Sterling52

As in so many cases, a great movie comes out and the sequel is just mediocre. Then a third sequel comes along and it too is a great movie. This is yet another example of that phenomenon. JURASSIC PARK III is a good movie. I don't think it is a good as the first but it is certainly better than the second and the dinosaur footage might well be considered the best yet. This is a straight adventure/rescue story. Sam Neil is hoodwinked into returning to the isle of dinosaurs to act as a "tour guide". He is only supposed to narrate what is seen from a plane that will never land. As it turns out, the plane does land and the purpose of landing is to search for a lost boy. The good doctor was shanghaied because the parents of the boy wanted someone with experience running from large carnivores. By the end of the film, everyone has plenty of experience. If I had one real complaint about this one it is the suspiciously good timing of the marines who turn up to save the day. That didn't destroy the story, though. By the time that happens, everything is pretty much over. As with the second in the series, there are plenty of new dinosaurs at which to marvel. These include some that may pave the way for yet a fourth in the series.

Better direction highlights THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, an all too rare case of a sequel actually outdoing a fine original. Jason Bourne is on the run again--and, just as in the original, the pursuers are assassins, the CIA, and his own past. It seems that settling down for the quiet life just isn't in the cards for our put-upon hero; indeed, as so much of the last movie built towards him finding peace with his new girlfriend, it's more than a little jarring to watch her get wasted mere minutes after the opening credits. Oh, well. It's the LETHAL WEAPON 2 syndrome all over again--you can't have a pesky relationship get in the way of all the intrigue, betrayals, butt-whuppin', and car chasin' that has to be squeezed into a two hour action flick. It could have been different. Bourne could have quietly disappeared, you see, if it weren't for those downright inconvenient CIA bigwigs framing him for knocking off government field agents. And, of course, it's not even that simple. Things get very complicated and clever in this second installment of the Bourne trilogy, and the disciplined hand of Paul Greengrass is an upgrade in the direction of the tale. I could tell you more, but then I'd have to ... oh, you get the idea ... (This review has been posted by Marcus Damanda, author of the vampire novel "Teeth: A Horror Fantasy.")

If you look at this from the point of view of a film connoisseur, The Day After Tomorrow is simply awful. The plot doesn't really make sense, the science is nonsensical, the acting is nothing special, the dialogue is downright horrendous, and the film sort of seemed like Independence Day and Deep Impact smushed together into one giant cliché. Well, I enjoyed both of those movies, and I enjoyed this one. There's something endearing about it despite how truly poor quality it really is. You can practically see what's going to happen before it does, yet somehow you still get excited when it does happen. I watched the ending 3 or 4 times in a row. And the special effects, which are really the only remarkable part of this movie, are spectacular. The science is bad, but they twist the explanation just well enough that you can convince yourself that it MIGHT be possible, sort of like Jurassic Park. The acting gets the movie done. The only really awful part is the dialogue, but as long as you're not too finicky, you will probably enjoy this movie. Two-star film, but I had a five-star viewing experience and would watch it again.

'Chicago' is one of those films that, while not my favorite, captivates me from start to finish every time I sit down to watch it. It's flawlessly directed and executed, brilliantly acted and otherwise advertised and comes off as the whole package, flawless from just about every angle. Yes, some of you have mentioned that the lead actors voices aren't the greatest, and really, other than the magnificent John C. Reilly and the superb Queen Latifah the singing is below par as far as you would expect Broadway to be (Zellwegger and Gere have nothing on 2001's Kidman and McGregor). But that's not really the point, because all the glitter and glam and attitude that drips forward with every word you begin to forget the fact that these people can't really sing. I for one felt that the entire cast (Gere aside) did an outstanding job, and yes, even Gere did fine, I just felt his Billy Flynn was a bit miscast. Renee did an outstanding job as Roxie Hart, a girl dreaming of the big lights who murders her lover when he refuses to give her that. She's imprisoned for it and its there that she meets Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones in her Oscar winning role) who is currently serving time for offing her husband and sister. Through Matron 'Mamma' Morton (Queen Latifah in the role that should have given her the Oscar) Velma has been set up with hotshot lawyer Billy Flynn, the best money can buy, and Roxie wants him too. Left to pick up the bill is Roxie's loyal if not albeit naïve husband Amos (Reilly in his Oscar nominated role...great year for him by the way) who seems to be being used by everyone. The film of course revolves around the court case and Roxie's determination to work the crowd, work the judge, the jury and the world in order to not only be released of all charges but become a star. She of course has obstacles every step of the way, between Velma's jealousy, Billy's fleeting interest and her husbands growing distain. The real shining areas here are of course wrapped up in the musical numbers, the shimmer and grace that lines every word, every scene, and every number. Numbers like 'Cell Block Tango' and 'All I Care About' get the star treatment (and look wonderful) while songs like 'Mister Cellophane' and 'When You're Good to Mamma' shine brighter than the rest based on the voices alone. One of my favorite numbers though is Catherine's 'I Can't Do it Alone' just because of her sheer determination...she's wonderful. 'Chicago' arguably deserved the Oscar (I'm still on the fence) but regardless it deserved to win or not, 'Chicago' is still a brilliant musical that any fan of the Broadway play or fan of the musical in general will enjoy. Rob Marshall did deserve that Best Director Oscar, I will say that. His direction here couldn't have been better. 'Chicago' is a film that will never grow old, never grow tired and never leave my collection.

I will always think fondly of this movie because it inspired me to pick up the first Harry Potter book and I've been a rabid fan ever since. I'm one of those book before movie people so I had to read the novel in order to go see this movie and I was pleased to see that it was such a faithful adaptation to Rowling's wonderful tale. This movie did a wonderful job of capturing the wonder and awe of the first HP novel. Hogwarts was an especially lovely effect and when Harry first walks into the Great Hall and all the candles are floating overhead, I felt all the magic I felt when reading those words on the page. I think Columbus and crew captured the essence of the castle and somehow managed to create a visual of something so fantastical. The casting of the movie was also extremely well done. I adore Maggie Smith as McGonagall and Richard Harris captures the mischievous and wise nature of Dumbledore. Perhaps best of all the adult casting is that of Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid. He looks exactly as I pictured the character but, more importantly, he captures Hagrid's rather childlike nature and the accent is wonderful. Coltrane doesn't just portray Hagrid, he is Hagrid. I also thought the children were wonderfully cast. Daniel Radcliffe looks like Harry and I fought back tears when his earnest young face first looked into the Mirror of Erised. Rupert Grint looks just as I pictured Ron Weasley and Emma Watson is wonderfully bossy and a fantastic know-it-all as Hermione Granger. The casting of the Phelps brothers as the Weasley twins was absolutely brilliant and I think they were dead on in their interpretation of the lovable scoundrels. Yet in spite of its fantastical nature, this film, like the book, feels as though it is something like our own reality. There are many wonderful things in Harry's world but it's not that different from our own. The same prejudices and the same human frailties that exist in our world exist in Harry's. Though being a wizard is pretty darn cool, it's not the answer to Harry's problems and the film makes clear that he has some difficult challenges ahead of him. I think the central theme of this movie is one that is invaluable for both children and adults alike: that love is the most powerful magic that exists. Even with all the wand waving and fantastical creatures, it is love that is Harry's salvation.

In 2001, one of the most anticipated movies ever came into theatres: "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," adapted from J.R.R. Tolkien's classic fantasy novel. Since it was created by a talented but weird director (who specialized in cult horror) and based on a book that had never been successfully adapted even in part, no one was entirely sure whether it would bomb or succeed. Fortunately, "Fellowship" turned out to be smashing cinematic success -- both financially and artistically. When hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) leaves the Shire, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) convinces him to leave his treasured magical Ring to his young cousin Frodo (Elijah Wood). Gandalf soon confirms that the Ring is the evil One Ring of the Dark Lord Sauron, and tells the frightened Frodo to leave the Shire as soon as possible -- especially since nine dark riders are searching for someone by the name of Baggins. Frodo, his faithful gardener Sam (Sean Astin) and his two mischievous cousins (Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd) quickly travel to meet with a strange ranger, and stumble into more dangers as they make for the Elven haven of Rivendell. But Frodo's journey is not over yet -- when he and a band of hobbits, Men, Elves, Dwarfs and a wizard all volunteer to take the Ring to the only place where it can be destroyed. For a long time, a convincing "Lord of the Rings" movie could not be made -- not just because of special effects and money, but because it is so difficult to translate Tolkien's work into something watchable. Goofy scripting, bad special effects, mutilated characters -- there was just so much that could go wrong. So it's even more of a credit to Jackson and Co. that they outdid themselves. They translated Tolkien's erudite prose into solid, poetic dialogue, with lots of humor and horror, romance and taut action. And it all takes place in the New Zealand landscapes, with lots of misty forests, towering mountains and charming rural villages. And Jackson takes full advantage of these, with his trademarked swooping shots, and wild camera-work for fight scenes. But the setting alone doesn't make a good movie, which is where Jackson's WETA Workshops came in. Sets range from the sturdy English hobbit towns to the airy elven tree-houses; and the special effects are almost shockingly realistic, including a rampaging cave troll, and a glimpse of the gruesome Gollum. He's the first fully convincing CGI character, and you can forget he is made digitally. Elijah Wood is outstanding as Frodo Baggins. He runs the emotional gamut: fear, pain, horror, happiness, resignation, love and loneliness. Sean Astin is equally good as the steadfast Sam, who is amazed by the world outside the Shire. And some comic relief comes with Dominic Monaghan and Billy Boyd, as Frodo's loyal, chipper cousins. But as lovable as the hobbits are, they do not dominate all of the screen: Ian McKellen is perfect as the grandfatherly wizard Gandalf. There are also some meaty roles for mysterious Viggo Mortensen, elfin newcomer Orlando Bloom, ominous movie veteran Christopher Lee, as well as Hugo Weaving, Liv Tyler, John Rhys-Davies, and especially Sean Bean as the tormented Boromir. While the theatrical version has nostalgia value, the extended is undoubtedly the best. The scenes cause the movie to cleave more closely to the original novel, such as Galadriel giving priceless gifts to everyone in the Fellowship. And even when they deviate -- Frodo and Sam watching Elves walking to the Grey Havens -- they add to the flow of the movie. And there's two discs of extras, which are loaded wall-to-wall. There's intricate step-by-step demonstrations of how they did the special effects and CGI, the costuming and forced perspective, the construction of the elaborate sets (including a whole hobbit town!) and the actual acting. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" is a true modern classic, with exceptional acting and amazing direction from Jackson and his friends. Absolutely stunning in every way.

One of the most amazing things in the movie is the manipulation of time. The story is not so much told chronologically but jumps back and forth without getting lost, but to tighten up the story. What really happens becomes more and more clear until the very nice climax at the end.

The acting is very good. Ken Forrey as captured and tortured vampire delivers a really funny performance. Sid Haig as old Vampire leader looks really cool with all his wrinkles.

So if you expect a lot of blood and gore in this movie you will be disappointed but if you are looking for an unusual movie maybe you should take a look.

Although often marginalized by my contemporaries, colleagues, and the world of academia at large, the character of Ode May Brown is one of the most riveting, pivotal, and important literary characters of the past two centuries and quite possibly ever. Not since Charles Dickens' character of Louis Fontaine and Shakespeare's obscure and typically underrated Thomas Jack Abercrombie has a character sparked a national revolution, packed theaters (stage, projection, or otherwise), and redefined the term "exoneration." The 1980's, similar to 1923, was a time of prosperity, indulgence, and limitless thinking. With this hotbed of bohemian sentiment and excessive wealth to invest in the outrageous, the timing was perfect for imaginative works of zaniness and the fantastical. While stock-brokers were hitting it big on Wall Street, Andy Warhol was working in his "factory" in New York with Basquiat, Robert Greenwald was directing the yet unknown glitter-encrusted light and roller-epic "Xanadu" and Ridley Scott was preparing for work on his unicorn fantasy dream known as "Legend." Nobody was prepared for the cesspool of cinema stinkers to come in a period known as "the nineties." Being the final decade of a century,one would think the world was ready for images and sounds that were out of this world. Instead, the world was treated (heavy on the sarcasm) to such gems as "Reality Bites," "The Silence of the Lambs," "The Piano," and "Basic Instinct." Not only were these films and every other film in the decade minus two completely devoid of anything spectacular or colorful, but they lacked the charm of the previous decade. In fact, the only other creative work to hit cinemas in this decade in addition to the piece discussed in this manifesto was Evita (review coming soon). The decade had the number 90 in it and was a time of grunge, filth, over-sized sweaters, garbage, flannel, and various other low-life things. The stage was set for something better for audiences to feast on. Breaking into this "Bleak House" that was cinema in the mid-90's, 1990 brought us a revolutionary picture that nobody would ever forget yet everyone strangely already knew because it was so engrained into the fabric of their being. Tired of grit on their movie teeth, people ate up this film with such enthusiasm. This film was Jerry Zuckers, "Ghost!" (Editor's note, the actual film title does not have an exclamation point in it because the marketing person at Paramount Pictures is an idiot. The exclamation point has been added because it should have had one in the first place.). Everything from the music (who will ever hear the Righteous Brothers' Unchained Melody the same way again?) to the special effects were unfathomable. However, while the film was superior to every film effort up until that point, the actual film paled in comparison to a small unassuming character housed within the feature presentation. Much like a priceless Merlot in a Dixie Cup or scribbles writing musings from Plato, "Ghost!" was simply a cheap container from Wal-Mart to hold something which surpassed everything anyone has ever known. That character was Ode May Brown. A character with such warm charm and charisma that anything that surrounded it was rendered meaningless and often profane. It is well known that the actress Whoopi Goldberg won an Academy Award for her portrayal of Ode May Brown. Many of my fellow and sometimes accomplished critics feel that her performance was nothing short of, well, amazing. This is the general malaise' and rhetoric that plagues both my writings and my acceptance in the mainstream media world. But I ask, and perhaps I digress, but to what capacity was Goldberg actually participating in? Going against the grain, I feel that Ode May Brown existed before Whoopi was even born and her character was not acting at all. Furthermore, the writer of this entry loathes Goldberg and feels that she has completely the only task she was put on this Earth for and can just as well disappear for all I'm concerned. The only thing about about Ode May Brown and the only thing Whoopi can do on this Earth that is worthwhile would be to make "Ghost! 2!" I'm not sure what exec. at Paramount has not set this production into motion, but rest assured, once this article gets out, "Ghost!" sequels WILL get made which, unfortunately, will revive the career of Ms. Goldberg, but more importantly will bring back Ode May S. Brown (if you know what the S. stands for, please e-mail me!!!) and her 2 lovely sisters to the big screen. For me, this mythic character is the most enthralling..."thing" I can imagine and I would pay sums of money to learn more of her origins. Prequel anyone?

This movie is by far the best movie so far. After getting used to all the changes that were made in the 3rd movie, the fourth movie is a blast. The first thing I have to say is "VOLDEMORT RULES!!!" Whoever played Voldemort did an excellent job and you really learn to hate him (which is a good thing if you learn to hate the character and not the actor). The special effects rock and the acting is much better than I remember it being in the previous movies. I can't say much about the story because there's nothing new under the sun. As usual the director cut things, added things, and shortened things so as to make it not nearly as good as the books, but that's to be expected with all films that are based off of books. All in all this is a great movie that deserves to be bought off the shelf and watched over and over and over again.

The Wedding Crashers is a rare thing in comedy films - a flick with an almost non-existent point to its story, yet it is riddled with sophisticated humour and a fairly cohesive, enjoyable plot. The film can be split into two if we try and assign a genre to it; it is either a Romance film, or it is a Comedy film. It is not a Rom-Com in the classical sense - it's too silly in places for that. One thing it does particularly well, though, is fulfil its role as a feel-good film, and might - just might - see you looking at areas of your own relationships in a slightly different way. The film's greatest strength lies in the sheer range of well-defined characters. All of them are integral to the film's substance, but the interplay between Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughan is especially important. The buddy-buddy feel that predominates through the first two thirds of the film gives rise to some of the most memorable lines and quotes I think I can remember from recent films. The roles played by Christopher Walken, and his family, are fantastic. A true achiever in Hollywood, Walken brings his "ever-so-slightly-creepy" acting style into line with his obvious comedic talents to sublime effect - perhaps a precursor to his amusing but slightly unnerving role as an Angel of Death in "Click!". The inclusion of Will Ferrel as the ninja-master of 'crashing may not be to everyone's taste, but his role is kept to a minimal, and is actually particularly funny. The plot is fairly predictable, so I won't go into it at length; basically two best friends who have daytime jobs as divorce mediates get their kicks out of gatecrashing local weddings, picking up emotional girls and then moving on. The film develops by forcing them to look at the irresponsibility of their behaviour, and offers them both ways out of it in the form of the two lead female characters. But be aware that this one isn't necessary so run of the mill as other comparable movies. It has something slightly more, and that's what makes it worth your while watching on a Friday night, as opposed to one of the other generic rom-com clones that have infected the shelves of your local video store recently. So, a good one to catch as the weekend begins, and you want something to laugh about (that doesn't require too much of that ever-so-absent Friday night brain power!).

In Austin Powers- The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999), Dr. Evil (Mike Myers) travels back in time to 1969 to steal Austin Powers (Mike Myers) mojo while he is cryogenically frozen. Powers' starts to notice that he is having trouble in the womanizing area, and decides to follow Dr. Evil and get his mojo back. Powers hooks up with the American spygirl, CIA Felicity Shagwell (Heather Graham), and together they go on a hunt for Powers' mojo. Powers also has to stop Dr. Evil from destroying the planet with his "Alan Parsons Project", a giant laser. Dr. Evil's clone, Mini-Me (Verne J. Troyer), is an exact replica of Evil, only 1/8 of his size. Mini-Me soon replaces Evil's son, Scott Evil (Seth Green), to become the high-light of Evil's life. The pint sized Evil is a barrel of laughs. Added to this sequel is also Fat Bastard (suprise! also played by Myers). This name is very fitting to the grotesque character. If you enjoy disgusting body gestures, then Fat Bastard is a character you will like. Myers won the American Comedy Award in 2000 for funniest actor in a motion picture. This award was well deserved by Myers, because of his versatillity. This comedy, directed by Jay Roach is perfect for viewers who enjoy crude remarks, grotesque comedy, and too many references to phallicism. This color film has an awesome soundtrack. Dr. Evil singing "Just the Two of Us" to his new little buddy is hysterically funny! I rated this film a 3, because I am not a big fan of grotesque comedy. I feel that disgusting bodily habits should be left at home in private, and not displayed for the public. However; if you are a fan of such ridicule, this is unquestionably a movie you will appreciate.

...but I had to watch this one again, right afterward, because I needed to go back and watch for clues. Honestly, and I won't give away the 'ah ha!' moment, but I knew that he was... well, you know, what he was. What I didn't get was how that was possible, or how the interaction with the others that I saw... so I had to go back and watch the movie AGAIN, just to make sure there were no errors in the filming of it. Sure enough, I found none that I could call an error, and was totally blown away with how this was filmed. I am a writer, and I also adapt novels for scripts, and when something like this comes along, that something that just totally grabs me and says, "This is something special... this is not the ordinary..." well, I am impressed. I aspire to write something that can really AH HA! someone in this way. I recommend the movie, highly.

After a start of pathetically bad proportions, HP is back, and they actually did a good job this time. After Chris Columbus was gone (thank God) the HP franchise got Alfonso Cauron. Alfonso got it right. The sets were great, the screenplay was awesome, the directing fantastic, the acting, very good. While this movie is not perfect, it still amounts to a recommended film on my list. The film has a much darker tone than the last two, this tone helps the film a lot, it's much more easy to take seriously. John Williams cooks up his best score of the series, making it moodie, creepie, happy, and at points terrifying, the best of this score is probably the children's choir singing "Double Trouble". I highly recommend this film, for me, it is currently (December '07) the second best film of the franchise.

I wanted to see Mrs Doubtfire after seeing the hilarious "call of nature" clip on a list of 100 Greatest Family Movies. Nothing in the movie quite lived up to that scene but there are a fair amount of scenes that will raise a laugh. However I can't give this top marks because the attmepts to be "moving" often made me wince in embarrassment. The biggest gripe though is that Mrs Doubtfire claims to be from England yet speaks with a Scottish accent. It would be similar if an "American" nanny came to England and claimed to be from New York yet spoke with a Texas accent. Even a Brit would know the difference. Are Americans really unable to differentiate such different accents? Whether this is an oversight or intended for comedic effect isn't too clear. As a movie with a moral or message I can appreciate that it may ty, but often fails. As a comedy though I give it a casual thumbs up.

The storyline is amazing, the dialogue is quik and witty. They have a truly allstar cast doing the voices with Michael Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy and John Lithcow. Some of the scenes are comedy at its best and like the entire dragon scene and the scene in the beginning with all the faires. I must admit that I was like really unsure whether I would like this movie at all. It did not sound at all like the animated movies that I usually like to watch. But to my big surprise I love it. The music is also very good even though some of the songs are a bit cheesy. Yeah it is very different from movies like Finding Nemo, Shark Tale and the like but it is still an amazing piece of work and just as good. This movie I highly recommend.