homerjsimpsonn Reviews

Martin Lawrence Live: Runteldat (2002)

Not even worthy of a smile

[8 August 2002]

This recent stand-up movie of his was expectedly as piss-poor as his previous, i.e. "You So Crazy".

Martin Lawrence is easily one of the most annoying personalities to be recorded on film. Not only is he a lowsy actor to begin with, he's incredibly irritating to watch. His stand-up act is simply unbearable because it's nothing but Martin Lawrence and his embarassing way of talking. He overdoes everything. Every gesture, every word, is overly-black! He thinks he can be funny by acting black and talking black, almost as if he equates "blakness" with humor. (Chris Rock gets away with this because his content is actually funny to begin with.)

For God's sake, THE GUY IS NOT FUNNY!!!! I didn't even crack a smile once during the nearly two-hours of his agonizingly stupid, unwitty stand-up routine.

Me, Myself & Irene (2000)

Lord have mercy!!!!!!

[7 January 2002]

This movie was somewhat entertaining for about 70% of the time. During that 70%, however, there were a few scenes which blew me outta my socks; One of those scenes is when Charlie first becomes Hank. The grocery store checkout aisle and the VagiClean price check, dunking the girl in the fountain, the breast, the milk mustache, "parking" the car through the barber shop window and the ticket for a headlight out....only the way Jim Carey could execute this scene! I nearly lost my breath from laughing so hard. I was coughing, tearing at the eyes, slapping my knees, falling sideways. It was too much to laugh at all at once! I've never laughed so hard in a movie (this was much funnier than the magnifying glass seen in "Antz".) Even a week later, that scene would pop up in my head during class and I'd have to fight to keep the chuckling to myself. That's not the only such scene in this movie.

This is just one of those stupid movies you have to shut down your brain for before watching, and just sit back and enjoy the sheer stupidity of its meaningless slapstick comedy. If you're looking for wit or meaning of any kind, you'll enjoy this movie the same way you'd enjoy riding a roller coaster for a slow, scenic Sunday drive. Jim Carrey, once again, does a spectacular job at making his character(s) work. Renee Zellweger is a perfect level-headed opposite to Carey's character, and the music (Cake?) just perfects the comedy.

Yes, there were some slow scenes, but overall, I got off my sofa feeling a hefty dose of the therapeutic benefits of several good, hard laughs.

Unbreakable (2000)

This movie SuCkED!!!!!!!!!!

[12 December 2001]

This was a God-awful movie. I can't believe I wasted money to watch that nonsense! The story was lame, and the action was even lamer. So this nobody finds out that he can bench press more than he expected, and that he's not such a wimp. And he meets some some black dude with an afro who is his opposite. WHAT THE HELL WAS THIS MOVIE ABOUT??? Seriously!

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Cute. Just plain cute.

[4 November 2001]

I'm probably not supposed to do this, but comparisons between Monster's Inc. and Toy Story 1 and 2 are inevitable. The story concept behind Monster's Inc., although clever, isn't quite as clever as that of the Toy Story series (particularly Toy Story 1). The plot, in addition, is much simpler and less involved than those of either Toy Stories. Still though, this is a great movie simply because of its enormous adorability factor--a big furry monster, a goofy eyeball monster, and an absolutely adorable little girl (without a doubt the most adorable character I've seen in any movie ever, animated or live).

I won't say anything about the details of the story as most have below. You should just watch it and enjoy. Overall, not as good as Toy Story (the yardstick by which all future Disney/Pixar movies will be judged), but a very cute and very touching story nonetheless. The ending nearly brought tears to my eyes. Great flick. I will definitely purchase this one on DVD.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

I am the C.L.I.T. commander!

[21 September 2001]

There are very few comedy flicks that have made me laugh out loud, even if I thought they were funny. "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" was one of the elite few. I laughed long. I laughed hard. I think my girlfriend, with whom I saw the movie, was laughing at my laughing. And here I am today, nearly a week after seeing the movie, and STILL laughing at some of the jokes. I don't know if this says something about the quality of this movie, or worse, about my taste in comedy! Either way, this movie was just plain hilarious. Anyone who wouldn't be offended by anything less than an anvil falling on their head would also find this movie to be hilarious, just as I did.

Just as an aside....Some people have actually made reviews of this movie that would be more appropriate for something like "Shawshank Redemption" or some other meaningful flick. "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" is a mindless, meaningless flick that deserves no literary review whatsoever. It was meant to be slapstick comedy.

Schindler's List (1993)

Who cares? I mean really, who cares?

[21 September 2001]

A movie has to have offer the viewer something. It can be a much needed laugh, thrill, fright, or even historical information. What does Schindler's List offer us other than yet another look at this tired old topic that media has labeled "the holocaust"? Nothing. There are scores and scores of movies about the holocaust. Why are there so many movies about the holocaust? To help make sure that sympathy and support for the Jews where it counts (i.e. the U.S.A.) remains high. Do you know of anyone who likes watching material over and over and over and over about the death of a few million Jews......3000 miles away......that took place more than 50 years ago? I can understand people's affinity to movies related to a certain topic, such as war movies; some war movies are historically educational, others are entertaining cinematic renditions of certain battles (such as "Saving Private Ryan"). But who the hell is entertained by "the holocaust". After the first or second movie about the holocaust (in conjunction with the endless time devoted to it in high school history class), the historical aspects had been amply covered. Now we have Schindler's List. There's minimal history associated with it (except for a handful of survivor's walking across a graveyard at the end). Look at it this way: had the people working in Schindler's factory been ethnic Albanians or Martians, the movie would have remained the same. To me, that makes for a very bad movie.

"Life is Beautiful", a movie taking place during the holocaust, was a spectacular movie because, rather than being a blatant attempt at propaganda, it was actually a movie that was meant to give the viewer something. Laughter.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Oh, just read the review below!

[28 August 2001]

There are exceedingly few films that leave such strong impressions upon you, and even fewer that leave such impressions that have a meaning and a purpose. "The Shawshank Redemption" is a message about hope. What better way to show its value than through a film about a man spending 19 abusive and miserable years in prison for a horrendous crime he didn't commit, and finally getting his freedom along with supreme revenge against those who mistreated him.

Films where virtually everything that takes place contributes to the story are also rare. Everything in "Shawshank Redemption" had meaning; Andy earning beer for his fellow inmates, his two weeks "in the hole" for playing music over the loudspeaker, and Brooks' realization that he couldn't survive on the outside are just few examples. Throughout the movie, Andy's best friend Red maintained his sense of defeat, succumbing to the fact that he too was becoming "institutionalized" as Brooks had been, while Andy, in his subtle ways, viewed everything in his life as an opportunity.....including a tiny rock hammer that could bring him freedom "in 400 years".....or less! The movie builds up the two opponents, hope vs. despair, for their final battle in the end. After more than two hours of watching an innocent man suffer, I never expected to smile so much for the outcome of such a film.

On a more technical note, "The Shawshank Redemption" is a filming masterpiece. The actor selection was perfect, the acting was impeccable, and the directing of it all supported the story with absolute precision.

Anyone who dislikes this film ought to be shunned from society.

Hannibal (2001)

This is one nasty movie!

[27 August 2001]

First thing's first: this movie was nowhere near as good as its predecessor, "Silence of the Lambs". In the original, we learn more and more about Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lechter. They become two well-defined characters. In "Hannibal", we learn nothing more about them. The whole story is just a shallow, hypothetical continuation of their interaction. Perhaps we learn that Hannibal cares a little more about Clarice than we previously thought, and wouldn't kill her when given the opportunity. But then again, would Dr. Lechter's character have been changed had he killed her? Probably not, in my opinion. There's not much to the character aspect of this movie, which is the major component of the story of Hannibal and Clarice.

What this movie does successfully expand upon is just how psychotic yet of sound mind Dr. Lechter is. We get to see Hannibal Lechter in full-force. The "brain scene" is undoubtedly the most convincing portrayal of a deranged character that I have seen in any movie, ever. It takes a twisted mind to keep a victim conscious while he removes his calvarium, slices off a piece of his brain, cooks it next to the fellow who says "Hey, that smells good", and feeds it to him.

Julianna Moore was a good choice, all things considered. She has some of that creepiness required to play Clarice Starling. But make no mistake about it, she is no Jodie Foster. Jodie Foster was IDEAL for the role of Clarice, and I was extremely disappointed when I heard she wouldn't be playing the role again. Perhaps she read the script and thought the movie was a cop-out, just as I did.

Cats & Dogs (2001)

A very painful experience.

[7 August 2001]

This movie was terrible. After 15 minutes, I found myself fidgeting and twitching in my seat, hoping that it was nearing the end. It was corny, dull, lame, and the plot was so simplistic and thoughtless, it appeared (like Planet of the Apes) to be made up as the script was being written.

Moreover, as a cat lover, I didn't appreciate cats being presented as evil.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

Impressive

[1 August 2001]

The plot wasn't particularly complex or interesting, but combined with the detailed, desolate surroundings, "Final Fantasy" was very watchable. The animation was spectacular. Probably better than anything I've seen before. Computer animation has yet to duplicate the facial movements during speech accurately, but the facial expressions of Dr. Sid were remarkably life-like, as were the movements of other characters and objects throughout.

Overall, great film. Could snotty, expensive actors be a dying breed?

Planet of the Apes (2001)

The monkey fell out of the tree....

[28 July 2001]

This was terrible. It blows my mind that all that effort on makeup could be spent without someone realizing that the screenplay sucked. It's like overhauling an engine on a car that's missing the chassis!

This movie stunk for the same reasons that so many other movies like it stunk: two many things going on in the plot. Ari falling for Leo. Daena falling for Leo. Leo falling for....well....I dunno. Leo trying to get away. Leo realizing he has to help his fellow humans. The humans believing Leo and realizing they can fight the apes. The apes in the beginning are bickering over whether or not to kill off humans, while Thade and his armies are trying to kill the humans. Attar in the end, of course, suddenly changes his mind. Also, there's this underlying story of how the apes got there. Oh yeah, and somewhere in the beginning, there must have been something going on with Thade and Ari. I've left out some other aspects of this flick, but you get the point. The plot had too much going on for a two-hour movie. When there are too many things going on, i.e. too many aspects, there's not enough time to develop the these individual aspects, and that's when things start getting cheesy. Daena lovingly placing her hand on Leo's face after saying virtually nothing to him throughout the movie is one such example.----SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT READ ON UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!--- Leo kissing Ari after the battle is yet another such example of cheesiness that occurred from lack of development. Just think, entire movies have been spent developing the formation of love between two people (When Harry Met Sally), yet we are somehow expected to appreciate it when it abruptly happens in Planet of the Apes? It was much, much more cheesy when Daena kissed Leo.

This movie was sloppy. Worse than Pearl Harbor, worse than a lot of movies I've seen. It truly seemed as though the screenwriter was creating the plot as he went along writing the screenplay. Tim Burton ought to realize that good costumes and sets don't make up for a lowsy screenplay.

Three O'Clock High (1987)

Fight fight fight!!!!!!!!

[28 July 2001]

This is just a spectacular flick. There was nothing corny, underdone, or overdone about this movie. Everything from the characters, the dialogue, and the chronology of Jerry's attempts to get out of the fight at 3:00 were just perfectly placed and hilarious to boot. The students surrounding Jerry, slightly and delightfully exaggerated from reality, exemplify the typical high school student mentality in this movie--spreading gossip, spreading rumors, taking bets, and making all other kinds of reactions to the single-most exciting thing to take place in a high school: a fight! Jerry Mitchell is the perfect extreme of a pipsqueak-esque character to be faced with the challenge of fighting the most extreme psychotic creature to ever walk the halls of any high school, Buddy Revell. And at the end, a stud is born!

This movie takes a typical high school population, a regular not-so-popular average guy having a bad day, a large school bully, inserts them all into a not-uncommon situation, and runs with it, creating what is probably one of the funniest movies ever. "Three O'Clock High" was never very popular, but it certainly should have been! It's a hilarious movie!

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Why do they have this "one line summary"?

[1 July 2001]

This is a great film that became a little strange in the end. Films are either realistic or fantasy. It isn't a good idea to mix the two. "AI" appears to be a film based on realism, i.e. tractable concepts. Yet, fantasy is used to bring closure to the story. I am referring to the scene with the marble-complexioned beings two thousand years in the future who recover David. Although plausible (who knows what will exist in the future), these beings are fantasy for the viewer, and are a sharp contrast from the realistic ideas presented to us for the first two hours of the movie. In a movie like this, fantasy is sort of a crutch--taking the easy way out in finding an end to the story. Yet, even during the end, realistic concepts were incorporated--such as cloning from DNA samples. As I said, realism and fantasy are like oil and water. Perhaps if David's builders somehow programmed into him fabricated memories of his mother loving him. They could have put him to sleep, and he could have dreamed these things for all eternity....or when his battery runs out. But then again, perhaps the movie was trying to say that it would take more advanced and more civilized creatures to treat David as a human. Regardless, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I wished the Blue Fairy turned him into a real boy. Despite my problem with the ending being overall unrealistic, it was nevertheless a wonderful ending.

This movie has Kubrick written all over it. The minimal dialogue, the slow scenes, the imagery, the journeys, short or long. The cinematography was very 2001-A Space Odyssey-esque, as was the music. I enjoyed this film much more than any of Kubrick's others, however. There was something incredibly creepy about this film. It's a touching story of how flesh and blood is not the source of love--that even a robot can feel love. (Cleverly, to keep the story more believable, David's love must be activated). Throughout the movie, however, I felt more empty than I would have had David been a real boy abandoned by his parents. Perhaps Kubrick is suggesting that robots are the most innocent of all the beings, with the truest emotions most deserving of being loved back. Certainly, the robots being destroyed in the arena, although scared, never swayed from their personalities (particularly the female who simply smiled at David as acid was poured onto her). Why couldn't Kubrick have been suggesting this point? After all, he was certainly suggesting that flesh and blood is the source of hatred and violence.

This was one of the most thought-provoking and meaningful films I have seen. It made me think carefully about where we direct our love and why we direct it there. Perhaps, if we can learn that even machines can have emotions, we'd treat our fellow man with greater care.

One more Oscar on its way for Haley Joel Osment. As always, he was spectacular in his role.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Why do they have this "one line summary"?

[1 July 2001]

This is a great film that became a little strange in the end. Films are either realistic or fantasy. It isn't a good idea to mix the two. "AI" appears to be a film based on realism, i.e. tractable concepts. Yet, fantasy is used to bring closure to the story. I am referring to the scene with the marble-complexioned beings two thousand years in the future who recover David. Although conveivably plausable, these beings are fantasy for the viewer, and are a sharp contrast from the realistic ideas presented to us for the first two hours of the movie. In a movie like this, fantasy is sort of a crutch--taking the easy way out in finding an end to the story. Yet, even during the end, realistic concepts were incorporated--such as cloning from DNA samples. As I said, realism and fantasy are like oil and water. Perhaps if David's builders somehow programmed into him fabricated memories of his mother loving him. They could have put him to sleep, and he could have dreamed these things for all eternity....or when his battery runs out. But then again, perhaps the movie was trying to say that it would take more advanced and more civilized creatures to treat David as a human. Regardless, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I wished the Blue Fairy turned him into a real boy. Despite my problem with the ending being overall unrealistic, it was nevertheless a wonderful ending.

This movie has Kubric written all over it. The minimal dialogue, the slow scenes, the imagery, the journeys, short or long. The cinematography was very 2001-A Space Odyssey-esque, as was the music. I enjoyed this film much more than any of Kubric's others, however. There was something incredibly creepy about this film. It's a touching story of how flesh and blood is not the source of love--that even a robot can feel love. (Cleverly, to keep the story more believable, David's love must be activated). Throughout the movie, however, I felt more empty than I would have had David been a real boy abandoned by his parents. Perhaps Kubric is suggesting that robots are the most innocent of all the beings, with the truest emotions most deserving of being loved back. Certainly, the robots being destroyed in the arena, although scared, never swayed from their personalities (particularly the female who simply smiled at David as acid was poured onto her). Why couldn't Kubric have been suggesting this point? After all, he was certainly suggesting that flesh and blood is the source of hatred and violence.

This was one of the most thought-provoking and meaningful films I have seen. It made me think carefully about where we direct our love and why we direct it there. Perhaps, if we can learn that even machines can have emotions, we'd treat our fellow man with greater care.

One more Oscar on its way for Haley Joel Osment. As always, he was spectacular in his role.

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

A porn, except this one's about cars.

[24 June 2001]

This movie is for all the young punks in their late teens/early twenties who spend all their hard-earned money from Structure or Banana Republic on air intakes and turbo chargers for their Honda Civics. It's an action flick glorifying the lives of these young punks who drive their souped up pieces of s***. Except for one thing though....the folks driving the cars in this movie were older, and richer. But just as lame. It came as no surprise to me that I was probably the oldest person in the theater when I watched this. And I am 26 years old!

This film has the architecture of a porn. The spine of the movie is the action, but there always seems to be a token plot. Ok, so this undercover police officer is trying to bust these car-racing hoodlums, and falls in love with the sister of the leader. The writers seemed to put something into that aspect of the story. So what happens to the couple at the end? Nobody knows. And why should we? It had nothing to do with the fast driving. The writers tried to develop a character for Vin Diesel, but they forgot one thing: a story that actually needs a developed character! The "emotional" scenes were thrown in randomly, as were the personality traits of the characters. Presumably, just so that they could say that "The Fast and the Furious" is really a "movie". Doesn't that sound like a porn to you?

Honestly though? I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone. It's just plain mindless entertainment. We all need, from time to time, movies that we can sit back and watch and be entertained by without having to use a single brain cell to think about the story.

The Truman Show (1998)

A brilliant idea that can never be copied.

[24 June 2001]

"Truman Show" should have won "Best Picture", without question. The Academy, it seems, has its own bizarre criteria as well as its own agenda. I think it's an outrage that it didn't.

The story itself was simply brilliant. Not only that, when you think about it, the concept of the story is a very difficult one to execute successfully. It would be very hard to show an audience that a certain fellow is living in a made-up world, discovering the nature of his world bit by bit, and then trying to get out from a life where everyone and everything around him existed just to keep him there. A story like this could very easily have been screwed up. In "Truman Show", it was executed flawlessly. For those who used their brains during the film, it would have been easy to feel trapped and frustrated. I know I was. Although most people would have liked to see a more "final" ending, i.e. actually see Truman finally meet Sylvia in the end as well punishment of Christof (most of us like are denouement spelled out for us), the ending was just the right amount; not to little, not too much. Truman's escape brought him to Sylvia, and cut the legs out from under Christof. It was absolutely clever. An average person writing this ending would have ruined it with detail and similarity to other movie endings.

An Oscar for Jim Carrey, and one for Ed Harris as well. Prior to this movie, I knew Jim Carrey had talent, but didn't know he could be so versatile an actor. His performance in "Truman Show" was superb. The writing was also superb. I thought the scene where Sylvia watched Truman sailing and holding the picture he made of her was just amazing.

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

CHICK FLICK ALERT!.....CHICK FLICK ALERT!....

[5 June 2001]

I've got two words to describe this movie: 1. Chick, and 2. Flick.

My girlfriend dragged me to see this, and although I'll admit that it was mildly entertaining, I spent much of my time wondering what was the point of making it! What distinguished this movie from the ninety-nine zillion other movies about the same subject with the same plot skeleton: girl is wallowing in her loneliness, girl meets guy who ends up hurting her somehow, another guy in the background crawls out of the woodworks to sweep her off her feet and they live happily ever after. This theme has become incredibly cliche, and makes for an extremely ordinary movie. Tacking on a diary to the plot doesn't really change anything. There were other pointless "features" of this movie, such as the fact that Daniel Cleaver stole Marc Darcy's wife, but lied to Bridget about it. Any such feature of a movie that can be cut out completely without altering the story shouldn't be included in the first place.

Renee Zellweger's British accent was HORRIBLE! Listening to it for the duration of the movie was agonizing. And I'm not even English! "Bridget Jones' Diary" wasn't worth the $7.50 for the ticket (and definitely not the $15 you'd spend if you're taking your significant-other to see it)

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Think your safe? Think again!

[4 June 2001]

I'd say I'm as much of a manly man as a man can be. Shed a tear at a movie? Not a chance! But Moulin Rouge almost got me....almost.

As people have said, there's really nothing on the surface to entice people to watch this movie. Why? Women dancing around in fancy 19th century dresses just don't capture peoples' interest as does the attack on Pearl Harbor or green animated ogres named Shrek. If only they could somehow take a piece of the story that you find inside this movie and advertise it on the outside....

It's clever, it's unique, it's stunning. It's art for your eyes and for your mind. The stage is colorful and spectacular. Like fireworks. You feel as though you were right there in small city where people go to sin. The music is humorous at times, yet never changes the tone of the story--not even for an instant--because each song was so nicely and appropriately composed and placed. It's an incredible love story, in which Satine and Christian must deal with tremendous adversity to be together. Not since Estella and Pip in the novel Great Expectations by Charles Dickens could you feel that two people belonged together so much, yet having so much to overcome. It's a wonderfully happy ending, and at the same time, a sad ending. I have never been so engulfed in a movie.

Technically speaking, this movie has "Oscar" written all over it. Truly one of the greatest movies I have ever seen.

Quills (2000)

A common, but ever-useful point.

[3 June 2001]

Quills is yet another movie that shows what a miserable and brutal thing religion can be, or at least, the people who interpret it. Here we have a crazy, perverted man, cast away in a prison for society's rejects. Other than having little other than sex on his mind, he wants nothing more than to write his erotic thoughts on paper, and for willing readers to gain pleasure from them. It's a story about the battle between being in touch with our natural feelings vs. the ultra-conservative mentality that we must deny our sense of lust, even on paper (Does this sound a tad bit along the lines of "The People Vs. Larry Flint")? His sexually explicit manuscripts, while bringing enjoyment to obviously many many people, infuriates many as well...including the authorities. He is persecuted more and more, yet he fights on, writing with whatever means at his disposal. Even his own blood.

There are some great points made in this movie. The doctor's relationship with his innocent young wife was a very poignant way of making a statement about those who deny human nature in the name of religion; saying that conservatives are truly the ones with sinful behavior--recall the vicious way in which the doctor had sex with his extremely young wife. Yet another example is the kind priest (Jauquin Phoenix) becoming increasingly brutal in his pursuit of bringing the Marquis de Sade to salvation, yet ending up in the same position at the end of the movie. Lastly, the doctor, who originally got involved in order to stop publications of the manuscripts, ended up maintaining the mental institute by publishing them, once they became profitable.

Overall, "Quills" is a great movie. Very common message about religion, but a very important message that people should hear over and over--because it's true.

RoboCop 2 (1990)

Not bad! Not bad at all!

[30 May 2001]

Having seen Robocop 1, I figured that everything worthwhile and enjoyable that could come from a Robocop movie had already been presented to the viewer. Along comes Robocop 2, so I watch it simply because I love the idea of a cyborg fighting crime.

Believe it or not, this is an absolutely fantastic movie! It has it all! Well-defined characters with unique and important roles, an excellent story line, great action scenes (as expected), and yes, a brave duty-oriented Robocop who STILL manages to regain his humanity. It's the story of a large company's plan to essentially steal a whole city from the people, a mayor's devotion to preventing it, a drug lord's unfortunate acquisition into the company by the actions of a scheming psychologist who is manipulating the head of the company, as well as her desire to eliminate Robocop as a viable crime fighter in order to clear the way for her own creation. It doesn't stop there though, these aspects of the film are all closely intertwined throughout. The plot is brilliant, just brilliant! Worthy of an Oscar. I've seen plots with child-like simplicity receive Oscars year after year after year. A plot like Robocop 2 with awesome action to boot, and it's a shame this movie never won ANYTHING at the Academy Awards. I guess a movie title containing the word "Robocop" just doesn't have a fighting chance. Perhaps its superb qualities are just too obvious for the Academy. Maybe the film isn't sad enough for the Academy. Maybe it's not bizarre enough for the Academy.

The acting isn't spectacular, but it doesn't have to be. The plot and the action (which go exquisitely hand in hand) more than make up for it. But this movie sends a message as well: big corporations can be as corrupt and harmful to society as drugs. In fact, we find the mayor of the city looking to a drug cartel to save the city, and the corporation sending one of their products to assassinate him in order to preserve their plans. Additionally, the satire in this movie is delightful--the allusions to "neighborhood-oriented policing", as well as the hilarious anti-smoking message delivered by Robocop. I just can't get over what a great story this movie has! Watch it, and you'll understand.

Metroid (1986 Video Game)

Best ever!

[26 May 2001]

This is by far the best video game to have come out, ever. I know that's a heck of a sweeping statement, but it is. The play is fantastic, the objectives and goals of the game are extremely well thought out, and it actually requires skill! Even with the new, fancy shmancy video game systems out there with the far better graphics capabilities, I've yet to see one game since the original Metroid that actually meets the goals of video games: fun! As far as I'm concerned, Metroid shows that impressive graphics and sound don't make the game.

Small Time Crooks (2000)

What can I say. It's a Woody Allen flick!

[24 May 2001]

I'm a young guy, and like most young guys, I gravitate towards the more obnoxious and offensive comedies--the kind you absolutely cannot watch with your parents. I must say, however, that it's a pleasure to see a comedy(?) that doesn't exploit sex or harm to others as humorous subject matter. "Small Time Crooks" is a light-hearted and simple story about a half-witted married couple who strikes it rich and their anomalous life in the "upper class" of society.

Funny overall, yet the majority of the comedy occurs in the first half hour or so. Perhaps this movie, although choc full of humor, isn't a comedy. As the wife tries to live like a rich woman, the husband and wife find themselves growing apart, only to be brought back together by a catastrophe that reminds them of their deep-down need and love for eachother. A funny story, but a very profound message, if you ask me.

It's an excellent movie that you can watch with anyone. Two thumbs and two big toes up!

Gladiator (2000)

Gimme a break!

[3 April 2001]

Gladiator is a corny shoot-em-up movie with a plot about as simplistic as Star Wars.....hence the Oscar for Best Picture. The special effects were good (not as good as those in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon), but the story was just plain lacking; a man with some fighting skills has his family killed, is imprisoned, forced to fight, and eventually kills the source of it all in a thoughtlessly and simplisticly set-up battle in the end of the movie. I mean, what the hell was the emperor of Rome doing fighting a gladiator in a colosseum in the first place? Did the writers not know how to end the movie in a more clever manner? Stabbing Russel Crowe in the back with a knife didn't "cut it" for me, no pun intended. Gladiator was entertaining, and was certainly worth some form of an Oscar, but it was definitely not "Best Picture" material.

The Cable Guy (1996)

Atypical Jim Carrey, but it's better!

[30 March 2001]

I simply can't understand why so many people didn't like this movie. I thought it was hilarious! The plot was quite good, the characters fit the story perfectly, the actors fit their respective characters perfectly, and Jim Carrey assembled the movie into a clever and witty comedy...with appropriate touches of slapstick acting that only Jim Carrey is capable of. Take, for example, the scene where Chip Douglas (the cable guy) is looking for the 'sweet spot' on Steve's wall. Or the Midieval Times battle scene (in my opinion, one of the funniest parts of the movie).

The story is a good one as well; with each little aspect, from the prostitute to the stolen equipment, coming together in Chip Douglas' plan to control Steve and ensure that he has a friend. The acting is fantastic, the characteris are fantastic, and the story is just hilarious. Great movie!

Antz (1998)

Animated or not, Antz is a perfect 10!

[22 February 2001]

Antz is, in three words, outstanding, outstanding, and outstanding! Since Disney's The Jungle Book cartoon, Antz is by far the best coupling of appropriate voices and appropriate animations with given characters. I'd give anyone who could think of more appropriate voices than Woody Allen for Z, Sylvester Stallone for Weaver, Gene Hackman for Gen. Mandible, or Danny Glover for Barbadus, a million bucks! The animation and facial expressions are simply stellar; a little better than anything I've seen from Disney/Pixar.

Antz is proof positive that just because a movie is animated doesn't automatically render it a kids' movie. Antz is for us big kids! The comedy is some of the wittiest I have ever seen in any movie. Z's psychiatrist session at the start of the movie is but a sample of the clever comedy that this movie overflows with. Ever heard of a "soil-relocation engineer"!!? But you want slapstick? How about that magnifying-glass scene? If you were ever a child who had access to a magnifying glass (as I was), you'd nearly suffocate from laughter!

I doubt I'll ever see another movie, live or animated, that can take a relatively simple (and common) plot, create delightful and memorable characters that fit the roles precisely, and turn it all into an amazingly witty and entertaining story. Watch Antz, you will absolutely love it. Guaranteed!