Reviews

I'm not one to look down on others' sexual desires, but this movie creeps me out and I find something terribly wrong with anyone who gets a kick out of the sexual relationship in "Private Lessons." Don't get me wrong, I love seeing man-woman sex in movies and I would have killed to have Emmanuelle trying to get in my pants when I was fifteen years-old, but... eww.

I've read "Philly," the Dan Greenburg novel this movie is based on, and it reads like something you would write a junior-high book report on. The only noteworthy thing about `Philly' is how poorly it's written. The plot twists are apparent fifty pages ahead of time, the sex lacks any eroticism and come off as the dark, dirty, twisted fantasies of a sinister old guy, and, inexplicitly, the word "whore" is spelled "hoor." Yet, Jack Barry and Don Enright, the brains behind "The Joker's Wild" and the "21" quiz show scandal felt the need to snap up the rights to this garbage. Sure, it was a box office smash and people have fond memories of it, but keep in mind these same group of people gave us about two dozen "Police Academy" sequels.

Yeah, the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel, is in the movie. And Howard Hesseman and Ed Begley Jr. show up to take advantage of craft services and, oh, they also appear in the movie. Don't for a second let this fool you into thinking that this makes "Private Lessons" worth seeing. Okay, Emmanuelle being in the movie is pretty cool. However, the combined star power of Hesseman and Begley? Please. If opening this weekend was a buddy flick starring Howard Hesseman and Ed Begley Jr. where they travel across country in an electric car, you would take that as an opportunity to leave the country. I wouldn't even want them washing my car, electric or not. In their defense, the directing and writing is so bad, the mere fact that they take up physical space in the movie is commendable. And by just standing around holding a tennis racquet in this movie Begley surpasses his Golden-Globe nominated role in "Transylvania 6-5000." Regardless of all this, my point is do not lull yourself into thinking that you want to see these two men act in anything.

Now, back to the dirty sex. "Private Lessons" contains a tour de force performance by the nipples of Sylvia Kristel's body double. These nips should get top billing above the title. Now, I love nipples as much anyone else, but I don't believe there is any good reason why a viewer should be subjected to a scene where three-inch erect nipples are rubbed against the chest of an underdeveloped fifteen year-old boy while Rod Stewart's "You're In My Heart" plays in the background. If you ever wake up in the middle of the night and hear screaming, don't worry, that's just me having a nightmare about this scene.

No amount of nudity and sex can make this movie watchable. Plenty of movies have nudity and wacky sex antics, so don't settle for this crap. However, if for some reason, you find yourself fancying the plot, seek out the impossible to find, but far superior `Private Lessons II.' Having seen both you'll realize that Philly is no Ken, Lester is no Oba, Joyce is no Yoko and Sherman is no Koji. There were scenes in "Private Lessons" that I was praying for Koji to show up in. Sure, it makes no sense and there's very little nudity in it, but it's a much better way to spend an hour and a half.

It's been years since I've seen "Kindergarten Cop" and I don't remember very much about it. It's just one of those movies that I've seen a bunch of times without really remember any of its details. As far as I'm concerned, the movie could be a remake of "Big Business" with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Lily Tomlin role--that's how little I remember of it.

But I will tell you this: "Kindergarten Cop" contains one of the greatest moments of cinematic comedy. It's goes a little something like this:

Kid: It's probably a tumor.

Arnold: It's not a tumor!

That's the only thing I remember about the movie, and I don't even know if I quoted those lines correctly. Did Arnold Schwarzenegger know that he was creating comedy gold when he said "tumor" in an exacerbated way? "It's not a tu-ma!" Tu-ma! Tu-ma tu-ma tu-ma! Hah.

"It's not a tumor" falls somewhere between "Here's looking at you, kid" and "Stop looking at me, swan!" as the greatest line ever said in a movie.

I wouldn't recommend renting "Kindergarten Cop." Instead, get together with a bunch of friends, pretend you're all Arnold Schwarzenegger, and spend the evening repeatedly saying "TU-MA! TU-MA! TU-MA!" to each other. It's good clean fun for whole family.

"High Fidelity" is one of the best films of recent memory. The reason? Simply put, "High Fidelity" doesn't insult the audience. In a way, "High Fidelity" is an anti-movie movie. Its positive qualities can best be explained by discussing what its NOT.

Instead of shouting movie cliches at each other, the characters have conversations that feel real. Characters in the film speak with inflection and phrasing that people actually use in real life. When was the last time you found yourself involved in a case of mistaken identity? How about a run in with a pesky dog? An elaborate slapstick bout with the meal you're cooking? These things only happen in movies and they don't happen in this movie. The film is not built around funny scenes, rather great characters. The plot isn't moved forward by awkward plot points (Act 1: "I know CPR!"; Act 3: "Now I can use my CPR!"). One could complain that the film feels long and boring, but that might be because we're more used to movies about crap blowing up than character-driven plots. There are tons of obscure music references in the movie. I didn't get them all and, more importantly, the movie didn't feel it had to bend over backwards to explain the references to me.

Further, any single one of the characters in "High Fidelity" can easily support his or her own film. We might only see them for a few minutes of screen time, but one gets the feeling that there is so much more about these characters than the movie is letting on. It's nice to encounter the rare movie where we only get a seeming slight glimpse into the lives of the characters--that when a scenes ends the characters continue to live fully developed, multi-faceted lives without our having to directly witness it. For example, Joan Cusack has, at most, eight minutes of screen time. Yet we have a complete understanding of who her character is. Tim Robbins even has less screen time and we know him better than we'll ever know his character in "Mission to Mars."

The movie also manages to overcome two movie no-nos: it's an adaptation of a cult hit novel and the main character constantly breaks the fourth wall and talks to the audience.

Dealing with the first, its remarkable how faithful the movie is to the Nick Hornby book. Having fond memories of the novel, I did not leave the theater complaining that the movie left out this or the movie changed that. If you liked the book, see the movie. If you liked the movie, read the book.

The second point, John Cusack addressing the audience isn't at all irritating, as one would expect it to be. On "Malcolm in the Middle" I tire of Malcolm's asides after about fifteen seconds. In "High Fidelity," Cusack spends half the movie talking to us and it works. Maybe it's because John Cusack's likeable; maybe it's because we can relate the reality of what he's saying.

"High Fidelity" leans towards the male side of the relationship game, but regardless of one gender, the viewer can find characters and situations that can be related to one's real life. Highly recommended for viewing and reviewing.

What a letdown "Dogma" is. The movie had been in the works for years. It has an amazing cast. It has an interesting and different topic. It has Kevin Smith writing the dialogue. It had everything going for it and, man, did it suck.

Let's first get out of the way that I love Kevin Smith. Ditto to Jason Mewes, Jason Lee, Chris Rock, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. If an amusing film about religion can be made, these are the people who could do it. Now, if only they actually pulled it off.

"Dogma" dragged on and on. There were large gaps of minutes where nothing was funny. I felt that the audience, much like myself, was straining to find enjoyment in the movie. We all wanted to like this movie. Unfortunately, with the exception of the character of Jay, there wasn't much to like.

I think there are three major sources for the failure of "Dogma":

1. Linda Fiorentino. I just didn't care about her. She had no energy in this movie. It seemed like she was irritated to be in the movie. She just didn't fit in, which is a darn shame, considering she was the main character.

2. Kevin Smith tried to expand himself as a writer/director. More power to him, but don't forget what made you popular to begin with. I don't need a movie with wall-to-wall sex jokes, but keep in mind that this is a comedy. Yes, you can have serious issues in a comedy, but you can also try to fit in some jokes as well.

3. Kevin Smith should write, not direct. The clunky nature of Kevin Smith's directing is somewhat charming with his other movies, but "Dogma" required a more skilled hand. It's Smith's first big film in scope-- with special effects and elaborate costumes to boot. All the scenes seemed slightly off and uncomfortable. It felt like a small-time movie doing a poor job at pretending to be a huge, Hollywood blockbuster. If Kevin Smith teams up with a good director, the results would be amazing.

"Dogma" could have been so much more and, as a result, it's the most disappointing movie of my recent memory.

Yes, "Magnolia" is a long film. Clocking in at three hours, it seems like I spent the entire day watching it. However, it was most certainly worth it. I'm glad every single minute was there. It's only when a film is terrible is it not worth its length. "Teaching Mrs. Tingle" was just over an hour and a half, but I would have given anything for it to be two reels shorter. "Dirty Work" with Norm MacDonald was 81 minutes and it felt like it took years off my life.

The point being this: a long running time does not equal a bad film. Don't avoid this movie because it's supposedly too long because you'll miss out on one of the best films of 1999. Stop your whining about how it's too long, suck it in and see "Magnolia."

"Sydney" (aka "Hard Eight") is an amazing movie for one reason: Phillip Baker Hall. He's an amazing actor.

John C. Reilly, Samuel L. Jackson, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Gwyneth Paltrow all nicely added to this surprisingly gripping film. While "Sydney" is less flashy than Anderson's "Boogie Nights" or "Magnolia," it's worth seeing for proof that great character development, tension, shocks and humour can all easily fit into a film that's under two hours.

"Go" is a great, easily watchable and re-watchable film that is far superior to "Swingers," probably one of the most overrated films of 90s.

Rent it for this one reason: The scene where Ronna (Sarah Polley) is attempting to sell drugs to Zack and Adam (Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf) contains one of the funniest movie moments in recent memory. Zack warns Ronna of danger with a slow-motion "GOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

You'll find yourself peppering it into conversations. "GOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" Hah.

Mere thoughts of "Going Overboard" (aka "Babes Ahoy") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed "so bad it's good" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...

For a few weeks now I've expressed interest in wanting to see "The Best Man." As a white male, when I said this, most people gave me a look as if I just said, "I'm thinking about investing money in 'Phat Beach II'!" There seems to be a belief that "The Best Man" is not a movie for me because I'm white.

If you were skeptical about seeing "The Best Man" because you're not black, ignore those fillings and go see the movie. It's slow at points, and yes, it does have some tired cliches in it, but it was nice to see a movie where people talked and developed relationships, regardless of their skin color.

"The Best Man" is not a black film. Yes, it stars black people and was made by black people, but it's more a film about one's friendships and how they develop as one grows older. Don't miss it because you don't think it's meant for you.

Having just watched both "Psycho" (1960) and "Psycho" (1960), I have to agree with most of the comments that the original was better. But, I think most of the negative "what the hell were they thinking?" comments miss a major point of the remake: "Psycho" (1998) exists to celebrate the original. Just on the surface, its release has brought attention to the original for a whole new generation. For that alone it should be complimented.

Besides that, the remake is a celebration of filmmaking. For the most part, we just go to the theater in an attempt to be entertained. The technical side of film isn't important, nor should it be, for it would interfere with the illusion of seeing a film. However, "Psycho" (1998) welcomes us to do just that: look at the filmmaking and see how a good film is made.

In all, it adds up to a nice experiment: we are watching a new film that we've seen before. In this way, we, as viewers, become an important part of the film itself. Gus Van Sant knows that we're going to notice the differences; in fact, he knows we'll be waiting to see them. He also knows we'll be waiting to see how Vince Vaughn will deliver a familiar line of dialogue. This is why this remake is ingenious.

Before "Psycho" (1960) because a cultural phenomenon that everyone knew about without having to have seen it, it was viewed as a tense movie where the viewer didn't know what was coming next. "Psycho" (1998) is also tense, but in a difference sense, because we are now all-too familiar with the film's plot: we know what's coming next and the anticipation of seeing it again for the first time is exhilarating.

I don't think there should be more shot-for-shot remakes of films done; "Psycho" (1998) will suffice. Love it or hate it, as a film it makes you think about both filmmaking as an art and one's role as a viewer. When was the last time you left the theater with those types of thoughts in your head?

Man oh man, Nic Cage is haggard in this film. If there were an Oscar for being haggard, he would be hands-down winner. Has he slept in three years? By comparison, he's Rip Van Winkle in 8mm. Nic you're a gifted actor and an Academy Award winner--grab a nap.

Oh, and given that Patricia Arquette is his wife is real life, they have absolutely no chemistry in this movie.

Despite what the commercials claim, this film is nowhere near "Seven" or "Silence of the Lamb." It still is rather enjoyable, if you don't think too much about the logic of the plot.

Here's a tip for the people who make trailers: don't put the killer's voice in the trailer. My friend and I had seen the trailer for the movie in which, during a montage, you hear the killer say something like, "I've given you so many clues!" My friend commented that the voice sounded just like such and such actor from these films. By no means is he a big name actor (we didn't know his name), but he had memorable enough roles in those films to be identifiable.

We went to see the movie and we're not five minutes into the film before that actor appears on screen. My friend pointed at the screen and said, "That's the killer. Thanks a lot trailer!"

It didn't ruin the movie, but really trailer people, was it really necessary to include the killer's voice?

"Your Friends and Neighbors" is a film that is in love with itself. Oh how it loves its characters and the situations it places them in. More importantly, it loves how damn clever it supposedly is.

Unfortunately, "Your Friends and Neighbors" isn't that clever. In fact, it has an overly contrived cleverness that makes the plot of "Wild Things" look understated. See, isn't it clever that all the main characters keep interacting with the same secondary characters in the same exact locations? (Perhaps the filmmakers confused "clever" with "grating" and "overdone.")

I think what bothered me most about this film is its striking similarities to the movie "Married People, Single Sex." Yes, "Your Friends and Neighbors" is slicker and stars people you've heard of, but they are primarily the same movie. "Your Friends and Neighbors" shouldn't be raved about, rather it should be banished to paid cable at three in the morning.

If you have to choose a movie, pick "Married People, Single Sex" or its sequel. At least those films had nudity.

We've all become jaded when it comes to horror films. We respect "Psycho," but we can never quite believe it was really THAT scary. "Halloween" doesn't make you jump; rather it makes you smile as the slow-moving killer attacks shirtless girls. However, "Sleepaway Camp" is a scary movie. In fact, it's probably the scariest movie I've ever seen--just not for the reasons that it intended to be scary.

Sure, on paper, it looks to be just your run-of-the-mill cheap slasher flick, but, in actuality, it is so much more. It is the most unsettling hour and a half ever put on film. Everything about "Sleepaway Camp" makes one uncomfortable.

If one ignores the much talked about secret ending, there is still plenty in the film to act as nightmare fuel. There's the creepy aunt who's a community theater version of Joan Crawford with man-hands. There's the disturbing relationship between the much-older camp owner and one of the teenage counselors. There's an unexplained element of gay parents. There's a weird moment of two young children touching each other in bed. There's a pedophile cook, his Uncle Remus-like assistance and the world's largest pot of hot water. There's an untimely death from a curling iron. There's male counselors who wear shirts that only cover half their chest along with shorts that cover even less. All of these things, and more, combine to form a film experience that wears you down. Watching this film is a tiring, arduous process.

Film historians claim that showing a toilet flush in "Psycho" unsettled the audience--making the murders in that film even more shocking. Whether intentional or not, "Sleepaway Camp" does the same thing. In fact, it surpasses "Psycho" in its disconcerting ways. Forget toilets flushing. "Sleepaway Camp" eats away at the viewer with creepy image after creepy image. I dare anyone to attempt to find a film with more creepy elements in it.

The supposed "horror" of the film won't get to you, but everything else about it will leave you highly unsettled. "Sleepaway Camp" is not a film that you can quickly forget.

Without a doubt, Private Lessons II is the greatest movie I have ever seen. A Japanese import (poorly) translated into English, its a joy to watch. Not much of it makes sense, but that doesn't matter. It's the greatest comedy around without ever being intentionally funny.

The film is rare and unavailable on video, but I have caught it a couple of time late, late at night on pay cable. My taped copy has been watched dozens and dozens of times as I slowly, person-by-person, introduce this film gem to the world.

Joanna Pacula plays the tutor/lover to Ken, our hero. (She apparently was just working for her check.) Ken is played by Goro Inagaki, of the Japanese pop band SMAP, who gives it his all and has great hair through out the movie. Stacy Edwards, of "In the Company of Men" fame, shows up in the movie too and is probably happy that she found other film work afterwards.

It takes at least three viewings to sorta figure out what the plot is. On repeating viewing you can enjoy elements like the abnormal amount of vases Ken has in his house (at least 50) or that Ken is wearing a shirt with embroidered husks of corn in the movie's finale.

The movie is predictable, but highly quotable. My friends and I reenact entire scenes. Yes, it sounds like we're lame losers and we are ... but we're lame losers who have seen "Private Lessons II." Be one of ten people in the world who have seen this movie. You'll thank me for it.

Sleepaway Camp is comical in its approach. It's more humorous in its direction and editing than it is scary. Worth staying around until the final scene, which is one of the scariest moments on film ever.