Lunchbox-8 Reviews

Eye of the Eagle (1987)

Just about the worst made(but still rewarding!) movie

[10/10 · 6 July 2001]

Eye of the Eagle is just absolute classic cheese. *There are some spoilers in this review I must warn you though* First of all, this battle or whatever the hell it is, is supposed to be in Vietnam, right? Then why are all the trees in the background all evergeens and trees that can be found in just about any state in the northern U.S.? Also, the "Vietnamese" enemys in th emovie are just the same Asian-Americans in every scene. And the one army Jeep in the movie you know the makers borrowed from the Army Surplus store down the corner. If you're in the right mood to make fun of a really bad movie with your friends, then this really is like the best! Hilarious, absolutely hilarious!

Stir of Echoes (1999)

I'm suprised this was never picked up by a larger mass of people

[8/10 · 21 June 2001]

But then horror movies really never are. Sure there's a couple popular ones, Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, if you can call those two scary (though they're both superb films), and The Shining, probably one of the scariest movies ever made. Sorry for digressing. Stir of Echoes really wasn't that bad at all. It falls into that forsaken category of mid to late nineties where movies were either big hits or they weren't anything at all. Well, lot's of good films fell through society's very loose grip on good taste, so to speak.

Coming back to the point, Stir of Echoes really was a good movies. It was scary at points, had good lighting and sets, good visual effects, and at points, was pretty scary. The plot was also very entertaining. It's more than just the average hanted house movie where wierd things start happening and people die for no reason, it's really more of a mystery. It's really about a missing girl and the people who try to solve the mystery of her death. The afformentioned scary parts were the parts where the missing girl's ghost was visible as she stalked around the house. It was very neat the way that they filmed her. She seemed to shake, almost vibrate, like she's fighting to be there or something, and it ends up being a very interesting effect. Altogether, it wasn't completely scary. It was interesting. It showed the lifestyle of an average blue-collar family in urban Chicago, not really urban urban, but more likt suburban urban, a little in between. The lighting in the movie was very dismal and dark, not like depressing and frightening in Silence of the Lambs or Se7en, but like more of a Chicago Spring setting. Very cool. Good lighting really makes or brakes a movie. Consider the ill-fated Manhunter movie, by director Michael Mann. The entire movie looked like it was made by the beach boys, it was so bright (except for a few scenes, which were darkly lit, to my great pleasure). It's more famous successor was the opposite. It had that wonderful autumn element that made it all the more scarier. Sorry, for once again digressing.

But in summary, this movie really was good. It had great acting, mostly from the talented Kevin Bacon, and a great supporting cast. The ending was excellent and complemented the great plot. All together:

My Rating: 8/10

Toy Soldiers (1991)

What was so wrong with this movie? Nothing

[8/10 · 20 June 2001]

Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated. Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars, E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some movies don't need ny of that junk.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent, which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless "appreciation" sites dictate the fact that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again for the tangent.

Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do. Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there.

In short, Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate this movie poorly! Shame on you all!

Personal rating: 8/10

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

It's what we all expected

[19 June 2001]

Everybody who has any sense about and who had seen the trailers for Tomb Raider knew that it wasn't exactly the next Schindler's List. In one simple explanation, it was the average action movie. People didn't see it for any deep theme or insight into life, they either saw it for the fact that it had a lot of cool special effects or the fact that Angelina Jolie was in a lot of provocative and sexy shots (or both). Personally, I saw it because I had nothing better to do (not to mention a little leaning toward the aforementioned latter reason).

The plot was simple in one sense but in lot's of ways it was confusing and didn't at all times make sense. It was pretty easy to piece together: a really hip, strong, and witty protagonistic heroine has to save the world from an elite secret society who opt to take control of an ancient artifact capable of navigating through time, etc, etc. What was confusing was not the how or the where, it was the who and the why. First of all, the Illuminati, the elite secret society, are the who. But, really, who are they? They mentioned that they are the descendants of the artifact worshipers. That kind of makes sense, but parts of the movie say that the society worshiping the benevolent artifact were all dstroyed centuries ago. Okay, okay, we're not going to delve. What do we get from delving other than unnesecary irritation. After all, ignorance is bliss. Sorry for digressing. The next part is the why. Why did these people want to take control of the artifact? True, it could navigate through time, but it seemd that when the main charcater finally got control of the artifact, she only used it one time. Maybe that's saying you can only use it one time. And besides, why does the secret society need anything more than they already have? They languish comfortably in their cavernous, Western-European chambers, supported by a very conspicuous staff of unquestioning loyal waiters. What more could they possibly need?

Well, as I said before, there's really no reason to plunge into the obvious but oddly confusing. Simply put, Tomb Raider should be seen by only a certain crowd: either those heavily sedated or self medicated, or those who really have trouble insulting things, like white-eyed children not yet familiarized with the grand concept of critiquing. So, do as you please, if you want to see this movie based merely on cool-looking special effects or [sometimes lacking] provocative looking scenes with the gorgeous and well proportioned (BUT TAKEN!) Angelina Jolie, go ahead, enjoy! But if you want substance, not just flashy glam, or glammy flash, please save yourself and see something not so closely resembling a boat-load of vomit filled tripe.

Braindead (1992)

Too much substance and theme, not enough action and gore

[18 June 2001]

This movie truly was something wonderful. It was filled with great acting, deep and complicated plot lines, and remarkably interesting and compelling characters. The dialouge was good as well. If you want a movie that has countless profound insights about life, as well as the most exquisite beauty possibly imagineable, and plus a good ending that ties together the umpteen charcater webs, watch it and be stunned!

Raging Bull (1980)

A modern classic, full of great detail and cinematography

[11 June 2001]

Raging Bull truly was a great movie. It is probably the best boxing movie of all time as well as DeNiro's probably best work (maybe Taxi Driver or Godfather II). What I liked the most about this movie was the cinematography. Scorcese in my opinion has just about the best cinematography of any director, excluding maybe Stanley Kubrick. The superb filming is highlighted in the marvelous boxing scenes. The screen can get blurry at times(intentional) and the camera moves quickly around the ring and whips around each fighter as they jab and punch. The glorious black and white and eventual color also work out very well. In the early and middle parts of the film, the movie is in black and white. The setting and characters all look like they came directly from the forties, where these portions are based. Even if you're not a boxing fan, you'll still be amazed. If average fights were filmed the way the fights in the movie were, God knows I'd be watching more often. And another thing: the pacing was brilliant. How the very slow and agreeable scenes melded quickly with the fast paced boxing scenes.

Overall, it's a great film with great directing, filming, acting, and everything. It should be seen by all Scorcese or Boxing fans and all film-buffs.

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Possibly one of the best crime dramas ever made

[10/10 · 7 June 2001]

LA Confidential is simply a great movie. It yeilds an award winning cast, superb plot, great action, and masterful art direction. By art direction I mean the way that the movie really does seem to take place in 1953. The costumes and hairstyles, the car models and years, the intense Los Angeles background, etc. It all comes out to make the movie have a great and unique image. Many compare the image of LA Confidential to that of The Untouchables. One major flaw: LA Confidential was a serious picture with great charcaters while Untouchables had those charcaters who had that whole comical image about them, like the bookman at the end, or Capone's cliched groupies who pretty much seemed like they came directly from an old Dick Tracy cartoon clip. Besides the sincere and successful image, the plot is absolutely superb, nearly perfect. It combines deep and confusing mystery with a great dramatic story of cops. Besides the plot, the cast is great too. Kevin Spacey, one of my favorite actors, functions very well as the fame hungry and funny cop Jack "Big V" Vincennes. Guy Pearce, featured in the great thriller Memento, is a very good newcomer who plays the by the book Ed Exely. Also, Russel Crowe is great as the violent but principled cop Wendell "Bud" White.

Altogether, LA Confidential is a great movie. It is definitely one of the best movies made in the 90's and possibly the best ploce drama ever.

Goodfellas (1990)

Classic Mafia Cinema

[10/10 · 7 June 2001]

Good fellas was directed by master director Martin Scorcese and is probabaly his best. It tells the story of an Irish-Italian protaginist, Henry Hill, who starts out running errands for his friendly mafia neighbours to becoming a made man. It brings us through the traditional and exciting avenues of an Italian crime syndicate from the the fifties to the eighties. The cast is also exceptional. Ray Liotta plays the main character and his close friend and mentor is played by Robert DeNiro, the definitive actor to play a gangster. The rest of the cast is filled with actors who play mafiosos in many other crime movies. The movie is really a story told in the first person by the main character, Henry Hill, of the perks of being involved in the mafia and the sudden betrayl and the self-centeredness that the mob can entail.

It's truly a great picture that should be seen by everybody whoo has any interest in crime or crime dramas. Superb!

Memento (2000)

Without a doubt, by far the best movie I've seen in the theaters in over a year

[10/10 · 5 June 2001]

Memento truly was a unique movie. First of all, the major and most engaging attribute to the movie was the non-linear, backwards time-line that the movie was based on. It really was the only successful way to present all the facts in the movie but still keep up on the whole memory loss factor. It was really cool though because it was so confusing. It wasn't really that confusing but it was enough for (sorry for breaking the golden rule) me to speak out in the theater to my buddy and ask him for some concise guidance. But with the backwards plot, there was a telephone discussion between the main character and a soon-to-be-known other character.

In short, Memento was a fascinating movie that took a seemingly simple plot (SEEMINGLY!) and turned it into a truly unique and rewarding movie theater experience.

Traffic (2000)

One of the few great films I've seen in 2001

[29 May 2001]

This definitely was a great movie. It combined a) a great and unique plot, b) stunning cinematography and visuals, and c) spectacular acting to come out as a whole a superb movie.

The plot was unique not because of the basic ideas of the plot, but because of the way they were presented. Three stories, all with charcaters unknown to each other, are simultaneously presented, each as interesting and engaging as the next. The first story is with Benicio Del Toro as he and his partner explore the dangerous and brutal world of drug trafficing. They both involve themselves with one side of two drug outfits battling for control of Tiajuana. He soon learns the brutality and fear that the industry entails when he and his partner are dragged further and further into the frightening world of drugs. The next story is with politician Micheal Douglas. As he tries to succeed in his work, his family suffers internally because of his daughter's quick addiction to inhaled cocaine. As Douglas tries to warn others of the dangers of drugs, he learns more and more of the pain and anguish drug addiction causes. Probably the most comedy came from the daughter's friend in the story, the guy who plays Eric Foreman in "That 70's Show." The third story is that of Catherine Zeta Jones as she tries to get her husband, who was strongly involved in drug trade without her knowledge, out of going to prison and in turn leaving her and her son to defend themselves against the people to whom debts are owed from her husbands dangerous trade. This story involves both officers of the law, trying to protect the lead witness against Catherine Zeta Jones husband. What was so cool about the way that the movie was told is the way that the stories all pretty much had the same theme about the effect drugs have on people and families. It really was a shame to see at some points the awful things that could happen, but in the end it all kind of came back together so each character in the stories weren't completely screwed anymore.

The cinematography was so good because of how each story was filmed in literally a different light. The story with Benicio was filmed to be very hot-looking (to say in one word). It was filmed to look very yellow and bright. There were a lot of sun caused glare and almost every character brandished sunglasses and profusely sweated. The camera also seemed to be much shakier as well and all together made the entire setting look like, well...Mexico. The Michael Douglas story was filmed to look very greyish and bluish. It looked very much like the north-eastern U.S. Catherine Zeta Jones' story, though, was just filmed in normal looking light.

The acting in Traffic was spectacular. Everybody's favorite, Benicio Del Toro, really was great. He is definitely one of the best foreign actors in our modern age. Michael Douglas and his character's daughter (the actress, I mean, I don't know her name) both were great by themselves and funtioned well together. Everybody else, especially the police officers in Catherine Zeta Jones' story, also acted very well.

All together the movie was very, very good. It was a gem in a long line of terrible movie theater films. It really had everything that you want in a movie: good plot, action, acting, filming, and directing.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

One of the worst movies ever made

[4/10 · 24 May 2001]

Not only is this one of the worst movies ever made, but in my opinion it was extremely funny. It wasn't meant to be funny though. At the meant to be funny parts I shuddered due to the cliched movie hogwash I was hearing. Some parts were just unbearable. There were so many stupid mistakes that the directors made that were in the film. I don't mean like seeing a shadow or a boom mike on accident, I mean things that just don't make any damn sense. For Example: When the team of adventurous, pulp comic, Indiana Jones rip-off team of heroes were traveling in a blimp made out of wood, they had a fire in the blimp. I don't mean in a secluded little stone alcove made for bonfires, I mean right on the wooden floor of the blimp. This is what I saw! And then, later, when the heroes were trying to escape impending doom from a previously KILLED AND SENT TO HELL mummy monster guy, they escaped on their blimp in a very fake manner. They didn't deflate the balloon or anything that stupid, they used advanced rocket technology...with seemingly no harsh burns or accidents...in 1935...when rocket technology was unheard of...on an independent charterer's seemingly pieced together by junk blimp. Just great. That made a whole lot of sense. The scenes in this movie just didn't make sense. When Brendan Frasier and that magi guy are stalking through a museum, they encounter many live mummies...trapped in glass...brought back from the dead. That all seems okay. But when this seemingly terrifying ordeal was over, they seem unfase, the don't even mention the incident...ever. And what is the deal with Imhotep or whatever. He was dragged to Hell at the end of Mummy part one, right? Well, now somehow they dug him up only to find him encased in some sort of bug carcass loookin thing. HOW? HOW? HOW? THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!! I couldn't control myself at many parts of the movie from making both snyde remarks and immense outbursts of rude laughter. Oops! The cliched gun fights with the average enough lookin Arabs were once again, completely stupid. The same thing happened again and again. A bunch of Egyptians clad in the average turbin and desert fatigue (IN LONDON!!!) with NO ACCURACY FIRING THE AUTOMATIC WEAPON were killed almost instantly any time the good guy pointed a gun at them. Maybe I just have really good taste (considering one of my favorite movies is Evil Dead II) TRUST ME, DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. IT WAS INCREDIBLY STUPID!

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Superb crime movie

[9/10 · 24 May 2001]

The Usual Suspects is simply a great movie. From it's unique and wonderful directing style to it's great cast of charcaters and actors, The Usual Suspects is just one good scene after another that compiles together to form a modern masterpiece in crime drama.

All of the actors were just spectacular in this picture. Stephen Baldwin is just great. He's funny and plays a great criminal. Kevin Pollack, ome of the most underrated and talented actors of our time, is hilarious. He plays the regular wise-cracking jerk criminal full of good jokes and fresh sarcasm. Kevin Spacey is phenomenal. He acts perfectly for the role he is supposed to. Benicio Del Toro is great too. He's funny and exciting in all of his roles, of course. And of course there's Chazz Palmenteri. He's great as the hard-ass detective trying desperately to solve the mystery the film centers around.

The non-linear order of scenes in this movie really works out well, and is never really confusing. Non-linear timelines of scenes always add a little spice to the film. This one works out perfectly.

And of course the plot is just awesome. It's a great story for a crime/drama. Twists and turns at every corner. Surprises, fun elements added, etc. The action in the movie is great too. The gun fighting scenes are good too.

Last but definitely not least is the great ending. Bryan Singer just pulls the carpet out from under you. It's surprising and simply awesome. And the ending scenes are truly classic. Truly. This is just a great film that deserves to be seen by everybody.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A journey through truly classic filmmaking

[8/10 · 24 May 2001]

2001: a Space Odyssey is truly one of if not the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. Kubrick was one of the greatest directors of all time. Always making an intelligently made, meaningful movie that wasn't always appreciated by critics but usually adored by countless movie buffs. This movie, Kubrick's first dip into the endless seas of science firction, has probably had more impact than any other movie in the sci-fi category. It changed the image that many people had of science fiction up to that point. Kubrick brought an often ludicrous and usually meaningless genre into the blossoming and incredible gem that it is today. Would cinema be the same without such classics as Blade Runner, Star Wars, or The Matrix? The answer is no. And all this beauty can be credited towards one man- Stanley Kubrick.

The film is the story of mankind. It is an wisely conceived theory about the origin of human intelligence. It's full of countless themes having to do with the human nature, computers, religion, and alien control over our lives. The most comprehensive work about the themes of 2001 can be found in the liner notes of the 2001: a Space Odyssey soundtrack. It is full of cool insights about the great picture.

2001 is an interesting movie but really is always either loved or hated, just one side or the other, no in betweens. The main reason that the film is sometimes so strongly hated is because of the fact that nothing really exciting happens in the film. There is no emotion or great acting in the film. No gun fights or big action sequences. The main reason to see this movie is to realize and understand the deep underlying themes in it. I'm not going to divulge any of them, but the source I stated before pretty much covers it. If you're not into movies that are real thinkers, then don't see this. If you like sci-fi like Armageddon or (shudder) Supernova, then definitely don't se this. This isn't the story of a budding romance and a bunch of cool zero gravity laser fights.

2001: a Space Odyssey is truly a work of art. It deserves to be seen by anyone with any interest in film or any so called sci-fi fan.

Clerks (1994)

One great movie

[9/10 · 21 May 2001]

Clerks is the story of...well...clerks. Dante and his friend Randall sut around in the local Quick Stop mini mart and converse about relationships, movies, and life itself. Kevin Smith has to be a genius. He made a hilarious, entertaining film that cost around fifteen thousand dollars to make. It made about forty million in theater gross and video rentals and purchases.

Kevin Smith used a small number of main characters and a pretty simple plot to make this movie. The film never drags though, as more and more charcater developments appear and more social insights occur. I love this movie!

Evil Dead II (1987)

A funny, violent cult masterpiece

[8/10 · 21 May 2001]

Evil Dead was a somewhat funny, scary, and cheaply made movie that definitely brought back a hefty profit. Evil Dead two was even better. Perhaps the greatest of the three Sam Raimi zombie films, it is definitely the funniest and was a little bit less of a sell-out movie, so to speak. I'm going to turn to Kevin Smith for a prime example in the thinking of saying that Army of Darkness, although an awesome movie, was still reeking of selling out while Evil Dead two was pure genius (well...): Clerks, the first movie in the Jersey trilogy featuring the charcaters Silent Bob and Jay and all written and directed by Kevin Smith. Clerks was a materpiece in independent film making. It was deeply insightful, hiarious, and overall entertaining. It was made in a distinct style that quickly famed Kevin Smith. Mallrats: the next movie in the Jersey trilogy, was a little bit more of, as said before, a sell-out movie. It was made entirely not to provide deep theme or insight, but to make money. That is what Army of Darkness is to Evil Dead two. Evil Dead two is a pure, funny, gorey movie that shouldn't be missed if you're into "scary" movies that just end up being funny.

Vertigo (1958)

Definitely one of the greatest mystery/ thrillers of all time

[21 May 2001]

Vertigo is one of the greatest films ever made. It provides a very interesting and catchy plot (standard of Hitchcock) and a surprising and amazing ending. Hitchcock truly was the master at his game and Vertigo is an example of this. It's a great, fun film to watch with great setting, characters, and plot.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Great cast, plot, acting, and directing

[19 May 2001]

What can I say about this film that hasn't already been said. I guess my favorite attribute about this movie is the unique direction by Quentin Tarentino. Instaed of having an average crime drama with lots of cool killing like most movies, he intertwined three different stories and one cool scene into a superb look at crime. Tarentino makes criminals look not as much like one-dimensional Gods, as most movies do, but he makes them look like average human beings that have morals, weaknesses, and personalities. He shows how crimianls make mistakes, and that their reasons for killing aren't just for the hell of it. He shows how criminals think, feel, react, etc. Besides that, the cast is just exceptional. Harvey Keitel, Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman, etc. all make the movie experience more fun. They all are wonderful stage presences, to say the least. Another cool thing about the film that is often overlooked is it's image. It has this image that is just impossible to describe, like how American Beauty or Fight Club moth have their images. The colors, the sets, the dialouge, the characters all come together to create this image, and, let me tell you: it's just awesome. It's a fun movie with witty dialouge. I can't get enough of this movie. And, oh yeah, the infamous basement scene with the...I won't give it away. It's very awful and disgusting but it's not like the entire movie is centered around it, so just watch it, and see how it plays a vital part in the development of Bruce Willis's charcater. See it, you'll love it (But first see Resovoir Dogs."

The Killing (1956)

A movie with average plot, fair acting, but superb direction

[8/10 · 19 May 2001]

Stanley Kubrick is truly one of the most gifted directors of all time. He wasn't afraid to be boring(2001: a Space Odyssey) or critically bashed(The Shining) or risque and disturbing(A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut). He simply did his job: to provide a well made film with strong theme and meaning. The Killing is definitely not Kubrick's best work. It seems to me that Stan wasn't famous enough and too little known to make The Killing the way that he wanted to. It was though, still pretty entertaining. It has one of my favorite attributes that most movies don't even steer close to: a non-linear plot. A non-linear plot is when scenes are put in non-chronilogical order, i.e. Pulp Fiction, Out of Sight, Fight Club, etc. It makes the audience pay more attention and makes the plot seem more interesting and intricate. In this movie, the plot wasn't way out of order, but it was enough to be conidered non-linear.

Another cool part of the movie was the heist itself. It was very well planned and executed and obviously took time to think up. The depressing climax and ending lean a lot towards the work of Hitchcock. In fact, if this film had been in some parts been by Hitchcock, it would not have been too much of a surprise.

If you're in to classic, black and white crime dramas, then this movie is for you.

Se7en (1995)

Intriguing crime drama

[9/10 · 20 March 2001]

Se7en is simply a great movie. It provides a unique motive for a

serial killer: to kill violators of the seven deadly sins. Is a person

justified in killing if doing it for the greater cause of society? Or

is it merely a veneer used to excuse morbid pleasures? Se7en discusses

this moral question. Besides the plot, he characters are not bad

either. Brad Pitt plays a defiant, rookie-like cop who partners with

the wise, veteran Morgan Freeman. Brad Pitt of course acts to the best

of his ability. It's too bad that he has achieved the taboo status of

being a heart-throb. Morgan Freeman though is respected for his great

roles in the past. The greatest part of the story ,though, is the ending which isn't

exactly a surprise but still is great how it ties the story together.

Another good attribute of the movie are the sets. They fulfill their

task of being depressing, dark, and just something that you'd see on a

rainy, dismal day in the city. Even the scenes in the large sunny

fields seem to be oddly depressing and dismal. Watch a great film: Se7en.

Down to Earth (2001)

Fair but not good

[6/10 · 1 March 2001]

I won't lie to you. I didn't like this movie. It seemed that Chris

Rock dparted from his generally funny movies or comedy specials

to sell-out, so to speak, and make a cheap family movie. It was

one of those movies where the entire success of the film came

from Chris Rock being in it. The plot was unoriginal, i.e. "Heaven

Can Wait." Parts of the plot seemed just out there, like the

audience hadn't really been filled in enough (that may have been,

however, because I walked out of the movie twice seeking

refreshments, not to mention escape).

Parts of the movie though were okay. I laughed genuinely about

five times, but I was not sufficiently enertained. In my opinion, kids

or people with really long attention spans should see this movie,

not adults or stupid people like me who think they're film critics.

Hannibal (2001)

Bit off more than they can chew!

[9/10 · 10 February 2001]

Hannibal was good despite it's severe critical bashing. After the painful ten year anticipation for the Silence of the Lambs sequel, was I actually possible for the movie to be as good as we expected and wanted? It was good though. There was still the morbid and disturbing but eerily interesting material like in The Silence of the Lambs. The plot though was totally different. Instead of an FBI hunt to catch a serial killer like in the film's two predeseccors, it was rather long and incredulous and seemed to be more than you could handle in one movie. There was too much information in the book that couldn't be all put into one film (Hence the one line summary `Bit off more than they can chew' which may have initially seemed to make no sense and just be a cheap pun (which it initially was)). Another big problem was the odd directing style which seems common with Ridley Scott. It seemed like footage you might see in a cheap contemporary Sci-Fi movie. It wasn't an artistic look into the mind of both a brilliant and evil killer and a forensic FBI search for a frightening new serial killer.

Nevertheless, Hannibal was good. I enjoyed the use of classical music as the main score. I enjoyed the way that the movie showed how Hannibal Lecter lived without being imprisoned. How he wasn't just a savage, disgusting villain, but a refined, savage, disgusting villain. In a nutshell: I don't know how they could put an actual film into a nutshell, it's just too big, I mean gimme a break. IN A NUTSHELL!!!: it was good but didn't stand up to my or other peoples' excessively high expectations.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

The perfect movie

[10/10 · 2 February 2001]

The Shawshank Redemption is a movie is film-making at it's best. It features superb acting, directing, and story. Every single shot in this movie was a good one, the camera worked wonders that the average eye disregards as they focus on the beauty of the film.

This is the story of a falsely convicted man, and his struggle for freedom. Beyond the already great fact that it was a prison movie set in the 40's through late 60's, it was written by Stephen King, one of the greatest fictional writers of the late 20th centruy. The best part about prison movies is the fact that it's always moving, always developing, never boring. There's just something about prison movies that make you feel at home, as odd as that sounds. And plus, the movie was full of great narration and dialouge, full prison similes that were so eloquent, you know only Stephen King could have written them. Shawshank is the kind of movie you could watch over and over again and never get sick of, like American Beauty or One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

The movie just simply is perfect by every standard that we set. Do yourself a favor and see this movie.

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

Great movie

[9/10 · 31 January 2001]

The Hunt for Red October is one of the best submarine war movies of all time, probably second only to Das Boot. The plot, although somewhat incredulous, is very complex and interesting. Submarine movies usually are the same: a lone sub gets trapped under water for some various reason, the crew might throw a mutiny, or a submarine has the potential to start another war or something. All of these plots are pretty typical. The Hunt for Red October's plot, however, is very diverse.

The captain of the sub, Marco Ramius, seeks political asylum from the then U.S.S.R. in the United States and is custodian to not only a Typhoon-class Russian submarine, one of the most powerful military machines ever to exist, but one that can travel almost completely silently. As in all Clancy movies, all sides of the game are shown- the defiant sub captain, the United States CIA agent determined to find the sub, and the Russian naval force determined to stop the sub.

The Hunt for Red October is a great movie. There's plenty of suspense and action for the wandering mind to stay on task. The plot is fascinating and developing constantly, making for a good film. If you want to see submarine movies at their best, see The Hunt for Red October.

The Gift (2000)

Scary as Hell!

[29 January 2001]

If you liked the scary suspense of Evil Dead and the contemporary horror/mystery of Stir of Echoes, then you'll like this film. Sam Raimi, somewhat famous director and founding father of the Evil Dead Trilogy. He truly can make a scary movie. The Gift was full of highly suspenseful, highly scary scenes that made you just want to shut your eyes and walk out of the theater. Kate Blanchett, Keanu Reeves, Greg Kinnear, Hillary Swank, and Giovanni Ribisi all have major parts in this movie. All of those actors and actresses are truly talented and make this movie better than it already would have been with just Sam Raimi and the great plot.

The Gift is the story of a small town with many secrets and a Tarot card reader, Kate Blanchett, who is trying, sometimes unwillingly, to uncover one of the mysteries- the dissapearance of a young girl, fianse to a prominent member of the town. Soon after a suprising discovery, the prime suspect is tried. Kate Blanchett, the tarot reader, is still determined to find the truth.

The Gift is a great movie. it is suspenseful, scary, and dramatic. See it, but beware.......

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Kubrick's Vietnam Masterpiece

[28 January 2001]

Stanley Kubrick is synonomous with genius. His films truly are works of art in that they have countless themes and meanings. And all those profound themes are hidden under highly enjoyable movies. Movies like "The Shining," "2001: A Space Odessey," and "Path of Glory" are great examples of Kubrick's utter brilliance for conceiving films.

"Full Metal Jacket" is one of Stanley Kubrick's greatest films. It is literally divided into two chapters: the training, and when the training is used. The first part of the film, the training, portrays vividly the incredible mental and physical terror that the would-be marines go through. At times, the training seems unbearable, sadistic, and cruel, but in reality, that is exactly what they needed. Stanley Kubrick shows how the Marine training camp dehumanized the trainees into killing machines. Many people who have seen the first half of the movie describe it as being "one good line after another." They're describing the lines of the drill instructor, played by former drill insrtuctor Lee Ermey. In the pre-production of the film, Kubrick told Ermey to just make it real, something that he did with great skill. One of the best scenes in the first part was when the marines gathered for the "persuasive" meeting with Private Pyle. Even when they weren't in any training or combat, the marines gathered and executed the mission with total perfection and synchronicity, the sign of a true military force. The first half of "Full Metal Jacket" is perhaps one of the greatest chapters in film history in that it showed development and dehuminization like only Kubrick could.

The second half of "Full Metal Jacket" is when the intense training goes into use: combat. The battle scenes in this movie were just spectacular. Violent and brutal yes, they showed correctly Kubrick's style: dark but true. If you like great combat sequences and action, you'll like this film. If you like artistic films but are sick of lighter, somewhat dull plots, then "Full Metal Jacket" is a film for you.