lllama Reviews

Captain Ron (1992)

Silly, great fun, and addictive. It shows!

[7/10 · 17 March 2008]

Ignore the low voter rating on this movie. What do THEY know, anyway?

When I first saw this movie in a video rental store, many, many years ago, I thought it looked like a stupid, obnoxious family/kiddie movie, and I didn't want to see it. Some time later my friends and I finally watched it for the first time. We thought, "well, kinda dumb, but several good laughs." Without planning to see it again, I did, anyway. We all laughed harder. Then, each time we saw it, we found more things to laugh about.

Years later, having bought the DVD a few years back, we still watch it over and over again, and we can all quote large portions verbatim----and we still laugh and laugh.

Kurt Russell, once again, demonstrates his versatility, proving that, not only is he a talented dramatic actor, but he's clever and funny, skilled in the art of humorous facial expressions, body language, and amusing delivery of his lines. Martin Short (funny, as always), Mary Kay Place, Meadow Sisto and Benjamin Salisbury are all well worth watching. (Yeah, I even remember the kids' names because I've seen it so many times. And they did a great job, too.)

Don't jump to conclusions and miss this one. Go for it, and if you aren't thrilled the first time, watch it again. It is sooooo worth it!

What a great movie! Who'd a thunk it?!

Taking Care of Business (1990)

Underrated and loads o' laughs

[7/10 · 17 March 2008]

I was surprised to see such a low IMDb voter rating for this movie. Silly movies don't get much credit, but this one deserves a lot for making you laugh over and over again at some of the most ridiculous stuff, especially the antics of Jim Belushi, who was a scream in this. (I also think Jim Belushi is underrated, and many of his movies are great, though people seem to miss out on that fact.) Sure, it wasn't perfect, so I didn't give it a 10, but it was still something I can watch over and over again, and in my house, we all laugh repeatedly. Whoops! I can't forget Charles Grodin, who played his usual funny deadpan goof ball role.

I love artsy, intellectual movies, tense, smart thrillers, and well-made, beautiful, meaningful films, but a good dose of silliness that I can watch over and over again, is just wonderful.

Laughter is the best medicine, and this movie is cheaper than drugs and alcohol, and it makes you feel better fast.

Soldier (I) (1998)

Great work, Russell!

[7/10 · 21 January 2004]

I watched this movie expecting what I got: good sci-fi cowboy stuff. What really surprised me was that Kurt Russell did such a great job with an extremely limited role.

Imagine trying to act under these two restraints: you have hardly any dialogue, and because you are playing a hardass, military robot, you are not allowed to show emotions using facial expressions! Howzat? Kinda like asking a diva to perform a great aria while gagged and duct-taped. In spite of being verbally and expressionally handcuffed, Russell pulls off an incredible characterization. His robot becomes human, in spite of the constraints. Great job!

As usual, Jason Isaacs insures that he will go down in history as a great portrayer of the consummate villain--the one you'd love to see drawn and quartered. Connie Nielsen was sweet, soft, motherly, and gorgeous. I'm not sure how much of my impression is based on her acting and how much on her physical beauty, but it was hard to take one's eyes off her. Unfortunately, Gary Busey's role was too small and limited.

Much of the plot is quite standard, with a fair amount of weaknesses, but as it does have a sci-fi comic book feeling, I don't see what's wrong with a few weaknesses. By the end of the story the good guy wins, and the appreciative audience receives a great deal of emotional satisfaction. Yes!

The sort of feeb who thinks that Russell didn't do a good job of acting is the same sort of feeb who missed the whole point.

Doctor in the House (1969–1970)

One of the funniest sit-coms ever

[20 August 2002]

I accidentally came across this article tonight and was reminded of the show that probably got more laughs out of me, my family, and my friends than any other sit-com ever. For its time, it was extremely outrageous, and pushed the limits. In my late teens and early twenties when watching it, I fell absolutely in love with all of the guys in each episode. I never realized before tonight that John Cleese and Eric Idle had anything to do with the series. It all makes sense now (or nonsense).

Over the years I've searched for any mention of the show, but have never found a trace on TV or in video stores. I wonder why nobody ever brought it back. I thought I might find it in PBS catalogs or something, but nada.

At the moment, I recall holding my sides laughing at the episode with the hearse mixup (the boys owned a hearse for their own use, but someone thought it was a real hearse and deposited an occupied casket into the back of it, which wasn't discovered until after one of them, George Layton I think, was driving down the road, and every time he drove over a bump, the body's feet went up into the air.) I also recall the episode in which one of the boys (I think Upton) was trying to learn how to deliver a baby by practising on a chair with a doll or teddy bear. Then there was the episode where the boys got the obnoxious Lawrence Marwood Bingham drunk before he was scheduled to play the organ at a funeral. Bingham ended up singing "On the Sunny Side of the Street" and making an ass of himself, much to the delight of the boys and the audience. I wish the episodes were listed in the IMDb.

Ah, those were the days. It would be great if someone dug up those old episodes and either put them back on TV or sold them as videos--say, three or four episodes per video.

I wonder what happened to the members of the cast. The only two names I've ever seen outside the series are Jonathan Lynn and Helen Fraser. Lynn's name made it to the bigtime, but I haven't heard of Fraser in any movies in years (since "Start the Revolution Without Me" starring Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland).

The Last Castle (2001)

Rousing movie

[8/10 · 5 June 2002]

**Spoiler alert** Okay, so this movie isn't realistic (why should it be?) and it's predictable (so what?), but it sure was fun to watch. We sat on the edges of our seats watching the DVD, and nobody wanted to pause it long enough to get refreshments or use the bathroom, because we were all caught up in the action. It was a game of war strategy and a game of chess strategy. Redford was thoroughly enjoyable. Toward the end of the movie we were all yelling and cheering, as well as being sad at the demise of the general, though the ending was fitting, under the circumstances. THAT is what makes a movie worth watching. It aroused many good feelings, satisfied needs (to see the bad guy punished), and made us all glue ourselves to the screen and cheer. Definitely worth seeing.

Practical Magic (1998)

Loved it

[9/10 · 2 May 2002]

Normally I don't care for chick flicks, but I can't seem to stop watching this one over and over again. I was surprised that so many others didn't care for it. I just loved the sets, the costumes, the women and their relationships, the real magic in the film, the special effects, the child actresses. This was stuff that women could relate to better than men. Aidan Quinn was the only boring part of the movie. I wished they'd chosen an actor who was more into the role. He seemed bored and made his part in the film more boring. (Also, he mumbles. Someone should give him elocution lessons.)

This movie wasn't meant to be heavy. It was meant to be light, fun fluff, and that it is. The characters weren't meant to be deep, but I felt the relationship between the two sisters was deeper and well performed by two skilled actresses. In spite of the fluffiness of it, I enjoyed the two scenes in which we got to sit and relax to the sound of Stevie Nicks' "Crystal." So what if cars weren't crashing and guns weren't shooting. They weren't supposed to be. I felt the camaraderie of the moment as the two sisters and their aunts got drunk on "midnight margaritas" while dancing to Harry Nilsson's "Lime in the Coconut." It was just plain light fun. Also, women can enjoy the vicarious satisfaction of watching these women destroy the evil, bullying man who tries to destroy them.

The end of the film was rather Disney-kiddie-flick-like. Another ending might have worked better, but it was tolerable because it reminded the audience that the film was all in fun, and not to be taken seriously.

I usually prefer deeper films, but I thoroughly enjoyed this piece of fluff. Sure it was silly and campy, but it was fun. A film doesn't have to take itself seriously to be fun. Bullock, Kidman, Channing, and Wiest are beautiful, charming and wonderful to watch in this flick, and I love watching the four of them over and over again.

Pandaemonium (2000)

Beautifully filmed treasure

[10/10 · 18 April 2002]

This beautifully filmed treasure was a special treat to watch, as it transported me into a different world and captured the feelings I had as a student of English literature studying Coleridge and Wordsworth. Through its artistic interpretation of the inner landscape of Coleridge's mind, it reawakened the emotions that Coleridge's poetry itself evoked. I applaud the credit it gave to the women in the lives of these two masters, particularly Dorothy Wordsworth, whose importance to the poetry itself was unrecognized in the original works and has always been underappreciated. The film really brought to life "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Kubla Khan," and "Frost at Midnight."

The movie was so powerful because of the beautiful filming--the sets, scenery, costumes, etc., the photographic talents that captured these, the haunting background score, and the talented acting of the cast, particularly that of Linus Roach, who displayed a variety of emotional states so wonderfully, though I was really moved by Emily Woof's acting, as well. At first it seemed to me that John Hannah was merely walking through his role, but I now feel that the subdued acting was deliberate in portraying a much more sinister Wordsworth. I also applaud Samantha Morton and Samuel West for their roles.

The one odd thing about the movie was the segment shown during the final credits, in which Coleridge walks around in modern London, with dreadful popular modern music playing. I understand that a statement was being made, but it contrasted too sharply with the beauty of the film and the reverie in which I found myself. (The music was dreadful because of the contrast with the earlier context.) I really didn't need to be unkindly startled from the earlier sweet emotions. Only credit-watchers like me have to worry about it, though.

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)

Excellent, for the right tastes

[10/10 · 30 March 2002]

A good storyteller transports you to a different world. A sophisticated reader/watcher/hearer appreciates the intellect involved in that transport. If I am going to be transported to another realm, I want to travel with one who completely understands that world right down to the seemingly insignificant details (as Woody Allen does in this film). Every part of a good story fits together perfectly, and every element of the story must be congruent with the universe of that story. `The Curse of the Jade Scorpion' is just such a story, and film.

If it bothers some that Betty Ann (Helen Hunt) could fall for C. W. Briggs (Woody), then the problem is with the personal choices of those viewers, not with the movie. Many viewers would prefer that the heroine choose a Mel Gibson or a Brad Pitt sort of hero, but that's because they are programmed by so many popular movies these days. Plenty of women in this world see past looks and age when they make their choices in men. Betty Ann is just such a woman. She has had a bad marriage experience, perhaps with a handsome, younger man, and she is now ready for a more mature relationship. Some feel that Woody is too old for the part of C. W. Briggs, but IMO, Woody is the perfect choice for this character, and he is in excellent form here. (Ageism is just as bad as racism, but more acceptable in our outside world.) C. W. Briggs is the typical `offbeat Everyman' sort of character that Woody often plays. He's not supposed to be a pretty boy. Too many movies are jam-packed with pretty boys and young studs. If I want to view handsome, young studs, there are a million other movies out there to choose from. If I want class and sophistication, I watch Woody.

This is not to say that all of Woody's movies are wonderful, because, as with all film people, he's had a few duds. However, Jade Scorpion is one of his better films. It has the right actors in the right parts, even in the cases of Dan Aykroyd as Chris Magruder and Elizabeth Berkley as Jill. Santo Loquasto's production design is superb. Zhao Fei's cinematography is perfect, with all the right shadows and light, camera angles, points of view to fit the moods of the various scenes. The sets, costumes, other visual effects, and music are perfect for transporting the viewer to the 1940's romantic mystery world. I have to add that I love watching Charlize Theron, and she played a great Laura Kensington.

The plot, whose archetypes and values mimic a 1940's style mystery movie, is perfectly executed. Zoltan is the perfect 1940's style villain. Historical notions about the powers of hypnosis, which were greatly exaggerated, are perfectly exploited in this film. Certainly we `intelligent" people of the 2000's know that hypnosis doesn't work like that, but in the 1940's it was quite believable. If the unbelievable is congruent in the universe of the story, and if the creators make it believable, then so what if it isn't believable in our reality. If we can suspend our disbelief to temporarily accept starship transporters, time travel, light swords, driving cars among dinosaurs, and other movie conventions, then we should have no trouble believing in this magical version of Zoltan's hypnotic powers. This film is not realistic because it is not meant to be, any more than Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.

In spite of the wonders of computer animation, robotics, amazing visual effects, incredible sound, and all the other newer conventions of today's films, it is still very difficult to find really enjoyable movies. Jade Scorpion is one of those few really good ones, an amazing transport to another world, the 1940's cinema mystery world. It has flavor, intrigue, lots of humor--particularly in quick one-liners, some of which are dated (deliberately) but nevertheless fit perfectly in that milieu--colorful characters, lovely costumes, and it is just plain fun.

If you only enjoy movies that have car chases, explosions, lots of explicit sex and grisly violence, loud rock music, macho heroes, characters who constantly use the word `fuck,' and lots of naked bimbos, then please don't go to see Jade Scorpion, because you probably won't like it.

The conventions of this movie are much more subtle. To really appreciate it, one must not see it with any preconceived notions about what to expect. It must be seen and enjoyed with a relaxed attitude, and it helps to have an admiring understanding of the 1940's films from which its world derives. It's one of those films that our household members enjoyed so much, we could see it again and again.

The Claim (2000)

Trudging through snow

[4/10 · 14 November 2001]

This movie should have been titled "Trudging through Snow," because that's all I remember from it. Thank goodness I saw it on video because I was able to fast-forward through many of the "trudging through snow" scenes. Sometimes people were trudging, sometimes horses, sometimes horses and people--but trudging, trudging, trudging. When any character went from one scene to another, the audience was forced to watch the entire walk through the snow from building to building--even if the buildings were miles apart. Hey, I got it, there's lots of snow there--all right, give us a break! It seemed to me that the movie wanted to prove to people that California is not just the beautiful, sunny, beachy place people think of, so it showed us a comparison with the northern Canadian Rockies.

I watched the whole thing because of the link with Hardy's "Mayor of Casterbridge." Both Hardy and the movie portrayed a dark, negative story, but Hardy's seemed more beautiful and more real to me. I know it's wrong to compare the two, but if the filmmakers intend to make money using someone else's material, then they should expect the comparisons.

Kinski, Mullan and Jovovich did a decent job of acting. Pollan played the usual innocent looking young teenager she always plays--boring. Bentley seemed a bit miscast. Bentley played the role analogous to Donald Farfrae from the novel. Farfrae had extreme charisma which arose from his good looks and his magical singing of old ballads. Bentley couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. Bentley had none of Farfrae's charisma, which disappointed me, even though I know that the movie didn't have to copy the book.

The greasy hair and minimal makeup on the characters gave the movie more realism, but I kept feeling the urge to throw all the actors into a bathtub and give the women bobby pins with the order to either wear their hair down or pin it up all the way. The half-pinned-up-half straggly hairstyle that they all wore was annoying.

Instead of spending so much effort on creating realistic stark scenes, the filmmakers should have put more effort into creating memorable characters. I didn't feel any empathy for any of the characters, with the possible exceptions of the Kinski character, and Mullan's character toward the end of the movie. Jovovich decently portrayed a Hardyesque "survivor," though I felt that the director might have used her talents a bit better.

By the way, the reviewer who posted the plot summary at this site stated that Jovovich was the daughter, when it was actually Pollan.

Splitting Heirs (1993)

Glad that I checked here first

[6/10 · 25 May 2001]

Okay, it may not have been the greatest flick, but it certainly wasn't the worst. In fact, I'm glad that I checked the IMDB comments first because it gave me the proper perspective. I love British humor and I've been a Python fan since it first hit the US. The negative comments prepared me for the worst, and the good ones gave me a reason to watch.

That said, I enjoyed the flick, in spite of its idiocy. Sometimes you just have to sit back and drop your logic in order to enjoy plain, simple entertainment. I'd take this movie over any sitcom on TV. The movie was silly and lighthearted, (in spite of a few murders). By the end of the movie, I actually found myself liking Rick Moranis, who often gets on my nerves. Eric Idle and John Cleese were their typically silly selves. Catherine Zeta-Jones was beautiful and fun, though she seemed the tiniest bit pudgier than she is now. I was really impressed by Barbara Hershey, who took on her comedic role with gusto.

If you like your movies logical, you'll hate this one. It's full of holes, loose strings and stupid logic--but that's just not the point. If this were a totally reasonable world, there'd be no Monty Python.

I watched it a second time with my husband, who laughed all the way through, and so did I. I think this one is like any Python stuff. You laugh harder the more you watch it, in spite of the absurdity. (I know it's foolish of me, but I laugh every time I hear Cleese repeat the phrase, "She turned me into a newt.")

The Cell (2000)

Exploitation garbage

[1/10 · 15 January 2001]

This film made us sick and disgusted. The acting was lame (my apologies to James Gammon, an actor I admire, who got stuck in this crappy flick, fortunately only for a couple of minutes). This is one of those movies that will probably make lots of money playing to the stupidity of ignorant people, mainly male, who get off on seeing women tortured. It's just the sort of thing to set off the lowliest sort of scum in our society. This is the wrong way to make money. Certainly the special effects people should be given credit for doing their job well, but that they accepted such a job demonstrates a lack of character and integrity. The whole point of this movie was to thrill people who enjoy being grossed out, but it wasn't just a gross-out, it went too far into titillating the worst human senses. There was hardly any plot. There was almost no character development. There was nothing but visual effect. I might consider the dreamlike sequences well done if it were not for lack of control demonstrated by those in charge of creating them. It is much more challenging to present horror by affecting the audience's imagination, and these special effects people weren't up to the challenge, so they took the easy way out and simply splashed the plastic gore and human degradation all over the screen. The movie seemed to be providing an instruction manual to sociopaths on fun ways to torture and murder.

Longitude (2000)

Time flew

[10/10 · 6 January 2001]

This film was absolutely stunning, and after watching it we were amazed at how quickly the time flew. Though the entire movie (DVD) was 200 minutes long, we felt as though it had taken less than an hour. The sets and costumes were beautiful, the acting was superb, the meshing together of the two different times worked extremely well, the "timing" was impeccable, the tension built wonderfully, and the climax was powerful. We never dreamed we would feel so strongly about a movie depicting what we originally thought would be a mundane, boring subject. We are grateful to the makers of this film for the attention to detail and the feeling they put into this movie. It came alive for us, and we now feel more appreciative toward those geniuses of former times who persevered against all odds to improve the human condition. Kudos to Michael Gambon and Jeremy Irons for their exquisite performances of complex characters, and for the depth of feeling they both portrayed.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

Intellect, satire, symbolism, allegory

[9/10 · 18 December 2000]

"Cradle Will Rock" is an outstanding movie for so many reasons. Because I viewed it today for the first time, I cannot yet give it a 10, but further attention might change my mind. There was so much to absorb. Previous comments have pointed out most of those wonderful attributes: intellect, satire, important topics for discussion, etc. It is clear that a lot of thought went into this film. I guess that's what I liked the most: a great deal of intellectual thought went into it--something that so many of today's movies don't seem to have. I found the montage aspect somewhat unsettling at first, but the various strands in the web did come together well by the end. The end is the aspect on which I wish to focus in this comment.

Remember the famous ending shot from "Planet of the Apes," in which Taylor (Charlton Heston) looks up from the beach and sees the Statue of Liberty sticking out of the sand? That scene brought home the whole truth to us in the audience. Yes, it can happen here! (In the case of that movie, nuclear destruction.) The movie prompted us to constant vigilance against such a threat (or acceptance that we have no control over fate, if you prefer).

My emotional response was similar when I watched the parting shot of "Cradle Will Rock." Note that the final scene is TODAY, not the thirties! (It is also loaded with symbolism.)

First we witness the applause and joy after the play, followed by the interspersing of three separate (but connected) scenes: the dancing players and their audience (with three young children prophetically shouting "the cradle will rock"), the funeral procession of clowns carrying the casket of the dummy (bearing the sign "Federal Theatre. Born 1934; Died 1937. Killed by an act of Congress."), and the scene of the destroyed Rivera mural (focusing on the one remaining piece: the syphilis cell, which Rivera claimed represented the "decadent rich") and its three bored, indifferent workmen, who are resting after the destruction. The final scene is of the funeral procession moving from a dark street of the past into a busy, brightly lit city street of today. The parting shot is of that present scene. First we see a vending box labeled "USA Today," then a crowded sidewalk and street, with a red light and "walk" sign in the center. The first car in our focus is an NYPD cruiser, followed by yellow taxis. Then the camera focuses on an array of huge, brightly lit signboards and logos: Sony Theaters, Hertz, Marriott Marquis, Kodak, Maxell, Suntory Whisky, and others. To the left side of the screen are two American flags. Another sign, high above the flags says "Prove It."

I found this scene almost as profound as the aforementioned scene from "Planet of the Apes." I thought it was such a major point in the movie. It seemed to be trying to prompt us to constant vigilance against an imbalance of power (or to accept the "blowing winds" of fate). Or perhaps I simply read a lot into it.

Digging deeper, I noted that the three scenes each have significant threes: three children, three apathetic workmen, three dummies (puppets). The children might represent possibilities for the future, young instruments ready to be filled with knowledge and understanding. They are linked symbolically with the open-minded bohemian artists. The three dummies (one wooden puppet and two actors representing puppets) represent people, especially ignorant people who allow themselves to be manipulated. They are symbolically linked with death. The three workmen symbolize apathy in the shape of human drones who perform their work without thinking about what they are doing. Interestingly, the workmen managed to destroy all of the mural except the syphilis cell representing the decadent rich. Their apathy frees them from caring that they are allowing the decadent rich to manipulate them and others. Also interestingly, Rockefeller (John Cusack) refers to the cell as a bubonic plague cell.

I thought most of the characters were deliberately painted as gross caricatures, while Diego Rivera, the artist, was portrayed much more carefully--let's say he was a more careful, serious caricature. Important were his arguments about his art as a political statement in the face of using his art to please someone for financial gain. Today it seems that all art, all literature, all science, all law, everything is simply a commodity to be bought and sold. The prostitution of art (and everything else, particularly the media) is such an important aspect of this film.

In one scene Rivera is explaining his mural to Rockefeller. Among the various items is a representation of television. Rivera says, "Television...beamed visual radio! Imagine the potential for education!" Television, in this statement, might represent the various media, in the Aristotelian sense that the purpose of art is to educate and enlighten. Today's media, represented in the final shot of giant signboards and logos, have woefully failed to educate, though they have made masses of people into apathetic puppets and dummies, and they certainly have made a lot of money while failing to educate.

The winners in the film seem to be those who remain open-minded (such as the children and bohemian artists) and do not allow themselves to be manipulated (like the puppets) or apathetic (like the workmen). At any rate, profound or not, "Cradle Will Rock" is a provocative, intellectual film, worth a second, more careful examination.

Shanghai Noon (2000)

Best Jackie Chan movie I've seen

[8/10 · 21 November 2000]

This is the best Jackie Chan movie I've seen, and I think I've seen them all. In this film Jackie demonstrates his excellent skills in physical comedy. Great timing and facial expression. He and Owen Wilson work extremely well together, and I would love to see them together in another film. At first my husband thought Wilson's "California surf dude" caricature was inappropriate, but, as the comedy unfolded, we found that contrast to the typical Western hero to be a great source of comedy, and we found him to be a great partner for Chan. His slight resemblance to Redford made the "Butch Cassidy" scenes work well.

The DVD was a lot of fun because the bonus materials made us laugh all over again after the movie. I was surprised that some really great scenes had been deleted from the movie, but happy that they showed up in the DVD bonus material. I adored the three Chinese toddlers. I don't know why the editors cut that tiny, one-minute scene. The children are precious. They don't actually DO anything, they just look adorable. Other deleted scenes would have been fun to see in the movie. We even found ourselves amused by the silly quiz game included in the DVD.

In addition to the great physical action and silliness, the movie was beautiful to watch. The visuals were fantastic, from the breathtaking scenery (both East and West) to the beautiful, colorful costumes. As always with a Jackie Chan movie, the intricate choreography was great fun to watch. Often in his movies he seems to wipe out all the bad guys, but in this film the fact that he doesn't always win allows him to explore his comedic talents more. We got a bang out of the tomahawk scene, which offered a surprise to the audience, along with a great laugh. Even the bathtub scene, goofy though it was, filled us with belly laughs. Even little details, such as the few bars of an Aerosmith song at the appropriate moment, added entertainment value for us.

I could go on and on, because we enjoyed this flick so much. We intend to watch it again and again.

Magnolia (1999)

Painful cacophony

[1/10 · 21 November 2000]

I know this is stupid of me, but I'm going to write a review of a movie that I couldn't stand after a few minutes, so I didn't watch the whole thing. Not a fair review at all, but I feel so strongly about it that I'm getting this off my chest.

Perhaps today's MTV montage, sound bite oriented audiences can enjoy this sort of torture, but I can't enjoy being beaten over the head by a bunch of disjointed angry noise while someone is loudly singing what seems like five hours of a lame version of "One Is the Loneliest Number." I couldn't like any of the people whose lives I was seeing tiny shards of. Though I wanted to see how all this would come together brilliantly in the end, I couldn't stand the headache I was getting from too many competing noises and soap opera tidbits, so I shut the damned thing off. No movie is worth enduring that agony. End of review.

Dante's Peak (1997)

Better than "Volcano"

[7/10 · 1 August 2000]

Though "Dante's Peak" had its share of faults, we (husband and wife) found it enjoyable, particularly the special effects and the small-town character. Having slugged our way through "Volcano," we were not thrilled to be sucked into another volcano movie, but we decided to give it an optimistic try. Without Tommy Lee Jones, "Volcano" would have been completely intolerable. We felt sorry for Jones for having been roped into such a stupid movie. What made "Dante's Peak" more engrossing for us was the "it could happen here" feeling and the fairly smooth flow of plotline. "Volcano" made us angry because the characters' behaviors seemed beyond stupid, in light of the circumstances. It was as if someone asked them "what's the worst, stupidest thing you could possibly do in this situation," and then told them to do it. "Volcano" seemed so deliberately contrived, and it went on and on forever with contrivance after contrivance. On the other hand, "Dante's Peak" moved along in a fairly logical order, allowing for some realistic human errors, such as the grandmother refusing to move, the children attempting to rescue her, and the boss who didn't want to unnecessarily upset the town. Granted, if the acid in a lake can eat through a metal boat, it's gonna make quick work of a grandmother--so the grandmother/boat scene was foolish. Also, a small truck cannot drive across molten lava and it is unlikely that a pickup can navigate a river. If the director wanted us to believe in the truck's water ability, we should have been given a better reason for its having been equipped for water travel. However, I don't know how he could have worked the "driving over lava" scene to make it more credible. Perhaps a jump over a lava-filled crevasse or something.

In spite of these flaws, the special effects were still convincing enough to keep us engaged. The only time we began to get fidgety was during the tunnel scene in which Brosnan, attempting to make it to the truck, kept being pelted by falling rocks. Either the rocks should have fallen at a somewhat constant pace or they should have fallen quickly once or twice. Unfortunately, the rockfalls kept recurring after every few steps taken by Brosnan, and every few moments after he entered the truck. This repetition got lame awfully quick. Also, as the truck roof was caving in, it's elasticity cheapened the effect. It was easy to picture a special effects employee leaning on the rubber roof over Brosnan's head.

In spite of those things, we felt that the film portrayed a more realistic idea of what would occur if a dormant volcano near a small town became active. With a few exceptions, the special effects were extremely well-done. The acting was convincing, as well. Linda Hamilton's coffee shop mayor reminded me of one of our local state representatives, who runs a small, popular nearby restaurant and nightclub. Hamilton's character was friendly, helpful, and very likeable, much like our local rep, who's cheery smile and good work keep us voting for her. Brosnan didn't appear to overexert himself, but he comfortably portrayed his usual charming, intellectual character. The kids did a great job, and the volcanology crew was convincing.

Because I usually find disaster movies somewhat trite, I didn't go out of my way to see this one, but now that I've watched it, I consider it one of the better ones.

Random Hearts (1999)

PLEASE DELETE

[1/10 · 22 July 2000]

Please delete my comment on Random Hearts, or at least, the paragraph about Kristen Scott Thomas. I made a HUGE mistake. I thought I'd recognized her as the actress who played Katya in Die Hard with a Vengeance, but I was wrong. Usually I check my sources before opening my big mouth, but I failed this time. I was so convinced that she must be the same actress that I compared the two roles as I watched the movie. I usually have my movie guidebooks nearby to check for verification when I am watching a movie at home, but I merely jumped to a stupid conclusion.

Now, what had seemed the high point of the movie for me has now been turned into more nothing. Oh, well!

Random Hearts (1999)

Embarrassed for Ford

[1/10 · 22 July 2000]

I was embarrassed for Harrison Ford when I watched this flick, which I fast-forwarded a few times due to the long scenes during which nothing happened. Apparently, Ford was embarrassed, as well, because he didn't seem to be acting, but rather, walking around half-asleep.

They say "Seinfeld" was a show about nothing. Well, this was a movie about nothing. While "Seinfeld" was able to create nine fun-filled years based on nothing, this movie created nothing out of a number of solid possibilities. Seeds of plot were strewn around, but nothing was allowed to grow. The plotlines were undeveloped. The characters were undeveloped. And with all of that "nothing" happening, the creators still found plenty of room for filler. I was amazed. ("The Producers" would have created a successful flop in "Springtime for Hitler" if they'd only taken lessons from the creators of this waste of film.)

The high point of the film, for me, was seeing that Kristen Scott Thomas has a pretty smile and lovely eyes. The only other movie I've seen her in was "Die Hard with a Vengeance," in which she played her part as the savage bitch to the hilt. In the former role she was excellent, so much that I felt anger and hatred at watching her character. In this movie she appeared to do the best she could under the circumstances.

The creators seemed to be attempting to romanticize adultery, making it the norm, and suggesting that those who remain faithful to their spouses must lead boring lives. With that attitude they created a shaky relationship between the two main characters, one that gave the audience no reason whatsoever to care about it. Certainly the movie was faithful to its title, but WHO CARES? Precisely!

Days of Heaven (1978)

Beautiful - captures a sense of the time period

[10/10 · 29 June 2000]

This is one of those movies I always meant to see, but never got around to, until today. What a pleasure! A feast for the senses!

"Days of Heaven" is not for those who require fast action and a complicated plot. It is more for those who want a movie to make them feel transported to another place and time. The movie appears to be slow-paced with little dialogue, but its minimalism is part of what transports the viewer to the quiet, natural landscape and a time in which the stressful racket of today is nearly absent. Yes, there are guns, trains and machinery, but they stand out against a background of heavenly peace and quiet. The human beings in this landscape are only a part of the integral web of existence. Each creature and each plant seem to have their importance in this world because the cinematographers took the time to focus on each, and the sound people carefully presented the aural effects.

We see the wheat blowing in the breeze and hear the sound of the individual plants brushing up against each other. We look birds, animals and insects in the eye. We see the magnificence of thousands of acres of fields against the sunset. The sound and visual effects are so clear and strong that we can almost smell and feel what we are seeing and hearing.

The focus on the human beings in this film is so clear that we can feel their pain and suffering that comes with poverty and hard work. We can almost feel what it must have been like to have lived in that time--or in similar circumstances in our own time. We can also feel their love and joy.

As I watch the natural world around me being destroyed and replaced by roads, buildings and parking lots at an unbelievably fast pace, I am filled with intense longing as I gaze at the wonders of the world presented by this movie--a time before the whole country became "developed" and "technologically improved," when more things had to be done by hand and on foot--a much quieter and more natural world.

Of course, actual "days of heaven" cannot exist without "days of hell" forming a contrast. The movie clearly portrays the destruction of the Eden-like beauty of the amber waves of grain by focusing very closely on the individual locusts as they munch on individual grains of wheat. We are shown a few individuals, then groups, then swarms, as the destruction becomes more devastating. It is all so poetic--the fall of nature accompanying the fall of humanity--days of hell (the furnaces of Chicago) followed by days of heaven followed by days of hell.

The plot may appear simple, but in portraying the depth of the interconnectedness between humans and the rest of nature in the cycles of life, the simplicity becomes quite profound. What makes this movie so great is the attention to the minute details that create the whole experience and the clarity with which they are portrayed.

Limbo (I) (1999)

Amazing artistic craftsmanship

[9/10 · 6 June 2000]

**SPOILER ALERT**

I just finished watching the DVD and I had to comment immediately before I exploded.

My first feeling at the close of the final scene was tremendous anger. I wanted to wring John Sayles' neck for sucking me in, once again, and then pulling the net out from under me--but then the light dawned. What an incredible piece of art!

This movie makes one think, feel, and marvel. (No, not if you like typical Hollywood garbage. If you like the standard fare on screen and TV, you will probably miss the whole point of this movie, and you won't feel the buzz afterward, either.)

I don't know where to begin, so I'll just jump right into the middle somewhere. I applaud the courage of everyone involved in this movie for giving it their best, knowing that they were working with art and not just popular fluff. It doesn't seem that the purpose of this movie was to make money, but to create an experience--risky business, but wonderful art. (Today it is so difficult to find true risk takers, which, ironically, is also one of the movie's themes.)

Sayles' choice of elements struck me personally, in much the same way that he first grabbed me with Secaucus Seven. Sayles has a way of creating art that makes the audience feel a strong sense of identification. I could feel the whole environment of the movie, as if I were actually there. The presentation of scenery and characters was so REAL, so REAL. I felt as if I knew the people and the places personally. I could smell the sea air and damp smoke, feel the camaraderie at the bar and the dampness of the forest. (In fact, I had to pause the movie and leave the room to get a quilt during the cold, damp forest scenes--even though it's June.) I could feel the despair of people in the characters' situations. An added bonus was Mastrantonio's voice--I never knew she could sing. The music touched me. (Thank you Mason Daring and MEM.)

The characters were extremely realistic and believable. Strathairn, Mastrantonio and Martinez all skillfully conveyed complex emotions, while managing to hold back enough to let the audience feel as well.

As the movie began to coast along at a slow pace, I began to get itchy, and nearly fast-forwarded, but I now believe that the slow pace, the understatement, and the deliberate suspension of resolution that Sayles put us through contributed to the near epiphany I felt just after the movie ended. One might sarcastically suggest that I was relieved that it was over, but that's not true. It wasn't a feeling of relief at all. It was a feeling of overwhelming emotion: anger, at first, followed by awe.

As in great literature, underlying a seemingly simple plot is a complex webwork of philosophical themes--in this case, all connected in some way to the idea of "limbo," the term defined by the movie. Why define the word at all? Because it is the black side of the yin-yang symbol, which everything in the universe requires in order to define and prove the existence of its opposite.

I apologize for meandering so much. I was so taken by the movie that I felt the need to say something but I think it is important to demonstrate how the skills and talents of those involved in making the movie (most notably the writer/director/editor, actors, music director, cinematographer, and production designer) worked together to leave me awestruck. Thank you, John Sayles, for a strange, remarkable experience.

The Mighty Quinn (1989)

Great fun

[7/10 · 31 May 2000]

While I don't consider this a "great" movie, I must say that it is one of those movies like a favorite pair of slippers: always so comfortable to put on. I can't stop watching this old movie because it's so much fun, the characters are so comfortable to be with, the locations are so relaxing, and Washington is, as always, a wonderful actor.

Though it is not the high point of the movie, my favorite moment occurs when Quinn (Washington) loosens up, sits down at the piano, and begins an amusing rendition of "Cakewalk into Town." Unfortunately, others subvert his song into "The Mighty Quinn," disturbing the atmosphere somewhat, but that's all part of the plot.

Quinn's "serious cop" is the straight man to another worthy character, Maubee (Robert Townsend), an impish rascal loved by everyone on the island.

"The Mighty Quinn" makes me want to go to the island and party with everyone there, but, alas, it's only a movie.