TexMetal4JC
Lifetime Total
25+
IMDb Member
23 years
Reviews
Sometimes They Come Back (1991)
One of the worst movies of all time
What can you say about a movie as terrible as "Sometimes They Come Back"? Based on an OK Stephen King story, this movie not only mangles the story beyond almost any point of recognition, it makes the plot dumb and incomprehensible! Added to terrible acting, awful special effects and a complete lack of credible storyline (which the original at least had), and you can count this being just a smidge better than "Random Hearts", making "Sometimes" the 2nd-worst movie of all time. Why did filmmakers insist on destroying Stephen King's literary genius in the 1980s-early 1990s? Why??
1/10
1/10
Family Plot (1976)
A good closing to a great career
Family Plot, Hitchcock's last film, is a good movie. It's engaging and interesting. It has decent acting, the directing is solid. Of course, that's a pretty bland description, which matches the movie quite well.
The problem with Family Plot is not that it isn't good, but that it isn't GREAT. Because when Alfred Hitchcock was behind the camera, GREAT was usually the least one could expect.
Hitchcock's success was not because of those he surrounded himself with, as someone below so ignorantly suggested. It was because he was a master at manipulating the audience and drawing them into his films. Granted, Herrmann's scores helped, but Herrmann didn't do every American Hitchcock movie (Rebecca won Best Picture without the talents of Herrmann). Neither did Hitchcock's favorite cinematographer. Not to mention The Lodger, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps are considered some of the greatest movies ever: all were made in Britain while Hitchcock was being considered the greatest director in THAT country.
But by the time Marnie was made, and Hitchcock feuded with star and object of his obsession Tippi Hedrin, his heart went out of movie-making, and the films afterward seemed to lack a general Hitchcockian quality. Instead, flashes of the Hitchcock genius could be caught only in particular scenes (The murder in Torn Curtain, the purple dress in Topaz, the stairway in Frenzy). Unlike Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, Rebecca, etc., where the whole movie seemed inspired, Hitchcock only showed flashes of his original genius.
Family Plot effectively shows no signs of Hitchcock's genius, creating only a "good" movie with no classic scenes to make it distinctively Hitchcock. It is a sad ending to a glorious career. Sad, only in that a genius' final movie can "only" be called good.
5/10
The problem with Family Plot is not that it isn't good, but that it isn't GREAT. Because when Alfred Hitchcock was behind the camera, GREAT was usually the least one could expect.
Hitchcock's success was not because of those he surrounded himself with, as someone below so ignorantly suggested. It was because he was a master at manipulating the audience and drawing them into his films. Granted, Herrmann's scores helped, but Herrmann didn't do every American Hitchcock movie (Rebecca won Best Picture without the talents of Herrmann). Neither did Hitchcock's favorite cinematographer. Not to mention The Lodger, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps are considered some of the greatest movies ever: all were made in Britain while Hitchcock was being considered the greatest director in THAT country.
But by the time Marnie was made, and Hitchcock feuded with star and object of his obsession Tippi Hedrin, his heart went out of movie-making, and the films afterward seemed to lack a general Hitchcockian quality. Instead, flashes of the Hitchcock genius could be caught only in particular scenes (The murder in Torn Curtain, the purple dress in Topaz, the stairway in Frenzy). Unlike Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, Notorious, Rebecca, etc., where the whole movie seemed inspired, Hitchcock only showed flashes of his original genius.
Family Plot effectively shows no signs of Hitchcock's genius, creating only a "good" movie with no classic scenes to make it distinctively Hitchcock. It is a sad ending to a glorious career. Sad, only in that a genius' final movie can "only" be called good.
5/10
The Majestic (2001)
Incredible! (SPOILERS)
For the second time this Christmas season, the critics have dropped the ball, panning "The Majestic" despite its being a very good movie. ("Vanilla Sky" also got dissed by critics, but it too is impressive.)
Jim Carrey proves once again that he is a fantastic actor, adding this to semi-serious roles in "The Truman Show" and "Man on the Moon." Likewise, Frank Darabont adds a third solid directorial performance, branching out from behind the walls of Stephen King's prisons. The supporting cast, filled with "I know I've seen him or her somewhere before!"-type character actors, is equally adept. Technically, the movie is very solid, if not unspectacular.
Of course the critics and many on the IMDb have lambasted this movie, generally for the "schmaltz" factor. But seeing as how it's a send-off to the Capracorn classics of the 1930s and 1940s, schmaltz isn't really a factor at all, unless it were to be completely overbearing, which it is not.
Going in, it is helpful to think Capra. Because the movie really does combine that famed director's best elements: The lone everyman fighting a corrupt or unjust system, patriotism in the forms of dying for the country and studying its founding documents, and a final, climactic, triumphant speech.
And "The Majestic" pays off in spades. Jim Carrey's performance as the everyman is no Jimmy Stewart, but it is still an A+, Oscar-worthy performance. He fights the corrupt and unjust McCarthy unAmerican activities committee. But on his way from being accused to standing before the committee, he has an amnesia-inducing accident. He washes up on the shores of a small town that mistakes him for one of its sons who was lost in World War II.
Not sure of who he is, Carrey's character accepts the adulation and helps rebuild the town's historic movie theatre, the Majestic. With it, he rebuilds the town's spirits, which had been shattered after losing dozens of children in the War.
But when his memory comes back - coinciding with his "father"s death - revealing he is really a blacklisted Hollywood screenwriter accused of being a communist. The town - including the fallen soldier's fiancee and now Carrey's girlfriend - turns on him , and he is arrested by the FBI.
Now he has to decide whether to capitulate and renounce being a communist or stand before the committee and fight for what he knows is right.
The movie is full of patriotic gestures, including a moment of silence for the men lost in WWII, and Carrey's epic speech before the committee is reminiscent of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The respect and adoration given to the Constitution is tantamount to any of Capra's movies, and Carrey's homecoming to the same small town is "It's a Wonderful Life" in a slightly different setting.
Yes, it's sappy. Yes it's schmaltzy. But so was Capra. And his films are regarded to today as cinematic classics. Indeed, "Mr. Smith" is still watched in high school government classes to this day, and what adult hasn't watched "It's a Wonderful Life" at least once?
"The Majestic" is nothing more than a Frank Capra film with different cast and different director, filmed in color. Carrey adds a few touches, and Darabont's style is more flashy than Capra's, but nonetheless, it is an optimistic and satisfying film about triumphing over adversity. It's a film that should go down as one of the first films to help America recover from the Sept. 11 attacks.
But thanks to narrow-minded critics and cynicists who believe optimism should be relegated to black and white, "The Majestic" will go down as one of the most underrated movies of the decade.
10/10
Jim Carrey proves once again that he is a fantastic actor, adding this to semi-serious roles in "The Truman Show" and "Man on the Moon." Likewise, Frank Darabont adds a third solid directorial performance, branching out from behind the walls of Stephen King's prisons. The supporting cast, filled with "I know I've seen him or her somewhere before!"-type character actors, is equally adept. Technically, the movie is very solid, if not unspectacular.
Of course the critics and many on the IMDb have lambasted this movie, generally for the "schmaltz" factor. But seeing as how it's a send-off to the Capracorn classics of the 1930s and 1940s, schmaltz isn't really a factor at all, unless it were to be completely overbearing, which it is not.
Going in, it is helpful to think Capra. Because the movie really does combine that famed director's best elements: The lone everyman fighting a corrupt or unjust system, patriotism in the forms of dying for the country and studying its founding documents, and a final, climactic, triumphant speech.
And "The Majestic" pays off in spades. Jim Carrey's performance as the everyman is no Jimmy Stewart, but it is still an A+, Oscar-worthy performance. He fights the corrupt and unjust McCarthy unAmerican activities committee. But on his way from being accused to standing before the committee, he has an amnesia-inducing accident. He washes up on the shores of a small town that mistakes him for one of its sons who was lost in World War II.
Not sure of who he is, Carrey's character accepts the adulation and helps rebuild the town's historic movie theatre, the Majestic. With it, he rebuilds the town's spirits, which had been shattered after losing dozens of children in the War.
But when his memory comes back - coinciding with his "father"s death - revealing he is really a blacklisted Hollywood screenwriter accused of being a communist. The town - including the fallen soldier's fiancee and now Carrey's girlfriend - turns on him , and he is arrested by the FBI.
Now he has to decide whether to capitulate and renounce being a communist or stand before the committee and fight for what he knows is right.
The movie is full of patriotic gestures, including a moment of silence for the men lost in WWII, and Carrey's epic speech before the committee is reminiscent of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The respect and adoration given to the Constitution is tantamount to any of Capra's movies, and Carrey's homecoming to the same small town is "It's a Wonderful Life" in a slightly different setting.
Yes, it's sappy. Yes it's schmaltzy. But so was Capra. And his films are regarded to today as cinematic classics. Indeed, "Mr. Smith" is still watched in high school government classes to this day, and what adult hasn't watched "It's a Wonderful Life" at least once?
"The Majestic" is nothing more than a Frank Capra film with different cast and different director, filmed in color. Carrey adds a few touches, and Darabont's style is more flashy than Capra's, but nonetheless, it is an optimistic and satisfying film about triumphing over adversity. It's a film that should go down as one of the first films to help America recover from the Sept. 11 attacks.
But thanks to narrow-minded critics and cynicists who believe optimism should be relegated to black and white, "The Majestic" will go down as one of the most underrated movies of the decade.
10/10
Ali (2001)
Sorry, no can do.
Ali tried hard, and you can really tell that Michael Mann poured his heart into the making of this epic film. The directing is fantastic. Likewise, Will Smith, who said he "didn't want to be known as the guy who messed up the Ali film", doesn't. Jamie Fox and Jon Voight are also fantastic.
But Ali - the film - doesn't match up. As someone below said: It's "self-consciously artistic." Very accurate. Mann tries too hard to make this an artistic film about a man and world events that weren't very artistic.
Civil rights and racism are not matters that can be told with slow motion, native songs and obscure flashbacks. Likewise, they should not be told through the eyes of someone who cavorted with extremists and racists. The fight for civil rights in the 1960's was too important to be cheapened by the radical views of those who replace their names with X-es to make a pointless statement.
Likewise, the attempt to show Ali's life as one governed by care for the black man was muddled by his contempt for the black woman - perhaps an accurate reflection of Ali's life and personality, but this film was obviously not trying to be biographical.
And this is the worst part. At times it's about Ali's boxing, spending close to an hour's time on the three defining fights of Clay/Ali's career. At times it's about Ali's personal life, focusing on two of his wives and a girlfriend. So the film purports to be a biography.
But then it veers off into thinly veiled social commentary, focusing not on Ali, but rather on Malcolm X and the radical Muslims he and Ali belonged to. No mention of Ali's younger days except for a brief flashback. And nothing after his third major fight. A biographical film that spends almost three hours focusing on a 15-year period of a man's life, and usually spends more time focusing on the issues surrounding his life than on his life itself.
All this turns Mann's deft artistry into shambles, creating nothing more than a muddled version of a life at its peak, leaving a civil rights and sports legend looking like an extremist, a racist and a womanizer.
4/10
But Ali - the film - doesn't match up. As someone below said: It's "self-consciously artistic." Very accurate. Mann tries too hard to make this an artistic film about a man and world events that weren't very artistic.
Civil rights and racism are not matters that can be told with slow motion, native songs and obscure flashbacks. Likewise, they should not be told through the eyes of someone who cavorted with extremists and racists. The fight for civil rights in the 1960's was too important to be cheapened by the radical views of those who replace their names with X-es to make a pointless statement.
Likewise, the attempt to show Ali's life as one governed by care for the black man was muddled by his contempt for the black woman - perhaps an accurate reflection of Ali's life and personality, but this film was obviously not trying to be biographical.
And this is the worst part. At times it's about Ali's boxing, spending close to an hour's time on the three defining fights of Clay/Ali's career. At times it's about Ali's personal life, focusing on two of his wives and a girlfriend. So the film purports to be a biography.
But then it veers off into thinly veiled social commentary, focusing not on Ali, but rather on Malcolm X and the radical Muslims he and Ali belonged to. No mention of Ali's younger days except for a brief flashback. And nothing after his third major fight. A biographical film that spends almost three hours focusing on a 15-year period of a man's life, and usually spends more time focusing on the issues surrounding his life than on his life itself.
All this turns Mann's deft artistry into shambles, creating nothing more than a muddled version of a life at its peak, leaving a civil rights and sports legend looking like an extremist, a racist and a womanizer.
4/10
Call Northside 777 (1948)
Tough to call...
I want to like this movie, really. Jimmy Stewart, Lee J. Cobb, a murder-mystery, set in a newsroom. I really want to like Call Northside 777!
But I feel strangely frustrated. I would like to say it's just because as a modern-day journalist, I cringe at the obvious excesses with the truth taken. But I found that part fascinating - a glimpse at how much the industry has changed in 50 years.
No, I think my frustration lies with a combination of things. One is the acting by Stewart. This is an obvious transition for him from the ultimate good-guy everyman Capracorn movies of the early-mid 1940s to the darker, more realistic everyman movies of Hitchcock in the 1950s. Although many people here think he does a fine job, I felt there were times when Stewart had problems getting his voice to go along with the lines he was given very well. This is especially noticeable I think when he's interviewing various people in connection with the murder, and at times fairly shouts innocent-sounding questions.
But not only Stewart, most of the cast seemed to have problems not sounding like they were reading off a TelePrompTer (except for Lee J. Cobb, who did a spectacular job as the managing editor).
Also, the ending could have been very suspenseful. But it wasn't. The high-contrast film-noir look was distracting at times as well. Really, it's a bunch of little things that add up to turning Call Northside 777 from a potentially fascinating murder-thriller starring one of the greatest actors of all time into an interesting but drawn out pseudo-documentary. It's really too bad.
Because I really wanted to like this movie!
6/10
But I feel strangely frustrated. I would like to say it's just because as a modern-day journalist, I cringe at the obvious excesses with the truth taken. But I found that part fascinating - a glimpse at how much the industry has changed in 50 years.
No, I think my frustration lies with a combination of things. One is the acting by Stewart. This is an obvious transition for him from the ultimate good-guy everyman Capracorn movies of the early-mid 1940s to the darker, more realistic everyman movies of Hitchcock in the 1950s. Although many people here think he does a fine job, I felt there were times when Stewart had problems getting his voice to go along with the lines he was given very well. This is especially noticeable I think when he's interviewing various people in connection with the murder, and at times fairly shouts innocent-sounding questions.
But not only Stewart, most of the cast seemed to have problems not sounding like they were reading off a TelePrompTer (except for Lee J. Cobb, who did a spectacular job as the managing editor).
Also, the ending could have been very suspenseful. But it wasn't. The high-contrast film-noir look was distracting at times as well. Really, it's a bunch of little things that add up to turning Call Northside 777 from a potentially fascinating murder-thriller starring one of the greatest actors of all time into an interesting but drawn out pseudo-documentary. It's really too bad.
Because I really wanted to like this movie!
6/10
Vanilla Sky (2001)
Incredible!
The trick with movies like this (THIS: Vanilla Sky, Fight Club, The Sixth Sense to a lesser extent) is to watch it twice.
After first watching Vanilla Sky, I came away impressed, both with the artistic merits of the film, and with the plot itself. But upon second viewing, knowing the ending ahead of time, I was blown away by all the subtle intricacies that are right under the audience's noses but seemingly unapparent.
Enough people have debated it on here already. Suffice it to say that Tom Cruise proves himself yet again as a spectacular actor and Cameron Crowe creates a monumental movie, a masterpiece. This is not only one of the best movies of the year, but one of the best of all time. An intelligent romantic thriller not seen since the days of Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock...
10/10
After first watching Vanilla Sky, I came away impressed, both with the artistic merits of the film, and with the plot itself. But upon second viewing, knowing the ending ahead of time, I was blown away by all the subtle intricacies that are right under the audience's noses but seemingly unapparent.
Enough people have debated it on here already. Suffice it to say that Tom Cruise proves himself yet again as a spectacular actor and Cameron Crowe creates a monumental movie, a masterpiece. This is not only one of the best movies of the year, but one of the best of all time. An intelligent romantic thriller not seen since the days of Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock...
10/10
Not Another Teen Movie (2001)
The worst movie of 2001? No.
The worst movie of 2001? I think not. Let's be realistic, after all.
What's worse?
A movie that takes itself way too seriously, has no plot, terrible acting, focuses on one overhyped star, is driven by special effects, is entirely unbelievable even for its own genre and is downright boring...
Or a movie that refuses to take itself seriously, offending people left and right with jokes and gags, creating a self-parody that is disgusting at parts, offensive at others and hilarious at still others.
Well, Tomb Raider was certainly the crappiest movie made in 2001. Not Another Teen Movie isn't even close. Not when Final Fantasy, The Musketeer and Pearl Harbor all followed Tomb Raider's mold.
Teen Movie doesn't take itself seriously -- the toilet scene interrupting the professor's comments about how toilet-humor is gross, vulgar and not funny is proof enough of that -- so why should we? To treat Teen Movie as if it's supposed to have all the merits of Citizen Kane is ridiculous!
So when I say that the movie is a 7/10, it's not because I think it is very original. Not because the jokes haven't been done before (they have). Not because it isn't terribly disgusting and rude (it is).
But let's face it. It's SUPPOSED to be this offensive, and it's not that bad to boot. The acting is very good -- most likely because there's very little to act -- and the directing can't be faulted. The screenwriting can, of course. There's no plot, there's potty humor galore, and that does get old very quickly, the parodies aren't as funny as in say, Airplane! The Naked Gun, or even Scary Movie...
But wait! Is there supposed to be a plot? Nope. Is there supposed to be an overuse of potty humor? I think so. It's quite obvious the director and screenwriters stopped taking this movie very seriously when they let loose with a toilet full of crap (literally) and had women walk around completely naked.
The aim of the movie is to completely shock/offend and thereby make the audience laugh, even if it's out of sheer disbelief. They succeed, mostly, with the only problems being some of the spoofs were already used, and used better, in Scary Movie. Also some of the spoofs just aren't as funny as they could have been.
So because the film mostly succeeds in doing what it intended to do, and because some of the parodies are truly funny (and not just shock-funny), I give it a 7/10.
What's worse?
A movie that takes itself way too seriously, has no plot, terrible acting, focuses on one overhyped star, is driven by special effects, is entirely unbelievable even for its own genre and is downright boring...
Or a movie that refuses to take itself seriously, offending people left and right with jokes and gags, creating a self-parody that is disgusting at parts, offensive at others and hilarious at still others.
Well, Tomb Raider was certainly the crappiest movie made in 2001. Not Another Teen Movie isn't even close. Not when Final Fantasy, The Musketeer and Pearl Harbor all followed Tomb Raider's mold.
Teen Movie doesn't take itself seriously -- the toilet scene interrupting the professor's comments about how toilet-humor is gross, vulgar and not funny is proof enough of that -- so why should we? To treat Teen Movie as if it's supposed to have all the merits of Citizen Kane is ridiculous!
So when I say that the movie is a 7/10, it's not because I think it is very original. Not because the jokes haven't been done before (they have). Not because it isn't terribly disgusting and rude (it is).
But let's face it. It's SUPPOSED to be this offensive, and it's not that bad to boot. The acting is very good -- most likely because there's very little to act -- and the directing can't be faulted. The screenwriting can, of course. There's no plot, there's potty humor galore, and that does get old very quickly, the parodies aren't as funny as in say, Airplane! The Naked Gun, or even Scary Movie...
But wait! Is there supposed to be a plot? Nope. Is there supposed to be an overuse of potty humor? I think so. It's quite obvious the director and screenwriters stopped taking this movie very seriously when they let loose with a toilet full of crap (literally) and had women walk around completely naked.
The aim of the movie is to completely shock/offend and thereby make the audience laugh, even if it's out of sheer disbelief. They succeed, mostly, with the only problems being some of the spoofs were already used, and used better, in Scary Movie. Also some of the spoofs just aren't as funny as they could have been.
So because the film mostly succeeds in doing what it intended to do, and because some of the parodies are truly funny (and not just shock-funny), I give it a 7/10.
A Few Good Men (1992)
Absolutely incredible...
What more can be said about this movie? Nicholson's character doesn't show a whole lot of depth, but doesn't need to, and Nicholson does an amazing job. Cruise provides a top-notch acting job, and Demi Moore isn't TOO annoying.
Rob Reiner, although a bigot and a hypocrite, knows how to direct and does his job well--it's just unfortunate he has to continually speak his mind about politics and show how his "All in the Family" 'tolerance' was nothing more than a sham (tolerance is only given to those on the left, eh, Robbie?)
After Sept. 11, it is quite interesting to struggle with the vaguely anti-militaristic sentiment that runs through the movie. The man down below calling this "chest=pounding, flag-saluting bloody American..." blah blah blah obviously did not actually watch the movie or realize that the main basis of the plot has nothing to do with America at all, but rather deals with the potential for corruption in the upper levels of the military and just how far is too far in the line of duty...
Annnyway, back to the review: Incredible acting, fine directing and a well-constructed plot. Definitely one of the best movies of the 1990s...
10/10
Rob Reiner, although a bigot and a hypocrite, knows how to direct and does his job well--it's just unfortunate he has to continually speak his mind about politics and show how his "All in the Family" 'tolerance' was nothing more than a sham (tolerance is only given to those on the left, eh, Robbie?)
After Sept. 11, it is quite interesting to struggle with the vaguely anti-militaristic sentiment that runs through the movie. The man down below calling this "chest=pounding, flag-saluting bloody American..." blah blah blah obviously did not actually watch the movie or realize that the main basis of the plot has nothing to do with America at all, but rather deals with the potential for corruption in the upper levels of the military and just how far is too far in the line of duty...
Annnyway, back to the review: Incredible acting, fine directing and a well-constructed plot. Definitely one of the best movies of the 1990s...
10/10
The Astronaut's Wife (1999)
Left me speechless
Possible spoilers...
Shocked was I to see The Astronaut's Wife with such a low rating. I
understand some viewers not liking the ambiguous and potentially
depressing ending. I even understand some viewers not liking
Charleze Theron's performance, although the role is perfect for
her. And I can even sympathize with those who saw the obvious
parallels to Devil's Advocate and Rosemary's Baby (with some
Event Horizon and Stir of Echoes for good measure).
But I cannot understand people saying this movie was terrible. We
have here excellent directing, making use of a wide array of
camera angles and tricks that are put together wonderfully. We
have excellent acting at the hands of Johnny Depp, who proves
with every movie his mastery of the art, and Theron isn't that bad
either, because it's not as if she needs too much depth, and if
nothing else, she doesn't detract from the movie. We have an
excellent score that matches the movie well and features some
fun choral parts.
Some have criticized the movie's pacing-too slow at the
beginning. Are you serious? No one should ever take points away
for having a slow beginning, because Psycho is rated the No. 1
thriller of all time, and have you seen how slowly Hitchcock builds
the suspense? Granted, Wife is no Psycho, but it is an excellent
psychological thriller that builds suspense and tension
little-by-little until a terrific sci-fi climax that both reveals the
menace and avoids being corny.
The ending was something I didn't expect, and it left me
speechless (although I'm one that gets thoroughly caught up in
movies and spares little energy in trying to figure out potential plot
twists before they happen). Visually stunning and a treat to watch,
Astronaut's Wife deserves much higher than a 4.x. Give that rating
to something more deserving, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon.
10/10
Shocked was I to see The Astronaut's Wife with such a low rating. I
understand some viewers not liking the ambiguous and potentially
depressing ending. I even understand some viewers not liking
Charleze Theron's performance, although the role is perfect for
her. And I can even sympathize with those who saw the obvious
parallels to Devil's Advocate and Rosemary's Baby (with some
Event Horizon and Stir of Echoes for good measure).
But I cannot understand people saying this movie was terrible. We
have here excellent directing, making use of a wide array of
camera angles and tricks that are put together wonderfully. We
have excellent acting at the hands of Johnny Depp, who proves
with every movie his mastery of the art, and Theron isn't that bad
either, because it's not as if she needs too much depth, and if
nothing else, she doesn't detract from the movie. We have an
excellent score that matches the movie well and features some
fun choral parts.
Some have criticized the movie's pacing-too slow at the
beginning. Are you serious? No one should ever take points away
for having a slow beginning, because Psycho is rated the No. 1
thriller of all time, and have you seen how slowly Hitchcock builds
the suspense? Granted, Wife is no Psycho, but it is an excellent
psychological thriller that builds suspense and tension
little-by-little until a terrific sci-fi climax that both reveals the
menace and avoids being corny.
The ending was something I didn't expect, and it left me
speechless (although I'm one that gets thoroughly caught up in
movies and spares little energy in trying to figure out potential plot
twists before they happen). Visually stunning and a treat to watch,
Astronaut's Wife deserves much higher than a 4.x. Give that rating
to something more deserving, like Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon.
10/10
From Hell (2001)
Absolutely incredible
From Hell is quite the work of art. When the ideas of infusing art
into cinema were produced, From Hell is obviously what was
thought of. But the question is whether From Hell's grandiose
beauty translates into the genius of Salvador Dali or the overblown
fluff of Jackson Pollock.
On the one hand, the photography is simply stunning. The realism
is amazing. The depiction of the London of Jack the Ripper,
Charles Dickens and Sherlock Holmes is stunningly realistic. The
society created by the film makers is amazing to watch in of itself.
Also, Johnny Depp shows that he is one of the best actors of our
time. Granted, his role as the police inspector trying to find the
Ripper is not dissimilar from his role in Sleepy Hollow, but why
should that matter? From Hell is an excellent movie to watch
immediately after taking in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and
Blow to realize what an incredible actor he is.
The movie contains vast amounts of violence, yet it is portrayed
tastefully and seems necessary to the movie, even if it's not all that
important to show the blood and guts. It almost strips From Hell of
its horror label because the brothers Hughes found ways to show
gutted prostitutes and still raise the movie above the slasher-gore
genre.
The plot works like a modern-day version of an Agatha Christie
book. We're given the parts fairly soon, and we watch the inspector
try to figure it out. This is much different from the other intelligent
crime-horror flicks of late: Se7en, Kiss the Girls and In Dreams
featured loonies we never met until late in the movie. The Watcher
told us who it was the whole time. But From Hell shows us the
killer, as well as several clues throughout the movie, but the
ending is still a surprise when Depp reveals it. How refreshing!
The plot also runs on several levels, adding in seemingly
disjointed pieces (Anne and the Masons, for example) yet putting it
all together at the end.
The ending of the movie is probably the most non-climactic ending
to a horror movie the last ten years. Strange that this movie builds
toward a climax that never happens, yet the ending still leaves
viewers satisfied.
But not all is well with From Hell:
Heather Graham isn't dirty enough. If she's a prostitute, then she
should be a dirty whore. But she's not. She's the clean-faced,
red-haired, smiling one that stays out of the fray while her friends
are slaughtered in unspeakable ways. After all the effort to make
the surroundings realistic, would a little charcoal on the cheeks
have been too much to ask?
Besides which, Heather Graham couldn't even act in Austin
Powers, what ever made the film makers believe she could act in
a horror-thriller based on semi-historical events and a
controversial novel? Sorry. Heather Graham joins Mira Sorvino in
failing the "first major serious role" test.
Someone in the editing room got a little too happy at the beginning
of the movie. At some point in the middle of a string of murders,
did someone not think to stop and say, "Hey but do you think
anyone would mind if we showed more than two uninterrupted
seconds of a single viewpoint?" In some cases, the splicing and
dicing of the film works, but it gets old pretty fast, and horror fans
may be wishing they could play some scenes in slow motion.
The ending is also a potential weak point. The nega-climactic
ending leaves the possibility for the audience to walk out of the
theatre with no lasting impression of the film, except a lot of dark.
This is dangerous. Bold and gutsy, and I subtract no points for it
since I found it appealing, but it is dangerous, none the less.
Overall, From Hell is the third excellent horror movie released this
year (Hannibal, The Others, sorry haven't seen Joy Ride or
Jeepers Creepers yet). It is dark and disturbing. The horror doesn't
work on a shock/scare factor, but rather on a psychological/fundamental level. Audiences won't scream in terror,
but many will find the movie horrifying. And in that sense, the
Hughes Brothers have created a rousing success.
9/10
into cinema were produced, From Hell is obviously what was
thought of. But the question is whether From Hell's grandiose
beauty translates into the genius of Salvador Dali or the overblown
fluff of Jackson Pollock.
On the one hand, the photography is simply stunning. The realism
is amazing. The depiction of the London of Jack the Ripper,
Charles Dickens and Sherlock Holmes is stunningly realistic. The
society created by the film makers is amazing to watch in of itself.
Also, Johnny Depp shows that he is one of the best actors of our
time. Granted, his role as the police inspector trying to find the
Ripper is not dissimilar from his role in Sleepy Hollow, but why
should that matter? From Hell is an excellent movie to watch
immediately after taking in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and
Blow to realize what an incredible actor he is.
The movie contains vast amounts of violence, yet it is portrayed
tastefully and seems necessary to the movie, even if it's not all that
important to show the blood and guts. It almost strips From Hell of
its horror label because the brothers Hughes found ways to show
gutted prostitutes and still raise the movie above the slasher-gore
genre.
The plot works like a modern-day version of an Agatha Christie
book. We're given the parts fairly soon, and we watch the inspector
try to figure it out. This is much different from the other intelligent
crime-horror flicks of late: Se7en, Kiss the Girls and In Dreams
featured loonies we never met until late in the movie. The Watcher
told us who it was the whole time. But From Hell shows us the
killer, as well as several clues throughout the movie, but the
ending is still a surprise when Depp reveals it. How refreshing!
The plot also runs on several levels, adding in seemingly
disjointed pieces (Anne and the Masons, for example) yet putting it
all together at the end.
The ending of the movie is probably the most non-climactic ending
to a horror movie the last ten years. Strange that this movie builds
toward a climax that never happens, yet the ending still leaves
viewers satisfied.
But not all is well with From Hell:
Heather Graham isn't dirty enough. If she's a prostitute, then she
should be a dirty whore. But she's not. She's the clean-faced,
red-haired, smiling one that stays out of the fray while her friends
are slaughtered in unspeakable ways. After all the effort to make
the surroundings realistic, would a little charcoal on the cheeks
have been too much to ask?
Besides which, Heather Graham couldn't even act in Austin
Powers, what ever made the film makers believe she could act in
a horror-thriller based on semi-historical events and a
controversial novel? Sorry. Heather Graham joins Mira Sorvino in
failing the "first major serious role" test.
Someone in the editing room got a little too happy at the beginning
of the movie. At some point in the middle of a string of murders,
did someone not think to stop and say, "Hey but do you think
anyone would mind if we showed more than two uninterrupted
seconds of a single viewpoint?" In some cases, the splicing and
dicing of the film works, but it gets old pretty fast, and horror fans
may be wishing they could play some scenes in slow motion.
The ending is also a potential weak point. The nega-climactic
ending leaves the possibility for the audience to walk out of the
theatre with no lasting impression of the film, except a lot of dark.
This is dangerous. Bold and gutsy, and I subtract no points for it
since I found it appealing, but it is dangerous, none the less.
Overall, From Hell is the third excellent horror movie released this
year (Hannibal, The Others, sorry haven't seen Joy Ride or
Jeepers Creepers yet). It is dark and disturbing. The horror doesn't
work on a shock/scare factor, but rather on a psychological/fundamental level. Audiences won't scream in terror,
but many will find the movie horrifying. And in that sense, the
Hughes Brothers have created a rousing success.
9/10
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Wow.
I was expecting a good movie with Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant and
Katherine Hepburn as part of the cast, but I was amazed and
surprised by The Philadelphia Story.
The Philadelphia Story is quite simply an ingenious comedy as
well as a delightfully engaging drama. Certainly not for audiences
raised on today's cinemas, however. Not one scene of action is
filmed. The movie is carried completely on its screenplay, for
which it deservedly won an Oscar.
Also deservedly garnering Academy Award recognition was Jimmy
Stewart for his role as Mike Connor. His scene as a drunk is
celebrated for one reason, Shakespeare Bond: Because it is
GOOD! Stewart and Hepburn showed a chemistry that was equaled by Grant and Hepburn's. The unusual love triangle here
was done to perfection.
Likewise this movie is adored by thousands and millions because
it is a very good movie, showcasing the early talents of three of
black and white cinema's best actors. The dialogue is quick and
witty, the acting is perfect and not overdone, like was a tendency to
do at the time. The Philadelphia Story is beloved because it is a
well-made movie.
10/10
Katherine Hepburn as part of the cast, but I was amazed and
surprised by The Philadelphia Story.
The Philadelphia Story is quite simply an ingenious comedy as
well as a delightfully engaging drama. Certainly not for audiences
raised on today's cinemas, however. Not one scene of action is
filmed. The movie is carried completely on its screenplay, for
which it deservedly won an Oscar.
Also deservedly garnering Academy Award recognition was Jimmy
Stewart for his role as Mike Connor. His scene as a drunk is
celebrated for one reason, Shakespeare Bond: Because it is
GOOD! Stewart and Hepburn showed a chemistry that was equaled by Grant and Hepburn's. The unusual love triangle here
was done to perfection.
Likewise this movie is adored by thousands and millions because
it is a very good movie, showcasing the early talents of three of
black and white cinema's best actors. The dialogue is quick and
witty, the acting is perfect and not overdone, like was a tendency to
do at the time. The Philadelphia Story is beloved because it is a
well-made movie.
10/10
Hearts in Atlantis (2001)
A breath of fresh air
Hearts in Atlantis is an interesting movie. For one, it is based upon a story contained within a book named "Hearts in Atlantis" by Stephen King. But the story is called "Low Men in Yellow Coats" and the story "Hearts in Atlantis" has absolutely no bearing on the movie at all.
It's rather unfortunate actually, that the film makers couldn't find some way to incorporate all five of King's "Hearts in Atlantis" stories into the movie. But if they had to pick one - which they did, of course - "Low Men in Yellow Coats" is an excellent choice. And it makes for an excellent movie, but the book should be required reading.
Some of the complaints about the movie have been that the characters are not well developed. Perhaps they are, but as someone who's read the book, my mind filled in any gaps, so I couldn't say. In fact, knowing what was in the story did nothing but enrich this film. Because the movie was so close to the book, the background information supplied by King's plot filled in all the places the movie could not or would not go.
One bad aspect of the movie version however, is the elimination of all supernatural elements. Instead of making Anthony Hopkins' character a Breaker from the Dark Tower universe King has created, like Brautigan is in the book, he is a psychic sought by the FBI to root out communists (hey, this is 1960 after all). So the string is still intact: Of the more than 30 movies based on the work of Stephen King, not a single one even mentions the Dark Tower.
How unfortunate.
The movie itself is simply wonderful, especially after dealing with two weeks of absolute crap (The Musketeer and Glitter? Hmmm).
Anthony Hopkins has the pleasure of two Academy Award-worthy performances in 2001 (I don't care, Hannibal was still an excellent movie). His performance in Hearts is as understated as Hannibal was... well... Hannibal. He keeps to himself, stays quiet, and when he talks, he is close to divine. Hopkins continues to prove why he is one of the best actors of all time.
Anton Yelchin is simply amazing as little Bobby Garfield. He is the second coming of Haley Joel Osment, if not better than he. The plot is good if not great - although with the book already in mind, it assuredly makes any potential holes disappear - and the character development is superb. And isn't that a wonderful breath of fresh air after a summer's worth of movies that were cool, and some were even good, but overall brainless and similar.
For that alone, I give it a 10, even if it is perhaps closer to an 8 or a 9.
10/10
It's rather unfortunate actually, that the film makers couldn't find some way to incorporate all five of King's "Hearts in Atlantis" stories into the movie. But if they had to pick one - which they did, of course - "Low Men in Yellow Coats" is an excellent choice. And it makes for an excellent movie, but the book should be required reading.
Some of the complaints about the movie have been that the characters are not well developed. Perhaps they are, but as someone who's read the book, my mind filled in any gaps, so I couldn't say. In fact, knowing what was in the story did nothing but enrich this film. Because the movie was so close to the book, the background information supplied by King's plot filled in all the places the movie could not or would not go.
One bad aspect of the movie version however, is the elimination of all supernatural elements. Instead of making Anthony Hopkins' character a Breaker from the Dark Tower universe King has created, like Brautigan is in the book, he is a psychic sought by the FBI to root out communists (hey, this is 1960 after all). So the string is still intact: Of the more than 30 movies based on the work of Stephen King, not a single one even mentions the Dark Tower.
How unfortunate.
The movie itself is simply wonderful, especially after dealing with two weeks of absolute crap (The Musketeer and Glitter? Hmmm).
Anthony Hopkins has the pleasure of two Academy Award-worthy performances in 2001 (I don't care, Hannibal was still an excellent movie). His performance in Hearts is as understated as Hannibal was... well... Hannibal. He keeps to himself, stays quiet, and when he talks, he is close to divine. Hopkins continues to prove why he is one of the best actors of all time.
Anton Yelchin is simply amazing as little Bobby Garfield. He is the second coming of Haley Joel Osment, if not better than he. The plot is good if not great - although with the book already in mind, it assuredly makes any potential holes disappear - and the character development is superb. And isn't that a wonderful breath of fresh air after a summer's worth of movies that were cool, and some were even good, but overall brainless and similar.
For that alone, I give it a 10, even if it is perhaps closer to an 8 or a 9.
10/10
Final Destination (2000)
One of the funniest movies ever
Some very minor spoilers herein
Final Destination is def. one of the funniest movies of all time. After
a slew of teen slasher movies, it's refreshing to see a movie take
itself so seriously and still be so funny...
Having seen so many people give this movie rave reviews, I must
conclude that they are reviewing in the sarcastic, self-parodic
nature of the film. This movie contains middling acting, a terrible
script and absolutely awful realism.
I understand that we shouldn't expect an awful lot of reality, but
when a movie takes its premise so seriously, one would expect its
death scenes to be a little better than "coffee mug cracks, leaks on
computer, causes electrical shortage, computer explodes, glass
impales woman wo runs into kitchen. Flames follow trail of leaked
alcohol after her, where she collapses and the flames cause the
kitchen to catch fire, while she reaches for a towel and succeeds
in dropping a set of knives onto her, and one of the knives drops
directly onto her chest, point down. Sorry folks. If death really
wanted to knock em off, the bus idea was a smarter way to go.
To see so many people praise this movie is revolting. Even among
the long line of slasher movies, this is not very high. Starting with
Psycho, there is a fine list of horror movies that involve serial
killers with knives and other sharp or unusual objects. Final
Destination does not contain the originality of Psycho or
Halloween, the plot of Candyman, nor the self-satire of Scream. It
contains NOTHING.
Most of the death scenes are laughable to any fan of horror movies
that actually knows the horror genre started long before 1978. So
what do you say about a movie that offers nothing but a
half-original ripoff of an overdone genre quickly in decline and not
worth keeping up with?
Well to answer the final lines of the movie: "Who's next?"
Who cares?
3/10 for some shock value and the creative decapitation
Final Destination is def. one of the funniest movies of all time. After
a slew of teen slasher movies, it's refreshing to see a movie take
itself so seriously and still be so funny...
Having seen so many people give this movie rave reviews, I must
conclude that they are reviewing in the sarcastic, self-parodic
nature of the film. This movie contains middling acting, a terrible
script and absolutely awful realism.
I understand that we shouldn't expect an awful lot of reality, but
when a movie takes its premise so seriously, one would expect its
death scenes to be a little better than "coffee mug cracks, leaks on
computer, causes electrical shortage, computer explodes, glass
impales woman wo runs into kitchen. Flames follow trail of leaked
alcohol after her, where she collapses and the flames cause the
kitchen to catch fire, while she reaches for a towel and succeeds
in dropping a set of knives onto her, and one of the knives drops
directly onto her chest, point down. Sorry folks. If death really
wanted to knock em off, the bus idea was a smarter way to go.
To see so many people praise this movie is revolting. Even among
the long line of slasher movies, this is not very high. Starting with
Psycho, there is a fine list of horror movies that involve serial
killers with knives and other sharp or unusual objects. Final
Destination does not contain the originality of Psycho or
Halloween, the plot of Candyman, nor the self-satire of Scream. It
contains NOTHING.
Most of the death scenes are laughable to any fan of horror movies
that actually knows the horror genre started long before 1978. So
what do you say about a movie that offers nothing but a
half-original ripoff of an overdone genre quickly in decline and not
worth keeping up with?
Well to answer the final lines of the movie: "Who's next?"
Who cares?
3/10 for some shock value and the creative decapitation
The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
Such potential, such disappointment
The 13th Floor had such potential... An excellent plot that takes the
basic elements of the Matrix and expands them into a wonderful -
if a little hokey - sci-fi/thriller. But what happened?
Instead of being a top-notch movie that could rival most sci-fi
movies for dominance, it ended up being a drawn-out, poorly
executed movie that looked like nothing more than a ripoff.
First of all, the acting was shabby. Craig Bierko must now rank up
with Keanu Reeves as one of the worst, most stony-faced actors
of all time. Every scene that he was in immediately lost its
potential for drama and was turned into a farce by his so-bad-it- must-be-self-parody job.
And this is the main problem. The special effects are good, the
screenwriting is good, the plot is excellent. But the acting is so
wooden, it gives the whole movie a feel of being drawn out and
overlong.
Although, not all of this can be blamed on the acting. Some parts
of the movie - especially toward the end - are much too long and
overplayed. This is unfortunate. Because long and dramatic
talking scenes are excellent for certain if not most kinds of movies.
Many movies could benefit from this. But the Thirteenth Floor is not
one of these movies.
All in all, the potential of this movie is incredible. Much of the movie
is vert well-staged, especially the 1930s-era scenes. But
unfortunately, the good feeling wears off quickly and instead, 13th
Floor leaves unfulfilled promise, instead of Matrix-esque awe.
5/10
basic elements of the Matrix and expands them into a wonderful -
if a little hokey - sci-fi/thriller. But what happened?
Instead of being a top-notch movie that could rival most sci-fi
movies for dominance, it ended up being a drawn-out, poorly
executed movie that looked like nothing more than a ripoff.
First of all, the acting was shabby. Craig Bierko must now rank up
with Keanu Reeves as one of the worst, most stony-faced actors
of all time. Every scene that he was in immediately lost its
potential for drama and was turned into a farce by his so-bad-it- must-be-self-parody job.
And this is the main problem. The special effects are good, the
screenwriting is good, the plot is excellent. But the acting is so
wooden, it gives the whole movie a feel of being drawn out and
overlong.
Although, not all of this can be blamed on the acting. Some parts
of the movie - especially toward the end - are much too long and
overplayed. This is unfortunate. Because long and dramatic
talking scenes are excellent for certain if not most kinds of movies.
Many movies could benefit from this. But the Thirteenth Floor is not
one of these movies.
All in all, the potential of this movie is incredible. Much of the movie
is vert well-staged, especially the 1930s-era scenes. But
unfortunately, the good feeling wears off quickly and instead, 13th
Floor leaves unfulfilled promise, instead of Matrix-esque awe.
5/10
The Others (2001)
Clearing up some misconceptions.
The Others is "obviously based on The Sixth Sense"? Because it's a ghost story? Please. Has anyone seen The Changeling? Not that it matters, because The Others is just like any horror movie: it feeds off the movies that came before it and attempts to make them better. It succeeds.
The Others not only succeeds in weaving the classic Hollywood ghost story (music, atmosphere, sudden shocking scenes, scenes of dawning horror), but it also succeeds in creating a very good movie. Nicole Kidman is absolutely fantastic, as are the two children, and the direction of the movie is absolutely stunning.
Classic atmospheric horror seemed to be a lost art, relegated to be remembered through replays of Vincent Price movies.
But then came The Sixth Sense, bringing back the classic ghost story with a wrenching twist.
Then came What Lies Beneath, adding more terror to a more realistic plot, with another stunning finish.
And now we have The Others, a truly beautifully haunting ghost story. A truly terrifying horror movie, one of the scariest in years. And it is much, much better than its modern-day ancestors.
10/10
The Others not only succeeds in weaving the classic Hollywood ghost story (music, atmosphere, sudden shocking scenes, scenes of dawning horror), but it also succeeds in creating a very good movie. Nicole Kidman is absolutely fantastic, as are the two children, and the direction of the movie is absolutely stunning.
Classic atmospheric horror seemed to be a lost art, relegated to be remembered through replays of Vincent Price movies.
But then came The Sixth Sense, bringing back the classic ghost story with a wrenching twist.
Then came What Lies Beneath, adding more terror to a more realistic plot, with another stunning finish.
And now we have The Others, a truly beautifully haunting ghost story. A truly terrifying horror movie, one of the scariest in years. And it is much, much better than its modern-day ancestors.
10/10
American Pie 2 (2001)
Better than the original, is this possible?
It's very easy for a sequel to be better than the original, if the original is only mediocre comedy filled with lots of gross-out gags. Even so, I went into AP2 expecting an even more mediocre version of the first. And I was very pleasantly surprised.
Granted, it's not high art. It's still a movie about 5 guys trying to get laid. But it's a much funnier version than the first, and even though the trailers seemed to be planting tongue firmly in cheek by referring to AP2 as a film about friendship, the movie actually did provide a sense of deeper meaning that was completely absent in the first.
Obviously, this film doesn't run very deep, but American Pie 2 even throws in a potentially tear-jerking scene and the director actually strives to make the audience feel for the characters. Most summer movies don't even go that far.
Although it didn't have to do much to surpass American Pie, AP2 is not only one of the surprisingly better movies of the summer, it is also one of the few sequels to blow the original away.
9/10
Granted, it's not high art. It's still a movie about 5 guys trying to get laid. But it's a much funnier version than the first, and even though the trailers seemed to be planting tongue firmly in cheek by referring to AP2 as a film about friendship, the movie actually did provide a sense of deeper meaning that was completely absent in the first.
Obviously, this film doesn't run very deep, but American Pie 2 even throws in a potentially tear-jerking scene and the director actually strives to make the audience feel for the characters. Most summer movies don't even go that far.
Although it didn't have to do much to surpass American Pie, AP2 is not only one of the surprisingly better movies of the summer, it is also one of the few sequels to blow the original away.
9/10
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)
Stunning.
What to say about The Last of the Mohicans that hasn't already been said?
The cinematography is absolutely stunning. The colors and scenery used are phenomenal. Just an absolutely beautifully shot movie. Likewise, the acting and directing are nearly perfect, and we all know the music is some of the best ever made.
It seems there is currently a trio of war/patriot movies out now. "The Last of the Mohicans", "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" make up this trio, and they all have amazing similarities. They all contain the brawny, long-haired pacifist drawn into the fighting when his loved ones are drawn into it. They all dog on the British pretty badly. And they all contain that last climactic scene between hero and archvillain.
But Last of the Mohicans breaks several of the stereotypes set by the movies that came after it. While the shortest of the three, Mohicans feels more like the epic, what with its cinematography and soaring score making the movie seem ethereal at times. And although it seems epic, it doesn't seem to run long enough. By the time you realize that inevitable climactic battle has happened, the movie is already ending. And that climactic fight is far shorter than say, The Patriot's.
Also, Mohicans has a more complex plot. Because Lewis' character is fighting not only to protect his girl, but also the families of the settlers, the rights of the colonists and the lives of his adoptive family. (As opposed to Mel Gibson's characters who fight for revenge and "FREEEEDOOOM!")
Needless to say, Last of the Mohicans is incredibly impressive. Some of the speeches (especially the argument between Madeleine Stowe's character and her father) are moving and believable, while the violence is done quite tastefully.
Unfortunately, the fight scenes are a bit hard to follow at times, but this seems to be the only part where the movie is even the slightest bit lacking.
Overall Last of the Mohicans is an excellent movie, just below The Patriot on the war/action/romance scale. It is truly stunning.
The cinematography is absolutely stunning. The colors and scenery used are phenomenal. Just an absolutely beautifully shot movie. Likewise, the acting and directing are nearly perfect, and we all know the music is some of the best ever made.
It seems there is currently a trio of war/patriot movies out now. "The Last of the Mohicans", "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" make up this trio, and they all have amazing similarities. They all contain the brawny, long-haired pacifist drawn into the fighting when his loved ones are drawn into it. They all dog on the British pretty badly. And they all contain that last climactic scene between hero and archvillain.
But Last of the Mohicans breaks several of the stereotypes set by the movies that came after it. While the shortest of the three, Mohicans feels more like the epic, what with its cinematography and soaring score making the movie seem ethereal at times. And although it seems epic, it doesn't seem to run long enough. By the time you realize that inevitable climactic battle has happened, the movie is already ending. And that climactic fight is far shorter than say, The Patriot's.
Also, Mohicans has a more complex plot. Because Lewis' character is fighting not only to protect his girl, but also the families of the settlers, the rights of the colonists and the lives of his adoptive family. (As opposed to Mel Gibson's characters who fight for revenge and "FREEEEDOOOM!")
Needless to say, Last of the Mohicans is incredibly impressive. Some of the speeches (especially the argument between Madeleine Stowe's character and her father) are moving and believable, while the violence is done quite tastefully.
Unfortunately, the fight scenes are a bit hard to follow at times, but this seems to be the only part where the movie is even the slightest bit lacking.
Overall Last of the Mohicans is an excellent movie, just below The Patriot on the war/action/romance scale. It is truly stunning.
Disorder in the Court (1936)
Classic comedy!
This without a doubt,, one of the best - if not the best Stooge shorts ever. The number of laugh-out-loud-till-you-cry scenes in this one 20-min, short is incredible: When Curly takes the stand, when Larry removes the gum, when the Stooges play jax. It's just all funny. Comedy never got as good as the Stooges.
10/10
10/10
Rush Hour 2 (2001)
The next Crouching Tiger?
First of all, Rush Hour 2 is not a bad movie. There are some amazing fight scenes. Jackie Chan is a terrific actor/humorist. The humor gets funnier as the movie goes along. But.
But. Does Ruch Hour 2 deserve hype that includes one poster here saying "best movie ever!" and others claiming that it was better than the first? Sorry. No dice.
Rush Hour 2 was a good movie, but it was nowhere near what it could have been. Chris Tucker's sometimes funny/sometimes irritating mouth both adds to and gets in the way of the movie. Cut his lines in half, and you'd have an excellent comedy. But for all the funny things that go on during Rush Hour 2, there is not that one funny scene. Indeed the funniest lines and scenes are during the outtakes, which tells a lot about the overall funniness of the movie itself.
But the hype surrounding it threatens it to a fate far worse than the 5 I gave it. Think "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," a decent movie with shallow plot, average acting and incredible effects. But the hype is so disproportionate to the quality of the movie, to this day I will think of CTHD as a bad movie. RH2 is threatening to become another good movie given too much hype, and thereby leaving a bad aftertaste.
So anyway, before I start downgrading the movie because of ludicrous overhype: Rush Hour 2 is a funny movie, with good acting and excellent directing. But it is a movie that is better seen on VHS/DVD. Don't waste money seeing it in theatres, you'll enjoy it just as much at home. Neither should you believe the hype: This is nowhere near as good - or as funny - as say, Shrek, the true comedy classic of Summer 2K1.
Rush Hour 2 is simply an average comedy with good fight scenes.
5/10
But. Does Ruch Hour 2 deserve hype that includes one poster here saying "best movie ever!" and others claiming that it was better than the first? Sorry. No dice.
Rush Hour 2 was a good movie, but it was nowhere near what it could have been. Chris Tucker's sometimes funny/sometimes irritating mouth both adds to and gets in the way of the movie. Cut his lines in half, and you'd have an excellent comedy. But for all the funny things that go on during Rush Hour 2, there is not that one funny scene. Indeed the funniest lines and scenes are during the outtakes, which tells a lot about the overall funniness of the movie itself.
But the hype surrounding it threatens it to a fate far worse than the 5 I gave it. Think "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," a decent movie with shallow plot, average acting and incredible effects. But the hype is so disproportionate to the quality of the movie, to this day I will think of CTHD as a bad movie. RH2 is threatening to become another good movie given too much hype, and thereby leaving a bad aftertaste.
So anyway, before I start downgrading the movie because of ludicrous overhype: Rush Hour 2 is a funny movie, with good acting and excellent directing. But it is a movie that is better seen on VHS/DVD. Don't waste money seeing it in theatres, you'll enjoy it just as much at home. Neither should you believe the hype: This is nowhere near as good - or as funny - as say, Shrek, the true comedy classic of Summer 2K1.
Rush Hour 2 is simply an average comedy with good fight scenes.
5/10
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Much better...
It seemed during this movie that the makers of JP3 were trying to expunge all memory of JP2 from the audience's collective memory. Aside from a brief mention at the beginning, the San Diego T-Rex fiasco was avoided, and instead JP3 focuses where it should: A jungle-island with lots of big dinosaurs chasing little people. And it sure is fun!
No analyzation of the directing, because it's not really anything to be noted (which is good, don't distract from the dinos). No analyzation of the acting, because with Neill, Leoni and Macy, you know you're gonna get good performances in roles that don't require much else. No analyzation of the plot, because it simply doesn't exist.
JP3 holds true more to the originals' flare of just sitting back and enjoying the dinosaurs. Granted, the original truly is a horror/thriller classic, with great acting/directing/plot, some truly memorable scenes, and an idea that had never been done in such a way before. But the novelty is gone, and Spielberg and Co. realized that inventing new places for dinos to roam just didn't work. So back to the basics.
Jurasic Park III isn't a classic movie of course. It certainly isn't as good as the original. But it is much better than the second one (Much like the Scream trilogy: the 3d is done in a self-parody type of style that makes it much more enjoyable to watch). So give it a watch, but don't analyze it, please, because it just isn't that kind of flick (although I must say the end is just so incredibly tacked-on and off the wall).
7/10
No analyzation of the directing, because it's not really anything to be noted (which is good, don't distract from the dinos). No analyzation of the acting, because with Neill, Leoni and Macy, you know you're gonna get good performances in roles that don't require much else. No analyzation of the plot, because it simply doesn't exist.
JP3 holds true more to the originals' flare of just sitting back and enjoying the dinosaurs. Granted, the original truly is a horror/thriller classic, with great acting/directing/plot, some truly memorable scenes, and an idea that had never been done in such a way before. But the novelty is gone, and Spielberg and Co. realized that inventing new places for dinos to roam just didn't work. So back to the basics.
Jurasic Park III isn't a classic movie of course. It certainly isn't as good as the original. But it is much better than the second one (Much like the Scream trilogy: the 3d is done in a self-parody type of style that makes it much more enjoyable to watch). So give it a watch, but don't analyze it, please, because it just isn't that kind of flick (although I must say the end is just so incredibly tacked-on and off the wall).
7/10
Charade (1963)
Best non-Hitchcock Hitchcock
It is certainly understandable how this movie has come to be known as "the best Hitchcock movie he never made." Nor should we fault those who have called CHARADE a Hithcock movie. The similarities are uncanny: Shocking opening scene involving a corpse, psychedelic opening credits (a la Vertigo and Psycho), Cary Grant stars as a thief, international intrigue plays a part, the female lead is strong yet beautiful, it has an unexpected plot twist, and it ends with a surprise. AND it's even put out by Universal (just like nearly every other American Hitchcock movie)! Most of all this movie is filled with incredibly black humor that trademarked many of Hitchcock's films.
But Charade is not a Hitchcock film, it is a Stanley Donan film. And while it does star Cary Grant as a thief, it does not star a blond-haired leading lady (and by 1963, Hitchcock was deep into his blond-haired obsession - Tippi Hedrin anyone?). Instead, the stunningly beautiful Audrey Hepburn stars opposite Grant, and she has jet-black hair.
The story is basically one in which Hepburn's character (Reggie Lampert) finds herself the widow of a murdered husband. She goes on to find, thanks to CIA agent Bartholomew (Walter Matthau in a rare dramatic performance), that her husband had left behind $250,000 in stolen money in some form or another. But that money is not only wanted by the CIA, but by her husband's three - or is it four? - companions who had helped him steal it. These companions, played by Grant, James Coburn, George Kennedy and Ned Glass, start dying off one by one, and Hepburn finds herself fighting to trust Grant (who keeps revealing a different identity), while all the while falling in love with him.
This is truly one of the most underrated movies of all time. First of all, the directing is worthy of Hitchcock. Although it does not include any of Hitchcock's memorable tricks (probably because this is NOT a Hutchcock movie!) it does a very good job of keeping the pace of the movie interesting, while not sacrificing character development or subtlety.
The acting is simply stunning. Cary Grant, slightly gray in this, one of his last movies, is stunning as always, capturing that blend of humor and mischief that made his To Catch a Thief performance so classic. He shines as always, proving that we may never get an actor like him ever. In CHARADE, it is quite obvious that Ian Flemming knew what he was talking about when he modeled James Bond after Grant's characterisms and acting style. Hepburn is gorgeous. The chemistry between her and Cary is fantastic (on a par with Grant and Grace Kelly in TCaT). Not only that, but on the eve of the sexual revolution, Grant and Hepburn were able to create a movie filled with sexual and steamy romance without a single iota of nudity or crass language. The supporting cast is equally good. Grant's three cohorts are equally funny and diabolical, partly parody and partly malevolent. Matthau also provides some good acting. although he falls somewhat short towards the end.
But what really stands out throughout CHARADE is the humor. In the funeral hall, as Hepburn's dead husband lies in repose, his still-living compatriots march in, each in an increasingly funny entrance (think sneezing and door-slamming). The amounts of macabre humor rival any Hitchcock movie out there. Likewise, the screwball hilarity is reminiscent of other Grant classics like "Arsenic and Old Lace". For example, after several minutes of debating Grant's taking a shower in Hepburn's room, he walks into the shower and begins scrubbing with his clothes on. The humor and romance intertwined around the intrigue and death is simply beautiful.
Once again, CHARADE is severely underrated. It deserves the recognition that "Rear Window" and "Psycho" receive as being top-notch thrillers. Undoubtedly one of Grant's best movies, and it would have been one of Hitchcock's best, too... If only he had made it.
10/10
But Charade is not a Hitchcock film, it is a Stanley Donan film. And while it does star Cary Grant as a thief, it does not star a blond-haired leading lady (and by 1963, Hitchcock was deep into his blond-haired obsession - Tippi Hedrin anyone?). Instead, the stunningly beautiful Audrey Hepburn stars opposite Grant, and she has jet-black hair.
The story is basically one in which Hepburn's character (Reggie Lampert) finds herself the widow of a murdered husband. She goes on to find, thanks to CIA agent Bartholomew (Walter Matthau in a rare dramatic performance), that her husband had left behind $250,000 in stolen money in some form or another. But that money is not only wanted by the CIA, but by her husband's three - or is it four? - companions who had helped him steal it. These companions, played by Grant, James Coburn, George Kennedy and Ned Glass, start dying off one by one, and Hepburn finds herself fighting to trust Grant (who keeps revealing a different identity), while all the while falling in love with him.
This is truly one of the most underrated movies of all time. First of all, the directing is worthy of Hitchcock. Although it does not include any of Hitchcock's memorable tricks (probably because this is NOT a Hutchcock movie!) it does a very good job of keeping the pace of the movie interesting, while not sacrificing character development or subtlety.
The acting is simply stunning. Cary Grant, slightly gray in this, one of his last movies, is stunning as always, capturing that blend of humor and mischief that made his To Catch a Thief performance so classic. He shines as always, proving that we may never get an actor like him ever. In CHARADE, it is quite obvious that Ian Flemming knew what he was talking about when he modeled James Bond after Grant's characterisms and acting style. Hepburn is gorgeous. The chemistry between her and Cary is fantastic (on a par with Grant and Grace Kelly in TCaT). Not only that, but on the eve of the sexual revolution, Grant and Hepburn were able to create a movie filled with sexual and steamy romance without a single iota of nudity or crass language. The supporting cast is equally good. Grant's three cohorts are equally funny and diabolical, partly parody and partly malevolent. Matthau also provides some good acting. although he falls somewhat short towards the end.
But what really stands out throughout CHARADE is the humor. In the funeral hall, as Hepburn's dead husband lies in repose, his still-living compatriots march in, each in an increasingly funny entrance (think sneezing and door-slamming). The amounts of macabre humor rival any Hitchcock movie out there. Likewise, the screwball hilarity is reminiscent of other Grant classics like "Arsenic and Old Lace". For example, after several minutes of debating Grant's taking a shower in Hepburn's room, he walks into the shower and begins scrubbing with his clothes on. The humor and romance intertwined around the intrigue and death is simply beautiful.
Once again, CHARADE is severely underrated. It deserves the recognition that "Rear Window" and "Psycho" receive as being top-notch thrillers. Undoubtedly one of Grant's best movies, and it would have been one of Hitchcock's best, too... If only he had made it.
10/10
Scary Movie 2 (2001)
Badly good.
Summing up Scary Movie 2 really depends on what you thought of Scary Movie. If you liked the original gross-out horror spoof, you'll probably like this one. If you thought that the first was horribly disgusting and gross and needlessly graphic, then don't go see the sequel. Simple as that.
Overall, Scary Movie 2 packed more parodies (do we dare try to list all the movies? The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, The Haunting, 13 Ghosts, a Nike commercial, The Weakest Link, Poltergeist, Hollow Man, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Mission Impossible 2, Charlie's Angels, What Lies Beneath, Hannibal, Silence of the Lambs, Save the Last Dance, is that all? Probably not.) Heck, Scary Movie even parodied itself! Well, at least I sure hope the complete excess of genital humor was self-parody. At least we weren't "treated" to the sight of REAL male genitalia in this one.
But anyway, Scary Movie 2 packed more parodies into less of a plot (is that possible?) than the original. True, the gags aren't as funny, generally. But the movie does indeed contain some classic satirical moments: The Exorcist opening is classic. The Hollow Man cooler parody scene is also excellent. Also nice is the way the Wayans unexpectedly throw in parodies out of nowhere. Sometimes this works (Save the Last Dance), sometimes it doesn't (Nike). But that's the whole point of a parody movie. Completely random satires of a movie or movies from the genre in question.
But what exactly was the movie/genre in question? In the first we had an idea that it was Scream. Heck, we KNEW it was Scream. But this one seemed to just be a haunted house movie filled with every sort of parody possible - part Poltergeist, part Hollow Man, part ???. So the movie suffers as a result.
Oh the laughs are great, and if you don't mind the juvenile humor, they're even better. But hey, it's not as good as the original, which really was a classic parody movie, even if it was disgusting at points.
7/10
Overall, Scary Movie 2 packed more parodies (do we dare try to list all the movies? The Exorcist, The Amityville Horror, The Haunting, 13 Ghosts, a Nike commercial, The Weakest Link, Poltergeist, Hollow Man, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Mission Impossible 2, Charlie's Angels, What Lies Beneath, Hannibal, Silence of the Lambs, Save the Last Dance, is that all? Probably not.) Heck, Scary Movie even parodied itself! Well, at least I sure hope the complete excess of genital humor was self-parody. At least we weren't "treated" to the sight of REAL male genitalia in this one.
But anyway, Scary Movie 2 packed more parodies into less of a plot (is that possible?) than the original. True, the gags aren't as funny, generally. But the movie does indeed contain some classic satirical moments: The Exorcist opening is classic. The Hollow Man cooler parody scene is also excellent. Also nice is the way the Wayans unexpectedly throw in parodies out of nowhere. Sometimes this works (Save the Last Dance), sometimes it doesn't (Nike). But that's the whole point of a parody movie. Completely random satires of a movie or movies from the genre in question.
But what exactly was the movie/genre in question? In the first we had an idea that it was Scream. Heck, we KNEW it was Scream. But this one seemed to just be a haunted house movie filled with every sort of parody possible - part Poltergeist, part Hollow Man, part ???. So the movie suffers as a result.
Oh the laughs are great, and if you don't mind the juvenile humor, they're even better. But hey, it's not as good as the original, which really was a classic parody movie, even if it was disgusting at points.
7/10
The Godfather (1972)
A victim to its hype.
When a movie is listed at No. 1 on the IMDb, and when this same movie is ranked No. 3 by the AFI, it has got to be a good film. And no one doubts that is what The Godfather is. Indeed, the acting is incredible, the directing awesome, the plot good and the climax shocking and beautiful.
Overall the movie is great, surely deserving a place in the Top 100, Top 20, maybe even the Top 10 (although not mine personally). But I truly do not see No. 1 or No. 3. I really can't place my finger on it, and perhaps another viewing on a better-quality tape will help, but it seems to me that The Godfather's hype has gotten to the point where enjoyment of the movie is starting to be flawed because of it.
9.5/10
Overall the movie is great, surely deserving a place in the Top 100, Top 20, maybe even the Top 10 (although not mine personally). But I truly do not see No. 1 or No. 3. I really can't place my finger on it, and perhaps another viewing on a better-quality tape will help, but it seems to me that The Godfather's hype has gotten to the point where enjoyment of the movie is starting to be flawed because of it.
9.5/10
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
Forgotten but excellent!
Alfred Hitchcock was always pushing the envelope, and 1940's "Foreign Correspondent" is no different. With America still in the midst of trading with both sides of the European war, Hitchcock made a spy thriller that quite clearly cast the Germans as the bad guys (minus the word Nazi, which only appears once at the beginning of the film) while being shamelessly patriotic (the last scene is both inspiring and laughable).
But Hitchcock could afford to go out on a limb. He started making FC a week after the release of "Rebecca," a movie that garnered large amounts of critical acclaim and won Best Picture. But with all the praise heaped on Hitchcock's first American movie, his second has often gone unnoticed, although it is certainly up to par with - if not better than - "Rebecca".
Foreign Correspondent tells the story of Johnny Jones, an American newspaper writer chosen to go to England to report on the war as Huntley Haverstock for the New York Globe. While in England, he attempts to interview a Dutch statesman, Van Mier, but instead witnesses the man's assassination. The resulting pursuit throws Jones/Haverstock into a Nazi spy ring that intends to use a secret clause to create German victory in the impending war. Along the way, Jones/Haverstock meets an English reporter who assists him and the daughter of a renowned pacifist.
The acting is excellent all around, with special kudos given to Robert Sanders as the English reporter, Scott ffoliot, and to Edmund Gwenn in a minor but important roll as Rowly, the friendly hit man. Laraine Day and Joel McCray have that special chemistry that adds to the romance part of the movie, while McCray and Sanders' straight-faced humor is enjoyable.
Hitchcock's directing is magnificent, like usual. As always, there are certain scenes that are signature Hitchcock: The assassination chase through the sea of umbrellas, and later in the Dutch countryside. The tower murder scene. And the plane crash scene has inspired cinematic plane crashes for decades.
All in all, Foreign Correspondent shows Hitchcock at his best, in the midst of a string of movies that saw him reach the top of the British filmmaking world and rapidly ascend to the same position in America. And it once again proves that Hitchcock was indeed the father of the spy-thriller genre.
But Hitchcock could afford to go out on a limb. He started making FC a week after the release of "Rebecca," a movie that garnered large amounts of critical acclaim and won Best Picture. But with all the praise heaped on Hitchcock's first American movie, his second has often gone unnoticed, although it is certainly up to par with - if not better than - "Rebecca".
Foreign Correspondent tells the story of Johnny Jones, an American newspaper writer chosen to go to England to report on the war as Huntley Haverstock for the New York Globe. While in England, he attempts to interview a Dutch statesman, Van Mier, but instead witnesses the man's assassination. The resulting pursuit throws Jones/Haverstock into a Nazi spy ring that intends to use a secret clause to create German victory in the impending war. Along the way, Jones/Haverstock meets an English reporter who assists him and the daughter of a renowned pacifist.
The acting is excellent all around, with special kudos given to Robert Sanders as the English reporter, Scott ffoliot, and to Edmund Gwenn in a minor but important roll as Rowly, the friendly hit man. Laraine Day and Joel McCray have that special chemistry that adds to the romance part of the movie, while McCray and Sanders' straight-faced humor is enjoyable.
Hitchcock's directing is magnificent, like usual. As always, there are certain scenes that are signature Hitchcock: The assassination chase through the sea of umbrellas, and later in the Dutch countryside. The tower murder scene. And the plane crash scene has inspired cinematic plane crashes for decades.
All in all, Foreign Correspondent shows Hitchcock at his best, in the midst of a string of movies that saw him reach the top of the British filmmaking world and rapidly ascend to the same position in America. And it once again proves that Hitchcock was indeed the father of the spy-thriller genre.
Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
Badly dated, but effective in context.
Gentleman's Agreement, the 1947 movie starring Gregory Peck, suffers from one major problem: It was only powerful for the first twenty years of its existence.
In 2001, the age of tolerance reigns and anti-Semitism is one of the least-worried about descriminatory attitudes. Not only that, but movies that make social commentary generally do it in the forms of analogies, metaphors or satire nowadays. They don't take the final half hour to repeatedly make short sermonettes blatantly expressing the point of the movie.
That said, Gentleman's Agreement must be put in context. In 1945, the world reeled in horror as Hitler's concentration camps were opened and thousands of emaciated, burned, tortured and agonized corpses showed forth the excesses of Hitler's anti-Semitism. But two years later, when the novel and then the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" were made, anti-Semitism was very much alive and well. Both the novel and movie were controversial both for their subject matter and their respective treatments of it. In that context, Gentleman's Agreement is still a powerful movie, an illumination of the underbelly of one of the most glamorized periods of American history.
Gregory Peck plays a magazine writer who is assigned a series on discrimination against Jews. In order to get the proper feel for the story, Peck - who has recently moved across the country and has no connections in New York - "becomes" a Jew and faces the insults, cold shoulders and harrassment that real Jews received every day. The process changes him - and his family and his outlook on life - forever.
The good parts of this movie are plentiful. Peck, although never a great actor (there were many actors who would have been much better here), does provide a good amount of sincerity and earnestness required for the role. (Unfortunately Peck was somewhat of an underactor, although this could make up for Celeste Holmes' shameless overracting in her final monologue.) The movie does an excellent job developing his romance with Dorothy McGuire's character, especially in light of the end. In general, Gentleman's Agreement did an excellent job in shining a light on the comfortable upper-middle class white suburbia and its quiet, subversive racism. No doubt in 1947, Gentleman's Agreement made quite a few "gentlemen" severely uncomfortable.
But the movie was made in 1947 about a subject that was unique to that time period and immediately following. To watch it after nearly 60 years have passed is to watch a movie that beats you over the head with sermonette after speech after discussion after message about how bad anti-Semitism is. Especially towards the end, where the characters all take turns delivering their own views on precisely what anti-Semitism is and what should be done about it many times over. Gentleman's Agreement just doesn't age well at all, especially in light of Holmes and McGuire's acting performances, which were notably overdone and close to distracting at times.
Overall, this movie is worth seeing. And yes, it did deserve the 1947 Oscar for Best Picture, thanks to its subject matter and potent delivery (even if it does not seem so potent today). This was a groundbreaking and controversial movie, and it highlights the productive effect Hollywood can have on society, even 54 years later.
7/10
In 2001, the age of tolerance reigns and anti-Semitism is one of the least-worried about descriminatory attitudes. Not only that, but movies that make social commentary generally do it in the forms of analogies, metaphors or satire nowadays. They don't take the final half hour to repeatedly make short sermonettes blatantly expressing the point of the movie.
That said, Gentleman's Agreement must be put in context. In 1945, the world reeled in horror as Hitler's concentration camps were opened and thousands of emaciated, burned, tortured and agonized corpses showed forth the excesses of Hitler's anti-Semitism. But two years later, when the novel and then the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" were made, anti-Semitism was very much alive and well. Both the novel and movie were controversial both for their subject matter and their respective treatments of it. In that context, Gentleman's Agreement is still a powerful movie, an illumination of the underbelly of one of the most glamorized periods of American history.
Gregory Peck plays a magazine writer who is assigned a series on discrimination against Jews. In order to get the proper feel for the story, Peck - who has recently moved across the country and has no connections in New York - "becomes" a Jew and faces the insults, cold shoulders and harrassment that real Jews received every day. The process changes him - and his family and his outlook on life - forever.
The good parts of this movie are plentiful. Peck, although never a great actor (there were many actors who would have been much better here), does provide a good amount of sincerity and earnestness required for the role. (Unfortunately Peck was somewhat of an underactor, although this could make up for Celeste Holmes' shameless overracting in her final monologue.) The movie does an excellent job developing his romance with Dorothy McGuire's character, especially in light of the end. In general, Gentleman's Agreement did an excellent job in shining a light on the comfortable upper-middle class white suburbia and its quiet, subversive racism. No doubt in 1947, Gentleman's Agreement made quite a few "gentlemen" severely uncomfortable.
But the movie was made in 1947 about a subject that was unique to that time period and immediately following. To watch it after nearly 60 years have passed is to watch a movie that beats you over the head with sermonette after speech after discussion after message about how bad anti-Semitism is. Especially towards the end, where the characters all take turns delivering their own views on precisely what anti-Semitism is and what should be done about it many times over. Gentleman's Agreement just doesn't age well at all, especially in light of Holmes and McGuire's acting performances, which were notably overdone and close to distracting at times.
Overall, this movie is worth seeing. And yes, it did deserve the 1947 Oscar for Best Picture, thanks to its subject matter and potent delivery (even if it does not seem so potent today). This was a groundbreaking and controversial movie, and it highlights the productive effect Hollywood can have on society, even 54 years later.
7/10