Lucian-3

Come on.

Leaving aside the poor effects there is still plenty wrong with this film.

The holes in the plot They approach a barrier no ship has ever entered and no probe has ever returned from. How do they get past it? "Keep going!"

Totally undermining the characters of the Trek series by placing the minor relief they get from a Vulcan flim-flam man over their duty to StarFleet?

Turning Scotty into a buffoon by having him walk into a bulkhead?!

A chase sequence with something of supposed God-like power that can't outrun a man or survive a blast from a Klingon ship.

Shatner's overdone prestige acting "I...NEED...MY...PAIN." without a director to try and reign him in just gets ridiculous.

It doesn't work on any level. It's just sad.

Overall this is a fun pic. The plot works, the atmosphere is excellent and Woody Allen is able to play his age reasonably well despite romancing a much younger co-star.

The dialogue is uneven; overwritten in some places and underwritten in others. Kudos to Allen for writing a decent female roll that can effectively spar with his own character. Helen Hunt performs well as do much of the supporting cast (especially favourite character actors Wallace Shawn and David Ogden Stiers). Dan Ackroyd, unfortunately, is woefully miscast in a roll better suited to Alec Baldwin or Rob Lowe and, as a result, the romantic triangle in the film is never convincing.

There are a few shortcomings in the plot that could have been fixed in a rewrite but the story moves along well and laughs are delivered regularly throughout. Woody would have been well advised to take one last run at polishing the script (or even bringing in a thorough editor) but these days who can give Woody Allen that kind of advise?

It's nice to see Allen returning to lighter comic fare and this film is worth seeing on a discount night or would be just as effective on video.

A film that sets out to both physically (through a piercing overloud soundtrack) and emotionally (through horrible imagery, rape scenes, abuse of children and much more) hurt its audience then expects them to switch gears and follow their cute little comedy scenes.

It doesn't work. The director has no sense of pacing or flow so the film is like a car with a bad clutch, jerking and bouncing about with nothing to redeem it.

The film lacks wit, humour, characters to sympathise with or a terribly believable plot. This film is worth nothing more than avoiding.

2 out of 10.

A film that sets out to both physically (through a piercing overloud soundtrack) and emotionally (through horrible imagery, rape scenes, abuse of children and much more) hurt its audience then expects them to switch gears and follow their cute little comedy scenes.

It doesn't work. The director has no sense of pacing or flow so the film is like a car with a bad clutch, jerking and bouncing about with nothing to redeem it.

The film lacks wit, humour, characters to sympathise with or a terribly believable plot. This film is worth nothing more than avoiding.

2 out of 10.

My trip to my small hometown of Peterborough, Ontario included a visit to their new Galaxy Theatre. I must say I am impressed. In a city of 65,000 to see a theatre that would be at home in a major centre was quite a surprise.

On the schedule for the night was Cast Away. One of the saddest lessons I learned was that importing a high class theatre does not guarentee a high class audience. My enjoyment of the film was harmed immensely by chatty idiots all around me. To quote Max Eilerson (from the criminally short-lived Babylon 5: Crusade series) "I hate it when I go the movies with kids in the audience, because there's always someone there that tells me I can't kill them when they get loud. Now who makes up these rules anyway?"

With that out of my system I'll move on to describe the film. First will come my spoiler free review and some spoiler notes will be at the bottom. You have been warned.

Cast Away dares a great deal. Only the attachment of big names like Hanks and Zemeckis could have gotten this movie made. And, to be certain, Hanks is amazing and should be considered the Oscar frontrunner as of now. His performance is very believable and the lengths he went to for the role should be given credit by many in the Academy.

Cast Away is based on a book and, before seeing the film, I read a review speculating the film would shy away from many of the darker aspects of the storyline. It doesn't. However, there is so much story to cover here that much of it has to be told in shorthand. This is not a film that spoon feeds its audience everything they need to know. You are expected to be able to fill in a lot of gaps yourself. It's refreshing to be treated as a thinking, perceiving being for a change (though judging from the comments of idiots around me they weren't up to the task; I guess I won't recommend the film to idiots which should only serve to enhance the moviegoing experience of others) but the gaps in narrative can be jarring at times.

Still if the greatest fault of the film is that its reach exceeds its grasp that is only because it has reached very far. And a film that dares and falls short is far more satisfying to watch than a formulaic film that touches all the bases in a routine home run. I give Cast Away an 8 out of 10.

Minnie Driver and the kid from the Pepsi commercials riff on beauty pageants. Driver plays a girl raised in a loveless family and seeks all her validation in a quest to become Miss American Miss. Choosing a young friend, played as an adult by Joey Lauren Adams, as a surrogate mother she devotes all of her shallow insincere energy to winning by any means necessary. Her true inability to relate to people (`What is human interest? I don't get it' she pines when forced to photograph a day in her life) leads her to abandon her daughter to be raised by her friend to prevent disqualification. When Adams's character is removed from the picture (leaving the audience with no one sympathetic to watch) Driver is forced into motherhood only to find herself repeating the mistakes her own mother made.

The film makes some attacks on the shallowness of the beauty pageant world and the criticisms of it from a media just as obsessed with the beauty myth. Some telling lines highlight the hypocrisy fairly well but the film's final message calls for sincerity as the pageant saving grace. A truly subversive message might have been attained by casting a less attractive funnier actress and playing the movie for more over the top humour. There are a few laughs and the Pepsi girl isn't as annoying as one would expect but there really isn't much to this movie. If you're looking to see a mild attack on pageantry with a few laughs Beautiful is for you. If you want to see a really stinging picture go rent Drop Dead Gorgeous.

House of Mirth Directed by Terence Davies This is an adaptation of a 1905 novel and maybe it should have been adapted a little farther. Better still maybe it should have been left alone.

In a nutshell Gillian Anderson plays a young socialite of low means who is trying to marry rich but is frustrated by her love of a young man who is carrying on an affair with a married friend. Her character is so tragically in love with this man she sacrifices everything by accepting a scandalous disgrace rather than reveal the proof she has of the affair.

While it's nice to see a film that does not unrealistically portray the position of women in the past and chooses instead to show the genuine struggles women went through this film doesn't do it in an engaging way. The main character is so weepy and spineless while all those around her take horrible advantage of her its hard to care. The dialogue occasionally shines when one can clearly recognize the clever line lifted directly from the original work; it is flat most of the rest of the time. It's hard to assess the acting when the rolls seem so unappealing. Anthony Lapagia is the only person to stand out both for acting and playing a character with some real sense. The chemistry between Anderson and Eric Stolz as her love interest is so lacking it is impossible to understand why this love is worth sacrificing a cab ride let alone one's entire life. Oh and after only a few days ago commenting on the refreshing turn Dan Ackoyd's career had taken with him playing a wealthy sex-obsessed sleazeball in Stardom I was astonished to see him playing an almost identical roll here!

Perhaps worst of all the film rarely allows any moments of candor. The beauty of Dangerous Liasons was the shift between polite conversation and brutal honesty. Here honesty is all but totally lacking and film is poorer for it. Perhaps in 1905 these conversations were scandalously candid, now they are a yawn.

I found myself checking my watch constantly and, after 2 hours and 15 increasingly excruciating minutes, I was `forced' to leave the theatre in time to make it to my next screening. I cannot even comment on whether the ending satisfactorily redeemed the movie. Given, however, that the movie seemed historically accurate up to that point and no plagues or disasters ravaged New York in 1905 that would suitably explain killing off the entire cast of characters I rather doubt it could have been redeemed.

To me this film is a modern day Pinocchio story. The twist is every character is simultaneously Pinocchio (full of dreams, wanting to be real, but making very big mistakes along the way) and Jimminey Cricket (an imperfect conscience driven to help a friend). The star they wish on is stardom, either directly or by association, and it's not always all that magical.

This is not a perfect film. It is the best film so far in 2000 (which is not saying much) and it does show Crowe to have truly arrived. I think we'll see Cameron making a lot of solid films for years to come.

The cast...well the cast is superb. Every time I see Phillip Seymour Hoffman I want to see him again and Frances McDormand deserves a supporting actress nomination with on possibly going to Kate Hudson as lead (though this is because there seems like so little competition this year outside of Joan Allen in The Contender).

As for the soundtrack. I bought it. It's solid but there REALLY should have been a copy of "Cover of the Rolling Stone" included, it's one of the most evocative songs of the desires and adjustments of fame for a rock musician there is and its oversight is nearly criminal.

Yes the film wimps out a bit on the drug angle but this isn't a documentary and it's as much a modern look at the time (witness the numerous jokes that are only funny looking backwards) as a look from within it.

I saw this film while visiting another city with no one to talk to and it resonated for days. Heck, it's still resonating, there are scenes that feel burned into my mind and I truly wonder if this film will ever leave me.

This film was produced through an improv workshop technique. And, since each actor created their own character and contributed to the plot, the results show. The energy of this film crackles off the screen. Since each actor knows their character's history better than anyone else it is impossible for someone to misplay their role. The feeling from this film is incredible and I strongly recommend everyone to see it if only to encourage more films of this type being made.

The story, it should also be noted, is very good. It's one of the best ensemble pieces I have seen in 2000.

Since it went straight to video the question of whether it is worth a theatre ticket becomes moot. A black comedy that isn't riotously funny the film does manage to raise questions about gun culture simply by taking it to the comedic extreme.

A few great jokes, some nice performances and a comedic look at a very serious issue make this a film worth a view on video.

It's good sometimes to be reminded we need low budget indie films to tell us warm, genuinely human stories. Despite poor production values wonderful performances shine through here. Most notable is Bill Henderson giving the performance of his life. Mainstream films offer so few strong emotional roles to the elderly (as opposed to pap like The Crew or Space Cowboys) that it's nice to see Bill shine. When I saw the premier screening at Toronto International Film Festival it received 3 standing ovations, one especially for Henderson, who was overwhelmed with joy to receive it.

I look forward to this film coming to town again so I can see it a second time after post-production.

A downright odd experience to see. Full of rapid fire images, blaring rock songs and characters who are universally INSANE. This movie had to be set in the New York of the early 90's not the Disneyfied version of today. The characters are an assortment of mad city workers and its victims for, as the characters say: "This city will kill you if you're not strong enough." "No. The city doesn't discriminate."

The film has a few flaws. The chief among them is the overuse of voice over, a problem Cage seems to face in all his films. The real problem with the voice overs is they are not needed. They explain too much that might be better left to the imagination of the viewer...sadly this is not something the American filmgoer is generally credited with.

Overall one of the best films I've seen in 1999.

Fantasia 2000 really seems like old footage dug up and restored. Only the grainy look of "The Sorceror's Apprentice" lets us know that it alone is from the original movie.

The cartoons seem to have been lifted from an earlier era, inspiring nostalgia. This does not make the pieces bad only seemingly out of place with the well written modern intros.

The film should be viewed in IMAX despite expense or travel required. A small screen will not do it justice.

Overall enjoyable enough that I hope only 5-10 years pass before a new installment appears.

A decent example of a B-horror movie. More believable than most with an real attempt to be scientifically credible. No great acting or writing but what do you expect from a movie about komodo dragons? At least the dragons look convincing enough. The sound is excellent too.

Nice to see classic literature as the basis for a new movie.

This was no artistic masterpiece but it was a good portrayal of the Norse culture, no big horned hats, no brutes wandering about looking like refugees from those Wunderbar ads they made in the 70's and have, inexplicably, put back on the air now.

I really liked the cast. Banderas did a fine job. Not entirely believeable but not a fantasy movie. And the scene of him learning their language was an excellent piece of film-making.

The show is brilliant. A funny satire. A good 30 minute design without the annoying laugh track of many inane sitcoms. Good cast (Buddy Hackett threatening to pop a cap in somebody is something I never thought I'd see, Hackett is amazing overall).

But original? No, sorry. This TV shows is The Player as a TV comedy. Nothing wrong with that, looks like one of the best shows of the 99 season and far more biting than The West Wing has been so far, but not a new idea.

It's amazing this movie was able to be made at a time of such success and such tragedy for the band. I only hope the distributor manages to find a way to show all of North America this entertaining rockumentary.

And watch for some great celebrity cameos including Conan O'Brien in a more candid moment.

As excellent as The Blair Witch Project is I am saddened by those who fail to appreciate it. The era of postmodern film has gone on so long that audience members have lost the ability to empathize with characters on screen. Movie makers have made their self-referential little jokes and reminded movie goers "it's just a movie" for so long now that people forget how to look at a movie as if it were real event. BWP's attempt to create a hyper-realistic movie experience is sabotaged by those who choose to deride the film (out loud, in the theatre) simply because they have been so conditioned by CGI, soundtracks and big name stars they're no longer capable, or perhaps are afraid, to have a genuine emotional experience at a film.

While amusing and occasionally close to touching 20 Dates suffers from being filmed as if it were a cheap TV show. As such there is really no reason to see it on screen. Even a low budget can sometimes allow for a sweeping, majestic, or engrossing picture. This film is flat and seems too small to fill a theater screen.

I suggest renting it but not on a date. Wait until you've been in the relationship for at least 6 months and use it to laugh at yourselves in the old days.

Funny, well written, decent characters. Bartok was a great character, especially in his scenes with the German hunters. Ramos, with his indeterminately long Harvard stay, really went beyond the stereotypical "Mexican sidekick".

Pity it never found an audience and joins the ranks of The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. and Wild Wild West, sci-fi westerns that have gone too soon.

The truck with the helicopter built in was really neat. But beyond that the show never really found its niche.

While this movie invites comparison to The Truman Show they are hardly the same.

EdTV is funnier and more realistic. But EdTV lacks any real sense of drama. There's no real tension at any point and the ending has none of the touching drama of Truman.

My biggest complaint is that, in the movie about TV, I felt like I was watching TV. Movies are gripping and absorbing, this was distancing. Movies invite a certain reverence from the audience, this invited us to laugh at in jokes, make our own comments and cheer wildly as celebrities such as Jay Leno, Ru-Paul and Michael Moore make cameos.

While I laughed when I pay my nine Canadian dollars for a film I expect to be transported and this film failed to do that.

Not a realistic depiction of prison life by any means (for that see The Shawshank Redemption) but a gritty, nasty, no holds barred expose on the evil than human beings are capable of doing to each other. Now if only they can stop rolling over cast members so quickly. 9 out of 10.