negeati

"Mission: Impossible 2" is a huge disappointment. This movie is in serious need of originality. The film makers use exactly the same technology used in the original movie. This movie uses more masks than needed. When there isn't a plot, we get masks. Another thing that the movie has plenty of, is predictability. When Nyah has the virus syringe in her hands, I said to myself she's gonna infect herself. And what do you know, she did. Or when Ambrose's assistant brings Hunt in cuffs and unable to speak? I realized instantly that the masks were responsible again. There were times when I hoped not to be right. Even the simplest idea, something that wouldn't be obvious, would do. But no.

Let me get from the plot to the musical score. Hans Zimmer, shame on you! What is this?! You used the theme music so many times, that it became nauseating. Your "Gladiator" music was a stroke of genius, and now you give me this garbage!

The acting was good to OK. Tom Cruise is effective as usual and so is Thandie Newton. Even in action movie, she still impresses (she was very good in "Beloved"). However, Dougray Scott needs a villainy infusion. He's very general and unthreatening. He requires villainy lessons from Tim Roth (probably the best movie villain) and Robert Carlyle (from "The World Is Not Enough"). Even Joaquin Pheonix (from "Gladiator") was better.

Yet the movie has some suspenseful and cool scenes. Only for that, this movie gets a 6/10.

P.S.: Want better action with a whole lot more of originality, and with a brain as well? Go see or re-see Ridley Scott's masterpiece "Gladiator". It will leave you much more satisfied.

The sequel to the wonderful "The Last Don" is a bit on the lighter but funnier side. Yet it works just as well. I have not seen the TV version, but the complete mini-series. It is longer (about 50 minutes) but I got more plot, more violence (the sequel is more graphic than the original) and oh, yes, more nudity (the first one had no nudity at all, and I should know since I watched the complete mini-series as well: four hours and a half). We get to admire the beauty of Andrew Jackson's buttocks. By the way, he is doing a very funny and successful imitation of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Most of the original cast returns. The only one who doesn't return is Daryl Hannah (who played Jason Gedrick's wife). She had been replaced by someone else, but it doesn't matter because her character is disposed off very quickly. Danny Aiello returns as the pivotal character, but he dies of old age (he was 86 years old) in the first 10 minutes. Even Joe Mantegna returns as Jason Gedrick's father, even if he was killed in the original movie. He comes in his son's dreams. Really. Give me a break. That it is the only thing that sounds shallow in this film. And again, the always fabulous Kirstie Alley comes back with a more important part: she falls in love for the first time in 30 years, with a Catholic priest nonetheless. And again her world crashes again, just when she was happy. Her last line in the movie is immortal. She tells Giorgio's future wife (Giorgio was her brother and one of her husband's killers): "I hope you will be just as happy as I was."

The sequel is a welcome continuation to the Clericuzio saga. If the Trimark bosses can hear me, bring on the third part. I can barely wait.

8/10.

P.S.: Does anyone know that "Last Don 2" was filmed in Toronto? I recognized one of the location in the movie. When Rose Marie comes to get her lover from the church, she goes to a church called "St. Cecilia Church". Well the location is very real because I pass almost every day by this church. Fellow Torontians, the church is located at the intersection of Annette St. & Pacific Ave.

I am reviewing this movie without seeing previously "The Godfather" trilogy. I heard that they were all very good but for a made-for-TV drama, "The Last Don" is wonderful.

Don Clericuzio (Danny Aiello) is the central character of the movie. Everyone around him gravitates around him somehow. He has several sons, and when the youngest of them is killed by a rival family, he vows revenge. He sees the opportunity of getting even when his only daughter, Rose Marie, falls in love with the youngest son of the rival don. He has Rose Marie's brand new husband taken from the marital bed (with Rose Marie helplessly watching) and killed. That was enough to make her lose her mind. Aided by her craziness, she will hate her father and her brothers all her life. And I will stop here because the plot is getting too complicated and it would take me a huge amount of time to write it down.

The performances are as important as the stars. Danny Aiello is very effective in his portrayal of the Don. Jason Gedrick shows some genuine talent under that handsome face of his. But sincerely, Kirstie Alley, as the adult Rose Marie, steals the show. Though at times underused, when she is on the screen she overshadows all her co-stars. A lot of other famous people star in fantastic piece of work: Joe Mantegna (as the Don's executioner), Penelope Ann Miller (as Mantegna's wife), Daryl Hannah (as major movie star Athena Aquitane and Jason Gedrick's girlfriend), etc.

"The Last Don" is not a masterpiece, but it certainly comes very close. 8/10.

P.S.: The movie version I've seen was the complete mini-series. Four and a half hours uncut. You need a lot of patience with this film but it is worth every minute of it.

"American Psycho" is a ...good horror movie. But it is not worthy of the hype it got at Sundance. I guess I should be thankful to Lions Gate for releasing the movie uncut in Canada (with an R rating nonetheless). The 'offensive' scene is very graphical, yet it shows even more how much did Bateman love himself.

Christian Bale is stunning as Patrick Bateman, a personality-free and moral-free killer. The man is completely incapable of feeling pleasure, unless he kills someone or he embellishes himself even more. He washes himself extremely thoroughly, not because he is a clean freak, but because it takes time to wash different parts of the body with different kinds of soaps. He uses more lotion cream than a woman, just to have a nice skin. Porn movies have absolutely no effect on him, yet he watches them like someone would watch a regular movie. There is a very funny scene when he talks on the phone with his lover (not girlfriend), and in the background a porn movie is playing on TV, he doesn't even look at it. While having sex with two women, he watches himself on TV (he was videotaping himself) and in the mirror. He is so self absorbed that he doesn't let anyone touch him, unless he wants to. I love the scene when he starts to hate Paul (Jared Leto). His face turns so ugly that he becomes frightening.

The film has some genuinely hysterically funny moments. After becoming jealous on one of firm's partners, he decides to kill him. He goes to the restroom, and gets ready to strangle the guy, but he doesn't get the chance to do it. The 'victim' who was gay and had the hots for Bateman, thinks that his passes are being answered and takes Bateman's hand and kisses it. He is so shocked that he can't find the exit faster. I roared with laughter. Now there was a first. Being gay actually saved the partner's life.

Another character that I cared about was Jean, his secretary. Chloe Sevigny is wonderful in a small role and I felt happy that Bateman didn't kill her.

The script is very well written. I have never read the book, and I have no intention to do so, yet I am very satisfied with the script. The interesting part it is that it is written by two women, capturing a huge amount of the novel's misogyny.

The movie isn't however perfect. The ending is unsatisfactory yet interesting. It is also confusing.

Yet the movie is brilliant, and it is a pity that it will never be a box-office hit.

8/10.

I came to Canada more than two years ago, from Romania, which before 1989, wasn't far from the Russian way of dealing with foreigners. Western embassies were guarded against people who wanted to "defect and betray the country". They were actually wanting a better life. What is the harm in that? That is why I completely understand the heroine's drama.

The story is not very original, yet the director knows it and he emphasizes on acting. The performers are simply magical. Sandrine Bonnaire is astonishing as Marie, a faithful French woman who follows her husband in Stalinist Russia only to be with him. When things are completely different than she (and everyone) expected, she will do anything in order to get back. One by one, everyone who could have helped her are disappearing or turn away. The old supervisor, who was sympathetic to Westerners (when she was little, she had a French nanny), is arrested the next day and executed for spying. Her husband who seemingly started to like it here has an affair with a neighbour. Feeling all alone, she turns to the old supervisor's grandson, Sacha and before she knows it she is in love. Sacha also wants to leave Russia and succeeds by swimming to a ship. She is then arrested for his death (she did not know he made it). The prosecutor brings her husband to see her disgrace and Alexei can't believe the charges brought against his wife. Angry but not thinking, the prosecutor pulls out a photo showing Sacha talking to Marie's sister. Though very fragile, Marie feels victorious. The only one who stood by her, and never lost the hope to save Marie, is French actress Gabrielle Develay (played by the incredibly talented and forever beautiful Catherine Deneuve).

The other performers are very good. Sergei Bodrov Jr. is very good as Marie's younger lover. Catherine Deneuve is powerful even if she is underwritten. But the one who surprises enormously is Oleg Menshikov, who as Alexei Golinov, does an amazing job in tricking us. From the very beginning, he had tried to get his wife and boy out, but in very subtle ways. We only see that at the end of the movie.

The ending is top notch. Tense and heart-breaking. I was very happy and tears of joy flowed from my eyes.

However the movie is not perfect. The script jumps from time to time in order to cover 10 years in two hours. Also Sergei is dismissed too easily. We are told that after his suicide attempt, he was saved and now lives in Canada. Too easy.

But the two flaws aren't enough to drag the movie down. The film is gorgeously shot, marvellously acted and utterly compelling.

9/10.

"Keeping the Faith" is Edward Norton's directorial debut and he never disappoints. Just like his acting, his directorship is astonishing.

Though hilarious, the movie is definitely not original. When did best friends fall in love before? In "My Best Friend's Wedding", when Julia Roberts found out she had been forever in love with Dermot Mulroney. In "Keeping the Faith" it is Ed Norton and Ben Stiller who fall in love with Jenna Elfman. But the movie has an irresistible charm of its own. Actually the movie is so enjoyable that one forgets about everything else.

While the script is a bit of a let-down, yet cleverly written, the performances are pure gold. Jenna Elfman is remarkable as workoholic business woman, Anna "Banana" Reilly. She shines and she's full of energy. Ben Stiller is great as modern rabbi Jacob Schram, who is terrorized by the women in his congregation. His scene with the aerobics-obsessed woman is his funniest, followed very closely by the scene when he tries to get past a security guard. Best of all is Edward Norton, who is playing his character so low-key, that he is downright adorable. This man was capable of playing a cold-blooded killer with a fake split personality in "Primal Fear", a desperate man who gets a real split personality in "Fight Club", and a Neo-Nazi in "American History X". Now he turns towards comedy. And he is magnificent.

There are some really good jokes: (Edward referring to the the fact that he is drunk and to the bottle in his hand) "I am not drunk. I'm Irish and this is like milk to me." Now this is original. I've never heard it before.

I'm not a fan of romantic comedies where the guy tries to get the girl. But this a comedy when the girl is already impressed by the guy and jumps completely and mindlessly (they did not think at the consequences) at the opportunity.

"Keeping the Faith" is phenomenal movie that is bound to please everyone. 8/10.

"Virtuosity" represents familiar ground for director Brett Leonard. He dealt with virtual reality in the astonishingly awful "Lawnmower Man". This time, the special effects are more elaborate and successful but they are not state-of-art, even for a 1995 movie. The plot is also ordinary: how many times has a special man been sent to stop an almost unkillable murderer. However there are two twists to the formula: the first one is that the killer is a virtual killer, the second one is that he is played by Russell Crowe.

In 1995, Russell was "virtually" unknown. Right now, he is one of the most important actors in Hollywood, next to Mel Gibson, Kevin Spacey and his co-star from this movie, Denzel Washinton. What makes Russell an unusual choice for this role is that beside being incredibly good-looking (all that his Sid 6.7 would have needed), he is also tremendously talented (look at his Oscar nomination for "The Insider"). But it is his talent that gives Sid 6.7 life. He plays his character with a complete over-the-top flamboyance, which makes him even more interesting that Denzel Washington. Russell has a lot of fun in creating Sid.

The other performers mediocre or bland. Denzel Washington is boring as the hero, and the usually impressive Louise Fletcher is completely forgettable as L.A.'s Attorney General. A huge mistake was Kelly Linch. Her character doesn't do anything important, except just to be in the way of the two main characters. She is indeed the mother of the little girl, that Sid uses ultimately in trying to kill Parker Barnes (played by Washington). But it could have been any little girl. Linch gets so little character development that we couldn't care less for her.

Overall, the movie is entertaining, but only because of Russell Crowe. 7/10.

"Keeping the Faith" is Edward Norton's directorial debut and he never disappoints. Just like his acting, his directorship is astonishing.

Though hilarious, the movie is definitely not original. When did best friends fall in love before? In "My Best Friend's Wedding", when Julia Roberts found out she had been forever in love with Dermot Mulroney. In "Keeping the Faith" it is Ed Norton and Ben Stiller who fall in love with Jenna Elfman. But the movie has an irresistible charm of its own. Actually the movie is so enjoyable that one forgets about everything else.

While the script is a bit of a let-down, yet cleverly written, the performances are pure gold. Jenna Elfman is remarkable as workoholic business woman, Anna "Banana" Reilly. She shines and she's full of energy. Ben Stiller is great as modern rabbi Jacob Schram, who is terrorized by the women in his congregation. His scene with the aerobics-obsessed woman is his funniest, followed very closely by the scene when he tries to get past a security guard. Best of all is Edward Norton, who is playing his character so low-key, that he is downright adorable. This man was capable of playing a cold-blooded killer with a fake split personality in "Primal Fear", a desperate man who gets a real split personality in "Fight Club", and a Neo-Nazi in "American History X". Now he turns towards comedy. And he is magnificent.

There are some really good jokes: (Edward referring to the the fact that he is drunk and to the bottle in his hand) "I am not drunk. I'm Irish and this is like milk to me." Now this is original. I've never heard it before.

I'm not a fan of romantic comedies where the guy tries to get the girl. But this a comedy when the girl is already impressed by the guy and jumps completely and mindlessly (they did not think at the consequences) at the opportunity.

"Keeping the Faith" is phenomenal movie that is bound to please everyone. 8/10.

"Black and White" is a very interesting movie. Though made by a professional director, it looks very amateurish. Some supposedly continuous scenes are so badly edited that it is distracting. Let me give an example: two seated guys talk, one of them gets up, continuing talking, a second later, he's back in front the other guy, like nothing had happened. However, as odd as it seems, it is not a flaw, but a strong point. It is quite refreshing.

The plot is muddy and murky, but it is also fascinating. The lives of several young men and women, of both colours, come together. What makes it fascinating is that those lives are quite intriguing.

The performances are uneven, yet all of them deserve attention. Brooke Shields is capable in one of her best roles. Frankly I enjoyed seeing her with a serious face, after playing her ditzy role as Susan (from TV's "Suddenly Susan"). I would have also liked to see her crying some more after her husband leaves her. Ben Stiller is unfortunately very bland and boring as former gambler/ now policeman. He never managed to impress me. Claudia Schiffer does a far better job than Ben. Though a professional model, not an actress (her first and other performance was as Macauley Culkin's gym instructor in "Richie Rich"), she is perfect. She would do great things in movies if she would follow an acting career. Jared Leto has quite a fabulous cameo. The supporting cast is also very good.

The real gem of the movie is Robert Downey Jr. He is wonderful as Shields' gay husband. Everyone sees that he is gay, except his wife. And in order to make her realize, he almost becomes a stereotype, but he never goes to far. He wears a colourful synthetic fur coat, he is a little effeminate and he hits on men. The most enjoyable scene of movie is when he tries to hit on Mike Tyson. "I had a dream and you were in it, and you were holding me". Tyson reacts in the most hilarious way, and tries to strangle him. But when I think back at it, I remember that this scene has not been scripted, which leads to the conclusion that Tyson is truly homophobic. Another very delightful scene is when Robert tries to hit on Jared Leto. You can really feel the sparks flying around.

The movie also contains a lot of gratuitous nudity and coarse language. While the language no longer shocks me, some nude shots are useless. There is one which lasts for two seconds, and it has no connection to the movie whatsoever.

But this is a thoroughly riveting experience, and I recommend it to everyone over 18. I had to show my driver's license for the first time ever, though I am way over 18, and it was not my first R-rated movie.

7/10.

"Romeo Must Die" is very annoying. I was just sitting there and couldn't believe how awful it was. Such a movie should be at least good, but it is not. After seeing this week two of the most amazing movies, "Erin Brockovich" and "Final Destination", I had to ruin my week by watching some seriously inferior stuff.

Besides the good-looking fighting scenes, there is nothing, and I emphasize again, nothing to matter. It is just "Wild Wild West", great special effects which compliment a story that seems written by a three-year old. Probably Barry Sonnenfeld (the director of the WWW) and Andrzej Bartkowiak (the director of "Romeo Must Die") were playing "how low can you go". And as far I've seen, very low.

Jet Li and singer Aaliyah just don't click when they are on the screen. They look like buddies not lovers. But I do have to admit that there is something about her. There is some hidden acting talent, but right now she barely shows it. Jet Li has really bad lines. "That was a mistake." Who is he playing? Arnold Schwarzengger?

The script is overwritten. There are too many characters, and only two of them get some character development. The rest are just stereotypes. And of course, there is the obligatory comic relief, through Anthony Anderson playing the fat and stupid bodyguard.

Some of the special effects are completely inappropriate. It is impossible for Li to do some of those moves, and though at times breathtaking, I was left completely cold and uncaring. And, what's the deal with the X-rayed scenes? This is not the Matrix. That movie took place in a virtual world, this is real life.

Finally, as a general rule, cinematographers-turned-directors simply can't really do good movies. Bartkowiak was the cinematographer of "Speed", "Dante's Peak" and "The Devil's Advocate". All very good movies. Yet, when he becomes director he can't do a good movie. Peter Hyams does the cinematography and helms "End of Days" and "The Relic", but none of these movies is interesting beyond visuals. The only exception to the rule (maybe there's more, but I cannot think of any) is Jan De Bont. He created the wonderful "Speed" and "Twister". But since then, he went down. "Speed 2" was axed by most of the critics and "The Haunting" had virtually the same faith.

So, I don't care if Romeo must die. 2/10.

"Final Destination" is a wonderful surprise after expecting very little from it. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. This movie is everything what "Scream 3" wanted to be. Not as smart as "Scream", but just as scary. Sometimes even scarier.

The way they die is fun and refreshing. Of course, there is nothing to laugh about. But director James Wong (in a surprisingly relaxed debut) makes each frightening scene long-lasting and breathtaking. He makes an enourmously entertaining movie out of a tiny budget. The killing scenes are shocking. One of the characters is disposed off so quickly that your heart just stops. Another one upsets a computer. Another one teases us with the way he would die: slit his throat, electrocute himself. He dies in a horrifying way, completely different than what expected.The scene is gut-wrenching, just by looking into his blood-shot eyes. Finally, the last one is beheaded. The sequence is almost as good as "Sleepy Hollow"'s decapitations, which means it is fantastic. I just love the way the guy stood there without a head on his shoulders.

There are also some drawbacks but they are so insignificant that they do not ruin the movie in any way. The use of the same idea with small variations. Alcohol burns, and so does turpentine. I wish that the initial plane explosion would have been grander. Lastly, the end is a bit of a let-down. After a very dynamic middle, the end feels weak. I heard that this was not the original ending. I hope that the other one was more upbeat.

But being a horror movie fan, I am very satisfied with the "Final Destination". 8/10.

This is exactly what I did when I saw this movie. I yawned. Not because I was sleepy, but because I was tremendously bored. This movie is downright insulting. After seeing so many great sci-fi movies ("The Matrix", "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace", "Pitch Black" and the recent "Star Trek" movies), my tastes in the genre have been suitably lifted.

I met "Supernova" with some low expectations, but at least I wanted some reasonable special effects. Actually, they are utterly dull and lifeless. Am I supposed to believe that nothing really happens to Robin Tunney when she gets thrown in space? Her lungs would have exploded because of the difference of pressure. But no, it seems that she is just going to suffocate.

The performers are delivering the lines of a dumb screenplay. James Spader is mediocre, to say the least, in an absolutely thankless role. Angela Bassett, who experienced her ups and downs (worst performance in "Critters 4", astounding performances in "What's Love Got To Do With It" and "Strange Days"), is also experiencing her last (hopefully) dumb movie role. She has some lines that are completely useless to the development of the plot. Robin Tunney is very unlucky lately. In 1999, she appeared in two movies: this one and "End of Days". As usual, she is terrible. Someone has to tell her: good looks (that includes breasts) do not usually mix with talent.

The plot is less than dumb. It starts quietly, 10 minutes pass nothing interesting happens, 20 minutes pass, ooh, we got a distress signal, let's do a jump (which looks incredibly like "Star Trek" warp travel). Finally something mildly entertaining happens: the captain is fused in plastic, let's kill him. Then for 10 more minutes, I yawn. A sexy villain appears, let's see some gratuitous nudity. Carnage starts in the least shocking way. Killer is ejected into space. Didn't we see this before? Oh, yes. In "Alien", "Aliens", "Alien Resurrection", when it was frightening. Finally, the survivours do another jump. They are luckier than the deceased captain: they exchange eyes, and Bassett is pregnant. I start laughing.

I am sorry if I sound sarcastic, but this movie is an absolute waste of time. I would have given it a big, fat, good-looking zero, but I can't. 1/10 is more than generous.

Last comment: I also hated "Sweetie", the ship's computer. It was the most annoying character that I've heard in a long time. It is supposed to be a machine, not a horny woman who wants to have sex with one of the crewmen. I was wondering, if they used "Star Trek"'s idea of warp travel, maybe they should have used the same computer. It would have been even less original but a bit more believable.

"Top of the Food Chain" is an astounding movie. Incredibly funny, it managed to keep my interest up for the entire 90 minutes. I have never seen the kind of movie that it satirizes, but I had a pretty good image of what to expect. I got a whole lot more.

The acting is just wonderful. Campbell Scott is very effective as always serious atomic professor (the script emphasizes "atomic" as much as possible) Karel Lamonte. Fiona Leowi (Sandy) is interesting as his kinky heterosexual interest. Tom Everett Scott (Guy) is completely over-the-top as her idiot brother who has an amorous relationship with both his sister and the professor.

The script is ingeniously dumb. It is exactly as it should be. The special effects are cheesy and not believable. Just like they were supposed to be. You will hear pompous explanations to unexplained facts, you will laugh at the aliens' completely black eyes.

And the final scene is stunning. Who do you think the professor marries? If you answered 'Sandy', you are wrong. If you said 'Guy', you are wrong again. It is both of them. Don't ask why or how. Also, everyone who had been killed by the aliens attends the wedding. They had been brought back to life through 'resuscitation'. Best would have been not to explain it at all, I would have loved it even more.

A much deserved 10/10.

"Wonder Boys" is one of Michael Douglas' best movies. Why? Because he finally realizes that his macho man days are over. I wish Harrison Ford would do the same thing. Ford was pathetic as the hero from "Six Days, Seven Nights", playing a man trying to woo Anne Heche, a woman 30 years younger than him.

Michael Douglas is Grady Tripp, an unkempt, drug-addicted, university English professor. His wife wife left him, his book is already the size of an encyclopedia with no end in sight and his mistress has just told him she is pregnant. This would be enough to destroy morally an ordinary man. But wait, there's more. He is supposed to take care of a mentally unbalanced young writer, to reject the sexual advances of a female student and to deal with his eccentric editor. You definitely do not want his life.

If Douglas is so good than the supporting cast is equally good. Frances McDormand is wonderful as his married mistress who loves him despite his many problems. Tobey Maguire as James Leer is probably the second best thing after Douglas. His performance as the mentally unstable but incredibly talented writer just hits the right spot. And his sexuality is just the icing on the cake. There are two very welcomed surprises in "Wonder Boys". The first one is Katie Holmes playing a student with a crush on Tripp. This is the first time when she makes a believable performance after so many movies. The other pleasant surprise is Robert Downey Jr. as the ditzy editor, who did not have a best-seller since Tripp's first book, is enjoying James twice: he plans to publish James' manuscript and he also becomes James' lover. His acting calibre approaches and even matches his performance in "Restoration" (1995). That's been a long time.

The movie is not however perfect. There too many other characters in "Wonder Boys". Jane Adams as Oola, a waitress is completely under used even though she was impressive in "Happiness".

But this is absolutely a very good movie and I recommend it.

9/10.

I chose this line from the movie as the subject heading because it matches my feelings perfectly. Molly Shannon is downright annoying and boring in her portrayal of the character invented by herself. Frankly I found that the fact that the main characters to be played by 30-year olds, very creepy. Will Ferrell is awful as the self-loving pretty boy or as Jesus. Elaine Hendrix as Evian (one of the very few good jokes: "Go have a glass of water of yourself") is just a stereotype of villainess. The only one doing an OK job is Emmy Laybourne as Mary's best friend. Mark McKinney is bland and useless.

And another thing. Am I suppose to understand that in catholic schools girls and boys are permitted to kiss like that and to show their underwear countless times?

The script is sickly thin. There are too many of Mary's monologues. And Harland Williams who did a very funny performance in "The Rocketman" is just pathetic here.

There are only 2 scenes that I liked and they are similar. The dancing sequences from the cafeteria and the final show are full energy and lively but that was all.

The movie is definitely not recommendable. 3/10.

"Get Real" looks like a copy of "Beautiful Thing", with many common elements: 2 British boys fall in love, one of them is a geek, the other a sport jock, one of them is comfortable with his sexuality, the other one isn't. But the movie is so good that it functions very well on its own.

There are some really interesting twists in the story: I was not expecting that the man who exited the public washroom to be picked up by the main character would be the best looking guy in the school that every girl desired.

The performances are wonderful. Ben Silverstone as Steven Carter does an extraordinary and believable job as a young man comfortable with his sexual preference. He manages to create a great relationship between him and John, the object of his affection (who said geeks were boring). His speech in front of the entire school is heartbreaking. Brad Gorton as John Dixon is a real surprise. Most handsome actors have only their looks to show on the screen. He has genuine talent. He creates a deliciously confused young man about his sexuality. His character could have every girl yet he wants Steven. Another good choice as an actress is Charlotte Brittain as Steven's best friend. She is truly compassionate and is not afraid to speak her mind.

What else can I say? I felt sorry for John in the end, because he was a coward. But I felt good because Steven had now the support of newly formed friends (including the girl who wanted him as a boyfriend) and of his parents.

Bravo! 10/10

Usually special effects movies are very expensive but "Pitch Black" does not respect this rule. And it succeeds in creating an excellent movie. Well, excellent within its limits. The movie is an "Aliens" clone but it works very nicely on its own.

The cinematography is the victim of the low budget. It took me half an hour to become accustomed to the almost 'black-and-white' images. The colours are very basic and general. But the special effects are flawless and scary. Another problem is the very small screenplay. Read out loud and it wouldn't have taken more than 30 minutes.

Characters are more or less sketches, with one exception. The anti-hero Riddick is the only character well written. Under the very odd and evil eyes, lies a good conscience that just needs help to come to the surface. But Riddick needs help in order to do that. He is the only character that I cared about and I am very happy that he survived. The actor, Vin Diesel (don't laugh at his name) is one of the best looking out there, and I hope he is also talented.

I recommend this movie entirely and I give it 7/10.

This movie made me very frustrated. It is a well acted movie, especially by Irene Jacob, but even Jason Patric does a an OK job. The villain is quite general but well conceived.

The biggest problem is the script, which is very intelligent. So why is this a problem? Because no matter how intelligent it is, it still has huge holes. For example, in the beginning Harry (Jason Patric) is seen running from the police on TV. Was there a cameraman present? And why is the TV black-and-white? Then after him and Marieke know each better (if you get my drift), she says that she has to leave in a hurry, yet she is not hurrying. Also, why does Alastair (Thomas Lockyer) kill his Korean partner? Wasn't it enough to accuse Harry of theft? Finally I saved the worst for last: They (Harry and Marieke) are in a London suburbs and Harry uses the phone. Then Marieke who believed herself kidnapped locks Harry in the telephone booth. She locks him from the outside!!!!What is the logic in that? I can understand the lock to be on the inside (Harry's side) but on the outside?!

Yet if you'd like to see a well structured, yet flawed thriller, see "Incognito". It has a boring beginning, an exciting middle and an utterly unsatisfying ending.

5/10

I loved "The Negotiator". Though the beginning is a bit of let-down, the whole product is very good-looking. It is the kind of movie that gives exactly what one expects and more. The two leads are incredible. Both Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey have been in all kinds of movies and they have excelled in all of them. Jackson was in "Deep Blue Sea" a very effective horror movie, in "Star Wars Episode 1", a fantasy movie and in "Red Violin" a drama. Spacey won an Oscar for the drama "The Usual Suspects" and is nominated this year for the same award for his work in "American Beauty".

The movie is extremely intelligent. Once it catches you, it never lets go. I really believed that Jackson had killed that soldier, yet I hoped that it was not true because he would no longer be a hero. Kevin Spacey appears mostly in the second part of the movie, but he makes his performance equal to Jackson's. Even the actress playing Jackson's wife, Regina Taylor, though with a small part is surprisingly three dimensional.

The ending is masterful. Did you believe it? I did not. But it did not matter because it is very well done and smart. For anyone who saw "Strange Days" (one of my favourite movies), remember the ending is just like that. Unbelievable, yet beautiful.

I recommend this movie and I give it 9/10.

When I was around 15 years old, I used to read romance novels. But now, 5 years later, I cannot stand them. However, something that made these books readable still remained in me. I love this movie. Though it has a major flaw, I still enjoyed it.

The bad stuff is Amanda's magical powers. Actually not Amanda's, but the crab's. They are never believable. While Tom is freaked out when he notices these powers, Amanda is not surprised. This is not the way of the human. If we do not understand something, we try our best to understand. Amanda does not understand the unusual events around her food, but she makes no effort in understanding them. But this is the only thing that does not work in this movie. The rest is pure joy.

Sarah Michelle Gellar proves that she can do better than her vampire slayer series and makes a very good approach to her character. Her relationship with Tom works perfectly, except for the magic part. However the big surprise is Sean Patrick Flanery. He shows dexterity and good reflexes in acting. Usually when an actor looks good (like Sean does) and he is a bad actor, the director always uses shots of gratuitous partial or not so partial nudity. There is none in "Simply Irresistible", which means he is a good actor.

I recommend this movie entirely. But only see it if you like romances, but not magic. If you want to see see both, rent "Practical Magic" which succeeds in both except making a satisfying ending.

I give "Simply Irresistible" a 7/10.

Maybe my summary line threw you off. This is not a good movie, but for a sequel, it is quite decent. I have not seen the entire series: except the original, #6: The Curse of Michael Myers (a HUGE abomination and waste of time) and this movie. But I guess only the first one and the last one are worthy enough to be seen.

Up to this date, no horror slasher movie is better than "Scream", not even "Halloween". "Halloween 7" presents a paper-thin plot, with elements that have no place in it. Why would Michael go to that road washroom, if he had no real need for it?

The scary scenes are...well, not so scary. They are violent, but not frightening. Jamie Lee Curtis is no longer as resourceful as she was in the original. What a pity!

This movie does not deserve more than a 5/10.

I have never been so disappointed. "Scream" was the best horror I have seen. "Scream 2" was almost as good as the original, except it was a bit less intelligent. The second sequel is a lot dumber than both previous movies, but it still has some smart moments.

I liked the way they killed off one of the characters, by blowing him up. "The one who lives is the one who can smell the gas." Or something like that. Unfortunately this was the only idea worthy of the movie's predecessors.

Where there are no ideas, there is fun. A lot of fun. And by saying this, you can easily identify what kind of movie "Scream 3" was. Do you think you saw a horror movie? You're so wrong. This was a very black comedy.

There are three things that are part of the "Scream" trilogy frame. A scary beginning, furious and engrossing stabbing scenes and a high energy ending. "Scream 3" fails in all of them. In the beginning of the first two movies, special guest stars Drew Barrymore, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Omar Epps were killed in a very stylish and scary way. In this movie, Liev Schreiber is killed off in a scary, but not so stylish way. He was not a guest star, but a regular. Secondly, the stabbing scenes are very much diluted. I want to see them just like they were done in the previous movies. Call me morbid, but I want to see the knife entering the flesh of the victim. None of those kind of scenes are present in "Scream 3", save one when the knife actually stabs an anti-bullet vest. Finally, the ending. The previous "Screams" had a very high kinetic energy. This movie ended for me when the killer (yes, it is only one killer) demasks himself about 20 minutes prior to actual end. And I said to myself: What? Several seconds passed until I remembered who he was. Most murder mysteries are like that, you never know who the killer is until the ending. Usually it is a asset, but in this case it is a flaw. Boring.

The acting is as usual: strong. Neve Campbell, Courtney and David Arquette have great fun as regulars. Parker Posey is wonderful as the actress who plays Gale Weathers in Stab 3. But I think the biggest surprise is Patrick Dempsey. I saw recently a scene from the abominable "Meatballs 3" made 12 years ago and he looked hopelessly geeky and icky. Now at the age of 33, he looks fantastic. You do not see too many examples of such surprising changes. Some very funny cameos are present. Kevin Smith and Jason Mewes as Silent Bob and Jay (from "Dogma") and Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia from "Star Wars IV", V, and VI) make the movie even more funny than it actually is.

But I did not come to see a comedy. I have come to see a horror movie. And I do not believe this is the end of the series, since all 3 protagonists survive.

I recommend only because it is mindless fun. What a shame.

"Scream" -10/10; "Scream 2"- 8/10; "Scream 3"-6/10

If you want to enjoy this movie, go have yourself a nice lobotomy and you won't have anything to complain about. Some movies look beautiful and have an intelligent script, i.e. "The Mummy", "The Matrix", "Deep Blue Sea" or "What Dreams May Come". Others look beautiful and have a boring script, i.e. "Armageddon". Unfortunately, "End of Days" is part of a new class: beautiful movies with a dumb plot.

There are a lot of things that do not make sense or they are not explained: why does the restaurant blow up after Satan leaves? why would the character of Miriam Margolyes, after being such a caring mother for over fifteen years, turn in a murderer? why can Satan walk into a church just like that? Questions, a lot. Answers, none.

Should I mention gratuitous nudity? It does not make the movie more watchable. You probably know this but most of the time, looks do not go with talent. Robin Tunney is not an exception.

Yet the special effects are flawless, and there are are some funny scenes as well. My favourite of them all is when Miriam Margolyes beats up Arnie. Well that, you do not see every day.

But, I still cannot recommend this movie. If it made more sense, maybe. But in this state, no. It is a pity that this had to be Arnie's comeback after the enormous critical flop of "Batman and Robin".

5/10

I love "Titus". True, it is long and uneven, the first half is much faster than the second half but it is very worthwhile. Julie Taymor brings a very beautifully stunning adaptation of Shakespeare's worst play. I am not a fan of feature movies that are done in a theatrical way. I couldn't stand "Edward II". But I just love the beginning with the choreographed troops. It is fresh and original.

The performances are very good. Anthony Hopkins does Hannibal Lecter all over again, and it works. Jessica Lange is back from the depths of "Hush" when she was, how should I put this in a nice way: almost as horrible as Uma Thurman in "Batman and Robin". This is the Jessica Lange of "Rob Roy". Wonderful and over-the-top.

Finally, I love the ending. Certainly is not as compelling as the "Scream"'s ending, but it is very outrageous. Utterly disgusting and funny. I couldn't stop laughing when Titus told them they had eaten Tamora's sons.

An amazing achievement. 9/10

I hate this movie. I never was a fan of Robert Englund and I will never be. Sure I enjoyed "A Nightmare On The Elm Street" and "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", but it was not because of him but because of Wes Craven himself. His "Scream" is a masterpiece, and "Scream 2" is a wonderful sequel. And none of them star Englund.

The movie chooses blood and gore over chills, scares and intelligence. There are moments when I feel soaked in blood. The movie uses the blood as a main character, and there is too much of it. And another thing: it is stuck on autopilot. It is utterly predictable.

Now, I'll talk about the 1%, I mentioned in the summary. The soundtrack. This is one the best soundtracks out there. I do not love classic music, but the film's music is absolutely amazing. Immediately after I watched the movie on tape, I bought the soundtrack. The violin sequences are magical. Misha Segal could be placed on the same row with James Horner, Randy, David and Thomas Newman, John Williams and other big motion picture composers. What happened? I wish I knew.

Watch this movie only if you are a classical music fan. Otherwise, you will be bored completely. What a pity!

4/10