Bronis

The tubular bells. The spinning head. The pea-soup projectile. The Georgetown steps. "The Power of Christ Compels You!" Lee J. Cobb's face peeking through the door. The fog-soaked DC night. Linda Blair's face has become one of the most fearsome images in the language of cinema.

This film sicks with you.

Yet new audiences who watch may not be impressed. This is in no way due to The Exorcist being dated or not scary enough. It is because the state of horror films no longer melds psychological horror with special effects. It is now all loud sound effects, flashy violence and tired death scenes.

To make an angelic little girl into pure evil and her sweet innocence into unspeakable hideousness was a testament to director William Friedkin and writer William Peter Blatty's absolute intent to scare the bejesus out of us. It worked.

Yes... "The Matrix Revolutions" is a disappointment. Luckily, "Reloaded" lowered my expectations supremely with its lack of magic and cohesive narrative. After trudging through the embarrassingly stupid first quarter, I was absolutely FLOORED by Revolutions' last 90 minutes. It's the most incredible sci-fi action I've seen since James Cameron's "Aliens" - an adrenaline-pumping, heart- pounding set of tense situations that knocked me on my arse.

No, the film isn't thought-provoking or philosophical. Gone is the original sense of awe and wonder that made the first film so fresh and cerebral. Yet the Wachowski Brothers end their series with non-stop CGI fun that was entertaining enough for this viewer to recommend "Revolutions" highly.

(7 out of 10)

P.S. Don't make another one... just leave it be now.

The sheer zany atmosphere and attitude on display in REPO MAN is

exhilarating. The film has no real plot yet it's hilarious, unpredictable and very hard to classify. One of my all time favorites because it's got style, big laughs, an intelligent social commentary and great music. Captures the mid-80's punk scene well. Director Alex Cox never had a directorial effort this strong since. Certainly not for all tastes, yet see it and judge for yourself.

"Let's go get a DRINK!"

**** out of ****

"Silence of the Lambs" is a great, solid thriller with superb performances by its two leads, Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins. Yet I was not as thrilled (or as terrified) with it when it came out back in 1991. I felt that its showering of Oscars and praise was slightly unwarranted. I just don't think it's anywhere near being the greatest thriller of our day as some gushed. With Hannibal Lector's story still breathing (in the new release "Red Dragon"), I think that the first attempt at filming a Thomas Harris novel, Michael Mann's "Manhunter", was more suspenseful and interesting than "Silence". In all, this is a tight, well-crafted thriller. Yet I just cannot tell you that it was worthy of being named Best Picture by the Academy...

Grade: B

Although "Donnie Darko" is not without flaws, it represents a fresh voice in contemporary filmmaking. The picture is unique, unlike anything I've ever seen before. It is a triumph of atmosphere, acting and casting... especially for Patrick Swayze. Its' slick, elliptical story is the most exhilirating since "Memento" and will have audiences talking for months. I recommend this flick to anyone that is sick of the same old traditional fare that Hollywood relentlessly spills upon us. Grade: A-

John Carpenter's "The Thing" is the type of movie where the special effects (by a young Rob Bottin) make the film. If the film did not contain the gory, slimy and disgusting images that are seen it would be a dull, albeit semi-suspenseful flick. The film stars five or six of the best character actors in Hollywood (Richard Masur, Donald Moffat and Keith David) on top of a slightly generic Kurt Russell performance. All in all, no viewer could ever forget the kind of fun this alien creature has with its human hosts. It literally tries to become the organism it "absorbs". And some characters get it BAD. These scenes of terror are truly disturbing, especially for a younger viewer - which I was when I first saw it. I really won't go into details here, but let me just say that Mr. Bottin's creative genius makes this film exceptional. He must've had a great time designing these 'things' we see on the screen. Grade : B

What can you say. Another colossal disappointment from the director of the wildly overrated "The Sixth Sense". The teaser/trailor sold me that this one could be a thrilling and mysterious flick, but it fails... miserably.

M. Knight Shyamalan holds his shots too still which makes the film's first hour and a quarter boring as hell. Just like his last film, it isn't until about the last third when the ball gets rolling. Yet this ball rolls into the gutter. The twists here are almost identical to the last film and the payoff is just not strong enough to compensate for the hour or so that we've been waiting... patiently... for SOMETHING... ANYTHING to happen.

Without giving anything away, I must say that I like comic books as much as any 12 year old kid, but the inclusion of that form of print is completely silly here. Plus, comics are not meant to be taken as seriously as they are here.

Maybe I missed something. I don't know. But what I saw was a decent looking piece of crud. Shyamalan, Bruce Willis, and Samuel L. Jackson might not be blamed for this horrible film. Instead, the blame might be placed on the eager film execs who greenlit this project to ride on the coat-tails of "The Sixth Sense".

I heard "Unbreakable" is part of a trilogy. God help us all. GRADE: D-

After reading Ebert's four-star foaming-at-the-mouth review of Tarsem's new film, "The Cell", I was waiting to be completely mystified and enraptured by a truly great and unique film. What I got was a visually stunning motion picture with a plot that never truly builds or climaxes. It's also chock-full of hollow characters (aside from Vince Vaughn's generically obsessive g-man) who we don't give a damn about.

I keep hearing the phrases "completely original" or "an experience you've never had at the movies" being tossed around to describe this flick. In its defense- sure, it looks and sounds great with wardrobes, sets, and dream-worlds that are indeed unique and nightmarish. Yet the plot, about a serial killer and his persuers is rehashed from several different films: the gritty style and atmosphere ("Seven"), the heinous murderer ("Silence of the Lambs"), the getting-inside-of-your-mind idea (the forgotten, yet fabulous "Dreamscape" from the early-80's and "Being John Malkovich", too).

Ebert must have known he was going to get a lot of flack for his gushing review (which might as well have hailed it as 2000's "Citizen Kane"). Even though most other reviews have hit the nail on the head (USA Today gave it a 'D', and The Washington Post gave it a big fat 'F') with their comments, don't let influential critic Roger Ebert brainwash you into seeing this nice-looking turkey.

GRADE: C-

Director David Fincher is the STAR of this Pitt/Norton vehicle. His truly revolutionary and super-imaginative film techniques make this film memorable. Yet the plot (or lack thereof) couldn't have won over audiences had it not been for how the film looked. Those who take the film as an endorsement for anarchy are missing the point. "Fight Club" is almost straightforward comedy- period. The fighting scenes are decent, but certain scenes/special f.x. will blow the viewer away, including a stunning opening credit sequence and a thrilling climax overlooking a city's skyscrapers. I won't say much more than that, because this film is unique in almost every aspect possible. Absolutely brilliant directorial, cinematographic, and special effect/makeup work here that merits the film as being one of the most ambitious and exhilarating movies of the 90's. Check out the DVD to learn just about EVERYTHING you could possibly want to know about "Fight Club".

FILM (by itself):***1/2

DVD: ****

Mission:Impossible 2 arrives in theaters with a thud. A noisy, preposterous boom, which is louder than any of the generic car crashes, bomb explosions, and gunfights, contained in the movie itself. I would've never thought to consider the original Mission: Impossible as a good or even marginally good movie, but compared to this installment, the 1996 film is a masterwork. We can only hope that Tom Cruise and his co-producer Paula Wagner decide against adding onto this completely joyless series. John Woo takes over for Brian DePalma as director of this big-budgeted turkey which I implore you not to but a ticket for.

After an opening sequence that gives hope to the audience, even as it leaves us feeling unusually empty, the film almost completely runs out of steam before the halfway point. This time around, taking the NOC-list's place is some stupid virus named the Chimera that could wreak all sorts of havoc on the world. Topping off Cruise and Company's obstacles are the villains: a corrupt ex-spy (Dougray Scott) named Ambrose and his gallery of inept goons as well as the bigwig pharmaceutical company president (a wasted Brendan Gleeson). Not even Anthony Hopkins, in a totally wasted unbilled cameo, can entice us to not be annoyed. Maybe Hopkins had an idea how bad the film was going to be and took his name off it.

Then come the unintentional laughs. And I cannot believe that a talent machine like Cruise, mixed with the usually dependable Woo can actually deliver unintentional laughs. But the sight of a white dove leading the way for Cruise as he walks through a blasted-open doorway was almost enough for me to get up and watch Road Trip again. At least that film had action.

What the film does have going for it is the always-reliable Cruise and his love interest, Thandie Newton. The excellent Ving Rhames gets next to no screen time and had better become a leading man soon before he gets stuck playing uninteresting sidekicks (see the first M:I, Out of Sight, and Entrapment). It's strange to think that a John Woo-directed film would have a love story as the only real attention-grabber, but Newton is completely ravishing and her chemistry with Cruise (doing his usual smirking and staring) is moderately successful. Yet even this love story is recycled from Alfred Hitchcock's classic Notorious. Other plot twists, if you could even call them that, I found myself guessing minutes before they happened. The amount of genuine thrills in M:I-2 are almost equal to that of five seconds of Frequency (released earlier this spring- see it if it's still around).

Which brings me to the lack of originality in M:I-2. Not only is the romantic plot lifted from a film made almost 50 years ago, but also the action sequences in the movie feel insipid and totally unfresh. We get carbon copy John Woo martial arts fist fights and shootouts by. John Woo. In the first M:I, there were a couple of decent thrill sequences (i.e. the safe break-in, the train climax) yet walking out of the theater, I couldn't think of one exciting situation in the whole M:I-2 film. Never before has slo-mo been so completely drained of its worth (which isn't much to begin with). Also, is Woo blind? We get what seem like thousands of close-ups of our stars in the first half-hour alone. Most of his film work just seems rehashed and distracting here, which may be what happens when you put two inflated personalities together in what they both think is their own film.

God save us from M:I-3 because we, the moviegoers, deserve more than absolute junk like this. How could so much time, money, and talent be spent on such an unentertaining, inane, and completely disjointed film?

GRADE: D-

"Man on the Moon" is a funny film only in the fact that what Andy Kaufman did was sadistically funny. Jim Carrey, who has stated that he "became" Andy Kaufman does a great impersonation, at best. The biggest flaw for me was the question: Why watch one funnyman's impression of another funnyman? Why not just watch Kaufman's original material as performed by the man himself? With that point aside, director Milos Foreman and his talented cast (including Courtney Love, Danny DeVito, and a great Paul Giamatti) do bring back the Kaufman gags with high energy and maximum laugh appeal. The film becomes unexpectedly touching in its last moments and Carrey does a tremendous job with his material. I would reccommend it, but again, why not see Kaufman's genius (or moronic/psychotic tendencies, depending on who you are) performed by the man himself? Grade: B-

COTC3 is not that bad. Seriously. It is a gory, silly, watchable horror flick that, despite being a third in a series (that never should've started anyway), is a notch above your average B-horror film. I recommend it because it's got a lot of clever gore and some freaky scare scenes. Infinitely better than the last two, this one's a lowest common denominator entertainer. GRADE: B-

The entire cast is excellent. The satire of Hollywood is skewering. Barry Sonnenfeld's direction is suave, assured, and eye-catching. The script is on-the-money and hilarious. All this from a film starring John Travolta... and Gene Hackman... and Rene Russo... and Danny DeVito... just to name a few. Travolta holds the film in the palm of his hand it seems, as his Chili Palmer is wise, slick, and serious. The actor reflects this expertly and gets great help from his major supporting players. Hackman plays a shnook movie producer, Russo his girlfriend, and DeVito as Hollywood's biggest actor. All are superb. With cameo bits by Bette Midler, Penny Marshall, and Harvey Keitel, this movie doesn't disappoint. In fact, repeated viewings just reinforce the film's crispness and coolness. Some of the best moments come from Dennis Farina's Ray Barbone, as a son-of-a-gun wiseguy. David Paymer and Delroy Lindo are also fine in their roles as a thought-to-be-dead husband and a West Coast loan shark, respectively. Even James Gandolfini (from HBO's The Sopranos) and Martin Ferraro (the T-Rex's lunch in Jurassic park) are enjoyable in their small parts. This is certainly Barry Sonnenfeld's best and funniest work to date; the movie confidently gels from start to finish. Great music, as well, by John Lurie. Entertainment just doesn't get too much better than this.

In my opinion, one of the most amusing and well made films of the 1990's.

"Out of Sight" deserved a bit more recognition than it did when it was released in the late summer of 1998. Director Steven Soderbergh captures a playful, comedic, and slick atmosphere in this terrific film. The leads, George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez, are charismatic, sexy, and both are at the tops of their games. Neither have ever performed better than this.

The supporting cast is uniformly magnificent, including the always-great Ving Rhames and the always-interesting Steve Zahn. Also there is Don Cheadle whose performance is confident, cool, and unpredictable. Albert Brooks also lends a hand as a wimp and a target in a barely-recognizable supporting turn. And one last surprise guest ends the movie on the highest of high notes. Also, did I mention Michael Keaton pops up to reprise his Jackie Brown role here? (both films were based on Elmore Leonard novels) Enough good actors for you?? I thought so. This film works: everything just gels and the viewer is entertained supremely. Additional viewings are quite enjoyable as well. I recommend this movie overwhelmingly and hope it finds its fans on video.

Grade: **** (out of four)

"The Mummy" is the worst film of the 1990's... PERIOD. I have never witnessed a more vile waste of talent and money than this absolutely hideous piece of crap. The previews made it appear creepy and supernatural, but as the lights dimmed and the movie began, I realized things were taking a turn for the worst. I actually dragged friends along with me because I thought the film would be a prime slice of big-budget Hollywood horror. Yet the film is so tongue-in-cheek and played for laughs that it completely alienated me as a viewer.

The special effects are decent, but the 1930's version was damn creepier with a budget of probably 1/100th what this one cost. The story of "The Mummy" is gothic: it deals with undying love and revenge. These two ideas that are callously thrown aside for as many silly action sequences as they can squeeze in. The acting is too damn campy, which began to annoy me, say, fifteen minutes into the movie. The racial stereotypes are downright insulting, while usually solid actors Brendan Fraser, John Hannah, and Rachel Weisz are completely wasted.

The best thing that happened in this movie is when the credits went on at the end. And boy, did I have apologizing to do to my friends.

Now I don't like dissecting films at all; I usually take them as pieces of pure entertainment. But this one-- BY GOD-- almost made me lose all hope in Hollywood's ability to thrill an audience. Universal Pictures, you should be ashamed of yourselves. And there's talk of a sequel.... Now that's scary!

Sneakers (1992) is one of the most underrated flicks of the 90's. Escapist fun just doesn't get much better than this. The movie is great fun, enjoyable most when the actors (Redford, Aykroyd, Poitier, Phoenix, Kingsley, among others) are deciphering codes, unscrambling words, and delicately breaking into computer systems. Laced with some great humor, one must suspend disbelief, sit back and enjoy this whimsical gem of a film.

Schindler's List, in my opinion, is the best American film ever made. It is a nearly flawless motion picture with impact that lasts long after the movie ends. Spielberg's storytelling techniques continue to amaze me and Schindler's is the film that he will be most revered for in the centuries to come.