Reviews

"Riding in Cars with Boys" is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Not so much because of the subject matter, but more because of how the subject matter is so mismatched with the way that it is handled. There are times of goofiness and humor in this film when they simply do not belong, and the main character is trying to be passed off as likeable and sweet when she is anything but the two. Point blank: Penny Marshall was the absolute wrong choice to direct this film.

I say this not because she is not a good director; but "A League of Their Own" this film is not. I watched this movie expecting a sweet Drew Barrymore vehicle in which she shows off a few acting chops. I got what I expected...and a whole heck of a lot more. The film deals with so many issues, it can't possibly contain all of them in less than two hours effectively. First of all, teen pregnancy. Second, religious parents who believe children should not be born out of wedlock, which leads to teen marriage. Third, teen motherhood. And fourth, and most important, the effects of treating children from the day they were born like they were a mistake.

I could name scene after scene that true feeling and emotion was substituted for either sentimentality or a dim joke. From the moment Jason is born, Barrymore's character, Beverly, is disappointed. But they try to make it light by her disappointment in the fact that she had a boy, not a girl. She pouts and whines and we are supposed to laugh. Uh, yeah, not funny.

This bothered me very much. The character of Bev was a horrible human being. Yes, I feel bad for her throughout the movie. She was smart and had a huge chance at a good life, but look what riding in cars with boys got her – a kid. So while I felt bad for Beverly, I felt worse for Jason, her son who lived his life trying to achieve the most impossible of goals: making his mother proud.

And Steve Zahn worked well enough with what was given him, but I am convinced that if a director more suited to this film helmed it then Zahn would have been nominated for an Oscar. But his character is such a contrived jerk, that is all we see him as. And his final scene could have been one of the most touching, poignant moments in movie history, but instead we get this cheesy, rushed, anti-climactic scene that serves more as a platform for Rosie Perez to yell a lot.

In the end, I cannot see if Beverly has changed. I cannot see that she has become a better person. The film was okay, and Drew Barrymore's performance was fine, considering how the movie turned out. But it could have been better. The acting, the directing, the story, the emotion, the handling of such delicate and important issues, everything about this movie… it all could have been so much better.

"The Blair Witch Project" plays like an experimental film and thereby transcends the horror/suspense genre by being so different. Alas it was ruined by the extreme hype it received. Not all reviews were very favorable in the first place, but the overhype was generated from the belief early on in the film's limited release that what we were watching was real footage shot by three people who were actually missing.

It's too bad. Think about all you have heard after its major release. "It wasn't THAT scary" and "I got motion-sickness" were the two most common remarks I heard, next to "It was the stupidest movie I have ever seen." Why? The first remark is in response to the people who saw it early on and believed it to be the scariest film they had ever seen, causing higher expectations. The second comes from people who sat too close, and the third from people who expected a LOT more than psychological trauma as the true subject of a horror film.

Did they want gut-spilling? Explosions? The supernatural depicted through cheesy special effects, as seen in a movie like "The Haunting?" Please. "The Blair Witch Project" was an exercise in realism, using psychological terror (not what you see, but what you don't see) as its weapon, and it IS one of the scariest films ever made. I saw it in the theatre, still believing that what was onscreen was possibly real. Throughout the film, I was afraid and emotionally horrified, and by the end I was curled up on my seat into a ball, shivering and teary-eyed. That's how powerful it was.

Ignore the hype. Of course, by now it has died down, so folks may not even remember what a big deal the movie was at the time of its release. I only wish the sequel was handled differently. While it was spooky at certain points, its lack of realism (and real acting) had nowhere near the impact of the first. Speaking of the acting...the performances of the three stars of this film truly added to us believing it was real, and therefore are worth the price of a rental alone.

Usually, I like Jon Favreau. I love Famke Janssen. Vince Vaughn has his moments. All of them were just drowned in this mess of a movie. I saw it in the theatre, and I don't think I can ever watch it again. Exactly what was supposed to be so funny? My friends all yell at me for being a movie-lover and still not having seen "Swingers." Watching this film has only made me more skeptical, and I don't think I want to see it anymore.

I laughed sometimes. The opening boxing match was very funny. The very end was also funny, in the kids' place. But for what? To watch the rest of it? To watch Peter Falk look bored to death and bore me while he was at it? To watch Famke Janssen do Favreau a favor by looking like krap and playing a disgusting role? And worst of all, to watch Favreau and Vaughn work through the most pretentious dialogue I have ever heard?

Much of it was not even dialogue. Most of it was Favreau trying really hard to look annoyed (but, of course, still appreciative of his best friend, waaahhh) while Vaughn spouted the most unfunny, irritating, obnoxious lines possibly ever written. At several points of the film, I had to turn to my friend and say "I'm not sure if I can stand this much longer." But I believe I should give every film a chance till the end. I mean I paid for it, didn't I?

And really, the end was very sweet and funny. If the rest of the film had this touch of sweetness to it, it may have worked. But all the coincidences, and the scenes in the Vegas nightclub, and the morning after...So many needless plot developments just to keep us guessing at how much more "clever" they can get. I'm very disappointed in both Favreau and Vaughn. Did they really think people would be that entertained by improv scenes based on being completely annoying? Annoying does not mean clever. But I guess I shouldn't expect much from a guy who thought "Very Bad Things" would be a good idea. (Annoying AND disgusting don't mean clever, either).

Sorry, Favreau. You're usually great, loved you in "Love & Sex," but you messed up with this one. Come back with something that doesn't make it so obvious how cool you're trying to be, sound, or act. Maybe then I'll give Swingers a chance.

I just watched "In the Bedroom" last night. There were moments in this film that had my heart beat faster than it would after a one-mile sprint. Seriously dramatic, and intense scenes. But in the end, something didn't click for me.

I find I like the film more after I think about it. Here's something the film has that others do not: realism. This film is so realistic, it's amazing. When you watch this film, don't watch it expecting something to happen. Watch it like you want to feel what the characters are feeling.

During the time in the film that Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek spend alone together, there are short vignettes of silence and short, coldly distant dialogue. Many people did not like this. I thought it was extremely close to reality. And if you hear any hype about this film, it's mostly deserved for Spacek and Tomei.

The confrontation scene at Tomei's house (CURSE ALL REVIEWERS THAT TELL TOO MUCH. GO TO HELL AND DIE FOR RUINING IT FOR ME, I DON'T CARE HOW EARLY IN THE FILM IT HAPPENED) is so well-handled, I lost my breath. Her acting, her begging her children to stay upstairs, and especially her stumble down the staircase... How brilliant that we hear the yelling downstairs while she tells her boys not to move. What a scene.

Still, after all this excellent material, the film left me hanging. It just didn't go where deep inside I wanted it to, I suppose. I think most of that may have to do with my one MAJOR problem with this movie: TOM WILKINSON. I'm not going to only say he does not deserve the attention he's getting, I'll go as far as to say there were some scenes that he was EXCRUCIATINGLY BAD in.

Now don't get me wrong, I think he is a good actor. There were a couple scenes ("Somebody say something, don't sissyfoot around me!") that he was great in. But the scenes he had with Spacek? I thought the poor woman had nothing, NOTHING to play off of!

Here is what I thought of Wilkinson in those scenes: he was like a pestering noise in a movie theatre (like someone chewing with their mouth open) during a quiet scene that I can't get passed or ignore in order to enjoy the film. I think the way he made himself sensitive with her was just done wrong.

Otherwise, the film was good. Tomei and Spacek are the two best reasons to see it, and they both should get nominations. I would even see Tomei should win, but Halle Berry is a better choice in "Monster's Ball" for the best actress choice. Alas, I would not call this one of the best films of the year.

Boy, the makers of this film really underestimated the minds of moviegoers. I watched "House on Haunted Hill" a few months after it came out on video. I didn't even pay attention completely. It rarely kept my attention, except for two parts: the elevator scene and the scene in which Ali Larter runs to a pool of red gooey stuff (I hope that wasn't supposed to be blood) thinking she saw Taye Diggs fall into it.

It was on TV a few days ago, so I said to myself "Let me see what was so bad." This film came out the same year as "The Haunting," which is, by no means, a great flick, but it was knocked by many, many critics, while "House" was virtually ignored. Can you remember word-of-mouth about this movie being bad? I can't either, and that's why I think "The Haunting" got such a bad rap.

I will say, though, that "The Haunting" is "Citizen Kane" next to this mess. I am not expecting one of the 10 best films of all time, and I know horror films are not supposed to take themselves seriously. But this was ridiculous, people! I really am curious how much these big-name actors were paid, because I like most of them. I find it hard to believe that they'd really willingly sign on to this project. All it did was make them look like bad actors. It didn't even look like they were having fun.

Many say "Don't take it so seriously." Trust me. No one who laughs at what is supposed to be even sorta scary is taking ANYthing seriously. This movie seemed too obviously a rushed script and production.

Specifics: the bitchy dialogue between Rush and Janssen was NOT funny, the supposedly witty one-liners of Chris Kattan and Bridgitte Wilson were NOT clever, the attempt for a subplot as to why those people ended up there did NOT work, and that moving mass of ghosts thingy was just NOT scary! When I laughed during this movie, it was when I was not supposed to. When I looked upset, it was when I was supposed to laugh. Only the two above-mentioned parts entertained me, but barely. And WHOA, for those of you who have seen it, what did you think of the very end, with Chris Kattan? How could such a LOSER climax ever have been filmed?

I warn you, fellow movie-lovers: this movie is a waste of time. It's an excuse for bored filmmakers to have tried to make money in Halloween of 1999, because they had no other project to bank on for the holiday. They probably wrote the thing in a couple hours. (I would say "a couple days," but then you REAL movie-lovers would say "Hey, 'Rocky' was written in a couple days!") A true consumer's movie, and therefore an insult.

since this film has been out i've seen very few reviews and heard no one's comments. what drew me in was Natalie Portman, an actress who i have admired for a long time, and whose performance half a year earlier in "Anywhere But Here" was one of the year's best. and having Judd, Channing, and Cusack also made me think "hmm..good cast, maybe a good movie."

but alas..twenty minutes after the film began, i was already apologizing to myself for having committed myself to it. i could have easily walked away, but i always say once you start watching a movie you should give it a chance till the end. BIG mistake. this film was ridiculously written, poorly acted, just an enormous mess.

the plot of this film is so contrived, i wondered what the poor author, Billie Letts, thought of when seeing what hollywood has done to her novel, which i have not (and, as of now, will not) read. we follow as one bad thing after another happens to these characters, and each are resolved so quickly it's like "oh, well i'm glad that's over with. what's next after our brief moment of happiness?" the dialogue was bad and the script teases us with characters we are only given the potential to care about, and end up hating mostly.

Natalie Portman's character is not as likeable as she seems, Ashley Judd's character is saved by her performance from being the biggest insult to women on earth, James Frain is SO close to being the best thing about the movie, but the script and direction kill that as well, Cusack's appearance in the movie is pointless and boring. and Channing's character was fun to watch because she is luminous and the best performer in the movie, but even she was poorly written. and Dylan Bruno as the no-good boyfriend...i wonder each minute he's onscreen WHY we are forced to follow his uninteresting jump in and out of country music fame.

besides all of this, the characters are all immoral and unintelligent. poor Keith David, a talented actor, was fortunate to be the token black wise man, but the rest... here's the message i got watching this movie: men are all jerks, women are imbeciles, and children are a burden on their poor parents who are forced to love them because hey..they're kids. i was insulted. i felt like getting up and screaming "congratulations to the filmmakers! you have officially made me sorry that i'm a human being!"

you know what, i do recommend this movie. i think every one should see it, i think film class students should be strapped to their seats to watch it in class as a study of what kind of films not to make, or at least to keep the heck away from. i am sorry to say all of this, i like the actors, but truly this film was just terrible. obviously it had a big budget, and the performers were well paid. we'll pretend that's their excuse, because it's a career low for all involved.

the conclusion of this film ends with the line above, and once it is said a lifetime of memories can flash before you upon hearing it. this film is one of those rare movie-going experiences that makes a member of the audience leave with the characters and their actions still in mind. the film is, in a word, unforgettable and reminds its audience of the people that have touched their lives. it doesn't do so perfectly, but well enough.

there have been mixed feelings about this film, and many have complained about the cliche's. i've even heard someone say that at some points the film seems like it plays as a parody of itself. some things were unclear, and the script could have used work. and yes, i don't what the deal was with those chickens. but the direction (awesome montage scene) and the acting just make it work, it's that simple.

winona ryder is just amazing as susanna. you could see it in her face. she's in so much pain, but all the while she's just a spoiled little girl with not enough in life. it was an understated performance. angelina jolie has won the oscar, which conflicts me because it's a clear case of scene stealing. her competition (catherine keener, chloe sevigny) were amazing, probably better, but not as flashy. still, she captures every side of lisa, from villainous and strong to every bit as vulnerable as susanna, and makes her a sexy character still worthy of our sympathy. her emotional scenes are breathtaking. and what about clea duvall? her character had a lot more to do with the plot in the book, which i can't wait to read. she does excellent with what she's got, but an actress of her caliber should have been given a lot more. moss, murphy, and whoopi are also excellent.

these performances are the main reason this film works. because of them the situations are handled so realistically, enough for the audience's response to be the same as it would if these were real mental patients. look at the anorexic girl. watching her would make you want to almost bite your cheek for wanting to laugh when she acts funny, because you know she's in an extremely sad situation.

this film has several scenes that burn in the memory, and it is because of the girls. two scenes that were incredible: when lisa first attacks susanna, and when lisa is locked up and her silent friend is breaking down outside. unbelievably affecting scenes. the emotional score also gets a few extra points. emotional, not mushy. this movie may sometimes stray from being great, but its raw power and humanity make it definitely worth a look.

this movie was definitely entertaining. it was engaging, it had my full attention, and it was a visual feast...well, sometimes. but what is going on here? why does everyone love it exactly? i saw the film at one of the most beautiful theatres, the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd., which added to it a lot. but if i sat up front, i would have ran out of their screaming. people complain about the Blair Witch project? i didn't know what was going on half the time. this was me at about 5 points during the film: "what? he got hit? yeah he did.. but.. he who? WHERE?!"

the recreation of Rome is fantastic, and those shots are excellent, as are the effects and art direction. the fights are fun in all their gore, with the exception of the chaotic camera movements. and certain shots, for example of the fields when Maximus's hands are brushing against the tall grass. beautiful. but not enough to get the praise it's been receiving.

and character development? hello? "Lucilla, you should have been a son." oh really? "Lucilla is a strong woman this, and a forceful soul that." how so? i couldn't tell. and bratty Commodus, played by an excellent Joaquin Phoenix, just was not fully explained in his insanity. Russell Crowe is great (as always) as the vengeful Maximus, but even with his character something seemed lacking. and way to go with the subtle ending. (no, that was not sarcasm).

overall the movie entertained me, but i walked out confused (as to whether i liked it or not). and when i walk out of movies confused i wait for the next day.. and the next day i was not satisfied. some great shots and color, cool costumes, Crowe finally confirming himself as a star, Phoenix confirming himself as an actor, and Nielsen confirming herself as a hottie who can act. it'll do. but it would have been better off had it been done by someone other than ridley scott. (gosh.. he better not butcher Hannibal). it deserves no spot on the IMDb's top 250 much less the top 100.

what many people do not know is that this film, directed by terence malick, is without question the reason that Shakespeare in Love won the best picture oscar over the much favored Saving Private Ryan. why am i saying this? first let's deal with the movie. long? yes. too much? sometimes. but is it good? i can not begin to describe the beauty of this film.

about the oscars, i only watched the film after its surprise nomination for best picture. i had seen the competition already, and it was time to check out the fifth nominee. i went to the theatre myself, and came out three hours later, went home, and i cried. not only because i was disturbed, but i loved every single character in the film. i wanted to be there for them, cry with them, fight their battle. many people who have watched the film have said the same thing to me.

the Thin Red Line is sometimes painful to watch, but only because of its realistic juxtaposition of humanity, philosophy, and the terror of war. the film does not delve into any historical fact about Guadalcanal, except that the battle itself was terrifying (as is any battle). the characters introduce themselves through voice-over narration, which accompanies much of the action. and speaking of action, there is not much in the film. more images. images of war and the lives these soldiers left behind. this was Terence Malick's intent, of course, and many people were insulted and thought it was his own pretentious self getting the best of him. "boy he's a genius.. must he show it??" sometimes it is a little pretentious, but the film would've been "just another WWII film" if it was out of Malick's hands.

i can not understand why Sean Penn is billed as the top actor or the main character of this film. he was there a lot, but the film is carried by Jim Caviezel as the beautiful and ethereal private Witt. words can not describe this performance. with as few lines as he had, Caviezel portrays the symbolic soul of Witt, and by the end of the film he will break your heart. also excellent performances from Nick Nolte and the understated Elias Koteas, who can stretch creepy (Crash) to sympathetic in the blink of an eye.

now.. let's consider hollywood. sure they love Spielberg, and sure Private Ryan was a masterpiece (and it really was), but nobody even expected the Thin Red Line to get seven oscar nods, especially for best picture. but Shakespeare in Love was the crowd pleaser, and the other two were epic war films. most hollywood "artsy" people are anti-war.. kind of like the Thin Red Line. Private Ryan seemed to be MUCH more patriotic "pro-america" than the other. so if we've got anti-war on one side, and patriotism on the other... open and shut. the votes were split between the two, and Shakespeare emerged victorious. too bad.

anyway... the Thin Red Line was definitely better than Shakespeare, and definitely a completely different film from Spielberg's. John Toll's cinematography and Hans Zimmer's score work together to convey the tone of Malick's lyrical and poetic direction, and both should have won oscars. this film is nothing short of breath-taking, though understandably not for the average american moviegoer.

Neil Jordan is not usually a director of love stories. he has a wide range of subjects that he has covered, but love has been only a subplot of most of his films. still, his films all have a similar quality that leaves the audience thinking about them for some time after. The End of the Affair is no different.

even for a film about love and romance between the characters played by Ralph Fiennes and Julianne Moore, they seemed to play as secondary roles opposite jealousy and faith. if Jordan had directed this film any differently you would think you could find the novel by Graham Greene, from which the film was adapted, in the section of the bookstore in which you would find Danielle Steele.

very much not the case. this film, highly driven by the excellent performances of the cast, captures a different kind of love that is true but forbidden - at first by conscience, then by God - and because of it drives our jealous hero up the wall.

as the questions are answered throughout the film we see the same timeframes from the points of view of both Maurice and Sarah, and this is when we see the finest moments of the film. we are given realistic images of true love and heartbreak that make this film more haunting than most soapy love stories.

the film relies very much on the performances of Fiennes and Moore, which may imply a weakness, but Moore carries the film on her shoulders with such grace and beauty most people won't notice its minor flaws. with every facial expression you see every ounce of suffering that Sarah feels. also with excellent cinematography and the haunting score of the brilliant Michael Nyman, this is quite the underrated film people should see.

there is only so much one can say about the iffy-ness of this film. the film is understandably not for everyone. i very much liked the film, but i know it could have been perfect. some scenes just seemed completely extraneous, leading to the excessive length of the film.

one film, which i liked more, i can compare Beloved to: The Thin Red Line. both films made your bum hurt after sitting through them, but the scenes of pure emotional beauty make them worth the watch. both films rely very much on their symbolism and haunting imagery. audiences of both films either love or hate them for what they are: unsettling art films.

for the people who have watched Beloved they will know that certain scenes would grow onto a viewer depending on the viewer's personality. take the scene where Baby Suggs asks the children of the congregation to laugh for their mothers, and the men to dance for their wives. very strange scene, but it means everything to the film's portrayal of what it is to finally achieve freedom. people who will distance themselves from such a scene will turn away from the movie upset and disappointed.

Oprah Winfrey, Kimberly Elise, and the wonderful Beah Richards give excellent performances, and Rachel Portman's score gives the film just what it needs: a perfect balance between a ghost story and an emotional trip. i wish the extra scenes were just edited out, but given the haunting beauty of Beloved and its symbolic maternal undertones, i have to give it a thumbs up. just listening to Baby Suggs' sermon at the end was enough to make me cry for every character.

i warn that this is hardly one of those 3 hours in a snap films. the movie needs your full attention. if you do not give it that, it will feel like you've devoted half a day to watching this film. but if you like trippy, serious, emotional films, give this one a try. a valiant effort.

Primary Colors is one of those films that can throw you into it and make you feel like a part of it without much action. as you watch, you begin to feel like you are participating in Jack Stanton's campaign. you are going throw all of his staff's trials and tribulations.

from a political standpoint, watching this film shows you the dirty world that is politics. dirty, indeed. along with watching the fluctuating situations of Stanton's success, the film is most captivating when it pits the hero and his colleagues against a moral dilemma. take a certain route and increase chances of winning...but at the cost of someone else's career, family, entire life. is it worth it?

and with this i come to the performances. three wonderful portrayals by Travolta as the Clinton-type, back when he was still Governor, Emma Thompson as the Hilary, and Adrian Lester as the emotionally attached/torn George Stephenopolous. but when the movie slips once in a while, it is the performance of Kathy Bates that holds it together. her headstrong, emotional Libby will keep you pinned to your seat, shocked at her courage, and heart-broken at her ultimate sacrifice for the campaign. watch this well-rounded movie. mike nichols knows what he's doing.

I am so proud to have seen this movie. I am a lover of films, but I have never felt this proud of a movie and its director for achieving so much. Proud is the only word that comes to mind. PT Anderson is way ahead of his game as an artist and a filmmaker. Magnolia is a work of art.

We've seen Pulp Fiction and we've seen Go and many other wonderfully creative films that intertwine the lives of a long list of characters, but none of them do it as unexpectedly and subtly as Magnolia. With as many as nine main characters, each exhausted with the pain they experience in their lives, the film unfolds beautifully in its strange form of storytelling, also avoiding the cliches of "we are all depressed people" movies.

I must also add that what I look for most in films of such buzz is good acting. I was overwhelmed by the performances in this film. The standouts are Tom Cruise and Julianne Moore, both of whom deserve oscars, but the rest of the cast was also amazing. Also perfect dramatic subtlety in the music, wonderful lines, and some twisted scenes. Lovers of film NEED to see this movie.

I watched this film at home, on TV, after i heard from all my friends of how it was too long and boring. i disagree with them all. Meet Joe Black is a celebration of the wonderful gifts life has to offer. sounds corny? not so at all.

Anthony Hopkins is great as William Parrish, a very successful businessman, who is nearing the end of his life. he is visited by Death, in the form of a very charming Brad Pitt, who tells him he has a few days to "show him around" the real world. soon Bill realizes all the things in his life that he took for granted. especially the love of his daughters, Susan and Allison.

On the other hand, Susan (Claire Forlani in a worthy breakthrough) falls for Death, known to them all as Joe Black. as Joe experiences love for the first time with Susan, this upsets Bill and the three main characters all journey through epiphanies of love and life that will change them forever.

The film may drag on at times but it is beautifully shot, and filled with some unforgettably touching scenes of dialogue between all the characters. and with one of the most haunting love themes in recent films Thomas Newman confirms himself as one of the best film score composers of the 90s. i suggest this film for anyone who wants to set aside 3 hours to explore the importance of life, love, and family.