Reviews

17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Mystic River (2003)
6/10
Great adaptation, lousy production
8 November 2003
One of the more effective novel-to-film adaptations I have seen.

The things that were trimmed from the novel would have been

difficult to convey on screen (the "conversations" with Sean's wife

almost suffered without the kind of background a novel can offer).

Acting and casting were also terrific. Leads were very good,

although Bacon had little to work with. Penn, Robbins, and

Harden were outstanding. Every bit part was interesting and

colorfully portrayed.

Where this movie fell down for me was in its production values.

The cinematography was on par with an average television

movie-of-the-week, and the production sound was just godawful. I

went to a high quality theater that I frequent and know to be a

faithful venue as far as image and soundtrack, and I couldn't make

out quite a bit of the dialog.

Also, Clint took it upon himself to do the music, which was a

mistake. The themes were really very elementary and lacked any

sense of irony. Even a b-list FULL TIME composer could have

gently taken this to another level. 6/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Anderson back on track
30 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*** SPOILERS x3 ***Boogie Nights was a good movie, but as I tell my friends (who reluctantly agree), if it weren't about porn, you wouldn't have given a damn. It wandered, and its cast sprawled. But it had flashes of absolute genius - hell, the whole porn industry setting was genius.

Then there was that thing called Magnolia. Boogie Nights without the genius. A very large cast of uninteresting characters, each one of whom has gotten the shaft in life, and are just looking for redemption. It's the classic redemption plot, just across like eight characters instead of one. Eight boring characters (ok, the cop was kind of amusing), each one suffering from overacting. And it was LONNNNNGG, sprawling and full of garbage time.

I knew I was in for something at least decent with Punch Drunk Love. A quick glance at the DVD case indicated it was a 95 minute movie. From this writer/director, that in itself was enough to pique my curiosity. Then, as it unfolded, I realized that this whole thing was a two-character movie (really one and a half, as Emily Watson's character is far less dealt with than Sandler). It's just a funny, quirky movie about one lonely, misunderstood guy and his means of finding his "fit" in life. All of his unexplainable "freak-outs," his loneliness, his mild dishonesty; they all find a resolution in this gem.

The soundtrack is annoying, but that is its purpose, so I'll let that slide. The film is beautifully shot in the San Fernando Valley (and Waikiki).

Recommended, particularly if you felt let down by the length of the PTA's other two movies.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Presumptuous (*spoilers*)
23 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I am a huge fan of the first film in this series, yet I felt that this

movie simply took itself for granted. Yes, the special effects were

nifty, although I was underwhelmed by Golem, and the sound

effects were far less inventive than in the first installment.

The dialogue was painfully hokey: there are far too many instances

of people taking the most inappropriate time to utter some

medieval-movie cliche (10,000 orcs descending upon you and the

king whispers, "So it begins" ?!). There are lots of sweeping zoom

shots on our heroes, yet they don't do anything really heroic!

Frodo's story is dull, and Sam turns into a cheap speechmaker.

Golem is an awful little ball of bipolar disorder. Legolas and the

dwarf (name escapes me) spend too much time spewing out

cheap backslappy lines, and not enough time letting the audience

understand the danger they're in.

The first movie demonstrated that it is possible to stray very far

from a book and still make a terrific movie. This one strayed just

as far from its source and really turned out quite bad. It really feels

like they turned over the screenwriting duties to a pimply-faced

15-year-old Star Trek fan. Don't believe the hype!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nice, pretty, but not a landmark film (spoilers)
23 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I have heard this film compared to The Godfather. I honestly don't

see filmmakers ten years from now questing to make "an heir to

The Road to Perdition."

It's a beautifully shot movie, full of wonderful acting and terrific

sound. But I saw the ending coming a mile away, and I'm normally

really bad at predicting endings (a director's dream audience).

How could you not expect, once Hanks and his son set off on their

journey, that Hanks will end up dead in the end? The annoying

bookend narration lets this "surprise" out early.

Also, the movie wore its spiritual message on its sleeve, instead

of making it more a part of the film. How convenient that the final

destination is a town named "Perdition," huh?

See it, but for God's sake don't glorify it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The audience as dupes (SPOILERS!)
10 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Brilliantly shot, edited, paced. The actors functioned well as an ensemble, though Clooney is clearly in a class by himself.

Two beefs. The first minor one, Julia Roberts did not carry the weight necessary for her role. She's supposed to be the great unattainable prize, and she's just too folksy and plain jane for this role. Many consider her glamorous, I consider her equine.

My main problem with this film is the complete lack of obstacles our protagonists face. Sure, they are foiled by the power grid scenario, but within TEN SECONDS Don Cheadle's character has the solution. Yes, Matt Damon almost gets stuck at the University lab, but the two guards give lame pursuit, and nobody cares to call the cops when the multimillion dollar piece of gear is carted off. Perhaps you could consider it an obstacle that the gymnast gets his hand stuck, but realize that he could have blown up with the door and it wouldn't have screwed up the plan any. Or when Saul is nearly recognized...but nothing ever comes of it. Very lame.

No, our eleven heroes waltz in, are in control the ENTIRE time, and even when it seems they are foiled, they had the double-dupe planned all along. I was miffed that the only conflict in this film is not with the characters and their circumstances, but with the audience and a lack of information. There is the weak illusion of a challenge only because we weren't told what all of the eleven knew regarding the plan. It really would have been great to see Andy Garcia's character throw them a serious curve, but Soderbergh just lets him play right into their hands. That is really cheap.

As an aside, I saw this in digital projection and nearly wet my pants at how good it was. Great color, no pixellation, no dirt, and sharp, sharp, sharp!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good overall, a little frustrating (SPOILERS)
15 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
(SPOILERS)

A really great "buddy" movie, obviously heir to "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." I believed nearly all of it: why they fled instead of going to the cops (this comes out over the course of the film), and why things were escalating the way they were. All of the actions taken by T & L were directly related to the changing of their characters.

Two complaints: First, I did not buy Louise's final phone call to the police. She knew the phone was tapped; even if she HAD to call to settle in her mind the question of how severe the situation was, she did not seem to be urgent at all. This and the whole bit with the obnoxious fuel trucker just seemed like useless flag-waving for feminism. I am quite convinced that, even with the changes these two were going through, once J.D. had taken the money, or perhaps once Thelma had robbed the store, these two would have had a serious tete-a-tete and established that they needed to lay low and get serious about fleeing. What actually happens is they seem to dilly-dally even more. I found that frustrating.

Secondly, although I prefer the ending they had over the alternate ending, it was a bit of a rip-off of Butch Cassidy.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
9/10
This is why I go to the movies
8 July 2001
A tremendous love story; the best production value the movie industry has to offer; a consistent, unique style, which was campy and romantic without being particularly trite; superb acting (and singing!) by a dazzling Nicole Kidman and a beautiful, sincere Ewan McGregor; a self-assured sense of story that didn't feel the need to explain, or cover, or be sly; and the music!

Walking out of the theater, the only problem I expected most folks to have is if the movie did a cover of a song that they had a personal attachment to; as for me, I felt the movie was simply one song too long. But the ending was brilliant.

Go see it, relax, and enjoy!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Blah-blah-blah-pow-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah
5 July 2001
WAYYYY too much chit-chat in this film. Fine action sequences, left me wanting more - and I mean like in a dissatisfied way. Yeah, the philosophy was deep, but with all that talking, they should have made this a radio drama instead. Wake up, folks, film is a visual medium.

As visually stunning as this film is, the animation looks about like it did when they made "Speed Racer." There's a lot more detail per frame, but the characters' mouths do not match the dialog, not by a mile (yes, I watched it in Japanese). It's also very choppy (10-12 frames per second). I realize it's a stylistic thing, but it would be nice if somebody took a baby step in the direction of better animation.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Magnolia (1999)
4/10
I am three hours and four dollars poorer
13 May 2001
Everything else having been covered, let's talk about the "brilliant" acting:

The only believable acting came from Tom Cruise, the cop and the junkie. Everyone else, it seems, attended the same lame acting seminar. You know, the one that says, "Psst! Hey! If you want to sound like a 'real human being' on film, do this: stutter a lot, and add a lot of 'um' and 'uh,' like you're really ad libbing." Julianne Moore was the worst. Even her f-words sounded read off of a script.

That said, these interconnects were completely unnecessary. A cheap imitation of Pulp Fiction at best, this film fails completely in its capacity to link these little plots.

There are thousands of great ways to spend four bucks in three hours; this ain't one of 'em.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Memento (2000)
8/10
Brilliant story & editing, falters slightly toward end
7 April 2001
I'm one of those people who don't mind a little extra length if the movie I'm watching is worth my time. Memento is definitely worth your time! It's gripping, it's a wonderful story, edited exquisitely. The use of continually working backwards in time, ending each sequence where the previous began, is brilliant. I'm sure I'm not the first to mention Hitchcock, but I'm sure he would applaud this film were he around. In terms of concept, this is better than anything else we've seen in years (yes, even The Usual Suspects).

Where I would not have minded a little extra time spent is at the ending. The filmmakers use the reveal process in a very innovative fashion for the entire film, then wrap it up with a bunch of exposition. What a letdown! I could feel our entire audience deflate when Teddy begins his big explanation, and Leonard follows shortly after with his. I really would have appreciated being SHOWN Leonard's history, instead of being told (why I watch a film as opposed to reading a book). This is where The Usual Suspects was better: the ending. In that movie, the exposition is a feint.

(As my wife pointed out, what makes the exposition at the end particularly disappointing is that it comes from Teddy, who we're not sure we can trust anyways. For those of us jaded enough to realize that we're in an expository moment, we just take the explanation at face value with a sigh or a groan. But for some folks, my lovely wife included, she was wrapped up enough in Leonard's story to still mistrust Teddy's explanation. Thus, she and others end up going "Hey, wait a minute, you mean NOW he's honest?!")

Still, a lot - a LOT - to commend. 8/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great first half, then sputters (don't read if you haven't seen the movie)
24 March 2001
This movie is excellent for its first half: crisply delivered, well-developed, it takes chances that you don't see in films made today. Characters like Bull Meechum are usually, in contemporary films, greatly exaggerated or treated with utter contempt (the military dad in American Beauty as a typical example). This film delivers all the way through the basketball game episode.

Then it starts to fall apart. The episode with Toomer and Red seems like a mighty big price to pay just to show Bull's lack of sensitivity and empathy, or anything else it intends to show. Not too long after, Bull himself gets yanked right out of the movie. I really would have appreciated seeing all of these interesting characters resolve their differences - or see things come to a head. I just felt that the movie just quit with 30 minutes to go.

The music was also kind of hit and miss in the last half. For example, when Ben confesses that he prayed for his father's death, the music is inappropriately creepy. It resolves into sorrow, but the net result was kind of off-putting.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cast Away (2000)
6/10
More island, less mainland
21 January 2001
I felt the movie TOLD me about how much it would suck to be stuck on an island. I would've opted for an additional ten or fifteen minutes of running time on the island to reinforce how excruciating it would have been. Sorry, "Four Years Later..." just doesn't cut it. The time could've easily been made up by losing some of the simpering at the end, such as the explanation about the aborted hanging.

Bonus points, however, for making me get sniffly about a bloody volleyball. The credit for that rests entirely with Tom Hanks.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bad acting and directing really put me off
19 August 1999
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this - it just doesn't merit it. In brief, all of the actors were overacting on dialogue that was poor at best. Attempts at making cutting remarks that drip with venom came off as a laughable high school version of daytime soaps. The fight scene at the end where Sebastian ends up eating it looked staged and trite.

And, above all, what in this movie makes you care for this creep? Why should we be at all concerned about this guy who has done zero good and has no character depth whatsoever? And what would cause Reese's character to do an about face on all of her opinions? She calls this guy on all of his BS early, then falls for it. What is she falling for, then?

Dangerous Liaisons did not need to be remade, certainly not as poorly as this.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Stiff, awkward, unwieldy. Stiff, awkward, unwieldy.
25 July 1999
The dialog in this film was forced, fake, and pretentious. Susan was annoying and far from believable. Campbell Scott, who I found creepy in Dying Young, actually was the most believable character to me, and I feel bad about that because I believe Steve Martin to be the biggest talent of all of the cast.

Did it bother anyone else that every line needed repeating?

And the scene near the end with the frustrated mom at the airport revealing a key to the plot: that is an example of absolutely SOPHOMORIC DIRECTING. Unforgivable.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
9/10
Great use of surround
26 April 1999
I might add that the sound for this film is first rate. I was complaining to a friend just a few days prior to seeing The Matrix that a lot of films don't know what to do with the Surround channels. There is an old-school mentality that says we mustn't be bombarded with audio data the whole time. But isn't total immersion the point?

In addition to aurally immersing us for nearly the entire movie, Dane Davis and crew made some awesome fight noises and other special sounds, without which the visual effects wouldn't have seemed quite so impressive. My favorite in particular is when Neo touches the mirror and screams; his scream is broken down, sounding as if it had been turned into a bitstream like those streaming green characters we see throughout the movie (a nod to "Tron," perhaps, where Flynn gets reduced to his component "bits.")

See it in a THX-certified theater if you can...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2010 (1984)
8/10
The immensity of space
26 April 1999
I won't bother to weigh in on the argument of whether this is a fitting sequel to 2001 or not. There are valid arguments for both sides, although I do find people who are going to give a sermon on "What 2001 is All About" are being a little pretentious, as Arthur C. Clarke himself has implied that he and Kubrick's intentions were to be vague when they made 2001.

What amazes me about this film more than anything else is the presentation of just how immense and lonely outer space truly is, and how utterly insignificant and frail we and our piddly spacecraft really are (a carryover of the "womb" concept from 2001...). Dr. Chandra hyper-ventilating while spacewalking over Io/Jupiter causes my breath to catch every time. I thought this concept was addressed pretty well in the original - especially Frank Poole's freaky murder - but is even more spectacular here, with all of the bright colors.

I also enjoyed how things were breaking on the Leonov, again reinforcing that whole inferiority concept.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
EZ Streets (1996–1997)
Coulda been...
23 April 1999
CBS was the death of this show. Paul Haggis demonstrated true genius in writing and directing this intense, thoughtful drama that came off like a motion picture in every episode. Whatever folks loved about "Wiseguy," Haggis took and raised to the next level, and always presented a thought-provoking portrait of crime, family, broken homes, betrayal, passion, despair, and hope. We were all blessed with the episodes that were made, but gypped forever by the bottom-line networks.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed