Datasets:

gmihaila

/

movie_rationales_truncated

like 0

you always have to be careful with the first official studio release out of the gate each year . they 're obviously films for which the studios have no great hopes ( having missed both the deadline for academy award eligibility and the big box - office holiday season ) . combine that with howie long 's first starring action role , and you 've got a doozy of a movie that , while not as bad as it could have been , is n't a very good film . howie stars as an ace smokejumper ( a firefighter who parachutes into forest fires unreachable from the ground ) . in the slightly contrived opening scenes , we witness his heroism in action , as he , and his mentor ( played by scott glenn ) attempt to rescue a small girl and her dog from an oncoming forest fire . william forsythe plays the bad guy , a mass murderer who has several million dollars tucked away to help fund his jailbreak . he ( and five convict cohorts ) manages to get selected for firefighting duty when a woodland blaze just happens to ignite nearby . his escape plan bets a lot on the laxity of the guards , but ( since there must be a movie ) luck is with him . soon the now - escaped convicts are masquerading as canadian firefighters . why canadian ? who knows , eh ? along the way they pick up a pretty birdwatcher ( suzy amis ) to be their hostage . enter howie long . he 's called in to help fight the blaze , and when he spots the group of " ground pounders " , apparently lost , he parachutes in to help . when he discovers their true identity , he is the only thing standing between them and escape , and the only hope of help for the hostage . long 's acting talents are above those of , say , steven seagal , but not by much . although his delivery is mostly flat and wooden , he 's a likeable hero , and there are some hints here and there that he may get better . the script does n't help him out any , however . all too often , it veers into the realm of the unintentionally funny . the dialogue is strictly b - movie material , and the plotting relies too heavily on coincidences to be believable . long 's co - stars are a mixed bag . at least they 're all comfortable in their respective roles . forsythe has the scenery - chewing villain down cold , down cold , and scott glenn is always enjoyable to watch , even when he does n't seem to be stretching his talents ( as is definitely the case here ) . suzy amis plays peril pretty well , but is n't given much more to do . some of the nature and wildfire shots are interesting , but many are rather bland . you 'd think that the director , dean semler , a former cinematographer , would at least produce a film with interesting visuals . that 's not the case . there 's a lack of originality to nearly all the sequences . . . we 've seen this stuff before . it 's not the most auspicious start to 1998 , but it could have been worse ( just think back to 1996 's debut , bio - dome ) . however , after a month of oscar - caliber pictures , a movie like firestorm at least gives you some perspective on how good those movies really were . in fact , there 's a good chance that some of them are still playing near you . . .

0NEG

with howie long 's first starring action role , and you 've got a doozy of a movie that , while not as bad as it could have forest fires unreachable from the ground ) . in the slightly contrived opening scenes , we witness his heroism in action , and the only hope of help for the hostage . long 's acting talents are above those of , say , steven seagal , but not by much . although his delivery is mostly flat and wooden , he 's a likeable hero , and there are him out any , however . all too often , it veers into the realm of the unintentionally funny . the dialogue is strictly b - movie material , and the plotting relies too heavily on coincidences to be believable . long 's co - stars are a mixed bag of the nature and wildfire shots are interesting , but many are rather bland . you 'd think that the director , dean semler with interesting visuals . that 's not the case . there 's a lack of originality to nearly all the sequences . . . we 've

synopsis : easily - angered , chainsmoking architect david encounters his homicidal first wife diedre five years after their divorce . diedre easily cons david 's not - so - bright new wife molly into believing she 's a child psychologist so that she can influence molly and david 's quick - tempered son , michael . diedre , at the same time , murders a bunch of people . comments : the ex is a very bad movie . i have n't seen a turkey of this magnitude in quite a while . i kept vacillating , however , between giving the ex one star for its sheer awfulness and three stars for its campy humor ( ultimately , i decided to split the difference and give it two stars ) . as summarized briefly in the synopsis , this is yet another spurned - psycho - lover - gets - her - revenge type movie . i 'm not sure how many films have been produced since fatal attraction which use this tired storyline , but it seems like 10 , 000 , 000 , 000 . the ex , however , though following many of the standard cliches of this thriller subgenre , differs slightly from the norm in that , at least , it does n't take itself too seriously like so many other duds do ( malicious and stalked are two examples which come to mind ) . those involved in the movie realize they 're in a turkey , apparently , and turn in hammy performances which compliment the ludicrous dialogue contained within the script . the ex 's storyline , as i said , incorporates many cliches predominant in films of its nature ; however , the plot is so overwrought and unbelievable that , after a while , the viewer must accept that logic does not operate in the realm of the movie . diedre , david 's first wife , kills and kills and kills , for example , without ever having to worry about police investigations and the like ( it 's not as though she 's bright enough not to leave fingerprints at the scene of the crime ) . david and his new wife molly have an incredibly difficult time understanding why michael , their son , has emotional problems , specifically his inability to control his anger . though david smokes like tomorrow will never come and blows up at people every other minute in the movie , the connection between him and his son is not made . molly is easily swayed by diedre into believing she 's a child psychologist and allows the demented woman to spend time with her son . time and time again , things do not add up in this movie . if a viewer ca n't accept this fact , then he will definately not like the ex . if , on the other hand , he can appreciate the movie for its campiness , then he 'll probably like it much better . i do n't mean to necessarily suggest , however , that the ex is a memorable exercise in camp . even when viewed from an it's - so - bad - it's - good angle , this movie is n't all that successful . the ex does have its moments , though , almost all of which involve yancy butler ( the psychotic diedre ) and nick mancuso ( david ) . these two actors turn in decidedly hammy performances which , oftentimes , elicit chuckles from the audience . the truly awful lines written for them help this humor along . butler gets the larger portion of bad dialogue ; every time her character kills someone , she has a punchline that 's unbelievably inane . when she murders a tenant of an apartment she wishes to use to spy on david , for example , diedre whacks the elderly lady with a crowbar and states " i 'm so sorry , your lease is terminated . " or how about when diedre takes out her therapist in another ridiculous scene ? ( diedre 's therapist wishes to have her recommitted , so she decides to visit diedre , alone , in her new apartment -- never realizing , of course , that it 's not her 's . therapists typically are catatonically brain - dead in these movies ) . having successfully snuffed the woman out , diedre looks at the body and says : " what was it that you always said to me at the end of each session , dr . jones ? oh , that 's right . ' i 'm sorry , but your time is up ! ' " this is what passes for humor in the film . the audience does n't necessarily laugh but groan ( the type of groan that suggests the audience ca n't believe they 're watching this crap -- although watching it they are ) . nick mancuso 's chainsmoking , nervous - wreck character does not have the cheesy lines that butler 's character delivers , but his ridiculously overdone performance provides for some better comic relief . in between drags off his cigarette , for instance , in one of the movie 's best scenes , david tries to explain to his lawyer what a creep his ex - wife is . in exaggerated exasperation , he nearly shouts " the woman is a cuckoo - bird ! " ( trust me , it is funny in context . ) and so , the movie continues until its painfully obvious conclusion . i wo n't reveal the ending specifically ( though anyone remotely familiar with thrillers of this type could probably guess the ending just from this film review ) , but i will say that the ex has one of the biggest fire hazards appearing recently in film . molly and david own a cabin that becomes engulfed by flames in approximately three seconds ! molly , at one point in the film , not - so - brilliantly observes , after discovering diedre has moved into an apartment across from her family 's to spy upon them , that " she 's crazy . " you 'd be pretty crazy too if you 'd rented this turkey . i 'd avoid it unless it 's on tv and you come across it . if you do , you may want to watch it , groan at the bad punchlines and stupid plot , and feel good that you did n't spend money renting it .

0NEG

a bunch of people . comments : the ex is a very bad movie . i have n't seen a turkey of this magnitude in quite a while . i kept vacillating , however , between giving the ex one star for its sheer awfulness and three stars for its campy humor ( ultimately , come to mind ) . those involved in the movie realize they 're in a turkey , apparently , and turn in hammy performances which compliment the ludicrous dialogue contained within the script . the ex 's storyline , cliches predominant in films of its nature ; however , the plot is so overwrought and unbelievable that , after a while , the viewer must accept time with her son . time and time again , things do not add up in this movie . if a viewer ca n't accept which , oftentimes , elicit chuckles from the audience . the truly awful lines written for them help this humor along . butler gets the larger portion laugh but groan ( the type of groan that suggests the audience ca n't believe they 're watching this crap -- although watching it they are ) . nick mancuso cheesy lines that butler 's character delivers , but his ridiculously overdone performance provides for some better comic relief . in between drags context . ) and so , the movie continues until its painfully obvious conclusion . i wo n't reveal the ending specifically ( though upon them , that " she 's crazy . " you 'd be pretty crazy too if you 'd rented this turkey . i 'd avoid it unless it 's on tv you may want to watch it , groan at the bad punchlines and stupid plot , and feel good that you did n't spend money

the blues brothers was a wonderful film , a hilarious comedy packed with good music . it cried out for a sequel , but john belushi 's untimely death seemed to eliminate the idea . however , eighteen years have passed , and the long dormant sequel has finally emerged . unfortunately , it 's a sequel not worthy of the original . the film starts exactly eighteen years after the first one ended . elwood blues ( dan aykroyd ) is just getting out of jail , his brother jake having recently died . as in the first film , he first visits mother mary stigmata ( kathleen freeman ) and then sets about getting the band back together . john belushi 's absence leaves a terrible hole in the film , and although three new characters are created to fill the void , it is still very noticeable . first , there 's cabel ( joe morton ) the illegitimate son of elwood 's stepfather ( played by cab calloway in the first movie ) . cabel is reluctant to join his destiny , and spends most of the movie as an illinois sheriff , chasing the blues brothers band . next , there 's mighty mack ( john goodman ) , a bartender who becomes the new lead singer of the band . finally , there 's buster ( j . evan bonifant ) , a ten year old orphan who tags along with elwood and eventually joins the band . the plotting of the film is hardly original . . . it seems to be almost a clone of the original . elwood has to go to reluctantly retrieve each member of the band , they then travel , while being pursued by the police , and perform at several odd stops until they finally reach the big concert finale . the first film had neo - nazis as the random element , this time around , the russian mafia and a militia group fill their role . in fact , the duplication of the plot is so ridiculously complete that certain scenes are practically identical to the original . remember the classic performance at country bob 's ( where they like both types of music : country and western ) from the first movie ? well , this movie has a performance at a country fair , where the band is expected to play bluegrass music . there 's the massive police car pileup , although this time the gag falls completely flat . there 's even an exact replica of the conversion scene in the church of reverend cleophus ( james brown ) . there are plenty of recurring characters too . in addition to mother stigmata and reverend cleophus , aretha franklin reprises her role as mrs . murphy . frank oz , a prison guard in the first film , makes an appearance here as the prison warden . as the stars , the new blues brothers do n't live up to their legacy . aykroyd is more loquacious , yet much flatter as elwood . john goodman barely has a character as mighty mack . joe morton has the deepest character , but not a terribly interesting one , as cab . and what 's the deal with the orphan ? it plays like a desperate gimmick that does n't mesh at all with the rest of the film . at least bonifant is n't as precocious as he could have been in the role . but the true star , and the only saving grace , of the film is the music . and the film is packed with it ( even during and after the ending credits ) . although there are no brilliant mergers of comedy and song as in the original 's rawhide / stand by your man medley , the music is very much enjoyable . to top it off , the film is packed to the gills with cameo musician appearances . b . b . king , blues traveler , eric clapton , travis tritt , wilson pickett , erykah badu , bo diddley and steve winwood are just a sampling of the multitude of stars that make an appearance here and there . unfortunately , the music pauses here and there to allow in the familiar plot . if simply copying the original blues brothers was n't bad enough , writers aykroyd and john landis dumb it down , removing any memorable characters , and replacing them with flashy , but unbelievable , magical gimmicks . it 's a shame . buy the soundtrack and avoid the film . better yet , rewatch the original . . . you 'll have a much better time .

0NEG

, and the long dormant sequel has finally emerged . unfortunately , it 's a sequel not worthy of the original . the film starts exactly eighteen years after the first getting the band back together . john belushi 's absence leaves a terrible hole in the film , and although three new characters are tags along with elwood and eventually joins the band . the plotting of the film is hardly original . . . it seems to be almost a clone . in fact , the duplication of the plot is so ridiculously complete that certain scenes are practically identical to the original . . and what 's the deal with the orphan ? it plays like a desperate gimmick that does n't mesh at all with the rest of the film . at least bonifant of stars that make an appearance here and there . unfortunately , the music pauses here and there to allow in the familiar plot . if simply copying the original blues brothers was n't bad enough , writers aykroyd and john landis dumb it down , removing any memorable characters , and replacing them with flashy , but unbelievable , magical gimmicks . it 's a shame . buy the soundtrack and avoid the film . better

michael crichton has had a long career of writing novels , many of which are science fiction . the most profitable film adaptation of any novel was an adaptation of a michael crichton science fiction novel . so in the logic of the film industry a good way to make a profitable film would be to make a big - budget adaptation of another crichton science fiction novel . congo failed , and i am afraid that sphere is probably not going to fare a whole lot better . it a little better than just okay novel and it makes a film that is not even that good . the film is expensive , over one hundred million dollars ; is long , 133 minutes ; has a terrific cast , including dustin hoffman , samuel l . jackson , and sharon stone ; but has little that is really original and less that is exciting . several years ago dr . norman goodman ( played by dustin hoffman ) was asked to write up a set of procedures for the government to follow if an alien entity was actually encountered . the plan he wrote was only semi - serious , but did explicitly define a team of experts who should investigate the alien . now that team has been assembled by a mysterious team leader named barnes ( peter coyote ) to study a spacecraft almost a half mile in length that apparently dropped into the pacific ocean in the early 1700s . suddenly norman 's less than serious procedure has become an action plan for dealing with a real alien spacecraft . included in the team to investigate are mathematician harry adams ( samuel l . jackson ) , biologist beth halperin ( sharon stone ) , and astrophysicist ted fielding ( liev schreiber ) . together they travel to the deep pacific spaceship to understand its secrets . one major secret is the meaning of the huge sphere of gold - toned liquid metal at the heart of this spaceship . what is disappointing about this film is that it does not have really effective performances . director barry levinson is at his best with good actors rather than good special effects . the problem here is he is making a big - budget science fiction film . it has some effects , but the most intriguing effect he shows only as an outline on a radar screen . the technique is to suggest rather than to show and let the actors and the viewer 's imagination carry the film as robert wise did with the haunting . that could be a reasonable approach in a low - budget film . but that requires creating much more atmosphere than levinson can manage to muster . it requires the actors to give really compelling performances and simply put , they do n't . hoffman 's acting seems muted . jackson seems to laid back . we do not feel for these characters and do not get inside their heads . levinson paid big bucks for his actors and does not really get price performance . and why we have queen latifah as a minor functionary on the expedition is anybody 's guess . a cast of unknowns could have delivered as much emotional impact at a fraction of the price . look how much more powerful a film like alien was with only moderate actors . most science fiction spectaculars these days have second - tier actors and first - tier special effects . levinson tries second - tier effects , and first - tier actors , but never makes that exchange pay off for the viewer . perhaps sci - fi spectaculars are just not an actor 's medium . the result gets a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .

0NEG

. it a little better than just okay novel and it makes a film that is not even that good . the film is expensive , over one hundred million samuel l . jackson , and sharon stone ; but has little that is really original and less that is exciting . several years ago dr . norman goodman ( played toned liquid metal at the heart of this spaceship . what is disappointing about this film is that it does not have really effective performances . director barry levinson is at his best with good simply put , they do n't . hoffman 's acting seems muted . jackson seems to laid back . we do not feel for these characters and do not get inside their heads . levinson paid big bucks for his actors and does tier effects , and first - tier actors , but never makes that exchange pay off for the viewer . perhaps sci - fi spectaculars are

american pie 2 is filled with laughs . but they are mostly cheap ones built primarily upon sexual degradation and adolescent humor more fit for a locker room than a movie theater . i 'm no prude and i admit to laughing along with everyone else at the preview screening to this sequel to the 1999 hit comedy . but the laughs are built on discomfort and embarrassment , not on any intrinsic humor from within the story itself . what separates american pie 2 from its predecessor is heart . of the original , i noted it was " a warm , pleasant outing about the travails of growing up . " well , the quartet of chums - jim ( jason biggs ) , oz ( chris klein ) , kevin ( thomas ian nicholas ) and finch ( eddie kaye thomas ) - have grown up . at least they are a year older , but do n't seem any wiser . fresh from their first year of college the quartet , along with the obnoxious stifler ( seann william scott ) , rent a summer house by the lake in order to attract girls in an attempt to score . as usual nothing goes right until the last reel . but what we are left with is five guys spending nearly two hours drooling over various young women . and american pie 2 is rather degrading to women . for the most part , they are not shown as individuals . they are nothing more than potential recipients of over - active , raging hormones . it is telling that the most normal couple , oz and heather ( mena suvari ) spend the bulk of the film trying to have phone sex - she 's overseas on an exchange student program . despite having been to college , jim is still klutzy and awkward , unsure of himself around the opposite sex . most of the pratfalls and humiliations are heaped upon him , including a painful episode involving an instant glue - like substance . also uncomfortable to watch is a sequence involving three of the lads with two young women roommates , whom the boys suspect of being lesbians . it is offensive and plays upon outdated , adolescent stereotypes to generate laughs . the first film , despite some raunchy moments , had an innocent charm to it . the sequel is more cynical . it knows what its predominantly male audience members want and unabashedly gives it to them : the many mentions of finch 's encounter with stifler 's mom becomes a tiresome running gag throughout as does eugene levy 's return as jim 's well - meaning , trying - to - be - hip dad . the only performer who is actually given some new , fresh material is alyson hannigan as michelle , the band geek from the original . in the sequel , she imbues her character with vulnerability , wisdom and maturity . american pie 2 is a pre - sold commodity that will earn several million at the box office . it is a shame , though , that in its rush to rake in some bucks screenwriter adam herz , who also penned the original , could not have set his sights higher . american pie 2 is funny , but it 's still a comedown as well as a letdown .

0NEG

american pie 2 is filled with laughs . but they are mostly cheap ones built primarily upon sexual degradation and adolescent humor more fit for a locker room than to this sequel to the 1999 hit comedy . but the laughs are built on discomfort and embarrassment , not on any intrinsic humor from within the story over various young women . and american pie 2 is rather degrading to women . for the most part , they are not shown roommates , whom the boys suspect of being lesbians . it is offensive and plays upon outdated , adolescent stereotypes to generate laughs . the first film , despite some mentions of finch 's encounter with stifler 's mom becomes a tiresome running gag throughout as does eugene levy 's return as jim 's that will earn several million at the box office . it is a shame , though , that in its rush to rake in . american pie 2 is funny , but it 's still a comedown as well as a letdown .

well , what are you going to expect ? it 's a movie about a big snake that eats people . that 's what i should have been thinking when i viewed this film , because maybe then i would have enjoyed myself more . instead , i ended up wishing a giant snake would come along and eat me , too . anaconda is about a documentary film crew sailing down a south american river . led by anthropologists dr . steven cale ( eric stolz ) and terri flores ( jennifer lopez ) , the crew is attempting to locate a lost tribe of natives . along the way , they find poacher paul sarone ( jon voight ) , and become unwillingly embroiled in his quest to capture the elusive anaconda . to simply say that this is the world 's largest snake would n't be doing it justice , since the anaconda in this movie is at least two feet wide . if this is n't a good reason to avoid picking up hitchhikers , i do n't know what is . at the beginning of anaconda , we find that flores and cale have had some kind of relationship in the past , but that seems to be more or less over now . i expected that fact to play a key part somewhere down the line , but it ended up being a set - up for nothing . cale chokes on a deadly wasp ( do n't ask me how that happens - i do n't know ) and is put out of action , relegated to being the person whom the rest of the film crew must get back to civilization for medical help . this minimally helps to add a sense of urgency for the plot , since this goal now comes in direct conflict with sarone 's plan to capture the snake . however , this is negated by the fact that cale seems to get better by himself about halfway through the film , and in any event still results in zero payoff from the relationship angle . most bad characters are either annoying or stupid . in this movie , they 're both . since this description applies to all the characters except sarone , it 's hard to find someone to root for . you 're supposed to back the good guys , but you really end up cheering for sarone because he 's smarter than everyone else . or maybe he 's just not as dumb as everyone else . at times , i almost found myself rooting for the snake . there are no standout performances here . everyone seems to be reciting lines written for stock characters . even voight appears to be doing his best impression of christopher walken for some reason . no matter , as in most monster movies , the snake is supposed to be the real star anyway . in most of the scenes , the snake is computer generated , and the effects crew did a decent job of making it look real . however , the realism is thrown off by some pretty unrealistic occurrences . sometimes , for example , the snake just moves too fast . it catches a guy jumping off of a waterfall , for crying out loud . then there 's another scene where the snake eats one of the characters , and we see the snake 's skin drawn so tightly over its prey that we can see the victim 's pained expression from within the snake 's belly . absolutely ridiculous . a testimony to the film 's bad direction is the inclusion of a scene early on the in the film , where we get to see just how dangerous the mighty anaconda is . in a scene totally unrelated to anything else , we are witness to the big snake winning a showdown with a panther . the anaconda wraps itself around the powerful feline as if it were a stuffed animal and squeezes it so hard , one of the panther 's eyeballs pops out . eeeewwwww . above and beyond the sick factor , however , this scene surprised me because it actually showed the face of the snake before a quarter of the movie had even passed . in films like these , a sense of mystery surrounding the monster must be maintained . if the characters are reacting to something they fear more than see , we as an audience must experience that feeling along with them . to show us the monster early on is to let us in on something the characters do n't know about , and therefore allow us to get used to the danger before the pivotal moment when man and beast have their climactic showdown . in a case like that , the showdown just ends up being a letdown . when i saw the snake for the first time , i decided to give the film the benefit of the doubt and assume that the snake i saw was n't the real danger . this one was just a decoy , and there was actually a bigger snake waiting to make its appearance just when everyone thought they were safe . no such luck . okay , maybe anaconda is actually a decoy , and there 's really a better movie waiting to make its debut .

0NEG

then i would have enjoyed myself more . instead , i ended up wishing a giant snake would come along and eat me , too . anaconda is about a documentary film crew about halfway through the film , and in any event still results in zero payoff from the relationship angle . most bad characters are either annoying or stupid . in this movie , they 're both . since this description applies to all the characters except , i almost found myself rooting for the snake . there are no standout performances here . everyone seems to be reciting lines written for decent job of making it look real . however , the realism is thrown off by some pretty unrealistic occurrences . sometimes , for example , the snake just moves 's pained expression from within the snake 's belly . absolutely ridiculous . a testimony to the film 's bad direction is , one of the panther 's eyeballs pops out . eeeewwwww . above and beyond the sick factor , however , this scene surprised me because it actually showdown . in a case like that , the showdown just ends up being a letdown . when i saw the snake for the first time its appearance just when everyone thought they were safe . no such luck . okay , maybe anaconda is actually a decoy ,

this film is extraordinarily horrendous and i 'm not going to waste any more words on it .

0NEG

this film is extraordinarily horrendous and i 'm not going to waste any more words

midway through " anaconda " , documentary filmmaker terri flores ( jennifer lopez ) turns to a co - worker and says " i thought this movie would be my first big break . instead , it 's turned into a disaster . " truer words have never been spoken . " anaconda " is a monster movie with a lousy monster . it 's a suspense film that is utterly predictable . it 's a mess the film does manage to drum up some scares , but only in the most elementary way , like a jack - in - the - box . as you turn the crank , you 're totally aware that the damn clown is going to pop up , but somehow it 's still mildly startling when it happens . the main difference between the giant snake in " anaconda " and the clown in a jack - in - the - box is that the clown is more realistic . " anaconda " boasts some of the worst special effects to appear onscreen in years . animatronic shots of the snake look as phony as any of those cringe- inducing robots you 've endured at disney world . but it 's the computer animated scenes that truly expand the meaning of the word lame . in one shot , a character tries to flee from the monster by diving from a tree near a waterfall , but the giant snake springs out and loops around its hapless victim in mid air . the scene , if done well , would have been a jaw- dropper . here , the horribly bad digital effects look less convincing than a saturday morning cartoon . what 's really amazing is that the filmmaker 's were so proud of this dreadful shot that they actually included it in the promotional trailers for the movie . but enough about the phony snakes . now it 's time to talk about the lousy story . heroic and very pale anthropologist eric stoltz leads a documentary film crew down a brazilian river in search of the shirishama indians , a legendary tribe that supposedly lives in the boondocks of the rain forest . stoltz tells his crew " pray that you did n't forget your bug spray . " apparently the female crew members bathed in the stuff , because they spend most of the film wearing skimpy tops and short shorts with no ill effect . along the way , the group rescues a whacked - out lapsed priest ( jon voight ) who claims to know how to find the shirishama . within minutes , they throw away all their plans and follow voight down a tributary into the land of creepiness . from that point on , the film is a hodgepodge of scenes and shots ripped off from " jaws " and " dead calm . " one of the oddest structural points of the film is the handling of eric stoltz . early in the story , his character gets knocked into a coma by a river insect and spends virtually the rest of the movie unconscious . so why did they hire an actor of the caliber of stoltz for what amounts to a cameo appearance ? also , why did stoltz , who generally selects his roles with great care , agree to appear in this crap ? ah , the mysteries of hollywood . the remaining crew members are basically just snake food waiting to happen . jonathan hyde is mildly diverting as a pompous englishman hired to narrate the documentary , but lopez and ice cube manage to rise above their cardboard characters . lopez , who starred in " selena , " is an enormously appealing performer , possessing a vibrancy that makes even the most trite lines seem credible . ice cube has a special charisma ; an ability to look like a macho adult and a frightened boy simultaneously . there 's also a special twinkle in his eyes , as if he 's gently mocking his own tough - guy posturing . but the movie really centers around the outrageously hammy performance of jon voight . obsessed with capturing one of the giant anacondas , voight plays the villain in thick accent , with a series of leers and hisses , spouting the kind of dialogue usually heard only in episodes of " jonny quest . " at one point , he looms over the crew and says " the anaconda is the perfect killing machine . it strikes , wraps around you , holds you tighter than your true love . and you get the privilege of hearing your bones break before the power of its embrace causes your veins to explode . " that moment is so high - camp that it almost made the film tolerable . almost . fans of the horror genre may be tempted to check out " anaconda . " do n't . there are a lots of horror films scheduled for release this summer , including another " alien " sequel . wait for them , rent " jaws " in the meantime , and do n't throw away your money and time on drivel like this .

0NEG

thought this movie would be my first big break . instead , it 's turned into a disaster . " truer words have never been spoken . " anaconda " is a monster movie with a lousy monster . it 's a suspense film that is utterly predictable . it 's a mess the film does manage to that the clown is more realistic . " anaconda " boasts some of the worst special effects to appear onscreen in years . animatronic shots of the snake look as phony as any of those cringe- inducing robots you 've endured at disney world . but it 's , would have been a jaw- dropper . here , the horribly bad digital effects look less convincing than a saturday morning cartoon . what 's really amazing is that the filmmaker 's but enough about the phony snakes . now it 's time to talk about the lousy story . heroic and very pale anthropologist eric stoltz leads a creepiness . from that point on , the film is a hodgepodge of scenes and shots ripped off from " jaws " and " dead calm . " his roles with great care , agree to appear in this crap ? ah , the mysteries of hollywood . the remaining guy posturing . but the movie really centers around the outrageously hammy performance of jon voight . obsessed with capturing one of the , rent " jaws " in the meantime , and do n't throw away your money and time on drivel like this .

if the 70 's nostalgia did n't make you feel old , the 80 's nostalgia is bound to . one of the latter set , " the wedding singer , " seems to be written by someone who did not experience the 1980 's directly but only read about them in an article in parade magazine . the wacky fashions are here . . . and the music . . . and references aplenty to celebrities and signs of the times , but it all seems tediously - and too obviously - inserted for the didn't - we - dress - funny - back - then chuckle . the plot is standard romantic comedy with nothing original : robbie ( adam sandler ) is a wedding singer ; julia ( drew barrymore ) waits tables at weddings . both are engaged ; however , robbie 's fiance ( angela featherstone ) dumps him at the altar , and julia 's fiance ( matthew glave ) is a skirt - chasing speculator in junk bonds . robbie and julia go through the expected ups - and - downs as they realize they were meant to be together . i 'll fess up - i've never found adam sandler funny . whatever his appeal is , i 've missed it . ( other comedians i do n't get include pauly shore and pee wee herman - make your own judgments ) . the stupidity and artificiality of the whole project is summarized in a cameo by billy idol as himself . idol looks like hell , and the ravages of his lifestyle are barely concealed by thick makeup . he 's mocked by a photo of his younger self on a rolling stone cover in the same scene . we 're not supposed to notice that , and we 're not supposed to notice how silly it is that billy idol suddenly appears to play fairy godmother to robbie . other cameos , by steve buscemi and jon lovitz , provide the only real laughs in the movie . lovitz is especially good , playing a rival wedding singer plotting with the mania of a bond villain to take advantage of robbie 's post - break - up depression .

0NEG

aplenty to celebrities and signs of the times , but it all seems tediously - and too obviously - inserted for the didn't - we - dress - funny - pee wee herman - make your own judgments ) . the stupidity and artificiality of the whole project is summarized in a cameo by billy idol as himself

synopsis : nice girl susanne has sex with her boyfriend daniel in his car , visits daniel 's rich family during thanksgiving at their mansion in the middle of nowhere , and has sex with daniel again in the basement . susanne and daniel must then decide where to hide from evil art thieves who shoot everyone else in the mansion to steal paintings . brace yourself for one of those painfully obvious " surprise endings . " comments : thanksgiving . for most , it 's a time to be with your loved ones and enjoy a good , home - cooked meal . for the makers of body count , however , thanksgiving is a time for multiple murders , violence , profanity , family dysfunction , and sex . boy , do i feel all the more better having sat through this crap . alyssa milano , the former child star of who 's the boss ? , matures to made - for - video sludge like this movie . someone somewhere thought it 'd be a great idea to pair her with rapper ice - t , who has since guest - starred in the made - for - the - sci - fi - channel series welcome to paradox . this is n't exactly a winning combination . outside of permanently ruining a holiday for me , what else may be said for this turkey ? well , it teaches us that beautiful , attractive women who look strikingly like alyssa milano fall in love with nerds who drive down long winding roads with their eyes closed and complain about being english teachers . it presents us with a heartwarming thanksgiving dinner attended by alcoholic , stuck - up rich white people waited on by black servants . it shows us that old guys , try not to laugh , sit around and talk about " the appeal of postmodernism " during their free time . and , it proves that you can have sex in your parents ' basement when they have a dozen or so guests over , and no one will notice . before i go any further , if any young male reading this has hopes of seeing alyssa naked , forget it . the filmmakers cleverly shoot the simulated sex scenes in a manner that makes sure you do n't see any of milano 's attributes . they do , however , inexplicably throw in a scene where ice - t whistles " jingle bells " after killing people , for whatever that 's worth . this film was originally titled below utopia . perhaps they should have renamed it hell . avoid this clunker .

0NEG

shoot everyone else in the mansion to steal paintings . brace yourself for one of those painfully obvious " surprise endings . " comments : thanksgiving . for most , it 's a do i feel all the more better having sat through this crap . alyssa milano , the former child star of who 's the boss ? , matures to made - for - video sludge like this movie . someone somewhere thought it 'd be this is n't exactly a winning combination . outside of permanently ruining a holiday for me , what else may be said for this turkey ? well , it teaches us that beautiful , attractive of milano 's attributes . they do , however , inexplicably throw in a scene where ice - t whistles " jingle bells " after utopia . perhaps they should have renamed it hell . avoid this clunker .

well lets see . . . i 'm not quite sure how to review this film , based on its laughter factor . well yeah i can , it 's not funny . ok so i laughed one time which warranted the 1/2 star , but other than that i sat in my seat wondering when this pos would be over , ( which at a running time of 107 minutes seemed like forever ! ) . in fact , this could be the un - funniest movie i 've seen in a long time , if not the un - funniest . let me be the first to say " ready to rumble " is a huge disappointment . long time wrestling lovers ( david and scott ) dream of making it to the wcw , and watching jimmy king wrestle . that is their hero of course , whom is kicked out of the wcw . well here is where the plot thickens ( lol ) : the two wish to rescue the king , and put him back into the wcw but not that easily , because they are being tampered with by many people who are out to get them , while david 's father wants him to become a police officer , and scott is a loser who has to with the help of david clean out johnny on the spots . what a plot eh ? " ready to rumble " is one of those films that tries to be funny , but sadly fails miserably , everything in the film is imcomprehinsable , and even the trailer was n't funny . the actors are dull , the script awful , and the plot which there is n't much of . . . . really annoying . i 'm not quite sure how great actors like these , and very funny actors too , are given such a lame script , and directed in such a childish manner , that i wonder if hollywood is ever gon na make good films these days . this review is n't going to be very long because of the fact that there is n't much going for the film , if anything at all . only one big laugh is in the film , which is n't all that hilarious . i sat in my chair wondering with this 107 ( ! ! ! ! ! ) minute " comedy " was going to be over , and sadly it went on forever . i 'm not sure if anything could have saved this film from being such a total waste , but believe me you , it is . reviewed by brandon herring 4/29/00 for more reviews please visit movie review central at http : //www . geocities . com / moviefan983/moviereviewcentral . html

0NEG

on its laughter factor . well yeah i can , it 's not funny . ok so i laughed one time which warranted the , ( which at a running time of 107 minutes seemed like forever ! ) . in fact , this could be the un - funniest movie i 've seen in a long time , if not the un - funniest . let me be the first to say " ready to rumble " is a huge disappointment . long time wrestling lovers ( david and scott ) of those films that tries to be funny , but sadly fails miserably , everything in the film is imcomprehinsable , and even the trailer was n't funny . the actors are dull , the script awful , and the plot which there is n't much of . . . . really annoying . i 'm not quite sure how great actors like these , and very funny actors too , are given such a lame script , and directed in such a childish manner , that i wonder if hollywood is ever gon na " comedy " was going to be over , and sadly it went on forever . i 'm not sure if anything could have saved this film from being such a total waste , but believe me you , it is . reviewed

14 years ago , national lampoon introduced us to a new family - the griswolds . in 1983 , the griswolds embarked on a cross - country journey with the destination of wally world , a world - renowned theme park in california . we laughed our heads off as we shared the wild and crazy mishaps the family endured . two years later , we watched again as they went to europe , and four years after that , we shared christmas with them . now , eight more years have passed , and the laughs have done more than die . they 've been cremated . vegas vacation brings back chevy chase as clark griswold , the good intentioned but ill - fated father of two . the premise is basically the same . clark has a wonderful idea to take his family on a bonding vacation , this time to las vegas . his wife ellen ( beverly d'angelo ) and teenage kids rusty and audrey ( always played by different actors - this time around , by ethan embry and marisol nichols , respectively ) join him and they soon find themselves in sin city where casinos will make the backdrop for ninety minutes of slapstick . of course a " vacation " movie would n't be complete without good ole eddie ( reprised by randy quaid ) , the misfit cousin , showing up at all the wrong times . there is n't too much of a plot here when it comes right down to it . it 's really just a skit movie . there are a couple of ways to define a skit movie , which is not a real term as far as i know . the first would be a movie that basically has one running gag for two hours , therefore coming off like a two hour skit . the second would be a movie that seems comprised of about twenty shorter skits , each lasting about five minutes . vegas vacation comes off like the first . a good example of the latter would be last year 's black sheep . the problem with this format is that it becomes old fast , and it does n't really fit into a movie mold . in these cases , a " plot " , which is generally very thin , is used either as a shameless filler between scenes or to simply add convenience to the gags ( i . e . have a good vegas joke , make a vegas movie ) . such is the case with this movie 's mini - plots . clark gets gambling fever and begins spending all of the griswold 's money , ellen is on the verge of an affair with wayne newton ( ! ) , rusty has a fake i d and is using it to his gambling advantage , and audrey is desperate for fun and winds up joining her cousin vickie ( shae d'lyn ) as an exotic dancer . the simple fact is : this movie is n't funny . at first , i did find myself chuckling heartily at a couple of little jokes , but when the movie got rolling , my interest suddenly stopped . chase plays clark griswold really well . he made the character and he is the character . d'angelo , to be quite honest , never was too impressive as ellen , and this movie does n't show any signs of redemption . as for the two new griswold kids , the word " blah " comes to mind . the " vacation " series seems out to prove that anybody can play these two characters , the simple reason being that there is nothing to them . they 're so generic , you 'll expect the credits to read " girl # 1 as audrey griswold " . vegas vacation differs from the first three in the series by more than just laugh factor . yes , it 's true that vegas vacation is n't even close to being close to being as funny as the others , which were actually pretty fun in their own doofy ways , but there are a couple of other things that set this one negatively apart . first off , why did they leave off the national lampoon 's heading on the title ? i could n't find any reasons why , but maybe the fact is even national lampoon did n't want to be associated with such a lame film . that 's saying a lot , especially when you look at what else the company has proudly presented : loaded weapon 1 , pcu , etc . if they expected this to be another hit , you would assume they 'd be proud to tack on the notorious header , but for reasons only we can guess at , like the movie sucking , they did n't . there is another difference here that makes an obvious impact . the first three films in the " vacation " series were written by john hughes , a talented writer who is behind several popular films of the 80 's including mr . mom , sixteen candles , the breakfast club , weird science , pretty in pink , ferris bueller 's day off , planes , trains , and automobiles , and uncle buck . wowzers ! what a r ? sum ? ! looking at the names , you 'd think this guy wrote everything that now stands as a movie icon for the 1980 's . well that 's not all . this guy also brought us 90 's hits including the home alone series , the remake of 101 dalmatians , dennis the menace , and the current flubber . vegas vacation , however , did n't have john hughes behind it , and the loss is very obvious . this time around , the script is in the hands of elisa bell , whose only credits thus far include four made - for - tv movies . vegas vacation plays very much like one , and it would actually work much better as a made - for - tv sequel . if this sounds like a wild idea , it 's not . revenge of the nerds third and fourth installments were both television movies , and they seemed like it . vegas vacation would fit in well on the fox network as a 2 : 00 a . m . sunday morning movie , but as a silver screen major motion picture , it 's quite out of place . stephen kessler 's jejune direction does n't help things either . he only makes the film even more tv - movie - ish . each consecutive " vacation " movie has suffered a drop in directing power . we started the series off with harold ramis , who also directed caddyshack and groundhog day as well as co - writing ghostbusters . not too bad . then we had national lampoon 's european vacation being directed by amy heckerling , who would go on to direct the hits look who 's talking and clueless , as well as having already directed the infamous fast times at ridgemont high . lastly we had national lampoon 's christmas vacation , directed by jeremiah s . chechik , who went on to direct the charming benny & joon . kessler , so far , has one title under his belt , the short film birch street gym , which received an oscar nomination in 1992 . granted that this was his first attempt at a feature length film , we can allow for some amateurish quality , but instead we get a movie straight from the text book - boring , bland , and deeply unoriginal . if you loved the " vacation " movies , and i know * some * of us did , there still is n't anything here worth seeing . if you loved them , do n't ruin your good impressions of the series by indulging in this tragic example of cinema ala carte . if you never did like the series , why the need to confirm why ?

0NEG

. now , eight more years have passed , and the laughs have done more than die . they 've been cremated . vegas vacation brings back chevy chase as clark griswold the latter would be last year 's black sheep . the problem with this format is that it becomes old fast , and it does n't really fit into a movie mold . in these cases , a " plot " , as an exotic dancer . the simple fact is : this movie is n't funny . at first , i did find myself chuckling heartily redemption . as for the two new griswold kids , the word " blah " comes to mind . the " vacation " series seems out to prove factor . yes , it 's true that vegas vacation is n't even close to being close to being as funny as the others , which were actually pretty fun in their own doofy , but there are a couple of other things that set this one negatively apart . first off , why did they leave off the national lampoon did n't want to be associated with such a lame film . that 's saying a lot , especially when you , but for reasons only we can guess at , like the movie sucking , they did n't . there is another difference here , but as a silver screen major motion picture , it 's quite out of place . stephen kessler 's jejune direction does n't help things movie - ish . each consecutive " vacation " movie has suffered a drop in directing power . we started the series off with harold ramis , we can allow for some amateurish quality , but instead we get a movie straight from the text book - boring , bland , and deeply unoriginal . if you loved the " vacation " movies , and i know * some * of us did , there still is n't anything here worth seeing . if you loved them , do n't ruin your good impressions of the series by indulging in this tragic example of cinema ala carte . if you never did like the series , why

plunkett & macleane marks the directing debut of jake scott , brother of ridley and tony . naturally , this got me worried . would jake 's talent be inherited from ridley or tony ? if it was from ridley , than the movie would be a thoughtful suspensor with action thrown in . if it was from tony , it would be wham bang drivel . unfortunately , the latter is true for this worthless picture with little charm . carlyle and miller are the titular highwaymen , plunkett ( carlyle ) who is poor and unruly , and captain james macleane ( miller ) a clean cut gentleman . as the tagline clearly wants to make known , they rob the rich and nothing else . the film basically follows the rowdy hold ups the two stage , along with romantic interludes with lady rebecca ( tyler . ) hot on both their tails is mr chance ( ken stott ) who wants to see them both dead . plunkett & macleane is an annoying little film that serves little purpose . although undoubtedly slick and fast paced , there 's very little merit contained in the film . carlyle and miller are fun enough as the foul mouthed pair , although their characters are criminally undeveloped . it appears that much of the money has been spent on the expensive looking sets and costumes , but not on the script . the five ( ! ) screenwriters ( three credited ) have produced an still born movie : there 's very little development in the story . also , major events , such as mr . cash finding out who plunkett and macleane really are , are so rushed that they barely happened . the story is a bit of a mess , frankly . the performances are n't bad : carlyle and miller are typical lads , but liv tyler is a huge disappointment as the love interest . her irritable , stilted performance sticks out like a sore thumb , and i was quite unsure on what accent she was trying to put on . she looks nice , though . more interesting is alan cummings as the campy lord rochester , and although his character amounts to nothing more than a two dimensional comedy gay character , he hams it up well . ken stott is suitably evil as chance , but again he is nothing but a flat character . i did n't particularly care when the predictable death sequence arrived . although a disappointment in writing , and a minor success in acting , the film certainly look lavish , with good costumes , and wonderful sets . but production design alone ca n't save a movie , especially a movie as bad as this mess . jake scott would be more suited to directing a music video rather than this failed update of a period drama : the only update seems to be the fact that everyone must talk dirty , with ' f * ck this ' and ' stand and f * cking deliver ' splattered all over the place . the mtv editing and direction are flash enough , but in the end decidedly empty . plunkett & macleane is a massive disappointment . although somewhat enjoyable during parts , it 's so light it could float off the screen if it was n't just images on a reel . there 's no thought , no development , no plot , just a series of manic edits and quirky camera angles to make this film appeal to gen - xers . although it 's a great idea : update a period drama to the mtv generation : it 's execution is awful , and would more likely bore than excite . sloppy and occasionally off puttingly tasteless , it 's hard to recommend plunkett & macleane as a movie , but easy to recommend it as a overlong music video . give it a miss .

0NEG

drivel . unfortunately , the latter is true for this worthless picture with little charm . carlyle and miller are the titular highwaymen , plunkett little purpose . although undoubtedly slick and fast paced , there 's very little merit contained in the film . carlyle and miller are fun enough as the foul mouthed pair , although their characters are criminally undeveloped . it appears that much of the money has been ! ) screenwriters ( three credited ) have produced an still born movie : there 's very little development in the story . finding out who plunkett and macleane really are , are so rushed that they barely happened . the story is a bit of a mess , frankly . the performances are n't bad : carlyle and miller are typical lads , but liv tyler is a huge disappointment as the love interest . her irritable , stilted performance sticks out like a sore thumb , and i was quite unsure on what accent she particularly care when the predictable death sequence arrived . although a disappointment in writing , and a minor success in acting , the film production design alone ca n't save a movie , especially a movie as bad as this mess . jake scott would be more suited to directing a and direction are flash enough , but in the end decidedly empty . plunkett & macleane is a massive disappointment . although somewhat enjoyable during parts , it 's so if it was n't just images on a reel . there 's no thought , no development , no plot , just a series of manic edits and quirky camera angles to make this film appeal to : update a period drama to the mtv generation : it 's execution is awful , and would more likely bore than excite . sloppy and occasionally off puttingly tasteless , it 's hard to recommend plunkett & macleane as easy to recommend it as a overlong music video . give it a miss .

capsule : silly and inane adaptation of gibson 's short story , which is nowhere in sight . gibson 's script only adds insult to injury . johnny mnemonic is an awesomely bad movie . i say " awesomely " because it 's one thing to fail , but another thing entirely to fail so completely that even the chances for camp value are sabotaged . keanur reeves ( who is terrible ) stars as johnny , an " information courier " who can carry dozens of gigabytes of data in his head . he is given " one last job " ( whenever you are in a movie and you hear those words , run ) , which involves him shoving so much data into his cranium that it could be lethal . one of the neater touches that the movie brings in is that the only way he could make such an arrangement work was by ditching all of his childhood memories , but it 's only followed up on in a token fashion . for his trouble , johnny gets chased by the yakuza , who seem to be the new bad guys in all the high - tech thrillers . what 's funny is that if you watch gangster movies made * in * japan , there are whole gobs of details about genuine yakuza behavior and ethics , but of course there 's no room in this movie for any of that . the yakuza are simply used to point guns , wave swords , flaunt tattoos , and grimace menacingly . ( i could go on about how gangsters and criminals of many other ethnicities have gotten thoughtful examinations in the movies -- bound by honor , sugar hill and american me come to mind -- when asians remain perpetually stereotyped . but that 's another essay . ) anyway , johnny runs and eventually winds up in newark . why newark ? maybe because it was cheaper to fake a future newark than a future new york , that 's why . there , he meets an assortment of odd characters ( ice - t , dolph lundgren and henry rollins play a whole gallery of weirdos ) . the script deals with them with all the depth of pieces of furniture . it turns out ( what else ? ) that the data in johnny 's head could save a lot of people , but of course johnny only wants it out of his head so it does n't kill him . handled right , this could have been absorbing , but the script manages to mangle any chance of real sympathy for johnny at every opportunity . the details about the look and feel of the future are all phoned in from other , better movies -- blade runner and brazil come to mind . everything looks run - down and scummy , everyone dresses like they 're punk rockers , and videophones are commonplace . snore . the only really interesting flourish is an extended depiction of the way the internet might work in the future ( complete with vr goggles and feedback gloves ) , but i kept thinking that it was more like what some relatively un - technical fellow would * think * it would look and behave like . a hacker of johnny 's caliber would be blasting away with one command - line function after another , instead of wasting all this time twiddling with holograms , but of course that 's not cinematic . whatever . what went wrong with this movie ? gibson wrote his own screenplay , which i guess is part of the problem : what works as a short story does n't work in a movie . his ear for dialogue is terrible and the plot does n't advance , it convulses . from the script on out , it was probably all downhill . renting the movie to make fun of it is sort of pointless ; there 's no fun in kicking a wounded dog , is there ?

0NEG

capsule : silly and inane adaptation of gibson 's short story , which is nowhere in sight . gibson 's script only adds insult to injury . johnny mnemonic is an awesomely bad movie . i say " awesomely " because it 's one the chances for camp value are sabotaged . keanur reeves ( who is terrible ) stars as johnny , an " information courier " who , johnny runs and eventually winds up in newark . why newark ? maybe because it was cheaper to fake a future newark than a future new york , that 's why . there , he meets an assortment of odd characters ( henry rollins play a whole gallery of weirdos ) . the script deals with them with all the depth of pieces of furniture . it turns out ( what else ? ) that handled right , this could have been absorbing , but the script manages to mangle any chance of real sympathy for johnny at every opportunity . the details about the movies -- blade runner and brazil come to mind . everything looks run - down and scummy , everyone dresses like they 're punk rockers , and but of course that 's not cinematic . whatever . what went wrong with this movie ? gibson wrote his own screenplay , which i guess is part of the problem : what works as a short story does n't work in a movie . his ear for dialogue is terrible and the plot does n't advance , it convulses . from the script on out , it was probably all downhill . renting the movie to make fun of it is

i did n't hate the big hit , even though it is a stupefyingly terrible film . for the entirety of its running time , my eyes were attached to the screen , and i never once got bored . i found the film interesting because of its unique awfulness : this is such a confused disaster of a film that it 's entertaining to watch it in the same way that it 's entertaining to witness a thirty car pileup on a freeway spaghetti bowl . as a narrative , the big hit is pure garbage , never truly deciding its genre and constantly crossing all kinds of boundaries . it reminded me a lot of grosse pointe blank , which is a similar film that fails in a lot of the same ways . it 's fine to mix genres , if the film makers know what they 're doing . unfortunately , writer ben ramsey and director kirk wong do n't seem to know how to handle the material , and the result is an action film that wants to be a comedy . the biggest problem with the amalgamation , in this case , is that the film is absurd and the comedy is out of place . but it sure is a fascinating failure . marky . . . er , mark wahlberg stars as melvin surley , a hitman . he 's a good hitman , apparently , although his tactics seem a bit rambunctious ( he does n't snipe or make clean kills -- he just kicks the door down and shoots everything ) . he works with a few other hitmen -- cisco ( lou diamond phillips ) , crunch ( bokeem woodbine ) , and vinnie ( antonio sabbato , jr . ) . they 're a nice bunch of muscular guys , who stand around in the locker room after working out and compare masturbation to sex . they all work for a man named paris ( avery brooks ) , who is rich , powerful , and in constant need of four sloppy hitmen . it is very important that they never go beyond their boss and do work on their own ; this , of course , is where the plot comes in . they decide to kidnap a young japanese girl named keiko ( china chow ) , who has a rich father . when they do this , it turns out she is paris ' . . . goddaughter ! it 's very bad to have paris against you . the story is standard action film stuff . it 's nothing new , and nothing particularly offensive ( but certainly not the slightest bit compelling ) . clearly the major selling point of the big hit is that it 's a john woo - type of action film mixed in with some really hip comedy . it 's true that a lot of the action sequences resemble recent films that go for the same idea ( such as face / off and the replacement killers , which are both far superior ) . there are stunts that are fun to watch : the opening sequence has melvin and two of his partners going in to kill some guy who has nothing to do with the story . they use night vision goggles and really powerful handguns . melvin is also very good at breakdancing , and uses this talent to avoid bullets and knives . like i said , it 's not boring ; most disasters are n't . what makes it so bad is its genre - shifting madness . it seems to start out as a quirky - but - realistic action comedy , as melvin is seen transporting bags of human remains . then , as soon as they go to their first hit , it turns into a music video with bodies and bullets flying everywhere . then , somewhere in between , it turns back into comedy . keiko turns out to be a spunky little girl ; in one amusing scene , she is forced to read a letter out loud , indicating that she has been kidnapped , but the letter is littered with grammatical errors that skew the meaning of the words . and scenes like this work alone , but wong applies this goofy tone to scenes that should be more serious , or not be in the film at all . one of the most irritating moments has paris ordering cisco to come up to his office after he learns that keiko has been kidnapped ; when cisco gets there , paris and his men are standing around as if they knew cisco did it , but they let him out of there , telling him to find the perpetrator . the scene is played for laughs , but it is n't funny . and since it does n't quite work as a comedy , it tries to fall back on the action , which also fails . this is a film where people fly fifteen feet backwards when shot with a handgun . cars land on tree branches and are supported by them . characters betray each other without a second thought . grenades are thrown in tight places . people jump out of tall buildings and survive . people outrun tumbling cars , and get out of the way of falling objects in small fractions of seconds . most frustrating of all , though , is the film 's definition of a hit man : these guys are anything but subtle , quiet , and skilled individuals . they 're more like socially depraved militia men ( melvin has an extensive collection of firearms in his garage , including missile launchers and hand - held machineguns ) . the characters each have one trait that distinguishes them from the rest ; this obviously does n't make for deep or interesting people to watch . the acting is kind of fun , though -- wahlberg is a good actor , and his innocuous presence in this film is charming in a silly sort of way . phillips certainly has fun with his psychotic character , while christina applegate , who plays melvin 's fianc ? e , is convincingly air - headed . the big hit is an action film that unknowingly spoofs itself in trying to be funny . the funniest parts are supplied by the actors , and not by the numerous failed attempts at sight gags and one - liners . it 's a true disaster , one that makes me believe that the goofy and unrealistic tone is completely unintentional . despite all this , though , i must reiterate the entertainment value here . you can cherish the awfulness of a film like this . if you embrace the big hit for the catastrophe that it is , you just might enjoy yourself .

0NEG

i did n't hate the big hit , even though it is a stupefyingly terrible film . for the entirety of its running time , my found the film interesting because of its unique awfulness : this is such a confused disaster of a film that it 's entertaining to watch it in the same bowl . as a narrative , the big hit is pure garbage , never truly deciding its genre and constantly crossing all comedy is out of place . but it sure is a fascinating failure . marky . . . er , mark wahlberg stars nothing new , and nothing particularly offensive ( but certainly not the slightest bit compelling ) . clearly the major selling point of the big it 's not boring ; most disasters are n't . what makes it so bad is its genre - shifting madness . it seems to , or not be in the film at all . one of the most irritating moments has paris ordering cisco to come up to his office perpetrator . the scene is played for laughs , but it is n't funny . and since it does n't quite work as a it tries to fall back on the action , which also fails . this is a film where people fly fifteen feet way of falling objects in small fractions of seconds . most frustrating of all , though , is the film 's definition of a failed attempts at sight gags and one - liners . it 's a true disaster , one that makes me believe that the goofy and this . if you embrace the big hit for the catastrophe that it is , you just might enjoy yourself .

when the film features richard lynch in the role of chief villain , you know that you can expect nothing more than a b grade action movie . however , since this film also featured michael madsen , more than capable character actor , this time in the role of protagonist , the author of this review decided to give the film some benefit of the doubt . however , the very first scenes show clear b grade action credentials - madsen plays richard montana , tough policeman who raids a drug warehouse and make life miserable for local crime lord mario gio ( played by lynch ) . however , the raid was only partially successful , and montana is getting the rap . so , he begins his own private war against gio , trying to penetrate his organisation pretending to be corrupt . in the process , he meets gio 's mistress gina zamora ( played by rosie vela ) and starts relationship with her too . although it does n't stink like many of the similar films can , inside edge is mostly forgettable b grade action routine . nobody in this film actually puts much effort , including madsen or lynch , and this is especially case with uninspired screenwriter william tannen or director warren clarke . the only not so forgettable element in this film is presence of former supermodel rosie vela , who , apart from showing her more than impressive looks , shows some of the singing talent too . however , this is n't reason enough for viewers to spend hour and half watching a film that they would , in most likelihood , forget the next day .

0NEG

of the doubt . however , the very first scenes show clear b grade action credentials - madsen plays richard montana , tough policeman who raids many of the similar films can , inside edge is mostly forgettable b grade action routine . nobody in this film actually puts much effort , madsen or lynch , and this is especially case with uninspired screenwriter william tannen or director warren clarke . the only

what are the warning signs of a * terrible * movie ? making it 's debut at the dollar theater ? locally , chairman of the board did just that . having the annoying prop comic scott thompson ( better known as carrot top ) in the lead role ? chairman of the board , once again . how about an overly exhausted , paper thin plot approached with utter incompetence ? did somebody say chairman of the board ? that 's right , carrot top 's long dreaded major motion picture debut ( at least for a starring role ) is poking up in a handful of theaters across the country . chairman of the board stars the obnoxious , wannabe - zany king of redheaded standup comics as a lazy but creative , inventive but uneventful generation x- er named edison . living with a pair of surfer dudes in a small , rented house , edison bounces from job to job , always squandering away the money on his eccentric ( to say the least ) inventions and ignoring crucial responsibilities such as rent . this has the crabby landlady , ms . krubavitch ( estelle harris , best known as george constanza 's mother on " seinfeld " ) , threatening an eviction if past due expenses are n't furnished post haste . as luck would have it , edison soon meets armand mcmillan ( jack warden ) , an old surfer dude who just so happens to be president of the multi - million dollar mcmillan industries . sharing a passion for more than just riding waves , armand is deeply impacted by the young inventor 's notebook of dreams and ideas , and when the old man dies soon afterward , edison learns he is named a benefactor in armand 's will . predictably , edison acquires the entire corporation and has to maintain productivity with absolutely no knowledge of the business world . predictably , there is a bitter nephew ( larry miller ) whose lesser inheritance fuels resentment that will lead to an elaborate sabotage plot . predictably , there is an attractive employee ( courtney thorne - smith ) whose initial repulsion will transform into love for our doofy protagonist . predictably , the man who knows nothing will fight against the odds and give the company it 's most profitable and successful turnaround ever , all because he ran things by common sense and not greed . it 's as though writers turi meyer , al septien , and alex zamm ( meyer and septien also wrote leprechaun 2 together ! ) pulled a plot out of a hat and worked carrot top into it . the jokes , the " surprises " , the developments - all of them run such a predictable path , it may only be carrot top 's signature brazen red hairdo that sets this one apart from the myriad of similar films . a movie this bad speaks for itself . what 's left to say when every element the movie possesses is a shameful retread of movies past ? the script is 100 % recycled , the direction is hokey , and the acting is absolutely horrible . it is only thorne - smith who seems to take her job seriously , an accomplishment which surely deserves the medal of honor . she certainly went beyond the call of duty - she has to kiss carrot top ! ! ! ! ! ! ( barf bag , please ! ) movies like this give the audience nothing to do but ponder just how many synonyms for " bad " there really are . chairman of the board , without a doubt , deserves each and every one . the only way this wo n't end up on everybody 's " bottom ten of the year " list , is if they were lucky enough never to have seen it . just because you ca n't miss his outlandish fiery mane , do n't skimp on avoiding this abhorrent feature .

0NEG

what are the warning signs of a * terrible * movie ? making it 's debut at the dollar theater ? chairman of the board did just that . having the annoying prop comic scott thompson ( better known as carrot top of the board , once again . how about an overly exhausted , paper thin plot approached with utter incompetence ? did somebody say chairman of the board ? that he is named a benefactor in armand 's will . predictably , edison acquires the entire corporation and has to maintain productivity with absolutely no knowledge of the business world . predictably , there is a bitter nephew ( larry miller ) resentment that will lead to an elaborate sabotage plot . predictably , there is an attractive employee ( courtney thorne - repulsion will transform into love for our doofy protagonist . predictably , the man who knows nothing will fight against the meyer and septien also wrote leprechaun 2 together ! ) pulled a plot out of a hat and worked carrot top into it . the jokes , the " surprises " , the developments - all of them run such a predictable path , it may only be carrot top 's signature brazen this one apart from the myriad of similar films . a movie this bad speaks for itself . what 's left to say when every element the movie possesses is a shameful retread of movies past ? the script is 100 % recycled , the direction is hokey , and the acting is absolutely horrible . it is only thorne - smith who seems to to kiss carrot top ! ! ! ! ! ! ( barf bag , please ! ) movies like this give the audience nothing to do but ponder just how many synonyms for " bad " there really are . chairman of the board , without a doubt , outlandish fiery mane , do n't skimp on avoiding this abhorrent feature .

you do n't look at a ren ? magritte painting and search for a deeper meaning . you likewise do n't look at one for 88 minutes straight . surrealist works are notable for their quirks , and they are fun , but looking at one quirk for an hour and a half is exhausting . that was my experience with i woke up early the day i died , a surrealistic , hyperactive comedy with no dialogue . it 's not a silent movie ; there is lots of atmospheric music , occasional screams and weird sound effects , but nobody ever utters an audible word . though the film is distinctive , its unique style wore thin after about 20 minutes , and as it progressed , watching became a chore . the only reason the script ever got filmed is because it was written by the pseudo - legendary ed wood , the man behind such " classics " as plan 9 > from outer space and night of the ghouls . the joke , of course , is that his films are so bad , they 're good ; so humorous in their inanity that they become hits . i woke up early the day i died , unfortunatly , is so bad that it 's really bad . it stars billy zane ( titanic ) as a dangerous lunatic who overpowers a nurse , escapes from a mental hospital and proceeds to wonder around , stealing a car , clothes , and a load of money . our thief reaches a cemetery , where he witnesses a bizarre ritual . he falls asleep and finds himself , literally , in a hole , with his money gone . for whatever reason , he is bent on getting his hard - unearned cash back ( considering how easily he stole it the first time , why did n't he just go steal some more ? ) . he comes upon a list of the people who were at the mysterious ceremony and commences to seek out each of them and kill them if they do n't have what he is looking for . i do n't think either director aris iliopulos nor ed wood realized that this would have made a glorious 20 minute short . the subject and the style seem to have been made for it . unfortunately , twenty minutes worth of material is stretched out to more than four times that length , and the film simply overstays its already dubious welcome . it grabbed my attention in the beginning and gradually lost it as it went on , up to the point where halfway through i was already weary . it might seem odd that a film as furiously paced as this one can be so tedious ; but the surprise will wear off when you consider how repetitive it is . i woke up early the day i died is a comedy , i guess , though it could have fooled me . unlike most ed wood films , this one tries to be funny and fails , instead of the other way around . there 's nothing inherently wrong with that , in fact , i think it would only make sense for someone who has been so " good " at making unintentional comedies to take a stab at a real one . whether wood actually went for comedy in his script we 'll never know , but in either case , this is a failure . jonathan taylor thomas , christina ricci , summer phoenix , john ritter and others show up for short and pointless cameos . ricci , for example , plays a prostitute . her role consists of dancing around with zane in his motel room and then being thrown out . thomas is an astonished onlooker as a woman gets thrown off a cliff . was the home improvement teen heartthrob really that desperate for work ? zane , meanwhile , occupies himself by making weird faces at the camera when he is not called upon to run around wildly and beat people up . lack of dialogue makes him the ultimate caricature . the carnival side - show climax manages to demonstrate everything that is wrong with this no - budget production . it 's desperately unfunny , but thinks it 's the funniest thing since plan 9 ; , it 's so spontaneously surrealistic it makes your head spin all while being confusing enough to make your head spin twice as fast in the other direction . i hope another film is made from an ed wood screenplay for i woke up early the day i died is not a fitting send - off . ? 1999 eugene novikov & # 137 ;

0NEG

for their quirks , and they are fun , but looking at one quirk for an hour and a half is exhausting . that was my experience with i woke up early an audible word . though the film is distinctive , its unique style wore thin after about 20 minutes , and as it progressed , watching became a chore . the only reason the script ever got filmed is up early the day i died , unfortunatly , is so bad that it 's really bad . it stars billy zane ( titanic ) as a the style seem to have been made for it . unfortunately , twenty minutes worth of material is stretched out to more than four times that length , and the film simply overstays its already dubious welcome . it grabbed my attention in the beginning and gradually went on , up to the point where halfway through i was already weary . it might seem odd that a film as furiously paced as this one can be so tedious ; but the surprise will wear off when you consider how repetitive it is . i woke up early the day i me . unlike most ed wood films , this one tries to be funny and fails , instead of the other way around . there 's we 'll never know , but in either case , this is a failure . jonathan taylor thomas , christina ricci , summer phoenix really that desperate for work ? zane , meanwhile , occupies himself by making weird faces at the camera when he is not called upon to run around wildly and beat people up . lack of dialogue makes him the ultimate caricature . the carnival side - show climax manages to demonstrate everything that is wrong with this no - budget production . it 's desperately unfunny , but thinks it 's the funniest thing since plan for i woke up early the day i died is not a fitting send - off . ? 1999 eugene novikov & # 137 ;

well , as i check my score card for what i 've done this holiday weekend , it reads good ideas : 0 and dumb ideas : 1 . i do n't know what i was thinking when i decided to watch this movie . but in my defense , i can only say that it was someone else who urged me to see this with him . the film that i 'm talking about is ` a night at the roxbury , ' one of those offerings based on a saturday night live skit . wayne and garth , these two are not . rather , we meet doug and steve butabi ( the actors ' names are not worth mentioning ) , two eternal partyers whose greatest ambitions in life seem to be finding a way to get into the hottest night club in the city , the roxbury . driving in their dad 's bmw and donning metallic disco suits right out of miami vice , they try to bribe the bouncer to get into the club . ` have you met my friend washington and his friend roosevelt , ' they confidently say as they pull out spare pocket change . their second greatest ambition seems to be oozing out as many silly pick - up lines as is humanly possible in order to start a conversation with a girl ( ` let me see that label . just as i thought - made in heaven , ' says one of the brothers ) . and , like the losers that they are , they fail to do either for much of the film . however , as fate would have it , an accidental meeting with ` what - ever - happened - to ' richard grieco gives them the all - important ticket to get in . their sad lives take on a whole new direction . they make an important contact with the club owner who believes that these two brothers have uncanny insight into the club scene . and they are mistaken as rich swingers by two voluptuous young women . but their newfound popularity does not impress their father , who has other plans for them . the unfortunate thing about this film is that this is a one - joke movie , and the brothers are the joke . actually , there 's about 10 mintues worth of tolerable stuff . alas , too long for tv and way too short for a feature - length film . thus , there just is n't enough material to sustain the 83-minute movie . there 's no plot to be found and everything that these two do seem to culminate in an opportunity to execute their trademark move of snapping their heads in unison to the funky beat of haddaway 's europop song , what is love . i was amazed that none of the two suffered from whiplash . to take up more film time , there is a subplot involving the daughter of the businessman next door who wants to marry doug . this creates not only friction between the brothers , but their unlikely pairing will also agitate audience members as well . she 's educated and a forebearing witch . meanwhile , doug is a complete loser . how did these two ever get together ? i suppose that if i can ever figure out the answer to that question , i 'll have figured out why i decided to go and see this movie . if you 're looking for entertainment , you wo n't find it at the roxbury .

0NEG

good ideas : 0 and dumb ideas : 1 . i do n't know what i was thinking when i decided to watch this movie . but in my defense , i can only say pocket change . their second greatest ambition seems to be oozing out as many silly pick - up lines as is humanly possible in order to start a conversation with a girl ( their father , who has other plans for them . the unfortunate thing about this film is that this is a one - joke movie , and the brothers are the joke . actually , is n't enough material to sustain the 83-minute movie . there 's no plot to be found and everything that these two do seem to culminate in this creates not only friction between the brothers , but their unlikely pairing will also agitate audience members as well . she 's educated and a forebearing witch . meanwhile why i decided to go and see this movie . if you 're looking for entertainment , you wo n't find it at the roxbury .

terrence malick made an excellent 90 minute film adaptation of james jones ' world war ii novel . unfortunately , he buried it within an overlong and overreaching 3-hour long pseudo - epic . this is a shame because the film features an outstanding performance by nick nolte . the best scene is when nick nolte 's character , lt . col . tall , is forced to deal with the direct refusal by capt . staros ( elias koteas ) to execute an order . nolte 's reaction and transformation may be the best work of his career . had terrence malick concentrated on the great performances of nolte and koteas as well as those by sean penn , woody harrelson , and john cusack , he could have made a truly great film . instead , malick saddled the film with plodding pacing , unnecessary flashbacks , and a voice - over narration all designed to telegraph the great philosophical underpinnings of the story . the narration was especially annoying as much of it sounded like very bad high school poetry . with a lot of editing , the core story could be transformed into a truly classic war film . hopefully , the dvd version of this film will feature options to suppress the narration , and perhaps will even provide for an alternate , shorter version of the film . i give this film .

0NEG

adaptation of james jones ' world war ii novel . unfortunately , he buried it within an overlong and overreaching 3-hour long pseudo - epic . this is a shame because the film features an outstanding performance by nick nolte have made a truly great film . instead , malick saddled the film with plodding pacing , unnecessary flashbacks , and a voice - over narration all designed to telegraph the great philosophical underpinnings of the story . the narration was especially annoying as much of it sounded like very bad high school poetry . with a lot of editing , the core story

i cried during _ babe _ . i admit it . the special effects , the story , the great dialogue were woven together so delicately and successfully that my mind lost track that this was a " children 's film " --so much so that , yes , i got a little overly sentimental . such , my friend , is the power of cinema . when word came out that they were using this newly developed f / x for a doctor dolittle update , in which eddie murphy plays the title character , and many great comic actors supply the voices , my anticipation rose to great expectations . they ca n't possibly drop the ball on this one . ca n't miss . ca n't possibly miss . they missed . what went wrong ? after much thought , i supply three general rules . ( 1 ) do n't let a television actress - turned - comedy movie director near an urbanite script ( i . e . , penny marshall 's dreadful " preacher 's wife " ) . betty thomas worked wonders with " the brady bunch movie " , but the same sitcom - airiness does n't quite work here . it 's as if she lifted a generic sitcom , and iced it with light doses of modern r&b . take away the black cast , take away the atrocious soundtrack , and you have the residue of some mid-80 's kirk cameron show . ( 2 ) the greater the cast , the less the individual cast - member has to do ( i . e . , " con air " ) . it is great to have the comic voices of jenna elfman , garry schandling , john leguizimo , ellen degeneres , and gilbert godfried in your lineup , but they have nothing to do but improvise their underdeveloped , stereotyped characters , one - line - at - a - time . it 's even worse , because sometimes their voices are so unrecognizable that you do n't get the satisfaction of linking the voice to the comedian until the credits . now there are three character actors who do get special treatment : albert brooks brings dignity to nearly every project he 's in , and the scenes as a depressed tiger do resonate a certain poignancy . norm mcdonald fares nearly as well , as a stray dog who learns to bond with dolittle . but there 's little humor here . that rests on the shoulders of chris rock , sorely miscast and unfunny as the voice of their wise - ass guinea pig . even the mouth is ill - synched . ( 3 ) do n't let the special effects technicians walk away with the script . there 's a certain timing that 's mandatory in comedy . to have this timing usurped by the brilliancy of computer generated mouths or lifelike creations of jim henson 's creature shop , is a travesty . this is not to say that special effects filled comedies or muppet movies are n't well - timed laughfests ; with the right director , they can be and have . here , betty thomas is clearly over her head . i wish i could commend the special effects , but they 're merely average . count the number of times where the animal 's mouth is turned away from the camera , or too far to notice , or ill - synched . this is less a " babe " and more of a " look who 's barking " clone . you may be wondering , ' how does eddie murphy fare ? ' well , he came back with the exceptional " nutty professor " , and i do n't doubt he can come back again . here , he 's tied into a straight man and given little to do . the exceptions are when he fears he 's going crazy : a far cry from his smarter - than - you'd expect routine that he 's more adept at . it 's unfortunate that he is where richard pryor was ten years ago , making lame comedies without the same bite he had given in his early years . after all this , what 's left ? butt jokes . a _ lot _ of butt jokes . i guess for kids that may be funny , but i was stone - faced . if there 's a lesson the film may be telling us , is that animals have feelings too , and they care way too much for your butt .

0NEG

. ca n't miss . ca n't possibly miss . they missed . what went wrong ? after much thought , i supply three general rules . bunch movie " , but the same sitcom - airiness does n't quite work here . it 's as if she lifted a generic sitcom one - line - at - a - time . it 's even worse , because sometimes their voices are so unrecognizable that you stray dog who learns to bond with dolittle . but there 's little humor here . that rests on the shoulders of chris rock , sorely miscast and unfunny as the voice of their wise - ass guinea pig lifelike creations of jim henson 's creature shop , is a travesty . this is not to say that special effects filled i wish i could commend the special effects , but they 're merely average . count the number of times where the animal 's i guess for kids that may be funny , but i was stone - faced . if there 's a lesson the film may be

saw an advanced screening of the movie sniper last night , and i have to say i was n't too impressed . this film is about an expert marine sniper , played by tom berenger , who is teamed with a hot - shot - young - no - experience - never - killed - a - man new partner to take out some drug - kingpins and military strong men in panama . sound cliche ? that 's only the beginning . billy zane ( memphis belle ) played the rookie , and never seemed to get a handle on his character . he was so contrary and pig - headed in the beginning , you just wanted to smack him . then he goes " crazy " from the pressure , but seems to immediately snap out of it . i 'm not sure if the blame should lie with the directing , editing , scriptwriting , or acting . . . but it did n't all come together . i think berenger is a pretty good actor , and he looked great in the part , covered in camo , face painted , stalking through the jungle with his high - power rifle . . . but once again , his character was given some pretty bad dialogue , and did n't react too logically to many of the situations . there was very little logical development in these characters . my biggest problem with this film was it 's tendency to put these two snipers in as * many * inches - from - death situations as possible . they began to resemble g . i . joes , the greatest american hero . and of course their almost supernatural accuracy with their guns was called upon to get them out of far too many close calls . now a lot of movies are stamped out of this mold , in fact that 's what made die hard so much fun : the super - hero avenger type . so some will enjoy the action hero heroics , but i did n't think it fit with the nice tension that was built up in the earlier scenes , and the " real life " feel of covert operations in panama . a word must be said on the camera work , much of it was very nice . the jungles of panama ( or their stand - ins in this case ) formed a very picturesque background . . . and the drama of speeding bullets was captured using some nice trick photography . many have seen the slowed down " bullet - cam " following the projectile to its target . this was used well in the beginning to show the feverish nightmares berenger gets when remembering the moment of the kill . it was dramatic when used in flashback . . . but it seems the director liked the technique so much he started inserting these shots ( pardon the pun ) into the real time action . . . then it just seemed silly . all in all , not a real dog : there is some nice action , good atmosphere , and pretty photography . but the plot is pretty lame , the acting did n't form a cohesive whole , and far too much thisclosefromdeath heroics .

0NEG

movie sniper last night , and i have to say i was n't too impressed . this film is about an expert marine sniper , drug - kingpins and military strong men in panama . sound cliche ? that 's only the beginning . billy zane ( memphis belle ) played the rookie , and never seemed to get a handle on his character . he was so contrary and pig - headed in the beginning , you just wanted to smack him . then he goes " crazy " from the pressure editing , scriptwriting , or acting . . . but it did n't all come together . i think berenger is a pretty good actor , . . but once again , his character was given some pretty bad dialogue , and did n't react too logically to many of the situations . there was very little logical development in these characters . my biggest problem with this film was it 's tendency to put these two snipers in ) into the real time action . . . then it just seemed silly . all in all , not a real dog : action , good atmosphere , and pretty photography . but the plot is pretty lame , the acting did n't form a cohesive whole , and far too much thisclosefromdeath heroics .

an 18-foot - high , 43-foot - long dragon is the computer - generated co- star of this strictly - by - the - numbers sword ' n ' sorcery flick . as voiced by sean connery , " draco " is a surprisingly expressive creation who is well - deserving of his 23 minutes of screen time . he walks , talks , flies , fries , and even fakes his own death , all with the help of 96 computer - aided animators . too bad that ilm ( industrial light and magic ) could n't spare some special effects for dragonheart 's * human * co - stars . a bearded black hole exists where dennis quaid should be . he 's a near - total loss as he growls glumly through his role of a disillusioned knight . david thewlis ' evil king has a high hiss factor ( hf ) , though he 's more of a mumbling oddity than anything else . oh , and there 's some redhead in a ' 90 's wig , who runs around either screaming or scowling , depending upon if the particular scene has her playing the woman in peril or the put upon peasant . the fringe flourishes include pete postlethwaite as a wandering monk with literary ambitions , julie christie ( ! ) as the good queen mother , a band of mercenaries that appear dressed for ye olde heavy - metal concert , and , believe or it not , the speaking spirit of king arthur . bring out your dead ! unfortunately , when we add it all together ( draco + fringe bits - quaid - thewlis ) , the sum total amounts to zero . dragonheart is , well , too much of too little . director rob cohen ( dragon : the bruce lee story ) has made a big , expensive movie that , while ambitiously plotted , is both murky and predictable . and overscored . and self - important . and the list goes on . ( i must ask : did screenwriter charles edward pogue intend that * every * character be stabbed , lanced , or sliced at least once ? keep that man away from the knife drawer ! ) the last five minutes of this movie are the worst , with some silly celestial nonsense that would be laughed out of any planetarium light show , much less a summer movie . save your money .

0NEG

for dragonheart 's * human * co - stars . a bearded black hole exists where dennis quaid should be . he 's a near - total loss as he growls glumly through his role of a disillusioned knight . david thewlis draco + fringe bits - quaid - thewlis ) , the sum total amounts to zero . dragonheart is , well , too much of too little . director rob cohen ( dragon : the bruce lee , expensive movie that , while ambitiously plotted , is both murky and predictable . and overscored . and self - important . and the list goes on . ( i must ! ) the last five minutes of this movie are the worst , with some silly celestial nonsense that would be laughed out of any planetarium light show , much less a summer movie . save your money .

1989 's " major league " was a delightful surprise . i did n't expect much of it when i decided to watch it on cable , but it proved to be fresh and funny . however , when the appeal of a movie is its freshness , the sequels are virtually guaranteed to be stale . that 's certainly true of " major league ii " and the most recent entry , " major league : back to the minors . " the title is , of course , a contradiction . should n't it be " minor league ? " that contradiction suggests the lengths to which writer / director john warren has gone to squeeze a third movie out of the formula established by the first movie . original stars charlie sheen and tom berenger ( who returned for " major league ii " ) are not around , leaving corbin bernsen the only original headliner to make the third movie . the other veterans who return ( dennis haysbert as voodoo - inspired batter cerrano and takaaki ishibashi as tanaka , who was introduced in " league ii " ) seem to be around just to lend legitimacy to the enterprise . the only returning cast member who produces any laughs is bob uecker as radio announcer harry doyle , inexplicably broadcasting the games of a minor league team far from his home turf . the protagonist this time around is retiring pitcher gus cantrell ( scott bakula ) , who is hired by minnesota twins owner roger dorn ( bernsen ) to manage the twins ' aaa team , the buzz . you can write the movie from here : he finds a group of misfits who need to learn how to play together as a team in order to win . there 's a future superstar whose ego keeps him from growing ( walton goggins ) , an ex - ballet dancer ( kenneth johnson ) , a broken - down old timer ( thom barry ) , twin outfielders both named juan ( the difilippo triplets ) , and a couple pitchers with throwing problems ( judson mills and peter mackenzie ) . along the way , gus picks up cerrano and tanaka ( gus is supposedly an old teammate of theirs , even though he was n't in either of the preceding films ) . sum total : none . the entire enterprise is artificial , and the cast is not ready for the hollywood majors . gus ' antagonist is twins manager leonard huff ( ted mcginley ) . leonard is a slimy , sniveling little egotist , and the twins are lazy , spoiled , and full of themselves . ( even watching the first movie i wondered why any real - life team would lend itself to being caricatured in this manner ) . gus challenges leonard to a match , the buzz vs . the twins . ( wanna guess who wins ? ) " back to the minors " is a movie that has no reason to exist . there 's hardly a laugh in it , the cast is weak , and the first movie left no room for even one sequel .

0NEG

when the appeal of a movie is its freshness , the sequels are virtually guaranteed to be stale . that 's certainly true of " major league ii laughs is bob uecker as radio announcer harry doyle , inexplicably broadcasting the games of a minor league team far from manage the twins ' aaa team , the buzz . you can write the movie from here : he finds a group of misfits who need to was n't in either of the preceding films ) . sum total : none . the entire enterprise is artificial , and the cast is not ready for the hollywood leonard is a slimy , sniveling little egotist , and the twins are lazy , spoiled , and full of themselves . ( even watching the first movie i wondered why " back to the minors " is a movie that has no reason to exist . there 's hardly a laugh in it , the cast is weak , and the first movie left no room for even

* * * the following review contains some harsh language . . . but what did you expect when you clicked on this title ? * * * cast : kristen holly smith , danica sheridan , alex boling , michael dotson , sonya hensley , janet krajeski , sabrina lu , dionysius burbano , calvin grant , jeff b . harmon written and directed by : jeff b . harmon running time : 97 minutes " the thought of losing you makes me all vomity inside . " --- blatz balinski ( danica sheridan ) laments the fact that her lesbian lover , april ( kristen holly smith ) , has just received a telegram from her ex - fiance . isle of lesbos is an incredibly offensive musical comedy about april pfferpot ( smith ) , a resident of the small town of bumfuck , arkansas who is about to get married to high school sweetheart and football hero dick dickson ( michael dotson ) . when april gets extreme cold feet she runs home , sticks a gun in her mouth , and pulls the trigger . instead of killing herself , she is magically transported through her mirror into the isle of lesbos , an alternate dimension where lesbians rule and no men are allowed ( except for lance , the homosexual toilet cleaner / slave ) . april loves her new home and friends , but dick and her parents are not so ready to give her up . mr . and ms . pfferpot ( director jeff b . harmon and janet krajeski ) decide they need medical help so they enlist the aid of dr . sigmoid colon ( also jeff b . harmon ) , who claims he can cure homosexuality . in actuality , dr . colon is homosexual as well and begins his special " treatment " on dick dickson ( unbeknownst to dick ) . when april turns down dick 's demand for her to return to bumfuck , he decides to take matters in his own hands and attack the isle of lesbos rambo - style . instead of leveling the place he falls in love with lance ( alex boling ) and the two of them , along with april and her lover blatz , get married . ( note to the filmmaker : why did the character of lance make asides to the camera followed by silence that i 'm assuming was inserted for the purpose of waiting until the laughter of the audience had subsided ? ) april 's parents , feeling like there is no recourse , call in a favor to president clinton and send a nuclear bomb ( whose circuitry inexplicably is made up of a homosexual performer ) their way . the bomb is a dud thanks to the work of the " circuitry " and they re - wire it and send it back to washington d . c . , destroying it . mr . and ms . pfferpot give up trying to get their daughter back and instead decide to join her as they have some alternative sexual practices of their own . i 'm not sure if writer / director / co - star jeff b . harmon was purposely trying to offend people because he believes in some of the ideas his movie presents or if he was just going for cheap laughs . either way , he manages to present some of the most offensive material i have ever seen in a movie . the film opens with a preacher running a small african - american child out of town , and then later moves on to the hanging of a michael jackson impersonator by the ku klux klan ( during a jaunty musical number ) , preceded by remarks about " gays and straights finally being able to put their differences behind them and work together to hate others , such as the jews " . if harmon was merely trying to point out how idiotic society can be , then i apologize for being so harsh on elements of his film , but it is presented so mean spiritedly that i ca n't help but feel like he had some serious intent . as for the entire central theme of the movie , i 'm afraid that it 's one that i just do n't get . i tried to keep an open mind while watching it , but the homosexual elements were just too prevalent for my tastes . it was hard enough to watch them bash other races and sexes without them preaching about the virtues of being homosexual and accepted by society . how does one expect to be accepted if they are just as guilty of non - acceptance ? i 'm not prone to judging anyone and i believe that people should be free to explore whatever avenues they wish free from the scornful eye of society , but do n't force your particular rhetoric down my throat if you are n't going to show the same respect for my preferences that you wish from me . again , maybe i 'm missing the satirical point that harmon is trying to make , but if so , i think it could have been handled a little more tactfully . as far as musical comedies go , isle of lesbos is no trey parker and matt stone musical , but a good portion of the songs are maddeningly catchy . despite the disturbing visuals , " mom and apple pie " stuck with me for the rest of the day . speaking of disturbing visuals , " wedding bells ai n't ringing " could have been a decent song , but the accompanying visuals of spousal abuse are more harrowing than this film should be displaying . " i 'm a lesbian " ( which is touted in the press release as being particularly popular ) is also pretty good , but a good portion of that could be due to the stellar singing voice of ms . smith . it 's mainly on her excellent vocals that my rating of this film is based . the other performers are decent , save for the rosie o'donnell like performance given by danica sheridan . i have no inherent problem with her character ; it is just her singing voice that leaves little to be desired . one particular musical number , " lesbian rock " , was one of the lowest points i have ever experienced in my film - going life thanks to a strained and lackluster vocal job by sheridan . the film ends about twenty minutes before the credits actually roll . the remainder of the running time is padded out with a few more songs ( " lesbian rock " included ) and the ridiculously presented anti - nukes message tacked on to the end for no reason other than to make it a feature length film . once the " isle of lesbos reprise " was reached , i felt the story had already been wrapped up well enough to end it all . why was the film needlessly stretched out past its obvious end ? isle of lesbos is available on videocassette from www . indie - underground . com . the transfer is pretty clean ( and all the detail of the wrinkled cloth and paint backdrops are readily apparent ) and the film is letterboxed at approximately 1 . 85 : 1 . in many respects , isle of lesbos has incredible cult potential ( like a rocky horror for the new millennium ) . this film is by no means my cup of tea , but i know there are those out there who will enjoy it . if you think it might be for you , then by all means seek it out . i , on the other hand , will be cleansing my palette with a good action film like gladiator . . . wait . are n't gladiator films considered to be . . . oh , never mind .

0NEG

was just going for cheap laughs . either way , he manages to present some of the most offensive material i have ever seen in a movie . the film opens with a preacher running a small ringing " could have been a decent song , but the accompanying visuals of spousal abuse are more harrowing than this film should be displaying . " i 'm a lesbian " ( which is her character ; it is just her singing voice that leaves little to be desired . one particular musical number , " lesbian rock " , was one of the lowest points i have ever experienced in my film - going life thanks to a strained and lackluster vocal job by sheridan . the film ends about twenty minutes before

one of the indicator of badness in film is the hype being remembered more than film itself . such was the case with boxing helena , 1993 directorial debut of jennifer chambers lynch , daughter of the great david lynch . made in the dying years of post - twin peaks lynch craze among movie snobs , it was hyped as another , " warped , twisted masterpiece " of lynch clan . kim basinger also provided extra publicity by quitting the lead role and being sued for the breech of contract . but , the result was extremely disappointing film , which quickly sank into well - deserved oblivion . the movie protagonist is nick cavanaugh ( played by julian sands ) , talented surgeon who is getting obsessed by helena ( sherilyn fenn ) , beautiful woman who ditched him after brief affair . cavanaugh stalks her and uses every opportunity for the pathetic attempts to re - establish the relationship . during one of such occasions , helena is hit by a car , and nick quickly takes the role of her personal physician in order to have his way with her . after she wakes up , helena discovers not only that she is prisoner in cavanaugh 's stylish residence , but also that cavanaugh amputated her legs in order to prevent her from escaping . she is still trying to escape , so cavanaugh takes off her arms . apart from casting sherilyn fenn ( audrey horne in twin peaks and small cameo in wild at heart ) and the use of twisted characters and their perverse fantasies , this film by ms . lynch has n't got anything in common with the works of director 's more talented father . despite rather bizarre subject , the style of this film is conventional and setting is light , characters are beautiful - but the result at the end is quite sterile and the film in the end looks too artificial for dark sexual fantasy it was supposed to portray . jennifer lynch obviously lacks talents in directing and it becomes painfully obvious in the scenes that are supposed to erotic - its banal artificiality is even bellow the standards of playboy videos . the actors are n't good either . julian sands is terribly miscast as emotionally disturbed man - this actors is best either when he plays charismatic protagonists or villains ; being neurotic does n't suit him . bill paxton was better for this role , but his presence was wasted in forgettable and unnecessary subplot dealing with helena 's boyfriend . sherilyn fenn contributed to this film mostly by her looks , but even the her greater effort in acting could n't help this film . the screenplay , on the other hand , is awful , at least for someone who had made best - seller with laura palmer 's diary - the events in this movie are implausible , characters come and go without purpose and many unnecessary subplots only slow down the film and add to the total confusion . one of those subplots involves character of cavanaugh 's " regular " girlfriend , played by betsy clarke . the twist at the end , although unpredictable , is unbelievable and the viewers , who had the stomach to endure entire film , would feel cheated . all in all , boxing helena is disorganised quasi - artistic mess of a movie that should be remembered as nothing more than one of the wiser decisions in kim basinger 's career .

0NEG

being sued for the breech of contract . but , the result was extremely disappointing film , which quickly sank into well - deserved oblivion . the movie protagonist is nick cavanaugh ( played by and setting is light , characters are beautiful - but the result at the end is quite sterile and the film in the end looks too artificial for dark sexual fantasy it was supposed to portray . jennifer lynch obviously lacks talents in directing and it becomes painfully obvious in the scenes that are supposed to erotic - its banal artificiality is even bellow the standards of playboy videos . the actors are n't good either . julian sands is terribly miscast as emotionally disturbed man - this actors is best either . bill paxton was better for this role , but his presence was wasted in forgettable and unnecessary subplot dealing with helena 's boyfriend . sherilyn fenn contributed to . the screenplay , on the other hand , is awful , at least for someone who had made best - seller with laura palmer 's diary - the events in this movie are implausible , characters come and go without purpose and many unnecessary the twist at the end , although unpredictable , is unbelievable and the viewers , who had the stomach to endure entire film , would feel cheated . all in all , boxing helena is disorganised quasi - artistic mess of a movie that should be remembered as nothing more

let 's get this one over with as quickly as possible . if there was a possibility to receive a refund , this review would not be forthcoming . but as it is , " godzilla " is without a doubt the loudest , longest , and ultimately most amateurishly written film ever released through a major studio . producer dean devlin and director roland emmerich should be ashamed of themselves , and as penance be forced to return to film school to watch " last year at merienbad " until they can grasp the idea of content and plot . no amount of hype , no amount of money can hide the fact that these filmmakers are the 90s equivalent to william beaudine ( billy the kid vs . dracula ) . " godzilla " opens with stock footage of the bikini atoll nuclear tests interspersed with footage of iguanas playfully swimming and nuzzling their eggs . we are then introduced to the crew of a japanese fish canning ship ( a questionable enterprise considering that tuna processing is supposed to be supervised to eliminate the netting of dolphins ) . well , the ship is attacked and sunk by an unseen creature . later , a group of frenchmen led by philippe roache ( jean reno ) interview the sole survivor . in a state of shock , the only thing the man can utter is the word " gojira " ( the japanese name of the famed beast ) . we are then introduced to dr . nick tatopoulos ( matthew broderick , with a moniker obviously taken from the effects designer of the film ) . he is currently studying the effects that the chernobyl disaster has had on the local earthworm population . he is immediately drafted by the u . s . military and taken to panama where he is shown the huge footprints of a creature . in a short amount of time , another fishing boat ( loaded with canned tuna from the u . s . and korea for some reason ) is found grounded in jamaica . well , it seems that whatever is eating these ships is headed for new york . when the beast finally appears , he tears up one building , stomps a couple of trucks and makes life hell for the incumbent mayor ebert ( thumbs up for new york ) . the military , with dr . tatopoulos 's help , have two tons of fresh fish dumped in the middle of new york to lure the beast out of its hiding place in the new york subway system . it finally comes crashing through the city streets and has a cute face to face with dr . tatopoulos who snaps the beast 's picture . the monster eats the fish , the military starts shooting , and the chase is on , with the army causing 90 % of the ensuing damage . working from a hunch as to why godzilla has decided to come to the big apple , dr . totopoulos buys a few home pregnancy kits from a local drugstore that has chosen to remain open ( even though new york has been evacuated ) . well the test proves that the monster is a hermaphrodite and is pregnant . needless to say , no one believes the good doctor about his discovery , so he must join up with the renegade french secret service agents and find the monster 's nesting site and destroy the eggs before the mayor starts letting the populous back into the city ( even though the monster is n't dead yet ) . i sincerely hope that i 've completely spoiled any interest anyone might have of seeing this film . i gave away the relevant plot so that i could spare those of you courageous ( or foolish ) enough to drop down an hour 's wage on this tripe . everything about " godzilla " reeks almost as bad as the piles of rotting fish used to trap the beast . the script ( and let 's be clear here ) by devlin and emmerich is so full of plot holes and non characters as to be sure to be the recipient of next years " razzie " award . the dialogue between maria pitillo ( as audrey timmonds , dr . tatopoulos ' estranged girlfriend ) and mr . broderick is so adolescent , it makes teenagers giggle in disbelief ( as happened during the screening i witnessed ) . the film could be enjoyably campy if it did n't take itself so damn seriously . but to what end , as there is no commentary on humanities foibles against nature , nor is there any reference about godzilla being some sort of retaliation against mankind . no . godzilla is just a big dummy that got knocked up by some french immigrants and decided to let the state of new york pay for it . the film is bleak and ugly looking . taking place at night during a rain storm , the movie has little or no depth . everything is ugly and dark . new york has never looked so inhospitable since " death wish " . in an attempt to give the film some color , audrey timmonds carries a bright red umbrella which is unique in that everyone else in the film carries the standard gray issue . the only moment of composition and color is during the brief scenes on jamaica , where dr . tatopoulos finds himself standing in a giant footprint . the scene is nicely photographed but poorly set up . you know from the outset that nick is standing in a footprint . for a scientist , this is very poor observation . let 's look at some of the more interesting plot holes in the film ( this activity , is becoming almost as popular as the kevin bacon game ) : 1 . ) why does the french nuclear tests only affect one clutch of iguana eggs , and how do those eggs fuse into one beast ? 2 . ) why would a cold blooded creature choose a cold climate ( such as new york ) to nest ? i do n't think iguana 's have a habit of migrating . 3 . ) how can godzilla crawl through the new york subway system , slice a submarine in half , yet be unable to extricate himself from some thin ( in comparison ) steel cable on the brooklyn bridge ? 4 . ) the brooklyn bridge is the only suspension bridge in existence that does not need it 's suspension cables . 5 . ) did godzilla carry all two hundred eggs in her belly ? if so , then radioactive mutations surely are wondrous creatures . ( note : each egg is 10 feet tall and almost as wide . godzilla would have to be over 1 , 000 feet tall to carry them all ) . 6 . ) godzilla can crush ships and eat helicopters , but new york cabs are made of stronger steel . 7 . ) godzilla can out maneuver helicopters , bullets , torpedoes and missiles , but ca n't catch you on foot . 8 . ) taxis can out maneuver godzilla . 9 . ) godzilla can burrow through the subway system but ca n't tear through the park avenue tunnel . 10 . ) why was nothing else mutated by the nuclear test as quickly as godzilla ? maybe a giant hermit crab in the sequel . 11 . ) galapagos iguana 's actually live in the french polynesian islands ? 12 . ) why was dr . tatopoulos brought in by the military if they were not going to listen to him anyway ? 13 . ) how did they evacuate new york island in less than a day , and how did they convince those new yorkers to go to new jersey ? 14 . ) new york television stations use vhs tape for both filming and broadcasting . new yorkers hate beta cam . i could go on and on , but that would only serve to make the film seem more enjoyable than it is . do n't be fooled , this film has less gray matter than any episode of " america 's funniest home videos " . the performances in the film are singularly bland . not one performance belays any awe or fear in the face of this two hundred foot tall terror . the characters , in the midst of the onslaught , have time to stop and discuss the lack of good coffee , failed relationships , career choices . the only common occurrence that does n't take place here is having one of the characters have a bowel movement , but then that would have made them believable . godzilla for the most part is okay . the design of the beast is funky , if not very memorable . one thing that comes to mind-- the major redirection of godzilla in this film is to remove his most familiar trademark , namely his atomic breath . now , i for one ca n't quite fathom how you can call this monster godzilla without that little trait . a good comparison would be to make a superman film and eliminate his ability to fly . there is so much wrong with this film that i ca n't really recall anything recently that has left me this cold hearted ( except for my divorce ) . any film that can have a two ton lizard slipping on gum balls has got to be envisioned under the influence of prozac . the addition of the baby raptors ( ah , i meant godzillas ) , are nothing but a direct rip off of ' jurassic park " , but with none of that film 's suspense or tension . suffice to say that , " godzilla " is without a doubt the most brain dead motion picture of the decade . this is a film that needed the hype . with the current level of writing and directing , nothing else about the film succeeds . if you 've seen the trailers , you 've seen the best parts . my only suggestion for mr . d and mr . e . is that they could always go back to selling shoes . . this film could be the next " rocky horror " . only it 's not funny !

0NEG

. but as it is , " godzilla " is without a doubt the loudest , longest , and ultimately most amateurishly written film ever released through a major studio . producer dean devlin and director roland emmerich should be ashamed of themselves , and as penance be forced to return to film even though the monster is n't dead yet ) . i sincerely hope that i 've completely spoiled any interest anyone might have of seeing this film . i gave wage on this tripe . everything about " godzilla " reeks almost as bad as the piles of rotting fish used to trap the beast . the script ( and let 's be clear here ) by devlin and emmerich is so full of plot holes and non characters as to be sure to be the recipient of next years " razzie " award . the dialogue between maria pitillo ( as audrey timmonds of new york pay for it . the film is bleak and ugly looking . taking place at night during a rain storm , the movie has little or no depth . everything is ugly and dark . new york has . let 's look at some of the more interesting plot holes in the film ( this activity , is becoming almost episode of " america 's funniest home videos " . the performances in the film are singularly bland . not one performance belays any awe or fear in a superman film and eliminate his ability to fly . there is so much wrong with this film that i ca n't really recall anything recently that has . suffice to say that , " godzilla " is without a doubt the most brain dead motion picture of the decade . this is a film that needed the hype .

woody allen is one of the most successful artist - directors in hollywood , but he is becoming less and less reliable as a filmmaker . in his early years of film - making he mastered the simple comedy . from there he went into a second phase and took risks experimenting with different approaches and styles . some of these work better than others . zelig and crimes and misdemeanors are the work of a creative and intelligent artist . deconstructing harry goes to the other extreme and is a bizarre experiment demanding more of the viewer than it gives back . harry block ( allen ) has in his life only two drives . he wants to have sex with as many women as possible and when he makes a mess of his life and those of his lovers he wants to retreat into his writing . the story of this static and highly unsympathetic character is told with a number of often clumsy stylistic experiments . perhaps the most irritating device is to express the disjointedness of harry 's life by editing harry 's scenes putting in cuts in the middle as if to show missing time with something edited out . as a writer , harry puts his friends into his books in the thinnest of disguises . the film dramatizes incidents from these supposed books and cuts between his real story line and fragments from harry 's books with different actors playing the real and fictional people in harry 's life . these fragments are frustrating in their lack of completion , but even more frustrating is the bringing of the characters out of the fragments into scenes with the real characters . it is up to the viewer to keep track not just who is fictional and who is real but also to keep straight who is the fictional doppelganger of which real person . if that sounds complicated , it is . then as another device in one of the stories , an actor seems to have the peculiar property that he has gone out of focus and can only be seen in blurry image . harry sees this as a metaphor for his own condition and himself goes blurry for a short time . as if these touches did not create sufficient confusion , the story is told out of chronological order . if allen were giving the audience a story that was worth decoding , any and all of these stylistic touches could be excusable . but allen puts the audience through all of this to give us a portrait of harry block who is a selfish manipulator who is not worth the effort to understand . deconstructing harry is set at a time when harry 's old college , the one that expelled him when he attended it , wants now to honor him for a lifetime of writing achievement . harry is searching among his friends to find one who will go with him . just why someone who is so unwilling to commit to a relationship with anyone suddenly needs the support of someone else is unclear . harry tries his current girl friend fay ( elizabeth shue ) only to find that she is about to marry harry 's old friend larry ( billy crystal ) . block would like his son hilly ( eric lloyd ) to accompany him , but hilly 's mother , previously first harry 's psychiatrist and more recently his wife , refuses to let her son see his father . another friend richard ( bob balaban ) would go but has health problems . harry also considers bringing a prostitute cookie ( hazel goodman ) . it is interesting that allen should introduce another likable prostitute so soon after mighty aphrodite , but cookie is considerably different -- black and a lot brighter than mira sorvino 's character in the previous film . while the comedy sequences are never complete , a few are elaborate and some quite funny . the centerpiece of the film is a journey into hell with allen playing a sort of orpheus rescuing fay from the clutches of the devil , who looks a lot like larry . that story also is left uncompleted , perhaps to show harry 's unwillingness to commit even to telling a story . the linchpin that was needed to tie together the stylistic quirks of this film was a central character who changes and who gives us something about which to care . that character is patently not the one allen creates in harry block and not the characters around harry as seen through his acerbic eyes . allen can do much better than deconstructing harry . i rate it a 3 on the 0 to 10 scale and a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale .

0NEG

the most successful artist - directors in hollywood , but he is becoming less and less reliable as a filmmaker . in his early years of film - making he the real and fictional people in harry 's life . these fragments are frustrating in their lack of completion , but even more frustrating is the bringing of the characters out of the fragments portrait of harry block who is a selfish manipulator who is not worth the effort to understand . deconstructing harry is set at a time when harry mira sorvino 's character in the previous film . while the comedy sequences are never complete , a few are elaborate and some quite funny . the devil , who looks a lot like larry . that story also is left uncompleted , perhaps to show harry 's unwillingness to commit even

here 's a rarity : a children 's film that attempts to tackle a weighty subject , is there a god ? done well , it could have been a gem among the wasteland of modern children 's cinema . unfortunately , it is n't . with jumbled messages , and an unclear audience , wide awake was better left asleep . fifth grader joshua beal ( joseph cross ) is in the middle of a moral crisis . his beloved grandfather ( robert loggia ) has died , and joshua has begun a quest . he wants to find god , to discover why bad things happen . this religious quest is slightly disturbing for his parents ( dana delany and denis leary ) , but they do their best to cope with their son as he explores different religious faiths . at his catholic school , his favorite teacher , sister terry ( rosie o'donnell ) , tries to give him guidance , but this is a journey he must make on his own . meanwhile , he is having the most momentous year of his life . he has several adventures with his daredevil best friend dave ( timothy reifsnyder ) , he gets his first crush , and begins to wake up to the world around him while he is on his spiritual journey . it is somewhat confusing as to what the real audience for wide awake is expected to be . on its surface , it appears to be a kid 's film . however , it deals with serious issues , and is likely to be boring for today 's instant - gratification kids . and while it might seem heartening to see that someone is trying to produce something thoughtful for the kidvid audience , wide awake asks serious questions , but only delivers a cheap gimmick for an answer . if there were a bit more meat in the story , adults on a nostalgic bent might get a kick out of the movie . the actors who might have created a great cast ( o'donnell , leary and delany ) are wasted in roles that amount to little more than cameos . the nostalgic elements ( best friend , favorite teacher , first crush , etc . ) have been done much better in other movies , and actually seem more like filler here . the film 's strongest scenes are some touching flashbacks depicting joshua 's relationship with his grandfather . they show more depth than is present anywhere else in the movie . maybe the film would have been better if , instead of playing the relationship through flashbacks , it were set entirely during joshua 's last year with his grandpa . it certainly would have been more entertaining . wide awake can best be described as a failed experiment . it starts out with noble aspirations , but never delivers on its promise . parents who do take their children to see this one ought to be prepared to answer some tough questions . . . that is if their kids are n't bored to death first .

0NEG

gem among the wasteland of modern children 's cinema . unfortunately , it is n't . with jumbled messages , and an unclear audience , wide awake was better left asleep . fifth grader around him while he is on his spiritual journey . it is somewhat confusing as to what the real audience for wide awake is kidvid audience , wide awake asks serious questions , but only delivers a cheap gimmick for an answer . if there were a bit more meat in the great cast ( o'donnell , leary and delany ) are wasted in roles that amount to little more than cameos . the nostalgic elements ( best friend , favorite teacher been done much better in other movies , and actually seem more like filler here . the film 's strongest scenes are some touching more entertaining . wide awake can best be described as a failed experiment . it starts out with noble aspirations , but never delivers on its promise . parents who do take their children to see this to answer some tough questions . . . that is if their kids are n't bored to death first .

there 's no reason to doubt that donnie brasco is based , as its opening credits proclaim , on a true story . but if it 's an accurate picture of life on america 's mean streets , than cinematic depictions of organised crime have had a much stronger basis in reality than i would have previously thought . for from the film 's outset , when a group of hoods jocularly trade differing opinions on the merits of various automobiles ( not unlike a number of movie lowlifes who recently gave a madonna song a close reading ) donnie brasco resembles more than passingly a few gangster flicks once believed to be works of fiction . our eponymous hero ( johnny depp ) is not the cheap crook he first appears to be . brasco is joseph pistone , an undercover fbi agent who has the task of chumming - up to lefty ( al pacino ) , a seasoned hood who tutors pistone in the art of being a " wiseguy " . regrettably , pistone learns his lessons all too well . his concern for lefty , who is burdened with a heroin addicted son , exacerbates his own family troubles : his children resent his lengthy absences and his wife fears that her husband 's gangster persona is becoming a little too convincing . true , the focus on pistone 's family life does deviate from the typical gangster - flick formula , but this subplot never rises above its television drama origins . the unhappy couple trade predictable lines and engage in drawn - out domestic squabbles ? including an ill - advised marriage guidance routine ? that slow the film down unnecessarily . the biggest problem with donnie brasco , however , is that its wiseguy attitude and style lacks the flair of its many predecessors . the awkward use of an occasional disco tune momentarily reminds us its the 70 's , but not with the consistent and blindingly tacky style ? i loved those fluoro coloured suits ? of scorces ' costume drama casino . more importantly , pacino 's presence triggers memories of his earlier movie triumphs in which similar territory was covered far more effectively . donnie brasco 's take on american values , for instance , is feeble and obvious . lefty rambles out dreams of material betterment to the accompaniment of grating inspirational music . inexplicably , lefty 's horatio alger inspired gush is supposed to move us . it does n't any more than his family troubles do , which are dealt in the same saccharine and obvious manner as pistone 's . just think a minute on how these themes were explored in the godfather movies and scarface . in these pictures pacino 's dedication to a peculiar and bloody hyper - capitalism was twisted and confronting , while his dogged application of macho wiseguy procedure meant that his relations to friends and family was intriguingly dark ? neither were spared bloody retribution for breaching wiseguy regulations . donnie brasco 's tawdry little crime , therefore is n't so much its repetition of familiar gangster themes , but the shameless way in which it sanitises them . ( oh and by the way , i forgot to mention that the script also sports a startling subplot : pipstone 's superiors are obstructive incompetents who are infuriated by his constant insubordination ? is that a " damn you mcbain ! " i hear from springfield way ? ) so the movie is cliched . big deal , what do you expect from a gangster - flick ? well you expect quality action sequences and bravado performances in abundance if its going to be a decent example of the genre . donnie brasco fails on both counts . the action scenes never rise above the ordinary and depp 's woeful performance tends to smother the good - work of his comrades . admittedly , pacino does nothing new and michael madsen ( sonny ) simply smirks his way through the picture like a slightly subdued mr . white , but both possess an unmistakable sly charm . depp usually exhibits a bit of class himself , but regrettably , being in the presence of one of his betters must have left him star - struck , for he is completely hell - bent on mimicking pacino 's well - earned high style . the consequences are painful to watch . its no exaggeration to say that the film 's credibility is seriously strained by the sight of the pistone family 's uncanny ability to keep a straight face in front of their breadwinner 's phony brooklyn accent . perhaps we should take pity on the makers of donnie brasco . maybe a scrupulous adherence to pinpoint accuracy demanded tiered dialogue and scenarios weakly reminiscent of classic gangster flicks . if this is indeed the case , surely the makers of donnie brasco could have explored the fascinating possibility that america 's underworld is committed to emulating , albeit in heavily attenuated form , their movie namesakes . depp could have poignantly played a simple cop who becomes a hideous parody once he is forced to mimic big - screen gangster greats . who knows what insights into the criminal psyche could have arisen ? but then again , perhaps donnie brasco is n't so true after all .

0NEG

? including an ill - advised marriage guidance routine ? that slow the film down unnecessarily . the biggest problem with donnie brasco , however , is that its wiseguy attitude and style lacks the flair of its many predecessors . the awkward use of an occasional disco tune momentarily so much its repetition of familiar gangster themes , but the shameless way in which it sanitises them . ( oh and by the way , i forgot ! " i hear from springfield way ? ) so the movie is cliched . big deal , what do you expect from a be a decent example of the genre . donnie brasco fails on both counts . the action scenes never rise above the ordinary and depp 's woeful performance tends to smother the good - work of his comrades . admittedly , pacino does nothing new and michael madsen on mimicking pacino 's well - earned high style . the consequences are painful to watch . its no exaggeration to say that the film 's credibility is seriously strained by the sight of the pistone family 's uncanny ability

these days the lack of originality in hollywood reflects itself in the deluge of remakes . but , only a few years ago , before wes craven publicly made fun of the practice , sequels had been more popular among hollywood producers . sequels also used to be popular among directors and movie stars whose careers went south . the way to regain popularity and prestige , they thought , was the use the same formulas , characters and story lines that brought them success in the first place . one of such celebrity was eddie murphy , black comedian of 1980s whose career was in big decline during the first part of this decade . in order to return to the spotlight , he chose to resurrect the franchise created by his most popular film , beverly hills cop , 1984 action comedy that had already spawned the sequel in 1987 . seven years later , for the third instalment , he used the directorial service of john landis , another fading star , with whom he successfully collaborated twice - in trading places and coming to america . this time , however , third time was n't the charm and beverly hills iii was failure . eddie murphy had to wait few more years for real comeback . eddie murphy here plays axel foley , fast - talking streetwise detroit policeman , who raids illegal chop shop . the routine police action ends in tragedy , when the criminals kill foley 's boss . determined to bring the killers to justice , foley realises that their leader is ellis de wald ( timothy carhart ) . when it turns out that de wald happens to be security chief for wonderland theme park in los angeles , foley goes back to los angeles . there , with the help of his old friend , local policeman rosewood ( judge rheinhold ) , foley would clash with money counterfeit ring . ten years has passed since the original and times are definitely different . in this decade , the contrast between blue collar detroit and yuppie beverly hills , which provided a lot of gags in 1984 film , simply does n't work . screenwriter steven e . de souza provides another conflict , this time between the childish sillyness of the good guys and business - like professionalism of the bad guys . since foley belongs to the former , his character had to watch his language , and the tone of the film in general is more infantile . unfortunately , this film still belongs to action movie genre , and there is too much violence for little children . nice example is the humorous scene in the beginning , which turns into standard ramboesque bloodbath . unlike donner with the lethal weapon series , landis simply ca n't balance the comedy with " regular " action , and the result is a film that fails in both aspects . action scenes are sometimes interesting , but not too spectacular ( at the end , scenery of wonderland is more fascinating than the action itself ) ; humour , on the other hand , falls flat . to make even worse , some minor characters from 1984 film gets unnecessary and sometimes irritating overexposure ( especially art expert turned into arms dealer , played by bronson pinchot ) . in the end , although the film provided some entertainment , viewers , at least critical ones , would probably be happy to know that there are n't any plans for beverly hills iv .

0NEG

time was n't the charm and beverly hills iii was failure . eddie murphy had to wait few more years for which provided a lot of gags in 1984 film , simply does n't work . screenwriter steven e . de souza provides another conflict this film still belongs to action movie genre , and there is too much violence for little children . nice example is the humorous scene in the beginning , which turns into standard ramboesque bloodbath . unlike donner with the lethal weapon series , landis balance the comedy with " regular " action , and the result is a film that fails in both aspects . action scenes are sometimes interesting , but not too wonderland is more fascinating than the action itself ) ; humour , on the other hand , falls flat . to make even worse , some minor characters from 1984 film gets unnecessary and sometimes irritating overexposure ( especially art expert turned into arms dealer , played

i have never been so confused after watching a movie . " meet joe black " is probably one of the most visually satisfying films of this year , with a cinematography , music and cast that will dazzle most of us . at the same time it is probably the most boring and ridiculous experience hat you will have this season . at first you marvel at the elegant direction , graceful cinematography and sensual musical score . then you 'll wait for something to happen for half an hour , but when you finally understand what 's going on , you 'll wonder what are actors such as anthony hopkins , brad pitt and claire forlani are doing in a film like this ? the script is simply a silly and unresolved story , which is artificially stretched into a three hour long motion picture . it feels like an eternity . most of the time it is a pompous soap opera , filled with empty dialogue that the actors deliver in a high pitched voice and " meaningful " winks . the film is based on alberto caesella 's play " death takes a holiday " . the story concentrates around bill ( anthony hopkins ) who lives a fulfilled life as a successful business man , but sometimes he wakes up in the middle of the night and hears a voice that is saying " yes " . soon he meets a young elegant gentlemen ( brad pitt ) who introduces himself as " death " . it is bill 's time . but death has other plans . it has come down to us simple mortals to find out what it means to be alive . our bill is chosen to be death 's guide and in exchange he gets time . bill introduces death as joe black , who immediately becomes the center of everyone 's attention . bill 's business partners speculate about why joe is constantly at bill 's side , lives in his house and resides at his office . that is not all , however . bill 's youngest daughter susan ( claire forlani ) falls in love with the mysterious stranger and joe falls in love with her . this relationship is bound to have some serious consequences . it would n't be fair to say that this film did n't have some interesting moments , such as the scene where joe is invited to join bill 's family for dinner . when joe starts enjoying peanut butter and later falls in love , the experience is somewhat different . it is obvious that a story like this story is very difficult to structure . it 's one thing to say : " would n't it be fun to have death take human form and come down to earth . . " to create a motion picture out of this is another . four screenwriters have worked on a script that lacks drive and logic . it is overlong and too primitive to pass as a serious film . on the other hand it demonstrates incredible performances and a very decent direction by martin brest ( " scent of a woman " ) . hopkins looks great in any role , and no matter how shallow or hollow it is , he will complete it . his talent and charisma are needed here more than any where else , since it actually saves the film from a complete embarrassment . but pitt is the one that got one of the most difficult roles of recent time . how can you play death in human form ? to me it seems that death and life are not something that can be associated with earthly matters . they are not creatures , but phenomenas . saying that death takes human form would be the same as to suggest that eternity would take human form . handling such a ridiculous task is incredibly difficult and pitt deserves some credit for his work . speaking in a calm , soft voice , portraying death as a lonely , distant and powerful guy that is unfamiliar with practical earthly matters . he looks and acts more like an angel of death , rather than a demon or a red - eyed executioner . claire forlani and others are also fine , stretching their stereotypical characters to their limits . unfortunately their performances are not enough to rescue this film from its self inflicted misery . in other words this is not what i expected from the director of " scent of a woman " . it could ( and should ) be better with such cast and crew . in the end it seems as if they have all been intensively working on a ravishingly looking soap opera .

0NEG

will dazzle most of us . at the same time it is probably the most boring and ridiculous experience hat you will have this season . at first you claire forlani are doing in a film like this ? the script is simply a silly and unresolved story , which is artificially stretched into a three hour long motion picture . it feels like an eternity . most of the time it is a pompous soap opera , filled with empty dialogue that the actors deliver in a high pitched voice and of this is another . four screenwriters have worked on a script that lacks drive and logic . it is overlong and too primitive to pass as a serious film . on the other are needed here more than any where else , since it actually saves the film from a complete embarrassment . but pitt is the one that got one of as to suggest that eternity would take human form . handling such a ridiculous task is incredibly difficult and pitt deserves some credit for his work . speaking claire forlani and others are also fine , stretching their stereotypical characters to their limits . unfortunately their performances are not enough to rescue this film from its self inflicted misery . in other words this is not what i expected

this is crap , but , honestly , what older american audience is going to be able to resist seeing jack lemmon and james garner as bicker- ing ex - presidents ? especially when their supporting players in- clude dan aykroyd as the current commander in chief , lauren bacall as a former first lady , and john heard as the dan quayle - ish vice president . yup , you 're talkin ' pre - sold property here and , for warner brothers , the perfect fit into their now - ritual grumpy old men holiday slot . for the non - discriminating viewer , my fellow americans is fine . the raw star power alone will have audiences applauding this atrocious political- thriller road - comedy . ( they did in mine , heaven help us . ) for the rest of us , the movie is immediately tiresome . the tone is terrible and the banter is worse . forget wit-- lemmon and garner merely exchange profanities through most of the movie . ( has anyone counted the number of first penis references ? ) sure , some of the bits are absurdly funny , including a men 's room macarena joke , the appearance of an elvis impersonator on a trainload of tarheels , and an all dorothy marching band performing " over the rainbow " at a gay men 's march . the get there from here , though , you have to submit to one of the most offensively overbearing musical scores of all time . judas priest , is there a single moment of silence in this film ? even the dialogue gets drowned out . what a waste .

0NEG

this is crap , but , honestly , what older american audience is help us . ) for the rest of us , the movie is immediately tiresome . the tone is terrible and the banter is worse . forget wit-- lemmon and garner merely exchange profanities through most of the movie . ( has anyone counted from here , though , you have to submit to one of the most offensively overbearing musical scores of all time . judas priest , is there a single moment of silence in this film ? even the dialogue gets drowned out . what a waste .

keep cool , a chinese film directed by semi - accomplished filmmaker yimou zhang , was one of the kickoff films for this year 's hawaii international film festival . on the day it premiered , lines of eager moviegoers stretched around the block , some anticipants having queued up well in advance to get a good seat in the theater . they need not have wasted their time . the movie is billed as a comedy , but is surprisingly bereft of humor . there are noticeable attempts at laughs , but very few tries actually click . i wondered if there were jokes that i was n't getting because i 'm not from china , but unfortunately my conclusion was that this lack of humor could n't be attributed to the cultural barrier either . keep cool just is n't very funny . the prelude to the film was a visit by keep cool 's producer who , with the help of an interpreter , regaled us of how in order to get the print to the festival in time , an assistant hand carried it on the plane from china to hawaii . although the print made it , the assistant 's luggage was lost . too bad that story was n't in the movie , because it got a big laugh . qu ying , the film 's female lead , was also on hand to give a few comments . however , whereas the producer politely made regular pauses in his dialog so the interpreter could bring us up to speed , ms . ying saw fit to say everything she had to say in one , fast - paced , incredibly long tirade . it was dizzying ; good foreshadowing for the film . you see , keep cool is filmed almost totally with a camera handheld by a man with a bad case of the shakes . at least that 's the way it seems , since the camera is constantly moving . cinema verite is one thing , but panning and shaking around until your audience has a headache is another . although some might consider it a form which helps give the viewer an idea of the anarchic state into which chinese youth is slowly growing , i found it thoroughly distracting , and after a while , quite annoying . headache , as i said . the film is about a young bookseller ( wen jiang ) who is after a young woman ( qu ying ) . they used to be romantically involved , but the woman grew tired of him and left the relationship . the first half of the film is about the young man 's plan to win her back . of course the thing is , she does n't want to be won back , and has a nightclub owner friend of hers rough him up a bit . in the fight , the young man grabs a laptop computer belonging to a bystander and attempts to use it to fend off his attacker , but only ends up smashing it against a lamppost . we later find out that the laptop belongs to an older man who wishes to get his damaged computer replaced . there is a funny scene ( the only one in the film ) where the young man tries to use some twisted logic in order to get the older man to seek out the nightclub owner ( baotian li ) in order to recoup his losses . there is no sense to be made out of the young woman 's behavior ; cold one minute , caring the next , so we feel no sympathy for her character . the bookseller would be better off without her . although the second half of the film causes us to lose a lot of sympathy for the young bookseller as well , who is obsessed with chopping off the nightclub owner 's hand as revenge for the beating he took , it also offers us some nice interaction between the bookseller and the older man . while the bookseller is blinded by his thirst for revenge , the older man is the voice of reason and tries to rationalize each situation . his quest to end the dispute peacefully and equitably is the one we identify with , but it is frustrating to see that he seems to be talking to a brick wall half the time . a friendship develops between the two men , but it occurs too late in the film for the audience to appreciate . although only an hour and a half in length , keep cool contains extraneous material . the whole plot of how the bookseller is after the young woman could have been taken out , since we do n't see her from the midpoint on . a case of mistaken identity or some other device could have served as the point of conflict between the bookseller and the nightclub owner , and would have saved us from the bookseller 's boring pursuit during the first half . but of course , this would have shortened the movie to less than an hour . there are a few things that keep cool does right . as mentioned before , the interaction between the bookseller and the older man is generally pretty good . although it grows tiresome , the reasoning with the unreasonable is a nice exercise in logic , and represents the differences in thinking between generations . in one scene , for example , the bookseller quotes confucius to get his point across , but the older man claims the quote was misinterpreted , and that it means something entirely different . also effective is the way zhang sets up tension within a scene , such as when the bookseller is getting ready to cut off the hand of the unwitting nightclub owner . the nightclub owner is counting out money , slapping each bundle of currency on the table . with every shot of his hand , we can hardly stand the interminable wait before the bookseller is going to pull out his cleaver and exact his revenge . unfortunately , these crumbs are not enough to overcome the rest of the film 's shortcomings , and were n't enough to prevent that headache from lingering after i left the theater .

0NEG

the movie is billed as a comedy , but is surprisingly bereft of humor . there are noticeable attempts at laughs , but very few tries actually click . i wondered if there were jokes that i was be attributed to the cultural barrier either . keep cool just is n't very funny . the prelude to the film was a visit by one , fast - paced , incredibly long tirade . it was dizzying ; good foreshadowing for the film . you see , keep cool is filmed almost totally with a camera handheld by a man with a bad case of the shakes . at least that 's the way it seems , anarchic state into which chinese youth is slowly growing , i found it thoroughly distracting , and after a while , quite annoying . headache , as i said . the film is ; cold one minute , caring the next , so we feel no sympathy for her character . the bookseller would be better off without her . and equitably is the one we identify with , but it is frustrating to see that he seems to be talking to a an hour and a half in length , keep cool contains extraneous material . the whole plot of how the bookseller is after , and would have saved us from the bookseller 's boring pursuit during the first half . but of course , this and the older man is generally pretty good . although it grows tiresome , the reasoning with the unreasonable is a nice exercise not enough to overcome the rest of the film 's shortcomings , and were n't enough to prevent that headache from

although i had not been a viewer of the " rugrats " television series , i went into their first animated feature film , " the rugrats movie , " with a positive attitude . the trailer looked cute enough , after all . after seeing it , i think the words in my recent " antz " review , in which i stated that it was the worst film of its type since 1995 's " the pebble and the penguin , " were a bit premature . " the rugrats movie , " is bottom - of - the - barrel children 's fare at its worst , and starts to make , " antz " look good in comparison . as in the show , " the rugrats movie , " is about a group of very little friends , ranging from babies to a three - year - old . the head of the group , tommy pickles ( e . g . daily ) , becomes distraught when his mother has a newborn baby named dill ( get it ? dill pickles ? . . . hardee - har - har ! ) and is informed by his three - year - old cousin , anjelica ( cheryl chase ) , that the new babies always take all of the attention away from the other children . when the other children , chuckie , and twins lil and phil , suggest taking dill back to the hospital , tommy goes along with it , but on their way there , they crash in the forest , and become lost , running into wolves and circus monkeys , among other things . " the rugrats movie , " judging from the idea of being lost in the woods , could have been a potentially fun family film , and there were many different things that could have been done with the story . so what did the writers choose to do ? why , they set up a protracted , cliched scene where the children almost go over a waterfall , of course ! for the youngest of children ( ages 3 - 7 ) , " the rugrats movie , " may very well entertain them , judging from the audience i saw this with . of course , if you looked around at all of the older kids and their parents , they were all desperately struggling to stay awake , and that included me . for an adult , " the rugrats movie , " is a piece of garbage . the plotline is unoriginal and the writing has absolutely no wit or charm . there is n't one laugh to be had in the film , nor is there any excitement . if anything is even marginally good in the picture , it is the bright animation style , so it is especially unfortunate that it was n't to service a more quality film . " the rugrats movie " is doa from the start . i am all for a worthwhile family movie , but sometimes an animated film comes along that is simply awful . as said before , young children may like it , but even they deserve better than this . for adults , it is a nearly unbearable , excruciating chore to sit through . as for me , " the rugrats movie , " is not the worst of the year , nor is it the most deeply hated , but it is the most boring . parents : do yourselves a favor and take your kids to see the rerelease of , " the wizard of oz . " that is a picture that contains a great deal of magic and wonder , two things of which , " the rugrats movie , " is completely missing .

0NEG

bit premature . " the rugrats movie , " is bottom - of - the - barrel children 's fare at its worst , and starts to make , " antz " look ( get it ? dill pickles ? . . . hardee - har - har ! ) and is informed by his three - year - what did the writers choose to do ? why , they set up a protracted , cliched scene where the children almost go over a waterfall , of at all of the older kids and their parents , they were all desperately struggling to stay awake , and that included me . for an adult , " the rugrats movie , " is a piece of garbage . the plotline is unoriginal and the writing has absolutely no wit or charm . there is n't one laugh to be had in the film , nor is there any excitement . if anything is even marginally good in the picture more quality film . " the rugrats movie " is doa from the start . i am all for a worthwhile family movie , but sometimes an animated film comes along that is simply awful . as said before , young children may like it even they deserve better than this . for adults , it is a nearly unbearable , excruciating chore to sit through . as for me , " the rugrats movie , , nor is it the most deeply hated , but it is the most boring . parents : do yourselves a favor and take your

plunkett & macleane is a period piece mired down by modern mtv pretentions . i have nothing against the mtv approach to filmmaking -- used properly it can save a movie ( see stigmata ) -- but it ruins this one , making a muddled , incoherent mess out of a potentially interesting premise . there are certain genres that just do n't go together . the film opens with a sequence that i still do n't understand . it involves some sort of prison outbreak , a robbery , and a gem that keeps being eaten . in any case , the caper ( whatever it may be ) brings together plunkett and macleane ( robert carlyle and johnny lee miller , respectively ) , two happy - go - lucky brits with no way to make a living . they make a pact to steal money from the rich and give it to themselves until they earn enough money to buy a ticket to america . their first heist involves a young debutante named lady rebecca ( liv tyler ) ; a woman macleane was especially friendly with at a party just earlier . his decorum when stripping her of her valuables earns our two crooks the name " gentleman highwaymen . " lady rebecca also happens to be the niece of the lord chief justice , a glaringly arrogant man nearing the end of his political career . he demands that the robbers be caught and punished immediately , leaving the job in the hands of the devious chance ( ken stott ) who has a few more things on his mind than catching criminals . meanwhile , macleane falls in love with rebecca infuriating the businesslike plunkett , who does n't want his plans to be foiled by his partner 's mindless romantic travails . director jake scott , son of ridley scott ( alien , blade runner ) , has his father 's knack for setting up atmospheric shots but none of his skill in actually moving the camera . most of the action scenes are filmed in such a rapid , jerky way that it 's impossible to comprehend what 's going on . the camerawork is even more nauseating than in the purposefully dizzying the blair witch project due to its lack of fluidity . instead of utilizing panning shots to impress upon us the scope of the events scott uses attention - deficit - disorder edits . he barely ever holds a shot for more than ten seconds and during the faster scenes it seems more like a couple frames between each cut . the weird , almost defiant lack of dialogue ( there are no -- no -- conversations lasting over , say , 20 seconds ) undermines character definition and our two protagonists come off as ciphers rather than characters . the love affair between macleane and rebecca is no different , emotionless and unrealistic . when the script calls for macleane to decide between going to america and going to meet his lover , there is no reason for us to believe it would be worth it for him to abandon his goal ; he and rebecca barely even speak to each other throughout the film . plunkett and macleane wants desperately to be a triumph of style over substance but since its style , quite frankly , blows , the film has no hope of succeeding on any level . i wanted to appreciate this movie on the basis of its admittedly kinetic pace but i could n't -- it was so kinetic it gave me a headache .

0NEG

plunkett & macleane is a period piece mired down by modern mtv pretentions . i have nothing against the mtv approach to filmmaking can save a movie ( see stigmata ) -- but it ruins this one , making a muddled , incoherent mess out of a potentially interesting premise . there are certain moving the camera . most of the action scenes are filmed in such a rapid , jerky way that it 's impossible to comprehend what 's going on . the camerawork is even more nauseating than in the purposefully dizzying the blair witch project due to impress upon us the scope of the events scott uses attention - deficit - disorder edits . he barely ever holds a shot for more than more like a couple frames between each cut . the weird , almost defiant lack of dialogue ( there are no -- no -- conversations lasting over love affair between macleane and rebecca is no different , emotionless and unrealistic . when the script calls for macleane to decide between to be a triumph of style over substance but since its style , quite frankly , blows , the film has no hope of succeeding on any level . i wanted to appreciate this movie pace but i could n't -- it was so kinetic it gave me a headache .

* this review contains spoilers * as with most of her films , director amy heckerling 's latest , loser , seesaws between unpleasant and artificial , and is sometimes both at once . when she tackles big issues , such as abortion in fast times at ridgemont high , it 's impossible to tell whether she 's being matter - of - fact or glib about them ( they carry an almost documentary starkness ) , but whatever the case , she continually refuses to comment politically . such is the sitcom tendency of her work : to jeopardize the innocence of her characters and then hit the reset button . this fear of drama soured me on fast times . . . , look who 's talking , clueless , and now loser , in which ms . heckerling also demonstrates , for the first time , zero affinity for the milieu . has anyone , for instance , ever met a girl in the stylistic vein of mena suvari 's dora ? attired in black thrift , her eye shadow smeared to racoon chic and her bangy red hair barely contained by girlish clips , she accepts the label of goth , but no self - respecting goth girl ever admitted to digging , as dora does , those geriatric rockers everclear , nor willingly went anywhere with a six - pack - wielding fratboy stranger . the mechanics of loser 's tired old introvert - boy - falls - for - extrovert - girl plot drive its protagonists into cultural non - specificity , so that they become even less than stereotypes . they become walking wardrobes . small - town transplant paul ( a strangely static jason biggs ) , our eponymous hero , always wears his woolly hunter 's cap with flaps covering the ears , and beneath it rests a parted moptop that could n't scream " shemp " ( the lame stooge ) wig louder . he has three smug - looking roommates ( the one - dimensional trio is not supposed to be brothers , but they share similar facial features , including and especially mouths ) , and their fashion sense is incomprehensibly glam . though they 're not overtly transvestites , heckerling seems to be equating flamboyance with villainy ; how very cruising of her . ( the dormies conspire to evict paul and regularly molest women they have drugged . dora ignorantly downs one of their date rape potions . unfortunately , either heckerling or the studio is too cowardly to admit if she was subsequently violated . ) when paul rescues dora from said narcotic scare , he learns that she is dating their unctuous european lit professor edward alcott ( superb greg kinnear ) . although paul 's already in love with dora by this point , as is bound to happen to losers when pretty girls address them by name , he gets altruistic and pretends the flowers he bought her are actually from alcott . she 's thrilled , but nevertheless spends a few days at paul 's to recuperate ; the two bond over emergency kitten surgery and a broadway play ( " cabaret " ) , and just when paul 's got in his head that she 's starting to love him back in that non - friendly way , she decides to become alcott 's live - in girlfriend . cue precious hommage to the graduate , shots of paul drifting around berkeley -- er . . . ( aside : simon & garfunkel 's " parsley , sage , rosemary & thyme " should never have been allowed in another motion picture . ) heckerling has a lot in common with nora " you 've got mail " ephron , the only other prominent chick directing comedies today , in that neither has any use for strong - willed women . men continue to trod on dora until the bitter end ( in the final scene , she gives paul a big smooch after he blurts out his feelings in what amounts to a creepy ultimatum ) , and dora ultimately shrugs off being drugged against her will -- mere hours after paul hints to her that she was poisoned , she 's cheerily redecorating his apartment . ( heckerling is so laissez - faire about the issue in general that she reserves the comeuppance of the would - be rapists for jokey epilogue titles . ) goth veneer aside , there are an awful lot of girls out there who behave as erratically as dora , and enough angry young dude filmmakers to make movies about them . heckerling misses her shot at having dora transform herself into a role model , and while such arcs may not be heckerling 's social responsibility , it is a privilege i would have taken advantage of if i were in her shoes . ( consider , too , that dora is the film 's sole female principal . ) not that loser is worth contemplating this seriously -- god knows heckerling did n't . that is her hallmark . ( --- for more first - run , dvd , and books - about - movies reviews , plus contests and the proverbial " more ! " , visit ' film freak central , ' @ http : //filmfreakcentral . net --- )

0NEG

and now loser , in which ms . heckerling also demonstrates , for the first time , zero affinity for the milieu . has anyone , for instance , ever met a with a six - pack - wielding fratboy stranger . the mechanics of loser 's tired old introvert - boy - falls - for - extrovert - girl plot drive its protagonists into cultural non - specificity , so that they become even less than stereotypes . they become walking wardrobes . small - town transplant paul ( a strangely static young dude filmmakers to make movies about them . heckerling misses her shot at having dora transform herself into a role model ,

fantastically over hyped , godzila finally lumbers onto the big screen . the film opens with footage of nuclear testing on the french polynesian islands , then an attack on a boat from some beast , and finally we join dr . nick tatopoulos ( broderick looking about 17 years old ) doing some research in chernobyl . some shady u . s government guys appear , and ask him to come to an island where they have massive footprints , from what looks like a giant lizard . and what 's more , this beast is heading for new york . gulp ! although godzilla should be a non stop roller coaster ride , and at some points it is , there is something curiously uninvolving and unexciting about this movie . the main faults lie with the acting and writing , common problems with ' summer blockbuster ' movies . broderick is pretty useless as the hero , with no humour or a ' tough guy ' image . while emmerich 's previous summer flick , independence day ( 1996 ) had wisecracks and action from jeff goldblum and will smith , this has neither . also , maria pitillo , as broderick 's former girlfriend , is just as useless , with a chronic disability in acting . she 's incapable of showing emotion , speaks every line in the same way , and basically she 's total crap . it 's up to french actor jean reno to save the day , and indeed he does , turning in a campy performance as a french secret agent . shame he has such little screen time in such a overlong film . hank azaria also turns up as a crazy cameraman named ' animal ' , and he adds a little life to the picture . also making an appearance is harry shearer ( probably best know for doing voices in the simpsons ) as a slimy news reporter . o . k , so the acting is not up to par , but it never is in these movies . but what about the script ? well , that 's not up to par either . emmerich and screenwriting pal dean devlin seem so caught in the destruction of new york city that they forgot to write a script . the dialogue is banal ( broderick looks at a lot of fish and utters ' that 's a lot of fish . ' ) , and the character development is non existent ( reno plays the typical frenchman ( ' no croissant ? ' ) , broderick forever remains a geeky scientist . ) also , the film is seriously lacking a sense of humour . the jokes that are uttered are pathetic , and there 's an ' hilarious ' running gag about siskel and ebert . ( the mayor is mayor ebert , and is assistant is called gene ! ha ha ha ha ! . ) the plot is dire , and in the end just rips off jurassic park ( 1993 ) by having lots of baby godzilla 's ( i . e . velicorapters ) running around new york . right , so the script and acting suck . but what about the special effects ? thankfully , they 're are quite good . godzilla is an impressive piece of cgi , although we do n't see much of him because the movie is so dark . the destruction of new york is pretty well done aswell . but although they are impressive , they ca n't save godzilla from being an hugely disappointing and boring movie . the movie goes on for far too long aswell , and it ca n't seem to decide on a ending . and of course , the ending itself leaves possibility for a sequel . let 's just hope one never arrives .

0NEG

fantastically over hyped , godzila finally lumbers onto the big screen . the film opens with footage of nuclear testing on coaster ride , and at some points it is , there is something curiously uninvolving and unexciting about this movie . the main faults lie with the acting and writing , common problems with ' summer blockbuster ' movies . broderick is pretty useless as the hero , with no humour or a ' maria pitillo , as broderick 's former girlfriend , is just as useless , with a chronic disability in acting . she 's incapable of showing emotion , speaks every line in the same way , and basically she 's total crap . it 's up to french actor jean reno to shame he has such little screen time in such a overlong film . hank azaria also turns up as a crazy cameraman movies . but what about the script ? well , that 's not up to par either . emmerich and screenwriting pal dean devlin seem so caught york city that they forgot to write a script . the dialogue is banal ( broderick looks at a lot of fish and utters a lot of fish . ' ) , and the character development is non existent ( reno plays the typical frenchman ( ' no croissant a geeky scientist . ) also , the film is seriously lacking a sense of humour . the jokes that are uttered are pathetic , and there 's an ' hilarious ' running gag called gene ! ha ha ha ha ! . ) the plot is dire , and in the end just rips off jurassic park are impressive , they ca n't save godzilla from being an hugely disappointing and boring movie . the movie goes on for far too long aswell , and it ca n't seem to decide on

movie concepts are often pitched to producers with mathematical formulas involving successful films of the past . so , undoubtedly one day someone said , " ' evolution ? ' it 's ' ghostbusters ' plus ' men in black ' plus ' tremors . ' " and so it is . sum total none . the alienbusting begins when a meteor lands in glen canyon , arizona . community college science profs ira kane ( david duchovny ) and harry block ( orlando jones ) take some samples from the meteor and discover that one - celled organisms from inside it are evolving rapidly , doing in hours what took millions of years for life on earth . just about the time i was wondering , " hey , does n't the government usually come in and take over the whole area in these movies , " the government came in and took over the whole area . the leader of the pack , gen . woodman ( ted levine ) , turns out to be an old nemesis of ira 's , and ira and harry are blocked from doing further research . meanwhile , the organisms continue to grow until they are large enough to start attacking people . by this time , ira and harry have gained a friend in dr . allison reed ( julianne moore ) of the center for disease control . a country club poolboy , wayne green ( seann william scott ) , has also attached himself to the merry band . but can they find the means to stop the aliens in time ? director ivan reitman seems to be revisiting his biggest hit , 1984 's " ghostbusters , " but " evolution " falls miserably short . one reason is readily apparent . " ghostbusters " had three really funny guys as its scientists ( bill murray , dan aykroyd , and harold ramis ) , but " evolution " has one really funny guy ( orlando jones ) who can adlib and milk the comic potential of lines that prove useless in anyone else 's hands . for good measure , " ghostbusters " had the comic talents of rick moranis ; " evolution " offers seann william scott , who was much funnier in " american pie " and " road trip " than he is here . scott has one amusing scene where he sings " you are so beautiful to me " to a dragon - like alien to draw it into a trap . other than that , scott seems unable to make much of the thin material the writers gave him . an actor in search of a forte , david duchovny looked for his gritty action hero side in " playing god " and his romantic side in " return to me . " now he wants to find his wacky comedic talent ; what we all find is that he does n't have any . look for him to be back on tv in five years or so . another sad case is julianne moore , who needs to be more selective about the offers she accepts . she 's a talented actress with an impressive list of credits and award nominations , so why is she trying to do slapstick comedy ? her character has a tendency to trip over and bump into things , but the trait comes off as a pathetic plea for laughs . the sole saving grace of the film is jones . he 's at the center of the movie 's funniest scene -- where an alien bug invades harry 's body and has to be pulled out through his ass . jones is the only cast member who can take the comedic ball and run with it , but he ca n't carry the whole movie by himself . he found himself in a similar situation in " the replacements , " where he was also the only comic talent in an ensemble cast . jones will eventually find the project that will make him a major comedy star , but this is n't it .

0NEG

' tremors . ' " and so it is . sum total none . the alienbusting begins when a meteor lands in glen can adlib and milk the comic potential of lines that prove useless in anyone else 's hands . for good measure , " ghostbusters " had the it into a trap . other than that , scott seems unable to make much of the thin material the writers gave him . an actor in search of a forte , david romantic side in " return to me . " now he wants to find his wacky comedic talent ; what we all find is that he does n't have any . look for him to be back on tv in five years or so . another sad case is julianne moore , who needs to be more selective an impressive list of credits and award nominations , so why is she trying to do slapstick comedy ? her character has a tendency to trip over and bump into things , but the trait comes off as a pathetic plea for laughs . the sole saving grace of the film

well arnold has completed the seemingly impossible task . he has made three consecutive unsatisfactory action films . in a domain that he owns , it is very surprising that this goliath of an action star can not tell a good action script from a bad one . eraser , back in 1996 , was a confused film that made no attempt at all to make sense . batman and robin , in 1997 , was the black sheep of the batman series with ridiculous acting , idiotic action scenes , and painfully flashy costumes . now in 1999 , " end of days " ( not " the end of days " ) is the third strike in a tough at bat for arnold . is this the end of a powerful action star 's long - lived career ? will arnold ever give us another unforgettable performance in another unforgettable classic like those in the past ( " terminator " , " terminator 2 : judgement day " , " predator " ) ? or an unforgettable performance in a great guilty pleasure like those in the past ( " commando " , " red sonja " , " true lies " ) ? it does n't look that way . " end of days " begins with the birth of a baby girl in 1979 who inexorably , due to the formation of the stars on that night , will be the carrier of satan 's baby the hour before new year 's of 2000 . fortunately for the movie 's sake , the girl grows up and now resides in manhattan with skyscrapers , subway trains in dark tunnels , and a myriad of inept nypd officers . it 's an action film 's dream come true when the director is given tons of cool stuff to blow up . imagine if the girl had lived in anytown , usa , where the only thing to destroy is a dairy queen and a post office . arnold schwarzenegger ( jericho cane ) , in a series of boring events finds himself in the middle of a religious battle between the church , who is trying to hide the girl ( or in some cases trying to kill her ) , and satan ( gabriel byrne ) who is trying to make her pregnant . if the devil is successful , the world will no longer exist as we know it . jericho feels it is his duty to protect the girl from everyone because 1 ) he once had faith but no longer does and 2 ) his wife and daughter were killed and he feels responsible for it . jericho cane is your cliched , by - the - numbers hero right up to his name . arnold fittingly plays the character as cliched as he can . he shouts at everyone , from cops to priests , to the devil . in one truly hilarious scene , which was supposed to be the ultimate dramatic high point , jericho screams to the devil ; " you are a @#$^% ! & choir boy ! you are a choir boy ! " those two lines marked the high points of this film . a movie can still be enjoyable when the supporting cast is more effective than the main actor . " end of days " fails to contain any memorable performances with the exception of gabriel byrne . byrne , playing a man who has been made the manifestation of the devil , seems to be the only one who is having fun in this whole movie . he wonderfully plays a manipulative villain with the power to control everyone at any time . the annoying thing about his character , however , is that he has the power to kill any human with a simple punch in the face , yet he finds it impossible to seriously hurt jericho . i can not count the number of times he could have killed jericho and taken the girl from his custody . the other actors in the film give very weak and unconvincing performances . kevin pollak , who plays the partner and close friend of jericho , is the supposedly funny character in the film ( every action movie has one ) . the one problem is that pollak does not deliver one funny line . robin tunney plays the chosen mother of satan 's baby with extreme annoyance . she gets no sympathy from any of the characters in the film , except arnold who pretends she is his wife and daughter , or any of the viewers in the audience . in one unnecessary scene , tunney walks out of her room and takes her top off . is this her job in the film ? the actors are not to blame entirely because the script is terrible . you can tell a script is terrible when you are able to predict what will happen minutes before it does . this little prediction game is a very fun exception to trying to sit through this nonsense of a movie . in a last attempt to make this movie good , special effects are used to try to entertain the audience . but without a memorable action scene in the whole film , the director has not done his job successfully . this film would have gotten a c+ if arnold stood in front of a camera and shouted " you are a ! $ @^@ * ^ choir boy ! ! " for two hours .

0NEG

and he feels responsible for it . jericho cane is your cliched , by - the - numbers hero right up to his name . arnold fittingly plays the than the main actor . " end of days " fails to contain any memorable performances with the exception of gabriel byrne . byrne , playing with the power to control everyone at any time . the annoying thing about his character , however , is that he has the power to killed jericho and taken the girl from his custody . the other actors in the film give very weak and unconvincing performances . kevin pollak , who plays the partner and close or any of the viewers in the audience . in one unnecessary scene , tunney walks out of her room and takes her film ? the actors are not to blame entirely because the script is terrible . you can tell a script is terrible when you is a very fun exception to trying to sit through this nonsense of a movie . in a last attempt to make this movie good

whether or not i would be considered a trekker probably depends on whom you would ask . i have been a fan of both the original series and its recently retired follow - up , as well as the even- numbered entries in the film series . however , i have never been one of those folks who store away trek minutiae and get into debates over the relative merits of spock vs . data . somewhere along the line , the " star trek " film series began to seem more and more directed at those in the latter category , and star trek : generations may be the natural conclusion of this direction . its production values may be high , but the writing is frequently appalling , and instead of a script has a collection of references , in - jokes and ill - defined characters . generations opens in the late 23rd century , where members of the original enterprise crew , including captain james t . kirk ( william shatner ) , are present for the christening of the latest ship to bear that name . no sooner is it out on its maiden voyage than a distress signal brings them to the nexus , a mysterious ribbon of energy . among those rescued from the nexus is long - lived alien dr . soran ( malcolm mcdowell ) , but he is none - too - pleased at being back in the real world . seventy - eight years later , soran is still trying to get back to the nexus , and again encounters an enterprise , this one led by captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) . soran 's plan involves destroying a star with an inhabited planet , and the only hope for saving 230 million people is the historic meeting of two enterprise captains . i do n't think it is an insult to fans of " star trek " to suggest that to a certain extent , the particulars of a plot are not really the most important elements in a " trek " film . it 's about a chance to visit with old friends , and if they are involved in a truly interesting story it can be considered gravy . but even that interpretation assumes that characterization has to be consistent , and in generations that just does n't happen . data ( brent spiner ) is particularly victimized by this sloppy writing . in the film 's major sub - plot , data decides to use a chip which will give him human emotions , a chip he has had in his possession for over a year . what is his motivation for taking this drastic and perhaps dangerous step ? he does n't get a joke . once the chip is in place , spiner gets to have a lot of fun with data 's new emotions , but the point is that he 's no longer the data we know . if the rest of the " next generation " cast fares any better , it 's only because they 're on the screen so little that they 're simply window dressing . but then again , this story is n't really about the new crew . it 's about kirk and picard , the cowboy and the politician , sharing the screen . the huge surprise is that william shatner blows patrick stewart away . perhaps because he knows this is his last go - round in the part that made him a legend , shatner looks like he 's having the time of his life ; stewart , on the other hand , borders on the deferrential , and is saddled with the same lackluster motivations as everyone else in the cast . stewart 's edginess is indicative of what may be a very bad sign for paramount 's hopes to turn the new cast into the same kind of franchise the original cast was : these are clearly the not ready for big screen players . by contrast , the prologue which features scotty ( james doohan ) and chekhov ( walter koenig ) is the highlight of the film . these characters have become part of the popular mythology , and when they take over the enterprise in a moment of distress , it 's a moment of high energy . only thirty years of history can create a moment like that , and that 's time this new crew does n't have . it certainly does n't help that the plot they are stuck in is so convoluted and badly constructed that you need to leave a trail of bread crumbs to find your way out again . it 's also loaded with little gags all aimed at those who are familiar enough with the series to turn to all their friends in a shared nudge of recognition . i wonder whether anyone who is coming in cold to the " trek " universe at this point would be anything but baffled and bored by what is going on . and what a waste of malcolm mcdowell , who could have been a great monomanical villain but should have been given a much more compelling reason for his obsession . there are plenty of details both scientific and of continuity to pick at , but to do so would be to ignore generations ' major flaws . however , i would like to make one recommendation : seatbelts . not just for the enterprise crew , although you 'd think by the 24th century space travel would n't involve rolling around on the floor during a battle . no , i think the audience might need them more . this journey is one bumpy ride .

0NEG

direction . its production values may be high , but the writing is frequently appalling , and instead of a script has a collection of references , in - jokes and ill - defined characters . generations opens in the late 23rd century , where does n't happen . data ( brent spiner ) is particularly victimized by this sloppy writing . in the film 's major sub - plot , his life ; stewart , on the other hand , borders on the deferrential , and is saddled with the same lackluster motivations as everyone else in the cast . stewart 's edginess does n't have . it certainly does n't help that the plot they are stuck in is so convoluted and badly constructed that you need to leave a trail of bread crumbs trek " universe at this point would be anything but baffled and bored by what is going on . and what a waste

they should have stuck to the promise emblazoned on the original movie 's poster : " no sequel . " scary movie 2 is nowhere near as funny as its predecessor , and it is not because the wayans brothers , shawn and marlon doing the writing and keenen ivory behind the camera , do n't try . what defeats them is the genre they have chosen to spoof . the first movie - an outrageous , low - brow , savage satire of teen slasher flicks such as scream and i know what you did last summer - succeeded because of its take - no - prisoners attitude toward a type of film that was in vogue , familiar and popular . in scary movie 2 , the filmmakers take on the haunted house - ghost story format which , if you look at the grosses for such recent lame offerings as the respective remakes of the haunting and house on haunted hill , did not draw audiences nor enter the cultural psyche as did the various teen slasher series . scary movie 2 does start off promising with a wonderful spoof of the exorcist , featuring james wood in the max von sydow role and veronica cartwright lampooning ellen burstyn . of course split pea soup is the punch line - an overabundant amount , which offers the hope that the rest of the movie will be just as tasteless and excessive . but this pre - credit sequence has nothing at all to do with the main action , which features the cast members from the original signing up to spend a weekend at a creepy haunted mansion as part of a university class project . some of the jokes are as scatological and offensive as in the original , but they lack that take - no - prisoners bite that raised scary movie to the heights of burlesque . scary movie 2 merely lurches from one lame sendup to another , offering weak spoofs of that nike shoe ad in which everyone does acrobatics with a basketball , and the films what lies beneath and hannibal ( features that only faired adequately at the box office ) , john woo 's mission : impossible 2 and charlie 's angels . it is as if the wayans and their team of writers - at least seven are credited - just threw ideas in a blender and hoped they 'd coalesce . they do n't . while the pace of the original left you breathless , the sequel moves with the speed of an 18-wheeler carrying two tons of concrete up a steep mountain road . you can almost hear the reels panting . scary movie 2 tries very hard to live up to its original , but it falls very short . it 's a dissatisfying spectacle , a very weak sister of a very good movie . the really scary aspect of this sequel is how disappointing it really is .

0NEG

: " no sequel . " scary movie 2 is nowhere near as funny as its predecessor , and it is not because the wayans brothers , as scatological and offensive as in the original , but they lack that take - no - prisoners bite that raised scary movie to the heights of burlesque . scary movie 2 merely lurches from one lame sendup to another , offering weak spoofs of that nike shoe ad in team of writers - at least seven are credited - just threw ideas in a blender and hoped they 'd coalesce . they do n't . while the pace of the very hard to live up to its original , but it falls very short . it 's a dissatisfying spectacle , a very weak sister of a very good movie . the really scary aspect of this sequel is how disappointing it really is .

vikings v . bears ? no , this is n't the lineup for monday night football . rather , these are the two opposing forces that will battle to the death in " the 13th warrior , " a film that is as dramatically flat as it is gratuitously gory . based on michael crichton 's book , eaters of the dead , this viking saga tries to evoke the mysticism of fabled norsemen and the glorious battles that they fought . their strength and honor would eventually etch their place in history among the greatest warriors that ever picked up a sword . luckily for the vikings , however , their warring abilities were not as clumsy as this film . antonio bandaras is ahmed , a travelling ambassador . accompanied by his friend ( omar shariff in a cameo ) , they eventually come across a small viking village . we see that the vikings are an extremely proud group whose greatest strength is their fortitude . they laugh heartily , revel in their arrogance , and sing songs of battles won . but their festivities are about to be halted when a messenger boy arrives to tell the village leader that a great evil is threatening their land . help is needed quickly . an elderly , fortune - telling witch arrives . after a brief incantation , she proclaims that 12 warriors and one more " not of norse blood " are needed to ensure victory . personally , i always wonder why people believe these oracles when they look so haggardly and on the brink of insanity . nonetheless , 12 men eagerly accept their place while ahmed becomes the pivotal 13th . the group then sets out to do the greatest battle of their lives . of course during their ride , ahmed becomes the target of fun for the other 12 burly viking warriors . but he ably shows that it 's not the size of the dog in the fight but rather the size of the fight in the dog . he is able to overcome the proud arrogance of the vikings , but will his skills ( and that of the group ) be enough to defeat whatever evil is menacing the countryside ? it does not look promising . these creatures , resembling bears , are strong and have high morale . they are fearless and display a desire for decapitating the heads of their enemies . they attack by the hundreds and the next strike will come soon . the warriors prepare their defenses and pray to their gods . they are ready to sacrifice their lives . " this is a good way to die , " says one of the fallen warriors . despite the larger - than - life battle sequences , i was unmoved by the entire experience . at many points , i was even confused . for example , somewhere in the middle of the film , a sub - plot creeps up involving the prince of the threatened land . he seems to have an agenda to elevate himself to greater power during this crisis . however , the sub - plot never fully materializes , and we are left scratching our heads as to the purpose of its inclusion . there are other questions that i had , but the real problem was that the story ( little of it that there was ) offered no characters to love or hate . the leader of the viking warriors had the most charisma . however , banderas 's role is completely underwritten and it is unclear why being the 13th warrior makes him so special . an entire rewrite of the ahmed character is in order . also , much of the action takes place during torrential downpours or at night , which made battles very difficult to follow . i would have preferred more time looking at the viking culture and how their beliefs shaped their decision to do battle against the enemy . as it stands , the film manages more confusion than intensity . it would make thor cry .

0NEG

to the death in " the 13th warrior , " a film that is as dramatically flat as it is gratuitously gory . based on michael crichton 's book , eaters of enough to defeat whatever evil is menacing the countryside ? it does not look promising . these creatures , resembling bears , are strong and despite the larger - than - life battle sequences , i was unmoved by the entire experience . at many points , i was even confused . for example , somewhere in the middle of the , the sub - plot never fully materializes , and we are left scratching our heads as to the purpose of its inclusion . there are other questions that i had , but the real problem was that the story ( little of it that there the most charisma . however , banderas 's role is completely underwritten and it is unclear why being the 13th warrior makes do battle against the enemy . as it stands , the film manages more confusion than intensity . it would make thor cry .

apparently , when crap calls , jim carrey answers . here he is , mugging it up in countless unfunny ways for the fifth time , his second go - around in the role of pet detective ace ventura . that means more talking ass - cracks , penis jokes and cries of " al - l - l - l - l - l - l - l - l - l - lrighty then . " it all adds up to a sequel that makes the original resemble schindler 's list in terms of dramatic merit , or lack of . granted , there are a few laughs amid the constant barrage of pre - school humor , but anyone who appreciates good comedy will bang their head against the wall ten times for every minor chuckle . it 's a painful experience for anyone with a brain . ace is distraught after accidentally dropping a racoon into a canyon ( in a parody of the opening scene of sylvester stallone 's cliffhanger , jim carrey being the only person who can make stallone look like a college professor in terms of intellect , or lack of ) and decides to retire to the mountains of tibet to gain a higher level of consciousness ( or , in his case , a level of consciousness ) . but he is pulled out of retirement to the tune of $ 20 , 000 to retrieve a sacred white bat for an african tribe . why africa ? so carrey can disguise himself nude inside a fake rhino and later climb out the rear end as a tourist family watches ( " look , the rhino 's about to give birth ! " ) . if that seems like hee - haw humor to you , by all means , see the movie . if not , claim your place in human civilization with the rest of us . obviously , there are quite a few nonmembers of civilization who made this movie , like the first ace ventura film ( i use the word " film " only because it was filmed , not because there 's any level of artistic merit . ) , a huge success . in fact , carrey only has a career because of the decline of intelligence in our culture . you may say to me , " but andrew , look at jerry lewis . he was born with a negative i . q . and look how popular he was thirty years ago . " maybe , but i still say jerry lewis is a notch or two up on the comedic ladder because he never actually did an impression in a movie of a rabid bulldog biting off a man 's testicles . . . lewis at least had the dignity to save that performance for when company came over .

0NEG

apparently , when crap calls , jim carrey answers . here he is , mugging it up in countless unfunny ways for the fifth time , his second go - around of . granted , there are a few laughs amid the constant barrage of pre - school humor , but anyone who appreciates good comedy will bang their head against the wall ten times for every minor chuckle . it 's a painful experience for anyone with a brain . ace is distraught after accidentally dropping a racoon into success . in fact , carrey only has a career because of the decline of intelligence in our culture . you may say to me , " but andrew

one of my favorite songs by the stranglers includes the lyric , " you 'd better watch out for the skin deep . " i 'd like to extend the same warning : watch out for skin deep , but whatever you do do n't watch skin deep . skin deep is a tedious and uneven comedy written and directed by blake edwards . john ritter stars as zach , a dried up writer and insatiable womanizer with a big - time drinking problem . i never saw edwards ' comedy the man who loved women , but i have to wonder whether skin deep is a remake . you see , to put it mildly , zach goes to bed with just about each and every woman he meets . as the movie opens , zach 's wife , alex , catches him with not only his mistress but also his mistress ' hairdresser . like any sensible wife , alex kicks zach out of the house and divorces him . in response , zach goes on a spiritual journey of drinking , womanizing , psychotherapy , and self - discovery . if you 're turned on by the idea of watching ritter drink , get arrested , have sex , drink , crash his mercedes , have more sex , drink , get arrested again , drink , and sing horrendously at the piano , then skin deep should be right up your alley . skin deep makes the fatal mistake of inflicting on us unbelievable and unsympathetic characters . zach is a rich , ' 80s l . a . version of ritter 's jack tripper character from " three 's company . " like jack , zach is clumsy and inept ; he 's the type of guy whose bad aim makes him accidently squirt breath freshener into his eye . zach is supposed to be charming and charismatic , but i failed to see even one redeeming virtue in him . consequently , i never felt the least bit of sympathy or pity for the philandering alcoholic during his moments of crisis . in fact , when zach crashes his ex - wife 's wedding in a desperate attempt to stop her from remarrying , i actually rooted for her to go through with the ceremony . to add insult to injury , edwards gives his large supporting cast nothing but stereotypes with which to work . for instance , vincent gardenia 's talents are wasted in his role as the fatherly bartender . of all the women in the film -- and there are many -- alyson reed , alone , stands out as zach 's wife ; reed brings intelligence and sensitivity to the role . because we do n't care the slightest bit about anyone in skin deep , the film 's few feeble attempts at drama inevitably fail . the comedy in skin deep does n't fare much better . most of the jokes are dumb , predictable , and sitcomish . about every ten minutes , however , edwards does manage to come up with a good line or a novel sight - gag , the most effective of which involves a pair of " dueling " condoms . overall , the laughs in skin deep are just too infrequent and the characters just too shallow for the film to stay afloat . my final criticism of the film lies in its glamorous depiction of alcohol and alcoholism . zach 's excessive drinking is clearly ruining his life , but nevertheless it seems to give him more pleasure than pain . zach 's drinking binges never have any truly serious or lasting consequences . if he crashes his mercedes , he gets a new one . if he gets arrested , his lawyer bails him out of jail . if his wife leaves him , she will eventually decide to give him a second chance if he 'll clean up his act . the tone in skin deep is all wrong ; edwards treats a very serious issue far too lightly , making a joke out of a problem that is no joking matter . perhaps edwards should have studied dudley moore in arthur or , better yet , michael keaton in clean and sober before making skin deep .

0NEG

do do n't watch skin deep . skin deep is a tedious and uneven comedy written and directed by blake edwards . john ritter stars deep should be right up your alley . skin deep makes the fatal mistake of inflicting on us unbelievable and unsympathetic characters . zach rooted for her to go through with the ceremony . to add insult to injury , edwards gives his large supporting cast nothing but stereotypes with which to work . for instance , vincent gardenia 's talents are wasted in his role as the fatherly bartender . of all reed brings intelligence and sensitivity to the role . because we do n't care the slightest bit about anyone in skin deep , the film 's few feeble attempts at drama inevitably fail . the comedy in skin deep does n't fare much better . most of the jokes are dumb , predictable , and sitcomish . about every ten minutes , however , edwards does the laughs in skin deep are just too infrequent and the characters just too shallow for the film to stay afloat . my final criticism second chance if he 'll clean up his act . the tone in skin deep is all wrong ; edwards treats a very serious issue far too lightly

this movie about two dysfunctional families never really gets off the ground , despite some good performances from a basically competent cast . eddie ( sean penn ) and maureen ( robin wright penn ) are a not - so - happily married couple down on their luck . living in rented rooms in the seedier part of an unnamed city , they spend what little income they have at the local bar , owned by shorty ( stanton ) , eddie 's best friend , and his wife georgie ( mazar ) . maureen and eddie share an odd relationship marked by eddie 's frequent disappearances . on his return , he promises her the world and professes his undying love . their manic reunions all too soon lead to new lows , as eddie disappears again . like a junky craving the next high , maureen suffers through the lows to reach the next high . their relationship is further complicated by maureen 's pregnancy . she wants the baby and the father , but deep down seems to sense the inevitability of losing the latter . during one of eddie 's absences , maureen is attacked by kiefer , her neighbor , who gets her drunk ( with her cooperation ) and then insists on intimacy . she leaves badly bruised and in fear of what eddie might do -- not to her , but to kiefer . she lies about what happens to ensure that no harm will come to eddie as the result of his inevitable rage . he lashes out as she expects , and ends up in an institution for what he believes to be 3 months -- but in reality is 10 years . during this decade , maureen divorces eddie and remarries a more solid and reliable individual , joey ( travolta , in a small role ) . her life falls apart again when eddie is released from the institution and comes to find her . joey insists on bringing eddie into his home and making his wife choose between her husband ( and father of two children ) and stability ( joey makes a good living , drives a cadillac , and they live in a large house in the suburbs ) and the love of her previous life . she chooses her past , and sacrifices not only her new life but her old ( by giving up her and eddie 's daughter to joey ) . but the eddie that she knew is gone , replaced by a mere shell of the man he was . maureen is herself a mere shell , more an automaton than a woman -- as if she had gone through whatever therapy and treatment eddie was given along with him . perhaps these two really do need each other and can find happiness ( or maybe the lack of sadness ) together , but the movie 's denouement was not convincing .

0NEG

this movie about two dysfunctional families never really gets off the ground , despite some good performances from a basically competent cast or maybe the lack of sadness ) together , but the movie 's denouement was not convincing .

michael richards leaves his spot as kramer on the infamous seinfeld tv sitcom for a stint as a lanky , goofy best friend to jeff daniels ' lawyer character in this ill - fated , and unfunny , " comedy " . plot : richard the actor ( richards ) has to take the place of charles the lawyer ( daniels ) in a real court case , after charles is left unintelligible from a night of heavy drinking at his bachelor party . the film follows the antics of the two men as they try to get away with their tomfoolery . critique : this movie did not make me laugh once . perhaps it was because i was tired when i watched it . perhaps . perhaps it was because i had seen richards perform most of the same schtick a thousand times on seinfeld . perhaps . perhaps it was because the movie just was n't funny . absolutely . the lack of humour was n't the only issue that i had with this film either . the movie attempts to weave a couple of love stories through its vision , but unfortunately , they are also lacking in conviction , believability and credibility . they are contrived and appear to be placed into the story for convenience sake . the actors were all adequate enough in their roles , but the problem did n't lie in the acting . i wish i could find one good reason for you to see this waste of time , but i ca n't . unless of course , you need something playing on your tv set while you waste some time around the house . overall , this movie stinks . on the good side , charlize theron is darn cute , and the movie is no longer then 90 minutes . on the bad side , this movie is not funny , interesting or enjoyable in any which way possible . a person would n't even enjoy his nachos while watching this emptiness . please skip it . little known facts : jonathan lynn earned a degree in law from cambridge before becoming an actor / director . charlize theron grew up on a farm outside benoni , south africa , as the only child . at the age of 18 her mother made her go to los angeles to try a career in the movie industry . she came to la without knowing anyone in the city but after two weeks when she was standing in line on hollywood boulevard an agent gave her his card . after eight months in la she got her first part . since then she has taken acting lessons and her career has skyrocketed , specifically in devil 's advocate ( 8/10 ) . charlize was narrowly beat out by elizabeth berkley for the lead role in the " movie " , showgirls . she was quoted as saying " it was like i had some guardian angel . "

0NEG

best friend to jeff daniels ' lawyer character in this ill - fated , and unfunny , " comedy " . plot : richard the actor get away with their tomfoolery . critique : this movie did not make me laugh once . perhaps it was because i was tired when i times on seinfeld . perhaps . perhaps it was because the movie just was n't funny . absolutely . the lack of humour was n't the only issue that i had with this film either . the movie a couple of love stories through its vision , but unfortunately , they are also lacking in conviction , believability and credibility . they are contrived and appear to be placed into the story for convenience i could find one good reason for you to see this waste of time , but i ca n't . unless of course , you waste some time around the house . overall , this movie stinks . on the good side , charlize theron is darn and the movie is no longer then 90 minutes . on the bad side , this movie is not funny , interesting or enjoyable n't even enjoy his nachos while watching this emptiness . please skip it . little known facts : jonathan lynn earned a degree

jackie chan kicks his way into van damme territory with twin dragons , an embarrassingly bland action comedy of mistaken identities . chan plays separated - at - births boomer and john ma , whose drastically different paths . . . aw , forget the plot description , it 's not even worth the space . but let 's face it . no one goes to jackie chan movies for the plot anyway . the scenes where nothing happens in chan 's films have always been little more than glue thriftily spread to hold the action sequences together . in the case of twin dragons , however , the tiresome plot - driving scenes fritter away so much of the movie that you almost want to shout ( at the risk of demeaning the artistic value of cinema ) , " get to the good part already ! " most of the film is devoted to showing the brothers ' efforts to hide the other 's existence from their own acquaintances . why it is necessary to do this is not satisfactorily explained , but neither are a lot of aspects of the plot . the twins ' love interests , demure club - singer barbara ( chan - film regular maggie cheung ) and lusty bride - hopeful tammy ( nina li chi ) , get disoriented in all the brouhaha , yet strangely seem not to mind that they are not sure which brother they are in love with . the scenes describing the boys ' bumbling antics get stretched so thin we stop caring who chan is supposed to be in any given shot ( in several shots , in fact , even the make - up and hair people seem to forget which brother is which . ) . even chan 's so - corny - it's - funny humor is off - kilter in this outing . some of the gags are so carefully innocuous they 're annoying . a case in point : whenever anyone sees the brothers together , they fall to the ground in a dead faint . are we laughing yet ? as usual , the final showdown is the film 's jewel , a tour de force display of chan ' s agility and grace . never mind that it 's not clear how the brothers end up fighting suited bad guys inside an automobile crash - testing facility . it 's all good fun , but too little too late . perhaps chan 's next movie should just be a collection of the last fight sequences of all of his movies . they could call it jackie chan 's the final fight scenes , and everybody would go home happy . reviewed april 14 , 1999 at loews theaters white marsh , white marsh , md .

0NEG

his way into van damme territory with twin dragons , an embarrassingly bland action comedy of mistaken identities . chan plays separated - at - . in the case of twin dragons , however , the tiresome plot - driving scenes fritter away so much of the movie that you almost want to acquaintances . why it is necessary to do this is not satisfactorily explained , but neither are a lot of aspects of the 's so - corny - it's - funny humor is off - kilter in this outing . some of the gags are so carefully innocuous they 're annoying . a case in point : whenever anyone sees the testing facility . it 's all good fun , but too little too late . perhaps chan 's next movie should just be a

the general 's daughter will probably be the cleverest stupid film we 'll see this year -- or perhaps the stupidest clever film . it 's confusing to a critic when so much knuckleheaded plotting and ostentatious direction shares the screen with so much snappy dialogue and crisp character interaction . that , however , is what happens when legendary screenwriter william goldman takes a pass at an otherwise brutally predictable conspiracy thriller . the punched - up punch lines are ever on the verge of convincing you the general 's daughter has a brain in its head , even as the remaining 75 % of the narrative punches you in the face with its lack of common sense . our hero is warrant officer paul brenner , a brash investigator for the u . s . army 's criminal investigation division . his latest case is the murder of captain elisabeth campbell ( leslie stefanson ) at a georgia base , the victim found tied to the ground after an apparent sexual assault and strangulation . complicating the case is the fact that capt . campbell is the daughter of general joe campbell ( james cromwell ) , a war hero and potential vice - presidential nominee . general campbell wants to keep the case out of the press , which gives brenner only the 36 hours before the fbi steps in . teamed with rape investigator sarah sunhill ( madeleine stowe ) -- who , coincidentally enough , once had a romantic relationship with brenner -- brenner begins uncovering dark secrets from the late captain 's past that make the case ever more sordid . if only the sordidness were the worst of the general 's daughter 's problems . scenes of sexual degredation do linger much longer than necessary , their negligible dramatic value overwhelmed by filtered - light sleaze . director simon west likely thinks he 's covered himself by juxtaposing these images of violence with sweet flowers , but all he does is prove himself dependent on visual cliches , which is the film 's fatal flaw . it 's a trend he continues for two hours , taking the story 's few virtues and slapping a coat of moron - proof obviousness over them . characters who may ( wink wink ) turn out to be villains are photographed in ominous shadow ; cutaway inserts of the captain campbell 's still - living face after the corpse is uncovered insure against five - minute attention spans . west just ca n't help himself from overdirecting every minute of the general 's daughter . he even turns a scene of footage shown on cnn into an excuse for slow - fade edits . bubbling up from this overcooked stew are enough tasty lines to distract you from its smell . the slickest scene finds brenner squaring off with captain campbell 's mentor , a psychological warfare expert named moore ( james woods ) . there 's something invigorating about watching two smart actors playing smart characters firing honesty at one another . indeed , travolta gets to sink his teeth into dozens of choice lines based on his delight at provoking authority figures ( to the local sheriff of the georgia county : " should n't you be out night - sticking the colored folk ? " ) . even the lame device of brenner and sunhill 's sexual history provides a few winning zingers . goldman 's dialogue can serve up a bigger laugh than you 'll find in most so - called comedies . dialogue , unfortunately , just is n't enough to make a quality script . it 's difficult to take a movie about a criminal investigation seriously when the investigators are both too stupid to solve it sooner ( an idiotic inability to recognize the nature of the crime scene ) and too lucky for it to last any longer ( not one but two occasions where brenner catches a vital piece of evidence out of the corner of his eye ) . by the time the general 's daughter wanders towards its over - wrought , psycho - in - the - rain finale , west 's heavy hand has obliterated most of what made the film occasionally fun . it 's silly and pretentious film - making , but at least it provides a giggle or five . goldman should tear the 15 decent pages out of this script and turn them into a stand - up routine .

0NEG

the general 's daughter will probably be the cleverest stupid film we 'll see this year -- or perhaps the stupidest clever film . it 's confusing to a critic when so much knuckleheaded plotting and ostentatious direction shares the screen with so much snappy dialogue and crisp 's past that make the case ever more sordid . if only the sordidness were the worst of the general 's daughter 's problems . scenes of sexual degredation do linger much longer than necessary , their negligible dramatic value overwhelmed by filtered - light violence with sweet flowers , but all he does is prove himself dependent on visual cliches , which is the film 's fatal flaw . it 's a trend he continues for two hours you 'll find in most so - called comedies . dialogue , unfortunately , just is n't enough to make a quality script . it 's difficult to by the time the general 's daughter wanders towards its over - wrought , psycho - in - the - rain finale , obliterated most of what made the film occasionally fun . it 's silly and pretentious film - making , but at least it provides a giggle or five

cradle will rock is the latest effort from director / actor tim robbins . while he may have had an oscar worthy film back in 1995 ( dead man walking ) , he gets a little overconfident and sloppy here . the story is confusing , and filled with many subplots , so i 'll try my best and explain it as simply as possible . the film is based on a " mostly " true story about a federal theater in the 1930s , that produced a play ( the cradle will rock ) that apparently was offensive to some , so the government shuts it down . it 's during the time of the depression , and all this theater wants to do is entertain and cheer up those who do not have jobs , or are poor . between this conflict lies what seems like 10 subplots , about those who work in theater , or those associated . also along the way are some other messages mashed together to create an even more overwhelming experience . tim robbin 's just keeps piling on political views , and characters , that we just give up on the film , or in some cases walk out . for robbin 's it may be a nice achievement , but to me it seemed more like a friendly get together with slightly more sophisticated dialogue , and fancy outfits . i thought the main reason for seeing the film would be for the outstanding cast , unfortunately are all uninteresting , except for a few . let me recap what each important character does , so please bear with me ( it 's the least you can do , especially if you were considering seeing this ) . i 'll begin with those involved with the play . there 's orson welles ( angus macfadyen ) who of course is the director of the play , the producer john houseman ( cary elwes ) , marc blitzstein ( hank azaria ) the writer of the play , emily watson , a woman who gets her break by playing the main part in cradle will rock . outside the play there 's the : ventriloquist ( bill murray ) who wants a relationship with a federal theater clerk ( joan cusack ) , another subplot involving a painter diego rivera ( ruben blades ) who 's unhappy that his painting is too be destroyed by nelson rockefeller because he feels it to be an outrage ( john cusack ) . there 's a few other actresses and actors who have their own stories ( susan sarandon , philip baker hall too name a few ) but those that i mentioned , were the most significant to the story . anyway , most of these talented hollywood stars were completely wasted , except for emily watson , who does another great job , and one of my personal favorite actors john cusack , who always delivers through thick and thin . now although most of the film was weak to say the least , there were some nice moments and some involving subjects , but all this is overblown . sure the free speech segment was a nice feature , but not when it becomes repetitive . the whole film is like this , and it 's basically nothing but a headache . on the brighter side , tim robbin 's direction was masterful . his camera direction seemed reminiscent to the works of paul thomas anderson 's latest magnolia , only smoother in my opinion , but even that ca n't make a movie that much better . although it has it 's moments ( not many of them , but they 're there ) , cradle will rock stays true to it 's title , because the cradle rocked too far and tipped over .

0NEG

film back in 1995 ( dead man walking ) , he gets a little overconfident and sloppy here . the story is confusing , and filled with many subplots , so i 'll seeing the film would be for the outstanding cast , unfortunately are all uninteresting , except for a few . let me recap what were the most significant to the story . anyway , most of these talented hollywood stars were completely wasted , except for emily watson , who does another great who always delivers through thick and thin . now although most of the film was weak to say the least , there were some nice moments and some involving subjects , but all this is overblown . sure the free speech segment was a nice feature repetitive . the whole film is like this , and it 's basically nothing but a headache . on the brighter side , tim robbin 's direction will rock stays true to it 's title , because the cradle rocked too far and tipped over .

disillusioned and trying to find the spice of life , richard ( leonardo dicaprio ) sets off for thailand . there he a meets crazed man by the name of daffy ( robert carlyle ) who gives him a map to a beach , a secret utopia , then commits suicide . richard sets off for this beach with his neighbors from this hotel , ? tienne ( guillaume canet ) and fran ? oise ( virginie ledoyen ) . once they get there the three discover a secret society existing on this beach , there richard falls for fran ? oise . this covers about half to two thirds of the movie and aside from the romantic element , which is solely a creation of hollywood , seems to hold to the original novel . the cinematography and general beauty of this part of the movie is breathtaking . i do n't think anyone can argue that this movie is visually stunning . but that is were many things go wrong , darius khondji has totally outdone himself in doing the cinematography . though the script and the interpretation of the novel are quite lacking . the plot of the movie moves along at a decent pace for about half of the movie or there abouts . this is where the movie has some great potential , then the three travelers get the island and there is a turn for the better , yes folks i said better . now up to about two thirds of this movie its actually pretty good , nothing spectacular aside from the cinematography but it still has promise . this is where things start to degenerate to something that becomes almost un - watchable . there is even a ' video game ' style sequence that borders on the disgusting , it does n't make sense for the movie and just looks dumb in my opinion ( and i am hoping many other peoples ) . i am hoping that in my little rant i 've made it abundantly clear that the movie is lacking quite seriously in plot and uneven pacing , so if you go see it and you do n't like it because of this do n't blame me . the character development was not up to par either ; i found the character of richard to be nothing more than a spoiled child . although there is a feeble attempt to make this whole story profound it fails and richard ( leo 's character ) comes off as a wannabe philosopher . the character seems to be underdeveloped from the get go and seems to just do things for no apparent reason , granted some people are like this ( myself included ) but i nor anyone i know that is fairly random would ever do things of the sort this character does . the next point is that some of the really interesting characters are simply not developed enough . richard is obviously obsessed by fran ? oise at the early stages of the story , yet there is actually very little development along this story line . this i am sure contributes to the movie 's lack of core plot and being unfocused . now , i shall move onto something a little better about the movie ( for all you cynics out there the movie did have a few good things about it ) . the cast and acting was passable at the very least , and i think that leonardo dicaprio actually did pretty well in the role of richard . mind you i think the rest of the cast that had some which had reasonably sized roles did equally well if not better . which begs the question why is leonardo paid so much ? ( i think this is a topic all on its own so i wo n't get into it ) . but i like the fact that there was an international cast used , had only and american cast been used i can see this movie being horrible . the international flavor added a more global feel to the movie that made it that much more bearable . not to mention the movie is set in thailand and a global cast makes more sense . when all is said and done i liked the movie for the most part but the gaping inadequacies of the plot are unforgivable . i would not recommend this movie to anyone , the fact that i liked it has a lot to do with the cinematography and the sheer beauty of the movie not its plot or story . as it is the story tries to be much too philosophical and fails at its attempt . if you do end up going to see this movie be forewarned about its shortcomings .

0NEG

can argue that this movie is visually stunning . but that is were many things go wrong , darius khondji has totally outdone himself in doing the though the script and the interpretation of the novel are quite lacking . the plot of the movie moves along at a cinematography but it still has promise . this is where things start to degenerate to something that becomes almost un - watchable . there is even a ' video game ' style , it does n't make sense for the movie and just looks dumb in my opinion ( and i am hoping many other my little rant i 've made it abundantly clear that the movie is lacking quite seriously in plot and uneven pacing , so if you go see it and you do as a wannabe philosopher . the character seems to be underdeveloped from the get go and seems to just do things for no apparent reason . this i am sure contributes to the movie 's lack of core plot and being unfocused . now , i shall move onto something a little done i liked the movie for the most part but the gaping inadequacies of the plot are unforgivable . i would not recommend this movie to anyone , the fact that i liked it is the story tries to be much too philosophical and fails at its attempt . if you do end up going to see this

kate ( jennifer aniston ) is having some problems . it appears the twenty - eight year old is not happy with her slow progression up the company ladder , and her love life apparently leaves something to be desired . she learns that her problems are related , as the owner of her advertising agency , mr . mercer ( kevin dunn ) , explains to her that her single status does not bode well with the company . her freedom would make her more likely to leave the company , taking clients with her . a solution presents itself in nick ( jay mohr ) , a wedding videographer who kate meets through a coincidence and gets photographed with . kate 's boss , darcy ( illeana douglas ) , uses the photograph to fabricate a wedding engagement between kate and nick . kate is at first repulsed by the idea , but after getting immediate positive results , she pursues it . her first task is to convince nick to go along with her plan . the actual plan consists of nick pretending to be her fianc ? . at a dinner with kate 's bosses he will provoke a fight and they will break up . she meets nick to propose the plan . he accepts . kate 's new status brings unexpected results in other areas . the office bad boy , sam ( kevin bacon ) , who would n't give kate the time of day , now does . now that she is engaged , he pursues an affair with her , as doing so would destroy her good girl image , hence sam 's sudden interest . things start to fall apart for kate , as it becomes apparent that nick really likes her , and does not wish to break up with her . after some provoking nick does oblige , but problems continue for kate . it appears sam is no longer interested now that she is available . or maybe kate does like nick , but " reconciliation " will force her to admit her lies to her employer . adding to her mess is the constant prying of her mother ( olympia dukakis ) , who wants her to get married and settle down . there is a scene in this movie where jennifer aniston is ( from the waist up ) only wearing a bra . it made me chuckle because it is the only time in the movie when she actually wears one . there is enough cleavage in this movie to satisfy russ meyer . it 's like the director said ' well , we know the story is formulaic and the performances are n't that great so , what the heck , let 's show jennifer 's assets as often and as uncovered as humanly possible to keep the pg rating . " quite frankly it 's insulting . i do n't think aniston is a competent enough actress to carry a movie . she did a decent enough job in ed burns ' " she 's the one " because it was a smaller and supporting role , and she just does n't deliver the goods effectively in this movie . her performance was not convincing . unfortunately , as far as romantic comedies go , this movie adds nothing new to the standard formula for these types of movies . the film is similar to " my best friends wedding " in a sense that the leading female character is actually quite vindictive and due her actions , gets no sympathy from me when things go awry . i did n't care for how quickly kate puts down nick 's profession by explaining that videotaping weddings was n't glamorous enough for her co - workers . at least " my best friends wedding " changed the formula a bit and had a somewhat surprise ending . no such luck with " picture perfect " . every plot occurrence can be spotted a mile away , including a couple that really made no sense . after everything kate had done to prove her loyalty to her company , why would she blindly throw it all away when she should have made sure that nick would even talk to her first , let alone consider a relationship ? was quitting her job a prerequisite to making amends with nick ? throw in the fact that i do n't think nick and kate spent enough time together to even warrant that rash of a decision . i believe that kate liked him , but liked him so intensely that she was willing to throw her career away ? i doubt it . and what of the ending scene at a wedding where the entire congregation feels it necessary to stop everything and stare at the couple ? are mass groups of people simultaneously that interested in total strangers ? well , i guess of the congregation consists of movie extras and the strangers are the movies two lead stars , then that would make sense . picture perfect directed by glenn gordon caron kate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jennifer aniston nick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jay mohr sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kevin bacon mercer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kevin dunn darcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . illeana douglas rita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . olympia dukakis written by randy turgeon , february 26 , 1998 . visit my movie reviews ! www . xtdl . com/~canran

0NEG

. it 's like the director said ' well , we know the story is formulaic and the performances are n't that great so , what the heck , let 's show jennifer as humanly possible to keep the pg rating . " quite frankly it 's insulting . i do n't think aniston is a competent enough does n't deliver the goods effectively in this movie . her performance was not convincing . unfortunately , as far as romantic comedies go , this movie adds nothing new to the standard formula for these types of movies . the film is similar

this review contains spoilers , but believe me , i do n't say anything you ca n't guess 10 minutes into the movie . i * did * go into this one with high expectations . i had been exposed to media reports that this film would signify a departure from the slasher flicks . i sort of expected another exorcist or the shining . i even put aside my general rule of not seeing this type of film . boy , was i wrong ! another garbage slasher flick , the only difference being that * this * one has a story ! the story , you ask ? well , a scumball buys a chinese puzzle from a guy in an arab souk . he takes it home , somehow getting it past customs : - ) and starts fiddling with it in his attic . lo and behold , after he takes it apart , three demons appear and start taking him apart , but with meat hooks . when they 're finished , his gizzards are hanging from the ceiling . they botch up their cleanup job , however , and manage to leave his heart ( or some gland ; i did n't really recognize the organ ) under a floorboard . the guy 's brother and his brother 's wife appear at the door soon after , and decide to move in . they throw away scumball 's belongings , and set up house . turns out that wife is a bit of a nympho , and screwed around with scumball right before her marriage . she starts having some wild hallucinations . later , hubby spills some blood on the attic floorboards ( slow - mo special effects of the buckets of blood hitting the ground -- all from the tiny cut on his hand ) . said blood is eagerly sucked up by scumball 's organ . the organ grows into a thing that requires yet more blood in order to complete the regeneration into a really ugly thing . it establishes mind contact with wife , who agrees to help him get more blood , because she really wants to be screwed again . so , she helps him kill three businessmen . scumball , at this time , gradually gets his strength back and grows all his organs back . problem is , he does n't have any skin , and even after three or four corpses , still does n't get any skin . he finally gets some , though , but strangely enough , he ends up looking like his brother . guess they could n't get the original actor back . who knows . scumball ( whose name is frank ) is not a nice guy . he describes his torture by the demons fondly , as the " ultimate pleasure and pain , since at that level there is no difference between the two . " somehow , i do n't see getting torn apart by 90 fish- and meat - hooks a lot of fun . this guy is * so * bad ( " how bad * is * he ? " ) , * so * bad that the * rats * cower in a corner in fear . for good reason , too ; he crucifies two of them for fun , and carves a third while the nympho 's horsing around with hubby . anyway . hubby 's daughter ( who , if course , is not * wife 's * daughter ) starts to suspect something is wrong after she sees wife going into the attic with one of her johns and the ensuing screams . the dumb bimbo meets scumball , and is not impressed . she manages to escape with the chinese puzzle , and brings out the demons . at any rate , the demons are pissed off that they screwed up their cleanup ; they 're normally quite meticulous about that type of thing . the story boils down to the demons trying to correct their mistake . the demons are not , however , the good guys . the dumb bimbo 's the good guy . she somehow not only gets them to take care of frank , but also banishes them to hell or oblivion , we 're not too sure which . not too shabby for someone with single - digit iq . this is basically a " bad jinn " story . it is an * awful * movie . awful acting , bad focus in the photography , many scenes of skin being penetrated by meathooks , which is really unrealistic , and looks like the latex that it is . continuity ? who cares . acting ? * terrible * . script ? horrible . sounds canned . unrealistic . story is so - so , but the impact is lost long , long before the film ends . i do think the * rat * acting was quite good . i have never seen rats look afraid . they should get nominated for an award . really good acting there , the best in the movie . " the envelope for best furry rodent , please . . . " a " " rating would be far too generous . a " 1/10 " rating ( or -4 in the -4 to +4 rating system ) is far more accurate . this movie is so bad that people in the audience were laughing , chortling at the bad acting and crummy dialog . i can see this film turning into the next rocky horror picture show . people were getting so fed up they were yelling warnings up to the characters on the screen . had to have something to do . dumb , dumb , dumb movie . i was embarrassed that i spent money to see it . it goes without saying that i disagree with the other reviews on the board that attempt to review the film for itself . lots of slime and red - dyed corn syrup does not constitute " horror , " in my opinion .

0NEG

type of film . boy , was i wrong ! another garbage slasher flick , the only difference being that * this * one with one of her johns and the ensuing screams . the dumb bimbo meets scumball , and is not impressed . she manages to escape or oblivion , we 're not too sure which . not too shabby for someone with single - digit iq . this is basically a " bad jinn " story . it is an * awful * movie . awful acting , bad focus in the photography , many scenes of skin being penetrated by meathooks , latex that it is . continuity ? who cares . acting ? * terrible * . script ? horrible . sounds canned . unrealistic . story is so - so , but the impact to +4 rating system ) is far more accurate . this movie is so bad that people in the audience were laughing , chortling at the bad acting and crummy dialog . i can see this film turning into the next the screen . had to have something to do . dumb , dumb , dumb movie . i was embarrassed that i spent money to see it . it goes without saying that i

" have you ever heard the one about a movie so bad that it made a guy run out of the theatre screaming ? " obviously the producers at columbia tristar did not think that we suffered enough from the first installment , and so to finish us utterly , they have now released " urban legends : final cut " . this is another " scream " -like feature , consisting merely from the recycled materials of rip - offs from the most pointless movies of all time . amy ( jennifer morrison ) is a film student who is attending a film school filled with uninspired film students who do not have a clue about what to do . but just as she reaches the halfway mark of her final semester at prestigious university 's film program -- where each year 's best thesis production takes the coveted hitchcock prize , a virtual one - way ticket to hollywood success -- she has a chance encounter with campus security guard reese ( loretta devine ) , whose tale of a series of murders based on urban legends at another university inspires amy to try her hand at a fictional thriller organized along similar lines . soon enough , fake -- and real -- blood starts to flow , and amy is being chased around by scary killer , while her cast and crew get slain , one by one . is the culprit the original urban legends murderer , just some random psycho , ! a member of the faculty , one of her competitors for the hitchcock , or is there something even more stupid going on ? this is another one of those tiring , pointless teen slasher flicks : neither scary , funny , or interesting . it simply lacks the ability and the story to entertain . the body counts and screams continue to grow , as the weak level of intelligence sinks rapidly . in fact watching films like that after having watched " scary movie " is impossible keeping a serious face . several times i tried to prevent myself from laughing , without succeeding . and then i realized that practically the whole theatre was laughing . it 's the same thing that has been told and told and told over and over again as if it was the revelation of the century . how many times must we tolerate the same clich ? s that have haunted the slasher genre since its birth ? it has been so many films about masked killers that most of us have developed an allergy for them . they are the most stupid , meaningless , predictable and soulless films in existence . however , director john ottman manages to make " urban legends : final cut " into one of the worst achievements of this godforsaken genre . what was done with a sense of redemption for past failures and irony in " scream " , ottman takes seriously . for that reason alone , it is worth a look , just to realize how bad a movie can be . it 's tough to find comparisons for such an achievement , and we have to dig in ancient history to find a movie that would match its intellect . even movies like " lost in space " and " mission to mars " seem spectacular in its shadow . we have not seen such waste of t ! ime and resources since " showgirls " ( 1995 ) . no matter how hard i tried to find positive elements in this so called production , i came up with nothing , except the way the killer was dressed . here i feel that i have to compliment the costume designers trysha bakker and marie - sylvie deveu , that have wisely replaced the well known scream - mask with a very elegant fencing mask . jennifer morrison ( " stir of echoes " ) is all right , and the other actors ' best achievement is keeping a straight face when pronouncing the words from the script . in fact the only thing that is terrifying about this film ( with the exception of its screenplay ) is its portray of film schools . if these graduates will be the directors of the future , then hollywood 's golden days are over . rumors are already spreading through the internet that columbia tristar is already developing a third installment . let 's just hope and pray that it 's just an urban legend .

0NEG

that we suffered enough from the first installment , and so to finish us utterly , they have now released " urban legends : final . this is another " scream " -like feature , consisting merely from the recycled materials of rip - offs from the most pointless movies of all time . amy ( jennifer morrison ) is a film student , one of her competitors for the hitchcock , or is there something even more stupid going on ? this is another one of those tiring , pointless teen slasher flicks : neither scary , funny , or interesting . it simply lacks the ability and the story to entertain . the body counts and screams continue to grow , as the weak level of intelligence sinks rapidly . in fact watching films like that after having watched " is impossible keeping a serious face . several times i tried to prevent myself from laughing , without succeeding . and then i realized that practically as if it was the revelation of the century . how many times must we tolerate the same clich ? s that have haunted the slasher genre since its birth ? most of us have developed an allergy for them . they are the most stupid , meaningless , predictable and soulless films in existence . however , director john ottman manages to make " urban legends : final cut " into one of the worst achievements of this godforsaken genre . what was done with a sense of redemption for that reason alone , it is worth a look , just to realize how bad a movie can be . it 's tough to find comparisons for such an mission to mars " seem spectacular in its shadow . we have not seen such waste of t ! ime and resources since " showgirls " ( 1995 ) . no matter

" we are grateful that we have the songs of grace chan to comfort us . " starring lee kang - sheng , yang kuei - mei directed by tsai ming - liang written by tsai and yang ping - ying cinematography by liao peng - jung taiwan , 24/12/99 . the millenium approaches . an incessant downpour batters an unnamed city . sectors of the city are being sealed , quarantined due to the onset of a mysterious virus . the virus causes people to act like insects : they crawl about on all fours , hide from bright lights , huddle in damp corners . the water supply to the quarantined zones will be cut off in a week 's time . residents are advised to evacuate the area , asap . this premise -- kafka by way of cronenberg -- is the background for the hole , which could have been a great movie , but , sadly , ends up as a waste of good ideas . the quick sketch above suggests a dark , absurd , hallucinatory near - future parable of life in the late 20th century ; in execution , however , it is nothing like that . the virus , the evacuation , the visual possiblities of the deluge : these are all relegated to the background . instead , the hole focuses on the lives -- for want of a better word -- of a man ( lee kang - sheng ) and a woman ( yang kuei - mei ) who live in the same apartment building , and who have no personalities . the entire movie taks place in settings that are uniformly ugly and sterile : the charmless rooms and corridors of a post - industrial apartment complex , photographed to look as dim and dingy as possible . it 's a vivid setting , but an unappealing one , especially with the monotonous hiss of falling rain and the gurgle of drainage pipes in the background . the man lives in the apartment directly above the woman 's . one day , a repairman investigating a leak leaves a small hole in the floor of the man 's living room , opening into the ceiling of the woman 's living room . this hole -- symbol of the solitary opening in the character 's lonely , compartmented lives -- allows them to interact in unusual ( and mostly non - verbal ) ways . example : the man , suffering from the onset of the virus ( or so i assume -- everything is obscure in this movie ) vomits through the hole . the woman , wandering around in the dark , accidentally puts her hand on his vomit , and then cleans it up . this is what passes for meaningful communication . and they say romance is dead . much of the film does not even focus on their interactions , such as they are . there is almost no dialogue and we learn next to nothing about these people . they are ciphers . instead , we are treated to long takes in which we witness their miserable lives ; we watch , for instance , as the woman boils some water , pours it onto some noodles , then eats the noodles . ( this is as fascinating as it sounds . ) offered as counterpoint -- or perhaps relief -- to these dreary sequences are a series of musical numbers , fantasies in which the woman lip - synchs to pop songs by grace chan ( popular , so i 'm told , in 1950s ' china ) . she prances around in grimy hallways and grungy stairwells , incronguously lit by cheerfully bright spotlights . sometimes , in these fantasies , she is joined by the man . these scenes are presumably intended to be bright and fanciful , sharply contrasting the dreariness of reality , but they fail . when the man and the woman dance , it seems half - hearted and listless . astaire and rogers this is not . even in imagination , these people are numb , weary , boring . the hole is part of the ' collection 2000 ' series , a group of films commissioned by french tv station la sept arte on the subject of the millenium . others include canada 's last night , brazil 's midnight , and american hal hartley 's the book of life . the book of life is the only other one that i have seen , and it is infinitely superior to the taiwanese entry . witty , energetic , humane , it makes the the hole seem ( ahem ) empty . american movies with nothing to say try to disguise their lack of content with flashy movements , quick cuts , superficial emotions . foreign movies with nothing to say do what the hole does : they point the camera at something of minimal interest for unbelievably long periods of time , and call it art . the hole is self - evidently a film about alienation , and perhaps director tsai ming - liang wants the audience to share in his characters ' alienation . if so , he succeeds . perhaps it is a challenge : he dares us to enjoy this movie , despite his best attempts to ensure that we do n't . if it was a challenge , i was n't up for it .

0NEG

have been a great movie , but , sadly , ends up as a waste of good ideas . the quick sketch above suggests a dark , absurd possible . it 's a vivid setting , but an unappealing one , especially with the monotonous hiss of falling rain focus on their interactions , such as they are . there is almost no dialogue and we learn next to nothing about these people . they are ciphers . instead , we are treated fanciful , sharply contrasting the dreariness of reality , but they fail . when the man and the woman dance , it is not . even in imagination , these people are numb , weary , boring . the hole is part of the ' collection 2000 nothing to say do what the hole does : they point the camera at something of minimal interest for unbelievably long periods of time , and call it art . the hole is self

what happens when you put martin lawrence in a fat suit in real life ? you get martin lawrence in a coma ( the comedian thought he was getting fat , so he put on numerous layers of heavy clothing and went jogging in 100 degree heat , ending up in a coma ) . so what happens when you put martin lawrence in a fat suit in the movies ? you get an audience in a coma . in big momma 's house , lawrence plays a fbi agent who 's a master of disguises . when a naughty , naughty man escapes from jail and seeks out his former girlfriend ( the very sexy nia long . . . the only thing worth looking at in this movie ) , she flees to georgia to stay with her rather large southern aunt " big momma " ( ella mitchell ) . the fbi follows her in order to recover the large sum of money stolen in the bank robbery that sent the naughty man to jail . however , big momma is called away on an emergency . sensing that they could lose their only chance to capture the criminal , lawrence goes undercover as big momma . and let the comedy begin ! big momma 's house is the definition of a " gimmick " movie if there ever was one . the plot can basically be summed up as " martin lawrence dresses up as a fat woman " . . . and even that description is too wordy . you can just see this script plotted out on a chalkboard with martin lawrence / fat woman in the middle of the board with a big circle around it , and all sorts of clich ? d , " humorous " situations pointing to it . fat woman plays basketball ! fat woman takes a dump ! fat woman kung fu ! well they left one off the board . . . movie critic slips into coma ! paul giamatti ( private parts , the negotiator ) plays lawrence 's partner and as much as i enjoy his work , even he ca n't inject life into this lifeless comedy . hell , the greatest performers on the planet could n't make this material work . . . it 's just that awful .

0NEG

martin lawrence in a fat suit in the movies ? you get an audience in a coma . in big momma 's house , lawrence plays a let the comedy begin ! big momma 's house is the definition of a " gimmick " movie if there ever was one . the plot can basically . . and even that description is too wordy . you can just see this script plotted out on a chalkboard with martin lawrence / fat woman in the middle of the board with a big circle around it , and all sorts of clich ? d , " humorous " situations pointing to it . fat woman plays basketball ! fat work , even he ca n't inject life into this lifeless comedy . hell , the greatest performers on the planet could n't make this material work . . . it 's just that awful .

blatantly borrowing elements from 1993 's " like water for chocolate " and 1991 's " the butcher 's wife , " " simply irresistible " attempts to be a whimsical romantic comedy but , more often than not , comes off as laughable , leaving you to wonder why rising star sarah michelle gellar ( t . v . 's " buffy , the vampire slayer " ) would choose such an obviously inept film project to waste her time on . things get off to a bad start right from the onset as amanda ( sarah michelle gellar ) , a young woman who runs her late family 's struggling new york restaurant , runs into a mystery man who forces a bushel of crabs on her and then vansihes into thin air . while out shopping , she also meets tom ( sean patrick flanery ) , a charming , handsome man , who happens to be planning a ritzy restaurant for the department store he works for , and later when he decides to drop by her dive , called southern cross , for lunch , she somehow makes a delicious crab dish for him , even though she is known to not be a very good chef . suddenly , amanda finds her restaurant , on the edge of foreclosure , rejuvenate to life as customer begin to swarm for her food , which strangely causes everyone immediate jubilation when it hits their mouths . are amanda and tom destined to be together ? and is it not just because of the magical food , but because they really , truly like each other ? and what exactly is going on with the food she is making ? does it have anything to do with that pesky crab she got that sits on the shelf in the kitchen somehow assisting her in her food preparation ? " simply irresistible " is a ridiculous and just plain goofy romantic fantasy that 's as flimsy as a slice of bologna . it takes one joke --- that people who eat the food are taken aback by it in most unusual ways --- and recycles it over and over again until the film has reached an appropriate running time of 95 minutes . add in a music montage every ten minutes ( these are actually the best scenes in the movie , which certainly tells you something about the film itself ) , and what you 've got is an utterly empty , if not necessarily boring , excursion . the cast of " simply irresistible " is fairly good , but it is the supporting characters who are the most interesting . patricia clarkson ( 1998 's " high art , " in which she played a drugged - out lesbian ) is a standout as tom 's colleague , and is thankfully given a few funny lines of dialogue . also of note is larry gilliard jr . , as amanda 's cooking assistant and buddy , who is allowed to create a seemingly full character out of only a handful of scenes . of the main stars , sarah michelle gellar is fine , but really does often look like she 's struggling through the unmistakably clumsy material , and if sean patrick flanery plans on keeping a film career in the future , he has certainly got to pick better projects than this . the bottom line is that " simply irresistible " is the exact opposite of its deprophesized title , and when the movie got to the point where the characters began to float in mid - air ( an unamusing plot device that was repeated in the stupid last scene ) , my mind checked out from the characters and the romance . when i think about it in hindsight , i should have checked out in the very first scene , where the point of the action was for gellar to crawl under tables looking for a runaway mechanical crab . now , that certainly is what i 'd call magical !

0NEG

whimsical romantic comedy but , more often than not , comes off as laughable , leaving you to wonder why rising star sarah michelle obviously inept film project to waste her time on . things get off to a bad start right from the onset as amanda ( sarah michelle gellar ) , a young in her food preparation ? " simply irresistible " is a ridiculous and just plain goofy romantic fantasy that 's as flimsy as a slice of taken aback by it in most unusual ways --- and recycles it over and over again until the film has reached an appropriate running time of tells you something about the film itself ) , and what you 've got is an utterly empty , if not necessarily boring , excursion . the cast of " simply irresistible " is fairly main stars , sarah michelle gellar is fine , but really does often look like she 's struggling through the unmistakably clumsy material , and if sean patrick flanery plans on keeping a the characters began to float in mid - air ( an unamusing plot device that was repeated in the stupid last scene ) ,

i wo n't even pretend that i have seen the other 3 alien films . i saw glimpses of alien and aliens and fragments of alien 3 , but i have by no means actually sat down and watched any of them . so take my opinion from an unbiased and impartial perspective : alien resurrection is not worth the large bag of lollies i was munching into after a hard day 's work . i did n't just dislike it so much because the plot was awful ; most of the acting was very average or the special effects got tiresome after 5 minutes of painful viewing , but also the fact that every tedious ingredient thrown in attempts to give this pointless dribble some meaning . sigourney weaver , who 's role in alien earned her an academy award nomination , plays the character of " ripley , " who died fighting against extraterrestrial scum in alien 3 . 200 years later , scientists ' use a sample of blood found at the site of her death to recreate ripley - including the alien that was stuck inside her . in no time they remove the alien from her body and separate the two ; yet ripley is now not completely human , possessing strange amounts of strength and being able to withhold greater pain than a normal being . i 'm sure someone can explain exactly why this is so , but for now we 'll just ignore it and move on . why , you ask , would ripley and the alien inside her be recreated ? well , the smart little lab researchers believed that they would be able to discover many advancements in science from studying the alien creature . these were the same people who said they could control the alien and that their was no danger in their research . they ( yawn ) were wrong . it does n't take a genius to figure out that the rest of the film is a continuous cat and mouse chase between the humans who die off one by one and the aliens who open their mouths on every possible occasion to show off their frightfully scary un - flossed teeth . there 's a little saying that goes something like this : " if you 're going to make a bad film , do it well . " i have seen plenty of disappointing and underachieving movies , but they are not the ones that really bother me . alien resurrection , a good example of a film that really gets up my nose , is not so much a discouraging experience but an off putting one . there is no way to describe why the australian ma rating was given to this film other than unnecessary and repulsive gore , which attempts to distract us from the wandering - but - not - going - anywhere plot . in one scene my stomach churned as i witnessed a mawkish looking alien put its hand on a characters head and literally ripped most of his face off . another one featured ripley sticking a knife through her hand just to impress someone she was talking to . fair enough if it were in a horror film or even if it bared any significance to the story , but this is unfortunately not the case , and this sort of bizarre gore is inexcusable . if you think i 'm struggling to find one good aspect about the film , then you thought right . one exciting scene is a credit ( and the only part remotely worth seeing ) to the film , in which an alien chases two men ( one a cripple ) up a tall ladder with interesting results . but of course after that thrilling scene alien resurrection had no problem in returning to its pathetically low standard , and ends up crashing into the shores of movie dullness more often than japanese kamikaze jet fighters fall off their skis . so in a film where the one liners come as bad as " earth man , what a shit hole " and the primary means for one mans strategic attack is to bounce bullets off walls to hit an opponent , its no wonder why alien : resurrection turned out to be as off putting and clumsy as it is . oh , and in case you 're wondering about my bag of lollies , the less i enjoy a film , the more i eat . so all the lollies were gone in 15 minutes ; but however empty the bag turned out to be , it was still a long way ahead of the movie .

0NEG

from an unbiased and impartial perspective : alien resurrection is not worth the large bag of lollies i was munching into after a hard day 's work . i did n't just dislike it so much because the plot was awful ; most of the acting was very average or the special effects got tiresome after 5 minutes of painful viewing , but also the fact that every tedious ingredient thrown in attempts to give this pointless dribble some meaning . sigourney weaver , who 's role in alien earned that their was no danger in their research . they ( yawn ) were wrong . it does n't take a genius to bother me . alien resurrection , a good example of a film that really gets up my nose , is not so much a discouraging experience but an off putting one . there is no way to describe why the australian repulsive gore , which attempts to distract us from the wandering - but - not - going - anywhere plot . in one scene my stomach churned as i witnessed a mawkish looking alien put its hand , but this is unfortunately not the case , and this sort of bizarre gore is inexcusable . if you think i 'm struggling to find one good aspect about the film , then you thought right . one scene alien resurrection had no problem in returning to its pathetically low standard , and ends up crashing into the shores of movie wonder why alien : resurrection turned out to be as off putting and clumsy as it is . oh , and in case you

synopsis : lifelong friends rafe ( affleck ) and danny ( hartnett ) join the us air force and are stationed at pearl harbor , hawaii . rafe goes to england to fight alongside british pilots and is seemingly killed in action . danny falls in love with rafe 's girlfriend , evelyn ( beckinsale ) , but rafe survives and returns to confront his former friend . meanwhile , the japanese sneak attack is imminent . . . review : " pearl harbor " is a perfect example of movies as product rather than as art . it is little more than a crassly - calculated attempt to woo the masses , enticing them with big stars , big effects , and a big setting -- but no heart . it is difficult to criticise the actors , because they do everything the movie demands of them . sadly , this amounts to barely more than reciting dialogue of such sheer banality that it makes one eager to see the script randall wallace wrote with his right hand at the same time as he was writing " pearl harbor " with his left . the plot here is pure cliche , and the wartime setting simply a convenient backdrop . there is no genuine exploration of what pearl harbor meant to the united states , and no insight into its vital role in inciting that country to join world war ii . instead , there is just an assembly - line love triangle , some empty patriotic rhetoric , and a laughable attempt to placate japanese viewers via the inclusion of some reticent imperial commanders ( when one intones , " i fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant " , i nearly fell out of my seat ) . to the movie 's credit , it does include a fantastic portrayal of the attack itself , an exciting and dizzying hour which plunges viewers into the war . if only the remaining two hours had been crafted with such skill , perhaps this memorial day non - event would have been worth watching .

0NEG

rather than as art . it is little more than a crassly - calculated attempt to woo the masses , enticing them with big stars , big effects , do everything the movie demands of them . sadly , this amounts to barely more than reciting dialogue of such sheer banality that it makes one eager to see the script randall was writing " pearl harbor " with his left . the plot here is pure cliche , and the wartime setting simply a convenient backdrop . that country to join world war ii . instead , there is just an assembly - line love triangle , some empty patriotic rhetoric , and a laughable attempt to placate japanese viewers via the inclusion of some reticent

this is a film that i was inclined to like at the outset : the two main characters had been involved with the fine television drama st . elsewhere for several years , and i had understood that the director / screenwriter had written for the show on occasion also . i am sorry to report that the results were not up to my expectations , nor were they satisfactory . if i had to list a reason why . . . . but that would be getting ahead of myself ; besides , it 's not immediately clear , as there are so many problems with the film . adam arkin plays a grade - school teacher who is sardonic , cynical , and somewhat abrasive , but a good teacher . he spends his lunches playing basketball by himself on a nearby court . one day , he meets a drifter ( david morse , who plays jack morrison on st . elsewhere ) in the park , and inveigles him in a game of one - on - one basketball . morse turns out to be good , and a friendship slowly develops between the two , as their respective professions progress on the screen -- arkin 's teaching , and morse 's selling of paper flowers to passing motorists . so far , my major complaint would be the lack of dialogue , and the constant intrusion of the musical soundtrack . good music to be sure , but it does n't replace the dialogue for setting the mood or telling the story -- it makes the film somewhat minimalistic , a technique i rarely admire . suddenly their friendship is interrupted by morse 's introduction to a fellow teacher of arkin 's , a woman arkin has long admired from afar , but it too reticent to approach . it appears that she begins to admire morse ( who enjoys here attentions , but is n't sure what to do about it -- she does n't realize that he is a drifter , and knows nothing about his past ) , and this causes friction between arkin and almost everyone else . until then , i had only a vague dissatisfaction with the film . the conclusion is where it begins to evolve into a full - fledged failure . the woman , at least to me , appeared to be fairly shallow ; i did n't realize how shallow until her final scene with arkin , where she reveals that she has been trying to make arkin jealous by her attentions to morse . somehow , this is made to appear as if it is arkin 's fault , and it is left with him feeling somehow victorious that he 's gotten such a find of girlfriend . frankly , dropping her on the spot would have seemed the most civilized action arkin could make ; punching her in the mouth not the least . after this , the childish confrontation between morse and arkin at the end seems almost natural . if i had to summarize a major gripe , it 's that this is a story spread too thin , that creates semi - likable characters at the outset , and then suddenly jerks them into being 16-year - olds at the last moment . it might be true - to - life with some people ; but that does n't mean * i * have to like it . i do n't . . avoid .

0NEG

screenwriter had written for the show on occasion also . i am sorry to report that the results were not up to my expectations , nor were they satisfactory . if i had to list a reason why . ; besides , it 's not immediately clear , as there are so many problems with the film . adam arkin plays a grade - school teacher who of paper flowers to passing motorists . so far , my major complaint would be the lack of dialogue , and the constant intrusion of the musical soundtrack . good music to be sure the story -- it makes the film somewhat minimalistic , a technique i rarely admire . suddenly their friendship is interrupted by morse 's introduction i had only a vague dissatisfaction with the film . the conclusion is where it begins to evolve into a full - fledged failure . the woman , at least to me , appeared in the mouth not the least . after this , the childish confrontation between morse and arkin at the end seems almost natural . if i had to summarize a major gripe , it 's that this is a story spread too thin , that creates semi - likable characters at the outset true - to - life with some people ; but that does n't mean * i * have to like it . i do n't . . avoid .

i love movies . i really do . every time i watch great movies like goodfellas ( 1990 ) or raiders of the lost ark ( 1981 ) , a tear comes to my eye due to the awesome talent , skill and entertainment that is on display . even lower grade films such as the naked gun 33 1/3 ( 1994 ) or ghostbusters ii ( 1988 ) while not exactly brilliantly well made , are certainly not a waste of celluloid and present entertainment value . then there 's my favourite martian , the exact opposite of what a movie should be : a hurried , poorly written and acted movie with one goal , to make money . disney , ever since the lion king ( 1994 ) have lost their magic touch , but this dross just shows how far disney have sunk . christopher lloyd plays a martian who crash lands in front of t . v reporter 's tim o'hara car ( daniels ) , and soon tim finds the martian in his home , trying to recover and fix his spaceship . along with his ' zoot ' spacesuit , voiced by wayne knight , must fix his spaceship before it explodes , and also try to stop his identity being revealed to the public , firstly by o'hara , but later by rival t . v presenter brace channing ( hurley ) , by calling himself tim 's ' uncle martin . ' ' laughter ' is supposed to arise from the ' comical ' events , but never does . many bad films have good intentions , but my favourite martian does n't appear to try to provide any entertainment . filled to the brim with wham bang special effects , my favourite martian offers little more than some nice eye candy . christopher lloyd mugs his way through the entire movie , i 've never seen a man pull a face for 93 minutes until now . jeff daniels plays ' staple nice guy ' and his role is useless . his performance is incredibly lazy , although his paperthin character does n't deserve more than the performance he gives . darryl hannah looks as pretty as ever , but her role is somewhat , erm , limited . hurley mistakes ' acting ' for ' shouting and looking like a twit ' and wins the david wilcock award for ' most irritating , godawful performance in a moving picture . ' way to go liz ! for the supporting cast , disney manage to assemble every character actor out there , during the film i was going ' he was the guy in . . . ah . . er . . . ' before finally giving up and switching off . another major setback is the staple ' comedy sidekick . ' unfortunately , the writers ( sherri stoner and deanna oliver , if anyone cares ) forget that a comedy sidekick needs to be ' funny . ' instead , they deliver zoot , the martians deeply unfunny sidekick . although meant to be a manic character no doubt , every line that comes out of his ' neck ' is a dud . a real dud . citizen kane delivers more laughs a minute than his hell spawn piece of polyester . even the kids in the audience were insulted by this character : not one child even bothered to smirk . it 's a nice special effect , though . another problems with this comedy are the gags themselves . or rather , the lack of them . my favourite martian reaches a new level of toilet humour : it goes past the bowl , down the pipe and into the sewer . now , toilet humour can be funny , as dumb and dumber ( 1994 ) humorously showed . but here , characters farting , belching and almost getting crapped on ( literally ) is not ' amusing . ' it 's insulting . there 's one good gag right before the credits , but it appears the guy who wrote that gag tragically died and his unfunny twin continued . either that , or they were hoping that easy to please six year olds would n't mind the fact that his movie is beaten by men at work in the funny stakes . yes , men at work . yowza ! the fact that a lot of money was pumped into this film , and that they actually got people to agree to be in this film just depresses me even more . there are thousands of brilliant films out there that ca n't get distribution , yet trash like this gets released nation - wide with ease . thankfully , as soon as it makes it 's money , it will never be seen again , and my favourite martian will end up where the two lead characters do near the end of the movie : down the toilet .

0NEG

the exact opposite of what a movie should be : a hurried , poorly written and acted movie with one goal , to make money . disney , ( 1994 ) have lost their magic touch , but this dross just shows how far disney have sunk . christopher lloyd plays a martian who crash lands in by calling himself tim 's ' uncle martin . ' ' laughter ' is supposed to arise from the ' comical ' events , but never does . many bad films have good intentions , but my . jeff daniels plays ' staple nice guy ' and his role is useless . his performance is incredibly lazy , although his paperthin character does n't deserve more than wins the david wilcock award for ' most irritating , godawful performance in a moving picture . ' way to go liz . ' instead , they deliver zoot , the martians deeply unfunny sidekick . although meant to be a manic character no out of his ' neck ' is a dud . a real dud . citizen kane delivers more laughs a minute than his hell spawn piece of polyester . even the kids in the audience were insulted by rather , the lack of them . my favourite martian reaches a new level of toilet humour : it goes past the bowl , down the pipe and into the sewer . now , toilet humour can be funny , as on ( literally ) is not ' amusing . ' it 's insulting . there 's one good gag right before the credits got people to agree to be in this film just depresses me even more . there are thousands of brilliant films out there that ca n't get distribution , yet trash like this gets released nation - wide with ease . thankfully , lead characters do near the end of the movie : down the toilet .

i looked at the " internet movie database " 's awards section for this film , and found that this was nominated for a golden globe for " best picture ( drama ) . " anyone who 's seen this film can back me up on this : this is the worst of the " great " disaster films , and that 's not really saying a lot for this film . " earthquake " is basically notable because it originally included some theatre thing where the theatre shook when the big earthquake occured . on video , it 's a bland and slow - moving film which gives us a bunch of different characters ( the disaster film requisite ) , then brings them together in the struggle against the big disaster . while this worked in , say , " the towering inferno , " it does n't here for one single reason : we do n't care about any of the characters . the film gives us charlton heston ( in one of many crap 70s films he made , including " skyjacked " and that classic , " soylent green " ) as a rich man married to ava gardner , who is having a little affair with a young single mom ( genieveve bujold ) ; a renegade police officer on suspension ( george kennedy , in his least humored performance ) ; in the second weirdest subplot , a motorcycle stuntman ( richard roundtree , right after his " shaft " thing ) whose big stunt is he goes on a little track that goes upside down ( yea , snore ) ; and the weirdest subplot : a military man / bag boy at a grocery store who has a little thing for buxom victoria principal , and eventually gets vengeance on those guys who made fun of his hair ( ! ! ! ) . in smaller subplots , there 's a pointless bit about people who are flying over l . a . ( the city in the film , by the way ) , one who 's playing cards and married to a boring non - acting husband ( you think this one can go nowhere ? guess again . he gets interested in the final frames ) ; there 's genieveve bujold 's moron son , who has a little adventure with wires ; and for some much - needed comedy , there 's walter matthau ( billed as walter mutha . . . . - the only laugh in the film ) , as a wild drunkard , who 's big moment is a dance he does at a critical time . as for the actual " earthquake , " it 's rather a let - down . there 's a full hour of character - setups , none of which is interesting , then about 10 minutes of shaking , crumbling , and a bit where a house almost falls on bujold ( narrowly missing ) . this film needed that whole theatre - shaking : they needed to wake everybody up because they were so bored . there 's little suspense following the quake , although this film tries for it . there 's an adventure in a crumbling high - rise office building , the wires with the kid , and the movement of people who are all injured . but none of these are all - too suspenseful . the finale with the heston / gardner / bujold love triangle is ended in a basic flip - of - the - coin bit , which brings out a big let - down . and there 's no real finale . even " volcano " ended nicely , and that movie really sucked . not only is it hokey , but you do n't care about any character . who cares if heston dies ? who cares if he choses bujold or gardner ( although i would have chosen gardner , mainly on the basis that she can actually act ) ? who cares if richard roundtree makes money on his stupid " stunt ? " who cares if that idiot kid falls to his death on some wires ? and who cares about that whole plane spiel ? if anything , " earthquake " is worth a viewing for the same reason " glen or glenda ? " is . i mean , i laughed at this more than i did at " bio dome . " but that 's another story ( and review ) . in short , " earthquake " gives disaster pics a bad name .

0NEG

seen this film can back me up on this : this is the worst of the " great " disaster films , and that shook when the big earthquake occured . on video , it 's a bland and slow - moving film which gives us a bunch of different characters ( the " it does n't here for one single reason : we do n't care about any of the characters . the film gives us charlton heston ( in one he goes on a little track that goes upside down ( yea , snore ) ; and the weirdest subplot : a military man / ( ! ! ! ) . in smaller subplots , there 's a pointless bit about people who are flying over l . a . time . as for the actual " earthquake , " it 's rather a let - down . there 's a full hour of character - setups . this film needed that whole theatre - shaking : they needed to wake everybody up because they were so bored . there 's little suspense following the quake , although flip - of - the - coin bit , which brings out a big let - down . and there 's no real finale . even " " ended nicely , and that movie really sucked . not only is it hokey , but you do n't care about any character . who cares if heston dies ? who cares if and review ) . in short , " earthquake " gives disaster pics a bad name .

the formula is simple . trap a varied group of people on an isolated location , then pop in a seemingly unstoppable monster to kill them one by one . these have been the successful ingredients for many good films ( the thing , alien , aliens , and tremors to name a few ) . so , why is it that so many films following this recipe end up pathetically bad ? ( see the relic for a particularly putrid example . ) perhaps it is simply too easy to forget the necessary binding ingredient : effort and ideas . deep rising meets these two requirements part way , but not enough to salvage the film . treat williams is finnegan , the leader of a small boat crew who hire out their services ( and their boat ) for any activity . . . no questions asked . this time , however , they may have gone too far . their passengers , led by the ominous wes studi , are the type of multi - national terrorist squads usually only seen in die hard films . and their cargo . . . let 's just say it has very high explosive potential . what is the target of these thieves ? why , the argonauticus , of course , a high tech luxury cruise yacht on its maiden voyage . but something else is hunting the argonauticus . . . something ancient and deadly . by the time the thieves arrive , nearly everyone on board the ship has been killed . and now the creature senses fresh meat ! so , you have the thieves and their mercenary boat crew , joining forces with the surviving passengers ( including the ship owner canton ( anthony heald ) , and a thief with less lofty goals , trillian ( famke janssen ) ) against the terror from the deep . and the monster gets to pick them off one by one . fortunately for the creature , this particular band of criminals happens to be the dumbest the world can offer . why else would they indulge in petty squabbling while they watch their friends become fish food . if there 's a more clarion call for unity , i do n't know what it might be . it 's pretty easy to guess who will get killed off when . there are no surprises in that the most interesting characters seem to last until the end . for the most part , the watery tentacles seem to be acting on the audience 's impulses to get rid of the most boring characters first . ( although i wonder if the filmmakers might have extended djimon hounsou 's life a bit if they knew this would be released so soon after his acclaim for amistad . ) treat williams is a passable hero , and famke janssen does her best julia roberts impersonation . but while wes studi and anthony heald are particularly slimy , very little of the rest of the company stand out in any way . the biggest treat in the film , however , has to be pantucci , kevin j . o'connor 's whining engine - boy , under finnegan 's employ . his constant quips may be a bit over - written , but they manage to capture the same vein of nerve - addled humor that bill paxton delivered as hudson in aliens ( or todd graff as hippie in the abyss , for that matter ) . it 's just a stock part ( the comic - relief character ) , but it almost makes this tired alien clone bearable . as far as the monster goes , although the cgi is done well , the creature has no logical consistency . think back to the great ( or even just good ) movie monsters . they all had a set of " rules " about what they could do , and how and why they would do it . part of the joy of those films was slowly discovering , along with the heroes , just what those rules are . the tentacle monster in deep rising does n't have a set of rules . . . or if it does , not a very good one . it merely eats ( or drinks , as the case may be ) , and there is no rhyme or reason for what it does in order to do so . the film never explains why the argonauticus is attacked in the first place . it simply happens . the action scenes are decent , but few are noteworthy . the film definitely does suffer from its proximity to titanic . deep rising 's peril in the water scenes pale next to cameron 's ( but can you really blame them ) . unfortunately , deep rising 's efforts are more on par with speed 2 . on the plus side , however , the film 's closing image shows some promise for a potentially interesting ( but unlikely ) sequel . perhaps you 'd be better off waiting for that one .

0NEG

, i do n't know what it might be . it 's pretty easy to guess who will get killed off when . there are no surprises in that the most interesting characters seem to last until , although the cgi is done well , the creature has no logical consistency . think back to the great ( or even just simply happens . the action scenes are decent , but few are noteworthy . the film definitely does suffer from its proximity to titanic . deep rising 's peril

the thirteenth floor is a bland , obligatory exercise in genre film - making . if i had n't recently watched the matrix and open your eyes -- both of which are similar but far superior -- i might have been a little nicer to this picture . craig bierko makes an adequate hero as douglas hall , the rich co - creator of a perfect human world simulation who is suddenly blamed for the murder of his boss ( armin mueller - stahl ) . everything that was subtle and smart about the previously mentioned films is battered over our heads in this one , and characters stare at each other for maddeningly - long periods of time and refuse to communicate on any realistic level . the acting is okay , but the film suffers from every logical flaw one could think of , and features a script ( co - penned by director josef rusnak ) loaded with cliches and stock characters . there are individual scenes and ideas that work -- i like the thought of a sentient computer program -- but none of the film 's strengths are recognized to any meaningful degree . producer roland emmerich , based on this and his previous directorial efforts , seems hell - bent on bringing us the ultimate standard in mediocre science - fiction .

0NEG

the thirteenth floor is a bland , obligatory exercise in genre film - making . if i had n't recently watched the matrix and was subtle and smart about the previously mentioned films is battered over our heads in this one , and characters stare at each other for maddeningly - long periods of time and refuse to communicate on any realistic level . the acting is okay , but the film suffers from every logical flaw one could think of , and features a script ( co - penned by director josef rusnak ) loaded with cliches and stock characters . there are individual scenes and ideas that work -- , based on this and his previous directorial efforts , seems hell - bent on bringing us the ultimate standard in mediocre science - fiction .

my giant begins with a monologue that 's more funny than not and a distinctive ` princess bride , ' medieval fairy - tale - in - the- ? 90s feel . i was pleasantly surprised how sharp the comedy was , with very funny scenes occurring on a movie set in romania where talent agent sammy ( billy crystal ) is visiting a client and in the monastery where sammy ends up after being mysteriously saved when he accidentally plunges his car into a stream . and when sammy meets max , his giant , mysterious savior played by gheorghe muresan , there is magic in the air ; albeit it a bit goofy , i loved every minute of it . the film , of course , plays on the size difference between the two , and at times you would almost swear it must be special effects . i particularly enjoyed a shot of sammy dangling his legs from a max - sized chair as the two face each over an enormous table and eat from oversized bowls and spoons . i also liked jere burns ' ( from tv 's ` something so right ' ) performance as the director of the film in romania . at this point , the primary flaw in the film is that gheorghe muresan is incredibly hard to understand , particularly during his fast - paced first scene . it is unfortunate that the script required him to speak quickly right out of the gate , as i did understand him more as the film continued and i became accustomed to his speech . however , about the time muresan becomes coherent , the characters head to new york and the film takes a dive . off the high board . suddenly , we are expected to believe sammy is a do - whatever - it - takes slime ball . up until this point he was pursuing his own interests to be sure , but he did n't come off as a desperate jerk . if he had , the first scenes could never have been so lighthearted and magical . but now , in new york , we are further introduced to his neglected wife and son , and his character is desperate enough to involve max in a disturbing giant vs . midgets wrestling match , which i found quite unpleasant and jarring within the framework of the film . indeed , many scenes stuck out of this film like incorrectly placed puzzle pieces . this includes the scenes featuring steven seagal , when sammy gets max a role in a big , hollywood movie filming in las vegas . while i enjoyed seeing seagal poke fun at himself , the scenes appeared to exist solely because of his participation , rather than because the film demanded it . and the audience is required to take a huge leap to believe that max would win the role based on his quotations of shakespeare . at this point i found myself thinking , ` we 're supposed to believe that someone would cast this guy in a film ? ' then i realized he was , and i was watching it . in the final third , the film undergoes another transformation , this time to unbridled sentimentality . note : major plot points are revealed in this and the final paragraph . max went to america because sammy promised to reunited him with his childhood love , lillianna , who has n't seen him since he was a normal - sized kid . her refusal to see max ( unbeknownst to him ) leads us to an awkward ` ends justify the means ' scene as sammy 's wife serena , played nicely by kathleen quinlan , poses as lillianna . i found this scene offensive . not only did it rely on deception to induce warm , fuzzy feelings from the audience , it reduced max to someone we should pity and coddle , which i thought was quite undeserved . i think max could have handled the truth , gratuitous illness and all . late in the film we learn max , and in fact all giants , have a heart condition which shortens their lives considerably . this could be an enlightening revelation , but the film seemingly presents it only to justify sammy 's transformation into a caring , sensitive guy -- and hey , a great dad and husband , too ! ` my giant ' suffers from a poorly constructed story line and undeveloped characters whose actions are determined by plot points rather than their own internal persuasions . a stronger story with more room for character growth might have been possible if the focus was on max 's struggle to be accepted and cast in movies instead of sammy 's struggles to get money and become a better person . in this scenario , max 's illness could have been a integral part of the film not a story motivator . sentiment and emotion would have followed naturally . instead , we 're apparently not supposed to like sammy until the end , but we 're not allowed to focus on max . crystal and muresan give adequate and at times enjoyable performances , but in the end , ` my giant ' left me feeling like i 'd been fed gruel from a giant spoon .

0NEG

becomes coherent , the characters head to new york and the film takes a dive . off the high board . suddenly , we are a disturbing giant vs . midgets wrestling match , which i found quite unpleasant and jarring within the framework of the film . indeed , many played nicely by kathleen quinlan , poses as lillianna . i found this scene offensive . not only did it rely on deception to induce dad and husband , too ! ` my giant ' suffers from a poorly constructed story line and undeveloped characters whose actions are determined by plot points rather than their , but in the end , ` my giant ' left me feeling like i 'd been fed gruel from a giant spoon .

alexandre dumas meets hong kong action with newcomer justin chambers reprising the oft - played character of dashing swordsman d'artagnon in director peter hyam 's adventure " the musketeer . " for some reason that i may figure out later , i do n't know why the time , money and effort were put into the making of " the musketeer . " it may be that someone had the clever idea of combining the dumas characters and story with the current enamor with the action work of hong kong imports like this film 's xin - xin xiong ( " once upon a time in china " ) and yuen woo - ping from " crouching tiger , hidden dragon . " the result is a mix of genres that do n't mesh well . elements of the ritz brothers - style comedy ( for those few who remember that comedic troupe from the 1939 " the three musketeers " ) , the man with no name from " a fistful of dollars " ( d'artagnan demands that the bad guys apologize to his horse in a direct ref to the clint eastwood spaghetti western ) and hong kong action choreography are all utilized in the original script by gene quintano . the result is an action flick that bears little resemblance to its source material while it makes contemporary that material in an effort to grab the " matrix " crowd . alexandre dumas may well be rolling in his grave if he knows what was done to his classic oeuvre and characters . the real problem with the " the musketeer " lies in the casting of the two lead , romantically intertwined characters , d'artagnan and francesca ( mena suvari ) . chambers has the boyishly handsome good looks for the character , a la chris o'donnell , but lacks any onscreen charisma . suvari has the doe - eyed , pretty looks as the chambermaid who has the ear of the queen , but she , too , does not have the chemistry to command the screen . if " the musketeer " makes them any money , they should invest in acting lessons . stronger performers may have helped to raise the bar on this one . the supporting cast is , on the surface , impressive . catherine denueve plays the queen of france and lends her character an air of royalty , dignity and humor , especially when she plays off of d'artagnan 's mentor , planchet ( jean - pierre castaldi , who reminds of andre the giant in " the princess bride ) . stephen rea looks good in the part of the conniving usurper cardinal richelieu , but is given very little to help flesh out his character . tim roth is the kind of bad guy you love to hate as the cardinal 's chief henchman , febre . he is so bad he makes simon legree look like a boy scout . the rest of the players , particularly the three musketeers aramis ( nick moran , " lock , stock and two smoking barrels " ) , porthos ( steve spiers ) and athos ( jan gregor kremp ) , are background fodder whose role is to come to d'artagnan 's aid when needed . peter hyam 's does double duty as director and cinematography and may be too stretched to do both well . a stronger hand at the helm could have helped the mediocre performances of the leads and better utilized his veteran thesps . photography is straightforward action fare that goes through all the appropriate action flick motions - d'artagnan takes on a tavern full of thugs and bests them single - handed ; he fights a gang of febre 's henchmen aboard a speeding coach to protect the queen ( with the obligatory branches hanging over the road ) ; he goes one on one with his lifelong enemy , febre , who murdered d'artagnan 's folks years before . it is all routine stuff . the renowned wire work developed by the hong kong action masters is used to artificial effect as the players leap , defying gravity , up walls and from horse to horse . it works in a sci - fi film like " the matrix " or in a classical fantasy like " crouching tiger , hidden dragon " but just calls attention to itself in " the musketeer . " at one point i could swear i saw the stunt wire being used . it did not make me a believer and i am very disappointed . with a run time of 106 minutes it should have been more like 80 and i give it a d .

0NEG

crouching tiger , hidden dragon . " the result is a mix of genres that do n't mesh well . elements of the ritz brothers - style comedy ( to grab the " matrix " crowd . alexandre dumas may well be rolling in his grave if he knows what was done to his classic oeuvre and characters . the real problem with the " the musketeer " lies in the casting for the character , a la chris o'donnell , but lacks any onscreen charisma . suvari has the doe - eyed , pretty looks hyam 's does double duty as director and cinematography and may be too stretched to do both well . a stronger hand at the helm could have helped the mediocre performances of the leads and better utilized his veteran thesps . a speeding coach to protect the queen ( with the obligatory branches hanging over the road ) ; he goes one febre , who murdered d'artagnan 's folks years before . it is all routine stuff . the renowned wire work developed by the hong kong used . it did not make me a believer and i am very disappointed . with a run time of 106 minutes it should

i think maybe it 's time for the batman series to be put to rest . not only has the first two films ' unsettling insight into what it would really take for someone to make himself into a " superhero " been abandoned , but this one throws any lingering realism out the window and goes for all - out camp with few traces of the self - mocking restraint of the relatively light - hearted third installment . let me give you an example : in the first scene of the movie , batman ( george clooney ) and robin ( chris o'donnell ) are summoned to a museum that has been literally turned to ice by mr . freeze ( arnold schwarzenegger ) in an attempt to steal a diamond . mr . freeze 's thugs are armed with none other than hockey sticks , but this is no problem for our heroes : automatic skates shoot out of their shoes , at which point robin manages to get hold of a hockey stick , grabs the diamond , and stick - handles it through the museum . i might have expected this from an airplane - style farce , but i do n't think that 's what this movie is supposed to be . after all , the previous three batman movies were actually fairly realistic by the standards of the superhero / action genre and kept the corny death - defying stunts to a minimum , while playing the obligatory cheesiness with at least some amount of irony . not any more ; the list goes on and on in this one . robin holds onto the outside of a flying rocket ship 30 , 000 feet high in the atmosphere , climbing in the door to save batman . mr . freeze and poison ivy ( uma thurman ) leap from a skyscraper and survive by landing in a small pond . a world dominating mad scientist lives in a fortress that seems to have been stolen from the old he - man cartoons . my very favorite example is the scene in which batgirl ( alicia silverstone ) gets in a race with motorcycle thugs , during which they come up with the clever notion of dousing the road with gasoline and setting it on fire to distract her . not bad , but would n't the police ( or maybe batman ? ) notice if the road was on fire ? i knew gotham city was this crazy anarchic place , but . . . . it also seems that the creators of the batman movies are obeying some unwritten rule that there have to be more main characters and plot lines in each successive installment . as if three protagonists and two villains were n't enough , batman and robin further weighs itself down with an underdeveloped side story of the failing health of bruce wayne 's butler alfred ( michael gough ) , which might have seemed poignant if it was n't surrounded by so much silliness , as well as several scenes with elle macpherson as bruce 's girlfriend which serve no purpose other than to remind us that she is in the movie . all this might be semi - excusable if the story were interesting and entertaining , but it is n't . in fact , it 's kind of boring . mr . freeze and poison ivy pale in comparison as villains to past baddies such as jack nicholson 's joker and danny devito 's penguin . their evil plot is as predictable ( schwarzenegger actually pronounces the words , " today gotham city , tomorrow the world ! " ) as it is lame - brained ( did n't it ever occur to poison ivy that freezing the entire world would kill her precious plants too ? ) . and robin 's constant challenging of batman mostly just makes him look bull - headed and stupid and makes us wonder why batman ever would have taken him on as a partner in the first place . strip away the stars , the fancy set design , and the status as a " batman movie , " and all you have here is another barely passable summer action flick .

0NEG

himself into a " superhero " been abandoned , but this one throws any lingering realism out the window and goes for all - out camp with few traces of the self - mocking restraint of and two villains were n't enough , batman and robin further weighs itself down with an underdeveloped side story of the failing health of bruce wayne 's butler alfred might have seemed poignant if it was n't surrounded by so much silliness , as well as several scenes with elle macpherson as entertaining , but it is n't . in fact , it 's kind of boring . mr . freeze and poison ivy pale in comparison , tomorrow the world ! " ) as it is lame - brained ( did n't it ever occur to poison ivy that ? ) . and robin 's constant challenging of batman mostly just makes him look bull - headed and stupid and makes us wonder why batman ever would have taken batman movie , " and all you have here is another barely passable summer action flick .

in my opinion , a movie reviewer 's most important task is to offer an explanation for his opinion . but with soul survivors , i 'm so full of critical rage that this review is liable to turn into a venomous , uncontrollable rant , obligations damned . however , protocol forces me to do otherwise . soul survivors tells the story of four college - bound friends : cassandra ( melissa sagemiller ) is sweet and innocent . party girl annabel ( eliza dushku of bring it on ) is dating world - weary harvard student matt ( wes bentley ) . matt still has feelings for cassie , who is now dating sean ( casey affleck ) . driving back from a creepy , gothic party , the quartet gets into a horrific car crash . sean dies , leaving cassie crestfallen and guilty , made worse because sean saw matt kiss cassie just minutes after sean revealed his love for her . as cassie mopes through her classes , she sees the ghost of sean all over the place , urging her to follow him . along with being plagued by other ghastly visions , cassie is also followed by thugs from that strange party . annabel and matt try calming her down , but no one shares cass 's visions . she has to figure out this purgatory all by herself . rarely have i seen a director so thoroughly mishandle material . in his directorial debut , steve carpenter does nothing to provoke the audience into feeling any emotion . when the movie 's camerawork is n't pedestrian , it 's clich ? d . carpenter 's need for close - ups , his camera following sagemiller from behind , drain the movie of any anticipation . we already know what to look for , so why should we be surprised ? and the sense of scary atmosphere , which was recently done so well in the others , is nowhere to be found here . carpenter 's script relies on random twists and turns with a minimum of logic and loads of laziness . this is a movie where the ending features one character providing an explanation about the plot to another character , which is one of the lamest screenwriting devices around . the second lamest device , of course , is the , " oh , it was all a dream " resolution . and guess what ? this movie has both ! not that the main body of the film , which has sagemiller constantly running in fear or having a nervous breakdown , is anything worthwhile . since there 's no captivating dialogue , no character chemistry exists anywhere . that 's a huge problem , since the four main characters are supposed to be couples . carpenter ca n't even get the smutty scenes right , which are becoming more prevalent in pg-13 movies like bring it on and get over it . [ the film was recently re - cut from an r rating to get more kids in the seats . -ed . ] when sagemiller and dushku dance together at a club , he rarely shows them in a full shot and he never keeps the camera on them for longer than a second before relating to some michael bay - style quick cuts . and when sagemiller and dushku take a shower together after getting covered in paint , they 're fully clothed . regardless , any sexiness in that scene is undercut by its stupidity . why would n't they wash the clothes in the sink or in the washing machine ? why would they shower in their clothes ? what if they were n't covered in latex paint ? the cast , which will see better material in the future , would be wise to leave this one off their resumes . i felt sorry for affleck , who i 've liked in other movies , and bentley , who was great in american beauty . dushku , who possesses an alluring femme fetale quality , has got to stop taking roles belonging to rose mcgowan . as for sagemiller ( star of the aforementioned get over it ) , i want to see her in a movie where she plays a person , and not an object for gawking . and i 'm not even getting into luke wilson 's role as a priest . at least he 's friends with wes anderson . bottom line : soul survivors is so awful i feel compelled to knock on doors and warn people about it .

0NEG

explanation for his opinion . but with soul survivors , i 'm so full of critical rage that this review is liable to turn into a venomous , uncontrollable rant , obligations damned . however , protocol forces me to has to figure out this purgatory all by herself . rarely have i seen a director so thoroughly mishandle material . in his directorial debut , steve carpenter does nothing to provoke the audience into feeling any emotion . when the movie 's camerawork was recently done so well in the others , is nowhere to be found here . carpenter 's script relies on random twists and turns with a minimum of logic and loads of laziness . this is a movie where the ending features one explanation about the plot to another character , which is one of the lamest screenwriting devices around . the second lamest device , of course , is the , " oh , it was all a dream " resolution . and guess what ? this movie has both ! not that the main body of the film , which having a nervous breakdown , is anything worthwhile . since there 's no captivating dialogue , no character chemistry exists anywhere . that 's a huge problem , since the four main characters are supposed to be in paint , they 're fully clothed . regardless , any sexiness in that scene is undercut by its stupidity . why would n't they wash the clothes in the be wise to leave this one off their resumes . i felt sorry for affleck , who i 've liked in other movies with wes anderson . bottom line : soul survivors is so awful i feel compelled to knock on doors and warn people about it .

reading the cast and director for the new mobster comedy , " analyze this , " i asked myself , " how could this miss ? " robert de niro ( " taxi driver , " " raging bull " ) , billy crystal ( " city slickers " ) , lisa kudrow ( " the opposite of sex " ) , and director harold ramis ( " national lampoon 's vacation " ) . these are usually reliable filmmakers ( well , okay , crystal has been in a sizable slump lately ) , and tellingly , the first half - hour of " analyze this " was very funny . unfortunately , as the running time ticked away , i began to think that the first thirty minutes had , unbeknownst to me , been rewound and were being replayed another two - and - a - half times . the film has obtained a clever premise , but does not have any idea what to do with it as it progressively becomes more and more repetitive until i finally stopped enjoying or caring about what was happening on the screen . middle - aged psychoanalyst ben sobel 's ( billy crystal ) life is finally going very well . although he has never gotten along with his own uncaring parents , especially his father , who is also a psychiatrist , ben has an easy - going teenage son ( kyle sabihy ) and is about to travel down to miami to get married to his tv news reporter girlfriend , laura ( lisa kudrow ) . in little but a flash , however , ben suddenly sees his plans ruined when he accidentally hits the car of the mob and subsequently gets paid a visit from famed mafia guy paul vitti ( robert de niro ) , who desperately wants counseling , even though he himself wo n't even admit to having anxiety attacks . ben tries to help paul , mostly so he will get him off his back , but the plot gets more complicated when paul follows ben to his wedding , which ends with a man dropping eight stories to his death . it seems to ben that no matter what he does , paul vitti will not go away , and the more they become involved , the more ben 's potentially happy life gets into danger . " analyze this " has a few laughs sprinkled throughout ( mostly in the first half ) , but i always had the nagging thought that what director ramis and writers peter tolan , ramis , and kenneth lonergan had done was thought of one joke ( robert de niro lightly spoofing his serious past mafia roles , while terrorizing and becoming buddies with comic billy crystal ) and then tiresomely recycled it for the duration of the 106-minute running time . admittedly , de niro is very funny here ( and i ca n't remember the last time you could use that adjective to describe him ) , and crystal is in top - form , but the whole movie is weighed down directly on their shoulders with nothing else to support them , including a substantial plotline . since " analyze this " bills not one , not two , but three writers , you 'd think that they would have been able to work together to fix the noticably large flaws , but they must have all been on auto - pilot . one of the most disappointing and wasted opportunities in the film is the way the movie deals with the supporting characters , all of which have next to nothing to do and are n't even given multi - dimensional characters to attempt to develop . coming off of her oscar - caliber work in two of last year 's best films , " clockwatchers " and " the opposite of sex , " lisa kudrow 's throwaway " girlfriend " role is an incredible step down . sure , kudrow 's fellow " friend " jennifer aniston did the same thing two weeks ago in " office space , " but at least we got to spend a little time with aniston . kudrow , meanwhile , mostly just stands around , no doubt wondering why she agreed to appear in this film in the first place . chazz palminteri , as rival gangster primo , fares even worse , in a role that plays more like an afterthought than an actual character . finally , molly shannon ( rising film star and cast member on " saturday night live " ) has a rousingly hilarious one - scene cameo right at the beginning as one of crystal 's patients and then completely disappears . too bad , considering that the supporting actors surely have proven that they have the abilities to support de niro and crystal . once " analyze this " approached its second wedding scene leaving kudrow 's laura standing alone at the altar once again , i had become thoroughly annoyed by where the story had gone , and had mostly lost respect for the character we were supposed to sympathize with the most , ben . afterwards , the climactic scene with ben posing as a fellow mob boss in place of the depressed paul , became a real laugh - free dead - zone , losing its last remaining comic punches . " analyze this " proves that talent can certainly help any film out , but when the written material is n't up to their level , what we are virtually left with is a vacuum of thin air .

0NEG

hour of " analyze this " was very funny . unfortunately , as the running time ticked away , i began not have any idea what to do with it as it progressively becomes more and more repetitive until i finally stopped enjoying or caring about what was happening on the screen . middle - and becoming buddies with comic billy crystal ) and then tiresomely recycled it for the duration of the 106-minute running time . , and crystal is in top - form , but the whole movie is weighed down directly on their shoulders with nothing else to support them , including a substantial plotline . since " analyze this they would have been able to work together to fix the noticably large flaws , but they must have all been on auto - pilot . one of the most disappointing and wasted opportunities in the film is the way the movie deals " lisa kudrow 's throwaway " girlfriend " role is an incredible step down . sure , kudrow 's fellow " friend " jennifer a little time with aniston . kudrow , meanwhile , mostly just stands around , no doubt wondering why she agreed to appear in this film in the first place . chazz palminteri , as rival gangster primo , fares even worse , in a role that plays more like an afterthought 's laura standing alone at the altar once again , i had become thoroughly annoyed by where the story had gone , and had mostly fellow mob boss in place of the depressed paul , became a real laugh - free dead - zone , losing its last remaining comic punches . " analyze this " proves that talent can certainly their level , what we are virtually left with is a vacuum of thin air .

as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions . this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) . they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow . that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances . certainly hodges is not complaining . years pass . hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer . childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould . because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops . childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command . after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd . more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down . childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians . he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film . did childers violate authorized u . s . military rules of engagement ? or are there simply no rules in war ? the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions . the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s . where is the accusations from the arab leaders ? where is the u . n . ? the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ? this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism . these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair . what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking . one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility . the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed . a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality . that is precisely why it 's not offensive . it is completely unobjective . many stories are started and never finished . many questions are asked , but never answered . a lot of parallels are referring to nothing . it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film . is it about arab mentality ? america 's foreign policies ? america 's role in the world ? corruption in the higher circles ? it goes on and on . it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot . it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one . i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film . in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film . though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage . i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed . it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe . the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict . even the actors can not save this film from going under . though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of . they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back . jackson is gray and jones uninteresting . the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks . the time has come for the verdict . on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty . on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty . but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population . i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys . this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth . however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states . and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s . residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .

0NEG

the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions . the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has , but also unfair . what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking . one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility . the entire operation in yemen may remind us about happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in the world ? corruption in the higher circles ? it goes on and on . it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot . it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one . i think that it is ironic , because director case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film . though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage . i believe that friedklin is a director that is succeed . it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe . the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict . even the actors can not save this film from i find this film guilty . on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty . but on the charges find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad

from dusk till dawn ( director / editor : robert rodriguez ; screenwriters : quentin tarantino / robert kurtzman ( story ) ; cinematographer : guillermo navarro ; cast : quentin tarantino ( richie gecko ) , george clooney ( seth gecko ) , juliette lewis ( kate fuller ) , harvey keitel ( jacob fuller ) , ernest liu ( scott fuller ) , salma hayek ( santanico pandemonium ) , tom savini ( sex machine ) , fred williamson ( frost ) , cheech marin ( border guard / chet pussy / carlos ) , michael parks ( texas ranger ) , brenda hillhouse ( hostage gloria ) ; runtime : 108 ; dimension films ; 1996 ) reviewed by dennis schwartz it 's a love it or hate it film . i simply hated it . on its menu for fun , is a violent feast served up as charm and done in a tongue - and - cheek manner . it 's a serial killer / horror film farce of nonstop over - the - top action and sleaze , involving decapitations , vampires , biker fights , extended gun play , and an array of gore that has to be seen to be believed . a film that regales in its vulgarity and campiness for blood - and - gore , as it goes out of its way to gloss over the clich ? s of the conventional b - films . it 's geared only for the cult film crowd , and will make its mark there one way or the other . the plot involves two psychopath brothers , the older professional bank robber and killer seth gecko ( clooney ) and the perverted psychopath killer , richie ( tarantino ) , who kills for pleasure and is also a rapist . they escape jail and go on a killing spree in wichita and then flee to a liquor store in a small texas border town . they have just robbed a bank and killed a number of cops , they have also taken a middle - aged bank teller as a hostage . in the liquor store they kill a texas ranger and the store clerk , and burn down the store . stopping off in a flop - house motel , richie rapes and slaughters the hostage . these scenes are all done with an eye for comedy and parody , if that 's possible . on the tv news , it says they have killed 16 so far and most are texas rangers . the brothers plan to get to mexico and meet carlos ( cheech ) , who will give them a place of sanctuary for thirty percent of their illegal take . with road blocks and car searches at the border , the brothers commandeer a motor home of a vacationing family who stopped at their motel so that the father could sleep in a real bed . there is the father , jacob fuller ( keitel ) , who just resigned as a minister because he lost faith ever since his wife died in a car accident ; his sexy 20-year - old , innocent daughter , kate ( lewis ) ; and , her shy brother scott ( liu ) . it 's not explained how he happens to be chinese . the story really becomes bizarre when they get across the border and get ready to meet carlos in a bar / whorehouse for truckers and bikers called the titty twister . the place is open from dawn to dusk , thus the film 's title . here 's where rodriguez has a chance to throw convention out the window and have some absurd fun , as the place turns out to be a vampire hangout . it sells sex to its patrons , and has exotic stripper santanico pandemonium ( hayek ) do her alluring strip before turning into a vampire . the brothers and their hostages have to fight their way out of the place , as the vampires keep coming and the killings become the film 's staple . this supposedly clever script did nothing but turn me off , though there were a few funny moments in a film that was dripping with special effects and spent most of its script in finding novel ways to showcase its killings . i 'll take a pass on this one , it 's just not my style of a film . the characters were as empty as the story , and the film was an easy one to forget .

0NEG

it 's a love it or hate it film . i simply hated it . on its menu for fun , is a violent and campiness for blood - and - gore , as it goes out of its way to gloss over the clich ? s of the conventional b - films . it 's geared only for the cult film crowd 's not explained how he happens to be chinese . the story really becomes bizarre when they get across the border and get ready to coming and the killings become the film 's staple . this supposedly clever script did nothing but turn me off , though there were a few funny moments in a script in finding novel ways to showcase its killings . i 'll take a pass on this one , it 's just not my style of a film . the characters were as empty as the story , and the film was an easy one to forget

plot : a little boy born in east germany ( named hansel ) loves the american music . one day , he gets the opportunity to meet and marry an american g . i . , but first , he must get a sex change ( enter hedwig ) . once married , the two move to the states , but quickly thereafter , get a divorce . at that point , hedwig starts writing music and meets another confused boy , who soon turns into a star . that boy also turns his back on hedwig , and it is n't long before hedwig puts together his / her own band and tours the states via seafood restaurants . this is the story of his / her life , told via flashbacks and musical numbers . critique : an artsy - fartsy musical with great songs and a superb performance by john cameron mitchell , does n't really come together as a whole , with over - the - top symbolism , incoherence and too much pretension to retain my interest all the whole way through . in fact , this is n't so much of a realistic , articulate , behind - the - scenes look at the rise of a rock ' n roll star , as it is an ambiguous , overly poetic and incomprehensible struggle of a man , his sexuality and his identity as a whole person on this planet . i guess that i was expecting the former going in . the film is somewhat interesting to a point , but i was personally never able to involve myself too much , as the basic symbolic and incongruent nature of the film left me feeling cold and distant . but it is definitely tuned to a certain type of audience . chances are that if you are a fan of the wall , the rocky horror picture show or even priscilla , queen of the desert , the elements tangled in this movie will likely strike your fancy ( some of the characters in this film even ask the audience to sing along at some point , and provide the lyrics of their song , on - screen ) . well , i personally do n't care for those films , and did n't really get into the whole " show " atmosphere of this movie either . i guess i might 've looked at it all too literally , but like i said earlier , i just did n't care enough about the characters to delve into the " so the butterfly represents his freedom ? " side of things . all i know is that the film left me with many questions unanswered and did n't make me feel any more fulfilled . what was hedwig 's relationship with that other member of his band ( with the beard ) ? what happened with hedwig and tommy gnosis at the end of the movie ? ( was that an actual sequence or a fantasy ? ) what ever happened to the lawsuit ? and more . . . all of which were part of the film and interested me somewhat . if the only idea behind the film was for the main character to uncover his / her sexuality , then that 's one thing , but as many of the relationships and situations presented themselves in this movie , i wanted some resolution to those pieces as well . i did n't get it . the film 's humor also did n't tickle my funny bone either . then again , i 've seen many a film in these art - house theatres in which patrons are rolling down the aisles with laughter , while all i see is a tiny bit of whimsy on the screen . some of these films are also better enjoyed with the added " atmosphere " of a plant called marijuana , and i can certainly see how this movie ingrains within itself some nifty visual elements , in order to jazz up that experience . but being sober as i was and expecting a coherent , funny , musical with a transsexual twist , i did n't leave the theater very satisfied . i came out having watched an existential story of a confused man caught up in a musical lifestyle , wrapped in metaphors , dramatics and more questions than answers . i will , on the other hand , definitely hand some props out to the lead in this film , john cameron mitchell , who is also the man who wrote , directed and created the play on which this movie is based , and the tunes , which will likely be enjoyed by anyone who digs the sex pistols , david bowie and the whole 70s glam - rock scene . note : btw , it seems as though pretty much every single " mainstream " critic in the united states loved this movie from top to bottom ( and thought that it was really funny to boot ! ) , so you might want to take that into consideration yourself . but having said that , the main reason that i started this dinky website in the first place was because films like this would sometimes be uniformly applauded by the " official " critics , while i , a regular " joblo " in the audience , just would n't get what all the fuss was about . this movie is a perfect example of why i continue to write movie reviews . where 's joblo coming from ? moulin rouge ( 8/10 ) - grease ( 8/10 ) - everyone says i love you ( 5/10 ) - the opposite of sex ( 8/10 ) - dancer in the dark ( 5/10 ) - o brother , where art thou ( 7/10 ) - love 's labour 's lost ( 8/10 )

0NEG

songs and a superb performance by john cameron mitchell , does n't really come together as a whole , with over - the - top symbolism , incoherence and too much pretension to retain my interest all the whole way through . as the basic symbolic and incongruent nature of the film left me feeling cold and distant . but it is definitely tuned to a certain type of things . all i know is that the film left me with many questions unanswered and did n't make me feel any more fulfilled . what was hedwig 's relationship with that other member pieces as well . i did n't get it . the film 's humor also did n't tickle my funny bone either . then again , i 've seen many a film coherent , funny , musical with a transsexual twist , i did n't leave the theater very satisfied . i came out having watched an existential story of , a regular " joblo " in the audience , just would n't get what all the fuss was about . this movie is a perfect example of why i

8 mm is not going to enlighten your day . it 's a dark , grimy and disturbing portrait of underworld snuff films and filled with excessive violence . not only do you need the stomach to make it through this bloated mess , you 'll require a lot of patience as well . nicolas cage seems to be doing quite a bit of overacting as of late . he wore a bizarre get - up and did a lot of yelling in the terminally awful snake eyes , and here he attempts a performance that can relate to someone completely losing their grip on reality . cage plays private investigator tom welles , praised for his secrecy and reliability . at home , welles is a family man , with a wife ( catherine keener ) and a small daughter to take care of . his new assignment is a bizarre one : the wife of a formally deceased millionaire has hired him to solve a mystery regarding a film found in her husband 's safe . the film appears to be some kind of cheap pornography involving a teenage girl and a masked man , until the girl is brutally murdered . or so it seems . welles , of course , begins to burrow deeper and deeper to uncover the truth . and the more he becomes involved in this disturbing case , the more he gets in over his head . he hires an adult book store clerk named max california ( joaquin phoenix ) to be his guide through the ugly underworld of pornography . max knows what welles is getting himself into , and explains , ` you dance with the devil , the devil do n't change . the devil changes you . ' these turn out to be very wise words . 8 mm has a premise that begs for a better execution . the set - up is slick and well played , as cage uncovers the identity of the girl and travels to hollywood to locate her . this is where everything goes awry . although director joel schumacher succeeds in frightening us with his grotesque portrait of the ` real world ' , he forgot to inject any interest or excitement to the formula . everything about the movie becomes dull and lifeless , repelling the viewer like the effect of bug spray to insects . although it had enormous potential , the third act of 8 mm is a total bust , leaving intrigued audiences in a baffling state of extreme disappointment as the proceedings spiral out of control . cage is the film 's sole flame of energy . his performance is actually believable , but soon the director 's demands start to weigh heavily on his shoulder and he begins stumbling along in desperation . still , you 've got to give him credit for holding this project together as long as he did , for that is no easy feat when you consider the problems at hand . welles ' trail soon leads him to a bizarre filmmaker ( played convincingly by peter stormare ) who is notorious for the hardest - hitting snuff films in the industry . this is where cage goes over the edge into a serial killer - like phase , in which he must take revenge on all those who murdered the innocent girl in the film . he tracks down the masked man responsible for the killing ( chris bauer ) , and they have a bloody brawl in the local cemetery , a fight sequence that would look more at home in a schwarzenegger movie . written by andrew kevin walker , 8 mm dissipates into a poor man 's seven , with all the violence but little of the effectiveness that made the latter such a chilling masterpiece . furthermore , what has become of joel schumacher ? the director has recently experienced a major drought , slumming in the depths of dismal flop after flop ( batman and robin , anyone ? ) . this putrid thriller is certainly not going to revive his career , so perhaps schumacher should start exploring his lighter side .

0NEG

require a lot of patience as well . nicolas cage seems to be doing quite a bit of overacting as of late . he wore a bizarre get - regarding a film found in her husband 's safe . the film appears to be some kind of cheap pornography involving a teenage girl and a masked man , until turn out to be very wise words . 8 mm has a premise that begs for a better execution . the set - up is slick and well played the girl and travels to hollywood to locate her . this is where everything goes awry . although director joel schumacher succeeds in frightening us with excitement to the formula . everything about the movie becomes dull and lifeless , repelling the viewer like the effect of bug spray to insects . although enormous potential , the third act of 8 mm is a total bust , leaving intrigued audiences in a baffling state of extreme disappointment as the proceedings spiral out of control . cage is . furthermore , what has become of joel schumacher ? the director has recently experienced a major drought , slumming in the depths of dismal flop after flop ( batman and robin , anyone ? ) . this putrid thriller is certainly not going to revive his career , so

synopsis : original " jurassic park " survivor alan grant ( neill ) is tricked by paul and amanda kirby ( macy and leoni ) into leading an expedition to an island overrun by dinosaur , to rescue their stranded son . grant 's team is picked off one by one as they encounter dinosaurs both new and familiar , and grant grows to realise that some breeds are more intelligent than he previously thought . review : there is one reason why " jurassic park iii " is better than its immediate predecessor , " the lost world : jurassic park " . the latter wasted 129 minutes of my life ; the former , only 94 . the first " park " was a marvellous film , full of awe - inspiring sights , interesting characters , and genuine thrills . its two successors have been pale imitations , amounting to hundred - million - dollar b - grade horror movies . at least this third entry realises it ; whereas " the lost world " tried to justify its existence with a ludicrous and overextended plot , " jurassic park iii " simply sticks its characters on an island with a bunch of dinosaurs and lets the mayhem begin . there is a desperate sense of deja vu presiding over this movie ; the computer - animated dinos are no longer novel or exciting , and even the first - time presence of aerial lizards scarcely improves the situation . remember that wondrous first trolley ride through the park in the original movie ? nothing in this rehash even comes close . add in execrable dialogue from screenwriters buchman , payne and taylor , and phoned - in performances by the normally capable macy and leoni , and it is difficult to recommend the film to anyone but dino enthusiasts . at least neill makes some effort to retain the dignity of his character , and there is much less gore than in " the lost world " , making this installment more suitable for children .

0NEG

, and genuine thrills . its two successors have been pale imitations , amounting to hundred - million - dollar b - a bunch of dinosaurs and lets the mayhem begin . there is a desperate sense of deja vu presiding over this movie ; the computer - animated dinos trolley ride through the park in the original movie ? nothing in this rehash even comes close . add in execrable dialogue from screenwriters buchman , payne and taylor , and phoned performances by the normally capable macy and leoni , and it is difficult to recommend the film to anyone but dino enthusiasts . at least neill makes

the characters in jonathan lynn 's " the whole nine yards , " yet another in an endless recent string of mob comedies ( 1999 's " analyze this " and " mickey blue eyes , " 2000 's " gun shy " ) , are rarely ever written as real people , but merely as one - dimensional caricatures . when an added layer to one of their personalities is revealed , it is not to service the character development , or to naturally offer up instinctive characterizations , but to accommodate the convoluted plot . in a lightweight comedy , you might say , it is not required to have perfectly realized figures , just as long as they get the job done . unfortunately , for a comedy to work , it has to at least succeed at being funny , and if there was a laugh - o - meter available , i 'd guess that it briefly ascended around 2 . 5 % of the time for me . suffice to say , the comedy in " the whole nine yards " works about as well as the broken - down lawnmower in my backyard , and when a giggle surprisingly arises every twenty to thirty minutes , it is by sheer luck . nicholas " oz " oseransky ( matthew perry ) is an amateur dentist living in the quiet suburbs of quebec . trapped in a hateful marriage with the conniving sophie ( rosanna arquette , delightfully hamming it up with a clearly artificial french - canadian accent ) , one day oz sees that someone is moving into the house next - door . walking over to greet him , he is horrified to discover it is jimmy " the tulip " tudeski ( bruce willis ) , a former contract killer for the mafia who has just been released from prison . once getting to know him and becoming his friend , oz is more comfortable with his identity , but for sophie , it means a possible hitman to do away with oz . in her scheme , sophie sends oz to chicago to cash in by informing his old mob boss ( kevin pollak ) about jimmy 's whereabouts , but in the process , he falls in love with jimmy 's wife , cynthia ( natasha henstridge ) , who is being held hostage . upon return to quebec , and with one contrivance after the next , oz 's dental assistant , jill ( amanda peet ) , is overjoyed to discover that he lives beside " the tulip , " and forces him to set up a meeting , since jill 's dream in life turns out being a contract killer herself . have you got all that ? because there is more . much , much more . and this is a movie that , without credits , is little over 90 minutes and feels only like an hour . " the whole nine yards " is an ultimately unsatisfying and empty - headed excursion into well - worn terrain already set by far superior pictures . how the cast , most of which are respectable actors , got caught up in such a cliched , deficient film remains a mystery , unless they thought it might aspire to match the congenial screwball zaniness of director lynn 's 1985 comedy classic , " clue : the movie . " going into the theater , preliminary comparisons between the two movies were unavoidable , but by the twenty - minute mark , when i had chuckled once and laughed nary a single time , it was clear this production was in serious trouble . since the entire running time depends on the mechanisms of the plot , and the screenplay , inauspiciously written by mitchell kapner , collapses with every failing " comedy " bit , the film is an inevitable dead zone in the way of substance and , frequently , entertainment value . " the whole nine yards " is neither facetious nor , aside from the subplot about jill 's shocking eagerness to become a professional hitwoman , inventive , and more often than not , just lies there , the film spinning drearily around and around in the projector , but never igniting any sort of spark . a few select actors do what they can with the material , while others make no impact at all . on the mediocre side are actually those playing the two central characters : matthew perry and bruce willis . perry , innocuously enjoyable on tv 's " friends , " plays the same exact sitcom - style character in all of his movies ( from 1997 's " fools rush in " to 1999 's " three to tango " ) , and it has become a crushing bore . meanwhile , willis makes next to no impression , and because of the limited guise of his jimmy " the tulip " tudeski , oftentimes disappears into the background . their three female counterparts fare noticeably better . best of all is natasha henstridge , far more radiant than in the exploitative " species " movies , who adds unanticipated depth and emotion to cynthia . henstridge has the talent , for sure , to break out of these countless throwaway roles , but first she must fire her agent . amanda peet has a lot of fun as the quirkily straightforward and giddy jill , and seems to know more about the art of comedic payoff than even perry who , thus far , has strived on a career based solely on comedy . it is too bad , then , that peet is unnecessarily asked to disrobe in a climactic scene , with the obvious sole purpose being to show off her breasts . finally , rosanna arquette is awful as sophie , but something tells me that was her purpose , and her clear overacting only aids in brightening up her limited screen time . also popping up is michael clarke duncan , fresh off an oscar nomination for his role in " the green mile , " as jimmy 's largely built friend and fellow killer , frankie figs . when " the whole nine yards " eventually sputters to its underwhelming conclusion , one is left pondering how such a film ever got greenlit . a great deal of movies of this type have been made in the past , and this one is nothing but a duplication of better films , so what was the point ? without a passable screenplay or any notable technical accomplishments , " the whole nine yards " rests solely on the presumed charm of the cast , and half of the actors are not charming at all . now , what does that tell you ?

0NEG

, are rarely ever written as real people , but merely as one - dimensional caricatures . when an added layer to one of their personalities naturally offer up instinctive characterizations , but to accommodate the convoluted plot . in a lightweight comedy , you might say , an hour . " the whole nine yards " is an ultimately unsatisfying and empty - headed excursion into well - worn terrain already set by far superior pictures . how the cast which are respectable actors , got caught up in such a cliched , deficient film remains a mystery , unless they thought it might aspire , but by the twenty - minute mark , when i had chuckled once and laughed nary a single time , it was clear this production was in serious trouble . since the entire running time depends on the mechanisms every failing " comedy " bit , the film is an inevitable dead zone in the way of substance and , frequently , entertainment 1999 's " three to tango " ) , and it has become a crushing bore . meanwhile , willis makes next to no impression , and because of the limited guise of his jimmy it is too bad , then , that peet is unnecessarily asked to disrobe in a climactic scene , with the obvious sole purpose being to show off her breasts . finally , rosanna arquette is awful as sophie , but something tells me that was her frankie figs . when " the whole nine yards " eventually sputters to its underwhelming conclusion , one is left pondering how such a film ever of better films , so what was the point ? without a passable screenplay or any notable technical accomplishments , " the whole nine yards " rests solely on

take two old and dying men , a lifetime of regrets , a house full of sins , a thoroughly despicable man , enough lies , insecurities and other character defects to keep a team of psychiatrists gainfully employed , then add a inexplicable meteorological and amphibian - based phenomenon and you will have summed up magnolia , the newest film from paul thomas anderson ( boogie nights ) . the movie tells multiple stories , weaving them together , or overlapping them during the course of its three hour running time . would that the stories were worth the telling . earl partridge ( jason robards , a thousand acres ) is dying of cancer . bedridden , in much pain , it is obvious that his time is growing short . his much younger wife played by julianne moore ( an ideal husband ) is surprised to find herself struggling with his impending death . having married for money , she discovers that she has actually fallen in love with the old guy and regrets having cheated and lied . earl regrets having cheated on his first wife and estranging himself from his only son ( tom cruise , eyes wide shut ) , now a misogynist self - help guru who teaches men how to " seduce and destroy , " his sexual and vulgar perspective on male / female relationships is so over - the - top as to be utterly unbelievable . meanwhile , jimmy gator ( philip baker hall , the insider ) is also dying of cancer . not as physically incapacitated as earl , jimmy is still able to perform his duties as the lovable host of a long - running quiz show which pits adults against children . the current whiz - quiz - kid is stanley spector ( jeremy blackman in his film debut ) who is tired of the pressure of performing and is willing to call it quits . on the other hand , quiz kid donnie smith ( william macy , mystery men ) would like nothing more than to return to the spotlight when he was a " somebody . " his pathetic life is souring as he can no longer capitalize on his brief 15 minutes of fame which stanley is all too eager to relinquish . jimmy has his own family crisis as his drug - addict daughter ( melora walters , boogie nights ) refuses to have anything to do with him for reasons which are not disclosed to us until the end of the film . grabbing at one last attempt at happiness she reaches out to a softhearted cop ( john c . reilly , never been kissed ) even as she tries to push herself away from him because she deems herself not worthy of his affection . this dysfunctional group carries on for what seems to be an interminable two - thirds of the movie . and then it gets worse , literally raining frogs . yes , frogs . assuming it to be an intended deus - ex - machina device , it is an ineffective one because it does n't seem to faze the characters much . oh , they may step gingerly around the splattered frog corpses littering the streets , but otherwise , the frog shower did n't seem to change their behavior or pattern of living ( or dying ) . there is simply too much going on in this movie and most of it is distasteful to watch . mr . anderson further obscures the film by incorporating a loud and intrusive sound track that often drowned out the dialogue , a character who apparently rapped a significant clue to a plot development which was completely unintelligble , and a heavy handed segment of " historical " occurances containing ironic twists which set up absolutely nothing . one of the recurring themes is found in a line donnie quotes : " we may be done with the past , but the past is not done with us . " this is an absolute lie . god is in the forgiveness business . in fact , as we humbly ask for forgiveness and repent or change our offending mindset , god 's word says that he not only forgives , he also forgets . " i , even i , am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake , and will not remember thy sins . " isaiah 43 : 25 [ kjv ] the spiritual one who keeps bringing up our unrighteous past is the same one who wants to keep us in a state of condemnation . do n't let him . next time your spiritual adversary reminds you of your past , take great pleasure in reminding him of his future . he hates that .

0NEG

sexual and vulgar perspective on male / female relationships is so over - the - top as to be utterly unbelievable . meanwhile , jimmy gator ( philip baker hall , be an interminable two - thirds of the movie . and then it gets worse , literally raining frogs . yes , frogs . assuming it to be an intended deus - ex - machina device , it is an ineffective one because it does n't seem to faze the characters much is simply too much going on in this movie and most of it is distasteful to watch . mr . anderson further obscures the film by incorporating a loud and intrusive sound track that often drowned out the dialogue , a character who

so much for sweet returns . after smart horror films were starting to be made again after the exploitative 80 's slasher movies , starting with 1996 's " scream , " and followed by " scream 2 , " " urban legend , " and the original , " i know what you did last summer , " a film like , " i still know what you did last summer , " was bound to be made sooner or late . it is a perfect example of the exact reason why horror films temporarily burned out , and that is because they reached for the lowest - common - denominator in filmmaking , favoring non - stop deaths and gore for suspense , and trading in fleshed out , likable characters for one - dimensional nitwits . it has been exactly one year since julie james ( jennifer love hewitt ) suffered through the ordeal of being terrorized by ben willis , a psychopathic fisherman whom her friends and she accidentally hit in the middle of the road , and then , thinking he was dead , dumped him into the ocean . since then , julie has relocated to boston university , and although often paranoid and haunted by bad dreams , she has been able to put her life back together . when julie 's friend , karla ( brandy ) , is called up by a radio station and answers correctly what the capital of brazil is , she wins a vacation to the bahamas for four people , which also includes karla 's horny boyfriend , tyrell ( mekhi phifer ) , and will ( matthew settle ) , who karla sets julie up with after her own boyfriend , ray ( freddie prinze jr . , also returning from the original ) , does n't show up . when they reach the secluded island , they discover it is the last day of the open season , and will be stranded there for the 4th of july weekend with a few employees to fend off a violent storm headed for them . of course , julie , her friends , and the workers are n't the only ones there , as the murderous ben willis , dressed in fisherman garb , returns to seek revenge on julie once and for all . it is a sad state of affairs when a movie like , " i still know what you did last summer , " is made . i am a very big fan of horror movies , and so it is especially disheartening to find out that this sequel to " ikwydls , " which i am a fan of , is almost an exact replica of a " friday the 13th " movie . while the original focused more on the story and characters , as well as genuinely suspenseful moments , thanks to the screenplay by kevin williamson ( who did n't return to write the sequel , and it shows ) , " i still know . . . " has no story to speak of , and is so vacuous of ideas , that the filmmakers , were forced to have a murder occur every five minutes just to keep the audience interested . also gone are any signs of character development , and since every single character died before i got to know them , all i was left with was to stare at the screen , indifferent to what was going on . while i cared about the fates of the characters in the original , it made no difference to me in this sequel who lived and died . they were all paper - thin and pointless , except to become victims to the lethal hook of the fisherman . another element that made the original so memorable were some superbly crafted set - pieces , like the store sequence with sarah michelle gellar , but there are none to speak of in this sequel ( although they do come close at one moment with brandy ) . since so many people were killed every couple minutes , the suspense and scares evaporated faster than salt in water . also of note is the mystery of the second killer , and accomplice to ben , but it is obvious from the first frame who it is , and so i could n't even have fun at that , like i did in the " scream " movies and , " urban legend . " it figures that just as slasher films were starting to get some recognition again , a film would come along and ruin it for everyone else . maybe the people who made , " i still know what you did last summer , " should have realized that in order to make a good movie , you must have a screenplay --- or at least one that is n't such a black hole for thoughts and ideas . the ending of the film inevitably leaves the door wide open for a third part , but judging from this amazingly lackluster first sequel , everyone involved should have quit while they were still ahead .

0NEG

horror films temporarily burned out , and that is because they reached for the lowest - common - denominator in filmmaking , favoring non - stop deaths and gore for suspense , and trading in fleshed out , likable characters for one - dimensional nitwits . it has been exactly one year since julie james to seek revenge on julie once and for all . it is a sad state of affairs when a movie like , " i still know what a very big fan of horror movies , and so it is especially disheartening to find out that this sequel to " ikwydls , ) , " i still know . . . " has no story to speak of , and is so vacuous of ideas , that the filmmakers , were forced to have a every five minutes just to keep the audience interested . also gone are any signs of character development , and since every single character died before i got to me in this sequel who lived and died . they were all paper - thin and pointless , except to become victims to the lethal hook of since so many people were killed every couple minutes , the suspense and scares evaporated faster than salt in water . also of note is the mystery of the second slasher films were starting to get some recognition again , a film would come along and ruin it for everyone else . maybe the people who made , " i still open for a third part , but judging from this amazingly lackluster first sequel , everyone involved should have quit while they

around the end of 1998 , a japanese cartoon came to the usa television , and really was n't that big . in fact not many people even knew what pokemon was , but in 1999 it hit big with kids and adults alike , and became one of the biggest franchises and merchandise seller of all time . in fact it even spawned a big screen adventure pokemon : the first movie which for what it was , was n't all that bad . it grossed $ 31 million in its opening weekend , and went on to make almost $ 90 million . fans thought it was great and now is a second movie in the pokemon craze , " pokemon : the movie 2000 " which is far inferior to the original animated movie . first up is the plot , which there really is n't much of , in fact the plot what there is : a bad guy trying to destroy the ancient never before seen pokemon , lugia , is about it , except the fact that ash kethcum the worlds best pokemon trainer must try and stop him before he destroys this one pokemon forever . well there you go , of course ash is followed by his friends misty , brock , gary and his pokemon friends , pikachu , squirtle , charizard , the usual . even though the first movie was n't a great film , it was definately an enjoyable well - made movie with an actual thin storyline . this new movie however is nothing but garbage , there is nothing good to it storywise , and its only good thing comes from some plush animation and colors . compared to the first film , this movie is awfully bland , from its opening titles , to the end titles it tries its best to work , but fails miserably at every corner . the characters are 1-dimensional , the story thin as chicken broth , and the writing very lame . even the so called action scenes are extremely lame , and falls before it even gets a chance to go . the voices even are n't that good and almost feels like the stars do n't want to be there , like they can tell that this is an extremel bad movie . which it certainly is . the film has one thing going for it and that is the animation , although not up to disney standards , it is still very good with some interesting cgi 's and very colorful animation , the colors jump out at you very fast , and seem very nicely put on film . why a film this bad got such a good treatment with its animation is still a question to be answered , hopefully pokemon 3 next year will be much better than this trash . for now watch the first one . its much much better .

0NEG

, " pokemon : the movie 2000 " which is far inferior to the original animated movie . first up is the an actual thin storyline . this new movie however is nothing but garbage , there is nothing good to it storywise , and its only good thing comes from some . compared to the first film , this movie is awfully bland , from its opening titles , to the end titles it tries its best to work , but fails miserably at every corner . the characters are 1-dimensional , the story thin as chicken broth , and the writing very lame . even the so called action scenes are extremely lame , and falls before it even gets a chance to , and seem very nicely put on film . why a film this bad got such a good treatment with its animation is still

its a stupid little movie that trys to be clever and sophisticated , yet trys a bit too hard . with the voices of woody allen , gene hackman , jennifer lopez , sylvester stallone , and sharon stone , this computer - animated yak - fest ( think toy story [ 1996 ] filled with used merchandising ) is one for the ant - eaters . the main story is the independence of a worker named z ( allen ) . he wants more to life than just digging away underground for the colony . when he finds out about ` ` insectopia , " a mythical place where all insects can run free , z , along with his colony 's princess ( stone ) , journey out into the world to find a meaning for life . about 15 minutes into the picture , i began to wonder what the point of the film was . halfway through , i still did n't have an answer . by the end credits , i just gave up and ran out . antz is a mindless mess of poor writing and even poorer voice - overs . allen is nonchalant , while i would have guessed , if i had n't seen her in the mighty and basic instinct , stone ca n't act , even in a cartoon . this film is one for the bugs : unfunny and extremely dull . hey , a bug 's life may have a good time doing antz in .

0NEG

its a stupid little movie that trys to be clever and sophisticated , yet trys for life . about 15 minutes into the picture , i began to wonder what the point of the film was . halfway through , i still did n't have an answer . by the end credits , i just gave up and ran out . antz is a mindless mess of poor writing and even poorer voice - overs . allen is nonchalant , while i would have guessed seen her in the mighty and basic instinct , stone ca n't act , even in a cartoon . this film is one for the bugs : unfunny and extremely dull . hey , a bug 's life may have a

godzilla is a nuclear freak . he is a lizard that has been mutated over the years and has become a new species , one that has a foot as long as this bus , and a claw as long as this sign . this aquatic creature made its first attack in the pacific islands . he tore up a ship that carried dozens of japanese men . one survived . only he was left to recount the terror that he had seen . he was merely able to repeat the words " godzilla . . . godzilla . . . godzilla " . the film then introduces us to matthew broderick , a biologist who has been studying the fascinating growth of chernobyl earthworms . " they 're 17 % larger than they used to be ! " he proclaims . the u . s . military pulls him off this three year project and assigns him to figure out what godzilla is . and , boy , does he find out . and , boy , does godzilla suck . i hate to use such a word in a review , something that is supposed to inform my audience , but i really need to drive this one home and i refuse to use explitives . it is unbelieveable to me how the producers of this movie saw the final cut and said , " ok ! it 's great ! let 's show this puppy . " roland emmerich needs a good horse whipping . his latest piece of trash makes id4 look like a masterpiece of modern american cinema . and if steven spielberg had never made the jurassic park films , emmerich and his team of talent - challenged imbeciles would never have had a clue as to how the creature should look . let me give you a few examples of this terrible attempt at filmmaking . i plan on giving some things away here . belive me , godzilla holds no surprises for anyone with an iq higher than their shoe size , so . . . no worries . however , if you are looking for that " first time thrill " and you refuse to let me do you this favor , by all means , stop reading now . a . ) godzilla makes his first ever attack in the pacific islands . he next strikes in new york city . um . . . anyone have a map handy ? b . ) the mayor of new york city is a heavy set individual with parted gray hair and thick glasses . his name is mayor ebert . his assistant is named gene . gene gives ebert a thumbs down at the end of the film . i could n't make this up if i tried , folks . c . ) stay with me on this one . . . ok . godzilla can out run torpedoes . hank azaria can out run godzilla babies . ( which look more like jurassic park raptors than the jurassic park raptors . ) d . ) the u . s . military , upon realization that godzilla has disappeared after running rampant through the city , decides that he " might be hiding in a building . " e . ) ( oh yeah , i can go all the way to e . ) godzilla strikes at manhattan . manhattan , an island approximately the size of san francisco holds three million people . they evactuate to new jersey in about one day . no problem . f . ) early on , they bait godzilla with fish . ( he likes fish , you know . ) the thing is on an island . the atlantic ocean is three steps east , but pile a whole bunch of grouper on fifth and 57th . . . oh he 's gon na come running . g . ) you know what ? i 'll stop with the list now . . . the alphabet is n't big enough anyway . the dialogue makes me wonder if producer dean devlin had his five year old do a re - write . " the kid is good ! " he must have said . maria pitillo is looking to become a name in hollywood by starring in this potential blockbuster . bad move , maria . acting does n't get much worse than her turn as broderick 's ex - flame . matthew broderick is a good actor , but you 'd never give him a chance if godzilla were the only film of his you 'd seen . jean reno needs to pick his american films a bit more carefully . at times , godzilla seems to be headed toward a zucker , abrahams , zucker film . ( airplane ! , naked gun . ) the jokes are indeed that bad . but just when you think the filmmakers are having fun with you , they take themselves seriously . how dare they ! godzilla would have been better if it had only thrown in visual sight gags and fart jokes . at least then we would know we were supposed to laugh . each and every character in godzilla is beyond stupid and i was really pulling for the beast to kill more of them . emmerich did do one thing , though . ( and i 've no idea if it was intentional . ) he made me sympathize with godzilla . his attackers were so damn dumb that i felt sorry for him being pelted with bullets and missles . but what made me feel even sorrier for him was that his famous name will always be attatched to one of the worst films hollywood has ever produced .

0NEG

, boy , does he find out . and , boy , does godzilla suck . i hate to use such a word in a ! let 's show this puppy . " roland emmerich needs a good horse whipping . his latest piece of trash makes id4 look like a masterpiece of modern american cinema look . let me give you a few examples of this terrible attempt at filmmaking . i plan on giving some things away here . . . the alphabet is n't big enough anyway . the dialogue makes me wonder if producer dean devlin had his five year old do a re - write . " the kid is good ! " he must name in hollywood by starring in this potential blockbuster . bad move , maria . acting does n't get much worse than film . ( airplane ! , naked gun . ) the jokes are indeed that bad . but just when you think the filmmakers are having then we would know we were supposed to laugh . each and every character in godzilla is beyond stupid and i was really pulling for the beast to kill was that his famous name will always be attatched to one of the worst films hollywood has ever produced .

after the recent animated debacles of , " a rugrats movie , " and " a bug 's life , " i am seriously considering raising my highly negative rating on dreamworks ' other insect film from october , " antz . " i hated that movie , and yet , it is so much better than these latest two excursions . " a bug 's life , " is the second animated insect film in the last two months , and i hoped for the best , considering it was done in the wonderful style of pixar 's last film , 1995 's " toy story , " but in no way does , " a bug 's life , " even remotely match up to that . flik ( david foley ) , an ant , who along with his many comrades , has the job every year of gathering up the seasonal harvest , only to have to give half of it away to the dominating grasshoppers , led by hopper ( kevin spacey ) . flik , however , feels all alone and unwanted in the world , especially after he accidentally loses all of their food , and the ants are threated by hopper to gather up a whole other season 's load by the time the last summer leaf falls from the trees . banished from ant island , flik leaves the colony in search of some strong reinforcement to help out , but through a misunderstanding , returns with a handful of helpless circus bugs , including a walking stick ( david hyde pierce ) , a dung beetle ( brad garrett ) , a gypsy moth ( madeline kahn ) , a male ladybug ( denis leary ) , and a caterpillar ( joe ranft ) . " a bug 's life , " has one thing going for it . only one thing . with its glorious , bright colors , the computer - generated animation is a spectacle to look at . the film itself , unfortunately , is a lifeless , unamusing contraption without any of the flair or excitement of , " toy story . " the characters in , " a bug 's life , " are an assortment of either unlikable or dull insects without any charm or personality , other than to stand around and recite arbitrary and thoroughly unfunny one - liners . the thin story was also stretched out to a nearly unbearable 94 minutes , and it often felt as if they ran out of ideas throughout , and so they made up pointless scenes to pass as time - filler . after giving such scathing reviews to the animated films from this year , i was beginning to think that i had simply outgrown them , but then i realized this is just not so . i still adore almost all of the older disney films , and many of the newer ones , such as 1989 's , " the little mermaid , " 1991 's , " beauty and the beast , " 1993 's , " the nightmare before christmas , " and yes , 1995 's , " toy story . " maybe this has just been a bad year for children 's films , and hopefully , the upcoming , " the prince of egypt , " will not be a disappointment . as for , " a bug 's life , " i did not enjoy anything about it . not the story , not the characters , and not even the voiceover work , which was far more lively in , " antz . " " a bug 's life , " goes down as yet another failure for disney , and it is a sad state of affairs when their best film in the last two years has been the minor jonathan taylor thomas picture , " i 'll be home for christmas . "

0NEG

way does , " a bug 's life , " even remotely match up to that . flik ( david foley ) , an - generated animation is a spectacle to look at . the film itself , unfortunately , is a lifeless , unamusing contraption without any of the flair or excitement of , " in , " a bug 's life , " are an assortment of either unlikable or dull insects without any charm or personality , other than to stand around and recite arbitrary and thoroughly unfunny one - liners . the thin story was also stretched out to a nearly unbearable 94 minutes , and it often felt as if they as for , " a bug 's life , " i did not enjoy anything about it . not the story , not the characters , and antz . " " a bug 's life , " goes down as yet another failure for disney , and it is a sad state of affairs when their best film in the last two years has

once upon a time jean - claude van damme was a decent action hero . the muscles from brussels bursted into the hollywood market with mindless adventure films , boasting his spectacular martial - arts ability . some of these excursions were fun . but now it seems like watching a van damme movie has become a painful chore , with no rewards but the virtually guaranteed helping of mind - numbing action . and when the action goes sour , what is there left to enjoy ? i 'll explain . knock off is about a pair of counterfeit jeans salesmen working out of an office in hong kong . marcus ray ( van damme ) , a babe - magnet and stylish dresser , heads up the company with an annoying weasel of a partner ( rob schneider ) . they become part of a plot involving microbombs implanted in counterfeit jeans , seemingly by a mole in the business . i 'm going to reveal about everything in the next paragraph , so if you want a review devoid of spoilers , skip onto the next one . i 'm not quite sure who gives a crap , but i 'll issue a warning anyhow . tommy is really working with the cia . his boss ( a very hammy and flat paul sorvino ) is the mole , and he wants to cause carnage with these tiny but immensely powerful super weapons . he even stoops so low to put them into children 's toys . if you thought this plot outline sounded intriguing , then you probably will enjoy knock off . if you think that this ridiculous set - up could n't even fill five minutes of screen time without causing you to roll over laughing , this might not be your cup of tea . knock off sucks . it stoops to ridiculous levels that most individuals could only conjure up in horrific nightmares . it amazes me how far these producers will go to sell something , simply because van damme is the star . the plot is pathetic garbage strung together by inane action sequences that will baffle your mind , the performances are so wooden you could use them to row a canoe , and the action itself is an absolute catastrophe . director tsui hark ( who teamed with van damme in the superior , but still lame - brained double team ) is at the helm , and he would rather attempt to dazzle us with fantastic camera angles than engage us with the plot . i suppose i enjoyed some of the camera work , but the incessant desperation of it all made me rather nauseous . the picture freezes in the middle of an action sequence , speeds are altered consistently , and the camera tricks mostly apply to traveling up gun barrels as the weapons are fired . it all sounds very cool . trust me , it is n't . as much as it scars me to say this ( har , har ) , van damme is terrible . sure , he does lots of fancy kickboxing moves and dodges giant crates with the greatest of ease . he looks like he 's doing a bad impersonation of jackie chan , and his performance is stiff and tired . i hate to say it , but perhaps it 's time for mr . van damme to give up his day job . it 's really a test of endurance watching knock off . i suppose there 's some enjoyment derived from schneider 's character , who is extremely annoying , but provides the film 's better moments . and what is the beautiful lela rochon doing in this movie ? hopefully she grabbed her paycheck and then fled the premises like an olympic sprinter . knock off does n't even stand strong as a mindless but entertaining action film , like a handful of van damme 's others . no , this movie is an embarrassment to the entire action genre of modern filmmaking . and considering how low hollywood has stooped as of late in that department , that is certainly not saying much . note to self : avoid universal soldier 2 : the return upon release in august ? 99 .

0NEG

but now it seems like watching a van damme movie has become a painful chore , with no rewards but the virtually guaranteed helping of really working with the cia . his boss ( a very hammy and flat paul sorvino ) is the mole , and he wants will enjoy knock off . if you think that this ridiculous set - up could n't even fill five minutes of screen time without be your cup of tea . knock off sucks . it stoops to ridiculous levels that most individuals could only conjure up in horrific nightmares something , simply because van damme is the star . the plot is pathetic garbage strung together by inane action sequences that will baffle your mind , the performances are so wooden you could use them to row a canoe , and the action itself is an absolute catastrophe . director tsui hark ( who teamed with van damme suppose i enjoyed some of the camera work , but the incessant desperation of it all made me rather nauseous . the picture freezes in the middle of an action and dodges giant crates with the greatest of ease . he looks like he 's doing a bad impersonation of jackie chan , and his performance is stiff and tired . i hate to say it , but perhaps it a handful of van damme 's others . no , this movie is an embarrassment to the entire action genre of modern filmmaking . and

the year is barely a week old , and there is already a candidate for the worst of 1997 - -the relic , a would - be chiller that 's more successful at making the audience laugh than scream . in this ridiculous film from uberhack peter hyams ( whose last two pictures were dreadful jean - claude van damme vehicles ) , a creature that feeds on the hypothalamuses ( hypothalamii ? ) of humans and animals goes on a killing spree in a chicago museum . how did this creature come into existence , and why does it feed on hormones ? the " scientific " explanation cooked up by the four -- yes , four -- credited screenwriters ( amy holden jones , john raffo , rick jaffa , and amanda silver ) takes " suspension of disbelief " to new heights , even by monster movie standards . but as cockamamie as the science is in the film , it is n't quite as hard to swallow as the casting of the clueless penelope ann miller as a brilliant molecular biologist who specializes in evolutionary genetics . miller acts as if she wants an oscar nomination , turning every scene that requires the slightest display of emotion into an overblown oscar clip , complete with piercing wails and glycerine tears . give it up , penelope -- it 's a _ monster_movie _ . on the flip side , tom sizemore just phones in his performance as a police lieutenant , but his role is so thankless that it 's hard to imagine it being played any more effectively . it 's quite funny to see a film indulge , with the straightest of faces , in all those cheesy horror movie cliches that wes craven lampooned so well ( and so recently ) in scream . for example , in one early scene , a museum security guard goes into a bathroom stall late at night . ok , we all know what 's coming , but as if we did n't need any more confirmation , he pulls out a joint and starts puffing away . everyone knows what happens to people who do drugs in a scary movie . and later , miller frantically runs out of a museum exhibit after she hears some suspicious heavy breathing . does she make a beeline for the front door ? of course not -- she runs into the ladies room and cowers in a stall . with all the cliches , it is only fitting the film 's climax offers what is perhaps the most overused one in recent film : that of someone outrunning a fireball . if the relic is truly " the next evolution in terror " as the poster states , then the horror film -- and humanity -- is in even worse shape than we thought .

0NEG

is barely a week old , and there is already a candidate for the worst of 1997 - -the relic , a would - be at making the audience laugh than scream . in this ridiculous film from uberhack peter hyams ( whose last two pictures john raffo , rick jaffa , and amanda silver ) takes " suspension of disbelief " to new heights , even by monster movie standards . but as cockamamie phones in his performance as a police lieutenant , but his role is so thankless that it 's hard to imagine it being played any into the ladies room and cowers in a stall . with all the cliches , it is only fitting the film 's climax offers what is perhaps the most overused one in recent film : that of someone outrunning a fireball . if the

susan granger 's review of " two can play that game " ( screen gems ) since the success of " waiting to exhale , " there have been several romantic comedies about african - american professionals . this female revenge fantasy , vivica a . fox plays shante smith , a stunning ad exec who seems to have reached the pinnacle of success : a mansion , a sporty car and an idyllic relationship with a hunky , hot - shot lawyer , morris chestnut . she 's at a point in her life when she dispenses advice to her grateful girl - friends ( mo'nique , wendy racquel robinson , tamala jones ) . " when your man messes up , no matter how small it is , " she smugly decrees , " yuh gots to punish him . " so when she catches her hot man dancing at a bar with a smart and sexy rival , gabrielle union , she devises her own version of " the rules , " a 10-day " tough love " emotionally punishing plan to get him back . unfortunately , writer / director mark brown ( " how to be a player " ) breaks the cardinal rule of romantic comedy : you have to like the protagonist - and shrill , self - congratulatory shante smith is a smirking , superficial , spiteful shrew who does n't realize that rational rules can not always be applied to love . having her talk directly into the camera gets stale very quickly and the " day one , " " day two " title - card device underscores the tedium . comic anthony anderson scores as chestnut 's boisterous best - friend , and singer bobby brown does a cameo as a scuzzy mechanic who 's given a smooth makeover by ms . robinson . but the out - takes over the closing credits contain more humor than the film itself . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " two can play that game " is smarmy if slick 4 , filled with misogynistic attitude and blatant product placements ( coca - cola , miller genuine draft ) but little else . in this r - rated ( for explicit sexual language ) , pseudo - hip battle of the sexes , the audience loses .

0NEG

comedy : you have to like the protagonist - and shrill , self - congratulatory shante smith is a smirking , superficial , spiteful shrew who does n't realize that rational rules can not always to love . having her talk directly into the camera gets stale very quickly and the " day one , " " day two " title - card device underscores the tedium . comic anthony anderson scores as chestnut 's boisterous best play that game " is smarmy if slick 4 , filled with misogynistic attitude and blatant product placements ( coca - cola , miller genuine draft ) but ) , pseudo - hip battle of the sexes , the audience loses .

susan granger 's review of " glitter " ( 20th century - fox ) there 's less here than meets the eye . or , put it this way , if you thought madonna was awful in " shanghai surprise , " mariah carey 's worse in this reworking of " a star is born . " she plays billie frank who , despite being abandoned by her singer / alcoholic mother ( valerie pettiford ) , believes she 's destined for greatness because everyone tells her she is . " you 've got this amazing gift , and you got ta use it , " her roommate says . " your voice - it 's incredible , " says another singer . " i ai n't never met anyone like you , " proclaims julian " dice " black ( max beesley ) , the hot new york dj who becomes her svengali - like producer / lover . problem is : her signature song , " i did n't mean to turn you on " is wretched . and when she fumes out of filming her first music video because the director wants to " exploit " her by having her wear a bikini , the audience bursts into laughter . exploit mariah carey , who chooses to wear as little as the law will allow ? come on ! writer kate lanier 's script is fatuous and director vondie curtis - hall does n't have a clue how to handle the glitzy pop diva and , as a result of their incompetence , whispery - voice'd ms . carey seems to be embarrassed on - screen . she almost cringes when the camera comes in for a close - up , pursing her lips and averting her glassy eyes . talented british musician max beesley appears equally inept , and as cinematographer geoffrey simpson pans around the manhattan skyline , there 's an audible audience groan when the twin towers of the world trade center come into view . perhaps one of the reasons ms . carey suffered her highly - publicized nervous breakdown this summer is because she saw a preview of this clunker . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " glitter " is a pathetic 1 . right now , it 's tops on my list of the worst of 2001 .

0NEG

of " glitter " ( 20th century - fox ) there 's less here than meets the eye . or , put it this way , if you awful in " shanghai surprise , " mariah carey 's worse in this reworking of " a star is born . exploit " her by having her wear a bikini , the audience bursts into laughter . exploit mariah carey , who chooses to wear as ? come on ! writer kate lanier 's script is fatuous and director vondie curtis - hall does n't have a clue how to handle the glitzy pop diva and , as a result of their incompetence , whispery - voice'd ms . carey seems to be averting her glassy eyes . talented british musician max beesley appears equally inept , and as cinematographer geoffrey simpson pans around the manhattan breakdown this summer is because she saw a preview of this clunker . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " glitter " is a pathetic 1 . right now , it 's tops on my list of the worst of 2001 .

the ads make " hanging up " seem like an upbeat comedy about a rascally father and his three daughters . anyone who went to the movie expecting that left disappointed . all of the movie 's funny scenes were included in the ad . so what do we get ? eve marks ( meg ryan ) just put her father lou mozell ( walter matthau ) into a hospital . once upon a time , lou was a hollywood screenwriter who collaborated with his now - estranged wife . his one great moment in life was writing a film for john wayne , who gave him a giant bullet - shaped trophy . now lou is senile and deteriorating rapidly . eve tries to convince her sisters georgia ( diane keaton ) and maddy ( lisa kudrow ) that their father is dying and needs them . both are slow to show concern . so devoted eve stands vigil over her father , who constantly asks for his favorite daughter georgia , while running her own business ( planning special events ) and caring for her son ( jesse james ) . ( some comic relief comes when maddy also drops off her ailing st . bernard for eve to care for . ) the tension builds until all three sisters are finally in one room at one of eve 's events where georgia is the keynote speaker . there 's a superficial resemblance to shakespeare 's " king lear " ( senile king with three daughters : one devoted saint and two selfish bitches ) , but the material is apparently drawn from life . sister screenwriters delia and nora ephron had parents who were a successful hollywood writing team . henry and phoebe ephron collaborated on 17 screenplays , including " desk set " and " there 's no business like show business . " ( delia 's novel , the basis for the film , is dedicated to henry ) . surprisingly , the script is as thin as an anorexic 's wet dream . the virtue of a semi - autobiographical project would seem to be the wealth of material available . yet , the ephrons provide only the barest minimum of information about their characters . also , the spaces they inhabit seem artificial . eve lives in a house that looks like a magazine layout ; no matter how put - upon she is , we ca n't feel sorry for anyone whose house is so pristine on any given day . georgia is a famous magazine editor , and in her brief scenes while she chats on a cell phone with eve seem like the photo spread for a profile . when we first meet maddy , she 's fishing at a picturesque mountain stream . i expected to see the credit " cinematography by ' vanity fair . ' " and , yes , diane keaton is literally old enough to be lisa kudrow 's mother . to her credit , though , she looks young enough to pull it off . the one redeeming aspect of " hanging up " is that , at its core , is a truth about siblings . there 's always one on which everyone else in the family relies , freeing the others to be selfish and emotionally distant . my wife is the reliable child in her family ; for better or worse , my brother has the role in mine . ( being selfish and emotionally distant may not be fulfilling , but it is a lot less work ) . if you have nothing better to do than watch this movie , look for a powerful cameo by cloris leachman as the sisters ' mother pat . in a devastating scene , eve discovers that her mother does n't love her . although leachman is best known for comedies like " young frankenstein " and " the mary tyler moore show , " her performance here reminded me of the considerable dramatic talent she displayed in " the last picture show . " bottom line : everyone involved has lived in hollywood so long they do n't recognize real life anymore .

0NEG

film , is dedicated to henry ) . surprisingly , the script is as thin as an anorexic 's wet dream . the virtue of a semi - autobiographical project would by cloris leachman as the sisters ' mother pat . in a devastating scene , eve discovers that her mother does n't love her

this is the worst movie i 've seen since the " so bad i walked out on it " " jingle all the way " . it is crap on toast made of crap baked in a an oven fueled by crap . it is crap through and through . nothing works in this film , as to be expected from joel schumacher , who has made only one watchable film in his entire career ( that being " cousins " ) . here 's a man who admits he 's a medicore director , a rather charmingly self - effacing statement . but truth be told , he is much worse than mediocre . not all scorn should be heaped on schumacher though -- akiva goldsman should not be allowed to write ever again . there is no plot anywhere , and the " dialogue " is unrelentingly shallow , preposterous , and boring . they set up mr . freeze as a tragic figure trying to cure his cryogenically frozen wife , then completely sabotage his character by giving him the lamest one - liners . it turns him into a stock maniacal villain who thoroughly enjoys his villainy instead of a brooding scientist who has spent much of his life to bringing his wife from the brink of death . but that 's par for course -- nothing in this film makes any sense , including half of arnold schwarzenegger 's lines . as mr . freeze , arnold is given way too much dialogue to spit out at once . this is the same problem he had in " jingle all the way " , and it seems that his austrian accent is getting thicker and more unintelligible as the days pass . personally , i think that he has more pull with the directors and does n't retake scenes to make him understandable . compare his dialogue in the terminator series to the load of nonsense that streams forth in " batman & robin " . apparently , james cameron knows how to get a competent performance out of arnold . uma thurman is not as bad , but nothing resembling good either . her poison ivy vamps around terribly , chewing up scenery left and right . and her pamela isley scenes are marred by sub - snl standard " acting " , as if she 's reading off cue cards and is about to laugh at any given moment . given the " script " , it 's a wonder it did n't happen more frequently . there is no redeeming feature in this film -- not george clooney as batman , chris o'donnell as robin , nor alicia silverstone as batgirl . michael gough is eerily sickly looking as alfred , as if the conceit of his illness was prompted by his cadaverous appearance . in fact , there was something unsettling about his appearance , which seems to have been accomplished without any make - up tricks , looking as if it were scenes from a documentary about a dying man . unfortunately , every scene about alfred 's sickness is bungled with such incompetence that there is absolutely no emotional resonance -- they just go through the motions , losing whatever impact the scenes were supposed to impart . the movie is rife with poorly choreographed fights scenes that never give any sense of a big battle -- you know there 's a bunch of people , but instead of a melee , schumacher decided to focus on a foot or a fist . there 's never a moment of awe , wonder , or mayhem . the only interesting part of the battles scenes are the freezing effects , which are impressive ( and probably expensive ) . even then , the fights are so full of camp and stupidity that they become unwatchable . the hockey team from hell ? not even the tv series got that stupid ( at least not on the grand scale of stupidity that " batman & robin " showcases ) . frustrating too are the various supporting characters that walk on and off with nothing to say or do . blink , and you 'll miss elle macpherson as julie madison , vivica fox as a " why is she even in the film " vamp in freeze 's lair ( with all of two lines ) , and pat hingle as the most ineffectual commissioner gordan the batman series ever had . and in what almost seems like an effort to save on costs , vendela kirsebom has no lines as mrs . fries -- she is n't even filmed well enough to look good ( trust me , she 's quite attractive outside of this dreck ) . and as if the film were n't bad enough to limp along with bad direction , bad dialogue , bad performances , and bad fight scenes , there are inconsistencies and illogic galore . i know it 's nit - picky to ask where the hundreds of feet of cable are stored in the batarangs , why the character 's arms are n't ripped out of their sockets when they accomplish a one - armed batarang save after falling hundreds of feet ( while holding on to another person no less ) , or where the moisture comes from when freeze 's weapon creates tons if ice . that 's all traditional comic book stuff . but why does batman spring a trap for freeze at a public charity event that endanger the lives of hundreds of by - standers ? why is there a big switch clearly marked , " heat " in mr . freeze 's lair ? why do countless bumbling police officers even try to take on mr . freeze hand to hand ? why does alfred encourage silverstone to become batgirl and even go so far as to have a suit made for her ? why do batman & robin take 10 minutes to bicker before leaving the batcave in response to an emergency ? and since it established early on that ivy is using pheromones , why do n't they wear masks to filter it out ? i could go on and on . " batman & robin " is a braindead , pointless , garish , loud film that should still reign as the " worst film of the year " by the time 1998 rolls along . note to warner bros . -- if you 're going to make another batman film , please replace schumacher with nearly anyone . because it could actually get worse than this . what schumacher does not understand is that " comic book " does n't automatically equal unbearable idiocy . the true equation seems to be schumacher + batman = unbearable idiocy .

0NEG

this is the worst movie i 've seen since the " so bad i walked out on it " " jingle all the way " . it is crap on toast made of crap baked in a an oven fueled by crap . it is crap through and through . nothing works in this film , as to be expected from joel schumacher , who self - effacing statement . but truth be told , he is much worse than mediocre . not all scorn should be heaped on schumacher though goldsman should not be allowed to write ever again . there is no plot anywhere , and the " dialogue " is unrelentingly shallow , preposterous , and boring . they set up mr . freeze as a tragic of death . but that 's par for course -- nothing in this film makes any sense , including half of arnold schwarzenegger 's lines . as , but nothing resembling good either . her poison ivy vamps around terribly , chewing up scenery left and right . and her is about to laugh at any given moment . given the " script " , it 's a wonder it did n't happen more frequently . there is no redeeming feature in this film -- not george clooney as batman , chris o'donnell as . unfortunately , every scene about alfred 's sickness is bungled with such incompetence that there is absolutely no emotional resonance -- they just the scenes were supposed to impart . the movie is rife with poorly choreographed fights scenes that never give any sense of a big battle -- probably expensive ) . even then , the fights are so full of camp and stupidity that they become unwatchable . the hockey team from hell ? not even the with all of two lines ) , and pat hingle as the most ineffectual commissioner gordan the batman series ever had . and in what almost the film were n't bad enough to limp along with bad direction , bad dialogue , bad performances , and bad fight scenes , there are inconsistencies and illogic galore . i know it 's nit - picky to ask on and on

when i ponder childhood memories past , one of the things that always springs immediately to mind is watching the " inspector gadget " tv show with my older brother . truth be told , we were rabid fanatics ; our version of cowboys and indians was chasing each other around our coffee table to the theme tune , alternating who would get to be gadget and who would be stuck playing the part of dr . claw , the inspector 's arch nemesis . i was never a biggie on nostalgia , but you just ca n't help but have fond memories of something like that . sometimes i even find myself up at 4 am watching re - runs of my favorite episodes , trying to recapture some of that sense of wonder i felt as a kid . at the very least , i was expecting the new film version of the classic television series to have at least some kind of similar effect on me . despite how horrid a film may be , the simple task of rekindling even a slight feeling of nostalgia is pretty tough to screw up . so back i sat , with minimum expectations of what the movie would deliver ( let 's face it ; exactly how good can a live - action disney film really be ? ) . i was wise enough to steer clear from the likes of mr . magoo and george of the jungle ( two previous disney adaptations ) , and i wish to god that i had been sharp enough to skip gadget as well . rarely has a movie left me with such an utter feeling of emptiness . as everyone else was getting up to exit the screening room after the movie had completed its assault on mankind , i was left sitting there , absolutely speechless and totally dumbfounded at what i had just seen . can something this awful truly exist in such an evolved world ? right from the beginning , i knew i was in trouble . in the opening scenes , each character is introduced as if their sole purpose is to just be , to simply serve as real - life duplicates of their cartoon clones . when referring to them , people almost yell in fear that the audience will not catch on as to who a certain character is supposed to be ( " oh , hi penny ! is brain with you ? " ) . creating one - dimensional replicas is one thing ; having mere names take the place of them is quite another . the " plot " , shall we call it , stays fairly in tune with the original series . matthew broderick stars as john brown ( how creative is that ? ) , a security guard who is horribly injured by a pack of ruthless businessmen headed by scolex ( why , rupert everett , for the love of god why ? ? ? ! ! ! ) , who himself is transformed into claw by an unfortunate chain of events . brown is then rescued and used as a prototype for a new law - enforcement technology wherein he 's joined with various machine parts and some nifty gadgets to form ( drumroll , please ) . . . inspector gadget ! > from here on out , the movie becomes a hodgepodge of stupid dialog and confusing situations ( although , to be fair , my confusion could have been caused by the virtual concussion the film was inflicting upon my fragile mind ) . there 's something about an evil gadget taking over the city ( his first crime must have been swiping matt dillon 's dentures from there 's something about mary ) and it all ends with ( what else ? ) a bunch of post - credit nonsense and a cameo by don adams himself . to be honest , i was n't much paying attention to these " treats " . i was just glad that it was over .

0NEG

of the jungle ( two previous disney adaptations ) , and i wish to god that i had been sharp enough to skip gadget as well . rarely has a movie left me with such an utter feeling of emptiness . as everyone else was getting up to exit the after the movie had completed its assault on mankind , i was left sitting there , absolutely speechless and totally dumbfounded at what i had just seen . can something this awful truly exist in such an evolved world ? right from names take the place of them is quite another . the " plot " , shall we call it , stays fairly in tune with the original series . businessmen headed by scolex ( why , rupert everett , for the love of god why ? ? ? ! ! ! ) , who himself is transformed into claw by an . inspector gadget ! > from here on out , the movie becomes a hodgepodge of stupid dialog and confusing situations ( although , to be fair , my confusion could have been caused by the virtual concussion the film was inflicting upon my fragile mind ) . there 's something about an evil gadget taking n't much paying attention to these " treats " . i was just glad that it was over .

perhaps if the impostors did n't have so much going for it , it would n't have been such a tremendous disappointment . written , directed , and produced by one of its two stars , stanley tucci , whose last picture was the indie smash hit , big night , the impostors almost never catches fire . sputtering like a two - day old campfire , the story plays like an ad - lib sketch that was never polished or completed . the film 's other star , oliver platt , was hilarious as the senator 's aide in bulworth . the bloated supporting cast is a veritable cornucopia of acting talent , including woody allen , steve buscemi , hope davis , alfred molina , campbell scott , lili taylor and tony shalhoub . all are wasted save allen , who plays a theatrical director who stares in disbelief at the bad acting before his eyes . ( the audience will easily identify with allen 's sentiments . ) with the exception of a single original joke involving mirror - imaged subtitles , the movie engenders little genuine laughter . the stale humor is so embarrassingly bad that you will find yourself laughing sporadically at the picture rather than with it . the plot for the movie involves two starving actors , maurice ( oliver platt ) and arthur ( stanley tucci ) , who accidentally end up on a cruise ship . in order to escape an angry shakespearean actor ( alfred molina ) , who is chasing them , they dress up as ship 's stewards . the over - the - top script has the subtlety of a sledgehammer . when the leads hide from their pursuers , arthur covers maurice 's mouth as he suffers an unending sneeze . at other times , we have the typical zany comedy routine where everyone chases everyone else , while darting in and out of staterooms . with the film 's chapters introduced like placards at a vaudeville stage , it is clear the movie wants to be taken as farce . the press notes describes how everyone that came on the set remarked at what a good time all of the actors were having . too bad they were n't more concerned with the audience 's potential enjoyment . the jokes , frequently framed in silence , fall like stones with such intensity that one can almost hear them hitting the ground . one wonders if anyone ever viewed the film 's dailies . surely , if they had , they would have realized what leaden results they were producing . it is tricky having good actors play bad ones , but , if they could n't pull it off , they should have just given up . " the show is over for this fella , " steve buscemi 's character says towards the end . the mystery is why they did n't all give up in the beginning . there must have been a better script somewhere for such a wonderful cast . the impostors runs 1 : 42 . it is rated r for a little profanity and would be fine for kids around 12 and up .

0NEG

much going for it , it would n't have been such a tremendous disappointment . written , directed , and produced by one of the indie smash hit , big night , the impostors almost never catches fire . sputtering like a two - day old campfire , the story plays like an ad - lib sketch that was never polished or completed . the film 's other star , oliver platt , , campbell scott , lili taylor and tony shalhoub . all are wasted save allen , who plays a theatrical director who stares a single original joke involving mirror - imaged subtitles , the movie engenders little genuine laughter . the stale humor is so embarrassingly bad that you will find yourself laughing sporadically at the picture rather than with it . the plot for the movie involves two starving actors them , they dress up as ship 's stewards . the over - the - top script has the subtlety of a sledgehammer . when the leads hide from their pursuers , arthur n't more concerned with the audience 's potential enjoyment . the jokes , frequently framed in silence , fall like stones with such intensity that one can almost hear them hitting the ground . one wonders if anyone ever viewed the film 's

this was the last carry on movie ( if you discount ' carry on columbus ' as a carry on movie ) and was made by a new production company . based in central london , this movie is about the attempts by emmanuelle prevert ( suzanne danielle ) to bed her husband emile the french ambassador ( kenneth williams ) . when he seems unwilling , she is given his permission to bed anyone she likes , such as the prime minister and the u . s . ambassador . her antics get her into trouble and the british press spread these rumours all over their front pages . she is invited to talk on television to set the record straight but only confirms the rumours instead . meanwhile , theodore valentine ( larry dann ) is in love with emmannuelle after a chance encounter in the toilet of the concorde and is determined to marry her . however , she is only interested in restoring her husband 's ardour which seems a little difficult after emile 's accident with a church spire ! this film is the second worst carry on movie , the worst being ' carry on england ' . it is embarassing to see some of the remaining regulars struggle through this diabolical script by lance peters and try to pull off some of the crude and tasteless jokes that he has written . newcomers suzanne danielle and beryl reid ( as mrs . valentine ) are mildly funny , but larry dann as theodore is excruciatingly bad . kenneth williams only appears in a few scenes and his lacklustre performance is warranted , given the script . the small parts for jack douglas as lyons the butler , joan sims as mrs . dangle , kenneth connor as leyland the chauffeur , and peter butterworth as richmond , are worthless and embarassing . in fact , all four parts are surplus to requirements . however , the only humourous scene in the film is when the four of them and emmannuelle talk about their most amourous escapades . an awful script , a terrible collection of jokes , very poor production values ( especially the scene where emmannuelle takes her clothes off at st . james palace ) , a ludicrous and cringeworthy musical score , and a non - existent plot or storyline . its just a succession of awful set pieces about who emmannuelle will bed next ! jack douglas is not so annoying but is more boring , joan sims and peter butterworth are wasted , and kenneth connor and kenneth williams put in some poor performances as leyland and emile . a complete waste of time , this movie was trying to catch up with the new sexually permissive seventies . it was a certificate 15 film but by 1978 , there was little interest in this kind of film and it flopped at the box office and was only given its premiere on uk terrestrial television in april 1998 ! avoid at all costs !

0NEG

's accident with a church spire ! this film is the second worst carry on movie , the worst being ' carry on england ' . it is embarassing to see some of the remaining regulars struggle through this lance peters and try to pull off some of the crude and tasteless jokes that he has written . newcomers suzanne danielle and beryl are mildly funny , but larry dann as theodore is excruciatingly bad . kenneth williams only appears in a few scenes and the chauffeur , and peter butterworth as richmond , are worthless and embarassing . in fact , all four parts are surplus to them and emmannuelle talk about their most amourous escapades . an awful script , a terrible collection of jokes , very poor production values ( especially the scene where emmannuelle takes her clothes off at st . james palace ) , a ludicrous and cringeworthy musical score , and a non - existent plot or storyline . its just a succession of awful set pieces about who emmannuelle will bed next ! jack douglas is is more boring , joan sims and peter butterworth are wasted , and kenneth connor and kenneth williams put in some poor performances as leyland and emile . a complete waste of time , this movie was trying to catch up with the its premiere on uk terrestrial television in april 1998 ! avoid at all costs !

if you 're debating whether or not to see _ breakfast_of_champions _ , ask yourself one simple question : do you want to see nick nolte in lingerie ? the only people who would get much enjoyment from alan rudolph 's chaotic adaptation of the kurt vonnegut novel is the cross - section of the population with the unhealthy urge to see that unpleasant sight . everyone else -- and i 'm hoping that 's most people -- would be wise to steer clear of this excrutiatingly unfunny mess . actually , though , the sight of nolte in high heels is one of the more amusing things about this muddle , which focuses dwayne hoover ( bruce willis ) , the owner of dwayne hoover 's exit 11 motor village in midland city . not only is he a huge success as a businessman , he 's also something of a celebrity , his face made recognizable by an ongoing series of television commercials . with a nice home and family to boot , dwayne appears to have it all the ingredients to be happy -- yet he 's not . his wife celia ( barbara hershey ) is perpetually in a pill - induced haze ; his son george ( lukas haas ) is a flamboyant lounge singer who goes by the stage name " bunny . " not only that , the environmental protection agency is on dwayne 's ass over a building development project . it 's enough to send dwayne on a nervous breakdown -- that is , if he does n't succeed in blowing his brains out first . meanwhile , midland city is about to host a fine arts festival , and the guest of honor is one kilgore trout ( albert finney ) , a writer who is far from the renowned author the festival 's organizer ( buck henry ) was led to believe -- in fact , he 's a penniless hack who writes second - rate sci - fi that appears in porn magazines . his trek to midland city is also a spiritual journey , one that reaches its apex after meeting dwayne , who for some reason thinks that trout will hold for him all of life 's answers . the above is already a longer plot synopsis than i usually give in my reviews , but , ironically , i have barely scratched the surface . i have n't yet mentioned wayne hoobler ( omar epps ) , an ex - con with an obsessive admiration for the similarly - named dwayne . then there 's the matter of francine ( glenne headly ) , dwayne 's devoted secretary . not to mention dwayne 's employee and old friend harry lesabre ( nolte ) , the one with the secret penchant for cross - dressing . and so on . the film is essentially dwayne 's story , but too often rudolph goes on distracting tangents with the eccentric peripheral players that one often wonders what the point is . rudolph does arrive at a point ( more on that later ) , but it 's blunted and obscured by his hyperactive approach to the material . the surreal visual style , complete with printed words flying through the air and into dwayne 's ears , is obviously meant to convey a sense of madness , but its bludgeoning nature is likely to make viewers mad . the actors are called on to act accordingly , resulting in some of the worst , most overdone work all of them have ever turned in . willis fares best of all -- but that 's because his frozen expression of befuddled bewilderment mirrors that of the audience . with such an aggressively outrageous atmosphere for nearly all of its running time , it comes as a shock when things suddenly turn serious , and rudolph tries to make a statement . unlike _ american_beauty _ ( a film that _ breakfast _ resembles in more than a few ways , to its great detriment ) , there is n't any palpably earnest undercurrent that would prepare the audience for the big shift . as such , the cartoony characters fail to win a sympathy that needs to be earned ; and the film attempts , to no avail , to reach a profundity that it does n't deserve . vonnegut 's original novel is considered a classic , but it had been called unfilmable -- the same that was said of hunter s . thompson 's _ fear_and_loathing_in_las_vegas _ , which was disastrously committed to film last year by terry gilliam . with the similar failure of _ breakfast_of_champions _ , will hollywood ever learn that books labeled " unfilmable " inevitably results in a film that is unwatchable ? likely not .

0NEG

section of the population with the unhealthy urge to see that unpleasant sight . everyone else -- and i 'm hoping that 's most people -- would be wise to steer clear of this excrutiatingly unfunny mess . actually , though , the sight of nolte in heels is one of the more amusing things about this muddle , which focuses dwayne hoover ( bruce willis ) , a point ( more on that later ) , but it 's blunted and obscured by his hyperactive approach to the material . the surreal visual style , complete obviously meant to convey a sense of madness , but its bludgeoning nature is likely to make viewers mad . the actors are called on to act accordingly , resulting in some of the worst , most overdone work all of them have ever turned in . willis fares the audience for the big shift . as such , the cartoony characters fail to win a sympathy that needs to be earned ; and the film attempts , to no avail , to reach a profundity that it does n't deserve . vonnegut 's original novel is considered a classic , committed to film last year by terry gilliam . with the similar failure of _ breakfast_of_champions _ , will hollywood ever learn that books labeled " unfilmable " inevitably results in a film that is unwatchable ? likely not .

suicide is pointless , everyone should know that . so what 's this movie like ? you guessed it . . . pointless . the virgin suicides focuses on the lives of the five lisbon sisters , from the perspective of the teenage boys who are fascinated by them . when the youngest lisbon sister commits suicide , it sets in motion a series of events that will change the lives of many people forever . that 's what the press materials for the film probably say . now here 's what i say : the virgin suicides is a huge waste of time . boring , arty , pretentious junk that is about as entertaining as . . . well as committing suicide . the movie lost me early on , immediately following the scene where the younger daughter jumps to her death from her bedroom window . the girl 's father ( james woods ) holds her lifeless body in his arms as their horrified family looks on . then , as the scene ends , the lawn sprinklers come on . is that a joke ? is that supposed to be amusing in some way ? from then on , the movie failed to draw me back in . performances are the only saving grace of the virgin suicides . woods plays the only character who would actually interest me when he came onscreen , but the performance of kirsten dunst as the next youngest daughter lux is worth mentioning as well . dunst has the potential to be a big star , if she chooses her projects well . and while this film is awful , she manages to come away from it virtually unscathed . there are also a few cameos in the film here and there , which only frustrate the audience as they leave you wanting more . as a result , they all seem rather pointless ( although there 's a brief role given to michael pare from eddie and the cruisers which turns out to be his best role since . . . well since eddie and the cruisers ) . perhaps the virgin suicides would have worked had the story not been told from the point of view of people who had very little access to the main characters . we never get any significant insight into the girls and why they might be feeling what they 're feeling . all we really know is that mrs . lisbon ( kathleen turner ) is strict and keeps them on a short leash . what mother does n't ? it 's certainly no reason to commit suicide . with the godfather part iii , sofia coppola proved that she had no business being in front of the camera . with the virgin suicides , she proves she has no business behind it either . having family connections does n't entitle you to be allowed to make movies . so attention film directors . . . stop letting your daughters pout their way into the industry . just because they share your dna does n't mean they share your talent . [ r ]

0NEG

suicide is pointless , everyone should know that . so what 's this movie like ? you guessed it . . . pointless . the virgin suicides focuses on the lives of the here 's what i say : the virgin suicides is a huge waste of time . boring , arty , pretentious junk that is about as entertaining as . . . well as committing suicide . the movie lost me early on , immediately following the scene where the younger daughter jumps be amusing in some way ? from then on , the movie failed to draw me back in . performances are the only saving grace of the virgin , if she chooses her projects well . and while this film is awful , she manages to come away from it virtually unscathed they leave you wanting more . as a result , they all seem rather pointless ( although there 's a brief role given to michael front of the camera . with the virgin suicides , she proves she has no business behind it either . having family connections does n't entitle make movies . so attention film directors . . . stop letting your daughters pout their way into the industry . just because they share your dna

the realm of science fiction has always been an allegory of political and or moral sensibilities . the best tales of the genre deal with mankind 's struggle for survival or knowledge . such popular and noteworthy tomes as " stranger in a strange land " by robert heinlein , " childhood 's end " by arthur c . clarke and " man in the high castle " and " do androids dream of electric sheep " by philip k . dick all deal with man 's need for identity and struggle for self worth . hollywood has regularly adapted the milieu ( if not the message ) of science fiction since it 's beginnings . most films just created fancy pulp tales with no more thought that the escapism they achieved . it really was n't until producer george pal , took charge of robert heinlein 's novel " rocketship galileo " and crafted the film " destination moon " , that ' sci - fi ' ( as it is commonly referred to ) , came into it 's own . from there , such diverse filmmakers as roger corman to stanley kubrick , have sought to express ideas through the medium of the genre . with the release of touchstone pictures " mission to mars " , we have an unabashedly nonchalant sci - fi film for those who read the national enquirer and the globe . the film opens on a summer barbecue , as phil ohlmyer ( jerry o'connell ) woos a young female with his tales of space glory and the upcoming mission . woody blake ( tim robbins ) and his wife terri ( connie nielsen ) commit to his coming authority on the mission , and luc goddard ( don cheadle ) consoles his son . entering the party is jim mcconnell ( gary sinise ) , who gave up command of the mission due to the untimely death of his wife , maggie ( kim delaney ) . luc consoles jim with woody 's assistance . the three men are friends and carry a fine bond of trust and caring between them . but jim still longs to set foot on the red planet . the mission is in earnest as luc and his team land in the cydonia region of mars . they send out the rover to investigate the area and discover what seems to be water or ice under the surface . going out to investigate , luc and his team approach the famed ' face on mars ' . a strange noise emanates from the rock . as the team tries to scan through the rock with radar , a violent wind storm erupts , creating a vortex that kills all members of the team , save for luc . back on the space station orbiting earth , woody and jim receive the information that the mars landing team is missing . luc 's interference laden emergency message urges the two men to attempt a second mission to the red planet in the hopes of rescuing the previous team . the second journey to the martian world is fraught with danger . meteorite showers , explosions , and rescues all come into play as the intrepid heroes make there way to the planet 's surface . the big question is , is there now or has there ever been intelligent life on mars . and if so , what is its relationship with us ? now for the bad news . the entire plot of " mission to mars " is based almost wholeheartedly on outdated and preposterous national enquirer type martian civilization tripe . the famed ' face on mars ' becomes the centerpiece of the film , revealing some of the most harebrained sci - fi pabulum the screen has witnessed . borrowing ideas from such films as " robinson crusoe on mars " ( 1964 ) , quatermass and the pit ( 1967 ) , " 2001 : a space odyssey " , and even mario bava 's " planet of the vampires " ( ' terrore nello spazio ' ) ( 1965 ) , " mission to mars " is a hodgepodge of ideas that do n't add up to a satisfying whole . while some sequences are wonderfully handled and executed , the film remains flat and un - involving . so much time is giving to establishing the lead characters in the film , but to no good use . the performances are all workmen like , with only don cheadle ( as luc ) carrying any sort of real chemistry . gary sinise is wasted in role that requires him to look as if he is experiencing sleep depravation . and the mistaken idea of having jerry o'connell ( as phil ohlmyer ) play his part for comic relief is just too painful to excuse . and the less said about tim robbins called in from home performance the better . he 's just having too much fun here to give a damn . the script has a few lapses , namely that after discovering several breaches in the hull of the ship caused by a meteorite shower , no one thinks of checking the fuel tanks or the remainder of the ship for damage . this of course leads to our heroes having to abandon their rescue ship . also , when one character sacrifices himself , the character takes on a religious demeanor that is completely at odds with the situation . but the biggest offence in the film is the horrid , intrusive score by ennio morricone . subtlety is non - existent here . in fact in some scenes the music becomes so extravagant that dialogue is almost drowned out . the only sequence in which the score almost works is during the protracted meteorite shower . the pacing of the film is very leisurely . after the opening introduction of the characters ( which lasts a full 22 minutes ) , we are finally dropped onto the martian surface . then , there is another long pause in the plot for more character development , including an elaborate dance sequence in zero gravity . the film could lose about 30 minutes and actually gain some momentum . there are so many scenes of talking heads , discussing what we already know is going to happen , that it drags the film to a dead stop . the good news is that the film is absolutely sumptuous to look at . the vistas of the planet mars are majestic and awe inspiring . the design of the numerous spacecraft and suits are all expertly drafted , with a level of realism that has n't been seen since " 2001 : a space odyssey " . the visual effects are just stunning , from the space walk sequences , to the visualization of evolution on earth . the only fault come with the martians themselves , which look more like something out of a plastic model kit than something from another world . director de palma stages some wonderfully creative scenes through out the film . the opening sequence alone in a seemingly un - interrupted cut lasting almost 15 minutes ( an homage ' to hitchcock 's " rope " ) , as we are introduced to all of the characters . scenes in the rescue ship , with its rotating centrifuge , are just amazing in their execution . but the nagging question , is the final explanation worth all of this sturm und drang . sadly it is not . director brian de palma has crafted an extravagant production . the set design and visual effects are all arresting . but it 's the comic strip denouncement that ruin what might have been a fine return to good adventurous , thought provoking science fiction . a disappointing film , but one that might still entertain if you can settle for the visuals .

0NEG

if so , what is its relationship with us ? now for the bad news . the entire plot of " mission to mars " is based almost wholeheartedly on outdated and preposterous national enquirer type martian civilization tripe . the famed ' ( 1965 ) , " mission to mars " is a hodgepodge of ideas that do n't add up to a satisfying whole . while some sequences are wonderfully handled and executed , the film remains flat and un - involving . so much time is giving to establishing the lead characters in the film , but to no good use . the performances are all workmen like , with only carrying any sort of real chemistry . gary sinise is wasted in role that requires him to look as if he phil ohlmyer ) play his part for comic relief is just too painful to excuse . and the less said about tim robbins called in having too much fun here to give a damn . the script has a few lapses , namely that after discovering several breaches in the hull is the horrid , intrusive score by ennio morricone . subtlety is non - existent here . in fact in some scenes the music becomes so what we already know is going to happen , that it drags the film to a dead stop . the good news is that the film is absolutely final explanation worth all of this sturm und drang . sadly it is not . director brian de palma has crafted arresting . but it 's the comic strip denouncement that ruin what might have been a fine return to good adventurous , thought provoking science fiction . a disappointing film , but one that might still entertain if you can

back in february at the monthly los angeles comic book and science fiction convention , new line cinema put on a lavish presentation for its big - screen update of the cult 1960s sci - fi tv show lost in space , complete with in - person appearances by cast members mimi rogers , matt leblanc , lacey chabert , jack johnson , and even gary oldman . that should have set off my warning alarms -- the last time such an extravagant film presentation took place at the convention was nearly five years ago , when none other than arnold schwarzenegger made an in - person cameo to peddle . . . last action hero . but no , like millions of others , i bought into the hype and " got lost . " if only i had gotten lost -- literally -- on the way to theatre and spared myself the tedium of this sloppily slapped - together blockbuster wannabe . you may find yourself wondering if director stephen hopkins and screenwriter akiva goldsman were lost themselves when they made the film . at the convention , goldsman claimed to be a rabid fan of the original television series , and if that really is the case , i 'd hate to see what he does with concepts he only has mild interest in . to say that his script lacks narrative cohesion is to imply that there is a narrative to begin with -- which there most certainly is not . after the setup , in which the robinson family -- father john ( william hurt , looking and sounding as spaced out as he does in interviews ) , mother maureen ( rogers , wasted ) , daughters judy ( heather graham , ditto ) and penny ( a heavily made - up chabert , looking like a junior version of neve campbell in wild things ) , and son will ( young newcomer johnson , making the best of it ) --and pilot don west ( leblanc , doing a bad han solo impression ) find themselves lost in space after their ship is sabotaged by evil stowaway dr . smith ( a watered - down but still - lively oldman , cashing a paycheck and loving every minute ) , the script 's " stream " of events becomes so fragmented and random that it seems to be made up as it goes along -- and hopkins does little to make what does go on the slightest bit interesting . they encounter another ship . they board it . alien spiders attack them . they return to their ship . the other one explodes . they land on a deserted planet . and so on . an attempt at a plot involving time travel occurs in the third act , but goldsman does n't seem to understand the rules that come with using such a story device ; when one character 's past self dies , the future incarnation inexplicably lives on . the look and effects should be lost in space 's ace - in - the - hole , but hopkins even manages to botch that . for a big - budget film , the visual effects are incredibly shoddy . in one composite background shot , i could see the blue outline around oldman ; the various digital effects for the space battle scenes look like . . . digital effects . but nothing in those shots is as jaw - droppingly unconvincing as blawp , a monkey - like space creature that becomes penny 's pet . entirely computer - generated and every inch showing it , blawp looks like it was lifted directly from a sony playstation game . apparently hopkins thought the same and tried desperately to hide it ; how else can one explain the graininess of blawp 's composite shots with the human actors ? but in doing so , the seams are that much more obvious . you have to be severely visually impaired to not be distracted when a grainy shot of penny and blawp is immediately followed by a crystal - clear solo reaction shot of judy . new line is hoping lost in space will become a big franchise much like the long - running star trek cash cow at paramount . i do n't think so . in a few years , the lost in space movie will likely live on not as a series but as the obscure answer to a trivia question : what film ended titanic 's 15-week reign at the top of the weekend box office ?

0NEG

bought into the hype and " got lost . " if only i had gotten lost -- literally -- on the way to theatre and spared myself the tedium of this sloppily slapped - together blockbuster wannabe . you may find yourself wondering if director stephen hopkins he only has mild interest in . to say that his script lacks narrative cohesion is to imply that there is a narrative to begin does in interviews ) , mother maureen ( rogers , wasted ) , daughters judy ( heather graham , ditto ) of it ) --and pilot don west ( leblanc , doing a bad han solo impression ) find themselves lost in space after their ship is one character 's past self dies , the future incarnation inexplicably lives on . the look and effects should be lost ace - in - the - hole , but hopkins even manages to botch that . for a big - budget film , the visual effects are incredibly shoddy . in one composite background shot , i could see digital effects . but nothing in those shots is as jaw - droppingly unconvincing as blawp , a monkey - like space creature that computer - generated and every inch showing it , blawp looks like it was lifted directly from a sony playstation game . apparently hopkins thought the same and tried desperately to so , the seams are that much more obvious . you have to be severely visually impaired to not be distracted when a grainy shot of penny and blawp is immediately

the working title for no looking back was long time , nothing new , and rarely has there been a more apt name for a motion picture . even though this movie clocks in at a relatively skinny 96 minutes , it seems to run long enough to engulf two titanics . writer / director edward burns has trotted out a hackneyed storyline , the trajectory of which will be instantly recognizable to anyone who has n't spent their life in seclusion . instead of tweaking the formula a little to invigorate the proceedings , burns is content to allow the film to ramble aimlessly towards its irritatingly predictable conclusion , offering precious few momentary pleasures along the way . no looking back is dominated by three very dislikable characters whose constant presence on the screen is painful . the most appropriate ending would have been a triple suicide , and the sooner , the better . alas , that 's not the case , and those who stick with this film for its entire length will be forced to endure the prolonged company of this wretched trio . and , to further depress audiences , burns has shot the entire film on cold , rainy days in a gray new york state beach town . peeks of sunshine are few and far between . no wonder the characters are all so miserable . first of all , we have charlie ( burns ) , a generation x slacker who abandoned his girlfriend three years ago after she had an abortion , then spent some time bumming around in california before deciding to come home . that girlfriend is claudia ( lauren holly ) , and , after picking up the pieces of her life following charlie 's departure , she has moved on , shacking up with one of charlie 's old school buddies , mike ( jon bon jovi ) . the two have a comfortable relationship , but it 's apparent to even a blind person that they 're not right for each other . claudia years for some spice in her life ; mike wants to settle down and have children . then charlie re - enters the mix . so who , if anyone , will claudia end up with ? who cares ? ? no looking back goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure that we 're not especially interested in the outcome of the romantic triangle . so what if no one finds happiness -- these characters do n't deserve it anyway , especially after wasting 90 minutes of our time . they are n't real people -- they 're a writer 's construct stumbling through a too - obvious storyline . they should know the ending as well as we do . and burns should have given his audience more credit and presented them with a plot that at least offered a surprise or two . another frustrating thing about no looking back is that burns has populated the film with a group of potentially - interesting supporting characters . blythe danner is solid as claudia 's housebound mother , connie britton is suitably high - strung as claudia 's neurotic sister , and jennifer esposito is eye - catching as a bartender in search of a little romance . sadly , all we get is quick glimpses into their lives , although a movie about any of them would have been far more intriguing than the story burns has chosen to tell . none of the lead performers are going to wow critics with their thespian attributes . edward burns is pushing the edge of his limited range here . jon bon jovi shows more acting ability than one might reasonably expect from a singer branching into a different career , but he could still use a little polish . the worst case is lauren holly , who presents a completely bland claudia . as portrayed here , she 's hardly the kind of woman who would inspire even a moment 's interest , not to mention undying love . burns ' ex , the monumentally untalented maxine bahns , would have been hard - pressed to do a less inspired job . when he released the brothers mcmullen , edward burns was revered as the wunderkind of the 1995 sundance film festival ( robert redford has apparently stuck with him -- the aging actor / director executive produced this mess ) . two films and three short years later , the luster has faded . some movie makers have only one good film in them . with back- to - back duds like she 's the one and no looking back to follow the delightful brothers , burns is beginning to look like a member of that undistinguished club .

0NEG

movie clocks in at a relatively skinny 96 minutes , it seems to run long enough to engulf two titanics . writer / director edward burns has trotted out a hackneyed storyline , the trajectory of which will be instantly recognizable to little to invigorate the proceedings , burns is content to allow the film to ramble aimlessly towards its irritatingly predictable conclusion , offering precious few momentary pleasures along the way . very dislikable characters whose constant presence on the screen is painful . the most appropriate ending would have been a triple the prolonged company of this wretched trio . and , to further depress audiences , burns has shot the entire film on cold , , if anyone , will claudia end up with ? who cares ? ? no looking back goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure plot that at least offered a surprise or two . another frustrating thing about no looking back is that burns has populated the as a bartender in search of a little romance . sadly , all we get is quick glimpses into their lives intriguing than the story burns has chosen to tell . none of the lead performers are going to wow critics with their thespian attributes . edward burns is pushing the edge of his limited , but he could still use a little polish . the worst case is lauren holly , who presents a completely bland claudia ) . two films and three short years later , the luster has faded . some movie makers have only one good film in them . with back- to - back duds like she 's the one and no looking back to

the job of the film critic is to see a movie and write a review of it that tells you what it 's about and why it 's good or bad . i feel kind of embarrassed to admit this , but i after having seen " get carter " i really ca n't tell you what it 's about although i could go on and on about how and why it 's a bad movie . " get carter " falls into that category of ? movies that continue to be made for reasons unknown to anyone outside of a hollywood executive board room . you might call them the " steven seagal / mickey rourke / jean - claude van damme / wesley snipes school of mediocre action / crime thrillers . " you know - the potboilers that are heavy on fistfights , shoot - outs and car chases but really light on plot and character development . they have stories where the so - called hero just keeps running into characters who have some connection to one of the other characters who are all antagonists without a reason for being in the movie other than to give the protagonist someone to fight , chase or shoot at . sylvester stallone stars as jack carter , a las vegas - based mob enforcer who returns home * for his brother 's funeral . he believes his brother ? richie was " taken out " and did n't die from a dwi accident . carter 's one of the most cliche bad - asses ever captured on celluloid . his face alone is pretty intimidating and there 's quite a few scenes in which he leans on both regular citizens and criminal lowlives simply by staring them down and speaking with confidence in his " rambo - on - testosterone - therapy " voice . stallone 's performance in this movie is so forced and unnatural he does n't realize he 's mocking himself . the actual story involves carter 's investigation into his brother richie 's death . he 's in a town that 's not his but somehow the local top dogs know him very well . mickey rourke co - stars as one of these characters , a sort of crime boss who has something to do with running a porno web site and blackmailing a young internet tycoon ( played by alan cummings looking and acting a lot like pee wee herman ) . there 's also another plot involving richie 's mistress , a secret cd - rom with some convicting and disturbing evidence on it and something terrible involving one of carter 's still - living relatives . i 'm rolling my eyes just thinking about trying to critique all this in a way that could be remotely comprehendible . i could just rip the screenplay to shreds , plus the direction or the editing or the production values but that would require discussion of nearly every scene in order to explain it all . i do n't like to put spoliers in my reviews either intentionally or accidentally . yes , " get carter " is just that complicated and complex . and what 's worse is that it 's not this intricate to make it seem smart like " the usual suspects " for example - just the opposite . you get the feeling whoever wrote this script did it in short intervals spaced far apart and they probably did n't remember what had already happened and did n't figure out how each scene would lead in to the next one or how the major plot points would work towards the climax . all you really need to know is that most of the film is just scenes of carter tracking down one scumbag or supposed witness after another , asking them what they know , getting information and then realizing that if he was n't a complete idiot he could have figured it out in the first five minutes . although the supporting characters are equally stupid themselves since they tell him everything which comes back to haunt them in one violent way or another . making a movie entirely about criminals does n't necessarily mean they have to be unlikable and cliche cutout characters . mel gibson starred in " payback " a few years ago that had a story not unlike this one but had such a good screenplay you could n't help but like him even though he was just as bad a guy as jack carter . so ultimately " get carter " fails for pretty much every selling point it has . carter is not a likable character and you really do n't care if he gets revenge or not . the action sequences are not at all exciting or original . the enemies and their massive conspiracy are not threatening at all ( c'mon , you know who 's going to win every brawl and shoot - out and car chase ) . in the end you do n't feel nearly satisfied with the results . the filmmakers did a good job in doing everything as unoriginal as possible . * the city is never mentioned by name but i assume it 's seattle since all the cars have washington license plates and it 's always raining .

0NEG

really ca n't tell you what it 's about although i could go on and on about how and why it 's a bad movie . " get carter " falls into that category of " voice . stallone 's performance in this movie is so forced and unnatural he does n't realize he 's mocking himself . the involving one of carter 's still - living relatives . i 'm rolling my eyes just thinking about trying to critique all this in a way that could be remotely comprehendible . i could just rip the screenplay to shreds , plus the direction or the editing or the production as jack carter . so ultimately " get carter " fails for pretty much every selling point it has . carter is not a likable character and you really do n't care if he gets revenge or not . the action sequences are not at all exciting or original . the enemies and their massive conspiracy are not threatening the results . the filmmakers did a good job in doing everything as unoriginal as possible . * the city is never mentioned by name but

i 've got to admit it . . . i 'm a huge jim carrey fan . i loved the first ace ventura , as well as the mask and dumb and dumber -- and even in batman forever ( which was a pretty awful movie ) , carrey was one of the few people to come off looking reasonably good . until i saw ace ventura 2 , i had no idea how people could find the guy annoying . sadly , ace ventura 2 shows just how irritating and annoying carrey can be . carrey goes through the same schtick he went through in the first ace movie , but this time it is no longer funny -- it is just a rehash of many of the same jokes used in ace i . the plot sees pet detective ace ventura retiring after failing to save a raccoon ( in a reasonable cliffhanger spoof ) . soon he is called out of retirement to find a bat which was kidnapped and , if not returned in four days , will cause two warring african tribes to destroy each other . once again , it 's up to ace to save the day , using his uncanny detective skills . those who have been disappointed by carrey 's more restrained roles in the films following the first ace ventura may be glad to see him over - acting to the best of his ability , but some may be disappointed by the fact that this sequel does n't capture the feel of the original . the original benefited from what looked to be carrey 's constant hyped - up improv sequences , which were hysterically funny . here , however , the tighter script ( which is reminiscent of the old disney telemovies ) takes the improvised material from the first , and shamelessly recycles it in the new movie , giving carrey little chance to improvise . instead , his extremely funny manner has been reduced to just walking around stupidly . but one of the biggest problems i had was with the character of ventura himself . in the first movie , he was always cool , and one step ahead of every one else -- perfect for carrey 's off - the - wall approach . but here , ventura is made to look a lot stupider , and is often made out as the straight guy -- a role which is definitely not carrey 's style . there are definitely some very funny moments , but they are few and far between . they are also nowhere near as funny as anything carrey did in the first ace ventura , or even dumb and dumber .

0NEG

the guy annoying . sadly , ace ventura 2 shows just how irritating and annoying carrey can be . carrey goes through the same schtick through in the first ace movie , but this time it is no longer funny -- it is just a rehash of many of the same jokes used in ace i using his uncanny detective skills . those who have been disappointed by carrey 's more restrained roles in the films following the first ace ventura may be glad to see him over - acting to the best of his ability , but some may be disappointed by the fact that this sequel does n't capture the ) takes the improvised material from the first , and shamelessly recycles it in the new movie , giving carrey little chance to has been reduced to just walking around stupidly . but one of the biggest problems i had was with the character of ventura himself . . there are definitely some very funny moments , but they are few and far between . they are also nowhere near as funny as anything carrey did in the first ace ventura ,

for about twenty minutes into mission impossible 2 director john woo ( the killer , hard boiled , face off ) appears to have made an exciting , elegant , charming spy thriller , kind of a post millennium james bond adventure with a strapping american ( read : unsophisticated ) hero more willing to drop kick villains than out fox them . sadly , as the picture progresses , the final product begins to bear a closer resemblance to a souped up , two - hour long episode of magyuver . and not a particularly good one at that . what went wrong ? mi2 begins flashily enough , that initial flash leading us to believe that it 'll soon give way to something of a plot , but it only gives way to more flash , then digresses further into a presumably unintentional parody of itself with much slo mo posturing and countless action set pieces wherein bad guys seem to deliberately leap into the way of tom cruise 's firing gun just so they can die really cool . early on , during a car chase between soon to be lovers ethan hunt ( tom cruise ) and nyah nordoff - hall ( thandie newton ) , woo works some of his trademark magic . in one hypnotic , though completely inexplicable sequence , the director slows the action down to a languid semi - stall as cruise and his stunning opponent stare into one and other 's eyes with come hither sexuality ? ? ? just as their respective cars smash and spin in accordance , coming ever so close to toppling over a neighboring cliff . prior to this we see the famed trailer opener of cruise climbing a steep mountain , sans scaffolding , then leaping from one jagged rock formation to another . why ? i have n't the foggiest . i doubt even john woo could provide you with a logical reply . with mi2 woo has become a slave to the summer movie machine , the one that jettisons logic for gravity defying effects and story for more gravity defying effects . it 's possible that these " spies " could be adrenaline junkies climbing mountains and crashing into each other as means to get off , though of course this is never explored . the scenes i 've described are really only included to titillate , not to give any insight into character . god forbid . woo certainly knows how to make each set piece energetic , but they remain individual set pieces never connecting to form anything more than splices of beer commercial - like visuals . still in terms of crackerjack eye candy , the opening has much to cherish . cruise and newton first meet during a vigorous flamenco dance featuring several welcome woo devices ( the graceful slow mo artistry of synchronized movement juxtaposed against the stage 1 romance of two attractive individuals discovering how attractive the other is ) . between the frantic dancing , woo trains his camera on cruise and newton as they make with some sensuous eye contact . the scene is a little over the top in a bon jovi music video circa 1988 kind of way , yet it has style and something of soul , and woo casts a bit of a spell on us . sure it 's all smoke and mirrors , but we can see that there happens to be a talented maestro behind this particular product . thandie and cruise later meet in a bathtub in a scene that 's about half as playfully charming as the jennifer lopez \ george cloony trunk meeting in out of sight . they flirt and exchange obvious double entendres . newton bats her eyes flirtatiously . cruise grins a little too slyly . the cruise character , ethan hunt , has been drastically altered since the first film . here cruise plays him more as a hip , sexual dynamo than the square jawed robot he impersonated in part 1 . he 's cool and dashing , which is precisely the kind of role we want to see cruise in after watching him sleep walk through eyes wide shut ( which might just be the longest episode of red show diaries ever committed to film ) , and blustered his way through magnolia ( quite possibly the most overrated performance of the 90 's ) . sadly as the film progresses we see less of cruise 's initial " i 'm the man ! " charm and more slo - mo close - ups of his preening mug . mi2 falls apart on nearly every level during its repetitious third act , which is essentially one hour long action sequence that just wo n't stop . the whole thing commences with an utterly generic gun battle ( the first gun fight in the film ) , which really should be unheard of in a john woo film , but alas this particular battle could 've been staged by anyone from renny harlin to joseph merhi ( of course excepting the " symbolic " pigeons who seem to find their way into every john woo picture ) . we 've all seen guys slide across the floor in slo mo while firing a gun in each hand . it is n't done any differently here . the action is pure hard target \ broken arrow theatrics with nothing to propel it but the apparent need to see tom cruise drop kick face less villains while his hair whips stylishly in the wind . he 's cool for sure but he 's made to be as empty as the movie . the actor is n't used so much for his boyish appeal as for his chiseled looks ; he smiles narcissistically into the camera at literally any moment , be it during a gunfight , before one or after one . when he 's not beaming away , he 's staring into the lens with cold eyes trying to look mad as hell , but woo 's editing seriously undermines the effort . he fetishizes cruise 's angular face with such glee that it turns into a naked gun style spoof . i half expected cruise to peel off his facemask and reveal that he 's really austin powers . in a classic woo action moment , ethan hunt struts past a fiery doorway glaring at the baddies within its frame like a pin - up boy angel of death . the gunfight turns into a daring escape which turns into a reckless mission which turns into a motorcycle attack in which bad guys seem to angle directly for cruise to kill them like some kind of mass suicide ritual ( one dumb bastard even jumps his bike over the gun toting cruise , basically inviting our handsome hero to shoot him in mid air which he does ) . the lead bad guy ( played by the appropriately british dougray scott ) and cruise face off in a mentally deficient game of chicken ? ? ? on motorcycles . though instead of jumping off to the side at the last moment , the two grown men leap directly into the other giving each other a mid air bear hug , only to fly about a hundred feet ( still in bear hug position ) , land on a beach below and begin a mano - e - mano fist fight that ends with the bad guy pulling a " so you thought i was dead . . . " . not to worry , cruise takes care of the problem without even breaking a sweat . what a hero ! you may have noticed that i opted not to describe an iota of mi2 's plot . my reasoning is simple : i 'm not sure of any good it would do . the film itself has absolutely no concern with story , only with hurtling forth to the next " special " effect . i was n't kidding when i told a friend of mine that mi2 has less plot than the average aerosmith video . nobody will go to this for the plot , and if they do they 'll surely regret it . as summer movies evolve ( or devolve ) character and plot have become increasingly whittled down to nearly nothing . in mi , the plot seemed to be built around brian de palma 's ( that film 's director ) stylistic flourishes , while in mi2 the plot only serves to give us an intermittent breather from woo 's non - stop masturbatory pandemonium . it 's irrelevant in every sense , as is character . all that ultimately matters are those pesky smoke and mirrors .

0NEG

willing to drop kick villains than out fox them . sadly , as the picture progresses , the final product begins to bear a closer resemblance to a souped up , two - hour long episode of magyuver . and not a particularly good one at that . what went wrong ? mi2 begins flashily enough , that initial flash leading us of his trademark magic . in one hypnotic , though completely inexplicable sequence , the director slows the action down to a the most overrated performance of the 90 's ) . sadly as the film progresses we see less of cruise 's mo close - ups of his preening mug . mi2 falls apart on nearly every level during its repetitious third act , which is essentially one just wo n't stop . the whole thing commences with an utterly generic gun battle ( the first gun fight in the film ) , . the action is pure hard target \ broken arrow theatrics with nothing to propel it but the apparent need to see tom cruise drop kick in the wind . he 's cool for sure but he 's made to be as empty as the movie . the actor is n't used so much for his trying to look mad as hell , but woo 's editing seriously undermines the effort . he fetishizes cruise 's angular face with such glee 'm not sure of any good it would do . the film itself has absolutely no concern with story , only with hurtling forth to the next " special " effect . i was n't kidding when i told a friend of mine that mi2 has less plot than the average aerosmith video . nobody will go to this for the plot ,

every now and then , reviewers are faced with the films that are hard to be properly reviewed . most of the time it happens with films that leave so overwhelming impact , either good or bad , that in the end reviewers must work hard to express his thoughts or feelings . but , sometimes it can happen for rather trivial reasons . i love trouble happened to be one of such occasions for the author of this review . the impression left by the film was n't overwhelming - on the contrary , there were hardly any impression at all , since i had real trouble keeping myself awake while watching it . which surprise me to this day , because the movie theatre was full , i was close to sound speakers , the show was n't late and i did n't lack sleep before the show . such things happen very rarely to me , and , after many years , the closest thing to solution to this mystery is probably the quality of the film itself . the plot revolves around two rival chicago reporters - old peter brackett ( nick nolte ) and young , aspiring sabrina peterson ( julia roberts ) . two of them are assigned to cover the train collision . as soon as they meet , they start scooping each other , but during the process they both discover sinister plot involving cancerogenic milk , and also the romantic feelings they have for each other . the plot in this film is rather secondary to its real raison d ' ? tre - romantic pairing reminiscent of classical screwball comedies starring spencer tracy and katharine hepburn . movie author , director and screenwriter charles shyer , who had some experiences with turning the screwball spirit into modern setting with father of the bride , tries again , this time pairing old nick nolte with young julia roberts . however , although there is some chemistry between the two , soon it stops to arouse any interest . it probably happens due to poorly executed genre mix , that collides light - hearted romantic comedy with rather uninteresting plot suitable to pure action thrillers . shyer as director fails to make the proper transition between the two , and fails in both areas , making the story cliched and predictable . the end result is rather forgettable effort , which convinced me not to watch movie again . i 'll give it the benefit of the doubt , though .

0NEG

, there were hardly any impression at all , since i had real trouble keeping myself awake while watching it . which surprise me to this day , although there is some chemistry between the two , soon it stops to arouse any interest . it probably happens due to poorly executed genre mix , that collides light - hearted romantic comedy with rather uninteresting plot suitable to pure action thrillers . shyer as director fails , and fails in both areas , making the story cliched and predictable . the end result is rather forgettable effort , which convinced me not to watch movie again .

the only two really good things that i can say about tarzan and the lost city are as follows : jane march was very cute as jane , and the movie was thankfully under 90 minutes in length . if you have n't already figured it out , i did n't like this movie very much . the plot was boring and contrived to the extreme . tarzan ( casper van dien ) has now left the jungle and living in civilized society . he is just days away from his impending marriage to jane , played by the aptly named jane march . back in his former home of africa , a group of looters has found the key to locating a lost city . ( mind you i never really figured out why they actually wanted to find this city . ) anyway , tarzan 's old jungle friend appears to him in a vision . tarzan realizes that he must return to africa to help stop the bad guys from finding the lost city . he leaves jane ( his first mistake , in my opinion ) and travels to africa . of course , jane is hot on her ape man 's heals . the two of them are reunited in africa where they do battle with the bad guys . sound like a dumb explanation of the plot ? it 's actually an improvement over the real thing . the acting is just plain awful . i 'm not quite sure what casper van dien was doing in this film , but it was n't acting . jane march was n't a heck of a lot better , but at least she is easy on the eyes . compounding the bad acting was the fact that in many places the dialogue had obviously been re - recorded , and i 've seen better dubbing in some old bruce lee movies . added to the sound problems was the cinematography . this film was filled with beautiful african scenery . but the panoramic scenery shots looked overexposed to me . quite frankly , i think you could probably do a better job capturing the beauty of africa with a camcorder than this bunch did with professional film equipment . then we have the special effects . " special effects in a tarzan movie ? " you are no doubt asking yourself ? yes friends , the writers injected some very out of place supernatural elements into the story . probably for the sake of using cgi , since it did nothing but hurt the story . in most parts , they were n't bad , just nothing special . but , they were more than a little on the hokey side . except of course , when we got to the ridiculous climax of this movie . the grand finale 's special effects went right into the toilet at that point . it almost looked like they had run out of money . these effects were of noticeably lower quality than those in the rest of the film and looked like something in an amateur video production . i took one lesson away from watching tarzan and the lost city -- ape men and bones that morph into skeletal warriors do n't mix . stay far away from this version of tarzan .

0NEG

was very cute as jane , and the movie was thankfully under 90 minutes in length . if you have n't already figured it out , i did n't like this movie very much . the plot was boring and contrived to the extreme . tarzan ( casper van dien ) has now left africa where they do battle with the bad guys . sound like a dumb explanation of the plot ? it 's actually an improvement over the real thing . the acting is just plain awful . i 'm not quite sure what casper van dien film , but it was n't acting . jane march was n't a heck of a lot better , but at least she is easy on the eyes the dialogue had obviously been re - recorded , and i 've seen better dubbing in some old bruce lee movies . added to the sound problems was the cinematography . this film was filled with beautiful african scenery . but the panoramic scenery shots looked overexposed to me . quite frankly , i think you could probably do were n't bad , just nothing special . but , they were more than a little on the hokey side . except of course , when we got to the ridiculous climax of this movie . the grand finale 's special effects went right into the toilet at that point . it almost looked like they had run out of money . these effects were of noticeably lower quality than those in the rest of the film and looked bones that morph into skeletal warriors do n't mix . stay far away from this version of tarzan .