mgreene-2

One Hour Photo is a winding, artsy, cinematic mosaic of a movie that invariably succeeds on certain elemental levels while it fails on others. On the positive, the writing is for the most part original, clever, and witty - especially the narratives and how they metaphorically relate life experiences and photography. The set design was very well planned, appropriate, and the color contrasts are extremely visual and appealing. The editing is quite good based on the pacing of the movie, as there really aren't any obvious slow parts and the story transitions smoothly.

However, on the whole the acting is inconsistent with Robin Williams and Gary Cole noticeably outclassing the rest of the lead cast. Additionally, the plot line is limited as the movie really doesn't make the viewer draw their own conclusions about what is happening. It is contrived and lacking sub plot. Let me expand, the basic premise of the characters is rather weak. They don't seem to think for themselves. Instead, the focus is on stimulating the viewers' sense of compassion for main character. A tragic hero, oh how sad - yawn. On top of that - the score is annoying, redundant, and particularly over-used. The ending is disappointing as well, for the most part being anti-climatic.

In summary, the movie is a bit of an oddity - walking a fine line between artsy, independent film and a cliché Hollywood blockbuster. One Hour Photo should not be dismissed as rubbish or held up on a pedestal as a masterpiece. It falls somewhere in between, succeeding in some aspects while falling short in others.

6/10

Once the viewer can get over Ben Stiller's mildly irritating on-screen persona as Derek Zoolander, the film actually becomes a somewhat amusing show. The concept of Zoolander similarly mirrors the Farley Brothers (Kingpin, Shallow Hal) standard comedic formula where a spoofy, goofy, dim-witted martyr ends up becoming a hero. And in the end, our hero ends up saving the day while doing the right thing, and eventually is rewarded with love. However, the similarities between the films stop there. Zoolander's obvious strengths are its Austin Powers-like costume and set design where a lot of flamboyant colors, outfits, and hairdos help keep the movie visually interesting, while giving it an almost post modern feel. Unfortunately, this aspect of the film is somewhat exacerbated by the gimmicky post-production and editing techniques employed. As expected, the acting is reliable and sound, especially Owen Wilson, who has a natural on-screen presence and is humorous, yet believable in just about every movie he co-stars in.

The script has both an upside and several drawbacks. The male model concept of the film is quite original, yet as previously mentioned the movie is formulaic. Also, many of the one-liners and other jokes miss, so although the movie is entertaining it is not incredibly funny. Furthermore, Zoolander fails to succeed in delivering one of its primary social commentaries - the fact that there is more to life than just looks and image. While it does make the film more entertaining, every back-up in the movie is beautiful and the film is highly stylized thus adding to the hypocrisy of its message. (In its defense, the parallel message of sweat shop labor exploitation in 3rd world countries definitely hits the mark.) The best thing about Zoolander is the last 30 minutes where the majority of the comic relief appears. It comes primarily from the supporting cast, especially Wilson and Jerry Stiller and it really does make the movie a worthwhile viewing, at least for a weekday night. Overall, Zoolander is an attention-grabbing and unique film that has its moments, but its too frequent clichés and unfunny scenes make it a no-better than a slightly above average comedy. 6/10

I rented the unrated DVD version of Bully without knowing anything about the storyline or what the movie was about and sweet Jesus was I in for a disconcerting surprise. The movie starts out on a lighter note - sort of like a cross between Happiness and American Pie. Its beginning somehow resembles a dark and deviant, misogynistic teen comedy of sorts. However, by act two the story digresses and unfolds into a murder scheme and the actions of its players become more and more disturbing.

The most significant problem I had with this film is that essentially spends too much time and energy exploring and focusing on the sexual lives of its characters, thus resulting in a GROSS UNDERDEVELOPMENT of the meaningful storyline. Entirely too much of the film is spent on showcasing the kids' sexual exploits and not enough time is allocated toward exhibiting family and background information that is necessary for the viewer to understand anything about the characters' actions. I wanted to know much more about the adolescents' upbringings and their relationships with their parents that would cause them to act this way in the first place. This simply was not portrayed in the film.

The only social aspects of the characters the viewer learns is they like to have a lot of sex, use drugs, play video games, and they are all very shallow and naive. The positive vantage point in this, and I am not sure if it was purposely intended by the director, is that it definitely stimulates the viewer's interest in learning more about the subject matter by reading the literature the film was based upon.

In conclusion, because of its lack of character development, Bully fails in its bid to be considered a great film. However, its climax is shockingly alarming, incredibly raw, and definitely nerve-racking and uncomfortable. Overall, Bully is a life-like and engrossing film, yet incomplete in its story, and should NOT be viewed by those who are easily offended or upset by bizarre, grotesque, or graphic violence, sexual imagery and/or dialogue in film. 7/10

One would figure that between Mr. Sundance and Mr. Tony Soprano a movie about a prison uprising would be pretty good for action fans and might even be thought provoking -well, not this one. Instead, what the viewer gets is a contrived wanna-be melodrama about honor, courage, and dedication to preserve the American spirit. The plot of the film basically mimics various aspects of Cool Hand Luke, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Shawshank Redemption, and Taps. Unfortunately, the movie's lack of character development, cheesy score, unoriginal scenes, and questionable direction leaves the viewer feeling ripped-off and slighted. In comparison to other highly regarded films of the same genre, The Last Castle fails to establish any kind of authentic sense of purpose and comes across as more of a self-aggrandizing Hollywood Blockbuster masking propaganda as American spirit and honor but failing to examine how or why those convictions were established among its characters in the first place.

Instead, the viewer is left to assume that the men in military prison are basically good men somehow transformed into criminals by their experiences in the armed forces. And it is the viewers duty to feel sorry for them because they are all being mistreated by the evil prison colonel. Very original huh?

Overall, the supporting cast of this movie is very likeable and somewhat memorable and the action (which all takes place during the climax) is solid but not sufficient to save the film from failure. The ending scene is bathed in false pretension and exposes the movie for what it is - a contrived and unoriginal microcosm of the Hollywood filmmaking industry - mindless mass entertainment for profit poorly masqueraded through false moral pretenses. For a more realistic, contemporary drama and introspective examination of military-instilled values and judgment systems of American soldiers - check out Rules of Engagement - it is a much better movie than this one. 3/10

If you are a twenty or thirtysomething who can appreciate Motley Crew, Poison, or any other 80s glam metal band than this movie is for you. Rock Star is a period piece examining the life and times of one cheese metal band, Steel Dragon and their new front man Chris "Izzy don't call me Marky" Cole.

Rock Star succeeds where Almost Famous doesn't, in that it accurately (for the most part) depicts and portrays the nostalgia of the time, the music, and most of all, the fans. Rock Star encompasses a solid fundamental core of film traits that aid in establishing it as a worthy video rental. The plot is predictable yet believable, the acting is above average, the set design is fairly accurate, and the pacing of the movie is fast enough to keep the viewer involved as well as entertained. Most important, the movie does not take itself too seriously. During the end credits "Good Vibrations" is played which I felt was humorous and refreshing, as well as an accurate portal of the transition period of the early 90s between glam metal and Seattle grunge.

However, the movie is not without its fair share of technical glitches and the cinematography is not subtle - it's more like a Def Leppard video. If you are a fan of the music and grew up in the 80s you might enjoy this one. Otherwise, if you are going to be overtly cynical or generally have contempt for the glam metal counterculture you might want to stick to VH-1 Behind the Music and save yourself the $4 rental fee. I can appreciate the music so I gave this flick a well earned 6/10 - mostly for its technical accuracies of the music, culture, and the time period.

Don't blink when watching this movie because one minute it is a certified class A thriller and the next minute it resembles some made for TV re-run. An original plot but how much of this movie was real? What, about 15% maybe? Hollywood cheese once again with many scenes traditionally OVERDONE by Mr. Gooding Jr.

Conversely, when viewing this movie it is apparent a lot of work in the special effects department was invested. They are first-rate and so is DeNiro's acting, as usual. Although I believe someone younger should have been casted for his role. My biggest problem with this movie was the ENTIRE movie revolved around the characters played by DeNiro and Gooding Jr. The roles of women in this movie were vastly overlooked and underdeveloped. Also this movie was supposedly "based on a true story", but what was it based on? I don't think it was based on a book, was it? This movie struck me as a gross exaggeration, which is alright except when it is marketed otherwise as mentioned above. Overall this movie was worth watching if you have nothing better to do with your time, but it is probably worth waiting until 2003 when it airs on network television where it belongs. 5/10

It takes about 1/2 of the 86 minute running time of this movie to figure out it was intended to be a parody or satire of an old-style western movie. Except the action is hokey and the funny parts are few and far between. This movie is just too campy! Too over the top, stupid, and really quite a waste of effort for something that might have been OK if approached a little bit more seriously. This movie could have been a precedent for the stylized, 90s action films such as From Dusk Til Dawn and Pulp Fiction, but these comparisons are really stretching it! It is not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it really is not good, at all. Do yourself a favor and avoid this one at all costs unless you are planning on using hallucinogenic drugs, in which case it probably would be very interesting. I respect the effort, but what a waste, as this movie simply was not as funny as what it was intended to be. 3/10

The Corndog Man is a highly original tale of one man's tulmultuous downfall because he can't stop answering the telephone. A good movie, with some witty, but repetitive dialogue and scenes. I just can't figure out what the symbolism of the corndog represented. Good for a low budget flick, but I still would have liked to see some other supporting characters developed more in this movie. Personally, it gets a little boring to watch a whole movie focusing on only one character, especially one who happens to be an ignoramus.

Definitely be prepared to suspend your disbelief when watching this one because of the all-knowing mystery man. The overall focus and scope of the movie was too narrow and repetitive to be really compelling and dramatic. Still, the movie was disturbing, edgy, and unique and the scenes were well illustrated by the director. Definitely worth seeing- but only once. 7/10

The first 45 minutes of Blow started out great. It was stylish, humorous, and enticing. Then it started to fade, and fade, and fade even more. I had two major problems with this movie. The first one was because of the time span (30 yrs.) the movie covered its characters were spread out too thin. Many were never developed well enough and others' actions never seemed to be resolved. Simply too much ground for Demme to cover. Second, and most annoying, was the contrived attempt to develop sympathy for the main character. The man was one of the largest distributors of cocaine in the country. I think Johnny Depp is one of the most talented, dynamic, and versatile actors in this country and not even he could pull this one off.

Spoiler?? Come on, who has ever heard of a drug dealer giving away a share of his cut of the profits to a couple of guys he barely even knows just cause he is a nice guy. No way.

Also women were not portrayed very well in this movie. Not at all. They were mostly female dogs and back stabbers. On the bright side, the movie was not slow and was generally entertaining and the make-up effects were outstanding. Overall, Blow could have been written and directed much better than what it was. It just did not fulfill its potential. 5/10

First of all, with a running time of 136 minutes this movie was entirely too long. Furthermore, its supporting character base was spread way too thin. A disappointing role for Anna Pacquin as her character just did not add anything to this movie portraying nothing but a shadow. This movie consisted of some interesting tidbits of information saturated amongst a shaky and unrealistic plot line and poorly developed characters. The direction of this movie was blase'. This movie could have been edited down 40 minutes and would have served to be much more entertaining. A lackadaisical melodrama with watered down characters and content. Even the basketball scenes sucked. 4/10

I rented The Crew (2000) with my family and could not even finish watching the whole thing, and it was only 88 minutes long! Director Michael Dinner needs to stick to TV. Voice overs worked great in The Wonder Years (tv show) but I don't need a voice over for the first 45 minutes of any movie. This movie was a brainless and pathetic attempt at humor. This movie was not funny, nor thought provoking, and really is a complete waste of time. Its not that it was just not funny, it was actually annoying, aggravating, and painful to watch. I give this movie a two, which is 100% mark-up for what it really deserves just because of the cinematography, set design, and editing. Enough said. This movie was AWFUL!!

After watching the first 15 minutes of Traffic (2000) I knew I was in for a long ride. The movie was good, but it was too slow. Simply not enough action for me. However, I am glad Benicio Del Toro received an Academy Award for his role as Rodriguez Y Rodriguez. He was the nuts- and-bolts of the movie portraying a character of great depth and personal strife. Conversely, the sub plot of the movie, in a role supported by Michael Douglas, was a tad too Hollywood for my likes and really did not stimulate me intellectually or emotionally. On the good side, an interesting use of filters in the movie and an unexpected solid performance by K. Zeta Jones helped legitamize this picture in my book. Possibly deserving of a 7 I am dropping my vote to a 6 because of the lack of action and a generic subplot. Too long and slow, but a fine effort nonetheless.

As an open-minded and liberal person I am surprised at myself that I did not like this movie more. But this movie was so unsettling, it really bothered me ! It really was almost too disturbing too enjoy. I can't really pinpoint my feelings any more than that. It did not wig me out and it was well written and acted, but I really didn't like watching it and probably would not watch it again. Is this subject matter funny? Not to me. Not great, but definitely worth talking about. Overall, I rate the movie about a 6 for Solondz's solid directing and the believable acting, with a few points deducted for the excessive subject matter, which I found personally unpleasant and mildly distasteful.

This is the late 90s version of trite Hollywood serial killer movie trends. How played out is this theme getting? This movie is a cliche of silly Hollywood trying to pass garbage to the masses and I am sure it made money. I have too many problems with this movie to list here. Especially the counterfeit ending, which was a joke in my eyes. The movie gets a 4 for content and for focusing on a pair of great lips.A waste of time. For Hollywood fans only.

THIS PASSAGE CONTAINS LOTS OF SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE AND WANT TO SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A story about a killer who calls himself the Wizard and entices pretty 8 yr. old girls wearing red dresses to their deaths with his magic chocolate porcupine candies. A disturbing concept in itself.

This movie was decent to me because its unsettling ending which was anti-climatic. The audience really never gets to experience the killer in action and Jack becomes the real loser. That was sort of cool because of what never happens-the killer really never gets caught.

It would have worked better if the rest of the movie was not so slow. Penn tried to make it a psychological thriller but there was never a doubt who the killer was and whether he was for real or not.

MY PROBLEMS with the movie are 1) the kid that was a primary witness at the beginning of the movie was never accounted for. They tried to talk to him in the squad car and he was silent. All indications led the viewer to believe that the kid placed the 911 telephone call to the police. So I ask, "WHY HAVE A PRIMARY WITNESS TO A CRIME IF YOU ARE GOING TO LEAVE HIM UNACCOUNTED FOR?- JUST TAKE HIM OUT OF THE MOVIE." This leads to my problem # 2)

The vehicle they picked Toby up in was described as a maroon pick up, the killer was driving a black pick-up- which the kid ID'd at the beginning but was never accounted. OK so what? Here is the real problem.

After Toby gave the cops the confession they were looking for, they escorted him out of the room handcuffed. (The astute observer already knows he is not the killer so one would expect this character to die.) BANG! BANG! We hear gun shots. Cut. Now we see Toby holding a gun, free of handcuffs, and taking a cop hostage. OK Well how did that happen? I know its the movies but this isn't David Copperfield-sorry I am just not buying it. If this movie was any indication, Sean Penn should stick to acting. Jack was solid. But this film wasn't.

5/10 Good Content, Visuals, and Acting. Too many unanswered questions, film lacked energy and passion at times- should have employed more editing and cut about 15-25 minutes off total running time

I just don't understand what all the hype is about concerning this movie. Yes, I was engrossed and I did not invision the ending but to me the movie was slow and dragged throughout the middle for about 30-40 minutes. It seemed like the movie could have been edited down quite a bit and still have told the same story. I liked all the other four movies nominated for Best Picture 1999 better than this one and I thought the kid did a better job in Pay It Forward which I thought was a better movie too. 6/10

The Warriors is my favorite movie of all time. Why? Cause I am a guy and I like guy movies. But REALLY- This movie has it all. Cinematographer Andrew Laszlo is a visionary! The lighting, editing, and shot selection of this movie make for some of the most spectacular scenery that I have ever witnessed on screen. Top that off with an unforgettable cast of characters. Even though many of the actors in this movie are no-namers-the acting is superb-total "A" material. Ninety Three Minutes of FUN- Action fans-this movie grabs your attention and holds it until the final credit. Bottom-line: A magnificent piece of film-making and triumph for anyone involved with the film in my eyes. The movie is nothing like the book. Walter Hill did a magnificent job directing this film and calloborating on the sceenplay with David Shaber. THE WARRIORS IS #1 CAN YOU DIG IT!