*some spoilers*
It's official: "3000 Miles to Graceland" is a very strong contender for the worst movie of 2001. Rarely have I seen such a long, boring, mind-numbing mess. There's the germ of an offbeat idea--Elvis impersonators robbing a Vegas casino--but right from the start something's amiss, and the film only gets worse as it goes on. The first part is a mildly diverting heist picture, but it degenerates into a mindless road movie, making it clear that the filmmakers had no idea where to go. The third act is nearly unwatchable, and I felt tired and depressed when it was over. It would be hard to list every flaw in a single review, but the most prominent impression on my mind was that it's an assault on the senses. A handful of viewers liked it, but I don't envision this movie becoming a cult classic anytime soon. The director makes everything flashy looking, with rapid editing and tilted camera angles. He thought he was making the film exciting, but all it did was give me a headache. I am reminded of "Armageddon," which had a similar problem but was at least a marginally more entertaining movie. Graceland isn't exciting, it's a poorly directed, sloppily written ordeal.
I do not know how Kevin Costner was persuaded to appear in this travesty, except that perhaps he was tired of being the hero all the time. Well, if he wanted to play a villain, he got his wish. After watching the results, my guess is that he will stick with his more "traditional" roles from this day on. His approach to the character, a psychotic thug ringleader, doesn't have enough force or energy. It's clear that he didn't have any idea what to do with this nearly unplayable role, so he just faked it. On the other had, Kurt Russell does a fairly good job as his heart-of-gold partner, who eventually befriends a lonely single mother. I liked Courteney Cox's character, but her motivations are too vague for her actions to be credible. Does she love this guy or what? And does she so easily forget his threat to kill her? Likewise, David Kaye is reasonably good as Cox's son, but he's such a little brat. Christian Slater, Kevin Pollak, and David Arquette are utterly wasted and dispensed with early on. There should be a law against such misuse of resources.
Demian Lichtenstein is one of the worst directors ever to helm a big-budget movie, and one hopes it will be a long time before anyone lets him near Hollywood again. Thankfully, his film was a miserable box-office bomb, so the worst of his legacy is probably over. According to the Internet Movie Database, he is better known for his rock videos, commercials, and short films. He should be forbidden from ever moving from that arena and inflicting more harm upon the moviegoing public. Who greenlit this thing? Who thought it would make a workable movie? What did the stars see in the material? Did everyone owe the director a favor? Why hasn't Elvis' estate sued?
* (out of ****)
Released by Warner Bros.
It's official: "3000 Miles to Graceland" is a very strong contender for the worst movie of 2001. Rarely have I seen such a long, boring, mind-numbing mess. There's the germ of an offbeat idea--Elvis impersonators robbing a Vegas casino--but right from the start something's amiss, and the film only gets worse as it goes on. The first part is a mildly diverting heist picture, but it degenerates into a mindless road movie, making it clear that the filmmakers had no idea where to go. The third act is nearly unwatchable, and I felt tired and depressed when it was over. It would be hard to list every flaw in a single review, but the most prominent impression on my mind was that it's an assault on the senses. A handful of viewers liked it, but I don't envision this movie becoming a cult classic anytime soon. The director makes everything flashy looking, with rapid editing and tilted camera angles. He thought he was making the film exciting, but all it did was give me a headache. I am reminded of "Armageddon," which had a similar problem but was at least a marginally more entertaining movie. Graceland isn't exciting, it's a poorly directed, sloppily written ordeal.
I do not know how Kevin Costner was persuaded to appear in this travesty, except that perhaps he was tired of being the hero all the time. Well, if he wanted to play a villain, he got his wish. After watching the results, my guess is that he will stick with his more "traditional" roles from this day on. His approach to the character, a psychotic thug ringleader, doesn't have enough force or energy. It's clear that he didn't have any idea what to do with this nearly unplayable role, so he just faked it. On the other had, Kurt Russell does a fairly good job as his heart-of-gold partner, who eventually befriends a lonely single mother. I liked Courteney Cox's character, but her motivations are too vague for her actions to be credible. Does she love this guy or what? And does she so easily forget his threat to kill her? Likewise, David Kaye is reasonably good as Cox's son, but he's such a little brat. Christian Slater, Kevin Pollak, and David Arquette are utterly wasted and dispensed with early on. There should be a law against such misuse of resources.
Demian Lichtenstein is one of the worst directors ever to helm a big-budget movie, and one hopes it will be a long time before anyone lets him near Hollywood again. Thankfully, his film was a miserable box-office bomb, so the worst of his legacy is probably over. According to the Internet Movie Database, he is better known for his rock videos, commercials, and short films. He should be forbidden from ever moving from that arena and inflicting more harm upon the moviegoing public. Who greenlit this thing? Who thought it would make a workable movie? What did the stars see in the material? Did everyone owe the director a favor? Why hasn't Elvis' estate sued?
* (out of ****)
Released by Warner Bros.