Reviews

I didn't know what to expect since I never saw the original and avoided

watching the trailers as much as possible.

It was hip. It was cool. But that's about it. I get the impression that's all they tried for. The acting was fine. The actors were all obviously having a good time making it. They're all criminals, but we end up liking them.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

Julia Roberts was put into the film for obvious reasons. First, she's bankable. With all these popular actors in it, some eye candy was wanted. After all, this takes place in glitzy Las Vegas. Polls have shown she's the most popular

actress around. Plus her character serves a purpose where the Andy Garcia

character can get burned even more than if their romantic subplot didn't exist.

Personally, I agree she didn't need to be in it. The subplot of her and Garcia felt calculated to me. It was just there to make me feel better that Garcia lost twice to Clooney. It made no sense to me whatsoever for Julia Roberts to go back to Clooney. I thought she was tired of his days of theft and lying. If she didn't care about those things, she would have stayed with Garcia.

I'm often criticized for my lack of ability to suspend my disbelief and that I think too much about things that seem minor to others. But why are these guys even

being made to look cool and heroic anyway? They just ripped off 3 casinos of

many, MANY millions. Doesn't a lot of this money go to pay wages of lots of

workers who need the money more? Doesn't a lot of it pay taxes in the state

that serve the citizens of Nevada? Who's going to make up the loss? If the

casinos get reimbursed by insurance, won't that mean higher premiums for

those who can afford it the least?

Another thing that bugged me is how can they even get away with it? I assume

that the casinos aren't really run by only Andy Garcia. Wouldn't the mob have a strong hold in it as well? I doubt they would appreciate the loss and would use all their power and influence to find the thieves.

How did these guys build an exact replica of the vault? Why did Andy Garcia

allow Matt Damon to go the room alone? Why did he release George Clooney to

the police? If he really suspected Clooney and was as heartless as we're

supposed to think he is, why wasn't the truth tortured out of Clooney?

The answer to all these questions is that the movie is just there to pander to the audience and make them think they're cool. We're made to like them from

the start because they're good-looking, friendly, use hip language, dress well, drink and eat the best liquor and food, hang around with celebrities, and know how to gamble against boring kids.

I like Sodenberg's movies otherwise. I'm a fan of SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE;

OUT OF SIGHT; ERIN BRONKOVICH; and especially TRAFFIC. And I really have to

get around to check out KING OF THE HILL and KAFKA. But this movie was

beneath him. Take away the slick camera works and the moving subtitles and

credits and you have a very lame story.

Although the first hour and a half is filled with cliche after cliche, it still has a good spooky moment or two. But the half hour counts on you being a stupid person in order to enjoy the movie.

(WARNING: SPOILERS!) For instance, a smart person would not walk next to her husband's hand, or reach over him to tug weakly at the phone in his pocket. Also, someone as hurt as Harrison Ford's character could not have been able to climb onto the boat while Michelle Pfeiffer's character drives away in the truck carrying it. Or when she's spying on the neighbor with binoculars, she never points them in a direction that makes sense. Instead they're pointed where the next-door neighbor couldn't be just to instill phony suspense. The only way you would buy these premises is if you're stupid or if you've never seen a suspense/horror movie before.

Then there's the many times, Robert Zemeckis directs a tense scene slowwwwwwly until you get either (a.) a face of a ghost to startle you, (b.) a friend or family member to bump into someone to startle you, or (c.) the family dog to startle you. The first couple of times, it may work. But it got really old after the 6th or 7th time.

I read somewhere that Harrison Ford commented on his dislike for Hitchcock's films (which are the obvious inspiration for WHAT LIES BENEATH) because the people in them are unrealistic and stiff. He has some nerve after making this film.

I am aghast that this moronic film made the Top 250 list, faring even better than great films like KING KONG and NETWORK! Not to mention all the rave reviews listed here.

I'm not saying it's the worst movie ever made. It's just another mediocre, dumb action movie posing as an important film showing what our forefathers supposedly went through for freedom. Why it's holding everyone's interest is beyond me. I was very bored watching it, because I'd seen it all before in BRAVEHEART and ROB ROY, except it was done better then. But what would you expect from the director of INDEPENDENCE DAY, another stupid film that made lots of money by using every cliche in the book to pander to the lowest common denominator of an audience!

(BEWARE: SPOILER) For instance, when the oldest son supposedly killed the sadistic British colonel. C'mon, you knew the colonel wasn't dead because the cliched script dictates that he has to have a final showdown with Mel Gibson's character. For some reason, the director thinks he can surprise us, so he shoots the part where the son goes to make sure the colonel's dead in slooooowwwwww motion (an unimaginative way to convey suspense). And right at the last second, the evil colonel quickly turns around and kills the son with his sword. What nonsense! This son has shown that he is a cunning fighter. Why does he turn stupid all of a sudden and take his time (using a mere dagger yet!) to finish off this skilled opponent? The answer is that the director treats his audience like morons, knowing that they don't want to have to think -- they just want to be entertained. (Today's audience thinks `entertainment' is synonymous with `turning your brains off for a couple hours.')

Then there's the cue card factor brilliantly contributed by `vdasher' in an earlier review. He is right on target and I urge you to read and reread his viewpoints from July 10, 2000. I can add nothing more to them.

I don't mind the fact that people enjoy vapid crap like THE PATRIOT. I mainly criticize the idea that it belongs in the top 250 films of all time. It's not. And anyone who says it does is obviously very young and has no sense of film history and what riches the truly great films can offer.

Blade Runner belongs on a list of 2 or 3 movies that had me walking out of the theater in a stupor as though hit by a sledgehammer, the first time I saw it. It fulfills one of my requirements of great films in that I walked out of the theater a different person than when I entered. And it fulfilled another requirement in that it improved with repeated viewings.

There is so much to take in visually, intellectually, and emotionally that my mind was overwhelmed at the first viewing trying to sort it all out. Unlike the so-called "entertainment" we get today at the movies, this film didn't spoonfeed its meaning to you. It left the ending ambiguous so your imagination has to supply it.

The film demands discussion. There are so many topics to debate. Is Deckard a replicant? Do Deckard and Rachel live happily ever after? Why is there a unicorn in the director's cut? Is Deckard a hero? Or are the replicants really the good guys? Every time I watch it, my answers change.

I may be one of the few that really likes the original. Probably because I've seen that version a couple dozen times since 1982 before the director's cut came out. This may contradict what I said earlier about being spoonfed, but I liked the narration because it explained what was going on in Deckard's mind. And I didn't mind the "happy ending" because it still implied that their troubles may not be over. "I don't know how long we had together. Who does?" But with that version memorized, I now appreciate the directors cut. It probably has the better ending. (At least I think so until I view it again!)

It's also fun watching actors before they became more famous later like Sean Young, Daryl Hannah, M. Emmet Walsh, William Sanderson, and Edward James Olmos. I think they all did a great job. And Vangelis did a beautiful, moving score.

After "Blade Runner", most of the big blockbuster science fiction movies boil down to good guys vs. bad guys with lots of loud explosions and in-your-face effects. Very simplistic messages, if any. That's why I still contend that an "oldie" like Blade Runner still outshines them all. It has incredible special effects, but never at the expense of the story. The cityscapes do more than dazzle you, they involve you.

The more I think of it, the more I realize that "Blade Runner" is not only my favorite science fiction movie, but one of my favorite films in any genre. I wish Ridley Scott would return to science fiction, but then again today's Hollywood would never release a movie like "Blade Runner."