Reviews

Everything there is to be said about this movie has already been said, so I will keep my comments brief. "Gladiator"'s musical score is breathtaking; the rest of the movie, in all other facets, is garbage. If you generally like what the majority of the American population likes, you will enjoy this movie. If you usually prefer films with competent direction (including action scenes where you might actually *GASP* be able to see the action), intelligent dialogue (it took three people to write this?!), professional acting (brilliant death scene Russell...you really deserved that Oscar), or special effects that seem even remotely realistic, you may wish to look elsewhere. The latest in a long string of inane Best Picture choices, this is by far the worst in the history of the Academy Awards.

The only consolation for myself and those who share my opinion is that in twenty years, "Gladiator" will come to rest in the same category as "Rocky" and "Kramer vs Kramer"--not that there were any "Taxi Driver"s or "Apocalypse Now"s released in 2000. If this is a sign of things to come, the future of cinema in the United States will be very grim indeed.

David Lynch's "Dune" is a mixed bag--at times it is a breathtaking film, and at others it is a frustrating one.

The best thing this movie has going for it is, by far, its visual style. Contrary to what many believe, I think David Lynch was an excellent choice to adapt "Dune", even though he goes a little overboard with his portrayal of the Harkonnens (what's with the "heart plugs"?). The visuals are richly textured and match the feel of Herbert's novel, although they make the movie noticeably darker in tone than the book.

It must be said that David Lynch's film should not be viewed by anyone who has not read Frank Herbert's novel. These individuals will be completely lost as to the direction of the story and the meaning of many scenes, and will most likely end up frustrated at what a mess this film is. Watching "Dune", one gets the feeling that it would have been more suited to a long television mini-series than for a feature length film. Far too much of the last half was cut out, and it seems to rush along without bothering to stop and explain anything to anyone.

However, for those who have read the novel, the film version of "Dune" is an excellent companion piece. For these people, the gaping holes in the plot can be filled in by the details from the novel. Although the casting is universally bad, some of Lynch's personal touches are awful (the blob-like creature from the Guild), and it had too much to say in too little time, the effort and visual genius is too great to be ignored. David Lynch's film succeeds from this "Dune" reader's point of view.

"Speed" is pure action. The film relies more on thinking of obstacles for its protagonists than on a real story, but in this case it actually works. The characters are interesting (Dennis Hopper is terrific as usual), the stunts are spectacular, and the action just keeps coming and coming. Along with "Die Hard" and "True Lies", "Speed" delivers one of the fastest 2+ hours of any film in recent memory.

Fans of action films will definitely not want to miss this one.

"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is by far the weakest film of the trilogy for a few reasons.

First and foremost, the screenplay is just awful. It seems Lucas and Spielberg thought they could emulate the success of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" by putting together a bunch of action sequences in disguise of an actual story. The dialog is terrible, especially from Kate Capshaw and Jonathan Ke Quan (Willie Scott and Short Round, respectively--two of the worst character names of all time).

There is absolutely no chemistry between Capshaw and Ford. One of the reasons the first one worked so well was because of the romance between the two lead characters. "Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom" falls flat in this area.

Sure, there are a few good action sequences, but even they don't match up to those in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is another example of the typical Hollywood blockbuster--some flashy special effects and action sequences thrown together to make a quick buck. And that's unfortunate, considering the quality of the other two in the series.

"Dark City" is an astonishing mix of Science Fiction and Film Noir, and the result is one of very best films of the 1990s, if not of all time.

This is one of the most original films in years. The plot behind "Dark City" is one of the best in my recent memory, and is guaranteed to keep you glued to your seat right until the closing credits. The film's real genius, however, comes in its special effects and the world that it creates for us. "Dark City" is virtually unrivalled in its adeptness at creating an atmosphere that draws in the viewer; in fact, the only film I can think of off-hand that surpasses it in this department is "Casablanca". Everything in the film is intricately designed--the city itself is an achievement of monumental proportions. "Dark City" provides the greatest special effects to date, and I was completely drawn in by the sheer detail of the film.

The best part of all is that it is one of the most entertaining films I have ever seen. "Dark City" is exhilarating from start to finish, and the ending sequence is simply astounding in both pace and design.

"Dark City" is a film unlike any other before it. "Dark City" is movie-making at its very finest: this is pure entertainment.

After finally watching "Shakespeare in Love", I find myself not understanding what all the fuss was about. Sure, the costuming is excellent and the acting is very good across the board, but there really isn't anything here to elevate it above the status of an enjoyable romantic comedy.

What really stops "Shakespeare in Love" from being a great film is the lack of a real climax. The movie seems to be content with having a performance of Romeo and Juliet be its climax. While it is an excellent stage production, it really doesn't provide any of the tension or emotion that is essential in this scene that the film has been building up to. In fact, I found the entire movie to be lacking in this department; it doesn't involve the audience enough in what is happening.

It is because of this fact that one should not watch "Shakespeare in Love" with the intention of finding anything out of the ordinary. When it comes right down to it, "Shakespeare in Love" is certainly not a great film, and most definitely not the best one of 1998. It is, however, an entertaining and enjoyable romantic comedy that you won't want to pass up seeing.

For anyone who loves movies, "The Player" is a treat.

To start, the screenplay is first-rate. The plot that holds the entire film together is superbly crafted; very few films leave you guessing right to the end as this one does. The finer details also shine through, such as the sales pitch scenes, which are inarguably classic (i.e. "The Graduate II").

I loved the attention to detail in "The Player". One can find a new detail every time one watches the film. For example, the opening sequence is a very long, continuous shot during which characters are discussing Hitchcock's "Rope", which appears to be a movie filmed all in one continuous shot. The sheer number of cameos in "The Player" makes it difficult to list all of them, so I won't even try.

"The Player" is one film that sets out to skewer Hollywood and actually succeeds. One only has to view the Bruce Willis/Julia Roberts sequence in order to understand this. My hat goes off to Robert Altman for making another excellent film.

"The Accused" takes material that is usually reserved for TV movies and transforms it into a quality film. This is not due to particularly good writing or directing, however. The fact that "The Accused" is not simply an average film is due to Jodie Foster's outstanding performance.

I would recommend seeing this film, if only for Foster's performance (she won a Best Actress Oscar for it). She is excellent; it's a shame the other aspects of the film aren't quite as good.

Not very long into "The Deep End of the Ocean", I got the sinking feeling that the only thing that stopped this film from going straight to television was the fact that Michelle Pfeiffer starred in it. Think "the crisis movie of the week" with a big-name actress in it, and you've got "The Deep End of the Ocean".

This film has perhaps one of the worst screenplays I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Luckily, I was watching with someone who had read the book, so I was able to have a few gaping holes filled in. Unfortunately, those who haven't read the book will be left clueless in a few crucial moments.

I guess it was fitting to cast Treat Williams--someone who should stick to TV movies--in what is essentially a TV movie released in theatres and on video. I personally would have chosen someone more animated than Williams, who is one of the most wooden actors around.

The corny attempts at sentiment are forced and predictable, and they ultimately fall flat. The characters are inconsistent, hating one another one moment and seeming perfectly content the next. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about "The Deep End of the Ocean" is the fact that it ends. This is one movie to avoid.

"Sabotage" is a film with many flaws. The character development is very poor, resulting in characters we don't know or care about. The plot is good enough for the time allotted (and that time is very short), but still seems a little thin. Yet, "Sabotage" is a good film despite these flaws.

"Sabotage" is interesting if only because it is a great example of Alfred Hitchcock's talent for building suspense. The bus scene and the husband and wife confrontation are classics in every sense of the word. The rest of the film is not nearly as compelling as these two scenes, but since the movie isn't very long, "Sabotage" is well worth at least one viewing.

"Sorry, Wrong Number" is one radio play that should not have been adapted to the screen, unless it were a short 10 minute filler.

Part of the appeal of the radio play is the fact that we never really figure out what the killer's motives are. The film adaptation seems content with endlessly showing flashbacks within flashbacks to tell us everything that should have been left to the imagination. This results in the destruction of any suspense that has been built up. In fact, the only interesting moments of "Sorry, Wrong Number" are the scenes that were actually in the radio play.

The ending may be a bit of a shock for those who haven't read the radio play, and the last line of the film is certainly classic. If you haven't read the play, you may want to give "Sorry, Wrong Number" a watch. If you have read it, don't bother with the adaptation.

I just couldn't get into "Heaven Can Wait". I really couldn't. I know this movie wasn't supposed to be realistic, but when a movie is this unrealistic, it just doesn't work.

The film moves much too quickly to establish a base with any of the characters. We never really know much about Joe Pendleton, and Beatty never falls into character; I was very conscious of the fact that it was just Warren Beatty with a different name.

The story is silly, but even though it's moderately entertaining, it doesn't entertain as much as it should. It's good for a watch on a lazy afternoon if you haven't got anything else. Otherwise, I'd recommend you pass this one up.

"The Towering Inferno" is the best disaster movie ever made for a couple of reasons. With Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, William Holden, and Faye Dunaway, who could ask for a better cast? We really get to know their characters throughout the course of the movie, and this leads into my next point. The fact that we know the characters--and care about them--means the film has real tension. It's been a long while since I have watched a movie this suspenseful.

I had heard that the special effects seemed dated. I found that they held up quite well, and much preferred them to the computer generated junk that most movies have today.

The "film makers" involved in creating "Armageddon" should have watched this movie first and taken notes. "The Towering Inferno" should be the textbook on how to make a blockbuster film; a great cast, excellent special effects, and not a dull moment to be found.

"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is truly an actor's movie, and it is one of those rare films where every single actor is perfect.

Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor are both brilliant as Brick and Maggie Pollitt, respectively. Not very often is there a screen couple that have the same chemistry together that they do.

Newman, however, steals the show. If you watch "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" for nothing else, watch it for his performance. One of the greatest actors of all time, Newman showcases how powerful an actor he can be. This is not to say the supporting cast isn't excellent. Burl Ives is superb in a supporting role as Big Daddy, a man who's greatest concern is having his legacy live on after him. The sequence with Ives and Newman in the basement of the house remains one of the most incredible displays of acting I have ever seen.

"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" is a very appropriate title. It is a searing, wonderfully acted film that I will not soon forget. I recommend those who haven't seen it yet to rent it as soon as they get a chance. A true classic.

As far as romantic comedies go, it's pretty tough to find one better than the first half of "Father of the Bride". However, right about the time of the "manic" dress rehearsal--a scene that was supposed to be funny but left me in dead silence--I noticed the movie was running out of steam. By the time it sputtered to a halt, I was left with mixed feelings.

"Father of the Bride" is a film I would recommend, if only for Spencer Tracy's hilarious performance. Be warned however, the wonderful first half of the film is deceiving, and by the time the wedding comes around, you'll be wishing for a few more laughs to break the silence.

Watching "Ordinary People" is an ordeal in itself. The film, about a family being torn apart by the death of its elder son, is the very definition of heart-wrenching.

Timothy Hutton gives an astonishing performance as Conrad, the remaining child and sole survivor of a horrible boating accident. Although Hutton's role was the main character, he was nominated for Best Supporting, not Best Actor. I'm glad the Academy did this, however, as both he and De Niro deserved Oscars that year. Donald Sutherland and Mary Tyler Moore are also excellent in the roles on Conrad's parents, and Judd Hirsch is wonderful as the psychiatrist Berger, who teaches Conrad to forgive when he needs to most.

While "Raging Bull" is inarguably a better film, "Ordinary People" beats it out in sheer emotional intensity. This--and Timothy Hutton's incredible performance--will ensure that "Ordinary People" is always remembered as a great film, even if not the greatest of 1980.

"Casablanca" is one of those films that just seems to get better and better every time you see it. Watching it for the second time, I was able to sort of step back and take in the fine details.

The city after which the film is named has got to be the most memorable movie locale of all time. From Rick's lively bar, to the ominous lighthouse looming in the darkness, to the foggy runway of the airport, the city of Casablanca has more character than many other films have in their characters.

As cynical bar owner Rick Blaine, Humphrey Bogart gives arguably his most distinguished performance. Bogart has the pleasure of delivering some of cinema's most famous lines, and we have the pleasure of receiving them. Ingrid Bergman holds her own against Bogart, although her Ilsa is more subtle.

"Casablanca" is not the greatest film ever made. However, a very strong argument can be made that it is one of the most entertaining. "Casablanca" is not about flashy directing, powerful acting, or an unpredictable story. It is about its unforgettable characters and dialog, richly detailed locale, and that great feeling you get that cannot be described, and that only "Casablanca" can create.

I was discussing movies with an acquaintance of mine when he handed me a video of a film I had never heard of before, "Kolya". When I was through watching it, I was very pleasantly surprised. The script is very funny and very touching. I was also struck by how beautiful the cinematography was; even Louka's apartment seemed to take on a rich texture of its own.

Even if you're not into foreign films, I would recommend giving "Kolya" a try. I can't imagine anyone not enjoying this movie.

There was a time when I really wasn't into movies very much. I happened to be flipping channels on my TV one night when I came across "Carlito's Way". Immediately, I was drawn into the film. By the time the credits rolled by, I knew I had just witnessed the greatest film I had ever seen.

What makes "Carlito's Way" such a great film is the fact that even though you know what is going to happen at the end, the movie makes you want to know how this character, Carlito Brigante, ends up where he does. And what a ride it is.

Al Pacino is simply astonishing as Carlito Brigante, a reformed criminal who wants nothing more than to leave his old life behind and start anew. Sean Penn proves once again that he is one of the most effective actors working today in a role that not only sees him keeping pace with Pacino, but should have netted him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. John Leguizamo and Viggo Mortensen also deliver solid performances.

"Carlito's Way" is filled with scene after incredible scene, and line after incredible line; all of which lead up to one of the greatest finales in motion picture history. If you haven't seen it yet, run out and rent it immediately. This is the film that turned me into a movie lover. Sure, I have seen better films since then (not many, mind you), but "Carlito's Way" will forever remain my all time favourite.

"Suspicion" is pure Hitchcock. He really knows how to build tension in a film, and he shows it here. The suspense keeps mounting until a final sequence where it is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.

Grant and Fontaine are both excellent in their roles. Cary Grant plays his character so that you think you know what his motives are, but you really don't. Of course, Hitchcock's usual camera wizardry is present, although it is less apparent than in some of his other films ("Notorious" and "Psycho" for example). However, a script that will keep you guessing right to the very end more than makes up for it.

The ending is admittedly weak compared to the rest of the film, but that is the only thing I can think of that is bad about it. "Suspicion" shows once again that nobody makes a suspense film quite like Alfred Hitchcock.

Watching "Stand By Me" for the third time (but the first time in at least five years), I found myself enjoying it this time more than I did the first or second time I watched it, and I'm not sure why.

The performances are quite good considering the young age of the actors involved. Although the dialog is corny at times (i.e. "Stop it!"...if you've seen the film, you know what I mean. And who thought up that horrible last line to Lachance's book at the end of the movie?), on the whole, "Stand By Me" is a very enjoyable film that I would recommend to anyone, especially those who were children at the time that the story takes place.

What can I say that hasn't already been said? Jack Nicholson's performance is a searing tour de force that I consider to be the finest movie performance of all time. Every supporting role is superb, most notably Louise Fletcher and a small but solid performance from Brad Dourif.

Milos Forman's direction has a sort of gritty, documentary-style texture to it that gives the film just that little extra effectiveness. The writing and dialog are perhaps the greatest in any film, with Nicholson delivering the film's most memorable lines (and there are many). Every single scene is incredible in its own right, from McMurphy's re-enactment of the World Series to a joy ride on a fishing boat. The final 30 minutes or so are absolutely staggering in their emotional intensity.

If you have not yet seen this film, stop reading now and literally run to your local video store to rent it. It is the most powerful, emotional, and involving movie ever put on film. See it, for it is without exception the finest motion picture ever made.

I really didn't know what to expect when I popped "Solaris" into my VCR. I thought perhaps the movie would be an eerie psychological thriller, as that was what the back of the box had promised. This film is somewhat different from that description; this is one of the most haunting films in recent memory, but not in the way you would expect.

For me, the best part of "Solaris" was the visual texture of the film. Sure, the special effects aren't flashy (it was made in 1972, after all) but the space station on which the majority of the film takes place is so meticulously crafted that I would say that I prefer the effects over the computer generated ones of films today. I relished the tiny details, even down to the scraps of litter that were scattered around the floor of the halls.

Don't get me wrong, "Solaris" really isn't about its effects. The story behind the film is a very enticing one, and--if you allow yourself to fall under it's spell--a very engrossing one. Try to find yourself 3 hours where you will have no distractions and no breaks from the film (except to change tapes, of course).

I have heard comments about the film being too slow and overlong. I do think some of the early scenes in the film could have been cut slightly. For example, the (over)long tracking shot from the perspective of a car on the highway really doesn't serve much of a purpose, and could have been cut down without losing any effect.

I think in the case of "Solaris", the movie benefits from moving slowly. I believe Tarkovsky did this purposely so that the viewer could savour all of the details without being rushed off to the next scene. Overall, "Solaris" is not a movie for everyone. However, if you are willing to watch it with an open mind, I think you will find that "Solaris" is a very rewarding experience.