Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dreamcatcher (2003)
1/10
King Adaptation at its Worst
24 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
DREAMCATCHER is the most recent in a long line of terrible Stephen King novel adaptations. Usually, this would mean that Stephen King himself had a hand in the film. However, he had nothing to do with this bomb, so I did expect a lot more, considering that it was directed by Lawrence Kasdan (THE BIG CHILL and SILVERADO) and written by William Goldman, who gave us BUTCH CASSIDY, ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN, and THE PRINCESS BRIDE. The script consists almost entirely of inane, expository dialogue leading us from one painfully absurd situation to the next. The situations and set-ups are so absurd, in fact, that the parts that are supposed to be terrifying and thrilling are simply asinine. That alone would be bad enough, but there are several other ridiculous events going on simultaneously at any given time in the film. I guess Kasdan thought if he continuously jumped around among several sequences, no one would be able to stop and realize how bad the movie is. WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD! I haven't read the book, but what gets me is that the story in the movie has nothing to do with a dreamcatcher, the Indian device that hangs over a sleeper and "catchers" bad dreams. It has nothing to do with the supernatural, but rather, is about an alien invasion that follows no line of logic. If these aliens have been around for 20+ years, according to the colonel, played by Morgan Freeman, and it only takes one little vermiform creature to contaminate a city's water supply to start the destruction of mankind, then how inept must these aliens be to have failed in this simple task in that amount of time? And what did the main characters have to do with all of this, aside from befriending Duddits? What is Duddits and was his only purpose in life to kill Mr. Grey, a giant alien worm at the very moment he's about to destroy the world? Maybe the book expands on all of this, but the movie certainly does not.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saved! (2004)
7/10
The satire is often biting, but is forgiving of those it targets.
24 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
American Eagle Christian High School is a seemingly squeaky clean, almost hip, institution with well-meaning teachers and students dedicated to their beliefs. Mary is one of the many straight-laced girls "living the life" with her best friend, Hilary Faye, played by Mandy Moore, and her perfect blond-haired, blue-eyed boyfriend, Dean. All is well in her world of isolation until Dean reveals that he thinks he's gay, she has a divine vision in her swimming pool, and then sets out to save Dean's soul by sacrificing her virginity to him. That foundation of her entire belief structure is suddenly comes under attack from all sides.

Saved is a film walking a line between spoon-fed satire and intelligent social commentary.

When we witness the girls target practicing at a place called the "Emmanuel Shooting Range" where the motto is "An Eye for an Eye", subtlety is obviously not the primary goal of the filmmaker. However, the relationships between the main characters are not black and white and that they do seem to struggle with their own beliefs and the attitudes toward others.

The script by Brian Dannelly is not brilliant, but is witty on a college freshman level. He is asking Ethics 101 type questions but is smart enough not to try and answer them all. He is attacking fundamentalism but not faith itself and he gives us characters with a little depth.

The film takes an unwelcomed turn toward embarrassing clichés with its climax taking place at the big prom dance for the 'final confrontation'. Quite a tired scenario. However, when the prom includes a very pregnant teenage protagonist, the baby's gay father discovering the product of his deflowering, and music from a band called God's Light playing in the background, we can see that this ain't a typical teen flick.

The satire is often biting, but is forgiving of those it targets.

Not a 'must see', but will probably spark some good post-movie discussions
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Bowels of the Cinematic Netherworld!
29 September 1999
Dig deep below the surface of all that is campy, hoaky, and cliché'... and then continue to dig further down until you reach the bowels of the cinematic Netherworld, and you will find amongst the sludge of idiocy reaching stellar proportions, all the material used to make this movie. It stands as the greatest insult to all movie watchers, from art-house goers to action film fans alike. I could literally write lengthy tomes about how hideous this movie is. If I hadn't paid my last bit of money to see it at the time, I would have walked out of the theatre after I had spit on the screen and kicked the theater manager a few times. It is due to this movie that I had to create a rating worse than "F-". It is "Good God, why?". The only thing that could possibly make any sense to me, is if it were all just some really bad, sick joke. Somebody in Hollywood must have lost a bet!

For those who point to this movie's environmental message as a reason they give it a good rating, I must say that, "yes", it does have a good message about preserving the sanctity of the world in which we all reside. That is an important message. However, we are rating a movie. Yes, a movie. Not a Greenpeace manifesto. Not an Al Gore book. Not a Pacifica program by Amy Goodman. But a movie. And as a movie, it is tripe. It is not a good action movie (Die Hard is). It it not a good martial arts movie (Iron Monkey is). And it is not a good Segal movie (not that there is such a thing).

This is one of the worst movies ever made, rivaled only by the likes of Rhinestone and Nothing but Trouble.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Light and unbeaten.
27 September 1999
A very bizarre low budget comedy about two men who take to the woods to purge their obsessive attraction to a woman named Vera who dumped them both for a shmuck. This quirky little film is on the verge of being hilarious. However, it never quite gets all the laughs it shoots for. As a result, it is only mildly amusing, but worth a viewing if you're in the mood for something light and off the beaten path.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Haunting (1999)
What? You mean it wasn't a bad joke?
20 September 1999
To keep it simple: This film stinks. It falls on its rear right out of the gate and never gets up. The writing is hacked out of standard, sophomoric ghost story drivel. The characters are weak, the story is robbed of its original life, and the suspense is nonexistent. Above all, it is not in the least bit scary. The special effects are ineffective. The digital ghosts look like Casper and Friends and the gargoyles and various animated objects look all too campy. The House is incredible, for sure, but it's all too much. It looks like a gothic cartoon or what Disneyworld might build as its new Haunted Mansion with exaggerated features and caricatures. But the filmmakers can't even get these simple cliches nor the basic formulas right.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mulan (1998)
Disney gets a little provocative.
20 September 1999
This is one of the best Disney films of the last several years. Although it does mostly conform to recent Disney formula with the goofy little sidekick, beautiful hero and heroine, evil nemesis, and use of magic, it is unique in several ways. First off, this is not a musical per se. I believe there are only 3 or 4 songs and none in the second half, so we are given more opportunity to enjoy the characters and story. Mulan is not all that original a character, yet her historic magnitude and awkward charm make her more interesting than most of her predecessors. The intensity of the narrative is also more compelling than most of the vain and selfish interests of previous Disney tales (e.g. Arial's and the Beast's desire to be human, or Jasmine's and Quasi's want for a sensitive mate.) This tale is true selfless heroics; defending one's nation from apparent Juggernauts. Although the Huns lack the colorful persona's of their predecessors, they are terrifying antagonists more in the vein of Warner Brothers *The Secret of Nymh* and *Anastasia* rather than Disney. The artwork is quite daring, in that the animators tone-down the overwhelming colors and spectacular backdrops we are used to, and go for more bleak and austere landscapes, foreboding settings, and compelling virtual camera angles and framing, all of which enhance rather than distract us from the film's focus.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Intriguing visuals compliment characters.
11 September 1999
A most impressive first film. Derek Jacobi turns in a state of the art performance, as usual. Mayberry keeps the narrative quite thin, reserving his focus instead for the complexity of his characters and their interrelationships, making no apologies for its renderings of mostly unlikable people, especially Bacon himself. I was surprised to discover that George, Bacon's lover, is the true protagonist, and the story belongs as much to him as to Bacon. The cinematography is like an intriguing character in itself. Mayberry uses distorted images through wavy glass and warped mirrors to ingeniously paint his own real life version of Bacon's painting which were not allowed to be shown in the film by his estate.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed