Datasets:

gmihaila

/

movie_rationales_truncated

like 0

silly performances and some huge gaps in logic mar an otherwise interesting tale of an eclectic group of people stranded at " the last stop cafe and motel " due to heavy snowfall . one of the stranded is a colorado state highway patrolman ( adam beach ) who discovers a murder scene and a bag full of cash from a recent bank robbery . someone amongst the group of strangers is a bank robber and a murderer , but is it the same person or are there multiple criminals ? adam beach unfortunately was the wrong choice for the lead in this film . he does n't play the role with enough seriousness to be believable or enough goofiness for it to be funny . his performance is stuck somewhere in the middle , and this film really needed it to be on one side or the other . rose mcgowan is cold and unpleasant to the eye as always , and jurgen prochnow . . . what on earth is he doing in this ? best performance comes from william s . taylor as a cheesy ( yet still somehow cool and confident ) wayne newton drifter type . the last stop is available on dvd from sterling home entertainment . as usual with sterling , they 've filled out this dvd with extra features . the disc contains the film in its original aspect ratio of 1 . 85 : 1 , a choice of 2 . 0 dolby surround sound or 5 . 1 dolby digital surround sound , a full length audio commentary track with director mark malone , interviews with the cast and crew , the original trailer , and the usual cast and crew biographies . the film itself might not be the greatest , but sterling 's effort of adding decent extra features while keeping the price affordable ( suggested retail of $ 19 . 95 ) makes this dvd worth the money . [ r ]

0NEG

silly performances and some huge gaps in logic mar an otherwise interesting tale of an eclectic group of same person or are there multiple criminals ? adam beach unfortunately was the wrong choice for the lead in this film . he does n't on one side or the other . rose mcgowan is cold and unpleasant to the eye as always , and jurgen prochnow . . . what on earth is he doing in this ? best performance comes from william s . taylor as a

so i went and saw this film right , it was called " battlefield : earth " , i was never interested in the previews , and never too terribly interested in the book , nor do i find scientology interesting , but after reading advanced reviews of how bad this film really is , i had that weird urge just to watch it . well let me be the first to say , and so far in my view it 's safe to say : battlefield : earth might be the worst film i have ever seen , yes even worse than " mr . magoo " , " blue in the face " , or " jaws : the revenge " . roger christianson who s credits include set direction , and art direction for such great films as " alien " and " star wars " , directs this film with such amateurism , that the film looks and feels and in fact sounds so dumb , that it 's quite depressing . the look of the film , is dark and drabby at times , but then bright and happy at other times . the sound is terrible , and has the worst surround sound effects i 've heard . the acting is nothing , the dialogue poor , and the make - up effects hideous . here 's the so - called plot : earth 3000 . . . . man is a endangered species , while aliens from the planet psychlo ( the aliens are named psychlo . . . i wonder why ? ! ) are invading earth , destined to put an end to those " man - animals " to an end , and destroy earth once and for all , of course we have our typical hero ( played terrible by barry pepper , who was great in a small role in 1999 's " the green mile " ) who is destined to go out , and save his planet ! one thing : he has to go up against , terl , the chief of security psychlo , who is played frankly , quite bad by john travolta , whom with dreadlocks , a big head , and green eyes just does n't work . of course the sidekick to terl , is played by ( lol ! ! ) forest whitaker , who looks like a deformed werewolf of some kind . our friendly human johnny ( barry pepper ) looks just as bad as well , with long scraggly hair . i 'm not really sure how to quite explain the badness of this film , except just to say it 's terrible . everything in this film is imcomprehinsable , from the make - up effects , which by the way are n't good , to the phony looking special effects , everything in this film is faulted . in fact i do n't remember one part in this entire movie where i was having a good time , or enjoying myself . in fact there is no part in the movie that i liked or enjoyed . throughout the entire 127 minute running time , i was dying , constantly looking at my watch , and hoping maybe the projectioner would blow a bulb or something , sadly it did n't . my advice to hollywood : get new scripts , new acting classes , better directors and damnit , make films like american beauty more .

0NEG

find scientology interesting , but after reading advanced reviews of how bad this film really is , i had that weird urge just to watch it view it 's safe to say : battlefield : earth might be the worst film i have ever seen , yes even worse than " mr . magoo " as " alien " and " star wars " , directs this film with such amateurism , that the film looks and feels and in fact sounds so dumb , that it 's quite depressing . the look of the film , is dark and , but then bright and happy at other times . the sound is terrible , and has the worst surround sound effects i 've heard . the acting is nothing , the dialogue poor , and the make - up effects hideous . here 's the so - called plot : earth 3000 . . . . man is a , of course we have our typical hero ( played terrible by barry pepper , who was great in a small terl , the chief of security psychlo , who is played frankly , quite bad by john travolta , whom with dreadlocks , a big of course the sidekick to terl , is played by ( lol ! ! ) forest whitaker , who looks like a deformed werewolf of kind . our friendly human johnny ( barry pepper ) looks just as bad as well , with long scraggly hair . i 'm not really sure how to quite explain the badness of this film , except just to say it 's terrible . everything in this film is imcomprehinsable , from the make - up effects , which by the way are n't good , to the phony looking special effects , everything in this film is faulted . in fact i do n't remember one part in enjoyed . throughout the entire 127 minute running time , i was dying , constantly looking at my watch , and hoping maybe the projectioner would blow a bulb

by phil curtolo " madonna - antonio banderas - jonathan price - in an alan parker film - with music from andrew lloyd weber - and lyrics by tim rice - evita . " now i have to admit , the trailer for this rock - opera - turned - major motion picture is almost breath - taking for some . the soundtrack is wonderful to listen to . so why would n't the movie be wonderful to see . simple , a little over 2 hours of constant singing can almost drive you insane . the story of eva duarte ( madonna ) , evita is full of drama that 's trapped inside by all the notes and chords . she was an orphaned child who ends up becoming a hooker , then goes into the field of acting , and finally meets juan peron ( price ) , the soon - to - be first president of argentina . they fall in love and eventually marry . sounds pretty good , does n't it . well the story gets better , as eva goes on the " rainbow tour " across europe , trying to win respect . eva duarte was a wonderful lady . however , all of the drama - packed moments above were never understood because the actors and actresses sang to fast to be understood . i went into theater 4 at magic cinemas with the attitude that evita was going to be terribly boring and i left with happy , because i was right . they only thing that kept me awake during the movie was the loud bangs of the drums and strums of the guitar . although it did come off as dull , the beautiful cinematography is eye - catching , as was madonna 's performance . as the " spiritual leader of argentina , " madonna would have definitely been an oscar - contender had she spoken a single line . but her chance was taken away with the stubbornness of making an exact replica of the broadway musical a film . do n't get me wrong and do n't look at my grade . i am not a big fan of musicals on the big screen . if you 're going to pay to see a movie , you want to see a movie . now i have to admit , it 's a lot cheaper to pay $ 5 than $ 200 plus to see the play , but that 's what did me in . all this review contains is my opinion and my grade was set before i even saw the movie . now you may be saying , " what kind of critic is he ? , " and you 're right . as a critic , i should have given the movie a chance . but as a 17-year old quentin tarantino fan , it was way too hard . ,

0NEG

simple , a little over 2 hours of constant singing can almost drive you insane . the story of eva duarte ( madonna ) , cinemas with the attitude that evita was going to be terribly boring and i left with happy , because i was right of the guitar . although it did come off as dull , the beautiful cinematography is eye - catching , as - contender had she spoken a single line . but her chance was taken away with the stubbornness of making an exact replica of the broadway musical a

i have never seen a man so in love with himself than george lucas . with the overt success of the three original star wars films , lucas has become , not necessarily a filmmaker , but the head cheeze at a huge toy company , with the phantom menace the new product on the shelve . only this toy was made for $ 115 million , but every kid wants it , and , like all other expensive toys , falls apart within an hour after playing with it . the product in question , star wars episode 1 : the phantom menace ( jeez ! ) , is pure and simple : its about the money , baby ! no one in their right mind would create such a fiasco if they knew it would n't make a ton of money before its fourth week of release . i come to the sw franchise as a stranger , since i have absolutely no idea why the sw movies are so popular . i find them rather boring and full of nothing but eye candy . phantom menace is like the first sw , minus 10 . nothing in the whole concept is remotely enjoyable . even the special effects seem rather bland . the story in this new one is a mindless mess . . . the acting wooden . . . and the action sequences like something out of a video game . sw : phantom menace is one of the worst films of the year so far . with a title like sw e1 : tpm , lucas has one big head on those shoulders . i thought chris carter did for releasing an x - files movie , although , that movie adaptation was an excellent way to spend two hours . pm is one long headache .

0NEG

it , and , like all other expensive toys , falls apart within an hour after playing with it . the product in question , baby ! no one in their right mind would create such a fiasco if they knew it would n't make a ton of no idea why the sw movies are so popular . i find them rather boring and full of nothing but eye candy . phantom menace is like the first sw , minus 10 . nothing in the whole concept is remotely enjoyable . even the special effects seem rather bland . the story in this new one is a mindless mess . . . the acting wooden . . . and of a video game . sw : phantom menace is one of the worst films of the year so far . with a title like sw e1 : tpm ,

an affluent horse breeder 's past comes up to haunt him ; an ages old cover - up and blackmail comes back to haunt him at the hands of one of his accomplices . that 's pretty much the essence of the movie and i have to say that it becomes quite boring at times and is very slow . that aside the story was well presented and probably quite close and representative of its source . the acting in particular i found very good , the character development was also quite interesting but alas the story simply did not hold my interest enough for me to get into the movie . a few things about the story did n't sit very well with me for example the original scam and cover - up heavily involved the character played by sharon stone , yet in the end her character played a relatively small role and it seems she should have been utilized more to further the story along better . on the flip side the character played by catherine keener i found to be very interesting and i thought that it was developed very well and helped the story a lot . the character 's aside this movie had some interesting merits but in the end it lacked in story and pacing . as far as the acting and casting for this movie is concerned i have to say that the choices of nick nolte and jeff bridges were great as well as that of catherine keener . all these people acted their parts admirably , as for the part that sharon stone played , she played it well but the part was not utilized enough . the directing for this movie is something that i have to comment on because for once in a long while you see a director actually add a very distinctive flavor to a movie , this is one of those occasions . matthew warchus in my opinion added an interesting touch and spin to the movie and i think he tackled a touch subject ( i myself would n't be able to look at horseracing and make a movie out of it ) . there is a certain flavor about this movie and i think that the direction of the movie is the reason for this . the one flaw that i do have to comment on is the pacing , the subject matter in my opinion was n't interesting enough on its own to have this kind of flavoring and directorial touch about it . i certainly hope that the director makes more movies as this does show promise even if i myself do n't like it . all in all i found this movie boring and very slow , the acting was good but the story just did n't evolve enough and was n't captivating enough to make simpatico an enjoyable movie to watch . although there is much going for the movie i did n't find it good even though i see the merits and style used and can compliment the movie on them . i would n't recommend this movie to anyone but if you are a horse fanatic or a racing fanatic then you will most likely enjoy this movie .

0NEG

essence of the movie and i have to say that it becomes quite boring at times and is very slow . that aside the story was well presented and probably good , the character development was also quite interesting but alas the story simply did not hold my interest enough for me to get into the movie . a few character 's aside this movie had some interesting merits but in the end it lacked in story and pacing . as far as the acting and casting for this direction of the movie is the reason for this . the one flaw that i do have to comment on is the pacing , the subject matter in my opinion was n't interesting i myself do n't like it . all in all i found this movie boring and very slow , the acting was good but the story just did watch . although there is much going for the movie i did n't find it good even though i see the merits and style used and can compliment the movie on them . i would n't recommend this movie to anyone but if you are a horse fanatic or a racing

a fullyloaded entertainment review : website coming soon ! hunter s . thompson 's fear and loathing in las vegas , written in 1971 , is already an american classic ; not merely because it was an unadulterated journey through the post - psychedelia of the 1960 's , but also because it ushered in a new form of journalism known as " gonzo " . soon after the book was written , hunter s . thomspon became the basis for a character in doonesbury known as uncle duke . and that is the problem with fear and loathing in las vegas ( the movie . ) although the book is one of my favorites , i now agree with thompson 's own assessment of the novel as " unfilmable . " the main problem is that the book , although detailing wild drug use and tripped - out adventures , was not written on the road . it was written and edited by hunter s . thomspons , relatively sober , at his home . so although the book depicts drug use and still more drug use , it is told with a sense of aloofness and some humor . hunter s . thomspon , the narrator , while always drugged out , still has a grip on reality , and can still tell , with journalistic ability , what is going on around him . not so with the characters in fear and loathing in las vegas . despite name changes and one minor scene from the book dropped , the movie is an exact duplicate of the book , in terms of dialouge . unfortunately , this can get annoying , in the form of johnny depp 's ( who plays thompson ) excessive narration . and the characters , while having vivid personalities , are played as 2-d characers on the screen : dr . raoul duke ( johnny depp , the name raoul duke was an alias of thompson 's ) and his riding companion , dr . gonzo ( benicio del toro ) , who is a large samoan lawyer , have no personalities or emotions at all , save for stoned . the film is very faithful to the plot ( what there is ) of the book , in that dr . raoul duke is sent by sports illustrated to cover the mint 400 , and takes along not only his samoan lawyer but also car trunk full of drugs . from there , one set of stoned adventures after another happens , including one of the few good scenes in which depp , high on acid , watches all the people in the bar around him turn into , literally , lounge lizards . while the movie has its moments ( few ) , it is almost unwatchable at parts , especially towards the end . despite a lot of celebrity cameos , the stars never get off the ground . the set decoration and costumes are great , and probably deserve an oscar nomination . however , as we all know , it 's not sets or effects that make a movie , its the characters ; and quite frankly , these characters are no good .

0NEG

the book , in terms of dialouge . unfortunately , this can get annoying , in the form of johnny depp 's ( who plays thompson ) excessive narration . and the characters , while having vivid personalities , are played as 2-d characers on the screen : dr . raoul duke ( johnny while the movie has its moments ( few ) , it is almost unwatchable at parts , especially towards the end . despite a lot of celebrity cameos , the stars never get off the ground . the set decoration and costumes are great , and movie , its the characters ; and quite frankly , these characters are no good .

filmmakers will use all manner of tricks to flesh out and brighten up a dull , dreary , and overused idea . doug liman ( swingers ) , director of the ultra - hip and severely dark comedy go , is an example of just such a filmmaker . in his latest , he gives the viewers a raucous , neon - lit backdrop as cinematographer and points the audience down a drug - infested path of misadventure as director . but he fails to come up with any parallel structure in his multi - tiered movie and he fails to connect with the audience on any level , bringing the worth of his efforts to nil and the value of go to about the same . his movie is produced anthology - style -- telling the same story from multiple ( three ) points of view , much as an author might write a serial novel . consistent with this ethic , liman and screenwriter john august provide a bit of an overlap at the beginning of each narrative and insert brief connections to other narratives . the thread that laces the three stories together is a drug deal and the events thereafter . in story a we have checkout clerk ronna ( sarah polley ) looking to score some rent money and turning to drug trafficking to do it ; in story b we have regular drug dealer simon ( desmond askew ) gone to las vegas giving ronna her opportunity ; and in story c we have gay soap actors zack ( jay mohr ) and adam ( scott wolf ) working undercover for the police to bust said drug deal . neither of the three stories have much substance , and the movie has the feel of a campfire story ( albeit a rather strange one ) that could be told in five to ten minutes . ( in fact , the movie was originally a short film entitled x expanded to feature length . ) the early april release date is too mistimed to capitalize on the movie 's christmas setting , and the los angeles / las vegas nightlife is something too far from the mainstream for most theater - goers to attach themselves to . the characters are shallow to the point of prerequisite , and performances from little - known players like polley , askew , and taye diggs do n't help or hurt the roles . in fact , even bigger names like mohr , wolf , and katie holmes do n't have enough time to make substantial success . although that 's almost expected for lack of continuous screen time , the success in the picture should come from a thread that binds the stories . go does n't have this , and it suffers because of it . as far as teen movies are concerned , go represents the absolute bottom , for its constant stream of indecipherable light and sound mean nothing without some sort of common theme . ( the following do not count as common themes : drug deals , people attempting to have romantic interludes with drug dealers , people resorting to drug deals for alterior motives , or people not involved in drug deals stumbling into them . ) at times , the humor in go is sickly funny , and on a low night , almost watchable ; but for the majority of its running time and for most viewers , this movie will best be left to teens at blockbuster on a saturday night .

0NEG

all manner of tricks to flesh out and brighten up a dull , dreary , and overused idea . doug liman ( swingers ) , director of the drug - infested path of misadventure as director . but he fails to come up with any parallel structure in his multi - tiered movie and he fails to connect with the audience on any level , bringing the worth of his efforts to nil and the value of go to about the same . undercover for the police to bust said drug deal . neither of the three stories have much substance , and the movie has the feel of a campfire story ( albeit a rather strange one ) that could be and the los angeles / las vegas nightlife is something too far from the mainstream for most theater - goers to attach themselves to . the characters are shallow to the point of prerequisite , and performances from little - known players like polley the stories . go does n't have this , and it suffers because of it . as far as teen movies are concerned , go represents the absolute bottom , for its constant stream of indecipherable light and sound

i feel sorry for the financial backers of " waterworld , " which is supposedly the most expensive film ever made ( at $ 172 million ! ) , and is also one of the stupidest - boy did they get ripped off ! in fact , this film is not really a movie , but more of an amusement park ride with a plot . it 's not even just another case of cliches strung together ( well , it is that too ) , it 's something that 's painful to watch because it relishes in its flaws . kevin costner stars as a man who is some kind of mutant half man / half fish . he is an explorer / mariner on an alternate earth that is completely covered by water because the polar ice caps melted . he 's referred to as the mariner , but they " the meaner " would have been a more appropriate title because he 's cold , rigid , and strict - and he 's supposed the be the good guy ! he docks at a small floating village of sorts . he trades dirt for money and this introduces us to the other important characters . first we meet one of the villains , then the soon - to - be heroine , a child prodigy , a wacky inventor , and a group of primitive people that somehow have some of the technology we have today , but also some of the low - tech tools used by pirates and vikings . immediately the film 's biggest flaw is apparent : are these people primitive or highly advanced ? it does n't seem like anyone can read yet they have ski - doos and airplanes ! how are these things powered ? and if they have airplanes , could n't they just keep flying until they reached dry land ? also , if the planet is completely covered in water where did they get the materials to make these things ? i 'm sorry , i 'm all for checking your brain at the door when going to the movies , but elements like these can not go unnoticed because they draw our attention away from the story and confuse us . there was potential here for a good pirate story set in medieval times before modern technology , so why mix the two together ? it does n't make any sense . there really is n't much of a plot here because the story moves so quickly it never takes time to explain anything . the only thing we learn is that the prodigy child , enola ( mojorino ) , has a tattoo on her back that is supposedly a map to " dryland . " who put the tattoo there and how come it has taken them this long to figure this out ? we never get an answer , just a stupid action movie about whoever can get the girl will be the victor of sorts if they reach dryland . to make a long , boring , stupid , and just plain bad story short ; the mariner escapes with a woman named helen ( tripplehorn ) and enola . they sail for a long time , encountering some strange people in the process and fight off " the smokers " as lead by the idiot villain deacon ( hopper ) , who kidnaps enola . the story becomes a overly grand adventure with the mariner taking on an army of goons , rescuing enola , and bringing them all to salvation ( how original ) . even with all its special effects , action , and adventure this film is boring . not a single character is likable , therefore neither is the plot . dennis hopper completely rips off jack nicholson 's joker , while costner just plain rips . still , " waterworld " is professionally made with a good production design and an original idea but no substance to it . i just hope they do n't make a sequel !

0NEG

( at $ 172 million ! ) , and is also one of the stupidest - boy did they get ripped off ! in fact more of an amusement park ride with a plot . it 's not even just another case of cliches strung together ( well , it is that too ) , it 's something that 's painful to watch because it relishes in its flaws . kevin costner stars as a man who is some low - tech tools used by pirates and vikings . immediately the film 's biggest flaw is apparent : are these people primitive or highly advanced ? it materials to make these things ? i 'm sorry , i 'm all for checking your brain at the door when going to the movies , but elements like these can not go unnoticed because they draw our attention away from the story and confuse us . there was potential here for a good pirate story modern technology , so why mix the two together ? it does n't make any sense . there really is n't much of a plot here figure this out ? we never get an answer , just a stupid action movie about whoever can get the girl will be the victor of sorts if they reach dryland . to make a long , boring , stupid , and just plain bad story short ; the mariner escapes with a woman named helen with all its special effects , action , and adventure this film is boring . not a single character is likable , therefore neither completely rips off jack nicholson 's joker , while costner just plain rips . still , " waterworld " is professionally made with a good production design and an original idea but no substance to it . i just hope they do n't make a sequel

to watch ` battlefield earth ' is to wallow in misery . it is one of the most ludicrously conceived efforts in recent history . it has a clumsily told story , insipid dialogue , shallow characterizations , ugly scene transitions , no evidence of dramatic arc , headache - inducing sound effects , and a resolution that is completely implausible . worse , there 's the promise of a sequel . why ? ! save your money . some films go quickly to video . this one , however , should go straight to the sci - fi channel 's ` mystery science theatre . ' in the year 3000 , man has become an endangered species . most of humanity ( called ? man - animals ' ) was destroyed generations ago in a battle against a race of plundering aliens ( called psychlos ) . survivors have either taken up shelter in caves or were enslaved to mine earth 's resources for the rest of their lives . the aliens are a menacing looking humanoid species that stand nine - feet tall , who resemble inbred klingons . dimwitted as they are tall , their culture is predicated on power , extortion , and getting ? leverage . ' travolta , the leverage - using star , plays terl , the conniving security chief that oversees the mining facility on earth . much of the movie is spent showing us examples of terl 's petty machinations . he routinely employs deception and then punctuates his statements with maniacal laughter . but one thing is certain ; he hates being stationed on earth . when the home planet informs him that he will be spending the rest of his life on this planet , he begins to devise his latest plan . he will select a group of slaves to secretly mine out a gold ore site . it 's not clear how this benefits terl , except that it makes him richer in a place where he has no use for it . the scrappy jonnie goodboy tyler ( barry peppers ) is selected as the slave group 's leader . a psychlo knowledge machine gives him the mining know - how . but the machine also teaches him other things such as the psychlo language , the principles of our founding fathers , euclidean geometry , and the location of fort knox . this enlightenment just does n't prepare him for the mining assignment . it also prepares him to organize and stage a massive revolt against their captors . ` we 're going to blow up their home world , ' he says . ` but first , we need a few more supplies . ' in days , he and his comrades evolve from cave dwelling , loincloth wearing , rat eating slaves to fighter pilots and nuclear weapons experts . by now , the audience is laughing as maniacally as terl . the media have been working overtime to let the public know that john travolta 's labor of love is a piece of sci - fi drivel . numerous journals have called it an ill - conceived idea stemming from blind hubris , arrogance , and poor planning . and after watching this movie , you 'll wholeheartedly agree . this is a terrible film that is illogically constructed , tediously acted , and frequently begs the question : why was this ever made ? at a price tag of $ 90 million , this film will be remembered as a gigantic folly , assuredly becoming ` the avengers ' of this summer . both films were unforgivable and this promises to suffer the same speedy fate and subsequent indignity . in addition to the universally pejorative reviews , there 's another bizarre element to the ` battlefield ' saga . this film would never have been made if not for the star power of travolta , who for over a decade , had been trying to persuade studios to bring the story to the big screen . the controversy is that travolta is a scientologist , and ` battlefield ' is based on a 1982 novel by l . ron hubbard , the religion 's late founder . this led some to believe that ` battlefield earth ' would amount to scientologist dogma , laden with subliminal messages . but the story is so poorly told that any message , subliminal or otherwise , is totally undetectable . if the audience got anything out of this film , it was this : we are not too unlike the psychlo leader . like terl , the audience felt imprisoned , dreaded their situation , and looked for any opportunity to leave . could that be the scientology message ?

0NEG

to watch ` battlefield earth ' is to wallow in misery . it is one of the most ludicrously conceived efforts in recent history . it has a clumsily told story , insipid dialogue , shallow characterizations , ugly scene transitions , no evidence of dramatic arc , headache - inducing sound effects , and a resolution that is completely implausible . worse , there 's the promise of a sequel . why ? ! save your money . some films go quickly to video . this one , eating slaves to fighter pilots and nuclear weapons experts . by now , the audience is laughing as maniacally as terl . the media have been working sci - fi drivel . numerous journals have called it an ill - conceived idea stemming from blind hubris , arrogance , and poor planning . and after watching this movie , you 'll wholeheartedly agree . this is a terrible film that is illogically constructed , tediously acted , and frequently begs the question : why was this ever made ? at a price tag of $ 90 million , this film will be remembered as a gigantic folly , assuredly becoming ` the avengers ' of this summer to scientologist dogma , laden with subliminal messages . but the story is so poorly told that any message , subliminal or otherwise , is totally not too unlike the psychlo leader . like terl , the audience felt imprisoned , dreaded their situation , and looked for any opportunity

" you ca n't have any of this . it 's all mine ! " --- a twisted priest ( charles huevelman ) hordes his tasty fried chicken while dana ( angela zimmerly ) looks on uninterested . an evil presence , appropriately named the presence ( dj vivona ) , rules over an alternate dimension where neither angels nor demons can touch him . for kicks , the presence likes to trick a human into rounding up five of his or her friends so they can all be sent to his dimension and be systematically slaughtered . when something goes wrong and one of the presence 's recent victims escapes , the angels and demons are alerted to his existence and feel he is a threat that needs to be stopped . they enlist the help of alison ( ramona midgett ) , a recent suicide victim , to return to the flesh and follow the six new enlistees through the ice wall that surrounds the the nether - realm . her mission is to melt away the ice barrier and allow the angels and demons access by reminding the presence of who he once was , an ancient court jester named abraham who lost his job when his king and queen were killed . the king 's sorcerer , amblyn ( who also lost his job ) , decided to take abraham under his wing as an apprentice . during the downtime in his unemployment , amblyn decided to create a new dimension where sorcery , evil , and torture ruled . abraham wished to follow his master into this new realm , so he was asked to show his devotion to the evil wizard by murdering his one true love . in this new realm , amblyn would allow abraham to pursue the sport of hunting and destroying the humans that would be brought to this realm . after each murder , abraham would become stronger , until his power surpassed that of amblyn 's . because of the screw - up that allowed the recent escape , abraham was able to destroy his master and take control of the realm himself . as alison quests to find abraham and show him the errors of his ways , the six new hapless humans are allowed to live out their worst nightmares and then be brutally murdered . if there 's one thing i ca n't stand when i see a film , it 's when the film is pretentious and arty just for the sake of being pretentious and arty . films like eraserhead and begotten are two of the worst examples of this , and now ice from the sun can be added to this list . this film is essentially an 80 minute stalk - and - slash film ( following the dante 's inferno idea that your hell corresponds to how you lived your life or any one of the plots to nightmare on elm street 3 through 6 ) intercut with almost 40 minutes of strange and ( supposedly ) haunting images , many of which serve more to confuse than to further the plot . if there are n't bizarre images floating past the screen , then we get pointless shots of a suicidal alison staring at her breakfast for minutes at a time or contemplating whether or not she should answer her phone . compelling , but ultimately not . the opening credits sequence is designed like a music video for some unknown industrial band featuring various random images from the film interspersed with other random images . the credits run the entire length of the song which is almost five minutes and the actual cast listing and other credit information does n't pop up until near the end of the sequence . when the opening credits began i thought my vcr had accidentally cut off and a interstitial from mtv2 had found its way to my tv . at least the music in the film is pretty decent , made up of mostly industrial and hard rock music and even features a song by ramona midgett . at the beginning of the film it is established that the presence possesses supernatural powers like shooting bullets out of the palms of his hands and decapitating people by waving his hand in front of them ( and he talks like a darth vader clone without the heavy breathing ) . for some reason though , he delegates all of his main stalkings to what seems like the supporting cast of deliverance . one over - alled cretin handles the presence 's gravedigging and likes to chop peoples heads off with his shovel , then there 's an inbred father ( dwight spurgin ) and his two inbred children ( mark kettler and jennifer poirrier - wallace ) that take care of a young woman who has been transformed into a half dog - half human mix with a shotgun , and of course a big truck driving guy that likes to tie people up naked to the back of his vehicle and drag them across stone roads before pouring salt all over their wounds . why would you want to give responsibilities to a bunch of " rednecks " when you yourself had all of these cool powers ? and how is it that the fellow that screws over all of his buddies is able to round up exactly five friends to complete the number of people required to enter the realm at exactly the same time ? i can barely get more than two together all at once at any given moment . the most ridiculous segment though comes right before the aforementioned dragging / salting sequence . the character in question , dana ( angela zimmely ) , has her turn up to be killed and is standing at the front of a movie theater in which the presence is seated . a priest holding two naked dirty humans on leashes walks in and sits down next to a large platter of fried chicken . he picks up the entire platter and starts to enjoy the chicken , taunting dana as she looks on with no interest whatsoever . when she starts to leave , the priest chides her for going before the performance starts and then something that looks like a either a creature from a gwar show or a terry gilliam animation from monty python come to life , walks out , and makes like it wants to be crucified by her . the presence starts to clap annoyingly ( which continues for the rest of the sequence ) until dana takes off with the strange creature following her . when it finally catches up to her , she stabs it in its giant eyeball and is covered in slimy glop that spurts from the ruptured organ . the box for the film claims " because of the horrifying nature of the motion picture , parental discretion is advised for persons under the age of 18 . contains nudity and graphic violence " . while both is certainly true , there does n't seem to be much of either in any large amounts . besides a loving close up of a spurting neck stump , a semi - graphic self - surgery scene , and two instances of head trauma ( one run over and one melting ) , most of the gore is just of the spraying blood or bloody wound covered body variety . as for nudity , it is very sparse , but at least we get to see angela zimmerly ( far and away the most attractive cast member ) before her body is bruised , torn , and bloodied by the dragging incident . ice from the sun has been released on vhs by www . b - movie . com . it has been presented in in full - frame only and the transfer ( for a film shot a good deal in 8 mm ) is pretty decent . besides the decent soundtrack ( which is also available from www . b - movie . com ) , a making - of video is also available called on thin ice . i have n't had the opportunity to see the documentary , but i actually would have been interested to see what the set was like while all of the shots were being filmed , if only to see how director eric stanze ( director of a similar cult film called savage harvest ) , conducted the atmosphere on set .

0NEG

arty . films like eraserhead and begotten are two of the worst examples of this , and now ice from the sun can be added to this list . this film is essentially an 80 minute stalk - minutes of strange and ( supposedly ) haunting images , many of which serve more to confuse than to further the plot . if there are n't bizarre images floating past the screen , then we get pointless shots of a suicidal alison staring at her breakfast for minutes two together all at once at any given moment . the most ridiculous segment though comes right before the aforementioned dragging / salting sequence .

an 80-year old woman jumps enthusiastically on her couch , wearing tight - fitting leather , as she cheers on her favorite tv wrestler by calling his opponent a ` pump - bitch ' . two men messily eat fast food as their septic truck leaks raw sewage directly behind them . and roughly 17 people are booted in the crotch . welcome to ` ready to rumble ' . judging from the fact that potty - mouth adam sandler is the reigning box - office comedy champion , you realize -- albeit while shaking your head -- that yes , there is an audience for this sort of thing . ladies and gentlemen , i weep for society . mind you , when executed with style and comic ingenuity , jokes like an alarming bodily fluid mistaken for hair gel ( ` there 's something about mary ' ) and a laxative - induced attack of explosive diarrhea ( ` dumb and dumber ' ) can be extremely funny . unfortunately , ` ready to rumble ' is not being helmed by the farrelly brothers , nor is it bolstered by a script that accommodates the viewer with anything even remotely clever or inspired . ` ready to rumble ' is built around the dedicated fan - base of professional wrestling . . . . which , in fact , sounded like a fine concept for a goofball comedy . but director brian robbins and screenwriter steven brill handcuff themselves , and limited to a stampede of asinine , humdrum bathroom humor , basically the only thing they manage is to evoke memories of pauly shore and ` bio dome ' . gordie boggs ( david arquette ) and sean dawkins ( scott caan ) take pride in being hardcore wcw wrestling fanatics . by day , they transport raw sewage . by night ( particularly on ? nitro ' monday ) , they pay homage to their personal hero and savior - jimmy king ( oliver platt ) , the undisputed leader of the professional wrestling community . with two tickets to an upcoming nitro performance , gordie and sean are psyched about witnessing the king defend his title first - hand . but unscrupulous boxing kingpin titus sinclair ( joe pantoliano , sporting long hair and cowboy boots ) has other plans . sinclair is plotting to have diamond dallas page ( playing himself ) pummel the king into the tarp , thereby dethroning the dignified wrestler and embarrassing him in front of a bewildered auditorium full of fans . gordie and sean are shocked , rioting madly while arguing ` this is n't even a pay - per view event ! ! ' they take it upon themselves to track the king down and supply the encouragement essential for their fallen idol to make a come - back attempt . along the way , you can expect a lot of sh-- jokes as well . you may find something to like in ` ready to rumble ' if a ) you are a rasslin ' aficionado yourself , or b ) you are a dedicated fan of the lowest of low - brow comedies . i welcome low - brow humor with open arms - that is , if its fresh and resourceful . ` rumble ' is nothing but a sloppy , frightfully unfunny swamp land of misbegotten retardation . the first half - hour is the ultimate test of patience . luckily , the simple - minded events pick up steam , particularly with the well - choreographed wrestling action . director robbins showed a knack for capturing the brutality and excitement of football in ` varsity blues ' , and when in the ring , he does professional work . but the violence is too excessive . having the fake soap opera of wcw wrestling turn into a bloody skirmish brings back unfortunate memories of owen hart 's tragic accident just last year , especially with one character 's dive during a cage match . this is not something you want a comedy to be reminiscent of . outside the wrestling action , the lewd jokes and puerile sight gags bring new meaning to the term ? scattershot ' , while the dialogue fluctuates in on the vulgarity scale of 1 to 10 , with brill 's extensive vocabulary ranging from ` diddly ' to ` boob ' and so on . the final tally : i chuckled a few times , groaned a lot , and indulged in one spirited belly laugh involving martin landau as a geriatric wrestling coach who fights pretty impressively for 105 . casting - wise , ` ready to rumble ' is an odd duck . oliver platt as a champion wrestling figure ? he 's perhaps a bit chunky , but fellow wrestlers acknowledge this in the ring by calling him ` fatty ' , which dampens the blow i suppose . rose mcgowan is fully disposable as a sultry wcw cheerleader ( ` the nirto - est of the nitro girls , ' proclaims gordie ) , but extra pep is added with appearances by wrestlers goldberg , ` macho man ' randy savage and sting ( among others ) . wcw fans are sure to appreciate these . others . . . well , wo n't . i found merit in david arquette 's bountiful energy as gordie , which brings me to my finishing . . . . ahhh . . . . ` praise ' for the film : in ` ready to rumble ' , i have discovered something even more annoying than arquette 's ` at&t ' television commercials . now there 's a low blow for you .

0NEG

there is an audience for this sort of thing . ladies and gentlemen , i weep for society . mind you , when executed with style and comic comedy . but director brian robbins and screenwriter steven brill handcuff themselves , and limited to a stampede of asinine , humdrum bathroom humor , basically the only thing they manage is to evoke a come - back attempt . along the way , you can expect a lot of sh-- jokes as well . you may find something to like in , or b ) you are a dedicated fan of the lowest of low - brow comedies . i welcome low - brow humor with open arms if its fresh and resourceful . ` rumble ' is nothing but a sloppy , frightfully unfunny swamp land of misbegotten retardation . the first half - hour is the ultimate test be reminiscent of . outside the wrestling action , the lewd jokes and puerile sight gags bring new meaning to the term ? scattershot ' , which dampens the blow i suppose . rose mcgowan is fully disposable as a sultry wcw cheerleader ( ` the nirto - the film : in ` ready to rumble ' , i have discovered something even more annoying than arquette 's ` at&t ' television commercials . now there 's a low blow for you .

it 's a rare treat when a quality horror film is released in the theater . and unfortunately with man 's best friend , we 'll be waiting a while longer . the film stars ally sheedy and lance henrikson in a tale of bio - genetics gone wrong . sheedy plays a nosy reporter whose need for a " good " story provokes her to snoop inside of emax , a poorly guarded million dollar bio - lab that she finds herself effortlessly intruding . the result : she unleashes the experimental wonder dog named max , a german shepherd with genetic recombination allowing it to swallow like a snake , camouflage like a chameleon , climb trees like a leopard , and attack with the strength of tiger . max takes a liking to sheedy , and she finds herself protecting the animal from the cruel technological realm of emax , owned by henrikson . well , it does n't take long before the hormonally unstable biohazard unleashes his jowls upon the unsuspecting suburban landscape which offers max juicy leg of mailman , etc . . . sheedy is a boring non - presence on the screen , tripping through the enormous plot chasms neglected by the writer / director ( i apologize for a lack of credits . i suppose i was eager to leave the theater , and in my rush , forgot to take note of the director , writer , producer , etc . . . ) . henrikson offered the only relief from the contrived narration of the script , giving his character as much development as he could considering the flat dialogue plaguing the film . the movie depends upon it 's ability to impress the audience with animal special effects , but all it presents is a dog that can growl , open door handles with his paw , sit , roll over , play dead , and sick . the rest of the special effects were so poor , i found them offensive . the film attains sub - mediocrity , an unambitious film at best . horror fans might find that cujo offers a better bite .

0NEG

leg of mailman , etc . . . sheedy is a boring non - presence on the screen , tripping through the enormous plot chasms neglected by the writer / director ( i apologize for his character as much development as he could considering the flat dialogue plaguing the film . the movie depends upon it 's ability to impress and sick . the rest of the special effects were so poor , i found them offensive . the film attains sub - mediocrity , an unambitious film at best . horror fans might find that cujo offers a better

joe versus the volcano is really one of the worse movies made in very recent memory . the strangest thing is that you would think nothing would go wrong with it . it has a solid cast with tom hanks & meg ryan as the lead roles . but you can never judge a movie by its cast . . . if there is one good thing about joe vs the volcano , it is that the plot is original . unfortunately , it is also incredibly stupid . the movie begins with joe ( tom hanks ) going to work . this opening sequence is very boring and slow . it shows joe walking to his office . but on the way , he has to wait in a long line passing by strange and slightly depressing scenery with obnoxious lighting . a sequence like this should take 2 minutes . here , it takes over 5 . . . it is obvious that joe hates his job . at his office , one of his co - workers is meg ryan . oddly enough , she plays 3 different roles in this movie ! ! joe leaves to go to a doctor 's appointment . his doctor informs him that he has a " brain cloud . " this means that in a few months , he will die . so what does joe do ? quit his job , of course ! ! when he arrives home , joe meets an old man named graynamore ( lloyd bridges ) . graynamore tells joe that in order to get some important mineral for his company from an island , the natives need someone to sacrifice to their volcano to please their fire god . by a startling coincidence , the boat trip to the island takes a few months . by the time he reaches the island , he will almost be dead from the " brain cloud " anyway , so joe agrees . graynamore gives joe a credit card to buy everything he needs to go on this " great adventure " . joe goes on a date with meg ryan , his co - worker . the day before the boat trip , joe meets one of graynamore 's daughters . she is also , surprise , meg ryan . except she looks more hippyish . they both have dinner and the next day , joe gets driven over to his boat . the lady that sails the boat is another one of graynamore 's daughters . and , wonder of wonders , she is also played by meg ryan . as they sail to the island , meg ryan tells joe that the natives of the island have a craving for orange soda . after some stupid talking scenes , they also deduce that graynamore had his doctor be the one that joe went to . and that the " brain cloud " thing was made up ! ! they do plently of cheap special effects on the boat voyage . joe goes fishing and catches a hammerhead shark . this is a cheap gag that has been pulled off many times . but , to top it off , the shark is obviously rubber and fake ! ! one night there is a storm . a cheap - looking lightning bolt strikes the boat and everything is cast overboard . fortunately , joe and meg ryan manage to find some of the luggage that joe brought to sail . by pure luck , they get to the island . since the natives like orange soda , they wear soda cans as attire ! ! stupid or what ? ; ) before joe leaps in the volcano , he gets fed . right before he jumps , meg ryan pleads him not to . when joe decides to , she goes in with him because " she loves him " . now this is where the movie should end . but , unfortunately , the " cheesy ending " bug comes in . the volcano blows the couple out and into the ocean where they land on joe 's luggage . they float to another part of the island as they watch lava pouring out of the volcano towards the villagers . i give this movie a . see it only if you 're a film buff that enjoys a bad movie every now and then or if you really like tom hanks or meg ryan . . .

0NEG

joe versus the volcano is really one of the worse movies made in very recent memory . the strangest thing is that you would think nothing volcano , it is that the plot is original . unfortunately , it is also incredibly stupid . the movie begins with joe ( tom hanks ) going to work . this opening sequence is very boring and slow . it shows joe walking to his office . but the island have a craving for orange soda . after some stupid talking scenes , they also deduce that graynamore had his doctor be . joe goes fishing and catches a hammerhead shark . this is a cheap gag that has been pulled off many times . but , fake ! ! one night there is a storm . a cheap - looking lightning bolt strikes the boat and everything is cast overboard . fortunately this is where the movie should end . but , unfortunately , the " cheesy ending " bug comes in . the volcano blows the couple out and into the it only if you 're a film buff that enjoys a bad movie every now and then or if you really like tom

" be gentle , " urges natasha henstridge to matthew perry in " the whole nine yards . " " i have n't made love in five years . " " neither have i , " rebuts perry . " i 'm married ! " if jonathan lynn 's latest comedy relied simply on jokes of that caliber -- and it certainly tries -- then it 'd be an innocuous if rather obvious little film . instead , its failings go much deeper . first off , who has n't had enough of the tough wiseguy intimidates the timid wise guy genre ? if you want to make a pretty penny or two in hollywood nowadays simply write a " comedy " which pairs a robert de niro / james caan / bruce willis type with a billy crystal / hugh grant / matthew perry type and wait for the royalties to roll in . who 's next ? jack nicholson and martin short ? it certainly does n't have to be funny . " the whole nine yards " is not a particularly funny film , but it is borderline offensive . offensive in the way it continues a trend of poking fun at career criminals who would n't think twice about pushing your mother - in - law off the brooklyn bridge with her feet encased in concrete . that might sound like a funny sight gag , but the problem is these films have long since lost sight of the fact that taking a human life is n't all that funny to begin with . when the corpse is placed in a car , doused with gasoline , set ablaze and referred to as " barbecue , " it makes you wonder when all this playing killing for laughs is going to end . " the whole nine yards " is also offensive in so much as its three central female characters are portrayed as nothing more than sex objects . rosanna arquette plays a slutty , chain - smoking french canadian who 's married to matthew perry 's none - too - successful dentist . it 's an unflattering role made all the more so by the unflattering outfits -- and unflattering situations -- into which arquette is thrust . then there 's natasha henstridge ( " species " i and ii ) who plays the well - to - do wife of contract killer bruce willis . she gets involved with perry 's character when he comes to chicago hoping to negotiate a finder 's fee with mob boss yanni gogolack ( kevin pollack , transposing his vs with his ws ) after willis ' jimmy the tulip tudeski moves in next door . henstridge and perry 's characters hitting it off is about as likely as bruce and demi getting back together . perry might have the charm but he does n't have the physical attributes of a traditional leading man , especially in close - up . most objectified of the bunch is amanda peet , who turns in a sexually - ripe performance as perry 's dental assistant with , it transpires , questionable career goals . peet 's gratuitous nude scene proves how low this movie will stoop to keep its audience from dropping off . when " my cousin vinny " is the highpoint of a directorial career including such forgettable films as " clue , " " greedy , " and " sgt . bilko , " you have to wonder if lynn chose the wrong career path . perry 's pratfalling goofiness coupled with willis ' likable hardness could have had some potential but with no script to work with , and a director who seems to be watching from the wings , their characters run out of gas quickly .

0NEG

an innocuous if rather obvious little film . instead , its failings go much deeper . first off , who has n't had enough of yards " is not a particularly funny film , but it is borderline offensive . offensive in the way it continues a trend of to end . " the whole nine yards " is also offensive in so much as its three central female characters are portrayed as nothing more than sex objects . rosanna arquette plays a slutty , chain - smoking , questionable career goals . peet 's gratuitous nude scene proves how low this movie will stoop to keep its audience from dropping off . when " ' likable hardness could have had some potential but with no script to work with , and a director who seems to be watching from the wings , their characters run out of gas quickly .

" flubber " is the second best example of how to take all the life out of a film remake an adaptation , and hysterically enough both were distributed by disney . it 's the kind of film that may be slightly entertaining to tiny kids , but anyone else will feel left out as it 's boring , slow , and incredibly lifeless . what could be a film with cinematic magic is instead dead in the water , and it 's a shame because it could have been a great film . hypothetically , i mean . " flubber , " as you probably know , is a remake of the disney classic i never saw , " the absent minded professor , " where a , well , absent minded professor played by fred mcmurray created an erratic substance known as " flubber , " you know , flying rubber ? the new one keeps the basic plot , but appears to have added a lot else , like more absent - mindedness on the part of the proffessor , some more villains , and several " show - stopping " moments , like a big rumba with the flubber , and some more elaborate setups , none which really make it any better , but instead make it worse . the basic plot revolves around a college professor , philip brainerd ( robin williams ) , who creates lots and lots of inventions , but is sadly absent minded . in fact , he 's forgotten his wedding to the college 's president , sara jean reynolds ( indie actress marcia gay harden ) , two times before he forgets it again at the beginning . does n't this warrant some kind of mental treatment ? anyway , on his wedding day ( the third one ) , he invents the flubber , which not only bounces off of everything like a super ball on speed , but can also change shape like the aliens in water form in " the abyss . " philip believes that this invention , once fully realized , will save his college , which is in threat of being shut down by a millionaire tycoon / villain , chester hoenicker ( raymond j . barry ) , which is ironically enough the same college his brat son ( will wheaton - thought he was dead ) goes to . through a plot twist , hoenicker 's goons , named smith and wesson ( ha ha - what a great sense of humor this film has ) who are played by clancy brown and ted levine ( both who needed the pay check ) , discover it the hard way , and try to steal for hoenicker , who wants it just 'cause he 's evil enough . a sub - plot involves philip 's attempts to win back sara , who 's angry at him ( and with good reason ) , but who is being seduced by who is basically philip 's belloq , wilson croft ( christopher mcdonald , playing the hysterically suave - yet - unsuave asswhole once again ) . and in another subplot , philip 's day - timer robot , weebo ( voiced by the one - and - only jodi benson ) , falls in love with him . yuckity - yuck . what 's most pathetic about this film is how dull it is . you do n't need to be a cynical college student to be able to see right through this film , which is another in a long line of cheap attempts at making a quick buck by disney , who have essentially become the puff daddy of the film industry , half - assedly re - mixing classics ( or non - classics ) for distribution to the general public , who sadly eats it all up . earlier in ' 97 , they released " jungle 2 jungle , " an adaptation of a really awful french film , " un indien dans la ville , " which , yeah , improved over the original , but not by much . disney 's in about as bad shape as warner brothers right now , only creatively . in the rush to ship out a film for distribution , disney has forgotten to give this film a little thing called " magic . " such scenes as dancing flubber , a flying car , a basketball team that pretty much sucks flying all around thanks to some carefully placed flubber , and an elaborate ending all fail to amaze , delight , or even cause people to laugh . i sat there the entire film stone faced , chuckling perhaps twice , and shaking my head at all the bad jokes . who could really laugh at a scene where philip enters the wrong classroom and starts teaching chemistry ? did n't think so . it does n't help that our protagonist is essentially unfunny or even really respectable . philip is not a lovable absent minded professory , just a really dumb man being played by robin williams . williams is a brilliant comic actor . . . okay , a brilliant actor in general , but here he 's given very little to do but occasionally get hyper over something , and other times act sad . those times , he 's not bad . but what are we supposed to think of a man who 's forgotten his wedding thrice ? maybe it was funny and/or respectable in the 60s . . . i like disney , and i usually enjoy their films , not only animated but live action , and their recent films ( save for " hercules , " which was good , but not great ) have been worse than lackluster , they 've been pathetic . " jungle 2 jungle " is probably the worst film i saw last year . " flubber " 's probably second . what do they need to do ? perhaps create something new . get writers who can write something that 's universally entertaining . films like " the parent trap " and " mary poppins " are films that are live action ( or in the latter case a mix of both ) , but even i can still watch them because they 're not only written to be magical to children , but to be fun to adults . what 's more torturous that taking a child to a film that insults you and annoys you at every turn ? and my god , could n't they have done something else with edie mcclurg ?

0NEG

flubber " is the second best example of how to take all the life out of a film remake an adaptation , and hysterically enough both were distributed but anyone else will feel left out as it 's boring , slow , and incredibly lifeless . what could be a film with cinematic magic is instead dead in the water , and it 's a shame because it could have with the flubber , and some more elaborate setups , none which really make it any better , but instead make it worse . the basic plot revolves around a college professor , falls in love with him . yuckity - yuck . what 's most pathetic about this film is how dull it is . you do n't need to be a cynical college able to see right through this film , which is another in a long line of cheap attempts at making a quick buck by disney , who have essentially become the puff daddy to some carefully placed flubber , and an elaborate ending all fail to amaze , delight , or even cause people to laugh . i sat there the entire film stone faced , chuckling perhaps twice , and shaking my head at all the bad jokes . who could really laugh at a scene where philip did n't think so . it does n't help that our protagonist is essentially unfunny or even really respectable . philip is not a lovable absent minded professory , okay , a brilliant actor in general , but here he 's given very little to do but occasionally get hyper over something , and other times act sad . those times , more torturous that taking a child to a film that insults you and annoys you at every turn ? and my god , could n't they have done

i 'm going to start this review off with a hypothetical question . let 's say you 've just been in a car accident , and the driver of the other vehicle is unconscious . your friends have left to go get help , and you 're waiting to see if the victim wakes up . a tow - truck comes along , and the driver hops out of the truck to see what 's going on . he then proceeds to kill the unconscious victim by snapping his neck . do you : a ) run away screaming for your life , staying away from the main road , b ) run away ( but not too fast ) and stay on the main road even when the madman in the truck starts following you , * stop * to catch your breath , try to negotiate with the psycho , and when that fails , start running away again , all the while * staying on the main road * ? if you answered " a " , you are far more intelligent than the screenwriter of " texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " and will likely hate this movie . however , if you answered " b " , prepare to enjoy a film made with idiots like you in mind ! " texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " is being called a sequel , but it 's really more of a remake of the original . there 's a few changes here and there , but it 's essentially the same ( even the infamous " meathook " scene has been re - created . ) the story opens with four teenagers hitting the road on the night of their prom , and somehow ending up in the middle of nowhere . needless to say , they soon encounter leatherface and his nutty family . much carnage ensues . to call this movie inept would be putting it mildly . in addition to the laughably idiotic situation i mentioned in my hypothetical question , there is a moment towards the end of the film where one of the baddies is killed by an airplane that literally comes out of nowhere . it just swoops down and kills him with its wheel . no explantion is given as to who was flying it or why he / she is going around killing people with the planes wheel . the dialogue is even more atrocious . zellwegger , who is kidnapped by " the family " early on , keeps trying to have normal conversations with these people . when you 're surrounded by maniacs wielding chainsaws and dead corpses , i would think that rationality would go out the window . speaking of going out the window , there is a scene in which zellwegger jumps out a window . apparently , the stunt double had a little trouble , because she visibly gets stuck in the window . the director quickly cuts to a wide shot where the stunt double * does n't * get caught in the window . this was one of many glaring inconsistencies . there are so many , in fact , that if i were to name them all , this review would be several pages long . the only reason i am giving this movie one star instead of no stars is because of matthew mcconaughey . he plays a member of " the family " with a hydraulic leg ( home - made , i might add ) and is so completely over - the - top , you ca n't help but be amazed by his performance . he obviously had a lot of fun with this part , and it really shows . he makes jack nicholson 's portrayal of the psychotic inn keeper in " the shining " look restrained in comparison . for a horror movie , " texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " contains surprisingly little gore . in fact , in contains none . there 's a little blood here and there , but that 's as far as it goes . which leads me to believe that the budget must have been * astonishingly * low , and it shows . everything about the movie looks cheap , from the sets to the costumes . especially leatherface . once frightening and nightmare inducing , he 's now as terrifying as dame edna . do yourself a favor and take a pass at this remake . check out the far superior original instead .

0NEG

" texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " and will likely hate this movie . however , if you answered " b " , prepare to enjoy a film made with idiots like you in mind ! " texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " leatherface and his nutty family . much carnage ensues . to call this movie inept would be putting it mildly . in addition to the laughably idiotic situation i mentioned in my hypothetical question , there is is going around killing people with the planes wheel . the dialogue is even more atrocious . zellwegger , who is kidnapped by " the family n't * get caught in the window . this was one of many glaring inconsistencies . there are so many , in fact , that been * astonishingly * low , and it shows . everything about the movie looks cheap , from the sets to the costumes . especially leatherface , he 's now as terrifying as dame edna . do yourself a favor and take a pass at this remake . check out the far superior original instead .

susan granger 's review of " session 9 " ( usa films ) sometimes you just get more than your bargained for . . . like when boston - based hazmat elimination , run by scottish actor peter mullan and his trusty assistant , david caruso , assures a town engineer ( paul guilifoyle ) that they can remove insidious asbestos fibers from a victorian hospital facility in a week . erected in 1871 , deserted and decomposing since 1985 , the danvers mental hospital , is one of the most malevolent " locations " ever chosen for a film . the structure is so massive - with its labyrinth of rubble - strewn corridors , collapsing floors , stagnant pools of water , isolation cells , and ominous surgical chambers where experimental pre - frontal lobotomies were performed - that their task seems impossible within that time frame . and each member of their inexperienced crew ( stephan gevedon , brandon sexton iii , and josh lucas ) is coping with his own personal demons as , one by one , their minds seem to be affected by the grim areas in which they 're working . the film 's title is derived from salvaged reel - to - reel audio - recorded sessions involving the demonic possession of a young woman who is suffering from multiple personalities . by the time session 9 occurs so do dreadful disasters . filmmaker brad anderson obviously envisioned this as a gruesome chainsaw - massacre - type ghost story but the script lacks structure and is n't particularly scary . the conclusion is more ludicrous than convincing . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " session 9 " is a dark , gloomy 4 . silly me . . . at first , i thought that the original name of the danvers lunatic asylum bore some reference to mrs . danvers , the creepy housekeeper played by judith anderson in alfred hitchcock 's truly terrifying " rebecca " that also involved a cavernous mansion called manderley .

0NEG

a gruesome chainsaw - massacre - type ghost story but the script lacks structure and is n't particularly scary . the conclusion is more ludicrous than convincing . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10

by the time dennis quaid , the ostensible star of switchback , makes his first appearance at about the 22-minute mark , you may find yourself wondering why he bothered . after all , writer / director jeb stuart has already set up a fairly promising pair of parallel story lines . the first finds amarillo , texas sheriff buck olmstead ( r . lee ermey ) facing a hotly - contested election battle just as a brutal double homicide is discovered at a motel in his jurisdiction . as olmstead begins his investigation , we also meet the two men who come to be our prime suspects . lane dixon ( jared leto ) is an enigmatic young hitchhiker ; bob goodall ( danny glover ) is the jovial motorist who offers lane a ride from texas to his utah destination . all the necessary conflicts seem to be in place -- the internal struggle of olmstead over the clash between good politics and good police work , and the external struggle as one of the two travelers eventually becomes villain to the other 's protagonist . but then quaid shows up as grimly determined fbi agent frank lacrosse . lacrosse is certain that the amarillo murders are the work of a serial killer he has been tracking for nearly two years . he 's not supposed to be tracking him any more -- according to the bureau , they 've got their man -- but lacrosse has a very important reason for believing otherwise . two months earlier , lacrosse 's own son was kidnapped by the killer , and the boy has yet to turn up anywhere . lacrosse knows his killer 's work , and he knows that the man is still out there somewhere trying to continue their game . it would n't be fair to reduce everything that 's wrong with switchback to quaid 's presence , but it 's a pretty good place to start . there 's a reason lacrosse feels like an intruder in the narrative instead of its vital center : as a dramatic actor , dennis quaid possesses exactly one facial expression and one vocal intonation . we can tell lacrosse is determined because his face is a perpetual tight - jawed , sourpuss pucker ; we can tell he 's grim because every word comes out in an eastwood - esque rasp . a more flexible performer might have given weight to the character , pulling the audience into his haunted intensity , making switchback _ his _ film . quaid merely looks annoyed and slightly constipated . it 's tough to become emotionally invested in a character 's turmoil when it looks like all he really needs is a big bowl of bran flakes . even without quaid , it does n't appear that switchback would have stayed on course . the early scenes between leto and glover have a lively energy , building our curiosity over which man -- the taciturn kid or his gregarious benefactor -- is the real threat . unfortunately , stuart tips his hand far too early in the game , both through the pitch of the individual performances and the facts he chooses to reveal . once the mystery of the killer 's identity is dispatched , the interaction between leto and glover becomes stale and predictable . in fact , " stale and predictable " describes the direction that switchback takes in general , falling back on far - too - common hollywood devices like cats jumping out of nowhere , a climactic fistfight on board a freight train , and edgy law enforcement agents . it 's too bad stuart was n't willing to spend more time with sheriff olmstead , far and away the most interesting and appealing character in the film . played with atypical restraint by r . lee ermey , he 's a wonderful , unconventional hero who seems genuinely comfortable accepting the consequences of acting on his convictions . a film focusing on the olmstead would have signaled a film - maker willing to take a few risks with his casting and story - telling . instead , stuart places his trust in a " name " star who ca n't carry the material . maybe next time he 'll throw away that one crucial page in the script , the one where the grimly determined fbi agent wanders onto the scene to muck up a perfectly good story .

0NEG

their game . it would n't be fair to reduce everything that 's wrong with switchback to quaid 's presence , but it 's intensity , making switchback _ his _ film . quaid merely looks annoyed and slightly constipated . it 's tough to become emotionally invested in a or his gregarious benefactor -- is the real threat . unfortunately , stuart tips his hand far too early in the game , both through the pitch of the individual performances and is dispatched , the interaction between leto and glover becomes stale and predictable . in fact , " stale and predictable " describes the direction that switchback takes in general , falling back on far - too - common hollywood devices like cats jumping out of nowhere , a climactic fistfight places his trust in a " name " star who ca n't carry the material . maybe next time he 'll throw away that one

gregg araki 's the doom generation was possibly the very worst film ever made . so why did i see his latest teen bisexual angst opus ? first of all , some of the reviews were fairly positive . also , the cast , consisting of cameos from dozens of washed up ex tv stars ( including christopher knight , eve plumb , shannen doherty , and david leisure ) was promising . last of all , i wanted to give arraki one more chance . i mean , the guy ca n't be that untalented , can he ? the answer to that question is three letters long . nowhere follows the character dark on his wild and odd journey through los angeles . since arraki does n't know how to make anything coherent , it 's hard to describe the plot . let 's just say that dark spends the bulk of the movie whining that his girlfriend wo n't make a commitment to him and jealous because she sleeps around with other guys and girls . the only remotely compelling storyline involves sarah lassez as a teen who has a chance encounter with a famous tv star . he turns out to be a nice guy who does n't care for fame and wishes he could walk down the street without being mobbed by fans . this story has a shocking twist and a tragic end that i did not see coming . it is the first time i ever felt any compassion for a character created by arraki , and this can be attributed to the appealing performance of lassez . i thought maybe arraki was improving in his craft . he works better with the camera this time around , especially in the early scenes . halfway through the film , i did n't necessarily find myself enjoying the film , but it seemed like a considerable improvement on the doom generation . then as the movie went on , arraki loses all sensibility and introduces us to exploding heads , twisted sex games , and alien abductions . it 's sad , because he almost actually had some decent material here , but he ruined it with his usual in your face " i 'm such a renegade maverick filmmaker , look what i can do " attitude . the performances are generally better than in the doom generation , which is n't saying much . at least we do n't have to suffer jonathan " i am the most hideous man in america " schaech . we are , however treated to another round of james " i 'm more wooden than keanu " duval . sarah lassez gives the best performance in the film , and kathleen robertson ( formerly of 90210 and now arraki 's wife ) and rachel true are talented actresses caught up in this mess . of the tv star cameos , john ritter is the most interesting as a deranged right wing tv evangelist . if i prefer nowhere to the doom generation , it is only in the way that i would prefer being assassinated than receive constant physical torture . maybe greg arraki does n't want you to like his characters . maybe he wants to laugh and make fun of those of us who try to care about them . maybe he just wanted to piss me off . if so , he was successful .

0NEG

gregg araki 's the doom generation was possibly the very worst film ever made . so why did i see his latest teen bisexual wild and odd journey through los angeles . since arraki does n't know how to make anything coherent , it 's hard to describe the plot . let in the early scenes . halfway through the film , i did n't necessarily find myself enjoying the film , but it seemed like a considerable improvement on the generation . then as the movie went on , arraki loses all sensibility and introduces us to exploding heads , twisted sex games , and alien abductions . it 's sad , because he almost actually had some decent material here , but he ruined it with his usual in your face " i 'm such performances are generally better than in the doom generation , which is n't saying much . at least we do n't have to suffer jonathan arraki 's wife ) and rachel true are talented actresses caught up in this mess . of the tv star cameos , john ritter is those of us who try to care about them . maybe he just wanted to piss me off . if so , he was successful .

sometimes , when i decide to write a short story or a poem , i think of a title first , and then think of a subject to go with it . it seems that the makers of disturbing behavior had a similar train of thought when it came to the title sequence . i would n't be surprised if a couple of guys got together and created the opening credits , and then someone saw it and made up a story to go along with it . the title sequence is so good , so ominous and original , that it had me engrossed before the picture even began . of course , my attention dwindled shortly into the film . disturbing behavior , like so many thrillers , starts off interesting and ends up laughably ridiculous . it 's a teen horror film with no interesting violence or sex . it 's a suspense film with no suspense . it 's an evil small town story with no story to speak of . it 's a disaster , a listless and uninspired disaster , that just barely misses one - stardom because of a few good sequences , a mercifully short running time , and one terrific set of opening credits . our main man is a fellow named steve clark , blandly played by jimmy marsden . he moves to a small town with his family after , tragically , his brother shoots himself . steve is very upset about the untimely death of his brother ; we learn this through strange home - video like nightmares that he has occasionally . the big trial for steve is , of course , to fit in at school and make new friends . marsden looks like your stereotypical jock down to the last detail , so he seems a poor casting choice for a social reject . as a social reject , he falls in with some pretentious dope - smoking philosophers , gavin ( nick stahl ) and rachel ( katie holmes ) . gavin informs steve that the local group of jocks , known as the blue ribboners , are actually a bunch of zombies , assimilating new members into their group , while sporadically killing innocent people . so , it 's up to our group of mismatched protagonists to 1 ) solve the mystery , and 2 ) do something about it . by the end of it all , something has happened and things have been explained , but the film still does n't make any sense . disturbing behavior was written by scott rosenberg . i 've seen his name around recently ( he was one of the toucher - uppers on the armageddon script ) , and i imagine that , for the most part , he knows what he 's doing when it comes to screenwriting . he did , however , have a complete lapse in judgement when he got the idea for this film , and then decided to actually take the time to write it out . evil small town films are pretty common ( the last one , phantoms , is also a dismal failure ) , but it takes a lot of skill to make the formula work . rosenberg 's script is a complete mess , lacking in even the most basic attempts at characterization . and it makes no sense , nor is their any purpose when things are finally " explained . " there is supposed to be an element of surprise when we see what is happening to the jocks , but the film never explains exactly what * is * happening . they get strapped to chairs , a microchip is inserted into their eyes , and -- poof -- they become sex - crazed , superviolent , machine - like creatures . the doctor responsible for all this , dr . caldicott ( bruce greenwood ) , must be pretty nuts for thinking that this kind of behavior is a step up from the way high school jocks actually behave ( or , perhaps , this is the only realistic element in the film ) . much of the writing is simply bad , and rosenberg has no intuition when it comes to the way high school kids act . in one terrible scene , gavin explains to steve all of the high school cliques , while pointing them out in the cafeteria . up front , i should say that , in four years of high school , i did not eat in the cafeteria even once . that aside , the various social groups he points out are general , uninteresting , and poorly - shown . for instance , he points to the " nerds , " who are all wearing glasses and playing with their laptops . it 's such an obvious cliche that i ca n't believe rosenberg even bothered . most of the dialogue is forced ( no one says , " bite me ! " anymore ) , and none of the scenes have any degree of wit . this picture is not inspired , and most scenes flop from one to the other , with no sense of momentum or energy . the blame for this can be placed on director david nutter , who apparently likes his films dry . horror films should at least exploit violence , but this one is shockingly timid . there are a few good scenes , though , such as an interesting trip through an insane asylum ( this is , however , the most forced scene in the film , for how our heroes get there or why they bother are things we never learn ) . i also liked the school janitor character , played by william sadler . he has a few lines that are surprisingly thought - provoking . the acting is largely a waste of talent . marsden is , as i said , bland ( thought not particularly bad ) . bruce greenwood is shamelessly wasted . stahl and holmes both show they have talent , but the direction is n't good enough to hone in on their skills ( stahl 's performance seems more like a parody of high school potheads ) . none of these characters expand beyond their one dimension , and , frankly , watching cardboard cut - outs of human beings run down hallways while screaming just is n't all that cool . disturbing behavior is a wreck of a film , and it started out a wreck before shooting even began . i 'm surprised there were producers who read this script and thought that it would make a good film , or that it would make a lot of money at the box office . it 's not boring , or even blatantly awful , but it 's an uninspired lump of a film . it sure starts off nicely , but the regression into total absurdity is so consistent that the very last scene is outright laughable . so , if you go to see this film , take my advice : appreciate the credit sequence , and pray it never ends .

0NEG

engrossed before the picture even began . of course , my attention dwindled shortly into the film . disturbing behavior , like so many thrillers , starts off interesting and ends up laughably ridiculous . it 's a teen horror film with no interesting small town story with no story to speak of . it 's a disaster , a listless and uninspired disaster , that just barely misses one - stardom because of our main man is a fellow named steve clark , blandly played by jimmy marsden . he moves to a small town of skill to make the formula work . rosenberg 's script is a complete mess , lacking in even the most basic attempts at characterization . and it makes no sense , nor is their any purpose when things are finally is the only realistic element in the film ) . much of the writing is simply bad , and rosenberg has no intuition when it comes to the way high school kids act . in one terrible scene , gavin explains to steve all of the high school , " bite me ! " anymore ) , and none of the scenes have any degree of wit . this picture is not inspired , and most scenes flop from one to the other , with no sense of momentum or energy . the blame for this can be placed on director . horror films should at least exploit violence , but this one is shockingly timid . there are a few good scenes , though , a few lines that are surprisingly thought - provoking . the acting is largely a waste of talent . marsden is , as i said , bland ( thought not particularly bad ) . bruce greenwood is shamelessly wasted . stahl and holmes both show they have talent , just is n't all that cool . disturbing behavior is a wreck of a film , and it started out a wreck before shooting even began . i 'm surprised there were producers who read this 's not boring , or even blatantly awful , but it 's an uninspired lump of a film . it sure starts off nicely , but the regression into total absurdity is so consistent that the very last scene is outright laughable . so , if you go to see this film

written by david j . schow and john shirley , based on the comic book series and comic book strip by james o'barr . cast brandon lee , ernie hudson , michael wincott , david patrick kelly , rochelle davis , and jon polito . mpaa rating " r " ( presumably for rape , language , and violence ) running time 100 minutes " looks like he zigged when he should 've zagged . " - ernie hudson , as a police officer commenting on a suspicious death . comic book translations are notorious tricky-- anyone up for a double - bill of the punisher and captain america ? -- and the crow proves no exception . despite a gross of good intentions , brandon lee 's final film does n't fly very high . the story opens on halloween eve , better known as devil 's night . wilmington - as - detroit is in flames and the police are tending to at least * one * murder : young rock - musician - turned - pavement - artist eric draven ( lee ) , found on a sidewalk six - stories below the apartment he was thrown from . the cops are also upstairs , administering aid to his fiance who was assaulted and raped and not necessarily in that order . she dies , the perps . escape , and , exactly one year later , draven rises from the grave to wreak revenge . sound familiar ? unlike charles bronson , whose only known superpower involves an inability to refrain from filming death wish sequels , lee 's character has supernatural strength and amazing agility and can even reheal from gunshot wounds faster than robert patrick in terminator 2 . by his side is his crow , the presumable source of his powers as related in the narration . wearing what appears to be alice cooper 's leftover make - up , lee is plopped into an underlit urban landscape that was obviously modeled after batman and blade runner . but no number of red - lit , rain - soaked streets can compensate for cheap fx that make the crow seem closer to darkman than batman . ( the glaring miniatures should show better on video , though . : ) a nod to darkman is an insult to sam raimi , though , because alex proyas ca n't film a decent action scene to save his life . his two " best " set - pieces-- some banzai board - room butchery and a cool church- roof sword fight-- are also undercut by the awful editing of dov hoenig and scott smith . blame said editors for the film 's frightful flashbacks , as well . but the pace is quick , thank god , and every good - idea - turned - bad is over before it begins . the cast is better than it should be . ernie hudson is a good choice as a friendly policeman and he gets off most of the film 's funnier lines . newcomer rochelle davis does well as both the narrator and draven 's scrappy ward . jon polito has a small , succulent role as pungent pawnbroker . and michael wincott makes a distinct impression as a long - haired mr . big whose collection of ancient - swords makes him seem like he walked into the film from the trailer to highlander iii . there can be only one . finally , there 's brandon lee , son of bruce lee , and a 28-year - old rising - star who was fatally shot during shooting . lee had four films to his name-- kung fu : the movie , laser mission , showdown in little toyko , and rapid fire-- and the crow would 've been a nice feather in his belt and that 's about it . there 's nothing great from him here-- just a good performance that owes as much to presence as ability . when the echo of that gunshot finally fades , watching the crow should prove an even * less * remarkable experience . despite a healthy dose of humor and some surprising sincerity , the crow is still just a couple notches above its straight - to - video brethren . for now , maybe it 's an appropriate eulogy to an actor who could only get better .

0NEG

gross of good intentions , brandon lee 's final film does n't fly very high . the story opens on halloween eve , better known - lit , rain - soaked streets can compensate for cheap fx that make the crow seem closer to darkman than batman , though . : ) a nod to darkman is an insult to sam raimi , though , because alex proyas ca n't film a decent action scene to save his life . his two " best " set - pieces-- some butchery and a cool church- roof sword fight-- are also undercut by the awful editing of dov hoenig and scott smith . blame said editors feather in his belt and that 's about it . there 's nothing great from him here-- just a good performance that owes as humor and some surprising sincerity , the crow is still just a couple notches above its straight - to - video brethren . for now , maybe it 's an appropriate eulogy

synopsis : sullen julie james , still haunted by nightmares of the killer ben willis from i know what you did last summer , perks up when her new best friend karla wilson wins a trip for four to the bahamas . arriving at the start of the hurricane season , julie and karla run around in very tight clothing and realize they 've walked into a trap set by the rainslickered slasher with a huge hook for a hand . comments : i may be showing some pop culture illiteracy here , but i have never seen an episode of the fox tv series " party of five . " i am only vaguely aware of the show 's premise , and my knowledge of it comes from brief commercials i half - paid attention to while watching the tube . " party of five , " i do know however , seems to be the starting ground for actresses in the teen horror genre . neve campbell , scream queen of the 90s and star of scream , scream 2 , and the craft , is a regular of the show . so too is jennifer love hewitt . lo and behold , following in the footsteps of campbell , hewitt now has a horror franchise of her own : the i know what you did last summer line . though the original film , released last year , was watchable enough , this insipid sequel had me looking at the theater 's glowing red exit sign longingly throughout . jennifer love hewitt is a very good - looking young leading lady ; however , unlike neve campbell , hewitt struggles with acting . she just is n't convincing in this film ( and she was n't in the original either ) . this puts many young males , including myself , in a paradoxical quandary : she 's very attractive , but the annoying , spoiled , valley girl - type character she tries to play here is annoying to the extreme and ruins many of the scenes which emphasize , exploitatively , her figure . add to the mix the equally pleasant yet irritating brandy , another rising teen tv star , and you get one frustrated male audience . i 've spent so much time on hewitt and brandy for a reason . i still know what you did last summer , though cashing in on the success of the original , ultimately serves as a vehicle for these two young actresses . nothing else here is original or interesting . this movie , in fact , makes other recent so - so horror films like urban legend and john carpenter 's vampires seem like stunning works of high art . i still know relies heavily on tired slasher film cliches : an isolated location , a storm , parentless teenagers , false alarm nightmares , lots of blue - lighted darkness scenes , a garbed slasher who walks around in the background without the characters seeing him , knives and other sharp instruments lying around everywhere , etc . you get the picture . the entire audience knows all the secondary characters introduced in the film are going to receive the business end of the killer 's hook . they may as well have huge targets painted on them . like scream and its numerous knockoffs , these secondary characters are supposed to serve as comic relief . unfortunately , i still know 's characters are n't all that funny . in particular , one character , a chain - weed - smoking guy , is obnoxiously annoying and certainly does n't die soon enough . the death scenes , by the way , are relatively violent for a theatrically released horror film . several of them are uncomfortable to watch , and they reminded me of the sickening gore scenes in hellraiser : bloodline , a truly sadistic movie . this , too , did not help the supposed humor i still know was shooting for . and what is the deal with the slasher himself ? i know that the slasher film is not a particularly intelligent genre , but ben willis has got to go down as one of the most silly slashers in mainstream horror . come on , the guy looks like the gorton 's fisherman , and his gruff voice makes him sound like a disney pirate . though his lightning - lit appearances ellicited much - needed laughter in the theater , his appearance borders on the absurd in the horror film , and that 's * really * saying something . so , all that 's left to talk about here is jennifer love hewitt and brandy . both prance about in tightfitting , revealing outfits or in various states of undress , yet neither of them ever actually do a nude scene . hewitt , however , does do a post - shower scene in which her thin bathrobe is quite . . . titillating . this scene alone made this one - star turkey earn two stars under my rating system . otherwise , hewitt and brandy both grate on the nerves . early in the film , for instance , brandy wins the trip to the bahamas . she and hewitt jump around and scream and screech for what seems like forever . i needed extra - strength tylenol after that part . oh , and the film 's conclusion , talk about repetitive ! people who saw i know what you did last summer will predict i still know 's ending at least 5 minutes before it happens . boring ! i saw this movie with my brother at the local downtown movie theater . admission is only one dollar on wednesdays , and we often go see bad movies on these days just to ridicule them . it 's usually a fun thing to do along with the rest of the audience , who do n't seem to mind participating in a mass " mystery science theater 3000 " -type viewing . i still know what you did last summer , however , produced several lengthy uncomfortable silences from the audience , underscoring how bad it * really * is . if it were n't for the main actresses ' revealing wardrobes , i 'd have had a very , very hard time sitting through this lame sequel . i ca n't imagine trying to watch it on video ( horror films seem 10 times better in a theater because they rely heavily on audience participation ) and would n't recommend it to people , unless they 're horror film fanatics or huge fans of hewitt and brandy . i read on a website somewhere that another sequel is already in the works . what a depressing thought . hewitt apparently needs to spend more time on tv figuring out how to act . rated r , this film contains lots of violence , several gory scenes , and a couple nubile , horny teenagers -- though the sex act itself is always thwarted . i 'd say this is unsuitable for kids , but teens would n't have a problem sitting through it , especially since they obviously compose the film 's target audience .

0NEG

film , released last year , was watchable enough , this insipid sequel had me looking at the theater 's glowing red exit sign longingly throughout . jennifer love hewitt is a very good - looking leading lady ; however , unlike neve campbell , hewitt struggles with acting . she just is n't convincing in this film ( girl - type character she tries to play here is annoying to the extreme and ruins many of the scenes which emphasize , exploitatively , her figure . add to serves as a vehicle for these two young actresses . nothing else here is original or interesting . this movie , in fact , makes other recent secondary characters are supposed to serve as comic relief . unfortunately , i still know 's characters are n't all that funny . in particular , one character , a chain - weed - smoking guy , is obnoxiously annoying and certainly does n't die soon enough . the death scenes , by the way , are the guy looks like the gorton 's fisherman , and his gruff voice makes him sound like a disney pirate . though his lightning - lit appearances ellicited much - under my rating system . otherwise , hewitt and brandy both grate on the nerves . early in the film , for instance , brandy part . oh , and the film 's conclusion , talk about repetitive ! people who saw i know what you did last summer 's ending at least 5 minutes before it happens . boring ! i saw this movie with my brother at the local still know what you did last summer , however , produced several lengthy uncomfortable silences from the audience , underscoring how bad it * really * is . if it were n't for the main actresses ' theater because they rely heavily on audience participation ) and would n't recommend it to people , unless they 're horror film fanatics or huge fans

note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . to assess alex cox 's film the winner as a loser would be so indolent . it would be derisive . it would be glib . it would be dismissive . it would be entirely accurate . rarely have i seen a film as excruciatingly annoying as the winner , a would - be comedy which quickly proves to be tedious , unfunny , and unengaging . the film attempts to be fresh and quirky , utilising a myriad of colourful characters to weave its absurd tale , but appears to overlook the fact that nobody in the film is remotely interesting and that all of the characters are essentially preposterous . the film is set in las vegas , and the focus in the winner is on philip ( vincent d'onofrio ) , an aloof , naive young man blessed with the odd gift of luck ; he virtually can not lose at the tables . despite this prodigious talent , philip is perpetually mournful and quite indifferent about his gambling fortunes , neither taking joy in his winnings nor having the foresight to mask his abilities . consequently , he becomes an easy target for those who would ride upon his coattails and take advantage of his talent . louise ( rebecca demornay ) , a sultry lounge singer , insinuates herself into philip 's life for the purpose of swindling him , while philip 's estranged brother ( and , conveniently , louise 's ex - beau ) johnny ( michael madsen ) arrives on the scene . ( to add some colour , johnny also happens to be toting their father 's corpse , sans one hand . ) meanwhile , philip is also befriended by a trio of low - rent , opportunists ( frank whaley , billy bob thornton , and richard edson ) , who have every intention of taking advantage of their new buddy 's gift with the dice . serenely overlooking the chaos from behind the scenes is the casino owner ( delroy lindo ) ; it is probably not giving away much to reveal that his role in the winner is essentially that alluded to at the end of the flashy sequence in martin scorsese 's casino which details the organization hierarchy of a casino 's operations - he * is * the eye in the sky . it could be maddening to endure a film whose central protagonist is so oblivious of the ongoing blatant manipulation , but fortunately this is not the case in the winner , if only because our sadsack hero is such a sap ; not even remotely sympathetic or compelling , it becomes impossible to root for philip or even care about his fate , and the would - be swindlers of philip 's fortunes are all drawn out as such ludicrous , transparent buffoons with entirely unimaginative and uninteresting schemes that one watches the winner with a complete sense of disinterest . it is a shame , as the winner features a talented cast - mr . d'onofrio is an underrated and gifted actor with a huge range ; mr . lindo has a remarkable screen presence which infiltrates every film in which he appears ; mr . madsen , ms . demornay , and mr . whaley have all done good work in the past . none of the actors in the winner are in top form here , and this film wo n't likely be a prized addition to their respective resumes . director alex cox does what he can with wendy riss ' screenplay , and it is to his credit that this film at no point feels like an adaptation of a stage play ; i was startled to learn that the winner was in fact based upon one . while tedious , the film is well - paced and does not meander , but it would be near - impossible task for mr . cox ( or , for that matter , virtually any other director that comes to mind ) to overcome the film 's widespread shortcomings in plot and characterization . to his credit , my understanding is that he has chosen to distance himself from the project in acknowledgement of its deficiencies . i caught the winner at its world premiere at the toronto international film festival in september 1996 , and in fairness it is entirely possible that the film has been extensively revamped since then due to the lacklustre audience reaction generated - there were more walkouts on this film than any of the others i screened . to be honest , though , i could n't begin to isolate what could be done to this film to improve it - i assume that throwing the whole thing out and starting over is out of the question . the winner has apparently played on cable television in the united states and is beginning a limited theatrical release at the time of this writing . the film has a nice upbeat score by pray for rain , but i am honestly not being facetious when i state that the thing i treasured most about my screening of the winner was the bag of popcorn upon which i was munching .

0NEG

be entirely accurate . rarely have i seen a film as excruciatingly annoying as the winner , a would - be comedy which quickly proves to be tedious , unfunny , and unengaging . the film attempts to be fresh and quirky , absurd tale , but appears to overlook the fact that nobody in the film is remotely interesting and that all of the characters are essentially preposterous . the film is set in las vegas , and not the case in the winner , if only because our sadsack hero is such a sap ; not even remotely sympathetic or compelling , it becomes watches the winner with a complete sense of disinterest . it is a shame , as the winner features a talented cast - mr whaley have all done good work in the past . none of the actors in the winner are in top form here , and this film wo n't likely be a the winner was in fact based upon one . while tedious , the film is well - paced and does not any other director that comes to mind ) to overcome the film 's widespread shortcomings in plot and characterization . to his credit , my since then due to the lacklustre audience reaction generated - there were more walkouts on this film than any of the others i screened . to be honest , though , i

what 's to like about the world of extremely violent trash pornography -- ie . the garbage known as " snuff " films ? nothing , right ? what 's to like about a film chronicling the world of violent trash pornography ? well . . . nothing . so , why make it , hollywood ? there 's no reason why the average , sane movie - goer will be interested in such a topic . no one is going to enrich their life or have a good time by watching material such as this . the lack of quality filmmaking in " 8 mm " ( from technical to acting ) stands out even more when you consider the star , writer , and supporting cast -- all reputable . but joel schumacher and his brand of unlikable filmmaking strikes again ! like paul schrader , schumacher has his moments , but they 're few and far ( far ! ) between . basically , this picture is crap and no one should pay to see it . why not walk out ? well , this would n't be a thorough review about a thoroughly bad movie . here 's why you should spend your money on dog food or gum instead of " 8 mm " . . . first thing -- if you do n't heed my advice , then understand what you 're about to see before you even think about paying good money for this crud . it 's not easy to watch . i did n't know the details of the story beforehand , but at least my ignorance can help others now . the ( ha ! ) plot revolves around tom welles ( nicolas cage ) as a surveillance expert and private investigator . a rich old woman discovers a " snuff " film in her late husband 's safe . she calls welles and hires him to try and find out if the young girl ( it had to be a young girl , did n't it , schumacher ! ) who appears to be murdered in the film really is dead . she 's horrified that her husband would have owned such a film ( in 8 mm , of course ) and just wants welles to snoop around without police interference to see what he can find . family - man welles agrees against better judgement or any concrete leads even after cringing and grimacing at the sight of the grotesque " murder " . let me backtrack for a moment . see , " snuff " films are pornos with a violent twist -- people are tortured in very sick ways and end up dead . however , the deaths are often staged and , in those cases , special effects and " good " acting make all the difference . very sick people enjoy and pay top dollar for these hard - to - find movies . the thought of this " industry " makes me want to throw my computer out the window and stop this review , but i 'll swallow my bile and move on . welles follows clues to hollywood and the porn industry . you 'd think he 's sherlock holmes the way clues drop so easily for him ! he comes across smut clerk max ( joaquin phoenix ) who knows everyone and everything in the underground business of sleaze . after a lot of digging and bribing , welles finds the men who are responsible for making this , and other , " snuff " films . skip ahead , skip ahead , skip ahead . . . led by dino velvet ( peter stormare in an uncharacteristically terrible performance ) and star - torturer " machine " ( christopher bauer ) , they have a big showdown with welles where death and mayhem ensue . the movie does n't end there , unfortunately , because welles has to do what all heroes in schumacher films do -- become a vigilante . this film does n't draw you in . it keeps you about 700 miles away from it and who in their right mind would want to get close ? it is possible to like a film that focuses on grime and sick behaviour ( ie . " se7en " ) , but it takes a large measure of restraint ( schumacher has none ) and a larger amount of talent ( schumacher has little ) . by those jabs , i 'm not only referring to his stylish destruction of the " batman " franchise , but " a time to kill " was an immensely overrated disappointment . for a guy who gets so much studio money , his track record of making rather bad movies is unparalleled . a good screenwriter and a good director can make you hypnotically watch even disgusting subject matter . writer andrew kevin walker did n't recapture the smarts of the fascinating script he authored for ' 95s twisted thriller , " se7en " . director schumacher does n't have that innate ability to make you watch things you do n't really want to see like better directors are capable of doing . he must not have believed hitchcock who espoused the theory that what we do n't see is more frightening than what we do ( especially when it 's a scene where young girl is supposed to be murdered ) . however , gratuitous is joel 's middle name . he must think that not flaunting a hard - core act of violent sex is showing plenty of tactful restraint . no , he does n't go that far , but we see enough unpleasantness . he does n't leave much to the imagination . it 's manipulating to hurt ( or kill ) young girls just to get the audience on the side of a murderous vigilante . the script and acting should be what gets us to believe in these characters , yet schumacher has no subtlety in his ( ha ha ! ) craft . case in point , a shot of a christian fellowship bus ( good , right ? ) drives away to reveal one of the villains ( bad , right ? ) . see . . . no subtlety . does joel think we 're stupid or that we need to be held by the hand to comprehend the contrasting imagery ? who do we root for in this mess ? is there anybody out there ? it 's not all the director 's fault , though . why did the actors sign up for this ? nicolas cage is an oscar - winner , for cryin ' out loud ! if he claims to do films to challenge himself and for the artistic merit rather than the money , what was he smoking when this script dropped on his veranda ? what is cage supposed to be in this movie -- a whispering batman without the charisma and pointed ears ? villainous peter stormare is five steps past hammy . and what is james gandolfini doing in this trash ? he was so solid as a concerned father in " a civil action " . i guess ol' nic , pete , and jim were promised a mountain of money . . . or they 're suckers . or they just do n't care . there are moments ( albeit brief ones ) where this rises above the wasteland . catherine keener is good ( although too quick to threaten divorce ) as mrs . wells . baby cindy is obviously cute and wells ' devout love of his daughter is sweet . the mother ( amy norton ) of the girl in the infamous 8 mm film is not too bad as a woman dealing with the uncertain loss of her runaway daughter . this film has an appropriate blue - toned , washed - out look like " payback " ( which was a much better movie ) . the editing is okay in scenes of no dialogue , but at other times it 's rough . during some conversations , close - ups and wide shots are not cut very well , making it look to be editted by someone whose instincts are n't good and whose timing was a half - second off . such a technical error indeed stands out . speaking of standing out , do n't believe the misleading trailers . there 's not much action here . occasionally , yes , but not as often as your tv will have you believe . after seeing " 8 mm " , i may not be interested in ever watching any kind of porn again . is that a positive ? well , if making me almost ill at the thought of glimpsing a dirty movie again is their motive , they 've done a swell job here . it 'll be a long time before i give a schumacher film another chance -- unless i lose my mind and become seriously depraved . but today i 'm not depraved , so i ask , why does this film preach that this garbage is out there and that society should be worried about it ? i 'm sure that somewhere right now there 's some pretty sick crap going on , but that does n't mean i need to know about it . yes , mr . walker , your script tells us that there are some screwed - up folks out there . yes , mr . walker , the proverbial monster does n't look like we expect him to . you said all that in 1995 . move on . this film serves no purpose . it does n't entertain , it does n't teach us anything , it does n't make a statement beyond the obvious " this stuff is bad " approach . only if this film awakens the authorities to find a way to abolish these types of horrors would it ever do someting truly worthwhile . that 's not likely to happen , though , so " 8 mm " is indeed a scummy waste of money . orson welles said years ago in a tribute to film , " to movies . . . to good movies " . if only joel schumacher and the producers had listened and told andrew kevin walker to bury this crud deep in a hole . like " snuff " films , " 8 mm " should never have been made . now , excuse me while i go try to forget i ever saw it . useless trivia -- joel schumacher loves the vigilante theme . he used it in " batman forever " , in " batman & robin " , in " a time to kill " , in " falling down " , and it 's rumoured that joel himself will play the vigilante at his breakfast table tomorrow . . .

0NEG

what 's to like about the world of extremely violent trash pornography -- ie . the garbage known as " snuff to like about a film chronicling the world of violent trash pornography ? well . . . nothing . so , a good time by watching material such as this . the lack of quality filmmaking in " 8 mm " ( from technical to acting all reputable . but joel schumacher and his brand of unlikable filmmaking strikes again ! like paul schrader , schumacher has his 're few and far ( far ! ) between . basically , this picture is crap and no one should pay to see it . why not walk out ? well , this would n't be a thorough review about a thoroughly bad movie . here 's why you should spend your money on find movies . the thought of this " industry " makes me want to throw my computer out the window and stop this review , but i 'll swallow my big showdown with welles where death and mayhem ensue . the movie does n't end there , unfortunately , because welles has to do what all heroes in franchise , but " a time to kill " was an immensely overrated disappointment . for a guy who gets so much studio money , his track record of making rather bad movies is unparalleled . a good screenwriter and a good director can make 's not all the director 's fault , though . why did the actors sign up for this ? nicolas cage is an oscar - winner , for cryin and for the artistic merit rather than the money , what was he smoking when this script dropped on his veranda ? what is cage supposed to be in this movie -- hammy . and what is james gandolfini doing in this trash ? he was so solid as a concerned father in not cut very well , making it look to be editted by someone whose instincts are n't good and whose timing was a half - second off . such a technical error indeed stands out . speaking you said all that in 1995 . move on . this film serves no purpose . it

in the james bond film " diamonds are forever , " tiffany case asks 007 whether he prefers brunettes to redheads . bond 's response is that it does n't really matter , as long as collars and cuffs match . well , collars and cuffs do n't match in " the real blonde . " what might have sounded good on paper ends up as a largely unfunny , meandering comedy on screen . the film , supposedly a satire of the superficiality of soap operas and the modeling business , is wafer thin . it plays like an " ally mcbeal " episode dragged out to the nth degree , replete with a few unnecessary " fantasy " sequences . writer / director tom dicillo manages the material as if poking fun at daytime dramas is a fresh idea . it is n't . the only surprise here is that the talented dicillo could make familiar terrain so dreary . matthew modine plays joe , a struggling actor waiting tables in order to pay the rent . he 's 35 with no agent and no credits since he 's too proud to take on roles in commercials or soap operas . " that 's not really acting " he tells his girlfriend of six years , mary ( catherine keener ) , with whom he bickers constantly about sex . but they need the money , so joe finally agrees to take a part in a madonna video . but it 's not really madonna starring in the video but a lookalike ( played by elizabeth berkley , still trying to jump - start her career after " showgirls " ) . this points out how artificial this whole business is , one supposes . dicillo has referred to " the real blonde " as " off - kilter , but an interesting combination of all sorts of stuff . . . " the film , which wanders all over the place without getting anywhere , is remarkably * on * -kilter and , with perhaps the single exception of the always - likable modine ( who 's not afraid to stand around in a very unattractive bathing suit surrounded by hunks ) , the entire cast is vague and uninteresting . catherine keener , who 's appeared in dicillo 's previous three films ( including the brilliant " living in oblivion " ) , is at her most annoying in " the real blonde . " look at her closely ; she really ca n't act at all . her reactions are all wrong , almost always out of sync with her co - stars . she reacts too soon , or too late , to lines and situations . she moves her eyes , or her mouth , far too much . she frowns , she yells , she babbles -- she blows chunks . maxwell caulfield plays joe 's actor / waiter buddy bob , the one obsessed with dating a " natural " blonde . bob 's personality ( not to mention caulfield 's acting ability ) parallels that of the character he plays on the soap opera " passion crest " -- stiff and uninteresting . maybe that 's the point . daryl hannah is dim and uninteresting as the real blonde of the title , a soap dish who beds bob both on- and off - camera . hannah looks about fifty in this movie ( she 's only 37 ) . why is that ? almost all the women in the film wear tops that show their nipples . why is that ! ? marlo thomas plays an uninteresting fashion photographer . kathleen turner plays an uninteresting talent agent . buck henry plays an uninteresting shrink . christopher lloyd plays an uninteresting caterer . and so on . the best parts of the " the real blonde " are the beginning and the end , brief scenes of an elderly woman losing and then finding her dog . there 's more depth and sincerity in a single close - up of her expressive face than in the entire film . while this contrast is supposedly meant to highlight the shallowness of the other characters ' lives , the only thing that makes shallow and superficial interesting is if it 's funny .

0NEG

what might have sounded good on paper ends up as a largely unfunny , meandering comedy on screen . the film , supposedly a satire of superficiality of soap operas and the modeling business , is wafer thin . it plays like an " ally mcbeal " episode dragged out to the nth degree , replete with a few unnecessary " fantasy " sequences . writer / director tom dicillo manages the material as of stuff . . . " the film , which wanders all over the place without getting anywhere , is remarkably * on * -kilter and , with a very unattractive bathing suit surrounded by hunks ) , the entire cast is vague and uninteresting . catherine keener , who 's appeared in dicillo 's including the brilliant " living in oblivion " ) , is at her most annoying in " the real blonde . " look at her closely ; she really ca n't act at all . her reactions are all wrong , almost always out of sync with her co - plays on the soap opera " passion crest " -- stiff and uninteresting . maybe that 's the point . daryl hannah is dim and uninteresting as the real blonde of the title , a soap their nipples . why is that ! ? marlo thomas plays an uninteresting fashion photographer . kathleen turner plays an uninteresting talent agent . buck henry plays an uninteresting shrink . christopher lloyd plays an uninteresting caterer . and so on . the best parts of

if i were to plot a graph of year against movie - plot - ridiculity for = hollywood movies , you 'll probably see a line with constant gradient . = now , if i were to plot that same graph for the movies that the michael = bay / jerry bruckheimer has made over the last 4 years , that line would be = exponential in growth . the team started out with the will smith vehicle = bad boys which was no more than a 2hr long action - music - video , = nevertheless entertaining . then came the rock , where audiences flocked = to see nicholas cage team up with sean connery against some terrorizing = general fighting over some stupid cause . con - air was ridiculousy dumb in = its premise but it did have fun moments , and who can forget the nursery = rhyme sang by that psycho killer played by steve buscemi . while these = movies worked because there was something better to cover - up the dirt , = armageddon does not . very much like deep impact , a meteor is heading towards earth and they = did n't realize it until 18 days from impact . deep impact settled with = the modest meteor size as large as the city of new york but armageddon = just had to be bigger . . . . well about the size of texas ( that kinda meteor = whould probably knock earth out of its orbit ! ) . the panic of this = sighting spurs the idea of landing people on the meteor , drill it then = nuke it ( sounds familiar ) and who better to do such a job than harry = stamper ( bruce willis ) , your very own oil - driller extraordinaire and = his team of macho - misfits , nursing the tagline ` there ai n't nothin' on = this planet that harry ca n't drill ! ' . in that 18 days , harry 's group was = split into 2 teams , trained for deep - space flight and finally blasted = into space in with special drilling vehicles on 2 new space shuttles . the main relationship drama of armageddon is formed within the = relationship of harry , a . j . and grace . to give you an idea , a . j . works = for harry , and loves grace , harry 's daughter . the problem is , harry = hates to see his daughter hanging around some scruffy grunt like himself = for the rest of her life . so while a . j . and harry struts it out , grace = is place in a position where she is unable to take sides , so she remains = seated in the nasa control tower , crying over both of them in about 80 % = of the movie . the human elements this movie tries to inject proves to be nothing more = than just an excuse for more slow - mo 's and gold - tinted photography . the = anguish of the world is potrayed with scenes of people praying , running = for their lives or just sitting still staring at the sky , sounds fine = right ? i know , but it looks too out of place on screen , too staged . if = you were to ask yourself , ` what 's the difference between armageddon and = a r&b music video ? " you 'd probably just said ` the music . " . not = surprising since michael bay is a child of that industry and has = actually managed to transpose his mtv skills to screen successfully . his = foray into armageddon just proves that he does n't when to stop . well there 's really nothing much to sum up here . the = stock - aitken - waterman of hollywood movies have projected their art - form = into ridiculity , beyond the plane believability , where people still = accept even if they did n't believe . deep impact was ridiculous in most = aspects and i believe the makers know this . the thing is , they decided = to shroud myth and fantasy with a purely believable human tale of = suffering and coming in terms with ones problems , which ultimately = brought it above the ashes which it had initially put itself in . = armageddon , is an overcrowded , loud , messy , preposterously manipulative = waste of money and deserves to remain in that same pile of ash . . = 20 if you have planned to watched this over deep impact because of liv = tyler , bruce willis or the tagline " from the makers of ` the rock ' ! ! " . = please catch deep impact before it finishes its run , it may be the only = meteor worth watching in long - long time . if you have to see it , please = bring ear - plugs and some aspirins ( for the vertigo ) . expect armageddon = ld 's to retail at s$19 . 90 at carrefour come release time . gee . . . . . . even = that 's not worth it !

0NEG

movie . the human elements this movie tries to inject proves to be nothing more = than just an excuse for more slow - mo 's and gold - tinted photography . the = anguish of the world is potrayed with , sounds fine = right ? i know , but it looks too out of place on screen , too staged . if = you were successfully . his = foray into armageddon just proves that he does n't when to stop . well there 's really nothing much to sum up the = stock - aitken - waterman of hollywood movies have projected their art - form = into ridiculity , beyond the plane believability , where people still = accept even if they did had initially put itself in . = armageddon , is an overcrowded , loud , messy , preposterously manipulative = waste of money and deserves to remain in that same pile of ash . . = 20 if you have planned to watched

" tina ! ! ! fetch me the axe ! ! ! " a favourite book of mine called the golden turkey awards relates the story that when mommie dearest was unleashed upon unsuspecting audiences back in 1981 , paramount soon realised they had a problem on their hands . it was n't just the film 's disappointing box office performance . indeed , in the coming years some people would be going back to see it two , three , even six times . no , the main problem was that what was intended as a serious biopic of screen queen joan crawford was turning into the laugh riot of the year . in a desperate attempt to capitalise on this unexpected turn of events , some publicity hacks dreamed up outrageous print advertisements screaming : " mommie dearest : the biggest mommie of them all ! " . executives at paramount were appalled and soon had the ads withdrawn , but it was all too late . mommie dearest was already cementing its place in camp cinema history . unfortunately , faye dunaway 's energetic , at times ridiculously over - the - top performance is about the film 's only redeeming feature . based on daughter christina crawford 's trashy biography , mommie dearest chronicles a series of mainly private events in the life of her moviestar mother . if you believe this movie , it was a life was racked by obsession , lonliness , child abuse and rampant egomania . the film begins with crawford adopting two children , and concludes in the office of her lawyer where her now grown - up daughter and son find out they have been left out of their mother 's will . joan always wanted her kids to be able to fend for themselves , you see . but that 's about the only thread in the narrative that manages to survive to the film 's end . the script - laboured over by four writers , a bad sign in itself - is a poorly connected series of episodes that builds little dramatic momentum . frank perry 's direction is no more than competent , and dunaway 's bitchy lines aside , the dialogue is flat and uninvolving . in fairness , the film 's second half ditches some of the cartoon hysterics and does develop a degree empathy for its characters . when the adult christina moves out of home into her own modest dwelling , joan visits and keeps in touch , not helping her financially but encouraging christina 's own acting and career ambitions . crawford does seem to care about her daughter , but you can sense the emotional distance and feel some of their pain . you also get glimpses of what the film could have been in the hands of better writers . ah , but there is dunaway 's performance . and what a delicious piece of campery it often is . having just been sacked by her studio after a run of box office duds , crawford storms home late at night and proceeds to go ballistic in the garden . she has the maid drag the kids out of bed to come down and clean up the mess she 's making . spotting a young tree she does n't like the look of , she turns to the trembling christina and utters the immortal line " tina ! ! fetch me the axe ! ! " with which she proceeds to enthusiastically dismember the poor sapling . in the film 's most outrageous scene , joan realises that some of her daughter 's clothes are hanging on wire coat hangers . oh dear ! sounds like the perfect excuse for another temper tantrum , does n't it ? this time she gives her daughter a horrible beating while delivering another classic outburst : " no . . . wire . . . hangers . . . . ever ! ! ! ! " . and later , when the board of her late husband 's company pepsi cola tries to divest her of her directorship , she displays a superb grasp of business etiquette by jumping to her feet and roaring : " do n't fuck with me , fellas ! ! " . oh joy ! something of a camp classic , then , but if that 's not you 're cup of tea then mommie dearest does n't have too much to recommend it . better you see the real crawford in the women ( 1939 ) , mildred pierce ( 1945 ) or whatever happened to baby jane ( 1962 ) . great films distinguished by great performances , and a far more eloquent testament to this great woman than frank perry 's shrieking piece of tabloid froth .

0NEG

, but it was all too late . mommie dearest was already cementing its place in camp cinema history . unfortunately , faye dunaway 's energetic , at times . the script - laboured over by four writers , a bad sign in itself - is a poorly connected series of episodes that builds little dramatic momentum . frank perry 's direction is no more than competent , and dunaway 's bitchy lines aside , the dialogue is flat and uninvolving . in fairness , the film 's second half ditches ah , but there is dunaway 's performance . and what a delicious piece of campery it often is . having just been sacked by her n't fuck with me , fellas ! ! " . oh joy ! something of a camp classic , then , but if that 's not you 're cup of tea then mommie dearest does n't have too much to recommend it . better you see the real crawford in the women eloquent testament to this great woman than frank perry 's shrieking piece of tabloid froth .

phil ( radmar jao ) has a hairy problem . his beard is growing so rapidly that he has to shave every hour . he recently met the author of a non - fiction book on lycanthropy , also referred to in the movie as werewolfism , and phil now believes that his problem is that he has become a werewolf . using enough chains and handcuffs to be a hit at a sadomasochists convention , he ties himself in at night lest his urges overcome him . and phil is just one of the many quirky characters that inhabit shopping for fangs . made on a pittance , the film features an almost exclusively asian - american cast . as directed by quentin lee and justin lin , the movie is so amateurishly bad that it could almost be a parody of indie films . jeanne chin plays katherine , a meek and soft - spoken wife , who worries that her husband is unhappy with her because she is not giving him enough sex . we know this through the endless scenes of her confessing her sins , real and imagined , to her therapist . as her husband , jim , clint jung plays a muscle man with a macho crudeness . the picture is filled with stereotypes . there 's a mysterious , loud - mouthed waitress with a big , platinum blonde wig who brags to everyone she meets that she 's a lesbian . she spends most of the movie putting the moves on her favorite customer , a gay guy . and the lone white with a major role , the author on werewolfism , has wildly unkempt , orangey blonde , curly hair . from its opening scene of an attempted rape at knifepoint to its easy to guess ending twist , the script rarely has anything to offer . the story is so minimally developed that it feels almost like the actors were ad - libbing . one can only hope that the directors ' next film will have some substance and some credible acting . shopping for fangs runs 1 : 30 . it is rated r for sex , violence , and profanity and would be fine for older teenagers .

0NEG

. as directed by quentin lee and justin lin , the movie is so amateurishly bad that it could almost be a parody of indie films jung plays a muscle man with a macho crudeness . the picture is filled with stereotypes . there 's a mysterious , loud - mouthed waitress opening scene of an attempted rape at knifepoint to its easy to guess ending twist , the script rarely has anything to offer . the story is so minimally developed that it feels almost like the actors were ad -

writer / director lawrence kasdan had a hand in penning some of the biggest film successes of the 1980s . yes , that 's right , he co - wrote raiders of the lost ark ( 9/10 ) , the empire strikes back ( 8 . 5/10 ) and return of the jedi ( 8/10 ) . now with this film , it looks as though he has decided to test his skills at mediocre screenwriting and bland directing . and guess what ? he succeeds once again ! plot : a man with a shady and regrettable past decides to run away and into a small american town , where he pretends to be a licensed psychologist to an open - armed swarm of people with problems . it is n't long before he befriends the small - town billionaire , folks become suspicious and he falls for one of his own patients . critique : this film is not a comedy ! it is a drama . i say this right up front because from the looks of the trailer , you would think that this film secures its base in humor , but unfortunately for us , it does not . it is a serious film ( seriously flawed if you ask me , but i digress ) which offers a couple of witty quips to keep you awake , but overall , just sits there . now on to my review . this movie sucks because it was slow and boring , starred an uninteresting protagonist with an unbelievable past , included extremely dull patients whose problems left me indifferent at best and pissed at worst , and certified it all with many a predictable ending . i have no idea what lawrence kasdan was trying to accomplish with this picture , but whatever it was . . . he missed ! anyone without his name could never have made this film because it is an extremely generic puff - piece , which on a good day , might be described as predictably digestible . it 's no wonder that the studio is trying to sell it as a comedy ! it sucks as a drama , and bored my movie cohort right to sleep . i 've given it four points on four extremely shallow yet distinguishable marks . first of all , i could n't help but think about how much the lead actor , loren dean , looked like a young charles grodin . he even acted like him , save for the dry , sardonic wit . this kept me interested in watching him at least . number two , and this one is really shallow ( seemed to be geared that way as well ) , there were quite a few " titshots " , as they would say back in high school . and god help me if i ca n't get enough of those in an aimless drama . and three , and this one surprised me the most , actor ted danson 's cameo ( yes , he will always be sam malone to us real fans ! ) was the best part about this movie and actually made me see him as a different person . a different asshole , but a different person nonetheless . if ever you rent this movie one day ( promise you wo n't throw away your hard - earned money at the theaters ? ! ) , wait for his scene because it 's actually pretty good . other than that , drab , drab , drab and drab . even jason lee , a personal favorite of mine , was left out to dry with lame dialogue and one of the phoniest romances to hit the big screen in a while . well , at least he finally " came out " and did some real skateboarding in this movie ! oh yeah , and i guess that 's the fourth point in my rating . anyway , if you enjoy watching boring patients babble on about their boring problems to an uninteresting psychologist . . . this film 's your bag ! otherwise , skip it and see analyze this ( 8/10 ) again . . . now there 's a great shrink movie ! little known facts about this film and its stars : " three 's company " fans alert ! ! ! terri from the tv show , also known as actress priscilla barnes , plays a small but pivotal part as the landlady in this film . the scene is actually a fantasy sequence and does feature cleavage , so stay tuned , kids ! also , it is to note that the actress was once named " penthouse pet of the month " in march of 1976 . she was known as one joann witty back then . she 's originally from jersey . who the hell is loren dean , the dude who plays mumford in this film ? you got me , but all i know is that he was born in las vegas in 1969 and played the character of billy bathgate in the 1991 film of the same name . jason lee was born in the state of california in the year of 1971 . he was a professional skateboarder before his acting career took off after mallrats ( 6/10 ) , and even owns his own skateboarding company called stereo manufacturing corp . he 's been in every kevin smith film except for clerks ( 8 . 5/10 ) . listen closely and you will hear the pharmacist in this film ( the ballooning actor formerly known as pruit taylor vince ) make a reference to the " lost ark " , which is obviously an in - joke , considering that it is the writer / director of this film , lawrence kasdan , who co - wrote raiders of the lost ark ( 9/10 ) . kasdan also played the part of dr . green in 1997 's as good as it gets ( 8/10 ) . ted danson also played the role of lawyer peter lowenstein in kasdan 's 1981 directorial debut body heat starring a sexy kathleen turner and william hurt .

0NEG

. now with this film , it looks as though he has decided to test his skills at mediocre screenwriting and bland directing . and guess what ? he succeeds once again ! it does not . it is a serious film ( seriously flawed if you ask me , but i digress ) which just sits there . now on to my review . this movie sucks because it was slow and boring , starred an uninteresting protagonist with an unbelievable past , included extremely dull patients whose problems left me indifferent at best and pissed at worst , and certified it all with many a predictable ending . i have no idea what lawrence kasdan was trying without his name could never have made this film because it is an extremely generic puff - piece , which on a good day , might be described studio is trying to sell it as a comedy ! it sucks as a drama , and bored my movie cohort right to sleep . i 've given it four points on four extremely for his scene because it 's actually pretty good . other than that , drab , drab , drab and drab . even jason lee , a personal favorite of mine , was left out to dry with lame dialogue and one of the phoniest romances to hit the big screen in a while . well in my rating . anyway , if you enjoy watching boring patients babble on about their boring problems to an uninteresting psychologist . . . this film 's your bag ! otherwise

ladies and gentlemen , payback is the most expensive episode of " the equalizer " i 've ever seen . gibson plays porter , a burglar shot and left for dead by his wife ( deborah kara unger , in an all - too - brief cameo ) and partner ( henry ) after a successful heist . as a morgue attendant sets about removing the bullets from porter 's back , porter miraculously springs back to life . he makes it his mission , as a walking dead man without a conscience , to exact revenge on those who screwed him and reclaim his share of the loot . ( in a running gag , porter demands $ 70 000 , but everybody mishears him and assumes he 's after the entire $ 130 000 haul . ) in his travels ( or travails ) , porter encounters several other one - named villainous cretins like fairfax ( james coburn as a white - haired , millionaire thief ) and carter ( kristofferson , as a brown - haired , millionaire thief - the kingpin of the obligatory " operation " ) . helgeland 's film ( which was recut by mel the producer ) is devoid of an imperative dime store charm . the novelty of seeing a big movie star mercilessly dispatching criminals wears off quickly : a ) because the bad guys can only be differentiated by their coifs , and b ) because mel 's schtick does n't evolve from act one - he 's the terminator stranded in a plot without a sci - fi hook to keep us interested after the initial sadistic thrill is gone . payback should have been called playback : it 's a 102-minute loop of the same short sequence . ( mel : " i want my money . " anonymous villain : " no . " mel shoots gun . anonymous villain dies . mel meets up with his hooker friend ( bello ) . second verse , same as the first . ) it 's not porter 's single - mindedness that robs the film of snap , crackle , and pop ; as a character who has already " died " once , he has nothing to lose and so much to gain . the movie lacks danger . the only thing porter is in jeopardy of is putting the audience to sleep . payback has a gritty , metallic look to it that also becomes monotonous ; its cinematography would be more appropriate in one of those bleak urban psychodramas that come out of england every couple of months . ( director of photography ericson core should have been fired early on for lighting bello , so va - va - va - voom in permanant midnight , to look like a potato in a gregg allman wig . ) to analyze such mediocrity is to grant payback far more attention than it deserves . perhaps only someone as experienced with antagonists - as - protagonists as tarantino - look what he did with the similar hero - less botched - robbery tale reservoir dogs - could have pulled off this material ( a loose remake of john boorman 's point blank ) . the movie presents us with the conventions of pulp fiction ( all women are femme fatales ; even the cops are in on it , etc . ) and crosses them with the conventions of cheesy tv crime melodramas ( death is never in the cards for the main character , etc . ) but transcends neither .

0NEG

novelty of seeing a big movie star mercilessly dispatching criminals wears off quickly : a ) because the bad guys can only be interested after the initial sadistic thrill is gone . payback should have been called playback : it 's a 102-minute loop of the same short sequence . ( mel : " i want my money . . second verse , same as the first . ) it 's not porter 's single - mindedness that robs the film of snap , crackle , and pop ; as a has nothing to lose and so much to gain . the movie lacks danger . the only thing porter is in jeopardy of is putting the audience to sleep . payback has a gritty , metallic look to it that also becomes monotonous ; its cinematography would be more appropriate in one of like a potato in a gregg allman wig . ) to analyze such mediocrity is to grant payback far more attention than it deserves . perhaps only someone as experienced with antagonists - as

when you 've run out of old tv shows to turn into movies , i guess you try video games . why did i go to see mortal kombat : annihilation ? the quest to seek an answer to this query may prove a better movie that the one i just saw . this film was a bunch of fighting , yelling , special effects , and bad acting set to an oppressive techno music soundtrack . the plot is fairly simple : a portal has opened between our world and the " outworld " , allowing evil forces commanded by shao kahn ( brian thompson ) to wreak havoc and attempt to destroy humanity . the good guys , led by sorcerer rayden ( james remar ) and human mortal liu kang ( robin shou ) , must take the fight to outworld , where the fate of both worlds will be determined . here 's the catch : they must reunite princess katana ( talia soto ) , who 's on the good side , with her resurrected mother queen sindel ( musetta vander ) , who 's on the bad side , for their love for each other will close the portal and ensure humanity 's safety for another generation . how this is supposed to work , i still have no idea , but i liked katana 's line , " i knew love would keep us together , " since that captain and tennille song ran through my head and i got a good laugh . there are some seriously stupid things in this movie . take , for example , a transportation system which utilizes the " inner winds " , generated by earth 's magma flows . you get in this metal ball which transports you through underground tunnels really fast . how fast ? as katana says , " you will be moving so fast , it will be as if you are not moving at all . " what ? later , sonya blade ( sandra hess ) goes to find jax ( lynn " red " williams , otherwise known as " saber " on tv 's american gladiators ) at a medical research facility on the island of oahu . how do we know this is where she went ? there 's a sign on the facility 's perimeter fence that reads : medical research facility - oahu , hawaii . remember , this is not a caption , but an actual sign . i guess the location is on there for all those medical researchers who keep forgetting where they are . there 's a lot of major flipping action , too . the first encounter between good and evil shows kahn and rayden swiftly arching though the air toward one another . do they land and immediately get into the fighting ? does one of them land first and catch the other off guard ? do they collide in mid - air ? no , apparently they flip toward each other so they can talk without having to yell from far away . why did they need those metal balls to travel ? everyone could have just flipped from point a to point b . i have to admit , the fight scenes are pretty good , although you can tell they are heavily enhanced by digital effects and fly wires , allowing the characters to surpass the limits of the human body and the laws of physics . the movie 's thrills are derived from these scenes and most of the audience responses are on the visceral level when someone gets trashed really badly . " ouch " was the most common expletive heard when i screened this one . you could tell that the filmmakers knew in advance that fights , not plot , would be the main draw , since dialog is apparently in the film just to get from one fight to the next . it seems that 's all there is in this movie . maybe it is . as i had mentioned , the acting is bad . there 's not one solid performance in the film , although williams as jax was pretty funny . after a fight between sonya and one of the bad guys degenerates into female mud wrestling , jax says , " you look good in mud . no , really , you do . " remar plays rayden with an inconsistency which makes it hard to take his character seriously , and shou is relatively emotionless as liu kang . brian thompson , who has played good guys , bad guys , and even an alien on tv 's the x - files , but always some muscle - bound behemoth , is your average evil demi - god , but it 's more the script 's fault than his own that he does n't have anything original to say . the one really impressive thing about this movie is that there is not one swear word in the whole hour and a half . another thing which should be noted is that for all its punching and kicking , blood only appears in one scene . all in all , mortal kombat : annihilation is loud , violent , shallow , and marketed toward kids . hey , just like the video game !

0NEG

that the one i just saw . this film was a bunch of fighting , yelling , special effects , and bad acting set to an oppressive techno music soundtrack . the plot is fairly simple : a portal has portal and ensure humanity 's safety for another generation . how this is supposed to work , i still have no idea , but i liked katana 's line , " i through my head and i got a good laugh . there are some seriously stupid things in this movie . take , for example , a not plot , would be the main draw , since dialog is apparently in the film just to get from one fight to the next . it seems that 's all there is in this . maybe it is . as i had mentioned , the acting is bad . there 's not one solid performance in the film , although williams as jax was pretty funny . after hard to take his character seriously , and shou is relatively emotionless as liu kang . brian thompson , who has played more the script 's fault than his own that he does n't have anything original to say . the one really impressive thing about this movie is . all in all , mortal kombat : annihilation is loud , violent , shallow , and marketed toward kids . hey , just like

the swooping shots across darkened rooftops suggest a very tim burton movie , but , alas , no caped crusader descends to save * this * film . instead , it 's a skeletal housemaid ( julia roberts ) who must bear witness to this unfortunate retelling of " dr . jekyll and mr . hyde . " for a few , fleeting , maddening moments , director stephen frears ( dangerous liaisons ) gets everything just right-- the tone , the colors , the characters ; all the ingredients to make a most - powerful potion out of valerie martin 's best - selling novel . yet it fizzles too quickly ; the volatile mixture losing potency from the very first scene . casting is a large part of the problem . the story all but collap- ses around ms . roberts-- she does n't have the range for this kind of drama . her accent also comes and goes , though it 's nowhere near as glaring as the total lack of chemistry between her and co - star john malkovich . ( he looks the same in both of his roles-- an incredible fact that 's missed by everyone in the story ! ) the very british supporting cast-- including michael gambon and george cole-- gives credibility to the smaller parts . glenn close also appears as a madam that the good doctor calls upon . her performance is as close to intentional camp as the movie ever gets and-- as a bonus-- offers a likely peek at her upcoming cruella de ville in the live - action 101 dalmantions . the biggest botch in mary reilly is suspense : there is none . no terror , no tension ; nothing . without any weight , wit , or wonder to propel the story , the viewer is left with little more to do than pay attention to the period detail , a few buckets of blood , and stuart craig 's fabulously dreary production design . all of which gets old after about an hour , at which point i recommend leaving . ( the pacing in the second - half is especially abominable . if you * do * stick it through , your sole reward is a half - hokey special effect depicting the infamous transformation . ) mr . frears reportedly recut his film several times , missing several release dates in the process . ( obviously , no one advised him to throw up his hands and just turn the whole damned thing over to mel brooks . blucher ! ) mary reilly is the second robert louis stevenson story of the month , after muppet treasure island . perhaps mr . frears should consult with brian henson on future projects . i daresay that even ms . piggy is a better choice for a certain roles than julia roberts . and she does have a great chop !

0NEG

rooftops suggest a very tim burton movie , but , alas , no caped crusader descends to save * this * film . instead , it 's a skeletal housemaid ( julia out of valerie martin 's best - selling novel . yet it fizzles too quickly ; the volatile mixture losing potency from the very first scene . casting is a large part of the problem . the story all but collap- ses around ms . roberts-- she does n't have the range for this kind of drama . her accent also comes goes , though it 's nowhere near as glaring as the total lack of chemistry between her and co - star john malkovich . ( de ville in the live - action 101 dalmantions . the biggest botch in mary reilly is suspense : there is none . no terror , no tension ; nothing . without any weight , wit , or wonder to propel the story , the viewer is left with a few buckets of blood , and stuart craig 's fabulously dreary production design . all of which gets old after about . ( the pacing in the second - half is especially abominable . if you * do * stick it through , with brian henson on future projects . i daresay that even ms . piggy is a better choice for a certain roles than julia roberts . and she

guilt . guilt is something i felt while watching basic instinct for the ninth time ; the penultimate t & a thriller , basic instinct made my last few teenage years worth living . but i know so well that it 's a terrible film , made by a terrible director incapable of feeling guilt . verhoeven went on to make the even more offensive showgirls and , on november seventh , 1997 , unleashed starship troopers to innocent moviegoers like me , who can not control the urge to see giant bug movies . the pic begins with the most unintentional laugh of the year . a simple , white on black title card reads " starship troopers " -my friends and i speculated that the night before the prints were shipped , verhoeven realized he forgot the credits . is this how a hundred million dollar movie should open ? were the rest of the film that subdued . . . starship troopers is about a group of white , blond - haired himbos and bimbos who all have spanish last names . they graduate high school , join the military , and then , rather curiously , decide to travel to an alien planet and destroy all lifeforms on that planet . the story is so incomprehensible , and told so bombastically , it 's akin to 129 minutes of someone screaming punishments at you in a foreign tongue . ( aside , club lovers will be happy to know that dance music has n't changed in the future . ) one plus : starship troopers contains some very funny sequences , specifically the newsreels of the future . hysterically funny , actually . but the cynicism of these reports left me curious as to whether verhoeven felt pessimistic about the story in between . the storytelling lacks focus , to say the least . the politics of the film are scary . the actions of the major female characters are dictated by their out - of - control libidos . there 's even a creepy sex scene : the lovely dina meyer makes out , nude , with the sickening van dien while half her face is covered by her opaque sweater , just the way he seems to like it . i use the term sickening because van dien is the least appealing actor i 've encountered in a big budget picture ; all chiseled features and machismo , he even barks a eulogy at a funeral like military orders . of course , verhoeven 's probably the one to blame , and perhaps i 'm jealous because i 'm so disgusting . at any rate , a movie called starship troopers should n't be about sex . exactly ten years ago , verhoeven made robocop , which was about nothing but skillfully made and oddly moving . and r - rated , despite its goofy premise . maybe it 's asking too much for verhoeven to make a pg - movie , then - he 's a master of insipid violence . however , ten year old boys would adore starship troopers if they could see it .

0NEG

years worth living . but i know so well that it 's a terrible film , made by a terrible director incapable of feeling guilt . verhoeven went on to make the even more offensive the urge to see giant bug movies . the pic begins with the most unintentional laugh of the year . a simple , white on black title card reads film that subdued . . . starship troopers is about a group of white , blond - haired himbos and bimbos who all have spanish last names . they graduate high alien planet and destroy all lifeforms on that planet . the story is so incomprehensible , and told so bombastically , it 's akin to 129 minutes of someone screaming punishments at you in a foreign tongue . ( aside , club lovers will be happy to whether verhoeven felt pessimistic about the story in between . the storytelling lacks focus , to say the least . the politics of the film are scary . the lovely dina meyer makes out , nude , with the sickening van dien while half her face is covered by her he seems to like it . i use the term sickening because van dien is the least appealing actor i 've encountered in a big budget picture ; all

" what 's your favorite new york moment ? " " this one 's climbing the charts . " starring john cusack , kate beckinsale , eugene levy , molly shannon . directed by peter chelsom . rated pg-13 . there 's no doubt that 95 % of romantic comedies follow a distinct pattern : guy sees girl , guy wants girl , guy goes through unreasonable obstacles to get girl , guy gets girl . in rare cases , the genders are flipped . predictability is a given . rarely , though , is a romantic comedy as cheap , as obvious , or as pointless as serendipity , a film that uses its " theme " as an excuse for its plot contrivances . " lightweight " does n't begin to describe it . this is like anti - gravity . it begins in a new york city bloomingdale 's , a product placement that rivals cast away 's fedex for sheer blatancy . jonathan trager ( john cusack ) and sara thomas ( kate beckinsale ) both go for the same pair of gloves . after going through the perfunctory motions , jonathan gets to keep the gloves and the two of them go out for ice cream , followed by ice skating . jonathan falls hard , and sara is charmed . when she writes her name and number down on a piece of paper , a truck rumbles by and blows it out of her hand . she takes this as a sign from fate that they should n't be together ; jonathan is flabbergasted . to pacify him , she comes up with an idea : jonathan will write his number on a 5 dollar bill , which she will promptly spend . when she gets home , she will write her name and number inside a book ( " love in the time of cholera " ) and sell it to a used bookstore . if the bill gets back to her or the book to him , it will mean that they are meant to be together . three years later . both sara and jonathan are now engaged to other love interests . both realize they are n't content . both go looking for the other . what happens now is so absurd that i 'm almost tempted to recommend the film for the sake of seeing it . the two of them run circles around each other in a set of incredible " coincidences " that i would describe as contrivances if it were n't for the film oh - so - cleverly dismissing that criticism by building its plot around " serendipity . " of course , since the movie is about fate , the screenwriter can do anything he damn well pleases . i 'm not buying it . there 's no suspense in any of this because we know exactly what 's going to happen , but serendipity insists on drilling its purportedly " adorable " non - story into our heads . instead of " will they meet ? " the question we 're asking is " when will they meet already ? " to make matters worse , every " coincidence " is telegraphed from a mile away ; by the last reel i was bored enough to actively look for signs that something else " incredible " was going to happen . cusack is fine and beckinsale , at least , is n't saddled with another lumbering , clunky screenplay ( she 's had bad luck , what with brokedown palace and pearl harbor on her resume ) , just an inanely pointless one . serendipity also relieves the tedium with the amazing eugene levy , who plays a snarky bloomingdale 's salesman . what 's the interest in watching a movie that spirals around and around a predestined ( no pun intended ) conclusion ? serendipity wants to tug at the heartstrings , but it only tests our patience .

0NEG

the genders are flipped . predictability is a given . rarely , though , is a romantic comedy as cheap , as obvious , or as pointless as serendipity , a film that uses its " theme " as an excuse for its plot contrivances . " lightweight " does n't begin to describe it . this is like anti - gravity . it begins n't content . both go looking for the other . what happens now is so absurd that i 'm almost tempted to recommend the film for . the two of them run circles around each other in a set of incredible " coincidences " that i would describe as contrivances if it were n't for the film oh - so know exactly what 's going to happen , but serendipity insists on drilling its purportedly " adorable " non - story into our heads . instead of " will they meet ? " the asking is " when will they meet already ? " to make matters worse , every " coincidence " is telegraphed from a mile away ; by the last reel i was bored enough to actively look for signs that something else " incredible and pearl harbor on her resume ) , just an inanely pointless one . serendipity also relieves the tedium with the amazing ? serendipity wants to tug at the heartstrings , but it only tests our patience .

i did n't come into city of angels expecting greatness . i 've never seen wim wenders ' wings of desire , the classic movie upon which city is loosely based . then again , i have seen enough stories which are based upon a similar plot device , with the little mermaid ( both the disney version and the original folktale ) being among them , that i had some high expectations about the possible power such a story of impossible love can hold . unfortunately , city of angels ended up fulfilling few of them . the plot , for those that could n't tell from the previews , revolves around the angel seth , played with an almost creepy intensity by nicolas cage , who , in the midst of his angelic duties , falls in love with a heart surgeon named maggie ( meg ryan in her most endearing performance since when harry met sally ) . of course , his being an angel prevents him from doing much about his love except appearing at random times to talk to her , watch her buy groceries , only to disappear in the blink of an eye . their love must remain unrequited unless seth decides to make the ultimate sacrifice and become human . using this framework as a jumping - off point , the movie attempts to veer through some heavy philosophical ruminations on the nature of desire , the joys of being human , and the definition of perfection . the first half of the movie succeeds on most points . cage excellently plays the eminently difficult role of an angel who does n't know feelings so ca n't really express , preventing the character of seth from getting boring despite his limited repertoire of intent looks and hang - dog expressions . unfortunately , cage takes the intensity too far sometimes , and then seth comes across as more creepy than sensitive . as maggie , ryan manages to be convincing as a heart surgeon who has trouble coming to terms with her having lost a patient on the operating table despite having done everything right . her beauty , unlike her unbearable cuteness in french kiss , is mature , intelligent , and winning . likewise , some interesting ideas float around at the beginning of the film . when the camera pans through traffic jams and libraries and we get to hear the thoughts of the random people who flash across the screen , the audience experiences a little of what it must be like to be an angel . the beautiful camera work , shooting down onto the hectic world of los angeles from the improbable perches of the angels , also gives us a sense of the unique wonder angels feel . the film begins to lose its way , though , when the focus tightens more and more on seth and maggie . the grand , angelic perspective gets lost , except for some idly tossed lines about the incredible beauty of the world through an angel 's eyes . the movie devolves into an examination of how seth ca n't feel the world or , more importantly , he ca n't feel maggie : he ca n't smell her hair , feel her touch , or taste the pears she eats . this change in focus attempts to capture the audience in seth 's intense longing , but in doing so , the conflict disappears . if he wants maggie so badly , then why does n't her just make the leap and become human ? after all , what 's so great about being an angel ? sure , you get to sit on marlboro signs , but what 's that compared to getting to be with meg ryan ? and from there , once the yearning has been established and the romantic denouement must occur , it 's all downhill . the philosophy becomes heavy - handed , the dialogue pedestrian when it tries to be deep , and the plot twists simply attempt to yank a few more tears into the audience 's hankie . it 's the last thirty minutes of the movie , then , that wrecks the film . i feel like the writer , by pulling out all the melodramatic stops , has robbed me of what could have been a genuinely powerful movie experience on both the romantic and the philosophical level . i came out feeling robbed , seeing so much possibility in a film becoming nothing . i could go on longer , but i do n't want to " ruin " the end by revealing any of the cheap plot devices the film relies on . city of angels , then , is a paradox . it 's a well - acted ( particularly look for dennis franz cutting against type - casting as a happy - go - lucky fallen angel ) , well - filmed , and based on a wonderful idea . all these possibilities , though , are what make the film so unredeemable when the closing credits come up .

0NEG

repertoire of intent looks and hang - dog expressions . unfortunately , cage takes the intensity too far sometimes , and then seth comes across as more creepy than us a sense of the unique wonder angels feel . the film begins to lose its way , though , when the focus tightens more and more has been established and the romantic denouement must occur , it 's all downhill . the philosophy becomes heavy - handed , the dialogue pedestrian when it tries to be deep , and the plot more tears into the audience 's hankie . it 's the last thirty minutes of the movie , then , that wrecks the film . i feel like the writer , by pulling out experience on both the romantic and the philosophical level . i came out feeling robbed , seeing so much possibility in a film becoming nothing

plot summary : the year is 2024 . the ozone layer has long since gone and the earth is now protected from radiation by a shield invented by connor mccleod . the shield , although saving lives , has made the atmosphere hot and humid . connor is a mortal and a tired old man who has given up hope . on returning from the opera one night connor is accosted by the leader of a " terrorist " organisation . they have tried to find out what the company that now runs the shield unit are covering up . connor is then attacked by two assassins sent by katana from the planet zeist ( like zeit -- get it ? ) . they fail and connor becomes immortal again by chopping their heads off . he then brings ramirez back to life in glencoe in scotland . both ramirez and connor are rebel leaders back on zeist and have been sent to earth as punishment . connor now has the option to return being the last one but opts to stay with his new found immortality and fight to find out about the company and the shield . katana meanwhile , fearing connor would return , sets out himself to kill the highlander . if you have never seen it . being a fan of highlander and mr . connery , i was in the cinema as soon as i could to see highlander ii : the quickening . i wish it had been quicker . i feel whatever else you can say about a film ( bad script bad music , etc . ) if you sit just plain bored through most of it then nothing much else needs to be said . the film was short but in my opinion only twelve minutes or so ( the time mr . connery is on the screen for ) is worth watching . the plot sounds a little ridiculous but i was willing to give it a chance . maybe they could pull it off . instead , i find that the characters have completely changed from those in the first film . it 's as if they are different people with the same names . witness connor jumping into bed with the leader of the resistance -- where is the attitude of " who wants to live forever , when love must die " gone to ? the love sub - plot * must * have had footage cut out . the highlander and ramirez both seemed aware of powers they had never mentioned before . putting our heroes in deadly situations and then having them walk away because of some new power is very annoying . i still want to know why connor 's coat becomes flame proof when he is immortal ! we are not given enough time on zeist to believe in it , nor are we told why advanced aliens still use swords to kill . why not dynamite or laser saws or just plain bullets followed by a quick chop to the neck ? i know the head needs to come off but you could at least immobilise your opponent with laser rifles first . to be fair one assassin tried this but he must be the world 's worst shot . meanwhile connor develops luke - skywalker - like powers of laser beam deflection . as for " bad guys , " we see a rebellion on zeist , crushed easier than a grape and then the rest of the plot depends on katana being obsessed with killing mccleod in case he returns to zeist . two assassins are sent , presumably they are meant to be good at killing but an aged connor kills them both with no problems . no more assassins are sent . katana , supposedly a very powerful man goes himself to kill connor . has he no more assassins ? has he no better ? why was the rebellion crushed so easily then ? michael ironside is totally unconvincing ( bring back the kurgan ) . he seems like a cartoon character and really is n't that evil , just stupid and violent . we see the hollywood trick of the chief nasty threatening a child again and killing lots of innocents . yet he still seems like no threat -- perhaps because he seems too stupid to threaten connor , or maybe because his two best assassins would n't have been amiss with larry , curly and mo . so much for plot and characters . the music is atrocious . it is at best intrusive and at worst annoying . bring back queen . there was an audible sigh ( of relief ? ) when connor played a queen track in a juke box . i believe this at least is to be corrected for the american release . the acting is at best flat , except for mr . connery . lambert is uninteresting and when he delivered " there can be only one " this time around it just made me wish there had only been one -- highlander . michael ironside is unconvincing ; sorry , michael , i usually like you and everyone else was incredibly forgetable . so why 2/10 ? visually the film is interesting at all times . it has a blade runner feel to it and some of the special effects are quite stunning . add to this an irrepressible sean connery who smiles throughout the whole film -- or is he smirking to himself ? his lines and delivery might make the film worthwhile had it not been so obvious that he can not take the whole thing seriously at all but hey -- * i 'd * have done it for 12 million . oh , and i agree with a previous reviewer , she * does * look like sharon stone but i believe it is her first film . incidentally there is a line producer credited and i hear rumours of highlander iii : the wizard .

0NEG

film ( bad script bad music , etc . ) if you sit just plain bored through most of it then nothing much else needs to is on the screen for ) is worth watching . the plot sounds a little ridiculous but i was willing to give it a chance . must be the world 's worst shot . meanwhile connor develops luke - skywalker - like powers of laser beam deflection . as for " bad guys , " we see the rebellion crushed so easily then ? michael ironside is totally unconvincing ( bring back the kurgan ) . he seems like and mo . so much for plot and characters . the music is atrocious . it is at best intrusive and at worst annoying . bring back queen . there was an audible sigh least is to be corrected for the american release . the acting is at best flat , except for mr . connery . lambert is uninteresting and when he delivered " there can be only one had only been one -- highlander . michael ironside is unconvincing ; sorry , michael , i usually like you and

200 cigarettes takes place on new year 's eve 1981 . monica , played by martha plimpton is having a huge new year 's party . everyone in town is trying to get there , but some are caught up in other things . this is the basic plot of 200 cigarettes . as we meet the characters headed towards the party , we are sent into many subplots which are unoriginal , and not interesting at all . this disappointed me greatly . the film should have been more about the party than the people trying to get there in my opinion . lucy , played by courtney love , is with kevin , played by paul rudd . the two are in a relationship that is more of a friendship , but starts to blossom into something more than that . this subplot is extremely boring and dull , and i am getting quite sick of plots like that . janeane garofalo is involved in another subplot , dealing with kevin . she plays ellie , an ex - girlfriend of kevin 's . this subplot is completely a waste of garofalo 's talent . there was no point to it at all , and it was hardly even in the movie . when lucy runs into a bartender , played by ben affleck , another subplot is formed . the bartender is invited by lucy to come to monica 's party . at the bar , he runs into two more girls . the girls are played by angela featherstone and nicole parker , but unfortunately , due to the terrible acting of both of them , i do n't even remember their characters names . ben affleck is a good actor , but his character does n't go anywhere so he does n't have much screen time to give a good performance . featherstone and parker are horrible in their roles , and they are part of the reason the film is so bad . christina ricci plays val , and gaby hoffman plays stephie . the two girls are trying to get to the party but are extremely lost . they meet some guys and end up going around with them all night . this subplot was alright , but it was quite annoying with stephie 's accent . hoffman did an okay job of acting , but ricci did good . she was underused , considering she is such a wonderful actress . another subplot in the film is the relationship between cindy , played by goldie hawn 's daughter , and jack , played by jay mohr . jack is an actor who does n't care about the girls he goes out with , he just likes dates for one night , and the next day he does n't . kate hudson is a huge klutz . she gets herself into very funny situations , that are the funniest parts in the entire movie . they are probably the only funny parts in the entire movie as well . this subplot could have been used more , mainly due to hudson 's performance . mohr was n't good , but he was n't bad . he was just alright , which i did n't find acceptable . there is not much to say about the performances in the film . none of the characters are developed or shown enough to really tell if the acting is good or not . the only performances that i can judge are christina ricci 's as always good performance , kate hudson 's funny role , courtney love 's mediocre performance , and paul rudd 's annoying and overused performance . i was hoping for a little more out of jaw mohr , ben affleck , casey affleck , gaby hoffman , dave chapelle , and especially out of janeane garofalo . the two strongest things in the film were the great soundtrack and the original costumes . martha plimpton and christina ricci had very different and original outfits which made me feel like i was in the year 1981 . the soundtrack is full of 1980 's tunes , ranging from " i want candy " to " tainted love . " the songs in the movie also helped create the feel that you were back in the 1980s . during the film , i often found myself asking the questions , " is there a reason to this ? is there any moral story ? is there a point ? are any of the events going on in the film necessary ? do i care what lucy and kevin are going through ? " the movie is extremely boring , and by the time they reached eleven - o - clock , one hour before midnight , i could not wait for the movie to be over . the plot is okay , but the subplots make it terrible . maybe if the film was about the party , not about the people at the party , it could have been a lot better . the bottom line : just like a slasher movie , this ? 80s comedy is just one too many .

0NEG

as we meet the characters headed towards the party , we are sent into many subplots which are unoriginal , and not interesting at all . this disappointed me greatly . the film should have been more about the . this subplot is extremely boring and dull , and i am getting quite sick of plots like that . janeane garofalo is involved in another subplot , dealing ellie , an ex - girlfriend of kevin 's . this subplot is completely a waste of garofalo 's talent . there was no point to are played by angela featherstone and nicole parker , but unfortunately , due to the terrible acting of both of them , i do n't even remember to give a good performance . featherstone and parker are horrible in their roles , and they are part of the reason the film is so bad . christina ricci plays val , and gaby hoffman plays them all night . this subplot was alright , but it was quite annoying with stephie 's accent . hoffman did an okay job of acting , but ricci did good . she was underused , considering she is such a wonderful actress . another was n't bad . he was just alright , which i did n't find acceptable . there is not much to say about the performances courtney love 's mediocre performance , and paul rudd 's annoying and overused performance . i was hoping for a little more out of care what lucy and kevin are going through ? " the movie is extremely boring , and by the time they reached eleven - o to be over . the plot is okay , but the subplots make it terrible . maybe if the film was about the party ,

i 'll bet right now you 're just lounging by the pool , humming " i will always love you " and wistfully recalling your candlelight dinners with success . it is n't necessarily over for you : i say you still have enough charm that you could avoid starring in " kevin ! " for at least a few more years . begin by scribbling " the star that burns twice as bright burns half as long " somewhere you 'll always see it , perhaps on the fridge door , or on a bedroom mirror with lipstick . you had a heck of a thing going there until you agreed to star in robin hood : prince of thieves , where you were not only upstaged by powerhouses morgan freeman and alan rickman , but christian slater ( ! ) , several dozen tall trees , bows , arrows , and a canoe , too . after dances with wolves and jfk , you decided the world needed more three hour movies , expensive three hour movies , so you starred in and produced wyatt earp ; wyatt earp the man was a boring idiot who made the history books solely due to a general lack of famous wyatts . wyatt earp was so dull a cowboy that he died of natural causes . tombstone was a vastly superior movie based on the same legend , and that featured kurt russell as earp and dana delaney as his girlfriend ! ( she was played by joanna going in your movie - you know , the character known best in wyatt earp as " jew whore " . what were you and lawrence kasdan thinking ? ) now , you 're suffering the demise of yet another of your epics , the postman , a film so financially disastrous that it all but eradicated the memory waterworld 's and tin cup 's mildly lucrative box office takes . the postman is not the worst movie ever made - people in hollywood are quick to forget movies like howard the duck whenever the next bomb comes along . yet it is a ridiculous movie . i suspect you thought you had another braveheart on your hands - why else line up two armies on horesback , all prepared for battle , for the climax of your film ? -but " mailheart " the postman is not . ( i can think of some more appropriate alternate titles : post encounters of the worst kind ; farewell , my salary ; howard the postman ; the postman 's never watched twice . . . ) what a brown movie . i hate brown . you love brown . dances with wolves was golden and brown - it looked like an eggo commercial . the postman had me running for a glass of water every two minutes ; would the post - apocalyptic world look this maddeningly bland and dry ? what exactly happened to this desert world , anyway ? did we all become so stupid that we did n't immediately begin rebuilding homes , restaurants , and most importantly , shopping malls , after " the war " ? why did you choose to drive the movie 's plot with a dumb group of terrorists who , well , terrorize townfolk across america ? why is it only * they * have ammunition , anyway ? was it really appropriate to cast your daughter as a girl who has a sweet crush on you , the drifter - cum - postman ? why cast english actress olivia williams as an american ? do n't you realize that european women can only deliver their big emotional scenes in their native accent ? ( take a look at the less - than - stellar performances of an american - ized nicole kidman or an american - ized minnie driver . ) who could give a damn whether you lived or died at the end of this movie ? if it came down to a fight for leadership between you and the leader of the terrorists , why did n't you do that halfway through the film and save us all a lot of headaches ? why cast will patton as the bad guy ? because you worked with him in no way out ? sure , he 's a suitably creepy villain ; know why ? because he 's creepy in everything , including armageddon , in which he plays a heroic astronaut who practically slithers into his space suit ! why heroize the most demonic institution in america , the u . s . postal system ? was tom petty supposed to be playing tom petty ? if so , why did n't he look more skeletal ? ( he should have been around 70 years old . ) why , oh why , do i have so many questions ? ( i could ask plenty more . ) should n't a three hour running time have provided you enough space to answer everything ? you have one great line in this film , and you deliver it to a mule ! : " the things i like about my ass . . . " i had to wonder . actually , i enjoyed the tone of the opening scenes , a relaxed cynicism , if you 'll accept such clunky phrasing - too bad you could n't resist the temptation to film yet another love letter to your country . ultimately , i 'm saying relax . there is no quota , no need for you to make a picture a year . settle down . really question future screenplays before you commit to them . feel free to write back . i know how much you like letters .

0NEG

of yet another of your epics , the postman , a film so financially disastrous that it all but eradicated the memory waterworld 's and the duck whenever the next bomb comes along . yet it is a ridiculous movie . i suspect you thought you had another braveheart on minutes ; would the post - apocalyptic world look this maddeningly bland and dry ? what exactly happened to this desert world , anyway kidman or an american - ized minnie driver . ) who could give a damn whether you lived or died at the end of this you have one great line in this film , and you deliver it to a mule ! : " the things i like about my ass . . . " i had to wonder . actually , i enjoyed the to make a picture a year . settle down . really question future screenplays before you commit to them . feel free to write back . i know how

" i seem to have glued myself . . . to myself . " starring jason biggs , seann william scott , chris klein , thomas ian nichols , allyson hannigan , shannon elizabeth , natasha lyonne , tara reid , mena suvari , eugene levy , jennifer coolidge . directed by j . b . rogers . rated r . american pie 2 reunites the cast members from american pie in a different setting ; instead of being high school seniors looking to score before they graduate , they are now past their first year of college and have gathered in a beach house to enjoy the summer of their lives . jim ( jason biggs ) is still an insecure geek looking to improve his performance , oz ( chris klein ) is still the sweetest guy on the block , having sickeningly saccharine phone conversations with his studying - abroad girlfriend , stifler ( seann william scott ) is still a horny stoner , kevin ( thomas ian nichols ) still has no personality and finch ( eddie kaye thomas ) still longs for stifler 's mom . have i missed anyone ? so , obviously , not much has changed . this is not a problem , provided that the movie boasts the rapid - fire hilarity and unexpectedly true sentiment of the original . but american pie 2 is the very definition of " sequelitis . " it 's coarser , yes , and it pushes the envelope even more , but its heart is n't in it . it 's easy cash to capitalize off the first film 's success , but it would have been a worthier investment to prolong the franchise by coming up with something original . part of the reason why the film does n't work , i think , is that while in the original the kids ' quest for sex was a coming - of - age stepping stone as much as an outlet for their horniness . here , everything has been cheapened . they behave like those idiot frat boys who kill themselves drinking ; they have no motivation except for sex , sex , beer and sex . that 's not to say that you ca n't make a decent comedy from that premise , but it is one of american pie 2 's undoings . missing , too , is the sweetness that permeated american pie , the this - could - be - you quality of the main players . here , the characters are too aware of themselves as pop - culture icons , and they 're even more one - note . stifler and finch are now caricatures while jim , oz and kevin are forced to make awkward self - discoveries at arbitrary moments , none of them betraying what the writers think the audiences want to see . and then there 's the soon - to - be - notorious scene where jim superglues " himself to himself , " which perfectly demonstrates yet another of the film 's ailments , one that also permeated say it is n't so , director j . b . rodgers ' debut . there 's a fine line between comedy and abject humiliation , and american pie 2 is on the wrong side of it . it 's hard to laugh at the characters when you are profoundly embarrassed for them . i shielded my eyes watching this more than i have watching any horror movie . if there 's one redeeming factor to american pie 2 , it 's the inimitable eugene levy as jim 's dad , who pops in on jim as he 's about to score and utters lines like " your mother and i have been known to get frisky . . . not so much anymore , but . . . " and then when the girl 's parents walk in , blurts out " this must be your daughter ! i did n't get her name , but hopefully my son did . " if only the rest of the movie had the wit and wisdom of levy 's performance . this is an unworthy sequel to a gross - fest that brought back the raunchy teen comedy . the box - office of this onw should keep the genre going strong , which is disappointing . the genre needs a hiatus ; filmmakers are getting lazy .

0NEG

, and it pushes the envelope even more , but its heart is n't in it . it 's easy cash to capitalize off the first much as an outlet for their horniness . here , everything has been cheapened . they behave like those idiot frat boys who kill it is one of american pie 2 's undoings . missing , too , is the sweetness that permeated american pie , the this - could - 're even more one - note . stifler and finch are now caricatures while jim , oz and kevin are forced to make awkward self - discoveries at arbitrary moments , none of them betraying what the writers think the between comedy and abject humiliation , and american pie 2 is on the wrong side of it . it 's hard to laugh at the characters when you are profoundly embarrassed for them . i shielded my eyes watching this more had the wit and wisdom of levy 's performance . this is an unworthy sequel to a gross - fest that brought back the raunchy which is disappointing . the genre needs a hiatus ; filmmakers are getting lazy .

i 'll be the first to admit it . when you mention the book great expectations , i immediately begin experiencing flashbacks to junior high english class , where i was confronted with a torturously boring book filled with people with such nonsensical names as pip and magwitch . yes , it 's a classic of literature , but it was a rather dry one , shoved down my young throat like a spoonful of bitter medicine . certainly , the experience was n't truly that bad , but , to quote ethan hawke in the latest movie adaptation of said book , " i 'm not going to tell the story the way it happened . . . i 'll gon na tell it the way i remember it . " anyway , to return from nostalgia lane , and get back to the present , hollywood , in it 's trendy attempt to modernize the classics , now presents an updated film version of great expectations . instead of pip , this time the central character is named finn ( played as a boy by jeremy kissner , and by ethan hawke as an adult ) . finn is an orphan being raised by his unfaithful sister maggie , or should that be mrs . joe , ( kim dickens ) , and her boorish fisherman husband , joe ( chris cooper ) . the setting is the florida coast during the mid-70s . finn is a blooming artist , and spends his time running around the beach drawing fish ( one of his two favorite subjects ) . during one of these escapades , he literally stumbles upon an escaped criminal ( robert deniro ) . borrowing a page from the superhuman max cady , deniro 's criminal has a seemingly limitless lung capacity , and favors hiding on the ocean floor . ok . . . maybe that 's an exaggeration , but he certainly beats any of houdini 's records in the opening scenes of the film . and that 's nothing next to the fuel efficiency of finn 's motorboat , but i digress . anyway , finn does the convict a good deed , just to show that he 's a really swell guy . and then the plot moves on . enter miss havisham . . . or ms . dinsmoor here ( anne bancroft ) . abandoned at the altar some 26 years ago , ms . dinsmoor is the epitome of the crazy rich old maid . with bizarre clothing , eccentric mannerisms and a few pounds of makeup , anne bancroft seriously overacts in this role . although she ends up nowhere near a believable character , she does add some humor to the film . joe is hired to help with the gardening at her unkempt manner , but the insane ms . dinsmoor soon hires finn to be a plaything for her niece , estella ( raquel beaudene as a young girl , gwyneth paltrow as an adult ) . for no apparent reason , other than to provide the main plot of the film , finn is instantly stricken for the estella . perhaps it 's her snooty attitude or her utter disdain for his person , or maybe finn has simply never met a girl before . in any case , neither as children nor adults , chemistry simply does n't exist between the two , and yet finn spends the remainder of the film pining for her . even when , as an adult , finn arrives in new york at the behest of a mysterious benefactor , reacquaints himself with estella , and draws her portrait in the nude , there 's nothing . in fact , there is more sexual tension between helen hunt and greg kinnear 's gay artist during a similar scene in as good as it gets . at this point , the audience has grown as cold and detached as estella 's character , and could n't care less about the two characters . the bulk of the blame here falls upon gwyneth paltrow . she fails to imbue estella , a remote character in the book , with even the vaguest traces of humanity . there 's obviously something wrong when , watching the film , you 're more interested with how big her nose looks in silhouette than you are about her character . without a strong estella , finn 's obsession seems baseless . you wish he would just stop whining , let estella marry his rival , walter plane ( an oddly subdued hank azaria ) , and just get on with his life . in fact , the two relationships that work in the film are purely tangential to the main plot . finn 's relationship with his brother - in - law , joe , is interesting , if a bit stereotypical . what 's more fascinating are his interactions with deniro . although it 's only a bit part , it goes to show how much vitality a strong actor can create . it is apparent that director alfonso cuarsn put a lot of work in creating the imagery of the film . some of the shots work , but others are too obviously staged ( for example , both of the water fountain scenes ) to have any impact . finn 's art ( actually the creations of italian painter , francesco clemente ) is used throughout the film , but it mostly fails to have the intended effect . we never see why finn would generate this style of art , which is simultaneously crude and insightful . as a result , it ends up as distant as the rest of the film . modernizing the classics is currently in vogue ( just see william shakespeare 's romeo+juliet ) . simply update the action to a modern setting , and apply plenty of modern rock . but such adornments do little to perk up great expectations . as much as i dreaded the novel when i first read it , you 'd probably be better off suffering though a reading than watching this romanceless film .

0NEG

, anne bancroft seriously overacts in this role . although she ends up nowhere near a believable character , she does add some humor to the film . in any case , neither as children nor adults , chemistry simply does n't exist between the two , and yet finn spends the remainder of the film as good as it gets . at this point , the audience has grown as cold and detached as estella 's character , and could n't care less about the two characters . the bulk of the blame here falls upon gwyneth paltrow . she fails to imbue estella , a remote character in the book , with even the vaguest traces of humanity . there 's obviously something wrong when , watching the film , you 're more interested francesco clemente ) is used throughout the film , but it mostly fails to have the intended effect . we never see why finn would generate this style i dreaded the novel when i first read it , you 'd probably be better off suffering though a reading than watching this romanceless film .

" you damn dirty apes ! " that 's just one of the inadvertenty hilarious lines from planet of the apes that 's taken on a comedic context over time . no one back then seemed to realize how over - the- top charlton heston 's acting style was , but it shows now , particularly in this " mystery science theater 3000 " wannabe that was taken for a film masterpiece in its time , actually winning one oscar ( for makeup , no less ) and being nominated for a couple others . it also spawned multiple sequels like beneath the planet of the apes , escape from the planet of the apes , return of the planet of the apes , beneath the escape from the return of the planet of the apes , planet of the apes : the next generation , police academy of the apes . . . the list goes on . heston is an american astronaut who spends a few thousand light years in space with his three companions and ends up on a planet not too dissimilar from earth . the thing is , on this planet humans ca n't talk or think and the guys in the gorilla masks are the dominant species . heston 's companions are killed or turned into vegetables by the apon is imprisoned . he surprises them all with his gift of speech , making two primate scientists ( roddy mcdowall and kim hunter ) believe heston is the missing link between ape and man . believe me , we movie critics have been thinking the same thing for years . when the two apes present the idea before a judicial counsel ( the head ape being shakespearean actor maurice evans ) , it is received as heresy , for all good monkeys know god " created ape in his image . " but heston has already seen a cave that contains evidence that humans were originally the dominant species , before apes ever gained the ability to speak and run for president . and he takes them there , holding up a baby doll and yelling , " if humans could n't speak , then how do you account for this talking doll ? ! " and how do you account for your acting ability , mr . heston ? the absolute most laughable scene comes with the movie 's surprise conclusion . i wo n't reveal the details except to say it involves heston falling to his knees on a beach and yelling " god damn you all to hell ! " several times in succession . the movie is atrocious and should only be viewed by those members of society who like to watch bad movies and laugh at them . what makes planet of the apes even more amusing is that it was supposed to function as some sort of social irony , a condemnation of fundamentals who reject the theories of evolution . but let me tell you , if darwin could see the ape masks and hear the rotten dialogue exchanges ( heston [ to female ape ] : may i kiss you before i go ? ape : but . . . you 're so . . . ugly . ) , he 'd convert to creationism on the spot . luckily for us , science - fiction movies have evolved over time to the point at which some of them are actually good .

0NEG

" you damn dirty apes ! " that 's just one of the inadvertenty hilarious lines from planet of the apes that 's taken on a time . no one back then seemed to realize how over - the- top charlton heston 's acting style was , but it shows now , particularly in this " mystery science theater 3000 " wannabe that was taken for a film masterpiece in its time you account for this talking doll ? ! " and how do you account for your acting ability , mr . heston ? the absolute most laughable scene comes with the movie 's surprise conclusion . i wo all to hell ! " several times in succession . the movie is atrocious and should only be viewed by those members of society who like to watch bad movies and laugh at them . what makes planet of the apes even more amusing , if darwin could see the ape masks and hear the rotten dialogue exchanges ( heston [ to female ape ] : may i

new address . same old attitude . do n't forget to recommend a film , read the journal , or send me some of that nasty hate mail . ) starring bruce willis , billy bob thornton , liv tyler , ben affleck written by jonathan hensleigh and j . j . abrams directed by michael bay it rocks - actually , lots of rocks fly at us or from us , in slow or fast motion , at several points in the film . they seem like dangerous rocks because they kind of twirl through the air instead of just propelling forward , and when they land - once in a while , when we need a break from the space sequences - they cause damage enough to destroy the chrysler building and the like . ( nary a mention of these apocalyptic events is made after they occur . ) they also just might be the most interesting element of armageddon , a steroid user 's answer to deep impact . bruce willis stars as harry stamper , a famed oil - driller commissioned by the white house and nasa to stop a giant asteroid before it travels beyond " zero barrier " and destroys our planet . why an oil driller ? they require someone experienced with deep - core mining to plant a nuclear missile into said asteroid . ( in one unintentionally ( ? ) hilarious sequence , nasa asks harry to inspect a deep - core driller they built based on his own blueprints ; it is poorly constructed - harry criticizes almost every aspect of it . we trust nasa to build space shuttles that can land on twirling asteroids ? ) harry assembles the obligatory " ragtag " bunch of " cowboys " , including a blond guy , a fat guy , a black guy , a wiseass , and the man who is sleeping with his daughter ( affleck ) . once they reach space , we experience sequence after sequence of something going wrong - perhaps the fact that they sent a bunch of nincompoops into outer space has something to do with it ; i can not count the number of times they almost fail the mission on all my fingers and toes . whether or not they save the day , i will not reveal . nor will you care . i will say this : you know you 're in trouble when deep impact dwarfs your asteroid movie in terms of emotion and scope . willis has barely a chance to come alive ; ditto for affleck . their big scenes are mostly reserved for the third act , in a last minute - and futile - attempt to inject warmth into the material . steve buscemi 's character - the wiseass - is exceptionally problematic . " rockhound " , as he 's called , is sarcastic and foolish , so they tape him to a chair , where he spends most of the film . so why did they bring him up there to begin with ? rather , why write him into the film ? -give his almost - witty one - liners to serious willis , who scowls and mopes and demonstrates psychotic tendencies : at one point he chases after affleck with his shotgun for screwing his daughter , firing often and causing significant damage to his oil rig . i 'm guessing he qualifies under nasa guidelines as someone unfit for space travel , at least in my world where the sky is blue . liv tyler is pretty and humourless , as always ; suspiciously , four of her father 's band 's ( " aerosmith " ) songs grace the soundtrack . director michael bay lays the visual and sound effects on thick , like ketchup , eventually drowning the movie on - screen . ( the middle hour is a non - sensical , pyrotechnic assault on the average primate 's brain . ) whenever someone dies in this movie , a crew member inevitably yells out " we lost ( insert dead person 's last name here ) ! " i must admit that not once could i distinguish a dead oil - guy - cum - astronaut from a live one , and close - ups of the corpses ' faces beneath cracked helmets provided little assistance , as their skin was often covered in fake blood . armageddon is not as terrible movie as godzilla . it looks nicer , and has fewer plot - holes within its equally ludicrous framework . it has a vivid soundmix . but at almost two - and - a - half hours , i could not believe how little actually happened over the course of the story . the love story has been played up in the ads , perhaps hoping to catch people before they recover from titanic - fever . bollocks ! the lovers in the film are miles apart throughout - erase all thoughts of nude sketching or car - sex and replace them with obligatory shots of liv tyler tearing up while ben affleck dicks around in a moon - crawler . remember a little film called jaws ? in this film , three independent - minded men suddenly found themselves on a fishing boat in pursuit of a deadly shark . they did n't much like each other at first ; eventually , they started to respect one another . one of jaws ' great scenes involved the would - be - ahabs drinking and singing songs and telling stories . this is the sort of male - bonding foreign to bay or his producer , jerry bruckheimer , who throw too many characters into the mix and expect we 'll care about them on the grounds that the world is about to end . not once do we get the feeling that these characters are even acquaintances - i'd be surprised if these actors bothered to introduce themselves to one another before " action " was called . a male friend who loved the film suggested to me that perhaps i can not relate to a bunch of men who do n't bare their souls , who believe in dying macho concepts like heroism and a kind of chest - beating bravery . to this , i will respond that the boys in armageddon are neither heroic , nor brave , nor smart , even : this team could n't build a birdhouse . and if i get no respect for disliking a movie with all the synthetic feeling of a trailer - a trailer for a movie written by a team of body - builders and greeting card authors - i've never been a prouder wimp my whole life .

0NEG

shuttles that can land on twirling asteroids ? ) harry assembles the obligatory " ragtag " bunch of " cowboys " , including a blond guy asteroid movie in terms of emotion and scope . willis has barely a chance to come alive ; ditto for affleck . their big scenes are mostly . steve buscemi 's character - the wiseass - is exceptionally problematic . " rockhound " , as he 's called , the sky is blue . liv tyler is pretty and humourless , as always ; suspiciously , four of her father , and has fewer plot - holes within its equally ludicrous framework . it has a vivid soundmix . but at almost two - and - a - half hours , i could not believe how little actually happened over the course of the story . the love story before they recover from titanic - fever . bollocks ! the lovers in the film are miles apart throughout - erase all thoughts of nude sketching or car beating bravery . to this , i will respond that the boys in armageddon are neither heroic , nor brave , nor smart , even : this team could n't build a birdhouse

the one question that eats at me after seeing corky romano is why touchstone spent so much money marketing this throwaway film . since june , i have n't been able to turn on the tv or go to the movies without getting hit by some ad depicting chris kattan as the spastic corky , shrieking out a - ha 's " take on me " in his yellow miata . why would disney sink so much cash into the corky hype machine ? honestly , i was hoping that all the goofball ads were actually a front for a decently funny movie . man , was i wrong . corky romano is one of those throwaway , clich ? -ridden tv - star - to - film vehicles built upon the most rickety of plots . fortunately for chris kattan 's precariously positioned career , corky does have some good laughs , even if most of them are of the lowest - brow variety . kattan plays the title character , the unsinkable assistant veterinarian corky who has a penchant for sunshiny ' 80s tunes , bright ties , and banal coffee mug slogans ( " you do n't have to be crazy to work here , but it sure helps . " ) . when his mob boss dad ( peter falk ) is about to be put away on murder charges , his bungling , lughead brothers ( peter berg and chris penn ) rope in innocent , black sheep corky to infiltrate the fbi as an agent and steal the evidence . predictably , hijinks ensue . if the basic plot sounds bad , wait until you get into the inner - workings of this clunker . the writers will amaze you with the depth of their inanity . corky 's fbi agent identity is named corky pissant ( " that 's pronounced pees - ahn . it 's french . " ) . he becomes a first - rate agent by accidentally stumbling mr . magoo - style onto the proper clues and talking his way in and out of situations , which plays like something out of a sitcom . and not a good sitcom , i mean . the romano family brothers even insult each other by farting in each other 's face . and in a scene taken straight from there 's something about mary , corky gives a dachshund mouth - to - mouth resuscitation . but it 's not a complete disaster . the manic kattan does occasionally rescue some comic moments , including a bit featuring a cat in a fat suit named jesus and another involving schoolchildren , a german shephard , and a kilo of cocaine . plus , berg -- whose career has obviously gone downhill since the last seduction and chicago hope -- gives a great turn as the illiterate brother paulie . and , it 's nice to see that richard roundtree of shaft fame is getting work . unfortunately for those out there who ca n't truly appreciate animal or fart jokes , corky wo n't have much to offer you . so the next time one of those pesky ads appears on your tv , asking , " who is corky ? " you can simply reply , " who cares ? "

0NEG

romano is why touchstone spent so much money marketing this throwaway film . since june , i have n't been able . man , was i wrong . corky romano is one of those throwaway , clich ? -ridden tv - star - to - film vehicles built upon the most rickety of plots . fortunately for chris kattan 's precariously positioned career , corky does have some good laughs , even if most of them are of the lowest - brow variety . kattan plays the title character , the unsinkable assistant the fbi as an agent and steal the evidence . predictably , hijinks ensue . if the basic plot sounds bad , wait until you get into the inner - workings of this clunker . the writers will amaze you with the depth of their inanity . corky 's fbi agent identity is named corky pissant scene taken straight from there 's something about mary , corky gives a dachshund mouth - to - mouth resuscitation . but it 's not a complete disaster . the that richard roundtree of shaft fame is getting work . unfortunately for those out there who ca n't truly appreciate animal or fart jokes , corky wo n't have much to offer you . is corky ? " you can simply reply , " who cares ? "

kids today , they do n't just want to see heartthrob and master thespian freddie prinze jr . loving on the ladies . no , they want to see him doing something that takes a little more in the acting department : namely , playing baseball . through a series of drippy voiceovers , we are informed that there 's no better proving ground for major league baseball than the cape cod summer baseball leagues , where college also - rans and hopeful dropouts go to play in the hopes of attracting big league attention . our man freddie has landed a spot as a pitcher on the prestigious chatham a 's , where he is hoping for his big break . it 's only after he is given ample time to show off his abs and scamper about in a woman 's thong ( do n't ask ) that we learn what the real story of summer catch will be : that prinze is a poor townie named ryan dunne , struggling to make a name for himself ; that neither his father ( fred ward ) nor brother ( jason gedrick ) pulled themselves out of their blue collar jobs and resent anyone who tries ; and that the local beauty tenley -- tenley ! ( jessica biel ) -- is so far out of his league that he probably should n't even bother . . . but of course he makes a play for her . summer catch also makes an abortive stab at another half a dozen subplots -- the jealousy of fellow townie and brazen slut dee dee ( brittany murphy ) , the alienation felt by ryan 's non - baseball playing best friend ( gabriel mann ) , or the fat chick fetish of fellow player miles ( marc blucas ) . worst of these is a ludicrous bit involving that ' 70s show 's wilmer valderrama and beverly d'angelo , both of whom appear in the film simply to provide a nutty mrs . robinson - like substory and to remind you of how much better done that was in bull durham . in fact , virtually all of summer catch feels like it 's been done better somewhere else . for starters , the film has a major question of identity . it 's definitely not a sports movie , and it fails pretty miserably at being a romance . the worst part is the amateurish script ( co - written by an arli$$ writing alumnus and a guy that starred in leprechaun 3 ) , chock - full of phony emotion . by the end , it all becomes a platform for each character to deliver a soliloquy to ryan that he must take to heart . dad is on hand to give fatherly yet drunken advice . coach ( brian dennehy , just loving the fact that he 's got some work on the big screen ) is on hand to give the curmudgeonly counterpoint . ryan 's catcher ( matthew lillard , playing himself again ) is on hand to tell ryan to " play catch " with him and make fun of the fat fetish guy . ryan 's stoner best friend is on hand to give the go - get-'em - tiger - we're - behind - you talk . and the girlfriend is on hand to give heartwarming - nuzzly - follow - your - dreams counsel . before long , you start to wonder : is freddy prinze jr . is capable of having a thought of his own ? do n't answer that . the only real joy in the film is found in biel 's character , and not just because of the skimpy outfits , which are also usually wet . she 's the only one in the movie that is able to do much with her role , taking the rebelling - against - daddy character to at least a passing grade . when she 's on screen , the time flies by . when she 's not , you realize that for some ungodly reason this movie is almost two hours long . for a pg-13 teen romance ( despite near - constant sexual innuendo ) , one has to ask warner brothers : what were you thinking ? ? ? for her part , biel has fallen so far from her 7th heaven roots that she has almost become denise richards . hollywood is either about to eat her alive . . . or vice versa . either way , good luck , jessica . as for freddie , if he keeps pumping teen romances out at the rate of two a year , prinze 's next " summer catch " is liable to be a venereal disease .

0NEG

his abs and scamper about in a woman 's thong ( do n't ask ) that we learn what the real story of summer catch fetish of fellow player miles ( marc blucas ) . worst of these is a ludicrous bit involving that ' 70s show 's wilmer valderrama and beverly durham . in fact , virtually all of summer catch feels like it 's been done better somewhere else . for starters , the film has a major question of identity . it 's definitely not a sports movie , and it fails pretty miserably at being a romance . the worst part is the amateurish script ( co - written by an arli$$ writing alumnus and a guy that starred in leprechaun 3 ) , chock - full of phony emotion . by the end , it all becomes a platform by . when she 's not , you realize that for some ungodly reason this movie is almost two hours long . for a pg-13 teen romance ( despite near - innuendo ) , one has to ask warner brothers : what were you thinking ? ? ? for her part , biel has fallen so far from

plot : two sister witches have to live with a curse placed upon their family , which prevents them from ever enjoying a full life with a lover . the hex invokes the eventual demise of their loved one . when one of their past loves comes back to haunt them , they have to figure a way out of their eternal dilemma . critique : i 've been waiting for a good witch movie for a while now , but hold on to your brooms and incantations , cause this puppy is far from being it ! for a film that has the word " magic " in its title , this movie contains very few moments of magic . . . or humor for that matter , drama , suspense , or romance . well actually , there is some manufactured romance within a plot that is so muddled , it never lets you in on whether it 's a comedy , a drama , a horror show , or a murder mystery . or maybe it 's a romance , eh ? it does n't really matter , cause the characters in the film are so boring and uninteresting , that you have absolutely no basis on which to care for them , or the film as a whole . if only the filmmakers had spent as much time on the plot as they did the sinfully obvious soundtrack , this film might 've had a chance to be more than what it is now . which is an unentertaining , crappy film that uses the witch angle as a diversionary tactic to weave us away from its grab - bag of stupid voice - overs , overdone songs , melodramatic romance , undeveloped story and uneven acting . i only wish that i could make that one hour and forty - five minutes of my life re - appear , but alas , it is lost in the spiritual world of " interesting ideas gone wildly awry " . little known facts about this film and its stars : this film is based on the novel written by alice hoffman . co - screenwriter akiva goldsman also wrote the screenplay for 1997 's batman & robin . director griffin dunne is known mainly as an actor in such films as an american werewolf in london and after hours .

0NEG

has the word " magic " in its title , this movie contains very few moments of magic . . . or humor for that matter , drama . well actually , there is some manufactured romance within a plot that is so muddled , it never lets you in on whether it 's really matter , cause the characters in the film are so boring and uninteresting , that you have absolutely no basis on which to be more than what it is now . which is an unentertaining , crappy film that uses the witch angle as a diversionary tactic to weave us away from its grab - bag of stupid voice - overs , overdone songs , melodramatic romance , undeveloped story and uneven acting . i only wish that i could make that one

tri - star ; rated r ( language , sexual situations , violence ) ; 87 minutes director and writer : darren stein cast : rose mcgowan , rebecca gayheart , judy greer , julie benz , chad christ , ethan erickson , carol kane , pam grier , tatyana m . ali . review by : geoff berkshire jawbreaker is the very definition of a " rip - off . " this uninspired teen comedy takes equal parts carrie ( 1976 ) , heathers ( 1989 ) and clueless ( 1995 ) and mixes in all the necessary teen movie clich ? s . along the way writer / director darren stein forgets to give the film a life of its own . the film opens with a voice over from geeky fern mayo ( judy greer ) about the four most popular girls at reagan high : courtney shayne ( rose mcgowan ) who can basically be summed up as satan in heels , julie freeman ( rebecca gayheart ) a good girl with the face of a supermodel , marcie fox ( julie benz ) a dim - witted blonde who demands that people call her " foxy " , and liz purr ( charlotte roldan ) an angel in disguise . liz is everyone 's favorite because she 's both beautiful and kind . liz is about to turn 17 and , as a prank , courtney convinces the other girls to help her in kidnapping liz on her birthday morning . in order to keep liz from making any noise courtney stuffs a jawbreaker into her mouth before they gag her . they then stuff liz in the trunk of courtney 's car but when they open it later , polaroid camera waiting to capture the moment , their lives will never be the same : poor liz has swallowed the jawbreaker and choked to death with it lodged in her throat ( the audience is treated to a few too many graphic looks at liz 's dead body ) . courtney , thinking fast , decides to pass the death off as a rape / murder and marcie and a reluctant julie assist her . things get complicated when fern discovers what the three girls are up to . in order to keep her quiet courtney comes up with another plan and transforms geeky fern into " vylette " , hoping that she will also help to replace liz in the minds of the devastated students . up until about this point the film is effective enough . however , an investigation begins into liz 's death and the film becomes excessively dull . the recently rediscovered talents of pam grier are thoroughly wasted in the role of detective vera cruz and the film is downright insipid in its treatment of both the characters and the audience during this long middle stretch . courtney 's plan to frame a sleazy guy ( marilyn manson , in a brief cameo ) is never believable for a second . meanwhile , the audience is stuck watching a string of random events which fail to develop the characters or add anything of interest to the plot . julie leaves the group and begins a lame romance with aspiring actor zack ( chad christ ) . he apparently gives her the courage to turn on courtney but the way things develop only make julie look stupid . fern 's rise to popularity is equally lame . we do get the best scene in the film ( the only one with a spark of originality ) during this section . it 's a smart and subversive bit where courtney gets the high school 's resident jock stud dane ( ethan erickson ) to demonstrate , using a popsicle , exactly what he would like for her to do to him . it at least provides us with a look at courtney 's personality but the way the scene finishes does n't make any sense . stein is very conscious of the teen movie tradition he is working in and not only freely borrows major plot elements but also includes direct acknowledgment of this with some stunt casting . william katt and p . j . soles ( students in carrie ) are liz 's distraught parents , jeff conaway ( from grease ( 1978 ) ) is julie 's creepy single dad and carol kane ( the frightened babysitter in when a stranger calls ( 1979 ) ) camps it up as principal miss sherman . at times jawbreaker feels simply like teen cinema 's greatest hits but the audience is cheated with watered down interpretations of the best this genre has to offer . the only notable aspect of jawbreaker is the incredibly stylish look . the costume design by vickie brinkford and the production design by jerry fleming are both bright and vivid . they were apparently instructed to work from the color palette of a jawbreaker and the screen is always splashed with bits of vibrant color . director of photography amy vicent , who beautifully lensed eve 's bayou ( 1997 ) , does a remarkable job here as well . shot composition and camera movement is consistently impressive . performances are mostly sub - par with mcgowan providing only a few good moments ( compared with her excellent work in the doom generation ( 1995 ) and scream ( 1996 ) ) and gayheart making the biggest impression due to the sweet nature of her character and her obvious beauty . none of the actors look as if they have set foot inside a high school within the last five years with the exception of actress / singer tatyana ali , who has a small role as a cheerleader . the male cast all resemble male models and are credited with names like " auto stud , " " college stud , " and " high school stud # 2 . " the soundtrack is decent and imperial teen 's catchy " yoo hoo " makes a bigger impression than any other aspect of the film .

0NEG

. ali . review by : geoff berkshire jawbreaker is the very definition of a " rip - off . " this uninspired teen comedy takes equal parts carrie ( 1976 ) , heathers ( with it lodged in her throat ( the audience is treated to a few too many graphic looks at liz 's dead body ) . courtney , thinking however , an investigation begins into liz 's death and the film becomes excessively dull . the recently rediscovered talents of pam grier are thoroughly wasted in the role of detective vera cruz and the film is downright insipid in its treatment of both the characters and the audience ) is never believable for a second . meanwhile , the audience is stuck watching a string of random events which fail to develop the characters or add anything of interest to the plot . julie leaves the group and begins a lame romance julie look stupid . fern 's rise to popularity is equally lame . we do get the best scene in the film . shot composition and camera movement is consistently impressive . performances are mostly sub - par with mcgowan providing only a few good moments ( compared

" with all that education , you should know what happiness is . " starring sylvia chang , teresa hu , hsu ming , li lieh , mao hsueh - wei ; directed by edward yang ; written by yang and wu nien - chen ; cinematography by christopher doyle and chang hui - kung every country has , eventually , its new wave . france had its nouvelle vague , brazil its cinema novo , china its fifth generation , and on and on . some waves just take longer than others , before they wash over us , cleansing us with the balm of discovery . taiwan 's new wave came in the 1980s , in the work of directors like hou hsiao - hsien , wan jen , and edward yang ; that day , on the beach -- yang 's first feature -- is central . it created a new language for young taiwanese directors , even if the first attempts to speak that language were hesitant and faltering . later works refined the techniques that yang first explored here , giving taiwan a distinctive international presence . that day itself is long and frustrating , the document of a nation 's attempt to find a voice . it does not lack ambition . it anatomizes urban life in modern taiwan , in the manner of antonioni , elaborating the alienation that the westernized white - collar middle - class feel as their lives are shaped by old - fashioned roles -- dedicated career men , loyal housewives -- that they find unfulfilling . jia - li ( sylvia chang ) is the focus , but the film brings others into its compass -- her husband , her brother , friends from her college days -- as it charts her discontents . no one is happy . jia - li married her husband , we - lei , at a young age . at the time , her brother had been urged into an arranged marriage , despite his affection for another woman , and so jia - li 's marriage seemed , in comparison , a good one : she chose we - lei of her own free will , they loved each other . but it goes wrong . that day dutifully presents all the clich ? s : we - lei becomes absorbed in his career , indulges in an affair with a co - worker ; jia - li feels restless and trapped , bound by a choice she made while young , but which no longer seems wise . the film never redeems these clich ? s by conveying the feel of authentic experience , the intensity of lived pain , and much of it seems trite and belaboured . it unfolds , awkwardly , as a series of flashbacks , told during a luncheon in vienna , where jia - li meets her brother 's old flame ( teresa hu ) , now a concert pianist , whom she has not seen since college . both women seem rather sad , and resigned to their sadness . their circumstances ( and those of jia - li 's brother and a college friend ) suggest not so much that they have made the wrong choices -- married the wrong man , chosen the wrong career path , etc . --but rather that the choices available to them were inadequate . it is not that jia - li married the wrong man ; she did n't . the problem is that she needed to marry at all -- and that if she did not marry , she would still be just as unhappy . for a woman in modern taiwan , that day tells us , the cards are stacked , the dice are loaded : she can play the game , but the house always wins . the film 's sympathetic feminist implications are presumably the reason it caused such controversy upon its release in taiwan . seen now , it does not seem provocative . indeed , it 's hard to imagine anyone having felt passionate enough about the film to generate any controversy : it may be ambitious , it may be innovative , but it is also terribly , terribly dull . and what was new for taiwan was not necessarily new for the rest of us : yang adopts methods established years before by antonioni and others , and his use of those methods is fumbling , uncertain , undisciplined . nor does he bring anything new -- other than the locale -- to the material . there are moments when that day takes on some of the emotional richness it strives for -- in a young couple 's first kiss , in the awkward meeting of a woman and her husband 's mistress -- but they are brief . too often , yang devotes needless time to mundane scenes -- grocery shopping , flower - arranging -- in which nothing happens , little is said , no emotion imparted . perhaps , if the film were content to focus on such reflective , inward moments , leaving us to guess at thoughts and feelings , it might have been ambiguous , suggestive , insinuating . but jia - li and her disaffected companions do not only brood in silence : they talk about their problems , at length , in detail , redundantly , and eliminate all subtleties . at two hours and forty - five minutes , it all seems exorbitantly long , indulgently long - winded . consider the defining moment for jia - li , the titular day on the beach . the thrust of the whole film explains , easily enough , what we are to think of that moment , what it means when she walks away from a particular situation . even so , the film has not one but two characters explain it for us verbally , in case we may have missed the point . needless time is devoted to expressing what should have remained unexpressed , and that is the problem throughout . the look of the film is as tedious as the drawn - out narrative . it was the first feature shot by christopher doyle -- at least , it 's his name in the credits -- who is now rightly regarded as one of the world 's leading cinematographers . in the freewheeling expressionism of his work with directors like chen kaige and wong kar - wai , he seems incapable of fashioning a boring image . you would never know it from watching that day , which , due either to doyle 's inexperience or yang 's humdrum direction , is almost perverse in its insistence on making the physical environment seem as drab and banal as possible . in scrutinizing the long decay of a marriage , that day manages to capture the ennui of the experience , but none of the damage , none of the heartbreak .

0NEG

while young , but which no longer seems wise . the film never redeems these clich ? s by conveying the feel of authentic experience , the intensity of it seems trite and belaboured . it unfolds , awkwardly , as a series of flashbacks , told during a may be ambitious , it may be innovative , but it is also terribly , terribly dull . and what was new for taiwan was not necessarily methods established years before by antonioni and others , and his use of those methods is fumbling , uncertain , undisciplined . nor does he bring anything new -- other than . at two hours and forty - five minutes , it all seems exorbitantly long , indulgently long - winded . consider the defining moment for jia - li , , in case we may have missed the point . needless time is devoted to expressing what should have remained unexpressed , and that is the problem throughout . the look of the film is as tedious as the drawn - out narrative . it was the

the first in a very long list of things wrong with " i still know what you did last summer " is the title . think about it for a second . if the last movie was called " i know what you did last summer " , would n't the next movie have to be " i still know what you did two summers ago " ? if anyone working on this movie had an i . q . greater than five would have thought about it logically and said , " hey . . . wait a minute " . but alas , the people behind this film are obviously idiots , so i wo n't hold them to that . what i will hold them to is the fact that they have a pretty bad movie on their hands , even for a teenage slasher flick . i guess i 'm one of the few critics who actually kind of liked the original film ( emphasis on the " kind of " ) . it was n't great or anything and maybe not even necessarily good , but at least it did n't have me glancing at my watch every minute or so like it 's sequel did . there are just so many problems with this movie that it 's hard trying to figure out where to start . first of all , i guess , is the setting . the movie offers no rational reason why the film had to take place in the bahamas , other than the fact that the producers wanted a seaside setting . exactly why does the fisherman want to go through all the trouble of faking a radio contest to get julie james ( jennifer love hewitt , one of the only survivors of the first film ) and her new college buddies out to the islands before he hacks them up ? the movie suffers from this kind of logic all the way through . in one scene , julie is in a tanning booth at a deserted gym when the hooked fisherman with the slicker comes in and seals up the booth so the damsel in distress ca n't get out , no matter how hard she tries . when julie discovers she 's going to slowly fry to death , she screams for help and her friends come to her rescue . now , this is all fine and dandy except for one thing ; instead of spending five minutes trying to bust open the booth , why not just turn the freakin ' thing off ? in another scene , one of the characters , after having their significant other all but decapitated by the man in the slicker , says to julie , " just do n't tell anybody it rained the whole time . " oh yeah , i 've just been terrorized by a hook wielding sociopath and had some of my best friends gruesomely slaughtered , but hey , i 'll crack jokes anyway . after all , it is in the script . the film 's only saving graces are a few well - executed suspense sequences and a really cool cameo by the " re - animator himself , jeffrey combs . he brings some good comic relief and life to an otherwise limp movie . way to go , jeffrey . i have a hunch that the reason this film fizzles while the first one at least kept it 's head above water is the recent absence of writer kevin williamson . with " scream " and even it 's sequel , he displayed a real talent as a screenwriter . his ear for dialogue and the terrific endings he puts on all his films make him a standout from all the rest of the horror writers , and i think " i still know " has really suffered by not having him on board . the cool atmosphere is still there this time around , but i just did n't like the characters or the writing as much as i did in the first one . even though the movie does n't have williamson , it still has a hacky ending , trying to do what kevin did with the first two " scream " s by ( some may consider this a spoiler , but if you have seen any horror movies whatsoever , then you should be able to guess the identity of the madman within twenty minutes ) having two killers and , this time , having one of them being a family member to the other . i think someone in the audience put it best when , after the movie had ended with another " the killer is back ! " cliffhanger , he said " who is this time , the grandma ? " all in all , " i still know " tries to be as successful as the first the film was , but really fails in the attempt . i mean , it 's okay when slasher movies rip - off each other , but when they start copying themselves . . .

0NEG

hey . . . wait a minute " . but alas , the people behind this film are obviously idiots , so i wo n't hold them to that . will hold them to is the fact that they have a pretty bad movie on their hands , even for a teenage slasher flick every minute or so like it 's sequel did . there are just so many problems with this movie that it 's hard trying to figure out to the islands before he hacks them up ? the movie suffers from this kind of logic all the way through . writers , and i think " i still know " has really suffered by not having him on board . the cool atmosphere as successful as the first the film was , but really fails in the attempt . i mean , it 's okay when slasher movies

" there 's nothing new under the sun " is a phrase often used when the speaker actually means " let 's find something to copy . " of course there are very few completely original ideas . even earth - shattering concepts are built upon the vast body of human experience . there is , after all , no need to re - invent the wheel time after time . recently it seems that hollywood does n't feel the need to even re - write the script . my understanding of the word " sequel " is a continuation of the story . the film industry has defined the word to mean reshooting the original with minor changes . have an overwhelming desire to see an inferior version of brian depalma 's adaptation of the steven king novel ? this is your dream come true . rachel ( emily bergl ) , a high school outcast , is beginning to notice weird things happening around her . doors slam shut by themselves . glass globes blow up . her mother has severe mental problems and her father is absent . a popular boy unexpectedly asks her out . the in - crowd conspires to embarrass her at a public event . any of this sound familiar ? once the audience catches on that this is the same story as " carrie " , there 's little to do but wait for the inevitable ending . the effects are a bit better this time around , but the film does n't work nearly as well . there are a couple of minor plot differences . rachel lives with foster parents because her mother is institutionalized . the boys at her school are portrayed as even more evil than in the original . they keep score of their scoring with points given for each conquest . and , uh , there must be other story changes but none stand out . one nice touch is the casting of amy irving again as sue snell . over 20 years ago she was the one girl who tried to help carrie . now a high school counselor , she befriends rachel , but her character 's potential is squandered . there 's too much about sue that does n't make sense . after the slaughter when carrie kills most of her classmates , sue is driven mad and spends time in the institution that rachel 's mother is in . still living in the same small town , the woman with a well - known history of mental problems is hired as a high school counselor ? sue tells rachel that her telekinesis is a genetic disease . this may be the one original idea in the film , but the reasoning behind describing psychic powers as a " disease " is never explained . sue 's eventual fate is an admission by director katt shea and writer rafael moreu that they had an interesting character but could n't figure out what to do with her . blink and you 'll miss it . some of the events are filmed in black and white , but the rationale for this is unknown . it does n't add anything and the choice of scenes appears somewhat random . " the rage " retains some of the trappings of " carrie " without the meaning . in the first film the color red was a motif connected to carrie 's onset of powers at the same time she began menstruating . here there 's an abundance of red , but for no apparent purpose . the casting of high school jocks and cheerleaders as villains is beginning to wear thin . one might be lead to suspect that most filmmakers were unpopular in school and the history of teenage films is an extended cinematic revenge of the nerds . the biggest mistake the film makes is including clips of the original . seeing sissy spacek on the screen only points to the quality of that film - and the flaws in this one .

0NEG

with minor changes . have an overwhelming desire to see an inferior version of brian depalma 's adaptation of the steven king novel this is the same story as " carrie " , there 's little to do but wait for the inevitable ending . the effects are a bit better this time around , but the film does n't work nearly as well . there are a couple of minor plot differences . a high school counselor , she befriends rachel , but her character 's potential is squandered . there 's too much about sue that does n't make sense . after the slaughter when carrie kills most of her white , but the rationale for this is unknown . it does n't add anything and the choice of scenes appears somewhat random . " the rage " retains some of the trappings casting of high school jocks and cheerleaders as villains is beginning to wear thin . one might be lead to suspect that most filmmakers films is an extended cinematic revenge of the nerds . the biggest mistake the film makes is including clips of the original . seeing sissy spacek

plot outline - wendy ( samantha press ) , a jazz singer , loves mack ( hugo race ) a criminal and wanna be rock singer who 's planning a bank heist . mack is also being tailed by a couple of cops , one an inexperienced rookie ( dominic sweeney ) , the other ( john flaus ) a worn out veteran who frequents wendy 's jazz club . they 're tailing mack , because he has an audiotape that may show evidence of governmental corruption . meanwhile wendy 's sexually awakener , fifteen year old sister ( rebecca elmaloglou ) has moved in with her , and is secretly watching mack and wendy 's late night love trysts ? much zaniness ensues the review : main problem first - about 2 % of rood rock star to actor conversions in filmdom ever really work . unfortunately , trying to cast hugo race as a violent , sexy criminal falls into the " what the hell where they thinking " category that takes up 98 % of the rest . but , hell , it 's not as if he 's the only problem in this well - intentioned but ultimately below average aussie thriller . leads , race and samantha press are wooden and dull , hampered by some unfortunate attempts at sexy dialogue early on . though they do manage some heat later in their love scenes , helped , no doubt by them keeping their mouths shut . the film suffers every time the story shifts back to these two . which is unfortunately , the other main story is n't any great shakes either . the second part , concerning two cops , political corruption and that elusive tape is incredibly muddled . at many points during the movie i had no idea what was going on , a situation that did n't improve on repeated viewing . there is no doubt that this film 's achilles heel is its script . as for the rest of the cast , it 's a mixed bag . john flaus , one of australia 's most criminally underused actors , is in top form as the withering , alcoholic jazz fan cop , who may or may not have sold out to the highest bidder . although he falters at one point , when the script calls for him to get up on stage and deliver a drunken beat sermon , but believe me , they way it was written , no one could have pulled it off . dominic sweeney is fine , though he seems to be uneasy in front of the lens but he really is n't given a whole lot to do . pre home and away elmaloglou is pretty good as the inquisitive jojo , but her character seems extraneous to the story , well , at least until the final scenes . i must admit , in too deep does have some impressive qualities , not the least of which is it visual element . cinematographers mark gilfedder & peter zakharov have achieved the almost impossible by making melbourne look like a sweat drenched tropic city , which is akin to turning london into san paolo . the bar is an oppressive red , like all of it 's patrons are being baked while they drink , outside it hazy orange by day and cool blue by night . if only deborah parson 's script could have supported this idea better . having two director 's ( colin south & john tatoulis ) does n't help either , the most glaring example of which is the final retribution / fight scene , where for some reason the camera pulls away from the onscreen action , and more importantly it does n't pull away to anything else . it just stays static as the fight happens in the distance . it has no reason to it ; it 's just bad direction . and , ultimately , that is what sums up in too deep , it 's tries to be good , and you want it to work , but , it 's just lacking the talent behind it , that it needs to succeed .

0NEG

night love trysts ? much zaniness ensues the review : main problem first - about 2 % of rood rock star to actor to cast hugo race as a violent , sexy criminal falls into the " what the hell where they thinking " category that takes up 98 % of the rest . but 's the only problem in this well - intentioned but ultimately below average aussie thriller . leads , race and samantha press are wooden and dull , hampered by some unfortunate attempts at sexy dialogue early on . though they do manage , no doubt by them keeping their mouths shut . the film suffers every time the story shifts back to these two . two cops , political corruption and that elusive tape is incredibly muddled . at many points during the movie i had no improve on repeated viewing . there is no doubt that this film 's achilles heel is its script . as for the rest of the cast , it two director 's ( colin south & john tatoulis ) does n't help either , the most glaring example of which is the final stays static as the fight happens in the distance . it has no reason to it ; it 's just bad direction . and , ultimately , that is what sums up , and you want it to work , but , it 's just lacking the talent behind it , that it needs to succeed .

the scene at the end of 1989 's ` dead poets society , ' when robin williams ' english students stand up on their desk and say , ` captain , my captain , ' gets me every time . unfortunately , the court room scene near the end of robin 's newest film , ` patch adams , ' does n't have anywhere near the same impact . from the surface ` patch adams ' looks very promising . it 's a story about a not so young man , patch adams ( robin williams ) , who finds meaning in his life through helping sick people . when the film opens , we find patch , depressed and suicidal , checking himself into a mental hospital . in a few scenes , strongly reminiscent of ` one flew over the cuckoo 's nest , ' he ends up helping the patients through their problems ; and it 's here that he finds how much he loves working with people . so he checks himself out of the hospital , and heads straight to medical school . right from the start , patch uses comedy to help make the patient more comfortable . he continuously breaks medical tradition and makes the dean of the school angry . shortly after joining medical school , he meets and falls in love with carin ( monica potter ) . they , along with patch 's dork friend , truman ( daniel london ) , start a medical clinic for uninsured people . once the dean catches wind of the clinic , he tells patch he ca n't graduate and kicks him out of school . patch , like what any true american would do , takes the school to court . it 's here where the not so climatic court room battle takes place , over whether or not patch can become a real doctor . i have never seen a movie with some potential just completely blow it . it seems more like a series of short sketches , rather than a full - length movie . considering it runs almost two hours , much too long for such a light film , it could have flowed much smoother . not to mention the fact of how serious the film takes itself , and manages to cover all the cliches of bad melodrama . robin williams saves the film from being abysmal with several comic scenes that elevate the movie to entertaining and worthwhile levels . but those moments are rare and in the end ` patch adams ' is barely average .

0NEG

takes the school to court . it 's here where the not so climatic court room battle takes place , over whether or not patch can become . i have never seen a movie with some potential just completely blow it . it seems more like a series of short sketches serious the film takes itself , and manages to cover all the cliches of bad melodrama . robin williams saves the film from being abysmal with several comic scenes that elevate the movie to entertaining rare and in the end ` patch adams ' is barely average .

the real blonde ( r ) a woman 's face , an arm , some pumped - up pectorals , blond hair , a man 's sad face , slender legs , a random hand here and there . as the opening credits of tom dicillo 's the real blonde unfold , these scattered , fractured glimpses eventually come together to form the image of a bikini brief - clad man on his knees clinging to a nurturing woman , his head concealing her unclothed breasts . if only the rest of this formless , aimless ensemble comedy assembled so coherently . joe ( matthew modine ) is a waiter / struggling actor too proud to take gigs in commercials or soap operas . he 's feeling somewhat dissatisfied with his relationship with his live - in love , mary ( catherine keener ) , who holds some subconscious hostility toward the male gender . mary , a makeup artist , regularly works on model sahara ( bridgette wilson ) , who is obsessed with the underlying messages in disney 's the little mermaid . the bottle blonde has a turbulent on - again , off - again relationship with bob ( maxwell caulfield ) , a soap actor who yearns for the taste of a real blonde , which he finds in co - star kelly ( daryl hannah ) . as the film unspools , a variety of other characters pass through : fashion photographer blair ( marlo thomas ) ; mary 's shrink ( buck henry ) and self - defense instructor ( denis leary ) ; joe 's casting agent ( kathleen turner ) and hardass boss ( christopher lloyd ) ; and a mystery woman ( elizabeth berkley ) who keeps on crossing joe 's path . where exactly does all this go ? that 's a question best posed to writer - director dicillo , who does n't appear to have the slightest clue himself . his meandering , largely unfunny script and direction are like hopelessly lost drivers , turning into dead - end narrative streets only to reverse course and hit another creative cul - de - sac . and another . and another . at one point bob , frustrated with the soap scripts , complains to the head writer ( jim fyfe ) that his and kelly 's characters keep on going in circles , with no hint of development or growth . that is most certainly the case here . joe gets a job and ultimately botches things ; he and mary bicker ; they make up , only to have the pattern repeat itself . unhappy with his bottle blonde , bob gets his real blonde but is unsatisfied ; he returns to the faux and is still unsatisfied . if there is a point to all of this , dicillo dances around it , spending his time on apparent digressions that , as it turns out , are n't digressions at all . the real blonde is not without some amusements . it does have the occasional funny line and situation ; leary , henry , lloyd , steve buscemi , and dave chappelle shine in their small roles ; keener is a likable , refreshingly earthy lead ; berkley 's appearance is mercifully brief ( she receives outrageously prominent billing and ad placement for a ten - minute role ) ; and there is the irony of having caulfield play a wildly popular soap star who makes the ratings skyrocket ( last year , the actor was fired from the daytime drama all my children after a scant six months -- due to lack of viewer interest ) . but on the whole , the real blonde is a frustrating sit that lives up to the stereotypes of its title -- it may be glossy on the surface , but there 's nothing going on inside . ( opens february 27 )

0NEG

question best posed to writer - director dicillo , who does n't appear to have the slightest clue himself . his meandering , largely unfunny script and direction are like hopelessly lost drivers , turning into dead - end narrative streets only to reverse course and hit another creative cul - . but on the whole , the real blonde is a frustrating sit that lives up to the stereotypes of its title -- it may be glossy on the surface , but there 's nothing going on inside . ( opens february 27 )

" jack frost , " is one of those dumb , corny concoctions that attempts to be a heartwarming family film , but is too muddled in its own cliches and predictability to be the least bit touching . this does not come as a surprise , since the studio that made it is warner brothers , who is on a current streak of one bad film after the other . jack frost ( michael keaton ) is a struggling middle - aged rock musician who loves his wife , gabby ( kelly preston ) , and 11-year - old son , charlie ( joseph cross ) , but does n't spend nearly enough time with them . when he receives a call from a music label that wants to hear him play , he has to cancel his planned family outing up in the mountains for christmas . halfway there , jack has second thoughts , but on his way back home , is in a car accident and dies . switch forward a year , christmas is approaching once again , and charlie and gabby are still having a difficult time coming to terms with jack 's death . when charlie begins to play the harmonica his father gave him the night before he died , the snowman outside the house is taken over by jack 's spirit . jack wants to spend some time with his son before the upcoming warm front melts him , but charlie desperately tries to prevent his melting demise . " frosty the snowman , " is a classic cartoon , and the idea of a snowman that is alive works splendidly when animated , but as a live - action film , it does n't work at all . after a somewhat promising prologue in which the frost family is established , " jack frost , " quickly goes downhill , especially once the snowman comes into play . since jack has been deceased for a whole year , you would think there would be many questions to ask him , such as , " what happens after you die ? " or , " how does it feel to be a snowman ? " but instead , the film focuses on a snowball fight subplot and an inevitably oversentimental climax that could be telegraphed before i even sat down to watch the movie . the performances are respectable enough , but no one deserves to be punished by appearing in a silly film like this . michael keaton at least got off easy , since he disappears after the first twenty minutes , but what exactly does he think he is doing with his career here ? i have always liked kelly preston . she is clearly a talented , charismatic actress , but has never been given a good role in her life , usually having to settle for a one - dimensional supporting character , as in , 1997 's , " nothing to lose , " and , " addicted to love . " joseph cross was probably the highlight in the cast , since he believably portrayed a boy suffering the loss of a parent . in one of the only subplots that actually works , due to its wittiness , henry rollins is highly amusing as a hockey coach who becomes terrified and paranoid after seeing the live snowman . this brief hint of cleverness is pushed to the side , however , by the tried - and - true main plot at hand , which is the sappy story of a father and son . since i knew what was going to happen by the time the conclusion came around , i had no choice but to sit there and listen to painfully insipid , cringe - inducing lines of dialogue . some of my favorites was an interaction between the son and father : " you da man , " says charlie . " no , i da snowman , " replies jack . or how about this little zinger , coming from a school bully that miraculously becomes friendly towards charlie and tries to help him out : " snowdad is better than no dad . " do people really get paid in hollywood for writing pieces of trash like this ? the snowman , created by john henson 's creature shop , is more believable than the snowman from last year 's unintentionally hilarious direct - to - video horror flick , also called , " jack frost , " but it still was difficult to tell if it was a person in a suit or computer effects . either way , it was an awful lot of work to go through , just to come up with a final product as featherbrained as this project . as a seasonal holiday picture , " jack frost , " is pretty much a clunker . a better christmas film from this year is , " i 'll be home for christmas . " better yet , my suggestion would be to stay home and watch a quality film , such as , " it 's a wonderful life , " " a christmas story , " or , " prancer . " " jack frost , " is an earnest , but severely misguided film , and children , as well as adults , deserve better . i doubt they would want to see a movie about the death of a parent , anyway .

0NEG

" jack frost , " is one of those dumb , corny concoctions that attempts to be a heartwarming family film , but is too muddled in its own cliches and predictability to be the least bit touching . this does not come as a surprise , since , the film focuses on a snowball fight subplot and an inevitably oversentimental climax that could be telegraphed before i even sat down to watch the movie . the performances are respectable enough , but no one deserves to be punished by appearing in a silly film like this . michael keaton at least got off easy , since the live snowman . this brief hint of cleverness is pushed to the side , however , by the tried - and - true main plot at hand , which is the sappy story of a father and son . since i knew what had no choice but to sit there and listen to painfully insipid , cringe - inducing lines of dialogue . some of my favorites was an interaction between the : " snowdad is better than no dad . " do people really get paid in hollywood for writing pieces of trash like this ? the snowman , created by john henson 's creature shop , just to come up with a final product as featherbrained as this project . as a seasonal holiday picture ,

some movies require you to turn off your brain in order to watch . then there are movies that require you to accept that everyone * in * the movie has turned off * their * brains . the real mccoy is both . it 's charmless , molasses - slow and so full of genuinely stupid people that the film commission of atlanta , where the real mccoy is set , might well consider some sort of ritual suicide for their complicity in this humiliation . the real mccoy opens with bank robber karen mccoy ( kim basinger ) being arrested in the middle of a job . six years later , karen is out on parole and looking to stay straight . she soon bumps into j . t . barker ( val kilmer ) , a hapless would - be thief who idolizes karen . j . t . also has ties to jack schmidt ( terence stamp ) , the man who blew the whistle on karen six years earlier for refusing to work with him . schmidt , who is in cahoots with karen 's sleazy parole officer ( gailard sartain ) , again wants karen to help him stage a robbery . this time he has some leverage : karen 's kidnapped son . just when she thought she was out , they keep pulling her back * in . * contrivances and sloppy plotting fly off the screen so fast and furiously you have to duck to avoid being hit by them . leading the list is the jack schmidt character , who through unexplained but presumably foul mains is already extremely wealthy when our story begins . there is no reason given why he should need or want to get involved in another crime , let alone why he would actually participate in the break - in . karen 's initial encounter with j . t . during a botched convenience store hold - up also strains the limits of credibility . it would have been simple enough to have them somehow entangled at that point , but instead they run into each other the next day because they 're leaving their parole officers at exactly the same moment . small world , eh ? then there 's the convenient car trouble during an attempted escape , and pet tigers which , through the power of the laws of bad cinema , must inevitably confront someone who has blundered into their cage . however , the buffoon prize goes to the atlanta police , who come off like the keystone kops on a bad day . but the fun does n't end there in the shambles of a script by william davies and william osborne . there is also the absence of a single , solitary interesting character . karen is earnest and single - minded in her motherly devotion , but lacking any kind of edge which would make her a convincing criminal , and basinger is not a thespian adept at fleshing out flimsy material . schmidt is a flaccid villain , the parole officer is a complete blank , and karen 's son and ex - husband might as well be furniture . only kilmer 's j . t . is remotely appealing , but his one potentially intriguing quality , his ineptitude , is never developed . in fact , kilmer disappears during the middle of the film , just when his admiration for karen could have made for an interesting sub - plot . i might have been more forgiving if the pacing had been more appropriate to a caper comedy , but the real mccoy goes nowhere fast . various scenes of sneaking and skulking seem to take forever , and some end with no reason evident why they did n't end up on the cutting room floor . even the reasonably clever climactic break - in falls victim to this syndrome , including a scene of one of the thieves drilling open a vault which lasts ( i kid you not ) four minutes . there is no tension in the scene , just tedium . russell mulcahy ( highlander ) is a director with some style , and indeed the real mccoy looks reasonably good , but he completely stumbles in the editing room . there are so many big problems with the real mccoy that i 'm tempted to overlook the little ones . like karen disarming one of schmidt 's henchmen and throwing his gun into the middle of a park where her son is playing . like a fountain crushed when a van runs into it reappearing in one piece a few moments later . tempted . but i 'm pretty good at resisting temptation .

0NEG

their * brains . the real mccoy is both . it 's charmless , molasses - slow and so full of genuinely stupid people that the film commission of atlanta , where the real , they keep pulling her back * in . * contrivances and sloppy plotting fly off the screen so fast and furiously you have to duck to avoid being hit by them bad day . but the fun does n't end there in the shambles of a script by william davies and william osborne . there is also the absence of a single , solitary interesting character . karen is earnest and single - minded in her motherly devotion , but lacking any kind of edge which would make her a convincing criminal , and basinger thespian adept at fleshing out flimsy material . schmidt is a flaccid villain , the parole officer is a complete blank , and karen 's son and ex - husband might appropriate to a caper comedy , but the real mccoy goes nowhere fast . various scenes of sneaking and skulking seem to take forever , and some end with no reason evident why they lasts ( i kid you not ) four minutes . there is no tension in the scene , just tedium . russell mulcahy ( highlander ) is a director with and indeed the real mccoy looks reasonably good , but he completely stumbles in the editing room . there are so many big problems with the real mccoy that i 'm tempted to overlook

you think that these people only exist in the movies , but trust me , they 're as real as life . i once talked to a guy who thought the united states government was putting satellites into orbit which could fry an individual person 's brain with microwaves . then i sat in a room full of people who believed that the government rigged state elections . i even listened to a man who swore that nicotine was an additive that cigarette companies put in their products for the specific goal of getting people addicted . these people had what are known as " conspiracy theories " - ideas about how unseen forces work to deceive and control the public . a little imagination goes a long way . in richard donner 's conspiracy theory , jerry fletcher ( mel gibson ) is a new york city cab driver who seems to have a conspiracy theory about everything . his latest , that nasa is trying to kill the president by causing an earthquake from the space shuttle , might sound outrageous to us , but is all in a day 's work for him . he combs the newspaper , looking for tidbits that leave telltale warnings about the goings - on behind the scenes , and from there jerry draws his conclusions . upstanding citizen that he is , he tries to convince alice sutton ( julia roberts ) of the justice department that the president must be warned . lucky gal , alice , who met jerry when he saved her from a couple of muggers and has had to listen to his theories during the six months since . what she does n't know is that jerry 's interest in her is far more than , well , professional . he goes to great lengths to follow her around and watch her in her own apartment . but when some secret government types seem to take an interest in jerry 's ideas and his limited - circulation " conspiracy theory " newsletter , he finds himself in danger and in real need of alice 's help . one of the problems with conspiracy theory is that it tries to pass itself off as an action - thriller when it seems to have neither a whole lot of action , nor a significant number of thrills . part of this is a result of the film 's slow pace . it takes forever to set up the relationship between jerry and alice , and even once that is over with , the rest of the film seems to be a lot of boredom that every once in a while stops to take a break for excitement . at over two hours , this film could have been significantly condensed and had it 's running time shortened by twenty minutes to half an hour , but even then , the action scenes would not be able to save the film . instead of truly exciting and engaging set pieces , we 're treated to a few of the generic scenes with the requisite " black elements " : black helicopter , men in black action suits and body armor , black vehicles - you know the drill . they come on down with all kinds of neat gadgets and weapons , but for some reason a guy with just a bunch of theories and some chick with no training somehow manage to elude them every time . big deal , we 've seen it all before . watching the film , i wished donner had at least tried to use a little imagination , but i was out of luck . now , when i say it took forever to set up the " relationship " between jerry and alice , i completely mean what one person is relative to the other , and not romantic involvement . oh , donner and screenwriter brian helgeland would like you to believe that by the end of the movie , the two main characters will end up falling hopelessly in love with each other , but there seems to be no evidence of that ever occurring . you see , there were more sparks between gibson and danny glover in the lethal weapon movies ( also directed by donner ) than between gibson and roberts in conspiracy theory . the two just do n't click , and when you throw in a number of happenings that would cause alice to reject jerry altogether ( like finding out he 's been stalking her ) , the subsequent attraction is absolutely forced . the script in general also seems forced , like someone sat helgeland down and forced him to write it , then took it and forced it upon us . dialog is undistinguished and rather unmemorable , to the point that i almost stopped listening . even gibson 's usual gift for ad lib could n't punch up the film sufficiently to raise my interest , although one of jerry 's theories about oliver stone was mildly amusing . unfortunately , much of what 's discussed in the film is not inherently important to what 's going on , but instead filler that starts out with potential , but ends up just being extraneous because it 's never followed through . for example , jerry professes that a man found drowned in his swimming pool was actually murdered by the government in a new york subway station . he even goes so far as to explain that the station was flooded at the time due to a water main break ( hence the water in a subway station ) , and that the coroner should check the man 's lungs for chlorine . this is convincing enough to alice that she seems to believe him . you know what happens then ? nothing , zip , nada . no follow - up whatsoever , so what 's the significance ? okay , here 's another one . a couple of well known ( real life ) assassins were found to have possessed copies of the j . d . salinger novel " the catcher in the rye " . jerry also has a bunch of copies . whenever he goes into a bookstore , he has to buy one . leaving out the question of whether or not this makes jerry an assassin , we 're never given a reason to believe why this would make him an assassin . not when we find out about his salinger collection , not when he goes to the bookstore , not later on when we get the answer to our first question . the point becomes totally extraneous . oh , did i mention that patrick stewart is in this film ? yeah , he plays this government psychiatrist named dr . jonas who may or may not be a bad guy . that 's about it . for all the presence this usually marvelous actor has , he 's nearly forgettable in conspiracy theory . you can just lump him in with the supporting players , with the exception of cylk cozart who plays agent lowry of the fbi . this guy was really likable , and i wish he and his character had gotten more screen time . okay , here 's my theory . this really started out as a great film , but some of its jokes were actually true ! the government came in and forced donner to make edits for the sake of national security , and this was what was left over .

0NEG

danger and in real need of alice 's help . one of the problems with conspiracy theory is that it tries to pass itself part of this is a result of the film 's slow pace . it takes forever to set up the relationship between alice , and even once that is over with , the rest of the film seems to be a lot of boredom that every once in a while stops to take a . instead of truly exciting and engaging set pieces , we 're treated to a few of the generic scenes with the requisite " black elements " : black helicopter ) than between gibson and roberts in conspiracy theory . the two just do n't click , and when you throw in a number of happenings her ) , the subsequent attraction is absolutely forced . the script in general also seems forced , like someone sat helgeland down and forced him to , then took it and forced it upon us . dialog is undistinguished and rather unmemorable , to the point that i almost stopped listening . even gibson 's usual gift for ad lib could alice that she seems to believe him . you know what happens then ? nothing , zip , nada . no follow - up whatsoever , so what 's the significance ? okay , here 's another one . a couple of for all the presence this usually marvelous actor has , he 's nearly forgettable in conspiracy theory . you can just lump him in

my son and i share a perverse predilection for bad movies . we are amused and entertained by the cheap thrills , the corny dialog , the ludicrous premises and the bad acting . since other family members aspire to higher forms of entertainment , we usually wind up indulging our proclivity together . i ca n't remember when we disagreed on the relative merits of a clunker until species 2 came along . he was not amused . i on the other hand was able to easily suspend the applicable requirements in the usual manner and declare myself suitably entertained . perhaps the evident skills that were brought to the process of producing a bad product was what prevented him from extracting fun out of mediocrity . i on the other hand appreciated the fact that the producers and director knew exactly what they were doing : insulting my intelligence , and brought adequate movie - making skills to the project a movie does not have to be good to be well made , at least in terms of the craft . the movie could have been better if it were not so brusque . this movie slaps you with conception , pregnancy , delivery and young childhood in consecutive frames , without pausing for infancy . the producers of nescafe have nothing on this alien race in which a woman 's womb balloons immediately after the male orgasm , and a few seconds later a young child tears its way out of her abdomen in a sloppy and gory version of an inside - out cesarean . an autopsy scene in which a buzz saw cuts through the cranium was not the kind of indulgence that i condone , to say nothing of the fact that it was scientifically incorrect . in a real autopsy the saw does not cut through the scalp ; it is used only after the skull has been exposed . the opening sequences of exploration of mars were very good . the writers showed excellent skills for ceremonial speech writing but the spontaneous dialogue would qualify for a subtitle : ` as bad as it gets ' . as the movie progressed i vowed to remember the lines that made me cringe but only one stuck . eve ( natasha henstridge ) was cloned from sil , the original alien sexual predator , but her mating instinct was artificially attenuated , which was all that was needed to turn her into a noble and cooperative prisoner . in a wistful display of resignation and understanding she tells her friend and jailer ( marg helgenberger ) : ` i think of all the places that i will never see and all the people that i will never meet . ' it 's enough to melt the most callous heart . at another point she protests : ` i 'm human too , you know . ' she is only half right . peter medak , the director , knows his business . justin lazard as the doomed astronaut does nothing to enhance his hollywood credentials . james cromwell , his father , is perfect in a short role . marg heldenberger , the dna scientist is pleasant and beautiful . natasha is an exquisite ornament . george dzunza knew and delivered what was expected of him as the dumb general that messes things up . michael madsen was there . black buddies do not usually survive in this type of movie but mykelti williamson manages to stay around for the final credits , which is more that we can say for lazard . .

0NEG

evident skills that were brought to the process of producing a bad product was what prevented him from extracting fun out of mediocrity . i on the other hand appreciated the fact that producers and director knew exactly what they were doing : insulting my intelligence , and brought adequate movie - making skills to the the writers showed excellent skills for ceremonial speech writing but the spontaneous dialogue would qualify for a subtitle : ` as bad as it gets ' . as the movie progressed i vowed to remember the knows his business . justin lazard as the doomed astronaut does nothing to enhance his hollywood credentials . james cromwell , his father , is perfect in

it seemed like the perfect concept . what better for the farrelly brothers , famous for writing and directing comedies with offensive subject matter , than to make a movie about a guy with a split personality ? it 's exactly the sort of thing the brothers relish : poking fun at something serious ( in this case mental illness ) , throwing all care to the wind to get a laugh . jim carrey 's signed on too ? even better . the national alliance for the mentally ill even helped out by levying complaints against the brothers ' new film before its opening , claiming it was misrepresenting the condition of split personality , labeling it incorrectly as " schizophrenia , " and so forth . such a protest seemed like just the sort of thing that would , of course , only add more fuel to the farrelly brothers ' fire , proving that some people just could n't take a joke , and that the farrellys would be helping the more enlightened viewers to yet another dose of their brilliantly subversive comedy . yes , it all seemed perfect , but one thing went wrong : their movie is n't funny . it 's not for lack of trying . the farrellys utilize in " me , myself & irene " their most high - concept premise ever : carrey plays charlie baileygaites , a man who after being dumped by his wife for a midget limo driver , decides to bury all his aggressive feelings deep down inside and never release them . this , of course , means all his neighbors exploit his entirely too - forgiving nature , making his job as a rhode island state trooper increasingly difficult . soon enough , charlie 's repressed aggression manifests itself into a second , independent personality named hank , a deep - voiced , boorish ogre unafraid of taking the assertive actions his predecessor had been unable to muster . this guy is n't above crashing a car through the wall of the barber shop in which he 's been insulted , or holding a little girl 's head underwater because she refused to stop jump - roping in the street . then things start getting lost in the most complicated plot the farrellys have ever attempted , and the film runs off its tracks . some have suggested that this is n't a problem , because the farrelly brothers ' brand of humor does n't require plot to work . they 're wrong , of course : plot was greatly instrumental in building up the kind of rollicking comic energy that infused the farrellys ' last effort , 1996 's " there 's something about mary . " ( 1999 's " outside providence " was technically an earlier project . ) the brothers ' earlier film was n't funny merely because it contained outrageous gags ( despite what some newsmagazine articles would have you believe ) , but rather because its most outrageous gags were entirely unexpected . in " mary , " the farrellys managed several times to pull off a neat sleight - of - hand trick : they 'd have you thinking the story was going one way , then reveal its real direction in delightfully surprising fashion . " me , myself & irene , " by contrast , seems to have been made by folks who looked at " mary " and saw only the surface grossness , missing all of the subtle machinations that really made it work . having been produced by the same guys who made " mary , " " irene " seems like an even bigger disappointment . the brothers pile on the offensive humor , taking shots at race , midgets , albinos , mental illness , and all manner of bathroom jokes . but they have n't come up with a way to make any of it fresh most of " me , myself & irene " comes off as rote , by - the - numbers , adolescent comedy . the plot , with carrey forced to drive alleged fugitive irene p . waters ( renee zellweger ) , who 's in more trouble than anyone knows , back to new york , has an ending that 's entirely predictable from the get - go . ( think charlie and irene will fall in love ? yeah , me too . ) the farrellys then introduce scores of different characters , and none of them ever manage to do anything you have n't already expected them to do , no matter how outrageous their actions might be . compared to the curveballs the farrellys are used to throwing , this stuff is almost entirely soft - tossed , presenting an obvious problem : when gross - out humor loses its shock value , it 's no longer funny , merely gross . the jokes that do work are milked over and over until their effectiveness runs dry . take , for example , the subplot involving charlie 's three black sons ( anthony anderson , mongo brownlee , jerod mixon ) . the incongruity of it all is funny for a while , with three burly black men discussing higher math in ghetto language and white - bread carrey mouthing said language with an entirely too - pleasant smile on his face . but by the end of the film , they 're still doing the same schitck it has n't been elevated to another , funnier level , and it has n't been dropped either . that 's too bad , because it ceases to be amusing about halfway through . " me , myself & irene " reeks of wasted opportunities . there ought to be more focus on how other people react to charlie 's new personality , and on how charlie deals with the consequences of hank 's actions . this does n't really happen nearly every supporting character learns about charlie 's condition early on , so they do n't have any opportunity to be surprised by it . the film throws what looks like a patented farrelly curve in a scene towards the midway point ( involving an albino companion charlie and irene pick up called , appropriately , " whitey " ) , but the script does n't go anywhere with it , instead leaving the thread twisting in the wind before awkwardly tying it up during the climax . jim carrey is a gifted comedian , both physically and vocally , but he 's left with nothing much to do here except contort himself in a manner similar to steve martin in " all of me . " it 's a great showcase of flexibility and split - second role - shifting , but none of it is terribly funny . carrey does n't pull any stunts we do n't expect him to pull , and the farrellys ' script does n't give him anything else to pull : the situations in which he must perform the role - shifting are n't set up in any meaningful way . perhaps carrey can take solace in the fact that his supporting actors fare no better . zellweger 's irene is not a strong female lead mary in " mary " may have been part adolescent fantasy , but she was also intelligent and strong - willed . irene is nothing in particular , as the film never makes clear whether she 's ditzy , clever , or neither . as such , she gives us nothing to latch onto as the only " sane " person in the film . chris cooper is stuck playing exactly one note as a corrupt fbi agent , and his character is entirely too straight - laced for a movie like this . he , like the others , does absolutely nothing unexpected . after viewing the shapeless mess that " me , myself & irene " eventually dissolved into , i was stuck wondering whether or not the farrellys had outsmarted themselves . maybe their kind of comedy can only work for so long until audiences get wise to it and stop being shocked . but i do n't believe it -- good filmmakers find ways of surprising their audiences even after people have grown attuned to their style . if the farrellys are indeed good , smart filmmakers ( and i still think they are ) , they 'll rebound just fine . even after that happens , though , i 'll still consider " me , myself & irene " to be a high - caliber misfire .

0NEG

all seemed perfect , but one thing went wrong : their movie is n't funny . it 's not for lack of trying . the most complicated plot the farrellys have ever attempted , and the film runs off its tracks . some have suggested that this is n't a problem guys who made " mary , " " irene " seems like an even bigger disappointment . the brothers pile on the offensive humor , taking this stuff is almost entirely soft - tossed , presenting an obvious problem : when gross - out humor loses its shock value , it 's no longer funny , merely gross . the jokes that do work are milked over and been dropped either . that 's too bad , because it ceases to be amusing about halfway through . " me , myself & irene " reeks of wasted opportunities . there ought to be more focus on how other a gifted comedian , both physically and vocally , but he 's left with nothing much to do here except contort himself in a manner similar to steve martin flexibility and split - second role - shifting , but none of it is terribly funny . carrey does n't pull any stunts we do n't ditzy , clever , or neither . as such , she gives us nothing to latch onto as the only " sane " person in the film exactly one note as a corrupt fbi agent , and his character is entirely too straight - laced for a movie like this . he , like the others , does absolutely nothing unexpected . after viewing the shapeless mess that " me , myself & irene " eventually dissolved consider " me , myself & irene " to be a high - caliber misfire .

wesley snipes is a master of selecting bad action roles . murder at 1600 , u . s . marshals , money train , drop zone , boiling point , and the ultimate camp film - passenger 57 . the art of war is another entry in this very ugly and unique category . ultimately , it is little more than a ridiculous action film with a plot as believable as the warren report , ugly violence that would have made peckinpah cringe , and terrible acting by b - list actors like michael biehn and anne archer . oddly , it feels like the undiscovered sequel to another snipes " masterpiece , " rising sun . the movie revolves around the convenient story of a special un operative caught up in a secret murder conspiracy involving a chinese ambassador , the chinese triad brotherhood , a rich chinese businessman ( played by ? that bad guy from rising sun , cary - hiroyuki tagawa ) a chinese un interpreter , and , inexplicably , donald sutherland . the film ends with more confusion than a boatload of chinese immigrants trying to register at ellis island . or should i say the film ends with the most blatant ripoff of both the matrix and all of john woo 's hong kong films combined . i am really at a loss to figure out why wesley snipes had the gumption to not only star in this action dud but also act as one of the producers of the film . i usually enjoy snipes ' movies - though his dramatic roles better show off his creativity as an actor than the flashiness of his action films . simply , i am amazed by the how inane the script was , filled with terrible cliches and extremely violent action sequences . director christian duguay ( screamers ) has a strange attraction to the viciousness of violent acts -- showing splattering brains , people impaled with broken shards of glass , and lots of gargling and gagging as blood sprays everywhere . it also sickens me to know that oliver stone , one of the greatest directors working today , had his hand in producing this monstrosity . i guess snipes sold stone on the conspiracy angle and stone chose not to read the script , watch the dailies , be involved in casting , or anything else -- or else he 'd be filing a court order to remove his name from the credits . it 's also seems evident that with the russkies as our new bosom buddies and the middle eastern terrorist angle being beaten to death in the last couple of years that the new international enemies in hollywood are the communist chinese . i 'm sure over the next couple of months , even more " chinese conspiracy / martial - arts action flicks " are going to be popping up in your local multiplex . hopefully they wo n't include wesley snipes .

0NEG

wesley snipes is a master of selecting bad action roles . murder at 1600 , u . s . marshals . the art of war is another entry in this very ugly and unique category . ultimately , it is little more than a ridiculous action film with a plot as believable as the warren report , ugly violence that would have made peckinpah cringe , and terrible acting by b - list actors like michael biehn and anne archer . oddly , it , and , inexplicably , donald sutherland . the film ends with more confusion than a boatload of chinese immigrants trying to register at island . or should i say the film ends with the most blatant ripoff of both the matrix and all of john woo 's hong kong films combined . i am really at a loss to figure out why wesley snipes had the gumption to than the flashiness of his action films . simply , i am amazed by the how inane the script was , filled with terrible cliches and extremely violent action sequences . director christian duguay ( lots of gargling and gagging as blood sprays everywhere . it also sickens me to know that oliver stone , one of the greatest directors working today , had his hand in producing this monstrosity . i guess snipes sold stone on the conspiracy angle involved in casting , or anything else -- or else he 'd be filing a court order to remove his name from the credits . it 's also seems evident that with the russkies

senseless is a prime example of what can happen when you try to push a one - joke concept a bit too far . director penelope spheeris is no stranger to this , having subjected audiences before to such tortures as the beverly hillbillies . marlon wayans stars as darryl witherspoon , a college senior vying for a lucrative job at a prominent brokerage . however , he lacks the advantages of his chief opposition , scott thorpe ( david spade , in the smarmy sort of role he can deliver in his sleep ) : an athletic record , sponsorship by a fraternity , and , most of all , a wealthy family to back him up . in fact , darryl has to work at four jobs simply to make ends meet . but there may be a light at the end of that tunnel . he signs up as a human guinea pig in a neurological experiment run by the university 's dr . wheedon ( brad dourif ) . as a result , his senses are magnified tenfold . using his newfound abilities , he sets himself in complete pursuit of the job ( unaware that there may be some disadvantageous side - effects to having super senses ) . naturally , marlon wayans plays this comedy at full throttle , giving jim carrey - ish amounts of physical humor . the problem is , aside from a few genuinely inspired bits , there 's not much that 's funny here . the film has it 's one central gag , and pads out the rest of its length with rather obvious lowbrow humor . there obviously was n't much thought put into the plot . the entire job selection process is completely ridiculous . i mean , why the emphasis on extra - curricular activities if the entire job is going to come down to a single - elimination quiz anyhow ? and is this the only job being offered to economics majors this semester ? to give it credit , senseless does try to create a secondary joke with darryl 's roommate , tim laflour ( matthew lillard ) . apparently , he is supposed to be faddish , but the film never does anything with him , leaving him in a piercing phase throughout the movie . his " intervention " scenes with darryl , however , do provide a rare , and welcome , laugh . and then there 's the love interest which is always pathetically tacked onto comedies like this one . in this case , the object of darryl 's amor is janice ( tamara taylor ) , a fellow student who wo n't have anything to do with darryl until he gains his super - senses . needless to say , the romance is completely extraneous , and adds little to the film . this is a film that desperately needed something else . be that a good plot , more jokes ( or simply funnier ones ) , or a strong character or two , anything would have helped senseless get off the ground . as it is , all the manic exuberant mugging in the world ca n't help marlon wayans get this one off the ground .

0NEG

senseless is a prime example of what can happen when you try to push a one - joke concept a bit too far . director penelope spheeris is no stranger to this , giving jim carrey - ish amounts of physical humor . the problem is , aside from a few genuinely inspired bits , there 's not much that 's funny here . the film has it 's one central gag , and pads out the rest of its length with rather obvious lowbrow humor . there obviously was n't much thought put into the plot . the entire job selection process is completely ridiculous . i mean , why the emphasis on extra - with darryl until he gains his super - senses . needless to say , the romance is completely extraneous , and adds little to the film . this is a film that desperately needed something else ones ) , or a strong character or two , anything would have helped senseless get off the ground . as it is , all the manic exuberant mugging

i came to an epiphany while watching the bachelor , an innocuous - enough - on - the - surface romantic comedy . it 's not the sort of film in which one would expect to achieve any moment of clarity , but there it was nonetheless . i sat there watching this marshmallow of a movie unfold when suddenly i realized what is so ridiculously wrong with the entire romantic comedy genre circa 1999 . in a word , it 's the same thing that 's wrong with so many movies circa 1999 : writing . more to the point , it 's the refusal to acknowledge that characterizations matter when you 're telling a story about a relationship . the bachelor is merely the latest in a long line of films where we 're expected to get dewy - eyed over any pairing of attractive , pleasant people just because they 're attractive and pleasant . in this particular case , attractive and pleasant exhibit a is jimmy shannon ( chris o'donnell ) , a single guy who has been watching his friends slowly but surely sucked into marriage . it 's a scary notion for jimmy , even though he dearly loves attractive and pleasant exhibit b anne ( renee zellweger ) , his girlfriend of three years . convinced despite his reservations that it 's time to " sh * t or get off the pot , " jimmy proposes to anne -- very badly . anne refuses , which leaves jimmy in a very odd position when his eccentric grandfather ( peter ustinov ) dies and leaves a very specific video will . jimmy stands to inhereit $ 100 million if he is married by 6 : 05 p . m . on his 30th birthday , stays married for 10 years and produces a child . there are only a couple of minor problems : 1 ) jimmy 's 30th birthday is the next day ; 2 ) anne is nowhere to be found , meaning jimmy has to find another willing bride from among his many ex - girlfriends . it 's a wacky , brewster 's millions - esque premise ( acknowledged as such in one of the film 's better , more self - aware lines of dialogue ) , the kind where a shallow and materialistic guy learns what really matters . at least that would be the case if jimmy were n't already a world - class altruist . screenwriter steve cohen slides into the story an even more draconian condition in the will : if jimmy does n't get married , not only will he lose all the money , but the family billiard table buisness will be sold out from under him , costing hudreds of jobs . from the outset , jimmy 's motivation is n't cash ; it 's the livelihoods of his devoted employees . it 's almost embarrassing for his marital misgivings to play a role in the bachelor 's plot development . by any human standard , the guy is impossibly selfless . and that 's the essence of the gutlessness endemic to films like the bachelor -- the fear of giving the characters flaws to overcome on their way to happiness . there 's never any tension between the two star - crossed lovers , because there 's no sense that anything remotely significant is at stake . the blandly nice o'donnell could n't pull off a randy cad if he tried , so the filmmakers do n't even let him ; zellweger 's anne may have issues with her sickeningly affectionate parents as an impossible standard to live up to , but no one dares make her anything but the woman ( lightly ) wronged . and forget about seeing enough of jimmy and anne together to feel invested in their potential reconciliation . the parade of sit - com set pieces had better be damned funny , since they 're all that stands between us and a blissfully sweet foregone conclusion . i 'll admit a couple of those set pieces are amusing , including ustinov 's rantings about procreation and a restaurant full - to - bursting with men popping questions and champagne corks . far more of them are either tedious or downright ghastly , like the shudder - inducing sight of brooke shields as an icy fortune - hunter or the hideous collection of stereotypes when hundreds of potential brides gather in a church . you 're never going to get too many raucous belly laughs from a film like the bachelor , but that 's not the real problem . nor is it the real problem that you know exactly the kind of warm - n - fuzzy conclusion it 's leading up to . the problem are a beginning and middle that are equally warm - n - fuzzy -- there 's no spark , no energy , no humanity . it 's an emotional pudding guaranteed not to offend any consumer 's digestions . we 've reached a point where our proxies for cinematic romantic wish fulfillment do n't even have a pulse . the bachelor is love among the mannequins .

0NEG

but there it was nonetheless . i sat there watching this marshmallow of a movie unfold when suddenly i realized what is so ridiculously wrong ; it 's the livelihoods of his devoted employees . it 's almost embarrassing for his marital misgivings to play a role in the sense that anything remotely significant is at stake . the blandly nice o'donnell could n't pull off a randy cad if he questions and champagne corks . far more of them are either tedious or downright ghastly , like the shudder - inducing sight of brooke shields as an icy fortune - hunter or middle that are equally warm - n - fuzzy -- there 's no spark , no energy , no humanity . it 's an emotional pudding guaranteed not to offend

are you like me ? do you get annoyed seeing people talk on their cellulars in public places , shouting out loud , not giving a ratt 's ass about anyone around them , and basically just wallowing in their own self - importance ? well if you are , than you will most likely agree with my rating of this film since it basically features a trio of annoying ladies bickering away on the phone for an hour and a half . . . only to make up and hug in the end . aaaaaaaahhhh . . . plot : three grown - up sisters living their own separate lives , begin to re - establish their communication lines when their dear old dad falls ill . critique : this would be a good movie if it was n't for the fact that it 's got very little to say , features uncaring people sharing annoying phone conversations , is chockfull of bad acting moments and provides less emotional satisfaction than any third - rate after - school special . and i 'm being nice ! how junk like this gets made is beyond me , but happy am i that the ephron sisters will finally be dealt a professional blow , considering the regurgitation level of their material had just about reached its limit . the only true emotional moment demonstrated between meg ryan 's character and her dad in this film is when he hugs her and swings her around at a christmas tree lot . wow . . . how deep . of course , the same christmas tune that 's played in every ephron flick chimes out in the background , while characters continue to build " bonds " among one another by making reference to old , quaint movies or movie stars . stop me . . . i 'm gon na cry again ! this film is a mess . the characters are boring and irritating to watch , the plot has something to do with three selfish sisters talking on the phone a whole lot , kind of liking their father ( but not really ) and then finally realizing the error of their ways , while sharing an " emotional " moment about movie stars from the 50s . admittedly , i was not expecting much from a film whose television trailer features meg ryan screaming every two seconds and a big dog rolling its eyes , but even i was surprised at the level of ineptitude when it came to some of the acting efforts put forth in this film . meg did fine as the sister who cries a lot , looking as adorable as ever , but someone please put lisa kudrow inside a permanent home of limited range , cause this woman basically is that very same character that she plays in every single movie / tv show that she 's in . enough already ! and diane keaton must 've spent more time thinking about her role behind the camera in this one , cause her acting was amateurish at best . neither one convinced in " emotional " scenes . granted , they gave walter matthau the best lines in the film and that 's probably where my rating of three points comes from . all in all , this movie is not funny ( unless you 're one to chuckle at train wrecks ) , provides zero drama ( unless you consider loud phone conversations moving ) , generates absolutely no emotion ( although i did tear up when meg hugged a coffee machine ) and ends on a perfectly pretentious note ( " oh no , please do n't get any flour on my donna karan dress ! ) . ugh . i suggest that all ladies take their husbands / boyfriends to see this movie if they are pissed off at them about something ! that 'll teach 'em to mess with you ! oh and incidentally , mrs . joblo also likened this movie to a piece of cow dung flailing in the wind , so there ! then again . . . maybe you 'll like it . : )

0NEG

agree with my rating of this film since it basically features a trio of annoying ladies bickering away on the phone for an hour and a good movie if it was n't for the fact that it 's got very little to say , features uncaring people sharing annoying phone conversations , is chockfull of bad acting moments and provides less emotional satisfaction than any third - rate after - school special . and i 'm being nice ! how junk like this gets made is beyond me , but happy am i . . . i 'm gon na cry again ! this film is a mess . the characters are boring and irritating to watch , the plot has something to do with and a big dog rolling its eyes , but even i was surprised at the level of ineptitude when it came to some of the acting efforts put a lot , looking as adorable as ever , but someone please put lisa kudrow inside a permanent home of limited range , cause this woman basically is that very same character her role behind the camera in this one , cause her acting was amateurish at best . neither one convinced in " emotional " scenes . of three points comes from . all in all , this movie is not funny ( unless you 're one to chuckle at train wrecks ) , provides zero drama ( unless you consider loud phone conversations moving ) , any flour on my donna karan dress ! ) . ugh . i suggest that all ladies take their husbands / boyfriends you ! oh and incidentally , mrs . joblo also likened this movie to a piece of cow dung flailing in the wind , so there ! then again . . . maybe

i have a confession . even though i am a movie junkie - i saw eye of the beholder and yet i still watch movies - i've never seen any of the original godzillas . ( note that godzilla 2000 is not a sequel to the u . s . godzilla released in 1998 ; it 's the american release of a 1999 godzilla flick called gojira ni - sen mireniamu . ) so , part of me was excited as i drove to the local multiplex to see godzilla 2000-the latest entry in an almost 50-year old franchise . this was a long - awaited treat . i was expecting a goofy good time , complete with bad dubbing , science fair level sets and a ludicrous plot line . the last thing i expected was for the movie to be so ? boring . i can only imagine what the theatre full of kids i saw this with felt . you do get all of the " so bad they 're good " traits so normally associated with the franchise . but you have to sit through a snoozer plot that has the organization of a rorschach blot . it 's a deal i was n't willing to accept . hiroshi kashiwabara and waturu mimura 's script crams in way too many details , and in many cases , fails to follow up on them . the maneuver is not only disconcerting , but gives the movie a permanent logy , weighty feel . godzilla starts off destroying power plants and then just stops . was it a whim ? a bold political statement ? i do n't know . its foe , an ancient meteor that looks like prudential 's logo , does n't just fight the beast from the far east . no , it 's got to have life - saving powers , a plot to erase " the data " from japan , a desire to clone and the ability to become a spaceship and then some kind of tentacled space creature . there 's a battle between the head of the godzilla prediction unit ( takehiro murata ) and a slimy government official ( hiroshi abe ) over the handling of godzilla , and personal issues . and then there 's the plucky news photographer and blah , blah , blah . it 's like watching magnolia all over again - except without the good writing , keen sociological insight and aimee mann songs . what a waste . when the talking and the plot points stop hurtling at you , godzilla 2000 does the job - it 's entertaining and goes down easy . the action scenes are cheesy in their grandeur though a little sluggish . the dubbing is nice and awful , with murata sounding like he 's in constant need of a cough drop . as for the dialogue , one line summarizes the goofiness factor : " did anyone see that flying rock go by ? " this movie also marked the first time since the three stooges that i 've heard the word " imbecile " used in casual conversation . though the summer movie season is drying up and godzilla 2000 has its moments , i would n't take kids to see it . they 'll probably end up asking more questions than charlie rose .

0NEG

i expected was for the movie to be so ? boring . i can only imagine what the theatre full of " traits so normally associated with the franchise . but you have to sit through a snoozer plot that has the organization of a rorschach blot . it 's a deal i was n't willing to accept . hiroshi kashiwabara and waturu mimura 's script crams in way too many details , and in many cases , fails to follow up them . the maneuver is not only disconcerting , but gives the movie a permanent logy , weighty feel . godzilla starts off destroying power plants and then just . and then there 's the plucky news photographer and blah , blah , blah . it 's like watching magnolia all over again - except writing , keen sociological insight and aimee mann songs . what a waste . when the talking and the plot points stop hurtling at you , godzilla 2000 does the job - it 's entertaining . the action scenes are cheesy in their grandeur though a little sluggish . the dubbing is nice and awful , with murata sounding like he 's in constant need is drying up and godzilla 2000 has its moments , i would n't take kids to see it . they 'll probably end up asking more questions than

capsule : five friends at a stag party are involved in the accidental killing of a prostitute . the cover - up attempt becomes a monster that eats up the friends , two wives and several innocent bystanders . this was a real audience pleaser at toronto , but it did not do much for me . , low 0 ( -4 to +4 ) - directed by peter berg who acted in the last seduction and copland . - five buddies go on a stag outing to las vegas while cameron diaz works through the logistics of her upcoming wedding to one of them . one of the buddies accidentally kills a prostitute . - several people with no moral compass . they started out with a simple , innocent little cocaine party ( ! ) and by accident look what happened . they have one moral person among them ( daniel stern ) , and one totally amoral person ( christian slater ) . it is more selfish to let the amoral lead , so they do . - this film is strange , but not really funny or biting . black comedy should actually be funny as well as strange . there should be some element of satire . the satire is missing here . i did not find myself laughing here either . what we have is a strange crime tale . - one just does not care what happens to these people . - the same idea of people just getting themselves in deeper and deeper has been done frequently . if this film is popular it is just bringing a familiar plot to a new generation . - it begins like diner ( particularly with daniel stern ) and ends up like an extended horror / crime comic book . - there are several logical holes in script . if a security man goes to investigate a complaint and disappears , would n't the guests he was investigating be the first suspects ? someone framed for a crime in the way shown would be judged innocent after minimal forensic detective work . ( i am desperately trying to avoid making this a spoiler . ) - popular and situation ethics get a real slamming . - some acting of grief is hammy and overdone . more yelling than humor .

0NEG

this was a real audience pleaser at toronto , but it did not do much for me . , low 0 ( -4 to +4 ) - let the amoral lead , so they do . - this film is strange , but not really funny or biting . black comedy should actually be funny as well as should be some element of satire . the satire is missing here . i did not find myself laughing here either . like an extended horror / crime comic book . - there are several logical holes in script . if a security man goes to investigate popular and situation ethics get a real slamming . - some acting of grief is hammy and overdone . more yelling than humor .

what hath kevin williamson wrought ? while the horror movie revival spurred on by his _ scream _ has yielded a few decent entries in the genre--_i_know_what_you_did_last_summer _ , _ halloween : _ h20 _ , and _ scream_2 _ --it must be noted that williamson himself had a hand in the writing of those films . those williamson - less post-_scream _ efforts , among them _ wishmaster _ and the recent _ disturbing_behavior _ , have been frightening all right -- frighteningly , insultingly _ bad _ . add to that list _ urban_legend _ , which takes a promising premise and runs it through a predictable meat grinder of idiocy . the influence of williamson on screenwriter silvio horta is clear in two key areas . first , the opening sequence , like that of _ scream _ , is an extended set piece detailing the singular murder that gets the proverbial ball rolling . this sequence , in which pendleton college coed michelle mancini ( natasha gregson wagner ) is decapitated while driving , also reveals the other obviously williamson - esque touch : the killer 's look . dressed in a large hooded parka , wielding an axe , the killer bears more than a passing resemblance to the _ i_know . . . _ fisherman , sans the hook . one thing horta does not borrow from williamson , however , is the intriguing premise . students at pendleton are being killed by way of urban legends -- those contemporary bits of " mythology " passed from person to person , group to group , year to year that become so embedded in the social consciousness . it hardly matters if they are true or not , such as the tall tale that mikey from the life cereal commercials died from a fatal combination of pop rocks and pepsi ( he did n't ) . michelle , slain by the " killer lurking in the backseat " of lore , is but the first to fall prey to an urban legend come true ; as the body count rises , fellow pendleton student natalie ( alicia witt ) suspects not only a link between the murders , but a personal link to her past as well . the setup shows promise , but the story never takes off , due in large part to horta and the director , the aptly named jamie blanks , who fires round afer round of his namesake in terms of suspense and scares . too many of the would - be shocks are fakeouts reliant on bombastic music cues , and the film 's chase scenes are riddled with the cliches that _ scream _ tried to subvert , like screaming damsels knowingly running themselves into dead ends when they should -- and could -- run out the front door . but that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cliches ; there 's also the climactic villain confession , in which a contrived and way - too - convenient motive is revealed , not to mention the credit card opening up the locked door trick , which is a cliche in any film genre . banks and horta 's ( intentional ) attempts at humor are also lame ; the fact that the best gags are lazy , in - jokey references to the other credits of co - stars joshua jackson and rebecca gayheart says a lot about the imagination of their humor . some laughs are also had when the rather predictable identity of the killer is revealed , but i 'm not so sure if some of the more hilarious things about it were meant to be so . the filmmakers do n't get much help from their onscreen talent . i was far from a fan of bland _ i_know . . . _ starlet jennifer love hewitt , but i 'd talke her any day ove the dreadfully stiff and uncharismatic witt , whose inept attempts at emoting were often met with laughter ; witt has a pefect foil in her equally pesence - challenged leading man , jared leto . _ dawson's_creek _ star jackson mugs his way thorugh a glorified cameo ; gayheart displays all the depth and range of , well , a noxzema spokeswoman ; and robert englund lends the film little more than his freddy krueger pedigree as a folklore professor . granted , the cast is hampered by their material . loretta devine , who has done some fine work in films such as _ waiting_to_exhale _ , is saddled with the ridiculous role of a pam grier - worshiping campus security guard . the recently resuscitated horror genre can not rely on the efforts one man -- namely , kevin williamson -- to stay alive . if other filmmakers continue to make such shoddy product as _ urban_legend _ , the genre looks to once again go the way of screen slashers ' many victims .

0NEG

_ urban_legend _ , which takes a promising premise and runs it through a predictable meat grinder of idiocy . the influence of williamson on screenwriter silvio horta is past as well . the setup shows promise , but the story never takes off , due in large part to horta and the director music cues , and the film 's chase scenes are riddled with the cliches that _ scream _ tried to subvert , like screaming horta 's ( intentional ) attempts at humor are also lame ; the fact that the best gags are lazy , hilarious things about it were meant to be so . the filmmakers do n't get much help from their onscreen talent . i was far from a fan of bland _ , but i 'd talke her any day ove the dreadfully stiff and uncharismatic witt , whose inept attempts at emoting were often met with laughter ; witt has a pefect foil in her equally pesence as a folklore professor . granted , the cast is hampered by their material . loretta devine , who has done some fine work in films such as _ waiting_to_exhale _ , is saddled with the ridiculous role of a pam grier - worshiping campus security guard . to stay alive . if other filmmakers continue to make such shoddy product as _ urban_legend _ , the genre looks to once

warner brothers has scored another marketing coup . the one - two punch was started in the summer , with the release of batman forever . trailers for ace ventura 2 were bundled with the bat , ensuring that every jim carrey fan in the free world would know about the impending sequel . carrey went on to win raves as the riddler and the ever - wise warner chose halloween as the release date for the video ( $ 11 . 99 at wal - mart ) ; a mere two weeks before carrey 's return in this marketwise , but misfired comedy . ace ventura : when nature calls is a painful reminder of just how grating the rubber - faced comic can be when allowed to perform within an uncontrolled environment . he may have been brilliant under the direction of joel schumacher , in batman forever , but , here , left to his own devices , carrey quickly wears out his welcome . the opening sequence is by far the best -- an amusing spoof of cliffhanger , with ace performing a mountain rescue of a stranded raccoon . ( you can guess what happens to mr . paws . hint : it sounds like splat . ) the plot quickly shifts to a temple in the himalayas , and then to not - so - darkest africa , where ace is on the case of a missing white bat . with his hair and limbs both wildly askew , carrey flies through his routine in about thirty minutes . the rest of the film is just more of the same . sure , the plot 's linear , and the production values solid , but where is the scripted humor to support carrey 's sloppy slathering ? writer and director steve oderkerk provides precious few set - ups . instead , carrey just mugs away , playing for the camera even when most of it is n't funny . the better gags have been shown in the ads , though a bit with ace emerging buck - naked from the backside of a mechanical rhino is something to see . though an arguable improvement over the original , ace ventura : when nature calls is still a snooze for anyone over the age of ten . the script is virtually devoid of wit . tribal mask jokes ? jerry lewis cameos ? forget it . if anything , the inexplicable presence of simon callow ( four weddings and a funeral ) and bob gunton ( the shawshank redemption ) suggests that working with carrey is the classical actor 's ultimate challenge . just how long * can * they keep a straight face ?

0NEG

weeks before carrey 's return in this marketwise , but misfired comedy . ace ventura : when nature calls is a painful reminder of just how grating the rubber - faced comic can be when allowed to perform within an uncontrolled environment . he , here , left to his own devices , carrey quickly wears out his welcome . the opening sequence is by far the best -- provides precious few set - ups . instead , carrey just mugs away , playing for the camera even when most of it is n't funny . the better gags have been shown in the ads original , ace ventura : when nature calls is still a snooze for anyone over the age of ten . the script is virtually devoid of wit . tribal mask jokes ? jerry lewis cameos ? forget it . if anything , the inexplicable presence of simon callow ( four weddings and a funeral

synopsis : wealthy cuban landowner luis ( banderas ) gets more than he bargained for when he sends away for an american bride . not only does his new wife turn out to be the beautiful julia ( jolie ) , she also harbours a secret past of dubious merit . soon , julia has absconded with both luis ' fortune and his heart , and as he pursues his wife through the cuban underworld , luis begins to realise that , for him , there is no turning back . review : given the absurdism of its would - be plot , it 's unlikely that " original sin " could have been turned into a reputable piece of filmmaking , regardless of writer , director or stars . this is , at its heart , b - movie junk : a lurid melodrama which appeals to neither the brain nor the heart but to the nether regions . that said , " original sin " could at least have become enjoyable junk had the filmmakers embraced its trashiness and indulged in it . instead , cristofer seems to have mistaken this for a serious production , and directs it as such . the result is a vapid , uninteresting morass of obvious crosses and double crosses , as likely to incite a yawn as a thrill . consider the initial sex scene between banderas and jolie : brightly - lit and mostly filmed from above , it looks like an excerpt from an amateur soft porn show . cristofer does n't even manage to capture the allure of cuba ; instead of portraying his setting as a steamy , sensuous island paradise , it appears bland and lifeless . at least banderas and jolie manage to inspire some interest ; there are hints at times that they want to have more fun with the script , but are n't being given the chance . the same can not be said of jane , whose billy is nebbish and transparent . also unwise is the jolie framing sequence , which practically gives away the film 's denouement .

0NEG

him , there is no turning back . review : given the absurdism of its would - be plot , it 's unlikely that " original sin " could filmmaking , regardless of writer , director or stars . this is , at its heart , b - movie junk : a lurid melodrama which appeals to neither the brain nor the heart but at least have become enjoyable junk had the filmmakers embraced its trashiness and indulged in it . instead , cristofer seems to a serious production , and directs it as such . the result is a vapid , uninteresting morass of obvious crosses and double crosses , as likely to : brightly - lit and mostly filmed from above , it looks like an excerpt from an amateur soft porn show . cristofer does n't even manage to capture the allure his setting as a steamy , sensuous island paradise , it appears bland and lifeless . at least banderas and jolie manage to inspire some

when a pair of films from the same director gets released just three weeks apart , it could mean one of two things : that the recently overworked individual is due for a well - deserved rest , or that either of these movies has been sitting in a studio safe for a while and the timing is merely a coincidence . the latter 's the case with john mctiernan and " the thirteenth warrior , " which finally hits theatres a year and counting after its original spring ' 98 opening - and fast on the heels of mctiernan 's " the thomas crown affair " remake , a flick that got good reviews . you do n't have to believe superstitions to wager a guess that " thirteenth " wo n't be so lucky . reportedly shelved following skirmishes between mctiernan and producer michael crichton , whose " eaters of the dead " novel provides " warrior " 's source ( and its initial title ) , this messy melange of culture - clash drama and brutal warfare feels empty and sluggish - sorta like " braveheart " without any of the passion . but the bloodshed certainly remains : there 's enough carnage on display here to satisfy those in search of purely visceral thrills , though please note that the admittedly pungent battle sequences containing all this death and dismemberment alternate with talky passages interminable in their dullness . these circa-10th century clashes involve a roving band of cannibalistic creatures capable of decapitating opponents with their bare hands and a dozen norse soldiers out to stop them from terrorizing the viking countryside . the good guys are loud , crude , often unintelligible and - judging from their highly icky hygiene habits -- pretty smelly to boot , which makes them perfect foils for the dignified arab ambassador ( antonio banderas ) who tags along quite reluctantly . they 're also so hard to tell apart that it hardly matters when a few of them meet violent demises . you 'll wince , you 'll groan , you 'll grouse , " have n't we seen this guy killed twice before ? " banderas stands confused amidst the chaos , partaking mostly from a distance as savages in darth maul facepaint and draped in the latest animal - skin fashion run amok . he 's not the hero - his soulful eyes and lean build do n't exactly herald a champion of shwarzenegger proportions - and " the thirteenth warrior " wisely does n't pretend he is , allowing his foreign and physically imposing co - stars to step into the spotlight when the going gets rough . let the characters interaction sans swords and shields , however , and there 's still a struggle - for the audience to follow or even care about the story . it is n't the end until audiences have witnessed a half - baked romance , murky political intrigue , veteran actor omar sharif ( " funny girl " ) dropping by in a cameo role and a climactic " indiana jones and the temple of doom " -esque chase through the villains ' underground lair . all this clutter receives stunning visual treatment courtesy of cinematographer peter menzies jr . , but the collaboration between " die hard " -helmer mctiernan and " jurrasic park " -creator crichton should have yielded more than sumptuous sights , graphic action and unintentionally telling moments . heard during " the thirteenth warrior " 's final scene : a dog whimpering . how appropriate .

0NEG

's source ( and its initial title ) , this messy melange of culture - clash drama and brutal warfare feels empty and sluggish - sorta like " braveheart " without any of the matters when a few of them meet violent demises . you 'll wince , you 'll groan , you 'll grouse , " have n't we seen this guy killed twice audience to follow or even care about the story . it is n't the end until audiences have witnessed a half - baked romance , murky political intrigue , veteran actor omar sharif ( " -esque chase through the villains ' underground lair . all this clutter receives stunning visual treatment courtesy of cinematographer peter menzies jr

" the red violin " is a cold , sterile feature that leaves you uninvolved and detached . it 's a movie that seems almost clinical , as it traces the 300-plus - years history of the legendary musical instrument of the title . opening in the 17th century , the story shows how violin - maker nicolo bussotti created the instrument as a gift for his unborn son . but when tragedy strikes , the violin becomes the personification of its maker 's grief . from there the violin comes into the hands of an orphaned child prodigy at an austrian monastery . again , tragedy strikes as the child is struck down at the moment of his triumph . we follow the violin through the centuries as it finds a home in england and in mao 's communist china before being discovered by expert charles morritz ( samuel l . jackson ) , who mounts a painstaking investigation to prove its authenticity . the violin becomes morritz 's obsession , just as it is for all those who converge on a montreal auction house to bid on it . morritz , however , is the only one who knows the secret of the instrument and can understand and appreciate its creator 's intention . " the red violin " could have been a touching , inspirational story , as soaring as a beethoven symphony . however director francois girard fails to make any emotional connection with the viewer . here is a story that could have made use of various camera angles and lighting to heighten its impact . girard , for some unknown reason , uses mostly master shots , keeping his camera - and thus us - at a distance . we get no feel for the miracle that is the violin . it 's resonance , its purity of sound are not emphasized enough to make an impression . nor are any of the performances memorable . it 's as if girard wanted all his actors to play second fiddle to his violin . " the red violin " promises much , but delivers little . it is dull at times , a bit pretentious and a might murky . the movie 's music soars over its story and performers . and that is its only saving grace .

0NEG

" the red violin " is a cold , sterile feature that leaves you uninvolved and detached . it 's a movie that seems almost clinical , soaring as a beethoven symphony . however director francois girard fails to make any emotional connection with the viewer . here is a story that could camera - and thus us - at a distance . we get no feel for the miracle that is the violin . it 's resonance , its . " the red violin " promises much , but delivers little . it is dull at times , a bit pretentious and a might murky . the movie 's music soars over its story and

there have been merchant - ivory costume dramas with more of a pulse than " the mod squad , " a self - consciously " hip " cinematic rendering of the old tv series still looked upon fondly by so many baby - boomers . well , said " squad " certainly wo n't be a pleasant viewing experience for them or anybody else , maybe even the teen target audience the movie has been geared towards . a contemporary take on this decidedly ' 70s show does n't exactly seem unwarranted , but one wonders if the mold it accumulated while waiting on the shelf did n't transform into a full - blown case of botulism . how curious that the film begins by defining both mod and squad , insisting that the latter is a group of people working together and then contradicting this definition by keeping its titular trio apart for a sizeable chunk of the running time . they are julie , pete and linc , reformed delinquents working undercover for the lapd ( exposition put out of the way so fast that you 're likely to be lost from the opening moments on ) , and they are respectively played by claire danes , giovanni ribisi and omar epps , talented actors each deserving of better than this . their plight involves standard cop - corruption stuff , as our would - be protagonists catch wind of an internal cover - up after their superior ( reliable dennis farina , one of the best things here and gone so quickly ) gets killed and framed for drug trafficking . they pout a lot and eventually get cracking to expose this convoluted conspiracy using surveillance tactics that would impress the hardy boys and linda tripp but few others . when you 're supposed to be asking , " what 's going to happen next ? " , you 'll instead entertain thoughts like " who are these people and why should i care ? " or " are n't thrillers supposed to contain thrills ? " not that danes , epps and ribisi do n't give it a shot . danes can do the troubled teen thing in her sleep , as evidenced by " my so - called life , " but she 's saddled with a mysterious - boyfriend ( josh brolin ) subplot so see - through you begin to seriously question her so - called intelligence . ditto for ribisi 's ( " saving private ryan " ) looney loose cannon , though at least he performs with a wild - and - crazy vigor that occasionally demands attention . but epps - poor epps . epps ( " higher learning " ) is so short - changed he 's reduced to literally waiting around for a bad guy to chase him . all this sloppiness can be attributed to the screenwriters , one of whom , scott silver , is also the director . they must think that if they dress up their stupid story in such spiffy trappings ( the look of the film is really quite impressive ) , it 'll somehow pay off , but this " mod squad " plods anyway . characters are non - existent ; present are just some good - looking young things modeling cool levis and cooler attitudes . plot hardly escapes confusing convention . and the one genre element you 'd think would be show up in generous portions - a few nifty explosions , some fights , any kind of action whatsoever - only rarely makes it to this dull gabfest . all those quick to put down last month 's inept but serviceable " my favorite martian " update need to take a step back . here 's a small - to - big - screen translation that really should 've stayed in its former incarnation , " mod " or not .

0NEG

- boomers . well , said " squad " certainly wo n't be a pleasant viewing experience for them or anybody else , maybe even the teen by claire danes , giovanni ribisi and omar epps , talented actors each deserving of better than this . their plight involves standard cop - corruption stuff , as our would - be protagonists catch wind of ? " , you 'll instead entertain thoughts like " who are these people and why should i care ? " or " are n't thrillers supposed to contain thrills saddled with a mysterious - boyfriend ( josh brolin ) subplot so see - through you begin to seriously question her so - called intelligence . ditto for ribisi 's ( " saving private ryan waiting around for a bad guy to chase him . all this sloppiness can be attributed to the screenwriters , one of whom . they must think that if they dress up their stupid story in such spiffy trappings ( the look of the film , but this " mod squad " plods anyway . characters are non - existent ; present are just some good - looking young things modeling cool levis and cooler attitudes . plot hardly escapes confusing convention . and the one genre element you 'd think would of action whatsoever - only rarely makes it to this dull gabfest . all those quick to put down last month 's

ready to rumble is not a masterpiece in film ; i have a problem even regarding it as a film . it 's more of a show , a big commercial for ted turner 's world championship wrestling ( wcw ) . the movie is almost entirely about and fully showcases the wrestlers of the wcw like diamond dallas page , goldberg , and sting . the story is very minimal and basic . there are these two guys , gordy ( david arquette ) and sean ( scott caan ) . they are two twenty - something wrestling fans from wyoming . when they go to a live event for the big match up , there favorite wrestler jimmy king ( oliver platt ) is defeated and his career is announced to be over by the mean commissioner titus ( joe pantoliano ) . gordy and sean decide to go on a quest to find jimmy and bring him back to the top and defeat the evil titus ' plans . on the way , they meet some people , have some fun , and clean up some port - o - potties . sounds great huh , well it 's not . the movie makes many attempts at humor , only a few of them work . the jokes that make you laugh , however , do not outnumber the film 's many duds . there is a funny repertoire between arquette and a convenience store cashier played by ahmet zappa . the cashier is very mean to arquette so arquette dreams of ways to get him back . i especially enjoyed one version in which they have a wrestling match and arquette 's tag team partner is ' macho man ' randy savage . they wrestle between the aisles knocking over cans and getting body slammed on the floor . the other good part of the film is the sexual confrontation between arquette and rose mcgowan . mcgowan plays sasha the head nitro girl , the cheerleaders of the wcw . she becomes attracted to gordy and they have some nice , funny scenes together especially one scene in which arquette calls mcgowan 's breasts foreign objects than punches her directly into the face . now what did n't work in this movie ? that would be the rest of it . the flick was filled with stupid potty humor about farts and toilets . the two lead characters work for a port - o - potty cleaning company and when they crash the truck , the excrements spill all over the road . it 's not funny ; it 's pathetic and brainless . the film is giving homage to how blindly faithful of their wrestlers but not all wrestling fans are that way . i watch it for entertainment and i would think some people would take offense to what is said throughout the movie . the main characters in the film actually get to wrestle , like that would happen to any fan , especially to 2 that stalk a wrestler and sneak him back onto set . also , i wondered how they got into the backstage so easily ; they just walked right in . i like wrestling . i watch it at home and laugh . it 's continuously funny and has great characters otherwise i would n't watch it . this movie was n't even funny or fun to watch like the wrestling on tv . the only fun i had in the movie was pointing out the wrestlers i knew . the funny thing was that many of the wcw featured wrestlers like saturn and chris benoit have left wcw for more money but are still featured in the film prominently . the movie was too dim - witted to be funny . it is possibly the most useless and under - developed film ever . a recent film in this genre of fans would be the kiss fan film , detroit rock city . that movie was interesting , well done and continuously funny unlike this film . the acting was good plus the jokes had humor and made you laugh . now that the scream trilogy is over , arquette has nothing else to do so he has to do crap like this and be a spokesman in those dumb 1 - 800-call - att ads . at least he has a hot wife in courtney cox . he 's in the funny parts of the film but there are n't enough to make him look good . the music was bad also feature such overplayed tunes as kid rock 's " bawitdaba " and " cowboy " . martin landau has a great cameo as a classic , hard - nosed wrestling trainer named sal that whips the king back into shape to regain his throne . script is important to a film but this piece of crap could have been made with a couple of scribblings on a napkin . a fan of the wrestlers who are featured in the film probably wrote it . at times the movie even tries to show wrestling as real . the wrestlers form alliances , go to people 's houses and beat them up . it 's utterly ridiculous . the whole film was a wasteful , dumfounding experience . the movie was made to pay homage to the fans , telling them things that made wrestling , not the wrestlers . the wrestlers are making more money to make a movie to thank the fans for begin fans by paying 5 dollars to see a potty - humor movie . the wcw sucks and this movie is just a pathetic two - hour commercial to watch it . if you 're going to watch wrestling watch wwf , it 's actually entertaining . the wrestling is betters , they 're funnier , more diverse , and have better entrance themes . oh and the girls are hotter . is this what movies have become , 2 hour - long commercials that you have to pay to see ? do n't waste your money .

0NEG

. sounds great huh , well it 's not . the movie makes many attempts at humor , only a few of them work . the jokes that make you laugh , however , do not outnumber the film 's many duds . there is a funny repertoire between arquette and a that would be the rest of it . the flick was filled with stupid potty humor about farts and toilets . the two lead characters work for a port - truck , the excrements spill all over the road . it 's not funny ; it 's pathetic and brainless . the film is giving homage to how blindly faithful has great characters otherwise i would n't watch it . this movie was n't even funny or fun to watch like the wrestling on tv . the only still featured in the film prominently . the movie was too dim - witted to be funny . it is possibly the most useless and under - developed film ever . a recent film in this genre of fans would is over , arquette has nothing else to do so he has to do crap like this and be a spokesman in those dumb 1 - 800-call there are n't enough to make him look good . the music was bad also feature such overplayed tunes as kid rock 's " his throne . script is important to a film but this piece of crap could have been made with a couple of scribblings on a napkin . a fan of the wrestlers who are featured in go to people 's houses and beat them up . it 's utterly ridiculous . the whole film was a wasteful , dumfounding experience . the movie was made to pay homage to the movie . the wcw sucks and this movie is just a pathetic two - hour commercial to watch it . if you 're going to watch long commercials that you have to pay to see ? do n't waste your money .

wyatt earp details thirty - five years in the life of same from around 1865 to 1900 . after seeing the movie speed twice recently , i kept thinking that i was seeing wyatt 's life pass before my eyes in real time . this movie was boring , slow , boring , and slow . there were a few scenes that tried to be great scenes that tried too hard and just fell flat . the script happily woman - bashes but also tries to sound like an 80s movie . they can not have it both ways . " i now pronounce you husband and wife . " sure , they said that in the 1800s . " entrepreneur . " sure . every bit of male - ego - stroking dialogue that wyatt 's third wife speaks to him made me sick to listen to it . " oh , the script was written by two men ? " " no kidding ! " the movie is torture to sit through . the scenery is boring . the fades were either awkward or cliche or to self important . can you say poor editing ? everyone looks ugly in this movie . when you shoot people from under their chins , they look like they have double chins . kevin costner has never looked worse . he should sue . he looks like he gained the 43 pounds that dennis quaid lost . dennis quaid is marvelous . if you have to see this movie just for his performance , go into the theatre at the movie 's halfway mark . doc holliday ( quaid 's character ) shows up at about the 90-minute mark . gene hackman is very good . is he in the credits ? i do n't remember seeing his name . mare winningham makes the best of a small role as wyatt 's second wife . annabeth gish is good as wyatt 's first wife . i though that jamie gertz played wyatt 's third wife , but i later heard that her name is joanna going . she looks great but her dialogue sucks . she also seems way to young for costner . costner seems way to old for 90 % of this movie . in his first scene he is supposed to be about 19 years old . yeah , right . catherine o'hara and jobeth williams are always good and totally wasted here . this is the worst movie that i have seen in years . the last action hero was better that this . go see maverick if you want to see a western . bullets for dennis quaid 's performance only .

0NEG

before my eyes in real time . this movie was boring , slow , boring , and slow . there were a few scenes that tried to be great scenes that tried too hard and just fell flat . the script happily woman - bashes but also tries ? " " no kidding ! " the movie is torture to sit through . the scenery is boring . the fades were either awkward or cliche or to self important . can you say poor editing ? everyone looks ugly in this movie . when you shoot people from under her name is joanna going . she looks great but her dialogue sucks . she also seems way to young for costner . he is supposed to be about 19 years old . yeah , right . catherine o'hara and jobeth williams are always good and totally wasted here . this is the worst movie that i have seen in years . the last action hero was better that this .

david schwimmer ( from the television series " friends " ) stars as a sensitive ( and slightly neurotic ) single guy who gets more than he expected from the grieving mother ( barbara hershey ) of a classmate he ca n't remember . hello mrs . robinson ! though quite cute as a romantic comedy , the pallbearer is paced like a funeral march . the characters act , react , and interact at half - speed , making for one * excruciatingly * long sit . ( and what 's with the dreary lighting ? ) co - writer / director matt reeves brings some snap to the story 's midsection ; the film briefly comes to life when our hero attempts to resolve his feelings for * another * classmate ( a very appealing gwyneth paltrow ) . by this time , though , most viewers will have either fled or fallen asleep . those tough souls who stay with it can marvel at the sleepy - eyed schwimmer , a hound dog with a head cold , who can go for over an hour without ever changing his expression .

0NEG

quite cute as a romantic comedy , the pallbearer is paced like a funeral march . the characters act , react , and interact at half - speed , making for one * excruciatingly * long sit . ( and what 's with the dreary lighting ? gwyneth paltrow ) . by this time , though , most viewers will have either fled or fallen asleep . those tough souls who stay with it can marvel

" saving silverman " is a good example of a good comedy gone bad . as a love story it is good , however as a comedy it falls flat on it 's face . i think throughout the short 90 minutes i laughed a total of seven times . . . and those were just chuckles at the most ! the movie does n't have the oomph to make it a great movie , and does n't have the script to make it a funny movie . wayne lefessier ( steven zahn ) , j . d . mcnugent ( jack black ) , and darren silverman ( jason biggs ) have grown up all their lives together , they have been best friends forever and vow to stay close till the end . while in a bar after doing a show with their band , based on their love of neil diamond , darren meets a young woman named judith ( amanda peet ) whom he instantly falls for . wayne and j . d . however think differently and when judith tells darren that he can never see his friends again , it 's up to wayne and j . d . to try and begin saving silverman . the performances are topnotch and surprisingly , they are what keep the movie afloat . jason biggs right off the flop " loser " does an ok job playing silverman , but he is stale and flat at times . steve zahn is perfect in the role of wayne lefessier , and even though the movie is about silverman , lefessier is really the main character and the narrator of the movie itself . jack black is well jack black , and he does an all right job as j . d . but he is n't as funny as he has been in the past . amanda peet plays the ultimate bitch as judith , and neil diamond plays neil diamond ( he 's better at singing than acting ) . anyway the performances in the film are good , but it 's too bad the script is n't . speaking of script , hank nelkan 's choppy script is not only badly written , but not funny enough even for an episode of sesame street . the trailer for the movie , as with most movies gives away everything that happens in the movie , especially the funniest parts . somewhere " saving silverman " was meant to be a good movie , and it could have been , but alas in the end it was n't . dennis dugan 's direction is all right , he adds a few directorial touches here and there , nothing special being a simple comedy . " saving silverman " is a perfectly bad movie in more ways than one . it has a great cast , a good director and a sweet story . . . it 's just too bad it has a bad script and is all together a bad movie .

0NEG

" saving silverman " is a good example of a good comedy gone bad . as a love story it is good , however as a comedy it falls flat on it 's face . i think throughout the short 90 minutes i laughed loser " does an ok job playing silverman , but he is stale and flat at times . steve zahn is perfect in the role an all right job as j . d . but he is n't as funny as he has been in the past . amanda peet plays the ultimate bitch is n't . speaking of script , hank nelkan 's choppy script is not only badly written , but not funny enough even for an episode of sesame street . the trailer for the movie , as with most good movie , and it could have been , but alas in the end it was n't . dennis dugan 's being a simple comedy . " saving silverman " is a perfectly bad movie in more ways than one . it has a great sweet story . . . it 's just too bad it has a bad script and is all together a bad movie .

one of my brother 's favorite movies is h . b . halicki 's 1974 cult flick " gone is sixty seconds , " one of the best products of the car - chase genre that provided drive - in fare during the 1970 's . chase pics had more tire squeals than dialogue , but they had a strong visceral appeal . although it boasts a bigger budget and familiar stars , the remake of " gone in sixty seconds " is relatively weak and dull . randall " memphis " raines ( nicolas cage ) is a retired car thief who runs a go - cart track . he got out of crime so that his younger brother kip ( giovanni ribisi ) would not take up boosting cars . however , kip became a thief anyway , and now he 's in big trouble . kip promised to deliver fifty luxury and sports cars to gangster raymond calitri ( christopher eccleston ) by the end of the week . calitri expects memphis to fulfill kip 's bargain ; if he does n't come through , kip dies . memphis gathers his old crew ( angelina jolie , robert duvall , will patton , chi mcbride , and vinnie jones ) , and kip brings his boys ( t . j . cross , william lee scott , scott caan , and james duval ) . as if calitri breathing down their necks was n't bad enough , the team is pursued by a cop ( delroy lindo ) who 's still ticked off that he never busted memphis and by a rival gangster ( rap star master p ) who wants to take over calitri 's clients . watching " gone , " i discovered that stealing fifty cars is not any more interesting than stealing one . maybe that 's why the first forty - nine are fairly easy , and the thrills are saved for " eleanor , " a 1967 shelby gto , a model that has always eluded memphis . but the big chase does n't live up to the long wait . i had high hopes for " gone " because it is director dominic sena 's second film . " kalifornia , " his 1993 debut , was a brilliant study in the relationship between violence and its audience . in that movie sena took a simple thriller plot ( a couple gives a serial killer a ride ) and successfully endowed it with deeper significance . in " gone " he seems to be aiming for a drama about two brothers who ca n't communicate with each other , but that goal just does n't mesh with this plot . " gone " either takes itself too seriously or not seriously enough . it 's not light enough to be fun , or mean enough to be intense . this chaser has more dialogue than tire squeals but is none the better for it . the lack of action is a waste of the premise , which should have challenged the filmmakers to create the most spectacular car chases ever . the weak script is a waste of a talented cast . in a " newsweek " interview last year , sean penn blasted his old pal nic cage for making bad movies . much as i like cage , for every good picture he does ( " leaving las vegas , " " bringing out the dead " ) , there are two major stinkers ( " snake eyes , " " con air , " " 8 mm , " " city of angels " ) . that ratio is probably better than what a lot of his peers can boast , but cage has real talent . it 's a shame to waste it in glitzy , superficial tripe like " gone in 60 seconds . "

0NEG

the remake of " gone in sixty seconds " is relatively weak and dull . randall " memphis " raines ( nicolas cage ) , a model that has always eluded memphis . but the big chase does n't live up to the long wait . i had high hopes for " gone " because brothers who ca n't communicate with each other , but that goal just does n't mesh with this plot . " gone " either takes itself too seriously or not seriously enough . it 's not light enough . this chaser has more dialogue than tire squeals but is none the better for it . the lack of action is a waste of the premise , which should have challenged the filmmakers to create the most spectacular car chases ever . the weak script is a waste of a talented cast . in a " newsweek " interview last year , , " " bringing out the dead " ) , there are two major stinkers ( " snake eyes , " " con air , peers can boast , but cage has real talent . it 's a shame to waste it in glitzy , superficial tripe like " gone in 60 seconds . "

steve martin is one of the funniest men alive . if you can take that as a true statement , then your disappointment at this film will equal mine . martin can be hilarious , creating some of the best laugh - out - loud experiences that have ever taken place in movie theaters . you wo n't find any of them here . the old television series that this is based on has its moments of humor and wit . bilko ( and the name is n't an accident ) is the head of an army motor pool group , but his passion is his schemes . every episode involves the sergeant and his men in one or another hair - brained plan to get rich quick while outwitting the officers of the base . " mchale 's navy " 's granddaddy . that 's the idea behind this movie too , but the difference is that , as far - fetched and usually goofy as the television series was , it was funny . there is not one laugh in the film . the re - make retains the goofiness , but not the entertainment . everything is just too clean . it was obviously made on a hollywood back lot and looks every bit like it . it all looks brand new , even the old beat - up stuff . martin is remarkably small in what should have been a bigger than life role . in the original , phil silvers played the huckster with a heart of gold and more than a touch of sleaziness . martin 's bilko is a pale imitation . the only semi - bright spot is phil hartman as bilko 's arch - enemy . it 's not saying much , considering martin 's lackluster character , but hartman leaves him in the dust .

0NEG

as the television series was , it was funny . there is not one laugh in the film . the re - make retains the goofiness , but not the entertainment . everything is just too clean . it was obviously made on a hollywood back lot and looks every bit like it . it all looks than a touch of sleaziness . martin 's bilko is a pale imitation . the only semi - bright spot is phil hartman

have you ever been in an automobile accident where you 've miraculously walked away with only a few scratches , yet the car has been obliterated into an unrecognizable , mangled wreck ? well , that has never actually happened to me and i hope that none of us will ever experience this situation . but after watching this inane exercise of a movie , i certainly feel that i 've miraculously walked away unscathed after a two - hour ride that mercilessly careens back and forth before finally plummeting into an icy pond . oddly , ` eye of the beholder , ' which is a psychological - romance - thriller , starts off promisingly enough when the opening sequence introduces us to a british intelligence agent , called the eye ( ewan mcgregor ) , working in washington dc . in the humorous opening scene , he eyes a top lawyer across the street in his office with his pants down . using an array of high - tech surveillance and communications equipment , he proceeds to transmit pictures of the bared lawyer to pc screens and fax machines in his office . the law firm 's employees get a good chuckle . the audience gets a good chuckle . the eye is later given an assignment where he encounters a beautiful woman ( ashley judd ) . there is something compelling about this mysterious woman . despite her glamorous looks , however , we learn that she is a psychopath with a propensity to kill men that get too close to her . after the murders , she sobs while singing the christmas tune ` little bluebirds ' and laments about being abandoned by her father long ago . after each killing , she puts on a different wig , assumes a new name , and then makes her way to another state . the eye has witnessed all her murderous transgressions . but he does not alert the authorities . he somehow empathizes with her sense of loss . the eye , it turns out , also is haunted by his past . his daughter was taken away from him and he anguishes this loss every day of his life . his tormented psyche creates a ghost - like image of his daughter with which he engages in conversation . she becomes a sort of spectral adviser , and one thing that the ghostly daughter says is that he must help the woman . he now diverts his energies into trying to help her find some kind of salvation . it does n't matter that he has witnessed all of her murders . and it does n't matter that the eye is abnormally reticent , hiding his entire life behind computer screens . he follows her to a dozen different locales and shadows her every move to keep her out of trouble . when a crazed druggie ( jason priestley ) attacks her , he shows up for some quick butt kicking . when the police are closing in to arrest her , he provides a distraction so that she can escape . all the while , the woman has no idea who her guardian angel is and the eye stays just out of sight . peculiar . how bad is this movie ? i refer you to my ` review quote source ' litmus test . just take a look at the full - page ad in the newspaper and see where they are pulling quotes . for this movie , they are from magazines called ` flaunt ' and ` mirabella . ' no doubt , they were impressed with judd 's series of catwalks and disguise changes . the major problem with ` eye of the beholder ' is that the film jerks forward , always unsure of its ultimate destination . if it was a thriller , there was little to keep us entranced . if it was a love story , there was absolutely no emotional pull . completely disjointed in structure , it 's only saving grace was its stylish look which reminded me of my favorite car commercial ( the one where the ` 6 ' on the tachometer dissolves into a winding road and a passenger rail car dissolves into a small miniature on a child 's train set ) . i am also still hopeful that ashley judd will find a serious role to showcase her potential talents . beyond that , the film is hopelessly out - of - control and is in need of seriously better traction and handling .

0NEG

none of us will ever experience this situation . but after watching this inane exercise of a movie , i certainly feel that i 've miraculously walked away unscathed after a two - hour ride that mercilessly careens back and forth before finally plummeting into an icy pond . oddly , ` eye of the beholder , ' the eye stays just out of sight . peculiar . how bad is this movie ? i refer you to my ` review quote source ' with judd 's series of catwalks and disguise changes . the major problem with ` eye of the beholder ' is that the film jerks forward , always unsure of its ultimate destination . if it was a thriller , there was little to keep us entranced . if it was a love story , there was absolutely no emotional pull . completely disjointed in structure , it 's only saving grace was its role to showcase her potential talents . beyond that , the film is hopelessly out - of - control and is in need of seriously better traction and handling

bad . bad . bad . that one word seems to pretty much sums up beyond the valley of the dolls . if that summary is n't enough for you , how about t&a , t&a , t&a ? still have n't got the point ? other than director russ meyer 's predilection for casting attractive large breasted women who ultimately expose the afore - mentioned anatomical areas , there is really only one other reason to recommend even taking a look at this movie . that is the fact that it was co - written by famed film critic roger ebert , who also was responsible for the screenplay . after watching this movie you will never be able to sit through another one of his reviews where he gives a movie a thumbs down for bad writing with a straight face . this movie stinks out loud . quite frankly , this movie deserves a . but there are parts of it that are so bad they are almost funny . so i 'm giving it a . and maybe that is too generous . right from the opening credits , i knew that i had a class - a bomb on my hands . not only are the way the credits actually shot distracting , but the first scene you see includes a big breasted young woman being chased by a guy in a nazi uniform . i had absolutely no idea why the hell that was happening ( it does get explained later ) and as soon as the first scene is over , we cut to a completely unrelated scene . to be honest , as i sat through this movie mesmerized by just how incredibly awful it was , i actually forgot about the seemingly out of place opening until it popped up again later in the film . with the quality of the writing during the rest of the film , it would n't have surprised me if the opening had never been explained . so what is this movie about ? you ask . like it really matters . ok , here goes . this all - girl band headed by kelly macnamara ( dolly reed ) and her friends go to hollywood to try to gain a foothold in the music industry . once there , they do manage to find success ( due as much to their hooters as anything else ? it sure was n't for their brutally bad singing voices ) , and the movie chronicles how their lives change for the worse as the pressures of fame get to them . everything from big egos , to booze and drugs to free flowing sex sends them on a downward spiral . there are a couple of other idiotic subplots thrown in for good measure , but the fame is the one that pretty much sums up this thing . > from a creative standpoint there is nothing redeeming here . other than the above - mentioned obsession with big knockers that russ meyer seemed to have . the dialogue is so incredibly bad that it literally is funny in parts . mr . ebert has generously thrown in helpings of " hey man " , " dig " and my all time favorite -- " this is my happening , and it freaks me out " . now i ask you , with lines like that how can you go wrong ? ebert had tried to inject as many big words as possible into the dialogue . maybe he thought it would make the movie seem smarter . i do n't know , but all the big words in the world would n't be able to disguise the bad writing and even worse acting . but the wretched dialogue goes along well with the wretched quality of everything else in this movie . i 've seen home movies directed better than meyer managed with this turkey . in fact , there is one scene -- the one in which they are in a van driving to hollywood to make their fortunes -- during which i really had to question if meyer or his editors had just suffered serious head injuries . add to the directing and writing the music in this movie . i almost got up to check my sound system to see if it was broken , there was such a pile of crap emanating from the speakers . then we have the cast . first lets start david gurian who played harris , the manager of the band . this has got to be the goofiest looking guy that has ever set foot in front of a motion picture camera . sadly , his acting does n't come close to making up for his looks . if you have been following along up to this point , this should n't surprise you . meyer 's stable of well endowed girls also have the benefit of being fairly attractive to go along with their other assets . dolly reed plays kelly , the leader of the band . and no surprise here , she was cast for her cup size , not her talents . and yes , she does loose the shirt a few times and display her impressive talents . sadly , her ass is almost as large as her chest . hey , it a sexist movie , so i 'm writing a sexist review . then we have former playboy playmate cynthia myers in a fairly small role as casey , one of the other band members . this goes along with the rest of the idiotic thinking in the movie . meyer casts a gorgeous playmate with a rack to kill for and who obviously has no acting talent at all , but her nude scenes are the biggest disappointment of all . sure russ , now is the time to get artsy and throw in some well placed shadows . on the up side , she does have a fun lesbo scene . i sound like i 'm writing a review in a porn magazine . but hey , i 'll admit it ; the only reason that i actually managed to sit through this damn movie was to catch a look at cynthia myers naked . and since that was a huge disappointment , i pretty much wasted two hours of my life on this turkey . the only thing that i can say about this movie is that you should stay away from it . unless of course you want to feel good about yourself by knowing that even a pulitzer prize winning film critic like roger ebert has screwed up at least once in his life too . and if you are thinking of checking it out for the double d 's -- you are better off just downloading nude cynthia myers pictures off the internet . this is a movie that should be avoided at all costs . an even better idea might be to require video stores to place a warning on the box of beyond the valley of the dolls -- beware : this movie is extremely hazardous to your common sense . proceed with extreme caution .

0NEG

bad . bad . bad . that one word seems to pretty much sums up beyond the valley of the dolls . if that summary thumbs down for bad writing with a straight face . this movie stinks out loud . quite frankly , this movie deserves a . but is too generous . right from the opening credits , i knew that i had a class - a bomb on my hands . not only are the way the credits actually shot to be honest , as i sat through this movie mesmerized by just how incredibly awful it was , i actually forgot about the seemingly out of place free flowing sex sends them on a downward spiral . there are a couple of other idiotic subplots thrown in for good measure , but the fame is sums up this thing . > from a creative standpoint there is nothing redeeming here . other than the above - mentioned obsession with big knockers that russ meyer seemed to have . the dialogue is so incredibly bad that it literally is funny in parts . mr . movie seem smarter . i do n't know , but all the big words in the world would n't be able to disguise the bad writing and even worse acting . but the wretched dialogue goes along well with the wretched quality of everything else in this movie . i 've seen home movies directed my sound system to see if it was broken , there was such a pile of crap emanating from the speakers . then we have the cast . first lets start as casey , one of the other band members . this goes along with the rest of the idiotic thinking in the movie . meyer casts a gorgeous playmate with a rack to kill for and who obviously has no acting talent at all , but her nude scenes are the biggest disappointment of all . sure russ , now is the time to get catch a look at cynthia myers naked . and since that was a huge disappointment , i pretty much wasted two hours of my life on this turkey . the only thing that i can say about this movie is that you should stay away from it . unless of course you want to feel good about nude cynthia myers pictures off the internet . this is a movie that should be avoided at all costs . an even better idea might be to require video

by - the - numbers : a film which introduces characters , situations , dilemmas and developments that we 've seen before in a parade of other films . a film which can easily be guessed out by the end of frame number one . a film which is packed to the cap with predictability , leading to very little tension , excitement , suspense or interest on the part of its paying audience . in short , a clich ? -ridden formula film . welcome to my review of the general 's daughter . plot : an undercover army detective and a rape counselor find themselves locked inside an investigation into some bigwig general daughter 's rape , torture and murder . they must delve through all of the unspoken army rules and the hush - hushes , to figure out the conspiracy behind the shocking murder . critique : by the numbers ( see above ) . this film is just there . it sits there on the big screen for a couple of hours , floats around , goes away , hopefully never to be heard from again . it is so predictable that even a blind man could see its plot points coming a mile away . it 's as suspenseful as a leaf dropping from a tree . it 's as action - packed as a canadian curling tournament . get the picture ? i sure did . . . it 's too bad that it took my friend and i less than two minutes to figure out the entire plot , and to break down each scene before it was even completed . easy as pie . it 's unfortunate because james woods and john travolta actually have one extremely enjoyable scene together near the beginning of the film , but alas , t'was not to be ( that scene alone scored two of my four points allotted . ) woods chews it up in the few scenes that he 's in , travolta passes the test , cromwell plays , well , cromwell , and stowe is window dressing with a smile ( mia since 12 monkeys ( 8/10 ) it seems ) . and this predictability is n't reserved only to those who have seen films like courage under fire or a few good men , it runs deep inside every one of us who knows to suspect someone as soon as they see their obvious guilty mug on the big screen . it 's like riding a bike . other scenarios which sponge out any tension , suspense or interest from this film include every single character eventually " breaking down " to the investigators without much reason given , a ridiculously placed background relationship between two of the lead characters , as much action as my grandparents bedroom nightly , and a directorial style that can only reward director simon west with a solid nomination for the " best poor man 's michael bay doing his best poor man 's impression of tony scott " ( add two scenes with sunlight shining through some half - open shades for grit and integrity , and an all - out rainfall for the finale for further chaos , and you 're a great director . yawn . yeah , whatever tony . . . i mean , simon . ) and are n't we all sick of hearing about these army " bad boys " and their overdone " code of silence " ? ! enough already ! next subject , please . see it on video if you wanna fall asleep after seeing a much better movie like an officer and a gentleman ( 8 . 5/10 ) . otherwise , save yourself the trouble and go take a crap instead . you 'll feel much better afterwards . trust me . little known facts about this film and its stars : ironically , john travolta turned down the lead role in an officer and a gentleman , which eventually went to little dickie gere . ironically on james woods ' part , he completed one of his earliest acting roles on tv 's " welcome back , kotter " , starring none other than john travolta . actor james woods recently confirmed reports of his " big dick " on howard stern 's radio program . unlike rocker tommy lee , woods is also alleged to have an iq of 180 . he apparently scored a perfect 800 on his verbal sats and a 779 on the math section . what a man ! john travolta is married to actress kelly preston , and they have a son named jett ( travolta loves them planes ! ) . word on the street is that the kid was apparently conceived during a weekend at demi moore and bruce willis ' home . director simon west 's first film was the jerry bruckheimer produced con air ( 6 . 5/10 ) . before that , he directed tv commercials including the budweiser ad with the dancing ants . yippee ! veteran director john frankenheimer ( ronin ( 7 . 5/10 ) , the manchurian candidate ) portrays the character of general sonnenberg in this film . the imdb reports that when senator robert kennedy was shot at the ambassador hotel in los angeles on june 5 , 1968 , it was his good friend john frankenheimer who had personally driven him there that day . clarence williams iii , who plays colonel fowler in this film , is known to some from his role as " linc " in the original " mod squad " tv series . younger folk may remember him as prince 's father in purple rain .

0NEG

in a parade of other films . a film which can easily be guessed out by the end of frame number one . a film which is packed to the cap with predictability , leading to very little tension , excitement , suspense the part of its paying audience . in short , a clich ? -ridden formula film . welcome to my review of the general 's daughter out the conspiracy behind the shocking murder . critique : by the numbers ( see above ) . this film is just there away , hopefully never to be heard from again . it is so predictable that even a blind man could see its plot points coming a mile away . it 's as suspenseful as a leaf dropping from a tree . it 's as action - packed as a canadian curling tournament . get the picture ? i sure did . . scene together near the beginning of the film , but alas , t'was not to be ( that scene alone scored two of my four points down " to the investigators without much reason given , a ridiculously placed background relationship between two of the lead characters , as much action as my grandparents bedroom nightly , and a directorial style that can only reward director simon west with a solid nomination for the " best poor man 's michael bay doing his best poor man 's impression of tony scott " ( add two scenes with sunlight shining through some further chaos , and you 're a great director . yawn . yeah , whatever tony . . . i mean , and their overdone " code of silence " ? ! enough already ! next subject , please . see it on video if you wanna fall asleep after seeing a much better movie like an officer and a gentleman ( 8 . 5/10 ) . otherwise , save yourself the trouble and go take a crap instead . you 'll feel much better afterwards . trust me

who knew that in 16 years eddie murphy , who made such a brash , raucous big - screen splash in _ 48_hrs . _ , would become . . . cuddly . the disconcerting trend begun in this summer 's cutesy , largely laugh - free _ doctor_dolittle _ continues with this earnest - to - a - fault dramedy . although he is top - billed , here murphy is merely support for jeff goldblum , who plays ricky hayman , the programming director at a home shopping network . sales are way down , and ricky 's job hangs by a thread until he meets g ( murphy ) , a mysterious spiritual guru whom a desperate ricky puts on the air . while sales skyrocket and g becomes an overnight sensation , the reinvigorated ricky 's greed grows , endangering his budding romance with a goodhearted media research consultant ( kelly preston ) . writer tom schulman has some promising ideas , satirizing home shopping and infomercials and the nature of instant celebrity . but these ideas would have more bite if stephen herek had invested any energy into the direction of the film . the sluggishly paced _ holy_man _ is not only slow and overlong ( 113 minutes ) , but an unfunny bore , and murphy can do little to juice up the proceedings ; cleansed of both the attitude _ and _ comic sensibility that made him a star ( g is , for the most part , a straight man ) , he is a curiously lifeless presence . goldblum is actually quite good , but it 's hard for the audience to sustain much interest in his character and spiritual journey when the director does n't seem to be much interested , either .

0NEG

invested any energy into the direction of the film . the sluggishly paced _ holy_man _ is not only slow and overlong ( 113 minutes ) , but an unfunny bore , and murphy can do little to juice up the most part , a straight man ) , he is a curiously lifeless presence . goldblum is actually quite good , but it 's

" pokemon 3 : the movie " has a lot of bad things in it . first of all it 's a plot heavy mess that has bad voice talents , badly written script and fantastic animation . the first film came out the end of 1999 and was a huge hit grossing almost $ 90 million domestically . a sequel soon followed and even made $ 45 million . warner has released their third movie based on the immensely popular video game and tv series and its a waste of time and celluloid . this time ash ketchum and his friends are on their way to the johto battles ( which my little brother told me the new spinoff is " pokemon : the johto journeys " so go figure ) anyway he comes in contact with a young girl who 's father has disappeared after trying to discover the unown . they are small pokemon with a powerful punch and have great psychic abilities . the unown bring together their psychic abilities and create entei a powerful legendary pokemon who barriers young molly 's house and creates every wish she wants . now it 's up to ash and his friends to stop this pokemon entei and show him to be a good pokemon rather than a bad one . too bad really that this is a bad movie , surprisingly the first movie was entertaining and somewhat absorbing , the second was a piece of trash and this one is almost in between . it has some good qualities ( animation , message in the end ) but the flaws seem to overpower the goods . i 'm still not sure what the big thing is about pokemon , they are ugly little animals who speak their own name for their language ( besides meowth , my personal favorite ) and you do n't understand what they are saying . my little brother just thought the movie was amazing , and i kept leaning over and asking him happened , or what pokemon that was . his response was a big lecture of how this is that , and that is this . . . he sure did put me in my place . with the second and third movie being bad , i have a feeling pokemon 4 : the movie might be a total bust as well . " pokemon 3 : the movie " has some redeeming qualities for the kids , and the pokemon fans will dig every minute of this film . for those parents and/or brothers and sisters who have to sit through this . . . bring a pillow .

0NEG

" pokemon 3 : the movie " has a lot of bad things in it . first of all it 's a plot heavy mess that has bad voice talents , badly written script and fantastic animation . the first film came out the rather than a bad one . too bad really that this is a bad movie , surprisingly the first movie was entertaining and somewhat absorbing qualities ( animation , message in the end ) but the flaws seem to overpower the goods . i 'm still not sure what the big thing sisters who have to sit through this . . . bring a pillow .

1 . he does n't have a hard - to - decipher accent , 2 . he does n't always speak in a monotone , and 3 . his face does n't always wear the same impassive expression . in short , the former nfl player turned fox sportscaster turned actor is too good to be bad , but too bad to be good . unfortunately , the same can not be said of his first star vehicle , firestorm , which is just plain awful . one of the most glaring problems with long ( who made his acting debut in john woo 's broken arrow ) is that he 's so mediocre that he often blends in with the scenery . as ace firefighter jesse graves , long is supposed to be playing a bigger - than - life action hero -- the kind of he- man who will crash through a flaming door to save a child or parachute into a burning clearing to rescue some stupid campers . unfortunately , despite the best efforts of first - time director dean semler to photograph long using heroic shots that make kevin costner 's work in the postman look stark , jesse turns out to be a pretty boring good guy . to put it kindly , this is not a well - written motion picture . firestorm is a collection of howlingly bad lines set against a backdrop of disaster movie clich ? s which , taken together , form something that requires a level of viewer inebriation to be recognized as a plot . the only reason this film is getting one star ( instead of something lower ) is that most of the fire sequences are realistic , and i was fascinated by the meticulous planning that must have been necessary to stage them effectively . we 're introduced to our big burly hero one afternoon when he and some colleagues jump into the midst of a forest fire to save a group of people . during this sequence , our big burly hero proves that he 's also a sensitive guy by risking his life to save a little girl and her dog ( yes , the dog lives ) from being broiled alive . flash - forward a year . now , our big burly hero is taking over as chief of his smokejumpers association , replacing outgoing honcho wynt perkins ( real actor scott glenn ) . but this day , our big burly hero 's first in charge , is n't going to be business - as - usual . a group of nasty escaped criminals have set a wyoming forest alight to aid their flight to freedom . led by randy earl shaye ( william forsythe ) , the sadistic creep who must be killed twice to really die , they pose as canadian firefighters who somehow got lost across the border . along the way , they meet and take hostage the damsel in distress ( suzy amis ) . eventually , our big burly hero is placed in a position where he has to fight the fire , rescue the damsel in distress , defeat the sadistic creep who must be killed twice to really die , and restore order to the galaxy . firestorm 's director , dean semler , is a former cinematographer ( he won an academy award for his work on dances with wolves ) , so it 's no surprise that the film looks good . unfortunately , that 's firestorm 's lone asset , and it falters near the end , when computer - generated special effects fill up the screen . these are of about equal quality to what you might observe on a nintendo 64 video game . the action sequences , which include a variety of chases , are occasionally interesting , but never invigorating . everyone , including long , appears to be going through the motions . there is n't a memorable performance to be found from beginning to end , unless you count the forest fire , which generates some heat . as the sadistic creep who must be killed twice to really die , william forsythe lacks panache . he 's worse than a generic bad guy ; he 's a boring generic bad guy who does n't have any snappy one - liners to hurl at our big burly hero . my advice to scott glenn ( absolute power ) and suzy amis ( titanic ) is to accidentally forget this film the next time they 're making out a resume . there 's some small comfort in knowing this early in the year that i already have one entry for my bottom 10 list . ( at least i hope there are n't 10 worse films than this . ) and i know i was n't the only one who really disliked this movie . as the audience was filing out of the screening , i loitered in the theater lobby to catch a few comments . the general consensus seemed to be that , although the movie sucked , the promotional key ring was cool . the problem is that fox wo n't be giving out key rings to regular movie - goers , so that nixes any reason to see firestorm .

0NEG

of his first star vehicle , firestorm , which is just plain awful . one of the most glaring problems with long ( turns out to be a pretty boring good guy . to put it kindly , this is not a well - written motion picture . firestorm is a collection of howlingly bad lines set against a backdrop of disaster movie clich ? s it 's no surprise that the film looks good . unfortunately , that 's firestorm 's lone asset , and it falters near the end , when computer - generated special effects fill up the screen . these are of about equal quality to what you might observe on a nintendo 64 video game . the action sequences , which include a variety of chases , are occasionally interesting , but never invigorating . everyone , including long , appears to be going must be killed twice to really die , william forsythe lacks panache . he 's worse than a generic bad guy ; he 's a boring generic bad guy who does n't have any snappy one - liners to small comfort in knowing this early in the year that i already have one entry for my bottom 10 list . ( at least i hope there are n't 10 . the general consensus seemed to be that , although the movie sucked , the promotional key ring was cool . the problem

seen at : amc old pasadena 8 , pasadena , ca ( in sdds ) paul verhoeven 's last movie , showgirls , had a bad script , bad acting , and a " plot " ( i use the word in its loosest possible sense ) that served only to allow lots of sex and nudity . it stank . starship troopers has a bad script , bad acting , and a " plot " that serves only to allow lots of violence and gore . it stinks . nobody will watch this movie for the plot , but here 's a brief synopsis anyway . some friends straight out of high school sign up for the federal reserve ( armed forces ) at a time when evil bugs from the planet klendathu are sending meteors towards earth from the other side of the galaxy . after one slips through the defences and destroys buenos aires ( the home city of the main characters ) , war is declared . this involves sending the grunts , who include johnny rico ( van dien ) and dizzy ( meyer ) , down to the surface of the bugs ' planet . much carnage ensues . the troops are withdrawn and sent to another planet to answer a distress call . more carnage ensues . after being rescued , their plans are changed to capture a " brain bug " which is believed to be controlling the aliens ' battle plans ( look , i did n't write this , ok ? ) . yet more carnage ensues . get the picture ? interspersed throughout all this are brief " ads " from the federal network , which present the picture of a neo - fascist state , much like in verhoeven 's robocop . there are many problems with starship troopers . the plot , where one exists to drive the movie onwards , is silly . harris ( star of tv 's doogie howser , md ) is presented with a psychic ability to talk to his ferret early on in the movie , apparently so we will accept his ability to mind - meld with a " brain bug " later on . in addition , the first thirty minutes of the movie ( until the characters sign up for service ) drag on like a bad episode of beverly hills , 90210 . the characters are one - dimensional , so much so , that when dizzy is killed , she says it 's ok because she got to sleep with rico . i had hoped that verhoeven 's use of a no - name cast would allow him to kill off several of the lead characters to surprise the audience , but such an idea appears to have escaped him . the dialogue is embarassing and is n't helped by the frequently terrible delivery ( i almost burst out laughing when harris delivered his speech about the need to sacrifice a few hundred people for the good of the species ) . finally , the fake " ads " become a nuisance . although they evoke the propaganda of the wwii - era movietone reels ( as presumably they are meant to ) , their complete lack of subtlety blunts their effect . some people will say all of that 's irrelevant -- the movie hinges on the battle scenes . so what about those battle scenes ? well , i admit the effects are good -- the bugs move about quite convincingly , especially when they have been deprived of a few of their limbs . and people have their brains blown out , their limbs cut off , and their bodies ripped in two in quite impressive ways . but this is my problem . the entertainment value of the film rests almost entirely on its graphic portrayal of gore , and its continous attempt to gross us out ( starting early on when richards ' character vomits on - screen ) . verhoeven appears to be trying to make a movie employing the elements that made a robocop a success , but fails spectacularly . while robocop had a message about the importance of being human , and gave the bad guys some motivation , starship troopers lacks even these simple features . when the brain bug sucks out a character 's brain near the end of the film , it 's merely an analogy for what the film has done to us . this film is full of graphic violence and is not suitable for children under 16 .

0NEG

of sex and nudity . it stank . starship troopers has a bad script , bad acting , and a " plot " that serves only to allow lots of violence and gore . it stinks . nobody will watch this movie for the plot , but here 's a brief synopsis anyway . some fascist state , much like in verhoeven 's robocop . there are many problems with starship troopers . the plot , where one exists to drive the movie onwards , is silly . harris ( star of tv 's doogie howser , movie ( until the characters sign up for service ) drag on like a bad episode of beverly hills , 90210 . the characters are one - dimensional , so much so , that when dizzy is killed but such an idea appears to have escaped him . the dialogue is embarassing and is n't helped by the frequently terrible delivery ( i almost burst out laughing when harris delivered his ) . finally , the fake " ads " become a nuisance . although they evoke the propaganda of the wwii - bodies ripped in two in quite impressive ways . but this is my problem . the entertainment value of the film rests almost entirely the elements that made a robocop a success , but fails spectacularly . while robocop had a message about the importance of motivation , starship troopers lacks even these simple features . when the brain bug sucks out a character 's brain near the end of the film , it 's merely an analogy for what the film has done to us . this film is full of graphic violence and is

often similar to a little boy lost in a park that he had no right venturing into , the call of the oboe ( o toque do oboe ) is a disappointing film that seems to have wandered astray . many elements of the film are solid , and have potential far greater than director claudio macdowell will ever know , but they simply do n't convert into a solid work . although a setting is never established , it becomes apparent . the film takes place somewhere in a latin american village in present day . the community is a dull one , where every day is a downhill slide from the last . over time , the people have taken to themselves . the town cinema is closed , no tourist has passed through in years , and the daily funeral processions are accompanied by no one other than the grave digger . so what happens when a " tourist " ( paolo betti ) does arrive one day ? he sends this routine and dull town into mayhem and shock . it is revealed that he is a musician who plays the oboe as a hobby . when he sits down in the park one day to give a solo performance , the entire community gathers around for their first bit of entertainment in countless years . it is from that that the musician meets some of the villagers , and agrees to play at the local cinema in accompaniment to a silent film , thus opening the theatre for the first time in ages . the woman that talks him into this witty task is the cinema owner ( leticia vota ) who also happens to be engaged to the town 's police inspector , a figure who soon becomes suspicious of his fiance 's involvement with this musician . the rest of the plot closely resembles a freak show gone horribly astray . it features a character who literally rises from his grave , a woman who has a phone conversation with god , and the aforementioned inspector who goes from an intriguing and serious character , to an almost humorous drunk . technically , this film is a nightmare . the music score is poorly edited into the film , so it is often choppy , rough , and abrupt . the lighting is poor at best , which makes it increasingly difficult to focus on many scenes , and the english subtitles are full of misspelled words , and are often absent presumably on the assumption that the audience will be able to understand some simple portuguese and spanish phrases . this translation flaw is best highlighted at the beginning of the film when what seems to be a relevant fight is filled with dialogue , but the subtitles are limited to fewer than 25 words . in addition , the pace of the film seems uneven . it opens with a series of long panoramic shots that alone can test one 's patience . the film then moves into a faster pace , that again slows towards the end , as the director seems determined to reach the two hour mark . there was , however , potential for this film . it is a piece exploring the beauty of cinema and music , and the re - unification of people . these are all topics that could easily fill a movie . perhaps , if there were no freak show , and the technical aspects were to improve , there might just be a thing of beauty at the end . most importantly , though , the director would have to patch up the plot and make it flow better so that the two hours are n't such a bore . until then , there seems to be little more hope for this piece , than that boy has by simply crying out " mommy " while he wanders astray in a park .

0NEG

of the oboe ( o toque do oboe ) is a disappointing film that seems to have wandered astray . many elements of the film are solid , and suspicious of his fiance 's involvement with this musician . the rest of the plot closely resembles a freak show gone horribly astray . it features a character who literally rises from his and serious character , to an almost humorous drunk . technically , this film is a nightmare . the music score is poorly edited into the film , so it is often choppy , rough , and abrupt . the lighting is poor at best , which makes it increasingly difficult to focus on many able to understand some simple portuguese and spanish phrases . this translation flaw is best highlighted at the beginning of the film when limited to fewer than 25 words . in addition , the pace of the film seems uneven . it opens with a series of long panoramic shots that alone can test one 's patience . the film then moves into a faster pace , it flow better so that the two hours are n't such a bore . until then , there seems to be little more

a friend invites you to a movie . this film would evade the explosions and special effects of standard summer fare , and be grounded in reality . the plot is as follows : after a terrifying incident , a mother and her independent daughter separate from the father and move away from the city . they need fresh air to get some perspective , maybe to start over . romance begins to brew , however , as one of the locals , played by an international superstar in rugged clothing , sparks things up , ( especially at a country - western slow dance ) . it stars a rising young starlet , helms a good cast , and is directed by one of the better actor - turned - directors in hollywood . you accept . you jump at the opportunity to see , what you believe to be , _ the horse whisperer _ . but , poor moviegoer , you have been conned . alas , you find yourself watching , incredulously , _ hope floats _ . oh , woe . your hope has sunk . why was this movie made ? why was it released ? it is a travesty on nearly every level , and has the authority to sink the careers of nearly everyone involved . at the hands of a better script , the film could have been a gem . but it is clueless as to what it is about , and only succeeds in transferring same cluelessness to us poor viewers . _ hope floats _ stars sandra bullock as birdy , who , after discovering her husband has been cheating on her with her best friend ( on national television no less ) , takes her daughter and drives back to her home , helmed by a countryish bumpkin eccentric played by gena rowlands , ( she decorates with stuffed wildlife ) . birdy 's nephew , travis ( played by _ leave it to beaver _ 's cameron finley ) , is under her custody , and in one of the film 's many failed in - jokes , is always seen wearing a different halloween costume . what is the point of this ? does it make any sense ? is it supposed to be funny ? the point of the film is to show that the family is eccentric , but i was convinced that the grandma should have been locked up for endangering the mental welfare of a child . all of this undercuts the plot , of which there is none . there are only many scenes that are supposed to register emotion . there 's the scene where birdy , who used to be the prom queen , is humbled by approaching a peer she once mocked , for a job . there 's the scene where birdy dances with her father , in the hospital for alzheimer 's . and then there 's the sentimental scenes with justin , played by harry connick jr . , who is taking a liking to her again , showing her a beautiful pad that he built from scratch . and during each of these scenes , i was sidetracked by my earlier question . what sort of eccentric grandmother go through such great pains as to provide a dog costume , a kermit costume , a cowboy costume ( with whip ) , and a full furred barney costume for her grandson to wear during dinner ? what sort of warped ramifications would this lead for the rest of his life ? outside of this , there are other sure signs of screenwriters block . when the daughter stands up to the bully at school . when birdy almost loses her job . when the family pulls in a goofy lip - synch to cheer someone up . when someone dies . when the daughter cries , ( no , wails ) in exasperation that her father is not coming back . in a movie like this , you notice the strings being pushed , and you sit there , comatose , hoping it will end . who can survive such a debacle ? i worry for bullock 's career , which has been running on auto - pilot for the last few years . she has an attitude , a solid perkiness , and can drive a bus -- but she ca n't handle the emotional scenes , much less hold a southern accent . harry connick , jr . is worse -- stick with singing , or get some acting lessons , please ! gena rowlands is the best part of the film . but she 's such a good actress , that it staggers the mind that she 's weighed down by such lukewarm material here . it would be a severe tragedy if the recurring star of john cassavettes ' great films is known for this film . two notes to forest whittaker : ( 1 ) cut the slow - motion sequences . there are twelve times where you undercut your own direction by such a failed trick . have you done so , you could have shaved off ten - minutes of this almost unbearable debacle . ( 2 ) you 've had to know something was wrong if your cinematographer 's filter makes the candlelight appear like little " x " s . you 're not a bad director , but you ca n't change a terrible script . there 's a recurring scene where birdy , working at the neighborhood fotomat , finds the machine go wrong , and image after destroyed , warped , dark image appear . think about it . a succession of destroyed images may have been more entertaining than this movie .

0NEG

be , _ the horse whisperer _ . but , poor moviegoer , you have been conned . alas , you find yourself watching , incredulously , _ hope floats _ . oh , woe . your hope has sunk . why was this movie made ? why was it released ? it is a travesty on nearly every level , and has the authority to sink the careers of , the film could have been a gem . but it is clueless as to what it is about , and only succeeds in transferring same cluelessness to us up for endangering the mental welfare of a child . all of this undercuts the plot , of which there is none . there are only many scenes that are supposed to the rest of his life ? outside of this , there are other sure signs of screenwriters block . when the daughter stands up to the bully at this , you notice the strings being pushed , and you sit there , comatose , hoping it will end . who can survive such a debacle ? i worry a good actress , that it staggers the mind that she 's weighed down by such lukewarm material here . it would be a severe tragedy if the recurring you could have shaved off ten - minutes of this almost unbearable debacle . ( 2 ) you 've had to know something s . you 're not a bad director , but you ca n't change a terrible script . there 's a recurring scene where birdy , working

any remake of an alfred hitchcock film is at best an uncertain project , as a perfect murder illustrates . frankly , dial m for murder is not one of the master director 's greatest efforts , so there is ample room for improvement . unfortunately , instead of updating the script , ironing out some of the faults , and speeding up the pace a little , a perfect murder has inexplicably managed to eliminate almost everything that was worthwhile about dial m for murder , leaving behind the nearly- unwatchable wreckage of a would - be ' 90s thriller . almost all suspense films are loaded with plot implausibilities . the best thrillers keep viewers involved enough in what 's going on so that these flaws in logic do n't become apparent until long after the final credits have rolled . unfortunately , in a perfect murder , the faults are often so overt that we become aware of them as they 're happening . this is a very bad sign . not only do such occurrences shatter any suspension of disbelief , but they have the astute viewer looking for the next such blunder . of course , in the case of a perfect murder , at least that gives an audience member something to do besides concentrating on the inane plot and the lifeless , cardboard characters . a perfect murder is n't a strict remake of dial m for murder , but it does borrow heavily from frederick knott 's play ( which was also the source material for hitchcock 's version , as well as a 1981 made - for - tv retelling ) . emily hayes ( gwyneth paltrow ) is the wealthy wife of powerful wall street mover - and - shaker steven hayes ( michael douglas ) . their marriage is n't going well -- emily resents steven 's controlling instincts , and , as a form of rebellion , she is having an affair with a penniless painter , david shaw ( viggo mortensen ) . when steven learns of the relationship , he decides to confront david , but his approach is n't that of a typical cuckolded husband . instead of yelling or threatening , steven offers david a proposal that 's too good to resist : for $ 500 , 000 in cash ( $ 100 , 000 before , the rest after ) , he is to break into steven 's new york apartment and kill emily . ( of course , after getting the first payment , david never bothers to ask how he 's supposed to get the rest . ) ultimately , i 'm not sure which of the three main characters we 're supposed to be sympathetic to : the cold - hearted husband , who wants his wife dead so he can get his hands on her fortune ; her mercenary lover , who is willing to do the deed for half - a - million ; or the woman , who is happily carrying on an extramarital affair . not only are these individuals all profoundly dislikable , but they 're not interesting . ( it 's possible to make a good movie with detestable characters -- see reservoir dogs -- but there has to be something compelling about them , which , in this case , there is n't . ) steven , emily , and david are all lifted directly from the screenwriting 101 text book on stereotypes . the actors in this film are obviously just on hand to get their paychecks . michael douglas is playing the kind of heartless tycoon that he can do in his sleep -- he 's gordon gekko with an unfaithful wife . gwyneth paltrow , who was recently delightful and appealing in sliding doors , is simply awful here . she now has the dubious distinction of have starred in two of 1998 's worst thrillers ( the other being hush ) . at least viggo mortensen ( g . i . jane ) has a little fun with his part , but then he usually does interesting things even in bad movies . the thin supporting cast includes david suchet , the star of " poirot , " as a police inspector , and sarita choudhury ( kama sutra ) as emily 's best friend . a perfect murder is a plodding production that generates almost no suspense from beginning to end . there are n't many twists and turns in the unexpectedly linear script , which makes the ending inevitable almost from the start . it 's surprising to see director andrew davis , the man behind the fugitive , involved in this mess , but , like his stars , he too needs to earn a living . it 's just that remaking hitchcock , and doing it so badly , hardly seems to be an honorable way to go about getting the dough .

0NEG

speeding up the pace a little , a perfect murder has inexplicably managed to eliminate almost everything that was worthwhile about dial m for murder , leaving behind the nearly- unwatchable wreckage of a would - be ' 90s thriller . almost have rolled . unfortunately , in a perfect murder , the faults are often so overt that we become aware of them as they 're happening . this is a very bad sign . not only do such occurrences shatter any suspension of an audience member something to do besides concentrating on the inane plot and the lifeless , cardboard characters . a perfect murder is n't a strict remake of on an extramarital affair . not only are these individuals all profoundly dislikable , but they 're not interesting . ( it 's possible to make a good movie . ) steven , emily , and david are all lifted directly from the screenwriting 101 text book on stereotypes . the actors in this film are obviously just on hand to get their paychecks . michael douglas is playing the kind of heartless tycoon was recently delightful and appealing in sliding doors , is simply awful here . she now has the dubious distinction of have starred he usually does interesting things even in bad movies . the thin supporting cast includes david suchet , the star of " poirot , as emily 's best friend . a perfect murder is a plodding production that generates almost no suspense from beginning to end . there are n't many twists , the man behind the fugitive , involved in this mess , but , like his stars , he too needs living . it 's just that remaking hitchcock , and doing it so badly , hardly seems to be an honorable way to go

steve martin shines but sgt . bilko fails to impress based on the popular 50 's sitcom , sgt . bilko follows the string of old - sitcoms - to - movie conversion fever . remember the brady bunch movie or the beverly hillbillies released sometime back ? ( brady bunch was a moderate hit in in the us while hillbillies flopped ) . i do not really know whether the hollywood minds are running out of good ideas or just being plain lazy , but the tv - conversion - movies are hitting our screens like wildfire , sad to say , with mixed success . such movies are mostly targeted at us viewers since they are usually followings of such series over there and the larger the following , the more likely the sitcom will be made into a movie . sgt . bilko ( frankly , i have not seen any its original tv version ) , even with the charm and wild antics of funnymen steve martin and dan akroyd ; failed to entertain . sgt . ernest bilko is the man behind the motor pool ( place of vehicle storage and repair ) of fort baxter . though totally unskilled in the field of work that he is supposed to be in charge of , he has an almost superhuman ability and zeal to sniff out money - making opportunities ; from running a gambling den in the military garage to 4-d pools . though materialistic in mind , bilko 's methods has thoughtfully ` enriched ' the lives of the men of fort baxter , providing them with some form of real recreation within the camp and the people love him for that . colonel hall runs the entire fort and thanks to his inborn ` blissfully - confused ' state , bilko has managed to hide his operation , though nearly every living person in the fort knows about it . bilko 's state of ascent is suddenly under - fire when the pentagon sends major thorn , a tough cookie on army regulations , to check on the progress on the $ 70 million hovertank project , a new weapon under development within the fort 's grounds . to add to his problems , thorn is determined to bring bilko down in retalliation of a major ` sabo ' done on him by bilko during their younger army days . director jonathan lynn , who directed my cousin vinny ( in which marisa tomei won an oscar for best - supporting actress ) managed to pull sgt . bilko through with suitable pacing and some exceptional moments of laughter , but that is about it . there are really not enough laughter - packed - moments in sgt . bilko to fully entertain the average movie - goer . still , steve martin 's sgt . bilko is played with finesse and full - force by the renowned comedian . without him , sgt . bilko would have just fell flat on its face . sgt . bilko did moderately well in the us box office early this year but i doubt it will earn much elsewhere around the world . the current trend in mixed successes in such tv - conversions may be a blessing in disguise , really ; at least it will force hollywood to re - think any of its initial intentions to turn another tv - idea into a movie or at the very least approach those ideas with more creativity . unless you are a fan of the tv - series or love to watch steve martin in action , you can skip this one when deciding which movie to catch in the local theatres . i 'm sure there are better ones around .

0NEG

wild antics of funnymen steve martin and dan akroyd ; failed to entertain . sgt . ernest bilko is the man behind the moments of laughter , but that is about it . there are really not enough laughter - packed - moments in sgt . bilko to fully entertain the average movie series or love to watch steve martin in action , you can skip this one when deciding which movie to catch in the local theatres . i 'm sure there are better ones around .

look ! the new version of " psycho " came out and the world did n't end ! i guess gus van sant really is n't the bringer of the apocalypse ! unfortunately , though , that " psycho " did n't end the world as we know is the best thing that can be said for it . van sant 's controversial " re - telling " of alfred hitchcock 's classic 1960 film has polarized filmgoers everywhere ( even before it premiered . ) without benefit of an actual viewing , many have said that the film will , at best , suck . being an ( almost ) good critic , i waited until i actually saw it to decide that the film , at best , sucked ( and that concludes the use of the word " suck " and , hopefully , the thoughts that i am a brain - dead orangutan . ) director gus van sant took the original hitchcock film and refilmed it , shot - for - shot , using the same , exact script ( with a few minor alterations . ) the inherent challenge was in making the film suspenseful and scary , even though a large group of the audience will know exactly what will happen at the exact time . suspense probably could have been attained if the actors had been able to create something new or different than the original . sadly , that did not occur . it is hard to be overshadowed by vera miles and john gavin ( from the original " psycho ) , but that is what exactly happened to julianne moore and viggo mortensen . in moore 's case , the film would have been helped if " the x- files " gillian anderson had been cast instead ; especially since moore goes through the entire film doing a scully impression ! from the cold demeanor and expressions to her rigid way of forming a sentence , moore is scully ! mortensen ( who i liked in " g . i . jane " ) opts to play sam loomis as a cowboy / hick , which would have been nice if he had gone past that starting point . sam has a twang and a cowboy hat , but that 's about it . mortensen turns in one of the most uptight performance in recent memory . anne heche , in the janet leigh role , does a few good things in her brief time on screen . at least her marion crane has a little life in her , which ca n't be said for most of the rest of the cast . the best work , though , comes from vince vaughn , as the demented mama 's boy , norman bates . he 's not going to make anyone forget anthony perkins , but he is effective both in being naughty and nice . the best part of the film is the dinner scene heche and vaughn , where they simply talk . there is some solid acting there , something that is not carried through the rest of the film . van sant has made a boring film . all the camera tricks that hitchcock so eloquently used in 1960 are n't as eye - catching now . what passed for brilliance then has been copied so many times by so many directors that they do n't impress or excite . van sant , in what i assume is a grasp at originality , decided to put some stream - of - consciousness images into a few famous scenes ( was that a lamb in the middle of the road ? ) these images , included with some questionable editing choices , took away from the scenes themselves and caused , at first , bewilderment and , later , laughter . definitely not hitchcock 's intention ! at least danny elfman had the good sense to not mess with bernard herrmann 's original famous and terrific score . if a film like " psycho " does not frighten , then what 's the point . aside from norman , the characters are thinly drawn people who leave no connection with the audience . there are things van sant and company could have done to at least make their recreation interesting . in the end , however , the new " psycho " is a noble attempt , but , alas , a dismal failure .

0NEG

to create something new or different than the original . sadly , that did not occur . it is hard to cowboy hat , but that 's about it . mortensen turns in one of the most uptight performance in recent memory . anne heche , in the janet leigh role , then what 's the point . aside from norman , the characters are thinly drawn people who leave no connection with the audience . there are things van sant and company could have " psycho " is a noble attempt , but , alas , a dismal failure .

an american werewolf in london is john landis ' groundbreaking feature about an american tourist who gets himself bitten by a werewolf in jolly old england . the groundbreaking part of the movie is the special effects . more specifically , the makeup used for the transformation of a man into a werewolf ; and for the ghosts that haunt the main character . even twenty years after its release , that part of the movie is still impressive . although , i would have to say that it really is the only part of the movie that could be considered impressive . the rest of the movie is a run of the mill werewolf flick with some extra gore thrown in for good measure . if it were n't for the cutting edge makeup effects used in the werewolf transformation it is most likely that this is a film that would have gone largely unnoticed when it was released back in 1980 . and with good reason -- the acting is n't great and neither is the writing . well ok , we do n't actually expect either of those things to be great in a horror film . but one other important element is lacking here too -- it is n't scary . with no exception , you know what is going to happen before it happens . you do n't even need the obligatory scary music to give you a hint . i will give director john landis credit for this being one of the best looking horror films that i have ever seen . but john , it just was n't scary . i did n't know if this was intended to be some sort of romantic drama and the whole werewolf thing was just thrown in to get people to come to the theater to see it , but it did n't work for me . actually , it was intended as a sort of a spoof on horror films . but the mix of the comedic moments with the melodrama was so bad ; the intended humor was lost on me . it 's never a good sign that you do n't realize a movie is supposed to be funny until after the movie is long over and you read it in the background material . call me crazy , but you should n't have to do research on a movie to enjoy it . i 'm not even going to get into the plot of the movie that much , since the title pretty well sums the whole thing up . werewolf bites boy ( david naughton ) . boy ends up in hospital where he is tended to and eventually falls for pretty nurse ( jenny agutter ) and then strange things begin to happen to boy . including , and i must admit this is a very nice touch , visits from his friend who was killed in the same werewolf attack that ended up with him in the hospital . the neat thing here is that his buddy is a rapidly deteriorating corpse . i know it sounds strange , but it actually works . the scenes between david naughton and the dead buddy ( griffin dunne ) are really the best parts of the movie . as i said , probably the only reason that this film was a hit was because of the special effects . while they are still impressive today , they are n't impressive enough , or plentiful enough to warrant watching this film . and since they are more or less the highlight of the film , there are far better choices out there if you want a scary movie to curl up with your sweetheart to watch . actually , the 1998 sequel , an american werewolf in paris , is more entertaining since it does n't take itself as seriously and actually provides a few more laughs along the way .

0NEG

part of the movie that could be considered impressive . the rest of the movie is a run of the mill werewolf flick with some extra gore thrown in for good measure . released back in 1980 . and with good reason -- the acting is n't great and neither is the writing . well ok , we do n't actually expect either films that i have ever seen . but john , it just was n't scary . i did n't know if this was intended to a sort of a spoof on horror films . but the mix of the comedic moments with the melodrama was so bad ; the intended humor was lost on me . it 's never a good sign that you do are more or less the highlight of the film , there are far better choices out there if you want a scary movie to curl up with

capsule : annoyingly unentertaining , obvious and paper - thin buddy / cop / drug / sexy - witness movie . presence of director michael bay shows none of the talent he demonstrated in the rock . i 've seen this movie already , i said , as i looked at the box art . no , i have n't even seen a trailer for the movie ; i do n't even know what it 's about , but i can look at the way they 're promoting it , and i know i 've seen it already . i thought : it 's about these two cops . and they 're buddies , sort of . they 're at each other 's throats a lot , but they really do like each other . and everyone else in their department hates them 'cause they 're hot - shots . and they have some kind of diametric opposition in their relationship . and one day they 're in the middle of cop business as usual when they get mixed up in this plot that involves a really sadistic bad guy with lots of henchmen who can never hit anything with the billions of rounds of ammo they are always carrying . and the bad guy is a drug lord . and there 's a witness , and she 's this sexy thing who rubs both of them the wrong way . and their supervisor wants their badges for breakfast when they blow up half the town bringing this guy down . i only missed the bit about the badges . the rest i got dead - on . and i had n't even left the video store yet . the cops in this movie are will smith and martin lawrence , and the bad guy is the immensely underutilized tcheky karyo . smith plays a cop who has a trust fund and is thus not a cop for the money ; martin l . is a family man ( shades of the now - tired lethal weapon dynamic here ) whose wife and he are at total odds . this leads to some strained scenes about lawrence 's " not getting any " , and some totally unneccesary bits with him skulking around his own house , thinking his partner is now his wife 's " back door man " . not funny ; tiresome . bad boys gets some of its incredibly meager selling points from the presence of will smith and martin lawrence . will smith is a natural , and i 'm happy to see him in movies like six degrees . . . and men in black . he 's funny and charming without trying to be ; he really does seem to be enjoying himself . martin lawrence is a different story ; he 's so uptight and verbally constipated that sitting through his improvised riffs are a trial . movies like this are not about originality . i know this . they are about style and energy and synergy between actors . i know this , too . and yet , while watching bad boys , which its glamorous photography and impossibly exact stunt choreography , i felt fed up . i 'd seen con air , which despite being completely implausible , was still great fun , because it tried however feebly to put some new life into the mix . bad boys is a dry run -- and overlong , too , clocking in at just over two hours with a lot more by - play than i felt could be justified . i could write this movie . you could write this movie . many people have . many people will continue to write this movie , over and over again . other people will buy it from them , and make it , and we will pay money to see it . more the fools we all . in a terrifyingly prescient line from his book a scanner darkly , phil k . dick once mused that the mcdonaldburger ( as he called it ) would eventually eclipse money as the token of cultural and financial exchange . one day we will all just sit in our living rooms and sell the same burger back and forth to each other . the same could be said about this movie . i have the sinking feeling we 're going to see it again . soon .

0NEG

capsule : annoyingly unentertaining , obvious and paper - thin buddy / cop / drug / sexy - witness movie and martin lawrence , and the bad guy is the immensely underutilized tcheky karyo . smith plays a cop who has a lawrence 's " not getting any " , and some totally unneccesary bits with him skulking around his own house , thinking his now his wife 's " back door man " . not funny ; tiresome . bad boys gets some of its incredibly meager selling enjoying himself . martin lawrence is a different story ; he 's so uptight and verbally constipated that sitting through his improvised riffs are a trial . which its glamorous photography and impossibly exact stunt choreography , i felt fed up . i 'd seen con air , which despite being some new life into the mix . bad boys is a dry run -- and overlong , too , clocking in at just over two hours with a

in the first death wish movie , mild - mannered new york architect paul kersey , played by charles bronson , was avenging the death of his wife . in the second , he was avenging his daughter . in the third , he instigated small war in order to avenge the old friend . fourth movie , on the other hand , begins with kersey doubting the point of his violent crusades and living the quiet life with his girlfriend karen , played by kay lenz . however , since this is death wish movie , we know that sooner or later something bad is going to happen to the people kersey cares for . this time karen 's teenage daughter dies of a crack overdose and kersey is forced to return to his old vigilante ways . kersey 's new targets , unlike the previous movies , are n't the ordinary street punks but rich , heavily armed and well - connected drug dealers . even such unstoppable killing machine like kersey needs some support , and it comes from the publisher nathan white ( john p . ryan ) , determined to avenge the drug - related death of his own daughter . white 's plan is to make kersey kill major players in two rival drug dealing organisations and thus instigate the war between them . the plan begins to take shape , but kersey 's actions bring attention of two police detectives - reiner ( george dickerson ) and nozaki ( soon teck - oh ) . fourth ( and , unfortunately , not the final ) installment in the death wish series , will probably remembered as the typical movie of cannon group , production company responsible for some of the worst cinematic trash of the last decade . however , although some critics might argue , death wish 4 : the crackdown represents slight improvement over the death wish 3 . paul kersey , one of the most intriguing ( and potentially controversial ) characters of the 1970s , is still being dumbed down by mediocre script , and charles bronson really does n't feel the need to put much effort in his acting . however , the hand of a veteran director j . lee thompson seems more capable of michael winner 's and the action scenes seem slightly less surreal , although they still look cheap and repetitive and downright boring . there are some attempts for the movie to have a plot between the numerous scenes of violence , and one of such attempts is a potentially interesting plot twist at the end . the script even tries to fake some social conscience ( through criminally underused kay lenz 's character ) and predates the war on drugs campaign that would inspire many hollywood products in next few years . there are even some half - hearted attempts of humour - both intentional and unintentional , like in a scene where kersey assassinates mob figures by a wine bottle - but the quality of this movie is still far away from bronson 's 1970s classics . ( special note to x - philes : mith pilleggi , the actor who plays ad skinner in the x- files , could be seen in a small role of cannery lab foreman ) .

0NEG

typical movie of cannon group , production company responsible for some of the worst cinematic trash of the last decade . however , although some critics might argue , death ( and potentially controversial ) characters of the 1970s , is still being dumbed down by mediocre script , and charles bronson really does n't feel the need and the action scenes seem slightly less surreal , although they still look cheap and repetitive and downright boring . there are some attempts for the movie to have kersey assassinates mob figures by a wine bottle - but the quality of this movie is still far away from bronson 's 1970s classics . ( special note to

i 've never written a review for a movie i have n't watched all the way through , but i had to make an exception with powder . i was about forty - five minutes into this one at a friend 's house when he and his brother got into a huge shouting match that would have ended in violence had we not left the house . so i never got to finish the movie and i 'm sure as hell not going to pay three more bucks to watch half of a bad movie . but i can at least get a partial review out of it , because i saw enough to know this one was n't worth finishing in the first place . the movie centers around a freaky teenager who 's spent his entire life living in the cellar of his grandparents ' house . when grandpa dies ( taking his department store down with him ) , social worker mary steenburgen has to take powder ( first and middle names ? gold bond ) to a state home , where we find out he 's a different from the other kids . actually , we find out he 's different when we first see him , because he 's the most pale individual we 've ever seen and moreover he has no body hair whatsoever . when powder is born in the opening minutes of the movie , the father takes one look at him and says " he 's not my son . " obviously . all i want to know is where the pillsbury dough boy was nine months ago . so the white - faced freak leaves his neverland ranch for the state home and faces the ridicule of other kids . that is , until they try to haze him during his first cafeteria lunch by making him " wear " his spoon ( " you can either wear it on your nose or up your ass . " decisions , decisions . . . ) and he uses telepathic powers to draw all the silverware in the room into a giant pile in the middle of the table . so if his father is the pillsbury dough boy , his mother must be sissy spacek 's carrie character . and you have to factor in two more things from the subsequent scenes , as we find out powder has some sort of super - intelligence ( " your i . q . test went straight off the chart ! " ) and attracts electrical power . this first shows up as powder visits the world of high school ( if he 's such a genius already , why would he need a high school education ? ) and sits through a demonstration in jeff goldblum 's science class . goldblum plugs in a " jacob 's ladder " device that shows current running up two wires and immediately the current flows across the room and into powder 's chest . but goldblum just stands there for about thirty seconds watching , instead of just unplugging the damn thing . i guess he was too busy contemplating why he was appearing in his third bad movie in a row ( following hideaway and nine months ) . that 's about all i saw before the big fight began and , let me tell you , that was twice as interesting as the movie itself . but like i said , i saw enough to know this would be one of those terrible melodramas about the isolation of people who have superior abilities and how hard it is for those people to assimilate themselves into mainstream civilization . none of these movies ever handle the subject properly , instead introducing the feeble beauty and the beast copout of having a beautiful woman fall in love with the guy 's personality , overlooking his personal appearance . i already had the female character picked out ( the girl who was sitting next to him in the back of the room during the electrocution scene ) , but i guess i 'll never know for sure what happened . from noraruth@aol . com mon jun 10 15 : 04 : 03 edt 1996 article : 3654 of rec . arts . movies . reviews path : nntphub . cb . att . com ! not - for - mail from : noraruth@aol . com ( andrew hicks ) newsgroups : rec . arts . movies . reviews , rec . arts . sf . reviews subject : review : powder ( 1995 ) followup - to : rec . arts . movies . current - films , rec . arts . sf . movies date : 10 jun 1996 18 : 16 : 03 gmt organization : university of missouri - columbia lines : 70 sender : ecl@mtcts1 . att . com ( evelyn c . leeper ) approved : ecl@mtcts1 . att . com message - id : " > reply - to : noraruth@aol . com ( andrew hicks ) nntp - posting - host : mtcts2 . mt . lucent . com summary : r . a . m . r . # 05425 keywords : author = hicks originator : ecl@mtcts2 xref : nntphub . cb . att . com rec . arts . movies . reviews : 3654 rec . arts . sf . reviews : 710 status : ro powder a film review by andrew hicks copyright 1996 andrew hicks / fatboy productions .

0NEG

going to pay three more bucks to watch half of a bad movie . but i can at least get a partial review out of it , because i saw enough to know this one was n't worth finishing in the first place . the movie centers around a freaky teenager who 's i guess he was too busy contemplating why he was appearing in his third bad movie in a row ( following hideaway and nine months ) . that 's said , i saw enough to know this would be one of those terrible melodramas about the isolation of people who have superior abilities and

this is the movie that could single - handedly bring " mystery science theater 3000 " out of cancellation . it 's one of those movies that 's so bad it 's absolutely hilarious , due in no small part to its big star , supermodel cindy crawford . if you only remember one thing about fair game , it should be that it singlehandedly proves crawford should stick to the sports illustrated swimsuit issues . if you thought kathy ireland was laughable in alien from l . a . , you 'll change your mind when you see fair game . ireland would win handfuls of oscars if this was her only competition . in a real casting coup , crawford plays a super - intelligent lawyer ( in a jogging bra , of course ) . we all know this is a stretch , the only legal opinion crawford has ever put forth being that she favors the death penalty for anyone who wears white after labor day . nonetheless , someone out there thought she 'd make a good lawyer , but we 're reminded of her true function in the movie when she takes two showers in a period of twenty minutes . and for you horny teenage boys out there , you actually get to see her topless for two seconds in the dark . . . come to think of it , that may have been a body double . cindy crawford is n't black , is she ? like i said , crawford is a lawyer with a bunch of russians after her . billy baldwin ( or is it stephen ? alec ? adam ? kim basinger ? ) is the police detective who has to save her life , time after time , chase after chase , explosion after explosion . there 's absolutely nothing original about this movie . it 's every cop show of the 70 's mixed with every action thriller of the 80 's and every technology- exploitation movie of the 90 's . three decades of crap all in one place , driven further into the ground by crawford 's complete lack of acting talent . and it 's all completely predictable . you know the mistakes baldwin and crawford are going to make before they make them , you know when the " sexual tension " will finally end up in them consummating the relationship , you know when the villains will capture crawford so baldwin has to rescue her in the climax and you know the movie 's going to suck from the first scene . the plot is n't really explained until the end . all we know is these russians have every detail about crawford in their computer . in the words of one of the villains , " we even know what size pantyhose she wears . " ( yeah , you and every 14-year - old boy in america . ) he goes on to add , " we know more about her than she does . " ( _ that _ i find very easy to believe . ) i hope you enjoyed those two sample dialogue quotes , because i wrote down plenty of other bad ones ( " if it were n't for me , you 'd still be pulling bananas out of your ass in cuba ! " ) because , you see , fair game is not only a showcase for recycled action cliches and terrible acting , but also some seriously bad dialogue . it all adds up to a really terrible movie that made me laugh in plenty of places i was n't supposed to and grimace in places i was supposed to laugh . one more thing fair game has against it is some awful comic relief . would you laugh at a scene where crawford tortures a computer nerd with double entendres like " i 'm very interested in _ hard_ware " and other crap about playing with his joystick ? i would n't , but not because i 'm a computer nerd . it 's just not funny . crawford 's only contribution to the information age are a few gif files floating around with her head on a nude traci lords ' body . . . or was it jack lord 's body ? i 'll leave you with the final line of dialogue in the movie . the boat with all the russians has just blown up and baldwin and crawford are floating on a life raft . crawford says woodenly , " that was my client 's boat you just blew up . i 'm filing a lawsuit against you . you 're in big trouble , " or something to that effect , and baldwin replies smugly , " what do i have to do to get out of it ? " they of course begin making out and the credits roll . i 'm not going to talk about how stupid the line is or how , if they 'd really wanted to go for a bad closing line they would have had baldwin say , " you think i could settle out of court ? " but i will tell you that , if anyone ever suggests you watch fair game with him or her , you quote the final line of the movie to that person : " what do i have to do to get out of it ? " serving america for over 1/50th of a century !

0NEG

cancellation . it 's one of those movies that 's so bad it 's absolutely hilarious , due in no small part to its big star time , chase after chase , explosion after explosion . there 's absolutely nothing original about this movie . it 's every cop show of the 70 's and every technology- exploitation movie of the 90 's . three decades of crap all in one place , driven further into the ground by crawford 's complete lack of acting talent . and it 's all completely predictable . you know the mistakes baldwin and crawford are going because , you see , fair game is not only a showcase for recycled action cliches and terrible acting , but also some seriously bad dialogue . it all adds up to a really terrible movie that made me laugh in plenty of places i was . one more thing fair game has against it is some awful comic relief . would you laugh at a scene where crawford tortures , but not because i 'm a computer nerd . it 's just not funny . crawford 's only contribution to the information age are to that effect , and baldwin replies smugly , " what do i have to do to get out of it ? " they of course begin making out and the credits final line of the movie to that person : " what do i have to do to get out of it ? " serving america for over 1/50th of a century !

attention moviegoers : you are about to enter a meaning - free zone . should the sound system malfunction during your viewing of 200 cigarettes , do not panic . the film will work just as well as a silent movie . chronicling the meaningless lives of vain , yuppie types , the movie covers the same ground as the wilt stillman films ( last days of disco , barcelona and metropolitan ) but without any of his acerbic wit and the inviting style of his writing . first - time writer shana larsen makes the mistake of creating a couple of dozen characters and not giving any of them any depth . there is n't one of these characters worth caring about . the movie features such a cornucopia of hot young stars that it looks like a celluloid version of " people magazine . " among others , the movie features : ben affleck , casey affleck , david chappelle , janeane garofalo , gaby hoffmann , catherine kellner , courtney love , jay mohr , martha plimpton , christina ricci and paul rudd . and unlike people magazine , the people speak , not that they have anything interesting to say . it 's new year 's eve in 1981 , and monica ( martha plimpton ) is preparing her big party . structured as a series of relatively unrelated stories about her guests on the way to the party , director risa bramon garcia flits back and forth among her stars . monica 's apartment is in " noho , " an area that one of the guests describes as " so cool , all of the poor people live there . " typical of the shallow couples in the movie are kevin ( paul rudd ) and his friend and would - be sexual partner lucy ( courtney love ) . they argue about whether lucy is a slut or not since she sleeps with everyone , except him , of course . she dares him to go immediately to a bathroom stall and have sex with her , which turns out to be neither erotic , funny or successful -- rather like the rest of the story . the movie gets its title from the carton of cigarettes that lucy gives kevin for his new year 's eve birthday . " cigarettes are a shield against emotional interaction with other people , " kevin later tells lucy in a snippet of dialog that sounds profound only outside the context of the movie . another character , played by jay mohr , has a problem with his sexual triumphs . every woman he beds falls deeply in love with him by the next morning . when his latest conquest tells him of her affection for him , his response is " i like a lot of people . " as the movie finally draws to a close , the characters awaken from their post - party game of musical beds . some have passed out early from alcohol abuse and remember little , while others actually have some clue as to what happened . the movie itself is so forgettable that by the time you reach your car in the parking lot , all trace of the film will have vanished from your mind , which is probably the best thing that can be said about the movie . 200 cigarettes runs 1 : 40 . it is rated r for profanity , sex and one dope smoking scene and would be acceptable for older teenagers .

0NEG

are about to enter a meaning - free zone . should the sound system malfunction during your viewing of 200 cigarettes , do not panic . the film will work just as well as a silent movie . chronicling the meaningless lives of vain , yuppie types , the movie covers the of his writing . first - time writer shana larsen makes the mistake of creating a couple of dozen characters and not giving any of them any depth . there is n't one of these characters worth caring the poor people live there . " typical of the shallow couples in the movie are kevin ( paul rudd ) and a bathroom stall and have sex with her , which turns out to be neither erotic , funny or successful -- rather like the rest of the story . the movie gets its title from the carton of others actually have some clue as to what happened . the movie itself is so forgettable that by the time you reach your car in the

i have nothing against unabashedly romantic films . when done right , with at least slightly evident restraint , they can be engaging , sweeping , appealing . but it 's a hell of a shame when someone botches it as badly as nora ephron botched sleepless in seattle , a hollow , boring romance that should appeal only to the most gullible of viewers ; the ones willing to buy into ephron 's whiny views of life and romance . tom hanks and meg ryan , two of hollywood 's most likeable stars play sam baldwin and annie reed , repectively . baldwin 's wife recently died and he moved to seattle with his son , jonah , seeking to get away from the familiar surroundings which remind him of his late spouse . jonah senses tension and calls a talk radio show to tell the world about their problems . sam seems ready to strangle his son for calling the show , but when he gets on the phone he begins pouring his heart out . ephron has him do this so that annie reed ( meg ryan ) can hear it . annie is a happy woman . she is engaged to walter , an allergy - prone working man and seems to be perfectly content . but after hearing sam the widower on the radio show , she becomes convinced that he is her destiny and is willing to risk her engagement for it . five years after this movie hit theaters , hanks , ryan and ephron would team up again in the far better , although still sub - par romantic comedy you 've got mail , which is about people who hate each other in real life falling in love on the internet . at least that movie had a sense of spontaneity . here it seems that the first one hundred minutes exist solely to set up for the last five . the fact that sam and annie will finally meet is so excruciatingly obvious that everything else is perfunctory . sleepless in seattle is full of wonderful performers ; from its two leads to supporting stars like bill pullman and rosie o'donnell . but none of them can save the film from being a bore . its characters are dull and empty , its script is n't funny or particularly charming . the script has a fundamental problem : annie gives up , for little reason , her life with walter to pursue " sleepless in seattle , " whom she has never even seen . it 's the kind of life decision that real people do n't make , and its a major , unforgivable plausibility sacrifice . in essence , this movie 's purpose is to head towards a goal that should n't even exist . it 's a ten minute short film with ninety - five minutes of filler . if you were to show me sleepless in seattle and i did n't have to review it , you could just call me " asleep in philadelphia . " ? 1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

0NEG

but it 's a hell of a shame when someone botches it as badly as nora ephron botched sleepless in seattle , a hollow , boring romance that should appeal only to the most gullible of viewers the fact that sam and annie will finally meet is so excruciatingly obvious that everything else is perfunctory . sleepless in seattle is supporting stars like bill pullman and rosie o'donnell . but none of them can save the film from being a bore . its characters are dull and empty , its script is n't funny or particularly charming . life decision that real people do n't make , and its a major , unforgivable plausibility sacrifice . in essence , this movie 's purpose is

if you 've seen the trailers or commercials , it 's rather difficult to really figure out what this movie has in store . well , it 's hard to tell after watching the movie as well . bruce willis is a resident of the future , and it is a rather bleak future . the world 's population had disintigrated into a mere 200 , 000 and is no longer ruled by humans but animals . the reason ? in 1995 , an organization called the army of the 12 monkeys contaminated the world with a pure virus , thus wiping out practically the world 's population in a mere month . bruce willis ' character is one of the surviving few , but is enslaved by scientists , as are most of last living humans . they barter his freedom by sending him on an assignment and having him do the ultimate task : go into the past , find the leader of the army of the 12 monkeys , and kill him . well , this explanation did n't come easy . although the movie is very thought provoking of us as a people , our future and the evilo in the world , as a story it is very confusing . and dragging . i know a movie isn''t keeping my interest when i fidget in my seat or feel the need to look at my watch only to find that it 's only been an hour passed . terry gilliam has a certain style that i realize many appreciate , and i have n't watched his previous work brazil , but this movie felt like it took too long to tell and yet when one realizes the end is near because it is very easy to figure out , you wish it were more complex , and not to mention that the movie is depressing is the only reason why it did invoke emotion from me .

0NEG

and the evilo in the world , as a story it is very confusing . and dragging . i know a movie isn''t keeping my interest when i fidget in my seat or feel the need to look at my watch only to find that it 's only been an hour n't watched his previous work brazil , but this movie felt like it took too long to tell and yet when one realizes the end is

house on haunted hill ( 1999 ) starring taye diggs , geoffrey rush , ali larter , famke janssen , peter gallagher , bridgette wilson , max perlich , lisa loeb , james marsters , and chris kattan . directed by william malone , written by dick beebe , " house on haunted hill " initializes itself to the audience with a scene involving zombie - like mental patients attacking and murdering doctors in the goriest ways possible . one doctor is killed instantly after having a pencil rammed completely through his neck . a nurse has her head forced into a barrel of water . these mobs of zombies presented are like those in previous b - horror flicks , with grunting noises and cadaverous movements . except this time , at the end of the millenium , the film is given the power to show exactly how horrific these creatures can be . in past horror films , the actual murder scenes are left out or not shown forcing the viewer to assume their own nasty bloody deaths for the hapless victims . " house on haunted hill " does n't want their audience to have an imagination , everything is provided for them to watch and squirm , not think . this nonsense violence thrown out of nowhere is unfortunately the most refreshing part about this film . " house on haunted hill " , which is based on the 1958 film of the same title , introduces a handful of characters as quickly as it can , following the opening blood fest . the film has no intention of providing character development or a laudable plot . the aim here is to scare the audience with chilling , unexpected shots of blood , guts , and mayhem . however , the film is neither scary nor unpredictable . the plot involves five people who are dared to spend the night in a haunted house for one million dollars by an amusement park owner ( geoffrey rush ) . each character is a failure in the external world and acknowledges that they would do anything for that money . since the characters are immediately generalized as either greedy or caring , the expectations of who will survive or not is killed five minutes after you meet them . the problem is that every character is not likable . the two who come closest to being civilized are a womanizer ( taye diggs - who should be doing films a lot better than this with all of his talent ) and a businesswoman who accepts being womanized ( ali larter ) . the characters presented are so annoying and pathetic , that it is hard to cheer for them or scream them . the worst character in this film , or maybe in any film released this year , is chris kattan 's watson pritchett . he spends the whole film whining about the spooky house in a tone so irritating and inappropriate , that he unintentionally begins to seem more evil than the house itself . waiting for pritchett to die , was a strenuously difficult act to sit through . the most humorous actor of the bunch is geoffrey rush playing steven price ( an homage to victor price who starred in the original ) . playing the rich man who supposedly organized the party , he plays the role perfectly in a twisted way where it is obvious that he is up to something just by the expressions on his face . however , rush is pretty much wasted in a confusing subplot involving a hateful marriage with evelyn price , played by famke janssen . the main problem is that " house on haunted hill " is not scary . to top off that huge disappointment , every actor was wasted and the script was completely ludicrous . if the annoying characters and hilariously bad dialogue were intentionally underdeveloped ( similar to " deep blue sea " ) , the goal for creating a creepy , suspenseful action film was completely missed .

0NEG

for them to watch and squirm , not think . this nonsense violence thrown out of nowhere is unfortunately the most refreshing part about this film . of blood , guts , and mayhem . however , the film is neither scary nor unpredictable . the plot involves five people who are dared to not is killed five minutes after you meet them . the problem is that every character is not likable . the two who come closest to being civilized are womanized ( ali larter ) . the characters presented are so annoying and pathetic , that it is hard to cheer for them or scream them . the worst character in this film , or maybe in any film released this year , whole film whining about the spooky house in a tone so irritating and inappropriate , that he unintentionally begins to seem more evil than the expressions on his face . however , rush is pretty much wasted in a confusing subplot involving a hateful marriage with evelyn price , played by " house on haunted hill " is not scary . to top off that huge disappointment , every actor was wasted and the script was completely ludicrous . if the annoying characters and hilariously bad dialogue were intentionally underdeveloped ( similar to " deep blue sea

fit for a ghoul 's night out , fat girl stands cast iron firm with the simplistic , fatuous , built - in excuse that its woman director is baring the harsh sexual realities of adolescent girls . being a boy , i might not understand female behavior and am unequipped to analyze this particular pseudo - feminist coming - of - age story . fair enough . i 'll pretend to ignore the mannered posturing and health class 101 " this is a no - no " dialogue when older teenage boy coaxes younger teenage girl to let him fuck her up the ass , speaking variations on " it wo n't hurt ! " for a scene that seems to last at least ten minutes . this is done almost entirely in an unbroken master shot that suggests unimaginative camerawork more than unblinking voyeurism . they dare you to look away , without possessing the courage of allowing the children to actually sound like children ( they 're mouthpieces for writer - director catherine breillat 's one - note clinical politics ) . rather than show an even - handed evaluation of the rigors of hormonal change , breillat ( previously responsible for the unwatchable romance ) wants to indulge in her hour of hate . life is pain , highness . get used to it . she 'd find keen bedfellows in neil labute and todd solondz , other sultans of misanthropy who lack the balls to be earnest or honest . for children , dealing with trauma and pain is complicated . to bury that in sarcasm and academic theory feels cheap . these would - be auteurs ( more like hauteurs ) have n't earned the right to display suffering because they do n't layer it in emotional truth ( as mike leigh does throughout naked and david lynch in several key scenes of blue velvet ) . of course , there i go again comparing her to all these ( better ) male directors . i do n't care . gender be damned , she 's borderline inept . braced for a knee - jerk reaction from the art house crowd ( mortified shock or compulsory applause will suffice ) , writer - director catherine breillat may well accomplish her mission to get a rise out of people . do n't be fooled . this grotesque oversimplification of awkward forays into passion may be quickly forgotten , remembered only as cold , boring , philosophically arid , and incompetently photographed . the hyperviolent climactic sequence proves so extraordinarily misguided that i honestly wondered whether breillat had thrown in an impromptu dream sequence . twelve years old , a bundle of dough with a sour pout , the superb ana ? s reboux plays the titular fat girl with a thousand yard stare and a frumpy insouciance . ( her character is also named ana ? s . ) sitting at the table morosely slurping down a banana split , her presence is grounded and heartbreaking . it 's a pity breillat never finds anything for her to do other than get defensive against her evil storybook sister , 15-year old elena ( roxane mesquida ) , for bringing a transitory boyfriend home to their shared room . in this summer cottage , ana ? s has no escape from her position as stoic bedside observer to elena 's depressing confusion of cheap sex with romance . the boy in question , a smug italian college kid named fernando ( libero de rienzo ) is a real piece of work , claiming that the experience is a declaration of love while begging for a blowjob . ana ? s does n't receive any warmth from her largely absent parents , who join elena in making fun of her hefty girth . she finds pleasure in wandering the beach alone , singing songs to herself , and swimming in the pool kissing the metal railing and pretending that it 's her paramour . reboux commands the screen , but there 's only so much a child actress can do recounting pretentious monologues to herself . if one is inspired to rescue this young performer and place her in a better movie , at least she fares better than the other young talent asked to perform in intense love scenes that might feel justified if they were n't so dramatically misguided . this 83-minute vignette is something of a horror show , but breillat saves her nastiest poison for the very end . on the long ride home punctuated by an uncomfortable silence between family members , gigantic trucks swerve by as the hour grows late . will mommy fall asleep at the wheel ? perhaps . or maybe there 's something deadlier around the corner , lying in wait to pounce upon the unsuspecting fat girl . what 's more , she might even like it . with the intent of being unfair and unpredictable , placing her heroine in the most diabolical of corners in order to face up to impending adulthood , breillat 's extreme flourish of sadistic tawdriness reveals her as a master purveyor of contempt . fat girl is a bitter pill indeed . aka ? ma soeur ! screened at the 2001 new york film festival ( feature coming soon ) .

0NEG

is done almost entirely in an unbroken master shot that suggests unimaginative camerawork more than unblinking voyeurism . they dare you to look children , dealing with trauma and pain is complicated . to bury that in sarcasm and academic theory feels cheap . these would - be auteurs ( more like hauteurs . i do n't care . gender be damned , she 's borderline inept . braced for a knee - jerk reaction from the out of people . do n't be fooled . this grotesque oversimplification of awkward forays into passion may be quickly forgotten , remembered only as cold , boring , philosophically arid , and incompetently photographed . the hyperviolent climactic sequence proves so extraordinarily misguided that i honestly wondered whether breillat had thrown in an 's her paramour . reboux commands the screen , but there 's only so much a child actress can do recounting pretentious monologues to herself . if one is inspired to rescue this love scenes that might feel justified if they were n't so dramatically misguided . this 83-minute vignette is something of a horror show order to face up to impending adulthood , breillat 's extreme flourish of sadistic tawdriness reveals her as a master purveyor of contempt . fat girl is a bitter pill indeed . aka ? ma soeur ! screened at the

" marie could n't talk , " paulie , the parrot star of his own movie , tells us about the daughter in his original family . " dad could n't listen . and mom could n't cope , so they got rid of me . " paulie , the autobiography of a talking , not merely a mimicking , parrot , has jay mohr in the lead role of the bird - the voice , not the body - and as the minor character of benny , a small - time crook who uses paulie to pull off small scams like stealing twenties from atms . as the parrot , mohr is delightful when director john roberts allows him to cut up . benny , on the other hand , is a character you 've seen a thousand times before , and mohr brings nothing new to that role . roberts 's deliberately slow pacing of laurie craig 's script lends a subtle sweetness to its humor but creates some definite problems . when a kids ' movie wants to mosey along , watch out . if the material is not crisp and perfectly composed , beauty can sometimes dissolve into tedium . so it is with paulie . when they let their bird do his stand - up comedy routines , the show hums and the audience roars . too often , however , a sleepy silence ensues among the viewers as they wait for the story to pickup again . tony shalhoub , the smart - mouthed chef from big night , plays misha , a recent russian immigrant to the u . s . he had been a teacher of literature at home , but now he makes his living as a janitor in the animal research lab to which paulie has been taken for study . although misha gets a few nice lines ( " i 'm russian . i like long stories . " ) , his somber part seems designed only to elicit our sympathy . besides paulie , the only character worth noting - other than 2 cute small parts played by cheech marin and gina rowlands - is the speech - impaired marie , played in a precious performance by cinematic newcomer , 5-year - old hallie kate eisenberg . naturally enchanting , she gives the picture genuine heart . the bad news is that her part is confined to the first half . the best scenes have the bird dancing and strutting to show off his comedic skills . when marie 's family gets a cat , for example , the bird , who has n't wanted to learn how to fly until then , takes an instant interest in soaring . tricking the cat while insulting him at the same time , paulie calls him a stupid hairball . their rapid physical antics add to the humor of the situation . it 's good quality sitcom material but performed by animals . when one of the humans without much of a voice begins to sing , paulie cringes . " i 'm a bird , " he explains with his frequently subtle humor . " i have a small brain , and it 's about to explode . " the movie contains rich doses of john debney 's dreamy music . with heavy use of a solo violin , he keeps reinforcing the film 's heart - warming themes . and when paulie finally takes off in flight , the orchestra comes up loud and strong with cymbals clashing . " it 's a long story , " says paulie . " it 's the only kind he knows , " reflects misha . and the motion picture , which runs the standard length for a kids ' movie , still feels too long . the best parts are enthralling , but then there are all of those dead spots in - between . paulie is a movie that never quite lives up to its promise but manages to charm nevertheless . paulie runs 1 : 32 . it is raged pg for a few mild profanities and would be fine for all ages . my son , jeffrey , age 9 , gave the movie * * with his biggest complaint being that there was n't enough action . he thought paulie was funny , and the actress that played marie was quite good . his friend sam , almost 9 , thought the movie was " awesome , excellent , " and gave it * * * * . he thought paulie was good , but he did n't believe the way marie 's speech impediment was acted .

0NEG

and the audience roars . too often , however , a sleepy silence ensues among the viewers as they wait for the story to pickup again . naturally enchanting , she gives the picture genuine heart . the bad news is that her part is confined to the first half . runs the standard length for a kids ' movie , still feels too long . the best parts are enthralling , but then there are all of those dead spots in - between . paulie is a movie that never quite lives up to its promise but manages to charm nevertheless . paulie

well , here 's a distasteful , thoroughly amateurish item that , surprisingly , was actually a box - office hit at the time of its release . after just viewing the film for the first time , my primary question is how did anyone with an iq north of 35 enjoy this movie ? it is cheap , idiotic , unfunny , and not nearly as raunchy as i had heard it was . at least some smut would have livened things up a bit . " porky 's , " tells the story ( if you can call it that ) of four clueless high school buddies , pee wee ( dan monahan ) , billy ( mark herrier ) , tommy ( wyatt knight ) , and mickey ( roger wilson ) , whom desperately want to get laid . women , for the most part , are a mystery to them ( and in this movie , they are to the audience , as well , since all of them are written and acted as if they are aliens from a different planet ) . their plan is sidetracked , however , when they venture out to a smarmy strip bar named porky 's , which they are able to get into using fake i d 's . after they pay the manager one - hundred bucks for three hookers , they are played a trick on and find themselves being dumped into the swamp below the building . for these four teenage guys , this means war on porky 's . " porky 's , " ultimately manages to fail on almost every possible level . as a teenage sex - romp , it is not wild or amusing enough . as a comedy , all of the jokes are predictable and fall flat . as a look back at the 1950 's , it is something , i suspect , most people from that era would want to bury deep in a grave . and as a revenge movie , it is a crushing bore . one of the most offensive things about , " porky 's , " is how jaw - droppingly inaccurate the film is about teenagers . the four main characters are not even attempted to be developed as characters , and we learn very little about them , except that they are horny and would probably feel more comfortable in a preschool . that sure is revealing information . the female characters fare even worse under the inaudacious screenplay and direction by bob clark . the women are all treated as objects or comedy props , rather than real people . for example , the two gym teachers , mrs . balbricker ( nancy parsons ) and honeywell ( kim cattrall ) , only have one purpose , and that is to be made fun of . mrs . balbricker is a gruff , no - holds - barred , overwight woman who will not stand for any foolishness , and , in one particularly embarrassing scene for all involved , honeywell has sex with a coach and barks like a dog . there is no way to tell if parsons or cattrall are servicable actresses ( even though i have the suspicion they are not ) , but one thing is for sure : they are asked to do things in this film that are not at all funny , only humiliating . to prove how out - of - touch this so - called comedy is , compare it to other more serious 80 's films about teenagers , and it looks even worse in comaprison . any of the john hughes pictures , such as 1984 's " sixteen candles , " or , 1985 's " the breakfast club , " put , " porky 's , " at an even greater shame . those films actually dealt with serious teen matters , but remained a great deal funnier , thanks to their bright and truthful writing . and heck , if , " porky 's , " wanted to be a teenage sex movie , i 'd take 1982 's " fast times at ridgemont high , " or 1982 's " the last american virgin , " over this any day of the week . director bob clark is not a bad director . two years after he made , " porky 's , " he directed the nostalgic holiday classic , " a christmas story . " i would forgive him for this misfire , in fact , if it was n't for the fact that he also wrote the screenplay . just the thought that someone would actually sit down to write such a piece of garbage , and think that it was actually a film worth releasing unto the unsuspecting world , is actually a whole lot funnier than anything in , " porky 's . "

0NEG

well , here 's a distasteful , thoroughly amateurish item that , surprisingly , was actually a box - office for the first time , my primary question is how did anyone with an iq north of 35 enjoy this movie ? it is cheap , idiotic , unfunny , and not nearly as raunchy as i had heard war on porky 's . " porky 's , " ultimately manages to fail on almost every possible level . as a teenage sex - romp , it is not wild or amusing enough . as a comedy , all of the jokes are predictable and fall flat . as a look back at the 1950 's , something , i suspect , most people from that era would want to bury deep in a grave . and as a revenge movie , it is a crushing bore . one of the most offensive things about , " porky 's , " is how jaw - droppingly inaccurate the film is about teenagers . the four main characters in a preschool . that sure is revealing information . the female characters fare even worse under the inaudacious screenplay and direction by bob clark . the women are all are asked to do things in this film that are not at all funny , only humiliating . to prove how out - of - touch this so - called comedy is , compare it to other more serious 80 's films , " porky 's , " at an even greater shame . those films actually dealt with serious teen matters , the thought that someone would actually sit down to write such a piece of garbage , and think that it was actually a film worth

okay , i just do n't know why , but i seem to be getting this diversion to disney - made real - life actors movies . . . as well as real - life acting tim allen movies . i could n't even make it through " the santa clause , " so why did i even see this ? ( just to make an idle point , i did like " toy story , " but that was good ) also , i have this aversion to bad french farces , and if they remake them into american films . well , this is my excuse : it was prom night , i 'm not a prom person , my best friend and i impulsively went to the drive - ins where they were playing " grosse pointe blank " - would n't mind seeing it again - but i had to suffer through this first . i agreed to go . ugh . in all fairness , i can say that at least this inane plot was n't dreamed by an american . it was originally a french film released in america under the pseudonym of " little indian , big city " ( french title - " un indien dans la ville " ) . i stayed away from it like it was limburgher , and according to roger ebert , that was a good idea . but i can only imagine how bad that must be if this is an improvement . the stupid plot concerns a father who just learns he has a son from his current marriage . let me clarify : his wife ( jobeth williams ) left him years ago , and i mean years - around 13 or so - and went to an island in the carribean or something . he goes to her to finally get the divorce papers signed so he can remarry this . . . thing ( played with an emphasis on over - done by lolita davidovitch , who is usually good ) . she tells him he has a son as his boatman goes off . he meets him , he has a weird name ( mimi seku , i think . . . or as the bad joke goes - " mitsubishi " - laugh track cue ) , he knows english , they fish , more bad jokes , pirhanna joke , the kid has a pet spider , he makes a promise to take him to the statue of liberty . . . you know the drill . now this is where the plot complicates ( well , complicates for this one , at least ) : the fish - out - of - water joke switches from tim allen on an island to his island son in new york city . tim is a stock broker and his coffee profits are plunging because his laptop died and he was n't able to communicate with his assistant or whatever he is - martin short . a russian mob is tossed into the plot somewhere ( how come in every hokey french import , there is a mob ? ! ) tim learns a lesson of life from his son and we discover that cellular phones can operate on an island even though there are no sockets to recharge the batteries . the story is crap , the jokes are hokey and not really funny , and the actors have to struggle to make it interesting . but the material is so fowl that even a rewrite by quentin tarantino could n't help it . the whole time , i kept thinking that a grown person had to think this up and several more grown people had to do this . at the end of filming , did they all scream out , " we 've made a great movie , guys ! " i sure hope not . big question to get from this film : why would someone want to remake what was billed as one of the worst films of all time if they 're just going to do it the exact same way ? huh ? my ( for some of the actors ' names and a joke or two that made me chuckle , i guess . . . okay , so i really feel bad for it , so i only gave it one star )

0NEG

to suffer through this first . i agreed to go . ugh . in all fairness , i can say that at least bad that must be if this is an improvement . the stupid plot concerns a father who just learns he has a son remarry this . . . thing ( played with an emphasis on over - done by lolita davidovitch , who is usually good ) . tossed into the plot somewhere ( how come in every hokey french import , there is a mob ? ! ) though there are no sockets to recharge the batteries . the story is crap , the jokes are hokey and not really funny , and the actors have to struggle to make it interesting . but the material is so fowl that even a rewrite by quentin tarantino could n't help get from this film : why would someone want to remake what was billed as one of the worst films of all time if they 're just going to do it the exact same way ? huh ? my ( for some of the actors ' names and