Reviews

Firefox is a bit of a dichotomy in that it tries to be both an action man's salute to the Red, White and Blue and a thinking man's espionage piece. As one can probably guess, it's not very successful in either role, but it's not completely without merit either. It's certainly a more intelligent movie than some of its "patriotic" fluff piece contemporaries.

Mitchell Gant (Clint Eastwood) is the strong, silent type. Plagued by flashbacks of his time in Vietnam, he's a retired expert pilot living in seclusion until his government tracks him down to be pulled back into service for one last mission. He's "the only man for the job." That job, of course, being to sneak into Soviet Russia and steal the most advanced fighter plane known to man: Firefox...capable of feats that, even by today's standards, are a little far fetched (neural-linked fire control, for instance).

Major Gant is whisked off rather conveniently to Moscow where he poses as a known heroine smuggler (among other things). While some of the cat and mouse antics Major Gant and his contacts in Russia partake in are pretty satisfying, the suspension of disbelief isn't that successful. Ultimately, interesting scenes like Major Gant's confrontation with a KGB agent in the lavatory don't mean much because their set-up is, for the most part, improbable. And what 80s anti-communist film would be complete without some good ol' totalitarian bungling, bad Russian accents and some really bad "root for the home team" dialog (perpetrated mainly by David Huffman as Cpt. Buckholz)?

The last third of the film is probably the most enjoyable for most. It's the payoff where we actually get to see Major Gant's attempt to fulfill his mission: to steal Firefox. While the special effects are very dated, the in-cockpit sequences and circumstances might remind you of some contemporary Japanese space-fighter anime like "Macross Plus" or "Yukikaze." That is to say, it's enjoyable, suspenseful and makes you feel like the time you invested in the movie was worth it.

George Lucas conceptualized a world that would eventually capture the hearts of millions. With the help of talented individuals like John Williams, Ben Burtt and Ralph McQuarrie, he brought it to life. For many of the children of the 70s and early 80s, the Star Wars phenomenon served as a monumental inspiration that would resonate throughout their lives. Mr. Lucas' contemporary attempts to return us to a galaxy far, far away don't seem to have quite the charm that the original Star Wars trilogy did, but Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith comes the closest of all the prequel trilogy films to recapturing the feel of the original vision as it was presented to audiences over twenty years ago.

One could argue that nostalgia has tainted the perception of older Star Wars fans or that twenty plus years of built up expectations make it impossible to deliver a follow-up film that is as widely accepted and loved as the original trilogy films. The fact remains, however, that while Revenge of the Sith is a stunning film visually, it's hard to say that any negative criticism levied against it is just the result of OT fan-boy bias. Mr. Lucas did have his work cut out for him in creating this final installment of his beloved franchise. Certain fatuous events were set into motion in Episodes I and II that could not be undone in Episode III. As such, it's hard to judge Sith solely on its own merit (or lack thereof) given that the foundation of its story was more or less laid down in the first two prequel films. Midi-chlorians? Immaculate conception? Jar-Jar Binks? How did these ideas pass through Star Wars QC? What it really all boils down to, though, is that Sith suffered from some of the same setbacks that its prequel predecessors did: too much style, not enough substance. Take for instance the character of General Grievous. Conceptually, this was a cool character. General Grievous: a half-droid, half-alien military mastermind who dabbles in lightsaber combat. This had the potential to be a great character for our protagonists to come up against. But he shows up out of nowhere very late in the game (i.e. the third film of the prequels) and for what? To run away repeatedly? Why the silly cough? Is this what passes for character development in the Star Wars universe these days? This character undoubtedly took a lot of time to create and bring to the screen, but he served little to no purpose. Anakin's abrupt turn to the Dark Side (what should have been the most interesting point in the whole saga) is a part of the story in desperate need of some beefing up, yet we spend time watching General Grievous strut around in serious need of some Robitussin. Background characters like the ones we saw in the Mos Eisley Cantina of Episode IV can be fascinating without needing a lot of back-story, but Sith throws allegedly important characters into the mix that serve no other purpose than to move the plot along by getting main characters to chase them to the next scene. I would've preferred a more congruent, believable story to spending screen time needlessly on characters like Grievous, Tion Medon and even Count Dooku. I would've been very happy if I could've seen Darth Maul develop into a deeper character and eventually serve as the apprentice Anakin kills and replaces.

I might be in the minority, but I felt like the dialogue and acting in Sith were not quite so deplorable as a lot of critics would have you believe (with one or two glaring exceptions). Ian McDiarmid steals the show as the evil Darth Sidious. I'm sure we've all been wondering when the wise and noble Jedi were going to pick up on the fact that their nemesis was right under their noses, and the scenes involving Sidious/Palpatine are pretty darn satisfying (though, the interaction with Mace Windu was a bit over the top). Ewan McGregor delivers a more emotionally attached performance than he was able to pull off in Attack of the Clones. That isn't intended to be a criticism of Mr. McGregor, but a nod to the fact that he was given more of an opportunity to actually act in Sith. On the not so impressive side, Hayden Christensen's Anakin has a manner that's just too contemporary for me to buy him as an up and coming Jedi with power heretofore unseen in the Jedi Order. His interaction with Natalie Portman in particular seems unbelievable and contrived, though in his defense, that might not be the fault of his acting. In spite of a few problems, his performance is improved compared to Episode II. There was only one moment in Sith where I just rolled my eyes and sighed at the cheesy dialog (Jar-Jar is more or less a no-show for Episode III, thank the maker), but it was pivotal. I feel so bad for James Earl Jones. The guy was 50% of what made Darth Vader so cool and interesting and frightening and and he was given some real garbage to spout out during the "Franken-Vader" scene. "Nooooooooooo!!!" Give me one huge break, please.

With all of that said, Revenge of the Sith is an entertaining, if conceptually overloaded, film. It is arguably the best prequel film, but it wasn't the end I felt the saga deserved. Given the weak framework put in place by Episodes I and II, the deflated end to the once critically acclaimed sci-fi/fantasy chronicle can't all be blamed on Revenge of the Sith. Unfortunately, though, I was left wanting more when the curtain closed on Star Wars (and by that, I don't mean an encore). I'll continue to imagine an Anakin/Obi-Wan back-story that would have been ideal from my own perspective…one free of midi-chlorians, Jar-Jar and fatherless Jedi.

Many of us have probably been fans of the writing of Richard Curtis for some time, though we might not have realized it. Blackadder, Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, Bridget Jone's Diary...his resume is extensive.

In Love Actually, Curtis takes the next step, as this film is his directorial debut and I'm pleased to say it doesn't show.

I hate to use the "feel good movie" cliché, but this is one film where the description applies in a way that seems more sincere than the typical "spend some money at the theater this Christmas" pitch.

Love Actually is a beautiful story with many interesting and lovable characters. It's full of humor, emotion and damn fine acting. The film boasts a star-studded cast that really is put to good use. All of the characters on screen have unique, human traits that make you truly interested in what happens to them. No one actor gobbles up the scenery, though this may merely be because each character has their own unique story to tell.

The music in the film is top notch (both original score and tracks from well known artists), and really lends itself to the mood of the film.

I'm a bit of an idealist at heart, but old enough to maintain some cynicism about things (especially the money grubbing bore-fest that modern movie making has become to a large extent), and I found this film to be honest, refreshing and positive without seeming to be served up as pap to satisfy the masses. Watch this with the people you love.

I saw Dune not long after its initial 1984 release and remembered it as being strange, yet interesting. More than ten years later I chalked up the "strange" part to the fact that I last saw it at the age of 11. So, I rented the DVD to check it out again...then I remembered that David Lynch was nuts. The film was still strange. The story of Dune is just too vast and complicated to successfully fit into a two (or even four) hour movie. The concepts and characters in the film grab your interest, without a doubt, but the film left me unfulfilled and asking questions. It has that special Lynchy spin to it (which I'm not a fan of). That's when I finally broke down and read Frank Herbert's novel, which is excellent.

Let me preface this review by saying that when the next generation consoles (PS2, XBOX, Gamecube) arrived, I purchased my PS2 with the intention of not purchasing another console. Like many, I was skeptical about Microsoft's leap into the console fray and Nintendo's N64, while at times great, left me feeling like they just weren't trying to get anything good onto their system that wasn't a first party title (with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark being glaring exceptions to that). Halo was 75% of the reason for me to purchase an XBox. With that said, I get the feeling that some of the less friendly reviews of Halo stem more from contempt towards Microsoft, the XBox, and the idea that Bungie "sold out" when Microsoft purchased the company than any problems with the game itself.

Now, when I first saw Halo, my jaw dropped. The graphics are amazing. While I do tend to focus on graphics (especially in reference to clean animation) I don't necessarily hold it as equal to game play and it certainly isn't more important. But, one look at Halo and I thought "This is the most beautiful game I've ever seen." To this day after almost a full year of playing the game, I'm still prone to getting capped in the back of the head while enjoying the serenity of the blades of grass in Blood Gulch, or the majestic cliffs and water of Battle Creek. Lighting, shadowing, color, effects...just beautiful.

Sound...basically everything I said about graphics, you could change the context and apply it to sound. Nothing totally immerses you in the Halo experience quite like hearing a sniper's bullet whiz dangerously past your head only to hit the Warthog behind you with a loud "plink" while in "System Link" play.

The single player game play is good. It isn't the most entertaining game I've played but it holds its own. The story is good (and although I don't know first hand, I have heard talk of unoriginality...seems the Bungie guys "borrowed heavily" from another story) wherever its origin. The characters, mainly the enemies you fight against, are great. Nothing is quite as satisfying as sticking a plasma grenade to the face of an unsuspecting grunt, only to watch him flee in terror into the arms of his doomed comrades...KAPLOOIE!!! The sound, graphics, story, enemies and their AI, and control make the game a joy and had I never experienced multi-player Halo I might think more highly of the single player game.

Multi-player Halo: God's gift to the XBox gamer with friends...especially friends who also have XBoxes. I've saved this part for last because this is where the game truly shines. Multi-player Halo comes in several forms, a fact that in and of itself is impressive.

-You can play the single player game with a buddy. While this can be highly entertaining and is a great concept and much appreciated, it does suffer from serious frame rate reduction at times. If Bungie had designed this feature to be compatible with the "System Link" style (more in a minute) of play, it might have reached its apex.

-In "Split Screen" mode, as the name implies, you and up to 3 other Spartan Cyborgs can go head to head. Well, maybe head to head trivializes it. There are a myriad of game types and customizable options that leave multi-player Halo something to be tweaked and experimented with for months (but for the pending release of Halo 2, I would dare to say years) after you first play the game.

-"System Link" is the most novel feature of Halo. It is no longer just a game. It truly becomes an experience. You (with the expensive list of equipment in your inventory - 4 televisions, 4 copies of Halo, 4 XBoxes, and 16 controllers) can potentially play with up to 16 players! That's right, 16 players on a console game, with the work split up with 4 players at each XBox. While I've never played with more than six people at any one time, I still find this the most enjoyable way to play. Having an entire 27"+ screen to enjoy a multi-player console title this beautiful is a treat beyond explanation. The weapons selection and vehicles available become most appreciated in this style of play. Which brings me to another point: while the selection of weapons is varied, it isn't vast. Not that I'm complaining. Between the space marine and alien plasma weapons, there is plenty to work with. I should also note, that other than 4 grenades of each type (plasma or fragmentation) you can only carry two weapons at a time(i.e. a combo of two weapons which you can use one at a time, switching between them at your leisure). The genius of the game play becomes very apparent when you start to realize how well balanced and important the weapons you select can be.

I cannot say enough about this game. It is obvious that the people at Bungie really knew what they were doing and they really knew who they were making this game for. If you have an XBox and you don't have this game, you're missing out.

If weird and slow aren't your thing, just hang in there past the first 10 or 15 minutes. The payoff is worth it. Part of the beauty and originality of this film is that it is so focused on the characters and their plight, that some of the details are left to your imagination and/or symbolic interpretation.

Barry Egan (Adam Sandler) is a slightly warped, yet ultimately lovable character. Once you get a feel for his relationship with his 7 psychotic, self-esteem eroding, manipulative sisters, you can't help but feel for the guy. Those chicks made me want to poke my eyes out (which makes the phone booth scene oh so satisfying). The gist of it is that Barry ends up embarking upon a meaningful relationship with Lena, a friend of his sister's from work. The catch is that, prior to meeting Lena, Barry makes a naive attempt to seek companionship...through a phone sex line. Barry obviously doesn't really understand what he's getting himself into, both in the sense that he's so desperate for pleasant female contact that he's willing to give up some highly sensitive information to a total stranger, and also in the sense that he expected it to be a somewhat innocent encounter. Needless to say, it comes back to haunt him during his attempt to make a go of it with his new girl.

Music - I can't say enough about it. It sets the mood so well and the unlikely choices (Shelley Duvall's "He Needs Me" from Popeye?!) blend in with the characters and mood of the rest of the film seamlessly.

This movie peaked my interest when I started hearing about it after Sundance. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to see it. Adam Sandler is great (think Robbie Hart from 'Wedding Singer' meets Rain Man), Emily Watson is enjoyable, and the increasingly underrated (in my opinion) Luis Guzman does a wonderful job in his small role.

If your looking for something original that makes you think and feel, this is it.

It is sort of a guilty pleasure, but I have to admit, I love this movie. Caveat: a lot of that has to do with the fact that I have a special place in my heart for Sandra Bullock. It seems some people have gone from loving her to trying to not love her. Me, I never got off the "loving her" bus.

With that said, this is a cute movie. Some of the humor is a bit crude, but not so much as to make the film seem moronic. It has a nice message and even though it is a bit dated and silly, I still get that warm, fuzzy, happy feeling when I watch it. There is extensive use of music from Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker within the film to amusing effect.

I had almost forgotten this show even existed until I stumbled across its listing on IMDb. I liked it in 1979 when it was popular. That was due in large part to the fact that I was 5. Two things about the show I remember vividly:

1) At some point in just about every number the female member of the couple that happened to be dancing at the time would do a twirl while her male counterpart would hold onto her skirt, executing a "disrobe-a-swirl" leaving her dancing in nothing but a leotard.

2) The other thing I remember most about the show was the number in which a pair danced to the disco version of the "Star Wars" theme while wearing gold and silver polyester suits with matching gold and silver afro wigs. So much for their political careers but it gave me something to be happy about when I was a kid.

I am still not sure what to think of this film. I don't know whether I like it or not. I don't hate it, I don't think it is the greatest thing ever to be put to celluloid. I feel pretty much the same way about Kubrick's work in general (based on the small number of his films I've actually made myself familiar with). He was a strange guy with interesting ideas and he conveys them on film in an interesting way. I'm sort of disappointed by the glib interpretation of many would-be critics that anyone who doesn't like the film must be an idiot and that said critics are, therefore, the only ones truly intellectual enough to appreciate Kubrick's vision. I do agree that many people pigeonhole the film as being boring too quickly. I admit it is excruciatingly slow in parts but that certainly does make certain scenes more intense (poor Frank). If you approach it with an open mind, you'll be sure to get something out of it. Just being introduced to the character of HAL 9000 makes the film worth watching. As far as whether or not you'll truly enjoy the film, I suppose like everything in life, it all depends on what flips your switch.