from this point on , the boy is raised as the reincarnation of the lama’s spirit and the future leader of a nation . it is a great weight to put on the mind of a child . in the u . s . it might be grounds for a call to social services . but the young lama accepts his destiny without any apparent emotional damage . neither the great power nor the awesome responsibility keeps him from becoming a genuinely likeable , well-rounded person . certain patterns take shape over the years . for example , the dalai lama is fascinated by technology . radios , clocks , and telescopes are some of his favorite toys . when he is old enough to accept his leadership , he makes plans to modernize isolated tibet . he also has a soft spot for creatures who are suffering or in pain , including herd animals . it’s nearly a running gag that he will buy sheep to keep them from being herded to slaughter . but the most ominous constant throughout his life is the presence and threat of tibet’s gigantic neighbor , china . tibet and its leaders prove correct in fearing china , as , first the propaganda , then the political pressure , and finally the armies , come across their common border . the chinese invasion is so successful that the lama’s life is in danger if he stays . the movie ends when , after much agonizing , the dalai lama leaves tibet for india . the story doesn’t lead up to a cinematic climax as strongly as most feature films do . it just doesn’t fit that mold . if it were forced into such a shape it would have been a completely different movie ( perhaps more like seven years in tibet , which is good in its own right ) . the pacing of kundun is more calm and level than that . the structure of the film is made to fit the characters and events , not vice-versa . perhaps because the pace is slower , we have more time to notice the beautiful art , vestments , and architecture of tibet . a mandala , ( tibetan sand painting ) with beautiful , vibrant colors is shown throughout the movie . the robes and hats of state are bright red and gold . the bricks are a rich reddish brown , not unlike the skin tone of the tibetans . even the touchstone pictures logo before the movie ( which is usually light blue ) is the red and gold of tibet . philip glass composed the music for kundun , and he was the perfect choice . for those who don’t know of glass , his music is like a tibetan mandala . his building blocks are lots of small notes , tiny grains of music , which are first grouped , then repeated in patterns . these patterns create interesting textures which are themselves part of a larger composition . people won’t be flocking to kundun for it’s great ending , or talking about its outstanding plot , but it does have a lot to offer : an interesting lifetime , exotic sights , rich cinematography , and innovative music . it gives interesting insight into tibetan buddhism and takes a warm look at the dalai lama as a person . on top of it all is the cinematic mastery of martin scorsese , who gives the film a strong , beautiful , consistent look .
1 robert redford’s a river runs through it is not a film i watch often . it is a masterpiece — one of the better films of recent years . until 1994 , it was my second favorite film of all time . the acting and direction is top-notch — never sappy , always touching . a friend of mine once reported that he avoided it because ” i was afraid it would just be really politically correct , and tick me off . ” all i could do was tell him to go in unbiased , and enjoy . it is one of the few movies that has completely reduced me to tears . but certain memories should not often be rereleased — in the last few shots , you have to cry . upon my first viewing i left bawling . it is not flawless — but it is so very good , that you can’t help but be effected . the opening is dangerously nolstalgic and sentimental — watching these shots of people who have been dead so long , gives you a feeling of perspective and history observation that you will find in very few other films . martin scorsese once described the movies as a dream state — like taking dope , and immersing yourself in an alternative world . that is what a river runs through it does . it exploits the unique power of cinema to engross you and help to forget your real self . both times i’ve seen it , its been hard ( again to quote scorsese ) waking up . but the dream is lovely .
1 richard gere is not one of my favorite actors . however , i like courtroom dramas , and this film looked good enough to take a chance on . i wasn’t disappointed . it wasn’t a great film , but it was interesting , and took several unexpected turns . one thing : what’s with the title ? not only is it extremely forgettable , it doesn’t really have much to do with the film , as far as i could determine . in the long run , it will probably hurt the film , as people won’t be able to think of or remember it . martin vail ( richard gere ) is a grandiose defense attorney . he loves the money and the fame that go along with defending ( successfully ) rich scum , such as mafia men and drug-dealers . once he sees that the accused killer of a prominent chicago archbishop is a baby-faced alter boy , he wants in on the case , presumably for the press he’ll get . we soon find out that the prosecutor assigned is a former lover , janet venable ( laura linney ) . vail himself is a former prosecutor , and quit because of tensions between himself and the district attorney , played very well by john mahoney ( frasier’s father on the tv series ) . there is an underlying theme of dichotomy in the movie : people have public faces , and private faces . we see this in the murdered archbishop , in the accused , and , most strongly , defense attorney martin vail . richard gere does a fairly good job . at first , he appears to be a money- and attention-grabbing lawyer , with no consideration of the truth . but we see another side , as he becomes a seeker of justice , and comes to believe in his client . alfre woodard , as the judge , is capable , though somewhat wasted in a standard role . laura linney also does journeyman work ; nothing spectacular , but acceptable . her relationship with vail is believable ; their verbal fencing adds to the film . the actor who playes vail’s investigator ( unfortunately , i don’t remember his name ) is quite good . his female assistant ( she looked very familiar , but i can’t remember where i’ve seen her ) was also capable , but unspectacular . the best performance in the film was by edward norton . he was excellent , as the timid altar-boy turned alleged ” butcher boy of st . mike’s ” . i was impressed by the depth of the plot ; there are red-herrings , and dead-ends , that in a lesser film would lead to a predictable ending . i liked the plot twists the film took , and most of the supporting characters , thus i give primal fear a respectable b+ rating .
1 ” when you get out of jail , you can kill him . ” starring ashley judd , tommy lee jones , bruce greenwood . rated r . double jeopardy is a lurid , prepostrous thriller that’s also one of the year’s most enjoyable . it’s an uncompromisingly brutal , cheerfully anarchic , hyperactive actioner that has a mission and never diverts from it . there is not a moment here when the events on screen don’t have a direct bearing on the plot ; once the film gets going it never stops . it has been branded as the female version of the fugitive and that’s probably a correct assessment of the plot , but the film itself has little in common with the 1993 andrew davis/harrison ford collaboration besides the presence of star tommy lee jones . not even bothering with character introduction , director bruce beresford floors the gas pedal from the get-go and never finds the brake . we meet , rather hastily , libby and nick parsons ( ashley judd and bruce greenwood , respectively ) a seemingly happy married couple , with a son matty , age 4 . they go out on a sailboat one night , and after a period of some rockin’ sex , they go to sleep . libby hears a strange noise , wakes up and discovers that she is covered with blood . she follows a red trail to the upper deck , where she finds a knife and , out of astonishment , picks it up . at that convenient moment , the coast guard shows up and libby is arrested . her lawyer , a friend , puts up a defense in court , but though we know she is innocent , the evidence against her is too compelling . her friend adopts her son and she goes to prison . once in prison , she makes a phone call to her friend . her friend gives her son the phone . nick walks in the room . little matty screams ” daddy ! ” the phone goes dead . libby realizes that the man she is imprisoned for killing isn’t even dead . she gets some advice from a prisoner/former lawyer , who tells her that since the state already convicted her of killing her husband , they can’t convict her of the same crime again , meaning that when she gets paroled she can kill him and they can’t touch her . after a weirdly short amount of time , she gets out of parole . she is sent to live at a house with other recent parolees , under the command of parole officer travis lehman ( tommy lee jones ) . she sets out on a mission to find her husband and get her son back , which turns out to be much more difficult than anticipated . she winds up tracking him all the way to new orleans where she finds out that he has long killed his girlfriend and her son’s ” adopter ” . double jeopardy is based on an assumption that is legally false . the law stating that nobody can be convicted twice for the same crime assumes that it is the same crime : same time , same place , same circumstances . it’s not like it matters . this is a rollickingly good thriller ; intense , exciting , fast and furious . it’s silly alright , but this is the kind of film you just don’t question . in some films , plausibility is everything . double jeopardy , however , is not concerned with making sense : its sole purpose is to entertain , and it does . judd helps the film tremendously in a difficult role . this is her breakout box-office performance , and she is terrific . she brings some emotion to what could have been a one-dimensional role , giving the movie a little soul to go along with its effective chase scenes and action set pieces . tommy lee jones basically just reprises the role for which he won an oscar in the fugitive , but the movie makes good use of his stone-faced wit . thankfully , too , double jeopardy refrains from developing a romance between libby and travis ; a subplot which doubtlessly would have interfered with the film’s story . this is one of those movies where cops are the bad guys , and i took a sort of sick pleasure in that . the sheer anarchy of the proceedings was nothing short of wonderful , as ashley judd kicks the crap out of every authority figure in the book . after all the idealistic hollywood features featuring hero cops , deft fbi agents and the virtues of the american legal system , it’s great to see a movie that doesn’t so much demonstrate their fallacy as it delights in their failure . double jeopardy is really good , but it isn’t the kind of good that is remembered or recognized with awards . it’s one of those movies better viewed with the brain turned off , otherwise , your brain will be busy ruining your experience . this is a thriller that isn’t concerned with being smart or plausible . instead it diverts all attention to the action , which , this year , is second to none .
1 let’s say you live at the end of an airport runway . large jetliners continuously pass over your house , rattling your windows and allowing few moments of peace . let’s say the ground beneath your feet is also contaminated with toxic substances , and high voltage power lines run across steel towers only yards from your home . now let’s say an airport conglomerate wants to buy your property in order to lengthen the runway , and offers you more than it’s worth . wouldn’t you jump in the air and have your bags packed before you landed ? of course you would . but what if this bit of land was your idea of paradise , and the house your castle ? that’s what they are to darryl kerrigan ( michael caton ) , and although he’s happy that a multi-national corporation would like to buy his home , sorry , it’s not for sale . unfortunately , the corporation wields quite a bit of influence over the australian government , which serves darryl and his family with what amounts to an eviction notice . not about to take this lying down , darryl enlists the help of his inept attorney friend dennis denuto ( tiriel mora ) and makes a determined , albeit pathetic , attempt to fight back . the castle , an australian comedy by rob sitch , is perhaps one of the simplest movies i’ve seen in recent memory , yet also one of the funniest . in fact , it is this film’s reliance on simplicity which makes it so successful . the good guys and the bad guys are clear , the humor is straightforward , and the storyline is as uncomplicated as it gets . it’s the perfect setup for a relaxing , hilarious good time , and as much as i hate to admit it , i liked the fact that i didn’t have to think all that much while watching this film . i just sat back and enjoyed myself . the situation is one we’ve seen before : regular joe fights back against the government , or big business , or whatever . what makes this film different is its characters . darryl thinks he’s got the best life in the world – he tells his family that living next to power lines is a constant reminder of the success of mankind , he asks who would ever want to go out and eat in a fancy restaurant when he’s got the meat loaf feast prepared by his wife sal ( anne tenny ) , and he swells with pride when his son dale ( stephen curry ) digs a hole in the yard . steve kerrigan ( anthony simcoe ) constantly combs the buy and sell ads looking for ” investments ” like jousting sticks and overhead projectors , while wayne kerrigan is in jail , as a result of dennis denuto’s incompetent courtroom maneuvers . the great thing about the kerrigans is that they aren’t so stupid that they get annoying . they’re just a group of simpletons whose naive nature is perfectly harmless and even endearing . we look upon them with a little bit of pity , but a whole lot of affection . screenwriters sitch , santo cilauro , tom gleisner , and jane kennedy pit this lovable bunch of unlikely crusaders against a stoic court system and a condescending business conglomerate , further polarizing the extremes and deepening our feelings for the kerrigans . sympathy for their situation , the laughter they bring us , and the family’s wonderful characterization , simple as it may be , leaves us with a degree of emotional investment that causes us to actually care about what happens to them . i suppose one might wonder how deep characterization can go when your characters are as inane as the kerrigans , but trust me , it works . i particularly noted that the writers did not have to use slapstick in order to get laughs . don’t get me wrong – slapstick , when executed well , can be genius . it’s just that too often , a film will resort to it’s use as a shortcut to amusing the audience , not always successfully . instead , the jokes in the castle are all hinged upon the dialog uttered by these people who have no idea that they are totally skewed to the rest of the world . when they are by themselves , the are funny , and when they are with normal people , they are hilarious . one of the few problems i saw with this film was a detour taken about midway though . the kerrigans go out to a vacation spot for seemingly no reason other than to pack in a few more jokes and increase the film’s running time . luckily , it’s a funny little detour that , while slightly distracting from the film’s main drive , is still quite enjoyable . with all the levity abound in the castle , the film still manages to take on a pretty heavy concept , that of the innate right of a citizen to keep his property , an issue which has been bandied about in courts across the civilized world with differing outcomes . i’m not certain the courtroom monologue near the end of the film would actually hold up in real life , but it brings to the forefront the essence of the constitution ( of australia ) and certainly sounds impressive at any rate . and , for that matter , it’s more than i would have expected out of a light hearted film like this .
1 in this good natured , pleasent and easy going comedy , bill murray ( ghostbusters , 1984 ) plays grumpy weatherman phil conners , who , every year , is sent to punxsutawney , p . a , to report on groundhog day . the groundhog day ceremony involves a groundhog being lifted out of a box , and if he dosen’t see a shadow , it will be an early spring . phil really hates the ceremony , and not even his producer rita ( macdowell ) can change his mind . however , fate has a cruel trick for phil , and he starts re-living groundhog day over , and over , and over , until he gradually likes it , and rita falls in love with him . groundhog day is a well written , totatly unoffensive and funny comedy . the screenwriters , director ramis and danny rubin , have written a funny , warm , but never overly senitmental comedy . although the idea of a day repeating over and over may sound tedious , there are enough good jokes to hold the audiences attention throughout the whole film . ramis’s direction also helps , and although he dosen’t try any flash director tricks , the film is directed well enough , and the jokes are set up well . and the editing is also good , especially when it shows one part of the day over , and over again , such as when phil tries to have the perfect night with rita . the performances are also excellent . bill murray is great fun , and his transistion from cynical to happy is smooth , and delivers his lines in his usual smary style . andie macdowell is good as rita , although sometimes she is just a little bit too sweet in some parts of the film . there is chemistry between the two leads , thankfully , otherwise the whole film would probably fall part . chris elliot , as the cameraman larry , is also funny , although you have to like his goofy style , otherwise you are really going to hate him throughout this film , and it will lower your enjoyment of the film overall . the supporting cast aren’t bad either , with stephen tobolowsky hillarous as phils old school mate ned ryanson , and even director ramis popping up as a neurologist . in fact , there is not one dud performance in this film , and even the groundhog gets a funny scene involving a car chase . overall , there is really nothing wrong with groundhog day at all . it almost seems perfect . however , the film can get a bit soppy sometimes , and some people may get irritated by the day repeating over , and over , and over , and over . also , there’s not much of an music score , and the music there is is pretty bad . but these criticisms hardly affect the audiences enjoyment at all . overall , then , groundhog day is a funny , smart , and also has some room in there for some heart . an excellent comedy . overall rating= (
1 ” no man is an island , ” one character quotes john donne in apt pupil , effectively summarizing the movie’s themes . while hardly a great film , singer’s ambitious adaptation of king’s short story * is challenging nonetheless ; perhaps the most shocking aspect of this inclement psychological thriller is that a major studio got behind it . apt pupil is a bleak picture destined to be misunderstood by the masses . 1984 . wonder-bred high school honours student todd bowden ( renfro ) conducts his own extracurricular investigation of kurt dussander , a nazi war criminal who fearfully fled berlin in the 1960s and was never heard from again . bowden suspects arthur denker ( mckellan ) , the lonely german senior citizen who lives nearby , is actually a pseudonymous dussander-much research and dusting for fingerprints proves young todd’s theory . bowden strikes a deal with dussander : in exchange for not revealing his identity , dussander must satisfy bowden’s intense curiosity by recounting the atrocities of the holocaust from the nazi point of view . the stories he hears keep todd up at night and haunt his daydreams , but like a bystander at a traffic accident , todd’s desire for gory details overrides his repulsion . bowden revives in dussander feelings dormant since the end of wwii . marching in a mock uniform around his kitchen is wholly cathartic for dussander : it leads to his torture of a cat and the torment of his ” student ” , among other things . bowden , who has taken on very hateful qualities ( he kills birds and doodles swastikas on his notebook ) , engages the veteran in an endless game of one-upmanship . dussander stands to lose his freedom , and bowden his credibility-in effect , his post-secondary school future . all of this winds down to a fairly unpredictable ( and unsettling ) conclusion , one which requires leaps of faith from its audience yet is more satisfying than the source material’s excessive climax . singer has yet to get keyser s ? ze out of his system . his the usual suspects and apt pupil are both about evil masquerading as innocence ( verbal’s tics and todd’s golden-boy reputation are plausible ruses ) ; they showcase morally bankrupt anti-heroes to whom telling the truth is not an option if they are to achieve their goals . apt pupil is a richer film than the usual suspects , a movie famous and popular partly because its plot machinations were not germane to the outcome-there was no way you could see the ending coming , as it was all a hoodwink , anyway . thankfully , singer has gotten most of the usual suspects’ film-schoolish geek theatrics out of his system . some scenes in apt pupil feel overdirected and/or obvious ( the dream sequences were extraneous ) , but the majority of the film is subdued-and singer’s handling of the violent scenes is boldly restrained for a film about a murderer and a murderer-in-training . mckellan’s and renfro’s performances contribute enormously to the overall success of the film ; while most people will focus on british stage vet mckellan’s finely-tuned realization , i’d like to single out renfro’s daring work . he isn’t afraid to play someone largely unappealing and cold-hearted ; he strips his character of vanity , something many of his peers wouldn’t do . ( can you picture kieran culkin or jonathan taylor-thomas in the same role ? ) renfro was recently charged with possession of cocaine-i hope he doesn’t continue down that path , because he has a big future in good movies waiting for him . as guidance counsellor edward french , ” friend ” schwimmer also deserves mention . he wants to be the parent to todd that todd’s own well-to-do folks are not ( todd , like most modern kids-and only-children-has mom and dad wrapped around his pinky finger ) , and his sincerity makes the apt pupil’s blackening-heart even more apparent . but one of the film’s ultimate questions , are we born evil or do we learn evil ? , might be answered in french , whose motives are the slightest bit ambiguous . no man is an island , indeed-we all have the capacity to make the ” right ” or the ” wrong ” choices . schwimmer winningly plays one of a trio of fascinating characters who make the unconventional apt pupil laudible . -october , 1998 * the excellent collection king’s stories called different seasons spawned not only apt pupil , but the shawshank redemption ( originally titled rita hayworth and the shawshank redemption ) and stand by me ( originally titled the body ) .
1 i rented this movie with very high hopes . this movie got praise as one of the best films of 1998 , and unfortunately , was not as good as i hoped , but was still very intriguing and thought provoking . first of all , the casting for this film is great . tobey maguire and reese witherspoon are the future of hollywood . they play their roles as the parker brother and sister perfectly . with a plot as unbelievable as this film , you need chemistry and honest acting from your cast . tobey and reese ( bud and mary sue parker ) play their roles perfectly and display their characters with honesty and believability . william h . macy , an actor i have grown to love over the past year , turns in another great performance as the tv dad who is torn over his wife , a ” colored ” person and his friends , the ” non-colored ” ones . he also displays believability and must display a certain lack of chemistry with his wife . he does this perfectly and yet again shows why he should be one of the top actors in hollywood . joan allen is equally great as betty parker , the ideal tv mom . her character is the most ambitious . she is very na ? ve , and must display this well to make her character believable and she does just that . her lack of chemistry with macy , which the role calls for , and her developed chemistry with jeff daniels is terrific , and if daniels would have been as stellar as the rest of the cast , then this film would even been even better . as said before , jeff daniels gives a bad performance . his character displays the change going on throughout the town , yet he does not display it with enough conviction . his character is very confusing and he is not very believable . this film could have been elevated to a whole new level had daniels been able to give a better performance . the movie is very provocative . it challenges the issues of racism that existed in the past and that still exist today . i really was not expecting all of the elements they brought up , but they pulled them off with such flair that it was mind blowing . they demonstrate the racism issue without a hitch , but do it in a slow pace . the only major flaw in the film besides the performance by daniels is length . some films are not meant to be that long . pleasantville is one of those films . this film could have been so much better had they not moved so slowly to it . first , they are amazed by the implementation of color . then they want to have it . then they do not want to . then the war ensues between the colored and non-colored . this is all strung out over two hours , which was way too long . some movies need a lot of time . saving private ryan was a little bit under three hours long and i thought it could have used more time . this film is only two hours long , and seems much longer . length is everything in films . if you can nail down the perfect timing and pace , you can win half the battle . pleasantville can move at a good pace at times , but it is not consistent enough . overall , pleasantville is a very pleasant and provocative departure from the predictability of most films these days . i went in expecting a light-hearted film about change . i left learning an important lesson about racism and the way things change . luckily , pleasantville teaches this lesson in such a way to make it appeal to all audiences . only if it could have done in a shorter amount of time .
1 few films in 1999 have divided the critical consensus as sharply as alan parker’s adaptation of frank mccourt’s memoir angela’s ashes . many dismissed it as an humorless , sentimentalized , uninteresting version of the hugely popular novel ; others hailed it as a heartfelt , sincere portrait of the human spirit . i’m somewhere in between , leaning strongly towards the latter . it’s certainly well-made and it never becomes tedious like some literary adaptations have a tendency to be . but i have a feeling that parker filled the movie with pseudo-lyrical shots of rain falling on the homely streets of ireland just so it can have the two-and-a-half hour running time that screams ” i’m important ! ” mccourt’s book of the same name was about him and his family moving from the us to ireland in the early 1900’s , a time when most people were desperately trying to get into the us . as he comments , ” we were the only irishfolk to say goodbye to the statue of liberty . ” in ireland , frank ( played by joe breen as a small child ) , his 3 brothers , his mother angela ( emily watson ) and his father malachy ( robert carlyle ) get financial help from angela’s mother , a stereotypically strict catholic who chides her daughter for marrying a northern irishman . she helps them get a rat-infested apartment and malachy goes looking for a job . positions are scarce and when he does finally find one , he is unable to hold on to it because of his fondness for drinking . meanwhile , frank goes to an uptight catholic school , where the instructors beat students with blunt wooden objects as often as their heart desires . two of frank’s brothers soon die , crippled by the dreadful living conditions and malnutrition . as if the poverty and the suffering weren’t intense enough as it stood , malachy and angela have another baby , worsening the situation further . i imagine this doesn’t sound like much of a plot . that’s probably because it isn’t one . these are people . this is their story . director alan parker ( the commitments ) knows how to tell a good story and angela’s ashes , despite its relentlessly literary tone remains interesting . though the film occasionally indulges too much in its gloomily picturesque irish setting , it avoids looking like a glorified travelogue . supplementing parker’s able direction are the engaging , often poignant performances of the leads , some of them seasoned thespians , others relative beginners . carlyle , the charismatic british actor who has shown astonishing range by hopping from the lead in a rowdy slapstick comedy to the villain in a james bond movie and now to sentimental melodrama , perfectly portrays his rather pathetic character . we empathize with the guy , but we don’t like or admire him . emily watson turns in a heartfelt , sincere supporting performance . it is mostly she who implants that lump in our throats . also worthy of mention is little joe breen , whose face graces the film’s superb poster . it is breen’s first feature film and he’s extraordinary as young frank . not unlike sudden oscar darling haley joel osment of the sixth sense , you can peer into the character’s soul through breen’s sad eyes . on the flip side , one thing that could have vastly improved angela’s ashes is a more decisive editor . while gerry hambling sure makes the most of the scenery , he and parker also leave in at least a half an hour of unnecessary footage . the first half , especially , could have been trimmed down , bringing the film to a more reasonable running time and doing our bladders a favor in the process . things pick up at about the halfway point , sort of dismissing a lot of the criticisms i accumulated during the opening hour , but i maintain that the aggressively deliberate pace parker and co . set in the first half was ludicrously unnecessary . * spoiler warning ! skip next paragraph if in suspense ! * the film’s final message is somewhat conflicted , as frankie , in effect , leaves his family famished in ireland while he himself goes back to america . what , exactly , are we supposed to make of that ? his mother doesn’t seem to mind because she wants the best possible future for her son , as any mother would , but it still seems inconsiderate of him . i haven’t read the book , but i’m sure that mccourt justifies his actions therein ; therefore , i’m suspicious . another thing that’s never made clear in the movie is the meaning of the title , which , i’m sure , is also explained in the memoir . if seen as a film onto itself , rather than an adaptation , angela’s ashes stands tall . despite a few minor setbacks , it is a captivating story of people forced to live in the trenches by an merciless society where those of weaker character are shoved to the bottom of the financial ladder .
1 now that ” boogie nights ” has made disco respectable again ( well , fashionable at least ) , we shouldn’t be surprised to see more films glorifying that dubious era . the latest art house interpretation is whit stillman’s ” the last days of disco . ” stillman , who made ” metropolitan ” and ” barcelona ” using some of the same actors , uses disco’s final hours to highlight what is another conversation-heavy movie that benefits from typically astute writing from the director . the young , upwardly-mobile professional ( don’t call them yuppies ! ) men and women of ” the last days of disco ” frequent a prestigious new york city nightclub pulsating to the bass-pounding rhythms of earth wind and fire , amy grant , and andrea true connection . here they talk and talk and talk , intellectualizing about such things as dating , success , and being liked , accepted , and admired . if talk is cheap , ” the last days of disco ” must surely have been an extremely inexpensive movie to shoot . what makes the film so entertaining is that this preppie , harvard-educated jet set actually have something to say and say it with wit , perception , and style ( including , at one point , a riotously inventive deconstruction of ” the lady and the tramp ” ) . na ? ve alice ( chlo ? sevigny ) and sophisticated charlotte ( kate beckinsale ) are recent college graduates who work as assistant editors for a new york publishing house . charlotte is confident and outspoken–perhaps a little too outspoken ; alice is shy and introverted , ” like a kindergarten teacher . ” the two friends often doll themselves up and head out to the nameless nightspot , looking good and looking for excitement ( and that ms . beckinsale sure looks good on a dancefloor ! ) . here they meet , or re-meet , a variety of eligible men , many of whom they knew in college . des ( played by stillman favorite christopher eigeman ) is one of the club’s managers whose job is on the line for sneaking his ad agency buddies in the back . des has reached a crisis point in his life : he just found out–last wednesday , in fact–that he’s gay . whether it’s true or not , it makes for a convenient excuse to dump his latest girlfriend ( jennifer beals in a small but soul-baring turn ) . charlotte observes cattily that the only gay thing about des is his mouth . jimmy ( mackenzie astin ) is the advertising exec who , by the end of the picture , winds up heading for a new job opportunity in spain ( visions of ” barcelona ” ? ) . josh ( matt keeslar ) is an assistant district attorney who dreams of being able to say , just once , ” book this clown ! ” and robert sean leonard plays another one of alice’s revolving suitors ; the two have an amusing exchange about the true definition of virginity . any film that can make robert sean leonard palatable is worthy of respect in my book . in fact , the entire ensemble is appealing in that well-spoken stillman way . while the eschewing of ” ferocious pairing ” is a favored topic of conversation in the film , the protagonists tend to slip in and out of love , lust , and trouble with each other in an emotional merry-go-round that cleverly develops its characters through the ” preferred ” dynamics of social group interaction . more mature than stillman’s previous two films , ” the last days of disco ” is as consistently droll as it is stimulating . it’s a movie you should definitely get on down to .
1 this has been an extraordinary year for australian films . ” shine ” has just scooped the pool at the australian film institute awards , picking up best film , best actor , best director etc . to that we can add the gritty ” life ” ( the anguish , courage and friendship of a group of male prisoners in the hiv-positive section of a jail ) and ” love and other catastrophes ” ( a low budget gem about straight and gay love on and near a university campus ) . i can’t recall a year in which such a rich and varied celluloid library was unleashed from australia . ” shine ” was one bookend . stand by for the other one : ” dead heart ” . >from the opening credits the theme of division is established . the cast credits have clear and distinct lines separating their first and last names . bryan | brown . in a desert settlement , hundreds of kilometres from the nearest town , there is an uneasy calm between the local aboriginals and the handful of white settlers who live nearby . the local police officer has the task of enforcing ” white man’s justice ” to the aboriginals . these are people with a proud 40 , 000 year heritage behind them . naturally , this includes their own system of justice ; key to which is ” payback ” . an eye for an eye . revenge . usually extracted by the spearing through of the recipient’s thigh . brown , as the officer , manages quite well to keep the balance . he admits that he has to ‘bend the rules’ a bit , including actively encouraging at least one brutal ” payback ” . ( be warned that this scene , near the start , is not for the squeamish ) . the local priest – an aboriginal , but in the ” white fellas ” church – has a foot on either side of the line . he is , figuratively and literally , in both camps . ernie dingo brings a great deal of understanding to this role as the man in the middle . he is part churchman and part politician . however the tension , like the heat , flies and dust , is always there . whilst her husband – the local teacher – is in church , white lady kate ( milliken ) and her aborginal friend tony , ( pedersen ) have gone off into the hills . he takes her to a sacred site , even today strictly men-only . she appears to not know this . tony tells her that this is a special place , an initiation place . he then makes love to her , surrounded by ancient rock art . the community finds out about this sacrilegious act and it’s payback time . the fuse is lit and the brittle inter-racial peace is shattered . everyone is affected in the fall out . to say more is to give away the details of this finely crafted film . suffice to say it’s a rewarding experience . bryan brown , acting and co-producing , is the pivotal character . his officer is real , human and therefore flawed . brown comments that he expects audiences to feel warmth towards the man , then suddenly feel angry about him . it wasn’t long ago that i visited central australia – ayers rock ( uluru ) and alice springs – for the first time . the wide-screen cinematography shows the dead heart of australia in a way that captures it’s vicious beauty , but never deteriorates into a moving slide show , in which the gorgeous background dominates those pesky actors in the foreground . the cultural clash has provided the thesis for many a film ; from the western to the birdcage . at least three excellent australian films have covered the aboriginal people and the line between them and we anglo-saxon ‘invaders’ : ” jedda ” , ” the chant of jimmie blacksmith ” and ” the last wave ” . in a year when the race ‘debate’ has reared up in australia , it is nourishing to see such an intelligent , non-judgemental film as ” dead heart ” . the aboriginal priest best sums this up . he is asked to say if he is a ” black fella or white fella ” .
1 i think the first thing this reviewer should mention is wether or not i am a fan of the x-files . first , let me assure you that no prior experience with the series is required to fully enjoy this movie . the producers are not stupid , making a movie just for fans of the series is not profitable . you have to reach for a larger audience . therefore , the movie is quite user-friendly . altough , non-fans will only fail to understand certain emotions behind the looks many characters exchange . but fear not , duchovny and another man later on provide more than adequate background info on what is going on . you will never feel as if you just walked in on the third act of some great opera . in any case , the answer is no . i am not a fan of the x-files , i only watch it when nothing else is on and i prefer millennium . however , since the fox network as been so kind as to air several key episodes for several weeks before the movie’s opening weekend i took that opportunity to test the movie . i taped all of these episodes and watched them only after seing the movie , i am glad to report that i learned nothing new . everything you need to know is explained to the viewer by duchovny and others . i know i am going maybe a bit too far to make my point but everybody should get the chance to experience this movie . warning : major spoilers follow ! please do not read to fully enjoy this movie , you must not be able know what is coming , what exactly is over that hill and what that weird ” hummm ” sound is all about . you have been warned . the x-files is what a summer should be . exciting , scary , great special effects ( unlike other summer movies the effects do not take over the movie and are only there when it is really necessary ) and good performances . this is coming from a guy who thinks david duchovny is the human equivalent of a wooden plank . from start to finish , this movie does not let go of you . when i compare it with last summer’s movies the best way to describe it would be : take the excitement and great score from face/off and the deadly use of sound from event horizon . this flick is scary , not in a b movie kind of way where you always know where and when the critter will jump at our heroes . in fact , the first time the critter in this movie makes an apperance it is totally out of the blue . you might as well bring ear plugs because this thing is louuuudd ! the last time a monster scared me that much was when i first saw aliens as a six year old kid . you know , when you are affraid to put your feet on the floor because the creature might be under the chair , or when you keep trying to cover your throat with your shirt ? so yeah , the x-files is scary . and guess what ? you never even have to see the monster but your imagination works overtime and it sure beats having to watch a flawed , computer generated , babyzilla , it looks like you could walk right through it not even scarier than your grandma in undies type of monster . do not think that the x-files is a monster movie . in fact , the creature is there for maybe three minutes total . no , the x-files is definately a mulder episode of the series . scully is at his side , of course , but gillian anderson gets maybe half the screen time . she has a couple of good scenes with duchovny , but she gets kidnapped during the last half hour of the movie so she does not get to do much . no , this is mulder’s time in the spotlight . by now , you have heard of the scene where mulder ” showers ” independence day . if you have not then i will not spoil it for you , let’s just say that due to recent events mulder should be ” showering ” godzilla instead . to those of you wondering if mulder discovers that the truth is indeed out there . . . who cares ! ? if he did find it the series would over anyway so what are you complaining about ? the dialogue in interesting and the director is marvelous . the camera is almost always looking over the shoulder of our heroes so we feel as if we are right there with them when they open a door or climb a hill . the script is spotless , every thing that happens happens for a purpose . if you are confused by something , do not worry because it will all become clear later on but , and i cannot stress this enough , pay attention ! ! ! unlike most summer movies , the dialogue is twice as important as the effects . miss one vital piece of information and , like most people who talk during movies , you will go home and tell all your friends how this movie made no sense . also , to those people who need to go to the bathroom during movies . . . don’t ! the person who watched the movie with me had to go twice and twice she missed an important conversation . there is no time to take a breather between scenes because , again unlike most summer movies ( godzilla anybody ? ) the x-files does not need to fill scenes between the suspense and the action with useless subplots , every scene is crucial and serves a purpose . who needs to see the blond chiouaoua have a ” big emotional scene ” between godzilla attacks ? so far this summer i have seen only one movie who ranks higher on my list of movies i’d recommend and that is the truman show but it only wins by a nose . but the truman show is not what i would call a summer movie , the x-files is . what more do you ask from a summer movie other than the chance to be excited ? cool effects ? it’s got some . pulse pounding ? hell yes ! strangely enough , i think that fans of the series will hate this movie while non-fans will have a good time . it does not provide answers to the show’s many questions , the status quo remains nearly the same and , no , mulder and scully do not get together . rating : four and a half out of five stars for the best movie yet this summer , several jump right out of your seat thrills , many ” whoah , i never saw that one coming ! ” moments , four ” holy shit , where the hell did that come from ” and one heck of an ending . you may wonder where this movie lost half a star . well , i swore never to give a movie the full five stars so i had to find something about the in his ice truck , the tracks it leaves in the snow behind him go on for several miles but then they just stop . it’s pretty obvious the film’s makers drove the truck for several miles to give the appearance that mulder had been driving for a long time , but in the end it looks like mulder just dropped from the sky and started driving .
1 trees lounge is the directoral debut from one of my favorite actors , steve buscemi . he gave memorable performences in in the soup , fargo , and reservoir dogs . now he tries his hand at writing , directing and acting all in the same flick . the movie starts out awfully slow with tommy ( buscemi ) hanging around a local bar the ” trees lounge ” and him pestering his brother . it’s obvious he a loser . but as he says ” it’s better i’m a loser and know i am , then being a loser and not thinking i am . ” well put . the story starts to take off when his uncle dies , and tommy , not having a job , decides to drive an ice cream truck . well , the movie starts to pick up with him finding a love interest in a 17 year old girl named debbie ( chloe sevigny ) and . . . i liked this movie alot even though it did not reach my expectation . after you’ve seen him in fargo and reservoir dogs , you know he is capable of a better performence . i think his brother , michael , did an excellent job for his debut performence . mr . buscemi is off to a good career as a director !
1 i wish i could say that there is something more to the new star wars installment than what you see in the commercials , but there isn’t . george lucas is an expert at crafting triumphant , special effects-bound flicks and he has done it again . this is the first star wars film i’ve seen on the big screen , so , of course , the impact was much greater than when i watched the three original episodes on video . what is compelling about the phantom menace is not its disposable story , but its amazing visuals . basically , the film’s plot is centered around trade disputes between two planets . qui-gon ( liam neeson ) and his young apprentice obi-wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor ) set out with the animated jar-jar binks to fix the mess that may result in war . when their ship breaks down and they are stranded , they find a young boy , anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) and his slave mother . qui-gon strongly believes that anakin is destined for jedi greatness and immediately takes him under his wing . anakin participates in a heart-pounding podrace , one of the highlights of the film , to get the equipment needed to fix qui-gon’s ship . however , most everyone is doubtful about entrusting the future to some unknown slave boy . meanwhile , queen amadala ( natalie portman ) is frustrated and at wit’s end , being na ? ve and young and having so much responsibility on her shoulders . there are hardly any emotional scenes in the film- even when we discover that anakin will be leaving his slave mother behind to begin jedi training , the frenzied excitement of the whole film wears down the poignancy to the size of a crumb . this does not prove that the phantom menace is poorly made for it is brilliantly made . in all the star wars films , human emotions that we , the audience , can identify with are usually nil , but the films are for pure enjoyment , not for uplifting purposes . despite the fun of watching the movie , the phantom menace is not without flaws . for starters , we have the ill-conceived , moronic character jar-jar binks who should be considered a threat to star wars galactic society and to the audience . what a klutz ! george lucas clumsily tried to create a fun character that would be as memorable as , say , yoda , r2-d2 , or c3-po , but , alas , his efforts were in vain . secondly ( this may be good or bad , depending on your point of view ) , the movie’s atmosphere is so different from the familiar comic-book feel of the previous three star wars installments . this is due , perhaps , to the utter complexity to this movie’s plot and the higher level of sophistication of the visual effects used here . the movie seems to be reaching for epic proportions . i can’t say much about the acting , though acting has never been what you saw star wars movies for anyway . however , there is absolutely no pizzazz to the performances- they are straightforward and , at times , stale . natalie portman has a great presence , but her turn as queen amadala makes the queen a stoic , unfeeling ? enigma . there is nothing we can hold onto in her performance to make us believe the trade predicament is anything of importance . jake lloyd is the only actor here who has an ounce of evident spunk . despite the inevitable faults , there is so much to enjoy about the movie . the heightened excitement of the final sequences doesn’t quite surpass the famous the empire strikes back climactic scenes , but they are amazing and edge-of-your-seat fun in their own rite . the film is a treasure to look at . the visual effects are astonishing 99 . 8% of the time- the awe-inspiring , mouth-opening , eye-popping sight of the underwater city is nothing short of production design and special effects genius . not since 1997’s the fifth element has there been a film as drenched in visual treats as this one . the production design is reminiscent of the fifth element , the previous star wars movies , kubrick’s 2001 , maybe even of fritz lang’s classic silent metropolis . however , all the sets are so original . the original star wars movies can’t even match the grandeur of this film’s visuals and that is a sheer pleasure for the viewer- it gives us hope of even greater things for the upcoming episode . the costumes are remarkable and have jean-paul gaultier written all over them . whether its queen amadala’s gigantic wardrobe complete with gold-embroidery and feathers , or the jedis’ simple brown uniforms , the costume designer has fused talent with outrageousness . the costumes are one of the true delights of watching the movie . as for john williams’ score , i don’t think he’s done one as complex or powerful since ? i can’t even remember . it is as epic as his schindler’s list score and as thrilling and zestful as jaws . it includes the bare bones of his music from the previous three films , but williams has added on , made the music much more intense and moving . what with the overwhelming hoopla that circled this movie , one might come in with high expectations and be disappointed . there is very little to hate in the film : it’s a very accomplished and skillfully made flick . it is the best ” fun ” film and the best big-budget film out today , most definitely .
1 lisa cholodenko’s ” high art , ” is an intelligent , quiet drama . its strongest quality , aside from the top-notch central performances , is the perceptive way in which the film , also written by cholodenko , observes its characters . they are all flawed people , some more troubled than others , but they are not judged . judging the characters in this picture would be a creative misstep on the filmmakers’ parts , because no one , no matter how bad off they are , deserve to be negatively judged if they are involved in some serious problems that they cannot break free of . syd ( radha mitchell ) , a 24-year-old woman living with her longtime boyfriend james ( gabriel mann ) , has recently been awarded an ideal job at the high-profile photography magazine , ” frame . ” she very much enjoys where her career is headed , but is often not taken very seriously by her managers , who are always giving her petty jobs to do , when she knows she could be doing more important things . one night , while taking a bath , syd notices a leak coming from the apartment above hers , so when she goes up there to inform them of it , she meets lucy beliner ( ally sheedy ) , a thin , worn-out , and unhappy woman , who lives with her drug-addicted german girlfriend , greta ( patricia clarkson ) , a pathetic former actress who is usually so out-of-it that she often is in and out of conciousness . syd quickly strikes up a conversation with lucy , and discovers that she used to be an acclaimed photographer ten years before . lucy claims she doesn’t want to get back into the profession , but syd manages to convince the ” frame ” editors to do a piece on her work . all the while , syd begins to grow deep feelings for lucy , even though she has never previously been attracted to a woman , and lucy starts a battle with her personal demons . ” high art , ” is such an effective motion picture because it is never suger-coated or idealized , but instead an honest and convincing portrait of a handful of unhappy people whose lives are going nowhere , while syd’s luck begins to rise . the film in no way is about lesbianism , but about love , which was a refreshing change of pace from the usual stereotypical portraits of homosexuality . as lucy and syd grow closer and closer together , we really do believe that they are falling in love with each other , even if the relationship might be doomed . with this picture , ally sheedy’s star has risen once again , thanks to her touching , nearly flawless portrtayal of lucy , a woman who , in the course of a decade , has found her life consumed almost entirely by drugs , which has taken away her once-blossoming career . her characted really is tragic , and one particular scene involving lucy and her mother , in which lucy admits to her that she has a drug problem , and her mother matter-of-factly responds by saying she can’t help her , is heartbreaking . although not autobiographical , sheedy has had drug problems in her past , and i suspect she brought that knowledge of already being in lucy’s footsteps to her role . also very good is radha mitchell as syd , who previously starred in the slight 1997 australian comedy , ” love and other catastrophes , ” wh caught me by surprise with her performance . easily being able to pass as christina ricci’s older sister , mitchell obtains the same natural charisma that has made ricci so popular recently . as accurate as almost every detail is in , ” high art , ” i wish the relationship had been more tightly written involving syd and james , who , played by gabriel mann , is left with a throwaway role . by the time he finds out about syd and lucy , he disappears from the film , and i wish there had been another scene where they confronted each other . this is a very minor fault , however , in a film that is full of riches . although many of the characters are stuck in a hopeless pit of despair , syd and lucy are intelligent people who recognize their problems . the character of dominique ( anh duong ) , the ” frame ” editor who decides to give syd a chance with her ideas , was also written to be far more mature than expected . and the one sex scene in the film was beautifully and originally done . for once , it did not invlove steaminess , or violent sexual activity , or gratuitous nudity , but focused on the actual characters , who love each other , and their insecurities involved in making the decision to actually have sex . ” high art , ” which won the screenwriting award at the 1998 sundance film festival , marks the superior feature film debut of cholodenko , as well as sheedy’s strongest , and best , role to date .
1 the relaxed dude rides a roller coaster the big lebowski a film review by michael redman copyright 1998 by michael redman the most surreal situations are ordinary everyday life as viewed by an outsider . when those observers are joel and ethan coen , the surreal becomes bizarre . when the life is that of jeff ” the dude ” leboswki , the bizarre falls over the edge into the world of ” what’sgoingonaroundhere ” . the marvelous sound of ” the stranger ” ( sam elliot ) ‘s voice-over introduces the film . at least it does until he forgets what he was going to say and gives up . the dude ( jeff bridges ) is described as the ” laziest man in los angeles , possibly the world ” , although he’s not so much slothful as he is relaxed . spending the last 30 years with a roach clip in one hand and a white russian in the other , he doesn’t have much of a life , but he’s having a good time . when asked what he does for fun , he responds ” bowl , drive around and the occasional acid flashback ” . lebowski’s passion is bowling . when he’s not rolling the ball down an alley towards a strike , things just happen to him . arriving home one night , he’s beaten by thugs attempting to collect money that his wife owes them . even worse , they urinate on his rug . the problem is that the dude doesn’t have a wife . his assailants realize that their target is a different lebowski when they glance around at his apartment . the ” big ” lebowski ( david huddleston ) is a multi-millionaire and his dudeness lives in two-room squalor . the next day , our ragtag hero visits his namesake’s mansion attempting compensation for his soaked rug . the carpet is important to him because it pulls the room together : not surprisingly since it’s virtually the only object there . when he’s denied any money , he picks up a replacement rug off the floor . on his way out , he runs into lebowski’s trophy babe wife bunny ( tara reid ) who offers to perform a sexual act that , according to rumor , is one of bill clinton’s favorites for a thousand bucks . the penniless dude wisecracks that he’s heading for the cash machine . later he gets an unexpected phone call enlisting his aid in being the bag man to deliver a ransom to bunny’s kidnappers . this begins the trademarked coen brothers crimes-gone-wrong sequences . the kidnappers are impossibly inept . the dude and his cronies are even worse . every plan goes awry . you can almost see lebowski’s brain churning in slow motion as he tries to figure out the clues . that’s the story , but to tell the truth it doesn’t much matter . there could be almost any plot and the film would be just as entertaining . the narrative only exists so we can watch the offbeat characters and the quirky predicaments they fall into . the dude’s bowling buddies walter ( john goodman ) and donny ( steve buscemi ) look like people you’d see on the street but , like everything else in this film , they’re not quite what they seem . walter is a vet as stuck in vietnam as the dude is in the sixties . everything that happens reminds him of a situation in the nam . when a fellow bowler crosses the foul line but won’t admit it , walter pulls a gun on him until he marks a zero on the score sheet . donny gets precious few words in between walter’s screaming and the dude’s rambling . when he does , walter shouts him down with horrendous albeit seemingly unintentional bowling puns . donny is ” out of his league ” and doesn’t ” have a frame of reference ” . the film is peppered with people for whom the term ” character ” would be an understatement . the big lebowski’s daughter maude , an avant-garde ” vaginal ” artist , paints while swinging naked in a leather apparatus like an s&m mary martin . the kidnappers are german techno nihilist bikers . bunny lebowski is a high school cheerleader turned porno star . most impressive is john turturro in his far too small role as a hispanic bowler . as the flamenco music swells , we see him putting on his lavender hose . the camera pans up to an all-purple skin-tight bowling outfit with ” jesus ” ( pronounced with a ” j ” , not an ” h ” ) embroidered on the pocket . he addresses the lane with intense seriousness and one painted fingernail . his tongue slowly snakes out and lovingly licks the glowing bowling ball . bridges works the dude as if he had been living him for decades and maybe he has . i can’t think of anyone else who could have done a better job . buscemi has a limited role , but he plays it perfectly . the more that i see john goodman the more convinced i am that he’s one of the treasures of our time . it’s odd to think that most of the world knows him only as roseanne barr’s television husband . more like the coen’s ” raising arizona ” than their hit ” fargo ” , ” the big lebowski ” demands an open mind and even more open eyes . a mark of the coen brothers is that even with all wonderful dream sequences and the broad slapstick physical comedy on the screen , much of the humor is subtle and easy to miss . there’s so much going on that frequently it disappears before you can see it . walking out of the theater , i felt that the film had something important to say . on further examination , i wasn’t sure exactly what it was . ” if you meet jesus at the bowling alley , it’s not going to be what you expect ” ? ” when the going gets weird , the weird go bowling ” ? maybe there’s no real message . perhaps it’s just a roller coaster ride through a hilarious world . maybe that’s enough . ( michael redman has written this column for 23 years and just realized that he was so taken with the dude that he ran out of space to talk about ” the man in the iron mask ” starring that favorite of 14-year-old girls of all ages . redman@bvoice . com is the eaddress for estuff . )
1 i don’t box with kid gloves . i don’t play nice , i’m not a nice guy , and i never , ever , go easy on a film . i consider it to be a breech of some sort of code of ethics for a movie critic . however , i do some favors , and these often come in the form of points that i hand to certain groups due to the artistic bravery . rigormortis , the production company that has been my prime example of how money does not need to motivate filmmaking , gets several of these points each time . i still , however , will not go easy on them . they recently sent me a vhs copy of their down with america trilogy ( which begins , quite wittily , with a disclaimer that they are not trying to undermine america with the making of this film . ) and i decided to spend an hour of my day watching it . in the famous lines of many martyrs , i have no regrets . well , i do have some regrets , but that is not the point in the previous sentence . the point of it was that down with america was a film that , from a critical standpoint , did not entirely disappoint me . sure , the risky use of vhs instead of super 8mm or 16mm was a pain , and the natural light was one of the most annoying things about public access films , but the movie itself was fairly enjoyable . down with america concerns a government agent , needless murder , and a book containing everything from the unabomber’s manifesto to the 1995 apple computer profit report . like the previous films of rigormortis that i have reviewed , it displays an off-kilter humor and intelligence ? it succeeds in making me laugh where countless studio films fail . the best way to see this film would be as a parody of the countless conspiracy films that we have been drowned in since the paranoia of the 80s . a dying movement from the day they started , these paranoid `thrillers’ had the government always covering up something and had the same favorite word : `roswell . ‘ in down with america , the line `roswell’ is highly absent . with an about ten minute running time , down with america effortlessly sidesteps every clich ? that the conspiracy films fell into , makes jokes at them at the same time , and provides us with funny and memorable characters . again , i have seen movies that have gone on two hours with characters i couldn’t care less about . the film , as previously stated , concerns a federal agent ( peter roach ) , an obsessed librarian ( meri stevens ) , a mystery man ( joe kaczkowski ) , and two people obsessed with silence in the library ( robb sherman , kevin flowers ) . the plot : a book containing the secrets of all anarchists is hidden in ? a public library where it can be viewed by all . from there we go into a delightful parody . the federal agent claims his sovereign right to alter the truth , the librarian goes on a diatribe about the sanctity of books . we spend our time laughing at fairly idiotic jokes that are performed much too well considering the lack of coaching of the cast . although the actors and actresses are in small roles and give a whole new meaning to `no-name’ , it ends up being the no-name people who do a good job , delivering better performances as comic villains than half the crap that hollywood turns out . for once , i don’t have a url that i know offhand to give you as to where to locate the film online . i can only say that you should find my previous reviews of l’auto and les x-files and look up the rigormortis productions site in and of itself . it’s almost as much fun as the film .
1 here is a film that is so unexpected , so scary , and so original that it caught me off guard and threw me for a loop . okay , it isn’t quite original , considering it is a sequel to the box office hit species , but it certainly is smart . most films of this genre are reminiscent of those cheesy b-horror films from the 50s and 60s , and some even become them . however , as we learned with the 1995 small-budget horror/sci-fi film , sometimes expectations can be shattered . a lot of criticism has gone against this film ( from what i have read so far , anyway–yep , all two reviews ) , and it makes me wonder why these types of films are automatically dismissed as gory , laughable pieces of trash . but , the thing is , it isn’t . it’s well made , well acted , and quite intelligent . i can see most of the critics now complaining about the level of gore or the level of sexuality in the film . but the species series isn’t about the lack of these elements . it’s about how much it can get into one film . and yet , behind it all , it has this basic premise that allows it to get away with doing so . species ii begins in the present day , though it seems to be an alternate universe . many films ( especially sci-fi ones ) create similar timelines as our realistic one , but change it to fit the film’s needs . species ii begins with the arrival of an american spacecraft , the excursion , landing on the surface of mars . aboard is patrick ross ( justin lazard ) , a very bright and very handsome astronaut . patrick is the son of senator ross ( james cromwell ) , who just wants patrick to succeed . well , it would seem that he has succeeded . landing on the surface of mars , he is the first human being to ever do so . of course , he isn’t the first ever . about a billion years ago , an alien species supposedly landed on mars and destroyed the perfect living conditions that were able to sustain life . now , of course , the red planet is cold and rocky . no life lives on it . that is , no visible life . patrick , upon leaving the spacecraft and landing on the red soil , collects samples from the ground . he takes them aboard , and puts them in storage . unfortunately , one of the samples contains a form of life , and it gets loose when it is heated aboard the ship . just prior to heading back to earth , this life form creeps along the floor and inhabits the earthlings . they pass out for approximately seven minutes , and then shrug it off as nothing , because they can’t even remember . they blame it on a technical malfunction . back on earth , patrick begins to have strong urges to mate with as many women as possible . as we know from the original , this is because the alien wants to breed and take over the planet . however , the children that are bred are half-human , as their father is . patrick is really looking for another alien to breed with , and he finds it in eve ( natasha henstridge ) . eve was cloned from dna taken from sil , the original alien . however , this time around , most of her ” alien ” urges have been either decreased dramatically , or lie dormant . the project is led by dr . laura baker ( marg helgenberger , reprising her role from species ) , and her motives seem respectable . since she was involved with the original alien attack , she wants to learn how to stop the alien should it come again . and it has . story-wise , species ii is much stronger than its predecessor , but it is also much stronger than , say , aliens ( hey , i love the film , but you can’t tell me it was strong on story ) . what surprised me the most with this film was the incorporation of historical facts into the screenplay . in my search for extraterrestrial intelligence course in college , we learned about a piece of rock from mars which landed in one of the poles . this piece of rock contained fossils which may have been proof of life on mars ( later , it was proven that it was not a living creature that created it ) . the script uses this effectively , but also manages to provide a well-balanced plot . beginning with the first man on mars ( something i have always dreamed of seeing ) , i was hoping that the film would turn this element into a useful starting point for the movie . and it does it quite well . the characters are all smart , and they know what to do and what not to do . the only character that seems a little cliched is the general ( george dzundza ) , and yet , he remains logical in everything he does . there are the obvious flaws of course , mostly lying in the technical aspects . the special effects are only mediocre , and some are just plain bad . but for the most part , they remain believable ( i even noticed a homage to the alien series when the mothers gave birth to alien children ) . also , the most realistic ones are usually the goriest , ranging from people being torn open , or someone’s head being blown off . however , some plot elements also may elicit laughs from the audience , including a menage a troi that is all but necessary . many people dislike the species series because all it is is an excuse for sex , nudity , and gory violence . however , i tend to disagree . what were the alien films about ? and , if an alien species ever did come to earth , and their sole purpose was to destroy us , wouldn’t you mate as quickly as possible with as many people as possible ? my only gripe with this is during the scene where patrick goes searching for a mate in a grocery store . i didn’t realize that aliens were that picky on choosing women to mate with ( i just assume it is his part-human side looking for the most beautiful one ) . the acting is quite good for this kind of film . it is a vast improvement over the first film , at least . the acting is the key element to this film : if it was bad , it would have lowered itself into camp ; if it was good , it would have asked for comparison with films like aliens . okay , so it isn’t that good . george dzundza is probably the most obvious mistake on casting , as his over-the-top impersonation of a general makes him annoying and distracting . natasha henstridge is limited this time around , as she is usually enclosed in a cage . however , she does manage a very impressive performance with this aspect hindering any of her talent . oh yeah , and she’s quite fun to just plain watch . marg helgenberger is immensely better this time around , and her performance is probably the best in this film . michael madsen is so-so , but he isn’t annoying , and he soon becomes rather appealing ( with his nice cynic personality ) . james cromwell has a small part , but he makes it much better than what it could have been with a more incapable actor . as i say , any film with james cromwell dramatically increases in likeability . mykelti williamson gives an enjoyable performance , and he gives the film a more down-to-earth feel . and , of course , justin lazard . lazard has so far been ridiculed for his performance , but i think he is effective . sure , he is wooden , but isn’t that what his character is like ? the moment when he touches the glass separating henstridge from him was extremely well done , due to the couple’s acting . species ii is rated r for strong sexuality , sci-fi violence/gore and language . this is definitely an r rated film that young kids should not see . more than likely , they would probably have nightmares and never have sex for the rest of their lives . hell , i don’t even know if i will . what is sure to be a critically lambasted film turns out to be the surprise film of the year . i probably won’t see another film where i was expecting so little and got so much for quite a while . director peter medak has crafted a very suspenseful , and sometimes very scary movie out of a mediocre series . medak has also mastered the wonderful ” jump ! ” moments , and has probably the second scariest moment i have ever seen on film ( scream still has the first ) . strong acting , smart dialogue , intelligent plotting , and a sure-handed director , species ii is exactly what these films should be : entertaining .
1 plot : this movie takes place over one day . it’s a rookie cop’s narcotics training alongside a seasoned police veteran . the rookie doesn’t know much about ” street justice ” , so the older cop teaches him about the way things work in the ” real world ” . how even cops like themselves have to ” bend the rules ” and ” break the law ” every now and then , in order to catch the really bad guys . critique : a pretty intense little movie with solid acting across the board , some ups , some downs and a thrilling ending , despite a couple of small flaws . i really enjoyed this movie because it followed two extreme characters and put them in situations which had me wondering about what i would do if i were in their place . the film gets right into the ” dirty ” side of , well . . . the dirt on the streets , and proceeds to teach the rookie cop ( and us , the audience ) how things really work down there . of course , we’re receiving this lesson from a man who has put away a lot of scum in his time , but the things he seems to be doing aren’t exactly on the up-and-up either . and therein , lies the fun of the film . do you agree that you yourself would need to break a few small laws in order to put away the people who break the really big ones ? well , as the film moves along , we’re given two points of view in respect to this predicament , and to me , both sides made sense at some point or another . and you gotta give a lot of credit to the screenplay for that , the director , who builds the film up wonderfully ( with the darkness of the day leading to the darkness in the script ) and the two actors who deliver their parts in spades . hawke , first off , because he rarely plays these ” commercial ” roles but does so perfectly here , with a vulnerable side which has you feeling for the bastard right off the top . and denzel , well , what can you say about mr . washington that hasn’t already been said before ? he comes through as per his usual high-level style here , and gives the audience a completely different side to his talent , of which , i personally would like to see more . he’s nice , he’s not so nice , he’s smart , he’s not so smart , he’s caring and he’s a dog all the way . the few problems that i did have with this film included the redundant nature of the whole thing at some point ( okay , we get it . . . you have to be nasty in order to deal with these nasty people . . . move on ) and this one really major ” coincidence ” which involved a bathtub , that saved the day for one character , but seemed a little too ” convenient ” for my taste . i also never really understood how washington’s character got out of a certain dire predicament , only to be seen driving his car in the very next scene . but obviously these small flaws didn’t taint my overall enjoyment of this tense drama , a film that gets you right into the streets , into the nooks and the crannies , and into the moral dilemma which lies between the justice system and the day-to-day drug busts . see it if you want to wrestle with some of these issues yourself , see it if you want to see denzel and ethan strike up a palpable chemistry on-screen , and see it if you like holding on to your seat-handles real tight during a movie . in fact , see it for the scene in which ethan hawke plays cards with a host of gang-bangers alone . . . dang , now that’s intense ! where’s joblo coming from ? the corruptor ( 7/10 ) – crimson tide ( 9/10 ) – l . a . confidential ( /10 ) – lethal weapon ( 8/10 ) – requiem for a dream ( 8/10 ) – seven ( 10/10 ) – shaft ( 7/10 ) – traffic ( 8/10 )
1 a thriller set in modern day seattle , that marked marky mark’s migration from the ” good vibrations ” and ” calvin klein undie ad ” guy , to mark wahlberg , thespian-at-large , and a mighty good one at that . plot : boy ( wahlberg ) meets girl ( witherspoon ) . boy likes girl . girl likes boy . boy and girl begin dating . parents of girl aren’t crazy about the boy . girl steps to boy’s defense . family problems occur . girl learns more about the boy . boy goes nuts . fun ensues . critique : ever wonder what would happen if your better half turned out to be someone other than the person that you had come to cherish and love ? well , if you ever have , then this film is definitely for you . it isn’t the most original premise in the world , but it is handled pretty well here , and pretty quickly for that matter ( a speedy 90 minutes ) . i think one of the main reasons this film worked for me is the groundbreaking performance by mark wahlberg ( of boogie nights infamy ( 7 . 5/10 ) . he completely captured all the goodness , and badness , of the main character of this film , and always kept me wanting to see more and more of him ( his performance scored him a solid nomination from his core target audience , as ” best villain ” at the 1997 mtv movie awards ) . the soundtrack is also very effective in this setting , and of course , the slutty performance by alyssa milano is something we could all indulge in ( look for the nice bikini and butt shots . . . if you’re into that kind of thing , that is : ) . i didn’t much care for the father/david relationship which seemed to be a little too contrived , but for the most part , i was really into this movie . then again , daddy dearest did have one of the coolest lines in the movie when his wife is asking him what the ” big deal ” was about his daughter dating david . his reply : ” the big deal is that the guy gives me the creeps , and the girl is my daughter . ” good point . all in all , the movie kicked some fun ass , mindless as it was , and effectively demonstrated every parent’s worst nightmare . mind you , i still can’t tell if reese witherspoon is good looking or a douchebag , but hey , life goes on . and on a personal note , we finally decided to add some taco meat onto our nacho fiesta of usual , and let me tell you all . . . it was a flaming success ! ! another firm recommendation by joe schmoe ! little known facts : director james foley was the man responsible for the critically acclaimed glengarry glenross ( 8/10 ) back in 1992 , at close range ( 7 . 5/10 ) in 1986 , and even directed an episode of twin peaks in 1990 . mark wahlberg stands 5 ” 9 , is born in massachusetts , dropped out of highschool ( later got his ged ) , and was convicted of several minor felonies before starting his career as the lead singer of marky mark and the funky bunch . his brother is donnie wahlberg of new kids on the block fame . he is also testing the waters on the acting front .
1 wow ! what a movie . it’s everything a movie can be : funny , dramatic , interesting , weird , funny , weird and strikingly original . yep that pretty much describes this movie . it starts out like a regular movie and ends up being one of the weirdest , funniest most original movies i have ever seen . it boggles the mind and some have to wonder why we cannot get movies like this more often . besides being one of the best films of the year , being john malkovich may as well be one of the best movies ever . period . then again there are so many good movies , that one cannot pick an all time favorite . john cusack plays a puppeteer craig schwartz a man out of a job , in search of a job . his wife lotte schwartz who is played by a completely un-noticeable cameron diaz who looks like something off the streets is an animal lover and has about every kind of animal you could think of . craig finds a job as a file at the 7 ? floor of a business building . . . you have to pry open the elevator doors open before it reaches floor eight , the 7 ? floor is just a floor between 7 and 8 . he is hired by his 105 year old boss ( orsen bean ) to be a filer . in his office , he discovers a little door , to which was boarded up and hidden . to his curiosity he opens it and starts to crawl toward it , he then gets sucked to the end and ends up in john malkovich’s mind . fifteen minutes later he is shot out onto the side of the new jersey turnpike . he returns to tell his co-worker maxine ( catherine keener ) that he has found a portal that will lead him into john malkovich’s mind , she doesn’t believe him but after she sees it it changes her mind . lotte also finds out about the portal and discovers that being someone else is good after all . john malkovich of course has no idea what is going on , and by the end of this bizarre film there are so many twists and turns , that we don’t know what really happened . john cusack is outstanding and utterly believeable in a role only he himself could play . he fits the role perfectly and to me was brilliantly cast . cameron diaz is outstanding and utterly one of the world’s most prettiest women , is made up here unnoticeable and very unattractive . she however gives a very comic performance and this could easily be her best role to date . catherine keener is very funny and sexy as maxine and of course the best thing of the movie is the magic himself john malkovich who is very brilliant and this movie plays big time homage ? to the master himself . the whole group combined gives us a wonderfully funny movie that is also smart and clever . spike jonze ( three kings ) makes his fabulous directing debut , and did a fantastic job of directing this new classic film . he lets the viewer go on the trip as well as let the viewer know they are watching a movie . by the time the ending rolled around my head was spinning from disbelief of how good this film was . the screenplay written by charlie kaufman was hilarious and often thought-provoking . the film also had a soft side to it and even though the ending is very surprising it is also a little sad and heart-warming . the whole movie was fantastic and had me rolling in the isles . from cameron diaz’s appearence to john malkovich’s explorations i laughed very hard , and it may as well be as funny as as good as it gets ( the funniest ! ) . there isn’t a slow point in the movie , or an overused idea . there are no cliches except for the fact that this is the most original , inventie , witty , and smart movie i’ve seen in a long time . i found myself amazed by everything : the direction , acting , writing and the whole idea of the movie . by the end i had to wonder why hollywood doesn’t want to make movies like this anymore . or why they don’t . all filmmakers watch this movie and get some ideas of movies to come out . this was a surprise hit as was american beauty . ‘being john malkovich’ is in the top 5 movies of the year , and in the top 10 best films ever made . it has something that no other movies playing now has . in fact it may as well be the best movie out right now . i highly recommend ‘being john malkovich’ and have no doubts you will be disappointed .
1 richard gere can be a commanding actor , but he’s not always in great films . everything comes together here . gere is a big time chicago defense attorney who takes on a seemingly unwinable case in hopes of even more publicity . it doesn’t go exactly as he expects . gere’s client , aaron ( edward norton ) , is a shy stuttering tennessee boy who is accused of brutally murdering and mutilating a catholic archbishop . the evidence is stacked against him . he was caught running from the scene covered in the bishop’s blood . his bloody footprints are all over the murder scene . he has a relationship with the priest . gere talks to the boy , believes that he is actually innocent and sets about finding the real killer . despite the lawyer’s proclamations that he doesn’t care about the guilt of his clients and that the real thrill is gambling with people’s lives , he becomes involved with aaron and is determined to free him . lots of complications and twists . the prosecuting attorney is gere’s former co-worker and lover . they both work each other’s motives to their legal advantages and it gets messy . her boss had major economic dealings with the archbishop that went sour and seems to have crime connections . aaron gets weirder and weirder as the trial goes on . gere’s case is falling apart and he is faced with about a dozen ethical dilemmas . gere is exceptional as the well-dressed reserved counselor , but just once , i wanted to see him kick back and come out of his ” suit ” persona . even when he loses it , you don’t see very far inside . norton’s aaron is convincing : he comes across as the backwoods kid misplaced in the big city . the supporting cast does a fine job of holding together the story . as with most of the effective courtroom dramas , the cinematography is crisp and rich . the story will keep you on the edge of your seat . nothing is what it seems .
1 glory–starring matthew broderick , denzel washington , and morgan freeman–is the true story of the 54th regiment of massachusetts , the first black fighting unit recruited by the north during the civil war . broderick plays robert gould shaw , the young white officer who led the black soldiers into battle . shaw , the son of well-to-do abolitionists , hailed from boston high society . the letters he wrote home to his parents during the war are on display at harvard , and were , evidently , the inspiration for glory . as the film begins in 1862 , shaw is a captain in the northern forces . like private eriksson ( michael j . fox ) in casualties of war , shaw initially is naive and idealistic about the war–that is , until his company is attacked by enemy forces . shaw experiences first hand the horror and chaos of battle , witnessing mass slaughter and receiving a minor wound himself when a bullet grazes his neck . soon after his recovery , shaw is promoted to colonel and assigned to enlist and train blacks in the war effort . glory is the story not only of colonel shaw , but also of the black soldiers who laid down their lives to free their brothers from slavery . the film periodically jumps between shaw’s point of view and the perspective of the black soldiers . the movie introduces us to a handful of black recruits , and we follow them from their enlistment through basic training and finally into action . the large black cast is uniformly outstanding , especially washington who is electrifying as a runaway slave with a big mouth . he is brash and pushy , always getting into trouble and always looking for a fight . his bitter , tough guy facade is really just a mask for his loneliness and vulnerability . washington provides much of the film’s intensity and emotional power . in one heartbreaking scene , he is whipped for allegedly deserting the army . when he removes his shirt to receive the punishment , you cringe at the sight of his back , which is riddled with ugly scars from his days as a slave . it makes your blood boil . the humiliation of the beating is far more traumatic than the actual physical pain it brings ; a tear rolls down washington’s cheek–and will probably run down your cheek as well . the episode becomes even more tragic when we learn that washington wasn’t deserting the army at all ; he left camp to look for shoes because his feet were covered with oozing sores . freeman is , as usual , a strong presence , even in a small supporting role . he plays a grave digger who has buried more white soldiers than he cares to remember . he quickly becomes a leader among the black soldiers , holding the group together and serving as a liaison to the white officers . colonel shaw recognizes freeman’s leadership ability and promotes him to sergeant major , making him the first black officer in the army . andre braugher makes an impressive film debut in the role of thomas searles , a free black who is one of shaw’s close childhood friends . searles is educated and refined , like a white man , prompting washington to nickname him ” snow flake . ” the burning question is whether searles is tough enough to survive basic training and to kill in combat . the road from marching drills to battle action is a bumpy one for the black regiment . the soldiers suffer innumerable hardships , but somehow they never lose their morale . the army treats the black soldiers like second class citizens , subjecting them to racism and discrimination . they are paid only $10 a month , whereas their white counterparts earn thirteen , and , for a long time , they have to go without shoes , guns , or uniforms . to make matters worse , the white military hierarchy is extremely reluctant to allow the blacks into action , preferring instead to use them for manual labor . eventually , however , the regiment receives its boots , uniforms , rifles , and right to fight , thanks to the stubborn resolve of colonel shaw . shaw has absolute faith in his soldiers , and he fights tooth and nail to get them what they deserve , even if it means threatening a general with blackmail . broderick , in fact , is most convincing in the scenes where shaw stands up for the regiment . unfortunately , however , broderick’s uneven performance is , in many respects , the weak link in the movie . in an effort to look more mature , broderick sports a mustache and a goatee , and throughout the film he slips in and out of a phony boston accent . he is never altogether convincing as shaw since much of the time his emotions seem forced . the film places too much weight on broderick’s character and not enough on the black soldiers , who are more intriguing . glory regains lost ground with its harrowing depiction of war . the movie shows the devastation of war without resorting to the unnecessarily graphic gore which marred born on the fourth of july . glory does not try to rattle you with nauseating blood and guts . except for a few bullet wounds and one exploding head , the film , for the most part , leaves the gore to your imagination , which is not to say that the battle scenes in glory are timid . to the contrary , they are chaotic and horrifying ; it’s just that director edward zwick ( the co-creator of ” thirtysomething ” ) films them with far more subtlety and restraint than oliver stone could ever muster . the key to glory is the group dynamic among the black soldiers . the movie depicts some of ( but not enough of ) their customs and rituals . in one scene , for example , the soldiers motivate themselves by singing prayers around the campfire . each man has a chance to relay a few words of inspiration . a couple of the movie’s most touching moments involve young black children looking up to the black soldiers with awe , disbelief and pride . the regiment’s greatest triumph comes when the soldiers distinguish themselves in battle , thereby earning the respect of their white peers and earning the honor of leading the climactic assault on fort wagner . like any war film , glory has its share of gloom and despair , but ultimately it proves to be a truly uplifting experience and an important history lesson , a valuable reminder that despite what the history books say ( or , more precisely , what they do not say ) , blacks played a critically important role in the north’s victory over the south–forever changing the evolution of america .
1 steven spielberg’s second epic film on world war ii is an unquestioned masterpiece of film . spielberg , ever the student on film , has managed to resurrect the war genre by producing one of its grittiest , and most powerful entries . he also managed to cast this era’s greatest answer to jimmy stewart , tom hanks , who delivers a performance that is nothing short of an astonishing miracle . for about 160 out of its 170 minutes , ” saving private ryan ” is flawless . literally . the plot is simple enough . after the epic d-day invasion ( whose sequences are nothing short of spectacular ) , capt . john miller ( hanks ) and his team are forced to search for a pvt . james ryan ( damon ) , whose brothers have all died in battle . once they find him , they are to bring him back for immediate discharge so that he can go home . accompanying miller are his crew , played with astonishing perfection by a group of character actors that are simply sensational . barry pepper , adam goldberg , vin diesel , giovanni ribisi , davies , and burns are the team sent to find one man , and bring him home . the battle sequences that bookend the film are extraordinary . literally . there is nothing in film that has ever been recorded that will prepare you for the sheer onslaught of terrorizing violence in the film’s first 20 minutes . spielberg films almost the entire movie without music , leaving it up to the characters to generate emotion , and they do to perfection . the sequences in france , all of them , beginning with the battle and ending with the battle , are fabulous , especially the dialogues between the men as they walk through the hills and countrysides , trying to save private ryan . there are no words i can use to describe the true horror and power of these sequences . this is what coppola was looking for in ” apocalypse now ” , but couldn’t create . the sheer horror of these sequences all but condemn war . the performance by hanks as the leader of this gang is also extraordinary . he is head and shoulders above of the rest of the actors in the world , with his comic timing , dramatic flair , his quiet emotion that stirs an entire nation to tears . hanks is this country’s finest actor , and he proves it here . however , spielberg almost destroys his own masterpiece . with a chance to make it the one of the greatest films of all time , spielberg creates 10 minutes of purely worthless film . the sequence involving army chief-of-stafff george marshall and mrs . ryan is decent , but doesn’t hold up to the rest of the film , relying on wartime cliches to power it . but that is forgivable . what isn’t is the bookends of the film , the cemetary sequences . the first one is quite good , a decent introduction into the lives of these men . the last sequence is atrocious . the forced emotion , accompanied by a ridiculous piece of music , is simply horrible compared to the rest of the magical film . these flaws are what downgrade ” ryan ” from the greatest film of our era , to the greatest war film of our era . spielberg should have trusted his own material , and he should have trusted hanks to deliver the most chilling line of the movie , to end his masterpiece right there . the use of the flag , though patriotic , is in contrast to the movie’s theme . the power of the bulk of the film , however , is astonishing . spielberg has truly made a wondrous work of art , that persists even after first viewing of the film , is extraordinary . this is the film of the year .
1 truman ( ” true-man ” ) burbank is the perfect name for jim carrey’s character in this film . president truman was an unassuming man who became known worldwide , in spite of ( or was it because of ) his stature . ” truman ” also recalls an era of plenty following a grim war , an era when planned communities built by government scientists promised an idyllic life for americans . and burbank , california , brings to mind the tonight show and the home of nbc . if hollywood is the center of the film world , burbank is , or was , the center of tv’s world , the world where our protagonist lives . combine all these names and concepts into ” truman burbank , ” and you get something that well describes him and his artificial world . truman leads the perfect life . his town , his car , and his wife are picture perfect . his idea of reality comes under attack one day when a studio light falls from the sky . the radio explains that an overflying airplane started coming apart . . . but then why would an airplane be carrying a studio light ? the next day during the drive to work , the radio jams and he starts picking up a voice that exactly describes his movements . he is so distracted that he nearly hits a pedestrian . when the radio comes back to normal , the announcer warns listeners to drive carefully . his suspicion aroused , he wanders around the town square looking for other oddities . the world appears to be functioning properly until he enters an office building and tries to take the elevator . the elevator doors open up on a small lounge with people on coffee breaks . a grip sees truman him and quickly moves a paneled door , made to look like the back of an elevator , into place . two security guards grab him and throw him out . truman is really suspicious now . it gets even worse the next day when his wife , a nurse , describes an elevator accident in the building where he saw the lounge . ” it’s best not to think about it , ” she says , trying vainly to change truman’s memory . truman becomes determined to see who or what is behind this apparently elaborate hoax at his expense . at every turn he is stopped by an amazing coincidence that just happens to keep him in his own little town . his last hope is to quell his fear of the ocean and sail to the edge of the world . you know by now that truman’s life is the subject of a television program . his actions are ” real ” but everything else is carefully scripted , from the death of his father to the choice of his wife . truman is determined to find out what the big hoax is . meanwhile , christof , the all-seeing creator of truman’s world does his best to keep him unaware and happy . it’s sort of like westworld told from the robots’ point of view , or jurassic park from the dinosaurs’ point of view . we root for the captive of the cage-world . our protagonist is counting on ” chaos theory ” to help him escape his elaborate trap . the story , written by andrew niccol ( writer/director of gattaca ) , introduces some interesting questions , such as the ethics of subjecting a person to this type of life , or the psychological impact of learning that your entire life has all been fake . although these questions came to mind , i don’t think the film itself asked them . it certainly didn’t address them or try to answer them . i was particularly disappointed that the film didn’t deal more with the trauma of learning one’s life is a tv show . carrey’s performance at the end showed a smidgen of truman’s pain , but i almost felt that he got over it too easily for the sake of the film’s pacing . earlier in the movie i found myself wondering if it would be better for truman to find out the truth or whether i should root for him to be well . the two seemed exclusive of one another , but weir and niccol didn’t see it that way . perhaps it’s not fair to criticize a movie for what it isn’t , but it seems like there were some missed opportunities here . but on its own terms , the movie is well made . sight , sound and pacing are all handled competently . much of the first part of the movie is the truman show . the scenes are all apparently shot from hidden cameras , with snoots and obstructions covering the corners of the screen . one hidden camera is apparently in his car radio , the green led numbers obscuring the lower part of the screen . the music is well-chosen and scored . the film opens with what sounds like family drama theme music , when truman’s world is still beautiful and perfect . when the movie ends , the score sounds more like a frantic , driven , tangerine dream opus , while still keeping the same timbre . philip glass’ epic music ( from powaqqatsi ) permeates truman’s scenes of suspicion and awakening . ( glass has a small cameo as a keyboardist for the show . ) and the pacing of the story was brisk . there was no unnecessarily long setup explaining the concept behind the truman show , just a few quick title cards , a few interviews , and then right into the show , and the movie . one of the first scenes is of the studio light falling ; there was no token scene of truman’s idyllic life before it falls apart , because it wasn’t necessary , we pick up the story at the first sign of trouble , and no sooner . there’s also no point in the movie where the plot slows down . it’s a quick , straight shot to the movie’s end . in terms of overall quality , i would compare the truman show to niccol’s gattaca . both films are well made with interesting stories set in interesting worlds . but neither film really felt like it capitalized on all the great ideas ; neither film ” clicked ” and became an instant classic . nevertheless , i look forward to niccol’s next film , whatever it may be .
0 the most interesting part of ” can’t hardly wait ” just happens to be not only the most human , but for many of us , the one part that many of us can easily relate to . that is the character of denise ( lauren ambrose ) , the film’s sole sarcastic member who mocks everything that goes on in the film , and at one point sits down on a couch and looks totally bored . the film wisely holds over this moment , nicely showing her alienation in the midst of a large high school party . . . almost too nicely . for some members of the audience ( read : me ) , this is basically a mirror of what’s going on with them watching this film . we sit there wondering why we’ve even bothered to see a film about a long high school party we probably never felt the desire to go to in the first place . i would actually highly recommend this film if it satirized all of this . after all , this film is filled with a bunch of pathetic stereotypes much of which i went to high school with . everyone’s here : the jock , the homecoming queen , the nerd ( and his dominions of trekkies and x-philes ) , the alienated wannabe writer , the school spirit girl , the pothead ( s ) , the wigger , etc , etc , etc , and weirdly enough this film shows them as superficial , lame , and basically as a bunch of losers . except for denise , who rolls her eyes at everything , and easily becomes the most likable character even before she speaks ( her yearbook entry , something which is done for each main character , quotes oscar wilde – definite pointers there ) . unfortunately , the writers and directors take several major misteps on the way to making this into an admirable and even likable film . the film , as i said , portrays most of its characters as superficial and just totally ignorant to everything . however , instead of sticking with this , perhaps even going a bit further with it , they let this lie , and actually make these characters into our heroes . we follow several of them , all a bunch of moronic stereotypes with only a shread of humanity and realism , and tries to tell boring and overly melodramatic tales about them as if we actually cared and/or identified with them . and if we did , we certainly don’t want to revisit that state of being . here’s a quick low-down : it’s graduation , and we follow a bunch of seniors on the last night , otherwise known as the ” american grafitti ” or , to a lesser extent , the ” dazed and confused ” cliche . the formal just followed them as they drove aimlessly ; the latter did a little bit of that and featured a big outdoor keg party . ” can’t hardly wait ” just opts for a big indoor keg party , and a little bit of aimless driving , albeit of the i’m-whining-because-i-can’t-get-a-girl-i-want brand . we follow many people around , but mostly we trail preston ( ethan embry , of ” that thing you do ! ” ) , the alienated writer , who’s been pining over the homcoming queen , amanda ( the totally overrated jennifer love hewitt ) , for the entirety of high school because he thinks they shared a moment their freshman year over a freaking pop tart . now that she’s broken up with her football player boyfriend , mike ( peter facinelli ) , he decides to go to the party with a note he’s written declaring his ” love ” for her in the hopes he’ll build up the guts to give it to her . . . even though he’s leaving for a multi-week intensive writing program hosted by none other than kurt vonnegut ( okay : the ingenius vonnegut or some icky noxema spokesperson ? ) . since that plot is incredibly lame and a track record of what goes on with it wouldn’t be able to carry a commercial let alone a feature film , and because it’s a party , there are some more main characters , such as : william ( charlie korsmo , finally surfacing after ” dick tracy ” ) , the nerd ( and his dominions ) who has come up with a ridiculous plan to publically sabotage mike , who’s humiliated him for years , but gets too caught up in drinking to do it ; kenny ( seth green ) , the wigger , who has decided that this party will be where he will finally get laid ( uh huh ) ; and denise , the only exceptional character , who unfortunately gets stuck in a bathroom ( don’t ask ) with kenny where the two characters let down their characters and are allowed to follow the laws of plot cliches from point a to point b with nary a bit of characterization involved after awhile . ugh . the main comparison this film is getting to another film is actually not ” american grafitti ” or ” dazed and confused , ” two films that embraced and ultimately made humans out of many of its high schoolers ( not to mention were extremely entertaining ) , but to john hughes films of the 80s , most notably ” sixteen candles . ” the big difference in the two is that that film managed to not only embrace but even satirize its main characters , and did so equally and in an entertaining fashion . this film forgets to satirize its characters , and ultimately tells a story about a bunch of uninteresting stereotypes . . . and then says that it’s all okay . we can’t take this film seriously , nor can we take this as fun , so really what good is it ? but i will tell you some things i did like : i liked the direction , except for a couple too-over-the-top features , like way-too-glossy jump cuts ( it’s like an oxymoron ) and other obscurities . generally , though , elfont and kaplan do have graceful camera movement , and even manage to capture an altman-esque feel to their film from time to time ( a thing with a note , though , is too hokey to really be admirable ) . i actually did like seth green , for once in about a decade ( when he played a very young woody allen in ” radio days ” ) – his desintegration of his wigger character was almost believable . . . almost . and , of course , lauren ambrose is wonderful as denise , the one character we could have used some more of , even though it would have changed the entirety of the film . however , the character of denise really doesn’t work with the film , when really thought about . she’s far too witty and realized ( at least for the first half ) to belong in this film , and whenever she appears , she automatically gives everything a delightfully satirical tone . she’s not just the cynic or the intellectual ; she’s just a very interesting character who provides entertainment even if it further damages other already damaged characters . she may ruin the film more , but at least when she’s on screen we can sit up and think to ourselves ” well , at least we’ll be entertained . ” a couple other things that just don’t work : mike’s character , who suffers an epiphany throughout the film but in the end acts as though he has forgotten everything : too much the sacrificial lamb for the film in general ; the aimless , bitchy driving by preston to try and get over his inability to shack up with amanda – give me a break ; and perhaps the one thing that just doesn’t work at all : jenna eflman’s uncredited cameo as an angel – just didn’t work , but nice try . basically the worst thing about this film , the real reason i’m giving this such a low rating , is because it refuses to give us any fully realized characters and then insists we follow around complete stereotypes from other movies doing things that are inane and unlike anything we’d do . we don’t feel for these characters because for most of us , we aren’t stereotypes going through the motions to worn subplots . the acid test for high school movies is : does it at all capture the feel of what it’s portraying ? the answer for this film is no . nice try , though .
0 the film may be called mercury rising , but that title doesn’t describe the trajectory taken by this motion picture , a routine thriller that combines government cover-ups with a cloying and poorly-motivated buddy story . the ” hook ” that is supposed to make mercury rising unique is that the young protagonist is autistic . however , aside from giving actor miko hughes a chance to win raves for his performance , this particular aspect of the film comes across as nothing more than a convenient plot device . those expecting to see even a semi-thorough exploration of the condition will be disappointed . mercury rising treats autism with the same degree of efficiency that many action thrillers accord to alcoholism . the script for mercury rising is exceptionally tiresome and hard- to-swallow . i don’t know whether the problem is in the original book , simple simon , or in the screenplay adaptation , but this movie easily exceeds the intangible threshold beyond which a suspension of disbelief is no longer possible . once again , certain standby plot elements — the high-level government conspiracy and the maverick law enforcement agent — are recycled , and not to good effect . while bruce willis can play the action hero as well as anyone in hollywood , this particular outing leaves him marooned in situations that are characterized by too little tension and too much nonsense . the story begins with a formulaic sequence in which the tough fbi agent with a heart of gold , art jeffries ( bruce willis ) , is confronted with his own failure . unable to resolve a hostage crisis in time , he is forced to observe as two teenagers are shot to death . the event weighs heavily on his conscience and heavy-handedly establishes his motivation for protecting 9-year old simon lynch ( miko hughes ) when he discovers the autistic child hiding in a closet after his parents have been gunned down by the evil hit man who looks like an ex-football player . soon , art and simon are on the run from seemingly everyone — fleeing for their lives and bonding at the same time , with the evil hit man who looks like an ex-football player always just a step behind them . along the way , they are helped by the best friend who defies orders to help out his buddy ( chi mcbride ) and the supporting female who may or may not become a love interest ( kim dickens ) . why is simon in danger and why were his parents turned into swiss cheese by the evil hit man who looks like an ex-football player ? apparently , the government has spent millions of dollars developing an ultra-secret code called ” mercury . ” to make sure it can’t be cracked , they do the most intuitive thing possible : place a sample of it in a ” nerds’ puzzle magazine . ” of course , no one can solve it — no one except autistic simon , that is . when he calls the phone number listed in the solution , he gets the nsa . as a result , the cold-hearted , sneering government man ( alec baldwin ) decides that simon has to be eliminated — for the good of the country , of course . but he hasn’t counted on the tough fbi agent with a heart of gold , even though everyone in the audience has . it’s hard to get worked up about a routine thriller that doesn’t do anything exceptionally well , and does quite a few things rather poorly . for those who are desperate to find elements of this movie to like , mercury rising manages to manufacture tension from time-to-time , but even the most exciting scenes ( such as the one where art and simon are crouched down , avoiding passing trains ) aren’t that pulse-pounding . the climactic struggle is a real ho-hum affair which leads to a finale that is painful in its obviousness . overall , director harold becker is constantly struggling ( and failing ) to generate even a moment that isn’t derivative or obligatory . bruce willis’ star seems to be fading . this is his fourth straight lackluster outing , following last man standing , the fifth element , and the jackal . willis isn’t terrible , but this is the kind of role he can sleepwalk through , and often does . alec baldwin , combining elements of his characters from glengarry glenn ross and malice , does some scenery- chewing , but his performance is surprisingly lacking in menace . the film’s real star is young miko hughes ( heather langenkamp’s son in wes craven’s new nightmare ) , who does as good a job as dustin hoffman playing an autistic individual , but is about 50 years younger . mercury rising joins the likes of hard rain , the replacement killers , and u . s . marshals on the heap of pallid 1998 thrillers . for those who like action and adventure in the theater , this has not been a good year . hopefully , the advent of summer will change that . until then , the best choices ( for bruce willis or any other action hero ) are on video . and , if you’re determined to see mercury rising , check out the morning sky in early may .
0 ” alcohol and drugs = bad . not alcohol and drugs = good . got it ? ” just when you though you’ve seen enough of brave young women dealing with their personal problems on screen , be that insanity or alcoholism , hollywood releases yet another one of those ‘deep , emotional stories about finding yourself’ . . ’28 days’ is practically a visualization of the usual ‘meaningful’ true stories that people are so proudly retelling at aa-meetings . gwennie ( sandra bullock ) is a young woman who drowned her problems in alcohol . for her life was a big party , with no beginning and no end . this behavior has of course estranged her from her only sister and from life itself . her existence is filled with endless parties and comic episodes . such as when she got drunk with boyfriend jasper ( dominic west ) , borrowed her sister’s ( elizabeth perkins ) wedding limo and crashed it into someone’s house . this time she had to pay with a 28 day stay in court-ordered rehab . here she must realize that the only thing that can save her is her is redemption , willpower and commitment . most important she must realize her place and direction in life and understand that her life is not just a big party . the film itself feels like a rehab program , whining and moaning about things that have been said and written a million times . it is a classic cautionary tale . an echo . a big , fat and expensive clich ? . a shadow of last year’s ‘girl , interrupted’ , which likewise followed in the footsteps of great masterpieces like ‘the cuckoo’s nest’ and ‘trainspotting’ . director betty thomas has stuffed her film with so many failures and errors , that it is impossible to sum them all up in one review . for some paranoid reason she decided to make her film a drama/comedy . jokes and funny characters almost deliberately delude you from the really important and complex issues : alienation , despair , terror , confusion , loneliness . and what awesome power and strength of character it actually takes to overcome all that and become clean . isn’t that what the filmmakers wanted to show in the first place ? even the transition process itself seems like a walk in the park . betty thomas’ idea of hell is a cozy , homey place where happy alcoholics and cheerful drug addicts are not allowed to smoke , drink or watch tv after 11 . it is simply too light , simplified and unnecessary sweet to be taken seriously . but the worst thing about it is that it actually thinks that it is saying something of significance . that it actually tries to educate the audience with its extremely predictable and primitive story . ” all you need to do is just say no ” , says dr . cornell ( steve buscemi ) as if was the revelation of the century . and that’s how simple it is ! in fact i would rather watch ‘lost in space’ once again , than return to ’28 days’ . as for acting , it’s acceptable , but hardly anything else . for sandra bullock it’s an opportunity to demonstrate that she is capable of more than ‘speed’ . she handles her part with a surprising professionalism and ease that certainly saves the film from being a complete flop . dominic west shines as the source of gwenie’s devilish temptations , but elizabeth perkins’ and steve buscemi’s great talents are wasted on unnoticeable and shallow characters . although intellectually ‘girl , interrupted’ was a greater achievement , ’28 days’ is superior in its visual aspect . there are some nice flash back sequences and occasionally impressive pacing , but the overall technical aspect of this film is on the ground floor . the most important thing is that we’ve seen it before and it was a lot better . ‘clean and sober’ , ‘only when i laugh’ , ‘when a man loves a woman’ , ‘leaving las vegas’ and many other stronger films were made about the same issues . so what’s the point ? in other words ’28 days’ doesn’t contribute to the moviemaking business on any level . if you’re caught in a snowstorm or bolts of lightning fall from the sky and you’re standing in front of the movie theatre , you might as well go in and watch ’28 days’ . under all other circumstances stay away , because this film equals $8 and 103 minutes lost .
0 capsule : combine one quart of raiders of the lost ark , a dash of a jackie chan movie ( sans jackie ) , two teaspoons of gun- and swordplay , and a dollop of cgi . simmer for 100 minutes . yields : zilch . the phantom is a depressing and tired retread of so many earlier , better movies that after the fifteen-minute mark i started cataloguing them out loud . it’s hard to make a good action-adventure movie that doesn’t simply recycle its predecessors , and i’ve seen movies that even at least did the recycling gracefully . the phantom , allegedly based on the long-running comic of the same name , doesn’t even bother to be graceful . it’s a stupid and incompetent movie in too many ways to list , but i’ll try . the film opens up with a ” prelude ” sequence that looks like it was slashed to ribbons in the editing and then given a heavy voice-over to compensate for whatever got thrown out . we go from there to a jungle sequence that , i swear to god , recycles the truck-chase scene from raiders of the lost ark note-for-note , possibly even shot-for-shot , right down to the moment where indy wrenched open the door and slung one of the drivers out into the brush — and then goes on to rip off the rope-bridge scene from ” sorcerer ” as well ! sorcerer , as you may well remember , was a remake of a french movie , the wages of fear , in which a bunch of lowlifes were paid piles of money to drive a truck loaded with nitro through horrible jungle terrain . both versions of that movie were far more interesting than this flick , but i’ve got my job to do , so back to the salt mines we go . anyway , the cinematic theft doesn’t stop there . or at least the lack of inspiration . there isn’t a single thing here we haven’t seen , and it’s not given to us in a way that remotely evokes our interest . we have ( where’s my list ? ) a bad girl , a tough good girl , a secret cave hideaway ( which seems inspired more by dr . no than anything else ) , a boardroom meeting that drips with greed and venality , magical artifacts of terrible power , and cary-hiroyuki tagawa wasted in another stupid role where he gets to wear a fu manchu mustache and sneer a lot and generally humiliate himself . what else is there ? the plot is a waste of time . the sets alternate between big but hokey — and tiny and still hokey . there are lines in the script that are just begging to be mst3ked — and i’m sure once mike and the ‘bots get the cash , they’ll stick it on their sked . the only thing in the movie worth noting is billy zane — he’s a good actor , and he tries very hard , even when the script is sending him down one dead alley of a scene after another . all i can say is that i pray this isn’t the beginning of the end for him — although it sure looks like the final nail in the coffin for the comic-book super-hero movie .
0 a new entry in the ” revisionist history ” genre of filmmaking , dick suggests that two not-too-bright teenage girls are the cause of the uncovering of the nation’s biggest presidential scandal . kirsten dunst and michelle williams star betsy and arlene , who while trying to deliver a fan letter from arlene’s watergate hotel room , accidentally stumble across g . gordon liddy ( played dead-on by harry shearer ) and the infamous break-in . when they recognize liddy later on during a white house field trip , they are ushered into a conference room , questioned as to what they know , and leave as official presidential dog walkers . the girls manage to unwittingly uncover every bit of the watergate scandal while performing their duties , but have no clue as to what they are getting involved with . when they discover that nixon ( another dead-on performance by dan hedaya , who actually favors nixon slightly , unlike anthony hopkins ) has been abusive to checkers , the presidential dog , thanks to the conversations that he always recorded , they quit and become disillusioned . during a prank phone call the girls make to woodward and bernstein , events are set into motion that eventually lead to the president’s resignation . this film starts off promisingly with an aged woodward and bernstein arguing with each other on an obvious larry king-type talk show ( featuring a cameo by french stewart ) about revealing the identity of ” deep throat ” . from there , we are subjected to bodily function humor and just about every bad ” dick ” joke one can derive from this type of supposed comedy . at one point , the girls are having to scream over a high school band playing on the steps of the lincoln memorial . the band manages to stop right as dunst screams ” you have to stop letting dick run your life ! ” much to the horror of everyone standing within earshot . several other variations on this wordplay surface all throughout the film . if this movie had been smarter i would have been less likely to fault it’s juvenile bathroom humor , but it’s not . the film was apparently made for relatively younger people because every major player in the watergate scandal is introduced and shoved down the audience’s throat in the least subtle way possible . i don’t recall oliver stone’s nixon having to pander to it’s audience , but of course that film wasn’t a comedy aimed squarely at a 13-20 year-old film going audience . the only redeeming thing about this movie is it’s remarkable supporting cast . i wanted to see more of ferrell and mcculloch’s woodward and bernstein . those two characters are the sole basis for my rating . i wish they had been given more screen time , but unfortunately , they are only relegated to the final half-hour . their constant bickering and fighting over trying to get the story are a major highlight , especially mcculloch’s constant thwarting of ferrell’s attempts to gather information from the girls ( who , in the course of the narrative are revealed as deep throat , so named thanks to an ill planned trip to a porno theater by betsy’s brother ) . the other members of the cast are excellent in their portrayals of their particular characters , but are given nothing to work with . i’d like to see the same cast portray these characters in a script more suited towards their comedic abilities . as for the two leads , dunst and williams can definitely do better . they come off as what could best be described as romy and michele : the early years in this particular film , a highly dubious distinction at best . stay through the first half of the end credits though , to see an interesting scene involving dunst and williams suggestively sucking on lollipops emblazoned with the title of the movie . an excellent idea marred by poor execution , dick could have been a great movie . less of the juvenile humor and more of the smarter comedy displayed by the woodward and bernstein scenes , could have made this film a wonderful satire of the nixon presidency as seen through the eyes of two naive fifteen year olds . as it stands though , dick offers nothing but what filmmaker kevin smith so accurately defines as ” dick and poopie ” jokes . and that , to me , does not make a funny movie . [pg-13]
0 words i thought i’d never write : the sequel to urban legend lacks the grace , wit , and power of the original . put the gun to my head , pull the trigger , and put me out of my misery . better yet , put the horror genre out of its misery . when you’ve finished watching urban legends : final cut , you’ll share my same grim point of view thanks to the horrible acting , terrible script , and ridiculous directing which has become all too common today . urban legends : final cut is a smorgasbord of stolen movie ideas ( mainly from the blair witch project and scream ) : fabulous people with perfect teeth and skin , one creepy film school , and a dog eating a freshly removed kidney from one of the movie’s hapless victims . urban legends delivers a story about a bunch of film students working on their thesis films to win the coveted ” hitchcock award ” which guarantees the winner a director deal in hollywood . one female filmmaker ( jennifer morrison , the freaky dead girl from stir of echoes ) writes a fiction script based on a serial killer who kills his victims according to ” urban legend ” tales . suddenly , her entire crew starts getting bumped off with urban-legendary homicides , but the bodies are always missing and she is often the only witness to the killings . the killer wears a fencing mask and a long black overcoat , looking like a scorned olympian out to avenge his defeat in sydney . why this is scary is never explained . of course , the golden rule of sequels is that there must be least one recurring character for continuity’s sake . urban legends has one minor , recurring character from the original who we never cared about anyway ( the security guard , of all people ) . the other central problem is that this character has already seen the urban legend killings once before , but she’s utterly clueless about what’s going on around her . call it suspension of disbelief . this film is also a prime example of how horror films are now completely dead in the water . the last decent horror film was the blair witch project , and that seemed more like a snuff film than fiction . the stalking killer with crazy motivation has become a tired clich ? , as everyone seems to have forgotten : real horror is not about what is seen but about what is unknown .
0 godzilla is the ultimate culmination of the ” who cares about plot ” summer movie . a loose remake of the 1954 ” classic ” japanese monster movie , godzilla , king of the monsters ( which is itself pretty thin in the story department ) , roland emmerich and dean devlin’s big-budget lizard-stomps-manhattan disaster flick has been written with the brain dead in mind . the script isn’t just ” dumbed down , ” it’s lobotomized . godzilla lives and dies on special effects alone . presumably , the primary target group for this film is teenage boys , the demographic most likely to shell out $7 repeatedly to see the same images of monster-instigated carnage . that’s not to say that females and other age groups are immune to the special effects seduction ; they’re just not as readily susceptible . this is the third straight movie in a row where emmerich and devlin have demonstrated that a mastery of computer-generated visuals is far more important for making money than the ability to write and direct for actors . stargate was a financial success . independence day was a runaway hit . and , with godzilla already drowning in hype and merchandising tie-ins before it even opens , it’s virtually guaranteed at least $100 million . nice numbers for a film that could have been penned by a not-too-precocious grade school kid . godzilla isn’t completely without merit , although it is close . there’s a certain visceral thrill inherent in watching the giant lizard rip his way through manhattan , but it wears off quickly . frankly , while the special effects are competent , they’re not all that stunning . there’s nothing new here ; it’s jurassic park meets aliens , with a little independence day thrown in for bad measure . maybe it will require george lucas and his new star wars movie to take computer-generated visuals to the next level . godzilla never really pushes the envelope , preferring to remain within a comfort zone . the imagination of monster movies like king kong has been replaced by a crass , formulaic approach which disallows creativity . ( how disturbing is it to know that godzilla has been chosen to close the 51st cannes film festival ? ) worst of all , godzilla isn’t even exciting . with the possible exception of a mildly enjoyable car chase near the end , there isn’t a sequence in this film that raises the pulse . even the scenes with dozens of aircraft attacking the monster are so devoid of tension and suspense that they are yawn-provoking . independence day may have been dumb , but it was full of ” adrenaline moments ” capable of getting the audience involved in the action . in this aspect of its production , as in so many others , godzilla is lacking . actually , part of the problem is that we’re never sure who we’re supposed to be rooting for : the green monster with an attitude or the paper-thin humans trying to stop him . the plot , such as it is , can be summed up rather simply . after sinking a few ships and leaving some footprints on tropical islands , godzilla shows up in the big apple . he does some of the usual tourist things : stops by madison square garden , visits the chrysler building , goes on a walk through central park , and takes the subway . in the process , he knocks over a few buildings and steps on countless cabs , but he never has trouble with traffic jams . on hand to stop him is an elite u . s . army unit , led by a slightly less-arrogant-than-usual military man ( kevin dunn ) and a biologist named nick tatopoulos , who has a theory about godzilla . in his opinion , the big guy is actually a lizard grown to enormous proportions as a result of the radiation given off by french atomic bomb tests in the south pacific . in nick’s words , godzilla is ” a mutated aberration ? an incipient creature ? the first of its kind . ” as luck would have it , nick’s old girlfriend , audrey ( maria pitillo ) , is a reporter based at a new york tv station . along with her cameraman friend , animal ( hank azaria ) , she decides to follow nick around as he trails godzilla . then , just when the military has rejected nick’s theory about why godzilla is in new york , a member of the french secret service ( jean reno ) recruits him for a special assignment . instead of stomping around tokyo this time , godzilla has chosen new york city . unfortunately , manhattan has been destroyed so many times in recent disaster movies ( independence day , deep impact , armageddon ) that it’s becoming boring . the whole tradition of monsters roaming around the city started with king kong , but the big ape was only about 30 feet tall . he could climb the empire state building . at ten times that height , godzilla would be more likely to knock it over . godzilla contains a few lame attempts at humor . there’s an ongoing feud between animal and his wife that plays like sit-com material , an unfunny and repetitive gag about how no one can pronounce nick’s last name properly , and a rather tame attack on film critics roger ebert and gene siskel . both of the popular personalities have alter egos in the film : ” ebert , ” the mayor of new york , is played by michael lerner , and ” gene ” ( lorry goldman ) is his campaign manager . ebert’s re-election slogan is , not surprisingly , ” thumbs up for new york . ” the siskel/ebert stuff is amusing the first time it’s used , but , after a while , it grows tiresome . and , although the ” characters ” don’t serve any real purpose , they keep popping up . godzilla is saddled with an unimpressive cast . this is largely because emmerich doesn’t want to risk a human performance upstaging his lizard . that’s not to say that matthew broderick and jean reno aren’t capable of good performances ( both have done their share of solid acting in the past ) , but they aren’t a-list names . then again , considering the quality of the writing , even pacino and deniro would have been hard- pressed to shine . maria pitillo ( dear god ) plays the love interest and hank azaria ( great expectations ) is on hand to present what is supposed to be comic relief . ultimately , it doesn’t really matter what i ( or any other critic , for that matter ) have to say about the movie . tristar has assumed that godzilla , like all self-proclaimed summer event motion pictures , is pretty much critic-proof . it may also be word-of-mouth-proof . those who want to see the movie will see it no matter what i write or their friends say . so , when i go on record to assert that godzilla is one of the most idiotic blockbuster movies of all time , it’s like spitting into the wind . emmerich and devlin are master illusionists , waving their wands and mesmerizing audiences with their smoke and mirrors . it’s probably too much to hope that some day , movie-goers will wake up and realize that they’ve been had .
0 recently one night a young director named baz luhrmann couldn’t sleep . he tumbled out of bed and moved over to the television where he watched mtv for an hour . then he moved to his kitchen where he spent the same amount of time eating spoiled food . then he took down a volume of shakespeare’s work and read it cover to cover – never really paying attention to the words or plot . and then , as a climax , he took out his video camera and pressed the ” on ” button . the result ? william shakespeare’s romeo + juliet – the worst film ever made and a complete failure . though , to be fair , an interesting complete failure . the idea at the film’s core is to make shakespeare appealing to the crowds . this is done by moving the camera around at a rapid rate so that we can’t see what is going on . and filming the dialogue in voice over . and shooting leonardo dicaprio like a calvin klein model . and making the frame go still while flashing the character’s name at the bottom . and filming long tedious action sequences in slow motion . i mean , man , this is the 90s , dude . however i’ve seen terrible films that are fun to watch . ( examples are batman and robin and the island of doctor moreau . ) that rule doesn’t apply here . this is a film that takes itself seriously . that is it’s major fault . another problem was pointed out by my friend , alex ( who was singing songs by leonard bernstein throughout . ) ; the original play is a powerful piece of work because the author remained neutral and didn’t take sides . here it’s clear that we are supposed to side with romeo . ( just look at the way they film him . ) from the begining he’s our hero and this doesn’t work . and dicaprio’s awful performance doesn’t help . luhrmann never decides if he wants to entertain us or enlighten us . the result is a mess . you can feel him striving to be something he isn’t . he tries to pull of a mix in which drag queens are filmed from purposefully arty angles . he tries very hard . key word : tries . ” oh look , he’s filming above water action from below . pretty . what does it represent ? ” why do people do ugly things ? i scrambled away from my tv set feeling guilty as if i could never read the play again and keep a straight face .
0 in times of crisis people are driven to desperate measures . of course what constitutes a crisis differs from person to person . what may be a disastrous situation for one , may be seen as a challenge to another . as deepak chopra is known to say , ” it’s not the ride , it’s the rider . ” unfortunately clear-thinking is not always the reaction to problems . wall street wheeler dealer steven taylor ( michael douglas ) is a man with troubles . he’s sunk his money in illegal financial activities and it’s blown up in his face . in a matter of days he will lose it all . his wife emily ( gwyneth paltrow ) is a highly-placed un interpreter and is not happy with her life either . her marriage is cold and unfulfilling . unknown to her , her new lover david shaw ( viggo mortensen ) is not only a painter , but an ex-con with a history of bilking wealthy women of their money . emily is a prime target : she’s worth over $100 million . steven’s solution to his predicament is to offer david half a million to kill his wife . the artist accepts and the movie is underway . drawing from frederick knott’s play and loosely based on hitchcock’s dial m for murder , this is all-too typical of summer releases . all style and no substance . and there’s really not much style . director andrew davis ( the accomplished witness and best-forgotten other films ) has made exactly the wrong choices at almost every turn . douglas and paltrow have both shown us that they are skillful actors in previous films . mortensen showed promise in the past . here all three are walking uninterestingly through their roles with oddly waxen faces . the only person who shows any sense of life is david suchet as new york detective mohamed karaman . he’s only on-screen long enough to make you think that there might be a likable person in the film and then he disappears . the first concern of a suspense film is to create suspense . surprises are important . in this movie the audience keeps waiting for something to happen . and nothing ever does . nearly every event is telegraphed in advance . close-up on this object or that action and it’s easy to guess what’s going to happen . as the film plods towards its inevitable conclusion you keep expecting a plot twist to make the movie worthwhile . it’s a hopeless quest . the story doesn’t make much sense . steven’s wife is loaded . even with unfriendly relations , you’d think that he could have talked to her about his difficulty rather than deciding to kill her . when he does decide on the dire plan he makes an unreasonable choice . if you were going to hire someone to kill your wife , would your first choice be her lover ? no matter how sleazy he is , i would think there might be a chance that he would turn down the opportunity . why would steven plan the murder as a break-in in their apartment ? why not just take her out as she was walking to david’s loft in a bad neighborhood ? while deciding among the numerous summer films , you might do well to skip this one . you’ll find more suspense than this movie offers by watching the weather channel .
0 ” virus ” is a monster movie without a monster . any movie with a hurdle that large to overcome had better be pretty damn good otherwise . sadly , ” virus ” does not deliver , on any level . the movie opens with the russian space station mir about to transmit something ( we never find out what ) to a big boat with lots of satellites on it . sudddenly , a wave of colorful lightning comes flying through space , and winds up destroying mir and using it to transmit itself to the aforementioned big boat . cut to seven days later , we meet donald sutherland and his band of seafaring vultures . see , they spend all their time sailing around looking for dead-in-the-water ships to rescue , and then collect the reward money . at least , i * think * that’s what they do . along with many other things in the film , their reason for being out in the middle of the ocean isn’t really explained . so , they stumble upon this big boat with lots of satellites on it , and decide to haul it back to russian waters . the only problem is , the crew starts disappearing one-by-one and turning into borg . yes , borg . complete with the red laser beam in place of an eye . apparently , this alien lifeform can only survive if inside something electrical . so , it creates make-shift machines and uses humans for ” spare parts ” . blah , blah , blah . i could go on forever describing the ludicrous so-called plot , but i won’t . suffice it to say the most original thing about this movie is having donald sutherland play an irish man ( ! ) . everything else in this movie has been taken from other ( better ) movies . for example , many of the machines resemble those found in the little-seen japanese movie , ” tetsuo-the iron man ” . and the plot is right out of ” aliens ” . the funny thing is , i was actually expecting to enjoy this movie . i have a soft spot for cheesy monster movies , like last years under-appreciated ” deep rising ” . but ” virus ” , as i mentioned earlier , doesn’t even have a monster . it just has a big pile of circuits and wires and expects the audience to fear this ridiculous looking contraption . ” virus ” is the type of movie that really makes you wonder what the screenwriter was thinking about when he wrote it . besides the lame ” monster ” , it’s chock full of dialogue that no real person would ever say , and situations that no real person would ever allow themselves to get into . for example , there is a scene late in the movie in which one of the characters actually attempts to * negotiate * with the alien ! now , i don’t know about you , but if i came upon a lifeform that viewed mankind as a virus to be eliminated , i doubt that i would attempt to reason with it . that makes about as much sense as a baby squirrel calmly asking a fierce predator to spare his life . finally , ” virus ” isn’t scary . the least the filmmakers could have done was to make the movie just a little scary . as it is , it’s about as frightening as a box of cookies . skip ” virus ” . if it’s a cool monster movie you want , rent the far superior ( and the granddaddy of this genre ) ” aliens ” .
0 dr . alan grant ( sam neill , ” jurassic park ” ) is becoming disillusioned . paleontology is no longer the sexy science it once was since the ingen corporation cloned his subject matter . his lectures bring people interested in his adventures on isla nubla rather than his research and funding dollars are drying up . when the kirbys ( william h . macy , ” fargo ” ; tea leoni , ” the family man ” ) ask him to be their guide for an anniversary flyover of isla sorna ( the notorious site b of ” the lost world ” ) he’s disdainful , but once they wave their checkbook , he reconsiders . however the kirbys haven’t given dr . grant their real agenda in ” jurassic park iii . ” of course , we , the audience , have been tipped off , given that the film begins by showing us eric ( trevor morgan , ” the patriot ” ) , a young boy , and ben ( mark harelik , ” election ” ) going for a paragliding adventure off that same island that goes awry ( and looks like cheesy rear projection ) . grant’s established back home with a new right hand man , billy brennan ( alessandro nivola , ” love’s labour’s lost ” ) on site at a dig in montana sorely lacking funds . he also pays a visit to old flame dr . ellie sattler ( laura dern , ” jurassic park ” ) , now married to another with a young son who calls grant ‘the dinosaur man’ apparently for the sole purpose of dredging her up again for the film’s poorly imagined finale . grant takes billy along on the kirbys trip , which is really an illegal gambit to save their son , that young paraglider . the couple aren’t millionaires , making grant’s check bogus , and they’re separated as well ( eric was with amanda’s new boyfriend , not that that makes much sense ) , meaning we’re in for some gooey family dynamics while waiting for the dino dining . the kirbys hired hands ( and obvious bait ) are a threesome led by mr . udesky ( michael jeter , ” the gift ” ) . ( didn’t anyone consider that casting michael jeter and william h . macy together and not having them be related was a little odd ? ) as directed by joe johnston ( ” october sky , ” ” jumanji ” ) ( spielberg only produced this one ) from a risible script by peter buchman and the ” election ” team of alexander payne & jim taylor , ” jurassic park iii ” is nothing more than a quickie monster flick with a couple of new dinos ( a spinosauraus , which goes head to head with the t-rex , and pteranodons ) . the plot , as it were , is a series of coincidences combined with extreme leaps of faith and a trifecta of stupid cell phone tricks . the effects are no longer new , and , as shot by television cinematographer shelly johnson , rather murky looking at times . film editing by robert dalva ( ” october sky ” ) was presumably done by machete , to keep this down to a 90 minute run time . i know of no other reason to explain the ridiculous ending which features the survivors confronting a pack of raptors , then being saved by the most ludicrous of logic jumps within a few minutes . ‘original’ music by don davis just repeats john williams’ original themes . while neill and young morgan attempt to inject some humor and humanity into the proceedings , the rest of the cast are plodding unexceptional . ” jurassic park iii ” will probably provide some quick entertainment for those who go into it knowing what to expect , the same crowd who maybe liked ” the lost world : jurassic park . ”
0 barb wire , pamela anderson lee’s first foray into films , highlights the fact that her only talent lies in her silicone enhanced assets . being the only notable member of the cast , the camera lingers lustily o n her body at every opportunity , making her character’s catch line , ” don’t call me babe , ” sound very ironic indeed . from the very opening of the movie , we are treated to a striptease routine from anderson , ending in her hurling her stiletto smack between the eyes of a lusty male who happened to call her babe . throughout the movie , there is ample footage of enormous breasts and cleavage , if not of anderson’s , then at least of the female extras . this alone is enough to retitle the movie babe wire . for a plot , barb wire rehashes the casablanca storyline . it is 2017 , the middle of the second american civil war , and barb wire , a former resistance fighter , runs a joint in steel harbour called hammerhead ( ! ! ) . known for attracting resistance fighters an d characters of all sorts , the bar attracts the attention of the government forces who appear dressed in nazi-style uniforms . in between bashing up helpless males and showing off her trademark breasts , barb wire has to help a former lover and his wife get to the airport on the other side of the town , past the government-controlled areas , and to freedom . even the airport looks like the one in casablanca , except that the plane in the background is a modern , private jet . there are hardly any significant moments in this film , and one gets the impression that it was designed for young teenagers familiar with the dark horse comics version of ” barb wire . ” if anything , one leaves the film with the confirmation that anderson di d not do her own stunts . who could fight and jump in a skimpy , strapless leather top , and yet keep her breasts from spilling out ? only a stuntwoman . not pamela anderson lee .
0 humanities quest for knowledge never ends . so a team of scientists and film-makers travel to the amazon to search for a legendary indian tribe . the party consists of anthropologist steven cale ( eric stoltz ) and the camera team consisting of terri flores ( jennifer lopez ) , danny rich ( ice cube ) , gary dixon ( owen wilson ) , denise kahlberg ( kari wuhrer ) and warren westridge ( jonathan hyde ) . early on their journey they meet paul sarone ( jon voight ) whose boat is stuck on the shore . they agree to give him a ride to the next village . he claims to know the area well and can be useful locating the native tribe . very soon their friendliness backfires on the group because sarone turns out to be a snake hunter without scruples who only wants to catch a giant anaconda and sell it to a zoo . we don’t have to wait too long for the giant snake . she just had a panther hors d’oevre and now is looking for the main course . our heroes paddle around in the amazonas as if it were the pool in their own backyard . no wonder giant animals mistake their splashing for a dinner bell . our anaconda is a polite one and swallows the first victim in one big gulp . enjoy ! so much for the first attempt to catch her . but who would want to catch a giant snake with a fishing pole ? our villain sarone shows his soft side when he stops terri from shooting the snake . too bad that anaconda is just about to strangle another member of the expedition . one by one she goes after the others . eric stoltz is stung by a giant wasp right in the beginning and is mercifully unconcious for the rest of the adventure . the rest of the crew keeps entertaining the viewer although not the way the makers of the movie had planned . however the scenes without the anaconda are rather boring . whenever the leading lady shows up we’re in for a laugh . the snake reminds us of a favorite character of a famous animated movie even if she should be an awe-inspiring monster . her attacks always follow the same plan : one last hypnotic look – she’s looking at you , kid – then she speedily wraps herself around her victim and starts to gush it down . mostly we don’t see the act of devouring . but she looks nice when she wiggles away with her bulging middle part . whoever did the special effects on this movie may have wanted to go to a zoo first and study some real snakes . maybe then the anaconda model would have looked more real . the animatronics are somewhat more believable . but that didn’t work for the strangling scenes . don’t go see the movie for the f/x . they are everything but up-to-date . the viewer who likes to watch the end credits will see to his/her surprise that a snake expert was a consultant for the team . we may doubt though that he has ever seen the final result of his work . a well known american science magazine is also mentioned in the credits , but i will refrain from naming it here to avoid further damage to its reputation . the majority of viewer will have left the theater as soon as the credits start rolling , anyway . what kind of audience is the target group for this movie ? hard to say . this can’t be a serious horror movie , or can it ? see for yourself .
0 absolute power , the new film produced and directed by clint eastwood , attempts to be a thriller set in the world of hypocritical presidents and their murderous political staff . it is about as thrilling as a lecture on the mating habits of the south american grasshopper . one can only wonder how an utterly absurd script like the one written by william goldman could have ever interested eastwood . not only is the plot unbelievable and contrived , but even the writing itself lacks any consistency or intelligence . continually underestimating the audience , the film gives us information we already know or dont even need . details essential to the story are so improbably convenient they are annoying ( like why would two unprepared secret service men carry two night-vision goggles in their car ? ) . oddly enough , the initial setup for absolute power offers interesting possibilities . a masterful jewel-thief ( played by clint eastwood ) witnesses the murder of the wife of a powerful millionaire ( played by e . g . marshall ) . while robbing one of marshalls mansions , he is forced to hide in the bedrooms vault . there , through a two-way mirror , he sees the wife and another man engage in passionate foreplay . their game of love quickly turns into a violent struggle as the man starts beating the woman . in self defense , the woman grabs a letter-opener and stabs the man in the elbow . she raises her arm to stab again when she is fatally shot by two secret service men . the man ? he is the president of the united states of america . where does the film go wrong ? it cannot be the acting . clint eastwood , ed harris and gene hackman as the president give type-cast , but decent performances . the cinematography is sufficient ; wild and erratic during action sequences , dark and mysterious during psychologically suspenseful scenes , and calm and warm during dramatic dialogue . even the music is not as bombastic as it usually tends to be in the thriller/suspense genre . the fault clearly lies in the screenplay , and the screenplay alone . while setting up a story about misuse of power , about the true possessors of that power , and about intrigue and double-crossing , it does not resolve it . not one buildup of suspense is resolved by an exciting climax . rather , the tense situations are left dangling at the end , giving the viewer an uneasy sense of incompleteness . an example of this is a very promising and tense buildup of a scene : in an attempt to arrest clint eastwood , the police have set up a trap at a small restaurant . police officers are everywhere , incognito of course . at the same time , not one but two hit men are preparing to kill clint eastwood when he arrives . all three parties are unaware of each others presence . this scene is tremendously exciting and the audience is wondering how clint eastwood , who might suspect this is a trap , will get himself out of this difficult position . he will probably have a brilliant plan , involving ingenious preparations . however , when he arrives at the trap , both hit men miss ( how convenient ) and in the confusion eastwood simply walks away . the buildup of this scene took about ten minutes . ten minutes of close ups of the hit men loading their weapons intercut with the police preparing for the trap . the scene was resolved in less than 20 seconds . . . parallel to the story line of catching the real killer is a cliche emotional tale about the estranged relationship between father eastwood and his daughter . the daughter blames her father for never being there for her , because he was either in jail or robbing a house somewhere . of course their relationship takes a turn for the better during the adventure and they end up a happy family . again , it is commendable that absolute power tries to deviate from the mainstream suspense film by giving room for a dramatic subplot . however , trying is simply not enough ! the second story line should be subtle , original and preferably unpredictable . . . everything this film is not . how could a screenplay like absolute power ever get the funding to be produced ? how could eastwood , who has successfully produced and directed many outstanding films such as the brilliant unforgiven , ever believe in a project like this one ? i am sad to say that my respect for the actor/director/producer has diminished substantially due to this film . director quentin tarantino once said : ” i can make a good movie out of any bad script . ” director clint eastwood obviously cannot .
0 ever feel you’re spending your whole life on the net ( ouch ! ) , eating , breathing and excreting web sites ? that your most meaningful relationships are being formed on the net ? that you get your best sex on the net ? if first-time director hal salwen could shoot an entire movie of characters typing at their computers , he would . as it is , he settles for characters talking on the phone . denise calls up is a movie for and about the electronic generation , where characters are too caught up with their work and insecurities prefer to live out their relationships and fantasies on the phone . it’s a satire – and a sometimes funny one – about how we let handphones , call-waiting and answering machines run our lives . the problem : denise calls up is a movie about an idea . a darn good one , but still an 80 minute-long idea . and despite salwen’s attempt at plots and sub-plots , despite some genuinely funny moments , you can predict the movie’s outcome within the first fifteen minutes . you get the drift after a series of shots of characters explaining over the phone why they all couldn’t make it for a party – nobody is going to be meeting anybody in this film , they would rather be talking on the phone . here’s salwen’s plot : while all the characters are in a dysfunctional , telefixated limbo , loud quirky stranger denise calls up martin to announce that she is pregnant with his child , courtesy of the sperm he donated to the local bank . as martin progresses from slamming the phone on her to long phone conversations over the baby’s name , his friends – and his friends’ friends – get involved , courtesy of call-waiting and double-lines . in the tigher and more tantalizing sub-plot , barbara and jerry are set up on a blind date that neither turns up for . both profess to have too complicated schedules to ever meet , but they get it going over the phone . with repeated phone sex comes a glitch ; what if the other person is simply faking it ? denise calls up scores with some inspired moments . mousy barbara metamorphoses into a vamp over her cordless , everyone shares the excitement of denise’s delivery through a conference call to her handphone , and barbara’s best friend gale is killed in a car accident while taling animatedly into another friend’s answering machine . ( as gale’s overly-chatty aunt recounts , her cordless was knicked into her ear and lodged in her brain . ) but these moments are not enough to sustain the movie . the pace sags , the dialogue drags and not much acting appears to be required of the telephone-touters . and the ending is literally a non-event as expected , everyone is too chicken to turn up for the party frank throws in gale’s memory despite promising over the phone that they will . we get the point . the movie appears to be intent on flogging its terribly-’90s statement until they have it coming out of your ears . pun intended . there’s even a on the movie’s web site where you can win cellular phones ( as if we haven’t had enough of these things already ) . watch the movie only if you find it philosophy compelling enough for a earful . 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 ” book ” should have remained in shadows book of shadows : blair witch 2 a film review by michael redman copyright 2000 by michael redman certain things in our lives are inevitable . death , sorrow , love , heartbreak , pain , joy . we expect these events . we know they’re going to happen and some , we even look forward to . it’s part of the human condition . we have also become accustomed to inevitable occurrences in our society . as we near the fall election , several of them are hitting us in the face . politicians exaggerate their own importance . our side is always right ; theirs is always wrong . in the end , voters are usually forced to choose the lesser of two whocares . in hollywood the one indisputable inevitable is that if a film makes big money , there will be a sequel . even if the original story doesn’t merit one . even if the first film is complete in itself . even if success is a fluke . ” the blair witch project ” was made with a budget of $1 . 75 and exploded on the screen , raking in huge profits . the concept was brilliant . the filmmakers created a remarkable buzz that the story might be real . the film itself was even more convincing . the movie _must_ be authentic . why else would such amateurish footage be on the big screen ? the first film caught lightning in a bottle . the sequel proves you can’t pour that old lightning into a new bottle . you have to give this effort some credit . it would have been easy to have made the same movie again with a new group of kids . it would have been easy , but of course , it wouldn’t have worked . instead ” book of shadows ” acknowledges the first film as a movie and concentrates on the hysteria following its release . it’s a great scheme and possibly the only entertaining way to do a sequel . unfortunately it doesn’t work either . five kids spend the night in the woods at the scene of the first film . weird stuff happens and they retreat to an old factory where one of them lives . even weirder stuff happens . some people die , there’s blood and knives and none of the characters have a lick of common sense . while supposedly doing serious research , the group sets up a circle of surveillance cameras in the ruins of the old house in the woods and vows to stay alert all night awaiting a visitation . then they proceed to get totally trashed on drugs and alcohol and party down with very loud , very obnoxious heavy metal music . it’s a bad plan . the cast shows some early promise . a couple is doing research on a ” blair witch ” book . the tour guide is a former mental patient turned ebay aficionado . a goth amazon princess adds a bit of comedic relief . the obligatory hot babe is the 2000 spiritual cinematic descendent of the cute hippie chick , the cute rock and roll chick and the cute disco chick : the cute wiccan chick . the first film’s unaccomplished actors came across as real people in a real situation because hours and hours of video were shot during days in the woods . this time , these unaccomplished actors just come across as unaccomplished actors . there’s not one character you care about when they start shouting for no reason . although what passes for a plot starts out with a solid idea , it’s ruined by poor execution . the follow-up to one of the most successful horror films ever is nothing more than a bad slasher movie . they’re trapped in an old big weird house . they stupidly separate into various rooms . there are strange noises , they see scary apparitions and people disappear . ever see this movie ? seasoned documentary director joe berlinger should know better . the film features mostly cheap tricks and unnecessary gore . for a storyline filled with surprises , it’s oddly predicable . ” the blair witch project ” was a rare triumph of style over substance . ” the book of shadows ” is a triumph of tedium over promise .
0 warren beatty , diane keaton , goldie hawn and gary shandling star as a pair of married couples whose complacent lives are about to be shaken up in director peter chelsom’s version of the classic romantic , screwball comedy in ” town & country . ” the drawing room farce of the 30’s dealt with sexual innuendo and relied on wit and a great deal of commotion and noise to place the viewer in the thick of the duplicitous romantic action . back then , impossibly wealthy scions of society , with too much free time , would get themselves wrapped up in all sorts of sexual peccadilloes with spouses and lovers , only to have everything come out all right in the end – see ” the philadelphia story ” for a great farce . ” town & country ” has the impossibly wealthy protagonists with too much free time – the kind of people that have jobs but never seem to work – and sexual misconduct on several levels . but , there is almost no life to original script by michael laughlin and buck henry and this is ” t&c’s ” downfall . there is , obviously , a great deal of hollywood talent , in front of and behind the camera , involved in ” town & country , ” but , without a likable or , at least , interesting story to carry through their efforts , it is all for naught . and , that’s what we get here – naught . porter stoddard ( beatty ) is a high-powered new york architect with a very good life indeed . his 25-year marriage to ellie ( diane keaton ) appears , on the surface , to be perfect . but , there are cracks just below this pristine surface . his wife is suspicious of his whereabouts , his kids don’t need him and his best friends , griffin ( garry shandling ) and mona ( goldie hawn ) , are in the midst of a divorce . porter tries to get control of his life before it is too late , but like a man fighting against quicksand , his struggle just sinks him deeper . at the 90-minute mark of ” town & country ” i asked myself , ” what’s the point ? ” i wasn’t entertained , i laughed three times – over silly little pratfalls – and spent most of the film marking time ’til the end . warren beatty wanders around with his character in a bewildered fog , making problems for himself by thinking with a part of his anatomy other than his head . keaton’s ellie is an empty headed flake who can’t see the obvious as porter screws around on her . and , as you get to know them , who would want friends like griffin and mona ? the supporting cast is given nothing to do and , sometimes , does harm to the film , given the material they are forced to use . nastassja kinski plays a cellist with whom porter has a fling . the actress , who has , eerily , failed to age over the years , is miscast as the air-headed musician and the character doesn’t belong , anyway . jenna elfman is a sweet , but smart , ditz who joins porter and griffin on one of their tacked on misadventures . andie macdowell is absolutely painful to watch as a wealthy heiress ( is there any other kind in this movie ? ) who comes on to porter . the saving grace is a pair of quirky perf’s by charlton heston and marian seldes as macdowell’s very strange parents . glib rationalization of infidelity , like , ” if he doesn’t speak english , it doesn’t count , ” are a staple for the screenplay . the morality of the film seems to be , if you can get away with it , go for it . the cast of characters are mostly people you wouldn’t want to know , never mind befriend . the actors do their best , but are hamstrung by the weak material . helmer chelsom , who made the outstanding , offbeat comedy ” funny bones , ” is mired in the mess of a script and never puts his imprint on ” town & country . ” the production values are high , as one expects from a big budget hollywood film . but , the opulent sets by caroline hanania , lavish wardrobes by molly maginnis and top-notch photography by william fraker cannot save ” town & country . ” the film has had a long list of production and distribution problems and it might have been better , for me anyway , if hollywood just said no to this movie . i give it a d .
0 the crown jewel of 1970’s irwin allen disaster movies , the poseidon adventure features an all-star cast including gene hackman and ernest borgnine spouting some of the most laughable dramatic dialogue in movie history while trapped on a cruise ship . the story begins on the u . s . s . poseidon’s big new year’s cruise , where we are introduced to the ensemble of people who will soon be the only passengers left alive . let’s see , there’s the new age preacher ( hackman ) who advises people to ” pray to that part of god within yourself . ” there’s the ex-cop ( borgnine ) who busted a hooker ( stella stevens ) six times — then married her . there’s the hippie singer ( ” there’s got to be a morning after . . . ” ) who turns to the company of a lonely man ( red buttons ) once her brother is killed . and to round out the group : the elderly couple ( jack albertson and shelley winters ) who live aboard the ship , the beautiful teenage girl and her brother who are sailing alone and adventurous scotsman roddy mcdowall . we get to know these people a little too well in the first thirty minutes of the poseidon adventure , before straight- faced ship captain leslie nielson looks in horror at the giant tidal wave headed right for the ship . everyone’s in the giant ballroom at the time , shortly past midnight of the new year , when the ship turns first on its side , then completely upside down . the second- in-command wants everyone to wait in the ballroom until help arrives , but rebel hackman leads his small band of followers on a quest to the top of the ship . in this case , because the ship is overturned , the top is the bottom . or is the bottom the top ? either way , we get to see a lot of bottoms because the two beautiful women in the crew are both conveniently wearing hot pants during the scenes where the camera shoots upwards while they climb up ladders and — in the ballroom scene — christmas trees . thus begins an hour or more of hushed trips down long corridors , through burning rooms , etc . while the ship slowly fills with water behind them . it’s a race against the clock which is only mildly interesting . the poseidon adventure works more as a bad movie to laugh at , with all the melodrama that comes in-between the non-thrilling action scenes . the one note in borgnine’s one-note performance is to be a cranky old man that argues with hackman every step of the way while buttons and the hippie fall in love ( although since there isn’t a sex scene , we never find out if his buttons really are red ) and albertson and winters wonder if they’ll live to see their grandson’s birth . shelley winters provides the most hilarious scene in the movie in a scene toward the end , where water has flooded the next two rooms of the ship and hackman is preparing to dive under with a rope for the rest of them to pull along . winters , who has been the whiny fat woman throughout the movie ( stevens even not-so- affectionately calls her ” fatass ” in one scene ) , finally finds her purpose . ” i was the underwater swimming champ of new york three years running when i was seventeen , ” she brags , and before hackman can even ask her how she could be seventeen for three years , she’s swimming through the water , her skirt billowing up around her hips , showing off her cellulite ( or do you call it shellulite ? ) ridden thighs . it’s not so much funny as innately disgusting , which pretty much sums up the poseidon adventure as a whole .
0 while watching loser , it occurred to me that amy heckerling’s true genius as a film-maker is casting . in fast times at ridgemont high , she gave us sean penn’s jeff spicoli ; in look who’s talking , she turned bruce willis into a wise-cracking baby and provided john travolta with is first career revival ; in clueless , she found a star vehicle for the adorableness that is ( or was ) alicia silverstone . she seems to understand instinctively how to find performers the audience will like in spite of their flaws . unfortunately , she may also be starting to understand that she understands . giving appealing actors an appealing script creates likeable movies . giving appealing actors a script in which their appeal _is_ the movie makes for unexpectedly awful films like loser . naturally , heckerling makes her protagonist an all-around swell guy . paul tannek ( jason biggs ) is a small-town boy who gets a scholarship to nyu , then instantly finds himself an island of compassion and diligence in the cold-hearted big city . paul is the kind of guy who gives up his seat on the subway to an elderly woman ; his roommates adam ( zak orth ) , chris ( tom sadoski ) and noah ( jimmi simpson ) are the kind of guys who blast their music and let their waterbeds leak all over paul . paul is also the kind of guy who adores girls from afar , in this case the lovely dora diamond ( mena suvari ) . dora has problems of her own , including a shortage of funds to pay her tuition and a relationship with a professor , edward alcott ( greg kinnear ) , that’s more than slightly one-sided . they’re two conscientious kids who love animals and homeless people , so clearly they belong together , even if paul is a loser . i must confess that , for a while , i was suckered in by heckerling’s casting . jason biggs is an engaging performer whose unconventional looks make him even easier to embrace ; suvari is a coquette with an undercurrent of intelligence . they’re pleasant enough to watch , and heckerling gives us plenty of scenes establishing how nice they are and how nice their respective antagonists aren’t . then it gradually becomes clear that there’s virtually nothing to loser but scenes of that sort . in theory , loser is a romantic comedy , but there is scarcely a laugh to be found in the entire film ( notable exception : a cameo by a scene-stealing comic actor as a video store clerk ) . instead of taking any time to make the characters’ situations funny , heckerling spends 98 minutes making her characters’ situations pathetic . she shows none of the ear for quirky dialogue that sparked clueless , nor any of that film’s interest in lively plotting ( not surprisingly , since clueless’s plot came via jane austen’s emma ) . she simply turns the film into a pity party . since loser is a film composed almost entirely of establishing character , you might think that those characters would be interesting , or at least slightly complicated . instead , you have people either so perfect or so unredeemable that there’s no reason to watch them . paul isn’t just a nice guy , he’s flawless ; consequently , he’s a central character who does absolutely no growing . his roommates aren’t just inconsiderate , they’re actively evil-blackmailing professor alcott , drugging women with rohypnol and generally giving humanity a bad name . and professor alcott isn’t just manipulative , he turns dora into his house slave . dora’s unthinking devotion to alcott is the only whiff of basic human frailty to be found in loser , and even that isn’t explored in sufficient detail . there’s more ambiguity in the 30-second snippet from alan cumming’s broadway performance as the emcee in cabaret then there is in the rest of loser it’s one thing to turn supporting characters into comic exaggerations ; it’s another to flatten your leads into easily digestible mush . and it would help if those comic exaggerations were somehow . . . i don’t know . . . comic . still , i spent much of the film holding out the ridiculous hope that heckerling would somehow salvage loser from its tedium and justify my desire to like paul and dora . that hope dissolved the moment heckerling underscored a sequence of paul in the throes of unrequited love to simon and garfunkel’s ” scarborough fair/canticle . ” instead of giving the sequence a knowing wink-a reference to the graduate , a hint that paul is becoming an overly-sensitive clich-heckerling plays it deadly straight . even in the scenes that scream for a light comic touch and a bit of a poke at her protagonist’s foibles , she finds it impossible to stray from the gospel of paul as saint . clueless’s cher had her self-absorption and manipulative tendencies to balance her cuteness . in loser , amy heckerling shows a leaden hand with material that demands friskiness ( her one show of wit involves naming paul’s dorm ” hunt’s hall ” after erstwhile bowery boy huntz hall ) . her gift with casting proved to be her curse . loser may be a crashing bore , but gee , aren’t those two kids swell ?
0 capsule : john the baptist is sent from heaven to see is the world is worth saving . he must find some sign of hope in the people of newfoundland . this is little more than a tv skit in movie form . it is watchable and apparently will be released to theaters in canada , but it is unlikely to be seen on the international market . it is diverting but hardly a serious piece of cinema . , 0 ( -4 to +4 ) minor spoilers in this review . – written and directed by john w . doyle . – john the baptist sent to st . john , newfoundland . gets an invitation to live with a family . that extraordinary hospitality for some reason does not count as a reason for hope . – script has a lot of holes . – friend who adopts john is surprisingly militant and is planning actions to destabilize wall street . – john does look middle eastern , but somehow one expects john the baptist to be more dramatic . – there is a conspiracy in the vatican riding on the result of the visit , though that result seems small compared to the end of the world . – big yucks like seeing a nun give the pope a pedicure and evil pope’s aid praying to a mendes goat . – in large part a satire of life in newfoundland taking licks at things like the poor produce . the one good tomato in grocery ( by virtue of a miracle ) ” must have fallen off the truck to toronto . ” – based on a 20-minute short film .
0 the ” disney stick-to-what-you-do-best ” rule states that disney’s animated features will invariably be sublime but whenever they try their hand at live-action kids’ entertainment , they will fail miserably . this goes double for occasions when they try to make a live-action adaptation of a popular cartoon ( remember the 1996 version of 101 dalmations ? i’m still trying to forget ) . that rule proves more dependable than ever with inspector gadget , an insulting , despicable and , worst of all , expensive piece of trash trying to pass itself off as a viable children’s film . it will bore anyone over five and should prove unbearable for adults , even at its relatively skinny running time of 80 minutes . it’s films like this that make me want to go to my local blockbuster and rent something from the days when brains were more important than budgets and wit compensated for lack of fancy effects . just as matthew broderick began to convince me that there is hope for him as an actor yet , his career takes a nosedive to hell with his ” role ” as john brown , a depressed security guard with a big heart who hopes that one day he can become a real policemen and help the people around him . he dreams of heroic deeds and the subsequent admiration of his long time crush , dr . brenda bradford ( joely fisher ) . but after a few bizarre coincidences it seems that he has to dream no longer . john breaks every bone in his body while trying to save dr . brenda’s father . dr . brenda has been working on a ” gadget project , ” which would make a half-man half-machine super-policeman to fight crime . feeling indebted to john she decides to save his life by making him the subject , realizing his dream of becoming a policeman . now , when he says ” go go gadget [insert name of gizmo here] ” he can use all kinds of nifty gadgets to capture crooks , bang up bandits and mangle murderers . in the meantime , the evil claw ( rupert everett ) , the man responsible for the murder of the good doctor’s father is building a gadget of his own : a carbon copy of our inspector gadget except evil and john brown’s worst nemesis . claw has plans of world domination , which leaves it up to the inspector and his gadget mobile ( voice of d . l . hughley ) to save humanity from his wrath . state of the art effects fly at a mad pace in this $90 million dollar movie and yet director david kelogg never sets up a convincing atmosphere . had they replaced all the fancy gizmos with dollar bills they would have wound up with the same effect . what we see on the screen is like the raw ingredients of a meal : all of the expensive f/x amounts to nothing . part of the charm of the tv series was its sly irreverence which has gone down the toilet in the condescending movie . can kids really admire a hero so goody-two-shoes that he screams ” hey ! you ran a stop sign ! ” while hanging off the back bumper of a quickly moving vehicle ? i think that today’s children will respond better to somebody dashing , someone ultra-cool . they ( probably ) receive enough preaching from their parents and its an insult to their intelligence to assume that they want to go to an action movie to see a father figure kick butt . in addition to the more complex complaints above , there’s also the simple stuff : inspector gadget is boring , formulaic and achingly implausible . there’s no feeling that the director really cares about his story : more than any other film i’ve seen this year , this one really feels like it was made on an assembly line . there’s a popular commercial ( for sprite , but that’s irrelevant ) running in movie theaters before features that spoofs the way major studios deal with projects . it consists of studio suits discussing a fictitious ( thank god ) movie called ” death slug ” . each executive gleefully presents a different merchandise tie-in ( slug taco ! slug on a stick ! ) . at the end one of them asks ” what about the movie ? ” another answers : ” well , we don’t have a script yet , but we can bang one out by friday . ” they probably could have replaced ” death slug ” with inspector gadget . this film contains the sort of logical contradictions and blatantly obvious adherence to formula that could have been eliminated had any attention been payed to the script . it’s no coincidence that most good children’s entertainment these days comes from animation . animated features take so long to maker that it becomes a labor of love for the filmmakers and they put care and pride into their work . these kinds of films are banged out quicker and a good percentage turn out worthless , sloppy and impersonal . the studios are becoming factories and films their assembled products . ? 1999 eugene novikov‰ ;
0 as the twin surfer dudes , stew and phil deedle , lay bandaged and unconscious in the hospital , phil comes to first and chooses the coolest way to wake his brother . yanking out his iv , he uses it like a water pistol to soak his brother’s face . this bit of lame physical humor is typical of disney’s meet the deedles , a movie more to be endured that watched . ( i stopped looking at my wife during the screening , since every time i did , she’d start sticking her finger in her throat . and she’s right , it is that bad . ) directed without any imagination by steve boyum , whose long background in film is mainly in stunts and in second unit direction , the film limps along at best . boyum attempts to keep the pace moving by staging stunts , stunts and more stunts . amazingly for someone with his background , he seems incapable of finding any fresh ones , and we have a car go off the road five different times — maybe more . but who’s counting ? and then there is the script by james herzfeld , whose only other film , tapeheads from a decade ago , was so awful that it is considered a cult classic . meet the deedles , however , is painfully bad rather than laughably bad . it will probably be in and out of the theaters like a tornado and is in no danger of becoming a classic anything . herzfeld treats us to gratingly abysmal dialog that includes ” your geyser’s a geezer , ” and ” i’d like to put a deedle in her haystack . ” as the movie opens , the twins , who at one point describe themselves modestly as ” a walking kodak moment , ” are celebrating their 18th birthday . as they ride a parasail high above the waters of waikiki , a truant officer pursues them on his jet ski . as heirs to the fabulous fortune of the deedle empire , the boys are sent by their father to camp broken spirit at yellowstone to transform the two laid-back beach bums into men . as they arrive in their wetsuits in yellowstone , they’ve got their surfboards , skateboards , and a hawaiian drink machine the size of an armoire . their camp has gone out of business , but they are mistaken for new park rangers . the rest of the movie has them fighting the park’s overpopulation of prairie dogs as well as a deranged ex-ranger , played by dennis hopper , who is out to stop old faithful before its billionth birthday celebration , scheduled for later in the week . hopper , who has made some wonderful movies , carried away being a recent favorite , does have a propensity for choosing some truly odoriferous material . this isn’t his worst acting , but meet the deedles is arguably the worst movie he’s ever been in . steve van wormer and paul walker , as stew and phil , give lifeless performances . the only actor in the movie with any demonstrable talent is a cute little prairie dog named petey . even the cinematography by david hennings is so prosaic that it manages to make yellowstone look dull . to add insult to injury , hennings is fond of inappropriate close-ups , which only serve to remind us of the inanity of the dialog . put a ten-foot pair of lips on the screen , and you naturally pay extra attention to what is said . although boyum says in the notes that he is proud that his film is appropriate for families , one wonders how many skateboarders will attempt the movie’s stunt of lying on your back on a skateboard while negotiating a busy and twisting mountain road . they make it look like so much fun that i’m sure many will try some variation of the stunt . ” how could this possibly be worst , ” asks phil . just when you suspect it can’t , the movie takes a turn further downhill . its low point may have you looking for an airline barf bag . after phil’s girlfriend digs up a big mount of moist soil , they suck in a long worm . like the two dog lovers eating spaghetti in lady and the tramp , their lips finally meet in a kiss . as they pull back , their faces are full of the dirt that encased the worm they have just ingested . meet the deedles runs about an hour and a half . it is rated pg for a little bathroom humor and would be acceptable for kids around 6 and up . my son jeffrey and his friend nickolas , both almost 9 , gave the show * * * . they both thought the scenes with petey were among their favorites . nickolas also mentioned the scene in which the circus bear drives a jeep , and jeffrey especially liked the one in which the circus elephant was referred to as dumbo .
0 ‘bicentennial man’ is a family film without any external motive with the exception of providing the minimum dose of entertainment . chris columbus , the director who gave you ” mrs . doubtfire ” , plays on sentimental strings and mushy dialogue to make his point . based on the short story by isaac asimov , it is supposed to be a science fiction story about a robot who wants to be human , which as you can imagine is very difficult . starting in a not too distant future the film concentrates on a wealthy family that buys an android to help them with the house and children . soon this robot , called andrew ( robin williams ) shows abilities that makes his owner mr . martin ( sam neill ) very curious . andrew is interested in art and music , he ” enjoys ” making clocks , which clearly shows that he has genuine emotions . it shows out that because of a small failure in the ” electrical circuits ” and ” positronic brain ” andrew has accidentally gained a soul . this makes him unique and his evil creators worried . then mr . martin decides to teach andrew all the things he wasn’t programmed to do . soon andrew wants to leave the house in pursuit of freedom , destiny and love . this film can be described as a disney version of blade runner , a film that still shines as the biggest gem in the crown of science fiction . ever since that film , the subject of humanity still stands as one big controversy . what makes us human ? the thoughts ? the emotions ? is it possible to become human ? at what point can we say to a robot ” now you are one of us ” ? these are very tough questions that require a serious and thurral approach . it is obvious that columbus didn’t take them very seriously . when you think about it , this film is not really meditating on the question ” when is a robot no longer a machine , but a human being ? ” , but tells a story about racial discrimination and lack of understanding . andrew is so complex and emotional from the very beginning that the audience immediately accepts him as a human being , and only the society has troubles with it . in other words , it is as far from reality as from the academy awards . further more , there are other annoying problems . to this day no serious filmmaker has dared to speculate about the future in more than 50 years from now . this has not been done for obvious reasons , because the filmmakers are well aware of the fact that they lack the knowledge and imagination to perform such a difficult task . columbus is the first to have crossed that line . the result is , as you might imagine , primitive , unrealistic and incredibly disappointing effort . the world is simply frozen in time . neither the society , fashion , culture or values have changed over 200 years . mom is still working at the kitchen , doing the dishes . when you think back to the late 17th century and then compare it to the world we live in today , you’ll see a slightly bigger difference . i am not saying that everything should change . it is unlikely that the human rights will change , but it’s even more unlikely that there will not be any progress in science , technology and fashion . i suppose it’s possible to watch this as a some sort of bizarre fairytale , but it’s really hard . robin williams is hidden behind c and speaking in a robotic way . as always he does a decent job , as does sam neill . but it doesn’t really matter . it is the sentimentality and length that turns this picture into a tiresome experience . pretty much like last year’s ” meet joe black ” , this is a primitive and unresolved story which is presented with a splendor and professionalism that it doesn’t deserve . great actors and a talented crew have worked hard to achieve something that will be instantly forgotten . when isaac asimov wrote this story , the future seemed far away and magical . everything seemed possible . now is the future of asimov’s time , and we know that it is not as magical and perfect as it seemed a long time ago . for the same reasons that the young generation of today can not be amazed by julius verne’s ” 20 000 leagues under the sea ” , so can’t we accept this story as a potential reality . let us hope that next year’s ” a . i . ” will be more rewarding .
0 in the continuation of warner brother’s franchise , joel schumacher has successfully killed this cash cow . what makes this film such a grand disappointment is the tremendous line up of talented people involved with the film . avika goldsman’s screenplay is such a cluttered mess that there is no suspense built from one scene to another . this coming on the heals of such a marvelously written project as ” the client ” is such a shock that it gives rise to thoughts that the latter film was a fluke . situations are developed and executed with no thought of reason other that to get the characters from one point to another . this is most glaringly brought to point by the appearance of alicia silverstone’s batgirl , who just happens to be alfred’s niece . the story of dr . victor freeze is told almost completely in dialogue as an afterthought . while working on a cure for a tragic decease contracted by his wife , dr . freeze is injured during a cryogenic procedure , and becomes a man who can only survive in a sub zero environment . now of course he has become a terrorist intent on turning the world into a frozen planet where only he can live . now the logic of that little sub-plot escapes me . if mr . freeze wanted to find a cure for his wife and bring her back from the brink of death , why would he want to have her live in a world with no warmth . this is indeed a cold hearted man . the development of poison ivy is no less contradictory . she wants to breed a form of plant life that can defend itself like an animal . she joins with mr . freeze in his plan to start a new ice age , destroying all animal life , therefore giving her plant creations no reason to have the defense mechanism she had been trying to breed into them . the characters have no logic . batman of course is no longer the dark knight of the earlier films . now that he has an adoptive son in burt ward / robin , bruce wayne is trying to be a father figure , constantly spouting out homilies about family and relationships , while at the same time not really having any . george clooney tries in vain to keep from rolling his eyes while reciting the dialogue given him . to say that his performance is workman-like is to be generous . his best performances are still on ” e . r . ” . bruce wayne has the most unromantic evening with his girlfriend ( played by elle macpherson ) , that it brings into question bruce’s latent homosexuality . there is no spark and no passion ( as there was for nicole kidman’s psychologist in ” batman forever ” ) between bruce and anyone other than alfred . and even that relationship is very reserved . robin comes off less charismatic that in the last film in the series . now he’s just a spoiled kid . in ” batman forever ” , burt ward wanted to be batman’s partner and friend . now , robin is suffering from ego deficiency . robin’s attraction for poison ivy is not believable , except for a boy around the age of 15 . his later flirtation with batgirl smacks of incest , even though they are not related in a traditional sense . chris o’donnell , once considered a rising star , successfully burns up on reentry with this performance . his robin needs nothing more than a good spanking . the less said about alicia silverstone’s performance the better . this talented young actress reads her lines with all the aplomb of a dubbing actor for a godzilla film . she was cast strictly for her commercial value and she knew it . this brings us to the villains . arnold scharzenegger walks through his part with all the concern of someone waiting for payday . the most rediculous scene is during mr . freeze’s imprisonment . the guards are at least a foot taller that arnold and yet fall at his hand in one of the most unbelievable fights scenes caught on film . it’s almost as ludicrous as seeing michael jackson as a gang member . umu thurman struts and coos her way through her part , showing a growing discomfort with her sex symbol status . her poison ivy has all the come hither sex appeal of may west in ” sextette ” ( 1978 ) . the only performances worthy of notice are pat hingle and michael gough . these two seasoned veterans carry their scenes with a dignity sorely lacking from the rest of the film . without going through the intricacies of the plot , there is one question that always comes to mind with this series ( except for the first ” batman ” ) , and that is how do these super villains manage to hire so many thugs only to abandon them at the final reel . mr . freeze is introduced with a team of hockey playing hoodlums that seem to have stepped out of an old kiss music video . every villain ( even the minor ones ) have to have a look , no one can be an individual with day glow paint on their face or some sort of elaborate costume . with this film , warner brothers has succeeded in retrograding the series back to it’s tv incarnation . the only thing missing from the action scenes are the superimposed titles detailing the pows ! , gwaaaa’s , and clang’s associated with the old series . you almost wonder if william dozier , producer of the tv series is collecting royalties from this film . the special effects ( by john dykstra ) and production design ( by barbara ling ) are the primary stars of this film . and it is a case of extravagance in the pursuit of nothing . every set , from ivy’s lair , the batcave , to freeze’s hideout is set with enough neon and fiberglass to keep the epa in paperwork for years to come . there is no one realistic set or set piece in the film . everything is set for maximum exposure . the special effects have that strange cartoon look that most rushed cgi effects have . there are homage thrown in by dykstra and his team to gene warren and his work on ” the time machine ” ( the growing plant scene ) but these scenes are so wroth with glaring color and art that they are almost obscured . joel schumacher has directed the film with no flair . camera angles are poorly chosen rehashing set ups from the old tv series . master shots pepper the action scenes , destroying any flow of kinetic quality they may have had . mr . schumacher is a good director . one just has to look back on the films ” the lost boys ” , ” cousins ” ( an underrated film ) and ” the client ” to know that . but ” batman and robin ” comes off as a mated made for tv movie . the film has no style of individuality . it is the cinematic equivalent to jell-o , pretty to look at , but empty . it is unfortunate that this film , even with it’s surprisingly strong box office has succeeded in doing what warner’s thought tim burton would do with the franchise . kill it . joel schumacher’s ” batman & robin ” is loud , colorful , action packed , and ultimately . . boring . stars .
0 long ago , films were constructed of strong dialogue , original characters , memorable plot points , and solid acting . one of the best examples that hollywood now completely ignore these qualities is found in the new film where the heart is . this opus about the power of love and the redemption of family follows the tragic , and i mean tragic , life of novalee nation ( natalie portman ) . hitting the road with her hick , guitar-playing boyfriend in a rusted-out gm , novalee dreams of the blue skies of bakersfield and sipping chocolate milk beneath a plastic umbrella with her unborn baby , due in a month . stopping off at a nearby wal-mart for a quick rest , novalee’s boyfriend decides to take off and leaves her there . novalee then decides to secretly hole up in the wal-mart ( because she’s not the brightest bulb in the stagelights ) . a wacky librarian ( keith david ) comes to her rescue when she goes into labor one night while she is camped in the outdoors section of the store . then the she moves in with a family , befriends everyone in town — including ashley judd’s character ( who has five kids and still can work part-time as a nurse ) — fights off religious freaks , survives a tornado , breaks the heart of the wacky librarian that saved her , receives an inheritance , builds a martha stewart-esque house , becomes an award-winning photographer , and manages to always look like she stepped out of a cosmo shoot , all while not once doing anything with her kid . this film is terrible . the directing is awful : it seems director matt williams had an index card with six angles written on it and used every one of them , over and over and over again . we get pathetic and ugly acting by natalie portman , who can do good work . a disjointed pacing of key scenes and a time structure so confusing that it would throw steve prefontaine off . a subplot that actually validates the actions of the boyfriend who abandoned novalee in the wal-mart parking lot . an embarrassing display of emotions by the characters , making the audience ill . taking two great comedic screenwriters , babaloo mandel and lowell ganz , and forcing them to write drama on par with oprah’s book club . altogether , it has the feeling of being trapped at home , watching a very bad television mini-series and wishing it to end , only the remote is broken . however , the main problem with the film is that it never answers the most poignant question brought up : where is the heart ? no one ever seems to find it in this piece of junk .
0 stars : armand assante ( mike hammer ) , barbara carrera ( dr . charlotte bennett ) , laurene landon ( velda ) , alan king ( charles kalecki ) , geoffrey lewis ( joe butler ) , paul sorvino ( detective pat chambers ) , judson scott ( charles hendricks ) , barry snider ( romero ) , julia barr ( norma childs ) / mpaa rating : r / review : in the 1982 updating of mickey spillane’s 1947 novel ” i , the jury , ” hard-boiled detective mike hammer is a vietnam vet who drives a shiny bronze trans am , dresses like don johnson in ” miami vice ” with less pastels , and has sworn off alcohol . however , he still smokes his lucky strikes , detests all forms of authority , and kills at a whim . beyond that , the updated film retains little or no resemblance to the original pulpy page-turner by spillane , probably the most infamous and often reviled of all mystery writers . the movie starts off with a bang : a howler of an opening credits sequence that is a cheap steal from the james bond series , complete with cheesy graphics and an overbearing jazz score by bill conti ( ” rocky ” ) . after that , the movie and the book begin the same , with the murder of jack williams ( frederick downs ) , a one-armed detective and hammer’s best friend . hammer declares that he will seek vengeance for jack’s death , and with the help of his devoted secretary , the blond and shapely velda ( laurene landon ) , and the alternately friendly / antagonistic police chief pat chambers ( paul sorvino ) , he is immediately on the killer’s trail . here the movie splits completely from the book , and dives into a convoluted and improbable tale of government conspiracy and mind control tactics involving the mafia , the cia , one of hammer’s vietnam vet buddies , and a kinky sex clinic . many of the same characters from the book appear in the movie , but they take on slightly different roles . for instance , charles kalecki ( alan king ) , a numbers runner and narcotics dealer in the book , turns into a suave mob boss . and , more importantly , hammer’s suspicious love interest , charlotte bennett ( barbara carrera ) , morphs from a run-of-the-mill psychiatrist into the coordinator and founder of the sex clinic . ” i , the jury ” is one of several cinematic renditions of spillane’s books ( including a 1953 version which was made in 3-d ) , but this film differs from those earlier versions in one major way : it includes all of the sex and violence spillane wrote about that could never be given screen treatment due to hollywood’s production code . although this takes the 1982 version of ” i , the jury ” closer to the core of the original subject matter , it is in this aspect that the film received the most criticism , because it took this new license to extremes that many argued surpassed what was in the book . rest assured , the movie not only includes a great deal of nudity , but it is thoroughly violent , especially toward women . it features one woman having her neck slashed , a set of twins forced to strip before being stabbed to death by a psychotic sexual deviant programmed by the cia ( judson scott ) , and another woman shot point-blank in the belly by hammer himself . no one would deny that spillane’s writing has a definite misogynistic nature , but the movie seems to take it a step further by giving it such glorious screen treatment ; its constant equation of sex and violence , much of which is played with the intention of being erotic , is quite unsettling . it’s no surprise that the movie , like the book , fades to black with a dead woman on the floor . ” i , the jury ” had a troubled production and was not well-supported by the studio that made it , which is one explanation why it didn’t do well in theaters and many people have forgotten that it was ever made . the script was written by larry cohen , who is best known for his creatively cheesy but nonetheless effective monster movies , like ” it’s alive ” ( 1974 ) and its two sequels , ” q ” ( 1981 ) , and ” the stuff ” ( 1985 ) . cohen wrote the script thinking he was going to helm the project as well , but he was yanked from the director’s chair after only a week’s worth of shooting because he was already $100 , 000 over budget . he was quickly replaced by richard t . heffron , who has worked for the last three decades on a handful of undistinguished movies and dozens of television projects . heffron was obviously brought in not for his talent , but because he could make the movie rapidly and efficiently . it shows in the final product . cohen had personal interest in the updated version of hammer , but heffron has none . he shot the movie quickly and clumsily , and although some scenes ring true , most of them are flat , trite , and invariably dull . the movie features numerous car chases , shoot-outs , and stunts , but heffron’s background in television is the dominant tone ; despite the graphic violence and full-frontal nudity , ” i , the jury , ” takes on the air of a made-for-tv quickie , with no real punch or depth . but the problems in ” i , the jury ” run deeper than the technical . the central fault in this updating is mike hammer , whose character was lost in the shuffle while updating from the fifties to the eighties . because spillane wrote all his hammer mysteries in the first person , hammer’s character is central to the tale because all the events are filtered through his persona . we never really get that impression in the movie — there is no first-person voice-over narration and some scenes don’t have hammer in them at all . consequently , a great deal of the texture of spillane’s storytelling is lost . the period updating turns out to be a detrimentally bad idea because much of hammer’s moral code is thrown to the wind . despite his characterization as a hard-nosed , violent , misogynistic killer , hammer always stuck fervently to his own moral code . the title itself , ” i , the jury , ” refers to his anti-establishment notion of being his own law . unlike private eyes who seek out the bad guys and then turn them over the police , hammer both pursues the criminal and exacts the punishment . in this way , he can be seen as ” above the law , ” but he still adheres strictly to her own personal code of conduct , his own morality . the movie forgoes that aspect of his character , and hammer comes off not only as amoral in society’s terms , but in any terms , especially his own . if anything , hammer always had his professionalism , but the movie does away with that in the first three minutes by showing him rolling in the sack with the wife of a client who had paid him to find out if that wife was being unfaithful . maybe the scene was intended for laughs , but it only cheapens hammer’s character and is , by all accounts , a lousy way to start the movie . the blame for hammer’s character can’t be laid on assante’s shoulders , because despite some unnecessary marlon brandon-like mumbling , he delivers a fine performance . spillane never once described hammer’s physical attributes in any of the dozen books in which he appeared , so any actor could conceivably portray him . of course , because of the lack of written description , those who have read spillane’s books will have a strong personal notion of what hammer looks like , and therefore almost any screen incarnation will somehow fall short of expectations ( spillane , who played the character himself in 1963’s ” the girl hunters , ” is generally considered the best of the film hammers ) . the rest of actors are most un-noteworthy . with the exceptions of alan king and paul sorvino , everyone who appeared in ” i , the jury ” were up-and-comers who basically went nowhere . many of them ended up working in television ( like carrera , who had a short stint on ” dallas ” in the mid-eighties ) , which only adds to the made-for-tv atmosphere of the film . maybe someday , someone will manage to get the right elements together and make an effective film rendition of a spillane book , but this is certainly not it .
0 nostalgia for the 70s continues , as we see a revival of one of the decade’s greatest achievements : the marijuana comedy . however half baked doesn’t quite run with all its brain cells , and will make you appreciate the questionable talents of cheech and chong all the more . the plot follows the misadventures of four ne’er-do-well stoners . there’s the group’s unofficial leader , thurgood ( david chappelle ) , scarface ( guillermo diaz ) , brian ( jim breuer ) , and kenny ( harland williams ) . kenny gets into trouble , when , while on a munchie run , feeds his snack foods to a diabetic police horse . when the animal keels over , he finds himself accused of killing a police officer , and facing a $1 , 000 , 000 bail . his friends promise to raise money for a 10% bail bond , but have no idea how . that is , until thurgood stumbles upon a stash of pharmaceutical marijuana being tested at the company where he works as a janitor . soon the three guys are dealing dope to raise funds , while avoiding the cops and rival dealer sampson simpson ( clarence williams iii ) . for a comedy , the film is pretty humorless . not that it doesn’t try . . . it’s just that the comic setups are obvious and the payoffs nearly all fall flat . the four leads are nearly all playing the same character . only williams stands out ( while still performing on the level of his humor-free comedy rocket man ) , but that is because he’s imprisoned throughout most of the film , giving a much needed change of pace ( but mostly swapping one set of obvious gags for another ) . to help out , the film is packed full of cameos . steven wright , tommy chong , janeane garofalo , willie nelson , snoop doggy dogg , and jon stewart all make appearances at one point or another . none of them work , beyond the simple ” hey , that’s _____ ” level . in fact the funniest work in the film comes from chappelle . not as his bland pothead lead , but in his second role , as a pot-obsessed rapper , sir smokealot . granted , it’s pretty much a one-joke role , and there aren’t a ton of laughs . . . but this film needs every one it can scrape up . to top it off , and in a move contrasting with the tone of the rest of the film , thurgood is given a love interest , mary jane ( rachel true ) . her role is that of the public service announcement : to inform us why doing drugs ( including pot ) is wrong . her character seems fabricated merely as a defense to the ” your film promotes the use of drugs ” camp . the film would have been better off by sticking with the ” rebel ” tone it so eagerly tries to claim . yet , in the end , it doesn’t really matter . watching the film clean and sober , you are bound to recognize how truly awful it is .
0 i saw this film on christmas day expecting an upbeat comedy . boy was i in for a christmas dissapointment ! after an hour of the movie , i was ready to change rooms-into another theater ! read on to see what i have to say . . . . four rooms : starring : tim roth , jennifer beals , antonio banderas , quentin tarantino , valeria golino , madonna , bruce willis , marisa tomei , alicia witt , lili taylor , and ione skye . possible stars ) ” four rooms ” was supposed to be one of the biggest hits of the year . key word here : ” supposed . ” four of the biggest directors in hollywood : quentin tarantino , robert rodriguez , alexander rockwell , and alison anders were all directing one big film with a big and popular cast . i guess it was all just too much because this turned out to be the biggest flop of the year and it could of been great . the plot : it’s new years eve and it’s a bellboy’s first day on the job . he encounters many mysterious and kinky hotel guests as he tries to handle all his own problems . tarantino told his directors this plot , and each of them wrote a script . it turned out each of them had written a dark comedy . anders wrote and directed the tale about a coven of witches ( madonna , valeria golino , alicia witt , and ione skye ) , which was the worst one out of all of them . the second room ( jennifer beals ) was better , but lacking in plot . this room was about a man who accuses every man of sleeping with his wife . the third room ( antonio banderas ) was the best roomm , about two rambunctous kids that trash a hotel suite . the final one ( tarantino , willis ) was about a movie star wanting the bellboy to chop off someone’s finger . the movie was just plain trash . there was nothing here that even makes up a quality film . it was not funny , and i didn’t hear one laugh in the theater throughout the whole film . tim roth is horrible as the bumbling and mumbling bellboy , and he ruins every joke in the film . the supporting cast loses meaning to the word support and the only mentionable actors/actresses are antonio banderas and jennifer beals . marisa tomei appears in a stupid cameo role . this movie is the worst film of the year and the film could have been great , perhaps like a more upbeat ” plaza suite , ” but it wasn’t . as trashy as it was , some people will call it classic . do you call a man chopping off a finger with madonna’s chest showing a classic film ? look for more of ken’s kritic korner coming soon ! please check the newsgroups under the movie reviews section for updated reviews . p . s . ” four rooms ” made number 1 on my top ten worst list of 1995 .
0 anna and the king is at least the fourth film adaptation of margaret landon’s fact based novel the king and i , and it’s big , expensive and soulless . though good-looking , its lavish sets , fancy costumes and luscious cinematography can do little to compensate for the emotional wasteland that is peter krikes and steve meerson’s script . so much money was spent on pretty pictures that they forgot to actually make the movie interesting . this is jodie foster’s first movie since the jaw-droppingly brilliant contact came out more than two years ago and it isn’t the best choice to show off her acting chops . she’s trapped in the stoic role of anna leonowens , the uptight , widowed british schoolteacher who comes to siam ( now thailand ) with her son to instruct the king’s ( chow yun-fat ) son in the ways of the west ( because ” the ways of england are the ways of the world ) . the king likes her so much he puts her in charge of educating the whole royal family ( 58 kids with 10 more in the way ; impressive , no ? ) . the eldest prince is none too happy about this ( ” father , have i offended you in some way ? why do you punish me with imperialist schoolteacher ? ) , but soon gets to know anna and her stern- mother-who-loves-you personality better and comes to like her . meanwhile , siam comes under attack from the neighboring british colony of burma . the king and his close advisors suspect that this is britain’s doing which arouses suspicion in siam , putting anna in an uncomfortable position . she is not sure what to make of this and seems to herself suspect british involvement in the crisis but works to diffuse the king’s prejudices . he , though self-righteous as ever , can’t help but be influenced by the eloquent anna and they slowly , quietly , develop affections for each other . there is a scene in the middle of anna and the king where one of the king’s younger daughters dies . it’s your classic deathbed scene , with the girl’s mournful eyes staring at her father , who tries only semi- successfully to maintain his composure . anna then comes in and cries a bit . the sequence was there for a purpose : to evoke a strong emotional response from the viewer . i’m usually a sucker for such scenes and yet this time , i was just sitting there , my emotions untouched . this remains true through all of the movie which remains emotionally barren . we never develop connections to the characters ; never given a reason to care . this ludicrously long epic was directed by andy tennant , whose last film was ever after , one of my favorites of 1998 . i do not doubt tennant’s ability to put together a decent movie , but anna and the king , aside from being psychologically inept is also technologically deficient . the sets and scenery are gorgeous , but the camerawork does nothing to convey its grandeur . even terrence malick managed to do more with flora and fauna in his otherwise abysmal the thin red line than tennant can muster from $75 million worth of props and a shoot in malaysia . we feel like the camera is restricted to its immediate point of view ; there are no wide tracking shots or sweeping zooms to fill us with larger-than-life awe . i liked both foster and yun-fat , who give entertaining if not terribly involving performances in the two lead roles . foster’s generally stoic persona serves her well here , as she is playing a reserved , formal and rather underdeveloped character . yun-fat is especially effective , perfectly conveying the king of siam’s sangfroid permeated with violent outbursts . what does anna and the king in is its inability to involve the viewer in its characters and situations . the cast is great , the director is talented , and the budget is lavish , but this ill-advised remake of the classic rogers and hammerstein movie is unable to utilize any of those things to form a compelling whole . this is an emotionless costume epic .
0 robin hood : men in tights is another mel-brooks-produced film in the classic tradition of movies like blazing saddles and young frankenstein . mel brooks is well known for his comic look at regular life , his fast paced dialogue and sharp wit . unfortunately , robin hood : men in tights has none of the easy going humor of blazing saddles , none of the fun acting of young frankenstein , is devoid of the charm of spaceballs , and is even lacking the good , solid dialogue of history of the world . it is , in short , one of the worst movies i have seen mel brooks , or anybody else , produce . the plot borrows heavily from the well-received kevin costner movie of last year , robin hood : prince of thieves . this is not surprising in and of itself , and could have been used to great comic effect , mainly by parodying scenes from the orginal movie . mel brooks does not take advantage of this , however , and uses the film to launch several ideas into the air , none of which connect and none of which are explained later on . the movie’s scenes could be shuffled around in any order and one would be hard pressed to notice . cary elwes , of princess bride fame , plays robin of loxley , a man who was captured in the crusades , fighting with king richard . he escapes and , joining with a man named achoo ( i am sure you can see the obvious joke ) , fights in england to reclaim his name and the throne for richard , which has been captured by evil prince john , played by funny comic richard lewis . he also tries for the love of maid marian and attempts to overthrow the evil ” sheriff of rottingham ” . a good adventure plot that is sadly unused . elwes and lewis are both excellent comics , but the dialogue in the movie is simply excruciating . neither actor has any good words to work with , and the lines simply aren’t funny , nor believable . perhaps the worst example of this is when the group of merry men encounter a man playing a macaulay culkin clone from the hit movie home alone . this particular scene is so out of place and so badly acted , and followed by so many other scenes of equal miserable ideas , that i really felt like leaving the theatre . much of the audience continued to look at their watches throughout , and some left the theatre . chuckles were few and far between , and they mostly dealt with visual jokes ( such as an old , beaten up horse from ” rent-a-wreck ” ) then from any dialogue whatsoever . scenes that could have been classics , such as the archery contest , are ruined by poor acting . perhaps the largest problem with the movie is that it is simply offensive . the basic plot , that robin has received a key that will unlock the chastity belt of maid marian , is not witty nor funny . mel brooks as a circumcision-giving rabbi is also offensive to me and others in the audience ( not all jewish , either ) . the movie simply tries to hard trying to be funny and by and large fails . the addition of a blind man who stumbles around , falling off cliffs , walking into ledges and being a general buffoon could have had some humorous potential , but is also made terribly offensive . the only reason to see this movie is the surprise actor at the end who plays king richard . he is well worth waiting for , if you can stand an hour and half of unfunny dialogue , excruciating visual humor , old puns , ancient jokes and bad acting . if you can’t , don’t even bother watching this miserable film .
0 with his successful books and movies , michael crichton is doing well . with early successes with westworld ( 1973 ) and coma ( 1978 ) , and recent films such as jurassic park ( 1993 ) , his films have been entertaining . however , he seems to taken a wrong turn somewhere with sphere . this $100 million mess by good director barry levison ( disclosure ) is dull , long winded , and a huge disappointment . considering the huge budget , the all star cast , and a story by crichton , sphere is majorly disappointing . the film opens with norman goodman ( hoffman ) , a psychologist who thinks he is visiting an airplane crash to console the survivors . however , when he arrives , he his told by supervisor barnes ( peter coyote ) that he is actually investigating an spacecraft . along with goodman is mathematician harry adams ( jackson ) , biologist beth halperin ( stone ) and ted fielding ( liev schrieber . ) they investigate the spaceship , find a massive sphere inside , meet an alien intelligence called jerry , and basically weird crap happens . unfortunately , something went wrong along the way with sphere . the film starts off entertaining enough , but throughout this very long movie , it just gets sillier and sillier . the film jaunts along from scene to scene , never fully explaining what is going on . the actors and directing don’t help , either . hoffman is on autopilot ( and almost seems embarrassed ) throughout the movie , churning out dull lines , and probably wondering what the hell he is doing in this movie . stone is useless , displaying no emotion , and fails to convince the audience that she has any feelings for hoffman . the only person who seems to be having fun in this movie is jackson , who’s funny as the mathematician who slowly goes crazy and entering the sphere . but he’s hardly in it , and by the end of the film he is just as dull as hoffman and stone . the same goes for peter coyote , who hams it up as the officer , but is then killed off halfway through . the director , barry levinson , who directed the better crichton adaptation disclosure ( 1994 ) messes up with the drama and the action . the drama scenes are , quite frankly , boring , and the action scenes suffer from overkill , with levison throwing the camera all over the place ( much like the godawful speed 2 , 1997 ) the writing doesn’t help much , either . although crichton is great with plots , he’s terrible with dialogue , and practically every line in sphere is a dud . the speech is too simple , i was hoping it would be a bit more intelligent . practically every line is just stating the obvious . none of it is smart . also , where the hell did the budget go ? the sphere itself is impressive , and there’s a few nice special effect shots , but where the $100 million went is anyone’s guess . there’s a giant squid attack in the picture , but not once does the audience see the squid , even though the film has a massive budget . i assume the picture was trying to build up tension by not showing the squid , and if handled correctly it probably would . but the whole scene is done badly , and i was just hoping we could see the stupid squid . finally , the film has no idea what genre to be . levison can’t handle his own plot . it leaps from hokey sci-fi , to horror , and finally the shining/event horizon psychological thriller . and , of course , the film is very much like the abyss ( 1988 ) , although in it’s defense , crichton did write sphere before the abyss was released ( and is far superior to this rubbish . ) it’s not all that bad though . the plot is all right , there’s a few jump scenes ( although nothing very scary ) and there’s the occasionally interesting bit . but overall , sphere is a big waste of some fine talent , a lot of money , and a potentially good movie . not really worth seeing . overall rating= review by david wilcock
0 director luis mandoki’s last film was the superb , serious 1994 drama ” when a man loves a woman , ” but his luck has ultimately run out with his latest picture , ” message in a bottle , ” which is the worst type of romance , a movie that tugs so relentlessly and violently at the heartstrings that it miraculously manages to dry out your eyes rather than tear them up . everything that occurs can be telegraphed way in advance since this same type of story has been done many times before—and much better—so there’s an absence of suspense , and the film ultimately moves at such a very , very deliberate pace , as if it is trying to make great , ” meaningful ” statements and plot developments , that it just becomes a tedious bore to sit through . ” message in a bottle ” begins with theresa osborne ( robin wright penn ) , a single mother and researcher at the chicago tribune , whom finds a bottle washed up on shore as she is jogging one day . inside the bottle is an anonymous love letter addressed to a mystery woman named catherine , and theresa is so taken aback by its honesty and sweetness that she shows it around at her work and , to her objection , finds that her editor has placed the letter in the newspaper . soon , a heavy research is conducted to find out who wrote the letter based on the type of bottle and a ship logo on the top of the typed message , and after it is traced to a man named garrett blake , theresa finds herself traveling to the outer banks , a boating town in north carolina , to find out the specifics of the message . of course , garrett turns out to be a handsome , rugged man around theresa’s age and played by kevin costner . she is immediately charmed by him , but hesitant to unveil the truth of why she is there , and finds that catherine was garrett’s late wife who died a few years earlier . do you think you know where this is headed ? most likely you do , and i wouldn’t call it giving away anything to say that by the picture’s end , the movie has fallen into deep , artificial melodrama that i didn’t buy for a second . if there are any positive things to say about ” message in a bottle , ” it is that the performances by robin wright penn and paul newman , as garrett’s stubborn , but loving father , are far above par to be in such a wasteful , ” shaggy dog ” love story , and that the cinematography by caleb deschanel takes great advantage of the beautiful eastern coast , and paints chicago as an equally alluring city . meanwhile , costner has yet to redeem himself for some of the less-than-stellar films that he has made recently . it seems that with such bad luck , he wouldn’t want to make another movie set near water , but here he is again with one of the main , and most ridiculous , centerpieces set on a storm-swept sea . the other actors are all , sadly , wasted , including illeana douglas , an underused actress who seems to always get stuck with the ” friend ” roles , here playing penn’s confidante and co-worker at the tribune . the first half of ” message in a bottle ” plays like a hum-drum , trite television movie for the lifetime channel , as theresa spends a great deal of time ” getting to know ” garrett , with dialogue that is not the least bit stimulating or entertaining . usually , i am the type of person to practically salivate over dialogue-laden sequences since the film is no doubt trying to develop the characters and their relationships , but here it all rang with a resounding falseness since the dialogue felt ” written , ” and not as if people were really ” talking . ” when the main characters of a film have very little of interest to say to each other , and are not particularly interesting themselves , you know immediately that you are in trouble . i swear that while watching ” message in a bottle , ” i felt as if i had just read the screenplay in its entirety before arriving at the theater ( heck , in actuality i’m not even familiar to the novel this is based on , by nicholas sparks ) . always one step ahead of the characters , the movie ran so closely and tightly to the constraints of the tried-and-true hollywood melodrama , the film strip often seemed to almost be in danger of tearing . nobody wins prizes for guessing that garrett will eventually find out theresa’s secret , and that several obstacles will come within their ways of living happily ever after . this same exact problem occurred in last year’s very , very similar ( watch this , and you will realize just how similar i mean ) meg ryan-nicolas cage romantic drama , ” city of angels . ” although theresa is deeply touched by the ” heartfelt ” letter that she finds in the bottle , perhaps the filmakers might have been better off finding a message in a bottle of their own , preferably before filming began . it should have read , ” memo to screenwriters : use you brain ! ”
0 i remember really enjoying this movie when i saw it years ago . i guess my memory really sucks . there is very , very little that is funny in caddyshack . the laughs are few , and far between , and what there are really aren’t that great . caddyshack , as the name implies , more or less centers on one young caddy working at an exclusive country club . michael o’keefe plays said caddy . why they cast this unknown , fairly untalented actor in the lead role is completely beyond me . the movie doesn’t seem to have a real plot , just a series of scenes that are little more than opportunities for the rest of the cast to mug at the camera . the only real story , if you can call it that , was a subplot involving the mentally disturbed greens keeper , bill murray , who is having his own private little war against a gopher who is ruining the course . most of the marginal laughs come from rodney dangerfield and ted knight mugging and overacting for the camera — with painfully limited success . bill murray is slightly amusing in places , but fairly wasted . the biggest waste of all is chevy chase , who didn’t even crack a smile on my face with his character’s lame zen-like approach to golfing . there are a few decent scenes involving the interaction between dangerfield and knight , but they are far too infrequent to carry the movie . i guess that’s what you get for basing a story around an unknown kid . i’m not sure what the writers of this thing were thinking of , but i really think it was something far removed from comedy as they were putting pen to paper . nothing about this movie works . it wouldn’t have taken a genius to figure out that this thing wasn’t going to fly . most of the scenes just couldn’t possibly be funny . it’s as if the writers where off in their own little brain damaged world . i’m sure scenes involving chevy chase and his oneness with the golf ball were supposed to be funny . in reality , they were painfully embarrassing to watch . there is a scene at the club pool where all the caddies go wild for the ” hot babe ” of the movie walking by in her bikini . olive oil would have filled out this swimsuit better than this girl . everything about this movie was just completely implausible as far as the comedy was concerned . maybe if you were drunk out of you mind or high off some sort of illegal narcotic this thing might be funny . but for the rest of us , stay the hell away from caddyshack .
0 tommy lee jones chases an innocent victim around america who is trying to prove that she did not kill her spouse . the fugitive ? not quite ? this is the plot for double jeopardy , another fugitive copycat without the action , excitement , and good acting that the original had . there are other slight differences besides one movie being bad and the other good ; this time tommy lee jones plays a parole officer not a us marshall , clever huh ? oh and the fugitive ashley judd was framed by her own husband ( bruce greenwood ) who needed to collect two million dollars in life insurance money not a one armed man . both movies are on video . make the wise choice and pick the fugitive . there are so many flaws in double jeopardy , it is laughable . while serving time in prison , libby parsons ( judd ) discovers that she can never be charged for committing the same crime twice . learning that her husband is still alive , she decides to serve her time in prison , find him , retrieve her son , and kill her husband if necessary . when the strict parole officer travis lehman ( jones ) stands in her way , libby decides to break the rules ( who knows why ? ) and continue her plan , despite the fact that if she gets caught , she’s going back to jail . director bruce beresford spends way too much time trying to convince the audience that libby misses her son . every other scene , we are given a shot of libby staring and crying at his picture . in an action movie like this , valuable time wasted on these shots takes away more opportunities for libby to get up and do something . all that is needed in this type of movie is a short scene in which libby tells herself or a friend ” i miss my son . ” nothing more , nothing less . dr . kimble of the fugitive didn’t look at one picture of his dead wife , his primary concern was to save himself . libby at times shows this same determination but not nearly enough . ashley judd and bruce greenwood both are excellent actors but if they continue to do movies like this , they will be typecast for the rest of their careers , kind of like their doomed co-star tommy lee jones . winning an oscar for the fugitive must have convinced jones that audiences will never get tired of his i-do-my-job-whether-they-are-innocent-or-guilty roles . people still pay to see his movies and he makes plenty of money so i guess he was right . though i don’t think he will win another oscar again . the ultimate mistake in the script is what eventually becomes of libby parsons . even if she was excused for disobeying her parole officer , the number of other crimes she commits while on the run are too numerous to count . burglary , assault , grand theft auto are some of libby’s slipups . the message of the movie is you can break all of the small laws as long as you’re innocent of the major crime . hopefully criminals won’t use double jeopardy as a reference in court for why they are innocent . that would just be plain stupid .
0 while i am not fond of any writer’s use of cheap , easy puns , i am not completely above using them myself when the situation merits it ( witness my review of _pecker_ from a couple of issues ago ) . so here goes : the juvenile , college-set black comedy _dead_man_on_campus_ is dead on arrival . strait-laced med student josh ( tom everett scott , who manages to remain somewhat likable throughout ) ‘s blemish-free academic record breaks out into fs , thanks to the influence of his ever-partying roommate , cooper ( mark-paul gosselaar ) , who introduces josh to the sex- and booze-filled nights that come with university life . with the threat of losing an academic scholarship ( josh ) and a life cleaning toilets for his dad looming ( cooper ) , what are two good-hearted slackers to do ? easy–look for a loophole , which they find in the form of an unbelievable rule in the school charter that states that if a student’s ( or students’ ) roommate commits suicide , the surviving student ( s ) shall receive straight as . so instead of studying , josh and cooper attempt to seek out the most depressed student out there , move him into their dorm room , and drive him to suicide before the semester ends . director alan cohn and screenwriters michael traeger and mike white ( working from a story by anthony abrams and adam larson broder ) take their sweet time to build the head of steam that comes with josh and cooper’s diabolical plot . until then , the usual boring cliches of college life ( booze , sex , more booze ) fill the time , which is made to feel longer by _saved_by_the_bell_ alumnus gosselaar’s sitcom-bred mugging . that said , once cohn and company do build some comic momentum , they mishandle it . the introduction of the manic , psychotic cliff ( lochlyn munro ) , a potential roommate for josh and cooper , brings some demented life to the uninspired proceedings before being hastily written out in favor of two less interesting candidates : paranoid nerd buckley ( randy pearlstein ) and british death rocker matt ( corey page ) . one wishes that cliff would reappear , but , as they say , be careful what you wish for . not surprisingly , he does resurface , and it then becomes clear that this is a character that is best taken in a small dose ; almost immediately , his extended boorish and sociopathic antics loses its novelty . the same can be said about all of _dead_man_on_campus_ . whatever morbid appeal the far-fetched premise has quickly evaporates , and the self-absorbed characters , especially cooper , pretty much grate from the get-go . _dead_man_ doesn’t grow tiresome ; it already _is_ once the clever opening titles are through . as it slogs along to a cheesy , happy-for-all-parties conclusion , _dead_man_ lives up to its title and then some–not only does the movie grow even more tired and die , it still insists on going on . . . like a zombie .
0 boy , what a great movie ! ! keanu reeves and morgan freeman acting together , the director of the fugitive ( andrew davis ) back again to give us another thriller , and the beautiful rachel stealing beauty weisz thrown in to boot . how could this not be a blockbuster ? all die-hard keanu reeves fans , read on . ol ” much ado about nothing ” plays eddie kasalivich , a machinist studying at the university of chicago . to help pay for the rent , he takes on this job making the machinery for a hydrogen project being conducted by the university . by happy coincidence , he also happens to stumble on the solution to the final problem and thus is the only one who knows the key to performing this feat of miracle physics . this project holds great promise : taking hydrogen from water and giving out more energy than is put in . a potential solution to the earth’s energy problems without the pollution cost . surely nobody could have any problems with that ? morgan freeman is paul shannon , the project’s sponsor . he works for a very powerful organization that disagrees with the paternal project leader as to how quickly technology should be released to the public . he figures the world will disintegrate into anarchy if the results of the project are released too quickly . so he murders the project leader , blows up the project ( great but short scene here , sort of like a mini id4 city-devastation thing ) and tries to simulate the experiment at some other hi-tech hush-hush location . unfortunately , our intrepid machinist and an english physicist ( weisz ) manage to get away and now follows a fugitive-like chase using a not too dissimilar rehash of that movie script . this movie is just dying for a comparison with ” the fugitive ” . both movies use chicago as the main city and since the place doesn’t change much , i guess we can’t really blame the setting for the paucity of atmosphere . the trouble here is that where the fugitive had harrison ford and tommy lee jones , chain reaction only has keanu reeves and fred ward . credit to them , but we aren’t really given much of a chance to empathise with the characters . where ford was able to work within the confines of the movie to evoke sympathy , eddie kasalivich just doesn9t seem very believeable and reeves’ character is never given the time to develop . it might have been a better investment in film to give the characters more depth and spend less time on the chase sequences , which frankly , get quite boring after a while . harrison ford was ” the man against the world . ” he was alone in a world where he didn’t know who to trust and it came across real well . in chain reaction , keanu reeves isn’t alone . now that would be fine if the fleeing couple had some chemistry and could really portray some paranoia , vulnerability and confusion . we don’t get this . we get him thinking he’s still in speed , only now our sandra bullock has an english accent , probably doesn’t drive a bus , and hardly contributes anything to the movie . the producers here probably thought , ” hey , what if keanu and rachel don’t hit it off too well ? let’s rope in that morgan to help us out . ” well , keanu and rachel didn’t hit it off well on the screen , and most unfortunately , morgan freeman doesn’t help much either . the only thing we come to really know of paul shannon is that he always has a full load of cigars in his cigar holder . it’s not really his fault . once again , andrew davis just doesn’t take the time to build his characters . someone must have convinced him that this time round , cinema dollars are best earned by making the movie run like a headless chicken . 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 there are those of us who think of leslie nielsen as the bumbling , hapless straight man from the hysterical ” naked gun ” films , crack an immediate smile and forgive him of whatever wavering movie spoof he’s committed himself to starring in since . the wavering movie spoofs , however , are less forgivable . to be fair , ” wrongfully accused , ” the send-up in question and nielsen’s third parody since the last ” gun , ” isn’t quite as excruciatingly humorless as his ” dracula : dead and loving it ” or ” spy hard , ” which is a mighty good thing . nielsen is still in tip-top comedic form , able as ever to deadpan his way through even the most horrible puns , but he really needs a screenplay that plays off his talents instead of relying on them , and he needs one very soon . ” wrongfully accused ” meshes together the premises of ” the fugitive ” and ” patriot games , ” casting its always game star as ryan harrison ( get it ? ) , a master violinist who is drawn into an affair with a married temptress ( kelly le brock ) . she , however , sets harrison up to take the rap for the murder of her husband ( michael york ) – a crime actually committed by a one-armed , one-legged , one-eyed man ( aaron pearl ) . harrison is arrested , found guilty and sentenced to death , but escapes from a prison bus , of course , and then is pursued by a determined u . s . marshal named fergus falls ( richard crenna , unnecessarily riffing off of tommy lee jones’ already smirky oscar-winning role ) . there’s also a mystery brunette ( melinda mcgraw ) and an assassination subplot involving the u . n . secretary general , but like any of it matters . ” wrongfully accused ” gets off to an assured start , with an in-concert nielsen , touted ” lord of the violin ” by bare-chested posters , pulling a jimi hendrix on his musical instrument as hundreds of tuxedo-clad mosh in front of the stage . nice touch . most of the scenes that follow , however , never top the opener . ( hysterical exceptions : the mentos and ” baywatch ” goofs . ) movie parodies are crammed in at an almost-subliminal rate , but most are empty . when a giant snake lunges onto the screen and snatches a cast member a la ” anaconda ” or baseball players disappear into a ” field of dreams ” -esque cornfield , there’s really nothing to laugh at . other moments , like an interlude in a fishing shop , are so unfocused that you’re not sure what you’re supposed to be laughing at . there seem to be more cheap references than frenzied send-ups here , so it’s possible that director/writer pat proft , by bombarding the viewer with a careless mixture of the two , guarantees something is sure to stick . and what does stick sticks well , particularly the jabs at genre conventions like stylized flashbacks and hard-boiled dialogue , what those ” naked gun ” s ( which proft collaborated on ) did great ; these bits are so on-target that they allow you to remember ” wrongfully accused ” as an almost-halfway-there spoof instead of a lame-brained failure . the movie might have been cursed to begin with , opening fast on the heels of ” mafia ! ” , from proft colleague jim abrahams , and ” baseketball , ” from proft colleague david zucker , but it’s a strong possibility that nobody is going to be accusing ” wrongfully accused ” of being nielsen’s funniest .
0 please don’t mind this windbag letting off a bit of steam . . . i just want to warn all of y’all not to waste your hard-earned $$$ on anaconda . it’s not even worth a 99-cent video rental . don’t listen to ebert on this one ( he has no clue what he’s talking about ! ) btw i accompanied my friend to this one because she was * required * to watch it on assignment ( she reviews movies for a local paper ) . now i’ll actually back up my huffing and puffing . here goes : movie : anaconda rydain’s bottom line : wait for it to come on usa up all night . even then , i doubt it’s worth the price of jolt ( to help you stay up that late ! ) why do i hate anaconda ? let me count the ways . . . first of all , this movie gets way too many snake facts wrong . as an ophiophile ( snake lover ) , i can tell you that a ) anacondas would never reach a length of 40 feet , b ) they’re scared of people , c ) cases of snakes eating adult humans are extremely rare because human shoulders are too wide to fit in a snake’s mouth , and constrictor snakes don’t kill what they can’t eat , d ) people can outrun snakes with no trouble , especially heavy ones like anacondas , e ) if an anaconda did eat a human , it would need at least 6 months of sitting on its butt to digest the huge meal , therefore it couldn’t run around gobbling up everybody else in the cast , and f ) snakes have no vocal cords , so they can’t make funny squealing noises . whew . i was prepared to suspend reality if the movie would have been worth it . unfortunately , anaconda was about as suspenseful and exciting as watching paint peel . my friend and i even successfully predicted who would live at the end . anybody can tell the bad guy is going to die eventually . that was a pity because his character was one of the few reasons my friend and i didn’t give up and fall asleep . he was the most likable character in the movie . who wouldn’t enjoy somebody who looks like a deranged walt whitman ? anaconda did have its cute moments : arguments between ice cube’s character and the british guy , for instance . however , those small flashes of wit were not worth the other hour and twenty-eight minutes of boring schlock . the writers had – and blew – a multitude of opportunities to insert funny lines . i was quite disappointed with a scene where a young guy tells a young lady that the jungle makes him horny . did she retort with a clever , ego-withering comeback ? of course not ! ” i’m trying to work ! ” gee , that’s even dumber than the crap comebacks i come up with . she could have told him to go find a knothole or something . . . ; p but i will admit , there was just one scene where i was surprised at the outcome ( hint : it involves the evil guy and miss crap comebacks ) . as for the plot , i’m still trying to find one . this movie was basically an excuse to get a boatload of people into dangerous territory where they could get snarfed by ridiculous , computer-generated anacondas with the eyes and fangs of vipers and the faster-than-gravity downward acceleration of a harrier jet . ( harrier snake ? ) not to mention instant digestion so they could go snarf countless other victims . the writers tried to throw in some sort of plot twist ( should i call it a plot knot because it made no sense ? ) in which the sick guy’s g-friend kisses the evil dude and suddenly everybody hates said evil dude and starts trying to kill him . that was about as clear and understandable as mission : impossible . ( if someone could explain that movie to me , i’d be most grateful ! all the old-guy double agents looked the same ! ! ) i wasn’t inspired by the acting , save for the evil dude . i can’t blame the actors , though . it’s not their fault they had a cruddy script to work with . this concludes rydain’s diatribe on a shameless exploitation ( and perpetuation ! ) of public fear of snakes . comments , flames , anyone ? -rydain the atomic cheese , fresh from chernobyl dairies !
0 this movie is written by the man who is deemed to be ” one of the hottest writers in hollywood ” . he wrote the groundbreaking screenplay for scream ( 8/10 ) , then added the successful i know what you did last summer ( 7 . 5/10 ) script to his mix , and also created the popular tv series ” dawson’s creek ” . so when he asked to direct his first movie , based on his first ever script written , everyone and their grandma said ” sure , go for it ! ” . uhhm , my question is . . . did anyone bother reading this stupid script ? ? ? plot : ace student leigh ann watson is mistakenly caught with some cheating papers by the bitchiest teacher in the west , mrs . tingle , and set to lose her scholarship to college . when she and her friends visit the teacher at home in order to explain their side of the story , they end up tying her up , and slowly trying to talk some sense into the hardheaded woman . critique : it’s not so much that this is a bad movie , than the fact that it sucks . this movie is chock-full of one-dimensional characters , contains no actual humor that i was able to zone in on , zero tension or thrills , plot holes the size of my big ass , lame pop tunes played to mask nothing going on in the movie , and molly ringwald , vivica a . fox and lesley anne warren tossed away in throwaway roles . i was primed for this film as its interesting premise had me thinking misery ( 8/10 ) and 9 to 5 , but unfortunately for williamson , he went nowhere with the bright foundation , making references to the exorcist and dr . zhivago , which i doubt many in his target market will appreciate . he also forgot about suspense , with all of his characters based on incomprehensible decisions , unbelievable motivations and simply boring us with all of their trite dialogue . sure , katie holmes is cute , and her co-star , marisa coughlan , did a reasonably amusing impression of the exorcist ( worth two points out of my three on ten ) , but how can we forgive the biggest one-dimensional character in any film , holmes’ rival in the film , mrs . tingle’s complete unprofessionalism being let go by all others around her ( are teachers allowed to behave that way nowadays ? ) and a transparent romance between holmes and some long-haired dude , hired to be the poor man’s version of skeet ulrich ( who himself is a poor man’s version of johnny depp ! ) . all in all , this movie was laughable for me , provided me with no insight into anything , demonstrated williamson’s genuine lack of directorial skills alongside a juvenile script , and provided helen mirren with a great role to chew into , unfortunately forgetting to give her character any believability , humanity or capacity to comprehend . no hip lines , no cheap thrills , just a dull time at the movie theater . if you want to see a funny teenage movie , go see detroit rock city ( 8/10 ) , and thank my drunken , sorry ass in the morning . little known facts about this film and its stars : kevin williamson’s father was a fisherman . kevin used his knowledge of fishing hooks and winches when creating the killer in i know what you did last summer ( 7 . 5/10 ) . he is also a huge fan of steven spielberg and coincidentally , so is dawson leery on tv’s ” dawson’s creek ” , a show kevin created . he was once an aspiring actor . in fact , he even landed a bit part on tv’s ” another world ” . also , williamson has gone on record to say that an unsupportive english teacher who once told him that he would never amount to anything was the inspiration for mrs . tingle , which is also loosely based on the book ” killing mr . griffin ” by the writer of i know what you did last summer ( 7 . 5/10 ) , lois duncan . he has also come out and said that he is a gay man . helen mirren was born in london , england under the name ilynea lydia mironoff . she is married to director taylor hackford , whose works include devil’s advocate ( 8/10 ) and an officer and a gentleman ( 8 . 5/10 ) . this film was originally titled killing mrs . tingle , but was changed after the columbine high school shooting incident . actress marisa coughlan will star in kevin williamson next tv project called ” wasteland ” . this is actor barry watson first full feature film . he has played the character of ” seth ” on tv’s ” malibu shores ” several times .
0 in a typical cinematic high school , the football jocks have sex with the girls and then dump them , but not before the boys’ scores are dutifully recorded in their little black books . as the sexual acts take place , the other guys hang out nearby , guzzling beer and grunting like pigs . in the rage : carrie 2 , robert mandel’s terminally bland sequel to carrie , there isn’t a single original moment . only amy irving returns from carrie , and the talent of the rest of the sequel’s cast is impossible to determine given the stupefying mediocrity of rafael moreu’s script . as rachel , the horror story’s lead , emily bergl gives one of the least scary performances in recent memory , but it isn’t exactly her fault . the director asks for little from his actors , which is precisely what he gets . sporadically in this lame and lifeless movie , rachel will cause school lockers and windows to fly open , but generally she just mopes around looking like a victim . her fellow students delight in tormenting her . of course , she will get her revenge in the obligatory ending bloodbath in which she will decapitate and castrate the boys and crush the girls with burning timbers . as the movie marks time until its big finale , it throws in some repugnant scenes , hoping to turn audience’s stomachs . rachel’s girlfriend commits a horrible and realistic suicide after the boy who made ” love ” to her the night before spurns her . ( he gets major points in his black book for this , but his buddies say he would have gotten more if he had had sex with her after her death . ) even a helpless puppy is run over , and we see his poor , little body flipping over and over under a truck . the teenagers in the movie are completely blas ? about it all . ” doesn’t it offend you that some girl offed herself yesterday , ” asks one of the few kids with a conscience . ” why ? ” responds his nonplussed girlfriend . ” she wasn’t anybody . ” remarkably devoid of any energy , especially for a horror flick , the movie makes one yearn for a fast forward button on the theater’s armrest . with material this bad , the film’s only hope is to go for parody , but it isn’t smart enough to realize it . even the mandatory epilogue is as pointless and predictable as the rest of the movie . the rage : carrie 2 runs 1 : 45 . it is rated r for graphic violence , teen alcohol abuse , sex , nudity and profanity and would be acceptable only for older teenagers .
0 man , this was one wierd movie . similar to conspiracy theory in that it couldn’t decide which genre it is . the first hour is your standard stock aliens clone , which nicely created an eerie atmosphere about the ship . the last half hour ? this was when the makers blew the script out the airlock and just decided – ” screw it , let’s just kill everybody ” . from then on – forget sci-fi . . . this movie becomes 100% horror . what really dissappointed me about this movie was that it tried to scare you in entirely the wrong way . instead of using clever tricks or trying to build up to a scare – this movie just uses loud noises , sudden camera shifts and short quick bursts of gore . . . . . yawn . . . . everyone’s seen it all before and knows when to expect it . the one thing that was done well was the lead up to finding out about what happened to the previous crew . there are skeletons lying around mangled and mashed , but what did this ? then finally after being painfully restored – the new crew views the video . the acting isn’t too bad at all . . . . . considering what the actors had to work with anyway , as there is no complex or interesting dialogue to speak of . there was some very nice camerawork in certain sequences though , like when the hull near the bridge of the event horizon is breached and the camera pans back to follow specific objects as they bounce across the deck and are sucked out into space . this movie could have been so much better . it had a good experienced cast who deserved more to work with . there was just nothing new here that any of us haven’t seen before in aliens or hellraiser .
0 the king and i , a warner brothers animated , musical feature , recycles the classic story of a woman who challenges the heart of a king , with obvious results . when anna ( miranda richardson ) , a british schoolteacher , travels to saim to educate the king’s ( martin vidnovic ) children , she learns that the king is treating his people unfairly , and must say something to the greedy ruler . meanwhile , the king’s prime minister ( ian richardson ) , the stereotypical villain , plots to overthrow the king , taking the throne . the last , and most predictable , main subplot deals with the king’s son ( allen d . hong ) , and his love for a servant , tuptim ( armi arabe ) , and how he conflicts with his feelings , and the ancient laws of saim . not even the lone strong character of anna can save the unbelievably horrible waste of talent , as the king and i’s problems could fill the blank pages of a journal . i will only note the major difficulties , for it would take pages to elaborate on every detail . the screenplay , written by arthur rankin , peter bakalian , jacqeline feather , and david seidler , which is based upon the play written by richard rodgers and oscar hammerstein , has some of the worst dialogue written in a film within recent memory , as every time the obnoxious king would shout , ” etc , etc , etc , ” i would cringe . literally . speaking of cringing- i did quite a bit of this during the rather short film , which is a classic display of terrible filmmaking . besides the repetitive dialogue from the king , on the whole , the songs seem out of place , and unlike the lyrics , are unmagical . the sole song which is used cleverly is ” getting to know you , ” which is used as anna shows the children the great outdoors , which they have never been exposed to . unlike disney animated features , the king and i’s songs don’t add to the film , and are as uneffective as could be . take the following scenario as an example , as the sheer horror of the king and i’s music is at its worst . you’re being hunted by a dragon ! what do you do ! ? sing a happy song ! martin vidnovic voices the king without effort or emotion- you hear the saying two negatives don’t make a positive ? believe it ! with the terrible dialogue that the king has , along with his awful voice track , the king is completely unbelievable , only shows mild signs of any personality , and the only thing that changes in the king is that he says ” etc . , etc . , etc . , ” more and more as the film progresses . no personality at the beginning of the movie , none at the end . and where does this character’s personality change ? hey , i thought anna was supposed to change him ! isn’t that the whole plot ? the prime minister’s hideous sidekick ( darrell hammond ) brings his share of cringes as well – oh no ! another one of his teeth fell out ! hardy-har-har ! he is supposed to bring laughs for the kidlets , but even at age five i would have cringed while watching him . by the way this review is going , you may think the reasoning for my hate for this film is due to not liking animated films- hence why i hate this movie , because the king and i is a disgrace to animation . animated films , such as 1994’s the lion king and 1998’s the prince of egypt , are among my favorite movies of all time . the animation team does design their share of well animated settings , so this makes it easier to take my mind off of the annoying king , until i realize that day and night switch back in fourth within seconds . i have not read the play , or seen the oscar winning , 1956 film adaption , but from what i can tell , the screenplay for the 1999 version completely butchers the play , for the king and i is never magical , nor interesting . if it wasn’t for miranda richardson , who voices anna with feeling , the king and i could earn the title , ” worst movie of the decade . ” instead , the king and i will just go down as among the year’s worst . the bottom line- avoid this movie at all costs . not even young children , the target audience in this film , will enjoy it . not the slightest bit .
0 synopsis : cro-magnon ayla loses her mother to an earthquake and escapes certain death by a lion . reluctantly rescued by a neanderthal clan who likes to have sex doggy-style , ayla grows up to become a blond , feminist supermodel who challenges the neanderthal patriarchy by throwing rocks and giving birth without a mate . comments : allow me to state for the record that i find daryl hannah an appealing presence in movies . she proved quite charming as the intelligent astronomer in the romantic comedy roxanne and equally creepy as pris in the sci-fi classic blade runner . the clan of the cave bear clearly tries to capitalize on hannah as a selling point : the poster art bears a striking closeup of hannah in tribal paint and the video box prominently features her name in lettering the same size as the title . not even her starring role in this turkey , unfortunately , can save it from being an unbelievable exercise in cheese . it’s so uniquely bad ( a film dealing with prehistoric man that actually tries , and miserably fails , to be serious ) that it’s oddly fascinating . the ridiculous attempt at drama here leaves the audience somehow transfixed , wanting to see how this dud plays out . the clan of the cave bear is based upon a popular novel by jean m . auel . to this day , the book possesses a loyal cult following . i remember a dear friend of mine had a dog-eared copy of the novel she had read as a child with all the so-called dirty parts blacked out with marker by her grandmother . i have never read this book , but i sure hope it’s 10 , 000 times better than its film adaptation . if not , then i’m at a complete loss to explain its popularity . the clan of the cave bear immediately opens with a comically absurd scene . a young ayla , looking much like drew barrymore in e . t . , tramps about in the woods . with her cute little ponytails and fur wrapped about her , the audience’s expectations of a convincing portrayal of prehistory are immediately shattered . what follows is a laughably choreographed sequence in which an earthquake swallows up ayla’s mother ( a blonde with fur pants . . . er , leggings ) . tearful ayla looks on as the cameraman shakes the camera . . . well , as the earthquake slowly recedes . a hungry lion becomes interested in her for lunch , but the screaming six-year-old manages to outrun the king of the wild and find a safe haven . i won’t detail the story any further ; this seems enough to illustrate my point . this movie is really stupid . it never even gives the audience a chance to suspend their disbelief . also , the obvious comparison between the appearance of cro-magnon man in prehistory and the rise of feminism in our century is about as subtle as burning a wonderbra in front of charlton heston . the movie doesn’t just suggest this message ; it whacks the message into the audience with a two-by-four . a blond , gorgeous woman challenges the social laws of a bunch of people in gaudy brown wigs . she’s of the ” new people ” ; they’re of the ” old people ” with ” the memories . ” yep . we get it . we get it . the clan of the cave bear apparently received an academy award nomination for best make-up , which surprises me . the movie depends upon a lot of make-up obviously , but much of it is unconvincing . as stated before , daryl hannah is daryl hannah here ; she looks like she just stepped out of the shower all the time . the rest of the characters have dark make-up of some sort smeared over them to look like dirt . the face-painting that’s occasionally seen is perhaps the only notable work here in my mind . this movie also suffers from its new age trappings . maybe the music sounded a lot more fresh or original during 1985 , but now it sounds dated and cliched , like poorly conceived elevator music . add to this the film’s faux-mysticism , including spirit animals and dream visions , and a narrator who sounds like a psychic you’d expect to hear on a 1-900 number , and you get a movie that has serious problems being serious . the clan of the cave bear is rated r , though it’s probably one of the most inoffensive offensive films i’ve seen in quite a while . it contains several scenes of sex sans nudity . the violence mostly consists of hunting scenes . the funniest moment of the movie occurs when a neanderthal in love with ayla attempts to rescue her from a ferocious bear . the bear bites his head off and the audience sees it rolling about . although this may sound gratuitous , i’m sure , it’s so cheesy that it probably won’t bother most people . the clan of the cave bear is a bad movie . however , as i wrote at the beginning of this review , it does have the distinction of originality . typically when i think of bottom-of-the-barrel films dealing with early man , fantasy movies involving dinosaurs ( who did not exist at the same time as man ) and raquel welch come to mind . the clan of the cave bear tries so hard to be serious that , though it’s so bad , the audience is still interested by the unique setting and characters of the movie ( which is why i awarded this turkey two stars ) . i have to think that fans of the book would be disappointed with this film version ; however , i’m only basing this observation on the fact that the book is almost invariably better than the movie . i shudder to think that it could be otherwise . . .
0 salaries of hollywood top actors are getting obscenely large these days and many find this to be the main reason for skyrocketing movie budgets . actors who demand such salaries might be greedy , but in some instances they are quite justified , because many films would never be watched or even made without their participation . proof for that can be found even in the realm of low-budget movies , and one fine example is breakaway , 1995 thriller directed by sean dash and starring ( in ) famous figure skater tonya harding . face of tonya harding is most prominently featured on movie’s poster , but the main star of the film is terri thompson who plays myra , attractive woman who works as a courier for gangster . one day she decides to retire , but her employers are anything but enthusiastic about that . realising that her life suddenly became worthless , myra starts running for her life , followed by professional assassins . terri thompson being the actual star of the film instead of tonya harding becomes quite understandable after the scenes that feature former figure skater . although tonya harding displays convincing martial arts abilities , her acting leaves much to be desired . on the other hand , her disappointing efforts are hardly out of place in the film that lacks originality , believable characters and situations and actually represents anything that gave b-films a bad name . martin sheen’s brother joe estevez , whose character looks like he had entered from another movies’ set , is the only bright spot of breakaway . unfortunately , he appears in this film too little too late to prevent viewers from realising why tonya harding’s silver screen debut proved to be her last film .
0 movies like six days , seven nights make me mad because talented people like harrison ford , anne heche , and ivan reitman put a lot of hard work in to a script worth about ten cents . ? the script was written by michael browning , and he decided that , instead of thinking up new ideas , he’d rehash a lot of cliches , omit even the slightest bit of character development , and then throw in drug-dealing pirates to provide for a few high-level action sequences and explosions . ? there are good scripts out there that high-profile actors can make ( see the truman show , for instance ) . ? six days , seven nights is simply a waste . let’s see . . . we have to get harrison ford and anne heche alone on an island . ? so , how do we do that ? ? well , we’ll make her a feisty magazine editor , and we’ll make him a crusty old pilot . ? but wait , she has to have a fianc ? e ; that can be david schwimmer . ? but wait , if she has a fianc ? e , how will she and harrison ford crash on the island alone ? ? i know ! ? they’ll get to their vacation spot , and then she’ll get called back ! ? yessssss ! ? so , they’ll crash on the island , and that will be funny for about five minutes . ? shucks . oh , i’ve got it ! ? we’ll throw in a distracting subplot in which her fianc ? e has sex with a really attractive woman who acts like a bimbo , and then he can feel guilty . ? then , when anne heche kisses harrison ford ( they have to kiss , because otherwise nobody will want to see the movie ) , it will be a vindicated action , because her fianc ? e will already have cheated on her ! ? then , for no obvious reason , they’ll accidentally run into pirates who try to kill them . ? oh , yes ! ? i feel so good about this story . ? instead of using characterization to propel the events , it will be completely random , and yet totally predictable ! ? imagine that . don’t get me wrong — six days , seven nights is not a boring picture ; ford and heche both do a great job . ? the sparks fly between them , and so most of browning’s inane dialogue is drowned out by the actors’ sheer force of talent . ? almost every scene between them has energy that the performers bring to the screen , and i found myself laughing pretty hard . ? schwimmer is also funny , and manages to milk all of his scenes for whatever he can get . ? and reitman , who has made some good films , at least tries to make things exciting . ? even though the pirate subplot is profoundly dumb , i was prepared to be pleasantly sidetracked by the action sequences . it’s just when i start to think about the story that my contempt for this film surfaces . ? the picture feels like it’s been hacked to pieces — i wouldn’t be surprised if five or six inept subplots have been edited out completely . ? the ones that are here are as bad as they come ( i think i let out a very audible groan when they get the first glimpse of the pirate ships ) , and i’d just like to shake the producers by the shoulders and scream , ” why did you pick this awful script ! ? ” ? the film is outright stupid , but some of the elements are subtly horrifying . ? for instance , take the subplot in which the schwimmer character has sex with the bimbo , and then feels really guilty . ? this is a serious problem in real life , but six days , seven nights reduces any chance of complexity to a weak plot device : ? his actions are what makes it okay for heche to kiss ford . ? in a script that lacks even a glimpse of intelligent subtlety , i find it odd that such a strangely insulting device ended up in the story . this is summer movie season , but that doesn’t mean our movies have to be dumb . ? 1998 so far has been one of the worst years in recent memory for summer blockbusters . ? when i was in line for six days , seven nights , i heard the woman in front of me ask for ” two tickets to that new harrison ford movie . ” ? why didn’t she know the name of the film ? ? i suppose she just didn’t care . ? what bothers me even more is that the people who make these big-budget pictures don’t realize that their films are becoming parodies of themselves . ? good actors should sign to good scripts , and if hollywood insists on making flicks to rake in cash , they least they could do is assume that we’d like to spend our money on a story worth more than ten cents .
0 if anything , ” stigmata ” should be taken as a warning against releasing similarly-themed films relatively close to one another . of the four supernatural horror flicks released this year , it is clearly the worst . i suppose i should have seen this coming . after all , ” blair witch ” thoroughly creeped me out , ” sixth sense ” was mildly spooky , and then ” stir of echoes ” had its moments , but wasn’t anything i’d lose sleep over . clearly , the quality of the horror this summer has slowly been dropping . is it then any surprise that ” stigmata ” is the dullest , most horribly executed piece of mtv-influenced tripe i have seen in a long while ? no , not really . patricia arquette plays frankie page , a hairdresser from pittsburgh who receives a rosary as a gift from her globe-trotting mother . as it turns out , the rosary belonged to a recently-deceased brazilian priest . the priest’s church had been under investigation by father andrew kiernan ( gabriel byrne ) because of the mysterious appearance of a bleeding statue . father kiernan is an investigator who has made a career out of disproving supposed religious signs , but this time he believes there is something to the bleeding statue . his investigation is soon called off , however , when the frankie starts exhibiting signs of the stigmata , in which a person is inflicted with wounds like that of jesus christ . father kiernan is initially skeptical of frankie’ s story , considering she’s an atheist , but once he witnesses the stigmata attacks himself , he dedicates himself to finding out what is going on . he eventually begins to suspect that his boss , cardinal houseman ( jonathan pryce ) , is concealing something that could bring down the catholic church . as it turns out , the dead priest had been working on the translation of a ” fifth gospel ” before they were excommunicated . the new rupert wainwright music video . . . i mean film ” stigmata ” is the sort of film that starts off ok and only gets worse . indeed , it would have been good if it were a music video , because it’s only interesting for about five minutes . i’m not sure what wainwright is trying to prove with his endless parade of slow-motion , double-exposure , and extreme close-ups ( whoaaaaaa ! ! ! ! ) , other than the fact that he has the most swelled head of any director in hollywood and , yes , he has been to film school . his camera trickery is interesting for a little while , but eventually , it becomes headache-inducing . what this film needed is a second audio track to be played over the dialogue ( such as it is ) , with wainwright screaming at the audience , ” see ? look at what i can do ! i’m an ex-cellent dir-ect-or . ” maybe then he’d explain why he decided to start half of his scenes with slow-motion shots of water dripping in reverse , or why he included random superfluous shots as that of an egg frying ( ooh , scary ! ) . if there was some underlying meaning behind all this camera trickery , i didn’t see it . just when you thought it was safe to get involved in the story , here comes a double-exposure shot of two patricia arquettes collapsing into bed for no reason whatsoever . arrrrrrrghhhh . . . then again , the superfluous camera trickery wouldn’t bother me if ” stigmata ” had a story or characters that were remotely engaging . though wainwright’s vanity certainly doesn’t help , he does seem to have been given a nearly unworkable script . where are plot continuity and character development when you need them ? case in point : frankie page is the character that ( i assume ) we are supposed to identify and sympathize with , but we aren’t given any back story on her character , or any reason to like her . the extent of her character development seems to be that she is a hard-working hairdresser ( who can somehow afford a cavernous apartment on the top floor of her building ) and she’s kind of cute , so let’s start the bleeding ! the fact that she’s clearly not the brightest bulb in the drawer doesn’t help , either . according to frankie page , what is the first thing to do after receiving mysterious wounds on your wrists and back ? go clubbing ! sure , that makes sense . arquette , byrne , and pryce give it the old college try , but their characters are so one-dimensional that they just appear to be sleepwalking . scenes between arquette and byrne that were probably supposed to be sexually charged fall almost embarrassingly flat , because the setup of the romantic subplot is so clumsily handled that it almost reaches the point of becoming laughable . even though frankie page’s life is falling apart before her very eyes , she still finds the time to hit on a priest who wanders in to her hair salon . even more curiously , he seems to be interested in her advances . father andrew’s religious doubt pops up so suddenly that it seems more silly than dramatic . as for pryce , he may as well wear a curled mustache and cackle , ” i’ll get you , my pretty , ” for all the depth his cardinal houseman is afforded . trust me , i’m not revealing anything by telling you pryce turns out to be a villain . what’s worse , after being faced with dull characters and the prospect of having annoying camera tricks and loud music jammed down our throats , we now have to contend with a story that starts off in one direction , veers off in another , then another , and ends up being totally incomprehensible . first of all , the film doesn’t even bother to explain what should be very simple plot details . how does frankie get the stigmata merely by touching a rosary ? how come an atheist like her was chosen , since father andrew mentions that only very devout believers have ever received stigmata ? actually , i’m not sure what frankie was posessed by . supposedly , stigmata occurs when one is posessed by the holy spirit , but the film later has her being posessed by the dead priest , and later by some evil spirit ( i think ) . which one is it ? the answer to this question , of course , is very simple : the possessing entity in each scene is determined by whichever effects and flashy camera work mr . wainwright wants to use this time . furthermore , the ending is a ridiculously neat little wrap-up , and the filmmakers compound this problem by ultimately turning the film into a diatribe against the catholic church . if you do any research at all about the gospel of st . thomas , you’ll find that it is not being suppressed by the church ( as the film seems to claim ) , but that it is readily available at your local library . there’s nothing the catholics need to worry about , though . ” stigmata’s ” religion is so off-base that it can’t be confused for anything remotely resembling the real catholic church . if they wanted to portray catholic priests as mobsters , they should have gone all-out and equipped them with sharkskin suits and tommy guns , which would have been far more interesting . i’m not catholic ; in fact , i don ‘t care much for the catholic church , but its cartoonish misrepresentation in this film should not be considered realistic by any means . it’s rare to see a film that fails on as many levels as ” stigmata ” does . it’ s not thought-provoking , though it would like to be , and it is definitely not scary , though it pretends to be . i’m not sure why they tried to pass this off as a horror film , because there is absolutely nothing scary about the story . maybe it’s an attempt to cover up the fact that none of the scenes have any dramatic weight whatsoever . the initial shock of seeing arquette covered with blood is dulled by the fact that it happens over , and over , and over . like so many films of the mtv generation , this one suffers from overkill . so much is overdone in ” stigmata , ” that it eventually has no effect on the audience , leaving us to pick out the film’s ( many ) flaws . i’m also still trying to figure out why the quotation they take from the gospel of st . thomas is so earth-shattering . when we finally hear it , the saying sounds like something every five-year-old learns on their first day of sunday school , which means that for all its flash , the whole film is really much ado about nothing . the dog days of summer usually produce one monstrous dog , and ” stigmata ” is it .
0 john boorman’s ” zardoz ” is a goofy cinematic debacle so fundamentally misconceived and laughably executed that it takes on a bizarre enjoyment quality all its own . not since the rampant bumblings of one edward d . wood jr . has a movie been so silly and so serious at the same time . of course , wood’s career can be explained by two things : he had no money and he had no talent . boorman , on the other hand , cannot court such excuses to explain ” zardoz ” ( or his follow-up film , the equally awful ” exorcist ii : the heretic ” ) . boorman obviously had a sizable budget , a matinee idol movie star ( sean connery ) in the lead role , and although you wouldn’t know it from this film , boorman does indeed have talent . this is the man who made the slick modern masterpiece ” deliverance ” ( 1972 ) , as well as the autobiographical world war ii drama ” hope and glory ” ( 1987 ) , the slightly over-conceived arthurian epic ” excalibur ” ( 1981 ) and the father-son jungle adventure ” the emerald forest ” ( 1985 ) . his films all show that boorman is never lacking in imagination , but sometimes that comes at the cost of coherence and taste . if boorman is anything , he’s ambitious , and when he succeeds , it’s in grand fashion . unfortunately , the bigger they are , the harder they fall , and when boorman falls , the resounding impact can be heard for miles around . ” zardoz ” is meant to takes its place among the grandest of mystical movies , an obsession of boorman’s . his screenplay tries to elicit the same mythological connotations of the arthurian legends or even ” the wizard of oz , ” a book which figures into the movie’s plot . but , despite all this reaching , the resulting movie is more unintentionally funny than intentionally enigmatical or compelling . the events take place in the distant year 2293 , but there is little of the typical futuristic movie-ness to be found . in fact , things seems to have moved backwards , with people riding horses , shooting old-style guns , and living in large victorian mansions . it’s more middle ages than space age . the world of ” zardoz ” is divided into two distinct hemispheres : the outlands , where all the poor , pathetic people live , and the vortex , where a select group of wealthy intellectuals live in comfort and everlasting life . these immortals never grow old , they never engage in sexual activity , they possess psychological powers , and they live in a sort of quasi-utopian marxist society where everyone is equal , and everyone contributes equally to the society . however , if one breaks the rules , that person is punished by being aged so many years . if someone breaks the rules enough , he or she is aged to the point of senility , and imprisoned to an eternal existence in a geriatric home with others aged criminals . one of the immortals , arthur frayn ( niall buggy ) , a squirmy man with a mustache and goatee tattooed on his face , is charged with keeping order in the outlands and forcing the residents to farm so the immortals can be fed . like ” the wizard of oz , ” he adopts a god-like status among the people by flying in to their part of the world in a giant stone carved like a menacing head . ( this flying head is one of the movie’s opening images , and it’s a dead giveaway of the lunacy to come . ) calling himself zardoz , frayn gathers a bunch of outlanders and makes them into a group called the exterminators , whose purpose is to kill most of the other outlanders so they can’t procreate and take up more resources . from inside his giant , stone head , zardoz bellows seriously laugh-inducting statements like , ” the gun is good . the penis is evil . ” that line alone is worth the movie’s cult following . one day , an exterminator named zed ( sean connery ) , sneaks into zardoz’s flying stone , pushes frayn out , and goes back to the vortex . once there , the immortals label him a ” brutal ” and study him like a lab rat , taking great , perverse care in exploring his sexuality , which is a mystery to them . they seem especially interested in his ability to gain an erection , and there is one downright hilarious sequence where a bunch of scantily-clad female scientists show zed erotic footage on a video screen in an attempt to determine what gets him worked up . i say ” hilarious ” because that is exactly what ” zardoz ” is . it is obvious that boorman did not intend it to be so ; he made this film with the straightest of faces , although i have a hard time believing that as production moved forward , he didn’t get even the slightest inkling of how patently ridiculous it was becoming . just looking at connery is enough to give one the giggles – he spends most of the film running around in a red loin cloth that resembles a diaper , a mane of hair braided halfway down his back , a wyatt earp-style handlebar mustache , and a pair of thigh-high patent leather boots that would look more appropriate on a cheap hollywood hooker . boorman made the film right after the critical and financial success of ” deliverance , ” which is the only reason i can imagine a studio would green-light this effort . he attracted some rich talent on both sides of the camera , including cinematographer geoffrey unsworth ( ” 2001 ” ) , whose striking visuals are about the only good thing in ” zardoz ” besides the inadvertent humor . sean connery had made his last james bond film in 1971 , and perhaps he was looking for a change in pace . he got exactly that in ” zardoz , ” and it’s a wonder it didn’t end his career . i’m sure boorman intended for this movie to make some grand statements . is it a treatise about the infallibility of eternal life ? is it a condemnation of those who consider growing old to be a bad thing ? or is it a social statement , something about the inherent negativity of class distinctions and the violence it creates ? karl marx might like it if he were more like timothy leary . come to think of it , maybe boorman made it as an extended lsd trip . people high on illicit substances are the only ones i can imagine enjoying this asinine silliness as anything more than a completely unintentional comedy .
0 the kids in the hall are an acquired taste . it took at least a season of watching their show on hbo before i became a believer . maybe after watching a half dozen kids in the hall movies , they would grow into the big screen . my recommendation is that , unless you are a big fan of the kids , skip the film . as it is , their first–and most likely only–attempt at a full length film lacks the qualities that made their comedy work on tv . a big-budget and glossy production can not make up for a lack of spontaneity that permeates their tv show . the kids go through the motions , but you get the feeling that they arent really having fun doing so . and this makes it more difficult for the audience to enjoy their antics . brain candy is a bunch of skits tied together by the story of a pharmaceutical company that develops a new drug to cure depression . in typical sketch-comedy tradition , each actor plays several roles . doctor cooper ( kevin mcdonald ) and his team create the drug . then , under pressure from don roritor ( mark mckinney ) , founder and president of roritor pharmaceuticals , dr . cooper releases the drug into the marketplace . the ensuing distribution of the new happy pill throughout the populace drives the rest of the film . at about 90 minutes , brain candy still seems long . the best thing about sketch comedy–and the kids are no exception–is the ability to quickly deliver the laughs , then go on to another quick skit . but with the additional set-up necessary in telling a longer , coherent story , the laughs just dont come fast enough . strangely , the show is even more tame than it was when on cable tv . the movie makes several attempts at risqueness–mostly by pointing up the gayness of one of scott thompsons characters–but they seem almost forced ; as if they have to live up to a pg rating . one of the best bits , though , does make use of thompsons naked buttocks ; we see him charging into battle–going to have sex with some guys taking a shower . in the classic of this genre , monty python pulled off this delicate balancing act between plot advancement and punchline delivery for most of the holy grail . the kids , unfortunately , are not up to the task . there are some amusing moments , to be sure , but not enough to make the experience an enjoyable one .
0 there was a time when john carpenter was a great horror director . of course , his best film was 1978’s masterpiece , ” halloween , ” but he also made 1980’s ” the fog , ” and 1987’s underrated , ” prince of darkness . ” heck , he even made a good film in 1995 , with ” in the mouth of madness . ” but something terribly wrong happened to him in 1992 , with the terrible comedy , ” memoirs of an invisible man . ” somehow , carpenter has lost his touch , with junk like his failed 1995 remake of , ” village of the damned , ” to his uninspired 1996 sequel , ” escape from l . a . ” those movies , however , look like cinematic works of art compared to his latest film , ” john carpenter’s vampires . ” if i was him , i definately wouldn’t want to put my own name in the title . it is a sad state of affairs when carpenter can make something as misguided and flatly written and filmed as , ” vampires . ” the story is simple . jack crow ( james woods ) is a vampire hunter who , along with one of his partners , montoya ( daniel baldwin ) , and a prostitute , katrina ( sheryl lee ) , survives an attack from the master vampire , valek ( thomas ian griffith ) . since katrina was previously bitten by him , crow takes her along because anyone who is bitten by valek becomes telepathically linked to him until they themselves turn into vampires a couple days later , and crow is hoping to find him with the help of her . it seems valek’s mission is to steal a black , wooden cross from a roman catholic church that will enable him to become so powerful that sunlight will not destroy him . my question is : how many time have we seen this same story played out ? well , the answer is just about as many times as a better version of the story has been made . ” john carpenter’s vampires , ” sadly enough , is one of the most unscary horror films i’ve ever seen . in fact , there isn’t even one suspenseful moment in the whole 105-minute running time . the non-stop vampire attack sequences are stylelessly filmed , without any interesting camera work , which is usually a trademark of carpenter’s . and then we come to the screenplay , which , as far as i can tell , is nearly non-existent . there is no story development , and there isn’t even an attempt to flesh out the characters . james woods can be a good actor , but he has nothing to do here but to say a couple of ” pseudo ” -clever lines of dialogue . daniel baldwin has some potential , but his character comes off as being very dense . and sheryl lee ( faring much better as laura palmer in ” twin peaks ” ) , like all of the female characters , plays an offensive stereotypical whore . there is not an ounce of intelligence , or excitement in , ” john carpenter’s vamires , ” which is very disheartening coming from an ex-fan of carpenter’s . he has said that he turned down directing , ” halloween : h20 , ” because he couldn’t work up any excitement for it . and yet , when asked about a ” vampires ” sequel , he said he would be happy to do it . i think that’s a definite sign that carpenter has finally lost any trace of his lasting talent , not to mention a significant number of iq points .
0 two party guys bob their heads to haddaway’s dance hit ” what is love ? ” while getting themselves into trouble in nightclub after nightclub . it’s barely enough to sustain a three-minute _saturday_night_live_ skit , but _snl_ producer lorne michaels , _clueless_ creator amy heckerling , and paramount pictures saw something in the late night television institution’s recurring ” roxbury guys ” sketch that would presumably make a good feature . emphasis on the word ” presumably . ” _a_night_at_the_roxbury_ takes an already-thin concept and tediously stretches it far beyond the breaking point–and that of viewers’ patience levels . the first five minutes or so of _roxbury_ play very much like one of the original ” roxbury guys ” skits . with ” what is love ? ” blaring on the soundtrack , the brotherly duo of doug and steve butabi ( chris kattan and will ferrell ) bob their heads , scope out ” hotties ” at clubs , and then bump a select few with violent pelvic thrusts . there is one crucial difference , however–these guys speak . that little fact has been used as justification for the film’s existence , that the butabis’ newfound capacity for speech would open up a whole new set of doors for the characters . the doors opened by director john fortenberry and screenwriters steve koren , ferrell , and kattan are new , that’s for sure , but they all lead to comic dead ends . there is no story per se , only a loosely structured and linked series of subplots . the brothers literally run into ( or , rather , get run into , as in by car ) richard grieco of _21_jump_street_ fame , and through him they gain entrance into the exclusive roxbury club . there , they meet a hotshot club owner ( chazz palminteri , conspicuously uncredited–can you blame him ? ) , who takes an interest in an idea of theirs . meanwhile , the bros’ overbearing father ( dan hedaya ) wants them to stop clubbing . when doug refuses and the dimwitted steve obeys his father , a rift is created between the two . the narrative messiness of _roxbury_ would have been forgivable if all that went on were the slightest bit funny , but virtually none of it is . the assembled press audience mostly sat stonily silent throughout the entire film , with the one big exception being a big laugh near the end . alas , the joke–a rather lazy takeoff on _jerry_maguire_–will only strike a chord with people who have seen that film . granted , a lot of people _have_ seen _jerry_maguire_ , but the fact that the film’s best joke is completely dependent on one’s familiarity with another film says a lot about _roxbury_’s lack of inspiration . that lack of inspiration can be traced back to the insipid characters themselves . like too many of the skits on the current incarnation of _saturday_night_live_ , ” the roxbury guys ” is a one-joke sketch that never once suggests that the characters have enough comic life in them to survive outside of the sketch context . after watching one of the ” roxbury ” skits on snl , this is what you come away with from the characters : they bob their heads to ” what is love ? ” , bump unsuspecting women , and . . . that’s all . after watching _a_night_at_the_roxbury_ , you’ll be left with exactly the same .