Change Your Image
frontrow99
Reviews
X2 (2003)
NOTE: THIS IS NOT A REVIEW BUT GOOFS I WANT TO REPORT!
Goofs:
(Continuity):
When William Stryker notices the dam is leaking he looks up, takes off his glasses and a drop of water falls on it. When the camera zooms in on his hands holding the glasses there is no water on the glasses. And Stryker could not have wiped it off first (since the footage is supposed to be continuous).
(Factual Errors): Magneto's cell is completely metal-free so he is not able to control anyone who is wearing metal. When Stryker comes in he wears his regular glasses (the pair he is wearing throughout the entire movie). Although it is hard to tell, but close inspection of the glasses point out the glasses contain metal. At least the bridge over his nose and the legs contain metal. The glasses probably also contain metal screws.
The guard, who is seduced by Mystyique and eventually killed by Magneto in his cell, also has badges on his uniform held by metal buttons.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
WOW
There I was sitting on third row, 0:30 in the morning (or night) ready for the second installment of The Lord of the Rings trilogy (that can hardly be considered a trilogy), 'The Two Towers'. Like last year's premiere this was one that made excitement and amazement win from exhaustion. This one is even one minute longer than 'The Fellowship of the Ring', and for you people out there who wonder if it leaves you waiting in anticipation for part three, 'The Return of the King' like last year's movie did: yes.. even more. Now I want to see how it ends.
One difference for me personally was the fact I started reading the novel in the meantime. And that made me realize there were quite some differences, both improvements as well as some quite disappoinments. Maybe the word 'disappointment' is not chosen properly since this is and always will be an adaptation for the big screen and a movie requires other things than a book does... Problem with having read 'The Two Towers' just before the movie is released is that you start to recognize things immediately. People who have read it several times will probably go through the same thing. But this wasn't of a disturbing kind.
Director Peter Jackson did not follow Tolkien blindly. He took some artistic freedoms, including a bunch of extra scenes, and he twisted around the chapters quite a bit. And that automatically provides the best improvement on the novel. My problems while reading 'The Two Towers' is that its first half (the 3rd book of the series) completely focuses on Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli and the second half (the 4th book) only on Sam, Frodo and Gollum. While reading the one half you wonder how the other characters are doing. Jackson suitably switches between these 3 seperate storylines which makes the movie much more enjoyable. Some scenechanges were a bit too swift but Jackon does a good job trying to keep the viewer's interest. Added to this are several other character/scene-changes, like the ones showing Saruman, King Théoden and his daughter Eowyn and the Elves Elrond and Arwen.
Now there's an example of elements Jackson added to the story that aren't in the original: the Elves. To my opinion it was a bit unnescessary but not bugging. And the proclaimed lovestory was there but not dominating, just like it wasn't in 'The Fellowship'.
Gollum is amazing, exceeding the CGI-characters you've seen in other movies (like Yoda in 'Attack of the Clones' and Dobby in 'The Chamber of Secrets') in personality and looks. Sometimes his movements are a bit harsh and too much PC, but this actually is a character with personality where a lot of his CGI-counterparts completely lack such a thing. His internal battle is very well being presented, showing he actually has two sides, Gollum and Sméagol, something Tolkien very well depicted already. This shows Peter Jackson actually admires the author and wants to keep his intentions stored.
Treebeard is a bit disappointing in a way that he's less interesting compared to Gollum. and you very well see the fact Jackson used both CGI animation as well as lifesize dummies. Maybe the Ents are the reason why a lot of people proclaimed 'The Lord of the Rings' was unfilmable. Maybe their concept doesn't allow any cinematographical treatment. Still the scene in which they literally wash Saruman's ears is still rather amazing.
And Helm's Deep isn't? Yes, Helm's Deep certainly is. If you keep in mind that most sets were real-life and it took 3 months of nightly filming in the rain this definately is one of the most smashing scenes in movie-history. The giant armies of Saruman's Uruk-Hai's almost faint you. A few minutes before that you see them leave Isengard and I couldn't help making comparison with Hitler's stadium army gatherings in the late 1930's. Helm's Deep marks the fact that most action is put in the last quarter of the movie. The only complaint about the Helm's Deep sequences is the fact it sometimes is abruptly disturbed by the other storylines. Maybe I was expecting half an hour of pure fighting and battling but Jackson switches to other character's and their battles in the meantime (like the Ents attack on Isengard and Frodo and Sam's capture and battle in Osgiliath (also not a novel element with an amazing 'new' scene with the flying Nazgûl).
All in all: even better than 'The Fellowship', very well character development, a lot of action but exchanged with a lot of story and... why do years take 365 days?
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Forget all precedents: this is unlike anything you have ever seen...
I went seeing 'The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' yesterday during a special midnight premiere. And it's hard seeing a 3-hour movie starting at 0.30. But it kept my attention away from fatigue...
'The Fellowship' is a masterpiece... Peter Jackson is a great choice since he apparently honors the novel...
So I am not going to tell you what this movie is like in detail: just go see it for yourself.
The CGI is amazing. Gollum (or what you see of him) is very realistic and so are the monsters, sets, backgrounds, battles. The make-up and costumes are breathtaking, so is the attention for detail, like Arwen's elf-language, props and the detail of the story. The actors are perfectly casted especially Wood as Frodo and McKellen as Gandalf. Teh scenery is diverse and suiting the novel.
I have only one complaint which is the sudden end of the movie. I know I was seeing it for 3 hours but I can't believe I have to wait one full year to see how it continues. This might be a spoiler but the endiing is rather abrupt... there is no climax or anything whatsoever. I would have preferred (THIS IS A SPOILER!) that the movie stopped when Frodo was holding his ring (right after Boromir died), tears in his eyes saying something like: "I wished I never found this ring"...
Gohatto (1999)
Cultural gaps
I have seen many world cinema movies. I saw movies from China, Japan, Brazil, Spain, Italy even the former USSR.
But "Gohatto" just didn't have it for me. I saw this movie in a sneak preview so I didn't know what to expect. The story was confusing, the images were great.
The story is centered around young samurai Sazoburo. Men are falling for him constantly which lead to many struggles and internal frustrations. For me it was not clear where the story was heading to. And if this movie deals with homosexuality in a society where it is not accepted then it was a bad shot. For me it seemed more than normal to be gay in 1865 Japan.
I think it is mainly the cultural gap that caused me to not really appreciate "Gohatto - The Taboo of the Samurai". What taboo??? It wasn't really clear from the movie although one can figure out what the taboo is...
Hannibal (2001)
Forget the gore.. there is no gore... forget the sequel nonsense... this is not a sequel
Why is it that each and every critis tends to compare 'Hannibal' with 'The Silence of the Lambs'? Okay, I can see the reasons, but they are too obvious. Both movies are about Starling and Lecter and both were based on a Thomas Harris Novel. But why don't they see that these are two separate movies? The story takes place about 7 years after 'The Silence of the Lambs'. It's a different time and a different director. Demme very much focused on the close-ups and on suggestion, Scott focused more on explicity. But I think Scott really held back in a very good way. The movie was far less gory than all the critics claimed it to be. Don't forget 'The Silence of the Lambs' doesn't refrain from gory details, like the dead body hanging on Lecter's cell, the cut-off face, the autopsy-scene and Jame Gumb's skills as a couturier. 'Hannibal' was not more or less gory. It was of the same calibre.
'Hannibal' is a different movie in oh so many ways. Lecter is on the loose now and we simply miss the suspense of him being captured and still dangerous. Scottis very often being blamed for this lack of supsense but the man can't help it. If there's anyone to blame then blame Thomas Harris. But it would've been an almost exact copy of 'The Silence of the Lambs' and that would have been boring.
Julianne Moore was absolutely breath-taking. Some people said she was too good as an actress to play Starling. I disagree. She is more mature than Foster. She's not Foster, she's the Clarice of the present. And Hopkins is Lecter, although he describes is as just a part. He carries the movie and provides some of the best scenes I have seen in a long time with a dark whimsical type of sarcasm and irony. He stays within the limits of parody and could have provided himself with a much easier job by simply copying the lines of 'The Silence of the Lambs'. He doesn't. He adds new things to his character. The movie adds new things to his character. One of the most unpleasant things (that I personally did not like) was the fact his sexuality is questions several times. We already get confused in the Mason Verger flash-back scene and he acts rather gay when he meets commendatore Pazzi while holding his cigar.
Gary Oldman also deserves credit just as Giancarlo Giannini. The latter is rather impressive making his character human rather than a charicature.
Zimmer's musical score is breath-taking and very effective and so is Patrick Cassidy's mini-opera, 'Vide Cor Meum'. And what was most striking about 'Hannibal' in general was its stunning Cinematography. Was 'The Silence of the Lambs' rather dark, 'Hannibal' is warm. It's not just Florence giving the movie its touch it's Scott's feeling for image (his trademark). The movie's opening credits are very original, reminding me a bit of David Fincher's 'Se7en'.
Now is there anything negative to mention about this movie? Yes there is. It is far less creepy than 'The Silence of the Lambs', but as I mentioned before: it is a different movie. The movie very faithfully sticks to the novel. And I thought the beginning of the movie, let's say the first 30-40 minutes was pretty messy. The scenes are too short and being switched too often to really make an impression. The movie's first big scene, the drugbust at the fishmarket was quite messy also but it was a good opener anyway.
All in all a very good movie, with the occasional let down. I loved the shot of the lamb however. That is a merit of the movie: it refers to 'The Silence of the Lambs' but it doesn't overrefer to it... it has its own identity. And the dinner scene: I am so glad they kept it in the movie (I guess everyone knows by now): it is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen... perfect!
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
B R E A T H T A K I N G
I was a bit ambivalent about seeing this movie. First of all I was looking forward to finally seeing musical, since there are so few these days but on the other hand I was afraid that I would be annoyed by Björk's sqeecking voice and manners, especially after hearing all stories about the trouble she made on the set.
But after 5 minutes I was already taken away by this gorgeous movie. This is one of the few movies that takes you high up in the clouds and drops you like a rock.
The characters are amazing and so is the acting and I was amazed by Björk's performance. The songs are not annoying and in fact are very functional. Von Trier took the time to introduce the characters and tell their stories. The cinematography is shocking but very effective and realistic.
"Dancer in the Dark" is a story about a woman and her fate. About how far someone can go in order to keep her promises. Selma is one of the most sympathetic roles I have ever seen. She is the embodyment of goodness. The songs were amazing especially the last one...
I have seen this movie yesterday but I am still in shock about it. The last time I had that was with Anderson's "Magnolia".
Scream 3 (2000)
Chapter one: set the rules; Chapter 2: bend the rules; Chapter 3: forget the rules; Chapter 4: how 'bout using the rules in an impossible way?
I was quite surprised that 'Scream 3' was actually quite good. I missed the humor and the sarcastic tone of Part 1 (and partially Part 2) a bit... but I am surprised about the fact all episodes have different styles and atmospheres...
I like the plot of #3 although there were some things that could have been even more amazing. I know this is the final chapter but if there'd ever be a #4 how about making a (final) plot that is completely unexplainable? Like in the Agatha Christie novel 'Ten Little Niggers' in which the killer dies before his final victim dies... An ingenious plot like that was what I expected of 'Scream 3'.
Without revealing 'who diddit' it was a bit too easy for me to simply add a new character (nothing revealed yet since the movie is full of 'em) that has a relation to Sidney that explains the entire trilogy... we could make sequels for eternity in that way.
But I liked some of the little details (and maybe I was the only one who noticed that) like the scene in which Courtney Cox Arquette refers to Parker Posey having dated Brad Pitt (when in fact it is her Friends colleague Jennifer Anniston dating him... and Parker Posey's character is in fact called Jennifer). Or the scene in which the killer drags one of his/her/its victims and the victim's hand is dragged above her head; just like in 'Scream 1' when Drew Barrymore was dragged into the backyard holding her phone while her parents could hear her breathe (still one of the best scenes ever!).
Anyway: let's stick to basics. The Scream Trilogy (rules #4: never make a 4th one... unless... it's really good) has ended in a good way. Not completely satisfying.. but still rather good.
Good acting... some very funny characters (Jenny McCarthy's scene in which she practices her lines with her director are amazingly funny. The way she plays this really lousy actress is very funny), good settings (use a Hollywood prop-house for extra fun).
8 out of 10 points ('Scream 1': 9 out of 10 and 'Scream 2': 7 out of 10).
Scream 3 (2000)
Chapter one: set the rules; Chapter 2: bend the rules; Chapter 3: forget the rules; Chapter 4: how 'bout using the rules in an impossible way?
I was quite surprised that 'Scream 3' was actually quite good. I missed the humor and the sarcastic tone of Part 1 (and partially Part 2) a bit... but I am surprised about the fact all episodes have different styles and atmospheres...
I like the plot of #3 although there were some things that could have been even more amazing. I know this is the final chapter but if there'd ever be a #4 how about making a (final) plot that is completely unexplainable? Like in the Agatha Christie novel 'Ten Little Niggers' in which the killer dies before his final victim dies... An ingenious plot like that was what I expected of 'Scream 3'.
Without revealing 'who diddit' it was a bit too easy for me to simply add a new character (nothing revealed yet since the movie is full of 'em) that has a relation to Sidney that explains the entire trilogy... we could make sequels for eternity in that way.
But I liked some of the little details (and maybe I was the only one who noticed that) like the scene in which Courtney Cox Arquette refers to Parker Posey having dated Brad Pitt (when in fact it is her Friends colleague Jennifer Anniston dating him... and Parker Posey's character is in fact called Jennifer). Or the scene in which the killer drags one of his/her/its victims and the victim's hand is dragged above her head; just like in 'Scream 1' when Drew Barrymore was dragged into the backyard holding her phone while her parents could hear her breathe (still one of the best scenes ever!).
Anyway: let's stick to basics. The Scream Trilogy (rules #4: never make a 4th one... unless... it's really good) has ended in a good way. Not completely satisfying.. but still rather good.
Good acting... some very funny characters (Jenny McCarthy's scene in which she practices her lines with her director are amazingly funny. The way she plays this really lousy actress is very funny), good settings (use a Hollywood prop-house for extra fun).
8 out of 10 points ('Scream 1': 9 out of 10 and 'Scream 2': 7 out of 10).
Magnolia (1999)
"It's not going to stop 'til you wise up"
Normally I would have taken such a 'wise' lesson for granted but in this case no-one could've said it better than Aimee Mann. It provides one of the most emotional and beautiful scenes of the movie, no of all-time movie history. Characters starting to sing along with this moving song, frogs coming down from heaven. You all simply let it come to you.
'Magnolia' with its 190 minutes is a true gem. A moving epic portraying people and the relationships they are in. Emphasizing the fact we are all connected to one another and how much people are capable of and how much people are able to hurt each other.
All stories have a common core and it is interesting to see you can create branches starting from each individual character.
In advance I read that this movie was hard to follow but I didn't have any problem with it. The characters were real as well as surreal. They are all interesting because of the growth they undergo. This is also what makes this movie so realistic. They all have needs, doubt and worries.
Tom Cruise is truly excellent. This time he's not just Tom Cruise playing a character, no it's Tom Cruise playing a character. Julianne Moore is fabulous. An actress of classic allure. And surely she meant to have gotten the Oscar for best actress. I can hardly wait to see her starring as Clarice Starling in upcoming 'Silence of the Lambs' sequel 'Hannibal'. The scene in the drugstore is amazing in its simplicity yet its complicity.
These are true emotions we're talking about.
And the music of the movie is stunning. I never heard of Aimee Mann but she blasted me away. The movie is built around her songs (added with some extra sounds by director's girlfriend Fiona Apple and her and Mann's producer Jon Brion).
I loved the presence of the music, also in the beginning when Mann sings the cover 'One'("One is the loneliest number"). Some scenes are almost being dominated by music without creating an annoying effect.
Breathtaking, very long, but still breathtaking.
9 out of 10 points. One of the best movies I've ever seen...
The Insider (1999)
One of the most overrated movies of 1999
Am I the only one seeing that this movie is totally overrated? The beginning of the (already too long) movie, meaning the first hour is just utterly boring and uninteresting. The movies starts somewhere in Northern Israel of the South of Lebanon (I am not quite sure) and when I went seeing it I had no idea what it was about. So I thought it was about the PLO or the Palestinian-Israeli issue but the first part of the movie was completely unnecessary. Okay one might state that it was meant to show what the profession of Bergmann is about and like but that could have been accomplished in other ways than sending an expensive crew to such a country.
And the first hour there's nothing happening. The meant-to-be-artistic slow motion shots are annoying and not functional at all. Main character Wigand is played by a good actor, but the story is a complete flunk. It can by summarized as 'guy shouldn't talk, guy does, guy is sadly left by wife and children'. I can hardly keep my eyes dry.. what drama!
And I was even more surprised to see that Pacino is the center of the second part of the movie. The screenplay doesn't divide its attention evenly at all. All of a sudden the movie changes color by putting all attention to Pacino and his problems to get the bloody interview aired.
Christopher Plummer is good though.. but there are to many gaps in the screenplay to let him save the movie...
And it could have been such a good movie... too bad...
Mann was trying to combine personal drama (Wigand), professional drama (Bergmann) and a cheap John Grisham court-drama.
It's too long to keep the viewer's attention... hello people? where is the so-called haunting suspence?
6 out of 10 points.
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Visually attractive.
Well that's for sure. What is most striking for 'Sleepy Hollow' is its extreme visually attractiveness. Everything looks the way it should. Or: everything looks as imperfect as it should. Does this make 'Sleepy Hollow' a realistic movie: no (even besides the practically unrealistic story). But that won't decrease the fun watching the movie.
The characters are quite one-dimensional. Johnny Depp's part though is quite realistic since it is one of the rare heroes that is actually more afraid than heroic. Ricci's part is as flat as all the other parts in the movie. But maybe this was Burton's intention anyway... to do some self-parody.
The visual effects are amazing though which makes up for a lot and the beginning credits are hauntingly beautiful.
This is just a movie to watch not to look at all the little mistakes in the screenplay (like the American flags that look very much like the current one although the story is set somewhere in the 1790's).
I would say: 8 out of 10, but that's because it's Tim Burton and because of the visual credits.
Being John Malkovich (1999)
like a puppet on a string
this movie takes you along with its absurdity. It is original even inspite of the fantastic screenplay.
Diaz is extremely funny and so is Cusack.
Too bad though the sharp humor is mainly set in the beginning of the movie (the '7-and-a-halfth' floor, the secretary with her hearing-problem). That kind of decreased when the movie was continuing.
But I love the movie a lot... the sex-scenes between Madeline, Malkovich and Diaz was the funniest I have ever seen. And Charlie Sheen's cameo was also quite amusing...
an 8 out of 10
The Hurricane (1999)
Mediocre, mediocre, mediocre
I can't get that word out of my head: mediocre. Mediocre is what 'The Hurricane' is to me. The story is sometimes very good and profound (Washington in Prison, his visions on life, his conversations with Lesra) but just as often very weak (the Canadians are portrayed as very silly people).
The movie starts with some comprehensible yet unnecessary messing around with time. I wonder why they just didn't tell the story in a chronological way. Obviously this was meant to speed up the story and to make it more interesting but for me it was just annoying. Some flash-backs (yet occasionally) could have been worth the effort but the contrast was to big in comparison with the second half of the movie that is almost entirely consecutive and chronological.
As I said the Canadians were portrayed as silly almost naive people and so was Lesra. The actor who played him has my sympathy though...
The movies ending was completely predictable and extremely American Disney-esque with the scene in which Rubin's fellow prisoners start to cheer from happiness as its most sad example.
Washington was good, but that doesn't save the movie. It is based on a true story so I won't mock with the movie's screenplay.
Out of 10 I'd give it 6.5 points.
Beshkempir (1998)
Peace
This movie has a great peace. It shows that materialism is something we hang onto too much. The atmosphere of the movie is breathtaking. There's not that much happening in the movie but that doesn't make it less interesting. The black and white and colored sequences are beautifully interacting.
8 out of 10.
The Green Mile (1999)
Wow... just wow...
I didn't know what to expect before seeing this movie. All I knew is that I had 3 hours of movie-watching lying ahead of me and I sincerely hoped it would not become 3 boring hours of movie-watching...
My hopes obviously have been heard, because this movie is really something. Truly excellent in its style, casting and story. The 3 hours were necessary to tell the beautiful rich highly-sophisticated story. All pieces were getting their place in the story. Duncan is excellent; I think even more excellent than Hanks. His presence was almost comforting and I didn't even know that much of the story in advance.
The story, except for one forgivable coincidence (it's too coincidental to my opinion that the true killer of the two girls John Coffey ('like the drink, but spelled differently') was convicted for, Wild Bill, actually was in the same prison and at the same time as John) is a true gem with some nice King edges.
Breathtaking, silence-making, contemplating.
Best movie of 1999 (and I have seen a lot, believe me).
9 out of 10.
The Beach (2000)
The Beach stands for passing your time rather lazy
This movie was pretty okay I guess but the start was awfully slow. I haven't read the novel but a friend of mine who did read the novel said that the movie was quicker in a lot of ways compared to the novel. The first hour there's nothing more than enjoying the great shots of Thailand. I loved some of the special cinamatographic effects a lot. DiCaprio plays rather well but I have seen him play better ('What's Eating Gilbert Grape', 'The Basketball Diaries'). And some of the almost psychedelic gibberish of director Boyle too much were focused on reminding the audience this is an alternative movie director we're dealing with. The tension in the movie was added in weird placed and couldn't really be maintained for a long time. I'd like to give this movie a 7 out of 10, okay because of the nice images and the nice effects and the rather pleasant music a 7.5 out of 10.
American Pie (1999)
Good movie... if you're a 15-year old...
I actually saw the movie one hour ago and I am not that enthusiastic about it. Maybe it was the people I saw the movie with; 15-year olds, young couples in love, screaming and playing with their cell-phones... Or maybe it was just the movie.
Don't get me wrong: I am not THAT old, I am 22, but the movie was full of cliche-jokes and morals. The moral maybe was the most annoying part of the movie: it is love that counts, not sex, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.
Come on: this is a TYPICAL American comedy... like we've seen zillions of... I am not even gonna sum them all up.
Anyway... some parts were nice like the whole thing with the dad (the flick made such an impression on me I even forgot most of the character's names).
But there were some promising young actors in the move. One of them I remembered from 'American Beauty', Mena Suvari (geeze what is her next move going to be called...? it must start with 'American' that's for sure).
It was amusing but only occasionally. It was surely predictable as well as too moralistic (as I mentioned before). I hope you Americans with the number one country on teenage pregnancies and the hatred against gay people would look better on European movies and stop making these moralistic nothings. This is the year 2000 for crying out loud! Stop the double standards and hypocricy... but you are nice people.... don't get me wrong...
I'd say: a 6 out of 10...
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
The Talented Mr. Damon...
This is a really good movie! Without any doubt. Great settings (it makes you wanna move to Italy right away) and a great story. The movie has its own relaxing pace without becoming boring or too slow. All characters are a bit dubious (especially their sexuality).
The entire movie is cast by a strange kind of tension or call it suspense. The Hitchcockian script has a few lacks but the beautiful scenery and character-development makes up for that. Okay to mention one: why does Cate Blanchett show up everytime Tom Ripley moves to another town (Rome, Venice) and boat? That's a bit too coincidental.
But as I said: that doesn't harm the joyful experience of watching and being dragged through this movie.
Matt Damon is perfect and I am still astonished he didn't get an Oscar nomination. His acting is so excruciatingly smooth and although his character is set to take over Dickie's (Jude Law's part) life you cannot blame him for asking for at least some sympathy. Gwyneth is graceful as always but her part is pretty regular and quite flat. But that's because I do not consider her having the lead part in the movie.
When I first saw the trailer of the movie I thought the movie could be fit into the following synopsis: Boy (nerd) goes to Europe to find a guy to persuade him to go back to his daddy in America then gets fascinated by his life, then gets obsessed with his life, then kills him to take over his life. I was suprised that the whole killing-thing was just an accident and there even was some romantic tension between Tom and Dickie. Like there was between Tom, Dickie and Freddy (the scene in which Freddy all of sudden turns kinda gay is very hilarious I think.... notice his left hand!).
All in all worth the experience. Worth the 2 hours and 19 minutes fully And Matt Damon could always pick up a career as a jazz-singer when he's down and out...
9 - 9.5!
American Beauty (1999)
If only...
If only more American movies would be of the type of 'American Beauty'. I am beginning to spot a trend of more and more American (widely published) movies becoming less and less commercial. Recent examples are Doug Liman's 'Go' (1999) and John McNaughton's 'Wild Things' (1998; although I was annoyed by all the sudden plot-changes that for me appeared to be too much focused on surprising the viewer), But all in all it's a good development.
As a European one of the main reasons I can come up with why 'American Beauty' was such a huge hit in America is the fact many Americans recognize themselves in it. The perfect America family, as they want to be, is pure fictious. One can wonder if this makes 'American Beauty' a good movie, because adding some real American elements in the movie might lead to world-wide, but especially American appreciation.
But I must admit that Mendes did a pretty good job both making fun of and developing sympathy of America and the American dream (still one of the biggest fictions ever). But maybe it was Mendes' British background that makes the movie worth the appreciation.
Kevin Spacey is marvelous and so is Annette Bening and Thora Birch absolutely is a talent as the ever-complaining, never-satisfied rebellent teenage-daughter that is annoyed by her father's hormones that still haven't laid to rest. And Mena Suvari as Birch's friend Angela is the perfect all-American Barbie-doll.
I loved some of the symbolism in the movie like the rose-petals (which reminded me a bit of the slowmotion effects in Bronwen Hughes' 'Forces of Nature' (1999)), although the talk about plastic bag was too much forced intellectual gibberish.
I guess (and I am writing that before the Golden Globes have been given away) that American Beauty will definately receive some Oscars and what I hope even more is that the trend of making un-American American movies will be continued, without really becoming a true trend.
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
Back to the cutting and glueing board
What is it about 'South Park' that makes the whole concept extremely interesting as a TV series but makes it less in interesting as a motion picture?
I think the magic of 'South Park' especially took place when the concept was still new and fresh. Now the formula seems to have lost its power a bit. The series still is unique and very original.
But the contrasts are too big in a movie. The special effects used for the underworld scenes were too beautiful and too CGI in comparison with the cutting and gluing of the characters. And Kenny never should've taken his cap off...
Well there are some positive things worth mentioning. The whole musical parody was quite funny and so as the mocking of Canadians. And some of the smaller jokes were pretty hilarious.
But you just could have awaited the video-release...
The Bone Collector (1999)
Wanna be tortured as much as the killer's victims? Then check this movie out...
Geeze, this movie was bad! It started kind of nice but then it falls apart like a plum-pudding. There are so many holes in the script one could easily fit the entire state of Texas in it. The serial-killer's motives are explained in the end of the movie but do not make much sense. Jolie is good, and so is Washington, but that doesn't save the movie. I'd love to sum up all the mistakes and errors in this movie but it'll take an enormous amount of Mb's...
And the biggest joke of all is the flick likes to compare itself with movies like 'The Silence of the Lambs' and 'Se7en'. In your dreams!