Nice old-fashioned comedy-mystery that, without Aniston and Sandler, would have been lucky to be made at all these days but would have been shown back in the day as the network movie of the week. That's not a criticism - just a fact, and with two A-listers onboard and Aniston as always subtly adding her comic chops and legit acting skills, it makes this old-fashioned move worth watching for a pleasant 90-minute diversion.
Reviews
32 Reviews
Fracture
(2007)
Good but not great cat and mouse drama
11 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Fracture is a solid but flawed courtroom drama/thriller that offers terrific acting and a compelling story, but it also suffers from typical "Hollywood-izing" that undermines the ending to the point of complete incredulity.
*spoilers* The filmmakers, who up until the last act have fashioned a terrific cat-and-mouse game between Hopkins and Gosling, took the easy way out and turned Hopkins from a clever genius into a bumbling fool. When Gosling's boss (aka his conscience) tells him, "If it makes you feel any better you let a man get away with ATTEMPTED murder," I (along with many others I am sure) knew how the movie would end. But it was not true to Hopkins' brilliant character that he too would have thought of this major loophole. A man who ingeniously constructs such an intricately plotted way to get away with the crime doesn't think about the fact that he can be tried again? Not buying it.
I spent a lot of time criticizing this one fatal flaw, but overall I am still giving the movie a 7, because the rest of it (with the exception of the tepid romantic subplot) was so good and so effective. I just wish the filmmakers would have delivered an edgier ending and not stuck with the Hollywood conventional wrap-up.
*spoilers* The filmmakers, who up until the last act have fashioned a terrific cat-and-mouse game between Hopkins and Gosling, took the easy way out and turned Hopkins from a clever genius into a bumbling fool. When Gosling's boss (aka his conscience) tells him, "If it makes you feel any better you let a man get away with ATTEMPTED murder," I (along with many others I am sure) knew how the movie would end. But it was not true to Hopkins' brilliant character that he too would have thought of this major loophole. A man who ingeniously constructs such an intricately plotted way to get away with the crime doesn't think about the fact that he can be tried again? Not buying it.
I spent a lot of time criticizing this one fatal flaw, but overall I am still giving the movie a 7, because the rest of it (with the exception of the tepid romantic subplot) was so good and so effective. I just wish the filmmakers would have delivered an edgier ending and not stuck with the Hollywood conventional wrap-up.
Let It Ride
(1989)
Highly entertaining -- 8 out of 10
27 January 2004
What could have been an average at best TV movie is instead a very successful motion picture comedy in large part due to Richard Dreyfuss's performance. Stopping just short of being over-the-top in the very funny comedic scenes, he also creates a three-dimensional character who is warm and touching -- you really are rooting for him.
The other thing I really liked about this movie was its willingness to stray from the usual formula: good things happen/conflict something bad happens/resolution. This entire film depicted a happy and lucky protagonist -- a great tonic to cure the blues is this underrated gem.
The other thing I really liked about this movie was its willingness to stray from the usual formula: good things happen/conflict something bad happens/resolution. This entire film depicted a happy and lucky protagonist -- a great tonic to cure the blues is this underrated gem.
Matchstick Men
(2003)
Another overrated Hollywood movie
15 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a failure on three levels; each one worse than the previous one. *spoilers ahead starting with point 2.*
1. Nicolas Cage gives a mannered performance that a student in Acting 101 would give. 2. The big "twist" is predictable and far-fetched. Let's see, in order for all this to happen, Rockwell's character has to assume Cage will lost his medicine down the sink, need a new shrink, never go to his daughter's house, and ASK THE SHRINK TO CALL HIS EX-WIFE FOR HIM! Gee, what a brilliant plan to have so much luck fall to you. 3. Cage is supposed to be this brilliant con man but he falls for something that was obvious to me in the audience? AND -- the worst part -- he "comes to terms" with it all in one ridiculously far-fetched chance encounter a year later. "Good to see you," he says to the fake daughter that tore out his heart a year earlier. Yeah right. And then we have the con artist herself looking longingly and saying, "Dad." Uh-huh.
A feeble attempt at a Hollywood happy ending epilogue to help the box office after the dark (and fatally predictable) twist.
A failure of the worst kind. 1/10
See The Sting or House of Games on video/DVD instead. This movie isn't even worth mentioning in the same breath as those classics.
1. Nicolas Cage gives a mannered performance that a student in Acting 101 would give. 2. The big "twist" is predictable and far-fetched. Let's see, in order for all this to happen, Rockwell's character has to assume Cage will lost his medicine down the sink, need a new shrink, never go to his daughter's house, and ASK THE SHRINK TO CALL HIS EX-WIFE FOR HIM! Gee, what a brilliant plan to have so much luck fall to you. 3. Cage is supposed to be this brilliant con man but he falls for something that was obvious to me in the audience? AND -- the worst part -- he "comes to terms" with it all in one ridiculously far-fetched chance encounter a year later. "Good to see you," he says to the fake daughter that tore out his heart a year earlier. Yeah right. And then we have the con artist herself looking longingly and saying, "Dad." Uh-huh.
A feeble attempt at a Hollywood happy ending epilogue to help the box office after the dark (and fatally predictable) twist.
A failure of the worst kind. 1/10
See The Sting or House of Games on video/DVD instead. This movie isn't even worth mentioning in the same breath as those classics.
Sirens
(1994)
pointless and poorly conceived
28 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Let's see -- THIS hasn't been done before: repressed individual spends time with free spirits and lets loose. When done with compelling characters, it works. When done with these boring individuals, it doesn't. Pretty bad when Hugh Grant is lacking charisma and a naked Elle McPherson is lacking sensuality. The nudity in this film was not titillating at all in fact. But the film's message about marriage and commitment is immoral and fairly distasteful. Even worse, this movie was BORING. *spoiler alert* And how about that ending? Seemingly happy woman was actually unhappy and achieved frivolity and happiness through a lesbian encounter and a meaningless night of casual sex. That was all she needed to smile and be at ease with herself. Ugh.
1/10
1/10
unpleasant and distasteful but watchable
28 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
The House by the Edge of the Park begins on shaky footing, with a too-explicit rape. However, I must say the next 60 minutes were intriguing and entertaining. The final 30 minutes, however, were there simply for shock value and for the ol' "twist for the sake of a twist." Too bad -- they had the makings of a good movie there for a while. *spoiler alerts* Think about this. If you had NOT seen the rape in the first scene, don't you think the scenes at the house for the first 45 minutes would have been a lot more interesting? We would have been guessing who was playing who, and what all these people's agendas were. Had they just had a reference to the rape in the opening credits (kind of like Identity did recently with its subject matter), it would have worked. Instead, we all know what is going to happen; and the "twist" at the end becomes ridiculous when you consider they could have gotten the gun when he was upstairs "raping" the hot one from the shower (man was she attractive). I put "rape" in quotes of course because she was obviously enjoying it, which was yet another feeble attempt to "shock" the audience. A mixed bag -- but overall I can't recommend it due to the major flaws. Any justification whatsoever to them not getting to the gun sooner is laughable, and let's face it -- if they get to gun sooner, there is no movie.
By the way, David Hess was pitiful here -- people seem to think he was so good -- all he does is use a nervous giggle throughout that detracts from any good he is doing with the character. He seems like a super nice guy on his website, but that constant giggling has to go.
Finally, a lot of people have used the word "disturbing" to describe this movie. That word for me has a subtle positive connotation to it that means the filmmakers achieved their goal artistically. Se7en was disturbing. THIS movie was merely unpleasant.
5/10
By the way, David Hess was pitiful here -- people seem to think he was so good -- all he does is use a nervous giggle throughout that detracts from any good he is doing with the character. He seems like a super nice guy on his website, but that constant giggling has to go.
Finally, a lot of people have used the word "disturbing" to describe this movie. That word for me has a subtle positive connotation to it that means the filmmakers achieved their goal artistically. Se7en was disturbing. THIS movie was merely unpleasant.
5/10
Wolfman
(1979)
Worst acting in film history
23 June 2003
For me to take the time to write something on this site I have to be pretty motivated. Unfortunately, in this case, it is because I have never seen a movie quite this bad (and I have suffered through losers like Mountaintop Motel Massacre). Usually it is the script and direction that make a movie this bad. And don't get me wrong -- those qualify in this case as well. But I have truly never seen acting as bad as in this movie -- I have seen better performances in grade school plays. Earl Owensby is laughably bad -- he is the worst in a cast that is comprised of truly terrible actors. The only positive thing I will say about this experience is that it is so bad it is almost worth renting with some friends for an unintentional comedy.
Identity
(2003)
Twists for the sake of twists are wearing thin.
28 April 2003
"Identity" is yet another movie that thinks a "SHOCKING TWIST" is better than a good narrative. I have had it up to here with movies that continue to play the ol' "pull the rug out from under the audience" trick when the ONLY purpose behind it is for the sake of the twist/shock itself.
"Identity" actually is quite good for about an hour. At one point, one of the characters even makes reference to "movies that gather strangers together and kill them off one by one only to find out later that there was some connection between them." Well, I WISH this movie would have gone with the formula instead of trying to outthink itself. The result is a major backfire and one of the worst final 20 minutes in film history. What genuine suspense there was for the first hour of the film completely vanished in the final 20 minutes.
I find myself constantly saying, "It's too bad the movie stunk because I really like John Cusack." Well guess what? I am tired of saying that and now feel compelled to say that Cusack the actor -- while talented -- is a terrible judge of what is a good movie and what isn't. How many bad movies is this recently for him?
Pretentious critics will embrace this stylish "exercise," but more intelligent and sophisticated film audiences will not be taken in by a movie that clearly had no idea what to do in the final act, other than to be different for the sake of being different.
Movies with great twists -- The Sting, The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense -- all had great screenplays that never cheated the audience and held up under scrutiny later. They also turned very very good screenplays into great screenplays. But movies that resort to twists just for the sake of them are doing their audience and themselves a great disservice. We and they (in some cases) deserve a lot better.
"Identity" actually is quite good for about an hour. At one point, one of the characters even makes reference to "movies that gather strangers together and kill them off one by one only to find out later that there was some connection between them." Well, I WISH this movie would have gone with the formula instead of trying to outthink itself. The result is a major backfire and one of the worst final 20 minutes in film history. What genuine suspense there was for the first hour of the film completely vanished in the final 20 minutes.
I find myself constantly saying, "It's too bad the movie stunk because I really like John Cusack." Well guess what? I am tired of saying that and now feel compelled to say that Cusack the actor -- while talented -- is a terrible judge of what is a good movie and what isn't. How many bad movies is this recently for him?
Pretentious critics will embrace this stylish "exercise," but more intelligent and sophisticated film audiences will not be taken in by a movie that clearly had no idea what to do in the final act, other than to be different for the sake of being different.
Movies with great twists -- The Sting, The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense -- all had great screenplays that never cheated the audience and held up under scrutiny later. They also turned very very good screenplays into great screenplays. But movies that resort to twists just for the sake of them are doing their audience and themselves a great disservice. We and they (in some cases) deserve a lot better.
One Hour Photo
(2002)
aimless movie lacking in substance
30 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This movie suffers from SO many problems that I don't know where to start, but I will focus (no pun) on the script and directing.
First of all, the film attempts to be a character study and a thriller and it fails on both counts. The Sy character is never fully realized (not Williams' fault) as the screenplay doesn't do anything interesting with him until he becomes unhinged at the end. And that last tacked on scene that was supposed to add exposition did not ring true at all. Why not have flashbacks or delve deeper into Sy's psyche? That would have been so much more interesting than the cursory rant at the end.
*SPOILER ALERT* And I am sure a 50-year-old man is suddenly going to go nuts after never having done that before?
Other problems: no 9-year-old child is going to say to his mom: "I feel sad for Sy. He has no friends. I can just tell by looking at him." Yeah right, of course he can. And HOW sensitive of this 9-year-old.
Why didn't the wife confront the husband?
The real problem with this movie is that there isn't enough material here to sustain a feature length film. This would have made a really good 30-minute Tales from the Crypt of something like that. As it is, One-Hour Photo is one hour too long.
First of all, the film attempts to be a character study and a thriller and it fails on both counts. The Sy character is never fully realized (not Williams' fault) as the screenplay doesn't do anything interesting with him until he becomes unhinged at the end. And that last tacked on scene that was supposed to add exposition did not ring true at all. Why not have flashbacks or delve deeper into Sy's psyche? That would have been so much more interesting than the cursory rant at the end.
*SPOILER ALERT* And I am sure a 50-year-old man is suddenly going to go nuts after never having done that before?
Other problems: no 9-year-old child is going to say to his mom: "I feel sad for Sy. He has no friends. I can just tell by looking at him." Yeah right, of course he can. And HOW sensitive of this 9-year-old.
Why didn't the wife confront the husband?
The real problem with this movie is that there isn't enough material here to sustain a feature length film. This would have made a really good 30-minute Tales from the Crypt of something like that. As it is, One-Hour Photo is one hour too long.
Chocolat
(2000)
Boring anti-Catholic movie
19 August 2002
I agree with the previous post that mentioned that the so-called "likable" characters (specifically the charmless and annoying Juliette Binoche) were the ones I was rooting against. That may be the first time that has ever happened for me -- actually generating a supreme dislike for the protagonist that I was supposed to like. I will now avoid all Juliette Binoche Oscar-nominated films because this one, along with English Patient, is not only overrated but painful to sit through.
Now that I got THAT vent out of my system, I am SO tired of these blatant anti-religion movies that attempt to disguise themselves as something else. This is NOT a charming fable that uses religion as its backdrop. Rather, it is an anti-religion (Catholicism) manifesto that disguises itself as a charming (and is THAT ever debatable) fable. Nothing is subtle and the characters are either annoyingly cloying or downright boring.
If you are going to make an anti-organized religion movie, do it with gusto and make a STATEMENT as well, as Lars von Triers did with the brilliant Breaking the Waves. That movie was indeed anti-organized religion, but it was also a movie about the power of FAITH.
I know I strayed from the subject, but I had to do ANYTHING to allow myself to forget about this horrible movie for a couple minutes.
Now that I got THAT vent out of my system, I am SO tired of these blatant anti-religion movies that attempt to disguise themselves as something else. This is NOT a charming fable that uses religion as its backdrop. Rather, it is an anti-religion (Catholicism) manifesto that disguises itself as a charming (and is THAT ever debatable) fable. Nothing is subtle and the characters are either annoyingly cloying or downright boring.
If you are going to make an anti-organized religion movie, do it with gusto and make a STATEMENT as well, as Lars von Triers did with the brilliant Breaking the Waves. That movie was indeed anti-organized religion, but it was also a movie about the power of FAITH.
I know I strayed from the subject, but I had to do ANYTHING to allow myself to forget about this horrible movie for a couple minutes.
Panic Room
(2002)
A complete misfire -- 3 out of 10
25 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Panic Room is easily the most disappointing movie in the last year or so. This movie had a great premise, a very good director, and an excellent lead actress. But it is a complete misfire of a movie. There are so many things wrong with the film that I don't know where to begin, but here goes. The biggest problem is in the casting of and writing for the "villains." These guys are one step removed from the comic villains of Home Alone. Their periodic bickering and one-liners are not appropriate for this kind of film, and they serve as a distraction. Because the villains aren't imposing, the terror is not the least bit intense. *spoiler alerts to follow* Next, the Forest Whitaker character (the only truly good performance in the movie) is the only character that has a three-dimensional side. I cared more about him than I did the under-written Jodie Foster character. Even worse, since they made this character gray, I wanted to know what happens to him -- there is NO closure at the end. He gives up his money and freedom to do the right thing and abide by his conscience, and we don't even know what happens to him! I wanted to see Jodie Foster not press charges against him. Something -- anything other than that lame tacked-on ending in the park. Back to the comment about the lack of three-dimensional characters. First rule of suspense -- make the audience care about the potential victims. It just didn't happen for me with Jodie or the doddering husband, which leads me to the next problem: unintentional comedy. The hubby looked about 25 years too old for Foster and after he was beaten up looked like Grandpa from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There was also more than one occasion when both my fiancee and I laughed out loud when we clearly weren't supposed to. I also can't believe how stupid the characters behaved in this movie -- here we were one step removed from dumb teens in a slasher movie. I really liked Se7en and The Game, but I must lay most of the blame at David Fincher's feet. During the first ten minutes of the film -- especially when mother and daughter turned in for the night -- the movie was eerily atmospheric, as the house itself was a character and the audience knew something bad was going to happen. As the camera panned around the house, I was creeped out as I wondered to myself where the bad guys were and what they were going to do. As soon as we saw them outside getting out of the car, the suspense lessened dramatically. Then as soon as they started the silly bickering, the suspense was gone. It never returned.
Irreconcilable Differences
(1984)
Outstanding love story
31 January 2002
Irreconcilable Differences is one of the best movies of the 80s and quite possibly the most underrated love story ever made. For whatever reason, audiences chose to ignore this well-written and well-acted gem in 1984. I think it may have been due to the marketing campaign -- they tried to sell it as a cutesy gimmick movie where a precocious child "divorces" her parents. But that isn't what this movie is about at all. This movie is able to provide strong commentary about failed relationships, especially when egos, power, and greed substitute for the things that should really matter in a person's life. In addition, it creates a viable love story that doesn't resort to typical Hollywood formulas when it creates the conflicts that may or may not separate these two people who we know belong with each other. We the audience get to see them actually fall in love on the screen before our very eyes. You would think this should be fairly standard, but how many movies can you recall (especially recently) that you can say that about? This is done through great acting, writing, and directing. Notice how Shelley Long's voice changes over the years as she goes through the various changes in her life. Watch Ryan O'Neal's eyes toward the end as you can actually see an inner peace that he never had earlier.
These are just a few of the great things I loved about this great, heartwarming, and underappreciated film. If you want a great love story with some very good comic and dramatic moments as well, rent this movie! You won't regret it.
These are just a few of the great things I loved about this great, heartwarming, and underappreciated film. If you want a great love story with some very good comic and dramatic moments as well, rent this movie! You won't regret it.
Dancer in the Dark
(2000)
Emotionally draining but a good experience
15 November 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is emotionally draining but well worth the time and effort expended. While it isn't as great as von Trier's masterpiece Breaking the Waves (what really is?), this movie is similar in the themes and emotions that are prevalent, most notably in the lead character. *Spoiler Alert* Rather than rehashing the plot, I would like to make a couple points. First, it is so touching at the end when Sylvia gets Gene's glasses and starts to sing -- this time for real -- as she has finally found happiness in life and doesn't have to escape in her mind to do it. Second, despite her not having any sight, her vision was realized at the end. If you can suffer through some truly painful moments, this movie is well worth experiencing.
True Romance
(1993)
Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper scene
23 July 2001
There's nothing new I can add that hasn't already been said about this movie, so I would rather talk about what has to be one of the greatest scenes in movie history: the confrontation scene between Walken and Hopper.
We are so lucky to have this scene to watch over and over again. A lot of people have blasted Tony Roberts' direction, but he DID get these performances for this scene. The way Walken reacts and smiles at Hopper's "story" is subtle and brilliant. You can see from his reactions that his anger is increasing with each new sentence from Hopper, but he chooses to make it look as if he is amused, not letting Hopper know. Of course Hopper DOES know, having sized up Walken as well as the situation within seconds. This is his last hurrah -- he knows he is going to die, but he is actually getting the better of Walken in doing so, and you can see it in his eyes during this scene. Walken creates a sense of menace/impending doom while all the while being friendly and polite -- he is in my opinion the best actor in Hollywood today. (See The Dead Zone if you don't believe me.)
I have to also put in a good word for Gary Oldman's stunningly brilliant performance as well.
We are so lucky to have this scene to watch over and over again. A lot of people have blasted Tony Roberts' direction, but he DID get these performances for this scene. The way Walken reacts and smiles at Hopper's "story" is subtle and brilliant. You can see from his reactions that his anger is increasing with each new sentence from Hopper, but he chooses to make it look as if he is amused, not letting Hopper know. Of course Hopper DOES know, having sized up Walken as well as the situation within seconds. This is his last hurrah -- he knows he is going to die, but he is actually getting the better of Walken in doing so, and you can see it in his eyes during this scene. Walken creates a sense of menace/impending doom while all the while being friendly and polite -- he is in my opinion the best actor in Hollywood today. (See The Dead Zone if you don't believe me.)
I have to also put in a good word for Gary Oldman's stunningly brilliant performance as well.
Memento
(2000)
Pretentious gimmick
21 May 2001
Memento is one of those "films" that "film scholars" are supposed to like. Make that REALLY like. You see, it's one of those movies that require you to think really hard about what is happening. It is more of an exercise than a movie. It isn't fun at all to watch or experience. What it really is, unfortunately, is a waste of time. It relies on a single gimmick that I figured out 10 minutes into the movie. Without the gimmick the movie has NOTHING going for it. Oh there is the obligatory BIG TWIST at the "end." But it isn't all that compelling because all the characters in the movie are either repugnant or uninteresting. In fact, take away the gimmick and there is no story here worth telling.
This is a movie that will be embraced by wannabe film scholars and intellectuals. There will be people who like this movie for the right reasons. But unfortunately there will be an equal amount of people who will like it for the wrong reasons. (Trying to look sophisticated or REALLY smart.)
This is a movie that will be embraced by wannabe film scholars and intellectuals. There will be people who like this movie for the right reasons. But unfortunately there will be an equal amount of people who will like it for the wrong reasons. (Trying to look sophisticated or REALLY smart.)
Shadow of the Vampire
(2000)
terrible
16 February 2001
Shadow of the Vampire is one of those movies that pretentious "film" buffs feel compelled to like. They simply don't realize that there are an equal percentage of bad art films out there as there are mainstream films. Okay -- that isn't entirely true as mainstream cinema IS at an all-time low. But this movie stunk up the joint and a lot of people find it brilliant or clever.
The film is so misguided. Is it a scary movie? A dark comedy? An exploration of a manic film director's obsession? Because the movie never decides, we the audience are left unfulfilled, because it sure isn't the least bit scary, other than one or two mild chuckles it isn't funny, and worst of all it never gets inside director Murnau's head.
The boring film has some extremely overrated acting in it. Malkovich (not his fault -- the script's fault) never comes to life as a real person, and Dafoe, like Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator, is being touted for no reason. Here it's all makeup and the same facial tics.
The last of many problems plaguing this film is its deciding to take a real life making of a movie and fictionalizing events that took place. If you are going to go that route, then really (pun intended) sink your teeth into it and go the distance. Make it a truly creepy experience if you are going to take artistic license. Otherwise, I would rather see a documentary that is 100% true of something that has interest.
Avoid this one -- a real waste of time and talent.
The film is so misguided. Is it a scary movie? A dark comedy? An exploration of a manic film director's obsession? Because the movie never decides, we the audience are left unfulfilled, because it sure isn't the least bit scary, other than one or two mild chuckles it isn't funny, and worst of all it never gets inside director Murnau's head.
The boring film has some extremely overrated acting in it. Malkovich (not his fault -- the script's fault) never comes to life as a real person, and Dafoe, like Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator, is being touted for no reason. Here it's all makeup and the same facial tics.
The last of many problems plaguing this film is its deciding to take a real life making of a movie and fictionalizing events that took place. If you are going to go that route, then really (pun intended) sink your teeth into it and go the distance. Make it a truly creepy experience if you are going to take artistic license. Otherwise, I would rather see a documentary that is 100% true of something that has interest.
Avoid this one -- a real waste of time and talent.
Jackie Brown
(1997)
highly entertaining
16 February 2001
Jackie Brown is a real treat: a movie chock full of interesting and diverse characters that manages to be alternatingly funny and suspenseful while remaining even throughout.
I won't ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it, but if you like twisty and cleverly convoluted crime capers, then rent this one. You won't be disappointed.
The acting is stellar from everyone, and the soundtrack and screenplay are standouts as well.
I won't ruin the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it, but if you like twisty and cleverly convoluted crime capers, then rent this one. You won't be disappointed.
The acting is stellar from everyone, and the soundtrack and screenplay are standouts as well.
Valentine
(2001)
Predictable and implausible
2 February 2001
Do a couple of really good set pieces justify your going to see this movie? That is the question you will have to ask yourself, because other than two or three very good "murder" scenes, this movie has as amateurish a script as I have seen since the 80s horror films.
Despite some likable and interesting characters, the movie suffers from a lazy script that would just as soon settle for the cliched fake scares, predictable deaths, and -- worst of all -- an ending that makes no sense in lieu of what previously transpired. I won't ruin it by saying anything more at this time.
If you like horror films, it is worth a watch (for free on cable) -- but don't bother paying any money to see it.
Despite some likable and interesting characters, the movie suffers from a lazy script that would just as soon settle for the cliched fake scares, predictable deaths, and -- worst of all -- an ending that makes no sense in lieu of what previously transpired. I won't ruin it by saying anything more at this time.
If you like horror films, it is worth a watch (for free on cable) -- but don't bother paying any money to see it.
Good but overrated
2 February 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Every so often I find myself liking a movie and being forced to point out some of the bad things in it because it is so overrated. I hate doing that, so I will talk about the good things first.
Great action sequences -- the best martial arts action I have ever seen on film -- and a very good story make this one worth paying to see.
However, the flashback sequence in the middle of the movie was a big mistake. It went on WAY too long and involved a romantic subplot of little to no interest. This was NOT the interesting love story in the film and these characters had no chemistry together and the young girl was a brat. The real love story of course was with Chow and Michelle -- they were terrific and had great chemistry. This meandering flashback broke up the movie and took away the hypnotic effect that the film had on me prior to that point.
*spoiler alert* And the other complaint I had was Chow's still wanting to help the young brat (at the end -- before the incredible tree stunt scene) even after she had just tried to kill the love of his life!!!
*end of spoiler alert*
All in all -- a good but not great film.
Great action sequences -- the best martial arts action I have ever seen on film -- and a very good story make this one worth paying to see.
However, the flashback sequence in the middle of the movie was a big mistake. It went on WAY too long and involved a romantic subplot of little to no interest. This was NOT the interesting love story in the film and these characters had no chemistry together and the young girl was a brat. The real love story of course was with Chow and Michelle -- they were terrific and had great chemistry. This meandering flashback broke up the movie and took away the hypnotic effect that the film had on me prior to that point.
*spoiler alert* And the other complaint I had was Chow's still wanting to help the young brat (at the end -- before the incredible tree stunt scene) even after she had just tried to kill the love of his life!!!
*end of spoiler alert*
All in all -- a good but not great film.
Quills
(2000)
Repugnant, unpleasant, depressing
2 February 2001
Quills is the worst kind of movie it boasts superb acting performances that mask its shortcomings, specifically, the manipulative script that actually paints the Marquis de Sade as a martyred victim. The movie could have really made a powerful statement at the end by showing how extremism can be a bad thing, even on the side of `good.' But instead it chooses to depress us all by showing the `good' characters all succumbing to evil or dying, and the evil de Sade with his engaging personality rejecting a chance to denounce evil. What I am saying here is the most compelling character in the film is a wife beater, a pervert, and a lover of evil. The screenplay and/or direction could have easily given the other side equal weight, but chose instead to make Joaquin Phoenix's `good' character out to be repressed and boring. At least until he gives in to evil at the end. What a dangerously subtle and evil little message this film is trying to convey.
Geoffrey Rush is outstanding. Kate Winslet is always good. And Joaquin Phoenix actually turned in a stellar performance I was shocked after seeing him act so dismally in Gladiator.
Geoffrey Rush is outstanding. Kate Winslet is always good. And Joaquin Phoenix actually turned in a stellar performance I was shocked after seeing him act so dismally in Gladiator.
The Bad Seed
(1956)
Chilling movie -- a 7.
18 August 2000
Considering it was made in 1956, The Bad Seed is a pretty effective chiller. The only real comment I have is about the acting. It is all over the place. Little Patty McCormick is outstanding, as is Eileen Heckart as the grief-stricken mother of the murder victim. But Nancy Kelly (the mother) is SO bad it is painful to watch. She is so melodramatic and over the top that it almost makes the movie campy or a B status. Too bad because the rest of it is first-rate.
Scary Movie
(2000)
Horrible movie
6 July 2000
I actually got suckered by the funny trailers for this movie. Unfortunately, I only laughed once during the whole movie. Seeing a bad attempt at parody such as this only makes one respect Airplane and Naked Gun all the more. Avoid this gross, strained "comedy." A 1 out of 10.
The Silent Partner
(1978)
Sleeper crime thriller -- an 8.
13 June 2000
I first saw this movie about 15 years ago and watched it again the other night. What I once considered a very good film I now consider a borderline great film due to how movies in general keep regressing. It was so nice to see a movie with adult protagonists and a well-written, clever script that doesn't resort to explosions and mindless action stunts to cater to the MTV crowd.
I won't give anything away at all -- if you like clever, twisty thrillers like The Usual Suspects, then check this one out. The acting is excellent and the script is too. Note that Curtis Hanson (Bedroom Window, LA Confidential) wrote this one 22 years ago!
I won't give anything away at all -- if you like clever, twisty thrillers like The Usual Suspects, then check this one out. The acting is excellent and the script is too. Note that Curtis Hanson (Bedroom Window, LA Confidential) wrote this one 22 years ago!
Gladiator
(2000)
above average but far from great -- a 6 out of 10
4 May 2000
Gladiator is an entertaining enough way to spend almost three hours, but it never manages to achieve the level of greatness that it so desperately aspires to. Russell Crowe as always adds a sure hand with his fine acting, but I felt the action scenes were a bit stagy.
Joaquin Phoenix never convinced me he was a man corrupted by ambition. It WAS nice though to see veteran actors Richard Harris and the late Oliver Reed on the screen again.
All in all, a movie worth seeing, but don't expect greatness.
Joaquin Phoenix never convinced me he was a man corrupted by ambition. It WAS nice though to see veteran actors Richard Harris and the late Oliver Reed on the screen again.
All in all, a movie worth seeing, but don't expect greatness.
Urban Legend
(1998)
One of the worst horror films ever made -- 1 out of 10
1 May 2000
I grew up in the late 70s/early 80s and enjoyed classics such as Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, etc. I also found the first two Scream films and the first I Know What You Did Last Summer to be well-made. But THIS movie was so bad it made the bad 80s flicks (Friday the 13th...) look good.
There wasn't a single fresh idea in this movie nor a single surprise. The identity of the killer is supposed to "shock" us, but it is just done for the sake of surprise and it wasn't all that surprising at all if you look at it from that standpoint.
The worst part of this movie were the lame attempts to scare the audience that were the usual false alarms interspersed with the real thing -- none of which was scary or suspenseful. The characters are all one-dimensional and with the exception of Alicia Witt, the acting is inferior as well. Rebecca Gayheart is particularly pathetic.
Even if you like horror movies, avoid this one like the plague.
There wasn't a single fresh idea in this movie nor a single surprise. The identity of the killer is supposed to "shock" us, but it is just done for the sake of surprise and it wasn't all that surprising at all if you look at it from that standpoint.
The worst part of this movie were the lame attempts to scare the audience that were the usual false alarms interspersed with the real thing -- none of which was scary or suspenseful. The characters are all one-dimensional and with the exception of Alicia Witt, the acting is inferior as well. Rebecca Gayheart is particularly pathetic.
Even if you like horror movies, avoid this one like the plague.
Tell Your Friends