beedebee

Okay...

So...bad things happen in life. That's what the filmmaker is trying to tell us.

Well duh, i never thought that tragedy could befall innocent people. I did not really need to watch this stinker to get enlightened on this point.

I guess there could be an interesting way to explore the meaning and implications of fate. Not for the deconstructionists though, whose mantra "Life is crap" blinds them from any meaningful artistic endeavour. This movie only delivers gratuitous gore and violence and an endless rape scene to..well..to drive home the point that life can be very bad indeed.

Remember, art tells us more about the artist than at what is being depicted...

Frankly, IMDb must be visited by a lot of sour souls for this piece of trash to receive such high marks.

By chance I saw this piece the same day as Richard Pryor's Live in Concert. They could not be more further apart. I am not a prude and i don't mind foul language per se, as long as it serves a point. To me, the word 'f*ck' in itself is not funny; it could only be so in a certain context.

Pryor's show still stands the test of time after almost 30 years. This is what comedy is all about: making fun of the absurdities of life and of Man, done by a gifted observer, delivered with maximum effect through the use of language, expression and timing. Sure it's rude and coarse at times, but it is Pryor's persona shining and this adds to the humor. Brilliant stuff.

Now onto the Aristocrats. So what makes this Joke so funny? All agree that the joke has an unfunny punchline, so that can't be it. There's no zinger-line or anything like that. Luckily it is explained in the documentary by the comedians that rivet in it: the humor lies in the offset between the punchline and the description of the foul acts that precedes it.

Sadly, some of us find this depraved buildup a hoot (as did funny man Rob Schneider in the movie when hearing the version of Gilbert Godfried). Must be the same kind of people that find the work f*ck intrinsically hilarious. Or sodomy or bestiality for that matter. But we can safely assume that the people that laugh to this joke would not be so amused when they would be approached on the street by someone saying "hey, i would like to (add depraved act of choice) with your daughter". Why not? It's the same kind of description. Guess it's not so funny in real life. Then why would it be funny in a joke with, and here it comes, no punchline? There is a difference in being shocking for shocking sake and being shocking to deliver a funny or poignant point. In the latter the shock is used to bring home a certain point. The point is what matters, not the shock. When there is no point, all that came before it has zero value. The Aristocrats-joke is being shocking for its own sake. The laughing reaction to it is that of the Puritan that is confronted by a taboo. The (mostly) boys that tell it are members of some closed club, the telling of the joke nothing more than a pissing contest. The telling of The Aristocrats need not require the the talent of the real comedian, in finding the connection of the shocking with the real life, in showing us the hidden funny part, it only needs someone who is low enough to tell the equivalent of someone walking up the street and asking if he can - add depraved act here - to your daughter. To me, it is mostly a pathetic attempt to cover up the fact that they don't have anything funny to offer.

I am reminded of the scene in Pulp Fiction where Bruce Willis's character breaks loose in that Southern gay-sex-nazi basement. He lets Marcellus Wallace go free also. Marcellus takes a look at the still-alive assailant that he had only recently been very close with before he utters the words "i will get medieval on his ass!". See, now that is funny. Why? Because of the line itself, because of what preceded it, and most importantly, because we don't technically know what this will mean for the assailant, although we can all guess that it will be pretty bad for him. Now imagine if Marcellus had explicitly told what was in store for the assailant. Would that have been as funny as the medieval-line? I don't think so. My point is that taboo does not equal funny, that in fact points can be scored by being less descriptive. Less often is more...

My advice, shun this movie, and shun the people with this sense of humor. And watch some Pryor instead!

But one question remains. Already accepting that the findings of the science team could be suppressed by Katz (and Angela Basset's character doing nothing about this), why didn't Ellie just suggest firing up The Machine one more time to see if that passenger would corroborate her story?

Okay, one more question. We see Bill Clinton in power when The Message is first discovered. The man is still in power when Ellie takes the trip through The Machine. So i figure only a short time passed between these two events, at least not more than a few years (unless Bill found a loop in the U.S. Constitution). So are we to believe that humanity was able to figure out all this new science packed in the message and build a trillion dollar machine in such a short time? That's quite a leap. To compare, at my work it takes about four years for the paperwork to go through in order to get a new copier.

But apart from that, this is a truly humane and thought-provoking movie. I only wish Hollywood could make more of these.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy TTT, but it is nowhere near "The greatest flick of all time" as some have perceived it to be. Here's why.

Why does it have to clock in at three hours plus? It's difficult to keep this guy enthused for what's, and let us be frank here, basically an action movie within a fantasy setting. Action scene after action scene and very s l o w bits in the middle disguised at character building. Even the climactic Battle at Helm's Deep, although finely executed, felt overlong in my book, a prime example of more being less. Films like Traffic and Magnolia require a three hour running time because these are complex character driven stories. TTT does not.Why non-fantasy buffs are looking forward to the four hour DVD extravaganza baffles me.

The whole interweaving of plotlines that culminate in a grand finale, read: Star Wars,type of storytelling that is so pervasive in movies these days defies logic in this one. Are we to believe that Merry and Pippin are hopping along on this three for what must be a week? Come to think of it, Merry and Pippin were as pointless in the film as they were in the books. Nothing to do but to sit on Treebeard and express but one emotion, the "wide-eyed look of amazement".

The Romance. One word. Forced. In there to keep the chicks happy too. And if Aragorn doesn't have enough troubles on his mind, why with fighting an assorted lot of Uruk-Hai, Wargs and Trolls and all, we just throw in an extra love-element for good measure.

And finally, the film reeks of self-importance. That's why the Indiana Jones Trilogy is miles above LOTR in my book. Jones acknowledges that it's entertainment. It's doesn't take itself too serious. It winks at the audience saying " Come on, we're entertaining you so don't bemoan the flaws and errors in logic" and as a result you don't. This baby has *art* smeared all over it's smug face. Well it's not art, it's longhaired guys battling guys in rubber masks.

tuned in to watch 'A Close Shave' on Christmas Day 1995, the result of three years of hard labour by Nick Park and his team and follow-up to the amazing 'The Wrong Trousers'. Again, we are reacquainted with the somewhat eccentric and VERY British inventor Wallace and his trusted, sane sidekick, Gromit the Dog. And amazingly, this time the standard of animation is even higher than his previous effort.

Where 'The Wrong Trousers' had Hitchcock as spiritual father- the rather dark tale of a mysterious *penguin* that takes over Gromits place in the house, woos Wallace and uses his inventions for its evil purpose- 'A Close Shave' has a much lighter air, more Spielberg if you may.

This time we get even more chase scenes, more jokes, more references to TV-shows, movies than in earlier W&G outings and goodness, there's even some love in the air for Wallace.

Repeated viewing is rewarding, as to really appreciate the attention to detail and small sight-gags. Already mentioned by previous posters but the expression on the faces is dead-on, especially for Gromit, who because of a lack of vocal chords, must fully rely on his body language to drive home the point.

Word has it that Park is working on a W&G feature for Dreamworks, bugger that it takes ages to produce one of these babies though. Hopefully this will show the true genius of Park and co., whereas their first feature 'Chicken Run', although still very entertaining, felt somewhat lacking.

Advice: Please don't Americanize it too much!!

I'm not sure if this movie will be regarded as favorably in ten years time as it is now. Maybe future reviewers will laugh at the crude 'bullet-time' effects, snigger at the blatant product placement of archaic cellphones, yawn at the reluctant-hero-facing-an-overpowerful-enemy theme, dismiss the philosophizing on reality as a forced attempt by second grader and scratch their heads thinking how Reeves could go from this to his Oscar winning spree five years later...

But for now it stands as a guilty pleasure, for me at least.

And on a further note, can't the Matrix just be seen as life in general, instead of this computer controlled system. Is the Matrix not really about the limitations that we put on ourselves, inhibiting to live life to the fullest. A dreary job behind a desk, consuming, and acting out the role that society has mapped out for us etc. that stand in the way of fully experiencing the wonders of this world, or as Trinity puts it: "You know where that roads leads to, Neo. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that you don't want to be there."

Or something like that

The Wachowski's first outing before they would be propelled to the A-list with 'the Matrix' is one entertaining, sexy thriller. Simple in its setup, basically it feels like you're watching a play, with only a couple of locations and speaking parts.

Jennifer Tilly - the one with the voice - plays Voilet, plaything of mobster Ceasar (the always impeccable Joe Pantoliano), who hooks up, in more than one way, with the plumber next door in a scheme to get their hands on some serious mob cash. Added touch, the plumber is played by Gina Gershon -yes, the one with the lips.

A great screenplay, virtuoso cameratricks (following the phoneline with incoming calls is but one that comes to mind), slick performances and a real sense of suspense when to two women play out their dangerous game make this one of the most impressing debuts out there.

Nick 'Shooter' Curran, a detective with a history of drinking, coke-use and violence, basically your average L.A. cop, gets on a case that is screaming headlines like: 'rock star stabbed to death with an *ice-pick* after serious sex-session'.

"He got off, before the got offed", quips his best pal on the scene of the crime. The trail leads to Catherine Tramell, former girlfriend of the rock star and a brilliant writer of murder novels with a dark past. Turns out that the murder was completely described in one of her books, which makes her one of the suspects. She's writing a new one by the way, about an L.A. cop who falls for the wrong woman....

1992's most successful film -not in the States, but the rest of the world loves this kind of trash- that made a superstar out of Sharon Stone.

And it's got a lot going for it. Technically marvellous, D.P. Jan de Bont shows his stuff in the car chase, slick editing, blood & gore, curtesy of Rob Bottin and a great, great score. As long as you don't take the story too seriously, you're in for a good time.

But it's about sex, plain and simple. The interrogation of Miss Tramell must be the finest example of this. The way in which she takes control of the situation, holding power over al these men, D.A's and other hotshots, by uncrossing her legs and showing a glimpse is simply brilliant.

And exactly why was the gay community so outraged upon its release? Isn't it a sign of true integration and acceptance of gays/lesbians when one can be a seductive and murderous character in a movie??? Just proves that they're just as human as the next guy/gal.

Basic Instinct looks slightly dated though, check out Mike's outfit in that club-scene!

Same as with Lock, Stock and whatever, really. Guy Ritchie, an o.k. director at best, should pick a decent screenwriter for his next project to tone things down a bit. Way too many crossing story-lines, OTT characters and each and every line has to be smart and smug but strangely none of them are genuinely funny or clever, in short OVERKILL. Being rude and spouting profanities doesn't make it funny in itself, although Roy 'Chubby' Brown would disagree on that one.

The British think they have a Tarantino on their hands, but that just proves a cliche about the British and their tendency of overrating themselves.

Horrible stuff, watch Pulp Fiction instead.

It all started when a husky ran into the U.S. research base in Antarctica, pursued and being shot at by some Norwegians who don't live to tell why exactly they were hurling grenades from a heli at the poor mutt. Further investigation reveals that something really spooky has taken place in the Norwegian base. No survivors again, only burnt remains, in indistinguishable shapes. Meanwhile, the husky has found a new home in the U.S. base.

We see about a dozen guys working there, scientists mostly, among them heli-pilot MacReady, played by Kurt Russell. The dog in the meantime is walking around, sniffing, doing the stuff that dogs basically do before it's put in the kennel with the others. Although it's difficult to see through the darkness it turns out that we're not dealing with a dog at all. No, it's some bizarre creature that shoots tentacles to try and grab the other dogs.....and emulate them!

Turns out a spacecraft of some sort has landed in Antarctica thousands of years ago and the Norwegians have accidentally dug it up, waking an occupant who was probably not in the best of moods. Stealth is its weapon, taking over any creature when it sees the chance and then getting rid of the original. Question now, has the dog infected any of the humans? Who is real, and who is a copy? Further bummer: you're in the most inhospitable environment on Earth and a storm is closing in. Escape is impossible.

Paranoia ensues, protagonist MacReady doesn't know who to trust and tries to come up with a way of discovering who's who, getting sleepier and sleepier in the process. No one to trust. Is it Blair who destroyed the generators and radio so the creature cannot escape to the civilized world, thus isolating the group completely. Or is it short-fused Childs, who wants to shoot and ask questions later. What about the guy responsible for the pack of huskies? He was near that kennel for an awful long time, just by himself. And who's that guy running around outside in the dead of night? No creature from this Earth can survive in those temperatures...

So the story unfolds, accompanied by an eerie Ennio Morricone soundtrack in the background. Special mention must go to effects, that set a new standard for 'gore' in 1982. The performances are all fine, the direction never slips and those that haven't seen it are lucky, for they can guess and guess. Especially when MacReady finally figures out how to smoke out 'The Thing', in one of the most suspenseful scenes of all time.

Critically axed at its release, now critically acclaimed and rightly so. Carpenter mused: 'no one is ever going to see something like this again', and he was correct. This is a one-of-a-kind, the best horror/sci-fi ever made.

BTW, as far as I know, this is the only movie that doesn't have any women in it (not that I have something against women).

Joe Dante always had a keen eye on American suburban life and popular culture and it truly shows in The 'Burbs, his 1989 effort, starring Tom Hanks.

Basically it's the story of a bunch of neighbors, living in a cul-de-sac of an unnamed city, somewhere in the Midwest, that go absolutely paranoid when the slightly eccentric Klopeks move in next door. See, the Klopeks never go outside, don't socialize and strange sounds emanate from their cellar in the dead of night. And one day, old Walter has disappeared, his hairpiece left as evidence of the crime.

So what else is there to do for bored Tom Hanks, the fairly reasonable central character, chubby pal Art, who's wife has gone for the week and Vietnam vet Bruce Dern, who's just looking for an excuse to relive the good old days, but to investigate. Fueled by Art's speculations and following a disastrous soiree with the Klopeks, Hanks decides to take matters into his own hands and make the neighborhood the safe haven it once was.

The result is a quirky, light-weighted comedy with good all-round performances from the cast, some great lines, but it's the tone of the movie that I like best. Lazy summerdays, well-to-do citizens that have mowed their lawns to perfection, no, boys really, boys who are looking for adventure and believing it's lurking on the other side of the fence.

A movie that offers a thousand jokes per minute, considering the law of averages this means that you're in for a serious laugh-fest. Set the standard for OTT-comedies and proved that the days of Mel Brooks were gone.

Personal favorite scenes include the rowdy bar -with fighting girlscouts- in which Ted sees Elaine for the first time, notably the bit where Ted takes of his Travolta jacket and throws it away before striking the famous pose, only to see his jacket being thrown back into his face makes me laugh again and again, even when typing this.

And that other great scene, maybe the funniest of ANY movie, the one where the kid gets a look into the cockpit and subsequently gets bombarded with the most bizarre questions by Captain Clarence Oveur.

Infinitely quotable, razorsharp wit and deadpan performances (Leslie Nielsen, anyone?) make this one a valued addition to any video collection. Have some drinks, smokes, shrooms, whatever, pop this one in the VCR and watch it with some friends, you'll die laughing.

If only ZAZ would come back one more time...

A fine French animated series that's now almost twenty years old. I was glued to the screen as a kid but, seeing it again I must say that it has withstood the test of time. Special mention must go to the design of the backgrounds and spaceships, they look excellent. The music too, it wouldn't look out of place in a movie...

The last couple of episodes tell about a great war between Omega and all powerful humanoids, a big Star Wars type ending to the series. Watch it - or buy it on DVD (only in French though...)

Bruce Willis in Jean-Paul Gaultier outfit saving the universe and life as we know it from an undisclosed evil that has teamed up with over-the-top madman Zorg "I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED !!", played with gusto by Gary Oldman. How??? Who cares in a world designed by the imagination of Besson, acclaimed anime artist Moebius and JPG. Needless to say, it's style over substance here. But with great attention to detail, check out the filter on the cigarette that Bruce smokes in the beginning of the film.

Not for everyone though, but put your mind on 'dim' before you watch this film and you'll have a great time. In a way it's like that other Willis vehicle, 'Hudson Hawk', don't take it too serious -do not rationalize the gaps in the plot- just enjoy a weird and wonderful world. If only Besson would have considered to take Jean Reno for the lead...

Paul Verhoeven's sophomore effort and still his best.Set in Detroit, the near future, we see that crime is rampant. In comes OCP, a giant corporation the likes that will exist in the States within ten years (a merger between, say, General Electric, Exxon and Microsoft) to deliver a new weapon against crime. Their first project failed due to a slight mishap, poor Mr. Kinney. That weapon is Robocop, part man - namely former cop Murphy who stood in the way of a barrage of gunfire and did not live to tell about it- and part machine. Only, Murphy's brain wasn't completely erased and soon he's out on the town to find Boddicker, the man that did this to him. Turns out that Boddicker is teaming up with OCP's own Vice-President to stop Robo in his tracks.

So what makes this one so interesting. Satire as always, on American life, consumerism, big business, the media, violence, lots of violence and in the middle a Christlike parable. See Robo walk on water in his final confrontation with Boddicker! The commercials - Nuke'Em, the family game-, the bits of TV-news -the new SDI-space center misfired, killing four former Presidents- and the inner workings between the OCP exec's are all meant to poke fun at American society, a society that can use a bit of critique every once in a while (well, maybe not this week).

But beware, this movie oozes with gore, the scene where badguy nr. 6 drives his van in a big vat of chemical waste comes to mind, and violence. Alternatively, if you're into that sort of thing, the DVD has got the uncut version, filled with even more bits of mayhem.

Don't bother with the sequel; it tried to emulate but never came close.

Really, it's not about whether you believe in Stone's theory or not, you have to admit that this is one amazing work. Clocking in at almost 3 hours running time, no problemo, it virtually whizzes by in a kaleidoscope of images, color, B&W, old news reels and fast editing. An all-star cast with some memorable performances, notably by Gary Oldman as 'patsy' Oswald, Jay O. Sanders and Michael Rooker as Garrison's aids and the always impeccable Joe Pesci. A special mention must go to Kevin Costner who delivers his best achievement to date.

Stone's best work, although he didn't get an Oscar for this one, maybe because he had already won twice in previous years, for 'Wall Street' and 'Platoon'. The way in which he recreates that fateful day in Dallas, TX, deserve the highest marks.

It's amazing the way this movie got attacked in the U.S media upon its release, proving that - well, I don't want to get into conspiracies here, who knows who's keeping a tab on the internet...

And the message still stands firm: be wary of your institutions!!!

Call him the Great Manipulator, I really couldn't care less. Sitting in that cinema, aged six, and seeing how everybody, young and old, was so deeply affected by this tale of universal friendship, well, I never saw anything like it again.

It always amazes me that so many diss this movie, saying they got 'sucked in it' as a kid or that it's dated, pointing at the Atari/BMX/Star Wars figures etc. Why, that would make a fifties film dated because there's no cell phones and TV-remotes. Or hating the message of the film so much that they start attacking its technical merits. That's just beyond me. The direction of children is a most difficult thing and Spielberg pulls it off superbly. Cinematography is top notch, giving us the best signature shot of all time. The score, the effects and Rambaldi's creation deserve the highest marks.

In this day and age it's more cool to rate cynical, dark movies as personal favorites, claiming that they are more real and poignant. Great, raise your kids with showings of 'Reservoir Dogs' and 'Scarface' for all I care.