mystic80 Reviews

I Melt with You (2011)

A Brutal Film

[7/10 · 24 March 2015]

"I Melt With You" is a play off the song of the same name by Modern English. But it's clearly a double entendre as the film is about to begin.

IMWY is the story of four middle aged men, each with their own personal crises that they hide under the macho swagger and attempt at youthful bravado with drugs and alcohol. The four of these men are all college pals reuniting for a lost weekend of sorts, gathering together at a beach side house out in Big Sur, California. What starts off as a fun weekend of excess, slowly turns into a sinister exploration of what it means to regret the mistakes we make in life. Richard (Thomas Jane) is an English teacher with one published book to his credit, who is trying to reprise the free spirited, artsy bad boy he clearly was in college; Ron (Jeremy Piven) is a family man and stockbroker with the forces closing in on him, from a career that may not be as legitimate; Jonathan (Rob Lowe) is a divorced doctor pocketing cash on the side by making illegal sales of prescription drugs and a relationship with a young son that's clearly going south; and Tim (Christian McKay), a man who made one deeply fatal mistake in life that may have damaged him beyond curing. These four college pals reunite in what may not be for the best turn of events.

Let me just say that "I Melt With You" is directed by Mark Pellington, a fairly underrated director who made the horror film "The Mothman Prophecies" and the domestic terrorism thriller "Arlington Road". Pellington may be onto something as a director, unable to unearth the sinister nature of what appears to be normal. "The Mothman Prophecies" was about an urban legend that people dismiss as myth while "Arlington Road" was about how a next door neighbor may not be as friendly as they appear. "I Melt With You" falls into similar territory: the idea of how a friendly reunion, has a more unspoken and deeply sinister nature to it, when the truth finally surfaces. While not going into great detail, the film takes a deeply dark turn midway through the film, that I didn't expect. This turn reminds me of a 1973 French film called "La Grande Bouffe" (The Big Feast) in which four middle aged men, all feeling that their successful lives have lead them to a hollow existence, decide to retreat to the countryside to eat themselves to death. Replace food with drugs and in a sense, you have "I Melt With You".

"I Melt With You" focuses on the themes of middle aged regret, which seems to have become somewhat of a staple in American cinema with the likes of films like "Sideways". However, this film is much darker and it's quite brutal in nature. The idea of four men who are long past their prime and their youth, halfway between youth and death, end up going on an epic bender of sorts in order to numb the pain in their souls. I look at this film and I think of my friends, and I hope to God that we don't end up like the four main characters in this film. If anything, this film might be a painful reminder of what not to become. Between the constant drug taking and the boozing, it's an absolutely brutal experience to watch these guys, all with their own pains, slowly spiral into something worse. During a party sequence in the film, the four characters find themselves in deep conversations with peers half their age, and in a way, representations of what they were like at that age, before family, career and responsibilities got to them. It's not a comfortable thing to watch.

The performances are all top notch and uneasy to watch at the same time. I think of Rob Lowe as happy-go-lucky Chris Traeger from "Parks & Recreation" and idealistic Sam Seaborn from "The West Wing". But he's the complete opposite of those characters. He's just a man, like the rest of the characters, slipping away on the fringes of life. Jeremy Piven has always crafted a career of playing the angry neurotic that he's performed well in films like "Very Bad Things" and "Entourage", and his character's descent into his own personal hell is something to watch. Christian McKay, perhaps the least well known of the cast, is effective as well: a sad man who may already be dead, except he may know it. Thomas Jane, whose career has not been as great as it was in the late 90's and early 2000's, is fantastic as well. We all know someone like Jane's character. Hell, I might be like him in some respects. But the four men take this film seriously as an actors piece, and they do it perfectly.

"I Melt With You" will slip into the abyss of the thousands of movies that get forgotten each decade. In a more ideal world, I'd like to think that it could be revisited as being a good film, under-appreciated in its time, like other films have often gotten that reception only later. This isn't a bad film by any means, but it's a brutal, nihilistic piece not for the faint of heart. I'd highly suggest for anyone who loves movies starring Marvel superheroes or Meg Ryan, to move on and find something that will be crowd pleasing. "I Melt With You" is like going to the dentist without getting the novocaine, and having to sit through the whole experience with that kind of pain, only in the mind.

Grown Ups 2 (2013)

Dogshit

[1/10 · 25 August 2014]

There's no other way to describe such a terrible movie.

For years, Adam Sandler has been the scourge of film critics. But speaking as someone who grew up on Sandler from his days on SNL and his ingenious comedy albums to his explosive film career, I was a fan. Sandler unleashes the inner child in all of us. The ones who don't mind a goofy slapstick comedy with gags and babes. Sandler taps into the adolescent rage that can affect anyone, particular males 13 years old and up. This theme was put to its maximum in "Happy Gilmore" and "Big Daddy", which granted, aren't the greatest films on the level of a Fellini or Scorsese movie. However, they did the trick and kept you entertained consistently. Plus there was a story in there somewhere.

Then came "Little Nicky", which had potential but it was buried under bullshit. I will only have contempt for people who can only take a concept so far and then not care about the film by the third act. With "Little Nicky", the movie's laziness shows in the film's post title card ending. It's as if Sandler didn't care anymore and had the balls to actually release it in theaters like that, to paying customers. The film, despite its potential and parade of cameos, burned in Hell at the box office. I was disappointed. Sandler seemed to be back on the mend with "Mr. Deeds" but I think that overall run was short lived. As if "You Don't Mess With the Zohan" with its contrived ending featuring puppies was bad enough, came "Jack & Jill", a film so painfully bad that a trip to the dentist without novocaine is more enlightening. I won't write about its awfulness, which you can see throughout the web.

"Grown Ups 2" is nowhere near as bad as the 2011 film, but it's a stinker to high heaven. It's something that I don't know if I'd want to flush down the toilet in fear of wasting my money. "Grown Ups 2" tries to have a message about the meaning of community, the importance of family and the camaraderie of friends. Those messages are presented in between bits of chocolate ice cream being poured out to look like a grown man is crapping and the cartoonish frat boy villains in the film that make you want to drown yourself. The company, especially Sandler, stood to make a fortune and I can assure you that they did since the movie made a lot of money at the box office. What money Sandler makes in residuals alone, is more than I'll see in a lifetime. I'm clearly in the minority since his films still retain their popularity. But the one thing they're missing that Sandler's earlier work had in "Happy Gilmore" and "The Waterboy" is simple: a quality comedy I'm not expecting Sandler's work to be "Sullivan's Travels" with the frat boy humor and dick & fart jokes. But what I am asking, is not to be treated as if I'm a complete idiot. What "Grown Ups 2" does, is take a half assed script, toss it in with a bunch of comics with a gift for ad libbing and churns out a piece of junk food loaded with so many preservatives that you wish you could get in a time machine, go back in time and make sure you never saw said piece of junk food. The chances of Sandler and company reading this, is few and far between but if they were to, I would say "You're losing your touch fellas. The movie may have been a box office hit but I can assure you that people thought it really sucked." I can only hope that Sandler, who has a couple movies on the horizon that sound really interesting, can rebound and not give us this film. Watching the image of Nick Swardson's poorly conceived and possibly challenged bus driver parade through this movie in a mullet and dirty undies, is just disturbing. The cherry on top is the character craps in a toilet in a blatant Kmart ad in the movie. There was a critic who suggested that Sandler should move away from his repertory of players and do something different. I couldn't agree more. I was really impressed with Sandler teaming up with buddy Judd Apatow for "Funny People". That film, despite it's length, was decent and Sandler in many respects, satirizes his career. I only wish that came after "Grown Ups 2".

Adam Sandler, I'm still a fan but dude, make something that's actually good. Make something like "Happy Gilmore" or "Big Daddy", something that knew how to entertain without the constant poop jokes or the obvious ad libbing.

Mixology (2013–2014)

Doomed From Inception

[2/10 · 22 July 2014]

I didn't hate this show but I remembered seeing the ads for it on ABC. To be fair, as anyone with a brain knows, the TV business is a tough business and it's a cutthroat world for pilots. Kill or be killed is essentially what happens in the business and dozens of pilots get made a year and a few have a chance at a pickup and then those few have a chance at even surviving a few airings before getting the axe. Not every show can be a "Friends" or a "Big Bang Theory". "Mixology" didn't stand a chance from the moment it was created, and that might be attributed to a concept that restrains it from its own premise: a bunch of twenty and thirtysomethings in a Manhattan bar over one night. Having to stretch that premise over 13 episodes was never going to work. One, because you're essentially extending small situations that happen in one night, into 22 minutes with the A & B plots trying to wrap themselves up neatly. Anyone who watches a sitcom, knows that these premises take more than just 22 minutes and they're certainly not going to happen one night in some fancy bar.

The cast of "Mixology" is certainly attractive, and seeing as to how I don't remember the names of the characters, I will just say that they all seem to represent certain extremes: a wimpy white guy who's recently single and back in the dating world; an A-type lawyer; a misanthropic artist type, an obnoxious schlub with a beard, etc. Every character seems to represent major extremes instead of showing real dimension. To be honest, there's two characters who are overly optimistic that I couldn't resist the urge to throw up every time they show up on screen.

The show tries to almost portray itself as "Friends" by way of "Scrubs" but with less surrealism. But again, it's the concept of limiting itself to one night in a bar that just kills the show and makes it unconvincing. I can't help but think of the various focus groups and network input that went into retooling the show into being nothing more than one of those forgettable pilots that end up getting buried underneath the mountain of crap that the networks churn out every year. Evidently this show was considered a hot prospect, which I don't understand. Perhaps it's the fact that the writers of "The Hangover" were attached as showrunners, that had the networks drooling. But even if there are good writers, it doesn't necessarily mean there's going to be a good product.

Having said all that, "Mixology" isn't good. It wasn't meant to be a success and the fact that it even got made, is a miracle in itself. No doubt that whoever greenlighted this pilot, is probably looking for another job.

Nash Bridges (1996–2001)

Simply a guilty pleasure for me

[10/10 · 11 November 2005]

If I were to tell anyone that I'm a fan of Nash Bridges, inevitably I'm going to be met with a skeptical facial expression. But for anyone whose a fan of the show, then they may understand my empathy toward the show which I find to be one of the best. These days, cop shows are all serious about the case as the story at hand which seemingly neglects the characters by treating them as just plot puppets who always know right from wrong. One of the few shows that's really staying the course is a show like "Monk", which in addition to it's stories are also in tune with it's characters. If anything, "Monk" is like a successor to Nash Bridges because it was about a cop in the San Francisco Bay Area. But while Monk is a former cop, it's still set in their hometown and it's as much about the characters as it is with the story.

Nash Bridges debuted in 1996 on CBS and was a moderate hit. But after five years (which is pretty good for a series these days), it managed to stay pretty well. But as the last season closed up for what was supposed to only be the season finale, it shaped up to be the show's end which like many shows these days, leaves a lot to be asked since there wasn't resolution. As for the show's last season, I can understand why they killed off Evan (Jaime Gomez) and why they showed his downward spiral and redemption before his death. Whatever decision makers were behind it, probably wanted to shake things up. But in the process, things seemed to have fallen a little bit when his fiancée Cassidy (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) decided to join the police force. But it seems like the chemistry was thrown out of whack and things became questionable like the fate of Joe (Cheech Marin) and if he was going to remain with the show or move permanently with his wife to Sweden.

But aside from those negative comments, Nash Bridges was a genuinely good show that was consistently entertaining: it was hip without avoiding cheesiness, it was funny without being stupid, it was well cast with likable actors in the parts and it had a more unusual approach to your standard cop show, adding colors and layers to both the story and the characters. How each story seems to revolve around the subplots of the characters like Joe's get rich-quick schemes, Evan and Cassidy's relationship, etc. It was about the personal lives of all these people who either live or work together. Plus, unlike most shows or movies, it was shot in San Francisco and virtually felt like it was there. Seeing local favorites like the LeVideo rental store, Fisherman's Wharf and Chinatown were just a few of the city's highlights that made appearances on the show.

Plus, the cast itself was very inspired. Don Johnson easily manages to take a character that's ideal for both his age and experience. His lead character as Nash Bridges is a no doubt, wise man whose seasoned time in the SF police force hasn't made him a hardened cop but a lovable wisecracker who treats everyone with the respect they deserve. Although his personal life isn't as decorated as his career since he's been divorced twice, his lifelong devotion to the police force, and his relationship with his family. Furthermore, it's his chemistry with Cheech Marin which is pitch perfect since the two of them both manage to balance genuine drama and lighthearted comedy. Basically where Nash finishes, Joe begins and so on. Behind all this is everyone else like Jaime Gomez's Evan, a younger cop who thinks with his heart but acts with his you know what. His partner Harvey (Jeff Perry) is dead on good casting, putting a veteran character actor into the mind of an aging hippie with a serious passion for The Grateful Dead and for police work, can make it both funny and dramatic. Yasmine Bleeth was also good as Caitlin, the D.A. who proves to be both a thorn in Nash's side but also a good catch. Plus Jodi Lyn O'Keefe as Nash's strong willed, independent, precocious daughter and James Gammon (good casting based on looks alone in comparison to Johnson) as Nash's feisty, never let you get the best of 'em father. There's also the revolving door of actors who pass through, all giving it something like Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Daniel Roebuck, Tracey Walter, Wendy Moniz and Cress Williams.

I'll just say this, Nash Bridges is a genuinely good show, especially for ones looking for something a little different in a cop show that's not only about the story, but about the people too. It can't fail in entertaining you, especially if you're willing to watch it with an open mind and a good sense of humor.

Dr. Vegas (2004–2005)

Not bad, not great

[3 November 2004]

It's inevitable that there will be comparisons to NBC's Las Vegas show with James Caan. In my opinion, Las Vegas is the superior one because it was there first. But what Las Vegas lacks and what Dr. Vegas gains is the cast. With the exception of James Caan's presence, all the actors on Las Vegas look like they stepped out of a Ralph Lauren ad. They're all very attractive females and males. But unfortunately, their acting talent doesn't match that of say, Dr. Vegas.

What's interesting about Dr. Vegas, which does feel like a Las Vegas clone, is the cast. Even when he's in bad projects, Joe Pantoliano always delivers his trademark schtick of being a great wiseass. Seriously, you can't beat someone like Pantoliano who adds a breath of fresh air to anything. Another thing is Tom Sizemore's in the show, which seems like a step back considering he's had success in films. Rob Lowe's a decent actor, but unfortunately his character, is just a little too bland.

While Las Vegas focuses on the security team of a casino, Dr. Vegas is a little more sporadic with only one character representing a certain department. Such as Rob Lowe's character represents medicine, Sizemore's character is security, and Joe Pantoliano is the big boss. Since it's a little more sporadic, it's a little hard to keep track of the characters and where they're going. What NBC's show has going for it, besides familiar guest stars, is it's got a unique visual style. That is, a music video style of film-making in the vein of Ocean's Eleven. It's a show that's about hip Las Vegas.

Dr. Vegas, of which I only viewed the pilot, is still trying to find it's feet (that is, if it ever gets back from "hiatus"). There's only a few characters to follow, but rest assured, the success of a show can guarantee more characters being brought in. But this show feels like a barebones operation that's still trying to get it's feet wet.

All in all, I would recommend Las Vegas to Dr. Vegas because Las Vegas is just a little more fun and perhaps, accurately captures the atmosphere of Sin City itself. However, what Las Vegas needs, is an actor like Joe Pantoliano to really stir things up.

Dr. Vegas (2004–2005)

"Las Vegas" this ain't

[9 October 2004]

"Dr. Vegas" is a show that ultimately plays second fiddle to "Las Vegas" (in itself a "Love Boat"/"Baywatch" knockoff). There are good actors like Joe Pantoliano and Tom Sizemore, an intriguing character and story line, and a great location. But this isn't as daring or as challenging as it wants to be. Unfortunately, it really does feel like it's second fiddle to "Las Vegas", which did come first.

Here are some things I've noticed in watching:

Rob Lowe is affable enough to play the lead. He should've stuck with "The West Wing". "The Lyon's Den" and "Salem's Lot" flopped.

Again, the cast. Had Joe Pantoliano not been in it, then this show would go downhill fast.

Tom Sizemore, despite his recent court troubles, is a welcome presence. Although it seems like his character isn't fleshed out as strongly as it should be.

The show doesn't maneuver the nifty camera and editing tricks "Las Vegas" pulled.

This is a "Baywatch" esque show that is funny and dramatic.

All in all, I would watch this show out of curiosity, but it's not enough to warrant a second viewing. But this show hasn't proved itself yet so only time will tell if it has legs.

Psycho (1998)

What's the point?

[21 March 2003]

Synopsis: 1998 remake of the 1960 classic finds the ill fated bank secretary Marion Crane making one last stop at the Bates Motel after stealing some money from her employer's client. Marion has a run in with the hotel's eccentric proprietor, Norman Bates.

The Review: While I certainly can't refute Tedg's argument of this "Psycho" remake, I'm just putting my own two cents in. I saw the original, thought it was great, and now I see this, and I don't think it's a great film. It sounds weird for saying that, well believe me, I do think it's weird. I can't say I disliked this film either, because that would direct disrespect toward the original, which strangely, and not particularly original, is a shot by shot, near word for word remake of the Hitchcock film, that just didn't seem necessary. Why would Gus Van Sant, hot off his oscar nomination, decide to direct a remake of a film that's virtually untouchable. It's obvious that when you try to remake a film, there are inevitably going to be comparisons. But you shouldn't remake a film that still leaves an impact on contemporary movie audiences like "Psycho", because regardless of what you try to do, the original will always eclipse the remake.

This film is literally, one giant anachronism full of characters that seem as if they'd stepped off a bus from the late fifties, early sixties, and started living a normal, everyday life in the near Millenium, as they did in this film. The costuming, the dialogue, it all seems to go back to the original which I'm unsure of, might be a tribute, or a faithful recreation because of the remake. The casting is decent, although I always thought they could've gotten other actors to fill the roles. Nicole Kidman was offered a role in the film as Marion Crane, and I think she would've been a better choice, although Anne Heche was pretty well cast. Vince Vaughn, while a great actor, didn't seem to pull off the timidity that made the Norman Bates character so memorable, not to mention his physical frame. I think a person who would've been able to pull the role off much more convincingly, would be Jeremy Davies. It also seems to me that Joe Mantegna may not have been a bad choice to play Detective Abergast for the sometimes wisecracking detective who sees through and through, or George Clooney in the Sam Loomis role, but I'm speaking my mind and this is only an opinion. I will however say, that the casting of Robert Forster was an ideal choice as the doctor.

Other than that, I praise Van Sant for taking the courage to remake the original, and I don't think it was his intent of making it a one upmanship competition, but more of a tribute to Hitchcock. Unfortunately, I don't think audiences nor critics understood his intent to honor the film.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

I'm going to be Mr. Scrooge on this review

[1/10 · 4 March 2003]

The Review: Big budget remake of the beloved Dr. Seuss cartoon about a grumpy green creature intent on sabotaging Christmas by stealing it from the unsuspecting, kindhearted townsfolk below.

I'm going to take a quote from one user's post:

This is a very good film. Better than the animated original.

With all due respect to that reviewer, I'm going to put a variation to that quote:

This is a very bad film. Completely inferior to the animated original.

For me, the animated Grinch special was a special part of my childhood, and yes I proudly count myself amongst the diehard loyalists who border on the word "nerd", that had a genuine dislike for this movie. Granted, it really is difficult to take a cartoon and spin it into an hour and a half feature, but the way this film is shot, is completely obnoxious in every sense of the word. You get the feeling that Carrey and Howard weren't proud of this film as it caused them to betray their artistic sensibilities in favor of a really big paycheck. "The Grinch" is a far inferior live action remake/adaptation of the beloved Dr. Seuss character where it's lead character is an obnoxious buffoon, it's Jim Carrey in green makeup. Jim Carrey living up to his persona of being Ace Ventura. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Carrey, but I can honestly say I despised this movie 100%. "The Grinch" is a movie that feels genuinely fake, where you can't take yourself away into imagination and fantasy because all you really see on screen is just a bunch of movie sets and some makeup, there's no connection to the material that makes it feel like the cartoon. It's baseless commercial dreck that was only a bore.

Blood Work (2002)

This blood is stale...

[6 February 2003]

Synopsis: FBI profiler Terry McCaleb never thought he'd see retirement, until a near death experience with a heart attack made him think twice about the job, and gave him a new heart transplant. But in doing so, he received the heart of a victim, gift of the very killer he was chasing down. Asked to reopen the case as an independent, McCaleb is determined to find the killer who is leaving him with clues.

The Review: It's a shame that after "Unforgiven", Eastwood's films haven't been getting as strong an audience reception as they deserve. "True Crime", "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil", "Absolute Power", and with the exception of sleeper hit "Space Cowboys", all of these films are very entertaining with solid casting to boot. His latest film, however, which is "Blood Work" features all the directorial styles of Eastwood, the heavy use of shadows, slow paced editing, the minimum of sound in action-oriented scenes, but all that aside, "Blood Work" is kind of stale. It's the slow pacing and unusually bad editing that does the film in, not to mention a one dimensional performance from Jeff Daniels (a truly great actor), who doesn't have much to work with here in the formation of his character from a all too loose script. The great thing, though, about "Blood Work" is that Eastwood is incorporating aging into his film. His later roles have been tailored to fit him and it fits him like a glove such as "Absolute Power", "Space Cowboys", and now this film, all about retired professionals. But unfortunately, that's all that separates "Blood Work" from the rest, essentially, not an impressive film coming from a great director such as Eastwood, who has a just as impressive cast. Particularly that of Paul Rodriguez who steals every scene as McCaleb's obnoxious police rival.

Grade: C+

Batman & Robin (1997)

Infamous....

[1 February 2003]

Synopsis: In this deservedly ill-fated fourth outing of the Caped Crusader, George Clooney dons the mask and cape as Batman, whose a superhero at night and content bachelor millionaire by day. With his hot tempered protege Robin (Chris O'Donnell) by his side, Batman must take on two new enemies: the megalomaniacal Mr. Freeze and the truly psychotic Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman). The dynamic superhero duo pick up a new partner in the form of Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone), who just happens to be the niece of Alfred the butler (Michael Gough), who unfortunately, is suffering from a disease.

The Review: When this movie come out, everybody hated it, critics murdered it, audiences walked out, and in all fairness, it was deserved. My best friend and I saw this opening night, and he apologized immediately after and said of the film, "That was stupid." Other friends claimed it to be "The worst movie I've ever seen." Joel Schumacher treaded very thin ice with his reimagining of the Batman series with it's equally obnoxious predecessor "Batman Forever", with Val Kilmer as a relatively dull Batman, Jim Carrey as an all too flamboyant Riddler, and the worst of all, Oscar nominee Tommy Lee Jones as the ever so buffoonish Two-Face, a complete betrayal to the spirit of the character itself that degrades Jones as much as the movie degrades the rest of the cast, much like this inane and empty sequel. But "Batman & Robin" finally etched it in stone that really horrible movies can come right out of Hollywood, regardless of big story, big stars, which incidentally hurt nearly every cast member with the exception of Clooney, who seems to have arrived unscathed. Clooney himself claimed this was a bad film but it did a lot for his career he pointed out. Bigger and better can not be used as an excuse because "Batman & Robin" can't be defended because it really is a horrible film. Having been a big fan of the first film and having read the comic books, there's nothing worse than seeing Oscar winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman bring arch nemesis Bane down to a level of idiocy previously unfound by making him a brainless henchman who would make a three month old baby seem like a genius. Goldsman and Schumacher seem to try for a cartoon vision that is in homage to the campy 60's series starring Adam West and Burt Ward (only I think the series was more realistic than this piece of dog doo doo). Filled with nothing more than demographically-based one-liners, larger than life (not to mention obnoxious) set designs, and annoying characters, "Batman & Robin" deserves to be in the pantheon of truly bad commercial films.

Going Overboard (1989)

Betcha we'll never see that Sandler guy again!

[4 January 2003]

Synopsis: An aspiring comic who also happens to be an idiot, gets a job on a cruise ship and interacts with unhilarious results with the ship's crew and guests.

The Review: Damn that untalented hack! What's his name? Oh yeah, Adam Sandler, bet you we'll never see him again.

Of course I'm being incredibly sarcastic. This is probably as forgettable a movie as Sandler would liken it to be, by playing an idiot on one of those Cinemax late night T & A films (without the actual T&A) that's hokey and completely crappy. I was dumb enough to blow the money on seeing this movie, based on a perverse curiosity to see the Sandman because I knew the film would be awful, to what extent I had no idea. There's nothing worse than seeing future stars like Billy Bob Thornton and Billy Zane appear in this piece of crap as well. Completely low budget and devoid of comedy, "Going Overboard" is going to the bottom of the sea, where it deserves to be. But of course, that'd probably be polluting the Earth.

Batman & Robin (1997)

Bloated Hollywood production values at their worst.....

[3 September 2002]

Synopsis: Batman and Robin still protect the streets of Gotham, but must fight a few new villains, in the form of the psychopathic Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, and Bane.

The Review: This movie really went under the knife when it was released. Critics went head to head destroying this film from start to finish. Audience members walked away in disgust and I can remember my friend apologizing to me that we had to say that commenting on the movie: "That was pretty stupid." You can say what you want about it, and I really don't have much to say about it, but the fourth, and hopefully final outing of this blockbuster series, is an overdone homage to the beloved camp 60's series. It's just difficult to comprehend big stars such as Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman degrading themselves down to characters who speak one liners instead of an actual lines. The budget of the film was rumored to be in the vein of $60 million for it's stars alone. Like "Batman Forever", "Batman and Robin" really doesn't need any defense but more assault. One can only imagine the looks of studio executives when they read the cards from test audience screenings. Big sets, big costume design, big stars, all of it doesn't make up for good story, just bad one.

Cruel Intentions 2 (2000 Video)

Oh great! I'm seeing the original (so to speak)

[6 August 2002]

Synopsis: A remake. That's all it is. Just a simple remake of the first one only with a different cast.

The Review: Pointless. It's a remake. The elements are all here. Sister wants to screw brother. Brother wants to screw someone else. Sister manipulates stereotype bimbo, who in a fit of originality, orgasms from riding a horse saddle, the only laugh and pretty much the only entertaining thing in this remake of the first "Cruel Intentions". Don't rent, if you've seen the first "Cruel Intentions", then you'll have already seen the second one.

Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002)

Has the makings of the biggest piece of sh*t Hollywood has ever produced.....

[1/10 · 24 July 2002]

I'm really not even going to waste my time reviewing this movie. All I can say is, it's not even an hour and a half, the intentionally funny jokes aren't humorous at all because they're flat, the dubbing on a level of annoyance, would be excruciating. A friend of mine recommended this movie to me, and as soon as I see him, I'm going to smack him upside the head. This is an implication that Hollywood movies are really going to hell. Whatever talentless executive(s) greenlit this movie, should be taken out into the street and beaten with a stick. This is one of those movies where you're supposed to "leave your brain at the door", which basically means watching a movie that is supposed to be a comedy, but really, is better off being used as toilet paper, just like "Slackers".

Grade: F (If there were something lower, then I'd grade it that)

Batman & Robin (1997)

Everyone is indictable on this one....

[28 June 2002]

Synopsis: In his fourth, and probably not final outing, Batman and his sidekick Robin must take on the diabolical Poison Ivy, a flora obsessed sociopath intent on causing worldwide destruction with the forces of mother nature at her own will and power. Meanwhile, Mr. Freeze, on a personal quest makes things hell for the dynamic duo who must take on their new nemesis. Things only get worse when Freeze and Ivy pair up with plans of their own, leaving Batman and Robin, already tense with each other, to fight them with the help of a new ally, Batgirl.

The Review: What were they smoking when they made this one? Director Joel Schumacher said that he was going to make the Batman series over the top as he already did with "Batman Forever" by placating the Riddler as a homoerotic villain with Two Face, degradingly written off as a buffoonish sidekick. "Batman & Robin" is an ugly misadventure from start to finish, with dumb one liners which consume about 75% of the film, awful acting, badly cast performers, over the top sets, and obnoxious characters. Akiva Goldsman script brings all the characters down to a bunch of one note story agents who spout forgettable catch phrases, against a background of total camp that is reminiscent of the 60's TV show. Schumacher isn't the only indictable individual, because one can only imagine the scrutiny of the movie studios he was put under. The studio executives wanted to make a quick buck, and in doing so, made a "sequel" which is a far inferior piece of corporate dehumanized product that can be written off as just another financial statement. The Batman series is brought down to nothing more than just a tie in movie franchise, complete with Taco Bell cups and cheap action figures you can find at your local Walmart. All of the movie assembled with big ticket stars to guarantee a big opening weekend with the hopes of continuing for the next two weeks for those studio executives. I can imagine the test screenings at this movie were overwhelmingly disastrous on account of such an obnoxious movie that this is.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

A proper send off for independent film's most notorious figures....

[10 June 2002]

Synopsis: Upon learning of their (mis)fortune that the comic book based on them, is now being turned into a feature film, Jay and Silent Bob learn something much worse when they're virtually cut out of the profits. With their sights set for Hollywood, the two New Jerseyites embark on a cross country road trip with the intention of sabotaging the film. But on the way, they encounter everybody and everything from international jewel thieves, an orangutan, and an inept federal wildlife marshall, all in their inevitable quest.

The Review: Every filmmaker always pours something personal into a film that is small and meaningful. Kevin Smith put his experiences behind the counter in "Clerks", and himself with a different name in "Chasing Amy", and his views on religion in "Dogma", and I have no idea what he put in the unfairly underrated "Mallrats" but there must've been something. In "JASBSB", Smith puts something of major relevance today- the internet with our two protagonists learn that they're the subject of much ridicule from the likes of cruel movie nerds as "teenagers and guys who can't even get laid". Smith himself has said that he was angered by comments made by his past films by such anonymous characters. But he gives fair justice to those in an end too good to spoil. Anyway, people say that if you haven't seen any of his previous films, you will not understand the flick, but honestly, Smith's film is a diehard summer flick, with every scene that chooses not to dissect, but to entertain it's viewers. Every part of the film any person could easily walk in on and still be entertained with the exception of any kind of reference to his previous films. Granted you may be thrown off, but Smith's film is an entertaining summer movie meant to be enjoyed and not analyzed unless you're a View Askew fan much like myself. JASBSB is the movie that Jay and Silent Bob finally deserve, with every dick and fart joke that was ever taken from his previous flicks and put to full use here with Smith finally tailoring the humor to his two characters. If you're a View Askew fan, but yet you haven't seen JASBSB, then you clearly need to catch up on your information. There are even references to Smith's cancelled "Clerks" cartoon series. Very much different from any View Askew film from before, "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" is an entertaining summer flick that is never short on the laughs, and heavy on the cameos (from the likes of anybody ever associated with View Askew to Matt Damon, directors Wes Craven and Gus Van Sant, and practically everybody else).

Grade: B+

Slackers (2002)

This time, Hollywood hit a new low

[1/10 · 6 June 2002]

Synopsis: Three knuckleheaded slackers who have cheated away their entire college years away, are caught via blackmail from a treacherous nerd obsessed with a beautiful do gooder. What ensues for the next hour and a half is anyone's guess through a series of one note gags and senseless scenes that make no sense.

The Review: Hollywood has hit a new low in filmmaking, by wasting celluloid on a piece of trash like this. Look at how many producers worked on this film, no wonder it deservedly failed at the box office. Full of contrivances that would make most people weep, you can just imagine how many writers worked on the script by just tossing in random scenes. I don't normally agree with critics on their reviews, but I am making an exception on this one. This is clearly horrid from start to finish, you're better off using the videotape's film as toilet paper than you are using it in your VCR.

Review: F- (There's no other way to grade it except beyond poor)

The Evening Star (1996)

The oscar-baiting sequel that wasn't meant to happen

[29 January 2002]

Synopsis: The continuing adventures of Aurora Greenway and her tumultous family life, are further explored in this sequel to the 1983 classic. With her three grandchildren fully grown, they all have their own personal problems to face alongside Aurora.

The Review: Just not meant to happen. Contrived is what comes to mind when viewing this sequel with Bill Paxton, Scott Wolf, and Jack Nicholson among the famous actors making walk on appearances. Overlong and underwritten, the film misses the interest of the original, not to mention any inkling of James L. Brooks' involvement. There's no Danny DeVito, and no Jeff Daniels (which is very odd considering he was the father of the three but is omitted from the film). Nowhere near as good as the first.

Grade: C-

Happiness (1998)

Brilliantly deranged

[16 January 2002]

Synopsis: Three sisters in the New York/New Jersey area are seperately plagued by problems stemming from family, sexual, and personal problems with a set of people that make up this ensemble. One is a language teacher trying to find the right man after a disastrous breakup, another is a hollow and successful writer who is gleamingly generic, while the other is an oblivious mother and housewife. All of them unaware of what kind of problems they have. One is being stalked via obscene phone calls by a pervert who lives in the apartment building with her, Another, is unaware that her husband happens to be a pedophile, and another thinks the right man, may not be.

Review: Very controversial, "Happiness" met with many objections from parents groups and the MPAA, for it's graphic content. Content dealing with pedophilia, rape, masturbation, and suicide, amongst other subjects that are completely off the wall real. Solondz deals with the material honestly because that's how he shows it. Dylan Baker completely eschews any role he's ever portrayed to play a pathetic doctor whose actions drive him to rape a small child. "My son's a fag." says one father to another. It's honest and it's brutal, and Solondz wants the audience to understand the picture. Philip Seymour Hoffman gives a career making performance as the twisted pervert who has a bizarre connection with Lara Flynn Boyle, with Camryn Manheim as a desperate neighbor. Absolutely the most disturbing film that has been released in a movie theater, Happiness pulls all the punches and it's material, while uncompromising, is brilliant. There's nothing more engrossing, than watching Saturday Night Live alumni Jon Lovitz, suffer a nervous breakdown after being dumped.

Grade: A-

Psycho (1998)

Why?

[6 December 2001]

Synopsis: Near 40 year old remake of the milestone film, with some poorly cast actors in roles they weren't meant for. The film follows the original, with a bored secretary having stolen a large sum of money from her boss' client and heading off somewhere she doesn't know. Until she arrives for one last stop at Bates Motel with a caretaker who seems all too normal in a house that's all too creppy.

The Review: "Psycho" strikes me as the kind of film where everybody working on the film, walked away asking "Why?" with only the director knowing that answer. I can't say I hated this film or disliked it, because in truth, it is disrespectful to the original. The "Why?" question comes into effect with this just being a reproduction of the film. A $25 million reproduction at that. Van Sant's film is literally shot for shot, word for word, everything verbatim down to the very last hand gestures of it's characters. He doesn't bring anything new to the material that's been given here, and only works from the base without exploring the possibilities. I think Van Sant wanted to reintroduce "Psycho" to a whole new generation, and the marketing of the film is fairly smart, but it doesn't offer much. It's only contribution is really just a waste as it doesn't prove anything. The cast, filled with some very talented actors, are wasted in some miscast roles. Especially lead Vince Vaughn, who makes it very, very hard to believe him as Norman Bates and it just simply isn't good. His 6'3 frame beats out Anthony Perkins in the physical department, and he just doesn't work. Neither does Julianne Moore whose character feels as if she's just stepped out of a sweatshirt factory. The film itself, is one giant anachronism with the characters from the sixties being transplanted into the nineties. Who knows if Van Sant was going for some kind of kitschy look to the film, but it doesn't work one bit. The mode of dress is off kilter in many ways and makes it one of the many subtle distractions that drive this remake off track. Van Sant is a masterful film director, but this isn't his forte, and if he's trying to make it that, pick something that 's not a classic first.

Grade: The Remake: C+ The Original: A

Last Action Hero (1993)

It's just not very entertaining

[7 November 2001]

Synopsis: Schwarzenegger, essentially at the top of his game, spooks his own image as an action star. A young boy from a lower class existence spends his days endlessly watching the movies of Arnold Schwarzenegger's franchise action character Jack Slater. But a twist of fate through one mysterious ticket puts the young boy in the film himself. He ends up discovering a world where disbelief is non-existent. As he teams up with a reluctant Slater to shut down a mobster and his hitman.

The Review: It just isn't good. Not for all the pedigree in this film. Schwarzenegger headlines a movie with a fairly strong cast from the likes of Anthony Quinn, F. Murray Abraham, and Mercedes Ruehl among the many other actors who appear in the film (including an uncredited Danny DeVito). The film seems to be in love with itself as it just doesn't carry a strong enough story. It's dragging, and you'll feel it as the film bounces from one part to another. It's just not worth seeing. It's only an example of Hollywood emptiness at it's best. It also came out during Jurassic Park's reign.

Grade: D

America: A Tribute to Heroes (2001 TV Special)

A touching tribute

[24 October 2001]

Synopsis: Practically everybody from the film, television, and music industries gather together to honor the fallen firemen, policemen, and civilians in the September 11 incident that took countless lives. It's a tribute to those risking their lives every day to seek survivors.

The Review: The September 11 incident will forever remain an unforgettable time that will pass on through generations. The image of the planes crashing head on into one of the world's biggest building structures, the horrified faces of New Yorkers running away from the blizzards of black smoke filling the streets, the disturbing image of innocent people falling to their deaths, and perhaps most disturbing, and angry-inducing, are the immortal heroes who risked life and limb to rescue people after the planes hit by running into the towers before their collapse. It's something we will never forget and must never. Speaking as a twenty one year old, a lot of people from my generation say this hasn't affected their life, but it has in every which way possible. America: A Tribute To Heroes takes time to honor those fallen in the September 11 incident. We get to know some of the personal stories of the people who defied danger to help their fellow man. George Clooney's heartwrenching story of one good man who stayed with another, bound by a wheelchair just minutes before the tower's collapse is heartfelt and angry. It's the stories like these that we know who the heroes are, and lets us know what kind of good people they were. Kelsey Grammer's heartfelt tribute to his friend David Angell, one of those fallen. It's meant to help gather the people together and it does. We must honor the fallen, and punish the wicked.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

[10/10 · 5 October 2001]

Synopsis: After a NASA accident causes radiation to fall against the eastern seaboard, the dead awaken from their graves with the only thought of devouring humans alive. In the Pennsylvania countryside, seven people all trapped by the same circumstance in a farmhouse, for one reason or another. Forced to work together, they'll have to pull off a very risky escape or find themselves the victims of the burgeoning army of the undead, which are heading directly for the house. Featuring a prophetic subplot about a raving preacher.

The Review: The old adage: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, if it isn't broken, why do you add scenes that are just a waste of time? Russell Streiner, co-star and producer of the original helped produce these scenes that just don't add up. The score, however, is terrific by adding an even creepier vibe to the film. Unfortunately, the newly added scenes feel contrived and implicate that of a direct to video feel. One particular notice is a ridiculous subplot involving a ranting preacher whom you wish would end up getting devoured by the zombies. The scenes try to add a backstory to the illustrious first zombie that we see in the beginning, but it just doesn't seem to work. If you love the original, then don't see the 30th anniversary, because key scenes are eliminated from the film, and replaced by scenes that should've remained on the cutting room floor.

The Original: A The 30th Anniversary Edition: D

Casino (1995)

An engrossing film from start to finish...

[10/10 · 5 October 2001]

Synopsis: A film chronicling the rise and fall of a gambling empire in Las Vegas during it's heyday. Sam "Ace" Rothstein has been personally appointed by the mob to head a casino which he proves himself, but at the same time a relentless obsessive whose meticulousness reaches so far as to the number of blueberries in muffins that the casino sells. His childhood friend Nicky Santoro has moved to Las Vegas with his crew to start up a business. In the midst of it all, Sam meets Ginger, a woman he eventually marries, but in a downward spiral of power and greed, they all find themselves in the middle of it all.

Review: Absolutely one of the best films of 1995, "Casino" is a truly good film with top notch performances from DeNiro and Pesci as usual, but the real surprise is Sharon Stone, completely eschewing her sex symbol from "Basic Instinct" to playing a woman who lives in her dark side. The cinematography of the film matches the tone and look of the story with it's best performances from the entire cast. Unfortunately, Don Rickles and James Woods are wasted in fairly small roles but still provide depth to the film nonetheless. Leonard Maltin didn't know what he was talking about when he reviewed this film, because it's an engrossing story that needed to be told in a three hour length. It's not something you'd pay to see in a theater, but it is something you should see on VHS or DVD. Grade: A-

One Night at McCool's (2001)

You can only watch once

[6 September 2001]

Synopsis: Randy, a good guy bartender recalls a time when he had to live with Jewel, a femme fatale whom he unwittingly rescued from her menacing boyfriend. But she turns the tables on him leaving him to resort to dastardly deeds by hiring a hitman named Mr. Burmeister whom he tells his story to. Meanwhile, in a convent, Detective Dehling, a widower recalls his relationship with Jewel to a loyal priest. And in another part of town, a successful lawyer named Carl recounts his relationship with Jewel and their strange sexual relationship. All three men find themselves in an unfortunate series of incidents that will turn against them.

The Review: In 1987, Michael Douglas hit major movie stardom as the ultimate corporate tycoon, Gordon Gekko, a man obsessed with the almight buck in "Wall Street". That was fourteen years ago, fourteen years later the movie star plays a confidante to Matt Dillon as an aging hitman with one bad haircut. The film is very offbeat in the sense that the humor catches you off guard. It's exceptional though because the writing is pretty humorous. John Goodman, virtually good in anything he does puts his character to good use as an individual who is manipulated too easily. Paul Reiser is given another signature role as the kind of sleaze you love to like because he's badly charming as a total moron. Matt Dillon is impressive as well by playing a man whose sentinmentality of his mother is a bit too serious. But Tyler steals the show, curves and all as the woman all men are infatuated with. She's a fire hot babe who knows she's got it, and not afraid to use it. It's unlikely that you'd see pretty much any of the cast involved in such an offbeat film, but this film is surprisingly good. Getting back to Michael Douglas, he's effectual as the smooth hitman hired to kill, but he's also a matronly fellow.

Grade: B