jcasetnl

This is part love story and part courtroom drama. Otto Kruger plays, Kent Barringer, a supremely confident trial lawyer who just can't lose, but is ultimately selfish and soulless. A woman begs him to work Pro Bono on the case of her father who is accused of murder, but after promising to do so, Kruger ignores her. When he finally gets around to reviewing the facts of the case, he realizes he is connected with it in a very personal way, and this realization ultimately leads him to a new approach on life.

The film is entertaining but a bit too melodramatic and fantasy-bound for my tastes. Kruger is proficient in his role and great fun to watch. I look forward to seeing more of his work since is the first film I've ever seen him in. The supporting cast does good work yet there aren't any standouts.

Fun Fact: This is the earliest on-screen appearance of a pinball machine.

How does a poet performing at the local bistro afford an apartment in San Francisco? The bottom line is, who cares?

This is an above average romantic comedy that you'll thoroughly enjoy if you don't ask too many questions and are willing to go with the flow of its idealized characters and situations.

And even if you're not a huge fan of romantic comedy, there's plenty of side jokes and hilarious Mike Myer's sarcasm throughout to keep things lively. For fans of Mike Myers, this film is a must-see.

Let's get something out of the way, folks: the majority of the positive reviews written for this film are being done by those associated with its production.

This film is so awful that I dare say it is not even a matter of opinion. Therefore, factually, this film is awful. It does not succeed as a film on any level. More was spent on the box art than on the entire film, which becomes apparent the moment the first few frames hit your television.

I've probably aroused your curiosity because now you're wondering just how bad this film could possibly be, right?

I guess some people have to learn the hard way.

While most of the scenes involving the inmates were poignant and powerful in and of themselves, the scenes with 'name' Hollywood actors sucked the energy right out of this film. Perhaps the screen time for those actors was critical to this film ever seeing the light of day, but ultimately they only 'hollywood-ized' the real strugles depicted.

Not only did their performances seem over-hammed and straight off Broadway, but given the discussion sessions with these actors throughout the film they were ludicrous in their interpretation and empathy of these womens' struggles.

If anything, this film illustrates the obvious and relevent disconnect between producer/director and subject matter. The ultimate result is only palpable to middle-class, white collar, armchair democrats that think they can pinpoint the downfall of a person with a well crafted sentence or a seeminginly moving re-portrayal of their plight. Time and time again you sense the yearning of the film's producers to neatly package these womens' struggles in neat little packages, such as: "I didn't get enough attention from mommy and daddy."

In the end, all I can say to Eve Ensler et al is that they should stick to doing "what they know". There's no wine and cheese party for these women in prison, and no cast party.

REALITY BITES isn't without its good moments but it's overshadowed by completely self-absorbed, whiney characters that don't even get what they deserve in the end.

This is often called the definitive Gen-X movie but I couldn't disagree more. Sure, in the early 90's there were plenty of people that moped around, assumed they were misunderstood genuises and thought that society owed them an entry-level job as an Executive VP making $200k per year, but we called them idiots and losers. There was nothing hip about that attitude back then, and why Ben Stiller decided to make a movie about it is beyond me.

Stiller does infuse the film with a certain amount of yuppie hyper-pragmatism but it's potency is diluted by the stiffness of his own one-dimensional character. He's afraid to really challenge the ideas of the main characters with real, thought-provoking arguments (the kind that really teach you how to grow up), for fear of how his intended audience will react. In the end, he is the cliche'd, uncreative, sellout yuppie who's easy to disagree with and label the bad guy.

And that's pretty much true of any of the big, bad and bitter adults that won't let these young, misunderstand morose geniuses spread their wings and reach their potential.

In the end these are just kids that are complaining that they didn't end up like Ferris Bueller. I guess reality bites.

How does a poet performing at the local bistro afford an apartment in San Francisco? The bottom line is, who cares?

This is an above average romantic comedy that you'll thoroughly enjoy if you don't ask too many questions and are willing to go with the flow of its idealized characters and situations.

And even if you're not a huge fan of romantic comedy, there's plenty of side jokes and hilarious Mike Myer's sarcasm throughout to keep things lively. For fans of Mike Myers, this film is a must-see.

SINGLES is a charming, romantic movie and one of Cameron Crowe's best.

An oft-heard criticism of this film is that it's not an authentic portrayal of the Gen-X culture of the early 90's, but I've yet to see that done well in any film.

More importantly, the film never claims to be a Gen-X film. It's set in Seattle during the height of Seattle Sound but the cast is made up of driven professionals and slackers alike. It's more of a cross-section of 20-somethings, not a focus on Gen-X or Grunge. The characters, settings and themes are all to a certain degree idealized, which is a staple of Crowe's style.

Where this film's charm really lies is in capturing the spirit of the early-90's and the anti-classist sentiment embraced by teens and young professionals in opposition to the "status is everything" 1980s. It's nice to remember a time when being socially and environmentally conscious was actually fashionable for a time.

Sadly we all got sucked into the dot-com thing and realized we can be just as bad as our parents.

Having seen this film and reading some of the comments, it's clear the so-called intellectuals have been offended.

Caligula takes several liberties with historical facts, which is well known. The funny thing is it takes fewer liberties than most historically-based films these days, but no one seems to have a problem with those films. How about Pocahontas?

None of the actors turn in exceptional performances but they aren't terrible, although Peter O'Toole is the standout of the bunch and Malcolm McDowell isn't doing any worse than he did with Clockwork Orange. Even at their "worst" these actors turn in acceptable performances. Yet this film is always considered to have horrific acting.

None of the technical aspects of the film are especially noteworthy, either, except when you consider the sets and costumes are particularly good for an adult film. Again, they aren't particularly bad either but they get an awful rap.

For good old shock and awe, Caligula definately delivers over and above pornography. Why can't the intellectuals just be honest and say they don't like pornography instead of overscrutinizing technical aspects of the film in an attempt to disparage it?

This film is genuinely disturbing but its appeal is that there is nothing else out there quite like it. There's tons of sex but for the most part the only lingering or close shots are of oral sex.

If you know anything of the history of this film you know that the sex was shot seperately, however, the editing of it into the film could have been a lot worse and for the most part is seemless.

As a curiosity and a shocker, Caligula delivers the goods. If you don't take it too seriously it's a fun film. If you think that pornography and "film" are too distinctly seperate things that should never, ever overlap, you should pass on this one.

Oh, and there are a lot of very good looking naked women in this film. Did I forget to mention that?

SPOILER ALERT I can't believe I've never seen this film before. Actor Max Julien plays "Goldie", an ex-con who returns to the streets determined to make it as a pimp in Oakland.

The film was actually shot in early '70s Oakland. Yes, the early '70s, Black Panthers vs Pimps, racial upheaval, everyone get naked next door in Berkeley, warzone Oakland.

The directors and producers needed "permission" from both the Panthers and the reigning pimp of the time, Fred Ward, just to film and premiere the film. Fred Ward appears in several scenes as one of the competing Pimps and without a doubt he's one cool cat.

The story follows the usual pattern. At first Goldie does well, organizes a stable of fine hoes (and they are fine), buys his mom a new house and is pimpin' in the dopest ride I've ever seen. Like any good pimp he keeps the local school kids flush with cash and warns them not to grow up to be like him. They can be doctors, lawyers, whatever. Just don't be a pimp.

Now all the while Goldie is working hard to be the Mack, his brother is heavily involved in the Panthers and trying to improve the community. On several occasions the two brothers clash for obvious reasons. Were it not for the bond of brotherhood they would certainly have nothing to do with each other. But being that they are brothers, they must somehow reconcile their diametrically opposed viewpoints.

This is a strong and well delivered theme of the film. While Goldie seeks empowerment one way, his brother seeks it another way. But it isn't played out like a sanitized, good and evil, afterschool special. Both brothers make valid arguments for their choice of lifestyle. In the end, you just can't knock the hustle.

Goldie has the local cops constantly on his butt for kickbacks and free hoes and they deliver rock solid performances. One of them delivers the best

stream-of-consciousness-drunk-as-a-skunk-with-fat-black-uninterested-hooker performance I've ever seen. Not on par with Gene Hackman's breakdown from heroin addiction in The French Connection 2, but still so good you wonder if he really was actually drunk to do the scene.

Of course it's not long before rival pimps and gangsters get just a wee bit annoyed at Goldie taking some of their territory and put the finger on him. First one of his hoes gets offed. Goldie wastes no time in exacting his revenge. His gang ambushes the local kingpin and injects him with BATTERY ACID. Convulsing kingpin death ensues.

Then a ho belonging to another pimp decides to join Goldie, and for that, the other pimp kills Goldie's mom! Really. Bad. Idea.

Once again, Goldie gets his revenge. This competing pimp carries a cane that conceals a hidden rapier. Goldie, with gun leveled on the guy, orders him to stab himself over and over and then finishes him off with his blazing pistola. He finds out later that it was actually the two white cops that killed his mother, on orders from the pimp. Goldie partners with his brother to deal with them.

Alas, the experience has taken its toll and Goldie decides he's had enough of the pimping game.

What an incredible film. I originally thought this was going to be typical blacksploitation ala Shaft but I was so wrong. First of all, the exploitation elements are kept to a minimum. I know that's hard to believe given what I've said above but it's true. Well-acted and well-filmed, Max Julien delivers just the right amount of cool, the right amount of visciousness and the right amount of sweetness to his hoes and the audience. The result is a fairly authentic blueprint of the Oaktown in the early 70s, the racial struggle, and of course, the pimping game.

I have to agree with the rest that as a 'film', Wild Style is pretty poor. Poorly acted, paced and directed. It's main purpose is to capture a special culture, and it does just that so extremely well.

Nothing else comes close to capturing the undiluted, un-hollywoodized spirit of the early grafitti and hip hop communities.

My only real complaint about the film is that it leads people to believe the hip hop community and the graffiti community are one in the same. They're not. They did both begin to pick up steam at around the same time and in similar places but there's no direct connection between the two.

This might seem like a quibble to some but for real graffiti writers who see what they do as art, there's a strong desire not to be associated with things like "gansta rap". There is in fact no real reflection of what's going in the graffiti world in the hip hop world and vice versa.

Still, for fans of either or both, this movie is a treasure.

Superior to the Phantom Menace in many ways but still bogged down - way down - by a script that makes Passover cuisine seem exciting and a director who can't hit the stop button.

It's really hard to blame the actors here, or at least be accurate in one's criticisms of their performances, due to the horrific script and storyline. But bottom line they do nothing to get the viewer engaged and more often do the opposite. How many times did I mouth "shut up Anaken!" while watching this film. No, it wasn't that Hayden Christensen did a good job of building Anaken Skywalker into a character I could later love to hate, it was because the very sound of his whiney teenage voice made me want to stab the nearest person in the neck with a pencil.

Like the Phantom Menace, the computer animation is overdone to the point that it's pounded into our heads over and over that nothing is real or even lifelike. We stop caring and the film drags on...

Also like the Phantom Menace you can expect extremely flat characters and performances, seemingly going through the motions of their dialogs with less life th--

Sorry, just thinking about it almost caused me to slip into a coma.

Even the comic relief from R2 and 3PO falls flat - humor about something we're only minorly interested in has a steep, uphill battle.

If I had to sum this film up I'd say take any crappy sci-fi flick and infuse it with a massive budget. Voila - Star Wars: Episode 2. Pray that Lucas wises up and turns the directorial and editorial duties over to someone with an ounce of technical acumen...

If you liked "The Linguini Incident" you might be in the niche for this movie.

Velvet Goldmine is completely about visual style. The characters are driven by looks and moves more than anything else, trampling over emotions and any other humanistic qualities in many cases. That's about the only thing this movie can be praised for delivering effectively.

The film itself is done the same way, unashamedly it would seem, and the audience for whom it was intended for likely doesn't care. Again, image means everything. Who needs a plot?

In a nutshell, take the quirky characters from The Linguini Incident and imagine who those characters would idolize, then make a movie about them. That's pretty much what Velvet Goldmine is. If that's your cup of tea this might be worth a look. Otherwise, I recommend you stay far far away.

I wanted to like this film, I really did. Right from the get go it was clear this film was trying to sidestep the typical formula and milk a little freshness out of that cow. Well, that and some so-so editing and scene transition effects are all this one trick pony can pull off.

Let's start with the non-existent story. Ewen McGregor plays this "investigator" guy for some agency. This is never clearly defined - more on that later. While investigating Ashley Judd (why? never explained) he sees her waste this guy. And of course, just before she does the deed, she whips out the plastic tarp for all the blood so we see it coming a mile away. After this he develops an obsession for her and follows her around several cities. Why? Never really explained. See, Ewen lost his kid at some point. And after Ashley stabbed this guy about forty times she said something like "oh daddy daddy daddy." And after that Ewen starts following her around. Some other stuff happened, I think. I think Ewen McGregor drank coffee at one point. I think the coffee may have been the climax of the film. Who knows? Who cares?

Remember how I mentioned Ewen McGregor works for some agency but we don't know what it is? Okay, I can accept that. It's not central to the plot, right? Who wants to hear the same old "I work for a super-secret government agency" bit anyway, right? The problem is that *nothing* about him is ever clearly defined. Everything from his job, his motivations, his past, etc. are all cast aside as things we're expected to make assumptions about.

Judd is the same murky deal. Her father abandoned her, that's what we know. Now she kills people and steals. How she went from one to the other...? We get scant few clues. Next thing we know we're taking logical leaps of faith over the grand canyon just to keep watching this mess.

We never get inside the characters' heads. In fact, quite the opposite, it's almost as if the story intentionally keeps us staring through the fog. The daughter as a device to show the obsession was a good idea. But talk about repetition. At best her use was mediocre and god-awfully repetitive.

Finally we have the psychiatrist. I'll take a stab here and guess that she was thrown in by the producers midway through the shoot who realized that unless they put in at least one character that could explain a few things this film would be an utterly incomprehensible pile of poo. Nice try, didn't work. Why? Because they made her a bowl of split pee soup, too. What are her motivations? Who knows? Her first scene played like a tribute to the warden in Chained Heat.

Gah, it's just too awful. Is it the worst film ever made? No. Breakfast of Champions and the Corey Haim Video Diary still own that and Ashley Judd runs around in skimpy outfits a few times which is worth something. Other than that, this is an awful awful film that Ewen McGregor can add to his increasing list of ca ca films along with that Velvet Goldmine freakish nitemare thing he also did.

This was never a popular show but I was re-introduced to it recently while on vacation at my parents' house over the holidays. I taped about ten episodes of the series and watched them back to back one rainy day, sitting on the couch with a salad bowl full of sugary cereal, like I was a kid again.

Well, of course some of the appeal is lost as you grow up but like most things you remember fondly from growing up, much endures.

This was a great cartoon. At the time I was a big Anime fanatic and was totally engrossed in cartoons such as Robotech, Star Blazers, Voltron, etc. The quality of japanese animation was vastly superior to the garbage being churned out in american cartoons by and large.

But a few american cartoons stuck out because they had great storylines and treated kids with respect. So many cartoons then and now treat kids like they're stupid. Look at some of the better cartoons such as Muppet Babies, Bionic Six and Galaxy High. These cartoons went beyond ultra black and white/good vs evil themes. The humor was varied, often sarcastic and often tied into other culture archetypes both pop and historical. The characters were distinctive in personality and not just colored some other shade of neon blah. The stories were rarely preechy but even shows like muppet babies didn't take themselves too seriously.

Of course, we see a lot of this stuff in more recent Disney movies so as to keep the adults entertained as well as the kids, but Disney didn't invent it - not by a long shot.

So seeing these cartoons 15 years later, what can I say? Well, there's too much sound. Backround music is playing constantly and it tends to irritate after awhile. As a kid I don't remember this but it's definately noticeable now. Some of the voices are also a bit too harsh as well. But hey, I think that's me getting old more than anything else.

Some time around 1994 or so Galaxy High played on the Sci-fi channel and I was able to snap up a few more episodes. I think at this point I'm missing only two or three. Reviewing the episode list I think I've only never seen one episode.

I asked my friends if we should go rent a movie and their channel surfing ran across Red Planet. And whoa, it's Trinity (Moss)!

The movie opens with the characters heading for Mars until a mechanical failure starts reaking havoc. The rest of the movie is how they overcome this initial setback. In other words, what should have been a brief attention grabber was turned into an entire plot. There was absolutely no attempt to segue into something the viewer might actually find intriguing.

Character development is non-existent save for awful chatter about the meaning of life at the beginning of the film. Hint: if you found this scene intriguing, you might be devolved enough to enjoy this film. Oh, and apparently there's some sort of rivalry going on between two of the characters and one pushes the other off a cliff. You'd think this is a setup for something later on in the movie. You would be wrong.

Extremely plastic effects.

Robot buddy malfunctions and kills people. An old cliche that can still work if done right. This movie is an example of how to do it wrong.

Science-wise this movie is only rivalved by Independence Day's use of a laptop computer to 'upload' a virus to the alien ship. I'm not exagerating in the least. They stumble across an old russian satelite and count themselves lucky when they see it's using an (quote) "off-the-shelf-modem". Then proceed to attach what amounts to a cel phone antenae and are once again able to communicate with trinity up in orbit. Great to see we'll still be be v.90 compatible in the future. At least Independence Day didn't take itself seriously as this film attempts to do.

Along the way they run across some sort of lifeform on Mars but the idea is never explored in any intriguing way. The finale pits Val Kilmer against the robot basically.

Think of the movie Alien. The ship has a mechanical failure and the android goes nuts. At some point we catch a glimpse of the aliens but then Ripley has to kill the android and the movie ends. Add really bad editing and cliche, totally unconvincing computer effects. You've just seen Red Planet.

Oh, there's one pointless semi-nude scene with Trinity (moss). She's taking a shower but it's all fogged up. That was almost a reason to watch this film.

It's clear that half the actors wanted out of this project shortly after it started, or were paid a lot of money to beef up the cast by putting in 15 minutes or so. That's the only way to explain their early and totally meaningless deaths in the film.

Avoid. Run. Stab yourself in the neck with a pencil. Whatever it takes to not see this film.

This isn't a pop film. It won't appeal to everyone.

I truly enjoyed this film despite its length and a few slow spots that appeared a bit redundant. It's a slice of life of several characters, loosely connected, similar in many ways to movies like Slackers or Shortcuts.

And like those movies there's a certain chaos in the lives of the players that is expertly explored. It is fantastically honest in its approach to an often tragic, ironic, humourous, and embarrasing reality, which would seem to be a boring subject (who wants to go to movies to see 'reality'?) But it's not. Throw the old comic book notions of right and wrong out the window. Justice and redemption aren't handed out with due cause. There are no clear winners or losers. Throw that idea out as well. This film is really about exploring the grey areas in depth.

The people just 'are', and we witness an extremely poignant exploration of their being.

Where I feel this film gets its point across best is in how it deals with desperate, needy people on the one hand and kind, helpful people on the other. In some cases we see a partial reversal of fortune and in others we don't. Basically we can try, but we aren't gauranteed to succeed. This is best portayed between the police officer and the drug addict and between the Seduce and Destroy stud and his father.

Despite a flurry of emotions that this film assaults the viewer with the plot is counterbalanced by a Vonnegut-like meaningless of life, which is spelled out in the prologue. As much as there is pain and injustice both the causes and the cures are subject much to chance, or as the film puts it: "This is something that happens."

Anderson is effective both on the surface and underneath. On the one hand we feel raw emotion and on the other hand we see gesture, plot device and even deeper emotions if we look.

This film is very close to perfect.

Both Mark Walhberg and Burt Reynolds give absolutely phenomenal performances but no one in the cast is even close to lacking. Lessar roles do exactly what they should: add subtlety and richness. Every role, even minor ones, seem to be filled flawlessly.

The cinematography of this film is incredibly tight. It is never obnoxious or overstated but is nonetheless fresh and unbelievably effective.

The use of pop culture is seamless. While occasionally humorous, again it's never overstated. At no point is the film shoving its timeframe down your throat.

This film entertains on multiple levels. On the crust it's a pop culture explosion. But there's a lot of subtlety, emotion and meaning inside.

Watch for excellent camera work, superb music selection and Burt Reynold's subtle quirks and gestures.

Phenomenal.

Wow, this is a film that will churn in your guts.

This is an extremely gritty and sad story of an out-of-control alcoholic (Nicolas Cage) and a Las Vegas Prostitute (Elizabeth Shue).

Cage has relocated to Las Vegas to drink himself to death where he happens upon Shue. The story follows the two as Cage continues to spiral toward oblivion.

Where this film really grabs the viewer is that neither Cage or Shue's characters are necessarily unlikable. It's quite the opposite. We want to like them very badly despite their obvious shortcomings and mistakes. They aren't anti-heroes or heroes in disguise. In fact they're very normal and identifiable.

All in all this film will chew you up and spit you out, and make no apologies for it after the fact. It is easily one of the most sad and depressing stories to witness, surpassing even Requiem for a Dream in that we feel more empathy for the key players.

There's a lot to like in this movie. Afonwhatever's style keeps things moving and peppy but sometimes you have to ask "why?" Why do MTV style fast-forward shots of turning off the television and popping pills OVER and OVER? There's apparently little meaning behind it - it's just a piece of visual flash.

Second the shock value is effective but tired. The good girl gone bad and then having sex with black men thing is cliche at this point. We saw it in Traffic. Of course, they're always gross, nasty black men, right? Gimme a break.

Much rawer than trainspotting, this film leaves out most of the style elements. The choice of location - Coney Island - is perfect to this end.

That said, the real genius of this flick is how despite the main characters' additions things seem more or less under control for 2/3 of the film, in some ways even prosperous. The drugs are shown as recreational and stress relieving. But without any warning to them, or the viewer, we quickly realize that things are definately not in control. And if you watch the film again you would be hard pressed to point to a particular scene where things pass the point of no return.

Hopefully this film will make a few conservative "it's your own fault/why don't you just quit?" types think twice before they condemn a social outcast or someone addicted to drugs.

I had to laugh like hell when I read the other reviews of this movie defending this hopelessly confused, jumbled mess as pure Vonnegut - "because that's how Vonnegut's novels are!"

Wrong.

My God, the excrement hit the air conditioning when they made this movie.

Everything Vonnegut is lost. Vonnegut's trademark sardonic wit is nowhere to be found. Instead of Vonnegut's subtlety, instead of his ability to convey both tragedy and comedy in the seemingly mundane, this movie simply throws up all over the viewer continuously in depressed version of Brady Bunch optimism. Only Kilgore Trout and Harry LeSabre's characters are even remotely close to the novel's intention. Barbara Hershey is utterly useless and unecessary.

Though Bruce Willis delivers a very acceptable performance he is plagued by perhaps the worst writing possible. From the opening of the film he's a neurotic rampaging idiot. We never see the transformation of this character. We never identify with him. We never feel compasion for him.

Not one single character in this movie is believable. Wayne Hoobler is the worst offender. From the first moment he appears on-screen the viewer is forced to dismiss him instead of realizing the tragedy of his position.

Everything Vonnegut conveys in the novel about American Idealism is never even touched. Oh sure, they thought they were conveying all this in the film by flooding the viewer with a non-stop acid nitemare of advertisements and such but it's so cliche and forced the viewer can't possibly take it seriously.

To the makers of this movie, let me say the following: Vonnegut was never about creating a totally unblievable, bad acid trip, as this movie is. He was about showing life as it is and showing how absurd and complicated it can be if we just stop and look around a little - how tragic and comedic and in some cases, meaningless it can be. The book, especially, was about adapting to chaos because order is simply a fantasy so many would like to believe in.

To this end, the creators of this film performed the greatest injustice by tacking on the hokiest pokiest pie-in-the-sky ending. The ending of the book has Vonnegut transcending his characters - throwing out all that is meaningless. This movie says, in effect, "well it's just life, thanks for playing."

Kurt Vonnegut now has a novel's worth of material on how ridiculous this movie is.

Look, if any of you out there read the book you will realize something. Next time you go to work, or to school or anywhere you will see that there's a lot more beneath the surface of your fellow man: tragedy, comedy, heroism, and evil - all us in this world adapting to chaos in the best way we know how. This movie, on the other hand, is about what happens when you throw up in a blender, turn it on, microwave the contents, bake it for five hours and then film it.

It is utter trash. An insult to everyting Vonnegut. Another reviewer said it right when he said that Magnolia was a much better translation of Kurt vonnegut's book. And I thought Slaughter House Five was a failure (although an ambitious failure).

Gah! I can say no more. It's just too awful. Even if you just buy the novel and beat yourself over the head with it you will get move Vonnegut than this film could ever hope to deliver. Even a written apology from the producer and director could not make me feel any sympathy for this film.