h_proudfoot

I haven't been compelled to write an IMDB review in over 18 years, but let me say that GLTS is just. that. good. (Also, all my previous reviews are terrible and I disavow them as teenage ineptitude in action; don't let them color your views on my taste level or human worth.)

Anyway, you should watch this show, especially now that it is available to all of us outside of New York City. It's very good -- especially if you like snacks, naps, and little twists. Who doesn't like those things?? If you don't, fine, but there's plenty of other stuff too! Give it a chance, will ya?

The tone of the movie, its awkwardness, and its unique comedic flavor reflect some of the greatest aspects of Ben Stiller's on-screen persona. It's shifty and ungraceful, but in a lovable, embarrassing way. It is an acquired taste. It takes a few viewings to truly appreciate the humor (and possible message) of this film. Ben Stiller was definitely in his element when he helmed The Cable Guy.

Jim Carrey's performance is so good, I get chills sometimes just looking at him. He really creeps the bejesus out of me, which is a good thing. There are some movies that are great simply because they are creepy, because they make you squirm, because they make you a little uncomfortable. This movie (Quills is another one) has endeared itself to me by embracing its creepiness. It has the power to be both serious and ridiculous at the same time, which is a feat quite astonishing.

If there is one thing people should take from this movie, it is that television is damaging to the brain. But we all know that. Which is why the crux of the movie is not the idea of television as a poor babysitter, but on the idea that dark humor and ridiculous behavior can be enjoyable, though not for all.

It takes a certain kind of person to love this movie. You have to be greatly amused by the absurd. One of the greatest scenes takes place in Medieval Times, when Chip reenacts a classic encounter from Star Trek (complete with musical score) as a flabbergasted Steven looks on in horror. Great cameos from Stiller's pals Janeane Garafolo and Andy Dick help to make the Medieval Times segment uproariously funny.

Broderick plays the duped and dumped Steven to perfection, but the real treat is in viewing a "pre-stardom" Jack Black in his supporting role as Steven's best friend. I knew from the first time I saw him that he was going to go places (although his best performance is in High Fidelity, his Rick still holds a special place in my heart).

Some of the funniest parts in the movie are also the hardest to find. I actually laughed the most I ever had when I watched the movie with Closed Captioning while experiencing two very painful ear infections. There's something very special about a movie when it has the power to overcome the agony of an ear infection.

I know a movie has something special when it directly affects the way I live my life. For weeks after my second viewing, I couldn't help but talk in a thuthpithous lithsp. While exercising, I would do a few warm-up sprints to prevent the pulling of a "hammy." Any opponent was then referred to as "The Red Knight" and would subsequently be going "down! Down! Down! Red Knight's going down!" This movie is special to me. It may not be an American classic, or even a Cult Classic, but for my friends, family, and me it will forever be remembered as such.

My viewing enjoyment increases each time I sit down to watch this film. I've even converted a few people who were disappointed in their first viewing when Jim Carrey's Chip barely resembled Ace Ventura when I sat them down to a second viewing and carefully pointed out to them the beauty that is The Cable Guy.

It takes getting used to, but its definitely worth the effort.

A.I. tries to be many things all at once. It succeeds at this, although

it is a hindrance throughout the film, weighing it down into murky

depths of obscurity.

Did I like the movie? Well, yes, indeed I did. Is it a good movie?

Yes, too, it is this. However, is it a movie that everyone must see

and will love? Definitely not. Only a certain kind of person can enjoy

this movie. A person who likes both Spielberg and Kubrick, which

is no easy feat. Both moviemakers are talented visionaries, but

their visions are wildly different.

Spielberg is very introspective, focusing on emotions as the keys

to his stories. Kubrick's approach is more plot-oriented. He sees

his characters as parts of the background, the scenery, the bigger

picture. Spielberg, on the other hand, goes to painstaking lengths

to focus his camera not on the large external picture, but deep

inside the characters inhabiting his story, their very souls for all to

see. He films from the inside-out, while Kubrick does the opposite.

And that's what A.I. is: a movie opposite of itself, a conundrum, a

complete and utter mystery.

But it works. It is brave and austere, but tender and innocent at the

same time. It reaches for many levels, but as it does, it also

reaches many plateaus. It tries for so much, but it has set its

expectations too high. Nonetheless, the film achieves many

things, even if greatness isn't one of them.

The movie is divided into three segments (which I call): `Mommy',

`Gigolo Joe', and `Submerged'. `Mommy' is sentimental Spielberg, pushing emotion and tugging heartstrings to the very

limit. It was touching, to a certain extent, but not everyone will find it

pleasing. Sentimentalists will adore it; mothers will cherish it; men

who are insecure about their sexuality will abhor it (as they abhor

many complex things). The plot focuses mainly on the `mecha,'

David, programmed to love and struggling to fit into a normal

human family, yearning for the love his gives out to be returned to

him by `Mommy'. It is Haley Joel Osment's shining moment. It is

his best work to date (a pretty large statement for an adolescent).

`Gigolo Joe' is Kubrick, although I am not sure to the extent of his

involvement in the production. I have read that he penned the

original script, however credit is not given, and I don't know how

much of his original concept is salvaged by Spielberg in this

production. `Gigolo Joe' screams Kubrick to me, simply through

it's madness, it's chaos, and most importantly it's magnetism.

The main character, besides Osment's David, is a love-making

model mecha, Gigolo Joe, played charmingly and deliciously by

Jude Law. For a robot who was programmed without emotions, he

evokes emotion from those he makes contact with: the women he

pleasures, David, and the audience. Joe, strangely enough, has

characters of human emotion even when he logically shouldn't,

which could be considered a flaw in the film, but how could it be

any other way? The movie places itself in a tight corner by making

artificial human beings with artificial emotions as its lead

characters, because how is a human audience supposed to relate

to such artificiality? To get around this problem, Spielberg and Co.

simply avoid the fact that the emotions, like the intelligence, are

artificial. Mechas are given distinct personalities, and with these

personalities inevitably come emotions, and I accept it, as will

most. This portion of the movie is definitely my favorite. The Flesh

Fair alone is worth the trip to the video rental store, and a cameo

by Chris Rock is one of the highlights of the film (fifteen seconds

out of 2 hours and 26 minutes).

The third and final segment, `Submerged', places David in

Manhattan, his birthplace. This part of the movie could have been a

lot shorter, and the ending could have been a little less sappy, for

my particular tastes. It is too clean, and doesn't seem to fit in with

the rest of the film. Whereas the rest is choppy and chaotic (very

befitting of the subject at hand), the final scenes of the film seem

to come from a fairy tale where happy endings are guaranteed. I

disapprove of the tidiness of the ending, but not of the sentiment

behind it. Spielberg wants to dearly give his hero the one thing in

the world he yearns for, and he has found a way to do that without

being corny or manipulative. That is truly appreciated by the

viewing audience, but the easiness to which the ending comes, to

how David earns his prize does not mesh with the rest of the film.

It is at it's core a heroic quest, and the epiphany that the hero must

encounter by the end of the tale is not evident, which sadly takes

away from the rest of the film.

When the ending is less than perfect, it tarnishes everything that

came before it. Where it should be poignant and thought- provoking, the final scenes of A.I. seem to be instead targeted to a

child who needs everything explained to him. A movie that tackles

a subject as deep and ambiguous as artificial intelligence should

have an ending just as esoteric and cryptic.

Although I might sound disappointed, I am giving this movie a

good review. It is worth seeing, and Spielberg once again creates

a visual, sometimes disturbing, accomplishment. Despite a few

flaws, both minor and major, Artificial Intelligence is still a movie

that imprints unforgettable images into the mind and asks

undeniably important questions. It tries desperately to answer

those questions, but it is in search of those alluding answers that

the film ultimately finds fault. Sometimes the answers are better

left unsaid.

I'm no expert on moviemaking or what separates a good movie from a brilliant one; this particular film just gets to me every time I watch it. On so many levels I feel that tug on my heart, and that feeling of pure awe that comes over me when I am swept away by a tale of such magnitude as that of the Amistad Africans. This movie is a reminder of not only the true atrocities of our human nature, but of the ultimate perseverance of our humanity, of what makes us who we are, of a spirit that is unheard, yet undiminished. It is a saddening, yet powerful experience for me.

That Djimon Hounsou didn't get nominated for every award on the planet, including the most recognized Academy Award baffles me. His performance in this film is the most dynamic portrayal of any role I have ever seen. Breathtakingly powerful. I don't know of any other performance in my lifetime that even comes close. His dedication to the role is enough to garner my unwavering admiration. He learned Mende, Cinque's spoken tongue, for the film, and when listening to him speak, he does it with such a superb natural timing that it is hard to imagine it isn't the language he grew up withe. That is talent, plain and simple. The supporting cast, as well, is superb. Anthony Hopkins completely transforms into his character until there is nothing of him left, except for his abilities. Morgan Freeman may just be the most talented actor on the planet. He never fails to give a less than stellar performance, and his role in Amistad is flawless. Although, I believe his character should have been more vital to the story and less of a supporting player. He was criminally underutilized. That fact is my only grievance with the movie. The rest I find impeccable. The rest of the cast, Stellan Skarsgard, Nigel Hawthorne, Jeremy Northam, Razaaq Adoti, Anna Paquin, Pete Postlethwaite, and even Matthew McConaughey, all play out there roles with a defining authenticity that I find lacking in many recent historical dramas. Bringing a true story to life means disaster for some films, but this one does a remarkable job of remaining a good film behind the historical facts it is based on.

There are two particular scenes in the film that bring me to tears every time I see them: the first is one where Cinque is telling John Quincy Adams of his ancestors. The second is probably the most beautifully scripted speech in recent history, and Hopkin's delivery is graceful and eloquent, near perfection. This movie may not have all the right elements to make it a critical success, but it has what it takes to affect my way of thinking, my outlook on life, and my hope that the human spirit will always remain unconquerable, will always triumph over those who would deny it freedom.

This is Batman at its finest. Keaton and Pfieffer have electrifying chemistry; DeVito delivers as the Penguin, mayoral prospect turned pariah; Christopher Walken turns out a humorous performance of corporate cannibal Max Shreck; Burton's creatively chilling visions of Gotham and the old zoo truly capture the eye (even more so than the cathedral and tall skyscrapers of the original); Elfman's score is simply astounding, mournfully majestic, and never fails to completely encompass the mood of a character or scene. Siouxsie and the Banshees theme song "Face to Face" definitely suits the style and atmosphere of the film more than the artist formerly known as Prince and U2, combined. Returns is by far the best of the series, as well as one of the best sequels of all time, a visual masterpiece to be long remembered.

The original film is excellent, as it introduces Batman to the city of Gotham and allowing Bruce revenge for the death of his parents. There had to be a second film, however, that showed Batman as a renowned hero to the city, to fulfill his shoes as a super hero. Returns is that film, as well as one of the few sequels to surpass the quality of the original (Like The Godfather and Toy Story), based on the opinion that this is the STORY of Batman whereas the original was merely the prologue, the introduction (although Robert Wuhl is greatly missed in this picture).

This is Michael Keaton's sexiest role, and the sexiest Batman. He is the first, the best, the only. Batman has a great deal to do with sex appeal (at least on the big screen), while Bruce Wayne is about humanity's flaws. Keaton is the only actor to pull off both these characteristics. While Kilmer and Clooney are hunks as Bruce Wayne, their faces are altered, for the worse, by the mask. Kilmer's face is suctioned onto the rubber and Clooney is eaten alive by it. Keaton, on the other hand, is not disfigured by the mask. He looks sexier as Batman than as Bruce Wayne, as it should be, and his Batman is sexier than both his successors hunky Bruce Waynes and clumsy Batmans. Keaton has those bright green eyes shining against the dark makeup, and those luscious, lick-able lips of his, oh my. Keaton is the sexiest Batman, and also the most believable Bruce Wayne. He is the only actor of the three to successfully disguise himself, remaining nearly unrecognizable behind the mask (not to mention he can actually pull off comedic scenes. The others were just too stiff). He alters his voice and the duplicity of his disguise is believable. The other two are plainly obvious (to the extent of Clark Kent and his glasses) and easily identified. The Batsuit in Returns, along with Keaton's face, are the most effective in concealing Batman's true identity.

The relationship between Bruce and Selina is better written and played out than that of either Vale or Meridian (was there even a love interest in the fourth?). The recognition of Batman's identity in Returns is one of the most breathtaking scenes of the series, and greatly surpasses that of Vale simply walking into the Batcave unscathed and unconcerned. Returns also integrated its predecessor into the story. Vicki is mentioned, along with her sudden departure from Bruce's life. I was disappointed with Forever when neither Vale nor Catwoman's presence are breached upon. It's as if this is a different city and a different Batman (which they practically are, Harvey Dent went from being the smooth talking Billy Dee Williams to the southern drawled Tommy Lee Jones). The Bruce and Selina relationship is by far the most promising and befitting of the series. It makes the most sense and falls more into character than any of the others. Pfieffer's Catwoman is a stunning performance by a stunning actress, and she truly is the highlight of the film.

The missile mounted penguins aren't a problem, as it follows the fantasy of the film and its loose take on reality. The plot, although not the most clever, has its highlights in the fact that every small detail plays a role (Selina's stun gun, Penguin's lists, Batman's boomerang, Max's gun) in the grand scheme. The awkward approach on the villains is also intriguing. The fact that the Penguin wasn't the same as the comics, and that he was a mistreated child with physical deformities (to say the least) adds an obscurity and sympathy to the character that I felt greatly lacked with the Joker (as well as Two-Face, and I won't even start on Mr. Freeze). The other villain, Max Shreck, is a wonderful character (although seeming dull, is actually quite interesting, and well played by the bedazzling Walken), especially his habit of botching up common phrases. "I've got better fish to fry," and "If it works, don't fix it," are just two of the examples that make this character, like the film itself, a gem, truly one of a kind.

Batman Returns: 9.995 (rounded up to ten)