x111b3825 Reviews

Son of the Mask (2005)

Not as bad as reviews would have you believe.

[15 April 2006]

If you ignore the first mask movie...Jim Carrey etc. If you try not to compare the two or what have you as a lot of the people who give this rotten reviews have done, you may just find it a little fun.

It is definitely geared more at kids and my 7 year old loved it. The acting is fine, the effects are great, and I suspect most of the poor reviewers are mostly mad since it is nothing like the first movie save for the mask.

I'm not going to go into some long diatribe, but check the positive reviews and ignore the bad ones an you may just find like me, this movie is way better than it is given credit for being.

Don't expect Brokeback mountain because it is not this kind of film. If you can step away from this, you might enjoy it for what it is.

Six Feet Under (2001–2005)

The best show ever...

[28 August 2005]

I'm gonna cheat here and use my comment off one of the boards. If you have read this far in the reviews, you knew a long time ago that this show has found love like a member of the family. Quite simply, it set the bar at a level no other show has reached in my lifetime.

If you came in late, this is worth picking up copies at the local blockbuster and watching from the beginning. I won't type more since there are a thousand reviews here expanding on all that this show is, but culturally, I believe SFU will live on as an icon of art for years to come, maybe changing the way we look at the medium forever.

I was hooked on Six Feet Under almost by accident catching the first episode a minute in (those creepy opening credits got my attention) five years ago.

I never missed an episode since and would wait in great anticipation for the next season.

In between I would watch an occasional CSI for amusement (rarely), the Contender or Survivor, but nothing was as real as the view into the life of the Fishers' lives that Alan Ball gave us.

This will always be irreplaceable and I was bummed the moment I heard this was it before the season started. What a season it was. How powerful that last episode, final sequence and the end was. R.I.P.

I'll sit and wait for Alan Ball's next creation since this guy's works really tend to suck you into it. Never have I made a point to miss none of a show. For five whole years...how do you replace something so grand and special?

I'm not sure you can. So I will think fondly in mourning of the show that grabbed me like SFU and the characters with whom so many of us could relate...Claire, David, Keith, Ruth, Billy, David...like friends and family, gone forever...only to watch in home movies.

Big Fish (2003)

Magical...

[10/10 · 8 June 2005]

I've never been a huge fan of Tim Burton's work..too quirky...too plaid...too much...

but the rating here got me going when I was being so crass as to look at numbers and pick a flick out of four...I was so happy I picked this and hopefully you will be too.

It has a little of everything for everybody and I found it a gem in so many ways I cannot count. Sure there will be naysayers still, but give this one a chance and odds are, you will love it and be very glad you did.

If you want spoilers or in depth analysis you're sure to find it here, but all critiques aside, love 'em or hate 'em, try this one on for size and see if you come away feeling really good about the choice.

Torque (2004)

JUst plain stupid at times...

[1/10 · 21 May 2005]

I wanted to start typing this five minutes into the movie, but for some bizarre reason I'm trying to figure out, sat through it stuffing my face with candy.

I won't get into all the spoilers because I'm sure others have and will here but there's more fantastic stuff in here than the latest Star Wars movie and I'm sure it will continue to dumbfound and amaze viewers who keep it in the bottom 100 of all time here.

Watch it if you dare and before I end...for a good laugh, look at ice cubes face every time they show him...utterly ridiculous, this whole mess of a movie.

Unstrung Heroes (1995)

An unsung gem...

[10/10 · 11 May 2005]

I watched this purely based on reviews...having never heard of it and reading only positive reviews (a first I think for an IMDb forum!).

Regardless, I was really, pleasantly surprised and have to say unless this type of film is just not your cup of tea, it was really too beautiful in so many ways I might have lost count early on, but would have never been able to let it go as the film continued.

Do yourself a favor and don't miss this little gem of a movie if you happen by it in the rental section or late one night on the satellite or cable. I won't give spoilers here because there is enough of that already...but you'll probably be pleasantly surprised and glad you took all the positive reviewers words for it on this one. Bravo.

Laurel Canyon (2002)

I really liked this one...

[7 March 2004]

This film has got a ton of poor reviews here and I wonder how many really get the feeling. SPOILERS to follow...

First to comment on the comments: "Grow up!" reads one viewer's summation and all I can say is uh, thanks Dad, but I'll make my own decisions. This viewer also called these guys "middle class" and I wouldn't render them that low on the totem pole honestly.

Another's evaluation questions "Don't you remember when you were young and hot and having sex with everybody? Don't you wish you were old and rich and still having sex with everybody? Don't you wish your son went to Yale Medical School? Don't you want to be a rock star or just sleep with one? Come on, this movie was a lot of fun." To this I say "Right on Mama!"

I really liked this film. I laughed. I thought it was hot. I wanted to jump into the pool and say "don't bogart that joint dude..." I wanted to pull out my guitar and jam and just spend one more day up in the canyon...

Because of this, I just don't get all the negative reviews here and have to say, people, lighten up...okay? Could it have been fleshed out some more? Sure. Could the characters have been developed to the nth degree? Yes and the filmmaker could have made it twelve hours longer also, but did she achieve that which she wanted? That is the only really worthwhile question for a film unless all one seeks is commercial success and fame.

On the technical side, I thought this was shot well, captured the Southern Cal Canyons to perfection, from the home to the drive in, and displayed in an an angle, that which makes them so gloriously appealing. The acting was solid, and I no longer spend too much time questioning accents since they don't always sound like what you expect or know even when you are where they come from, and so it's a wasteful analysis.

The character's were believable and at the expense of making this much longer, I really liked how all the elements combined to form a cohesive work, while difficult to understand for some, right on par with the life I have experienced. Grow up indeed. Are we to suspect that no man would be tempted by a sultry, sexy woman in the flesh. Are we to suppose that rock stars don't write ballads and get off on never losing touch with their childhood. I only wish I could take my watch off and stomp it into oblivion. Don't be so upset and uptight since you can't.

I'm really happy for the adults here who know everything about their feelings and how they would react in certain situations. I envy you, but I don't buy it. Life is way too messy for everything to be so perfectly scripted, and it is this that I found so appealing in Laurel Canyon. I loved this bit...

Gangland (2001)

Huge Turd...

[1 March 2004]

Really. Who financed this 'cause buddy, I have got a deal for you!

I caught this last night flipping through the channels. You know the time, when you're bored, but too lazy to get off the couch and do anything responsible, so you just keep surfing. I took in about ten minutes of it-about the same time needed to think on the existence of turd-zilla or spent on the toilet creating him and I'm not sure what was intended.

Had this been purely geared at cheese, it might have come off pretty good, but I actually got the impression that it was done in the name of serious cinema and this is what got it classified as a turd.

I'm not familiar with anyone outside of the cameos of Ice-T and Coolio in the beginning, but this is a lesson in bad filmmaking for the student. Watch and learn if you dare! I cannot see wasting another second typing here and most of the reviewers agree with me so...

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

This, that and the other thing...

[29 February 2004]

This will definitely go down in history as one of the most controversial works on film, ever. Be aware that I may have spoilers within my "review."

To begin with, I have to disagree with the analyst here who believes this will bring about a new rash of violent and brazenly vivid and grotesque films. I found this hard to stomach even after years in emergency medicine and most people sitting in the theater as well as all of those with whom I've discussed the work did also. As another viewer noted, take out the Christian context and this might not be seen in the same light. In fact I think it would be seen as over the top and off the charts in its display of violence. Additionally, out of this context, the film would also be viewed as lacking in plot development, and many other aspects of what is considered to make a movie work in structure and grounding. With this in mind, Gibson appears to have achieved many means to the end he chose.

First off, he expects that any audience so inclined to go to this film, has at least some inkling of a background in the scriptures. He gets right to the dirty business of Jesus Christ' demise and there is literally no building to this point. This work is groundbreaking in that it is all climax, from five minutes after it begins- until two hours later when viewers walk out exhausted spiritually, physically and mentally. While some reviewers say they came out "refreshed," and with new meaning, I find this warped. I personally wanted to close my eyes and make it all stop at points, and assure you I've seen this side of man on other fronts. I was not comforted or refreshed. I was exhausted and bothered. Will it make me a better Christian, if this is my chosen path? Of this I cannot say right now.

This is supposedly what Mel Gibson wanted. He apparently wanted Christians to wake up and smell the flesh of Christ's suffering for their salvation. On the side of the Romans as well as the Jews, in addition to the fact that Jew had somewhat of a differing meaning in the time, neither were made to look innocent of the persecution of Jesus. Of course Gibson also noted that had they been Norwegian, the Norwegians would have been tasked with the "guilt." Had they been Americans, the American's would get the "blame."

For those who might find fault, the rest of us might say "lighten up." If you're an anti-Semite, you probably were before "The Passion of the Christ," and if you truly believe in the scriptures and Jesus' teachings, then you should have noted his "love your enemies" philosophy as well as his destiny to walk this path regardless of who his persecutors were. Fate finds a way of ringing true to its path.

There will be much debate for years to come on Gibson's right of directorial privilege to manipulate certain aspects, but so far, just as he has said, there are differing opinions on how exactly all of this went down...I have heard professors of linguistics say everyone would have been speaking Greek here and so the Aramaic and Latin are wrong--as well as those who say "hogwash," these were the languages that were spoken and Bravo for Gibson and the cast. Of course then we have "experts" claiming they know what the language' pronunciation sounds like better than a bunch of Italian actors and actresses whose language might sprout more readily from the Latin than our English...none of were there of course for verification...

Food for thought for sure. To each, this will bring its own. Oh, and to the viewer/reviewer who said Gibson "knew" he would cash in and this is why he sunk all his own money into it, don't be so sure of yourself. No studio wanted to touch this thing with a fifty foot pole. Gibson might have had huge problems even in distribution had it not been for the hype generated for the past year building up to the work's release. Now everyone who turned him down is crying. Not that he'll rush off to the bank skipping all the way, with a big grin on his face. This movie is serious business, and not some commercial endeavor created for your sheer entertainment like "Finding Nemo." There is nothing entertaining in seeing a man so tortured as Christ was in this film unless you are somewhat sick in the first place.

Feardotcom (2002)

Potential, developed into crap!

[22 February 2004]

This movie had much potential, but it just went wrong early on and continued to show weakness throughout.

This is what happens when a production gets off on a foot that is well-intentioned and potentially has some chance for originality, but looks like too many other works (such as bits from "the Ring" or "the Cell,") and no one speaks up within the design team or the director has not noted similarities or weak points in the script etc. etc.

SPOILERS--the dark tone can work for some flicks and coming from Hollywood, we have to buy into it to make it work, but if anyone has been in a modern day police station, they are not naturally lit, but glaringly obnoxious with flourescent lighting keeping the cops lit alongside coffee and hopefully some sleep at some point.

The plot--weak dialogue in spots, that is laughable and unrealistic based on the time in interaction of the characters...I always love when two characters with next to no development, suddenly have some strong love attachment because they are working together for what? two whole days. Maybe on the planet Zoltar...

Ah...I want to review something else I liked that was much better done and don't want to park it here all afternoon...read the negative reviews and if you're a film student take a look at the flaws here that could have easily been resolved save for laziness on someone's part. Such is a schedule, lack of forethought or knowledge and the inability of a production to aid the viewer in suspending disbelief...

Basic (2003)

I liked it...

[22 February 2004]

There's a whole lot of deep analysis going on here, but in the end, since so many others have analyzed this to death, I would recommend just watching it with an open mind and seeing if you find it entertaining.

I thought it original to a point, well acted out, and while predictable on a couple points, for the most part, leaving me wondering when we would find out the absolute truth of what the heck was going on...

Maybe later I will put something more in depth here, but for now, beware of the critics and their "plot holes," because in the end, aside from a couple very small glitches, this was pretty well done.

Maid in Manhattan (2002)

Not particularly bad...

[22 February 2004]

This will win no awards, probably incite no significant discussions on content and is cliched and what not, but...

It's not poorly done. While it is not as fleshed out as it may have been, and it will never (as I already noted) be compared to the works of Chaplin and D.W. Griffith, it's just another one of those formulaic little Saturday afternoon, feel-good love stories with beautiful characters saying and doing all we expect to conclude in a happy ending. If you like this, you will like Lopez' other work the wedding planner which is just about the same thing with a changed storyline and different, handsome male lead.

Suck is life in pumping out simple stories to appeal to the masses who don't spend their afternoons critiquing works here!

The Rundown (2003)

Look what the Rock is Cookin'!

[10/10 · 27 September 2003]

Don't listen to the naysayers that want to over analyze this next to the likes of some Fellini film or or Citizen Kane.

This movie rocks and probably will establish Dwayne Johnson (aka "The Rock") solidly as the next action star. Watch out for those bad action movie plots Dwayne...they're a killer.

The story is just a fun action romp until it gets a little too serious with the rebel versus Demon Christopher Walken subplot, but director Peter Berg, better known as an actor, should have no problem garnering monies for future projects after this.

Smartly done, the effects are solid, the locations real and very lush in the Amazon jungle and the acting, regardless of what anyone going after the Rock's past history as an entertainer might say, is really quite solid.

The bottom line is this...look, if you can just for a moment try to suspend your disbelief and go with the flow, this movie will be a lot of fun for you and you will enjoy every second of it like many viewers (myself included) have. On the other hand, if you want to show your knowledge of the amount of hard earned cash you and your parents spent on that film school education that still has you selling Cutco knives door to door, analyzing every little flaw and plot point as if every film should be looked at as if through the eyes of Sergei Eisenstein and acting, evaluated on the merits of a particular method...bore yourself somewhere else and spend the evening rewinding "A Woman Under the Influence" and writing your Memoirs...

Otherwise, chill, enjoy, and Rock on!

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Right or Left, this is not untrue...

[24 August 2003]

As a documentary, many have attacked "Bowling..." as total fiction and appear to think Moore should apologize and feel guilty for his portrayal of certain "facts." However, as another reviewer noted, Michael Moore did not create the Columbine massacre for his own personal benefit, as something to exploit.

Some documentary works simply inform and some show a slant from one direction or another in order to stimulate thought. Depending on what side of the political fence one sits on, we may all sound like idiots for spouting out garbage that has no basis in fact like Ann Coulter or other mudslingers from the left or right, purely believing so surely in their own self-hype, that they lean consistently away from the facts. While Moore obviously used certain cuts to this advantage here, clipping Heston's speeches and using them liberally as filler around certain events, such as the shooting of a six year old girl in a Flint Michigan school, he did not create the shooting.

He did not give Charleton Heston the words, scripted, in which to speak. He did not hand the gun to the little boy. He did not overthrow Salvador Allende, exterminate Jews by the millions or buy the ammo for Klebold and Harris. He also did not make up the numbers of gun deaths and even if we look at the per capita numbers the US is still number one, with countries like next door neighbor Canada far back in the pack, but of course Mexico on the other hand...vying for contention...

The greatest thing accomplished here is Moore's ability to incite activity in thought. While on the extreme end, some of this radical thought might be attributed to lack of real thought and observation and we might blame some opinion simply on the lack of education present in the American system...some is probably just inability to be objective whether we buy it or not.

Powers of observation being used in the awry manner presented here, some notes from the other side...it was K-mart and not Wal-Mart which was attacked for its sale of ammo when he camped out with the two Columbine high students. Allende was democratically elected by the way, and Iran was a democracy, which all Americans are supposed to so closely cherish, lest we forget...prior to the US government's installation of the Shah. Is it anti-American to accept the fact that the US has been involved so blatantly in the overthrow of so many world neighbors or demonstrate that perhaps it is something else besides the guns that causes so many in the US to actually use them?

Boo-hoo for those among us who cannot get past certain simple embellishments, like the placard for a B-52 bomber that Moore notes was "killing" at Christmastime, far far away. Let's remember these things weren't designed for dropping food packets...

Okay, so good or bad, you decide (as is hopefully your right wherever you are), but relax and have a cold drink to cool a hot head when you think about whether the numbers are good or bad and if you'd like to live in this neighborhood and raise a family and so on, or if Michael Moore perpetrated all these criminal acts just so he could make a buck. And by the way...he hardly has enough of these bucks to revive Flint, Michigan. Would you spend all your money trying to make brooms in some old General Motors factory?

Sweet Home Alabama (2002)

I really, really, really enjoyed this.

[24 August 2003]

Sure this is formulaic, predictable and not for tastes where death and dismemberment are the desires of the day, but is it quite as bad as some reviewers would have you believe? No. As a matter of opinion, it is quite good.

Anyone criticizing the direction, acting and technical end, I suspect will use terms like "suck," as in "the direction sucks," the acting...it sucks too" and so on.

The story is predictable and with this spoiler being my limit today, both choices in men turn out to be good, just one is better, I say that it is neither insulting to the North or South unless you already have a low self-esteem and then everything is a problem.

The direction is fine, the acting is above average and the storyline and photography meet (I suspect) every expectation of the designers.

Why then should what I claim to be such a fine piece of material turn out to have such low review here? Sentimentality, perhaps.

In this I mean that some of us are romantics, and some of us believe that true love does not exist. I suspect as time goes on, with the divorce rate at enormous highs globally, most people sit the latter side of the fence on this one.

Is it my explanation and does it hold any water? Yes and well, maybe, but the aspects of this film critiqued really ad up to fence sitting...even with my mate, this just rated a 5 or 6 out of ten, but when pressed further, there was no real explanation aside from "well-it was good, but I would not call it great."

I on the other hand, taking it all in stride and accepting the fact that I am a romantic, loved this movie and didn't sit in judgment of it as inadequate or unrealistic in any way, because I know both sides of this fence and can understand...but what I cannot is when it simply "sucks." Am I making any sense (not that it ultimately matters).

If you're romantic at heart, and not just for relationships, but for life, give this a try and an open mind and you may be pleasantly surprised. If you're a militia member and not overtly into use of the side of your brain that allows for a lack of explosions in film, spend your time with "Sniper 2" and have a blast...

Lantana (2001)

Good flick!

[15 August 2003]

Every movie is crap and wonderful at the same time, depending on one's tastes. It's interesting to see how with almost every movie on here, there are people on both ends of the spectrum bickering a point of view.

Some are definitely overblown and more elaborate, while others at other extremes claim "it sucks," or conversely--"great flick!"

Ultimately who cares, but it's all in fun. I liked Lantana, but as overblown and at points unrealistic as Armageddon or XXX were, liked them also. The Fast and the Furious had a dumb plot point I thought since they only appeared to steal to build faster cars...etc. etc. and I thought it'd be more realistic selling drugs or whatever. Still, who cares? I'm not sure why I'm wasting time writing this, but I thought I might just because I think its important not to take yourself too seriously at times. We all should remember how ridiculous we all seem sometimes here, paying homage or disgust to the glowing God of the silver screen. I know I sure do. I really dig countering the snobs who have like four thousand reviews written like they come from a Harvard education and personally knew John Cassavetes (whom I admire simply because he seemed a lover of the experience of life and tried to bring this to the film world).

Regardless...think about it and enjoy what you will, recommending it, and thrash about on what you don't. Here it's all in fun and maybe someone will listen in their perusal of your review, but ultimately, it is hardly significant in the scheme of things.

Night Falls on Manhattan (1996)

Lumet and the cast shine...

[14 August 2003]

I really have no idea what motivates Sidney Lumet's choice of movies to do, even though I've read his book "Making Movies," which sheds a lot of light on his decision making process.

If I had to take a guess, I might say that perhaps he wants a variety, and doesn't calculate the risk involved with certain works that have obviously turned out to be major flops. Or maybe he does know the risk and he just doesn't care. Now remember, though I'm sure even the "master" critics have jumped on and trashed some of his better work, if you place something like "Prince of the City" or "Equus" next to "The Wiz," "Running on Empty" and "Serpico" next to "Critical Care," wow! I mean you are just asking for trouble.

Regardless, this guy is a filmmaker.

As with anything, there are people who will dog this and say it was slow and Lapaglia was over the top or whatever the multitude of criticisms may be, "the lighting created an unwanted mood" (by whose standards), "the script had flaws" (oh did it? What were they?) and the list goes on. However without getting into every nook and cranny available, I will just say if you enjoy a good drama, you may enjoy this.

For the decent side of Lumet's work, this is a pretty fair example and on every front, I think it works out okay. Do I have any criticisms? None worth more than "I liked it or didn't." I did in fact like it by the way. It might be considered standard fare or even dated a bit by some and as a result, not as powerful as it might be otherwise, but it is a good example of Sidney Lumet's better filmmaking and not a bad story to boot.

Dig Colm Feore's role here. I like this guy and though he's probably found in the shadows more than in the spotlight, he is one vastly talented actor. I caught him last year in the lead for "My Fair Lady" at the Stratford Festival in Ontario, Canada and though he really probably is an acquired taste, he is a talent to be reckoned with for sure. It would be nice to see him garner larger roles since talent like this sure seems wasted on bit parts.

Heaven Can Wait (1978)

Dated, but decent nonetheless...

[14 August 2003]

This is a film, that you may have to really have an appreciation for the time from whence it came to really, truly appreciate.

To put it simply, it is dated and this is right down to its core.

Now this isn't always a bad thing. However as movies become more sophisticated, certain things like the soundtrack on this can really be taxing for the new generation.

I'm sure there are numerous reasons for how certain aspects of change came about in film. For example, why did Martin Scorsese's "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" have such texture in its soundtrack when this movie, shot four years later has such a "Starsky and Hutch" feel, with perhaps an original score, but a dated, blah feeling nonetheless. It could be everything from budget to lack of cooperation of artists, to the simple matter of choice. Of course nowadays, it really shows. It was also standard fare at the time musically and "Alice" was just a very cool exception.

Some movies like "The Cutting Edge," for example make use of the dated score with some original tracks on top, but this version of a done before, done again since movie sticks to the novel score. Okay, big deal.

Outside of this simple fact it's a solid story with decent direction, not as much of a tear jerker as I'm willing to bet it would be today, excepting the Chris Rock version...and the comedy is dated as well.

Probably the funniest part for me (and here's some spoiler) was all the uniforms that really had no tie to anything, prompting Beatty to ask "do I sail?" Every night that he showed up for dinner in a new and gaudier outfit, I sat and chuckled.

All this aside, I think this is where the main criticisms may sprout today and this is simply not changeable. Still, fun, solid and though dated, still enjoyable. Women will swoon over Beatty's youthful good looks more than Christie, who was supposed to be the object of his affection. Gentlemen, just remember she was made to look frumpy and conservatively set. She was cast in a more sexy manner in other roles and if you hunt her down today, even with the added years she's still a looker.

S1m0ne (2002)

A sign of the times...

[12 August 2003]

This movie kills me. More than anything else, aside from technical aspects, acting, direction and production, it represents the sad state of affairs at which we as a people have arrived.

S1m0ne as satire works better than anything we've seen in a while... ***possible spoilers***

As blind sheep, followers of fashion, it represents people at their absolute worst, when even the "high and mighty" celebrities and Hollywood producers fall over their own feet just in attempt to hold themselves in "Simone's" shadow. It doesn't represent us as the worst we can be in light of humanness, but as bored suckups to an industry that time and time again shows us all how very boring our lives can be.

Here we are, just weeks away from the potential (though it looks locked in) election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Governor over a state which has an economy just behind the nation of France. Schwarzenegger, whose only real ties to political experience come from marriage to a Kennedy, will perhaps win by not even a majority because that is how the recall is apparently set up, but regardless, I fear would take the election majority anyway. Personally, as the Governator, I'm willing to go out on a limb and predict he can do as good or a better job than a lot of the crooked creeps we have in office already. So...no matter. However, the mere fact that someone can ride into a position of great power like this on nothing more than a little recognition (okay a lot) and some catchy phrases like "hasta la vista, Gray Davis" shows what a truly sad state of being has besieged us.

Now I might point out that I personally am not big on idolatry, but I still get that special tingly feeling in the presence of so much moolah. We, society for the most part-do. It is exactly why more people can find themselves enthralled presently with Kobe Bryant's adulterous indiscretions, comparing his plight to that of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., than the looming crisis over nukes in North Korea, almost daily soldier deaths in Iraq since the "end" of major combat, or whether we should buy the yogurt in cups, tubes, or the new and convenient pourable yogurt drink containers.

Call me a cynic. Call me off on a tangent, but remember that you are here reading this review. You, you follower of fashion. How important is Kobe in your life? I could not care less.

I like to be entertained and I did laugh at this, but I surely wouldn't call it comedy. The technical flaws like the 5 1/4 inch floppy really trashed credibility for some viewers and I'm wondering if this was intentional or what, because someone sure knew in the production staff that this was ludicrous, but were they fearful of bringing it up, just like we as a people do not seem to be able to bring up to the Terminator, his lack of political reality.

Of course Ronald Reagan was President. Will we find ourselves altering the requirements a few years down the road so an action star from far, far away can hold this highest office?

Technicalities aside, take a look at the hate and discontent and total immersion in our lives entertainment has brought just in these pages. Take a look at the Susan Sarandon, or Jane Fonda, "Traitor B**ch" pages...or the message boards for Mel Gibson's "the Passion," not even to be released until next Ash Wednesday! Why is it that a comment by one of the Dixie Chicks can raise so much of a ruckus? Because we let it and forget from whence we came...we followers of fashion...

The real joke is on us. We are the real comedy.

Okay...now that I've really lost all track and you can see where the movie took me, where might it take you today?

The Princess Diaries (2001)

Fun and frolic...

[11 August 2003]

I love how whenever someone does a light-hearted movie like this, all the "master critics" come out en masse to trounce on it...."'pretty woman' without the hookers, read the book instead etc. etc. and the assorted inane 'it sucks'" responses.

This is fine. Don't share in the joy of it with those who like it...generally bad reviews come from people who would not watch a particular film in the first place. I liken it to sending your grandparents to see the "Fast and the Furious" versus "On Golden Pond" (Not that there's any comparison and like F & F was some how on Academy award level...).

Regardless, if you like light-hearted fun movies, this one is for you. You may come away loving it as a lot of reviewers here have. I loved it. I didn't spend my time looking at the technical aspects, but they are all solid here. The acting was good, the play simple and somewhat predictable, but still, it was a feel good movie like "Fly Away Home" or______(put one of your favorites of the genre here...). It was funny, the acting talent--talented and the direction et cetera, immaculate. By the way for all would be film aficionados in critique--if you didn't hear it form the horse' mouth, and there are no glaring mistakes, how can we know if it did not come out exactly how it was wished?

This was not meant to be a blockbuster, had its own specific audience in mind, though I'm sure grownups as well as kids might like it, and was made to satisfy people who like this type of general "feel good" story. On these levels, and I can be quite critical myself, it satisfies and succeeds.

If you're the type that likes to see blood and explosions and violent cuss fests and the like, well, you'll be bored and project your boredom on the players here and spout off garbage like "sucks." For these viewers, stay away! For anyone who likes innocent fun and can relax in their seat, this is a great way to spend some popcorn time...

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Insensitive?

[10 August 2003]

This is my second note here since after watching the movie for the second time around recently, I had to look up more information on the actual bombing...

I really did like the movie and I thought it was well done all around, but after looking at photographs here on the net of the Arizona (among others from that day) and noting another reviewer's sarcasm about "What's next, '9-11, the Musical'," I do have to say I can relate.

On the end of being entertaining and a movie of decent construction, I'd give it a thumbs up and say I was impressed...liked the story, cinematography, thought the acting was okay etc. ...but then on the historical side, if I knew more about it, it would bother me since inaccuracy has always been a pet peeve of mine. Additionally, I have to question if this kind of makes light of the whole of what happened in Pearl Harbor on that day of infamy, seemingly so long before us. It really seems secondary to the story here and all I am is disturbed by the horrific feeling that made America rally behind the war effort the way it did. Eventually we would not have had a choice I think, but to get involved.

I do think they portrayed the actual bombing with a fervor and some of the gore of that which it was, but then we stepped immediately away from this into the next part of the movie and sidelined it in favor of the love triangle.

Is this an insult? We all have to decide, but it is a fact of the film. It kind of causes me to believe they needed to target and market this as something other than a flick about Pearl Harbor, and more at the love story since the attack really was secondary--incendiary or not.

Minority Report (2002)

This is what Sci-fi is all about...

[10/10 · 10 August 2003]

There's an overabundence of abuse of this here and quite frankly, the only reason I'm not shocked is because opinions are like...oh, well, you get the picture...

There is no doubt Spielberg is a talented filmmaker and though a lot of people dog him, Cruise is a pretty darn talented actor. Want to rate him against other leading men today, all you have to do is take a look at one emotionless Keanu Reeves performance or Ben Affleck (though I think Affleck is better than Reeves) and then try to put them into Cruise' shoes in "Born on the Fourth of July" or Minority report and think for a minute. Not a chance.

So what is it, fault Spielberg because he didn't satisfy your vision of whatever tripe you had in your head or Cruise, because he's flying the Jet you've only known in fantasy? People love to hate and show contempt when the majority of us have no foundation upon which to stand other than "I liked it," or "I didn't." Reviewers like "tedg," who apparently seem to be professors, still have only cinematic license to critique based on formulaic visions for what is, should be and how they might have changed it etc. etc.

While the majority of films for example are supposed to stick to non-filmmaker Syd Field's three act recommendation, some of the better works through time follow their own conventions and paths, not those set out before writers by non artists, who have never made more than the crap in their drawers.

Of course this is all garbage ultimately too, since the analysis of another's art, commercial or otherwise is simply opinion. Though it's nice for guys like Spielberg to consider the audience and commercially succeed, as well as being a requirement for continued work in this field (unless you fully finance everything you do), I think he probably wants to do movies he will like, regardless of what others think. Of course that's just my opinion. With opportunity to satisfy himself as well as others, and make lots and lots of money, well that can't be all that bad.

So why do I bother reviewing myself, one might ask? Because credit should sometimes be given where credit is due. As a big fan of Science Fiction or Fantasy, there is so little worthy of praise and a greater tendency toward cheese than in the Troma horror "classics." Just the sheer magnitude of a work does not make it worthy or watchable, and people seem to expect a better movie for the money, for example "Waterworld," which at its time was perhaps the most expensive work ever done, and never lived up to expectations...versus "Cube," done on a comparative shoe string with unknowns and a truly interesting story.

Minority Report on its hand is both ambitious and lived up to my expectations. For this reason, I choose to critique the critics rather than film. Many more labels of trash are accompanied by no explanation than are those praiseworthy.

Lest I go on...I am typing here simply because I had not before and it's hardly worth missing a warm meal to gripe for or against this amidst the masses.

Definitely some interesting "aspects" here. Of course who goes to the movies to examine "aspects?" I go to be entertained and I loved this flick. Good job Gollywood!

Last Night (I) (1998)

Dreadfully dreary...

[10 August 2003]

This obviously caught a lot of attention and has received rave reviews from the majority I've read here, but I just don't see it. It's not just the different take, the character driven end and lack of Hollywood glitz, but it really lacks a spark somewhere and though I did enjoy it, much of it was like my take of a rainy day when one cannot seem to get off the couch.

For the viewer who didn't understand the AMC Pacer, perhaps I missed it, in not seeing any newer cars, but it seemed to take place in that era. For tedg, I for once agree in that there was not energy here for me save for anti-energy.

I must admit I was very tired when I watched this, falling asleep toward the end so I had to actually sit up from my reclined position, and maybe I will have to give it a second look (my sleep was just one of those head jerks though). I just don't see it as genius, more than a boring different take on a sometimes popular theme. While Armageddon certainly did not deserve a Criterion collection entry, there exist never a chance for this work, I should think.

**SPOILER** Oh, while I'm ranting, we should all realize why it is light at midnight, but unless it is between two converging stars, it is still dark on the other side of the planet unless light has shown some bend. ...and one last area before I shut my pie hole, I also have to agree with the dissenters who note that the characters are hardly fleshed out. I really did not care if any of them died at the end save for Sarah Polley 'cause she's just so attractive (yes, I know, how shallow of me, but oh well). I really am deeper than that though this movie is not.

I'll leave it at this since my fellow dissenters have their share of solid arguments already posted here...

The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996)

I dug it...

[10 August 2003]

This is on a long list of movies which while lacking in certain aspects of the story line, still turn out to be pretty decent as entertainment.

I don't know about the comments of Geena Davis being cast in her hubbie's flick as well as being too on in her years, but for an "old" broad, she looks pretty damn good to me.

The details...well, there's some bits and little pieces with need, but overall, not only did I find the story very cool, but the chemistry between Davis and Jackson seemed apparent and production of this was well done.

Boo-hoo if ya find fault, 'cause not every work on film is meant to be the "Godfather," but sometimes, with a good cast, even something that could have such potential to come off weak might do okay.

This one did for me...and by the way, for the viewer who commented on Jackson's need for a younger woman to sleep with...fughetaboutit! He's eight years older than Geena Davis! Did you see the same body in the freezer as I did?

Blue Crush (2002)

Luscious scenery, Poor plot...

[8 August 2003]

I first caught the tail end of Blue Crush after a long night of work, with the surf crashing down, the competition heating up and...no real chance to judge anything other than what I immediately saw, which I liked.

Well it made me want to see more and so later when I had the opportunity, I checked it out. *** possible spoilers ***

This could have been a much better movie. The lush women and scenery, and for the gals, a few good men, as well as the comedic relief of Faizon Love and company...did make the movie enjoyable for me.

I just could not deal realistically with the plot point that Kate Bosworth and this Pro Football player could hook up in the period of a short week, hey let's give them two, and for their relationship to find such levels. The depth of this relationship was too much too fast when they hardly knew each other. In the real world we might call it immaturity, infatuation, whatever. It just seemed unrealistic.

Now don't get me wrong, Kate Bosworth might make any man fall in love, definitely lust, and if you're battin' for the other side, well, her body is rockin' and......but c'mon now.

The point is this was not meant to be fantasy. We were meant to buy this and maybe in Hollywood or under the age of 15 this is how people act, but I just buy it in the real world short of stalkers and pure psychos.

All in all, I did like this movie. Even with the absence of some of the sub-plots being expanded upon, it could have worked. It's just that once you start playing with what is real and it is not meant to be the newest fantastic story, it invariably screws things up and hurts credibility for many viewers.

One last note. I'm not sure how much is CG and I heard that Bosworth's head was placed on some real surfer girls in some spots, but regardless, the Surfing is very cool. For anyone who is a fan, check out "In God's Hands" for some really decent, real surfing. No great plot there either if I remember, but not as much of a stretch.

Unfaithful (2002)

Not worthy of such praise...

[15 July 2003]

Lauded throughout the reviews here, I'm shocked at the reception this has received.

Possible Spoilers ahead...

How possibly, can this have such a faithful following and such praise with so many glaring flaws? Was it the steamy sex scenes between an extremely hot Diane Lane and her "French" heart-throb? As a female reviewer noted, first Viggo Mortensen, now some other sex-god (she asked what gal wouldn't cheat!?). Did these and the romantic ambiance simply take viewers so far away from reality? I think not, but what do I know?

I like Gere and Lane, but certain aspects of the plausibility gap were grossly run down with the direction within this film. Sure I told myself that "that could happen" if one were totally freaked and unable to handle the situation. For example when Gere accidentally murders hot loverboy and then rolls him up in a carpet and takes the body to his car trunk in broad daylight--no reason to be suspicious here, not even for the guy who offers to help him put this bulky rug into the trunk when he struggles. Naw, wouldn't raise any suspicions or result in someone jotting down a license number...maybe I'm just paranoid.

Or how about a couple of cops who can bring up a month old parking ticket from outside Lane's lover's apartment, though "no, don't really know the man..." yet not even check telephone records to substantiate a more viable tie between the two? She only used a payphone once. The rest of the time she was calling from home with her husband and child right there. Puh-leeze!

This work had all the talent, all the possibility of being a great flick in addition to being sexy and thrilling, but this viewer found it so flawed, I was unable to really suspend my disbelief after halfway though the mess that it really is. The ending was so up in the air, I couldn't begin to call it ambiguous as another viewer noted in review, because the only explanation was that perhaps they ran out of film and script!

Sure you can leave questions unanswered and unresolved and leave the audience thinking as they walk out of the theater, but you still need real resolution to this end. It didn't exist here and honestly, I found it laughable that this ending could be perceived by anyone to be resolute. My wife sat down half way through and we had a couple really good laughs in our disbelief, but she felt like it was a waste of her hour upon the "end" ending the way this played out. Perhaps this is just where the movie should have began. Think about it. Begin at the end, after the murder, flashback if you must...whatever, leave it however you want, but be real. I would be embarrassed to claim this sloppily done work after so much possibility.

This was way too flawed even if we forget things like DNA and a slick ending, quite troubling considering the reviews here. Again, I like Lane, but great T & A are not a category for Academy awards yet and I'm not convinced that Hayek was not more deserving for best actress than Nicole Kidman for her portrayal of the "goat" and wearing a prosthetic nose. Kidman was good for sure, and the role displayed her talent, but politics definitely play into certain circles....