Datasets:

gmihaila

/

movie_rationales_truncated

like 0

" the beach " is a structurally confusing film that i can only describe has having multiple personality disorder . every forty minutes of this two - hour film begins with a new theme , virtually discarding what has been set up in the preceding act . it starts off purposefully as a film about an innocent man seeking new thrills in a dangerous environment . but then in the second act , the mood of the film abruptly changes and it becomes a story about a love triangle on an idyllic island paradise that evokes visions of " blue lagoon " . forty minutes later , the mood changes once more , and it becomes a dumbed down version of " lord of the flies " where an isolated community is discovered , where their moral code touts maintaining a sense of bliss at all costs . by the time it 's over , you can only scratch your head and wonder what this film was really meant to be about . the main character of " the beach " is angst - ridden richard ( leonardo dicaprio ) . he travels to the netherworld of bangkok where back alley merchants push their wares upon unsuspecting tourists and scantily clad women brazenly ask if you 're looking for a good time . richard 's voice - over tells the audience that he has come to this place because he is bored with his life and feels that one way to reinvigorate himself is to let go of the familiar and to enter into a world of the unknown . this seedy environment is just what richard is looking for . he checks into a fleabag hotel where he meets the crazed daffy ( robert carlisle ) . he seems like a raving lunatic , obviously high from heavy drug use and looking as if he is afflicted with some sort of psychosis . though his jagged behavior would distress most of us , richard listens to him as he speaks of a mysterious island that contains the most perfect beach that anyone has ever seen . moreover , the island itself flourishes with enough hemp plants that can make a small city high for life . captivated by the idea , he asks two other hotel guests to join him on his journey . they are worldly etienne and the alluring francoise , who have also come to thailand for reasons similar to richard 's . once they finally arrive at this paradise , however , the mood of the story shifts to richard 's growing desire for francoise . this particular plot point is weak at best because there is absolutely no question in my mind that francoise will wind up with richard . etienne is about as exciting as fluffy , white sand . it 's odd that etienne never sees this coming , but paradise has a way of hiding potential threats just out of view . and once the three stumble across the hidden community ( mood shift imminent ) , more events transpire that depict its hidden dangers . for example , there are marijuana fields close by patrolled by armed guards . and the lagoon in which they swim invites the occasional shark . there are several ideas that are introduced in " the beach " and each one could merit its own feature - length film . there 's the man vs . nature angle , the love triangle angle , and the utopia - gone - awry angle . but the film meanders so tremendously that its entire purpose becomes blurred . dicaprio , as a result , has an almost impossible time of trying to embody the different states of mind that he and the film goes through . consequently , the audience has an equally difficult time trying to keep up .

0NEG

" the beach " is a structurally confusing film that i can only describe has having multiple personality disorder dangerous environment . but then in the second act , the mood of the film abruptly changes and it becomes a story about a love triangle on minutes later , the mood changes once more , and it becomes a dumbed down version of " lord of the flies " where an isolated all costs . by the time it 's over , you can only scratch your head and wonder what this film was really meant to be about . the main character of " the beach " is story shifts to richard 's growing desire for francoise . this particular plot point is weak at best because there is absolutely no question in my mind that francoise will wind up with richard . etienne is about as exciting as fluffy , white sand . it 's odd that etienne never sees this coming and the utopia - gone - awry angle . but the film meanders so tremendously that its entire purpose becomes blurred . dicaprio , as a result , has an almost that he and the film goes through . consequently , the audience has an equally difficult time trying to keep up .

the most absurd remake of 1998 ? it 's a toss up between gus van sant 's psycho and mighty joe young , the new disney picture based on the old rko picture . ( i knew i was in trouble when a polished , computer - generated version of that famous rko logo appeared before the head credits . ) there is no great demand for another giant ape movie - make that ape movie , period . ( witness the quick deaths of buddy , born to be wild and congo . ) and while this latest entry is inoffensive and watchable , it 's also an assembly line product through and through , lacking the charm and unpredictability of the jungle serials that partly inspired it . theron is jill young : as a young girl in the wilds of africa , she befriended a baby gorilla after both their mothers were slain by poachers . that baby gorilla ( nicknamed joe ) grows to immense proportions , and adult jill basically bides her time looking after him , playing hide and seek with him and guarding him against poachers . enter conservationist greg ( paxton ) , who convinces jill to move with joe to california , where they can protect him better in a controlled environment . joe is restless at first ; no sooner does he finally settle in to the new place than those nasty poachers show up in l . a . , plotting joe 's demise . suffice it to say , the movie could have been called " joe : ape in the city . " theron ( so good in devil 's advocate ) and paxton ( so good in the recent a simple plan ) are fine actors , but not fine enough to transcend the material , a paint - by - numbers script from the hack writers of superman iv and mercury rising . the plot arguably borrows more from steven spielberg 's the lost world than the 1949 original , with the computer - generated t - rex - i mean , joe - wreaking havoc on the busy streets for an encore ; the storytelling becomes especially lazy during this final third , with jill shouting , " look , joe 's headed for the movie theatre ! " followed by a shot of joe scaling mann 's chinese theater ; a moment later , jill shouts again something like " look , joe 's headed for an amusement park ! " and what do you know , there 's joe at the pallisades carnival , scaring the bejesus out of innocent thrillseekers . the seams of last - minute edits to mighty joe young show - unrelated scenes are patched together with quick dissolves . the movie sure feels uneven , regardless : act two is underdeveloped , while a little of joe smashing cars in act three goes a long , long way . underwood ( tremors , speechless ) was perhaps not the director for the job ; even the plentiful , untamed landscape looks dull in his hands . ( capturing the beauty of nature requires more than his point and shoot style . ) i did enjoy certain sequences , especially the demoliton of a black - tie dinner sequence ; and the prologue , however implausible , is touching . ( as a tyke , joe acts just like e . t . ) rick baker 's make - up effects and puppetry are outstanding , the real star of the show - yet , for all its technical flawlessness , the creature remains too grumpy and homicidal to love . ( his facial expressions are variations on a scowl . ) to be fair , i saw mighty joe young in a cinema packed with wailing children - it 's a wonder i was able to decipher the dialogue . it 's certainly not a film for very young kids - intense fighting scenes may scare them , while any time joe 's not on camera may bore them to tears . ( note : older boys are more likely to be dazzled by theron 's colourful array of tank tops . ) i suspect bland mighty joe young is passable entertainment for a family outing , but they sure do n't make ? em like they used to .

0NEG

and while this latest entry is inoffensive and watchable , it 's also an assembly line product through and through , lacking the charm and unpredictability of the jungle serials that partly inspired it . theron , but not fine enough to transcend the material , a paint - by - numbers script from the hack writers of superman iv and mercury rising . the plot arguably wreaking havoc on the busy streets for an encore ; the storytelling becomes especially lazy during this final third , with jill shouting , " edits to mighty joe young show - unrelated scenes are patched together with quick dissolves . the movie sure feels uneven , regardless : act ) was perhaps not the director for the job ; even the plentiful , untamed landscape looks dull in his hands . ( capturing the beauty of nature requires more than

in 1990 , the surprise success an unheralded little movie called ghost instantly rescued the moribund careers of its trio of above - the - title stars , patrick swayze , demi moore , and whoopi goldberg . eight years later , moore and goldberg 's careers are n't exactly thriving , but they have had their share of screen successes since ; the same ca n't be said of swayze , who has just added yet another turkey to his resume with the aptly named black dog . forget the mortal kombat movies -- this trucksploitation flick is the closest the movies has come to video games . good truck driver jack crews ( swayze ) must drive a cargo of illegal firearms from atlanta to new jersey . along the way , jack and his crew of three run into a number of obstacles -- such as a highway weigh station , evil truckers , and deadly uzi - firing motorcyclists . every so often , like at the end of a video game " level " or " stage , " the main baddie pops up : red ( meat loaf , fresh from the triumph of spice world ) , who wants to steal the cache of guns . just in case you forget his name or have trouble keeping track of who 's driving what , all of red 's vehicles , be it a pickup or a big rig , are painted -- you guessed it -- red . i could go into more of the plot specifics ( such as jack 's dream of having a nice home with his family , the past trauma that sent him to prison and cost him his trucking license , the fbi / atf crew tracking the cargo ) , but they are of little importance . all that matters to director kevin hooks and writers william mickelberry and dan vining are the obstacles jack confronts in his drive from point a to point b . but they fail at even this modest goal , for none of the highway chaos , as credibly staged as it is , is terribly interesting , let alone exciting . once you 've seen a couple of trucks bang against each other or a big rig explode the first time , you 've seen it every time . as dreary as black dog is as an entertainment , the saddest part about the film has nothing to do with what shows up onscreen ; it 's that swayze has to reduce himself to such work . while far from the best of actors , he is certainly not horrible , and he is a charismatic presence . i do n't know if it 's his judgment or the dearth of quality job offers that leads him to involve himself with bombs such as black dog . regardless , if he continues on this career track , could a tv series be far behind ?

0NEG

the same ca n't be said of swayze , who has just added yet another turkey to his resume with the aptly named black dog . his drive from point a to point b . but they fail at even this modest goal , for none of the as dreary as black dog is as an entertainment , the saddest part about the film has nothing to do with what shows up onscreen ; quality job offers that leads him to involve himself with bombs such as black dog . regardless , if he continues

these days , we are witnessing the deluge of films based on old , cult tv shows . most of the times , the fans of these shows shudder thinking what could hollywood hacks of the present do with the memories of their past . but , some five or six years ago , there were n't that many movies and the trend did n't look that depressing . so , the people who , like the author of this review , grew up watching flintstones , popular 1960s animated series about " modern stone age " family , were n't particularly worried when the word came about live action remake . after all , the producer behind the project was steven spielberg and , if anything else , at least the special effects would be good . the plot revolves about flintstones , family set in fictious stone age " town " of bedrock , whose members enjoy the lifestyle of 1950s middle class america . fred flinstone ( john goodman ) works in the quarry , and one day he helps his best friend and neighbour barney rubble ( rick moranis ) and his wife betty ( rosie o'donnell ) to adopt a baby . to return the favour , barney switches his results of aptitude test with fred , and , based on that , fred gets well - paid job in management . but , of course , this is just a sham - corrupt official cliff vandercave ( kyle maclachlan ) and his sultry secretary sharon stone ( halle berry ) need a scapegoat for their embezzlement scheme . in the meantime , fred 's wife wilma ( elizabeth perkins ) must face her mother ( elizabeth taylor ) who ca n't stand fred . on the superficial level , the flintstones did the excellent job in bringing the animated series to life . computer effects are flawless , and the costumes , settings and other details are authentic for all the fans of the show . unfortunately , problems with this film start with inadequate casting - rick moranis is too thin for the role of barney , while the cartoon betty used to be much skinnier than rosie o'donnell . but the greatest problem of all is plot , or to be precise , the lack of plot . some thirty six screenwriters made sure that the plot of the film is lame , original characters one - dimensional , and many elements of the story , like embezzlement and inter - office politics , totally incomprehensible for the little children , the main targeted audience of this film . result is almost unwatchable mess , occasionally saved mostly by excellent acting ( elizabeth perkins was right on mark as wilma ) and one of the classic example of mortal hollywood disease known as " high concept " . after great hype , movie quickly sank into oblivion and the fans of the show returned to the animated version . all in all , film is n't that bad , but only the hard core fans and nostalgics can find more than guilty pleasure in it .

0NEG

are authentic for all the fans of the show . unfortunately , problems with this film start with inadequate casting - rick moranis is too thin for the role of used to be much skinnier than rosie o'donnell . but the greatest problem of all is plot , or to be precise , the lack of plot . some thirty six screenwriters made sure that the plot of the film is lame , original characters one - dimensional , and many elements of the story , like embezzlement the main targeted audience of this film . result is almost unwatchable mess , occasionally saved mostly by excellent acting ( elizabeth perkins " high concept " . after great hype , movie quickly sank into oblivion and the fans of the show returned to the animated

after 1993 's " falling down , " i hoped that joel schumacher would mature into a great director . since then he has offered us two so - so adaptations of john grisham novels ( " the client " and " a time to kill " ) and two batman movies that lowered the standards of that franchise . although these disappointments dampened my enthusiasm for schumacher 's potential , the publicity for his latest release , " 8 mm , " raised new hope . it promised to be something unusual . it was n't . the plot goes like this : tom welles ( nicolas cage ) is a private eye who is hired by a wealthy woman , allegorically named mrs . christian ( myra carter ) , to investigate an 8 mm movie found among her late husband 's belongings . the movie appears to be a snuff film in which a teenage girl is raped and murdered by a man in a leather mask ( who reminds me of bane in schumacher 's " batman & robin " ) . because murders can be realistically simulated in movies , mrs . christian wants tom to discover if the girl is alive or dead . by combing through missing persons reports , tom finds the girl 's name and tracks her to los angeles . with the aid of max california ( joaquin phoenix ) , a video store clerk ( and another symbolic name ) , tom wanders through the underworld of pornography in search of snuff . the plot bears an obvious resemblance to paul schrader 's " hardcore , " in which a father goes deeper and deeper into the industries of porn and sex to find his missing daughter . both films are modeled on dante 's " the inferno , " of course ; " 8 mm " makes that connection overly obvious by casting max as virgil and having him constantly tell tom that they were heading toward a meeting with the devil . " hardcore " is a much more subtle and meaningful film . " 8 mm " had a lot of promise . in its better moments it 's an examination of violence as entertainment and of the beast within even a nice guy like tom . one moment of the first sort : when we first meet max he 's reading truman capote 's " in cold blood " underneath the cover of a porn novel . " in cold blood " was the father of the true - crime genre , which is the literary equivalent of snuff films . max promises that we will see examples of the second theme when he tells tom , " dance with the devil and the devil do n't change ; the devil changes you . " tom does change - i'll let you discover the specifics for yourself - but not permanently . schumacher and screenwriter andrew kevin walker did n't have the guts to take tom so far down the dark tunnel that he could n't come back . ( walker 's " seven " did a much better job on that theme by refusing to compromise ) . cage tries hard to pull it off , but the script does n't give him enough to work with . phoenix walks away with the movie - he 's smart , charming , and funny . other cast members include " fargo " 's peter stormare camping it up as porn auteur dino velvet and " the sopranos " 's james gandolfini as a soulless porn merchant who pushes tom too far . in the last analysis , since " 8 mm " falls short of its pretensions and its promise , its just another private eye story in the raymond chandler / ross macdonald tradition of having the detective uncover the depravity behind the glossy facade of wealth and privilege . however , unlike other predictable fare in the genre - last year 's " twilight , " for example- " 8 mm " is especially disappointing because it could have been much more than it is .

0NEG

, " 8 mm , " raised new hope . it promised to be something unusual . it was n't . the plot goes like this : tom welles ( nicolas but not permanently . schumacher and screenwriter andrew kevin walker did n't have the guts to take tom so far down the dark tunnel that . cage tries hard to pull it off , but the script does n't give him enough to work with . phoenix walks away with the movie - he 's in the last analysis , since " 8 mm " falls short of its pretensions and its promise , its just another private eye story in the raymond twilight , " for example- " 8 mm " is especially disappointing because it could have been much more than it is

i think of i know what you did last summer as the movie that scream and scream 2 could have been . mind you , though , i mean this in the worst possible way . i know what you did last summer is a typical slasher flic without the smarts of the scream 's . as a result , it 's even worse than some of your better campy horror pictures ( see nightmare on elm street ) because it thinks it 's about thirty times smarter than it is . based on a teen book of the same name and , disappointingly , adapted by scream scribe kevin williamson , i know what you did last summer begins with appropriately angsty modern rock music combined with some startling cinematography of a cliff along the ocean and an angsty sort sitting at the top . the appropriate mood being set ( this is angst - horror for the 90 's ) , we cut over to the july 4th parade in a small north carolina town . from there , we see the blond , female protagonist , helen shivers ( woodenly played by sarah michelle geller ) , getting crowned croaker queen as the blond male " hero , " barry cox ( woodenly played by ryan phillipe ) , and matched brunette pair of protagonists , julie james and ray bronson ( woodenly played by party of five 's jennifer love hewitt and freddie prinze jr . , respectively ) cheer her on . after getting drunk at a party , going to a beach to wittily discuss urban legend and indulge in some foreshadowing , and having some meaningful sex ( if you believe what the characters say ) , the four run down some guy crossing the windy cliff road at night . his face is mangled so they ca n't tell who it is , and they come to the decision to dump him in the ocean so as to not ruin any of their future chances for success in the world . cut to one year later . the lives of our protagonists have gone from annoying to bad . main brunette female , the bright one of the bunch , has been plagued with guilt and almost failed out of college . blond female has forfeited her dreams of starring on guiding light , and now works at the family store in town . brunette male is a fisherman , living off the land . blond male has become a complete jerk and quarterback on some college football team . then , predictably , their past comes back to haunt them . it all begins with an irrational murder , followed by some taunting of protagonists by the mysterious killer , bad acting by a good actress ( anne heche ) , an improbable plot , bad acting by the main bad actors , some more killing , concluding in a climactic scene , mostly climactic in the relief at the end of the movie . all the while , the actors and actresses spout off bad lines , and main brunette male does his best keanu reeves imitation . not that the movie was without pleasure . count the illogical plot twists and bad lines for some fun . mostly , though , note the costumes of main females and how trendily unattractive they make the otherwise eye - catching pair look .

0NEG

2 could have been . mind you , though , i mean this in the worst possible way . i know what you did last summer is a typical slasher flic without the smarts of the scream 's . as a result , it on a teen book of the same name and , disappointingly , adapted by scream scribe kevin williamson , i know to one year later . the lives of our protagonists have gone from annoying to bad . main brunette female , the bright one of the by some taunting of protagonists by the mysterious killer , bad acting by a good actress ( anne heche ) , an improbable plot , bad acting by the main bad actors , some more killing , the end of the movie . all the while , the actors and actresses spout off bad lines , and main brunette male does his best keanu reeves not that the movie was without pleasure . count the illogical plot twists and bad lines for some fun . mostly , though , note the

" nothing more than a high budget masturbation fantasy " showgirls ( nc-17 ) - contains graphic nudity , profanity , sexual situations and violence . some people , however , keep their clothes on . you do not watch porn films for their intellectual values , nor do you write reviews on them . that 's why this review will be short . it seems that this film will end up in the porn section when it hits the video stores . there is no story , script , point or acting . only naked bodies , which is exactly the point . here is the so called plot : nomi , the 23-year - old with a dark past as a hooker , has hitchhiked from somewhere back east to perform in a show where a dancer does n't wear much more than a light coating of powder and a big , fake smile . no one is twisting nomi 's arm . no one is holding her grandmother hostage . she wants to do this . and that is what she is doing till the end credits . so what 's the problem then ? what 's the point ? what 's the film about ? is there anyone whose aspirations could inspire less sympathy ? this film can be described in one sentence : obscene level of incompetence , excessive stupidity in the story line , gross negligence of the viewer 's intelligence , a prurient interest in the quick buck . believe me , after an hour with these characters , acting and script , you 'll start hoping for someone to kill somebody . elizabeth berkley makes a laughable try as the heroine of this film , that is bad even for eszterhas ' script . her character is the only one that is at least half written and she could really have done better . her character denies the fact that she is a whore for the industry , selling her body to the hungry eyes of the horny public . " i am not a whore ! i am a dancer " , she screams , but does it in such an over dramatized way that you 'll start laughing . in fact the acting in " showgirls " brings terrible to a new and previously unknown level . not one single achievement , besides the conventional cinematography , is worth mentioning . it is a total waste of time and money . there is not a single moment of what you might call intelligence . the dialogue is structured of ancient stereotypes and cliches lined up one after another . its attempt to even imagine to have half a brain results in a catastrophe . " in my films , " writes director paul verhoeven ( ' basic instinct ' , ' total recall ' ) , " i hold the mirror up to life . " well , excuse me ? his attempt to go behind the scenes of las vegas , and as he put it " show the naked truth " , is simplified and unreal . occasionally , between his collection of mistakes and logical irrationalities , screenwriter joe eszterhas ( the creator of some of the worst screenplays in hollywood history ) inserts some lines of deep morality , that sound something like this : " hey , i see you . i see that you 're hiding " - " from what ? " - " from you " . yes , and even the only decent line in this film : " nomi is what las vegas is all about " ca n't save ' showgirls ' from going under . it 's a strange phenomena . it 's not erotic , because it lacks sensuality . not dramatic , because it lacks the acting . and not intelligent because it lacks a story . it is simply verhoven 's bad excuse for making pornography . you want to see naked women ? bare breasts ? full frontals ? it 's nothing wrong with that . but in that case i suggest that you rent a porn film in your local video store , and not waste time surviving through eszterhas ' pathetic dialogue . b qualities , while it 's only a high budget porn - film .

0NEG

the porn section when it hits the video stores . there is no story , script , point or acting . only naked bodies , which is exactly the point . here is the so called plot : nomi , the 23-year - old with a dark ? this film can be described in one sentence : obscene level of incompetence , excessive stupidity in the story line , gross negligence of the viewer 's intelligence , a prurient interest in the quick buck . believe start hoping for someone to kill somebody . elizabeth berkley makes a laughable try as the heroine of this film , that is bad , she screams , but does it in such an over dramatized way that you 'll start laughing . in fact the acting in " showgirls " brings terrible to a new and previously unknown level . not one single achievement , besides the conventional cinematography , is worth mentioning . it is a total waste of time and money . there is not a single moment of what you to even imagine to have half a brain results in a catastrophe . " in my films , " writes director paul put it " show the naked truth " , is simplified and unreal . occasionally , between his collection of mistakes and logical irrationalities , screenwriter joe eszterhas ( the creator of some of , because it lacks sensuality . not dramatic , because it lacks the acting . and not intelligent because it lacks a story . store , and not waste time surviving through eszterhas ' pathetic dialogue . b qualities , while it 's only a high

one of the 90s ' most unwelcome thriller trends returns from the grave : it 's the " _ _ _ from hell " movie ! starting in the early nineties , we were subjected to nearly every conceivable combination of relationships - from - hell ! there were boyfriends from hell , friendly neighborhood cops from hell , nannies from hell , and even secretaries from hell . but hush has found an old standby that somehow was forgotten in the rush : the mother - in - law from hell ! ! ! ! ! the mother - in - law in question is martha , played by jessica lange . she has been single - handedly running the family horse farm , kilronan . her son , jackson ( johnathon schaech ) and his girlfriend , helen ( gwyneth paltrow ) , live in new york , and have no intention to move back down south to the rural kilronan . but those intentions are about to change . you see , martha lives by manipulation . she has used it in years past to breed many championship horses . now , she believes she can use it to breed herself a grandson . though at first , helen finds martha charming , soon she is caught in the domineering martha 's web of deception . it 's hard to understand why nobody ever wises up to martha ' schemes . as written , most of the characters in the film must be very slow witted . but then , the film even treats the audience like idiots . it tries to get away with things ( like leaving a critical piece of evidence in a rather unlikely place ) without even batting an eye . then again an audience which accepts characters as shallow as these is n't one that 's likely to question details . jessica lange 's martha is the only semi - developed character in the film , and she applies her talents to redeem it as much as she can . a character that could have been simply awful is merely groan - worthy . gwyneth paltrow does n't have much to build upon , as helen 's only character trait seems to be " daughter - in - law " . still , she fares better than johnathon schaech , whose character is so nonexistent , he 's inexplicably missing for much of the film . still , there have been much worse " _ _ _ _ from hell " films . even with its paper - thin characters and ludicrous setups , hush manages to create a few thrills in a color - by - numbers fashion . you know what 's coming , but occasionally the film will deliver a shock or two . the old formulas are around for a reason , but that does n't mean they taste fresh .

0NEG

very slow witted . but then , the film even treats the audience like idiots . it tries to get away with things ( like talents to redeem it as much as she can . a character that could have been simply awful is merely groan - worthy . gwyneth paltrow does n't have much to build upon _ _ from hell " films . even with its paper - thin characters and ludicrous setups , hush manages to create a few thrills in a

mugshot ( director / writer / cinematographer / editor : matt mahurin ; cast : belinda becker ( stella ) , michael williams ( rumor ) , robert knepper ( joe / chris ) , robert walker ( random ) , willie lassic ( young brother of rumor ) , maxine joiner ( rumor 's mother ) ; runtime : 87 ; mortal films ; 1995 ) reviewed by dennis schwartz a bleak indie film about a stolen identity . there 's not much more to this visually stylish film than what meets the eye , as it relies on shock to tell its story of a prolonged vicious mugging . it falls into the category of being a pretentious art - house film , leaving a bitter taste in one 's mouth as it stereotypes its characters and unintentionally further inflames the racial issues . it tries to make a heavy - handed point about disenfranchised black youths trapped by their environment , with their only way out being crime . but the story is so filled with violence and its nyc setting looks like hell , that it 's hard to enjoy this film and to follow what the logic in the story is supposed to mean . the relationship between the black mugger and his white victim is a cloudy one , which the film never determines what it wants to say about it . matt mahurin is virtual one - man crew in putting this film together ( director / writer /cinematographer / editor ) , who is a still photographer in his day job . the film works best as a visually challenging piece , as each shot looks like a photograph carefully telling the story unfolding . a white photographer ( robert knepper ) is mugged by a black gang while he 's on a freelance assignment to take a photo shoot of harlem at night . he becomes a victim of amnesia and his head is bloodied as he 's left in a deserted harlem building , as the gang leaves him for dead ; but , one of the muggers , rumor ( michael williams ) , comes back and pretends to help him . he 's a would - be photographer , who keeps a scrapbook entitled mugshots in the project apartment he shares with his mother and younger brother . keeping his victim in the dark about who he is by calling him joe and not telling him what 's happening , he becomes the photographer for a few days . he enters the photographer 's stylish greenwich village apartment and steals his expensive camera , and decides to hold the mugging vic for ransom when he finds out he has a black girlfriend , stella ( belinda becker ) . she 's the only one in the film who could act . the film is stuck with a clumsy dialogue and an overuse of symbolism , as it ends with nothing more to tell after the shock and the violent situation it created except to beat it into the ground . it could only be commended for how appealing the film looks , as if it 's a scrapbook of still photos put together to celebrate a mugging .

0NEG

to tell its story of a prolonged vicious mugging . it falls into the category of being a pretentious art - house film , leaving a bitter taste in one 's mouth as it stereotypes its characters and unintentionally further inflames the racial issues . it tries to make a heavy - handed point violence and its nyc setting looks like hell , that it 's hard to enjoy this film and to follow what the logic in the story is supposed to mean . the relationship between the black mugger and his white the only one in the film who could act . the film is stuck with a clumsy dialogue and an overuse of symbolism , as it ends with nothing more to tell after

i can imagine how good krippendorf 's tribe must have looked on paper . it does not surprise me in the least that a group of extremely talented actors , led by the great richard dreyfuss and a good director ( todd holland ) , all wanted to make this film . in fact , it is only the expertise by which this excruciatingly bad script has been executed that keeps me from suggesting that you stay as far away from krippendorf 's tribe as possible . in retrospect , i can imagine how bad this film could have been . i shudder at the possibilities of awfulness had it starred an actor less able than dreyfuss . dreyfuss plays james krippendorf , an anthropologist who is granted $ 100 , 000 by his university to find an undiscovered tribe in new guinea . halfway into his two - year expedition , his wife ( apparently ) dies . i say apparently because when or how she dies is never truly established . later , we find out that much of the grant money was spent on big - screen tvs and other such pleasures . so , when krippendorf finds out what happens to professors who do not use their grant money wisely , he decides to construct an elaborate lie . he makes his own tribe , using his three children as actors in a video . he simply makes up certain incredible facts about this tribe ( which he calls the shelmickedmu ) . audiences at krippendorf 's lectures are amazed by his findings that the shelmickedmu practice circumcision . and proof that the typical family unit is led by a single father is truly amazing to the anthropological community . like all films like this , the lie becomes more and more complex , and the suspense is generated with us wondering at what point it is all going to fall out from under our hero . dreyfuss is a funny , talented man , and he is funny in this film . he has lots of positive energy and , unlike most comical actors , really manages to play people like this realistically . this film also requires a lot of physical humor that i 've never seen dreyfuss perform , and he does a great job . jenna elfman , who plays veronica mecilli , a scientist who wants in on krippendorf 's work , is also very funny and appealing here . and the kid actors are great , as well . but we 're talking about the script from hell . this is one of those stories that requires such extreme suspension of disbelief that they might as well have established that the story just takes place in an alternate universe where things like this can happen . but the ridiculousness of the story is not really what is so bad about it . all the cliches and the irritating plot devices could have easily been overcome by dreyfuss and crew . no , the script is plagued with so many clueless stereotypes and mean - spirited characters that i was in disbelief as i watched . furthermore , the manor in which all of this material is covered up is truly shameless . take , for instance , the scene in which krippendorf gets veronica drunk so he can tape them having sex . they get all decked out in the tribe getup , complete with paint to darken their skin . krippendorf does this because he needs footage of the mating rituals of his tribe . now , i saw this scene coming from a mile away , but i said to myself , " no , that would be far too tasteless . there 's no way they 'll do that . . . oh god ! " they did do it . it 's there . i was almost more appalled by the fact that this did n't bother the other audience members with whom i saw this film . i found it deplorable . and when krippendorf is forced to admit that he did it , he simply apologizes without the slightest hint of conviction in his voice . the film is filled with scenes like these . they not only insult the audience , but they insult the types of people that the film portrays . it would take some truly professional work to create videos convincing enough to fool an entire community of scientists , yet krippendorf does it easily in an afternoon . and watching dreyfuss stumble over a completely unprepared speech is funny and entertaining , but i think that most members of the on - screen audience would be able to see that he is making everything up as he goes . if i were an anthropologist , this film would insult me immensely . moving right along , the film plays off every stereotype our culture has ever learned regarding african tribes . sure , dreyfuss dressing up like a chief is really funny , and it allows for some entertaining scenes , but the heart of this material is deeply clueless as to the themes and thoughts that it provokes . it is because of dreyfuss as an actor that i was able to watch this film . his character here is not a good subject for a film because he is a shameless liar , and never once does he show any kind of penance for what he does . i suppose it was interesting to see the formula defied in this case , but for the purposes of good taste , i would have expected something . no , this man sets a terrible example for his kids and colleagues , and the writer of the film ( charlie peters ) did n't include a single scene in which krippendorf takes his kids aside and tells them that what he is doing is very bad . in fact , it 's his eldest daughter that frequently tells him that he is doing the wrong thing , and he continually shrugs off her warnings . i suppose it 's important to admit that this is a funny film . dreyfuss and elfman , and many of the contrived and insulting scenes , add up to a picture that is anything but boring . and if you 're less serious than i , you probably will enjoy it . i , however , ca n't get past these elements . krippendorf 's tribe is being marketed as a family comedy , but this is the kind of film that teaches the kids of our society faulty lessons that they should n't be learning . with a little more insight into its story and themes , this could have been a good movie .

0NEG

fact , it is only the expertise by which this excruciatingly bad script has been executed that keeps me from suggesting that you the kid actors are great , as well . but we 're talking about the script from hell . this is one of those stories that requires such alternate universe where things like this can happen . but the ridiculousness of the story is not really what is so bad about it . all the cliches and the irritating plot devices could have easily been overcome by dreyfuss and crew . no , the script is plagued with so many clueless stereotypes and mean - spirited characters that i was in disbelief as i watched . furthermore other audience members with whom i saw this film . i found it deplorable . and when krippendorf is forced to admit that he . the film is filled with scenes like these . they not only insult the audience , but they insult the types of people that the film portrays . it would take some truly professional work to create

after a marketing windup of striking visuals and the promise of star caliber actors , mission to mars ends up throwing a whiffleball . fiercely unoriginal , director depalma cobbles together a film by borrowing heavily from what has gone before him . there are aliens similar to those in close encounters of the third kind . the stranded astronaut theme is reminiscent of robinson crusoe on mars . the astronauts encounter space flight difficulties that smack of apollo 13 . interior spacecraft visuals are redolent of 2001 : a space odyssey . instead of using these components as a launching pad to create his own movie , de palma stops right there , refusing to infuse the film with anything even remotely resembling cleverness or heart . mission to mars takes it 's first wobbly steps at a pre - launch barbeque in which the perfunctory character introductions are done . during these surface scans of the characters , we learn that jim mcconnell ( sinise ) has lost his wife . it 's a plot point revisted throughout the film with jackhammer subtlety . the rest of the crew exhibit a bland affability . there is no contentiousness , no friction to add the the dramatic tension of these men and women being confined to close quarters for an extended length of time . maybe depalma was going for the comraderie of the right stuff , but in that movie , the astronauts had embers of personality to warm us through the technical aspects . it 's the year 2020 and this is nasa 's first manned excursion to the red planet . a crew , led by luke graham ( cheadle ) , arrives on mars and quickly discovers an anomaly , which they investigate with tragic results . graham is able to transmit a garbled distress call back to earth . in response , earth sends a rescue team comprised of mcconnell , woody blake ( robbins ) , wife terri fisher ( nielsen ) and phil ohlmyer ( o'connell ) . obstacles are put in the crew 's way and and they matter - of- factly go about solving them . i should say , mcconnell goes about solving them . time and again , mcconnell is presented as some kind of wunderkind , which would n't be so bad if the rest of the crew did n't come across as so aggressivelly unremarkable . ( mention should be made of the misogynistic handling of fisher in a situation where the entire crew 's mission and life is in mortal danger . on a team of professionals , she is portrayed as an emotion directed weak link . women serve no purpose in the movie other than to serve as a reflection of a male character 's personality trait . ) by the time they land on mars and try to solve the mystery of what occurred , mission to mars starts laying on the cliches and stilted dialogue with a heavy brush . there is an adage in film to " show , do n't tell . " mission to mars does both . repeatedly . characters obsessively explain the obvious , explain their actions as they are doing them , explain to fellow astronauts facts which should be fundamental knowledge to them . the film 's conclusion is momumentally derivative , anti - climatic and unsatisying . as i walked out i wondered who the target audience might be for this film . the best i could come up with is pre - teen age boys , but in this media saturated era , this film 's components would have been old hat even for them . i have to think what attracted such talent to this film was the lure of making a good , modern day b - movie . the key to such a venture is a certain depth and sincerity towards the material . i felt no such earnestness .

0NEG

the promise of star caliber actors , mission to mars ends up throwing a whiffleball . fiercely unoriginal , director depalma cobbles together a film by borrowing heavily his own movie , de palma stops right there , refusing to infuse the film with anything even remotely resembling cleverness or heart . mission to mars takes it 's first wobbly steps the rest of the crew did n't come across as so aggressivelly unremarkable . ( mention should be made of the misogynistic handling solve the mystery of what occurred , mission to mars starts laying on the cliches and stilted dialogue with a heavy brush . there is an adage in film to " show . " mission to mars does both . repeatedly . characters obsessively explain the obvious , explain their actions as they are doing them , astronauts facts which should be fundamental knowledge to them . the film 's conclusion is momumentally derivative , anti - climatic and unsatisying . as i walked out i wondered who the target

some movies ask you to leave your brain at the door , some movies ask you to believe in the impossible to really have a good time . playing god asks just one simple , eensy , teensy thing so it can fully entertain you , it 's accomplished in just four easy to follow steps : crack open your skull , scoop out your brain , squish it under your foot several times and reverse steps two and one . congratulations , you now have all the necessary requirements to fully enjoy a whole lot of nothing . some movies fail at the box office but you manage to see why the producers thought it could have been a good movie , others are simply good ideas that are badly executed . then there 's playing god , which enters the esteemed category of movies which seem to have grown from the union of a drunk director , actors satisfied in the knowledge that this horrible flick will have no lasting impact on their careers and a bunch of rip - offs ( or homages as they like to call it ) from other , better movies that end up looking like an unflushed toilet . harsh ? maybe . justified ? hell yes ! this is a movie that is not just satisfied in ripping off other movies but feels the need to remind us of that fact every ten minutes . for example , a gunman bursts into a garden with the two guns in his hands firing away . this does look moderately kool , but the camera lingers on the actor for so long you can almost hear the director yelling : " oooh , look look ! john woo ! two guns blazing ! slooooow motion ! " and if that was n't enough , you can also hear the script grunting under the effort it must take to try and make every single line of dialogue sound like something deep and meaningful like in a tarantino movie . poor timothy hutton gets to deliver most of the corny lines , you have to admire the effort he puts into it , this guy deserves better . unlike most movies this one does not suffer from " stupid bad guy " syndrome , just to make things a little different this time we get stupid heroes . example : duchovny manages to distract a bad guy by making him go into the bathroom to get some bandages . now the bad guy is , like , stoned , man , so he leaves his shotgun next to our hero . ( term used as loosely as possible ) survival instincts and a good dose of common sense seems to suggest grabbing the shotgun , which our hero does , but only after contemplating it for about thirty seconds . even when he does grab it he seems unsure how to hold it , going so far as to actually wonder if he should place a finger near the trigger . mind you , i 've never fired a shotgun in my life but believe you me that the bad guy would be missing most of his vital organs , be he stoned or not . some will argue that our hero does not have a killer instinct , the hell with that ! two fbi guys have just been shot in front me , along with one bad guy and the other looks like he might go ballistic at any second . solution ? boom ! i 'll take the time to feel sorry about it later thank you very much . another prime example of the idiot hero syndrome : our boy duchovny needs to reach his girl before something bad happens to her . he knows the head bad guy has her on the tenth floor of a building and that he might be running into a room full of people with itchy trigger fingers . he still has his shotgun , bring it along you say ? no thanks , i 'll just ditch it in the back of my car . and the real kicker is this : when he reaches the room and people start shooting at him he has the nerve to look surprised ! while we are on the subject of getting shot , why in hades were those fbi guys sitting with their backs to the door ? i 've got no formal training but even i know you never sit with your back to the door . ask mr . wild bill , the first and only time he did not sit with his back to a wall cost him his life . this is the major problem with this movie , any mook could have thought of a hundred ways to make it better . is it so much to ask that hollywood actually put a little common sense into their characters ? for instance : our heroes hide at duchovny 's summer home , now the bad guys could come knocking at any moment . ok , this time our hero does get himself a gun and has it at his side most of the time . but see , our hero is a drug addict and guess what ? he chooses now to go clean and suffer through dt . oh sure , he 'll be really impressive when the bad guys come calling . going clean is really honorable of him , but i would have waited until i did not need to be conscious or being able to fire a gun . for an enjoyable performance by timothy hutton , plot holes the size of godzilla , getting our intelligence insulted and several " oh come on ! " moments .

0NEG

's accomplished in just four easy to follow steps : crack open your skull , scoop out your brain , squish it under your foot several times and reverse steps two and one . congratulations , you now have all the necessary requirements to fully enjoy a whole lot of nothing . some movies fail at the box office but you a drunk director , actors satisfied in the knowledge that this horrible flick will have no lasting impact on their careers and a bunch of rip - offs ( or homages as they like to call it ) movies that end up looking like an unflushed toilet . harsh ? maybe . justified ? hell yes ! this is a movie that is not just satisfied in ripping off other movies but feels the need to remind us of that fact meaningful like in a tarantino movie . poor timothy hutton gets to deliver most of the corny lines , you have to admire the effort he puts into , just to make things a little different this time we get stupid heroes . example : duchovny manages to distract a bad guy feel sorry about it later thank you very much . another prime example of the idiot hero syndrome : our boy duchovny needs to reach his girl before his back to a wall cost him his life . this is the major problem with this movie , any mook could have thought of gun . for an enjoyable performance by timothy hutton , plot holes the size of godzilla , getting our intelligence insulted and several " oh come on ! " moments .

preposterous religious action film ( produced by the trinity broadcasting network ) about a code hidden within the text of the bible that when deciphered will lead to the end of the world ( nice of those bible authors to put a doomsday code into the most read book ever eh ? ) . michael york plays a millionaire diplomat who breaks the code and sets out to become god on earth and fulfill the doomsday prophecies , while casper van dien ( terribly miscast and giving an awful performance as a result ) plays the atheist motivational speaker who must stop him . michael ironside ( great as always , despite the silly film surrounding him ) plays a fallen priest and right hand man to michael york 's character . here 's some subtle character development you may have missed pertaining to ironside 's character . now despite the fact that we see him murder a man in the opening scene , the filmmakers are n't quite sure if their audience will understand that he is evil . how do they fix that ? make specific efforts to show that his character is the only one in the film who smokes ! there are lots of ominous shots of michael ironside smoking . . . oooooo scary . but even that was n't enough for the filmmakers apparently , as they later have to infer that ironside 's character is gay ! it comes out of nowhere and just makes no sense . my main problem with this film is that , despite the silly story ( which could have been pulled off . . . anything can be made believable if executed correctly ) , the events of the film are n't shown with any sense of urgency or importance . for example , at one point york 's character is declared chancellor of the world or something , and we see one brief , cheesy news report about it . the movie keeps telling us that the apocalypse is coming , but it never seems that way . there 's no " world reaction " to anything . the omega code is available on dvd from goodtimes home video . it contains the film in the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1 . 85 : 1 , and includes the original theatrical trailer , a documentary on the making of the film , production notes , and cast and crew information . the documentary runs about 25 minutes and is actually surprisingly good ( it looks as though it was made for broadcast on tbn ) , and it does a comprehensive job of interviewing practically everyone in the cast and crew ( with the exception of michael ironside , unfortunately ) . the best thing about it is that whenever crew members are interviewed , they do an excellent job of explaining their profession and exactly what it is they do on a movie set . most documentaries tend to overlook this . doomsday expert hal lindsey is even interviewed ( you 'll remember his documentary from the 1970 's called the late great planet earth , where lindsey speculated that jimmy carter might actually be the antichrist ) . however , at the very beginning of the documentary the producers of the film managed to get on my bad side . when interviewed they actually have the nerve to say " ever see raiders of the lost ark ? well , our film is like that ! " no it is n't . not by a long shot . [ pg-13 ]

0NEG

. michael ironside ( great as always , despite the silly film surrounding him ) plays a fallen priest and right hand of ominous shots of michael ironside smoking . . . oooooo scary . but even that was n't enough for the filmmakers have to infer that ironside 's character is gay ! it comes out of nowhere and just makes no sense . my main problem with this film is that , despite the silly story very beginning of the documentary the producers of the film managed to get on my bad side . when interviewed they actually have the nerve to say

" america 's sweethearts " has an intriguing premise and a great cast , but it is n't nearly as edgy or funny as it should be . almost all the problems with the project can be traced back to co - script writer billy crystal , who shows the same lack of discipline with the screenplay that he typically displays while co - hosting " comic relief " charity shows with robin williams and whoopi goldberg ( two other paragons of self - indulgence ) . crystal ignores a simple , but crucial , rule : for a screwball comedy to work , the characters must be placed into a rigid social setting , because only in that context will their unorthodox antics be humorous . " america 's sweethearts " takes place at a press junket , where decorum must be maintained in front of the reporters . it 's a promising set - up , but the screenplay quickly blows off the rules , thus dissipating the tension of the situation . by the end of the film , all the lead performers participate in a huge fight with a room full of journalists looking on , but their outbursts are only mildly amusing because the structure has been destroyed . john cusack and catherine zeta - jones play eddie thomas and gwen harrison , a beloved acting duo whose marriage hit the skids when gwen began seeing hector ( hank azaria ) , a spanish actor with an ego almost as pronounced as his lisp . of the last nine films eddie and gwen made together , six crossed the $ 100 million mark , but the prospects for their final effort , a space opus titled " time over time , " are far from rosy . while eddie has spent many months in a new age rest clinic fretting over the breakup , gwen 's solo films have tanked . to make matter worse , the director of the movie ( christopher walken ) , a " visionary " who purchased the unabomber 's cabin and had it moved to his backyard , is withholding the film from the studio , insisting that the first screening be held at the junket . desperate to win over the press , the studio elects to hire lee ( billy crystal ) , a recently fired publicist , to salvage the situation . lee hopes to turn lemons into lemonade by convincing eddie and gwen to pretend to be on the road to reconciliation . he enlists the help of kiki ( julia roberts ) , gwen 's sister , personal assistant and whipping girl . what lee does n't know is that kiki is in love with eddie , a fact that could temper her effectiveness . press junkets are a haven for control freaks . studios fly journalists in from around the world and put them up in a plush hotel , with food and drink always at hand . generally , on the evening of their arrival , writers are bussed to see the featured film , then ferreted straight back to the hotel . the next day , writers go to the studio suites and assemble in groups of five or six for roundtable interviews . every 30 minutes or so , a producer , director , writer or actor is brought into the room for a few minutes of questions , with a publicist hovering in the corner to keep an eye on things . the atmosphere is one of cordial oppression ? writers are free to ask what they want , but understand that if the studio dislikes a question , they may not be invited to future junkets . representatives from tv stations face even more restrictions . they get roughly five minutes to interview each member of the cast and crew , with the studio filming the exchanges . the " reporters " are notorious for tossing softball questions as they suck up to the stars , but to play it safe , the studios stand ready to erase the tapes if anything unpleasant occurs . placing two spoiled actors in a setting where image is everything is inspired , but the screenplay undermines the conceit . the junket is moved from the handsome , but highly confining , four seasons hotel to a plush resort near las vegas . for most of the film , the movie stars run around the sprawling grounds , completely safe from the eyes of the press . when they do deal with journalists , the " it is imperative that you be on your best behavior in front of the reporters " premise is de - clawed . gwen and eddie insult each other while the tv cameras roll , they scream at each other in a restaurant filled with the media and , at the screening of the movie , everyone connected with the film goes nuts , all without any repercussions . lee certainly is n't bothered by any of the infantile outbursts ; in fact , he makes arrangements for footage of even more inappropriate behavior to be delivered to the tabloids . is the studio angry about his handling of the combative actors ? hell no ? they feel lee is a genius for garnering so much publicity for the movie . all of which underscores how billy crystal and co - writer peter tolan screwed up their own premise : the comedy in " america 's sweethearts " is based on barely - in - control people trying to contain themselves in the presence of reporters , except that it does n't matter because any publicity is good publicity . and thus the very set - up for the film implodes , leaving smoke and dust in place of laughter . so what about the cast ? julia roberts , at her best playing the underdog , is utterly charming here , although i could have lived without flashbacks that exist solely as an excuse to show her in a fat suit ( and not a very convincing one , by the way ) . catherine zeta - jones makes a believable brat and john cusack fleshes out his obsessed character enough to make him vaguely sympathetic . by casting himself as the publicist , billy crystal allows himself to do roughly the same thing he does on " comic relief " - stay on the sidelines of the action while tossing off cornball jokes and snarky remarks . in supporting roles , hank azaria wears out his welcome fast with broad gestures and a spanish accent that speedy gonzales would have deemed " too broad . " seth green is amusing as a toadie , stanley tucci is very good as a ruthless studio head and christopher walken plays the eccentric director with suitable flair , though he has little to work with . come to think of it , " little to work with " is the operative phrase for this movie . as a hollywood satire , " america 's sweethearts " is toothless . as a romance , it is at best a minor pleasure . such a good cast , such a waste of their efforts . had it not been taken long ago , a better title for the film would have been " much ado about nothing . "

0NEG

has an intriguing premise and a great cast , but it is n't nearly as edgy or funny as it should be . almost all the problems with the project can be traced back to co - script writer billy with a room full of journalists looking on , but their outbursts are only mildly amusing because the structure has been destroyed . john cusack and catherine zeta - jones play eddie a setting where image is everything is inspired , but the screenplay undermines the conceit . the junket is moved from the handsome , but underscores how billy crystal and co - writer peter tolan screwed up their own premise : the comedy in " america 's sweethearts " is walken plays the eccentric director with suitable flair , though he has little to work with . come to think of it , " little to a hollywood satire , " america 's sweethearts " is toothless . as a romance , it is at best a minor pleasure . such a good cast , such a waste of their efforts . had it not been taken long ago , a

do the folks at disney have no common decency ? they have resurrected yet another cartoon and turned it into a live action hodgepodge of expensive special effects , embarrassing writing and kid - friendly slapstick . was n't mr . magoo enough , people ? obviously not . inspector gadget is not what i would call ideal family entertainment . younger viewers will likely be taken in by the abounding goofiness , but their adult companions may feel a wave of nausea sweeping over them as they attempt to endure this appalling 80-minute exercise in glaring stupidity . the movie is poorly edited , grossly manipulative , and the finished product resembles somewhat of a failed jigsaw puzzle . all the elements are there , but the manner in which director david kellogg pieces them together is laughable and trite . as a huge fan of the 80 's animated tv show , the first thing i must express is my anger toward the treatment of the main villain . in the cartoon , dr . claw was a frightening , raspy - voiced presence who remained a total mystery to the viewer . we never saw his face ; he simply sat back in his arm - chair , watching surveillance cameras and gently stroking his loyal cat . as a child , i always imagined what dr . claw would appear as - and this curiosity kept me watching for many years . with the release of the live - action movie , the face of this once intriguing villain has been unrightfully exposed - it 's . . . rupert everett ? ! only now , dr . claw is simply known as claw ( ` one word , ' he explains , ` like madonna ' ) . he sports a shiny clamp instead of the steel glove , and seems far less interesting than the animated version . it helps that the dashing everett is enthusiastic , but he overplays the role entirely too far . when all is said and done , this was n't a very wise move on the part of the screenwriters - the infamous dr . claw has been turned into a wisecracking game show host who makes cheap attempts at being suave and cool . he does still have his cat , though . in the title role , matthew broderick looks lost . the actor , while usually downright charming , does n't know exactly where to take his character - a fault that again can be blamed on the hapless writers . broderick first plays a friendly , naive security guard named john brown , who dreams of becoming a cop and upholding the law for the good of the people . he has a mad crush on pretty scientist brenda ( joely fisher ) , who has stumbled upon a new wave of technology involving the interaction of human tissue and electronics . but one fateful night , her lab is destroyed and her experiment is stolen by a fiendish millionaire ( everett ) who wants to take over the world . john courageously pursues the limousine from the scene of the crime , but loses the chase when his vehicle bursts into flames . in a full body cast , he is chosen to be the first human prototype for brenda 's work ; a revolutionary crime fighting tool with numerous fancy gadgets to dispatch bad guys . and so is born inspector gadget . as bad as this movie is , it does have a certain charm in isolated scenes . broderick actually fares better playing robo gadget , an evil and destructive clone that claw has set loose on the city . and there are about two or three amusing punch lines , the funniest being when robo gadget impersonates a rampaging monster with shadow puppets on a brick wall , and a japanese man flees the scene while screaming , ` this is why i left tokyo ! ' alas , the hit ratio of the ongoing gags is about 20 to 1 in favor of not even cracking a slight giggle . there are so many tired plot additions . gadget 's talking car ( voiced by d . l . hughley ) is the same type of character as zoot the suit from my favorite martian . both are wisecracking , non - human additions designed to coax laughter from smaller children . well , it just does n't work ( in fact , zoot functioned marvelously in comparison to this ) . and do n't even get me started about the villains . i did n't mind everett 's performance , but his bumbling assistants will make every adult cringe with disgust . the characters from the cartoon have been reduced to thankless supporting roles . penny ( michelle trachtenberg ) and brain the dog now have little to do with the action , and chief quimby ( dabney coleman ) has lost considerable appeal in the transition of animation to live action . the special effects are everywhere , but not so annoying they will cause your eyes to peel over . the problem here lies solely in the script . perhaps the next time disney attempts a remake like this , they will invest more in the screenplay than the fancy - schmancy visuals . here is one critic crossing his fingers , anyway .

0NEG

do the folks at disney have no common decency ? they have resurrected yet another cartoon and turned it into a live action hodgepodge of expensive special effects , embarrassing writing and kid - friendly slapstick . was n't mr . in by the abounding goofiness , but their adult companions may feel a wave of nausea sweeping over them as they attempt to endure this appalling 80-minute exercise in glaring stupidity . the movie is poorly edited , grossly manipulative , and the finished product resembles somewhat of a failed manner in which director david kellogg pieces them together is laughable and trite . as a huge fan of the 80 's animated a shiny clamp instead of the steel glove , and seems far less interesting than the animated version . it helps that the dashing , though . in the title role , matthew broderick looks lost . the actor , while usually downright charming , does where to take his character - a fault that again can be blamed on the hapless writers . broderick first plays a friendly , naive security guard bad guys . and so is born inspector gadget . as bad as this movie is , it does have a certain charm in isolated scenes , ` this is why i left tokyo ! ' alas , the hit ratio of the ongoing gags is about 20 to 1 in favor of not even cracking a slight giggle . there are so many tired plot additions . gadget 's talking car ( voiced by d . designed to coax laughter from smaller children . well , it just does n't work ( in fact , zoot functioned marvelously in comparison to performance , but his bumbling assistants will make every adult cringe with disgust . the characters from the cartoon have been reduced to the action , and chief quimby ( dabney coleman ) has lost considerable appeal in the transition of animation to live action . the annoying they will cause your eyes to peel over . the problem here lies solely in the script . perhaps the next time disney attempts a remake like

if you have n't plunked down your hard - earned money yet for " wild wild west , " the latest summer holiday offering from will smith , let me say right now that your money will be better spent on a starbuck 's frappacino or on a ben & jerry 's sundae . these treats are great relief from the summer heat . in contrast , this film made me simmer in disappointment . i can accept the fact that summer movies tend to put more weight into special effects and that good stories and flavorful characters usually take a back seat . this was true of star wars episode i , but at least in that film , the story and the characters were still in the back seat . in this film , they are no where to be found . what remains are hundreds of male extras costumed as gunslingers and foppish aristocrats , lots of female extras who look like can - can dancers , and a clunky , 80-foot tall instrument of destruction that resembles a mechanical tarantula . two men are asked to stop this threat . one is artemus gordon ( kevin kline ) , an inventor who uses his intellect and array of disguises to best his opponents . among his creations are false breasts and the bulletproof vest . the other man is jim west ( will smith ) , who prefers the shoot - first - then - shoot - some - more method of investigating . although their individual talents must be combined to achieve success , their interaction with one another merely seemed like a second rate , two - man vaudevillian act . for example , there is a scene where west , being more debonair than the reserved gordon , notes that the fake breasts should be filled with water rather than buckwheat , which is what it is currently filled with . " now touch my breast , " west says . gordon does so and then softly coos his approval . i found myself groaning at this kind of silliness . the script fails to generate any sense of drama , humor , or fun for that matter . i did enjoy kline 's reserved performance , but was surprised at how much latitude they gave to smith . could it be that will smith is just so bankable that he 's not even required to act ? it was as if the director was yelling " will smith , do your own thing . . . and action ! " here 's an example . in this scene , will smith is about to be hanged by a group of angry white people . he must endear himself to the crowd to escape . the director yells , " will smith , do your own thing . . . and action ! " in another scene , he has to masquerade as a belly dancer in order to save his comrades . " will smith , do your own thing . . . and action ! " worse still , the final battle scene aboard the mechanical tarantula is a horrid mess . there are cogs spinning and pulleys pulling and levers going up and down everywhere you look . there 's actually a lot of imagination at work in this film . there are some genuinely clever inventions and gizmos introduced , but all of this imagination is wasted in a film that is visually cluttered and dramatically flat . and that 's too bad because if there was more focus on the story rather than will smith just doing his ' thing , ' this film might have been palatable . as it turns out , " wild wild west " is the wild , wild worst and receives my vote for biggest disappointment of the year .

0NEG

great relief from the summer heat . in contrast , this film made me simmer in disappointment . i can accept the fact that summer movies tend are no where to be found . what remains are hundreds of male extras costumed as gunslingers and foppish aristocrats , lots of female extras who look like can - can dancers , and a clunky , 80-foot tall instrument of destruction that resembles a mechanical tarantula . two men are asked to stop this threat . their individual talents must be combined to achieve success , their interaction with one another merely seemed like a second rate , two - man vaudevillian act . for example , gordon does so and then softly coos his approval . i found myself groaning at this kind of silliness . the script fails to generate any sense of drama , humor , or fun for that matter . i did enjoy kline 's reserved performance , but your own thing . . . and action ! " worse still , the final battle scene aboard the mechanical tarantula is a horrid mess . there are cogs spinning and pulleys pulling and levers and gizmos introduced , but all of this imagination is wasted in a film that is visually cluttered and dramatically flat . and that 's too bad because if there was it turns out , " wild wild west " is the wild , wild worst and receives my vote for biggest disappointment of the year .

synopsis : two con artists find the perfect patsy in harry ( woody harrelson ) - - an inept former journalist who trips and bumps his head into a post , tries to slap a girl and gets poked in the eye , has ill - timed fits of coughing , and fails at everything he does . the story is told from harry 's point of view . harry always carries around a shot of whiskey although he swears he does n't drink . one day harry is approached by the con girl rhea ( elisabeth shue ) , who is similar to harry in that she carries around a cigarette but swears she does n't smoke . seduced , harry agrees to participate in a money - making scheme involving faking the kidnapping of odette ( chloe sevigny ) , the teenage daughter of a rich man . turns out , it 's all part of a needless , very puzzling , extremely elaborate and convoluted scheme ( it involves hiring special impersonators ) by two cons in order to fool harry , a hero who barely has the intellectual capacity of a wooden post . when the ' kidnapped ' odette is found dead , the clues point to harry as the kidnapper / murderer , and the police are hot on harry 's trail . harry suddenly realizes he has been framed while others have taken the ransom money . can he get out of this mess ? opinion : palmetto is a long , uninteresting film with all the wrong feel . hero harry is an inept bungler who trips up often and consistently overestimates his own intelligence . this farcical kind of character works best in an entertaining naked gun action comedy or dragnet spoof . but palmetto is played like a dark , serious , detective noir drama , and watching harry 's bumbling confidence amounts to an irritating distraction . there 's a lapse in concentration in the middle of the movie as the camera goes wild on breasts , buttocks , short skirts , colored painted nails , and women 's legs . even when the focus is supposedly on harry and his dilema , you can always notice the side of elizabeth shue 's breast forming a prominent foreground . towards the end , palmetto re - focuses on plot for the grand finale - - a confusing explanation involving impersonators , with woody harrelson handcuffed and suspended over a tub of acid as he hears the criminals ' confession . if you can imagine ' shemp ' from the three stooges playing the detective hero of an hbo ' lingerie suspense ' thriller , that 's how out of synch this movie feels .

0NEG

man . turns out , it 's all part of a needless , very puzzling , extremely elaborate and convoluted scheme ( it involves hiring special impersonators ) by two cons get out of this mess ? opinion : palmetto is a long , uninteresting film with all the wrong feel . hero harry is an detective noir drama , and watching harry 's bumbling confidence amounts to an irritating distraction . there 's a lapse in concentration in the middle - focuses on plot for the grand finale - - a confusing explanation involving impersonators , with woody harrelson handcuffed and suspended over hbo ' lingerie suspense ' thriller , that 's how out of synch this movie feels .

starring arnold schwarzenegger ; danny devito ; emma thompson & frank langella the only thing that you can say about junior is that it is a disappointment , and a big one at that . junior brings together arnold schwarzenegger and danny devito with director ivan reitman . these are the same men that brought us the very funny twins . so foolish me , i was hoping for something that would at least come close to the level of quality of twins . so much for hopes . schwarzenegger and devito play two scientists ( doctors hesse and arbogast ) who are working on a new drug that will reduce the possibility of miscarriage in pregnancy . unfortunately , due to circumstances beyond their control , they are denied permission to test this new drug on humans , and subsequently lose their funding . still believing that their drug will work , they decide to test it anyway , on hesse . so , dr . hesse ( schwarzenegger ) artificially inseminates himself and begins taking the drug . their theory is that if the drug can prevent a man from miscarrying , surely it will work on a woman . does the thought of arnold schwarzenegger pregnant sound funny or humorous to you ? well , it must have to the producers of junior . admittedly , schwarzenegger has the comedic talent to pull it off . perhaps if it had been done differently it might have actually been funny . but it was n't , schwarzenegger pregnant is goofy at best . the sight of schwarzenegger running around going through the hormone imbalances that come with pregnancy , and the accompanying emotional swings , is not funny . schwarzenegger comes very close to embarrassing himself with these antics . i kept thinking to myself , with the time arnold wasted making this turkey he could have been making an action picture . better yet , with schwarzenegger , devito and reitman all in the same place at the same time , why did n't they make a sequel to twins ? anything would have been better than this mess . danny devito is wasted in this movie . his part could have been played by any joker they pulled in off the street . ( after seeing the movie , if i was devito , i probably would have wished they had pulled someone in off the street . ) emma thompson is wasted here as well . while thompson is best known for her jane austin adaptations , she is also a fine comedian . too bad she did n't get to use any of that talent here . am i being too hard on this film ? i do n't think so . schwarzenegger and devito are two of my favorite actors in film today , and ivan reitman is one of the more talented directors in hollywood . with a supporting cast of emma thompson and frank langella , the filmmakers really have to be trying hard to make a bad film . they certainly managed here . maybe it was well intentioned , but unfortunately this is a movie that never should have been made . if you are tempted to see this film , do yourself a favor and go rent twins , a film that truly takes advantage of arnold schwarzenegger and danny devito 's comedic talents .

0NEG

only thing that you can say about junior is that it is a disappointment , and a big one at that . junior brings together arnold schwarzenegger and danny devito with come close to the level of quality of twins . so much for hopes . schwarzenegger and devito play two scientists ( doctors hesse funny . but it was n't , schwarzenegger pregnant is goofy at best . the sight of schwarzenegger running around going through the come with pregnancy , and the accompanying emotional swings , is not funny . schwarzenegger comes very close to embarrassing himself with these antics . i kept thinking to myself , with the time arnold wasted making this turkey he could have been making an action picture . better why did n't they make a sequel to twins ? anything would have been better than this mess . danny devito is wasted in this movie . his part could have been played someone in off the street . ) emma thompson is wasted here as well . while thompson is best known for her jane austin n't get to use any of that talent here . am i being too hard on this film ? i do n't think so . schwarzenegger and devito are two of my favorite actors managed here . maybe it was well intentioned , but unfortunately this is a movie that never should have been made . if you are tempted to see this film ,

there are scenes in " the big hit " that are so awful , they simply defy description . the movie is infected with the same kind of blunderheaded idiocy and misplaced confidence that made " last action hero " ( 1993 ) such a chore to sit through . presumably , " the big hit " is an action - comedy , a difficult but not impossible genre to pull off . movies of this sort require a fine balance and careful tone , and the comedy is usually meant to work as catharsis for the violence . " lethal weapon 2 " ( 1989 ) is a perfect example of an action thriller that was also very , very funny . unfortunately , in " the big hit , " it seems that comedy is the main motive , and the violence is only intended to punctuate the laughs . unfortunately , there are no laughs . the movie resembles some of the goofy , throwaway ridiculousness of early jackie chan films , but it does n't benefit from chan 's incredible stunts and goofy , charismatic presence . instead , we are left with a lot of digital effects and mark wahlberg , who must have considered himself invincible after his critically - acclaimed performance in last year 's " boogie nights . " however , if he wants to maintain a decent career , he had better start selecting his projects more carefully - movies like this are a sure - fire recipe for a long career in the straight - to - video market . wahlberg plays melvin smiley , an amiable guy who also happens to be a professional hitman ( see " grosse pointe blank " for the same character , much better developed ) . the movie wants us to think , " gee how clever and ironic - a guy who can kill without any moral implications , and yet he ca n't stand for anyone not to like him . " the fact is , melvin is so desperate to keep people from not liking him , that he puts up with both an obnoxious fiancee ( christina applegate , with a horrendous new york accent ) and an abusive girlfriend ( lela rochon ) who is only using him for his money . his constant bending over backwards to please people makes him a complete patsy at best , and a thoroughly unbelievable character at worst . melvin is employed exclusively by a crime boss named paris ( avery brooks ) as part of a team of hitmen , which also includes cisco ( lou diamond phillips ) and crunch ( bokeem woodbine ) . one day , melvin agrees to do some moonlighting with cisco by kidnapping the teenage daughter of a rich japanese mogul named jiro nishi ( sab shimono ) for a million dollar ransom . however , not only has jiro nishi lost all his money producing a big hollywood movie ( inside joke , get it ? ) , but his kidnapped daughter , keiko ( china chow ) , also happens to be paris ' goddaughter . so , when paris finds out she 's been kidnapped , he takes it personally and becomes determined to find out who did it . not knowing the cisco is actually behind the whole scheme , paris puts him in charge of rooting out the kidnapper . of course cisco blames the whole thing on poor , innocent melvin . along the way , there are several obligatory gunfights , explosions , and car chases , plus a literal cliffhanger inspired by " jurassic park , " and a completely unconvincing romance between melvin and keiko ( who looks like she 's barely pushing fifteen ) . what the movie passes off as humor resorts to thoroughly unfunny jokes about overweight jewish mothers , hara - kiri , drinking problems , leaking body bags , and a running gag about how crunch has recently discovered the pleasures of masturbation , and now spends all his time doing hand exercises . not to mention the pimply video store clerk who is always calling melvin and screeching about how he needs to return his copy of " king kong lives , " which is two weeks overdue . this mess of a movie was helmed by che - kirk wong , the latest hong kong director imported by john woo ( " face / off " ) , who also served as executive producer . woo needs to stop acting as a conduit for other directors , and start making more of his own films . wong , who directed such films as " rock'n'roll cop " back in hong kong , is completely tone deaf when it comes to comedy . maybe jokes about vexatious video clerks and vomiting on other people are funny across the ocean , but they 're not here , at least in the manner wong handles them . many of the problems can be traced back to the script , which was penned by obvious freshman writer ben ramsey . in addition to his vague characterizations and uninspired action sequences , ramsey 's script assaults the audience with his attempts to copy the vulgar , poetic rhythms of tarantino or mamet - style dialogue . what he comes out with is just a lot of annoying blather , most of which spews from the lips of lou diamond phillips ( whose favorite phrase is " it 's all love " ) and robin dunne , who plays cisco 's stuttering , black - wannabe assistant . the irritation factor of phillips and dunne combined is almost off the scale , which can pretty much describe the film as a whole .

0NEG

are scenes in " the big hit " that are so awful , they simply defy description . the movie is infected with the same kind of blunderheaded idiocy and misplaced confidence that made " last action hero " ( 1993 ) the violence is only intended to punctuate the laughs . unfortunately , there are no laughs . the movie resembles some of the goofy , throwaway , if he wants to maintain a decent career , he had better start selecting his projects more carefully - movies like this are a sure - fire recipe for a long career in the straight - to - video market . wahlberg plays melvin smiley , an amiable guy who on poor , innocent melvin . along the way , there are several obligatory gunfights , explosions , and car chases , plus a literal cliffhanger inspired by " jurassic park , " and a completely unconvincing romance between melvin and keiko ( who looks like she 's fifteen ) . what the movie passes off as humor resorts to thoroughly unfunny jokes about overweight jewish mothers , hara - kiri , drinking kong lives , " which is two weeks overdue . this mess of a movie was helmed by che - kirk wong , the latest " rock'n'roll cop " back in hong kong , is completely tone deaf when it comes to comedy . maybe jokes about vexatious , at least in the manner wong handles them . many of the problems can be traced back to the script , which was penned by obvious freshman writer ben ramsey . in addition to his vague characterizations and uninspired action sequences , ramsey 's script assaults the audience with his attempts poetic rhythms of tarantino or mamet - style dialogue . what he comes out with is just a lot of annoying blather , most of which spews from the lips of lou plays cisco 's stuttering , black - wannabe assistant . the irritation factor of phillips and dunne combined is almost off the scale , which can pretty much describe the film as a whole .

well i guess it 's that time of the year again . the one time of the year where movie craftors are exonerated from the need to even * try * writing a script that has more dialogue than explosions . it 's also the best time for the handful of existing bigtime hollywood mr action heroes to dust off their miniscule vocabularies , pull on their black vests and charge onto our screens tersely expirating what they hope will become memorable catchphrases . in america they call this time " summer " and it happens once every year . and maybe it 's the exposure to all that nasty sun that does it , but in the process normally weak , insipid lines like " consider this a divorce , " " hasta la vista , baby , " and " you 're the disease . i 'm the cure " actually do end up being repeated more often then the phrases from my book of biblical proverbs . this is not entirely a bad thing , of course . what am i talking about ? i 'm talking about the summer " blockbusters , " the " action thrillers , " the " this - obviously - cost - a - lot - so - you - know- everyone's - going - to - go " explosions , gas threats , flying saucers , and special effects . in the rash of " my , what big guns you have , but wait ! mine are bigger " movies , there are also the usual boy - meets - fish - and - saves - environment movies ( or whale , whatever ) , and * this * year , the odd crop of " save - the - world - from - aliens - or - environment- threats " offerings . i 'm talking about the three batmans , the speeds , the terminators , etc . this year i 'm talking about twister , independence day , the arrival , the rock , mission : impossible , and of course , eraser . here in singapore , as our local movie critics like to whine , we seem to get the pick of the crop of " my explosion is more real - looking than yours " movies , but nothing else . mission : impossible opened in our theatres almost as soon as it did in the us . the same goes for eraser , which is unfortunate for arnold schwarzenegger because coming so soon after what time magazine recently called " mission : unavoidable " ( on account of its worldwide mega - advertising blitz ) , eraser seems like a cheaper , less thoughtful imitation . that 's saying a lot , because mi the movie was already a cheap , thoughtless imitation of its tv originator of the ' 60s/'70s . in eraser , arnie is a us federal marshall who relocates trial witnesses whose testimonies place their lives in danger . he does this by destroying all evidence of their present existence and re - situating them with new identities . his new case is lee cullen , played by vanessa williams who , unlike all the other scumbags he 's ever relocated , is " an actual , real life honest person . " because she 's so good , and has such nice legs , arnold spends the whole movie trying to protect her , and only uses the opening movie sequence to save robert pastorelli from * his * killers . lee obtains evidence that the high - technology weapons company she works for is secretly selling sophisticated , black - market arms to people with foreign accents and stringy hair . of course , as the formula goes , her revealing this information will destroy the system as we know it because heck , there are people in high places who will go down with this , because yes , this is the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world ( that is , america ) since watergate . in protecting lee , arnold is framed by the mentor - turned - evil robert deguerin , nicely played by james caan , and ends up having to prove that he is n't the one killing the programme 's witnesses in addition to making sure lee is n't accidentally torpedo - ed to death by the new , green guns his enemies all have . it 's around this time that people in the theatre with me starting humming the mission : impossible theme , because arnie 's mission includes breaking into a high - security building to run a disk . i guess i should tell you more about the particular gun everyone in this movie is so antsy about . it 's an electro - magnetic pulse gun thing which fires aluminium missiles , and which can see through walls . it has some sort of x - ray vision , so its user can target the victim 's heart even from great distances . despite this , which i figure is a pretty cool feature in a gun ( though i 'm certainly no expert ) , however , arnold , whose own heart is targeted a number of times , * never * goes flying 10 feet backwards with a two - foot missile through his chest like all the others who get shot by this gun . instead he outruns and outsmarts his trackers each time , giving eery and ironic resonance to that terminator line that practically made him famous : " i 'll be back . " like everyone else in the theater , i left the movie feeling that the trailers had duped me , because they made me want to watch this movie voluntarily . although there is a * lot * of violence in this movie , not to mention mutilation and some bloody tussles with alligators , i recommend this movie to most over-18s who need some therapeutic mindless action to get over the weirdness of fargo or the hangover effect of leaving las vegas . review 's rating system : * wait for the video . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .

0NEG

of its worldwide mega - advertising blitz ) , eraser seems like a cheaper , less thoughtful imitation . that 's saying a lot , because mi the back . " like everyone else in the theater , i left the movie feeling that the trailers had duped me , because they made me want to watch this movie to mention mutilation and some bloody tussles with alligators , i recommend this movie to most over-18s who need some therapeutic mindless action to get over the weirdness of fargo or the hangover

the rapid - fire formula that worked so well in airplane ! , the " police squad ! " television series , top secret ! , three naked gun films , and two hot shots ! movies has finally reached a desperate dead - end with spy hard . even ezio gregio 's the silence of the hams is arguably funnier than this over - extended spy- and action - movie spoof . leslie nielsen stars as secret agent wd-40 , who returns from retirement to battle his old nemesis , general rancor ( a cackling andy griffith ) . the jokes fly in every direction and with hardly a hint of restraint , timing , or tact . most the movie is comprised of recycled airplane and naked gun gags , recreated movie sequences , and soggy star cameos . yeah , maybe we * do * need ray charles driving an l . a . bus bound for a speed bump , but did mr . t , hulk hogan , and dr . joyce brothers also have to appear in the same movie ? leslie nielsen plays it straight with his usual dopey flair . there is something oddly inspiring about the sight of nielsen wearing a nun 's habit , even the resulting sister act spoof is silly . as are the bits directly lifted from home alone , pulp fiction , true lies , etc . etc . ( adolescent males might enjoy this mess , tho . the butt shots , breast peeks , penis pokes , flatulence gags , and related innuendo are right up beavis and butthead 's alley . ) beyond the hilarious title sequence with " weird " al yankovich performing the theme song , spy hard is barely the stock that it 's printed on . my recommendation : duck in while you 're waiting for another movie to start . stay long enough to see the camera dart inside of weird al 's nostril and then leave . you wo n't miss a thing .

0NEG

, and two hot shots ! movies has finally reached a desperate dead - end with spy hard . even ezio gregio 's the silence of the hams is arguably funnier than this over - extended spy- and action - movie spoof . leslie nielsen stars griffith ) . the jokes fly in every direction and with hardly a hint of restraint , timing , or tact . most the movie is comprised of recycled airplane and naked gun gags , recreated movie sequences , and soggy star cameos . yeah , maybe we * do * need ray al yankovich performing the theme song , spy hard is barely the stock that it 's printed on . my recommendation : duck in while you 're waiting

tim burton has now completed his evolution from the brilliant director of macabre stories about outcast individuals yearning for acceptance , and into a studio monkey whose name is used as part of multi - tiered marketing materials for crap movies . and here he hits rock bottom , with planet of the apes . i did n't expect much from this latest " interpretation " of pierre boulle 's classic novel planet of the apes . i mean , how could you top the force and impact of the original film , intelligently co - scripted by rod serling ( of twilight zone fame ) combined with the overbearing chuck heston growling and yelling at those " damn dirty apes , " in one of his best roles of his career ? sadly , i sat down to watch burton 's version of planet of the apes and within the first 20 minutes , i was checking my watch and my girlfriend ( a big fan of the original film ) started to nod off . this time around , the story plays out like a cross between enemy mine , braveheart , and project x . marky mark wahlberg , who was enjoyable in boogie nights and the corrupter , plays leo davidson , a hot shot u . s . air force pilot . leo and his crew are in search of some mysterious magnetic storms ( no real explanation given in the film ) and leo sends one of his genetically altered " smart " chimps into the storms to collect data . leo and his crew lose communication with the chimp , leo hops in another ship to find the monkey , and then he 's thrown through some type of time - space wormhole which crashes lands on the twentieth century fox studio backlot , all mocked up to look like the amazon jungle . leo ends up getting captured by a group of talking apes and is sold to a slave trader named limbo ( paul giamatti ) who in turn sells leo to a chimpanzee named ari ( helena bonham carter ) . the kind ari then helps leo and his fellow humans escape to the mountains to find leo 's ship . along the way , monkeys played by tim roth ( overacting his role of a vicious general named thade ) and michael clarke duncan ( who further enhances his career by playing another heavy in a bad action movie ) strive out to hunt down leo and his band of human savages , just like battlefield earth ! in the end , it all culminates into another braveheart rip - off human versus ape battle scene . while rick baker 's makeup work is amazing , the script is a pathetic hodgepodge ( courtesy of three writers ) , the acting is horrible , and the " surprise " ending feels like a swing from a ball - peen hammer into the temple . wahlberg does not have the physical or mental presence of a chuck heston to carry the film or any of its action sequences . this remake , or re - interpretation , as tim burton has proclaimed it , is an insult to the intelligence and wit of the original film . the ethical arguments about the equality of species , fascism , and military buildup have been replaced by tremendous amounts of ridiculous dialogue , an unimaginative narrative structure , and a romance between a monkey and a human . even chuck heston 's anti - gun tirade ( in the de rigeur cameo ) seems shallow and jokey . but the main element missing from this tim burton film is tim burton . even though his name is plastered across every billboard in america , john badham could have directed this film . even joel schumacher could have directed this film . he probably should have . burton 's predominant themes of rejection , isolation , and the search for one 's place in the universe , as seen in ed wood , edward scissorshands , and pee - wee 's big adventure , are completely absent in this planet . i suppose that 's what happen when a great director gets sucked through a wormhole .

0NEG

stories about outcast individuals yearning for acceptance , and into a studio monkey whose name is used as part of multi - tiered marketing materials for crap movies . and here he hits rock bottom , with planet of the apes . i did n't in one of his best roles of his career ? sadly , i sat down to watch burton 's version of of the apes and within the first 20 minutes , i was checking my watch and my girlfriend ( a big fan of the original film ) started to nod off . this time around , the story plays out like , just like battlefield earth ! in the end , it all culminates into another braveheart rip - off human versus ape battle scene . while rick baker 's makeup work is amazing , the script is a pathetic hodgepodge ( courtesy of three writers ) , the acting is horrible , and the " surprise " ending feels like a swing from a ball - peen hammer into the temple . wahlberg does not have the physical or mental presence interpretation , as tim burton has proclaimed it , is an insult to the intelligence and wit of the original film . the ethical arguments about the equality of species , fascism , and military buildup have been replaced by tremendous amounts of ridiculous dialogue , an unimaginative narrative structure , and a romance between a monkey and a human

the premise of this movie is , well , pretty far - fetched . tom berenger plays shale , a mercenary who is temporarily out of work ( those fools at the cia have denied his existence just because he and his buddies botched a job in cuba ) . fortunately , his girl friend ( diane venora ) , a teacher at christopher columbus high school in miami , gets her knee cap broken by a disgruntled student , creating a job opening for shale as a substitute teacher . not telling his girl friend , who might object on pedagogical grounds , he creates a number of fake higher degrees for himself ( from yale , harvard , princeton , et al ) and begins his tenure as a high school teacher . the students ( junkies , drug dealers , gang members , sleazy sluts , ice - pick wielders . . . you get the picture ) do n't really take to him right away , so he hits one in the face with a can and breaks a few fingers . this gets their attention to a certain extent , so he tells them the story of the vietnam war : " see , some homeboys from the north tried to muscle in on the turf of the homeboys from the south . " oh yeah , now they can dig it ; the problem is just that nobody ever explained it properly before . but wait ! there are drugs being dealt in the school itself ! and behind the whole scheme , in cahoots with the head gang , the kod ( no , not " cod " , but " knights of destruction " . . . really ! ) , is none other than . . . the upright , ex - cop principal , played by the forgotten ghostbuster , ernie hudson ! so shale does what any good teacher would do . he gets his buddies together , they gather together a bunch of bazookas and other major weapons , explosives , and cool stuff like that , and they have a big showdown against the drug dealers and kod at the high school . ok , so the premise is not just far - fetched , it 's downright dumb . if this were a hong kong action comedy , we might just accept it , but it takes itself far too seriously to be truly fun . oh , it has its moments ; how one can truly hate a movie in which huge ( really huge ) amounts of cocaine are delivered in school busses ? and to be fair , it is almost never really boring , as the action is interrupted by only short sequences of actual story . but over all , this is pretty much a made - for - tv movie with more ( and bigger ) explosions and more foul language . in fact , it reminded me of " miami vice " without the production values , babes in skimpy bikinis , and pastels . if you can sneak into the theater without paying , go for it . otherwise , wait for video . the flying inkpot rating system : * wait for the tv2 broadcast . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .

0NEG

the premise of this movie is , well , pretty far - fetched . tom berenger plays shale , a mercenary who is and kod at the high school . ok , so the premise is not just far - fetched , it 's downright dumb . if this were a hong kong action comedy , we might just accept it , but it takes itself far too seriously to be truly fun . oh , it has its moments ; how one values , babes in skimpy bikinis , and pastels . if you can sneak into the theater without paying , go for it . otherwise , wait for video . the flying inkpot rating system : * wait for

chris tucker is one of those guys you immediately get a reaction from -- you either find his helium voice , crazy eyes and jerky mannerisms funny or annoying . i think i fall into the former category ( i 'm one of the few who thought his turn in " the fifth element " as a prancing , prince - like deejay was complete inspired lunacy and not the least bit aggravating ) , but his new vehicle " money talks " just does n't do him service . tucker is good in the movie -- and this is the kind of film that , if people see it , could make him a big star -- but he 's also really the only thing good about the movie . in fact , if you see " money talks , " it should shock you beyond recognition that two of " toy story " 's writers penned the sloppy script . tucker 's role here is that of franklin hatchett , a petty los angeles con artist whose carwash scams get him dogged by investigative reporter james russell ( charlie sheen ) . after being busted on the job for some illegal business involving counterfeit passports , franklin finds himself on a bus to the county jail and handcuffed to slick international jewel smuggler raymond villard ( gerard ismael ) . but villard 's thugs blow up the bus in an attempt to free their leader ( never mind that the explosion could have instead killed him ) , and because he and franklin are joined at the wrist , franklin is allowed to escape as well , but not before overhearing some important information regarding a diamond stash that -- for some reason or another -- is being hidden in a vintage roadster waiting to be auctioned off at an upcoming auto expo . the local media mistakenly puts the prison break - out blame on franklin , which is where james comes back into the picture . he makes a deal to protect franklin if , in turn , franklin gives him an exclusive interview . this means james must present his new " friend " in the stickiest of situations -- a formal dinner party for he and fiancee grace ( heather locklear ) , also attended by her uber - rich parents ( veronica cartwright and nicely game paul sorvino ) . and of course the bad guys track franklin down and try to knock him off , all the while he spars and forms an unlikely bond with james . " this ai n't no buddy movie , " claim the print ads . yeah , right . actually , for the better part of , oh , 20 minutes , it appears " money talks " has the momentum to cover entertaining ground , and this is mostly due to the presence of spastic motormouth tucker . this is tucker 's first leading role , and if you imagine a slightly lankier , african - american jim carrey with a reliance on wild r - rated raunch rather than pg-13 physical comedy , you have a good idea of the conviction with which he assaults the role . but you realize all too quickly that tucker 's overstated liveliness is the only thing " money talks " has going for it . and a lively actor alone does not a successful movie make . it 's all too easy to pick out everything wrong with " money talks . " the plot is recycled buddy - buddy comedy - thriller tripe that seemed overused even when " nothing to lose " employed it last month . everything is paint - by - numbers , especially the los angeles coliseum finale , which finds not one , not two , but three separate enemy factions firing at franklin as they pursue him through the bleachers . the villains , as many as there are , are dull . certain story elements are too coincidental . and too much of the film 's dramatic agenda is played too straight . a scene where grace confronts james after learning franklin 's true identity ( " you brought a killer into my parents ' house ! " ) is extremely silly . you get the picture . obviously , i did not have a pleasant experience at " money talks . " but the people around me appeared to be having a rip - roaring good time ( one gentleman several rows behind me chortled with such expressive conviction i began fearing for his health ) . but tucker , at least for me , is a pretty funny guy , and aces the movie 's best scene , where franklin passes himself off as vic damone 's son at james and grace 's engagement bash and toasts the couple with barry white lyrics . tucker 's audience -- and he does have one -- will probably like " money talks . " those who he irritates , however , will have a more productive day staying home and scraping the gook out from under their toenails .

0NEG

) , but his new vehicle " money talks " just does n't do him service . tucker is good in the movie -- and this . but you realize all too quickly that tucker 's overstated liveliness is the only thing " money talks " has going for it . and a lively actor alone does not a successful pick out everything wrong with " money talks . " the plot is recycled buddy - buddy comedy - thriller tripe that seemed overused even when " nothing to lose " employed it last the villains , as many as there are , are dull . certain story elements are too coincidental . and too killer into my parents ' house ! " ) is extremely silly . you get the picture . obviously , i did not have a pleasant experience at " money talks . " but the people around

" soldier " , by director paul anderson , is a film in which any presence of originality is fleeting . the best moments of the film are in the opning scenes where kurt russel 's character todd is shown growing up under strict military supervision . brutality through the eyes of the innocent and stripped of it every single day growing up is something that has a lot of emotional potential power behind it , and the opening scenes tap into it a little . then it goes nowhere with that idea . there is perhaps one rather fleeting scene afterwards that deals with the potential trauma of this dehumanization , and the rest of the film is just some of the biggest action movie cliches i 've ever seen . the whole idea of the inhuman , soldier - type character gaining some degree of humanity by defending a potential female love interest and family from his evil counterpart out to kill her is done , and it 's been done much better . i was able to predict the plot of the _ whole _ story , which would n't be so bad if other aspect of the film somewhat interesting . between the action sequences , it tries to deal with the aforementioned issues of humanity through the performance of mr . russel in the film and the tiny little window to his soul that is his eyes , since his dialog is extremely limited . his performance in that way is n't all that bad , but certainly is not enough to carry this film . other performances in this film are really not worth much mention at all , and they generally are about as weak as their characters . but enough of this stuff about plot and character , right ? is n't the most important part of an action film , well , the action ? even in this aspect the film is a disappointment . in mortal kombat ( 1995 ) , director paul anderson proved that truly engaging use and choreography of action in a film can override problems with plot and produce something entertaining . however , he fails to repeat that in this film . the combat scenes , particularly the big one at the end , is incredibly unimaginatve . fighting and combat scenes are supposed to bring about thrills in this type of movie , a point which even an otherwise unimpressive film like starship troopers seemed to realize . but instead of reaching for something truly interesting to end the film with , it goes for the old , shoot - em up , one guy vs . an army type of cinema that i thought died with the military action films of the 80s . if the film went with some of the ideas it opened up with the introduction more seriously , it could have been a rather engaging science fiction film . however , it utterly failed to go in any new directions after that , making the film a big disappointment .

0NEG

" soldier " , by director paul anderson , is a film in which any presence of originality is fleeting . the best moments of the film are in the opening scenes tap into it a little . then it goes nowhere with that idea . there is perhaps one rather fleeting scene afterwards that deals with the potential trauma of this dehumanization , and the rest of the film is just some of the biggest action movie cliches i 've ever seen . the whole idea of the window to his soul that is his eyes , since his dialog is extremely limited . his performance in that way is n't all that carry this film . other performances in this film are really not worth much mention at all , and they generally are about as weak as their characters . but enough of this stuff about plot and character problems with plot and produce something entertaining . however , he fails to repeat that in this film . the combat scenes , particularly the big one at the end , is incredibly unimaginatve . fighting and combat scenes are supposed to bring about for something truly interesting to end the film with , it goes for the old , shoot - em up , one guy vs . an army type of cinema that i thought died with the military action films of been a rather engaging science fiction film . however , it utterly failed to go in any new directions after that , making the film a big disappointment .

the first scene of operation condor has jackie chan preparing for a secret mission . he attempts to pop a couple of pieces of chewing gum into his mouth , but misses . after they ricochet off his face , he says , " not a good start . " as it turns out , this line not only gives foreshadowing to the opening sequence , but to the rest of the movie as well . in this , the latest of the jackie chan movies to be released in america after first runs in hong kong , chan plays an international operative codenamed " condor " , and is tasked by the united nations with finding a stash of gold hidden at a secret base by the nazi 's during their retreat across the saharan desert during the second world war . for some reason , condor is given his mission at the u . s . embassy in spain . i think this may have been done so that in a chase scene , they could honor the time old tradition of knocking over a fruit cart . watch for it in any chase scene set in a foreign country , most notably in europe . the chase will take itself through a marketplace , and a fruit cart will be overturned . it 's almost a guarantee . anyway . . . . condor is given a key which is supposed to unlock a giant vault in which the gold is hidden ; the problem is that the key has insulators integrated into it , which may mean a booby trap might be electronically triggered if the key is used improperly . to help him figure out where the gold is hidden and how to use the key correctly , condor is accompanied by a desert expert ( carol cheng ) and the granddaughter of the captain who was in charge of hiding the gold ( eva cobo ) . there are n't supposed to be any relatives of the nazi captain living in spain , but condor finds the granddaughter by looking her up in the phone book or something . although these two women are supposed to be integral parts of the mission , they prove no help at all except to get in trouble and provide an excuse for chan to jump into his martial arts . in fact , most of the scenes are so ridiculously contrived that it seems everything is just a way to set up a fight . i suppose this is n't so bad , since chan 's action is really the best part of the movie , and the only reason you go to see one of his films anyway . if you 've never seen a jackie chan movie , do n't expect a great plot , but do expect to be entertained by his moves . they are so well choreographed and often so amazing that you wonder if this guy is human . knowing that he does his own stunts , and knowing that this is the real stuff ( no computer - masked bungee cords here ) makes the action sequences all the more exciting . you 've got to hand it to a guy who 's probably broken every bone in his body for the sake of his art . also of note in this , as in any jackie chan movie , is the humor . as far as i know , none of his films take themselves too seriously , and even the dramatic parts have a certain tongue - in - cheek quality about them . what is almost masterful is the way that humor is even integrated into the fight scenes . unlike a martial arts film such as anything with jean claude van damme , where the fights get you on the visceral level , fight scenes in chan 's movies are simply entertaining . you marvel at both his moves and at the way he employs them in such a way to make you laugh . unfortunately , even chan 's mastery ca n't save this film . the plot and characters are so weak that they do n't hold the movie together at all , and the acting is terrible . carol cheng has apparently won best actress honors at the hong kong movie awards in the past , but since operation condor is a dubbed movie it kind of takes all bets off . this , combined with an obviously low production value made we want to turn away from the screen until i heard those kicks start flying .

0NEG

to jump into his martial arts . in fact , most of the scenes are so ridiculously contrived that it seems everything is just a way to set them in such a way to make you laugh . unfortunately , even chan 's mastery ca n't save this film . the plot and characters are so weak that they do n't hold the movie together at all , and the acting is terrible . carol cheng has apparently won best actress honors at of takes all bets off . this , combined with an obviously low production value made we want to turn away from the screen until

cashing in on the success of white men ca n't jump and the failure of most of their solo vehicles ( including the cowboy way and drop zone ) , wesley snipes and woody harrelson have reteamed , hoping that they can strike up the same success . sadly , if this dismal , cliche ridden and mind - numbingly boring action pic is anything to go by , they have n't got a chance in hell of even coming close . this time out , the duo play foster brothers who are transit cops . following several run - ins with their tyrannical boss ( robert blake ) , who is obsessed with the " money train " --a train which carries all the subway 's takings -- and will let nothing stop it ( now * there 's * an original plot device ) , harrelson 's character decides to try and take off with the cash . along the way , both of them fall in love with the same woman -- another transit cop who also hates her boss . this leads to the typical sibling rivalry crap that you usually find in a film of this standard ( ' you were always the better brother ' etc . etc . etc . ) , and does n't help to add anything to the film . given a better script , better performers in supporting roles and a shorter running time ( the film almost went for two hours -- or did it just feel like it ? ) , this film might ( and i mean * might * ) have turned out okay , but as it is , it is stocked with the worst action film cliches , whose only purpose appears to be to pad the film out to its painfully long running time . robert blake , who plays the evil boss , has got to be the most pathetic bad guy in film history ! he sounds like wayne newton , and appears to think the best way to appear evil is to have your eyes bulging as though they are about to burst out of their sockets ! but this is only one of money train 's problems . if you look at the script as if it was an action film , it lacks originality and suspense . but if you try to look at it as if it were a heist film , it is even worse . the final robbery sequence is almost trivialised and the characters definitely ai n't butch and sundance . the film is n't all bad though . snipes and harrelson , when they are n't using the dumb cliches that the script gives them , make an agreeable duo , and some of the stunt - work is indeed excellent . but good stunt - work can not save a bottom - of - the - barrel action movie . if you 're a really undemanding action freak , there 's a chance you 'll like this . but if you 're looking for something original , or suspenseful , try somewhere else -- i doubt you 'll find it here .

0NEG

hoping that they can strike up the same success . sadly , if this dismal , cliche ridden and mind - numbingly boring action pic is anything to go by , they have n't got ' etc . etc . etc . ) , and does n't help to add anything to the film . given a better script , better performers in supporting have turned out okay , but as it is , it is stocked with the worst action film cliches , whose only purpose appears to be to pad the film out to its painfully long running time . robert blake , who plays the evil boss , are about to burst out of their sockets ! but this is only one of money train 's problems . if you look at the script as if it was an action film , it lacks originality and suspense . but if you try to look at it as . snipes and harrelson , when they are n't using the dumb cliches that the script gives them , make an agreeable duo excellent . but good stunt - work can not save a bottom - of - the - barrel action movie . if you 're a really undemanding action freak ,

girl 6 is , in a word , a mess . i was never able to determine what spike lee was trying to accomplish with this film . there was no sense of where the film was going , or any kind of coherent narrative . if there was a point to the film , i missed it . girl 6 , by the way , is the way theresa randle 's character is addressed in the phone sex workplace ; all the girls are known by their numbers . the plot , such as it is : theresa randle is a struggling n . y . actress , and eventually takes a job as a phone - sex operator . she begins to lose contact with reality , as her job consumes her . also , she must deal with the advances of her ex - husband ( isiah washington ) . he is an ex- con thief , and she tries to keep him away , while at the same time , it 's clear that she still harbors feelings for him . her neighbor , jimmy ( spike lee ) functions as the observer ; mediating between the ex- husband and girl 6 . he also functions as a point of stability , as he watches her become seduced by the lurid world of phone sex . the soundtrack , consisting of songs by prince , was jarring . it kept taking my attention from the film - not altogether a bad thing , i 'll grant you , as what was transpiring onscreen was n't that riveting . for parts of the middle of the film , the music stayed blissfully in the background . in the opening sequence and one scene later in the film , however , the music was particularly loud and distracting . of course , i 've never really cared for prince 's ( or tafkap if you like ) music . prince fans might love the soundtrack , but it will probably be distracting , even to die - hard fans . of the performances , the only one that stood out was spike lee 's buddy character , jimmy . he was excellent as the always - broke neighbor of girl 6 . he should have stuck to acting in this film . there are several sequences that gave me the impression that he 'd like to be oliver stone when he grows up . there are scenes shot with different types of film , which are purposely grainy , and reminiscent of some of the scenes in oliver stone 's natural born killers . in that film , they worked to propel the narrative . in this film , they just made me more confused . there are some amusing moments , and a few insights into the lives of the women who use their voices to make the phone - sex industry the multi - billion dollar industry that it has become . other than that , though , nothing much happens . there are a few intense moments , as when one caller becomes frightening , but even that is rather lackluster . i 'm not the biggest fan of spike lee , though i 'd agree that he has done some very good work in the past . in girl 6 , though , he seems to be floundering . he had an interesting idea , a fairly good setup , and seemed to wander aimlessly from there . girl 6 earns a grade of d .

0NEG

girl 6 is , in a word , a mess . i was never able to determine what spike lee the soundtrack , consisting of songs by prince , was jarring . it kept taking my attention from the film - a bad thing , i 'll grant you , as what was transpiring onscreen was n't that riveting . for parts of the middle of the film , and one scene later in the film , however , the music was particularly loud and distracting . of course , i 've never really cared for music . prince fans might love the soundtrack , but it will probably be distracting , even to die - hard fans . of the worked to propel the narrative . in this film , they just made me more confused . there are some amusing moments , and a few multi - billion dollar industry that it has become . other than that , though , nothing much happens . there are a few intense moments , as when in the past . in girl 6 , though , he seems to be floundering . he had an interesting idea , a fairly good setup , and seemed to wander aimlessly from there . girl 6 earns a grade of d

back in 1980s , chuck norris used to be synonym for the action films . he could n't , of course , top the success and fame of big action names like sylvester stallone or arnold schwarzenegger , but sheer quantity of his films guaranteed that he was household name among shoot'em up and beat'em up genre aficionados . that quantity was mostly provided by cannon group , prolific production company that dominated the b - movie market in previous decade by flooding it with cheap , formulaic and , more often than not , unwatchable genre products . the hitman , 1991 action thriller directed by chuck 's brother aaron , is one of the last among them . chuck norris here plays seattle cop betrayed , shot and left for dead by his partner ( which should n't surprise anyone , considering the fact that the partner is being played by michael parks , specialised for roles of usually very mean characters ) . surviving the shooting , cop is pronounced dead and hired as deep undercover agent . he infiltrates the underworld circles in seattle and becomes their top hitman , using his abilities to start brutal war between three major crime organisations - italians , french canadians and iranians . since it is rather absurd to expect great acting ability from chuck norris , at least not in this kind of movie , the biggest attraction of this film should have been action . well , the action in this film falls flat - it is boring , repetitive and not at all exciting . it is nothing more than monotonous series of scenes that contains violence too brutal even for this type of films . we know very little about norris ' character while , on the other hand , gangsters are portrayed with more human dimension . in the end we almost feel sorry for them , since they are shown totally powerless against norris and his unstoppable and bloody crusade . during the film , somebody obviously became aware of that problem , so the screenwriter introduced the subplot dealing with the black boy who gets adopted by norris . that caused another problem - any questions about nature of that relationship had to be quashed with another subplot - this one dealing with lady lawyer who sleeps with the hero and gets killed after fulfilling that screenplay obligation . the photography in this film is dark , setting is depressive and this forgettable piece of 1980s style cinema leaves viewers without any reason to justify the hour and half spent in watching it .

0NEG

- movie market in previous decade by flooding it with cheap , formulaic and , more often than not , unwatchable genre products . the hitman , 1991 action thriller directed by chuck been action . well , the action in this film falls flat - it is boring , repetitive and not at all exciting . it is nothing more than monotonous series of scenes that contains violence too brutal even for this type of in this film is dark , setting is depressive and this forgettable piece of 1980s style cinema leaves viewers without any reason to

as forgetful as some people may be it is doubtful that anyone could forget their wedding , especially three times . but , alas professor brainard somehow manages to accomplish this feat twice before the momentous night that he actually creates flubber . it 's amazing that he is able to remember any of the processes he uses to make anything . the whole point here is how could a man be so blatantly forgetful . this is not absent minded this is almost mindless and he is a professor . well , this is the case for about the first half of the movie then things begin to settle into what might truly be considered absent minded . along the way to becoming absent minded from absent of mind the professor stumbles onto flubber . thankfully or there would be no movie or any amusement for the audience . the flubber is supposed to be flying rubber , but it seems to have a life of its own . this is there strictly for the kids . the properties of the flubber provide some antics for the audience when flubber coated golfballs and bowling balls assail two would be thugs . although amusing this is not original what so ever and brings back haunting memories of home alone . the poor professor has to save the university where he teaches at , get his fiancee back , finally stop the plotting of an evil millionaire , and do all this in the funniest way possible . admittedly there are funny moments but the movie is rather shallow and does not compare very well to the original ( the absent minded professor ) . the whole scene with the basketball game was just atrocious and totally unbelievable . the basketball players , stereotypically unqualified for the sport , somehow manage to bounce , fly and dribble their way back to being close to winning ? this just sounds too bad to be true , the least that could have been done was keep semi close to the original movie to give this film a chance . as for innovations and new ideas there is but two good ones in this movie . giving life to the flubber , which is so poorly executed that it 's best forgotten , and prof . brainard 's flying robot weebo . giving life to the flubber would have worked beautifully if it was n't for scenes of the sort where you have the flubber dancing around on tables and books for no real reason other than to put in a bit of music and extend the length of the movie . the life of the flubber had brief and rather whimsical moments where it might have been used well , but it was n't and in the end might have done the movie more harm than good . now , weebo is a totally different story . it 's a robot that prof . brainard created but forgot how and gave something of a life too . this is a really original idea , well maybe not , but it is an idea that is well executed and in the end makes the poor robot the most developed and real character in the movie . yes folks the little yellow robot has more emotion and character than the characters . the film lacks the emotional punch to pull the audience in at all . the acting by robin williams ( prof . brainard ) seems to be half hearted for most of the movie and in many cases quite forced . most of the acting in the movie was so convincing as to fool only the part of the audience that had not quite yet reached the age to 12 . people when stood up at the altar , do n't usually give third chances . or for that matter talk to the fiancee afterwards , but what can be expected this is a children 's movie . flubber , as a movie does little original and is nothing special in any respect . with the best character in the movie being something of a prop i doubt that many people will find it all that great . it does have its amusing moments and it is a good story in the end , but it does not wash up to the original . kids should find this movie amusing and fun and they 'll probably enjoy the whole movie . as a movie it 's just a kids movie and not the best of ones at that .

0NEG

funniest way possible . admittedly there are funny moments but the movie is rather shallow and does not compare very well to the original ( the absent minded professor ) . the whole scene with the basketball game was just atrocious and totally unbelievable . the basketball players , stereotypically unqualified for the sport movie . giving life to the flubber , which is so poorly executed that it 's best forgotten , and prof . brainard 's flying robot weebo . robot has more emotion and character than the characters . the film lacks the emotional punch to pull the audience in at all . the acting robin williams ( prof . brainard ) seems to be half hearted for most of the movie and in many cases quite a children 's movie . flubber , as a movie does little original and is nothing special in any respect . with the best character in the movie being something of a prop i doubt that many people will find it all that great . it does have its amusing moments and it is

how do you judge a film that is so bad , but intentionally so ? in spiceworld , the highly popular singing group the spice girls accomplish their major goal : mocking themselves with a purposely cheezy film and having a lot of fun doing it . if that was their goal , they did a fantastic job . so is it fair to give it such a low grade when it was n't really meant to be much better than this ? honestly , i 'd rather see this film before many others i gave higher grades , so does that mean i graded it inaccurately ? truth be known , i do n't really think i can answer this question . to understand spiceworld , you have to understand the spice girls . unless you 're very * very * young , or fairly older , you probably have at least heard of them . they 're a group of five busty british babes who 've had # 1 hit singles and whose debut album sold millions . they 're primarily adored by pre - teen girls who hope someday the contents of their training bras might match those of ginger spice 's ( real name : geri haliwell ) wonderbra . all five of the girls have these " spicy " names for which they are better known than their real names . there is the aforementioned ginger spice , as well as sporty spice ( melanie chisholm , or mel c . ) , scary spice ( melanie brown , or mel b . ) , baby spice ( emma bunton ) , and posh spice ( victoria addams ) , and all of them , to some degree or another , resemble their stage names . the spice girls took the world by storm , and spiceworld is actually a good- humored spoof of all that transpired during their quick rise to fame . it 's quite nice to see what good sports the girls are ( and not just the one dubbed sporty ) about poking fun at themselves . they do n't take themselves too seriously , and that 's probably the best thing about them . it 's also surprising how natural they seem in front of the camera * acting * , and not just singing and dancing . they 're not flawless by any means , but for the most part , they deliver their lines without feeling staged , and , like them or not , we get the sense the five are very at home within their characters ( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) . what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't get enough of their music , while the rest of us do n't get enough of a movie . the real point of this is to look at the spice girls for over ninety straight minutes . most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually make us laugh out loud ! if you 're a big fan of the group , you probably wo n't get enough of what you want , and if you 're not a big fan , you get too much time devoted to nothing more than " look at us " moments . for the right crowd , the " music video " sequences will be the highlights of the film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline . other key actors include richard e . grant as clifford , the spice girls ' manager , alan cumming as the film - maker piers cutherton - smyth who attempts to make a documentary of the group , george wendt as martin barnfield , a producer who constantly works on pitching a spice girls movie , and roger moore in a small , self - parodizing role . all provide relatively good performances , keeping in mind once again that this film was n't meant to be acted seriously . even meat loaf shows up as dennis the bus driver and seems to have fun with it . while this film is continuously compared to the beatles ' a hard day 's night , i think that is an unjust comparison . it is supposedly the movie studio that first mad the comparison by way of press kits , but i do n't think drector bob spiers , nor the spice girls , intended it to be so . i think the studios were just trying to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious . i do n't think this film is trying to be anything more than a fun , satirical look at a group that got so big , a movie seemed the next likely step . and what could 've been better than a self - indulged yet self- mocking approach ? probably nothing , and so it is . spiceworld is a movie i thought would be embarrassing to enjoy , but now instead , i find myself wanting to defend a movie i did n't even give a good review . it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended . it gives the spice girls a chance to play while allowing all those obsessive fans out there to indulge in every brainless moment . perhaps the group is nothing more than a gimmick . if that 's the case , the movie 's gimmick is that it * is * such a gimmick ! you might be saying , " a spice girls movie ? come on ! " , but when it comes down to it , i think that 's the point .

0NEG

( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) . what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline . other key actors include richard e . grant as to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious . i do n't think this film is trying to movie i did n't even give a good review . it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended .

we could paraphrase michelle pfieffer 's character in dangerous minds and say that beyond rangoon starts with an " a . " that 's fair enough . all movies , like all school children , should be given the benefit of the doubt . the chance to succeed . after all , we like to think that the right combination of talent and effort can do wonders . mountains can be moved , and good movies can be made . yeah right . children fail , as do films . as does director john boorman 's latest . the success of beyond rangoon hinges on the believability of patricia arquette ( ed wood , true romance ) as the busty westerner - in - peril wandering about 1988 burma without a passport . though we can stomach the mild plot contrivances that get her there , it 's a tougher task to overlook the actress . she 's a lightweight . as the first scene ( with narration ! ) demonstrates , she does n't have * nearly * enough range for the emotions that her character -- a mother fleeing the memories of a murdered husband and son -- is supposed to show . she may give a stronger performance than , say , keanu reeves in a walk in the clouds , by not by much . beyond rangoon is a very physically appealing film , thanks to the practiced craftsmanship of john boorman ( deliverance , excalibur , hope and glory ) . he keeps the narrative moving , no matter how muddy the story -- or the heroine -- gets . why he chose arquette remains a mystery , though . maybe he was thinking that the dramatic weight of the story would overcome any casting deficiencies . but even after an hour of half - stated political statements and murky mass killings , we * still * do n't know enough of what 's happening in this country to feel distressed for the characters or their situations . empty exoticism . the technical credits in beyond rangoon are a curious mix , combining lush jungle photography with bad blue - screen work . also odd is the obvious dubbing . done to make some of the foreign characters sound less foreign ? and , is it my mistake , or do the same extras keep reappearing as different soldiers ? ? doo doo doo doo . [ " twilight zone " theme , or opinion of movie . you be the judge . ]

0NEG

peril wandering about 1988 burma without a passport . though we can stomach the mild plot contrivances that get her there , it 's a tougher task and glory ) . he keeps the narrative moving , no matter how muddy the story -- or the heroine -- gets . why he chose arquette remains a mystery , though that the dramatic weight of the story would overcome any casting deficiencies . but even after an hour of half - stated with bad blue - screen work . also odd is the obvious dubbing . done to make some of the foreign characters sound

i think that saying that the x - files is one of this summer 's most anticipated films is safe . for five years , " the x - files " television show has developed a dedicated fan culture , whose rabid devotion to the series rivals that of " star trek " fans . the premise of both the movie and the television series is two fbi agents who investigate the paranormal ; fox mulder ( david duchovny ) is the avid believer whose quest to find the truth about extraterrestrial life borders on the paranoid , and dana scully ( gillian anderson ) is the scientific skeptic trying to find a rational explanation to mulder 's flights of fancy . outlining the plot of the x - files movie is virtually impossible , since to be general would result in confusion , yet to be specific would give too much away . nevertheless , i will try . " the black ooze , " and extraterrestrial , virus - like substance is threatening earth . a " shadow government " is aware of this , but tries to cover - up the alien existence . mulder and scully know " the truth is out there , " and so try to expose both the invasion and the cover - up . there are three central questions i have heard asked about this movie : 1 . will those who do n't watch the series be able to understand the movie ? yes . isolated as an individual text , the x - files can stand alone . they have given enough background for anyone , familiar with the show or not , to understand the movie . although some of the secondary characters ' histories may confuse the uninitiated , those characters are not essential to the film . this is a major problem : they trot out token secondary characters from the series out for an appearance and then disappear just as quickly . why bring superintendent skinner into the picture in the first place , and then have him sat silently on an fbi internal affairs committee ? why bring in " the lone gunmen , " three computer geek conspiracy theorists , for an even briefer appearance ? these characters are recurrent on the series , and their appearance in the film was met with whoops from the audience ( suggesting their popularity among fans - actually most of the audience could pass for " the lone gunmen " ) . still , then they vanish just as quickly . 2 . the television show never gives us any answers . will the movie actually explain some things ? yes . in the x - files we get a fairly complete history of " the black ooze , " what it is and what it wants . we finally get some understanding of the motivations behind the " shadow government . " there are even some subtle tie - ins with contemporary ufo - ology , including the " greys " and the roswell crash of 1947 . 3 . is the movie any good ? no . the x - files is a dreadful movie and shows some fundamental problems with writer / creator chris carter 's talents and the relationship between cinema and television . first off , the screenplay by series creator chris carter is sloppy and cliched . after approximately forty - five minutes ( the length of a television episode minus the commercials ) , the pace drops to a snail 's crawl . not long after that point , when carter attempts to answer some questions we have had about the series , we wish he had not . the explanations are so trite and ridiculous that one would have preferred it had carter not explained quite so much . i am willing to suspend my disbelief a fair bit , but the absurdity carter wants me to swallow was just too much . breaking the suspension of disbelief destroys the movie - and listening to other fans leave the cinema , maybe the series too . the explanations are not only absurd , they are tired and unoriginal . the extraterrestrials breed and gestate like those from the alien series , and their craft looks like a leftover set piece from independence day . note that the alien movies , id4 , and the x - files are all from 20thcentury fox - a studio that is beginning to cannibalize itself i think . the x - files is noteworthy for being the only movie based on a television series to be produced while the series was still running . in comparing the movie and television series certain aspects of the respective media emerge . the avoidance of the series to answer the questions it raised annoyed and frustrated many people . however , i rather liked that about the series . television allows you to impose as much , or as little , meaning on a show as you want . it is the proverbial " blank screen " which we project our minds on . meaning on television is open and ambiguous ; it is the nature of the medium . cinema , on the other hand , is the opposite . it projects onto us the filmmakers mind . we can , in some films , fill the textual gaps ourselves , but that almost never happens in an american film . meaning , in cinema , needs to be self - contained and determined . so , when the x - files made that jump from small to big screen , carter needed to take into consideration the differences in the medium as well . he did not . by making explicit , what the television show left implicit , carter reveals the limits of his creativity and skill . when they say that " fans " make a tv show , it is not far from the truth . on television , fan culture must impose its meanings on the text because there is nothing there . how true that is when we see the " explicit " x - files - there is nothing there . the following was printed in the st . john 's express , st . john 's , newfoundland , canada . all views are the authors , but copyright is held by robinson - blackmore , 1998 . ; movie review by mikel j . koven .

0NEG

, those characters are not essential to the film . this is a major problem : they trot out token secondary characters from the series " and the roswell crash of 1947 . 3 . is the movie any good ? no . the x - files is a dreadful movie and shows some fundamental problems with writer / creator chris carter 's talents and the off , the screenplay by series creator chris carter is sloppy and cliched . after approximately forty - five minutes ( the length of a television episode minus the commercials ) , the pace drops to a snail 's crawl . not long after that point , when carter attempts about the series , we wish he had not . the explanations are so trite and ridiculous that one would have preferred it had carter not explained . the explanations are not only absurd , they are tired and unoriginal . the extraterrestrials breed and gestate like those from the explicit , what the television show left implicit , carter reveals the limits of his creativity and skill . when they say that " fans " make a

contrary to popular belief , not every single foregin film released to an american market is a masterpiece . some of them are n't even good . some examples of this principle are the aboslutely dreadful " un indien dans la ville " ( presented as " little indian , big city , " and remade into that crap tim allen flick , " jungle2jungle " ) , and this . what could have been a clever little sex comedy turns into one mess of a french flick . " french twist " ( the " cool " american title , not the real one , which was " gazon maudit , " literally meaning " twisted ground , " or something like that ) deals with a married couple with kids , and the intrusion of a stranger who kinda screws things up for them . loli and alain chabat ( victoria abril and alain chabat ) are not exactly happily married . always on business trips , alain chabat more than once cheats on her , and she eventually finds out . and one day , she meets a butch mechanic , marijo ( the co - writer / director josiane balasko ) , and they two kinda hit it off . so she decides she will get back at alain chabat by doing the obvious : sleeping with marijo . but she soons starts to not only fall in love with marijo , but she 's also realizes she 's still in love with alain chabat . so , of course , she does the obvious from that : she decides to keep them both . she 'll be ( and sleep ) with each of them for 3 days each , then on sunday , she 'll rest by herself . after all , she needs it if she 's gon na have more sex than sylvia kristel . the film goes on for over an hour and a half , through stupidity after stupidity , moronic twist after moronic twist , and soon there 's the little ironic ( ! ! ! ) ending . i know it 's a completely different culture , and i 'm quite familiar with the french and their cinema , but this is just bad . none of the characters are more intelligent than peter stormare in " fargo " ( a movie where stupid characters were backed up to make a point ) , and any action they do is pretty much just to get a hopeful chuckle from the audience . what 's shocking is this was not only one of france 's biggest hits , but it was nominated for a lot of cesars ( french equivalent of oscars ) . the writing and directing is really the big problem with it . josiane balasko does a good acting job with her role , but her little sex comedy is n't very humerous , entertaining , or even deep at all . even woody allen 's not - very - good " a midsummer night 's sex comedy " is intelligent , well - written , and possesses some depth . this is shallow , unfunny , and pretty annoying to watch . the film moves at the pace of a snail , and is damn - near painful to watch . thank god for the fast forward button . the acting , however , is n't bad at all . the actors do the best they can with the bad material , and victoria abril is pretty likable despite the script ( and the fact that she 's stupid enough to try to divide herself over two people when she has kids ) . and alain chabat has some funny moments as the neurotic husband . but " french twist " is just pretty lame . it 's not overly horrible , and has a couple very , very , very brief moments . but it 's just a really crap film , and an example of an ill - advised distribution of a foreign film .

0NEG

. what could have been a clever little sex comedy turns into one mess of a french flick . " french twist " ( the " cool " goes on for over an hour and a half , through stupidity after stupidity , moronic twist after moronic twist , and soon there 's the little ironic ( ! quite familiar with the french and their cinema , but this is just bad . none of the characters are more intelligent than peter lot of cesars ( french equivalent of oscars ) . the writing and directing is really the big problem with it . josiane balasko does a good acting job , well - written , and possesses some depth . this is shallow , unfunny , and pretty annoying to watch . the film moves at the pace of a snail , and is damn - near painful to watch . thank god for the fast forward button . the . the actors do the best they can with the bad material , and victoria abril is pretty likable despite the script the neurotic husband . but " french twist " is just pretty lame . it 's not overly horrible , and has a couple very , very , very brief moments . but it 's just a really crap film , and an example of an ill - advised distribution of a foreign film .

i can see a decent sports movie struggling to break free of oliver stone 's ` any given sunday ' . it 's an entertaining movie that offers both insight and excitement into the rock - em , sock - em profession of pro football . unfortunately , the director seems to have only one priority on his mind : sprucing up the film with an assortment of fancy camera maneuvers . in altering each frame with quick - flash photography and dizzying , in - your - face editing , stone appears to have completely ignored the matter of plausible character development and football politics . we see glimpses of greatness , but ` any given sunday ' has its agenda all tangled in technical gobbledy - gook . it grows tiresome and monotonous . yes , stone has pulled a brian depalma . matters of importance are pushed aside right from the get - go . tony d'amato ( al pacino ) , coach of the struggling miami sharks , finds his team stuck in a losing rut . aging quarterback cap rooney ( dennis quaid ) appears to be losing his touch , and d'amato ca n't seem to ignite any passion in his squad . when cap is injured on the field , and after a patch of unlikely events occur , third - string qb willie beaman ( jamie foxx ) is brought into the game . once in the huddle ( and this becomes an in - game ritual ) , beaman horks all over the field . nerves , you see . eventually though , the ancy youngster wins the game for his teammates , sparking his rise to fame in the football world - the endorsements , the music videos , etc . - and stone straps us in for the jolting ride of behind - the - scenes stress and fury that the business is apparently like . and i believe it . there is some intriguing insight posed , but in the big scheme of things , stone fumbles the ball . the problem with the director 's visual approach is this : he uses extravagant editing devices when a more conventional approach would have been appropriate . football is an exciting game to watch , but stone seems to think dizzying the audience with an assault on the senses will only add to the adrenaline rush . i guess he is mistaken . ` any given sunday ' is a visual kaleidoscope that leaves the audience in a frustrated stupor more frequently than it excites them . many football fans ( including one i attended with ) are liable to be disappointed with the ` ultra - stylish ' way stone has decided to present the game . in return , a three - star film becomes unfortunately degraded due to the director 's tampering . in welcome scenes when the visual pummeling comes to a break , this actually shows decent character development and interaction . for instance , heated returns between d'amato and feisty young owner christina pagniacci ( cameron diaz ) are enjoyable to watch . there is also a solid performance from jamie foxx , who experiments with great success in his first trek into dramatic territory . the stellar supporting cast includes matthew modine , aaron eckhart , lauren holly , ann - margret and charlton heston ( in an extraordinarily brief appearance ) . unfortunately , too many big names are wasted - a typical demise for a film with such a large and experienced cast . pacino makes some interesting progress with his character . you begin to identify with coach d'amato and the morals he is striving for . . . . but i often felt he was just another play thing stone could weave in and out of his editing dynamics . ` any given sunday ' is a watchable but disappointing sports film in which plot and characters take a back seat to excessive filmmaking technique . and a very distant back seat , at that .

0NEG

em , sock - em profession of pro football . unfortunately , the director seems to have only one priority on in altering each frame with quick - flash photography and dizzying , in - your - face editing , stone appears to have completely ignored the matter of plausible character development and football politics . we see glimpses of greatness , but ` any given sunday ' has its agenda all tangled in technical gobbledy - gook . it grows tiresome and monotonous . yes , stone has pulled a brian depalma . big scheme of things , stone fumbles the ball . the problem with the director 's visual approach is this : he uses extravagant editing devices when a more conventional ` any given sunday ' is a visual kaleidoscope that leaves the audience in a frustrated stupor more frequently than it excites them . many football fans ( including one i attended with ) are liable to be disappointed with the ` ultra - stylish ' way stone has decided to present the game . in return , a three - star film becomes unfortunately degraded due to the director 's tampering . in welcome scenes charlton heston ( in an extraordinarily brief appearance ) . unfortunately , too many big names are wasted - a typical demise for a film with such a large and experienced cast . ` any given sunday ' is a watchable but disappointing sports film in which plot and characters take a back seat to excessive filmmaking technique . and a very distant back seat , at that

this well - conceived but ultra sugary coming - of - age film is not for everyone , and i include myself as one of those who found it too sappy for my digestion . joseph cross ( joshua beal ) is a 10-year - old who is saddened by the recent loss of his grandfather ( loggia ) to bone marrow cancer . loggia is wonderful in relating to the child in such a wholesome manner , it almost saves this film from drowning in syrup . the beals are like a sitcom idyllic family , where everyone is just so nice and affluent , and properly religious without being fanatical . the beals , the father ( denis leary ) and his wife ( dana delany ) , are both successful doctors ; julia stiles plays joshua 's older sister , needling her younger brother but also showing that she really cares about him . this is a family seemingly conceived in heaven , but living in south philadelphia , sending their children to a well - run catholic school . joshua , the protagonist and the narrator of this yarn , is a handsome , sweet , intelligent , friendly , and endearing child , who does well in school , relates to the nuns and priests , and talks politely to his well - meaning parents . all this mawkish interplay makes it almost too nauseating to watch . the plot arises when joseph has a problem coping with the death of his beloved grandfather , who promised to be with him forever . his answer is to search for god , pretty heady stuff for a youngster his age to do , but that 's just the way it is , sometimes . this search for god takes us nowhere because , as his friend david ( reifsnyder ) says , where can you look for him if he does n't exist . now , that 's a smart kid . but joseph looks for him in the usual places , and what better place than to start in the parochial school he attends . one of his teachers is the kind - hearted sister terry ( rosie o'donnell ) , who wears a philly baseball hat and equates the jesus stories with baseball , making him the clean - up hitter , and in my opinion , if she was n't a big tv star , would have a vocation as a parochial school teacher , she is that convincing . throughout the film , she is saved from answering any tough ( sic ! ) question about god by the bell , as it rings to end the class . nothing much happens in the search for god , there is no parody of the catholic school ; though a visiting cardinal is found by the boy not to be able to talk to god , but this is gentle stuff , no real criticism or search for god is attempted . what comes next into play is some hollywood hokum , which is designed not to upset anyone , as joseph has a reassuring encounter with a real , live angel , a blond little boy his own age and dressed like him in the catholic school uniform who wears the innocuous smile of a goody - goody . the film ends as this angel ( ! ! ! ) tells him his grandfather is all right . his quest is ended , as apparently angels do n't have wings and are approachable ; and god , well , . . . maybe that 's for another film down the road . this part of the film was the final straw for me , i could n't swallow any more goo . as this film flopped commercially , his next one , the sixth sense , pared down the schmaltz and came up smelling like a rose . though if you look through the cleverness of both scripts , this director is loaded with hokum , all he has learned how to do , is hide the hokum better . well , god bless him , if he can do that . this is a nice family picture and there is room for it in hollywood . it 's just too bad that it had nothing relevent or even truthful to say about death , children in a parochial elementary school , or for that matter , about god . and that family of his , they 're too good for words . yet the film meant well and its benign message had its heart in the right place . for those who want to see something soft , without a bite to it , this is the one .

0NEG

i include myself as one of those who found it too sappy for my digestion . joseph cross ( joshua beal ) is a 10-year and talks politely to his well - meaning parents . all this mawkish interplay makes it almost too nauseating to watch . the plot arises when joseph has a problem coping god is attempted . what comes next into play is some hollywood hokum , which is designed not to upset anyone , as dressed like him in the catholic school uniform who wears the innocuous smile of a goody - goody . the film ends as this angel ( ! ! maybe that 's for another film down the road . this part of the film was the final straw for me , i could n't swallow any more goo . as this film flopped commercially , his next one if you look through the cleverness of both scripts , this director is loaded with hokum , all he has learned how to do , is

" battlefield earth " is the best comedy of the year . it has to be . the other prospect is just too horrifying to consider . bad movie syndrome struck me again , so after witnessing how much " battlefield earth " has been proclaimed a train wreck in both critical and popular circles , i felt the masochistic urge to see the disaster first - hand . is it as bad as advertised ? oh yes , very much so . the plot is incomprehensible . the acting is atrocious . the special effects are mediocre . the action is dull . the implausibilities are legion . the dialogue is cringe - inducing . the whole package is funny when it wants to be serious and irritating when it wants to be funny . i do n't even want to continue reviewing this movie ; i 'd like to purge the atrocity from my mind as soon as possible , but you probably want to read my thrashing in all its sarcastic glory , so here it is : the premise is basically a rip - off of " planet of the apes , " only minus the apes and philosophical discussion , and plus a race of evil aliens from the planet psychlo . the year is 3000 , the psychlos have conquered earth , and the human population has been enslaved . only a handful of humans escaped to radiation - rich areas to escape the aliens ; they live out their lives in fear . one man , johnny goodboy ( i know , i know ) tyler ( barry pepper ) , ventures to the outworld and is captured by the psychlos . there he confronts the psychlo head of security : a big , ugly , klingon - looking creature called terl ( john travolta ) . pressed into slavery , johnny vows to lead a revolution and take the planet back . meanwhile , terl is faced with his own problems : he has recently learned that he 's stuck living on earth ( which he hates ) for the rest of his career because he pissed off his boss by sleeping with the big man 's daughter . he decides to give johnny knowledge of the psychlo language and technology ( this is where the plot gets ridiculous . . . ) so the " man - animal " can lead a mining expedition into places the psychlos ca n't go . terl then plans to keep the mined gold for himself . of course , his plan does n't work . so many things wrong with this movie -- where to begin ? how about with travolta , whose hollywood clout brought about this , the cinematic version of scientology guru l . ron hubbard 's sci - fi novel ? early previews for " battlefield earth , " with constant shots of a makeup - laden travolta cackling like lex luthor , had me ( and several audience members ) remarking , " what the hell is travolta thinking ? " the movie did nothing to stem such remarks . all that ridiculous cackling he did in the trailers is in full force here : terl cackles after nearly every line , and so does every other psychlo . of course , this makes every scene hilariously overwrought , no more so than when the script clumsily stumbles into political commentary . the psychlos are probably supposed to be some kind of satire of corporate america , but ceos generally do n't laugh maniacally after denying pay raises to their employees . ( " you were going to be promoted -- but now you 're not ! fwahahahahahahahaha ! ! ! ! ! " ) it 's no big surprise terl loses to the humans -- he 's an idiot . he breaks every kind of supervillain rule in the book . he underestimates his enemies , assuming he 'll win just because he 's smarter . ( he uses the word " leverage " like some sort of scientologist mantra . ) not content to go the james bond villain route of explaining his plans to the hero , he hooks him up to a machine that gives him knowledge of all the psychlos ' language and technology . ( why this machine is even around in the first place is beyond me . ) he then appears shocked that johnny points a gun at him . no wonder this guy never got his promotion . the plot inconsistencies are too numerous to mention . why do the psychlos build an earth base in which both they and the human slaves must wear little breathing apparatuses to survive ? how come the psychlos are wasting their time mining for gold when the doors of fort knox are wide open ? how in the world did all those fighter jets survive sitting in a hangar for 1 , 000 years ? and how do all these previously brain - dead cavemen learn to fly them so quickly ? there 's a whole lot more to scratch one 's head about in " battlefield earth . " bring a scorecard to track the plot holes . director roger christian shoots " battlefield earth " in the most distracting way possible , tilting nearly every shot sideways for no discernible reason . all the characters appear to be standing on the walls , and it 's awfully difficult to watch a movie when you must tilt your head just to watch ordinary passages of dialogue . the action sequences are atrociously edited , every one turned into an endless slow - motion parade that drains all potential excitement . are these things really so hard to construct ? my respect for supposed " lightweight " action directors has grown by leaps and bounds after witnessing in " battlefield earth " how badly an action sequence can be shot . this movie is an absolute headache . it 's not just the shot selection and editing ; the movie , quite frankly , makes no sense . for most of " battlefield earth 's " running time , i just did n't know what was happening . it did n't have anything to do with me finding the events stupid or illogical ( though they certainly are ) -- i really had no idea what the hell was going on . when i pieced the plot together later , it did n't look any better . here 's how much of a disaster this is : " battlefield earth " is already the worst movie of the year , and it 's going to take something really , really inept to top it . the only thing we can take comfort in about the film is that no one will be suckered into joining the church of scientology because of it . in fact , i 'd think that hubbard 's cult would want to distance themselves from this bomb as fast as possible . that 'll teach me to give into bad movie syndrome again .

0NEG

the other prospect is just too horrifying to consider . bad movie syndrome struck me again , so after witnessing how much " battlefield earth " masochistic urge to see the disaster first - hand . is it as bad as advertised ? oh yes , very much so . the plot is incomprehensible . the acting is atrocious . the special effects are mediocre . the action is dull . the implausibilities are legion . the dialogue is cringe - inducing . the whole package is funny when it wants to be serious and irritating when it wants to be funny . i do n't even want to continue reviewing this . of course , his plan does n't work . so many things wrong with this movie -- where to begin ? how about with travolta , " the movie did nothing to stem such remarks . all that ridiculous cackling he did in the trailers is in full force here : terl cackles after nearly every line , and so . no wonder this guy never got his promotion . the plot inconsistencies are too numerous to mention . why do the psychlos build an earth base in one 's head about in " battlefield earth . " bring a scorecard to track the plot holes . director roger christian shoots " battlefield earth " in the most distracting way possible , tilting nearly every shot sideways for no discernible reason of dialogue . the action sequences are atrociously edited , every one turned into an endless slow - motion parade that drains all potential excitement . are these things really so hard to construct ? " how badly an action sequence can be shot . this movie is an absolute headache . it 's not just the shot selection and editing ; the movie , quite frankly , makes no sense . for most of " battlefield earth 's " running stupid or illogical ( though they certainly are ) -- i really had no idea what the hell was going on . when i pieced the plot together later , it disaster this is : " battlefield earth " is already the worst movie of the year , and it 's going to take something really , that hubbard 's cult would want to distance themselves from this bomb as fast as possible . that 'll teach me to

long time buddies and neil diamond tribute band members wayne ( steve zahn , " happy , texas " ) and j . d . ( jack black , " high fidelity " ) watch in horror as third mate darren silverman ( jason biggs , " american pie " ) disappears under the thumb of his new fiance judith , ( amanda peet , " the whole nine yards " ) a controlling psychiatrist . they 're doubly troubled when the return of darren 's ' one and only love ' sandy perkins ( amanda detmer , " final destination " ) returns to their home town but does n't cause a ripple in darren 's devotion to judith . there 's only one thing wayne and j . d . can think of doing - they kidnap judith and fake her death in " saving silverman . " written by hank nelken and greg depaul after seeing a friend engaged to the wrong woman , " saving silverman " is directed by ' hit comedy director ' dennis dugan of such films as " big daddy , " " brain donors " and " problem child . " it 's a dismal , third - rate farrelly brothers rip off that attempts to milk humor from such inspired bits of whimsy as having darren 's love interest come from a family of circus freaks and be about to become a nun . gross out gags include a visualization of darren getting butt cheek implants . " saving silverman " is almost saved by stars zahn and black . these two are so comically talented they can take bad material and still deliver the goods . they 're in " animal house " mode while the rest of the film trawls along and comes up empty . jason biggs can attribute his entire career to the luck of having been cast in the smash hit " american pie . " peet shows some physical moves but no flair for comedy here while detmer slaps a brave , sweet smile onto her face and soldiers through . r . lee ermey ( " full metal jacket " ) is one note in an embarrassing performance as a psychopathic ex - football coach . neil diamond appears at the film 's climax as himself and miraculously enlivens the proceedings by belting out some of his old standards .

0NEG

donors " and " problem child . " it 's a dismal , third - rate farrelly brothers rip off that attempts to milk humor from such inspired bits of circus freaks and be about to become a nun . gross out gags include a visualization of darren getting butt cheek implants . animal house " mode while the rest of the film trawls along and comes up empty . jason biggs can attribute his entire career to the american pie . " peet shows some physical moves but no flair for comedy here while detmer slaps a brave , sweet smile onto lee ermey ( " full metal jacket " ) is one note in an embarrassing performance as a psychopathic ex - football coach . neil diamond

well if you are up for stellar effects then this is the movie for you . because that s all that there really is . . . . i found that after watching this movie it had many many gaps and flaws in simple logic in the plot . for one thing , a white leading actor who has a black daughter does leave some curiosity . . . . i am not saying that this is n't possible . . but it does leave one to wonder . . . i know i did . another thing is that this movie has sections which are painfully stretched out . . . . and certain scenes are repeated essentially but with slight variations . there was one scene that should have been short . . . but it was horribly stretched and somewhere in the middle of it i found myself thinking . . ok enough already get on with it . there are also times where you have to wonder why things happen the way they do . . . things just magically happen and there is no prelude or anything of the sort . . . another thing that i noticed towards the end was that some characters just vanished without a trace but they were fairly major through most of the beginning . this movie is also very predictable . . . you can almost tell the final story somewhere in the middle and you definitely know what will happen at a given moment . . granted this is hard to omit but here its just blatant it sits there and stares at you . also some of the things that happen are a little too predictable and several cliques are repeated . . . it gets boring at times to tell you the truth . . . even though there is still action going on . another little point i might add is that the main character is supposed to be a quiet chaos mathematician not some shoot them up type of hero . some of the characters are not proper for their roles . the acting is fine but the characters just do n't seem to add up . if i was to base my review totally on the plot then i would n't rate this movie too highly but that 's just the thing this movie is n't just the plot , its the whole package and this package is really well done . the whole movie is really well done and looks really good and if one was to overlook the flaws in the plot and characters then this is really a movie . the special effects are just amazing , you ca n't tell that the dinosaurs are created it looks like they were there live , in a few instances of course you know its fake but there are other times that you just would n't be able to say that the creature was n't there during filming , extinct or not . another thing is the destruction scenes . . . wow , those were masterpieces . . well some of them were they were well choreographed and along with the dino 's make this one of the reasons to see this movie . this movie is fairly long but it is action packed so it should do well in the box office . . unfortunately it will take away from fifth element but alas what can we do . . i may be too cynical for my age but this movie is only worth seeing for the effects and for it few funny moments . . go see it in a matinee if you really must see it its not worth full price if you ask me . one little side note , although my opinion of this movie may not have been the best the way that this movie was marketed and how many theaters it was shown in toronto this opening weekend is nothing short of stupid , there were 10 theater movie theaters that were playing this movie around the clock i think that some people really want money badly . . . . and i think that this type of activity hurts the movie industry let the other movies also have a chance . . . . you know any movie with that much play would succeed even if it was the worst movie ever made . . . . . i thought i 'd put this here to deflate the movie hype about this flick . . . its not that bad a movie but its not that great either hope you people realize this .

0NEG

. . . i found that after watching this movie it had many many gaps and flaws in simple logic in the plot . for one thing , a white leading actor who another thing is that this movie has sections which are painfully stretched out . . . . and certain scenes are repeated essentially why things happen the way they do . . . things just magically happen and there is no prelude or anything of the sort . . . another thing that i noticed towards the they were fairly major through most of the beginning . this movie is also very predictable . . . you can almost tell the final story you . also some of the things that happen are a little too predictable and several cliques are repeated . . . it gets boring at times to tell you the truth . . . proper for their roles . the acting is fine but the characters just do n't seem to add up . if i was to base my review totally on and looks really good and if one was to overlook the flaws in the plot and characters then this is really a movie . the it in a matinee if you really must see it its not worth full price if you ask me . one little side note ,

when a film is produced on a shoestring budget by a couple of hardworking filmmakers and when it tells the story of a genuine tragedy , the easy path for a reviewer who hated the movie is to give it a pass . toss out your usual objectivity , ignore how many times you checked your watch while viewing it , forget how unbearable it was to sit through , and find some meaningless way to compliment it . this , of course , will be of no service to your readers , but at least you 'll avoid the hate mail from the movie 's fans . thus it is with a heavy heart that i review the movie paulina ( not to be confused with the recent movie paulie about a talking parrot ) . directed by vicky funari as a labor of intense love - she spent the last one third of her life on film - the movie blends documentary footage with historic and fanciful recreations to relate the bitterly sad and true story of paulina cruz suarez . paulina was a maid in vicky 's household when vicky was young . i got to learn the film 's background when i attended a screening in which the two women who made it were present . for those without such context , the reaction to the film may be that it is a parody of a bad indie film . the acting is amateurish , the story is maudlin , and it has all the visual appeal of a bad home movie . grainy and overexposed , the movie , shot on 16 mm film and videotape , has little to recommend it . confusingly composed , the movie jumps about jarringly as it tells its story . quite bloody at times , the story , full of horrific images , seems designed to shock and repulse us . why else would you include a scene with a completely nude and bloody 8-year - old paulina ? another scene has a teenage paulina being fondled on a bus by the man sitting next to her . in retaliation , she bites off part of his finger . this covers the both of them in a bucket of blood . the passengers on the bus then view the girl in their minds as everything from saint to sinner . one , for example , sees her as an aztec priestess holding out a large heart that she had just cut from a body . the lugubrious tale has paulina being raped and beaten . certainly she had to endure a miserable life . but that does not guarantee that a movie about her will necessarily being good . i felt trapped in the theater watching it . only the opportunity to talk with the filmmakers afterwards made the movie bearable . paulina runs 1 : 28 . the film is in spanish with english subtitles . it is not rated but would be an r for violence and nudity and would be acceptable for older teenagers .

0NEG

a pass . toss out your usual objectivity , ignore how many times you checked your watch while viewing it , forget how unbearable it was to sit through , and find some meaningless way to compliment it . it is a parody of a bad indie film . the acting is amateurish , the story is maudlin , and it has all the visual appeal of a bad home movie . grainy and overexposed , the movie , shot on 16 mm film and videotape , has little to recommend it . confusingly composed , the movie jumps about jarringly as it tells its story . quite bloody at times heart that she had just cut from a body . the lugubrious tale has paulina being raped and beaten . certainly she had that a movie about her will necessarily being good . i felt trapped in the theater watching it . only the opportunity to talk with the filmmakers afterwards

in this year 's summer movie preview issue of _ entertainment_weekly _ , theresa connelly described her writing - directing debut , _ polish_wedding _ , as " a child that did not quite become the child i thought it would . " one wonders what exactly she originally had in mind for this jumbled film , a comedy - drama that appears doomed at its most basic elements . the family at the center of _ polish_wedding _ is the pzoniaks , which consists of mother jadzia ( lena olin ) , father bolek ( gabriel byrne ) , sole daughter hala ( claire danes ) and four sons of varying degrees of facelessness . it 's a large family , but there 's not a sympathetic one in the whole bunch , certainly not in the primary trio . jadzia takes pride in building and maintaining a home and family , but she 's kind of a hypocrite since she 's carrying on an affair with a businessman rade serbedzija ) . her excuse for her affair is neglect from bolek , who is such a passive wimp that one can not connect with his sadness and frustration . also , how could he possibly pay so little attention to the saucy , sexy jadzia ? hala is a spoiled , self - centered high school dropout whose reckless sexual experimentation predictably leads to pregnancy . with such an unappealing set of characters , it 's no surprise that _ polish_wedding _ 's plot complications are far from involving . naturally , jadzia and bolek would like hala to marry the young cop , russell schuster ( adam trese ) , who fathered the child , but he refuses to make such a commitment . ho - hum . another complication , involving the decidedly un - virginal hala being selected to crown a statue of the virgin mary , is first played for laughs and then , inexplicably , as a profound statement in the film 's climax -- which , ironically , is funnier than any of the film 's lame attempts at humor , such as a painfully labored slapstick attempt where jadzia leads her sons in a charge to beat up russell . that scene is but one in a number of writing miscues by connelly . the jadzia - bolek conflict is resolved in an overly pat way not unfamiliar to sitcom viewers . the hala - russell conflict is n't resolved in as contrived a manner , but their ultimate resolution will leave viewers wondering if they had missed something . and then there 's some atrocious dialogue , which i am sure was not supposed to be as ridiculous as they sound : " look at all these pickles . just looking at them gives me such great sadness . " as misguided as _ polish_wedding _ is , the affair is something of a letdown , considering the strong performances by byrne , danes , and especially the fiery olin . they obviously believed in connelly and her material -- a faith that audiences will be hard - pressed to share .

0NEG

wonders what exactly she originally had in mind for this jumbled film , a comedy - drama that appears doomed at its most basic elements . the family at the center of _ polish_wedding _ for her affair is neglect from bolek , who is such a passive wimp that one can not connect with his sadness and frustration . also , how could he possibly pay so little sexual experimentation predictably leads to pregnancy . with such an unappealing set of characters , it 's no surprise that _ polish_wedding _ 's , but he refuses to make such a commitment . ho - hum . another complication , involving the decidedly un - virginal hala mary , is first played for laughs and then , inexplicably , as a profound statement in the film 's climax any of the film 's lame attempts at humor , such as a painfully labored slapstick attempt where jadzia leads her sons in a charge to beat up russell . that scene is but one in a number of writing miscues by connelly . the jadzia - bolek conflict is resolved viewers wondering if they had missed something . and then there 's some atrocious dialogue , which i am sure was not supposed to be . " as misguided as _ polish_wedding _ is , the affair is something of a letdown , considering the strong performances by byrne , danes ,

several days after having seen this movie , i 'm still trying to determine what director christopher guest , a man whose sense of humor i usually appreciate , found funny in either the concept or the execution of almost heroes . this is a dreadful motion picture ? a lowbrow example of period piece comedy with terrible production values and an exceptionally poor laughs - to - jokes ratio . there 's a kind of desperation in the movie 's approach to humor that reveals the film makers ' uncertainty about how entertaining the material is ; the manic style betrays itself as a last - ditch attempt to hide the flaws of a failed script . the premise does n't sound especially amusing to begin with ? almost heroes tells the tale of two explorers , the effeminate leslie edwards ( matthew perry ) and the uncouth bartholomew hunt ( chris farley ) , who are racing lewis and clark on the trip to the american northwest . edwards and hunt are accompanied by the kinds of weirdoes we find in road movies ( albeit of the early-19th century variety ) , including a frenchman named guy fontenot who claims to speak hundreds of languages ( none of which prove to be useful ) , a pretty indian maiden who turns into the obligatory love interest , and a bizarre man who suffers a series of debilitating injuries . along the way , the intrepid explorers encounter bears , bald eagles , aging native american warriors , and a conquistador named hildago ( kevin dunn ) who raves about his beautiful hair . the explorers ' trek takes them through forests , across the snow - capped rocky mountains , and over a waterfall . this setup leads to a lot of shouting , a great deal of lunacy , and very few laughs . farley engages in his usual shtick of falling down and bellowing , but , aside from an momentarily diverting confrontation with an eagle , his heart does n't seem to be in it . matthew perry , one of the stars of tv 's friends ( who had some modest success in the romantic comedy , fools rush in ) is badly miscast . as a foil for farley and an antidote to his runaway energy , perry lacks the necessary edge of the proverbial straight man . i 'm not a big fan of david spade , and i did n't like tommy boy , but at least he and farley worked well together . as far as the supporting players go , none of them makes more than a fleeting impression . eugene levy is wasted , and kevin dunn is about as interesting here as he is in godzilla . frankly , it 's a disappointment to see something this dumb and ugly come from christopher guest , the brilliant comic force behind such films as this is spinal tap , the big picture , and waiting for guffman . although guest gets the costumes right , this nearly - inconsequential success is no substitute for the weak script and unfunny execution . the special effects , such as they are , are execrable . for an example of some really poor blue screen work , look at the scenes where the characters are shooting the rapids ( they 're obviously getting buckets of water thrown on them ) and where farley is being carried off by an eagle . even though farley did n't have the most stellar of acting careers , he does n't deserve the kind of unfortunate epitaph offered by almost heroes . while some of the more outrageous attempts at humor may coax a few guffaws from 12-year old boys , the level of comedy in almost heroes falls far below the level of sophomoric . farley fans who see this film as a way to say goodbye should be commended for their loyalty , since it takes real stamina to stay seated for the full running length of this cinematic torture session .

0NEG

either the concept or the execution of almost heroes . this is a dreadful motion picture ? a lowbrow example of period piece comedy with terrible production values and an exceptionally poor laughs - to - jokes ratio . there 's a kind of desperation in the movie of shouting , a great deal of lunacy , and very few laughs . farley engages in his usual shtick of falling down in the romantic comedy , fools rush in ) is badly miscast . as a foil for farley and an antidote to his runaway energy , perry lacks the necessary edge of the proverbial straight man . i 'm not a together . as far as the supporting players go , none of them makes more than a fleeting impression . eugene levy is wasted , and kevin dunn is about as interesting here as he is in godzilla . frankly , it 's a disappointment to see something this dumb and ugly come from christopher guest , the brilliant comic force behind this nearly - inconsequential success is no substitute for the weak script and unfunny execution . the special effects , such as they are , old boys , the level of comedy in almost heroes falls far below the level of sophomoric . farley fans who see this film as a way to stay seated for the full running length of this cinematic torture session .

when i was nine , i started buying the coolest toy figures in my local department store . masters of the universe was the pinnacle of what i was after for action figures : they combined science fiction and fantasy , had cool names like mekanek and stinkor and each came with its own little comic book to read . of course , the animated series produced by filmation remains one of the most wildly successful television products in world history . given the tremendous success of the toys and the cartoon ( not to mention its moderately successful spin - off she - ra : princess of power ) , it was inevitable that a production company would put two and two together , come with the result of " trillions " and make a live - action masters movie . let 's be blunt : masters of the universe is a very bad movie . the story is painfully dull and mind - numbingly cliched ( hands up who * would n't * guess he - man and skeletor take their fight into the real world ) and is acted out by either incredibly untalented actors ( dolph lundgren as he - man for one ) or good actors ( james tolkan , meg foster ) given such awful characters and dialogue that they ca n't help but seem terrible . it is extremely clear that someone making the movie wanted it to be as good as star wars . we have the alien bounty hunters , the desert skif technology , stormtrooper lookalikes and a musical score so reminiscent of john williams that " deja vu " is too polite a term to use in describing it . " blatant uninspired ripoff " would appear more appropriate . tv fans might want to check out courtney cox ( monica in friends ) and robert duncan mcneill ( lt paris in star trek : voyager ) , very early in their careers and not doing to well in them either . so in the face of such mindless sub - mediocrity , is there anything to make masters of the universe worth watching at all ? yes , there is . one incredible good reason . his name is frank langella . langella has always been one of the underrated actors of hollywood , appearing in countless films over the years . here he plays skeletor , the villain of the piece . dressed in opulent black velvet robes and bearing a skull for a face , he is one part darth vader , one part emperor and two parts grim reaper . given this character , langella falls right into it with style and precision . skeletor is believable , interesting and manages to tread the fine line between being a homage to the past and startlingly original in his own right . masters of the universe . i remember loving it when i was eleven . at twenty one it 's difficult to see why . but , as i said , it is blessed with a superlative villain who makes the entire thing worth the tedium of the remainder . besides , this year marks the film 's 10th anniversary . watch it with some friends for a good laugh and celebrate .

0NEG

let 's be blunt : masters of the universe is a very bad movie . the story is painfully dull and mind - numbingly cliched ( hands up who * would n't * guess he the real world ) and is acted out by either incredibly untalented actors ( dolph lundgren as he - man for one or good actors ( james tolkan , meg foster ) given such awful characters and dialogue that they ca n't help but seem terrible . it is extremely clear that someone making the movie too polite a term to use in describing it . " blatant uninspired ripoff " would appear more appropriate . tv fans might want to check out courtney cox in them either . so in the face of such mindless sub - mediocrity , is there anything to make masters of the universe

in " gia " , angelina jolie plays the titular character , the first so - called supermodel . and right there you have the biggest hurdle this movie had to overcome ( in my eyes , anyway ) . i just do n't see how the life of a model is worthy of a two hour film . despite this , i kept an open mind when i began watching the movie . sadly , though , my fears were realized . it 's just not possible to make an interesting , full - length film about a person who spends their days wearing different clothes . the movie follows the rise and fall of gia ( no last name ) , a tumultuous woman who does n't particularly enjoy the world of fashion . she becomes famous more quickly than she can handle , and finds herself hooked on drugs and on a woman she can not have . the last hour of the film is just one scene after another of gia getting high , losing a job , and going into rehab . this formula is repeated several times , and i really got tired of it . in general , i tend to dislike movies featuring heavy drug use . no because it offends me or anything like that ; it just bores me . quite frankly , i do n't see the appeal , so when a director shows me a point - of - view shot of a junkie , complete with tipsy camera angles and echoing voices , i am left somewhat unimpressed . the first hour of the film , though , was actually quite engaging . we see gia as she is discovered and moves to new york with her boyfriend . these early scenes were interesting . we 're shown the fashion world through a newcomers eyes , and it was a perspective i had n't seen before . the movie begins to go downhill , however , once gia becomes an established model . > from that point , i lost all interest in the movie and was counting the minutes before it would end . it all seemed so excessive . fine , so gia had a drug problem , does this really need to dominate the film ? could n't the same effect have been had with a five or ten minute montage of scenes featuring gia experimenting with drugs ? or perhaps this film is meant to be a warning to aspiring models not to get into the drug world . quite possibly , although since i have no desire to become a model , this warning is lost on me . as i stated at the beginning of this review , i simply do n't see how the life of a model is worthy of a feature - length motion picture . what do they do that warrants a movie ? strut their stuff for thousands of dollars an hour ? i suppose the same could be said about making movies about baseball players , for example , but at least somebody like lou gehrig led an interesting life . gia did not . and by the end of the film , all i knew about gia for sure was that she hated modelling , was bi - sexual , and was heavily into drugs . not exactly a meaningful contribution to society , as far as i 'm concerned .

0NEG

an open mind when i began watching the movie . sadly , though , my fears were realized . it 's just not possible to make an interesting , losing a job , and going into rehab . this formula is repeated several times , and i really got tired of it . in general , i tend to dislike movies featuring no because it offends me or anything like that ; it just bores me . quite frankly , i do n't see the appeal , complete with tipsy camera angles and echoing voices , i am left somewhat unimpressed . the first hour of the film , though , it was a perspective i had n't seen before . the movie begins to go downhill , however , once gia becomes an established model . > from that point , i lost all interest in the movie and was counting the minutes before it would end . it all seemed so excessive . fine , so gia had a drug problem , bi - sexual , and was heavily into drugs . not exactly a meaningful contribution to society , as far as i 'm concerned .

talk about beating a dead horse ! when home alone was released in 1990 , it was a breath of fresh air , and the final box office tally indicated how much audiences appreciated a genuinely - funny family film . the unexpectedly high gross guaranteed a sequel , so , two years later , we were subjected to home alone 2 , which might as well have been called clone alone for all of the originality it exhibited . for john hughes , two home alone movies were n't enough ? he began recycling the same kinds of villains and situations in almost every movie he was involved with , including a pathetic box office bomb called baby 's day out , last year 's live - action 101 dalmatians , and this year 's flubber . now , inexplicably , hughes has exhumed not only these worn - out plot elements , but the " home alone " name as well . the result ? 1997 's worst sequel ( edging out speed 2 and batman and robin ) , home alone 3 . by changing the characters , hughes ( who wrote and co - produced the film ) , along with his co - conspirator , director raja gosnell , has attempted to inject new life into a series that is way past the point of cardiac arrest . the new kid , alex pruitt , is played by alex d . linz ( one fine day ) , and the only thing he has going for him is terminal cuteness . he 's not half as interesting as macaulay culkin once was . the villains , pale copies of joe pesci and daniel stern , are even less engaging than the pair of idiots in flubber . in home alone 3 , there are four of them ( olek krupa , david thornton , lenny von dohlen , and rya kihlstedt ) , but all that means is an opportunity for twice as many pratfalls . this time , the kid is n't left home alone because his parents have gone on a trip . instead , he has developed a bad case of chicken pox , so he ca n't go to school . his dad ( kevin kilner ) is away on business and his mom ( haviland morris ) has to run errands , so , for the most part , he 's all by himself during the day . through a series of coincidences too irritating to relate , a top secret u . s . air force integrated circuit comes into his possession . it 's wanted by a gang of four international crooks who intend to break into alex 's home to retrieve it . the eight- year old , who is wise beyond his years , booby traps the house with all sorts of rube goldberg - type devices designed to humiliate and incapacitate the villains . the movie 's climax takes place during a raging snowstorm ? only none of the falling flakes looks remotely believable . previously , the most counterfeit - looking snow effects i can remember were in star trek iii . these are far worse . in fact , the production values are so shoddy that there are some scenes in the midst of this near - blizzard when a shining sun can be seen . if it 's a wonderful life could generate real- looking snow back in the 1940s , why ca n't home alone 3 , which has a significantly larger budget and ' 90s technology at its disposal ? there has been an ongoing debate regarding the appropriateness of live - action cartoon violence for young children . home alone 3 will add fuel to the fire . it 's one thing to see wyle e . coyote flattened by a 10 ton acme weight , but quite another to watch a running lawn mower fall on lenny von dohlen . adults and even older children will recognize that this is obviously fake and intended to be humorous , but what about five and six - year olds ? the level of violence in home alone 3 is extreme ? many of alex 's schemes are nasty enough to kill . but , because this is a " family film , " no one dies , despite being electrocuted , falling thirty feet , and getting smacked on the head by a barbell . not only is home alone 3 unnecessary , but it 's offensive . it 's an exercise in tediousness , and there is n't a genuine laugh to be found from the beginning to the end ( unless , by some strange quirk of fate , you have missed every 1990s movie associated with john hughes , and thus have n't seen this stuff before ) . i ca n't imagine anyone with a reasonable attention span being more than momentarily distracted by this pointless adventure . maybe that 's why the only ones laughing at the screening i attended were still in their thumb - sucking years .

0NEG

in almost every movie he was involved with , including a pathetic box office bomb called baby 's day out , last year 's live this year 's flubber . now , inexplicably , hughes has exhumed not only these worn - out plot elements , but the " home alone " name as well . the result ? 1997 's worst sequel ( edging out speed 2 and batman and robin ) raja gosnell , has attempted to inject new life into a series that is way past the point of cardiac arrest . the new kid , alex pruitt , is played pale copies of joe pesci and daniel stern , are even less engaging than the pair of idiots in flubber . in home alone 3 , there are four of himself during the day . through a series of coincidences too irritating to relate , a top secret u . s . 's climax takes place during a raging snowstorm ? only none of the falling flakes looks remotely believable . previously , the most counterfeit - looking snow effects i can remember were in star trek iii . these are far worse . in fact , the production values are so shoddy that there are some scenes in the midst of this but what about five and six - year olds ? the level of violence in home alone 3 is extreme ? many of alex 's schemes are nasty enough to by a barbell . not only is home alone 3 unnecessary , but it 's offensive . it 's an exercise in tediousness , and there is n't a genuine laugh to be reasonable attention span being more than momentarily distracted by this pointless adventure . maybe that 's why the only ones laughing at

conventional wisdom among collectibles retailers is that children 's items begin to dramatically escalate in price about twenty - five or thirty years after the item was made . that 's when the kids of that time have jobs , disposable income and a desire to re - visit the awe and wonderment of childhood that has disappeared from their lives . check out the prices of toys from the late sixties and you 'll find that yogi bear lunch boxes are demanding big bucks . there 's a heavy nostalgia nowadays for the late sixties and early seventies and nowhere is it more apparent than on the big screen . boomers are now mostly in their forties and fifties and have lived in the work - a - day world for a long time . they 'd like to re - capture some of that fun they remember from days of yore . hollywood seems more than eager to churn out product to help them . directors are zealous to put their stamp on icons from that time . and for the most part they 're messing it up . " mission impossible " , " lost in space " , " godzilla " , " zorro " . none of these successfully capture the originals . none of these are even good films . you can now add " the avengers " to the list . the british television series began in 1961 . super secret agent john steed ( then - patrick macnee ) and his third partner , emma peel ( then - diana rigg ) are the pair that the american audience fell for . surrealistic and witty , the series fit the mood of the times . the leather - clad rigg probably did n't hurt the ratings either . after all it 's not a coincidence that you ca n't pronounce her character 's name without " appeal " . now we 're in the nineties . steed ( now - ralph fiennes ) and peel ( now - uma thurman ) are battling evil genius sir august de wynter ( sean connery ) who is screwing with england 's weather . that 's about as much of a plot as we have . there 's some footage about a lot of other things that either do n't make sense or make even less sense . we get betrayal for some unknown reason . evil clones appear and vanish and have no connection to the film . remarkably ineffective giant flying robot wasps with machine guns in their belly come from nowhere for no good reason . there 's a high tech hot air balloon , but i have no idea why anyone 's in it . the spy agency is run by a man called " mother " who is in a wheelchair and a woman named " father " who is blind . . . at least in some scenes . there 's probably a reason for all of this , but we 'll never know it . macnee makes an appearance of sorts . he is the voice for an invisible man whose character goes nowhere in a scene that does nothing . a group of villains sits around a table , all clad in huge pastel - colored teddy bear outfits . at first it 's humorous to watch the teddies waddle around , but then it becomes goofy . the movie is a medley of clutter , confusion and wrong decisions around every corner . it feels like major portions of the film are missing . the storyline jumps rather than flows . reportedly the film was re - cut several times . this is one of those times where the whole is less than the sum of the parts especially since some of the parts appear to be missing . there 's one good point where peel is running from one room to another in a house designed by escher . other than that , the effects are second - rate . the weather threat is old hat as are the scenes of huge tornadoes . thurman almost makes an adequate emma peel but it does n't work . she looks good , dresses in all the right fetish outfits but there 's no spark . fiennes fares even less well . macnee 's steed was a witty man of the world with a sense of humor . fiennes ' agent comes across as a dour kid in grown - up clothes who has never been out of his home town . even connery , one of the greatest living actors , does n't have much of a presence outside of a few fiery scenes . the action scenes are difficult to follow . director jeremiah chechik ( responsible for the atrocious remake of " diabolique " ) somehow manages to put the camera exactly where it should n't be . things happen , people move around , but even if , with the utmost effort , you were able to care about any of it , the scenes are bewildering . the primary allure of the original was the interaction between the two leads . witty banter and an underplayed sexual tension were a winning combination . admittedly there are a few humorous sexual puns in the film , but there 's no chemistry and the repartee is anything but clever . one of emma peel 's first lines of dialog is " rules are made to be broken . " it does n't get any better . advance word alone should have been enough to scare off anyone . the release date was changed several times . connery refuses to promote the film . there was no screening for critics which may have been a good choice for warner brothers . at least this way , they get something of an audience for the first weekend before the news gets out . admittedly i have n't seen an episode of the television series for a couple of decades . my guess is that it would be severely dated now . no matter how antiquated it might be , there 's no doubt that it holds up better than this film is at first viewing . there 's no reason to waste any part of the last few days of summer inside watching this movie . no reason at all .

0NEG

plot as we have . there 's some footage about a lot of other things that either do n't make sense or make even less sense . we get betrayal for some unknown reason . evil clones appear and vanish and have no connection to the film . remarkably ineffective giant flying robot wasps with machine guns in their belly blind . . . at least in some scenes . there 's probably a reason for all of this , but we 'll never know it . macnee makes an appearance of sorts . he is 's humorous to watch the teddies waddle around , but then it becomes goofy . the movie is a medley of clutter , confusion and wrong decisions around every corner . it feels like major portions of the film are missing . the storyline jumps rather than flows . reportedly the several times . this is one of those times where the whole is less than the sum of the parts especially since some of the parts appear to be missing a house designed by escher . other than that , the effects are second - rate . the weather threat is old hat as are the right fetish outfits but there 's no spark . fiennes fares even less well . macnee 's steed was a witty man of the of a presence outside of a few fiery scenes . the action scenes are difficult to follow . director jeremiah chechik ( responsible for the atrocious remake a few humorous sexual puns in the film , but there 's no chemistry and the repartee is anything but clever . one of emma peel 's first lines of dialog

the following review encompasses two versions of dune : dune : the theatrical version ( 1984 ) runtime : 137 minutes capsule review : cut down to just over two hours by nervous studio executives , the theatrical version of dune is a spectacular mess and may be incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the book . the film 's visual splendour , mystical beauty and impressive action scenes only partly compensate for gaping holes in the narrative . dune : the extended version ( 1988 ) runtime : 189 minutes capsule review : a bit of a throw - together assembled by mca tv special projects for cable television . it was disowned by director david lynch but it 's considerably closer to his original vision by virtue of its improved characterisation and clearer storyline . quality dubs of this version from the out - of - print japanese laserdisc release are available from various dealers on the world wide web . * * * the review * * * released in 1984 and made on a then mammoth budget of $ 40 million , the film of frank herbert 's cult novel dune was eagerly awaited by sci - fi fans . director david lynch ( blue velvet , eraserhead , twin peaks ) was working on his biggest production to date , a mammoth undertaking filmed under trying conditions on location in mexico . the screenplay was lynch 's own , chosen after the script submitted by original author herbert was rejected . dune is set in a universe ruled by powerful families overseen by a successive line of emperors . the key to cosmic power is the planet arrakis ( dune ) , a windswept desert planet that 's home to giant sandworms and the precious spice melange . the spice is the most valuable commodity in the universe . it extends the life and expands the consciousness of those who consume it . most importantly , it allows the navigators of the spacing guild ( once human but now hideously mutated ) to " fold space " and navigate their spacecraft across mammoth distances instantaneously , enabling interstellar commerce and trade to flourish . lynch 's film by necessity excises parts of the book while retaining the story 's two main strands . one is the long - standing rivalry between two families , houses atreides and house harkonnen , and their battle for lucrative mining rights on arrakis . the second strand is the emergence of young paul atreides as the reluctant messiah long - awaited by the natives of arrakis , the fremen . the deeply religious fremen want control over their homeworld , and young paul may be the fulfilment of their prophecy that a man would come from the outer worlds and lead them to freedom . unfortunately , this epic story unfolds in a confusing and haphazard manner in the theatrical cut of the film , which runs 30 to 60 minutes shorter than what lynch originally intended . the thinking among universal 's oh - so - wise money men was that films over two hours in duration were not popular with audiences at the time and would not do well at the box office . with lynch 's initial cut running at closer to three or more hours , the studio demanded that further cuts be made . what a great idea ! why not trim down an already complex film so as to make it almost incomprehensible ? the most glaring consequence of this one - eyed stupidity is a hopelessly jumpy narrative , leaving us with badly underdeveloped characters . thus their personalities are vague , their motivations unclear and , in the case of paul 's father duke leto , their demise rather meaningless . the end result is a distinct chill : we ca n't warm to most of the cast and we do n't care much for them . and it hardly helps that the voice - over narration is sparse and that the dune - esque language and terminology sounds like so much gobbledegook to those unfamiliar with the book . dune is also a very serous film . the constant " self - talk " by various characters makes it so serious and self - absorbed at times that you may find it hard not to wince with embarrassment . the overall impression is a world full of people so intense that no one is allowed a joke lest the universe come crashing down around them . humour - or at least a gentle kind of humour as distinct from the harkonnen 's mad , sadistic kind - is hard to find . you may balk at the comparison , but as a writer lynch could well have done with some lessons from george lucus ' star wars trilogy . the theatrical version is still some way from being a complete disaster , however . it still possesses enough of lynch 's stylistic quirks and enough visual invention to sustain the interest of viewers with a taste for imaginative sci - fi . special effects whiz carlo rambaldi 's giant sandworms are an awesome sight . both the production design ( anthony masters ) and costume design ( bob ringwood ) are striking and original . and the magnificent score by toto and brian eno is one of the most underrated soundtracks of the last twenty years . with these elements in place and the benefit of freddie francis ' lush cinematography , the film is at least a feast for the senses . see it in the widescreen format if you can . and despite all the cuts , several cast members still make a strong impression , most notably kenneth mcmillan as the supremely nasty baron vladimir harkonnen . sian phillips also registers strongly as the reverend mother gaius helen mohiam , leader of the bene gesserit religious order who 's secret aim is to manipulate paul 's destiny for its own shadowy ends . as paul atreides , the young kyle maclachlan starts off somewhat shakily , but as his character grows in strength so does his performance and he emerges as a credible leader of the fremen crusade . the conclusion ? any assessment of this film must take into account that frank herbert 's original novel is a complex piece of work and presents a tough challenge for any filmmaker . david lynch took a brave stab at it and , partly due to forces beyond his control , ended up with an officially released version that fails in several key respects . dune certainly confused and frustrated a lot of people on its release . many chose to stay away altogether , as the film 's disastrous box office showing attests . the extended version , however , is a rather different beast . in 1984 lynch stated his intention to release his own special edition " director 's cut " of the film on home video , a clear indication of his dissatisfaction with the version that ended up in the theatres . but , alas , he failed to do so , choosing to move on to other projects . in a way , then , it is partly lynch 's own fault that what appeared instead was an unauthorised extended version , put together in 1988 by mca tv special projects for airing on cable networks in the usa . stung into action , lynch successfully petitioned the director 's guild to take his name off the credits and replace it with " allen smithee " , the standard pseudonym for directors who wish to disown their own work . he also had the screenwriting credit changed to the anonymous " judas booth " . certainly , looking at the results of mca 's handiwork there 's at least half a dozen instances that , for sheer technical sloppiness , are good enough reasons for the director to object . but these gripes must be considered in light of the improvements that the extended cut of dune offers in several crucial areas . most of the changes involve the restoration or extension of cut scenes and the addition of extra narration , both of which fill many holes in the original version 's storyline . paul 's relationship with his father and associates is more intimate , with moments of humour and warmth lacking previously . the political skulduggery involving the emperor , the spacing guild , the bene gesserits and the two warring houses is far better explained . paul 's initiation into the fremen way of life on arrakis is also fleshed out considerably . and as further background , a new prologue has been added featuring narration and painted stills to give us a brief history of the dune universe . as a piece of storytelling , then , mca tv 's version of dune is clearly superior . as a piece of editing , however , it is at times surprisingly inept . the use of painted stills in the new prologue works well enough , but their occasional appearance once the action begins is inappropriate . there 's some sloppy cutting , too , and in a few instances shots even appear out of order . and the use of repeated footage to fabricate certain scenes ( eg . ships coming and going , soldiers coming and going ) is at times clearly out - of - context . this is the kind of thing to which lynch objected , and rightly so . it should also be noted that several questionable scenes and shots from the theatrical version were deleted to satisfy the censorship demands of u . s . television . but the most notable omission is a gratuitous piece of nonsense from lynch that was n't even in herbert 's book . the scene features baron harkonnen killing a beautiful young man in front of his slobbering henchmen by pulling out his " heart plug " . its a surreal and disturbing episode that 's very lynch - esque but adds nothing to what we already know : the baron is a nasty piece of work . despite its own peculiar flaws , then , the extended version of dune is a generally superior film . all up , it contains 35 minutes of restored footage and approximately another 15 minutes of either altered , fabricated or newly created sequences . unless the idiosyncratic lynch has a sudden change of heart , the " alan smithee " version remains the closest we 'll get to what the movie should have been . on repeated viewings , one suspects it is closer than what lynch would be prepared to admit . still , as one of this century 's great science - fiction novels , some fans and perhaps the late herbert himself would argue that dune deserved a better fate in its transfer to the screen . with rumours circulating of a new six hour mini - series planned by production company new amsterdam entertainment in 1998 , it is unlikely that we have heard the last of the dune saga .

0NEG

nervous studio executives , the theatrical version of dune is a spectacular mess and may be incomprehensible to those unfamiliar with the book . the film 's mystical beauty and impressive action scenes only partly compensate for gaping holes in the narrative . dune : the extended version ( 1988 ) runtime from the outer worlds and lead them to freedom . unfortunately , this epic story unfolds in a confusing and haphazard manner in the theatrical cut of the film , which runs it almost incomprehensible ? the most glaring consequence of this one - eyed stupidity is a hopelessly jumpy narrative , leaving us with badly underdeveloped characters . thus their personalities are vague , their motivations unclear control , ended up with an officially released version that fails in several key respects . dune certainly confused and frustrated a lot of people on its release . many chose to stay away altogether 's at least half a dozen instances that , for sheer technical sloppiness , are good enough reasons for the director to object piece of editing , however , it is at times surprisingly inept . the use of painted stills in the new prologue , but their occasional appearance once the action begins is inappropriate . there 's some sloppy cutting , too , and in a few instances shots even going , soldiers coming and going ) is at times clearly out - of - context . this is the kind of thing to which lynch and perhaps the late herbert himself would argue that dune deserved a better fate in its transfer to the screen . with rumours circulating of a new six hour mini

in 1970s , many european intellectuals , especially those on the left political hemisphere , became obsessed with the rise of fascism . which was n't so hard to expect , because the social turmoil of 1960s and economic decline of 1970s seemed to be the breeding ground for many dangerous ideologies . in such times , when political involvement could be associated with noble passion , many filmmakers tried to warn the present generations of dangers that lurk ahead by giving the look of pre - war europe and circumstances that led to phenomena like fascist italy and nazi germany . of course , there were authors who jumped on the bandwagon for other , less noble reasons . for them , moral depravity of fascism could be explained to the audience by explicitly showing sexual depravity of those era . which , naturally , made some of those films very popular among teen audience . one of such filmmakers was italian director tinto brass , who later made career shooting expensive , stylish soft porn . salon kitty , his 1976 film , is very losely based on the novel by peter nordern , book that deals with bizarre yet true story that took place in the first years of ww2 . in 1939 , walter schellenberg , one of the heads of nazi intelligence service has set up the elite , exclusive brothel in berlin with clientele comprised of top nazi officials and foreign diplomats . none of the customers knew that the girls were all nazi agents , and that all the rooms happened to be bugged . the most bizarre thing is the fact that not even kitty , nominal madame of the brothel , did n't know the real purpose of that enterprise . screenplay by tinto brass , of course , simplifies the story and changes few names . schellenberg is now wallenberg ( helmut berger ) , ambitious nazi official who wants to use the brothel in order to blackmail his way to the top . kitty kellerman ( ingrid thulin ) , apart from being madam , has a second job as a cabaret singer . caught in the net of depravity is sweet , innocent girl margerithe ( theresa ann savoy ) thrown into brothel . there she falls in love with customer hans reiter ( bekim fehmiu ) , disenchanted pilot of luftwaffe . when margerithe discovers that her lover had been executed for defeatist speeches he made in the brothel , she finds out that the place is bugged . she informs the madam of the real situation , and both women decide to confront wallenberg . those who tend to bash benigni for exploiting holocaust as the topic of comedy would probably go bananas watching this film , that uses the darkest pages of european history for cheap sexploitation . but , although salon kitty does n't happen to be anything more than rather more stylish and expensive soft porn ( although not very successful ; some of supposedly erotic scenes are quite unappealing ) , it does try to have more multidimensional characters and even something resembling dramatic conflict - this time between power - hungry and scruples wallenberg and hedonistic womanhood symbolised by kitty . unfortunately , brass seems to overuse other cinematical references , probably thinking that he could repeat the successful interaction of berger and thulin in luchino visconti 's the damned , but the most noticeable and irritating is ingrid thulin 's unsuccessful attempt to imitate lisa minelli 's musical numbers from cabaret . all in all , salon kitty is failure , although with some very interesting moments .

0NEG

comedy would probably go bananas watching this film , that uses the darkest pages of european history for cheap sexploitation . but , although salon kitty does n't happen to than rather more stylish and expensive soft porn ( although not very successful ; some of supposedly erotic scenes are quite unappealing ) , it does try to have more multidimensional characters and scruples wallenberg and hedonistic womanhood symbolised by kitty . unfortunately , brass seems to overuse other cinematical references , probably thinking that he could repeat the successful interaction visconti 's the damned , but the most noticeable and irritating is ingrid thulin 's unsuccessful attempt to imitate lisa minelli from cabaret . all in all , salon kitty is failure , although with some very interesting moments .

dr dolittle ( 20th century fox ) running time : 1 hour 25 minutes starring eddie murphy directed by betty thomas riding high on the success of the nutty professor ( 1996 ) , murphy returns in this abysmal comedy . he plays doctor john dolittle , who as a child had the ability to understand animals . however , after being ' exorcised ' he loses this ability , and we fast forward to see dolittle in a crummy job surrounding by crummy people ( most notably dr mark weller , played by oliver platt . ) however , with a bonk on the head his ability to understand animals returns , and ' comedy ' is ready and waiting to happen . except comedy never does happen . doctor dolittle , even with the excellent premise , rarely manages to raise a laugh . poor old murphy looks bored stiff throughout the whole movie , and his performance suffers . the manic murphy we saw in the 80 's is gone , his more mature ( and more boring ) twin appears to be getting all the work in the 90 's . the voices of the animals , which include albert brooks , chris rock ( the ' new ' eddie murphy ) and norm mcdonald as ' lucky ' the dog are marginally better , and at least they put enthusiasm in the movie . sadly , most of their lines are pretty dumb . and they 're not ' funny ' dumb , like dumb & dumber ( 1994 ) , but just boring dumb . the film even succumbs to fart jokes halfway through , in a desperate attempt to raise some laughs . there are a few good jokes in the script , but they are few and far between . if i had to choose a favourite performance , it would probably be albert brooks tiger , who has a certain charm about him . sadly , he 's barely in the movie , and rock 's really annoying hamster is given far too much screen time . joke wise , we are thankfully , spared the mocking and insulting type of jokes that featured heavily in the nutty professor . the director , betty thomas , has , well , done better films . she bought us private parts ( 1997 ) and the brady bunch movie ( 1995 ) which were , sadly , much better than this . the scenes lack any charm , she just gets the job done . the animals themselves , are reasonable realistic , although most of them are obviously puppets . there 's an impressive looking tiger , however , and the lip sync is pretty good . you 'd have no problem guessing that most of the close up 's are puppets , however , with their jilted movement . i was hoping jim hensons workshop , who created the furry friends , would have done a better job . doctor dolittle , in the end , is a disappointment for everyone involved . murphy has done much better movies ( i . e trading places ) the director has seen better days , and even the creatures are n't that good . the target audience , aged between 7 - 13 , who are undemanding , will probably like it however , thanks to it 's dumbed down humour . everyone else , however , should give doctor dolittle a miss .

0NEG

nutty professor ( 1996 ) , murphy returns in this abysmal comedy . he plays doctor john dolittle , who as . doctor dolittle , even with the excellent premise , rarely manages to raise a laugh . poor old murphy looks bored stiff throughout the whole movie , and his performance suffers . the manic murphy we saw in the 80 's and at least they put enthusiasm in the movie . sadly , most of their lines are pretty dumb . and they 're not ' funny ' dumb , like dumb & dumber ( 1994 ) , but just boring dumb . the film even succumbs to fart jokes halfway through , in a desperate attempt to raise some laughs . there are a few good ) and the brady bunch movie ( 1995 ) which were , sadly , much better than this . the scenes lack any charm , she just gets the job done . the animals job . doctor dolittle , in the end , is a disappointment for everyone involved . murphy has done much better movies ( i . e trading places ) the director has seen better days , and even the creatures are n't that good . will probably like it however , thanks to it 's dumbed down humour . everyone else , however , should give doctor dolittle

the general 's daughter is a heartless , absurd film , a movie so hopelessly dedicated to its inane plot that it forgets entirely about its own characters . director simon west treats issues like rape and sexual fetish with ham - handed obscenity , creating a film that banks almost entirely on exploitation and offensive pseudo - depth . what 's worse is that the movie is haphazardly glued together by two characters who are neither interesting nor sympathetic -- the ridiculous story requires them to do unbelievable things in the interest of reaching a dark conclusion in a sudden rain storm . john travolta finds himself in the middle of the mess , playing warrant officer paul brenner ; brenner is assigned to find the murderer and rape of captain elizabeth campbell ( leslie stefanson ) , daughter of general joe campbell ( james cromwell ) . brenner is teamed up with ex - spouse sarah sunderland ( madeline stowe ) , and they check out all the suspects on the base , including elizabeth 's mentor , colonel moore ( james woods ) . soon , it becomes apparent that elizabeth was into kinky sexual stuff , but the question comes down to why -- and , of course , who . ebert 's law of the economy of characters can be applied here ; one interesting thing i noted is that not only are all the characters suspects at some point ( including the two protagonists ) , but almost all of them end up directly intertwined with the story . perhaps i should have issued a spoiler alert before mentioning that , but it 's painfully obvious from the beginning that everyone in the film is hiding something . on a story level , the general 's daughter is ineptly constructed . the film , adapted by christopher bertolini and william goldman from nelson demille 's novel ( which was apparently based on a true story ) , plods along to its conclusion , filling in the blanks with stale , unrealistic dialogue and " shocking " plot developments . having not read the novel , it 's difficult to determine if these problems are the fault of the adapters or the original author , but i suppose they all are guilty to some degree . scene after scene stumbles with pointless insincerity ; minutes after finding the dead young woman , brenner and sunderland engage in sarcastic dialogue , which includes endless strings of forced lines . ( sunderland actually asks brenner , " why was she killed ? " to which i would have answered , " if i knew , then the movie would already be over . " ) only after we 've spent twenty minutes or so with these characters do we learn that they have a sordid history together ; this angle , though apparently present to develop their characters , is never explored . not that it really matters , since the characters consistently do ludicrous things for no other reason than to drive the plot . in one scene , sunderland is attacked by a man in a mask . she sees one of his rings , and she and brenner find the man later that day based on the ring . instead of questioning him like as they would a real suspect , they take him to brenner 's houseboat , beat him up , and pour hot coffee in his lap . this scene really pushed me over the edge , not because it 's gratuitous and mean - spirited , but because it illustrates the film 's complete disregard for the characters and the audience . it was impossible for me to feel anything for these people beyond this scene , mostly because nothing they do comes as a surprise . i realized that these constructs on screen are n't actually characters , but devices present only to serve the story . this would have been bad enough without the west 's need to hose his movie down in tasteless images of rape and sexual misconduct . compelling films about sexual crimes do n't spend a lot of time on rape flashbacks , and they certainly do n't show as much skin and sweat as a typical pornographic picture . these scenes are not the least bit powerful ; on the contrary , they 're intended simply to provide the audience with the necessary resentment for the villain , whomever that may turn out to be . in addition , the movie treats sexual fetishes -- and sadomasochism in particular -- as if it 's a perversion of everything we know to be pure . this standpoint is certainly allowed , but only in accompaniment with well - developed themes to back it up . as it is , the film forgets that a lot of people have sexual fetishes , and that putting on a pair of handcuffs does not make a person insane . perhaps the only positive elements in the general 's daughter are a couple of the performances . james woods has a few terrific scenes , and plays his role with sharp , witty subtlety . i also liked james cromwell , mostly because he comes across as slightly sympathetic despite the obvious intent of west to make him villainous . nonetheless , these performances are undermined entirely by the dreary , obligatory atmosphere and the senseless neglect of characterization . the general 's daughter is the worst kind of hollywood film -- it pretends to have a soul , to be of strict moral code , when in fact it has nothing more than a group of cardboard cut - outs force - feeding the audience a toxic landfill of plot contrivances and one - sided moral judgments .

0NEG

the general 's daughter is a heartless , absurd film , a movie so hopelessly dedicated to its inane plot that it forgets entirely about its own characters . director simon west treats issues like rape and sexual fetish with ham - handed obscenity , creating a film that banks almost entirely on exploitation and offensive pseudo - depth . what 's worse is that the movie is haphazardly glued together by two characters who are neither interesting nor sympathetic -- the ridiculous story requires them to do unbelievable things in the interest of reaching a dark conclusion in a have issued a spoiler alert before mentioning that , but it 's painfully obvious from the beginning that everyone in the film is hiding on a story level , the general 's daughter is ineptly constructed . the film , adapted by christopher bertolini and william true story ) , plods along to its conclusion , filling in the blanks with stale , unrealistic dialogue and " shocking " plot developments . having not read i suppose they all are guilty to some degree . scene after scene stumbles with pointless insincerity ; minutes after finding the dead young woman , brenner never explored . not that it really matters , since the characters consistently do ludicrous things for no other reason than to drive the plot . it 's gratuitous and mean - spirited , but because it illustrates the film 's complete disregard for the characters and the audience . it was impossible the obvious intent of west to make him villainous . nonetheless , these performances are undermined entirely by the dreary , obligatory atmosphere and the senseless neglect of characterization . the general 's daughter is the worst kind of hollywood film -- it pretends to have a soul to be of strict moral code , when in fact it has nothing more than a group of cardboard cut - outs force - feeding the audience a toxic landfill of plot

disney 's " air bud " tells a boy - and - his - dog story with a twist -- the pooch is quite an accomplished basketball player . granted , for a family comedy , it 's not a very funny or successful idea to begin with , but it does n't seem to matter -- " air bud " is surprisingly solemn . save for occasional moments of forced slapstick , the movie wags its tale with a straight face -- not a very enjoyable approach . if " air bud " had realized its own absurdity , then it possibly could have been better . here , we 're actually asked to cheer a moment when the dog marches out to save the big game , clad in two pairs of sneakers and even a jersey . its number ? k9 . yeah , whatever . the movie opens as golden retriever buddy ( as himself ) escapes from his current owner , abusive clown - for - hire norm snively ( michael jeter ) . he ends up in fernwell , washington , where mopey new - kid - on - the - block josh ( kevin zegers ) is trying to cope with the move and the recent death of his father . buddy , kevin . kevin , buddy . once the dog proves his on - court prowess , kevin 's self - esteem rockets . they both win places in the school 's basketball team , with the animal as their mascot . but before they can make it to the finals , snively surfaces to reclaim buddy . everything plays out just as one would think : heavy on predictability , light on an actual story . the movie follows a calculated chain of events -- kevin 's gloom fades , snively gets his comeuppance and buddy contracts rabies and must be executed old yeller - style . okay , that last one 's a lie , but at least it would have been a quicker send - off than " air bud " 's courtroom climax -- no joke ! there 's even a faux - cute musical montage where a reluctant buddy gets cleaned - up to " splish splash . " paint cans are spilled and newspapers are buried , all in the name of formula . the end credits note that " no special visual effects were used in the basketball sequences of this motion picture . " that very well may be true , and although to see a dog sink shots is quite a sight , a movie can not exist on feat alone . but " air bud " does n't seem to be interested in anything else . a friend of mine insists he saw buddy a while back on a segment of david letterman 's " stupid pet tricks . " i ca n't think of a more appropriate connection -- this movie is a stupid pet trick .

0NEG

basketball player . granted , for a family comedy , it 's not a very funny or successful idea to begin with , but it does n't seem to " is surprisingly solemn . save for occasional moments of forced slapstick , the movie wags its tale with a straight face -- not a very enjoyable approach . if " air bud " had realized its own and even a jersey . its number ? k9 . yeah , whatever . the movie opens as golden retriever buddy ( as himself . everything plays out just as one would think : heavy on predictability , light on an actual story . the movie follows " paint cans are spilled and newspapers are buried , all in the name of formula . the end credits note that " no special visual think of a more appropriate connection -- this movie is a stupid pet trick .

a few months before the release of star wars episode 1 , the phantom menace , 20th century fox decides to release another space film , that is a complete rip off of star wars . what is the point of this ? i do not know , but i wish it had n't been done , considering wing commander is definitely the year 's worst film so far . to attract people to this horrible movie , they attached the full trailer for the phantom menace . wing commander will draw large crowds , because this is the only film where you can find the phantom menace full trailer attached at this time . the trailer for the phantom menace was certainly the best part of the movie experience i had tonight . many people do not know that wing commander is based on a star wars computer game . i found this very interesting , considering this fact almost says that wing commander is a star wars movie . it is nowhere near the level of the star wars films though . freddie prinze jr . stars in the film as christopher blair . wing commander was a huge mistake for freddie . this was definitely his worst performance to date . after january 's she 's all that , i actually saw a good actor in freddie , but now all those visions have been crushed . ( for now anyway . ) christopher blair is a pilot who is a part of the battle to stop the kilrathi , a group that is trying to destroy the earth . blair 's parents also fought in the space battles , and also died there . his parents were pilgrims , so many people disrespect him because of this . blair is under the command of " angel " , played by saffron burrows , and he is friends with another pilot , todd " maniac marshall " , played by matthew lillard . matthew lillard seems to play the same role in every movie , and he does in this one too . his character as stu in 1996 's scream ( a+ ) , was a great one , but now , it seems like that same role is being played again , only in a space movie . the three are just a small part of a large group trying to stop the kilrathi before they take over earth . this plot is very flimsy , and does n't give a whole lot to work with at all . this explains why wing commander drags on , seeming like there is no point to any of the events that are going on . the acting is horrible in wing commander . many lines seem out of place , and are completely meaningless . the acting and dialogue was so terrible , i even found myself laughing at it . the other things which are very bad about wing commander are the special effects and the music . the special effects are very unrealistic . when looking at two ships flying side by side , it is simple to tell they are hanging and a blue screen is behind them . the explosions look very unrealistic as well . a ship will be blown up , but there will only be fire present four about one half of a second . this is very unrealistic . music pretty much accompanies the film the entire time . the music also felt like video game music , and it was very corny and annoying sounding . after we are given the plot , the film repeats itself for another hour , without any plot twists , interesting scenes , or anything important to the film . blair is forced to make jumps over other planets , and he must also fight against the kilrathi aircraft . for the entire length of the movie , it takes place in space . it is truly like you are in a video game , because you are just watching people shoot at each other in ships for a long , extended period of time . it 's not much fun to watch at all . if i wanted to watch people shoot at each other in ships , i would go watch star wars at home . at least star wars pays attention to people , myth , feelings , and has some real plot to it . the bottom line- bring on the phantom menace 20th century fox !

0NEG

point of this ? i do not know , but i wish it had n't been done , considering wing commander is definitely the year 's worst film so far . to attract people to this horrible movie , they attached the full trailer for the phantom menace . wing commander was a huge mistake for freddie . this was definitely his worst performance to date . after january 's she 's all that to stop the kilrathi before they take over earth . this plot is very flimsy , and does n't give a whole lot to work with at all . this explains why wing commander drags on , seeming like there is no point to any of the events that are going on . the acting is horrible in wing commander . many lines seem out of place , and are completely meaningless . the acting and dialogue was so terrible , i even found myself laughing at it . the other things which are very bad about wing commander are the special effects and the music . the special effects are very unrealistic . when looking at two ships flying side by side are hanging and a blue screen is behind them . the explosions look very unrealistic as well . a ship will be blown up , fire present four about one half of a second . this is very unrealistic . music pretty much accompanies the film the entire time the music also felt like video game music , and it was very corny and annoying sounding . after we are given the plot , the film ships for a long , extended period of time . it 's not much fun to watch at all . if i wanted to watch people shoot at each

bad movies described as " a swift descent into sinful pleasure , decay , and debauchery " are hard to watch . bad 2000 's movies that resemble bad 1980s films are even harder to watch . shadow hours falls into the latter category , a mish - mashed train wreck of b - movie actors ( including michael dorn , aka star trek 's worf ) , an uninteresting plot , vain attempts at capitalizing on the " underground " scenes of seedy los angeles , and really , really bad directing and horrendous music video - esque ballistic editing that was taught to me in film school right before i decided to drop out . the film revolves around the life of michael holloway ( balthazar getty ) who is trying to restart his life with his one - dimensional wife chloe ( rebecca gayheart ) after a nasty bout of drug and alcohol addictions . michael takes a job of working the graveyard shift at the local gas station and is bombarded by the ugliness and weirdness of the nightlife of l . a . one night , he meets a strange gent named stuart ( mr . buckaroo banzai , peter weller ) . he drives a porsche , smokes french cigarettes , and drones on about life , eventually coaxing mike into exploring the " underbelly " of l . a . together , a tour of punk bars , s&m clubs , and bare - knuckle fights . the film then throws in a murder mystery with a cop played peter greene , acting like he wants to get the chance at a reprisal of his role in the mask 2 . the film then simply dissolves into a cheap rip - off of dante 's inferno mixed with an old stephen j . cannell television pilot . the pace of the film is jarring and utterly without focus . other horrors include the endless montages of people pumping gas and the charlie sheen , johnny depp , richard grieco - esque acting of balthazar getty . peter weller clearly knows his career is completely gone and does n't give two shits about it . and after the cheap exploitation of bondage clubs , dance clubs , and brothels - damn , is n't anyone safe any more from the ugly eye of hollywood ! ? way back in 1984 , a great but crazy director named abel ferrara made his worse film and called it fear city . shadow hours reminds me of an almost perfect sequel . director / writer : isaac eaton producers : peter alevey , andrea mia , shon greenblatt , balthazar getty starring : balthazar getty , peter weller , rebecca gayheart , peter greene , frederic forrest , brad douriff , michael dorn

0NEG

bad 2000 's movies that resemble bad 1980s films are even harder to watch . shadow hours falls into the latter category , a michael dorn , aka star trek 's worf ) , an uninteresting plot , vain attempts at capitalizing on the " underground " scenes of seedy los angeles , and really , really bad directing and horrendous music video - esque ballistic editing that was taught to role in the mask 2 . the film then simply dissolves into a cheap rip - off of dante 's inferno mixed with an old stephen j cannell television pilot . the pace of the film is jarring and utterly without focus . other horrors include the endless montages of people pumping esque acting of balthazar getty . peter weller clearly knows his career is completely gone and does n't give two shits about it . and after the cheap exploitation of bondage

bruce willis needs to stay away from straightforward action pictures . mercury rising adds to a growing list ( including such stinkers as the jackal , last man standing , striking distance and the last boy scout ) of stale actioners he has headlined . and though mercury rising tries to spice things up by throwing an autistic kid in the mix , it is every bit as stale . art jeffries ( bruce willis ) is your typical tormented fbi agent . you know the type , haunted by his job , yet so good at what he does that even physically assaulting another agent merely gets him a slap on the wrist . enter simon ( miko hughes ) , an autistic boy , who , like rain man and all other autistic people , is a savant . he can merely gaze at a super - encrypted message , and , while little computer beeps go off in his head , he can understand what it says . naturally , this talent has brought him to the attention of the federal government . lt . col . nicholas kudrow ( alec baldwin ) , an nsa official bubbling over with evil , has spent countless time and money implementing the newest " unbreakable " code , mercury . however , when two of his underlings ( robert stanton and bodhi pine elfman ) publish a mercury - encrypted message in a puzzle magazine as a final test of its effectiveness , simon cracks the code . naturally , this infuriates kudrow , who sends a terminator - like hitman ( l . l . ginter ) to eliminate the security hazard . and that 's where art jeffries comes in . for some reason that 's never explained in the film , the fbi is called in to help , and through a series of intricate machinations , art becomes the sole protector of the young autistic boy . in a few unrealistic sequences , he enlists the aid of a stranger , stacey ( kim dickens ) , to help out , but she is given very little to do overall . the central concept behind mercury rising is ludicrous . why bother trying to kill the kid . . . i mean , who would know ? it 's not like the kid ( or anyone else for that matter ) knew he was cracking a government super - cypher . and even if he is eliminated , what does that help ? he 's already proven that mercury can be broken . there 's always the chance that someone else would crack it . . . but i guess without a kid in jeopardy , there 's not much of a movie here . for all its faults , the film actually starts relatively well ( once you pass the painfully familiar teaser ) . the film flirts with developing real characters , and a semblance of a plot . . . then mr . terminator the hitman appears and everything begins going downhill . . . quickly . miko hughes does a decent job , for his age , at creating a touching performance . however , do n't go to this film looking for any new insights into autism ( not that many people will ) . instead he merely becomes the latest unique partner in a routine buddy - cop movie ( think cop and a half . . . with a twist ! ) willis and baldwin are just overplaying to type . rather than creating a nuanced character , baldwin simply oozes sliminess . and for willis ' part , he simply recycles the stock role of the loner cop / fbi agent ( which he has honed in the die hard series ) . as almost an afterthought , about halfway through , the film carelessly gives him a character trait ( an addiction ) , and then drops it in the next scene . but the biggest problem with mercury rising is the screenplay . this film was n't well thought out at all . the film goes to extraordinary lengths to pad in as many convenient coincidences as possible . the carbon paper scene alone is unworthy of the most gullible audience member . at first the bad scenes just trickle in , but by the gruesomely bad finale they 're a veritable flood . the film 's few decent moments come in the form of bad jokes ( mainly from the geeks who developed the supercode ) . but they 're not nearly enough to make the film worthwhile . mercury rising is a thriller that you 're more likely to groan at than cheer .

0NEG

, striking distance and the last boy scout ) of stale actioners he has headlined . and though mercury rising tries to up by throwing an autistic kid in the mix , it is every bit as stale . art jeffries ( bruce willis ) is your typical . and that 's where art jeffries comes in . for some reason that 's never explained in the film , the fbi is called in to help , and do overall . the central concept behind mercury rising is ludicrous . why bother trying to kill the kid . . , there 's not much of a movie here . for all its faults , the film actually starts relatively well ( once you pass the painfully familiar teaser ) . the film flirts with developing real characters . . then mr . terminator the hitman appears and everything begins going downhill . . . quickly . miko hughes does a decent job , for his age . . with a twist ! ) willis and baldwin are just overplaying to type . rather than creating a nuanced character , baldwin simply oozes sliminess . and for willis ' part , he simply recycles , and then drops it in the next scene . but the biggest problem with mercury rising is the screenplay . this film was n't well thought out at all . the film goes to extraordinary lengths to pad in coincidences as possible . the carbon paper scene alone is unworthy of the most gullible audience member . at first the bad scenes just trickle in , but by the gruesomely bad finale they 're a veritable flood . the film 's few decent moments come in the

capsule : godawful " comedy " that 's amazingly shabby and cut - rate , and rather bereft of laughs . i was having a bad week in my life when i saw austin powers : international man of mystery . i desperately needed something to cheer me up , or at least distract me so i could get a clear head . get some perspective . even dumb movies can do that for me , sometimes . i tried hard not to let my dejection affect my judgment , but i am certain now that austin powers would have also sucked rocks through bamboo shoots on the day i won the lottery . michael myers has taken a character that would barely have supported a five - minute sketch on saturday night live and stretched it to the length of a feature film , padding it out with toilet jokes and the sort of props - strategically - positioned - between - naked - actors - and - camera gags that benny hill got tired of fifteen years ago . the plot , what little there is of it : back in the swinging mod hep sixties ( i do n't think i 'm doing a disservice to the movie 's attempted early look and feel by describing it that way ) , sexy british secret agent austin powers tangled with his nemesis dr . evil . evil launched himself into orbit and cryogenically forze himself to return decades later , when powers was out of the picture . powers also had himself frozen , and he wakes up to find the nineties a very hard time to deal with . the basic gag , that of powers ' total inability to cope with the nineties , is not so much exhausted during the course of the movie as never even really dealt with . the bulk of the movie is taken up with dumb jokes of several basic rubrics : james bond gags ( of which this movie has no end , right down to the silly character names ) , inept slapstick , toilet humor , and strategically placed props . . . the movie 's amazingly bereft of ideas , come to think of it , with a couple of bright exceptions . one is dr . evil 's son -- there is a sidesplitting scene where father and son go to an encounter group , chaired by carrie fisher -- and the other is a throwaway gag where austin mimics various forms of transportation from behind a couch ( it 's a visual gag -- hard to describe , and hard to recommend seeing the movie for ) . a lot of sixties kitsch has been resurrected and thrown on the screen for this movie , but it 's desperate rather than clever . instead of skewering the whole thing , it 's a rather bloodless and unfunny tribute . myers himself is also desperate : he 's given an idea to play , not a character . plus , the attempts to make the character work by giving him a relationship with another sexy ( albeit " nineties " ) agent are a waste of time . i wanted to have the movie end with him trying yet again to get it on with her , only to have her deck him one . with a couple of exceptions , the movie misses all of its own best moments . the movie even looks cheesy , and not in a good way : i kept wondering if it had been transferred down from hi - def video or something , so grainy was the film stock in a good many scenes . the whole thing has the air of being done on the cheap . my definition of comedy is simply : did it make me laugh ? the few times that i laughed in austin powers were completely offset by the time i spent cringing and wanting out . the most damning thing i could say about the movie is that wayne and garth would most likely have shoved it into mike tyson 's shorts and sent it sailing .

0NEG

capsule : godawful " comedy " that 's amazingly shabby and cut - rate , and rather bereft of laughs . i was having a bad week in my life judgment , but i am certain now that austin powers would have also sucked rocks through bamboo shoots on the day i won the lottery . michael myers stretched it to the length of a feature film , padding it out with toilet jokes and the sort of props - strategically - positioned - of the movie as never even really dealt with . the bulk of the movie is taken up with dumb jokes of several basic rubrics : james bond gags ( of , right down to the silly character names ) , inept slapstick , toilet humor , and strategically placed props . . . the movie 's amazingly bereft of ideas , come to think of it , with a couple and thrown on the screen for this movie , but it 's desperate rather than clever . instead of skewering the whole thing , it 's a rather bloodless and unfunny tribute . myers himself is also desperate : he 's given deck him one . with a couple of exceptions , the movie misses all of its own best moments . the movie even looks cheesy , and not in a good way : i kept wondering if it had been transferred down austin powers were completely offset by the time i spent cringing and wanting out . the most damning thing i could say about the

battlefield earth is the worst film of 2000 , and i guarantee you that nothing else this year will even come close . in fact , i 'll be surprised if i see anything this bad in the next ten years . based on the novel by scientology guru l . ron hubbard , battlefield earth begins and we immediately find out two pieces of key information . it 's the year 3000 , and an alien race called the psychlos ( which sounds like a tag team of mexican wrestlers ) conquered our planet in nine minutes . ok , we are all of 10 seconds in and i have a zillion questions racing through my mind . when were we conquered ? the audience is led to believe that this happened about 1 , 000 years earlier , and if that is the case then we 're going to get into a whole bunch of problems later ( trust me . . . keep reading ) . also , why do n't we get to see earth get conquered ? how the hell do you make a popcorn sci - fi flick and not deliver the goods on the one event that sets up the film ? humans now live as cavemen or slave labor , and for the film 's first act we focus on one particular cavemen group outside of denver , colorado . they grunt and groan and babble about monsters . so , when the psychlos conquered earth , were the only humans not captured a herd of newborn babies that crawled their way to safety in the hills ? none of these characters have any knowledge of the planet being conquered ( whenever that was ) . this is definitely not the way to start an action / sci - fi film . one of the humans wanders out into the wilderness and stumbles across what he thinks is a monster , and he begins to fight it . the " monster " turns out to be a dinosaur from an old miniature golf course . he turns around and sees all sorts of other characters from the golf course , with some shrubs growing over them . so , in 1 , 000 years this stupid little golf course has stood the test of time , with only a few weeds growing over it ? anyway , some of the humans are captured by the psychlos led by terl ( john travolta ) a smarmy and opportunistic alien planning on stealing a recently discovered gold deposit . the cavemen ( led by barry pepper ) are forced to do their bidding or whatever , but eventually they gain the upper hand and reclaim the planet , or something . so these cavemen are able to do what earth failed to do 1 , 000 years earlier ? and , we 're supposed to believe that earth was conquered in nine minutes by a group of buffoonish aliens who ca n't even handle a few cavemen ? one of the ways the humans reclaim the planet is by taking control of abandoned air force jets and using them to fight the psychlos . so jets left unattended for 1 , 000 years are still able to fly ? please , if i leave my car unattended for two weeks i have to replace every fluid and hose under the hood . why did the psychlos leave jets around anyway ? should n't they have destroyed military installations during their massive nine minute campaign against us ? the psychlos refer to humans as " man animals " but yet dogs are still " dogs " . why are n't they " dog animals " ? the psychlos are after mining earth 's precious resources , but for 1 , 000 years are unaware of fort knox ? why do i even care at this point ? i 'm a fan of travolta 's and i 'm glad to see he 's back on the a - list in hollywood ( despite the fact that he occasionally puts out crowd pleasing dreck like michael and phenomenon ) . but how did he possibly think this was a good movie ? and how did he think he was giving a good performance here ? he 's more than capable of making a menacing villain ( see broken arrow and face / off ) but whenever his character came on screen i could n't hold back my laughter . now despite the different facial features members of this alien race seem to have , travolta just looks like travolta . all of the other aliens have weird foreheads or other pointy bones on their face , but travolta just has a goatee . also , travolta 's acts with a sort of phony upper - class snooty accent and constantly whines about bureaucratic nonsense back on his home world . ooooo , scary villain . as a producer he should know better and as an actor he should definitely know better . you can make a dumb but good sci - fi film ( i love independence day for example ) , but there is absolutely nothing entertaining about battlefield earth . i did everything i possibly could to stay awake during the screening . . . i cleaned my glasses , walked around the theater , made a grocery list , chose my lottery numbers for the week , replayed super bowl xxv in my head ( with commercials ) . . . and still was compelled to scrutinize the insides of my eyelids . by the time we actually reach the year 3000 , people should still be avoiding this film . folks , save your cash . . do n't go see it , do n't rent it , and do n't buy it . you 'd be more entertained by taking the money you 'd use for this movie and just throwing it into the wind , watching it sail away ( hell , send it to us here at the jacksonville film journal . . . we 'll entertain you plenty with that kind of money ) . unless of course you 're just captivated by countless slow motion shots of barry pepper running , which is just about all you 'll come away with from this movie . that , and a headache . [ editor 's note : for some reason though , the day after my screening i converted to scientology . i 'm not sure why . . . something just made me feel compelled make the choice . ]

0NEG

battlefield earth is the worst film of 2000 , and i guarantee you that nothing else this year 1 , 000 years are unaware of fort knox ? why do i even care at this point ? i 'm a fan of travolta 's and i 'm crowd pleasing dreck like michael and phenomenon ) . but how did he possibly think this was a good movie ? and how did he think he was giving a good / off ) but whenever his character came on screen i could n't hold back my laughter . now despite the different facial features members of this . also , travolta 's acts with a sort of phony upper - class snooty accent and constantly whines about bureaucratic nonsense back on his home world . ooooo , scary villain . as a producer he should know better and as an actor he should definitely know better . ( i love independence day for example ) , but there is absolutely nothing entertaining about battlefield earth . i did everything i possibly could head ( with commercials ) . . . and still was compelled to scrutinize the insides of my eyelids . by the time we actually reach the year 3000 people should still be avoiding this film . folks , save your cash . . do n't go see it , do n't rent it , and do n't buy it . you 'd be more entertained by taking the money

jet li busted onto the american action movie scene , when he stole the show in 1998 's lethal weapon 4 , with his wicked looks , his nasty moves and his undeniable charisma . it only took another two years for mega - producer joel silver to set him up in an all - american movie , primed to take over some of the empty action - hero seats left by alleged coke - head van damme and that pudgy guy named steven seagal . would this film take li past his rival asian action counterparts , namely chow yun - fat and jackie chan ? let 's find out . plot : rival chinese and black gangster organizations fall further out of favor from one another , when members of their respective families start turning up dead . that 's when badass jet li blasts into the picture to find out who the men were behind his brother 's death and to exact some of his own style of revenge . critique : three words : not enough action ! simple enough ? not enough hong kong kickass jet li action to compensate for a horribly predictable screenplay , bad actors , crappy dialogue and oh - so many over - the - top melodramatic moments . and a romance angle ? why , one must ask . . . why ? i love fight scenes and i really dig jet li too , but this little ditty barely contained three memorable action sequences , and jet , well , the poor dude was barely in the movie . and i thought this was supposed to be his big break ? how 'bout giving the slickster some more opportunities to show us his kung - fu fighting chops , slap him in a few more scenes , and give him more chances to practice his acting / english abilities ? what a letdown . even black mask was more entertaining than this glossed up , empty shell of a film . in fact , i am sure that more time was spent gathering the " hits " for the soundtrack of this film , than were on the so - called " screenplay " . i felt like i was watching a soundtrack rather than a movie most of the time . the sad part about the bad script is that it would n't matter so much if the film actually had some decent actors spouting out the tacky lines . but no , save lindo and aaliyah , who were n't too shabby , i thought the rest of the cast was picked primarily from their inability to deliver lines convincingly . and what was the deal with the whole nfl franchise deal run by some 15-year old looking guy , acting like he 's the overlord of a drug ring ? ! what a mess . then again , i do n't want it to seem like i 'm complaining solely about the story which was completely foreseeable , since we all go to see these movies for the action anyway , not the story . well , i guess that 's what disappointed me the most out of this film . there were a couple of cool fight scenes with li , but simply not enough to satisfy my overall craving . also , as much as i love the way they incorporate wires and special effects in some of their stunts , a couple of the exaggerated fight scenes were simply too obvious a stunt . it should be seamless , fellas , not necessarily against the laws of gravity ! the one cool thing that was original in the movie was the way in which the director showed us some of the inside cracklings of the human body when penetrated by a blow , but that simple creative touch could n't save the rest of this film 's uninteresting plot movements . i 'm disappointed for jet li that this film did n't give him the real opportunity to star in a good story with many great action scenes . hopefully , the next time will be a charm for this charismatic actor . for now , i just hope that for his sake , the film 's title is n't a premonition of the movie 's ultimate fate at the box - office .

0NEG

enough hong kong kickass jet li action to compensate for a horribly predictable screenplay , bad actors , crappy dialogue and oh - so many over - the - top melodramatic moments . and a romance angle ? why , one must more chances to practice his acting / english abilities ? what a letdown . even black mask was more entertaining than this glossed up , empty shell of a film . in fact , i am sure that more time for the soundtrack of this film , than were on the so - called " screenplay " . i felt like i was watching a soundtrack rather than a movie most of the time . the sad part about the bad script is that it would n't matter so much if the he 's the overlord of a drug ring ? ! what a mess . then again , i do n't want it to a couple of cool fight scenes with li , but simply not enough to satisfy my overall craving . also , as much as i love the way wires and special effects in some of their stunts , a couple of the exaggerated fight scenes were simply too obvious a stunt . it should be seamless , fellas , not necessarily touch could n't save the rest of this film 's uninteresting plot movements . i 'm disappointed for jet li that this film did n't give him

one night , during a torrential downpour that flooded the streets , we went to see -- what else -- hard rain . " so , are we all going to die ? " the sheriff ( randy quaid ) asks in the story 's opening line as he evacuates his flooded town . the answer is pretty much yes , but not nearly soon enough . and to add insult to injury , the supposedly dead , regretfully , often turn out not to be so . populating this bad tv - movie - of - the - week material are a host of talented actors . one can only hope they were rewarded handsomely for acting in this hopelessly muddled picture . besides the obvious hardships of acting most scenes while dog paddling in the water , they will all receive black marks on their records for appearing in this dismal movie . graham yost 's script serves up one cliche after another for the actors , who thankfully managed to mumble quite a few of the lines . director mikael salomon 's staging is so confusing that you may have trouble figuring out what is happening . the befuddled presentation is exacerbated by peter menzies , jr . 's dark and ugly cinematography . the plot concerns an armored car that gets stuck in the raging water . onboard are guards tom and his uncle charlie . christian slater , who is much better in his tender roles as in untamed heart , plays tom . edward asner drops by briefly to take on the role of the soon to be dead charlie . coming to their " rescue " is a gang headed by jim , played on autopilot by the great actor morgan freeman . he views the loot , three million dollars worth , as his retirement plan . the entire movie is one big watery chase with the sheriff and his posse tracking jim and his gang , who are in turn after tom . along the way , tom picks up a love interest in the person of a crucifix - weapon wielding woman named karen , played in a totally wasted performance by minnie driver . the action sequences are repetitive and without much interest . they do feature lots of explosions and gunfire to keep you awake . christopher young 's emotionless score for the film has a single trait , ear - shattering loudness . the plot holes are as big as the ones in the dam that breaks , submerging the town . the characters have an infinite number of bullets and rarely do they have to bother reloading their guns . the weapons and the ammunition spend most of the time under water or being rained on but always fire perfectly . when one of the bad guys drops a gun into the water , it stays in the same place until much later when tom swims to get it , even though the swift water is so strong it is uprooting large trees . counting these improbabilities is one of the more enjoyable ways to spend your time as you wait for the characters to kill each other . the show has a single , but unprintable , good line . betty white plays an incessantly bossy wife , and , when her hen - pecked husband finally told her off , our audience roared with laughter . the show concludes with a sickening set of twists . the best that can be said of the picture is that it is merely stupefyingly awful as opposed to laughably bad . hard rain runs 1 : 37 . it is rated r for violence and would be fine for teenagers . ( the two families behind us shockingly had a half - dozen preschoolers among them . )

0NEG

regretfully , often turn out not to be so . populating this bad tv - movie - of - the - week material are a host of talented actors . one can only hope they were rewarded handsomely for acting in this hopelessly muddled picture . besides the obvious hardships of acting most scenes appearing in this dismal movie . graham yost 's script serves up one cliche after another for the actors , who thankfully managed to mumble quite of the lines . director mikael salomon 's staging is so confusing that you may have trouble figuring out what is happening . the befuddled presentation is exacerbated by peter menzies , jr . 's dark and ugly cinematography . the plot concerns an armored car that gets stuck a crucifix - weapon wielding woman named karen , played in a totally wasted performance by minnie driver . the action sequences are repetitive and and gunfire to keep you awake . christopher young 's emotionless score for the film has a single trait , ear - shattering loudness . the plot holes are as big as the ones in the dam that breaks , submerging the town . the characters have an infinite so strong it is uprooting large trees . counting these improbabilities is one of the more enjoyable ways to spend your best that can be said of the picture is that it is merely stupefyingly awful as opposed to laughably bad . hard rain runs 1 : 37 . it is

it was with a huge lack of something to do that i decided to watch this on good old upn on sunday afternoon , when the only good things on tv are the second - rate movies they show ( some are good : they showed " total recall " before this one ) . if you know me , i think seagal is probably the most boring action star to ever live . and this includes keanu reeves . what do i hate about seagal ? i hate how he uses one facial expression for every single threatening and non - threatening situation ( the squint ) . i hate those scenes in every movie where he goes around , bullying people up , saying stupid lines with a brooklyn accent more fake than burt reynold 's hairpiece in " boogie nights . " i despise how he never gets a bruise in any of his fights . i hate how every single plot twist leads to just a melodramatic fight between he and the chief villain . i hate his non - satirical messages ( in the beginning of this one , he slaps on a quote from arthur miller , which has nothing to do with the film , except it 's about brooklyn where this film takes place ) . and i hate how he 's so narcissistic that he thinks that he can actually fucking sing ( during the end credits , he has a good old hill billy rock tune sung and penned by him ) . sure , the guy 's probably a nice guy in person ( i actually found him very non - threatening when he was on letterman not too long ago ) . but the guy makes worse films than reagan did . so what 's the plot of this shit - terpiece ? well . . . something about him trying to catch a stupid - ass crook ( william forsythe ) who shot and killed his partner in broad daylight . i could n't believe how bad this scene was - the guy was conveniently with his family so we get the maximum emotional effect ( ahem ! ) . and forsythe even said some stupid lines to him before he took off . i 'm sorry , did anyone ever hear of concealing one 's self ? so in comes ex - brooklynite seagal , who dedicates his life to catching this guy . and i just wished he had caught him in the beginning , then ended the film . but noooo , this drags on , as he bullies forsythe 's family members ( including a stupid bar - owner , and none other than gina gershon as his other bar - owner sister ) . and forsythe more than once threatens his family . at one point , he actually comes to their house and stalks them like a non - threatening nicholson in " the shining " ( complete with them all hiding in the bathroom , but with an added bonus of one girl conveniently loosing her cool and screaming to give them away ) . seagal paints himself as a lovable person , with a son , and a fiancee . he even shows him hanging with his son , checking up on his homework , and then about to take him out for a bit of " catch , " when he 's conveniently called away on assignment . i dunno about you , but playing " catch " with seagal was one of my childhood nightmares . he also shows him as that bad - ass he wants to be , with scenes of him bullying crooks around , and taking out people who are stupid enough to attack him even after he 's unarmed a chinese guy swinging bats with a pool cue . serves them right . this film , as some of his do , has an interesting supporting cast of actors who are actually talented , but do n't appear to be in this film . i already mentioned gina gershon ( who 's pretty horrible in this one ) , as well as william forsythe , who over - acts terribly . i know this guy can act : he was awesome in " raising arizona " as goodman 's partner in crime . but he 's just awful here . jerry orbach gives the only credible performance in the film as the police chief who checks up on segal after things have gone down . why is he the only one who gives a good performance ? well , because his role is small enough and sporadic enough to not tarnish his credibility . he seems to be in here just to give it a cool " law and order " feeling ( even if it 's not a " cool " feeling ) . and in cameos are b - rated erotic - thriller - cinemax - style stars , shannon whirry ( as " terry malloy , " which is more of a bad joke than a clever one ) and athena massey . oh ! and " er " 's julliana margiulles has two scenes . " out for justice " just proves once again that american action films just suck . i know that there 's such a good thing as good action - he 's called john woo . but if you 're in the mood for some good old no - brainer , fun - yet - dumb action , do n't bother watching this . it 's so stupid that it 's boring .

0NEG

. if you know me , i think seagal is probably the most boring action star to ever live . and this includes keanu reeves . what do i movie where he goes around , bullying people up , saying stupid lines with a brooklyn accent more fake than burt reynold 's hairpiece in " boogie nights . " i despise how he never gets a bruise in any of his fights . i hate how every single plot twist leads to just a melodramatic fight between he and the chief villain . i hate his about brooklyn where this film takes place ) . and i hate how he 's so narcissistic that he thinks that he can actually fucking sing ( during the end credits , he has a good letterman not too long ago ) . but the guy makes worse films than reagan did . so what 's the plot of who shot and killed his partner in broad daylight . i could n't believe how bad this scene was - the guy was conveniently with his family so we beginning , then ended the film . but noooo , this drags on , as he bullies forsythe 's family members ( including you , but playing " catch " with seagal was one of my childhood nightmares . he also shows him as that bad - ass in this film . i already mentioned gina gershon ( who 's pretty horrible in this one ) , as well as william forsythe , who over - acts terribly . i know this guy can act : he was arizona " as goodman 's partner in crime . but he 's just awful here . jerry orbach gives the only credible performance in the has two scenes . " out for justice " just proves once again that american action films just suck . i know that there 's such a good thing - dumb action , do n't bother watching this . it 's so stupid that it 's boring .

vampires starts out almost in the style of a spaghetti western with an attack on a small homestead in new mexico . the house has a nest of vampires and jack crow ( james woods ) is leading a team of vampire hunters in to clean them out . while the initial imagery is a little over - dramatic , it gives way to what is a fairly decent action sequence . that is enough action to last us a while and we could , director john carpenter would let us , get to a story line . but it is not very long and there is not much plot until the next big action scene . then there is only a bit more of plot before the next action scene after that . the plot is kept to a minimum and the interesting ideas in the plot really get the short end . and that is something of a pity because the film , based on the book vampire$ by john steakley , gives us a myth for the origins of vampires and explains why vampires are so intertwined with religious imagery . this could be an interesting departure from the standard vampire film , but carpenter decides to tell us about it rather than to show it . what carpenter saves his serious screen time for a sequence of spectacular fights between hunters and vampires . there is a lot of fighting and lots of gore . anything intriguing is kept to a minimum to so it does not get in the way of pleasing the action film fans . this has not always been carpenter 's style . his 1981 version of the thing has action but also challenges the viewer to do a little thinking about the film 's central science fictional question . jack crow heads a vampire swat team , cleaning up nests of vampires with high - tech spears and crossbows . in the early part of the film his team is wiped out by a particularly mean vampire valek ( thomas ian griffith ) who has been tipped off to who crow is . now crow team is gone and he is down to himself and his sidekick tony montoya ( daniel baldwin ) . to make matters worse , he does not know the people on his own side , tony and his backers , he can trust . meanwhile jack is sure the vampires are looking for something that must be hidden somewhere here in new mexico . if this is sounding like a very tired police corruption plot with a few obvious substitutions , that 's exactly what it is . the same story looks just as well with two partner cops looking for a gang of hood who are themselves looking for a packet of heroin . but carpenter goes against a familiar principle of film : show people , do n't tell them . just about everything in the plot other than the fights we are told about in the dialog and not shown . fundamental questions in the plot like where does crow get his funding , why are the vampires in new mexico -- what do they want and why do they want it , what is the connection of the vampires and the catholic church , how did crow come to be a vampire hunter and why devote his life to it ? the answers to any of these questions could have been dramatized , but instead are revealed through dialog . now if all this was not bad enough , carpenter misuses the james wood persona . woods plays a particular sort of cool lowlife very well . but carpenter leads off the film by having woods do some sergio - leone- style mythic posturing . while his crew prepares for an attack he stands staring fixedly through shades at the house that will be his target . woods does not work as a larger than life mythic hero . that is not his style and it just does not work very well . there are some simple things that carpenter should be looking for as director that he misses . in one scene we are looking at a motel room with dead people on the floor . one female corpse is on the floor in front of a chair so that there is about an inch of daylight between her and the chair . as the actress breathes the gap widening and narrowing makes it obvious her arm is moving up and down . one also wonders how the existence of vampires is kept secret . these vampires do not maintain a low profile . there are arguably logical flaws in the film . there is some question in my mind whether carpenter has a consistent policy on what effect bullets have on vampires . it would take some rationalization to explain why in some scenes sunlight has a dramatic effect on vampires , yet in a scene toward the end a vampire can walk under a burned roof that lets him be swept by beams of sunlight . i suspect that the book on which this film was based was better thought out . while i might recommend this film to an action audience i would say that what i look for in a vampire film vampires rates a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale . perhaps i will read the book .

0NEG

of plot before the next action scene after that . the plot is kept to a minimum and the interesting ideas in the plot really get the short end . and that is something of a pity because the film , based on the book vampire$ by is a lot of fighting and lots of gore . anything intriguing is kept to a minimum to so it does not get in the way of here in new mexico . if this is sounding like a very tired police corruption plot with a few obvious substitutions , that 's exactly what it is . the same dramatized , but instead are revealed through dialog . now if all this was not bad enough , carpenter misuses the james wood persona . woods plays a particular sort at the house that will be his target . woods does not work as a larger than life mythic hero . that is not his style and it just does not work very well . there are some simple things that carpenter . these vampires do not maintain a low profile . there are arguably logical flaws in the film . there is some question in my mind whether carpenter

when considering david fincher 's latest film , " the game " , four words come to mind . " do n't believe the hype . " this michael douglas vehicle , from the director of " seven " , is n't nearly as clever or innovatively suspenseful as it would have us believe . the film draws us in with an intriguing concept ( aided no doubt by the riveting trailer ) where a jaded millionaire ( douglas ) is presented with the opportunity to enter into a living fantasy . this is n't simply virtual reality . this is real life with a deadly twist . on his 48th birthday , nicholas van orton ( douglas ) is invited to dinner by his underachieving younger brother , conrad ( sean penn ) . conrad has a special birthday present for his brother . he hands nicholas a gift certificate and tells him to contact a company called consumer recreation services . " they make your life fun , " conrad tells him . nicholas humors his brother , telling him he 'll call , but it 's clear he has no time for any foolish , " fantasy role - playing , " as he calls it . then , for reasons that are never really made clear , nicholas decides to go to crs and see what they 're all about . he ends up spending a whole day going through their screening process , which to me made no sense considering the tight schedule he keeps claiming to have . nevertheless , when it seems nicholas has been rejected as a crs client , the weird things start happening . of course , when we 've only covered about 30 minutes of screen time , what else should we expect . douglas has built his modern career around playing powerful , violent and unlikable men being manipulated by unseen hands . one of those films , " basic instinct " , came from the creative minds of writer , joe eszterhas and director , paul verhoeven . the premise of " the game , " is not unlike the concept of another verhoeven film , " total recall . " in that case , the premise was implanting someone else 's memories as a way to enhance one 's own life through a dream vacation . yet , in both films , the real goal is to create a vicarious bond with the audience . we live the adventure along with the protagonist , reacting to each twist and turn . in theory , the key to the suspense is not being to tell what is real and what is n't . all we can do is hang on until the end of the ride , when the truth is finally revealed . now , for those of you who forgot , let me say this again . " do n't believe the hype . " " the game " is not a thrilling roller coaster ride . as a suspense - thriller , it does n't do much but spin in circles . by the third reel , i was fighting back sleep and checking my watch as i endured the predictable plot . is it any wonder douglas wo n't be able to resist the charms of a mysterious , potentially life - threatening blonde ( ever heard of glenn close ? no ? well , how about sharon stone ? thought so ) . if anything in this film surprises you at all , i would guess you have n't seen that many films . there is no suspense here . trust me , i looked hard to find some . i had to settle for contrived gimmicks and ridiculously implausible situations . fincher aim 's for hitchcock but lands somewhere just north of joe eszterhas . there are those that might say " the game " is not intended to be viewed literally . i would submit that is exactly the way i tried to view the film . the film simply does not have the teeth to bite into any real psychological issues . there is a moment early in the film where van orton , realizing his game has begun , smiles as he walks through the airport trying to figure out who 's in on the whole thing . he is charged by his paranoia . he is looking at the world through new eyes . it is the last thought - provoking moment in the film . from there on , the director only wants to stay a step ahead of us . any significant archetype that is set up in the beginning of the film is simply turned into a plot device . at the outset , we 're told each " game " is tailored to the individual . ultimately , this " game " is supposed to work like a crucible , trying this obscenely wealthy and emotionally detached aristocrat by fire , proving his soul . yet , as douglas endures his personal gauntlet , we 're given very few pieces of the puzzle to illuminate us on who this man really is . i wanted to like this film more than i did . i look at it as just anothergreat idea , poorly realized . i can think of at least two other superior films where watching the film did n't mean we were seeing what was really happening . bryan singer 's " the usual suspects " for one , a film that was truly unique in its ability to get you lost in the details before pulling back to show you the full masterpiece on the canvas . also , there is the underrated " jacob 's ladder , " with tim robbins , a film that really has to be watched twice before you recognize the significance of all its symbolism . here are two examples of films that do n't simply manipulate for manipulations ' sake . there are films that use their labyrinth structure to lead us to a meaningful place . one major issue that comes up in " the game " is whether or not the whole " illusion " is just a highly sophisticated con game . well , i can tell you right now , after you 've spent your $ 7 dollars , you may be asking yourself the same thing .

0NEG

game " , four words come to mind . " do n't believe the hype . " this michael douglas vehicle , from the director of " seven " , is n't nearly as clever or innovatively suspenseful as it would have us believe . the film draws who forgot , let me say this again . " do n't believe the hype . " " the game " is not a thrilling but spin in circles . by the third reel , i was fighting back sleep and checking my watch as i endured the predictable plot . is it any wonder douglas wo n't be able would guess you have n't seen that many films . there is no suspense here . trust me , i looked hard to find some . i had to settle for contrived gimmicks and ridiculously implausible situations . fincher aim 's for hitchcock but lands somewhere just only wants to stay a step ahead of us . any significant archetype that is set up in the beginning of the film is simply turned into a plot device . at the outset , we 're told each "

weighed down by tired plot lines and spielberg 's reliance on formulas , _ saving private ryan _ is a mediocre film which nods in the direction of realism before descending into an abyss of cliches . there ought to be a law against steven spielberg making movies about truly serious topics . spielberg 's greatest strength as a director is the polished , formulaic way in which every aspect of the film falls carefully into place to make a perfect story . but for a topic of such weight as combat in the second world war ( or the holocaust ) this technique backfires , for it creates coherent , comprehensible and redemptive narratives out of events whose size , complexity and evil are utterly beyond the reach of human ken . in this way spielberg trivializes the awesome evil of the stories he films . _ saving private ryan _ tells the story of eight men who have been detailed on a " pr mission " to pull a young man , ryan ( whose three other brothers were just killed in fighting elsewhere ) out of combat on the normandy front just after d - day . ryan is a paratrooper who dropped behind enemy lines the night before the landings and became separated from his fellow soldiers . the search for him takes the eight soldiers across the hellish terrain of world war ii combat in france . there 's no denying spielberg came within shouting distance of making a great war movie . the equipment , uniforms and weapons are superbly done . the opening sequence , in which captain miller ( tom hanks ) leads his men onto omaha beach , is quite possibly the closest anyone has come to actually capturing the unendurably savage intensity of modern infantry combat . another pleasing aspect of the film is spielberg 's brave depiction of scenes largely unknown to american audiences , such as the shooting of prisoners by allied soldiers , the banality of death in combat , the routine foul - ups in the execution of the war , and the cynicism of the troops . the technical side of the film is peerless , as always . the camera work is magnificent , the pacing perfect , the sets convincing , the directing without flaw . hanks will no doubt be nominated for an oscar for his performance , which was utterly convincing , and the supporting cast was excellent , though ted danson seems a mite out of place as a paratroop colonel . yet the attempt at a realistic depiction of combat falls flat on its face because realism is not something which can be represented by single instances or events . it has to thoroughly permeate the context at every level of the film , or the story fails to convince . throughout the movie spielberg repeatedly showed only single examples of the grotesque wounds produced by modern mechanized devices ( exception : men are shown burning to death with relative frequency ) . for example , we see only one man with guts spilled out on the ground . here and there men lose limbs ; in one scene miller is pulling a man to safety , there 's an explosion , and miller looks back to see he is only pulling half a man . but the rest of the corpses are remarkably intact . there are no shoes with only feet in them , no limbs scattered everywhere , no torsos without limbs , no charred corpses , and most importantly , all corpses have heads ( in fairness there are a smattering of wicked head wounds ) . the relentless dehumanization of the war , in which even corpses failed to retain any indentity , is soft - pedaled in the film . ultimately , _ saving private ryan _ bows to both hollywood convention and the unwritten rules of wartime photography in its portrayal of wounds and death in war . rather than saying _ saving private ryan _ is " realistic , " it would be better to describe it as " having realistic moments . " another aspect of the " hollywoodization " of the war is the lack of realistic dialogue and in particular , the lack of swearing . anyone familiar with the literature on the behavior of the men during the war , such as fussell 's superb _ wartime : understanding and behavior in the second world war _ ( which has an extensive discussion on swearing ) , knows that the troops swore fluently and without letup . " who is this private ryan that we have to die for him ? " asks one infantrymen in the group of eight . rendered in wartime demotic , that should have been expressed as " who is this little pecker that we have to get our dicks shot off for him ? " or some variant thereof . conversations should have been literally sprinkled with the " f " word , and largely about ( the search for ) food and sex . this is all the more inexplicable because the movie already had an " r " rating due to violence , so swearing could not possibly have been eliminated to make it a family film . however , the most troubling aspect of the film is the spielbergization of the topic . the most intense hell humans have ever created for themselves is not emotionally wrenching enough for steven spielberg . he can not just cede control to the material ; he has to be bigger than it . as if afraid to let the viewer find their own ( perhaps unsettled and not entirely clear ) emotional foothold in the material , spielberg has to package it in hallmark moments to give the war a meaning and coherence it never had : the opening and closing scenes of ryan and his family in the war cemetary ( reminscent of the closing scene from _ schindler 's list ) , the saccharine exchange between ryan and his wife at the close ( every bit as bad as schindler 's monologue about how his car , tiepin or ring could have saved another jew ) , quotes from abraham lincoln and emerson , captain miller 's last words to private ryan , and an unbelievable storyline in which a prisoner whom they free earlier in the movie comes back to kill the captain . that particular subplot is so hokey , so predictable , it nigh on ruins the film . nowhere in the film is there a resolute depiction of the meaninglessness , stupidity and waste which characterized the experience of war to the men who actually fought in combat ( imagine if miller had been killed by friendly fire or collateral damage ) . because of its failure to mine deeply into the terrible realities of world war ii , _ saving private ryan _ can only pan for small truths in the shallows . .

0NEG

weighed down by tired plot lines and spielberg 's reliance on formulas , _ saving private ryan _ is a mediocre film which nods in the direction of realism before descending into an abyss of cliches . there ought to be a law against steven spielberg in the second world war ( or the holocaust ) this technique backfires , for it creates coherent , comprehensible and redemptive narratives . yet the attempt at a realistic depiction of combat falls flat on its face because realism is not something which can be represented by the film . ultimately , _ saving private ryan _ bows to both hollywood convention and the unwritten rules of wartime photography in its portrayal of wounds and death in war . to describe it as " having realistic moments . " another aspect of the " hollywoodization " of the war is the lack of realistic dialogue and in particular , the lack of swearing . anyone about ( the search for ) food and sex . this is all the more inexplicable because the movie already had an " r " rating eliminated to make it a family film . however , the most troubling aspect of the film is the spielbergization of the topic . the most intense exchange between ryan and his wife at the close ( every bit as bad as schindler 's monologue about how his car , tiepin or captain miller 's last words to private ryan , and an unbelievable storyline in which a prisoner whom they free earlier in the movie comes back to kill the captain . that particular subplot is so hokey , so predictable , it nigh on ruins the film . nowhere in the film is there a resolute depiction been killed by friendly fire or collateral damage ) . because of its failure to mine deeply into the terrible realities of world war ii , _ saving private ryan _ can only pan for small truths in the shallows . .

if you 're going to make a two - hour hollywood in - joke , why bother releasing it to the general public ? if you 're going to create a film that will appeal primarily to big - name actors and people who know woody allen , then why waste the time of the rest of us peons by playing it in theaters ? while watching celebrity , i realized that allen had only marginal interest in creating a story about real people . what he really wanted to do was continue on his recent kick of conceited self - deprecation . celebrity is yet another film in which allen tells a story about himself , living in a world that he 's familiar with , dealing with people like the ones he actually knows . allen recruited poor kenneth branagh to bumble through this picture , in an imitation of allen so perfect that it almost made me like the film more . branagh plays lee simon , a journalist - turned - screenwriter who divorces his wife , robin ( judy davis ) , shacks up with some hot women ( famke janssen , charlize theron , winona ryder ) , and goes about trying to get big stars ( melanie griffith , leonardo dicaprio ) to read his script about an armored car robbery . the usual elements of recent allen films are all here , including the sexual insecurity of the main character , lots of self - loathing women , and a tiring continuum of episodes that are only loosely related to one another . unless you work in the film industry or know woody allen personally , it 's not likely that you 'll find a whole lot of interest in celebrity . aside from all the in - jokes , the story falls far short of compelling , and the characters are all empty and lifeless . branagh proves once again that he 's a superb performer , nailing his imitation of allen flawlessly . the problem is that he 's the same character allen always plays , a character who 's getting more than a little dull to watch . i mean , come on , how many times have you seen this guy ? -- he hates his work , and he ca n't be satisfied by any one woman , and , at the end of the movie , nothing has been solved . he brings all of his problems upon himself ( crashing his car because he 's receiving fellatio , and other such stunts ) , so it 's pretty hard to care about him . in addition , is n't allen capable of creating characters who are n't just like him ? i know he is , but he did n't do it in celebrity . the vacant emotional attachment with the main character is not recaptured in the supporting performances . davis , playing the same woman with low self - esteem that she played in deconstructing harry , has a few touching moments , but ends up the same despicable celebrity - type that fills the rest of the movie . some of the actresses are saved because of their beauty -- theron and ryder , especially -- but they 're not likable people . only famke janssen , as a book editor interested in simon 's new novel , has any life . the men in the picture do n't do much better -- joe mantegna is pretty dull as the man who remarries robin , while dicaprio , as a christian slater / johnny depp - type spoiled young actor , is funny but disengaging . what 's really insulting about celebrity is how dull and standard its " themes " are . allen seems to think that he 's making an insightful movie about the way " normal " people look at celebrities . the main problem with this is that the character with whom we 're supposed to identify , simon , is not a " normal " guy -- he 's just as entrenched in the hollywood image as the rest of the characters . the other problem is that the image we get of these celebrities is no more enlightening than the view the media gives us -- none of them register as realistic , interesting characters ; they mostly just function as set pieces for boring dialogue . in addition , allen decides he needs a scene in which the theme is expressed explicitly ( robin , in this scene , says something like , " it 's interesting to see the way we all look at the people we celebrate ! " ) . celebrity is arguably allen 's biggest misfire to date . it does have a few good scenes -- theron 's super - orgasmic model character is kind of funny , and the last scene might have been moving had the rest of the film shown us a character or two . but celebrity is a failure at the core , unless allen 's point was to make a self - indulgent movie about himself and his friends . if he wanted to make his audience feel like they were on the outside of a big joke , then he succeeded in that . i , for one , do n't enjoy feeling like an outsider .

0NEG

in the film industry or know woody allen personally , it 's not likely that you 'll find a whole lot of interest in celebrity . aside from all the in - jokes , the story falls far short of compelling , and the characters are all empty and lifeless . branagh proves once again that he 's a superb that he 's the same character allen always plays , a character who 's getting more than a little dull to watch . i mean , come on , how many times depp - type spoiled young actor , is funny but disengaging . what 's really insulting about celebrity is how dull the hollywood image as the rest of the characters . the other problem is that the image we get of these celebrities is celebrate ! " ) . celebrity is arguably allen 's biggest misfire to date . it does have a few good scenes -- theron shown us a character or two . but celebrity is a failure at the core , unless allen 's point was to make a self

it used to be that not just anyone could become a vampire . usually , you had to be an aristocrat - a count such as dracula or karnstein . to qualify , you 'd have to have a modicum of sophistication , so you 'd at least look cool - or suave - when biting into some young damsel 's throat . but today , in our overly politically correct world , any scuzzy - looking , long - haired , unshaven lout or any spiked - haired harridans can put the bite on you . by the same token , to be a vampire hunter , one had to have some sort of medical training and knowledge of the occult or maybe perhaps be some sort of professional soldier , or at least one who retired with honors . not in these times . all you need are some sharp weapons , some bullets forged from silver and any yahoo can be a buffy - or a blade . without sounding elitist , the fear of vampires has greatly diminished because of this lack of exclusivity . which brings us to blade , the latest in a long line of vampire movies in which , it seems , half the population is putting the bite on the other half . not only are there thousands of vampires , but they seem to move from city to city , pay off police departments and , most importantly , establish their own exclusive after - hours raves in which the highlight is the sprinkler system going off and dousing all the occupants in a blood shower . with all that blood , you wonder why they have to hunt for victims . you also wonder when they get the time to get their clothes dry - cleaned and why no cleaner ever complains about all the bloodstains . blade , which is based on a marvel comic book character , is , like a comic book , all visual . the plot is basically blade repetitiously slashing his way through the vampire army seeking their leader , deacon frost . it 's all hokum and nonsense , of course . but the filmmakers play it straight . unfortunately , at least at the advance screening i attended , the audience did n't see it that way and laughed through much of the proceedings . you know a movie is in trouble when the scenes of blood and gore that should elicit screams of fright instead evoke peels of laughter . another tell - tale sign is when the audience seems to be admiring the hero 's costume more than the hero . also it seems it 's not enough for today 's vampire merely to have fangs . he must also be proficient in the martial arts . why a supernatural being , one of the undead , needs such skills is beyond me . ( of course , this concept dates to the 1974 hammer films - run run shaw production of legend of the seven golden vampires , in which dracula is defeated by seven karate - chopping siblings . ) wesley snipes is buff as blade . he growls his lines -the few he has - and spends most of the time glowering - as if he was suffering from indigestion or having second thoughts about starring in and co - producing this turkey . blade is just another example of how the vampire film , a once honorable member of the horror family , has gone downhill . this dud mostly makes you yearn for those quaint old days when christopher lee could be stopped just by dangling a crucifix in his face . today 's vampires lack the panache , the style of a bela lugosi or a christopher lee . they are not even worthy enough to carry those great bloodsuckers ' capes . they are more farcical than frightful . this whole enterprise is one dull blade that could have used lots of sharpening .

0NEG

the vampire army seeking their leader , deacon frost . it 's all hokum and nonsense , of course . but the filmmakers play it straight , at least at the advance screening i attended , the audience did n't see it that way and laughed through much of the proceedings . you know a movie is in trouble when the scenes of blood and gore that should elicit screams of fright instead evoke peels of laughter . another tell - tale sign is when the audience seems to be admiring the hero growls his lines -the few he has - and spends most of the time glowering - as if he was suffering from indigestion or having second thoughts about starring in and co - producing this turkey . blade is just another example of how the vampire , a once honorable member of the horror family , has gone downhill . this dud mostly makes you yearn for those quaint old days when worthy enough to carry those great bloodsuckers ' capes . they are more farcical than frightful . this whole enterprise is one dull blade that could have used lots of sharpening .

hav plenty , as we are told in the beginning and reminded during the film , is a true story . life itself is a series of true stories , but most are not movie material . as scripted , directed , and acted by cinematic newcomer christopher scott cherot , hav plenty limps along at best . its dialog is so stilted - " you know what they say , ' no women ; no cry . ' " - that the actors are content to read the screenplay rather than invest much energy in trying to act it . in the story , lee plenty ( cherot ) is a 28-year - old author and teaching assistant . the movie , which happens mainly over the new year 's holiday , consists of a series of incidents in which various single and married women try to kiss lee or take him to bed . since he consistently refuses , caroline gooden ( tammi katherine jones ) figures that he must be gay . eventually he and havilland " hav " savage ( chenoa maxwell ) get together , proving that he was n't gay after all , just picky . sexy women can sit on his lap and ask him to go to bed with them , but he will not even kiss them . he 's a man who knows his mind , which he frequently shares directly with the audience in a series of trite and overly cute monologues . filled with wealthy african - americans , the story is closest in tone to love jones , which was better . hav plenty 's story does n't go anywhere . at the end it subjects us to lee plenty 's new film , which is a movie of the movie we 've just seen , but with even worse acting . " remember folks that , as outrageous as this all seems , this is a true story . " hav tells the camera , but the problem is that it 's not outrageous at all or even the least bit interesting . hav plenty is n't so much a bad film as it is a total waste of the audience 's time . hav plenty runs 1 : 32 . it is rated r for profanity and would be fine for most teenagers .

0NEG

acted by cinematic newcomer christopher scott cherot , hav plenty limps along at best . its dialog is so stilted - " you know what they say , ' no frequently shares directly with the audience in a series of trite and overly cute monologues . filled with wealthy african - americans , the story love jones , which was better . hav plenty 's story does n't go anywhere . at the end it subjects us to lee plenty movie of the movie we 've just seen , but with even worse acting . " remember folks that , as outrageous as this is n't so much a bad film as it is a total waste of the audience 's time . hav plenty runs 1 : 32 . it is

it seems that i 've stopped enjoying movies that should be fun to watch . take payback , for example , a movie that most people seem to like . however , it 's horrible schlock , straight out of hollywood 's vast talent for sucking creativity out of movies . it was written and directed by a guy who should have done better ; however , maybe he did do better , after all , 30 percent of the movie is n't his own . mel gibson , that hollywood zombie , decided he did n't like the ending and had another director reshoot it . what a crock . if you sign on to do a movie , then do it the way the script calls for . why film a movie and then look at it later and say , - no , i changed my mind , i do n't like the ending . you 're fired . let 's get someone else to do it . - i suppose honor is dead in hollywood . the end of the film is , of course , hollywoodized . which is to say that it 's happy and the guy you root for beats impossible odds to win his prize . in this case , as is most victories in hollywood movies , gibson 's prize is a blond and money . i miss originality in film , i really do . i think audiences are so starved for it that they 'll flop down a lot of money in hopes that a movie will be original . payback 's tagline - get ready to root for the bad guy - promised an original idea , but it was far from the truth . while gibson 's character certainly broke the law , he was a character that had honor ( odd that gibson himself seems to have very little of it ) , would n't kill in front of children and protects his blond woman . there 's nothing bad about him - he 's a hollywood character , a person who could never exist in real life . and gibson knows it - he spends his time trying to act like a " bad guy " , and instead comes off as pretentious and arrogant . the story involves gibson being double - crossed by his partner ( who is a real bad guy , which made me wish that we could root for him ) over $ 70 , 000 . gibson recovers from multiple gunshots , is pissed ( naturally ) , and will do whatever it takes to get the exact amount of money back - no more , no less . he makes a point of it that it 's strictly 70 grand . a real bad guy would have made his ex - partner pay 25 % interest . this idea is completely stretched out . gibson ends up going after his partner and the chicago mafia that his partner is affiliated with . what i did n't understand - this is the chicago mafia . $ 70 , 000 is like spare change to them . they 'd probably just pay the guy rather than go through the trouble of dealing with him . i think they 'd respect a guy going through this much trouble for a simple $ 70 , 000 . maybe i 'm being too hard on the movie . perhaps the filmmakers were just trying to make a simple popcorn movie . i read roger ebert 's review and he liked gibson in the role because he is a comic at heart playing a bad guy . that 's why we 're allowed to root for him . and it 's true - gibson walks the movie as if he 's smiling at a joke he just heard . but he 's wrong here . i wanted a lee marvin or old - time clint eastwood or somebody who was n't a comic , just an ass kicker . as a side note , i 've just checked the internet movie database and discovered that i am the 38th person to post a newsgroup review of payback . after this many reviews , why would anyone want to read this ? really , i do n't care . i 'm just trying to gain membership into the on - line film critics society by posting as many reviews as i can .

0NEG

movie that most people seem to like . however , it 's horrible schlock , straight out of hollywood 's vast talent for sucking creativity out of movies . it was written and directed by a guy who the movie is n't his own . mel gibson , that hollywood zombie , decided he did n't like the ending and had . - i suppose honor is dead in hollywood . the end of the film is , of course , hollywoodized . which is to say that it 's happy and to act like a " bad guy " , and instead comes off as pretentious and arrogant . the story involves gibson being double - crossed by he 's smiling at a joke he just heard . but he 's wrong here . i wanted a lee marvin or old - time

note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . " quick , robin ! the anti - shark repellant ! " - adam west in the 1966 batman feature film , casually kicking at a pathetic - looking rubber shark attached to his leg i had never thought that an entry in the modern incarnation of the batman feature film would approach this level of campiness , but in many instances batman and robin nears , and at some point even exceeds this standard . this is a disasterously bad film , easily the worst in the series to date , and fairly epitomizes a cinematic definition of the word excessive - it 's loud , garish , and obnoxious , with pointless , gratuitous action sequences and set pieces which clutter up the screen with elaborate production design to the point of overkill . batman and robin features the caped crusaders ( george clooney debuting as batman , with chris o'donnell returing as robin ) squaring off against another bevy of chemically - induced villains - the nefarious ice - cold mr . freeze ( arnold schwarzenegger ) , armed with a weapon which freezes everything in its sights , and the slinky poison ivy ( uma thurman ) , who has the ability to blow powerful love dust into the faces of men in order so that they will fall helplessly in love with her ( not that the dust is really necessary to accomplish this result , but whatever ) , and then dispatch them with a poisoned kiss . by ivy 's side is the giant steroid monster bane ( jeep swanson ) , a grunting hulk of a beast . the villains ' goals are noble ones - freeze steals diamonds to power his climate suit ( in order to keep his body temperature at zero degrees ) , so that he can survive in order to devise a cure for his beloved wife ( vendela ) , dying of a degenerative disease and frozen in suspended animation , and ivy 's intent is to restore the dominance of plant life on earth , albeit by destroying all human life . meanwhile , on the homefront , life at wayne manor is thrown into upheaval by the illness of butler alfred pennyworth ( michael gough ) , and the arrival of his niece barbara ( alicia silverstone ) . akiva goldsman 's screenplay for the film is ridiculous and laughably bad , with astonishingly terrible dialogue , lame jokes , and an awful by - the - number plot which simply coasts along and fails to generate any genuine excitement . it makes goldsman 's screenplay of batman forever , which i thought was dreadful , look positively inspired in comparison . i am still astonished that a cheesy plot device which i 'd seen used in - no joke - an episode of gilligan 's island somehow make its way into a multimillion dollar blockbuster production . joel schumacher 's direction of batman and robin is horrific , with a terrible balance of flashiness over substance . there is a clear conceit towards neon in this film , even moreso than with his previous batman forever , with the revamped batcave helpfully sporting gigantic glowing emblems for the dynamic duo ( just in case , i suppose , if they ever happen to forget that the batcave is the headquarters of batman and robin ) , and with neon prominently figuring in an utterly - pointless fight sequence with bane and a street gang over ivy 's chosen new abode . another action sequence which fails to serve any useful point other than to chew up five minutes of screentime involves an incredibly uninvolving late - night motorcycle race with barbara and some gotham goons . mr . schumacher 's focus for batman and robin appears to be to make the film as visually striking as possible , to the detriment of the story - there are drastic shifts in the tone of the film between all - out camp and heartfelt drama , with the latter completely unconvincing and ineffective . it is perhaps not the most promising of signs when the group i was with burst out laughing within twenty seconds of the film 's opening , even before a single line of dialogue had been uttered . is batman and robin supposed to be campy ? i think it is - it 's hard to imagine that the filmmakers could have intended many parts of the film to be taken at all seriously . ( one of my favourites was when bane helpfully grunted " bomb ! " each time he laid down an explosive device in the gotham observatory . ) is it supposed to be as overly campy as it turned out to be ? i somehow doubt it - the subplot involving afred is delivered so solemnly and with such graveness that the impression is made that the film is n't attempting to be the utter farce which it is . arnold schwarzenegger is top - billed in the film as the villainous mr . freeze , and is bland and uninteresting , perhaps the worst thing that a villain can be . mr . schwarzenegger 's attempts to be menacing are laughable , and his attempts at conveying pathos are laughable ; frankly , everything he does onscreen is laughable . by the end of the film , i was stifling a chuckle every time he simply appeared onscreen . the bulk of his performance consists of uttering near - unintelligble puns and one - liners featuring every possible permutation of " cool ! " in the least inventive way . george clooney has been given very little to do in batman and robin , being overshadowed by the villains , and consequently he looks rather uncomfortable in the film . his batman is hardly an imposing figure . chris o'donnell is unimpressive in a one - note performance , while alicia silverstone lackadasically fails to make any impression at all . the film 's one saving grace ? undoubtably uma thurman 's entertaining performance as sexy villainess poison ivy . her work in batman and robin is certainly over - the - top , but in a controlled fashion which works splendidly within the tone of the film . ms . thurman 's comic timing is impeccable , and reminds us that it takes skilled performers to make campiness work successfully . ( i 'm already starting to positively reassess jim carrey 's performance in batman forever . ) her amusing poison ivy is the most entertaining character in the film , and when she 's offscreen the film greatly suffers . i figure that if one has to die , being kissed to death by uma thurman is n't a half - bad way to go . while batman and robin was hardly a ride of pulse - pounding excitement , i must admit that i was not bored watching it , although i did glance at my watch repeatedly through the screening - my attention was kept through anticipation of the utterance of yet another terrible pun or one - liner , and by awaiting yet another scene to fall flat . it 's been a long time since i 've laughed so much at a movie . " at " , of course , is the operative word .

0NEG

at some point even exceeds this standard . this is a disasterously bad film , easily the worst in the series to date , and fairly epitomizes a cinematic definition of the word excessive - it 's loud , garish , and obnoxious , with pointless , gratuitous action sequences and set pieces which clutter up the screen with elaborate production design to the point of overkill . batman and robin features the caped crusaders ( george niece barbara ( alicia silverstone ) . akiva goldsman 's screenplay for the film is ridiculous and laughably bad , with astonishingly terrible dialogue , lame jokes , and an awful by - the - number plot which simply coasts along and fails to generate any genuine excitement . it makes goldsman 's screenplay of batman forever , positively inspired in comparison . i am still astonished that a cheesy plot device which i 'd seen used in - no joke - . joel schumacher 's direction of batman and robin is horrific , with a terrible balance of flashiness over substance . there is a clear conceit towards neon in this of batman and robin ) , and with neon prominently figuring in an utterly - pointless fight sequence with bane and a street gang over ivy 's chosen new abode . another action sequence which fails to serve any useful point other than to chew up five minutes of screentime involves - out camp and heartfelt drama , with the latter completely unconvincing and ineffective . it is perhaps not the most promising of signs in the film as the villainous mr . freeze , and is bland and uninteresting , perhaps the worst thing that a villain can be . mr . schwarzenegger 's attempts to be menacing are his attempts at conveying pathos are laughable ; frankly , everything he does onscreen is laughable . by the end of the film , i was ! " in the least inventive way . george clooney has been given very little to do in batman and robin , being overshadowed by the villains his batman is hardly

everything about this ninth trek movie seems on the cheap , from the roger corman - grade special effects to its highly derivative and ugly ad campaign ( the poster is nearly identical to that of star trek vi : the undiscovered country ) . but piller 's not - quite - half - baked screenplay should ultimately claim responsibility for insurrection 's failure . i 'm about to give the same advice to rick berman and co . as i 've given to the financiers of james bond movies : it 's time to breathe life into this workhorse by hiring solid genre writers and a real director . ( while we 're at it , put that visor back on laforge ! ) for three hundred years , the ba'ku species ( who look just like humans ) have lived on a ringed - planet that might as well be called the fountain of youth . six hundred of them occupy the briar patch , the area affected by metaphasic radition , a positive energy that reverses the aging process in the elderly . but evil ru'afo ( this is probably abraham 's last stop before performing " amadeus " at a dinner theatre near you ) , leader of the son'a ( who look just like burn victims after reconstructive surgery ) , wants to relocate the ba'ku and movie his people onto the briar patch in their place , in order to replenish his dying breed . the federation is all for this , but picard feels this is a direct violation of the prime directive : to not interfere with the development of an alien race . ( never mind that the ba'ku did n't exactly evolve - they went wandering in the universe one day and stumbled upon the magic world . ) every time frakes gives an interview lately , he seems to top whatever ludicrous statement he last gave regarding this installment . he has called it a comedy , a thinking man 's picture , a throwback to the old series , and , most grievously , he has likened it to a john ford western . ( i presume that 's some john ford he went to school with , not the director of the searchers . ) he has also gone on record as saying paramount recut the film from his version . that 's no excuse - someone generated this footage . muddy cinematography and sitcom sets are the least of its problems ; star trek : insurrection appears to have been beamed in from the planet plotholia . consider such curiosities . . . picard 's love interest , anij ( donna murphy ) , can slow things down by staring at them ( such as a waterfall or falling rocks ) -her scientific explanation for this ? " do n't ask . " worf gets a pimple ( he 's re - experiencing klingon puberty thanks to the time - defying atmosphere ) , laforge regains his eyesight ( trust me , levar burton 's real eyes are scarier than those electronic lenses he wore in first contact ) and troi brags about her firm boobs , but picard remains as bald as an android 's butt . most suspiciously , what exactly is the problem with letting this endangered race have a little fun in the sun ? the filmmakers cloud the issue with some nonsense about a family feud of sorts , and they also turn ru'afo into a completely power - mad superfreak , just so the characters will have something to do in the climax . ( and if you 've seen return of the jedi , you 've seen the ending of this movie . ) did n't picard himself previously disobey the prime directive when he prevented the borg from assimilating millions ? frakes lucked out with first contact , and repeat viewings of that film reveal the seeds of what went wrong in his direction of insurrection : he has no sense of comic timing , and he mines for acting chemistry where none exists . ( take a look at the painful " troi gets drunk " scene in fc and you 'll get the general idea of insurrection 's unsuccessfully jokey and hollow tone . ) even the worst shatner and co . treks , like the final frontier , maintained a watchability thanks to the effortless , charming comaraderie between kirk , spock , and bones . neither first contact nor insurrection has any idea what to do with crusher ( gates mcfadden , whom i must say maintains a fabulous physique ) , troi , or laforge . and all three next generation films spend too much time on data , who is the franchise 's answer to urkel . need a cheap laugh ? have data say something sexual , or start singing , or lift up a four hundred pound boulder as if it 's the hunk of styrofoam it really is . here 's my proposed title for number 10 : data star data trek : data data data data data . in this movie , data will become preoccupied with learning to blow his nose , while crusher and troi watch silently from 500 yards away and laforge points his sinister gaze at the android in doubly robotic observation . star trek : insurrection had one nice , eerie , silent moment that hints at a better , darker film . i 'm not saying all of them should be star trek ii : the wrath of khan , but this one boldly went where no movie should go again .

0NEG

everything about this ninth trek movie seems on the cheap , from the roger corman - grade special effects to its highly derivative and ugly ad campaign ( the poster is nearly identical to that of star - baked screenplay should ultimately claim responsibility for insurrection 's failure . i 'm about to give the same advice to that 's no excuse - someone generated this footage . muddy cinematography and sitcom sets are the least of its problems ; star trek : insurrection appears to have been beamed in from the planet plotholia . consider such curiosities . . . picard 's love and troi brags about her firm boobs , but picard remains as bald as an android 's butt . most suspiciously , what exactly is the problem with of what went wrong in his direction of insurrection : he has no sense of comic timing , and he mines for acting chemistry where none exists and you 'll get the general idea of insurrection 's unsuccessfully jokey and hollow tone . ) even the worst shatner and co . treks star trek ii : the wrath of khan , but this one boldly went where no movie should go again .

this is one of the worst big - screen film experiences i 've had for a while . with this film , plus ` showgirls ' and ` basic instinct ' , paul verhoeven has stamped himself as currently one of the worst blockbuster directors . his celebrated film ` total recall ' was ? i admit ? successfully scripted , but it nonetheless contained directorial flaws . obviously nobody wanted to invest too much money in a production from someone like verhoeven , the result being that much of the special effects in ` starship ' seemed fake . but not everything bad in the film was the director 's fault , even though he was one of the guys who employed the actors . it is surprising that none of the actors received nominations for the razzie awards ( i expected five for the acting categories ) . casserole vanity devoid , dense ribald , dingy miasma , and jackass bushy are in serious need of acting school . no , they have to pass primary school drama classes first . while ` total ' was written well , ` starship ' is purely pathetic . all right , it is supposed to be a fast - paced entertainment film , and you 're supposed to turn off your intellect ( completely ) and enjoy the action sequences and special effects ( that is , guts and gore ) . as a matter of fact , i found the activity incredibly boring , a complete waste of more than two hours . half of the film was a bad episode of ` beverly hills 90210 ' ( dina meyer was in " beverly hills " ) , while another quarter was simply nothing ( things like presenting irrelevant information in an irritating way on the web ) , and the rest was a display of humans fighting computer - generated images . the battles were all the same ? jumping around , shoot or get stabbed ? and on barren planets that only had giant insects . there were n't even any stunts , which i consider slightly more exciting than pictures running around . i wonder what the insects eat , if there 's nothing but them on the planets ? there is so much laughable treatment in this film , and it is frankly not amusing when jokes are intended . this type of story is obviously aimed at 10-year - olds , who ca n't see it anyway because of the violence and some sexuality . but then , there are always 16-year - olds who have that frame of mind . the pointless plot begins when johnny 's ( vanity devoid ) girlfriend carmen ( richards ) decides that she wants to join the troopers to fight the insects who are throwing asteroids at earth . johnny then signs up as a trooper also , after an overacted argument with his parents . but there is another girl , dizzy ( meyer ) , who likes johnny and then there is another boy who likes carmen , which results in a love quadrangle , which is n't better , because it means augmented worse - than - stereotyped soap opera , increased bitchiness , and more bad beverly hills + melrose . and the result of this love quadrangle at the end is also rather stupid . anyway , getting back to the thing you might call plot , johnny is too stupid to be a pilot and has to join the infantry , while his girl and the other dude are in the same league . dizzy comes chasing johnny and joins the infantry also . they then start training , which contains what roger ebert calls ips ( idiot plot syndrome , moments when only an idiot would have made such obvious mistakes ) , then real combat . and guess what ? that 's about as complex as it gets . oh , and one of their friends , carl ( neil patrick harris a . k . a . doogie howser m . d . ) , becomes involved in war intelligence , and his abilities at the end are really corny and make me want to spray insecticide on someone for it . he 's my fifth nom for a razzie . the troopers fight , fall in love , die , kill , and try to act . naturally , they win , or sort of half - win . of course , in between ( and at the end ) there are soldiers chatting and smiling while carrying grievous wounds caused by bug legs . the bugs also suffer from ips : why would you release hold of your captive before killing it ? is n't it also amazing that earthlings have n't invented better hand - held weapons by then ? the only question that remains is why i gave it one star instead of zero . well , maybe a - quarter ( of a star ) for the originality of the co - sex shower scene and the ( very ) brief moments of suspense , another quarter for copying ` zulu ' and letting the good guys ( the bugs ) win , and half a star for the sucking - out of the brain of one of those people who call themselves actors ( but there should have been more , the troopers deserved to die ) .

0NEG

this is one of the worst big - screen film experiences i 've had for a while . with this film instinct ' , paul verhoeven has stamped himself as currently one of the worst blockbuster directors . his celebrated film ` total recall ' was ? , dense ribald , dingy miasma , and jackass bushy are in serious need of acting school . no , they have to pass primary school drama total ' was written well , ` starship ' is purely pathetic . all right , it is supposed to be a and gore ) . as a matter of fact , i found the activity incredibly boring , a complete waste of more than two hours . if there 's nothing but them on the planets ? there is so much laughable treatment in this film , and it is frankly not amusing quadrangle , which is n't better , because it means augmented worse - than - stereotyped soap opera , increased bitchiness , and more bad beverly hills + war intelligence , and his abilities at the end are really corny and make me want to spray insecticide on someone for it . he 's my fifth nom for a razzie .

phew , what a mess ! for his fifth collaboration with director rich- ard donner ( lethal weapon i - iii , maverick ) , mel gibson plays a motormouth , maybe mentally ill new york city cabbie , jerry , whose wild conspiracy theories are all but ignored by alice ( julia roberts , acting all serious ) , the justice department employee that he has a crush on . she not interested , but another person is : a cia psychiatrist ( patrick stewart ) who promptly kidnaps him . is one of jerry 's conjectures correct ? * is * the metal strip in the new $ 100 bill being used to track your movements ? is oliver stone still alive , because he cut a deal with george bush to spread * dis * information ? is this movie really about * any * of the crazed cabbie 's theories ? no , no , and no . as it turns out , there 's some other nonsense going on here , involving and revolving around jerry 's background . ( hint : pay attention to an early scene where jerry blacks out and flashes back , in quick succession , to images of an interrogation room , hypodermic needles , and ms . roberts herself . ) the * initial * premise is pretty good and is played , for a while , at a delightfully dizzying clip . mel is wider - open that we 've ever seen him and , if his character 's relationship with roberts ' initially strains credibility , their combined star power is blissfully intoxicating . ( the highest wattage of the summer , perhaps ? ) even when the plot contrivances begin to intrude , the two remain a randy dandy screen pair . there 's a great scene in jerry 's fortress , er , apartment , with alice trying to act casual as her hyperactive host tries to remember the combination to a locked coffee bean container . ( which he stores in another locked con- tainer , his fridge . ) other hilarious moments , of which there are many , include a trio of memorable convention - breakers , where alice ditches a tail , jerry cold - cocks someone , and , later , eludes a foot pursuit , each in a uproariously unexpected fashion . ( that 's donner 's own ladyhawke playing in the theater , btw . ) let 's see , other pleasures include . . . a brilliant title sequence , a jazzy score from carter burwell , and the worth - paying - to - see sight of roberts pumping lead into one bad guy and slamming another 's head into a wall . oh , pretty woman ! getting to the latter , however , requires slogging through an increasingly overburdened and ultimately unappealing story . the last hour of conspiracy theory devolves from tolerable to torturous to almost unwatchable . more stuff happens of the stupid shit variety than is worth mentioning here , except , perhaps , for a late sequence that has alice locating jerry in an abandoned wing of a mental hospital by hearing his voice carrying through the air ducts . and here i thought it was wabbit season . good god , who rewrites these movies ? and do they arrive in nondescript black vehicles ?

0NEG

phew , what a mess ! for his fifth collaboration with director rich- ard donner ( no , and no . as it turns out , there 's some other nonsense going on here , involving and revolving around jerry 's background . ( pretty woman ! getting to the latter , however , requires slogging through an increasingly overburdened and ultimately unappealing story . the last hour of conspiracy theory devolves from tolerable to torturous to almost unwatchable . more stuff happens of the stupid shit variety than is worth mentioning here , except , perhaps , for a late sequence that . and here i thought it was wabbit season . good god , who rewrites these movies ? and do they arrive in nondescript black vehicles ?

in french , the phrase " film noir " literally means " black film . " webster defines it as " a type of crime film featuring cynical malevolent characters in a sleazy setting and an ominous atmosphere that is conveyed by shadowy photography and foreboding background music . " classic film noir , including such memorable fare as " the big sleep , " the original " cape fear , " and orson welles ' striking " a touch of evil , " employed black and white photography to emphasize the long shadows associated with the genre . color came into play with neo - noir films like " chinatown " and " blade runner . " " l . a . confidential , " easily the best film of 1997 , is a wonderful piece of contemporary neo - noir filmmaking . for a textbook example of how to take all the elements of neo - noir and create an absolute mess , there 's " palmetto . " based on " just another sucker , " a short story written by british author rene raymond under the pseudonym james hadley chase , " palmetto " shows what happens when a filmmaker puts style ahead of substance . director volker schlondorff ( " tin drum , " the handmaid 's tale " ) stated " we were n't even sure for a long time if it was going to be a thriller or a comedy . " it shows . " palmetto " is too preposterous too be taken seriously as a thriller and too ponderous to work as a comedy . the story begins when journalist harry barber ( woody harrelson ) is released from prison . someone turned state 's witness and revealed that harry was framed , a " reward " for blowing the lid on corruption in the small florida town of palmetto . bitter and broke , harry plans to hitchhike to miami and start his life over , but ex - girlfriend nina ( gina gershon ) appears to return him to palmetto . while hanging out at a bar , he notices that a beautiful woman has left her purse in a phone booth . harry pockets her cash , only to have the woman reappear and catch him with her money in his pocket . no problem , though . the radiant blonde is rhea malroux ( elisabeth shue , ) the young wife of a very rich older man with heart problems , and she has a proposition for harry . rhea needs " a threatening voice and someone to collect the ransom " for the staged kidnapping of her teenage stepdaughter odette ( chloe sevigny . ) the girls want to bilk a half - million dollar " ransom " from the old man and will happily give harry $ 50 , 000 for helping with the scam . things go wrong , of course . odette is found dead , leaving harry frantically trying to dispose of the corpse and cover his tracks . in an ironic twist , harry is asked to work for the local d . a . 's office . they need a press liaison to field questions about odette 's kidnapping and feel that harry is the perfect man for the job . not a bad set - up for a noir film , if only schlondorff knew how to handle the material , but he never settles on a consistent tone . the actors do n't know what to do with their characters either , muddling the proceedings even further . as if that was n't enough , the story suffers from major problems in logic . woody harrelson is a talented actor with an admirable willingness to take on risky parts , but he 's lost here . presented as a crusading journalist who was horribly wronged , it makes no sense that harry would be stupid and dishonest enough to get caught up in this scheme . harrelson clearly does n't know what to do with harry 's character , so he spends most of the film glowering , sweating and generally acting miserable . meanwhile , elisabeth shue gives a goofy performance , behaving like a vamp on nitrous oxide . as the stepdaughter , chloe sevigny lays on so many slurpy quirks that she comes off like juliette lewis jr . despite a number of steamy scenes , there 's no chemistry between harrelson and the women . to make matters worse , schlondorff badly dubs in dialogue while the character 's lips are running over each others bodies . two particularly bad scenes highlight the film 's problems . while driving with a body in his trunk , harry has a minor car wreck and a cop shows up . the officer wants to help change harry 's flat tire and asks him to open the trunk . harry 's pathetic attempts to keep the trunk closed might have worked if played as comedy , but under schlondorff 's grim direction , the scene is just embarrassing . the film 's nadir comes when a bad guy prepares to kill harry and nina . we 're supposed to be horrified watching our hero dangling over a bathtub filled with acid , but by this point the film has foundered so badly that the scene is merely reminiscent of when jessica and roger rabbit were suspended over a vat of dip . had " palmetto " been played with tongue firmly in cheek , it might have been an entertaining shaggy dog story . but under the harsh direction of schlondorff , the film is just a sluggish paint - by - numbers exercise in neo- noir cluelessness . avoid this nonsense and go see " l . a . confidential " instead .

0NEG

only schlondorff knew how to handle the material , but he never settles on a consistent tone . the actors do n't know what to do with their characters either , muddling the proceedings even further . as if that was n't enough , the story suffers from major problems in logic . woody harrelson is a talented actor with an admirable willingness to take on risky parts , but he 's lost here . presented as a crusading journalist who was horribly wronged , it makes no sense that harry would be stupid and dishonest enough to get sweating and generally acting miserable . meanwhile , elisabeth shue gives a goofy performance , behaving like a vamp on nitrous oxide . as lewis jr . despite a number of steamy scenes , there 's no chemistry between harrelson and the women . to make matters worse , schlondorff badly dubs in dialogue while the character 's lips are running over each others bodies . two particularly bad scenes highlight the film 's problems . while driving with a body in his trunk , as comedy , but under schlondorff 's grim direction , the scene is just embarrassing . the film 's nadir comes when a bad guy a bathtub filled with acid , but by this point the film has foundered so badly that the scene is merely reminiscent of when jessica and story . but under the harsh direction of schlondorff , the film is just a sluggish paint - by - numbers exercise in neo- noir cluelessness . avoid this nonsense and go see " l . a . confidential "

plot : lara croft is british , rich and kicks a lot of ass . she also likes to raid tombs but when the illuminata discover that all nine planets are about to stand in alignment for the first time in 5000 years , and that lara holds the key to time , well , needless to say , they want to nab it from her . oh yeah , lara also likes to sport a lot of tight shirts . . . hummana - hummana - hummana . . . critique : angelina jolie was great in this movie . there were also about three " action scenes " that were pretty cool to look at in this film . uhhhhhm , unfortunately the rest of the movie sucked ! bad dialogue , generic sidekicks and bad guys , a lame mystery , yoda - esque moments with mumbo - jumbo being sprouted about and even some crappy cgi near the end . all in all , this movie was n't the horror show that some of the early reviews had warned us about , especially since every other scene does feature jolie 's torpedoes begging to burst out of her lucky shirts , but it was quite the letdown nonetheless , especially when you consider the major opportunity that the filmmakers had here to create a cool , hip woman hero , based on a popular video game . i do n't know , i guess you have to put most of the blame on director simon west , who did n't really tie the whole movie together all that well . the film lacked energy , a consistent pace and well . . . a fun time ! i felt kinda depressed while watching this movie . all that " father " crap was horrible and the dialogue given to poor john voight to recite was just plain embarrassing ( and i 'm not even gon na mention his moustache . . . hehehe ) . why have this shite in the movie at all ? ! ? i especially hated the scenes in which some ghost - like figure , friend or child would ramble on about lara croft 's father while all the time , i 'm not giving one ounce of crap as to what they 're talking about . i guess that 's called lack of " character development " , right ? that 's when a movie builds enough background into the characters on the screen , so that we could actually " get into " it and care about them . i did n't care about anyone in this movie , and was bored during most of its " let 's explain why we 're doing all this gobbledygook " moments . and even though i thought that jolie kicked some mighty ass ( damn , did she look sexy blasting those guns or what ? ! ? ) , everybody else around her was so goddamn boring ! her butler was a throwaway with no personality , her side - kick was supposed to be funny but just annoyed me every time he said the word " bugger " ( and he says it a lot , trust me ! ) and all of the so - called bad guys just spewed one - dimension ! they had no spark , no energy amongst them , and even though a few of the action scenes in the movie were cool ( see the trailer and you 'll know which ones i 'm talking about ) , the overall picture was lame and the dialogue and mystical bull - crap just buried it even further . also , for a movie that 's supposed to be about all of these exotic locations , i was n't necessarily impressed by any of its exterior shots , and even less so with its interiors , which all looked like they were shot in the same room . mind you , i wo n't go as far as to say that it 's the " worst movie of the year " ( remember that i actually have to go see freddie prinze jr . movies also ! ) , but it 's definitely the worst film that i 've seen during this summer movie season ( of course , it 's still early and i 'm sure there are a few more garbage heaps coming down the pike ) . skip this one altogether and rent any of the indiana jones movies instead . . . trust me , you 'll miss the boobs but end your night with some rock - solid porn and it 's all good ! where 's joblo coming from ? raiders of the lost ark ( 10/10 ) - the mummy ( 8/10 ) - lost in space ( 7/10 ) - the mummy returns ( 6/10 ) - the general 's daughter ( 3/10 ) - romancing the stone ( 7/10 ) - wild wild west ( 3/10 ) - mission impossible 2 ( 7/10 )

0NEG

cool to look at in this film . uhhhhhm , unfortunately the rest of the movie sucked ! bad dialogue , generic sidekicks and bad guys , a lame mystery , yoda - esque moments with mumbo - jumbo being sprouted about and even some crappy cgi near the end . all in all , this movie video game . i do n't know , i guess you have to put most of the blame on director simon west , who did n't really tie the whole movie together all that well . the film lacked energy , a consistent pace and well . . . a fun time ! i felt kinda depressed while watching this movie . all that " father " the dialogue given to poor john voight to recite was just plain embarrassing ( and i 'm not even gon na mention his moustache . . . hehehe ) . why have this shite in the movie at all ? ! ? i especially hated the scenes in which some ghost - like figure , friend or about lara croft 's father while all the time , i 'm not giving one ounce of crap as to what they 're talking about . i guess n't care about anyone in this movie , and was bored during most of its " let 's explain why we blasting those guns or what ? ! ? ) , everybody else around her was so goddamn boring ! her butler was a throwaway with no personality , her side - kick was supposed to be funny but just annoyed me every time he said the word " bugger " - called bad guys just spewed one - dimension ! they had no spark , no energy amongst them , and even though a few of the action scenes 'll know which ones i 'm talking about ) , the overall picture was lame and the dialogue and mystical bull - crap just buried it even further . also , for a movie that 's supposed to be about all of these exotic locations , i was n't necessarily impressed by any of its exterior shots , and even less freddie prinze jr . movies also ! ) , but it 's definitely the worst film that i 've seen during this summer movie season ( of course , it 's still early few more garbage heaps coming down the pike ) . skip this one altogether and rent any of the indiana jones movies instead .

it happens every year -- the days get longer , the weather gets warmer and the studios start releasing their big - budget blockbusters . this year 's crop already seems inferior to that of past summers , even 1997 's lackluster trio of batman & robin , the fifth element and the lost world . the marketing blitz in 1998 has been centered on godzilla ( " heeere , lee - zerd , lee - zerd . . . " ) , which does n't make me optimistic about future summers . godzilla is , of course , based on a series of cult movies ( translation : really bad movies only a few people can tolerate ) from japan that turn up really late at night on ted turner - owned cable stations . that this big - budget remake wo n't rise above its roots is fairly obvious . the credits show us the origin of godzilla . in five words : nuclear explosion creates giant lizard . sounds like an enquirer headline , does n't it ? the mushroom cloud is followed by the inevitable " discovery " sequence . this time , a japanese guy is eating noodles with chopsticks while watching sumo wrestling ( if that ai n't a stereotype . . . ) when he discovers the telltale radar blip . people die . cut to our protagonist , played by matthew broderick . he makes his first appearance wearing headphones , warbling along to " singin ' in the rain . " it 's a none - too - subtle sign that he wishes he were in a classier movie . no dice , bueller . from the beginning , poor matthew has to do embarassing things like fondle giant earthworms and stand in godzilla 's enormous footprint . every disaster movie has to have a know - it - all scientist , and this time broderick is it . as the world 's leading expert on radiated earthworms ( and would n't you love to have that printed on your business card ? ) , broderick is invaluable to the government . he immediately dispels vicki lewis ' theory that godzilla is a dinosaur because , hey , you ca n't take seriously the intellectual arguments of " newsradio " cast members . broderick instead hits the nail on the head , announcing godzilla is a radiated lizard . " the radiation is n't an anamoly , " he announces , and lightning strikes . " i believe this is a mutated abberation , " he continues , and lightning strikes again . it 's vocabulary lightning , you see , activated by words of four syllables or more . meanwhile , we 're introduced to our new york cast , headed by an ambitious broadcast journalist ( maria patillo ) , broderick 's former love . gee , what are the odds their paths will cross again at a dramatically important time ? poor patillo has been trying to get ahead in the news business for years but has been held down by heartless anchorman harry shearer . italian cameraman hank azaria tells her she 's not ruthless enough : " nice does n't get you anywhere in this town . it 's dog eat dog . " actually , it 's lizard eat city , as godzilla emerges from the atlantic to begin a rampage on the big apple 's core . the filmmakers provide us with a one - note drunk fisherman who hooks godzilla . " i think i 've got a bite , " he announces as a gigantic tidal wave begins rushing toward him . you can guess what happens next . similar reactions spring forth as the monster prowls the city . hearing the rumble of approaching footsteps , one new yorker remarks , " please do n't tell me that 's another parade . " please do n't tell me that 's the best line you could come up with . mayor ebert is not pleased . played by the principal from " head of the class , " he continually makes the wrong decision when given an option , and bickers with his assistant gene . i guess the filmmakers knew they 'd be getting two thumbs down from the critics and did n't even bother to kiss ass . the problem is , if you 're going to attack siskel and ebert , you should at least make it funny . dialogue like , " did n't we agree that we were n't going to have any sweets until after the election ? " followed by , " back off , gene , " just does n't work for me . other lame running jokes include everyone mispronouncing the broderick character 's last name and frenchman jean reno 's inability to find a good cup of coffee in new york . there 's even more fun to be had as godzilla progresses . as the beast heads back into hiding , broderick suggests the military lure it out with food . cue twelve dump trucks , all dropping fish into a new york intersection . ( broderick : that 's a lot of fish . ) that ambush fails , but broderick soon figures out why godzilla came to new york by buying $ 50 worth of home pregnancy tests and running lizard blood through them . yep , godzilla 's with children , which makes you wonder just what kind of creature would be horny enough to have sex with godzilla . that 's until broderick explains that godzilla reproduces asexually , like linda tripp . godzilla comes to us from the makers of independence day , so it has a lot of dumb action scenes , destructive special effects and shallow subplots . look no further than patillo 's betrayal of broderick ( patillo : what have i done , animal ? what have i become ? ) and the climactic " godzilla 's nest " sequence in madison square garden . the main difference is , independence day was about the experience . it had a real global , patriotic element to it , and some genuinely fun characters . godzilla has lots of rain and lightning , reptilian action ripped off from jurassic park and endless product placement from the likes of kodak , blockbuster , juicy fruit , swatch , sprint and bumble bee tuna . yes , bumble bee actually paid to be known as the official tuna of godzilla . that fact alone is twice as interesting as anything in the movie .

0NEG

. no dice , bueller . from the beginning , poor matthew has to do embarassing things like fondle giant earthworms and stand in godzilla 's enormous is n't an anamoly , " he announces , and lightning strikes . " i believe this is a mutated abberation , " he continues , and lightning strikes again . it 's vocabulary lightning , you see , activated by words of four syllables or more . meanwhile , we 're introduced to our new york ( maria patillo ) , broderick 's former love . gee , what are the odds their paths will cross again at a dramatically important time do n't tell me that 's another parade . " please do n't tell me that 's the best line you could come up with . mayor ebert is not pleased . played by the gene , " just does n't work for me . other lame running jokes include everyone mispronouncing the broderick character 's last name and to us from the makers of independence day , so it has a lot of dumb action scenes , destructive special effects and shallow subplots . look no further than patillo 's betrayal of broderick lightning , reptilian action ripped off from jurassic park and endless product placement from the likes of kodak , blockbuster , juicy fruit

i heard actor skeet ulrich discussing this film in a couple of interviews , and in both instances , he felt the strange compulsion to compare it a little series of films called lethal weapon . now , i personally remember those films as a ) starring a major motion picture star b ) being funny c ) having great action sequences d ) great chemistry e ) decent character development . hmmm . . . . okay . . . now on to my review of chill factor . plot : a graveyard shift regular working joe and ice cream truck driver fall onto a malicious plan by an ex - army general , to propose a nuclear device to international prospects . when the device suddenly falls into their reluctant laps , they must keep it cool on ice , and rush it over to an army base , before the contraption ticks over 50 degrees fahrenheit , and kills millions of people . critique : " speed on an ice - cream truck " is probably the pitch that was used to sell this one - tone movie to its backers , but unfortunately , the only way that anyone could compare this film to that tension - filled , original two hours of cinema , is in its distinct honor of being the complete opposite of what that film , and the lethal weapon movies , stood for . this film is seasoned in cliches , with plenty of badly written dialogue , over the top acting from cuba gooding jr . , zero chemistry between the two leads , and horribly tacky bad guys , tossed in to complete an overall bad movie recipe . my friend and i enjoyed watching this movie to a certain extent , because some of the lines in it were so bad and obviously " written " , that we just had to crack up . that , and the formula for the film 's script which followed the proverbial 1 - 2- , and you guessed it . . . 3 scenario ! and what about all those catchy , hip names to get us to relate to the characters . . . . " elvis " and " nighshift " , oh what talent lies in the minds of these screenwriters ( and yes , it actually took two guys to come up with this regurgitated drivel ) . it is unfathomable to me as to how actors skeet ulrich and cuba gooding jr . got involved in this one - week - old - blue - cheese - smelling project . did they actually think that it would boost their careers , or did they know that the script sucked , but discounted any fall from grace , knowing full well that the stack of cash in their back pockets would pad their fall ? most probably the latter . have you seen either fled or bulletproof ? well , despite the slight differences in plot , the essentials are basically the same here . you get a black guy and a white guy being chased by a bunch of people , having no choice but to work together to get somewhere , hating each other at first , but over time , learning to respect one another as individuals . yawn . add to that , the fact that our film actually has bad guys who are all dressed in black , drive black cars and black vans , and run around with all kinds of telecommunicative devices sprinkled around their head . not too conspicuous , eh ? call me a party - pooper , but as much as i like a nice cheezy movie as much as the next guy , this film just does n't even try to do anything original or reasonably entertaining . one cool scene with a boat careening down a mountainside , and another with a nuclear device obliterating everything on an island , do not a fun , buddy - action flick make . show cuba the money , everybody ! : ) little known facts about this film and its stars : this is not a little known fact or anything , but damn , is it just me or does skeet ulrich look an awful lot like great - looking actor johnny depp ? skeet 's real - life nicknames include chester , skeeter and mosquito . he stands 6'1 " , was born in north carolina , and got married in 1997 to that sex - kitten actress from clay pigeons ( 7 . 5/10 ) , georgina cates . they own a farm together in virginia and seven dogs . skeet has a long scar on his chest from open - heart surgery done when he was 10 to correct a ventricle defect . actor cuba gooding jr . was born in the bronx , new york . in 1984 , he break - danced during the closing ceremonies of the olympic games in los angeles . he stands 5'10 " . actress hudson leick , who plays one of the " bad guys / girls " in his movie , is better known from her role as " callisto " on the popular tv series " xena : princess warrior " . this film reportedly had a budget of $ 40 million ? ? i 'm not exactly sure where all this money went , but it certainly did not register onscreen . interestingly enough , director hugh johnson , who makes his big screen debut with this film , was the cinematographer on the 1996 film white squall and the 1997 demi moore vehicle , g . i . jane ( 6 . 5/10 ) .

0NEG

" is probably the pitch that was used to sell this one - tone movie to its backers , but unfortunately , the only way lethal weapon movies , stood for . this film is seasoned in cliches , with plenty of badly written dialogue , over the top acting from cuba gooding jr . , zero chemistry between the two leads , and horribly tacky bad guys , tossed in to complete an overall bad movie recipe . my friend and i enjoyed watching this movie to extent , because some of the lines in it were so bad and obviously " written " , that we just had to crack up . that ulrich and cuba gooding jr . got involved in this one - week - old - blue - cheese - smelling project . did they actually think that it would boost their careers , or did they know that the script sucked , but discounted any fall from grace , knowing full time , learning to respect one another as individuals . yawn . add to that , the fact that our film actually as much as the next guy , this film just does n't even try to do anything original or reasonably entertaining . one cool scene with a boat careening down a

it is with some sad irony that i screened fright night part 2 on the day that one of it 's stars , roddy mcdowall passed away at the age of 70 . mcdowall was one of the most talented and prolific actors in hollywood , having a career that spanned over 60 years and appearing in more than 100 films . fright night part 2 probably will not be counted among his more memorable roles . this is really sad considering how good the first fright night film was . william ragsdale and roddy mcdowall both reprised their roles as the somewhat reluctant vampire killers who seem to be the only ones that realize that vampires walk among us . ( at least in the movies anyway . ) it has been several years since charlie brewster ( ragsdale ) and b - movie actor turned late night horror film host , peter vincent ( mcdowall ) came face to face with a real live vampire who just happened to be charlie 's next door neighbor . charlie and peter won that battle , but apparently even vampires have relatives who get pissed if you kill members of their family . apparently charlie 's former bloodsucking next door neighbor had a sister who was none too pleased to find out that some kid and an aging actor staked her sibling . so she decides to exact a little bit of revenge . this ends up forcing charlie and peter to battle the forces of darkness yet again . one of the things that made fright night such a success was chris sarandon who played charlie 's stylish next door neighbor with a taste for blood . fright night part 2 tries to duplicate that modern style but it falls sort . while they are stylish , the vamps in this film just do n't have the personality of the undead in the first film . with the exception of a werewolf who adds some much needed comic relief to a few of the scenes . one bright spot , speaking from a strictly sexist point of view , is traci lin , who plays charlie 's very skeptical girlfriend . it 's really a shame that her career has n't been better since she made this film . ragsdale does a fair job in this film , but does n't give nearly the performance that he did in the original . roddy mcdowall makes the most with what he is given , which unfortunately is n't much which is a shame because his character was a lot of fun in the original movie . i guess i would have to say that the first film was a superior product in every way . the original always left you feeling danger was lurking right around the corner , part 2 had more of the feel of a music video . never a good thing for a horror film . another minus for part 2 was the traditional scenes that leave the audience on the edge of their seats waiting for something to jump out of a shadow where very rare . for that matter , they were almost nonexistent . if i was going to watch a horror film , this would be far from my first choice . the first fright night , on the other hand , would be right up near the top of my list . if i was in the mood for a roddy mcdowall film i 'd probably head to the science fiction section of my local video store and rent planet of the apes . either way fright night part 2 would most likely not enter into the equation .

0NEG

night part 2 tries to duplicate that modern style but it falls sort . while they are stylish , the vamps in this film just do n't have the personality of the undead in the first film . with the ragsdale does a fair job in this film , but does n't give nearly the performance that he did in the original . roddy mcdowall makes had more of the feel of a music video . never a good thing for a horror film . another minus for part 2 was the traditional scenes that leave the if i was going to watch a horror film , this would be far from my first choice . the first fright night , on the other hand

sometimes a stellar cast can compensate for a lot of things , and " pushing tin " certainly features some name stars who are going places : billy bob thornton , cate blanchett , angelina jolie , and oh yes john cusack who might not realize it at first , but he 's actually the * veteran * among this quartet of fine - looking people . sometimes a terrific cast like this can compensate for a lackluster screen treatment of an idea that has " hip comedy " written all over it , compensate for workmanlike but uninspired direction , compensate for an obnoxious score that would have anyone but the tone deaf screaming for the exits , compensate for clich ? d characterizations , compensate for embarrassing " you have to be joking " situations . etc . in " pushing tin , " thornton , blanchett , jolie , and cusack do n't have an earthly . from the opening sequence the film is in big trouble : squiggly , " quirky " credits , fake - looking passenger planes circling new york , and anne dudley 's in - your - ear music making us wonder how she ever got that best original score nomination for " the full monty , " let alone won it . but i , for one , was n't ready to walk just yet . so quickly we descend into a tightly - edited air traffic controllers montage which screams to us in large capital letters these people have a difficult job , yes , what with their frantic , mile - a - minute instructional personas , juggling planes and passenger 's lives like some huge , real , mid - air video game . hip , cool , demonic auctioneer nick " the zone " falzone ( cusack ) is the best in the biz . of course . until some hipper , cooler , leather - clad flyboy assist in the guise of russell bell ( thornton ) shows up to challenge falzone 's finite air space . boys will be boys and some heavy duty testosterone starts exuding , then the macho one - upmanship begins . it does n't stop with seeing who can juggle three 747s within a cat 's whisker of each other . oh no . there are some broken hoop dreams , some wanna - see - how - fast - i - can - drives , and then the ultimate showdown : was that my wife i saw you with last night ? director mike newell ( " four weddings and a funeral " ) must have read a different draft of this script because the one that 's being acted out up there between newark , jfk , and la guardia does n't have an ounce of subtlety , and newell has made some awfully good - and funny - movies before . the antics of these air traffic controllers will make you cringe . they 'll make you frown in disbelief . they 'll have you constantly looking at your watch . but wait ! there 's still 100 minutes to go ! ! the film 's only saving grace is blanchett , whose connie falzone is a spunky , brash , long island housewife who wants to better herself by taking art classes . this is a wonderful accomplishment for the fine actress who has previously played a red - headed australian gambler ( " oscar and lucinda " ) and a tempestuous british monarch ( " elizabeth " ) . but she 's not enough to save the picture . thornton looks terrific and performs solidly but his character is a joke . jolie ( as russell 's knock 'em dead wife ) is n't bad , but the up - and - coming actress disappoints by allowing herself to be displayed like a plaything . cusack cracks gum , dons shades , and acts hip throughout but , like everything else in the film , his performance is forced . in the last ten minutes or so , for some inexplicable reason , things start coming together and you begin to get a sense of how this film might have been , like the trailer teases . but it 's too little too late . a fine cast aside , " pushing tin " is nothing more than an embarrassment .

0NEG

" written all over it , compensate for workmanlike but uninspired direction , compensate for an obnoxious score that would have anyone but the tone deaf screaming for the exits , compensate for clich ? d characterizations , compensate for jolie , and cusack do n't have an earthly . from the opening sequence the film is in big trouble : squiggly , " quirky " credits , fake - up there between newark , jfk , and la guardia does n't have an ounce of subtlety , and newell has made some awfully good - and movies before . the antics of these air traffic controllers will make you cringe . they 'll make you frown in disbelief . they the picture . thornton looks terrific and performs solidly but his character is a joke . jolie ( as russell 's knock 'em dead wife throughout but , like everything else in the film , his performance is forced . in the last ten minutes or so , for some inexplicable reason , things start coming together and you begin to get a fine cast aside , " pushing tin " is nothing more than an embarrassment .

the most depressing thing about the depressingly pedestrian james bond film " the world is not enough " is its final frame : white letters on a black background proclaiming " james bond will return . " oh i certainly hope not . with pierce brosnan in his third and reportedly last go - round as james bond 007 , " the world is not enough " is the best example to date that " ' enough " is enough . in this , the 19th chapter in the seemingly - endless franchise featuring ian fleming 's debonair british secret agent who likes his martinis -- and his nemeses -- shaken not stirred , the sub - inspired screenwriters have chosen to rehash all of the setups , stunts , and sexy encounters of the previous 18 bond flicks rather than coming up with anything the slightest bit original . we 've got previously - used speedboat chases , ski chases , and sticky situations aboard nuclear submarines . we 've got a couple of hot - to - trot babes without an ounce of acting ability between them . we 've got a post - cold war megalomaniac bent on world domination slash destruction ( here played by a skinheaded robert carlyle with mean , lean panache ) . and , as has been the case since 1977 's " the spy who loved me , " we 've got a plot that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything conceived by mr . fleming . we 've also got a main title song by garbage to which , with very little effort , you can fit the lyrics to * both * songs from " tomorrow never dies . " while originality was never the series ' strong suit , the films were almost always fun , with at least some thought going into the nonstop stunts . i ca n't think of one memorable set - piece in the entire -- and very dull-- " the world is not enough . " in addition , michael apted ( yes , the respected director of such films as " coal miner 's daughter , " " nell , " and the " 28up " documentary series ) takes embarrassing advantage of the full range of bond clich ? s . you get the " talking killer " plot device -- you know the scenario : the bad guy has the good guy at his mercy yet waxes poetic just long enough to die of old age . and you get a slew of high - priced assassins who ca n't hit a barn door at 20 paces : in the film 's opening minutes ( of an endless 128 ) , bond chases a sultry sniper along the thames and the leather - clad lovely fails to hit bond 's souped - up " fishing boat " with a bazooka when he pulls within a few feet of her . later , she takes off in a hot air balloon with bond dangling from a guy rope beneath her but is still unable to take him out . these reliable absurdities are more frustrating than usual since there are no distractions other than occasional ads for luxury automobiles , vodka , or credit cards . in and among the rampant product placements , brosnan grapples with carlyle , " braveheart " 's sophie marceau ( as former kidnap victim slash heiress elektra king ; she 's terrible ) , " wild things " ' denise richards ( as a nuclear physicist lord help me ; she 's laughable ) , and judi dench as m . dame judi brings the only shred of dignity to a series that has long since jettisoned its self - respect ( about the time roger moore inherited bond 's walther ppk ) . brosnan goes through the motions with the grace and charm you 'd expect of the former " remington steele " star , but even he has to be thinking there 's more to life than an easy paycheck . he 's given plenty of wiseacre asides to deliver , but only one of them-- " i do n't know any doctor jokes " --made me chuckle ( although " i thought christmas only comes once a year " is more in keeping with the series ' penchant for grown - worthy puns ) .

0NEG

the most depressing thing about the depressingly pedestrian james bond film " the world is not enough " -- and his nemeses -- shaken not stirred , the sub - inspired screenwriters have chosen to rehash all of the setups , stunts at least some thought going into the nonstop stunts . i ca n't think of one memorable set - piece in the entire -- and very dull-- " the world , " and the " 28up " documentary series ) takes embarrassing advantage of the full range of bond clich ? s . you get the " talking killer " plot device her but is still unable to take him out . these reliable absurdities are more frustrating than usual since there are no distractions other than occasional ads for luxury automobiles , vodka , or credit cards . in and among the rampant product placements , brosnan grapples with carlyle , " braveheart " 's richards ( as a nuclear physicist lord help me ; she 's laughable ) , and judi dench as m . dame judi

when walt disney pictures announced a live - action feature based on the ' 60s cartoon series of " mr . magoo , " special interests groups representing the vision - impaired let out a cry of dismay . mr . magoo , they claimed , would be an insult to the men and women they represented . in fact , they were wrong . mr . magoo is not just an insult to the blind and near - blind , it 's an insult to every human being who has the misfortune to suffer through this dreadfully unfunny , 90 minute atrocity . it 's stating the obvious to remark that disney appears to have run out of original ideas . look at their roster of 1996 and 1997 releases , and you 'll see a shocking list of retreads , including 101 dalmatians , george of the jungle , jungle2jungle , that darn cat ! , flubber , and now mr . magoo . the best of these ( george of the jungle ) was mildly entertaining . the worst , mr . magoo , exposes just how painful a bad movie experience can be . the first problem with mr . magoo is the script . despite the collaboration of naked gun scribe pat proft , mr . magoo is comically barren . from beginning to end , there 's not a laugh to be found . every attempt at humor -- and there are lots of them -- falls flat with an audible thud . you 'd think that out of the dozens of gags jammed into this film , at least a few would work , but that 's not the case . i 've had more laughs during ingmar bergman pictures . then there 's leslie nielsen , who looks , sounds , and acts absolutely nothing like the animated character ( memorably voiced by jim backus ) . in the past , nielsen has proven his comic aptitude with roles in movies like airplane and the naked gun . lately , however , he has been getting lazy , taking parts in the likes of dracula : dead and loving it , spy hard , and mr . magoo . even if nielsen was in top form , it would take an incredible stretch of imagination to see him as magoo ( especially since we 're reminded of the original by the short cartoon segments that open and close the film ) , but " top form " is not a phrase i would use to describe his performance here . this is strictly a take - the - money - and- run operation . the story , which , like many disney stories , can be described in one long sentence : magoo is the only witness to the theft of a rare jewel from a museum , and , as he is trying to apprehend the thieves on his own , the police mistake him for the robber . the cops are played by ernie hudson and stephen tobolowsky , who take their lumps early and often . the bad guys are kelly lynch ( who does a lot of martial arts - type kicking ) , nick chinlund , and malcolm mcdowell ( who has the good sense to look embarrassed ) . matt keeslar portrays one of magoo 's sidekicks -- his nephew , waldo . the bumbling man 's other , more interesting companion is a dog named angus . most of mr . magoo 's humor comes in the form of failed slapstick . the cartoon violence level in this film does n't approach that of home alone 3 or flubber , but it 's still pretty acute , with characters getting hit on the head with sledgehammers and knocked off snowy precipices . there 's a non - violent bit with magoo preparing a chicken dinner that could have been funny if it was handled better , but , compared to mr . bean 's recent , similar misadventure , it does n't hold up well . then there is the series of lame jokes that result from magoo 's near blindness , such as the occasion when he mistakes a wild animal for a baby . i 'm willing to cut director stanley tong a little slack . tong , a hong kong film maker trying to break into the hollywood market , has helmed several jackie chan movies , including first strike , rumble in the bronx , and supercop . his chief talent , that of choreographing martial arts fights , is wasted here ( despite some high kicking by kelly lynch ) . like john woo ( hard target ) and ringo lam ( maximum risk ) before him , it appears that tong has been consigned to the purgatory of making a bad movie as his entry into the american mainstream . it is worth noting that , unlike many disney films which hold a perverse appeal for the under-10 crowd while driving parents to distraction , mr . magoo appears to bore viewers of all ages . the screening i attended was wall - to - wall kids , and , for the most part , they did n't seem to be enjoying themselves . when the film was over , i asked one little girl what she thought of it . her pained expression confirmed the adage that a picture can indeed be worth a thousand words . mr . magoo is the kind of movie that should be rejected by any potential viewer , sight unseen .

0NEG

an insult to the blind and near - blind , it 's an insult to every human being who has the misfortune to suffer through this dreadfully unfunny , 90 minute atrocity . it 's stating the obvious to remark that disney appears to have run out of original ideas . look at their roster of 1996 and 1997 releases mildly entertaining . the worst , mr . magoo , exposes just how painful a bad movie experience can be . the first problem with mr . magoo is the naked gun scribe pat proft , mr . magoo is comically barren . from beginning to end , there 's not a at humor -- and there are lots of them -- falls flat with an audible thud . you 'd think that out of the dozens of phrase i would use to describe his performance here . this is strictly a take - the - money - and- run operation . the story , which , like many disney stories mr . magoo 's humor comes in the form of failed slapstick . the cartoon violence level in this film does n't misadventure , it does n't hold up well . then there is the series of lame jokes that result from magoo 's near blindness , such as crowd while driving parents to distraction , mr . magoo appears to bore viewers of all ages . the screening i attended was wall - to - wall kids , and , for the most part , they did n't seem to be enjoying themselves . when the film was over , i asked one little girl what she thought of it . her pained expression confirmed the adage that a picture can indeed be worth . mr . magoo is the kind of movie that should be rejected by any potential viewer , sight unseen .

david spade has a snide , sarcastic sense of humor that works perfectly on the tv sitcom just shoot me . it also served as a good showcase for him when he co - starred , opposite the late chris farley , in tommy boy and black sheep . lost and found marks the comedian 's first attempt at going solo in a movie , and it also reveals that when spade does n't have a reliable back - up system , his brand of humor seems more desperate than one may expect . david spade is not the problem with lost and found . he plays dylan ramsey , the sweet main character , to the best of his abilities . the story revolves around dylan 's obsessions with his beautiful new neighbour , lila dubois ( sophie marceau , from braveheart ) , and her terrier named jack . dylan believes that the best way to a woman 's heart is through her dog . and so he kidnaps jack , planning to stage a fake rescue , in hope to win lila over . there are three good things about lost and found . the first is spade . the second is sophie marceau , a lovely actress who 's been planted into the wrong movie . lastly , there 's the dog , who is used here in a similar context to puffy from there 's something about mary . unfortunately , director jeff pollack finds more humor in putting jack through a cycle in the drier than he does with simply making him look cute . this kind of physical humor is dead . pollack does everything but beat the poor pooch with a baseball bat to get laughs , and this procedure is cheap , unfunny and resoundingly cruel . this is where i start to get fuzzy . also in this unusual blend is ( apparently ) a sweet - natured love story between dylan and lila . given the mean - spirited comedy that the movie is obviously striving for , i found this hard to swallow . and , why does dylan even deserve someone like lila , after kidnapping her precious dog and putting it through such pain ? predictably , lost and found opts for a happy ending , one that feels so sentimental , gooey , and rings so false that it sets off a siren in your head that makes you feel a bit cheated . david spade ( who also co - wrote the movie ) tries hard , so very hard , to make this project amusing . there are some choice scenes that are quite funny , but the movie is only sporadically funny . patrick bruel plays the stock character of rene , the pompous jerk who also wants to win lila over , with his good looks and money . jon lovitz and martin sheen are welcome additions in two tiny supporting roles . despite a few positive attributes , lost and found just does n't work . if you 're searching for an enjoyable romantic - comedy , you could do far better than this obvious , misguided failure that shows a blatant disregard for what it 's trying to present .

0NEG

first attempt at going solo in a movie , and it also reveals that when spade does n't have a reliable back - up system , his brand of humor seems more desperate than one may expect . david spade is not the context to puffy from there 's something about mary . unfortunately , director jeff pollack finds more humor in putting jack than he does with simply making him look cute . this kind of physical humor is dead . pollack does everything but beat the poor pooch with a baseball bat to get laughs , and this procedure is cheap , unfunny and resoundingly cruel . this is where i start to get fuzzy . also in this unusual blend is ( apparently ) spirited comedy that the movie is obviously striving for , i found this hard to swallow . and , why does dylan even deserve someone like lost and found opts for a happy ending , one that feels so sentimental , gooey , and rings so false that it sets off a siren in your head that makes you feel a bit cheated . david spade ( who also co - wrote the . despite a few positive attributes , lost and found just does n't work . if you 're searching for an enjoyable romantic - comedy , you could do far better than this obvious , misguided failure that shows a blatant disregard for what it 's trying to present .

9 : its pathetic attempt at " improving " on a shakespeare classic . 8 : its just another piece of teen fluff . 7 : kids in high school are not that witty . 6 : the wittiness is not witty enough . 5 : the comedy is not funny . 4 : the acting is poor . 3 : the music . 2 : the poster . 1 : its worse than she 's all that ! 10=a classic 9=borderline classic 8=excellent 7=good 6=better than average 5=average 4=disappointing 3=poor 2=awful 1=a crap classic

0NEG

9 : its pathetic attempt at " improving " on a shakespeare classic . 8 : its just another piece of teen fluff . 7 : kids in high school are not that : the wittiness is not witty enough . 5 : the comedy is not funny . 4 : the acting is poor . 3 : the music . 2 : the poster . 1 : its worse than she 's all that ! 10=a classic 9=borderline classic

sometimes i wonder just what the censors are thinking . take this film , " naked killer " , among it 's ingredients are heavy doses of violence , rape sequences , straight and lesbian sex scenes and what our system calls " coarse language " . but what do those intelligent people at the censorship bureau choose to remove in case someone will get offended ? one word - penis . that 's it . in spite of everything else in the movie the one thing that the censors decide is too much is " penis . " . it really restores you 're faith in the system , huh ? anyway , that 's just a side point . when naked killer was released in the local independent cinemas around melbourne , it was advertised ad nausuem as a hip , cool , controversial thriller . what they forgot to mention was that it is n't very good . the plot involves male cop tinam ( simon yam ) , investigating a series of brutal murders . while getting a haircut he meets and finds himself attracted to a girl named kitty ( chingmy yau ) , who , after extracting revenge on the man who killed her father , falls in with professional killer sister cindy ( svenwara madoka ) . realising kitty has potential , cindy decides to train kitty in several unusual and ridiculous ways and gives her a new identity . however in the course of his investigation tinam ( who believed kitty had disappeared ) , runs into her again , but is n't quite sure if it 's her . to complicate matters the actual serial killlers , princess and baby , who a former students of cindy , and have been told to kill their old master and her new student . from then the action ensues . . . all in all , this is not a well done movie . the script is awful , the direction all over the place , the editing is jerky and confusing and the subtitling is surprisingly poor . however the are a few stand alone pieces that do entertain . the shoot out in the car park is almost woo - like in adrenaline . the fight scenes are energetic and i guess it must get a few points for trying something a little different . let me put this way , if you like action - get something else , if you like strong women in movies - get something else , if you have do decide between this and " black cat " for your hong kong female action - do n't get either . even for curiosity value it just is n't worth it . let 's face it - if ever the was a movie that became popular on it 's subject alone , this is it .

0NEG

in the local independent cinemas around melbourne , it was advertised ad nausuem as a hip , cool , controversial thriller . what they forgot to mention was that it is n't very good . the plot involves male cop tinam ( simon yam the action ensues . . . all in all , this is not a well done movie . the script is awful , the direction all over the place , the editing is jerky and confusing and the subtitling is surprisingly poor . however the are a few stand alone pieces that - do n't get either . even for curiosity value it just is n't worth it . let 's face it - if ever the was

after seeing blaze and driving miss daisy , i was ready for some mindless fun -- oh , maybe something like tango & cash . maybe not ! mindless fun is one thing , but brain - dead slop is another matter altogether . tango & cash has " lowest common denominator " written all over it . the movie stars sylvester stallone and kurt russell as rival undercover cops in l . a . russell plays cash , a reckless slob who dresses in jeans and tee shirts . stallone plays tango , a wealthy investor who works on the force strictly for the thrill of it ; he does n't need the money . in an effort to change his image , stallone goes for a yuppie , gq look in the film , wearing spectacles and three piece suits . the two detectives reluctantly become partners after they are framed for murder and have to break out of prison to clear their names . tango & cash is unbearably noisy . for starters , there 's harold faltermeyer 's annoying synthesized score , which gets old after four notes . to make matters worse , the filmmakers seem to think that when it comes to loud explosions and screeching cars , the more the merrier . in fact , the movie begins with not one but two car chases . there 's nothing like a good old car chase to introduce the characters in a movie . screenwriter randy feldman 's brain must have gone to mush from watching too many cop shows on tv . his shockingly stupid screenplay undermines anything and everything the movie has going for it , such as stallone 's efforts to convince you that tango is an intellectual . in a movie with the iq level of an amoeba , even a great actor is going to have trouble looking intelligent -- and stallone is no lawrence olivier . it 's hard to imagine anyone reading feldman 's script and thinking , " i want to be in this movie . " the film 's plot does n't have one original bone in its body , and -- again -- you have to point your finger at the screenwriting . feldman 's story line succumbs to every crime thriller cliche in the book , making tango & cash altogether generic and predictable . they simply could have called it " action movie . " every character , every twist and turn , is stolen from television or from other movies . adding insult to injury , tango & cash is about as believable as a " road runner " cartoon . action movies do n't have to be realistic , but they should absorb you enough so that you 're not thinking about the lack of realism . the only artistic aspect of tango & cash is the cinematography . there are some spectacular shots , especially during the rainy nighttime prison break in which tango and cash slide to safety on electrical wires . the film 's main draw is the chemistry between stallone and russell . unfortunately , their relationship rarely progresses past macho competition as they endlessly bicker about who packs more meat in his pants . the dialogue consists of nothing but one - liners , and consequently the attempts at character development are embarrassing . it 's a shame because with a workable screenplay , russell and stallone could have turned tango & cash into a charming " lethal weaponesque " adventure . tango & cash tries to maintain a light tone , and you do laugh about once every five minutes . seeing russell in drag is the movie 's funniest moment , but you probably already have seen it in the commercials . furthermore , the light tone does not sit well against the relentlessly brutal violence . machine guns and torture generally do n't mix well with comedy . jack palance appears in tango & cash doing what he does best : playing a sleazy , conniving villain . his character , however , is run - of - the - mill , except for his strange obsession with mice . like many movie villains , palance likes to play games . in fact , he sets a ridiculously elaborate trap for tango and cash , a trap which sends the two detectives to prison so they can be beaten and electrocuted by some meanies in the boiler room . you have to wonder why palance does n't just shoot the detectives in the head ! the story would crumble if any of the characters were to do anything intelligent . teri hatcher plays stallone 's sister and russell 's love - interest , and she is just as pretty as can be . but regrettably , hatcher 's acting is not on par with her exceptional beauty . every time she opens her mouth , you cringe ; corny dialogue and atrocious acting are always a fatal combination . there 's really very little , if anything , to recommend in the film . and , more to the point , tango definitely is n't worth a penny of your cash -- so do n't bother .

0NEG

dead slop is another matter altogether . tango & cash has " lowest common denominator " written all over it . the movie stars sylvester stallone and kurt russell as prison to clear their names . tango & cash is unbearably noisy . for starters , there 's harold faltermeyer 's annoying synthesized score , which gets old after four notes . to make matters worse , the filmmakers seem to think that when it comes mush from watching too many cop shows on tv . his shockingly stupid screenplay undermines anything and everything the movie has going for it , such as stallone you that tango is an intellectual . in a movie with the iq level of an amoeba , even a great actor is going to have trouble " i want to be in this movie . " the film 's plot does n't have one original bone in its body , and -- again -- you have to point your finger at the screenwriting . feldman 's story line succumbs to every crime thriller cliche in the book , making tango & cash altogether generic and predictable . they simply could have called it " action movie , is stolen from television or from other movies . adding insult to injury , tango & cash is about as believable as a main draw is the chemistry between stallone and russell . unfortunately , their relationship rarely progresses past macho competition as they endlessly bicker about who packs liners , and consequently the attempts at character development are embarrassing . it 's a shame because with a workable screenplay , conniving villain . his character , however , is run - of - the - mill , except for his strange obsession with mice . like pretty as can be . but regrettably , hatcher 's acting is not on par with her exceptional beauty . every time she opens her mouth , you cringe ; corny dialogue and atrocious acting are always a fatal combination . there 's really very little , if anything , film . and , more to the point , tango definitely is n't worth a penny of your cash -- so do n't bother .

in " the 13th warrior , " arab poet ahmed ibn fahdlan ( antonio banderas ) finds himself kicked out of baghdad for feeling up the king 's old lady . with his translator ( screen legend omar sharif in a small role ) , ahmed heads north to act as ambassador to the northmen ( vikings ) . he finds a group of warriors mourning the loss of their king . a messenger soon arrives from another kingdom requesting assistance . a soothsayer says that thirteen warriors must answer the summons , twelve northmen and one outsider . thus , ahmed becomes the " 13th warrior . " on the trip , ahmed manages to learn the vikings ' language by listening to their fireside conversations . a bit far - fetched , it 's true , but we have to swallow it if this flick is going to manage a few lines of dialogue amidst the grunting . ahmed , who 's called " ibn " by the vikings , forms friendships with herger the joyous ( dennis storh ? i ) and the viking leader buliwyf ( vladimir kulich ) . when they arrive in the other kingdom , the thirteen warriors discover that they 're facing an army of supernatural cannibals that live up in the caves . hereafter , most of the movie is battle scenes : the cannibals attack the vikings , the vikings attack the cannibals , the cannibals attack the . . . well , you get the idea . just to add some action , there 's also a viking vs . viking duel . other movies insert scenes between the fights ; these scenes are called character development . i suspect that " the 13th warrior " had a better script at one time and that it fell through the cracks because of the tag - team direction . the movie started off in the hands of john mctiernan ( you 'll notice a lot of similarities between " warrior " and mctiernan 's " predator , " including the chittering jungle sounds ) . somewhere along the line , mctiernan bailed and michael crichton took over . crichton , whose novel " eaters of the dead " is the basis for " warrior , " has directed a small assortment of goofy science - fiction " thrillers " : " westworld , " " coma , " " looker , " " runaway . " their result of their consecutive efforts is a murky and pointless movie . perhaps what " the 13th warrior " needs more than anything else is a villain . the " eaters of the dead " are a faceless mob in blackface . they have no personality , and by the end they do n't even seem particularly threatening . the audience has no target toward which to channel its aggression . mctiernan should know about the importance of an interesting villain ; it was his " die hard " that made villains seem fun and attracted big - name stars to the evil roles in action films . " the 13th warrior " suffers from a lack of vision . it wants to be " predator " meets " braveheart " meets " the magnificent seven " meets " dances with wolves . " with so many competing goals , all it can do is echo what it might have been . it might have been a satisfying action film . it might have been a beautifully - rendered medieval epic . it might have been a thought - provoking examination of the meeting of cultures . what a shame it turned out to be nothing in particular . bottom line : if you want to see antonio swing his sword , rent " the mask of zorro . "

0NEG

, " " looker , " " runaway . " their result of their consecutive efforts is a murky and pointless movie . perhaps what " the 13th warrior " needs more the dead " are a faceless mob in blackface . they have no personality , and by the end they do n't even seem roles in action films . " the 13th warrior " suffers from a lack of vision . it wants to be " predator " meets " thought - provoking examination of the meeting of cultures . what a shame it turned out to be nothing in particular . bottom line : if you want to see antonio

there is n't much good about this movie . not much i can say about the acting , directing , or writing that would make you consider seeing this movie . so i 'll get my one good comment out of the way , at least joel schuemacher ( batman & robin ) did n't direct it or it would be titled " technicolor city " . in fact there is nothing colorful about this movie , its dark and depressingly gloomy right down to the bitter end . the plot has a tendency to be interesting , but all that passes while your laughing at the ridiculous things thrown into what could have been a fascinating movie . the plot is impossible to explain due to how senseless it gets , so i will just touch on the bare minimum . john murdoch ( rufus sewell ) awakes in the bathtub of a cheap hotel , only to find out he has forgotten everything . john must find out who he is before the " strangers " ( a . k . a . mind erasing aliens ) find him and use him for their own evil conspiracy . during the film some interesting points are raised about human individuality , and the existence of inherently evil people . any of these points however are completely " erased " from your mind as you watch the actors stumble through the dreadful script . as i mentioned earlier , nothing but the atmosphere is right in this film . the acting is bland , and since there is virtually no character development no one seems to care . the special effects are low budget and some even hilariously fake , a sign of a true " b - movie " . the direction is poor and there is little continuity , not that you would expect it in a movie switching realities constantly . lastly the script is weak and has no concept of reality , and does n't deserve to have the word " science " in science - fiction . if i have n't got my point across , i 'll say it more plainly : this is a bad movie . lets hope the next movie by alex " i wish i was tim burton " proyas is at least tolerable .

0NEG

would be titled " technicolor city " . in fact there is nothing colorful about this movie , its dark and depressingly gloomy right down to the to be interesting , but all that passes while your laughing at the ridiculous things thrown into what could have been a fascinating movie . the plot is impossible to explain due to how senseless it gets , so i will just touch on the bare minimum nothing but the atmosphere is right in this film . the acting is bland , and since there is virtually no character development no one seems to care . the special effects are low budget and some even hilariously fake , a sign of a true " b - movie " . the direction is poor and there is little continuity , not that you would expect it in a movie switching realities constantly . lastly the script is weak and has no concept of reality , and does n't deserve to have the word " point across , i 'll say it more plainly : this is a bad movie . lets hope the next movie by alex " i

" varsity blues " is the best film of 1999 thus far . unfortunately , it is also the first film i have seen from 1999 . it is another one of those small - town sports movies that involves a flawed , but good - heartedfrom 1999 . it is another one of those small - town sports movies that involves a flawed , but good - hearted protagonist ; a rough and meanspirited coach ; and the " big game . " by the end , will the underdog overcome great odds and triumph ? will everyone in the town turn against the coach ? will the team win the climactic game ? do cats bathe themselves regularly ? the so - called " hero " in question is john moxin ( james van der beek ) , a senior at west canaan high school who plays for the varsity football team , but is really just hoping to get a scholarship at brown university so that he can get out of the dead - end town . at least he 's got the right idea , since west canaan , texas is portrayed in the film as , frankly , pathetic , with the whole town treating the weekly football games as the second coming . heck , in one scene , the front page of the town 's newspaper is proclaiming about the west canaan badgers ' big win the night before . when the team 's star quarterback is severely injured , tearing the ligaments in his leg , john finds himself taking over as the team 's leader , but his few minutes of glory do not last long , as he begins to have problems with his girlfriend ( amy smart ) when she discovers he spent an evening with another girl ( ali larter ) . and after staying out all night with his drinking buddies at a strip joint ( all of the teenagers in the film are portrayed as raging alcoholics ) , the team loses their second - to - last game , putting john at feuds with the coach ( jon voight who , like gary oldman , is overstaying his welcome in the typecasted role as the " bad guy " ) . worse yet , the coach is threatening to ruin john 's scholarship chances if the badgers do n't win their final game . the plotting of " varsity blues " is as old as the hills , and contains every cliche in the book . admittedly , i was never exactly bored while i was watching it , but i hasten to add that i was rarely ever entertained . throughout , all i could really think of is how virtually the same exact story had been filmed with a great deal more thoughtfulness and maturity in 1983 's " all the right moves . " one of the biggest problems i had with the film is how little of interest any of the characters actually were , least of all certainly not john , who , played by van der beek ( of tv 's " dawson 's creek " ) , is pretty much a bore without any engaging qualities . while i probably should n't blame this on van der beek , since the inauspicious and " by - the - numbers " screenplay by w . peter iliff is n't of any help , he is still certainly not in the league of tom cruise in " all the right moves . " the story revolving around john , meanwhile , is extemely thin throughout , particularly for its 104-minute running time , and it alternates between uninspired comic relief ( as in when the students see their sex education teacher working as a stripper at the club ) and heavy - handed melodrama . the romance between john and his girlfriend had the potential to be an adequate subplot , but we also learned very little about her , which is unfortunate since amy smart , whom i do n't think i 've seen before in past films , is probably the only character written with any sort of intelligence . smart does not allow her character to become the " passive girlfriend , " instead coming off as a young woman with her own ideas and opinions . it 's too bad the camera did n't linger on her long enough so we could hear some of those thoughts . the adult characters probably fare the worse of any , since they all must play residents of a dim - witted town that cares about nothing but football . john 's relationship with his parents can also be telegraphed far in advance . his father is set on him becoming a football player at a university , but john does n't want any part of that . his mother stands beside her " big , strong husband " and is a passive female . finally , jon voight plays the stock bully coach character and he does nothing to make the thankless role any more than one - dimensional . saving " varsity blues " from being a total washout are a few amusing sequences , including one set in the sex education class , which did get a laugh out of me . the scenes of playing football were well - shot and thankfully did n't overstay their welcome , as many sports films fall victim to . but leaving the theater , the question i had in my mind was why did this film need to be made ? i seem to be asking this question quite a lot lately , since the same old stories seem to be cranking out of hollywood . do we really need another high - school sports film ? no , we do n't , and certainly not one of this low - caliber , which felt like a cut - and - paste job of spare parts from much better , but similar , films . " varsity blues , " no doubt is the first one , however , to include an earnest scene in which one of the characters is only wearing whipped cream on their private parts .

0NEG

game . the plotting of " varsity blues " is as old as the hills , and contains every cliche in the book . admittedly , i was never exactly bored while i was watching it , but i hasten to add that i was rarely ever entertained . throughout , all i could really think of is in 1983 's " all the right moves . " one of the biggest problems i had with the film is how little of interest tv 's " dawson 's creek " ) , is pretty much a bore without any engaging qualities . while i probably should n't blame this on van der beek , since the inauspicious and " by - the - numbers " screenplay by w . peter iliff is n't of any " the story revolving around john , meanwhile , is extemely thin throughout , particularly for its 104-minute running time , and it , but we also learned very little about her , which is unfortunate since amy smart , whom i do n't think i sports film ? no , we do n't , and certainly not one of this low - caliber , which felt like a cut - and - paste job of spare parts from much better , but similar , films . " varsity blues , " no doubt is the

for a film touted as exploring relationships and black sexuality , trois is surprisingly tame . despite it 's lurid subject matter and it 's passing nod to fatal attraction , it moves along with flat , uninspired dialogue as it sets up a surprising climax that tries mightily to overthrow the considerable dead weight of the rest of the film . freshly moved to atlanta , jermaine ( dourdan ) and his wife , jasmine ( moore ) , have the trappings of a perfect life . they have a beautiful house in suburbia . jermaine is a lawyer on the fast track at his firm . jasmine is his supportive wife , who is finishing up her college degree . in an opening montage via a home video of the pair , we see the unremarkable story of their marriage and early marital triumphs . this is a couple that has it all . into this eden slithers the lure of lust . despite his outward appearance , jermaine reveals himself as selfish and covetous of his wife more as a possession than a person . a glimmer of his true nature peeks out during an early sex scene with his wife as he goes about his business , oblivious to jasmine 's concerns . we also find that he has been relentlessly asking jasmine to participate in a menage- a - trois , much to jasmine 's dismay . as jermaine puts it , " do n't you want to be sexually free ? " jermaine shares his desire with co - worker terrence ( smith ) , who obligingly sets jermaine up with a woman who might be interested in just such an encounter . the woman , jade ( palmer ) is a direct counterpoint to jasmine . jade , at one point was a college student , too . unlike jasmine , she found herself pregnant , dropped out of school and now struggles to make ends meet . to further reinforce their differences , it 's revealed that jade is involved in a custody battle over her son . inevitably , through liquor and a touch of duplicity on jermaine 's part , the forbidden act is consummated . the aftermath of the encounter sidesteps into fatal attraction territory as acts of violence are perpetrated upon jermaine 's property with the hint that the violence may escalate . by this point , trois shows itself to be a soap opera without the requisite melodrama : a fatal attraction without the social significance . the exploration of relationships is strictly superficial and stereotypical . jermaine comes off as insincere , sexually driven and selfish . jasmine is bland and subservient . jade comes off a bit sympathetically , but that is negated by her moral bankruptcy . yet another tale of a sexually aggressive " dog " of a man who imposes his will upon his accommodating , innocent mate . the last 10 minutes will undoubtly throw you a curve , but by this point , will you even care ? if the rest of the movie was as dynamic as the ending , perhaps there could have been some freshness to it . as it stands , trois is pretty standard fare .

0NEG

touted as exploring relationships and black sexuality , trois is surprisingly tame . despite it 's lurid subject matter and it 's passing nod to fatal attraction , it moves along with flat , uninspired dialogue as it sets up a surprising climax that tries mightily the violence may escalate . by this point , trois shows itself to be a soap opera without the requisite melodrama : a fatal attraction without the social significance . the exploration of relationships is strictly superficial and stereotypical . jermaine comes off as insincere , sexually driven and selfish . jasmine is bland and subservient . jade comes off a bit sympathetically , but that 10 minutes will undoubtly throw you a curve , but by this point , will you even care ? if the rest of the movie was as dynamic as freshness to it . as it stands , trois is pretty standard fare .

" mission to mars " is one of those annoying movies where , in the middle of the movie , you get the sneaking suspicion that the reason the trailer looks so good is because they showcased all the best parts of the movie : all five minutes of it . " mission " * does * give you payoff ; but when it does come , it 's too little , too late . " mission " has some good ideas , but they get lost in the unbearably boring delivery , dime - a - dozen dialogue , and spate of good actors wasted in cardboard - cutout roles . i 'm sure the director and writers were very proud of each hallmark moment they came up with , so they stretch each dramatic moment out like silly putty until it loses all its charm . glances do n't communicate any deeper emotions just because you draw them out for five hours on end . the film spends an hour on this kind of stuff , building to its climax . a lot of it is a cliched glorification of family relationships , marriage , friendship , unite we stand divided we fall kind of crap . there are some spectacular special effects sequences in this film , and i give it points for trying to stay true to the science i know ( trying is the key word here ) . the sequence with the martian demonstrating their history is oddly beautiful and touching , but as mentioned by then we 're so sick of the goddamn thing we want the movie to be over . great design , good intentions , but no cigar . if you 're not a die hard sci - fi , fx or jerry o'connell fan ( his character is the only one who has some semblance of character ) , do n't waste your eight bucks on this . and what the hell , tim robbins died halfway through the movie , in a stupid way too . that 's just unforgiveable .

0NEG

" mission to mars " is one of those annoying movies where , in the middle of the movie , you payoff ; but when it does come , it 's too little , too late . " mission " has some good ideas , but they get lost in the unbearably boring delivery , dime - a - dozen dialogue , and spate of good actors wasted in cardboard - cutout roles . i 'm sure the director and writers were very they stretch each dramatic moment out like silly putty until it loses all its charm . glances do n't communicate any deeper emotions just because this kind of stuff , building to its climax . a lot of it is a cliched glorification of family relationships , marriage , friendship , unite we stand divided we fall kind of crap . there are some spectacular special effects sequences in this oddly beautiful and touching , but as mentioned by then we 're so sick of the goddamn thing we want the movie to be over . great design , good intentions , but no cigar only one who has some semblance of character ) , do n't waste your eight bucks on this . and what the hell , tim robbins died halfway through the movie , in a stupid way too . that 's just unforgiveable .

my friend here in film school just made a two minute - long film for one of his classes that includes a staged anal rape scene , done by two guys and shot on the shadow of the incident , with a banana being used as the instrument of penetration . as sick as this all is , watching it is one of the most admittingly hysterical moments i 've ever witnessed . sure , it may be in bad taste , but what the hell is bad taste other than something that may be offensive to some but is riotously amusing to the rest ? then there 's " caligula . " this film features incest , necrophilia , beastuality , anal rape , homosexual felatio of both sexes , elaborate and lengthy orgies , a greased - up fist forced up a man 's rear , wine poured down a man who 's had his urinary tracts tied off , a penis chopped off and fed to hungry dogs , etc , etc , etc . this could very well be a respectable film , and if could have been had the following not occurred : a ) the events were graphically shot in clear view ; b ) the tone was not that of trying to shock comically but to , well , show " historical accuracy ; " c ) the film was a 20 million dollar production with lavish sets , a rather impressive cast , and a whopping 2 1/2 hour running time . produced and funded by none other than bob guccione , owner of penthouse magazine , " caligula " comes across as the most hysterical dramatic picture since " plan 9 from outer space " because underneath there 's a sense that everything this film is doing is not only accurate and justified , but also brilliantly entertaining . after all , it 's not really the fact that this film features the aforementioned disgusting moments , but that it actually believes in them as dramatic weaponry . no film should be discarded because its content , because film is never about what it 's about , it 's about how it 's about ( as the old cliche goes ) . those who bash this film for content are glancing over the biggest and most obvious problem with " caligula , " and that 's that it 's nothing but overdramaticized bullshit from start to finish , without a second of credibility in its mammoth running time . " caligula " allegedly tells the true story of the evil roman emporer of the same name , a man who was so insanely decadent that his assasination came as a blessing . . . or so i guess , even though almost every single roman emporer was assasinated as well and for much the same reasons . the film opens on the wrong note , of course , with a quote from mark appearing before any image graces the screen , using the over - used passage " what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world an dlose his own soul , " depite the fact that the opening scene of the film is of the emporer before he was an emporer , fucking around with his own sister in a field ( i suppose if one has to lose their soul , one has to have a soul in the first place ) . the plot is so incomprehensibly done that all i or anyone else can make out of it is that caligula ( disastrously played by the great malcom mcdowell , a performance that does the opposite that his performance in " a clockwork orange " did ) is next in line for the throne but ca n't wait for the current emporer , tiberius ( peter o ' toole - ditto , only for his performance in " lawrence of arabia " ) , his grandfather , to die . . . so he kills him and ascends to the throne . then he abuses his position , marries a woman ( helen mirren , who retains her dignity as an actor by not exactly acting ) so he does n't just have to sleep with his sister ( a dreadful teresa ann savoy , there to be pretty , naked , and willing to hop in the sack with mac or anyone he asks her to hop in with ) , abuses his position a little more , a little more , and a little more , and then , i believe , invades england , then is killed off . the filler , instead of recounting his life , is supposed to be , as guccione claims , the ultimate portrait of decadent pagan rome , complete with orgies , vicious deaths , and lots of nudity . but instead of being the historical accurate film it really really wants to be , it instead becomes guccione 's twisted masturbatory image of what it could be like . oh , is n't it great that they just loved having sex ? and that they killed people so disgustingly ? and would n't it be great if i could make a couple bucks by selling this shit off as accuracy even though it 's so blatantly real bad porn that i 've completely convinced myself that it 's not . i mean , why not just show a roman orgy when i can spend a good ten minutes examining every single facet that makes it up . and it 's not just that it 's disgusting or vile or whatever adjective you want to use to describe this film - it 's that in a film where the entire feel it 's going for is n't felt , it 's also the sloppiest expensive movie of all time . the sets are lavish , but so blatantly innacurate that i wonder if no historian wanting to have his name on this film explains this . but that does n't matter since the cinematography is so dark that you wonder if a light meter was used at all , making this not only dark and ugly , but just plain dark . the camera operation is also the worst i 've ever seen in my entire life . not only does this film hold the record for the most unnecessary zooms in one single shot ever , but often the camera will lose its subjects and pan around till they find them , then have them out of focus . the editing is so sloppy that some scenes are absolutely impossible to follow . there is no writer to speak of ( what the hell does it mean that it 's " adapted from an original screenplay by gore vidal ? " ) , but nevertheless , the dialogue is shit , so laughably bad that i ca n't in good faith believe that anyone with an iq over 5 could say them with a straight face ( my favorite being the line when caligula inquires the doctor about the health of the dying tiberius : " he could go at any moment , but with care , he could last a year or so . " ) the music in this film is mostly prokofiev and khachaturian ( they use his gorgeous " adagio of spartacus and phrygia , " ad nauseum ) , used in an attempt to give the film some emotion , but instead feels as if it was shipped in from elsewhere . the orgy scenes ( and one infamous lesbo scene between penthouse pets lori wagner and aneeka dilorenzo ) are the result of reshoots by guccione himself , which are so obviously removed from everything else in this film that it only adds to the embrassment ( every five seconds or so , the film cuts to random nudity , as if it was afraid its audience would forget this film is rated " x " ) . john gielgud represents the only voice of sanity , walking around in his brief role as if he was constantly the mantra , " i 'm going to kill my agent , i 'm going to kill my agent . . . " and so on and so on , for over 2 1/2 hours , making " caligula " about as exciting and enriching as a three hour college lecture class and twice as deliriously annoying . guccione , in his pursuit of historical accuracy has instead made a film that is such a painstaking , arduous task to watch in its entirety that i doubt anyone can sit through an hour of it without irreversible psychological damage . throughout the entire film , the presence of guccione is easily felt , as if he were standing there at the edge of the screen , pretentiously looking down upon us saying " look what i can get away with ! and if you do n't like this , then you 're a prig , and worse than that , you know nothing about history ! " uh huh . there 's a clear difference between historical accuracy and doing something that 's artistically good . a film which showed roman decadence as something that was perhaps liberating for some but could not last - that would probably make for a good film . but using historical accuracy as a licence to get away with any kind of disgusting - for - disgustingness'-sake acts is total , total bullshit , and all i can say is that guccione and the makers of this film have lost any kind of touch with either entertainment or eroticism , and have developed a pathetic and sadistic taste for both , judging from this film . there 's a film that came out in 1989 called " the cook , the thief , his wife , and her lover , " a magnifcent film by legendary cult director peter greenaway ( also starring helen mirren ) , which deals with graphic sex , heartstopping violence and gore , and even a little cannibalism for good measure . that film not only never patronized its viewers , but also handled them in a way that was shocking , yes , but also , in a bizarre way , entertaining and totally involving . there were real characters there in a real situation , and best of all passion and just the right amount of restraint as not to get off on the fact that it 's going to be offensive to many . that film achieved everything it wanted to do , and has since retained a status as one of those cult films that is not only popular but actualy good . and it 's everything " caligula " might have been but , alas , was n't .

0NEG

problem with " caligula , " and that 's that it 's nothing but overdramaticized bullshit from start to finish , without a second of credibility in its mammoth running well and for much the same reasons . the film opens on the wrong note , of course , with a quote from mark appearing soul in the first place ) . the plot is so incomprehensibly done that all i or anyone else can make out of n't just have to sleep with his sister ( a dreadful teresa ann savoy , there to be pretty , naked great if i could make a couple bucks by selling this shit off as accuracy even though it 's so blatantly real entire feel it 's going for is n't felt , it 's also the sloppiest expensive movie of all time . the sets are lavish , but so blatantly innacurate only dark and ugly , but just plain dark . the camera operation is also the worst i 've ever seen in my entire life . not only does this film hold the record for find them , then have them out of focus . the editing is so sloppy that some scenes are absolutely impossible to follow . there by gore vidal ? " ) , but nevertheless , the dialogue is shit , so laughably bad that i ca n't in good faith believe that anyone for over 2 1/2 hours , making " caligula " about as exciting and enriching as a three hour college lecture class and twice as deliriously annoying . guccione , in his pursuit of historical accuracy has instead made a film that is such a painstaking , arduous task to watch in its entirety that i doubt anyone can sit through any kind of disgusting - for - disgustingness'-sake acts is total , total bullshit , and all i can say is that guccione and the makers of this film have lost any kind of touch with either entertainment or eroticism , and have developed a pathetic and sadistic taste for

remember back in the mid 1990s when crime and macabre movies were all the rage ? " pulp fiction " and " fargo " both managed to get oscar nominations for the best picture , and not surprisingly , a slew of rip - offs followed in the years thereafter . that fad seems to be over but here comes christopher mcquarrie writing and directing " the way of the gun " that at first glance looks like another of those wanna - be 's but upon closer inspection does n't look like anything comprehendable . it 's a crime story so wrapped up in its own little world it has a claustrophobic atmosphere - a film that wo n't allow the story much room to expand outside its handful of characters and somehow still manages to turn a simple premise into something so complex its ridiculous . complexity should come as no surprise to anyone who 's familiar with mcquarrie , he wrote " the usual suspects , " which has become a cult favorite despite little critical acclaim . that film had a great story and was well directed but had such an elaborate , confusing screenplay it leaves many viewers scratching their heads after repeated viewings . you have to wonder if mcquarrie really had everything mapped out or if he was going for the hollywood idea that " if it 's really confusing and about criminals and cops that makes it fascinating . " with " the way of the gun " mcquarrie seems to be capitalizing on the same idea , but this time the story is far less commercial - a shame because maybe that would have helped . the film tells the story of two drifters with no ambition and barely a reason to live but are n't hell - bent on death either ( played by ryan phillipie and benecio del toro ) . they get lucky when they hear about a scheme between a big - shot exec guy and his trophy wife who are going to have a baby through in vitro fertilization . they figure they can kidnap the surrogate mother ( played by juliette lewis ) and get a nice ransom . along the way we continually learn of the shady dealings between the exec , his wife , their hired goons and the " bag man " ( played by james caan - the only actor in the film who looks like he knows what he 's doing ) . the exec is some kind of money launderer so he obviously ca n't call the authorities for help . his goons and the bag man are on the kidnappers ' trail and each make different offers to get the mother back . the exec 's son is a doctor who also gets pulled into the fray and wants to make sure his patient is all right . meanwhile each of these characters has something hidden up their collective sleeves and the double - crosses , secret love affairs and torrid pasts come as no surprise even though little of it has any relevance at all . mcquarrie does n't know the meaning of the word simple . he seems to be more interested in showing us how clever he is than making a good movie . everything has to be complicated and confusing , so much so that it 's to the point of surrealism . nothing is what it seems in this reality , it 's one of those movies where you get dropped right into the middle of the criminal world and are expected to know most of the industry 's rules and regulations . every scene with caan 's character exemplifies this perfectly - the kidnappers already know who he is and even chat with him , getting into conversations about " the business " and how it works and we 're hardly given a clue as to what they 're talking about . these characters are probably supposed to be great criminal sketches but they 're more like ideas ripped - off from sketches found in david mamet 's trash . no one here really acts like a real person , and the story is even further removed from reality . it 's like a dream without any appeal . take the opening scene for example ; the phillipe and del toro characters are in a parking lot across the street from a bar or a club counting their money and stuff . they sit on a brand - new mercedes and the car alarm goes off , the owner is waiting in line and yells at them to get away from his car but they do n't move . the guy and his loud - mouth , potty - mouth girlfriend and about 20 other people cross the street and gang up on them . you 'd think phillipe ? and del toro are ? going to pull out guns and scare them away but they do n't , instead phillipe throws one punch and the two get beat down by a mob . there 's a lot of things i did n't understand about this scene : first of all the owner of the mercedes is n't some yuppie or old rich snob , he 's like a hippie straight out of the 60s . secondly , the two main characters seem to believe that they can actually take on the mob unarmed . lastly , it serves no purpose in the long run because later in the film the two are packing more artillery than a small country 's army . if they were suicidal they would n't have gone on the kidnapping job in the first place ( and where they get all those guns is never explained either ) . there 's a lot more i could pick apart about this film but that would be an exercise in futility . what it all comes down to is that nothing here is what it seems - which would be great if this movie were about pretty much any other story than what it is . absolutely none of the characters are likable or believable . and it 's all coated with a thin layer of black comedy which is good for a chuckle here and there but this film is definitely not a flat - out black comedy and its use of such seems like a desperate attempt to kill screen time . with any film you see , whether you like it or not , you can at least understand what the appeal was to it , why someone would want to make it and why someone would want to see it . i ca n't say either for " the way of the gun , " because it has very little going for it and i ca n't imagine anyone intelligently defending it .

0NEG

look like anything comprehendable . it 's a crime story so wrapped up in its own little world it has a claustrophobic atmosphere - a film that wo characters are probably supposed to be great criminal sketches but they 're more like ideas ripped - off from sketches found in david mamet 's trash . no one here really acts like a real person , and the story is even further removed from reality . it 's like a dream without any appeal . and the two get beat down by a mob . there 's a lot of things i did n't understand about this scene : first of all the owner of can actually take on the mob unarmed . lastly , it serves no purpose in the long run because later in the film the pretty much any other story than what it is . absolutely none of the characters are likable or believable . and it 's all coated with a thin layer for " the way of the gun , " because it has very little going for it and i ca n't imagine anyone intelligently defending it .

_ dirty_work _ has a premise of deliciously mean - spirited potential . mitch weaver ( norm macdonald ) and his lifelong best friend sam mckenna ( artie lange ) are losers in life : they were constantly picked on in school , and now they can not hold regular jobs . but as the trailer goes , " there is one thing mitch weaver is good at -- revenge . " so he and sam parlay their unmatched skill in getting - even schemes into a marketable revenge - for - hire business called dirty work inc . this should be the groundwork for a wonderfully wicked black comedy , but for a film called _ dirty_work _ , what ensues is rather clean of spirit . in fact , what makes mitch and sam start up their business is not a giddy desire to give bullies a taste of their own medicine , but rather a more sappy reason : sam 's father ( jack warden ) needs a heart transplant , and in order for him to move at the top of the recipient list , his compulsively betting doctor ( chevy chase ) asks the guys for $ 50 , 000 to pay off his bookie . so for all the scheming that goes on , beneath every underhanded plot is -- gasp ! --a heart , which undercuts the inherent nastiness of the premise . not that there is n't a lot of nastiness on display -- there is , but of a different sort . there are frequent sexual references , most prominently in the form of prostitutes and sam 's impotent father 's ongoing lust for them . and for a film rated pg-13 , director bob saget ( yes , that bob saget , of _ full_house _ and _ america's_funniest_home_videos _ fame ) and writers frank sebastiano , fred wolf , and macdonald himself , stretch the boundaries of good taste rather far -- arguably a bit too much so ( was not one , but two separate instances of sodomy between animals really necessary ? ) . but the issue , of course , is not so much of taste as it is humor -- as in , is it funny or not ? the answer is a resounding no . it 's not that macdonald is n't a funny guy . he was one of the more consistently funny performers on _ saturday_night_live _ before his much - talked - about firing , and his dry brand of smartass wit translates well to the big screen ; it also does n't hurt that he 's a natural , likable screen presence . he is able to give some of his lines a nice acid touch , but , for the most part , the oneliners , as written , are flat , and the broad slapstick gags just do n't work ( one running gag has him being literally tossed out of buildings -- a real riot ) . still , macdonald 's few shining moments are just about the only moments the film has . the late chris farley , as hysterical as he ever was , is amusing in a cameo role , but , as a whole , the supporting players are amateurish and seemingly free from any directorial guidance . saget tries to juice up the proceedings with kitschy cameos by gary coleman , adam sandler , and john goodman , but their minimal novelty value can not prevent _ dirty_work _ from sputtering to the end of its brief 81-minute running time . the film closes on a sad note of desperation , an indulgent reel of outtakes from which only those involved in the production would derive any amusement . come to think of it , i can not imagine anyone but those involved in the production to find much amusement in the entirety of _ dirty_work _ .

0NEG

taste of their own medicine , but rather a more sappy reason : sam 's father ( jack warden ) needs underhanded plot is -- gasp ! --a heart , which undercuts the inherent nastiness of the premise . not that there is n't a lot of nastiness frank sebastiano , fred wolf , and macdonald himself , stretch the boundaries of good taste rather far -- arguably a bit too much so ( was not one , but two separate instances of of taste as it is humor -- as in , is it funny or not ? the answer is a resounding no . it 's not that macdonald is n't a funny acid touch , but , for the most part , the oneliners , as written , are flat , and the broad slapstick gags just do n't work ( one running gag has him being literally tossed out but , as a whole , the supporting players are amateurish and seemingly free from any directorial guidance . saget tries

america 's favorite homicidal plaything takes a wicked wife in " bride of chucky , " and their unholy matrimony is something old , nothing new . the burning question on the minds of most moviegoers , however , has nothing to do with nuptial specifics or even how the movie stacks up , but rather whether or not the duo gets down and dirty on their blood - soaked honeymoon . the answer is a sick - and - twisted yes - and viewers are treated to a shadowy glimpse of some hot - enough - to - melt - rubber ( or at least singe it ) lovin' . guess they 're anatomically correct . chucky ( again voiced by brad dourif ) , of course , is the star of the " child 's play " series , a my buddy - type doll possessed by the spirit of a slain serial killer . in " bride , " the plot ( heh ) picks up with his girlfriend tiffany ( jennifer tilly ) resurrecting chucky 's remains ( he was blown up at the end of " child 's play 3 " ) with the help of a black arts manual called " voodoo for dummies . " silly mortal . before long , she 's also been reduced to shin - high figurine status , and the plastic incarnations of these one - time lunatic lovebirds hit the road to scope out some potential new human bodies . the rest of this rocky horror puppet show plays out as tiff and the chuckster stalk a young couple ( nick stabile and katherine heigl ) with conjugal plans of their own , leading them towards a new jersey grave where a magical , soul - transferring amulet allegedly lies in wait . along the way , our murderous barbie and ken go through post - marriage motions similar to any given pair of newlyweds - bicker , argue , kiss and make up . but when they squabble over who 's going to do the dishes , watch out . hey , even faux people have got to work through their problems . director ronny yu keeps the mayhem flashy and stages an inventive scene or two , but not even visual flair can make up for the fact that these creepy kewpies are neither scary nor menacing . when one of them charges , it 's nothing a good forward punt could n't take care of . and when a climactic chase scene is needed , one of the dim - bulb protagonists must _ pick_chucky_up _ so the demonic toy can force his hostage to run at gunpoint . throw in some silly casualties and a ridiculous ending ( will " son of chucky " be next ? ) and this is a bizarrely bad 89-minutes at the movies . as is the thing to do in post- " scream " slasher cinema , don mancini 's screenplay slathers on the in - jokes and genre - parody . but little of the humor succeeds , proving self - reference can be completely worthless when it lacks bite . to be fair , though , most of " bride of chucky " is on auto - pilot , so it 's not quite right to single out one misfired aspect of the film . similarly shaky , the acting ranges from screeching camp to boring bland , the effects are n't that special and the story is one big groaner . here 's hoping chucky and his entire clan - past , present and future - rest in peace .

0NEG

down and dirty on their blood - soaked honeymoon . the answer is a sick - and - twisted yes - and viewers are treated to a shadowy glimpse of a slain serial killer . in " bride , " the plot ( heh ) picks up with his girlfriend tiffany ( jennifer tilly ) even visual flair can make up for the fact that these creepy kewpies are neither scary nor menacing . when one of them charges , it 's nothing toy can force his hostage to run at gunpoint . throw in some silly casualties and a ridiculous ending ( will " son of chucky " be next ? the in - jokes and genre - parody . but little of the humor succeeds , proving self - reference can be completely worthless when it lacks bite . to be fair , though , most of " to single out one misfired aspect of the film . similarly shaky , the acting ranges from screeching camp to boring bland , the effects are n't that special and the story is one big groaner . here 's hoping chucky and his entire clan -

this is the first film in what would become the most successful series of horror films of all time . a fair warning to those of you who might be inclined to watch this movie for the first appearance of everyone 's favorite goalie - mask - wearing homicidal maniac . jason , the guy who single handedly controlled the overpopulation problem around the crystal lake area , does n't start his quest to find the most interesting household item with which to kill someone until the sequel . while he does have a small role in this film , we the audience have to depend on another blood thirsty maniac to rack up the body count . the plot , like every other friday the 13th movie goes something like this -- crazed killer murders as many unsuspecting teenagers as he / she / it possibly can in the space of a 90 minute movie . the reasons that the afore mentioned unsuspecting teenagers come into contact with the bloodthirsty killer are usually of little importance to the story . but for those of you out there that might actually care about such trivial matters in a movie such as a plot , here are the basics . a bunch of unsuspecting teens get a summer job at a long closed summer camp . they are days away from the arrival of the kids and they are spending their time fixing the place up and making sure it is ready for the kids . sadly , they start being butchered one by one by the bloodthirsty killer . at this point i would usually say something about the quality of acting , directing or maybe something about the high quality of the production . since i 'm not going to do that , feel free to assume that if i did , it would n't be positive . i will say that this movie looks as if it was made for about a hundred bucks , and that includes the actors ' salaries . if you are used to recent horror films like scream , you are in for a bit of a surprise . the only saving grace for friday the 13th is that it was really the first of its kind , with the killer taking real pride in their work . using as many methods of murder as they could . none of this single murder weapon stuff life that unimaginative leatherface in chainsaw massacre , or the creatively stifled imagination of halloween 's michael myers who just used brute force or a really big kitchen knife . nope , in the friday the 13th movies , you can always count on the killer taking great pride in his work . one fun fact about this movie is that the cast includes a very young kevin bacon , although after this movie it is a wonder he ever worked again . the main reason to see friday the 13th is if you want to watch all of the series from the beginning . if not , stick with the later films with jason , everyone 's favorite hockey fan . friday the 13th is the sort of movie that is fun to sit down and get a couple of scares from , just do n't sit down expecting a whole lot .

0NEG

going to do that , feel free to assume that if i did , it would n't be positive . i will say that this movie looks as if it was made for about a hundred bucks , and that includes the actors ' salaries . if the cast includes a very young kevin bacon , although after this movie it is a wonder he ever worked again . the main reason to see friday the 13th is down and get a couple of scares from , just do n't sit down expecting a whole lot .

there 's a good , and timely , story trapped deep within the excess of murder in the first , a new movie about the abuses of our prison system . with a country wrapped up in feverish debate over the crime issue and the rights of the accused and the incarcerated in jeopardy , this expose would offer something rare to recent american movies -- a point of view . but director marc rocco makes it clear from the beginning that pretentious , often nauseating , camera movements and slick , mtv- style lighting and editing are far more important . there 's not a moment in the picture where he surrenders technique for pure storytelling . and everything suffers . christian slater and kevin bacon star as defense attorney and alcatraz inmate , respectively . after spending an unprecedented amount of time in an isolated cell for attempting to escape , bacon murders another prisoner and faces trial . his young lawyer ( slater ) is fresh out of law school but determined to " put alcatraz on trial " for the abuses of it warden ( gary oldman ) . the result is the usual courtroom theatrics- imagine a stanley kramer production shot by hyperactive film school students . there 's very little to praise here outside of kevin bacon 's earnest overacting and the appropriate story . there 's a lot of overacting from everyone -- you know you 're in trouble right away when r . lee ermey ( the drill sergeant in full metal jacket ) is cast as a judge , the center of reason and moderation . slater has never been convincing and certainly is n't here and oldman is on a bad streak of hammy performances . but the worst feeling you get while watching murder in the first is that the man behind the camera could care less about telling a good story . there are long exchanges of dialogue where the camera is not even moving near the characters , let alone with them . how frustrating it must be for actors to work under these conditions . if there 's anything that has alway distinguished american films over the rest of the world , it is our ability to tell a good story . have we forgotten ?

0NEG

director marc rocco makes it clear from the beginning that pretentious , often nauseating , camera movements and slick , mtv- style lighting and picture where he surrenders technique for pure storytelling . and everything suffers . christian slater and kevin bacon star as defense attorney 's a lot of overacting from everyone -- you know you 're in trouble right away when r . lee ermey ( the drill sergeant in , the center of reason and moderation . slater has never been convincing and certainly is n't here and oldman is on a bad streak of hammy performances . but the worst feeling you get while watching murder moving near the characters , let alone with them . how frustrating it must be for actors to work under these conditions

this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 . the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers > evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt . the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ? the same question was probably asked of last year 's stinker batman and robin . i feel the production got a little too smug , the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie . my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ? something that was a vital element of the 60 's tv serial of the same name . the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves . one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality . connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes . his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality . if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice . for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title . i can not understand how something so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you ca n't see it coming until it hits you .

0NEG

this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 . the avengers = silly = man dressed in a 's stinker batman and robin . i feel the production got a little too smug , the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie . my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves . one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes . his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality . if there is a movie you would prefer never you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title . i can not understand how something so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down

synopsis : big - breasted and dim - witted sculptress britt gets really mad at her grad student boyfriend because he spends too much time on his thought - transference experiments instead of her art showings . elderly , evil scientist everett longstreet switches minds with britt 's boy , in the meantime , and goes completely mental . comments : naked souls opens with a naked woman , and the movie makes no illusion that it 's a sci - fi vehicle designed to show pamela anderson 's , um , talents . if you are really interested in seeing anderson 's talents , however , i suggest you skip over this dud and watch the infamous pam and tommy lee honeymoon sex tape , now available on home video . at least with that " movie , " you do n't have to go through the painful experience of watching pamela try to pronounce multiple syllable words like " eclectic . " a premise does exist in the movie . basically , while anderson wears skimpy clothes which barely contain her talents , she practices her art -- brilliantly slapping plaster of paris on naked women . her boyfriend , meanwhile , spends 20 hours a day in a morgue trying to view the memories of dead prison inmates because this will " make a difference to humanity . " whatever . the movie fails to explain how these two hooked up . be grateful . after we meet the evil everett longstreet , lots of technobabble and mystical mumbo - jumbo get tossed about , pammy has sex replete with cheesy make - out music , and minds get transferred . never fear , though , pammy uses her sharp mental abilities ( ahem ) to save her boyfriend in the end . unfortunately , no one saves the movie . avoid this would - be sci - fi thriller , unless you 're in for a good laugh or two .

0NEG

seeing anderson 's talents , however , i suggest you skip over this dud and watch the infamous pam and tommy lee honeymoon sex movie , " you do n't have to go through the painful experience of watching pamela try to pronounce multiple syllable words like this will " make a difference to humanity . " whatever . the movie fails to explain how these two hooked up . be grateful . after we meet the evil everett longstreet , lots of technobabble and mystical mumbo - jumbo get tossed about , pammy has sex replete with cheesy ahem ) to save her boyfriend in the end . unfortunately , no one saves the movie . avoid this would - be sci - fi thriller

mr . bean , a bumbling security guard from england is sent to la to help with the grandiose homecoming of a masterpiece american painting . the first two words should have said enough to let you know what occurs during bean 's trip to la , but if they did n't look out because you are in for a rather interesting if not odd ride . heck depending on your humor you might end up laughing through the whole flick . either way look out america bean is coming . well , what can really be said about this movie , there is very little discernible plot . that much is not hard to grapple with for it is a slapstick comedy . it achieves that goal rather admirably , but because it is that , the plot is just screaming for help . the whole premise that the movie is based on is to say the least flawed . the movie had its funny moments but there was no real story line other than something that could be thought up on a whim and carried through and in many causes ad - libbed as you went . do n't go into this movie expecting and theatrical masterpiece . but if this form of humor floats your boat then you will truly enjoy this movie , even if you do n't like slapstick style humor you will end up laughing because something 's are just so stupid . the movie goes out and accomplishes what it aims , or so it seems . now when you look at the acting in this movie you have to think about two things , first was there any real acting and how hard is it to act in the slapstick manner . well , there was no real acting in this movie but some of the slapstick was n't the easiest i am sure . i have to concede that mr . atkinson 's acting in this movie is well done . although the role is n't too demanding the slapstick is . i think that the character could have had a bit more dialogue , it would have added quite a bit to the overall effect of the movie . now the rest of the actors in the movie , bad acting and poor casting . i think that the role opposite bean could have been better , just seemed wrong for the movie . a different actor might have done a better job of it but i wo nt presume that was n't what was trying to be achieved . one thing that i must say , simply to get if off my chest is that i think transferring a sitcom to tv usually produces rather disastrous results . tv shows should do just that stay on tv , it will probably save some producers from getting ulcers . i can only think of a couple examples of tv going to the big screen effectively , the best known of those would have to be star trek . bean seriously fails to accomplish anything close to what that series gone movie achieved . now another thing that i have to state again is this movie has narrowed its target audience fairly tightly . the form of humor in this movie will not be liked by most people , these people will think like i did that this movie is stupid and pointless . but if you like the tv show you might actually like this movie . but to be on the safe side i am opting to recommend you save your money and not go to see this movie . there are many movies that are truly worth seeing unlike this one .

0NEG

, what can really be said about this movie , there is very little discernible plot . that much is not hard to grapple with for goal rather admirably , but because it is that , the plot is just screaming for help . the whole premise that the movie is based on like slapstick style humor you will end up laughing because something 's are just so stupid . the movie goes out and accomplishes what it aims it to act in the slapstick manner . well , there was no real acting in this movie but some of the slapstick was n't now the rest of the actors in the movie , bad acting and poor casting . i think that the role opposite bean could have chest is that i think transferring a sitcom to tv usually produces rather disastrous results . tv shows should do just that stay on tv of those would have to be star trek . bean seriously fails to accomplish anything close to what that series gone movie people , these people will think like i did that this movie is stupid and pointless . but if you like the tv show you might this movie . but to be on the safe side i am opting to recommend you save your money and not go to see this movie . there are many movies that are truly worth seeing

wonderland is a rather sugary romance film that is as subtle as a ton of bricks falling on you . you can see its plot developing from a mile away . you are lured into its benign story of a single 29-year - old girl looking for a soul mate in boston , as that city is depicted as a mini - wonderland for singles . this is a star oriented film , and the star who carries the film is erin ( hope davis ) . that this is a dating film , about singles who for reasons of fate or luck , or whatnot , have not had a successful match and are now putting most of their energy into fulfilling their careers , is nothing new , this type of film has been done often and better many times in contemporary films . the fictionalized documentary unmade beds did it more provocatively and with more of a sense of urgency than this film . the main quirk in the plot here , is that hope 's pushy mother ( hollan ) visits her in boston , sees her daughter 's live - in relationship with a radical protester ( hoffman ) breakup and decides to put a personal ad in the newspaper for her harvard medical school drop - out daughter , who works as a nurse . this is done without her knowledge . it is cornball sitcom stuff , but , at least , it is handled as best it could be by the actors and director . it is easy to like erin , she is bright , caring , and attractively blonde . it is equally easy to care for the soul mate she keeps missing contact with , the financially strapped , ruggedly handsome , intelligent 35-year - old alan ( alan ) , who no longer wants to work with his father as a plumber but is doing volunteer work at the aquarium and attending college to be a marine biologist . of course , he comes across as being so good ( though , he does kill some fish in the aquarium ) , that it is hard to believe he 's for real , or just some cardboard shining knight put into the story to give it an ideal to shoot for . the contrived story revolves around their near misses in meeting each other in such spots as , the subway , at a restaurant , or on the phone . alan 's brother answers erin 's ad with a few of his pals , as they each try to respond to her ad in a phony way , making a bet that the first who gets to tongue kiss her , that the others witness , will win the bet . this sub - plot was as obnoxious to see take place as it is to hear told . that we have to see erin go through several dates to prove the point how ego sick these guys are , each one more annoying than the other , culminating in the most obnoxious one of all , that brazilian lover ( jose ) , who is about as charming as a snake - oil salesman , who is actually the one she nearly flies away with for a holiday in brazil , was not only incredulous but downright contrary to the rich presentation of her character that was the heart of the story . anyway , as expected , all 's well that ends well , for this watchable piece of fluff , that comes over on screen better than it does when relating its story - line . the dialogue was actually not bad , those dating erin or trying to flirt with her seemed to be uttering authentic things they would actually say in their situation . and , oh , by the way , wonderland refers to the stop on the boston metro , it is where greyhound racing takes place .

0NEG

subtle as a ton of bricks falling on you . you can see its plot developing from a mile away . you are lured into its benign story of a single 29-year - old girl looking for a a nurse . this is done without her knowledge . it is cornball sitcom stuff , but , at least , it is handled as story to give it an ideal to shoot for . the contrived story revolves around their near misses in meeting each other in that the others witness , will win the bet . this sub - plot was as obnoxious to see take place as it is to hear told . that we have flies away with for a holiday in brazil , was not only incredulous but downright contrary to the rich presentation of her character that was the expected , all 's well that ends well , for this watchable piece of fluff , that comes over on screen better than it does

be warned . . brit love story in the offing . effeminate , mild - mannered karl is about to take a beatng from a bunch of ruffians at school as he bathes himself under a shower , his genitals tucked between his legs in the manner of a posing transvestite . he is only just saved by prentice , who appears in all respects barring his protective attitude towards karl to be your average street - wise punk - in - the - making . the ensuing scene ends up with both boys being ridiculed and then unfairly expelled from the school . they do not see each other for another eighteen yeas . in that time , prentice has matured into a somewhat loveable , if brash and bull - heaed goon who screws up his jobs and relationships while gamely clinging onto perennial adolescence via lether jackets , motorcycles and punk rock music . karl , on the other hand , has grown up to become kim , a drabby , insecure woman who works as a verse writer for a greeting card company . chance brings the two together , and love , such as will inevitably blossom in your quirky british romantic comedy , is what this skewed little story is largely about . if at this point you think you 're going to get any cheap laughs with that gender - bending theme ( see the birdcage , to wong foo . . . , priscilla queen of the desert ) , you can just go home and brood on your own maladjusted sexuality you low - life deadbeat . kim is a post - operative transsexual , thank you very much . . . a new - born woman for all purposes , with confusions and sensitivities that deserve treatment with a touch of delicacy . personally , give me those cheap laughs any day . i 'd rather enjoy obvious camp than endure the shallow exploration of a soft- hearted transsexual love story . different for girls comes up with a promising enough proposition , but does nothing that surpasses the merely workmanlike with it . by refusing to make the audience really uncomfortable with the notion of kim and prentice 's relation- ship , or at the very least feel uncomfortable for them ( prentice for example , does n't seem to give hiself all that much grief when he becomes attracted to kim despite being a fight - picking , beer - drinking , macho kind of guy , and kim , for all her insecurities and fears is always saved any truly disturbing victimisation in the film ) , and instead drawing them into a basically wimpy love story , the film manages to lobotomise itself . lightweight comedy as it 's doomed to be , it could 've still have hacked it with the requisitive endearing couple . but this does n't either , since even mrs doubtfire is sexier than steven mackintosh 's kim foyle , and as either sex , he 's just plainly a simpering wanker nobody should like . prentice does though , and that 's never explained . but then rupert graves gives us so heroic performance as prentice , the guy who never grew up ( and if there is a bafta prize for most convincing portrayal of a rabid fan at a buzzcocks ' concert , he should win that too ) that i guess there 's no reason to explain why he 's so screwed up . if oddly enough you grow to like this show , you 'll be wanting your happy ending , and the film wo n't fail you there either . snide underling at kim 's office gets her come - uppance . misogynistic police officer who beats up prentice gets his come - uppance . the couple prevail against a disagreeable society and come together in kim 's apartment . kim 's sister and her impotent sarge - type husband kiss and make up after a tiff ( tv movie sub - plot with incidental juxtaposition ) . and best of all , kim sheds her insecurities and learns how to ride the motorcycle and wear leathers , making prentice ride pilion . awwww . terrific closure . happy ending . but just what is it that 's differnt for girls anyway ? if you figure that one out , let me know . the flying inkpot rating system : * wait for the tv2 broadcast . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .

0NEG

. . , priscilla queen of the desert ) , you can just go home and brood on your own maladjusted sexuality you low - life deadbeat . kim is a post - operative transsexual , thank in the film ) , and instead drawing them into a basically wimpy love story , the film manages to lobotomise itself . lightweight comedy reason to explain why he 's so screwed up . if oddly enough you grow to like this show , you 'll be wanting your happy ending , and

a silly film that tries to be a black comedy but plays more like lightweight comedy , with its main asset being a beautiful film location along spain 's mountainous coastline . howard pigeon ( jeff goldblum ) is a 40-year - old mineral water salesman who is married for 13 years to a wife constantly nagging him , elizabeth ( mimi rogers ) . after a surprise birthday party for him , where his wife bawls him out for coming late to his surprise party , he confides to his best friend that he ca n't stand it anymore , and then tells him his plan to kill her while vacationing in the same barcelona hotel where they spent their honeymoon . jeff is going through a severe mid - life crises , worried that he looks older than his age . he incessantly talks to himself , mostly agonizing over his bitter marriage and chastising himself why he went out with elizabeth for a second time , and then why he married her just because she laughed at his jokes and was attractive . he stutters and acts like a man who has lost his confidence . things change on their vacation , as elizabeth makes an effort to be nice while jeff now becomes the grouch . he nervously rehearses his murder plan in the hotel room . by accident the gun goes off and into the pillow where he imagined elizabeth would be sitting . when other hotel guests and staff come to check about the gunshot , he nervously explains that it was the tv . realizing how unworkable his plan is , he places the gun in the shattered pillow and throws it into the ocean while he waits for elizabeth . but elizabeth found his behavior odd during the entire trip , and when after a great deal of effort to get a reservation at the hotel 's 5 star restaurant he insists on eating in the room , she decides she had enough of him and checks out without telling him . as a result , he goes to the police to report her missing . while with the police , a telegram comes from his wife saying she left him and is going away because she wants to be alone . his boss and all those he works with are sympathetic to him , and he gets a job promotion . but soon the pillow with the gun is fished out of the water , giving the police cause to arrest him and search his home . there they find letters he has written incriminating him to the murder . the police also find out from the hotel staff about the gunshot heard in his room . in jail , things look bad for him . no one believes him , including his friends and lawyer . his boss fires him and the papers have a field day with the headline story : pigeon : a jailbird . out on bail , he realizes that his only hope is to track down his wife . through a call placed on his credit card , he tracks her down to a mountain resort . once there he learns that she took a hike up the steep mountain and he gets a priest to be his mountain guide after telling him the true story . the film is watchable just for the antics of the jeff goldblum comic performance . he is someone coming apart by the seams , while mimi rogers is his perfect foil . it was mostly pantomine humor , with the comedy charged in the changing facial expressions of the characters and the absurdity of the situation . a very minor farce that might appeal to the sitcom crowd . the film just did n't take its situation seriously and the story had many gaps in it , so it had no chance for black humor to develop . it instead played its set - up of the henpecked husband acting out his fantasy strictly for entertainment value to see how many chuckles it could draw .

0NEG

a silly film that tries to be a black comedy but plays more of the characters and the absurdity of the situation . a very minor farce that might appeal to the sitcom crowd . the film just did n't take its situation seriously and the story had many gaps in it , so it had no chance for black humor to

* * * be warned . . . the following review contains some harsh language * * * the blair witch project . quite possibly the least scariest movie of all time . if you want to see real terror on the big screen go back and watch any scene with jar jar binks in the phantom menace , because this movie is not scary or even remotely creepy . my colleague and friend chuck dowling wrote that if less is more , then the blair witch filmmakers must have thought that nothing is more . and this worked for him . well , i 'm sorry , but nothing . . . is nothing ! ! ! ! ! nothing is not more . it 's nothiiiiiinggggggggggg ! ! ! ! ! ! . i do not pay 5 dollars to see nothing . " nothing " is free , available all around the world at a location near you . i am absolutely in amazement that some people find this movie scary . i could just discount them and say , " well , i guess they are just pansy chicken shits who are probably scared of their own shadow . " but i have intelligent friends who like this movie and so that does n't hold water . there must be some other reason . ( then again , maybe my first thought is correct , i think i 'll try pointing their shadow out to them one day and test their reaction . ) when i hear people praising this film , i never hear them talking about what makes up about 97 % of this movie : three kids bickering with each other about being lost . they only talk about what might make up possibly 3 to 4 minutes of screen time . this being a few very short night scenes where the kids hear some unscary sounds and another where they shout " josh ! ! " over and over . this film should not be called the blair witch project , it should more accurately be called three dumb and pisspoor filmmakers get lost . . . and argue with each other . oh ladies and gentlemen you will be so scared when you hear them shouting " josh ! ! " . and if you thought that was scary , wait till you see a pile of rocks , and then some tinkertoy lincoln logs , oh my dear lord you will be pissing in your pants with fear . oh yeah , and some goo on one of their backpacks . you 've never seen terror like this folks , and you do n't want to . the chevy chase / goldie hawn comedy foul play is creepier than this film . ( for current films , i highly recommend the sixth sense or a stir of echoes for a creepy filmgoing experience . ) this film is an example of marketing with no substance . the marketing was brilliant , and the whole nation is in awe of just the premise for the film . they want this film to be good . and i think they are reaching and praising the wrong movie because they do n't have anything else to praise . that wonderful film that rejuvenates the horror genre may come along , but this is not it . this film could have been so much better . just think , if maybe there had been only 10 minutes of arguing about being lost , and 80 minutes of nighttime stuff . i saw this movie with a girl who was extremely pumped for it . she was sold on this film . and then , at one point during it , she turned to me and asked ' . . . are we supposed to be scared by this ? ' . i 've heard one opinion that you " have to use your imagination " to create the fear in this movie . well , i thought that was what the filmmakers were supposed to do . use their imagination and create a good movie . i mean anyone can use their imagination and not pay 5 bucks for it . but even if you like this idea , then what are you imagining ? an entity called the blair witch ? some rednecks fucking with these kids ? are either of these things really scary when you think about it ? ? ? i 've heard several people say that this movie makes them recall how scary it can be to be out in the woods and hear something . well sure that s scary in real life , but there are a lot of things that are scary in real life that are not scary in a movie nor even interesting . you could sit in your house and see a snake or a spider and it could be scary , but in a film it would n't be . and no , a movie does not need a big budget or cgi special effects to be scary or creepy . actually the less the better ( see the equally awful remake of the haunting ) . but you have to do something . you ca nt just count on us all having nostalgic memories of how something like this could be scary , if it were real . and by the way , about the shakycam filming in blair witch . are n't these supposed to be " filmmakers " who should know how to point a camera and shoot something without shaking the camera constantly ? i 'm not even talking about the couple scenes where they are terrified , that 's justified . i 'm talking about the other 87 minutes of the movie where they ca n't seem to shoot anything smoothly at all . minor quibble there . there is a feeling in me that the people that like this movie are suckers . that the filmmakers are just laughing their asses off all the way to the bank . and i think there is a good chance they will see this film again and say to themselves " what was i thinking ? ? " . but , if they do n't , then that s fine . if it works for them then that 's okay i guess . i just lament that by making this movie a hit , we are going to be subjected to more of the " nothing is more " approach . pretty soon we 're going to get some movies like this : just a still shot of a prison jail cell . for 90 minutes . and we 'll have to use our imagination and think to ourselves , " my god , would n't it be scary to spend life in prison ? ! ! this movie is the scariest movie of all time ! ! ! ! ! " . or , a shot of a coffin , with some funeral directors arguing with each other . " man , do you know how scary it would be to die ? ? ? ! ! ! ! now this is the scariest movie of all time ! ! ! ! " [ r ]

0NEG

with jar jar binks in the phantom menace , because this movie is not scary or even remotely creepy . my colleague and friend chuck dowling wrote that if blair witch project , it should more accurately be called three dumb and pisspoor filmmakers get lost . . . and argue with each other . oh of rocks , and then some tinkertoy lincoln logs , oh my dear lord you will be pissing in your pants with fear . oh yeah , and some goo on one of for a creepy filmgoing experience . ) this film is an example of marketing with no substance . the marketing was brilliant , and the whole nation talking about the other 87 minutes of the movie where they ca n't seem to shoot anything smoothly at all . minor quibble there . there is a feeling in do you know how scary it would be to die ? ? ? ! ! ! ! now this is the scariest movie of all time ! ! ! ! " [ r ]