Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Rick (2003)
3/10
predictable & Annoying
14 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film is pointless, for many reasons. Not the least of which is that it's a bad bastardization of Victor Hugo's Le Roi s'Amuse (and Verdi's Rigoletto).

It gets off to an intriguing start, though. Meet Rick (Bill Pullman) – the office jerk. He's a fairly unlikable guy, but that's because his wife was killed. Rick is also pushed around by his less-talented, half-his-age boss. So an old schoolmate says for $10,000 he'll kill any one person of his choosing. What do you do?

If you're Rick, you let yourself get pushed into something you don't want to do, and you make racial slurs on not one but two occasions to Sandra Oh, keep her from getting a new job and get her fired from her old one. So it's kind of hard to root for old Rick.

This film seems to want to tell us something, some truth about the human condition, but what? That all receptionists are mean? That all bosses are evil? That they always have clichéd, drunkard wives? That you can never get over the loss of a loved one? That grieving people are easily manipulated? That it's okay to be racist against Asians? That there are no good people, anywhere, ever?

In the end, it's a waste of the acting talents of Bill Pullman, Agnes Bruckner, Sandra Oh, and Dylan Baker.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reign of Fire (2002)
2/10
What smells in here? Oh, It's This Movie !!
5 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As Bart Simpson would say, this movie both Sucks and Blows ! While the dragon effects are cool, nothing else is in this movie, which should've been titled "SuckFest 2020."

The concept is interesting, but the "plot" is hackneyed, the acting bad, and it just gets worse from there. They couldn't even be honest in the commercials. Matthew McConaughey is not the star of this movie, it's Christian Bale (two roles of which were as a psycho killer in the universally panned American Psycho, and as a JFK Jr. clone in the fairly awful re-make of Shaft. THAT's star power, baby! The new Batman will be trying to live down this fiasco as well).

Particularly good is the unending use of every tired cliché in the movie book. Post-Apocalyptic world? Let's make it look like Mad Max/the Road Warrior, and give everyone an Australian/British accent. Who comes to save the day? Americans, of course. Let's make sure the two heroes neither like nor trust each other... until they have to team up to defeat the bad guy at the end, of course. Add one attractive female for a love-interest. And the teenage boy who won't listen to Dad, and wants to fight himself. Or the tough-as-nails, always screaming, army sergeant, chewing the stub of a cigar.

And there are just too many inconsistencies, even for a fantasy "dragon" movie. For people who are starving to death and are, as they say "leading lives of quiet desperation," they sure know how to party when they kill a dragon: with lights and wine and Jimi Hendrix's "Fire" blasting from the stereo. (For people who watched dragons burn up the whole world, would YOU be blasting "Let me stand next to your fire" ?) And where IS the stereo in this bombed-out Keep / Castle / Cave they're living in? And where is the electricity, or how do they make it? And with no water source around, where do they get water for drinking and their fire-hose equipped trucks ?

And all these "starving" people have quite a bit of muscle-tone, don't they?

Where do the Americans get the fuel to run their helicopter and tanks, and whatever troop carrier they used to get from the U.S.A. to London, England?

It's movies like this that made TV popular in the first place.

Rating: D
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not as funny as Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me
5 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Not a bad movie at all. Pretty funny, but not as funny as Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me.

Should've given more dialog to Foxy Cleopatra (Beyonce Knowles from Destiny's Child); instead, she's just the next girlfriend for Austin, and not a more fleshed-out character, like Heather Graham or Elizabeth Hurley before her.

The character of Goldmember, while not in the film a lot, could've been cut down a bit more. He isn't particularly interesting. He's not as evil as Dr. Evil, and not as disgusting as Fat Bastard, and comes off as a washed out amalgam of the two.

Fred Savage, from TV's "The Wonder Years," is good in his two scenes as "the Mole." It's Dr. Evil, as usual, who steals the show, however. And it's a pretty good show.

Rating: B

F.Y.I.: While in the movie we hear ELO's "Evil Woman," King Floyd's funk classic "Groove Me," and Bobby Darin's "Beyond the Sea," Darin's song is not on the soundtrack, and absolutely awful cover versions of the first two make the album. Avoid this soundtrack at all costs!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vanilla Sky (2001)
7/10
A happily confusing lark
5 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Vanilla Sky is either a disappointment when viewed against Indie Film standards, or a happily confusing lark when compared to the unending deluge of big budget / low-minded Hollywood that's released weekly.

On the plus side, we find a movie that engages the viewer and the mind. A movie that is certainly confusing at first sitting, it is that rare commodity: the movie we like to talk about later. Like Memento or Barton Fink, people will find themselves dissecting the minutiae of the film after it's over.

Also impressive is the fact that Tom Cruise, one of Hollywood's famed pretty boys, spends at least two-thirds of the film either hidden under a mask, or horribly disfigured. Not a role many other actors would jump to take.

On the down side, Vanilla Sky, (a re-make ?) is basically an Art House or Indie film starring a big Hollywood actor. What could have been an interesting view on the hidden nature of man, or alternate/multiple realities, or even a study on the nature of reality itself, instead ends up like an art house rip-off of Total Recall.

Rating: B- / C+

FYI: 1) When did the universe change so much that "Banky" from Chasing Amy could get a lead role playing opposite Tom Cruise? 2) When did Penelope Cruz get the role of Indecipherable Speaker, ala Brad Pitt in Snatch or Fenster in The Usual Suspects? 3) When did Paul McCartney last have a decent single? Here, with the title track.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Best Thriller in 30 years !!
5 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The Mothman Prophecies is a throwback to the time when "horror movie" didn't actually mean "Teenage Gore Fest." I guess the word for it now would be 'thriller,' and thrill it does.

Based on a true story from Point Pleasant, West Virginia in 1967, the Mothman takes place in present 2001, or thereabouts. It's the story of a newspaper reporter who finds himself in said town on his way to interview the governor. There he stumbles across several bizarre occurrences; namely repeated sightings by the townsfolk of a not-quite-seen ethereal creature, and how these strange tales seem to intertwine with the reporter's own life.

The director, Mark Pellington (whose directorial credits include the mediocre movie Arlington Road and the music video of "Jeremy" by Pearl Jam) has created a mood and a tension in film that I don't think has appeared since The Exorcist in 1973. And he does so without blood, gore, or cheap scares.

And only a PG-13 rating.

Mr. Pellington falls backs on some outdated "tricks" like good acting, excellent cinematography, and an absolutely stunning soundtrack. Close-ups of the actors' faces here convey more real terror than in all the Friday the 13th films combined. The musical score sets the mood from scene 1 to the finale; dark and foreboding, tense and pensive. Sound work this good should have earned an Oscar nomination. The camera work is beyond reproach, as well. Sometimes long shots, setting a mood, sometimes jerky, fuzzy, or distorted like a funhouse mirror, all perfect to what needs to be conveyed - - without giving away too much.

The acting, also, is top notch. Richard Gere, Laura Linney, Will Patton, and Will & Grace's Debra Messing all convey a range of emotions not seen in modern day thrillers in sometime.

If there is a flaw to the Mothman Prophecies, it's that the townspeople are too quick to tell a stranger of their paranormal experiences. A moments' hesitation, a shifting away of the eyes, the use of a softer-spoken voice in public would have made the stories and the characters come more alive, and added only a minute or two to the films' overall length.

Counting Memento, this is the second great film I've seen in the past thirteen months. Get it while you can. * * * * * * * * * * Rating: Solid A
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
5/10
Disappointing !!
5 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
M. Night Shyamalan broke out with his first film, The Sixth Sense, a movie that may very well prove to be both his best and most popular. There are worse fates that creating a cultural touchstone in film your first time out. He followed this with what some thought of as the disappointing Unbreakable. In that line of thought, I must agree that his movie about comic book superheroes looked anything but super. But most of that can be attributed to the cinematographer. In its defense, part of the point was to have the film look mundane. It was about a person who discovers that he's a superhero. It's only a surprise to him if his life looks plain and ordinary, like everyone else's.

SIGNS cinematography is much better, more in line with Shyamalan's first film, but in all other ways, plot, pacing, characters, it's a weaker film.

Many reviewers have complained about the emotionless nature of M. Night's characters, and he fairs no better here. There are no characters in this film, just caricatures. There is "the brainy kid" who is also "the kid who won't forgive one parent for the other parent's death." Not that the child's a bad actor, not at all, but he's a Culkin. And let's face it, all the little Culkin Clones make you think about beating the crap out of Joe Pesci on Christmas Eve, not their character.

Then there's "the cute kid' who is also "the kinda creepy kid." Unfortunately, Kinda Creepy Kid was already done, and much better, by Haley Joel Osment, in Shyamalan's own The Sixth Sense.

Next, we have Gladiator's ever-creepy Juaquim Phoenix, not as Mel Gibson's son, but as his brother. Now, I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is distracting. I'm sure there's at least 20 years difference in age between Gibson and Phoenix, and on screen it looks more like 30. Brothers? The theater-of-reality is blown in the first scene.

Phoenix's character is an ex-minor league baseball player, for no apparent reason except that it's a convenient plot device when it comes time to beat the bad guy in the last reel. He doesn't play baseball anymore, despite the fact that he holds the minor league record for the longest hit, at 507 feet. With an arm like that, why isn't he playing ball in the big leagues, much less not playing at all? The only reason given is that he also holds the record for the most strike-outs. Sounds like a man who's played in the majors in Cleveland for a decade, called Jim Thome. Someone should have told M. Night that the top 8 hitters in major league baseball all had more than 100 strike-outs each their last two seasons each. And that even back when Babe Ruth was the home run leader, he was also the holder of the record for the most strike-outs. So it just doesn't add up.

And don't forget the town sheriff who's a woman and may be a love interest for the male lead. The only problem with her is that we just had a town sheriff who's a woman and may be a love interest for the male lead last year, in The Mothman Prophecies. And Laura Linney actually had the opportunity to add a little thing called DEPTH to the character. The actress here is just another cardboard cut-out, that ultimately could've been cut completely from the film without anyone noticing.

But the award for cardboard cut-out character and winner of the prestigious Kevin Costner Wooden Indian Actor Award goes to Mel Gibson. For the first time in film, the man is emotionless, joyless, and humorless. He plays a reverend who's lost his faith because his wife died in a car accident. One problem with this is that we saw this character ALSO, just a few years ago when we watched Harvey Keitel play a reverend who's lost his faith because his wife died in a car accident. Again, with the unfortunate result that the THEFT of this tired, Stock Character was also bad choice, as that even in that "We-Know-We're-Making-a-B Movie" film (From Dusk Till Dawn), Keitel was much much better.

We never believe that Mel Gibson has lost his faith. We don't believe it when his faith is restored (like we don't see that coming), and I don't believe he's a reverend in the first place. At all. Ever. Instead, he walks through the film like the ghost of an actor who used to be allowed to act, or in lieu of that, to at least play the part of Mel Gibson, Superstar. There's nothing to care about in this character, nothing to root for, and nothing heroic. Welcome to the City of Dullsville, Population: Mel.

And let's not forget plot points that make no sense. 'You've locked what you think might be an alien in the pantry.' Do you A) Peek inside to see if you're right; B) Call a neighbor or friend to check with you; C) Go get a weapon, then check; or D) Call in the police ? Why, it's none of the above. It's obviously E) Just go home and forget about it.

While the cinematography and music are both good, gone is the sense of doom around the corner. There are no plot twists, or what-ifs. What starts off as "What if crop circles were made by aliens" ends with "crop circles were made by aliens." Mel's faith is restored, but with no real reason, nor does he seem glad that it is.

Not a bad movie by any means, Signs is still the lesser brother of Unbreakable, as Unbreakable was to the Sixth Sense.

* * * * * * * * * * Rating: C -
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Unnecessary Adventures of Superman
2 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Let me get this off my chest first: Parker Posey, amazingly enough, both sucks and blows. How she has gotten the reputation she has astounds me. The reality of it is this - you could, literally, cut every shot of her out of the new Superman movie, every line of dialogue, and it wouldn't change the film one bit. Her part is not only completely superfluous, but is utterly pointless.

And that may be the only thing "super" about Superman Returns.

Superman Returns isn't a bad movie. Not at all. But it is a boring one. And that's a special kind of sin when it comes to superhero movies.

That being said, it's the sheer number of duplication from the 1978 Superman movie, annoyances all, that take you 'out' of the movie experience. Here are the Grand Annoyances that make up this film...

At 2 hours and 34 minutes, it is way, way too long. To say you could cut an hour out of this movie would be generous. With the amount of "plot" involved, this could easily have been a 1-hour TV show.

Seriously.

While it's not exactly a remake of the 1978 Christopher Reeve movie, it's about as close as you can get sometimes. While one line is very close to a line in that film, two others are repeated verbatim. Lex Luthor, and his gal pal (who doesn't like him, and longs for/is sorry for Superman) plan to kill millions of people and then make millions in real estate. A piece of Kryptonite from Addis Ababa plays a key role. Which film? Both !!

The young actor playing Superman? He's not bad at all, really. But he doesn't play Superman; he does an impression of Christopher Reeve doing Superman. Don't get me wrong, he does it well. But did we need that?

Speaking of which, did we need Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane? About as integral as Katie Holmes or whoever it was in latest Batman movie, this 'sleepwalk' role of a nothing character could have been played by anyone. Even that Marsden guy (who sleepwalked through 3 X-Men movies, turning team leader Cyclops into a nothing character), could've played Lois Lane. Oh, but wait. He was busy sleepwalking through the role of Lois Lane's husband !

Frank Langella, who hasn't been good since he played Dracula 30 years ago, is equally useless.

Daily Planet boy scout in residence, Jimmy Olsen, however, manages to drink a beer and say "pissed." Which is a nice step forward. But let's face it, unless you're waiting for a Spin Doctors reunion tour, no one cares about Jimmy Olsen's Blues.

Superman Returns is not a bad film. It's a long, sometimes boring, exercise by someone who really wanted to make a Superman movie.

You won't laugh, you won't cry. You'll just kiss 8 bucks goodbye.

And then wonder . . .

Why...?

It's a C +.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed