Reviews

Ramoooooooone, get the buttery popcorn in the cardboard tub (and this time, be sure to cut the hole in the bottom and...). Yep, this is yet another film staring Little Jimmy Norton, famed third member of the Opie & Anthony duo. He was great in Lucky Louie - he's hilarious here. Really, a great Indy comedy that will warm your little heart. If you like your comedy a little skewed and ain't afraid to get down and dirty, well Jim's your man. I picked this up after accidentally bumping into it at a convention. It's good to see it's finally gotten a big-budget release and distribution deal and can be found at Walmart and everywhere. Go get one. And tell the store, "Thanks for the Fruuuuunkisssssss!"

Personally, I think SciFi Channel films are hit or miss, sweet fruit or rotten onions. Don't get me wrong, I'm no high-brow and I enjoy lots of b-grade (as well as c or d-grade schlock). This one surprised me; it was much better than I'd expected. I first decided to watch it to see how the lovely Charisma Carpenter has fared post-Angel, and I was quite pleased with her performance. The rest of the cast did a good job as well, especially cult fave Jeffrey Combs! He added a bit of humor and heart to the good vs. evil plot that could've been a lot heavier. Also, I was pleased and surprised to see John Amos as the biker Dutch - this guy is in his mid-sixties yet played the part of some 30-something tough guy and he looked YOUNGER and in better shape than his GOOD TIMES days. Amazing. Anyway, I digress. The film features a good story, better-than-average effects for the budget and kept me watching (and awake). It's worth the viewing!

I have been looking for the title of this movie for nearly 30 years! I saw it as a nine year old back when it first aired. I remember being creeped out to no end. In my teen years I got into scifi and somewhere in my head I always remembered watching this movie - perhaps one of the best apocalyptic films ever made, even if it was for TV. I couldn't remember the name, and no one I asked seemed to recall it - so went high school, college, even grad school... no one could help me find the title. Then, the Internet, a late night search on Google, and thanks to TV Tome and IMDb, I have the title. Now to get a copy! People have commented that it reminds them of the Trek episode... nah, this film is far more effective. It reminds me of The Quiet Earth, but the scenes where the clothes are found is eerie and outstretches TQE, imho.

Thank you all! My 30 year quest is over! Yippee!!!!!

I intentionally avoided any reviews of this film. Therefore, going into the theatre, I half expected a thriller and/or horror genre film. While it is certainly atypical of what most viewers would define as horror, Dead Pretty Things is both gripping and sublime in its unsettling exploration into the lives of the underclass, or perhaps more apt named, the ignored class.

The film centers around the exploits of a group Londoners who just happen to be illegal aliens fighting to survive and make a place for themselves in the "civilized" world. They are for the most part a loyal bunch of compatriots who struggle to make an honest living, to realize their dreams, and to do all of it whilst avoiding both immigration police and unscrupulous individuals out to exploit their desperation.

In the film, we observe their failures and successes, and we empathize with their tough choices. This is a human film about real horror - those things that would force a person to sell his/her body and dreams just to survive, and the toll it takes on the human heart. But these are not perpetual victims. The film offers a glimmer of hope for those brave enough to seize the day and remain true to their ideals, an in this way it is an empowering vision for the viewer. The fact that the heroes of this film are the people who do the "dirty work" in modern society (the maids, the janitors, etc...) allows for a a refreshing look at the modern "class" distinctions in a way not too different from Robert Altman's Gosford Park.

This offering from Dangerous Liasons and High Fidelity director Stephen Frears is perhaps his most humane work yet, and it's worthy of a nod by the Academy. The climax is a tad predictable and the denouement practically unsatisfying, but strong performances by Amelie's Audrey Tautou, and Amistad's Chiwetal Ejiofor propel this film through the back alleys and underbelly of urban life without the cliche angst typical of many Martin Scorsese films (and those who are influenced or try to duplicate his work). While it certainly does not play out like a David Lynch film, there is a Blue Velvet sense to this film that pushes it over the edge into the quirky dark humor in the midst of troubling character study. It's an enjoyable viewing experience, and I'd have to agree with critic Roger Ebert who said that it's like "two movies" for the price of one.

This film creeps up on you and is absolutely spellbinding. It's the simple story of an aging mass-market crime-fiction writer called Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling) who rambles off to the French countryside to find relaxation and hopefully inspiration for her next-in-the-series mystery book. While staying at her publisher's luxurious yet quaint summer retreat, she is confronted by his young daughter Julie (Ludivine Sagnier). Subsequently, all sorts of wild, unpredictable mischief ensues as the prim and proper Englishwoman clashes with the sexually carefree vixen, who evolves into an unexpected muse to the older woman.

My pal Oscar and I have spent the summer watching a number of French films, and one thing we both have learned and agree on is that for the most part, unlike most mainstream American films, they are mostly unpredictable. SWIMMING POOL is no different. Just when I thought I had it figured out, a number of odd plot twists move the narrative down an unsettling and unforgiving path until a sensitive and poignant ending reveals tragic truths about life, getting old, and the whimsy of youth that can be difficult for the young to face but which in many ways are empowering to those getting on in the years. If the film instructs anywhere, it is in the wisdom that we are only as old as we feel.

Expect tantalizingly erotic moments, mostly surrounding Ms. Sagnier's natural sensuality. There's plenty of eye-candy here, and in the viewing, one cannot help but feel strangely connected to the voyeuristic tendencies exhibited by Sarah as her dismal stoicism slowly disintegrates. Indeed, much of the film's tension and eroticism is experienced through the characters' eyes.

Ernest Hemingway said, "I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening carefully. Most people never listen." Surely the realm of the author is also to look, and more importantly, to see, as sharply illustrated by Sarah Morton's experience. In the end, her book may be the better for it -- to the possible chagrin of her publisher. Thus in some way, the film has much to say about the way literature is produced (through a "sexual" creative act) and how authors are oft times stripped of soul, reduced to rote formula, marketed, sold and neglected in pursuit of the next best selling author down the pike. In the film, Sarah attempts to transcend this trend through her collision with the young Julie.

Expect to be somewhat dismayed by the ending, but give it a moment, put the pieces together and it will all make sense. It's shear pleasure to enjoy a film these days that doesn't fill in the blanks for the audience, and this little gem is a clear winner. The fine acting betrays the taint of sentimentality. The sublime beauty and vivid verisimilitude of the setting and cinematography enhance the overall cinematic experience, and in more than one instance will leave the viewer breathless.

Some might complain that the film seems to meander, but this is true of many French films I've seen. This one is no different. Rather than commit to a rigid narrative form, the film appears more like a painting, with rich textures and colors folded onto the canvas in layers. Each scene builds on the last, every moment touches the next. The film is an experience as much as it is a story.

Hey, while it might be full of [toilet] humor many people might find offensive, AMERICAN WEDDING is just hilarious. I don't think I stopped laughing throughout the whole thing. Many of the film's jokes build on humorous moments from the two AMERICAN PIE movies, but that's okay. There's loads of fun in this installment surrounding the impending wedding of the nymphomaniac "Band Camp" girl, Michelle Flaherty (Alyson Hannigan), and the friend-to-home-baked-goods ne'er-do-well, Jim Levinstein (Jason Biggs). The movie isn't so much about Jim and Michelle, though. Seann William Scott steals the show (again?) as wild party boy Stifler, and Hannigan's character ends up being little more than a prop. Still, the film has a heart, and there are a few touching moments (even though they might make some folk cringe a bit ;).

One hilarious moment is when Stifler accidently wanders into a gay bar and sets out to prove that he's appealing even to gay men by showcasing his dance moves to a collage of 80s dance tracks! Another great scene senters around the mis-aptly scheduled "bachelor party." Once again, the AMERICAN WEDDING franchise proves that it is the modern leader in sexual/toilet humor, but manages to tell a story in such a way as the humor appears simply part of life (well, isn't it, then?) There's more laughs to go around than you can shake a stick at!

This is a splendidly produced, directed, acted and scripted modern vampiresque tale carved into the underbelly of raucous French night life. There's plenty of glitter, pizzazz and charm mixed with a heaping dose of grit, filth and decadence that adds a unique realism to a captivating mystery of a ne'er-do-well (the "innocent" Antoine played by Guillaume Canet) thrust into a quest for the enigmatic Jordan "the lord of the night" and his alluring goth girlfriend/sister Violaine (sexy erotic-horror vixen Asia Argento). The audience follows the young Antoine on his spiral downward into nether regions of disturbing violence and despair, but he presses onward, transfixed by the memory of his recent collision with Violaine that left him physically empty and weak but spiritually rejuvenated. With newfound purpose and desire, he braves life-threatening dangers to peel away the fragile skin of ambiguity and uncover the truth about Violaine and the rumors of vampirism. This film diverts from the trappings of Anne Rice influenced romanticism and repetitive classical vampire motifs without resorting to modern-day drug metaphor. This film is better compared to Larry Fessenden's 1997 HABIT than any other recent vampire film. It is an intriguing mixture of the urban (ie. Fessenden's Manhattan), yet one cannot escape the thought that it draws on the somewhat surreal French vampire films of Jean Rollin. It is visibly quirky and riddled with moments of dark humor that serves to undercut some of the more disturbing (and mildly gory) scenes, but it is no comedy. It's unique and interesting throughout - and the mystery is fun to watch unfold.

It's tremendously spooky and atmospheric. Very disturbing. It's filmed on location at Danvers State Mental Hospital in Danvers, MA. I was just up there a couple weeks back with a friend, but we couldn't get onto the property because we hadn't cleared it yet with the MA Film Commission and the State Police -- we're planning on another outing in June.

The film is very simple. It's about five Hazmat guys who go in to remove asbestos with a one week time limit (or they lose their big bonus). While there, odd things start happening, they start acting differently, one of them stumbles upon some old reel-to-reel tapes in a deserted storage room. They are recordings of psychiatric sessions between a doctor and a woman who harbors a terrible secret buried beneath layers of multiple personalities.

The setting is downright creepy. The hospital itself seems alive, like a character all its own. This movie is successful in bringing to the screen something THE HAUNTING (remake of the Shirley Jackson novel inspired film) and Stephen King's ROSE RED failed to do -- it proved that some "houses" are just "born bad."

Watching this film reminded me of some of the images I'd seen personally when doing a little "investigation" of the old Connecticut Valley Hospital a few years back, and of stories my Mom had told me earlier about her investigations of the place -- she was actually able to get a worker to give her a tour of the subterranean tunnels and "cells" where they housed the more "disturbed" patients -- the violent psychotics, the criminally insane. It's full of dark passages, cramped areas (claustrophobes will go nuts! ;)

It's not your typical modern horror film. It's mostly psychological. The director compares it to films like THE SHINING and DON'T LOOK NOW (and even THE EXORCIST).

Give it a look. Solid acting from David Caruso, Steven Gevedon and others make the characters real. A tight script with an emphasis on dialogue keeps them alive (for awhile anyway ;) No flashy special effects means the scares come from other places ;) All in all, a fine horror flick that will satisfy fans of atmospheric and psychiatric horror. Fans of only the teeny bopper pseudo slasher films like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and SCREAM will find it mostly boring and too difficult to follow ;)

Just a short and quick recommendation here... a wild two thumbs up for FREQUENCY, the new Dennis Quaid flick. It's great science fiction in the tradition of the old Outer Limits series. It really played like an extended Outer Limits or Twilight Zone show, with great character development, suspense and action. It's also a good mystery!

The plot revolves around strange sunspot activity which makes it possible for a NY City policeman to use a ham radio to talk to his father, a former NY City fireman who died 30 years previously in a fire. Taking advantage of the opportunity, the son warns the father of his impending death and saves the man's life -- altering forever the future timeline in a strange and HORRIBLE way that the two race through the remaining two-thirds of the film to set right.

The filmmakers try really hard to put current quantum physics explanations for what's going on into the film, using an interview with a physics professor with Dick Cavett on the tele in the background on night... it's subtle, yet obvious to the audience that their conversation has to do with the events unfolding in the narrative. This of course anchors the film in the realm of science fiction rather than science fantasy or scifi, and gives it an air of suggestible believability that helps propel the plot foreward.

It also has one of the most suspenseful and tense opening action sequences of any film I've seen in recent history -- a definite armrest grabber! Three solid stars for this entertaining and at times engaging film which at least attempts to deviate from the old cliche' of time travel plots, even if it fails in a few of those attempts. It's not easily predictable, but once you get a taste for the director's methodology, you'll start figuring things out. And the film's ending is a bit overly sentimental, with drawn out slo-mo sequences that border on the worst of the old Kodak "special moments" tv adverts.

My buddy Oscar has been on my butt for months to get me to watch this film... and I protested saying it looked stupid. Well, I finally saw it. It wasn't that bad, but it was stupid. I'd give it one star. Rose McGowan (Jawbreaker, Phantoms, Scream) plays a psycho-teen who is basically a poorly written Norman Bates. It's basically a bad POISON IVY rip-off, without the nudity and sex to keep it halfway interesting ;) The violence is far more graphic, too, making this one a candidate for the "slasher film" genre. It's predictable throughout. I'd love to say that McGowan does well in the role, but at times she appears over-the-top and hammy, so I can't even give her credit for great acting. I've seen countless B-movies which were far better and had better actors. This one looks like a bad attempt to cash in on McGowen's somewhat celebrity -- or her connection to Marilyn Mansun. Stupid.

It's too bad, too. Actor Alex McCarthur (Kiss the Girls, Conspiracy, Ladykiller) has been in a long list of B-films, and does great. He was good in this one, too... but he couldn't save it.

Whatever is a great slice-of-life coming of age story, this time about two young girls in their last year of high school. One girl is awkward looking and shy, but talented with a bright future as an artist. The other is prettier and popular, but not really destined for much. Both live their formative years in a backwater New Jersey suburb and their lives are far less polished and sanitized than those portrayed in most teenage coming of age films these days (TEN THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU, SHE'S ALL THAT, etc...) This film is gritty and real and the characters are powerful. It's hailed as a great 'chick flick" because it's focus is these two girls, but it's more than that.

I thought they did a great job portraying a realistic world. Hell, the high school party scene was stolen right out of my life! ;)

In any case, the acting is superb. The two girls, Anna and Brenda are played by Liza Weil (Stir of Echoes, A Cur for Serpents) and Chad Morgan (Co-Ed Call Girl). They find themselves looking for their own identity in the midst of messed-up family lives and peer pressure. Anna's the daughter of a single mother who works as a waitress and has affairs with rich married men to help support her kids. Brenda suffers through years of sexual abuse at the hands of her step-father. Both find escape and comfort in their pursuit for adulthood -- hopping from one new experience to the next in search of themselves. Drugs, sex, lawlessness... all of these things become part of their lives, and things which they must overcome in order to survive.

If you've got kids, take them to see this movie! It's incredible -- sort of. BUT, personally, I wouldn't take kids under 7. It's kinda scary in places, and when the Carnosaurs eat the friendly dinosaurs -- or when the family of monkees gets killed -- the kids will ball their eyes out. They don't need to see whole families wiped out and eaten at that age. Call me conservative or something, but I just don't see how that helps kids.

The story is basically the same as THE LAND BEFORE TIME --dinosaurs looking for a safe haven. Here we have the a meteor shower which supposedly is going to lead to their extinction -- but the meteors fall like rain. It's nasty and all that... but hardly good science. Plus, the dinos act just like people, and that is sort of a put off -- especially because of the way the film begins -- very nature based and keen on painting a realistic visual.

The graphics are at times incredible and at other times blurry and indistinct. This animation was supposed to be the best ever -- I thought some of the shots were just that, and then most of it was bland and dark. I've noticed that most of these computer animation shots are dark -- perhaps because if they were lit up enough the eye'd be able to spot all their flaws. I dunno. But it was annoying and the effect was like watching a drive-in movie at dusk, before it's completely dark -- the color and detail is sort of washed away. I think that explains it well enough.

But the story did have a good message, and it was clear and strait-forward enough. And at least it was a family movie that adults could sit through without getting stomach cramps and wanting to vomit in the aisle -- I think I'll pass on the new Pokemon movie coming out this summer, I don't care how much my nephew begs!

I give it 2 stars all along... perhaps a bit more from a kid's perspective. But I'll say this much... my nephew (little JJ) was far more excited about the film BEFORE seeing it than he was afterwards (he even got us a couple dinosaur hand puppets and we sat in the theater attacking each other before the movie started! :). And at one point in the film he even said, "Uncle Johnny, this is a bad movie." He said that when the Carnosaur was eating the poor defenseless dinosaur.

Sure, that may well be the "real world" and all that... but too much for kids.

Here's a very disturbing little film. It's about a young guy called Kyle (Scott Bairstow White Fang 2, The Postman, Party of Five (tv)) whose family moves to a new (and boring) little town and he ends up attending a new high school -- trying to fit in, trying to deal with being the new guy and also trying to cope with the death of his best friend. He goes from A student to loser in forty-five minutes, giving up being a top athlete in exchange for the acceptance of a group of heavy metal wannabes and large amounts of drugs - virtually everything from pot to lsd to crack. His life spirals out of control. He ends up joining the BCB who are a small group of these high school losers who practice an invented brand of Satanism in the wooded state park behind the high school. The group's leader Shane (Eric Mabius (Party of Five (tv), Lawn Dogs, Welcome to the Dollhouse) is severely disturbed and influenced by drug dealer/fence Greggo (Donnie Wahlberg yeah, that one -- New Kids on the Block, baby) who is the local Temple of Set devil worshiper who recruits local high school losers and gets them to rob houses for him in exchange for drugs.

The plot moves along slowly as Kyle sinks into this realm of madness, but once there, it spins wildly out of control -- there is much violence (including sick satanic rituals where the Shane kills a cat and then they dig up a skeleton) and even murder. The acting is superb, and makes the overall effect of the film that much more disturbing.

Where are first it appears to be just another high school nostalgia film (heck, it looked like my high school), it becomes this horror film -- but way too realistic. One keeps asking, "where are the parents, where are the cops" as these lowlifes rampage through the town pillaging and killing and just making all sorts of mayhem.

In the end, Kyle must fight the demons which are pulling him under, and the second half of the film chronicles his attempts to overcome the darkness which threatens to consume and destroy him.

I tried to hate it and call it a tired interpretation of the old Disney classic, but I ended up falling in love with its quirky humor and general atmosphere of fun. Call it a romp through good family-oriented humor and hijinks. It's something you can share with the kids and get a laugh out of yourself. I admit I just love Sarah Michelle Gellar, but be forewarned, she's no Buffy here. Dyan Cannon was supreme and never looked better, imho. She and Martin Mull has great chemistry.

Fans of Jean Rollin will not be disappointed. This film capitalizes on many of the staples that make his films unique. There is a pretty gal traveling all over the French countryside facing peril, atmospheric and lingering cinematography, a quirky soundtrack, breasts, a tragic love story, and plenty of surprises to keep viewers guessing. Add the special appearance by the lovely Brigitte Lahaie and you've got a winner, but certainly lacking the cohesion (though wildly subversive and surreal -- though not so bizarre as Jess Franco's pictures) and tension of some of his more successful ventures like La Morte Vivante (The Living Dead Girl), Requiem for a Vampire, The Shiver of the Vampires and others.

Stark and uncompromising, this film manages to balance simplistic, but

edgy, psychodrama and historical mystery with honest character study.

It's refreshing to see Elizabeth Hurley (Adaline) star in an intelligent

psychological drama. Not since her breakthrough performances in KILL

CRUISE and PERMANENT MIDNIGHT has the actress been allowed to stretch much

farther than glorified eye-candy (not that I'm complaining about that

;) Unfortunately, she's not much more in this film. The real stars who

make this film a winner are Sean Penn as Thomas, an alcoholic and

melancholic poet who hasn't picked up pen in years, and Sarah Polley as a

Norwegian immigrant (Maren) who struggles with a cold marriage, a

desperate secret and a building internal rage that threatens her sanity.

Catherine McCormack is excellent as well in the role of Thomas' wife Jean,

a photojournalist researching an old murder case from 1873 (the film is

based on Kathryn Bigelow's book and the murder on the Island of Shoals

actually happened). She happens upon new evidence that calls into question

the official explanation of the crime and reveals the powerful fury of

violent emotions that sometimes overtake good people and move them to acts

of horror. In the midst of her discovery, she must confront her own

passion, disappointment, jealousy and frustration.

Both stories are tightly woven through a complex parallel narrative. The

cinematography is at times artistic and elegant and at others pale and

unrefined. The storm scene is a bit forced and seems contrived,

but if the viewer can excuse about 13 minutes of the film, the other

100 feature performances that border on virtual genius.

The only lead that fails as a character lacking any depth whatsoever is

Rich (played by Josh Lucas), Thomas' brother and Adaline's beau. There is

more personality in a wooden pencil. Further, the viewer waits for the

sexual tension between both Penn and Hurley's characters, and likewise

Lucas' and McCormack's, to materialize beyond innuendo, but the film falls

short of providing such powerful impetus for a rage that is, one supposes,

meant to be mirrored by Nature's furious rampage near the end of the tale.

Overall the film is thought-provoking and holds the viewer's interest, but

it lacks in depth beyond the obvious and suffers from predictable cliche'

development throughout. This is forgivable, though. The tightly filmed

narrative paces along rapidly and the interior struggles that the

characters endure expose the reality of human frailty. One fairly touching

scene occurs between Polley's character and that of Anethe (played by

Vinessa Shaw). Therefore, it must be said that throughout, this is

Polley's film.

I rate it four/five and suggest KILL CRUISE (or DER SKIPPER) (starring

Hurley, Patsi Kensit and Jürgen Prochnow) as a decent companion

picture. Fans of Polley's work should also see NO SUCH THING.

Cheers!

This was a fascinating film which far exceeded my expectations. The movie was being pitched as the latest and greatest Roman Empire film of all time, a modern return to the days of Cecil B. DeMille and the old epic films. The scale of the film is impressive, and some scenes do breach the pale and reach moments of genius, but unfortunately they are few and far between, and for the most part the film plays like just another period action flick. However, though it doesn't reach the heart and spirit of BRAVEHEART, the film achieves moments of greatness and admiration which defy overtly sentimental nostalgia. In the end, the film is about a man who defies great odds in his quest for justice and peace. It is the story of a man of honor and integrity who must overcome tyranny, deception, injustice, brutality and even his own insatiable hunger for revenge. It succeeds on this level.

Russell Crowe (THE INSIDER, LA CONFIDENTIAL, VIRTUOUSITY) does well as General Maximus who is cast into slavery and who must fight and kill to survive as a gladiator in late second century Rome. Add into the mix a dabble of cliche' political intrigue (an unworthy Roman despot Caesar Commodus -- played to a tee by Joaquin Phoenix (8MM, CLAY PIGEONS, INVENTING THE ABBOTTS) -- kills his ailing father who just happens to be Caesar Marcus Aurelius (played by the venerable Richard Harris (UNFORGIVEN, A MAN CALLED HORSE, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY) in order to succeed to the throne. Like Shakespeare's HAMLET, this act of familial homicide fuels the plot and drives the characters to their eventual destinies in the Coliseum.

Other players of worthy mention: the lovely Connie Nelson (MISSION TO MARS, PERMANENT MIDNIGHT, DEVIL'S ADVOCATE), who plays Lucilla, daughter of Aurelius, sister and near love slave to Commodus, his successor; and Oliver Reed (THE BRUCE, THE THREE MUSKETEERS, TOMMY and a bunch of great Poe adaptions and Hammer films). Unfortunately, Reed died during production, but his performance on screen as gladiator turned gladiator-owner Proximo is superb and one his best! Easily.

The music for the film surpasses a great many period-piece scores which border on the pretentious and uninspired. This score for Gladiator is at once moving, powerful, emotive and most importantly interesting. It doesn't attract attention to itself, yet it manages to support the story quite nicely. Composed by Hans Simmer (CRIMSON TIDE and THE ROCK) with assistance by ethereal vocalist Lisa Gerrard, much of the music approaches the greatness of those soundtracks which stand on their own as great pieces of music vis-a-vis Peter Gabriel's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

My biggest criticism of the film has to do with Ridley Scott and the cinematography. Most of the action scenes, especially the battle scenes are all close-ups and tight shots. This lends to visual confusion, blurriness and a general lack of clarity. While such an effect might lend itself thematically to the "heat of the battle," it does nothing to aid the viewer who is watching the film and looking for details, clear images and who is trying to pay attention to what is happening. Even the gladiator matches themselves were all tight shots, and though well choreographed, they were at times difficult to follow and even tiring on the eyes. The medium and long range shots of the great epics were absent. The look of pictures by DeMille which helped propel films like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, SAMSON AND DELILAH or Sam Zimbalist's BEN HUR into epic status were left out of Ridley Scott's vision, and for the most part the picture remains on the level of MAD MAX or even Scott's previous "epic," 1492: CONQUEST OF PARADISE. Interestingly enough, Scott used cinematographer John Mathieson whose previous work includes French films LOVE IS THE DEVIL and VIGO, but nothing to the scale of vision GLADIATOR deserves. Someone like Vilmos Zsigmond (GHOST AND THE DARKNESS) could've really brought a sense of "bigness" to the visuals which is lost in GLADIATOR.

In any case, the film is worthy of a solid three stars. It's predictable as hell, but it's great action. The violence is graphic and nasty, but thoroughly essential to the plot and none of it is gratuitous. The players perform at a high level and are believable. Costumes and sets are well made and create a brilliant setting for the film. One other criticism is the use of hokey "floating" dream sequences which, like the lackluster cinematography, undermine the grand scale of the picture. With a budget of $100 million and both Dreamworks and Universal Studios behind the picture, the film could have gone without the cheesy Roger Corman / Fred Olan Ray style effects. They really are distracting and detract from the overall effect of the film. (I say this, but other dream sequences are stark and beautiful and provide a sense of awe which the majority of the picture lacks -- unfortunately those scenes don't seem to have to do much with the movie! ;)

A fantastic and atmospheric horror film which relies more on psychological terror than special effects and typical hollywood formulaic scares. It's based on a true story which was investigated by the Warrens and made into a pretty convincing book. Though the movie is obviously "toned down" for tv, the horror grows from an expertly directed series of scenes which portray a strengthening tension and increasing level of stress in the characters who are plagued by terrible circumstances. It's well done. A good friend o mine was actually one of the Warren's students, and I've dealt with them professionally in the past, so I can assure you they're not kooks. For example, they are high on the list of people law enforcement uses to advise on crimes of an extraordinary nature. This is serious business... and trust me, you see this film, you'll rest a bit uneasy that night! Cheers!

This great little film stars Robert Downey Jr., Heather Graham and Natasha Wagner as three caught up in love and lies in search of truth and love. Hmmm... how's that again? Well, picture this... out-of-work actor Downey falls in love with two women, woos each independently, falls for them, loves each and then by random chance each girl discovers the other (this is where the movie starts!). Next they confront him. Things begin to get strange. All three deliver maddeningly exceptional performances, which apparently included some improv! The dialogue is superb and real, the situation exciting and surprisingly (for Hollywood's standards) dealt with rather sensitively -- moving through the realms of intimacy and honesty, examining the concepts of monogamy and other expressions of love. I enjoyed the film immensely because I know people like this! hahaha And the dialogue fit the REAL people I know! I was ROLLING on the floor throughout the whole thing! Great flick. Watch it, you will NOT be disappointed.

Kevin Bacon headlines in this spooky film about a young man who suddenly becomes a conduit for the paranormal after being hypnotized at a friend's party. Soon thereafter, the character is besieged by a rapid succession of unsettling visions which gradually decline in intensity as the mystery unfolds. By the climax of the film, the tension is muddled in a plot which pulls between a paranormal psychological thriller and a family drama. What begins as a solidly atmospheric and eerie slip into the crawl space between our world and a mysterious unseen realm becomes a cliche' exhibition of obsessive behavior reminiscent of Roy Neary's gradual descent into UFO induced madness (Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters of the Third Kind). The climax of the film loses effect and the mystery sacrifices cohesion and believability for two reasons. First, the viewer already suspects that the visions are leading the protagonist on a quest for understanding and justice for some horrible crime, and second because the mystery fades into an ineffective pat ending.

For the most part, however, the film maintains a level of seriousness reinforced by a consistently appropriate performance by Bacon whose interactions with his wife (played by Kathryn Erbie) and young son (Zachary David Cope) are believable and their different perceptions of the circumstances wherein they are immersed are poignant and intense. The film could have been bolstered by more exploration into what exactly the visions meant, how they fit into a larger scheme -- and the film almost does this by sending the wife on a cat and dog information-gathering quest -- but the exploration falls short of supplying any meaty insight into the supranormal melee. The film was relatively short, and perhaps inquisitive dialogue and philosophical discussion was traded for the action of uncovering the murder mystery, but that's no excuse. Shame on cutting a film full of the potential (promised by Richard Matheson's talented story) short. The quest for brevity seems to be Hollywood's modern downfall.

I give the film three and a quarter stars (out of four) and highly recommend it as part of the latest trend of 1999 thrill seekers. It's not as powerful as The Sixth Sense, which investigated the same sort of phenomena, and certainly not as scary as The Blair Witch Project, but Bacon's performance alone is worth the price of admission.

STIGMATA: Well, this one is certain to be somewhat controversial with hardcore fundamentalist Christians and the equally dedicated Catholic, but I personally found the movie to be far from irreverent, and actually rather faithful in parts. Though the film balances psychological terror and armchair Christian mythology, the movie manages to present a thought-provoking dramatic episode by clashing the faithful and the faithless, the true spirituality and hypocrisy, the sincere and the mundane.

The film centers on the experiences of a young woman who is a self-professed athiest who manages to somehow be afflicted with The Stigmata, a paranormal experience wherein the "victim" or the "gifted" (dependant upon one's point of view) is afflicted/touched by God and with manifestations of the wounds Christ suffered at His Crucifixion. These include the wounds through the wrists, the feet, the crown of thorns, the scourging of the back and finally the spear through the side.

Into the mix is tossed a mildly agnostic Catholic priest/scientist assigned by Rome to investigate supposed "miracles." Also blended into the story is a sub plot full of political goings on inside the Vatican and the attraction between the priest and the young woman afflicted. So not only does the movie examine The Stigmata, spirituality, Christian myth, and the Catholic tradition, but it explores the inner workings of the Church (to a very critical degree) and the meeting of man, woman and God. It's also entertaining.

The movie seems to be marketed as a modern-day "The Exorcist." I don't think the comparison is fair. Though there does appear to be some sort of possession story happening, it somehow ends up being mostly the desperate actions of a benevolent spirit of a deceased priest trying to get attention and bring the Truth to light. Obviously the more fundamental Christian believer familiar with the Christian mythos would find this plot element suspect, and dramatically it's only mildly fulfilling. For this reason the mature and educated viewer might find the ending of the film anticlimactic and arguably "sell out," but the casual viewer would probably find nothing questionable about the Hollywood ending. Personally, I thought it tainted an otherwise splendidly atmospheric film. The integration of Catholic mysticism with MTV-era music video filmography at times seems nearly as visually attractive as Madonna's "Just Like a Prayer" video, though not quite as sublime.

I'll give the movie 3 stars, mostly solidified by strong dialogue and exceptional performances from both Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne as the woman and the priest. On it's own merits, the film manages to create a foundation from which the viewer is challenged to fill in the blanks re: the spiritual goings-on, but it loses points where it attempts to find cheap thrills and reinvent the spiritual-psychological horror portrayed in The Exorcist by turning an interesting and engaging look at mystic spirituality's interaction with the 20th Century's narcissistic cynicism into something more akin to the later OMEN movies.

This film is an exceptional erotic romp; sensitive and engaging look at tension and depression with scattered moments of exhilarating release and a vibrant climax. Unlike similar films which no doubt inspired this mostly unknown Canadian-only release (ie. 9 1/2 Weeks, Wild Orchid, Erotica), this movie focuses on two characters, an ailing artist (Shellen) and his tempestuous girlfriend (Wurher/Salin), as they wander through sexual tension and bursts of self (and "other") discovery as they attempt to find balance in themselves, their relationship and in the art which the artist creates. It's a classic "suffering artist" cliche' which is early on tossed out the window to be replaced by a wild splattering of lovemaking and love-creating. This film is fun and sensual. It is a great couples film, if erotica is your cup of tea, and it's not too serious. Some of the dialogue is rather humorous, and the film's only weaknesses are in the sophomoric delivery by Shellen and leading lady neophyte Wuhrer/Salin. But all that is forgivable because in the end this film is just a heck of a lot of fun. Plus the soundtrack was noteworthy -- which is mostly unheard of in this genre -- and features a track by the starlet called "Venus Bound" and a wonderful closing track called "Love,Love,Love" by Hemingway Corner.

Without compare, this low-budget thriller is in a close run with THE EXORCIST in my "scariest movies of all time," and the only reason it doesn't beat out THE EXORCIST is because imo it's not as "real" and disturbing spiritually.  It is, however, a terrifying experience which I think is sure to set a new precedent for Hollywood scare-fests (or atleast I hope so).

Simply, most of what happens with TBWP doesn't happen on the screen at all. I hate to burst your bubble, but if you go to this flick expecting to see some mean and evil looking "witch," forget it.  The movie has barely anything to do with witches in the typical Hollywood sense of the word (nevermind the real sense of the word).  Neither will you find teenagers being axed to death during or after having sex, scantily clad cheerleaders fending off chainsaw welding maniacs wearing pig heads, psychotic transvestites with machetes bent on hacking apart those who jilted them, buckets of blood, HP Lovecraftian creatures lurking in shadows and beneath damp graveyards or any of the other stuff your USED to seeing on the silver screen these days being billed as "horror."  What you will discover is yourself immersed in the experience of the movie, like a cinematic funhouse where most of the horror is supplies by your imagination spurred by slight visual and mostly aural screen cues. 

For the most part, not much happens on the screen... but the suggestion that there's something exceptionally horrific and inherently diabolical will ignite your imagination to fill in the blanks with a host of horrors individually suited for each theatergoer.  Now those are some noteworthy special effects!

I won't give away any of the plot.  I won't tell you what finally happens at the end (?) of the film, suffice to say that I sat there with my jaw open staring at the screen in near shock.  And something else happened in the nearly 3/4 full theater which hasn't happened in a long time (and I'm a pretty regular theatergoer)... the audience was DEAD SILENT.  I could hear the breaths of those around me, sharp intakes, gasps, heart-pounding heavy inhales... this movie gripped the audience and held it quiet and interested.  There were some minor scenes where the tension was allowed to vent a bit, but for the most part it was a slow boil toward a crescendo which was unlike most any other movie I could mention to compare.

This film is innovative by design.  Everything from the actors to the presentation to the marketing was a refreshing wind to this summer's movie calender.  It's ironic that perhaps the lowest budget film I've seen thus far this summer is perhaps the best.  It is perhaps best successful because it really does draw the viewer into the picture like the best campfire ghost story.

FOUR STARS, no disappointment, this film lives up to the hype. You WILL be scared.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

This is a movie full of paranoia, isolation, a slow decay into insanity, hidden meaning, subversion, mathematics, an incredible amount of drugs, mysticism, uncertainty, obsession, violence, loneliness, and an insatiable thirst for knowledge fueled by ego. This is a Frankenstein for the postmodern world, where the computer holds all the promise for answers, but whose inner workings mystify most people who use them. It's about patterns and structure in the midst of chaos. It's about the human mind's constant craving for order, for intelligence's grinding quest to label and categorize and put semantic meaning onto bits and pieces of perceived reality. It's about genius run awry and about those who would seek to exploit it and in so doing it help lead it to ruin.

You have got to see a small independent film called Pi. It's a mere 85 minutes of pure madness set to a ravingly edgy techno soundtrack. The editing is at times incoherent and incongruent, but exceptionally poignant. It provides the viewer access to a visceral understanding amidst what might otherwise seem a boring premise: a mathematician's quest for some new theorem. The tense editing techniques, invasive camera angles and stark contrasts in the lighting serve a crucial role as backdrop to this psychodrama as it unfolds.

This is what great filmmaking is all about. Certain comparison's to David Lynch's cult masterpiece ERASERHEAD are sure to abound, though this film is certainly easier to follow, less quirky and far grittier and accessible. It's easy for the viewer to get caught up in the narrative which includes visitations by Wall Street mobsters, a bizarre cult of kabbalistic Hasidic Jews, a nosy landlady with attitude and more. Top Notch all around. Four stars.