Datasets:

jingjietan

/

polarity-sentiment

like 0

if anyone had been able in 1983 to forsee a late-night cable show hosted by gilbert gottfried showcasing some of the worst films of the 80's , they'd agree d . c . cab is the quintessential " usa up all nite " movie . it's one of those childish r-rated movies that kids would love but can't see until it's edited for tv . it's also one of those pointless , almost plotless movies with hardly any laughs . and , strike three , it pairs mr . t with gary busey . i heard gilbert say d . c . cab had " an all-star cast , " but i'm still hoping there was some degree of facetiousness in that statement . when third-billing goes to a two-minute appearance by famed flashdancer irene cara " as herself , " you can't say a damn thing about all-star casts . likewise for token appearances by marsha " roz " warfield , paul rodriguez and " politically incorrect " host bill maher , before he was somebody . appearing in d . c . cab pretty much had the opposite effect on everyone else , especially irene " i'm gonna live forever " cara . d . c . cab is an ensemble comedy from joel schumacher ( who would go on to direct batman forever ) about a bunch of misfits who drive cabs . you get the feeling if the police academy cadets had made a different career choice , this would be the result , except here you have such interesting characters as the " token white guy " ( busey ) who wants to get in tight with the blacks now before they take over the world , the token jive talker named tyrone ( charlie barnett ) who wears his hair in rollers and uses the word " honkey " as much as possible , the tough guy with the mohawk and gold chains ( mr . t -- a real stretch for him ) , the aspiring musician waiting for his big break ( maher ) , the mexican gigolo ( rodriguez ) , the woman who actually wants to drive cabs for a living ( warfield ) and the guy who wants to own a cab company for a living ( adam baldwin ) . we've all seen dozens of bad comedies from the 80's . some are fun to watch and some are actually funny . this one is more or less neither . you'd think plenty of comedic sparks would fly from the assemblage of talent ( whatever ) , but d . c . cab more or less falls flat on a continual basis , culminating in the usual contrived hollywood finale as baldwin is kidnapped and the other cabbies have to go to rescue him . it's a shame no one was able to rescue this movie from the depths of stale jokes and unoriginality . d . c . cab has rightly earned its position on " usa up all nite . "

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

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 wouldn't matter so much if the film actually had some decent actors spouting out the tacky lines . but no , save lindo and aaliyah , who weren'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 don'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 couldn't save the rest of this film's uninteresting plot movements . i'm disappointed for jet li that this film didn'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 isn't a premonition of the movie's ultimate fate at the box-office .

ever wonder what happened to gabe kaplan ? you remember , he was the title character in that 70's sitcom , " welcome back kotter . " always trying to help out the sweathogs , frequently trying to dodge mr . woodman , ever wary of his wife's tuna casserole . " so , " you ask , " where is he now ? " mr . kaplan actually spends much of his time these days playing professional high-stakes poker . that's right . i'm not sure if it's his main source of income , but from what i've heard , the guy occasionally comes away with $20 , 000 at a time . and there you were , thinking i was going to tell you he was doing off-broadway theater . you silly goose . well , gabe kaplan isn't in the movie rounders , nor is the film about the actor come gambler's life . but rounders is about poker , and gabe plays poker , and i thought that was kind of a neat connection . sorry about the segue , or lack thereof . matt damon plays mike mcdermott , a law student who also has a singular talent for the game of poker . he's been playing for a while , and more than being proficient , he has caught the bug . he goes to all the underground games in new york city , knows the regulars , and knows how to win . in the beginning of the film , he's built up a nice thirty grand nest egg , which he takes to the speakeasy-type gaming parlor where the big boys play . mike is there to make his bid into the upper echelon by staking it all against teddy kgb ( john malkovich ) , an oreo-munching cardshark with ties to the russian mafia . mike has the potential to take a large pot and go to vegas and buy into the world series of poker , but instead he loses it all in a single hand . months later , he's paying his way through law school by driving a delivery truck . when mike's best friend and poker buddy worm ( edward norton ) finishes his jail term for hustling some students , he wants to pick up right were they left off , working as a team to part others with their betting cash . although mike has stopped playing cards as a promise to his girlfriend and fellow law student , jo ( gretchen mol ) , worm connives mike into playing once more , and mike , bitten again by the bug , slides down that slippery slope , risking his relationship , education , and reputation as playing poker again becomes the focus of his life . to make a film about gambling , a filmmaker will usually have to play up the glamorous side to get the audience behind the characters . this is because few moviegoers will care a whole lot about some guy in a leisure suit or terry cloth shirt sitting at a folding card table with a stogie in his mouth . rounders , however , seems to go more for the latter than the former . the card clubs mike and worm frequent aren't very glamorous at all . there's a basement , a lodge with elk heads on the wall , a goulash joint - these are the kinds of locales in which director john dahl sets his shots . except for one brief instance when the two players visit atlantic city , the film is bereft of the flashing lights of the casinos or the pleasant color of the green felt table . the reason rounders still captures our attention is because it is less about the game of poker than it is about the personalities which enjoy and are slaves to it . we're given a nice set of interesting characters with clear motivations , and good actors to play them . matt damon is very natural as mike , who struggles between his desire to play the straight and narrow by finishing law school , and answering what may be his true calling , playing professional poker . ed norton's worm is truly a worm , always looking for the angle and playing everyone for what they're worth . john turturro , who amazes me with his acting range , tones it down in this film by playing joey knish , a virtual poker prodigy in his time who now plays the underground games to make rent and child support payments . he's both a friend and mentor to mike , and turturro's low-key performance is totally convincing , just as john malkovich's heavily-accented teddy kgb is imposing as an adversarial dragon mike must slay to prove himself . martin landau is also thrown into the mix as one of mike's law professors , abe petrovsky . while landau slips well into the role , his character , spitting out personal anecdotes about staying true to one's self , facilitates the channeling of the storyline toward a predictable ending . perhaps the weak link in the otherwise formidable line-up of acting talent , however , is gretchen mol who just didn't seem to have much presence on screen . she's a genuine peach to look at , kind of a cross between actress renee zellweger and singer jewel ( and i wouldn't be surprised if the three of them formed some kind of blond-haired triumvirate and attempted to take over the world ) , but her delivered lines seemed very flat , and i found myself looking for matt damon's reactions instead . a good thing about rounders is that it doesn't get bogged down in the character development and statement making so much that it can't find time for humor . the film is peppered nicely with scenes that both make you laugh and keep the pacing going , such as a sequence where mike and worm move rapidly around new york from one game to the next , in widely different locales . one game in a cigar club had me in stitches . " i love the sweetness of this dark maduro wrapper , " says one of the players , clearly more interested in displaying his pretentiousness over the cigar in one hand than in the cards in his other . i was hoping mike and worm would really take these guys . with all the poker being played , rounders had the potential to be very confusing . you might think you know a lot about poker , but think again . luckily , we're given a narration by damon during the more intricate moments to explain what's going on . the narrations are more informative than intrusive , and apprise us of what the stakes are and why certain players want to do the things they do . it's nice that as the characters develop , so does our comprehension of their world . as a film about success and survival in the realm of underground poker , rounders delivers in spades . wait ! as a film about the culture of cards , rounders is an ace . hang on ! packed with great acting and great characters , rounders is a full house . okay , i guess that's enough . oh , by the way , if you ever want to get into a game with ol' gabe kaplan , be sure to bring a note from epstein's mother .

who would have thought ? jim carrey does drama . when i first saw the advertisement for the truman show , i thought , " what a hilarious idea for a movie ! " however , it was an even better premise for a drama . the truman show takes us into a world that revolves around one man . that man is truman burbank ( jim carrey ) . truman has no clue what is really going on in his world and frankly , cristof wants to keep it that way . christof is the " god " of this made-up world . he keeps everything running and gives the actors their roles . there were a few attempts to tell truman about his world , but they failed and life went on as normal . the opening parts of the film introduce to truman's world . we see what he is doing at his current age , then we get a flashback at his past . it may seem a tad boring , but it is so intriguing that you will fall in love with the film right from the start . the film can be described in one word : weird . it seems like such a simple idea , yet it is something that a majority of us would never think of , but andrew niccol did . it seems like a warped idea , but it is andrew's idea and he did wonders with it . jim carrey actually lived up to the hype . the hype , whether good or bad , always focused on carrey's ability to do drama . no one doubted how extraordinary this film could be , the only thing they doubted was carrey . and he showed them all up . jim carrey was snubbed at the oscars . i do not think he was the best actor , but he deserved the nomination . he plays truman burbank , the unsuspecting star of the most popular television show in the world . he has lived a normal life for almost thirty years , but then strange things start happening . he ventures into the wrong elevator . a light crashes in front of him . his father comes back and is then pulled away . we are constantly teased with all of this and we know it is a show , but truman does not . and it is just a constant progression that never gets sluggish . carrey is able to shed his comedy to play a major role in a major drama . laura linney is magnificent as the camera hungry wife . she plays her role as advertiser and budding star to a point . peter weir does not make the cast perfect , and their flaws eventually lead to truman's escape . the story unfolds until the show becomes too big and everything crashes down . despite carrey's greatness , the best performance in the truman show undoubtedly is turned in by ed harris , who plays the " god " of truman's world . he displays the pressure he is under , the world he has created . he becomes so paranoid that he believes he is a god and that truman has him to thank for his sham of a life . the action moves at a good pace , and rarely gets sluggish . but , the main point of the film is how it looks like a television show . it really makes you think . maybe your brother is an actor , maybe your best friend is in heated contract negotiations to stay on the show . some of the best parts of the film are when truman ventures into the wrong elevator and sees cast members drinking coffee and talking . or when truman tunes into the wrong station and hears orders being said for truman's arrival . and when christof focuses in on truman and cues the dramatic music as marlon ( noah emmerich ) delivers his dramatic line . all of these ideas are just perfect for the film and extremely innovative . i was not only enjoying the film , i was overwhelmed by genius of it . overall , the truman show is one of the freshest and innovative films to come out of hollywood . jim carrey shows that he is not just a man of a million faces , but a legitimate actor who could go down as one of the best . andrew niccol is responsible for the screenplay and peter weir pulled it off to perfection . the truman show is a must see for anyone who likes movies in general because they will be thoroughly impressed by this creative film .

" meg ryan is irresistible in the comedy that celebrates sisterhood ! , " screams the television ads for " hanging up , " disastrously written by real-life sisters delia and nora ephron and sloppily directed by diane keaton . make me laugh again ! not only is " hanging up " misadvertised , since the film wholeheartedly focuses on middle sister meg ryan and gives her two co-stars , lisa kudrow and diane keaton , little more than extended cameos , but they don't actually come together until the final ten to fifteen minutes . and we are supposed to believe their strong bond , and smile in the last scene when they rekindle their rocky relationship , despite them being apart for the majority of the running time ? excuse me , again , while i almost bust a gut at that truly delusional notion . eve marks ( meg ryan ) is the middle mozzell sister , still living in the california town where she grew up , and with a husband ( adam arkin ) and pre-teen son ( jesse james ) . her elderly , wisecracking father , lou ( walter matthau , in his brightest performance in years ) has just recently been put into the hospital , in the final stages of what i assume is alzheimer's ( even though the film never enlightens us on exactly what is wrong with him ) . while eve's relationship with her mother ( cloris leachman ) is nearly nonexistent , since she ran out on lou and her children years ago , she has had her fair share of up's and down's with lou , who used to be an alcoholic . her older sister is georgia ( diane keaton ) , an editor for the self-titled magazine , " georgia , " while maddy ( lisa kudrow ) is the youngest , a soap opera actress . interestingly , their professions are given , but we not once ever see them working at their jobs , or , for that matter , learn much of anything about them . maddy , georgia , and eve do not see each other much anymore , their adult lives gradually causing them to drift apart , but they do manage to consistently talk on the phone to one another . and they talk . and talk . and talk . . . in fact , the telephone is the major star of the film , even more so than ryan , as it appears in virtually every scene of this interminable 92-minute catastrophe that feels like its three hours long . if you are able to get through the opening half-hour , in which phones ring so much you feel like jumping through the screen and taking a sledgehammer to them , you will surely survive the rest . the question is , who would want to subject themselves to this resolutely irritating , self-involved pat-on-the-back ? how could a comedy-drama that has the star-power of meg ryan , lisa kudrow , and diane keaton be so very bad in so many different ways ? issues from the past involving the possible jealousy each has had for one of the others is fleetingly brought up , but the film isn't mature enough to deal with such a thing in a thoughtful manner , and since we learn next to nothing about their childhood , it is a lost cause that comes off as nothing more than an afterthought . also , it is expected that the viewer quickly catch on to the tricky dynamic that the three sisters have with one another , but no dynamic metamorphosizes . and when they do reunite in the finale , their whole consanguinity is reduced to a repulsively annoying three-minute scene in which they argue like little children . you can see the impending death coming a mile away , and it conveniently occurs in the next scene , so that the three can quickly come to terms with themselves , and with each other . you think to yourself : " the only thing left for them to do is have a playful food-fight , " and like clockwork , it also occurs by the end credits . meg ryan is a versatile actress ( look no further than 1998's " hurlyburly " or 1994's " when a man loves a woman " ) , despite her various detractors who stubbornly believe all she can do is romantic comedies . with " hanging up , " the only thing she needs to do is completely sever her filmmaking ties with nora ephron , a writer/director/hack who shouldn't be allowed to work in hollywood again after this big-budget , high-profile debacle . even if she knew what she was making was not exactly up to par in the quality department , she nonetheless is very good , and the two scenes that work , flashbacks to christmas 1988 , when she had a heartbreaking run-in with her mother , and to halloween 1993 , when lou crashed her son's birthday party in a drunken stupor , are effective because of the realism ryan brings to the situations . diane keaton , as georgia , is better as an actress than a director here , but that is a wildly feeble compliment . what is more than a little far-fetched is that keaton is distinctly older than ryan and kudrow , although in the very brief glimpses we get at them as children , she is no more than five years ryan's senior . yeah , right . lastly , poor lisa kudrow has been wasted once again in a big-screen venture , after her even more thin role in 1999's " analyze this . " kudrow isn't given enough time to create a full personality with maddy , so it isn't her fault she doesn't register until a few quiet moments sprinkled throughout where she is actually blessed with being given dialogue . if anything , though , kudrow is a real talent , and i anxiously await the next time she is given a role more deserving of her time , as in her brilliantly nuanced , oscar-caliber work in 1998's " the opposite of sex . " if you are a fan of kudrow's ( and who isn't ? ) , do yourself a favor and rent this gem that puts more good use to kudrow in sixty seconds than " hanging up " does in its entirety . as eve's hardworking husband , adam arkin is , predictably , squandered with a role that gives him next to nothing to do , until a subplot reveals itself midway through , only to never be mentioned again . cloris leachman , as with ryan and matthau , makes a small , but noticeable impression with her , albeit , very brief appearance , while edie mcclurg , as a rosy-cheeked woman lou had an affair with in the christmas 1988 flashback , manages one of the few laughs in this otherwise joyless production . nearly all the emotions displayed within " hanging up " are patently manufactured , and despite the movie wanting the viewer to care about the characters , aside from eve , why would you want to when they are all spoiled brats ? if , for some bizarre , " twilight zone " -type of reason , you find yourself in a movie theater showing this film , my suggestion would be to hang up on it before the opening credits are over . saying it is a waste of time is an understatement of epic proportions .

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 doesn'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 doesn'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 .

there have been bad films in recent years : 'mr . magoo' was by far the worst ever made , the spectacularly bad 'blue in the face' , the horrible 'baby genuises' and now 'i woke up early the day i died' . it may not however be the worst movie made but it certainly ranks as one bad movie . the film's acting ( if that's what you want to call it ) is well mediocre to me . loaded with a sensational cast you would think that the cast would at least save the film a bit , boy was i wrong . after escaping from a mental institution 'the thief' played by billy zane goes out in the real world and finds that it is pretty harsh and gritty . he turns to burglary to survive , robs a loan back , kills the loan officer and runs with thousands . a country-wide man hunt is on for him to catch him and bring him down . he ends up in a cemetery where he puts his money in a coffin to keep it for later , comes back and realizes that someone took it and put it somewhere . now he is determined to kill all the visitors at the funeral earlier that day until he gets his money back , ultimately leading to a finale that is less that satisfying . a film which was based on a 'long-lost' script by ed wood , i have only one question : no dialogue , only music and movement where exactly is the point ? the film moves along at a rather slow pace , but does have one advantage : the soundtrack which is catchy and vibrant except the first song which can be offensive to some . it opens with a fun , innovative opening credits sequence and quickly goes downhill after that . some of the low points are when 'the thief' steals a woman's purse , and then she faints , sandra bernhard as a dancer and tippi hendren as a deaf woman whom 'the thief' kills to the music of 'psycho' . come on people get some new ideas already ! what's even worse is that the film has no plot at all . well to a certain extent it does , but who cares by the time the middle of the film arrives we're bored out of our mind and ready for something fun and exciting to happen . 'i woke up early the day i died' is a perfectly bad film . it shows us how low filmmakers get sometimes just when desperate to make a movie . even with the huge cast talent , the film is a waste of my time and certainly a waste of yours .

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

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

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

in these days of overlong movies ( meet joe black , the thin red line , the mask of zorro ) it is a shame that films like waking ned devine can't be longer than a paltry 90 minutes . this is just a cute movie , even through its mildly risque subject matter . old friends jackie ( bannen ) and michael ( kelley ) try to find the lottery winner ( they deduce must live in their dinky town of about 60 ) so that they might kiss up to him and share the winnings . through process of elimination , they find that it must be lovable old ned devine , who they find sitting in front of his tv , clutching the winning lottery ticket in his cold dead hand . what results is thuroughly amusing , as jackie tries to convince his wife that not claiming it would be wrong , and that they could really benefit . after all , old ned won't miss it . rather than divulge the later twists and turns , i'll stop here merely pointing out that jackie and michael get into all sorts of trouble in their little sleepy irish villiage . bannen and kelly are a perfect pair . one slightly stout , the other as thin as a rail . both getting on in years , they make such a cute pair of old codgers . waking ned devine may even be seen as a " full monty " for the geriatric set , especially since kelly gets buff-o for one amusing scene . waking ned devine is by no means perfect , but it is so sincere and touching that it looks so much better than most films . the performances by everyone in the town are great , particularly the two leads . there is one twist at the end which i find unnecessary , but it hardly ruins the picture . writer/director kirk jones should be held up as an example to all those hollywood screenwriters . scripts as creative and endearing as this should be the norm , not the exception . perhaps it makes us appreciate this wonderful film even more . had i held off on my year's best/worst list for another day , waking ned devine ( officially released in late november of 98 ) surely would have graced the short group of the year's finest films . it is light , but thought provoking and sweet . i can't think of anyone who shouldn't see ( or wouldn't enjoy ) this film .

with many big-budget science fiction films , great ideas are often wasted by bad scripts , cheesy plot twists , and , terrible acting . the fifth element , the abyss , and godzilla had great concepts squandered by bad acting , writing , or both . at first glance , the matrix , larry & andy wachowski's sci-fi/kung-fu/shoot-em-up spectacular , looks like a prime candidate to join the list of high-concept bad movies , especially with dopey keanu reeves in the leading role . but despite high levels of cheese and gaudy dialogue , the matrix works . it's an uncanny blend of action and surreal fantasy that borrows from dozens of other films ( most obviously the terminator films , star wars , and total recall ) , but remains refreshingly original and interesting throughout . reeves plays neo , a computer hacker who stumbles into an initially bewildering set of encounters with " trinity " ( carrie-anne moss ) , a rival hacker who has supernatural powers and stunning good looks , a unseen , omniscient cult figure known as " morpheus " ( lawrence fishburne ) , and a trio of creepy men in dark suits who act like irs agents from hell . neo quickly learns that the world he has known all his life is not what it seems . moreover , he discovers that the grim , bleak world he is introduced to has been waiting for him to save it . neo is reluctant to assume the role of messiah , with grave doubts that he is actually " the one " prophesized to come and save the world . reluctant or not , what follows is a mix of hong kong-style slow-motion shootouts , surreal dream sequences , high speed chases , and comic book kung-fu fights . the film also raises interesting philosophical questions about reality . how exactly do you know what is real and what is in your mind ? and if the real world were much harsher and grim than a fantasy one you were living in , would you want to face the true world or continue to live in a more comfortable illusion ? unfortunately , the matrix doesn't provide many answers to the questions it raises , but at least it puts some ideas behind all the explosions , shoot-outs , and flying roundhouse kicks . perhaps stealing the entire show in the matrix is australian actor hugo weaving , who plays agent smith , the leader of the creepy agents in sunglasses and suits who seem capable of being anywhere and doing anything to stop neo and friends from destabilizing the matrix . weaving's stony appearance , deadpan voice , and chilling comments put a grim human face on the haunting , evil technological force that controls the matrix . like robert patrick as the shapeshifting t-1000 terminator in terminator 2 : judgement day , weaving is more frightening than any monstrous alien or homicidal robot because , despite his power and seeming invincibility , he looks ordinary , even scrawny . weaving embodies his role with a memorably chilling presence . the film features some truly breathtaking special effects and stylish cinematography . it seems to be deliberately kitchy , with stylized fight sequences directed by hong kong stunt specialist wo ping that reportedly required months of martial arts training by the actors . in a few scenes , the posing and posturing is unintentionally funny . just seeing keanu reeves engaging in serious kung fu is a bit jarring . however , with the comic-book style and tone of the film , you can sustain willing disbelief long enough to enjoy the ride without losing patience . the matrix isn't a classic . its open-ended and confusing conclusion raises more questions than it answers . it fails to resolve many of its own plot twists and philosophical questions . it also relies on some conventional sentimentality to save the hero - the kind of shmaltzy feel-good goo that most of the film avoids . reportedly , the producers have high hopes for the film being the first in a trilogy and have already begun work on the story for the sequel . unfortunately , audiences deserve a little more than a vague sense that the story will continue in the future . the matrix is an fun , enjoyable diversion , like a big puff of cotton candy at a carnival . just don't be surprised half an hour later when you still feel a little hungry .

it is easy to see why the late stanley kubrick believed steven spielberg would be the perfect director for his a . i . artificial intelligence , just as it is understandable why spielberg was attracted to the material . for here we have another lost boy trying to find his way home , an outcast seeking family , themes very familiar from most of spielberg's body of work from sugarland express to close encounters of the third kind to e . t . to empire of the sun to hook to saving private ryan , naming just a few examples . a . i . is set in an undefined near future in which giant technological advances have led to the creation of robots who serve every purpose from housekeeping to fulfilling sexual fantasies . it is an era when robots are treated merely as sophisticated appliances . the last great leap in robotic evolution is the addition of emotions , and with the number of births limited by the government , many couples are yearning for children . and professor hobby ( william hurt ) has the solution . a robotic boy named david ( haley joel osment ) , who is programmed to love . as a test , david is placed with henry swinton ( sam robards ) and his wife , monica ( frances o'connor ) . their natural-born son has been cryogenically frozen until a cure can be found for his illness . the first third of a . i . deals with david's life with the swintons and how that is changed by the recovery and return of their son , martin . circumstances force david to be cut off from the swintons . he is abandoned and alone . david , highly influenced by the fairy tale , pinocchio , feels that if he becomes a real boy he can rekindle monica's love for him . the film's second act follows david's search for the blue fairy , whom he believes will be able to fulfill his wish . during these adventures he meets and is helped by gigolo joe ( jude law ) , a robot who specializes in sex . spielberg is at his top form in this sequence , offering a brutal " flesh fair " where robots are destroyed via sadistic methods for the amusement of paying customers . here , is where kubrick's influence is strongly felt , as the movie explores the fear and distrust humans have for robots . the savagery conjures up images from the late director's a clockwork orange . at about two hours and 30 minutes , the film begins to falter during the last 20 minutes , a sequence that seems most spielbergian with images that appear to be borrowed from close encounters . it is all very anti-climatic and jarring . these scenes seem almost superfluous , as if from a different film . a . i . is a dark fairy tale that deserves its pg-13 rating . it is a story combining hope and intolerance , sacrifice and bigotry , and while it does not coalesce perfectly , the movie does offer some disturbing images . but a . i . is really a showcase for the acting talents of the amazing young osment . if ever an actor deserved an academy award nomination , it is this lad , who brings a sense of joy and wonder to the role of david , a being created for the express purpose of loving . he shines when with monica , beaming with love , as eager as a puppy to please . after being left in the woods , he is confused , lost , hurt , focusing on one objective : to become a real boy and find his way home so he can redeem himself in his mother's eyes . law is pleasant as the care-free robot who really doesn't understand david's quest , but is nonetheless happy to help him on his journey . probably the toughest role is o'connor's monica . playing an emotional fragile woman who sees david as a substitute for her lost martin , she grows conflicted after her boy returns and she begins to perceive david not as a second chance , but as a threat to her family . she gives her character enough emotional chaos that you cannot fault her for her course of action . many of a . i . 's futuristic sets are breathtaking , especially a mostly submerged new york , lost to the world by the melting of the polar ice caps . a . i . is a flawed film , and you cannot get through the entire feature without pondering - even subconsciously - how it would have turned out with kubrick instead of spielberg behind the camera . would it have been darker ? more cynical ? we will never know . we can only judge what is before us on the screen , a collaboration of two cinematic giants . a . i . is a most interesting and thought-provoking examination of a future that is quickly gaining on us .

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 doesn'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 wasn'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 don'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 couldn'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 .

warner brothers ; rated pg-13 ( mild violence , sexual situations ) ; 132 minutes director : luis mandoki screenplay : gerald di pego ( from the novel by nicholas sparks ) cast : kevin costner , robin wright-penn , paul newman , illeana douglas , robbie coltrane , jesse james , john savage . review by : geoff berkshire i'm not an overly cynical guy . there have been many glossy hollywood romances that have carried me away with their romanticism over the years . however , i have my limits and i also have standards . this brings us to the subject at hand : message in a bottle , the big ticket romance that warner brothers' unleashed upon the movie going public just in time for valentine's day . the story , what little of it that there is , involves boring chicago tribune reporter theresa osborne ( robin wright-penn ) dealing with her recent divorce and trying to raise her young son jason ( jesse james ) . during a brief stay somewhere in new england she finds the titular message in a bottle while on a morning run by the ocean . the letter , written to a mystery woman named catherine , instantly captivates her . upon her return , theresa shares it with her best friend lina ( illeana douglas ) , her boss charlie ( robbie coltrane ) , and the entire city of chicago ( the newspaper publishes an article about it ) . it turns out that the message was written by grieving widower garret blake ( kevin costner ) and so theresa travels to north carolina and tracks him down . he turns out to have a colorful father ( paul newman ) but is otherwise perfectly dull and overly obsessed with sailing . this is somehow attractive to theresa and the two begin their awkward courtship . of course she doesn't tell him that she found his letter , she wants to but the rules of this type of film require him to find out later ( preferably right after they first make love ) . this way garret can get very angry and the relationship can be threatened . the discovery of the message and garret's discovery that theresa discovered the message are really the only two noteworthy events that happen during the nearly two and a quarter hour running time of this film . there's a truly lame subplot about garret's relationship with his dead wife's family ( he gets into a bar fight with her brother , played by john savage ) and then the necessary tear-jerking ending . a fun way to pass the time is to take bets on exactly who will die , although it becomes pretty clear by the second reel . the actual death sequence is one of the most ridiculously forced , and unintentionally humorous , sequences filmed since . . . well , since costner's the postman ( 1997 ) . message in a bottle is one slow moving film . last year audiences were offered endurance tests such as the horse whisperer and meet joe black but both of those films resemble jerry bruckheimer productions next to this . they also had redeeming qualities in the form of quality performances and some stand out technical work . message in a bottle has a decent enough cast but they're fighting the material all the way , and losing badly . costner and , especially , wright-penn are both likable and attractive enough to cheer for but their characters are simply too boring . they also fail to generate any kind of real romantic chemistry . the supporting players are given very little to do . the reliable douglas is particularly wasted . old pro newman gives his all and occasionally threatens to kick some life into this dead horse of a film . a confrontational scene he has with costner near the end is especially well played . however , too frequently he just reminds us how unexciting our lead characters are . the film is very polished on the technical side to be sure but it only works to undercut the story . gabriel yared , who previously set the romantic moods of the english patient ( 1996 ) and city of angels ( 1998 ) with his scores , overdoes it a bit here . caleb deschanel's camera makes everything look a little too beautiful . do the offices of the chicago tribune really need to look heavenly ? the editing by steven weisberg is troubling not only considering all that could have been cut out but is also simply messy at times . the real offender here is screenwriter gerald di pego . working from a best- selling novel by nicholas sparks ( which i have not read but have been told is on the same literary level as the bridges of madison county ) , di pego creates one of the most uninspired scripts of recent times . its strict adherence to clich ? s brings to mind such disasters as i still know what you did last summer ( 1998 ) . there simply isn't an original scene in this film . the dialogue is rarely better than laughable and this is only accentuated by the excessively long pauses every character takes while speaking . this is director mandoki's first film since when a man loves a woman ( 1994 ) , the solid meg ryan/andy garcia romance . he's simply going through the motions with this . message in a bottle is easily the worst of the several romantic offerings available in theaters at the moment and vies with what dreams may come ( 1998 ) as one of the most misguided romances of the decade .

what were they thinking ? nostalgia for the seventies is bad enough , but do we really need an eighties film ? robbie hart ( adam sandler ) used to want to be a rock and roll star , but in 1985 he's singing at weddings and having a good time . a romantic at heart , he loves weddings and is just about to get married to his high-school sweetie . when she leaves him waiting at the altar , his tune changes to " love stinks " . he meets waitress julia ( drew barrymore ) who is engaged to a junk-bonds salesman and you know that they are going to get together . in fact you know everything that is going to happen during this movie . sandler is somewhat adequate in his leading man role , but there is no spark . barrymore doesn't seem to be able to convey anything other than a pretty face with nothing behind it : beauty but no attitude . both characters are just there . bit parts by steve buscemi and jon lovitz steal the show . the eighties are shoved in our face . references to deloreans , madonna , " dallas " , ivana and donald , burt and loni and " miami vice " get old fast . the filmmakers must have realized that there wasn't much entertainment to the story and thought they could dazzle the audience with humorous period allusions . they're not funny and it doesn't work . with change on all fronts accelerating more and more , nostalgia appears to have a great appeal , but don't you think we could have more than 14 years before we yearn for the past . maybe we can look forward to a film next year waxing nostalgically about el nino . ( michael redman has written this column for over 23 years and he knows that nostalgia is not what it used to be . )

the best thing -- in fact , the only good thing -- i can say about dark city is that it made me want to go see l . a . confidential again . or go rent body heat , to see william hurt do some real noir . or even -- god help me -- palmetto . alex proyas's new movie screams atmosphere . i screamed , too , " get me out of this theater ! " new line cinema spent millions of dollars creating the expressionistic film noir visuals and paying the actors , and doesn't have any way to get it back . i paid $4 . 25 for a matinee screening and don't have any way to get my money back , either . you'll hear a lot from other critics about the look and feel of this movie . i will admit that the cinematographers and costume designers and set artists and cgi graphics geeks all worked hard to create a stunning , nightmarish future world where it's always a late night in 1948 , complete with rotary phones and automats and fedoras . i've got news for you fellows -- i don't care how hard you worked , or how visually stunning this movie looks -- you wasted your time and mine , working on a movie without a plot , without a clear sense of direction of where it wanted to go , without a soul or a reason to care . the movie starts out oh-so-promising . john murdoch ( rufus sewell ) is lying in a bathtub in the sort of seedy hotel that in real life , would have been boarded up long ago . there is a dead , mutilated prostitute in the other room -- a surprise , as he has lost his memory . the phone rings : it's a sinister-sounding man , claiming to be his doctor , telling him to flee for his life . all well and good , right ? wrong . apparently , someone decided that the audience was just a bit too dim to figure out the intricacies of the plot . ( this is getting to be a popular assumption in hollywood . ) so , the actual beginning of the movie is not sewell running for his life , rather , it's a voice-over narration by the aforementioned doctor ( keifer sutherland ) explaining exactly what is going on and who is responsible . it's as though sam the piano player had told us that rick and ilsa had been getting it on in paris in the first three minutes of casablanca . no , wait , that's not fair to casablanca . it's more like watching a new plotline at the first of the show -- or if you want to know how i really feel , having an off-screen narrator explain that gilligan won't be getting off the island in this episode . >from here , the coherence of the plot goes down faster than ( insert monica lewinsky joke here ) . the characters just wander around the city aimlessly and bump into each other for no apparent reason , and that's what moves the plot . what we're left with is a string of unanswered questions that don't make any sense . we're given aliens with unlimited omnipotent powers , yet they forget to use them at critical moments and get themselves killed . we're given a hero who can " tune " into these same powers , yet he only uses them when it's convenient to the plot . we're given a whole long list of loose ends that go nowhere usually , critics will say that an actor playing an underwritten part " isn't given much to do . " in this movie , no one is given anything to do . sewell is given the impossible role of a man who doesn't remember anything , and plays it like . . . um . . . a man who doesn't remember anything . the aliens are tall , pasty-faced , and bald , and wear long black cloaks and fedoras to remind us that they're evil -- and there's a child alien as well , straight out of an anne rice novel . sutherland is saddled with a limp , a twitchy eye , and a breathy accent to remind us that he's in league with the aliens . to its credit , dark city boasts two impressive bits of casting . william hurt is perfectly cast as the world-weary inspector charged with catching the man who is murdering prostitutes all over the city . jennifer connelly , playing sewell's love interest , is given two all-too-brief moments on screen as a lounge singer -- and turns in the sexiest performace this side of jessica rabbit . but instead of the dogged policeman and the femme fatale given central treatment in the script ( the way they would be in any self-respecting noir movie ) they're almost tangiential to the plot , such as it is . the problem with dark city is this : it's a bad science fiction movie pretending to be film noir . the essence of film noir isn't , as proyas seems to beleive , breathy dialogue or snap-brim fedoras or tall , bald evil villains who would make peter lorre curl up in a corner . dark city has not one bit of intrigue , moral ambiguity , suspense , or anything else that keeps us coming back to the noir classics . dark city is like the intricately carved door that kate winslet floats on in titanic . it's an exceptionlly well-made and intricately designed piece of flotsam , sailing around and around the middle of the ocean , going nowhere .

synopsis : the president of a company wants to test his self-appointed successor , who's psychotic , and thinks it's a great idea to spend a week with him and their wives in an isolated cabin a hundred miles from civilization with no dependable transportation or means of communication after a heavy snowfall . comments : tracks of a killer had a couple of strikes against it before i even began watching it . strike one was the fact that someone had scrawled the word garbage on the videotape's sticker in black marker ( not typically a good sign when you rent a film ) . strike two came while the previews played . did you ever get a sinking premonition about a movie's quality ( or lack thereof ) while watching the trailers that come before it ? well , the cheesy films being advertised before tracks of a killer were films that no one has ever heard of starring people no one knows , and they all looked bad ( definately not a good sign ) . tracks of a killer itself completed the strikeout . about the only positive thing this film had going for it was the fact that it sports some nice scenery . to be fair , the first half-hour or so promises at least a watchable thriller . wolf larson , who bears more than a passing resemblance to hugh grant , adequately plays the underling obviously set up as the killer of the film's title . james brolin and kelly lebrock seem equally adequate as the loving couple larson will later threaten . brolin's character , for some inexplicable reason , thinks its a great idea to spend some time in a cabin , practically isolated , with lebrock and larson , whom he's decided to test for the week before giving him full control of his company . by the time the characters arrive at the cabin , this film begins to become tedious . apparently , brolin's successor's test involves chopping wood for the fireplace and skiing , which don't seem like attributes necessary to run a business in the city . but , then again , what do i know about business ? i do think , though , that they should have invested in some better furniture for the cabin ; its beds and closets have a habit of just breaking at the slightest touch . larson's character accidently kills his own wife rather than the couple he wants to kill . this leaves the movie with an hour to go and only three characters , which really isn't enough to sustain it . the film's writer must have taken a cue from stephen king , as scenes from tracks of a killer seem lifted out of misery and gerald's game . larson and lebrock fight and torture each other ( the tables get turned a couple of times ) while brolin tramps around in the snow looking for help . some old guy's around too , just so the killer can add to his body count without killing the couple , who everyone knows will be alive at the end of the film . the old guy , however , miraculously survives his first death and appears later to be killed again by the killer in a scene so ludicrous it's worthy of a chuckle or two . outside of that chuckle , unfortunately , tracks of a killer will just bore you as the obvious plot is drawn out ad infinitum and the actors , for some reason , become increasing obnoxious . if you're in a video store and thinking about renting this turkey , don't . make tracks to a far superior suspense film , like misery .

not too many people know who james whale is , but it's a safe bet that a good chunk of them have seen his movies . if we are to believe the semi- biographical gods and monsters , whale would have wanted it to be that way . this is an insightful , haunting exploration of the last days of the frankenstein and bride of frankenstein director , and it is notable for introducing one of the first complicated gay characters in a hollywood movie . gods and monsters has no interest in being a biopic of whale's life because it tracks only the final few days of his life , and it's probably a better movie for it . it's focus is on whale's ( ian mckellen ) untraditional and deceptive lust for heterosexual gardener clayton boone ( brendan fraser ) . it begins with whale ( a fairly talented artist , aside from being a director ) asking boone to " sit for him , " ( pose for a portrait ) . at first , boone doesn't realize that whale is gay and grows fascinated with the old man . when he does discover whale's sexual orientation from his dedicated and protective maid ( lynn redgrave ) , he is frightened , refusing to sit for the guy . but he comes back , only to storm out again , disgusted with whale's " locker room talk . " boone returns yet another time , after whale promises to tone down the aforementioned " locker room talk , " and finds their platonic relationship to be strengthening . meanwhile , jimmy himself is suffering from hallucinations and mental attacks as a result of his stroke not long ago . his ailment leads to desperation and depression , which build to the point where he is forced to ask boone for an incredulously big favor . what is perhaps most sensational about gods and monsters is brendan fraser's bravura performance ; up until seeing this film i intensely disliked the young actor because of his tendency to ruin the movies he is in ( blast from the past , for example ) . i was surprised how expressive an actor he proved himself to be here . this is impressive because his character's dialogue is minimal , with mckellan doing most of the talking . that requires fraser to act through body language ; a difficult skill to master , but something he proves capable of doing well . this is not to ignore mckellan's oscar nominated turn . he earned that nomination with his touching performance here ( although , at the risk of sounding like a philistine , i would have chosen his performance as the nazi in apt pupil for the nomination ) ; an understated , compelling gem . whale dreaded being remembered solely for his work in the hollywood horror genre , and he thought hollywood to be the equivalent of a battlefield . he rejoiced in being free from it , only reluctantly going to receptions with fellow movie people . in the end , perhaps , it is what killed him : the memories of hollywood and war blending together to form a living nightmare . ? 1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

hedwig ( john cameron mitchell ) was born a boy named hansel in east berlin . as a teen seeking his " other half , " he reluctantly agrees to a sex change operation in order to marry american g . i . luther ( maurice dean wint ) . the operation , performed by a hack surgeon , is botched , and the " angry inch " is all that's left . now a " she " , hedwig comes to america , is abandoned by luther , forms a rock band and falls for her 17-year old lover/prot ? g ? , tommy , only to be rejected by him later , too . she and her band , the angry inch , shadows the now-famous tommy gnosis across the us ( for revenge ? ) , but hedwig is really in search of her lost other half in " hedwig and the angry inch . " first time helmer john cameron mitchell , along with composer/lyricist stephen trask , created and starred in their acclaimed off-broadway production that has become the movie . and quite a movie it is in its eclectic variety of songs , outrageous costumes , sets and makeup and , especially , a riveting performance by mitchell as the title character . mitchell and trask have reinvented the movie musical and couple it with the underlying story of just whom hedwig is and what she is looking for . i am , by far , not a big fan of musicals . sure , there are exceptions , like bob fosse's " all that jazz " and " cabaret , " but , for the most part , they are just not my cup of tea . " hedwig and the angry inch " is an exception , though , with its combination of humor , wit and a collection of tunes that covers musical styles ranging from " the rocky horror picture show " and meatloaf to david bowie to the sex pistols . the original songs , by stephen trask ( also appearing as one of the members of the band the angry inch ) , are full of energy and variety and , even though it's not my kind of music , i found every one entertaining and fun . the audience i saw " hedwig " with thought so , too . the main attraction to this one-man/woman show is the presence of its star . john cameron mitchell gives a solid , sometimes fun , sometimes angry performance as a person searching for self-enlightenment and love . as a young boy growing up in east berlin , hansel is abused by his g . i . father and raised by his german mother in a tiny flat so small that " mother would make me play in the oven " where he listened to pop music on armed forces radio . later , as a young man , he meets luther , another g . i . and is swept off of his feet . the ensuing angry inch incident comes soon after . flash forward to a trailer park in junction city , kansas , and luther is leaving hedwig for another boy . frustrated and broke , she takes on baby-sitting and the odd " job " to make ends meet . she also forms a band with four korean housewives and the musical talent of hedwig is born . she meets , falls for and loses young tommy , who steals her songs and goes off to become a rock sensation . jealous and angry , hedwig and her new band begins a campaign to shadow tommy's tours and , with the help of her manager , phyllis stein ( andrea martin ) , is trying get a law suit going against the star for stealing her songs . hedwig and the angry inch get gigs , not coincidentally , at a chain of seafood restaurants that just happen to be next to the forums where tommy gnosis is playing . things finally come to a head , so to speak , in new york city . the popularity of the off-broadway musical and its offshoots have garnered a ready-made audience base for " hedwig . " the wit , humor , music and search for identity has great appeal to young adults , but the charismatic presence of mitchell makes this a cut above what it could have been . it is this one-man/woman show that casts its spotlight on its " internationally ignored " rock star and mitchell is outstanding in the role . there isn't a lot going on with other characters , though there are amusing little sidebars , like hedwig's backup singer/lover , yitzak ( miriam shor ) , deciding to break away from the band to join a polynesian road show of " rent " as a puerto rican drag queen . the low budget that the moviemakers have for the production belies the quality of the film . attention to details - hedwig's costumes and outrageous " cabaret " -like makeup ; the seedy trailer park setting ; and , the kitschy seafood restaurants - are loads of fun to watch and lend the appropriate air to the proceeds , all on what has to be a beer budget . " hedwig and the angry inch " may not be for everybody , but the energy of the effort , the songs , the imaginative sets and costumes and a fast steady pace make it a pleasure to watch . if you're a fan of contemporary , edgy music , it is an even bigger draw . i give it a b+ .

it's hard not to recommend " the others . " the supernatural thriller , written and directed by alejandro amen ? bar ( " open your eyes " ) , adroitly establishes and maintains a low-key atmosphere of menace . the cinematography , by javier aguirresarobe , is as good as i have ever seen and nicole kidman gives another in her growing body of fine performances . but the pacing of the story moves from deliberate to downright sluggish and the payoff of the tale left me less than satisfied . overall , the film plays like a very high quality version of any number of old " twilight zone " episodes where the characters spend a great deal of time wandering about looking afraid and disoriented , only to learn they are actually a child's toy , a military test subject or a department store dummy . watching those vintage shows and listening to the players chatter , i always wanted to shout , " get on with it ! " as much as i appreciated the atmosphere and acting in " the others , " my reaction was much the same . set at an island mansion off the coast of england during world war ii , the story focuses on grace ( kidman ) , who tends to her children anne ( alakina mann ) and nicholas ( james bentley ) and worries about her husband , charles ( christopher eccleston ) , a missing serviceman . anne and nicholas suffer from photosensitivity and grace patrols the estate with the keys to all 50 doors , protecting the little ones from excess light by making sure that only one door is open at a time . at the beginning of the film , three servants , mrs . mills ( fionnula flanagan ) , young , mute lydia ( elaine cassidy ) , and mr . tuttle ( eric sykes ) , an aging gardener , join the family . the two that speak seem agreeable enough at first , but it soon becomes apparent that they know something that grace does not . to make matters worse , the children are upset : nicholas is unusually jittery and anne claims to be seeing ghosts . grace attempts to blame the troubles on the new arrivals to her home , only to realize that whatever is happening is beyond them . that's essentially the whole story , with the tension growing until the pivotal moment when everything becomes clear . earlier , there is an outstanding scene where grace darts outside , only to be enveloped in fold after fold of shimmering fog . the visuals in the otherworldly sequence , courtesy of aguirresarobe , are simply astounding . i also enjoyed the presence of religion , a rarity in films dealing with the supernatural . grace is a christian and answers her children's questions about life and death with the assurance of a devout worshiper . when mother is away , though , the kids speculate whether her statements are fact or folklore , just as real children do . but those nice touches fail to enliven a film that is too slow or make up for a lackluster ending . " the others " sets out to be a classic ghost story , but fails to grasp that special something that makes such films more than layers of mist .

at first glance , three kings looks to be just another war movie , the 90s version of all those favourite war movies with names i cannot remember . the 90s version , it definitely is , just another war movie ? not in your dreams ! imagine pulp fiction approach to saving private ryan , thats three kings for you . believe it or not , it bears the cool of the former and the stark humane meaning of the latter . the story brings us to the twilight of the gulf war , with the allied troops victorious . majpr archie gates ( clooney ) leads an enterprising bunch of grunts to a rather unorthodox post-war looting spree ; the millions in gold bars secretly stowed away by saddam in a desolate village in the desert . as the rest of the troops are celebrating their victory and getting ready to be shipped home , this `wild bunch goes awol on an armed hum-vee ( the vehicle of choice of the us army ) . they soon find out that they have much resistance , as they get tangled with the local rebellion against saddams forces . frequently switching their modes between looters and robin hoods merry men , they become consciously attacked by their own morals . as the film begins to roll , it seemed to have a rather `light mood to it . `special effects such as when gates describes to his men how a bullet can kill simply paves the way for a light-hearted funny action movie . three kings is much smarter than that . as the conflict becomes more and more complex , the audience will be trapped in a limbo , trying to stay focussed on that light-mood/serious-mood that the film seem to portray . i personally found this analogous to the same feelings of the main characters involved in the film ; trapped between their initial plan paved by greed and their own sense of humanity . this simply made the entire experience of watching three kings truly brilliant . action sequences are not shot as your old-fashioned war films nor anything like steven spielbergs in-your-face war violence . they are carefully built to generate tension with just the right tight close-ups and pauses , right before the action starts . not john woo for sure but more of sergio leones spaghetti western style ( tons of them starring clint eastwood ) . great performances by clooney and wahlberg but the brilliance have to lie in the conception of this film ; the screenwriter and the director . three kings ranks among the best films of the year , well , for me at least . highly recommended .

i'll be the first to admit i didn't expect much from the emperor's new groove : more celine dion-esque song-and-dance numbers , cuddly characters that become cross-promotion devices in mcdonald's happy meals , and hollywood stars trying to gain credibility by adding a voice-over job to their resume . i was dead wrong about all of those things . the emperor's new groove is funny . damn funny . and the cute characters in the film are the dangerous ones . the script is fast and furious , with no singing and dancing . the animation is clean and would give walt a warm feeling all over . the humor is dry and aimed at both the cynicism and the goodness in all of us . the story is ridiculously weird and comes off as a strange acid trip involving talking , cross-dressing llamas and schizophrenia . here's the plot ; try to follow along . set in a mythical kingdom , the film follows the adventures of kuzco ( david spade ) , an arrogant and egocentric emperor . when kuzco fires his power-hungry advisor , yzma ( eartha kitt ) , she and her " assistant " kronk ( seinfeld's patrick warburton ) change him into a llama . kuzco then gets stranded in the jungle and must rely on pacha ( john goodman ) , a llama-herder whose home was to be replaced by kuzco's water world theme park , to save him . then the fun starts . for the next sixty minutes , the audience is treated to something unheard of in disney films these days : imagination . yzma , voiced by the talented singer eartha kitt , looks like a cross between norma desmond , joan crawford , and a really old vegas showgirl . the dialogue between her and her oblivious assistant kronk is quick , sharp , and feels like an episode of seinfeld ( which would make sense ) . david spade and john goodman's character interactions make you feel like you're watching an old hope/crosby film . spade is beyond dry with his humor and shoots below the belt on several occasions , and i laughed out loud several times . needless to say , that is an extremely rare thing in disney screenings these days . the best part about the emperor's new groove is how audacious the film is . the sheer weirdness factor is very high . cross-dressing , schizophrenia , duality of soul , people being turned into every animal on noah's boat , llama cpr , homoerotic tendencies , an emperor with his own theme song and singer , michael jackson dance moves , and a guy that can communicate with a squirrel are only a few of the oddities that make the film a true orginal . simply put , the emperor's new groove is one of the best children's films out for this holiday season . kids will enjoy the adventures , and parents will enjoy the story and dialogue . that's a tough thing to pull off in a single package , but this emperor manages to do it .

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

note to screenwriters and self : when you hit the big time , and the studios come knocking for those scripts that are sitting in your bottom drawer , tell ? em all to hit the road . gilligan wrote the arbitrarily-titled home fries ten years ago ; it was shelved until he found success as one of " the took a second look at gilligan's " comedy " - they read it again wearing rose-tinted glasses . drew stars as sally , a dim ( but sweet ) , pregnant waitress at a small town burger joint located somewhere in the southern united states . the father of her child is dead , the victim of a severe heart attack brought on by sadistic torture from his two stepsons - these flyboys scared him with their low-flying helicopter . dorian ( wilson ) and angus ( busey ) were getting even for his philandering ways on behalf of their anguished mother ( o'hara ) . trouble is , sally picked up some interference on her drive-thru headset , and angus worries she may have heard conversations that took place in the helicopter prior to the accidental killing . so dorian goes undercover as a burger-flipper ; before you can say " with cheese " he falls for the mother-to-be . too bad mom and angus have homicidal plans for sally . does this sound like a movie you want to see ? without a doubt , the best thing about home fries is barrymore ; at the risk of sounding sexist , she's never looked better than here , as a curly redhead with twinkling eyes . she is winning in a role that requires her to do absolutely nothing except look apple-cheek cute and gawk at wilson , her real-life boyfriend . but the plot and the situations are so off-putting that nothing could save it . this movie desperately wants to get mentioned in the same breath as the coen brothers , but home fries' brand of laboured hipness would be foreign to geniuses like ethan and joel . it's raising arizona without babies , without charm , without laughs , without human characters , and without intelligence ; worst of all , it's creepy . what's funny about threatening to gun down a pregnant woman with a machine gun ? ( unless the woman in question is a spice girl . ) take out the helicopters , the quasi-incestuous relationship between the mother and her sons ( it is absolutely illogical , within the movie's framework , that dorian still lives with his mother and brother ) , and the scenes of murder ( attempted and otherwise ) , and what are you left with ? the story of a single woman with child who works at a fast food joint ( but dreams of becoming a country singer ) . that could turn out to be the most boring movie ever made , but it'd be better than home fries .

the characters in " palmetto " collectively sweat enough to fill lake erie , and it's just the right way to capture the film's ripe atmosphere of sensuality , tension and even farce . this humid florida-set thriller nurtures a modestly absurd edginess that often winks at itself , which is very much a good thing since the actors and director are in on the joke . as far as set-up is concerned , the movie is nothing we haven't seen before , but be patient -- " palmetto " spins some pretty wicked story twists that we really don't see coming . it's not a classic by any means , but it sure is quite an engaging surprise . harry barber ( woody harrelson ) is fresh out of prison , where he's served a couple of years for a crime he didn't commit . even though he harbors animosity towards the obtuse local officials , harry's first order of business is to return to his home town of palmetto to be with his sculptor girlfriend nina ( gina gershon ) . while searching for work , he catches the eye of rhea malroux ( elisabeth shue ) , the mysterious sexbomb wife of a palmetto millionaire . rhea proposes a scheme that'll get harry $50 , 000 easy -- to play a small part in the staged kidnaping of her jailbait stepdaughter odette ( chloe sevigny ) . " you do like risks , don't you , mr . barber ? " rhea alluringly coos . boys , form a line behind me . part of " palmetto " 's success can be attributed to the performance of elisabeth shue , who demonstrates here that her oscar-nominated turn in " leaving las vegas " might merely be foreshadowing great things to come . shue's a seductive , campy delight , and pulls off a barbara stanwyck-gloria swanson combo with admirable relish . the other actors form a solid ensemble around her , including sevigny ( " kids " ) , tantalizingly slutty as a teen tease , as well as the ever-likeable gershon , cast a far cry from her extreme roles in " bound " and " showgirls . " harrelson is still doing fine follow-up work to " the people vs . larry flynt . " " palmetto " does have its share of grievances . harrelson's narration is needless , i suppose , and gershon's nina cries to be meatier than she ultimately is . one of the plot's unexpected angles -- that harry is asked by the police to become the press liaison for the very crime in which he's involved -- could have been played a little better . there are moments when you question the tone , but it's never so unstable that it deserves the reproach it's been receiving from most other critics . if " palmetto " didn't want to be laughed at , would it really have tacked on a climax that plays like a live-action " who framed roger rabbit " ? although a few elements can be questioned , the movie works well on its own terms . thanks to a juicy cast -- especially shue -- and the nifty material approach from director volker schlondorff ( you remember him from last summer's suddenly re-popular " the tin drum , " right ? ) , everything runs smoothly . and for fans of revelation-heavy endings , this film's got a few shocks in store that i won't even dream of revealing . " palmetto " is a generous amount of fun to watch , and that's all you need to know .

let's face it : the $100 million-plus smash that was " goldeneye " was not a good film by any means , and as a bond movie was only marginally better than , say , " a view to a kill " or either of the timothy dalton pictures , by virtue of nice pacing . but it did revive the series , and granted the producers some new directions in which to take the it ( ie . the new " m " is a woman ) . " tomorrow never dies " is the picture " goldeneye " should have been ; it's also the most entertaining bond outing since " the spy who loved me " . the new picture opens with china considering war with britain after a standard military operation is misconstrued as a hostile threat from an english submarine . as an attack occurs , the front-page headline is already being prepared , courtesy of carver media . carver ( pryce ) the man is a deluded magnate , a sort of hybrid of ted turner , bill gates , and peter sellars' german scientist from " dr . strangelove " ( physically , pryce even recalls sellars in his kubrick days ) . it's up to james bond to take him down , with assistance , of course , from a wealth of gadgets ( including a multi-purpose cell phone ) , and beautiful women . enter michelle yeoh , fresh from " supercop " , as a chinese secret agent with her own agenda ; with effortless grace , she cat burgles , dispatches baddies seemingly with the ease of preparing pasta , and refuses the advances of our philandering hero . they make a great team . " tomorrow never dies " is a surprisingly entertaining and efficient film , given that at the helm is none other than the director of " turner & hooch " . spottiswoode has crafted some breathtaking set pieces , each much more intricate and impressive than , for instance , the tank scene in " goldeneye " . moreover , brosnan has at last settled into the role some feel he was born to play ; last time out , the fate of the franchise rested on his shoulders , and there was noticeable discomfort in his body language . returned in brosnan's eyes has some of the playfulness he demonstrated for so many years on tv's " remington steele " , as has his deadpan wit . and though carver's motives are muddy ( when carver explains that " genius is insanity with some success " , screenwriter fierstein is taking a lazy shortcut ) , pryce makes an agreeable , memorable villain . in the future , they should pursue actors as talented and experienced as pryce to breathe life into these cardboard figures . there a few too many explosions in " tomorrow never dies " , perhaps so many they qualify as dialogue . and it could have used a sharper script , though i was amused by the double entendres , none of which i will reveal here . as it stands , the plot suffers many holes ( i'm not taking about implausibilities ) , and the dialogue tends towards the hackneyed . now that the elements are in place : modern special effects and stunt work , cool pierce brosnan , kickass female allies . . . it's time to put them to use in something truly special . there's no mistaking , however , that " tomorrow never dies " is ideal holiday escapism , and for the first time in perhaps years , you'll walk out wanting more bond movies . -reviewed december 17 , 1997

battlefield long , boring and just plain stupid battlefield earth a film review by michael redman copyright 2000 by michael redman in my mid-teen years , i had a horrendous re-occurring nightmare . behind the wheel of a car , i was driving down a straight road in the middle of a desert . no scenery except the horizon line and the converging parallel lines of the highway . no matter what i did , the view didn't change : travelling but not getting anywhere . each time i awoke in a sweat , terrified . you don't have to be carl jung to understand that dream . powerless to make changes , trapped in a boring situation with no hope of rescue , this is the stuff of nightmares whether we are asleep or awake . this is exactly how you will feel 15 minutes after " battlefield earth " begins . for all of its flash and style , l . ron hubbard's science fiction epic is the earliest and best entry for the dullest summer film of 2000 . dull " and " stupid . in the year 3000 , the psychlo aliens have ruled our planet for 1 , 000 years . humans either work as slave labor in mining operations or live as barbarians . there's no hope . the future is bleak . then the psychlo make a mistake and capture feisty jonnie goodboy tyler ( barry pepper ) who organizes a revolution against chief of security terl ( john travolta ) and the alien race . it's an archetypal post-apocalyptic plot full of promise . considering some of the talent involved and all the millions thrown at the screen , it's difficult to see how it could have failed so miserably . but it does . the story is so full of holes that it falls apart within minutes of the opening credits . are we really supposed to believe that after a millennium of looking for gold , the psychlo never discovered fort knox ? or that fighter planes are still in pristine condition after all that time -- and gassed up ? or that the cavemen become such expert pilots in seven days that they can easily down the advanced alien ships ? or that the psychlo spy cameras somehow don't notice that their slaves are missing for days ? travolta prances across the screen hamming it up for all he's worth and is almost entertaining . almost . the rest of the actors are wooden mannequins trying not to laugh while delivering lines that no person -- " man-animal " or not -- would ever utter . some of the film _looks_ good , but it also looks so familiar . a race of large hulking ape-like creatures has taken over the world while our cities lie in ruin . sound like something charlton heston might be in ? the psychlo look like overweight klingons in gear from " dune " . the final air battle between the air force fighters and the psychlo ships in their high-tech city is something george lucas might have been associated with . it's too loud . it's too oppressive . it's too slow . it's too long . . . far too long . and on it goes . the list of the problems with " battlefield earth " is endless . it's difficult to find anything in the film that does work . oh yeah . the color scheme is nice . the real question is how this movie ever got made . could it have something to do with the fact that l . ron hubbard was the founder of scientology ? and that john travolta is a member of the church . that might explain why travolta bought the rights to the novel years ago . but it doesn't give us a clue as to why first-time screenwriter corey mandell's atrocious script was used . or why the high-profile project was entrusted with roger christian who had never before directed a major film . or why no one looked at this thing before it was released and realized there might be problems . the one bright spot is that no longer will kevin costner's " the postman " ( which i begrudgingly admit as a guilty pleasure ) be " the " big budget science fiction failure . " battlefield earth " has the honor sewed up . often reviewers will recommend that you skip mediocre films and wait for the video . that's not the case here . you can act now and make the decision to not see it on the big screen or on the small one . don't hesitate . strike now while the iron is cold .

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 doesn'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 won'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 , doesn'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 ain'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 wouldn'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 can'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 isn'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 doesn'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 don't tell me that's another parade . " please don'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 didn'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 , " didn't we agree that we weren't going to have any sweets until after the election ? " followed by , " back off , gene , " just doesn'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 .

in the past , tim burton has taken cinema by storm with the action packed batman , and the hilarious ed wood , but lately his films just don't cut it . sleepy hollow has some unique features , but the script is a terrible mess . for those who remember disney's fantastic " adventures of ichabod crane " , it is actually superior to this . disney's version was at least interesting , while burton's film drags on far too long , without any suspense or frights . while the stories are similar , the new version adds too much to the once likable story , and throws in some weak dialogue to top it off . ichabod crane ( johnny depp ) is now apparently a constable , who was sent to new york to investigate suspicious murders . the victims are headless , and no traces of evidence were found , until the murderer reveals himself , hence the headless horseman . now with the help of christina ricci and an orphaned boy , they must stop the headless horseman from a killing spree , that could destroy the whole town of sleepy hollow . sure the headless horseman is an intriguing character , but the story has so many holes that even he nor depp can save this disaster . in the original , the headless horseman was meant to be unstoppable . no one could stop him , not even ichabod . by the end of the film , it had audiences in deep thought . burton however concentrates far too much on the atmosphere , and how to make the main characters heroes . he takes no risk what so ever , and this is where he fails . another pathetic element of the film was the script . like i said earlier , he just stuffed too much in at one time , and made it look real sloppy , kind of like the mess the headless horseman made with his victims . he completely butchered the story to pieces . thankfully there are a few factors that i particularly liked . the acting by depp was quite notable . he took the nerdy character of the cartoon , and simply acted it out in a better manner . if it wasn't for his quirky one-liners , i doubt i could have remained awake , because quite frankly i was getting sleepy . just when i thought christina ricci was getting to be a good actress , she winds up doing this . it just goes to show no actress or actor can pass up a big blockbuster . it's too tempting to let go , even if the script is mush . the atmosphere too was quite involving . i should have just gazed at the sets , and the eerie fog , rather than actually pay attention to what was going on . at least burton's films are eye candy , even if they are trash . the only real scenes of value were the tree full of heads , and the fight between the horseman , depp and casper van dien . other than that , i wish i could just fast forward through all the gaping holes in the film , and just sit back and stare at the scenery . by the end , i can only think back and laugh at how bad sleepy hollow developed . this is the biggest disappointment of the year , especially when such a talented director like burton handles a project like this . don't waste your time or money , because your head will feel hollow .

today , war became a reality to me after seeing a screening of saving priivate ryan . steve spielberg goes beyond reality with his latest production . the audience is tossed about the theatre witnessing the horror of war . please keep the kids home as the r rating is for reality . tom hanks is stunning as capt john miller , set out in france during ww ii to rescue and return home a soldier , private ryan ( matt damon ) who lost three brothers in the war . spielberg at time takes us inside the heads of these individuals as they face death during the horrific battle scenes . private ryan is not for everyone , but i felt the time was right for a movie like this to be made . the movie reminds us of the sacrifices made by our ww ii fighting men and women . we must not ever forget them as many gave the ultimate sacrifice , their lives so that we may live in freedom today . for this i thank them and for steve spielberg for making a movie that i will never forget . the academy will not forget tom hanks come april 1999 , as another well deserved oscar with be in tom's posession .

warning : if you actually wish to see the film , stop reading this and see it . while i don't blow any plot details , the more you know about a movie , the more disappointing and built up it becomes ( waiting a month to see titanic did the same thing ) . but , in a nutshell , it's a good film . star wars episode i : the phantom menace reviewed by vince yim never having been the biggest star wars fanatic in the world ( i was more into star trek : the next generation ) , it is difficult to relate to the mass fandom surrounding the latest installment , the phantom menace . however , it can't be ignored . endless toys lining the shelves , endless news reports , and a multi-billion dollar advertising campaign makes it all the more difficult . with the level of this hype , one would recall an overhyped disaster from 1998 , godzilla , which definitely failed to live up to expectations . thankfully , the phantom menace does much , much better . while the " first " star wars trilogy told the story of jedi knight luke skywalker , the prequels backpedal to tell the back-story of obi wan kenobi and a young jedi named anakin skywalker ( who would become the father of luke and eventually become darth vader ) . without blowing too much of the story , the phantom menace evolves around a peaceful planet naboo , which is being held hostage by a greedy trade federation , and it's up to two jedi knights ( qui-gon ji , played by liam neeson and obi-wan kenobi , played by ewan mcgreggor ) to free it . the phantom menace has taken a literal beating from various film critics , leaving me to lower my expectations somewhat . common complaints range from lack of characterization , weak narrative , poor direction of actors , the dated style , and too much focus over special effects . still , film critics often apply much historical theory in regards to film criticism , much of which the average film buff does not care for . hence , this film is a lot of fun and definitely an improvement over the previous films ( even with the " improvements " in the special editions ) . there are many memorable sequences throughout the film , ranging from the fast and furious " pod race " sequence ( which is a take on the chariot races in " ben hur " ) and the many fight scenes involving legions of battle droids . utilizing technology that is light years beyond anything made before , special effects and computers are used to create everything from monsters to robots to amazing cityscapes with incredible detail . no matter how many times you watch this film , you will catch something new . the level of humour is a bit higher than the previous films as well , mostly conveyed through the reluctant hero jar jar binks , who belongs to a race known as the gungans . best described as an mr . bean from the planet naboo , he steals the show . unfortunately , being that he is a computer-generated character , tells a bit about the direction of the actors ( although natalie portman as the queen is pretty effective , as is jake lloyd as the young anakin skywalker ) . with star wars mania at an all time high , there is the risk that the film will disappoint ( i myself had my doubts ) , which this film does have a tendency to do at times . there are a few logic problems with the plot , several things are left unchecked , and at times seems to be made only for diehard star wars fans ( although the appearance of the tusken raiders makes for more than a few laughs ) . that , and young anakin skywalker is a really annoying character , coming off as a smarmy , arrogant brat ( with such an attitude , it's no wonder why he turns to the dark side ) . still , it seems that many people , especially critics , are missing the point . the film is some of the most fun 2 and a half hours that you'll blow in your life , which is something i wouldn't mind doing again . while it may not have the psychological impact of an academy award contender , who really cares ? the film is pure fun from beginning to end . and isn't that what really matters ?

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 . wasn'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 wasn'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 , doesn'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 doesn't work ( in fact , zoot functioned marvelously in comparison to this ) . and don't even get me started about the villains . i didn'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 .

capsule : this is a film that avoids easy answers . wilhelm furtwangler , then the world's greatest orchestra conductor stayed in germany and cooperated with the nazis . what were his views , was he a war criminal or a secret resistance fighter ? how much did he know about crimes against humanity ? the us government investigated him after the war and this film is a dramatization of that investigation . , high +2 ( -4 to +4 ) in my opinion one of the best films of the last few years is istvan szabo's sunshine , a film that covers the fortunes of a jewish hungarian family under the reigns of three different regimes , hungarian aristocrats , nazis , and communists . szabo's follow-up film , a german production , is much more limited in scope . it is about the post-war investigation of who criminally supported the nazis and who opposed them . ronald harwood's screenplay ambiguously looks at the investigation of a great classical music conductor who stayed on in germany when the nazis took power and became the most popular conductor of the third reich . maj . steve arnold ( played by harvey keitel ) has been assigned by his superiors to investigate wilhelm furtwangler ( stellan skarsgard ) , perhaps europe's greatest classical music conductor . when other artists fled germany , furtwangler remained behind and conducted for the hitler and his henchmen . after the war is over arnold assigned to interview furtwangler and members of his orchestra and if appropriate to prosecute him for war crimes . he secretly is told by his commanding officer to find furtwangler guilty . from there we follow him and learn a little about arnold and something about furtwangler and his orchestra . as he interviews members of the wartime orchestra arnold starts noticing odd peculiarities that may or may not point to a conspiracy against his investigation . there is a certain sameness to the responses that he is getting . perhaps any cooperation he is getting has been in some ways managed . if so , perhaps he can never come to the truth . in large part the film is about mind games that arnold uses to manipulate his interviewees and especially furtwangler . where the script has problems is that in the end it is so ambiguous . it has no obvious resolution and not much of a final act . when it is over whether anything has been established is open to interpretation . perhaps that is better than so many films that make it all to obvious what the audience should believe , but it is like watching a murder mystery and never finding out who the killer is . we are given clues to something but they are never tied up . in the end we just know more about both arnold and furtwangler . the film is basically a stage play . the visual is not very important . corners are cut visually including touches like filling windows with photographs to avoid having to shoot on location . as with a stage play , what this film centers on the dialog , and that is intriguing . i rate the film an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale . [there is one piece of sloppiness few people but me would notice . at one point we clearly see arnold's desk calendar say " jan 16 tues . " a quick mental calculation told me that combination could occur in 1945 and then not again until 1951 . the events had to take place in 1946 or 1947 . a possible date could be obtained from any world almanac . ]

a frequent error is the categorization of a terrorist as a soldier or a common criminal . a soldier commits acts of violence sanctioned by one nation-state against another . a common criminal commits acts of violence for personal gain . a terrorist employs random violence as a means to a political end . if the target nation does not affect the desired change in policy , the violence continues . it is the fear resulting from the fact that the terrorist may strike at anyone ( even total innocents ) , anywhere , at anytime that gives the figure his label . edward zwick's the siege explores the possibility of this kind of violence taking place right here in the united states . you'd think the opening bit was ripped right from the headlines . arab terrorists kill american citizens abroad , and the u . s . responds by retaliating against the sheik whom supposedly ordered the attack . however , unlike the real-life tomahawk cruise missile strike against bin laden's camp and manufacturing facility , the film version depicts special operations troops kidnapping sheik ahmed bin talal . in retaliation , the terrorists bring the fight to the new world . unwittingly involved is fbi assistant special agent-in-charge anthony hubbard ( denzel washington ) , who works out of the bureau's new york office at one federal plaza . while investigating a series of bombings in the big apple , he encounters cia agent elise kraft ( annette bening ) , also trying to uncover information . generally , the fbi is charged with problems inside the u . s . , while the cia takes care of problems in the international realm . even spies from other countries are off limits to the cia as long as they are in our country . hubbard therefore finds it highly unusual that an agency spook is nosing around what he considers his territory , but as the two form a tentative professional relationship , hubbard becomes more and more aware of an increasingly complicated series of allegiances and possibly illegal actions involving terrorism and the united states government . the original tagline for patriot games was , " there has never been a terrorist attack on american soil . " however true , it was pulled before the movie's release because it sounded too much like a dare . revisiting the scenario of foreign terrorists committing acts of violence in the united states , the siege is almost an invitation in itself , because it shows just what kind of turmoil could be produced if an effective terrorist network were to set up operations here in america . admittedly , the terror wrought upon new york is a bit excessive ( who's going to believe that a few bombs are going to cause new yorkers to jump at the backfire of a bus or to curtail their shopping by two-thirds ? ) , but the basic premise is still valid . i liked the fact that this film rises above the basic action-thriller fare of good guy g-men against bad guy terrorists by exploring some of the effects on society and law and order . it provides a very possible hypothesis that violent activity on the part of a few arabs would escalate into a series of hate crimes against the arab-american population , and that in an effort to find the terrorists , the civil liberties of the minority may be violated by the government itself . in fact , about halfway through the film , when the president authorizes the declaration of martial law within new york city , the liberties of all americans are put at risk . although it may actually be a side effect of a terrorist campaign , the demise of social order in america is a scary thought and a goal which would not be beneath many international terrorist groups . throughout , the film maintains a conflict between hubbard , who wants to use the fbi to pursue the terrorists within the letter of the law , and general devereaux ( bruce willis ) , who is in command of the army and of the mind that the greater good would be better served by suspending the law and pursuing the terrorists more forcefully . what results is a fascinating debate over the appropriateness and constitutionality of the declaration of martial law and the invocation of the war powers act , utilizing philosophy and historical examples to make points on both sides . it actually gets rather heady at times , but it's a credit to screenwriters zwick , lawrence wright , and menno meyjes that they don't underestimate the intelligence of the audience . i don't know if it's his tone or inflection or something else , but denzel washington has a way of spitting out dialog that makes whatever he says sound great . this , combined with his innate acting ability and his experience in playing the mid-level authority figure , makes his performance in the siege convincing and enjoyable . annette bening gives one of the more assertive portrayals of a female character i've seen recently , and the chemistry she shares with washington is palpable . it's somewhat unfortunate that her character's fortitude is broken at a certain point , but it allows us to watch bening play a little more range . bruce willis is pretty much relegated to a tough-guy role , always standing straight , and with a permanent scowl fixed upon his face . however , the tension that exists between devereaux and hubbard is a major drive behind the film's development . notable is tony shalhoub who plays fbi agent frank haddad , a lebanese immigrant . the role calls for evidencing both a kind of filial pride for his heritage , and contempt for those of his own race who might interfere with his integration into the american society . difficult to say the least , shalhoub does it with a naturalness you can almost reach out and touch . perhaps best known for his role as antonio the cab driver in the nbc sitcom " wings , " shalhoub gained notoriety for his dramatic abilities in the wonderful film big night . whereas denzel washington seems to be edward zwick's favorite actor ( he directed washington in glory and courage under fire ) , james horner seems to be his favorite composer . i therefore found it odd that zwick chose the prolific score-writer graeme revell ( seven films this year already ) over horner for the siege until i realized that this film contained a lot of arabian-themed music , and horner's record has shown more of a propensity for scores either neutral in ethnicity or irish-sounding at most . revell does a good job at providing appropriate music to punctuate key scenes and allowing the score to enhance the movie as a whole . it's nowhere near as intrusive as in some of the other films we've been getting throughout the year . missteps in the siege can be found in a couple of the excesses it takes . for example , it's pretty clear throughout that the film is meant to be more of thriller than an action flick . unfortunately , there's a scene where the army just cuts loose against some arab immigrants in a blatant display of firepower and explosions , obviously meant for the sole purpose of being eye-catching . in the middle of the city ( and against no real opposition ) , zwick even has the army use a cobra attack helicopter to shoot rockets into a building no farther than 50 feet from friendly troops . verisimilitude really goes out the window at that point . the film also gets a little preachy toward the end , focusing on the ability of different races to get along . a noble gesture , the film just puts the message across a bit too obviously . these flaws are glaring , but they don't detract too much from an otherwise good film that makes you think about issues you may not have considered since history class .

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 , " don'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 .

54 is dull , perfunctory , uninspired , and boring . a greater writer might have created a lyrical sentence for each of those adjectives , flowing in lovely arangements with soaring metaphors . i , however , would rather cut to the chase . 54 is dull , perfunctory , uninspired , and boring . there is nothing in it -- not a glimpse of depth , nor a shimmer of intelligence or insight . there is no electricity in any of the scenes , or a moment of interest in the story or its subplots . and it's underdeveloped , and features an array of bland characters played by actors who think they're in this year's boogie nights . they are so wrong . the picture has been assembled by mark christopher . based on this film , i don't know how he got a job in the business . 54 is supposed to be an amazing insight into the world of the dance club of the same name , which originated in the 70s and closed down in the 80s . i don't know if this film went into production after boogie nights was released , but christopher has managed to plagiarize paul thomas anderson's brilliant work in every possible way , from the framework of the plot down to the style of the cinematography . what it lacks is everything that made boogie nights great : depth , intelligence , energy , fascinating characters , and challenging themes . 54 can't even measure up to the last days of disco , which is flawed , but still smart and entertaining . it's remarkably bad timing , i'd say , to release a film this tedious after a couple of noteworthy pictures of the same kind . i have exaggerated , though : there is one interesting character , and one terrific performance . that character is steve rubell , played with more perceptiveness by mike myers than this limp production deserves . steve rubell is the owner of studio 54 , and if christopher had focused on him , then myers could have forced a good film out of this wreck all by himself . alas , we are instead guided to endure the trials of a young man named shane ( ryan phillippe ) , a going-nowhere new jersey teen who gets a job in the club , thanks to rubell's homosexual impulses . it's here that he meets his friends , the array of uninteresting characters : his co-worker , greg ( brecklin meyer ) , his wife , anita ( salma hayek ) , and , of course , the love interest , julie black ( neve campbell ) . shane is just an innocent young fool in the beginning , and he has a reasonably sturdy home life . ( some of the scenes with his father border on interesting , while heather matarazzo , who plays his sister , pushes phillippe off the screen . ) but he decides to envelop himself in the disco scene , and succumb to peer pressure and to drugs . why his " friends " push him into drugs is never really explained , but the fact that they are " friends " is questioned only is superficial ways ( greg gets really mad at shane because he's been elevated to bartender status ) . there isn't a single conflict that takes center stage , except that shane has some kind of unexplored reservation with the business in which he works . most of the film is dumb , and most of the dialogue is inane . there's a scene late in the film in which shane confronts julie black , and , in the next scene , they're arm-in-arm without a bit of development . then , they're kissing in a bowling alley ! this is five minutes of material , thrown into the picture at the last minute ( well past the one-hour mark , and this isn't a long film to begin with ) . campbell is a talented actress , but she needs a role that gives her a little depth . this one doesn't . and phillippe has almost no presence whatsoever ; this performance pales in comparison to mark whalberg's star-making role in boogie nights . he seems dumb and misguided , and his voice never changes tone . i guess he was picked for the color of his hair and the shape of his body , but he seems pretty lanky to me . he's all wrong for a lead role , but it doesn't help that christopher has forgotten to develop his characters . by the end of 54 , shane's most notable trait is his stupid , fake accent . the rest of the performances are wasted . hayek is an energetic , talented young actress , and does almost nothing here . meyer is endearing , but allowed to be no deeper than cardboard . only myers , by sheer force of talent , manages to rise above christopher's wading-pool of a script . rubell has been written just as depthless as the rest of the characters , but myers is good enough to inject subtleties that help round out the performance . in fact , myers is the sole reason to see 54 , and all it really does is make you wish that the film had revolved around him . i've read that studio 54 has been recreated down to the last detail . frankly , i don't care . it's easy to recreate something technical like this . a fairly skilled production designer and a few carpenters can manage such a task . besides , christopher keeps the lights so low that the sets are invisible , anyway . aside from myers' performance , 54 is a complete failure . it's dull , perfunctory , uninspired , and boring . some may find my comparisons to boogie nights unfair , but they're so obvious to me . in any event , 54 is pallid without the contrast . it doesn't even work as mindless entertainment : it's so shallow that the most escapist viewers are likely to dismiss it . so , don't forget those key words : dull , perfunctory , uninspired , and boring . everything else i said was just padding .

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

i can sum up first strike in one word : awesome . never in my life have i seen an actor as insanely dedicated as jackie chan . for the simple reason that he has performed his own stunts in his every movie he's ever appeared in , he should be awarded greatly . the same tom and jerry formula that was used to make chan's rumble in the bronx and supercop so entertaining can be found here as well . however , first strike was probably the most exciting out of the three , for the simple reason that practice makes perfect . his last two movies were almost like practice and this one was great . like rumble , this film is about the mafia , the former kgb . now chan must do battle in the freezing arctic temperatures of the ukraine against a group of very large bad men . the trailer for the film sums it up quite well . first strike is action-packed , but the fight scenes are so fast and furious , they almost have a witty , italian-like humor to them . jackie chan is a regular comedian . well , he's no eddie murphy , but he can really crack you up . for example , he is hanging off a roof and he humorously taunts his foes to come and get him , as he claims to be the korean 007 ( that's secret agent james bond ) . even the plot to this film improved above the others , as a sort-of twisted nuclear-weapon smuggling deal is botched and jackie takes the blame . but never fear , as the chinese mafia aids him in uncovering the truth behind the incident . with some of the most high-flying stunts and side-splitting comedy , first strike is a sure-fire hit that's guaranteed to draw some major , world-wide attention . ,

when a someone journeys to the theater to see a comedy , he always risks having to sit through inanity such as what we recently saw in films like edtv and office space . it really is too bad that comedies are so hit- and-miss , because when a moviegoer goes in a theater expecting to be amused , it really is a shame when the alleged comedy fails to deliver . but weep not , dear readers , because the latest comedy out of the hollywood movie mill is nothing less than a sure bet . austin powers : the spy who shagged me is one of the funniest things i've had the pleasure to see in a long time ; a completely looney , delightful parody of the often pretentious james bond flicks . if all comedies ( or even half ; or - - what am i saying ? -- even a fifth of them ) could be this consistently hysterical , i would take up residence at my local multiplex . even more to this movie's credit is the fact that it is a sequel to the 1997 sleeper/cult hit austin powers : international man of mystery . the original came out of nowhere ; it was a low-budget , eccentric movie that many expected to flop like a leslie nielsen parody . all of a sudden it was being quoted by teenagers all over america . ironically , powers' " yeeeeah baby , yeah ! " has almost become an icon of the late 90s . thus another installment was inevitable , but it's also undoubtedly welcome . the spy who shagged me is one of the most unrestrained , over- the-top comedies i have ever seen in my entire life . it brings back most of the characters from its predecessor ( even if only briefly ) and adds new ones . austin powers ( mike myers ) , a swinging hipster from the 60s transported into the 90s has to go back to his own time to get back his mojo ( oh , you'll figure it out ) , which dr . evil ( meyers again ) has stolen . he enlists the help of a gorgeous secret agent felicity shagwell ( now that his prior sidekick vanessa has been properly disposed of in a hilarious opening sequence ) , played without much distinguishable gusto by heather graham and together they go back to the 60s to defeat dr . evil yet again . surprisingly , the real star is dr . evil rather than austin . he gets most of the screen time because he was so popular in the first movie . perhaps this is true because he is portrayed and written so affectionately . instead of being the scheming , villainous mad scientist we might expect from a character like this he is a bumbling , often sweet mad scientist wannabe . the spy who shagged me has much of the same stuff we saw in the original , but that's okay by me because the original left us wanting more . by the time that one was over we haven't had nearly our share of shag jokes , crude puns and powers' antics and this sequel satisfies our appetites . even by its conclusions , i'm still not sure i've had my fill of bits like " do you smoke after sex ? " " i don't know , baby , i never looked . " this may seem awfully immature of me , but understand that the austin powers series , unlike most of the crap hollywood feeds us these days , is genuinely funny . i don't know if i've ever laughed harder at any movie than i did during the jerry springer send up or the indubitably hilarious " just the two of us " rendition by dr . evil and his new miniature clone named " mini-me " . i don't have any pretensions that this is particularly smart social satire or anything of the sort . indeed there is little beyond the joy a viewer feels when he sees something that is able to entertain him as much as this movie did . but as far as i'm concerned , that is enough . ? 1999 eugene novikov &#137 ;

it's an interesting premise . our reality is only real to us because it is what we perceive to be real . in truth , our entire existences are lived out in our minds as we are fed information through electronic inputs directly to our brains . what we see , what we do , everything around us is nothing more than a computer-generated construct interlinked with the minds of others through a vastly powerful artificial intelligence . our bodies , severely atrophied , are kept alive for the sole purpose of generating heat and electrical energy for a dominating order of machines which control the planet . the sci-fi realm has been waiting a little while for something new to come along . the matrix isn't it - the idea of a war between man and a sentient computer network , a sham world , the ability to plug one's brain into a computer , has all been gleaned from such sources as the terminator , dark city , and a few star trek episodes ( both classic and next generation ) . what is new is the ability to weave all of these various elements together and succeed in producing a film that is both entertaining as well as thought-provoking . keanu reeves plays a computer whiz nicknamed neo , who is plucked out of the artificial world ( known as the matrix ) by a group of renegade humans who are clandestinely fighting to expose the fallacy of the computer-generated existence and free humankind from the oppression of the machines . the group's leader , morpheus ( laurence fishburne ) , has chosen neo because he believes neo is " the one " who is destined to lead the attack against the artificial intelligence . >from the beginning of the film , we are kept on our toes trying to figure things out . this , in a lesser movie would be annoying , but the matrix presents itself in an intelligent manner which makes the puzzle rather interesting and even fun . what is reality ? what is a sham ? the film turns our very perception of life on its side . more than once , we are also presented with the question of whether we would rather know the harsh truth of reality , or live a life of relative bliss , oblivious to the true nature of our surroundings . as viewers , this is intriguing enough , so imagine what it would be like for neo . and who to better play a bewildered person than keanu reeves ? reeves , whom i've never really cared for as an actor , is competent in roles which require a lot of straightforwardness , and little subtlety . he was good in speed , for example , but laughably poor in a walk in the clouds . neo is actually one of those roles which reeves slips into rather nicely , so much of my expectation was happily for naught . in a couple of places , the script even capitalizes upon his wooden nature , and this is a heavy credit to writers/directors andy and larry wachowski . i mean , since bill and ted's excellent adventure , what movie could you say really " utilized " keanu reeves ? more interesting than reeves is fishburne , who's morpheus nearly runs the gamut of emotions , and convincingly so . very surprising for a sci-fi movie . fishburne also maintains a certain demeanor about himself throughout , as if he always knows what to expect . this helps to further the aura of his character's proficiency and extensive knowledge . hugo weaving as agent smith , one of the artificial intelligence's anti-intruder programs , is also good playing his deadpan , no-nonsense , kick ass role , which requires him to show emotion at the appropriate time . unfortunately , when weaving speaks for more than a few sentences in a row , the nature of his character's speech pattern becomes a little more laughable than impressive . carrie-anne moss plays trinity , morpheus's number one assistant who becomes somewhat of a love interest for neo . although her character is somewhat inconsistent , moss nevertheless delivers an above par performance when fishburne isn't in the picture . there were few expenses spared when it comes to the special effects . many methods of imagery are employed , from modeling to bluescreen to computer graphics . of special note is the use of the " freeze and turn " effect where the entire scene is frozen , turned , then continued from a new angle . this is accomplished by using a large number of still cameras employed in a semi-circle , with motion picture cameras placed at the two ends . the motion cameras film the action , and at the appropriate moment all the still cameras fire at once . place each still image in a film sequence and you get a nearly seamless transition from the first motion camera to the second . pretty slick . the matrix drips with style . from the clothing to the music to the action , we're watching an exaggerated version of what we're used to . much of it seems like the combination of two genres of the hong kong action film - there's a lot of kung fu , there's a lot of gunplay . when a character is letting go with an automatic weapon , much is made of the empty cartridges falling to the floor in slow motion . there's also the element of the japanese action cartoon ( called anime by aficionados ) , especially in the way the sequences are filmed in sweeping pans and emphasized actions through special effects . combined , it's really like no live-action film i have ever seen . the film is not without its faults . some of the scenes and ideas are " borrowed " a little too liberally from other films , and one component of the ending is decidedly disappointing . some of the lines are also pretty bad - in one instance , a supporting character incorrectly delivers a famous saying , and it wasn't meant to be a joke . however , these shortcomings detract little from what is an overall solid action sci-fi film that for once does more than merely entertain .

while i am not fond of any writer's use of cheap , easy puns , i am not completely above using them myself when the situation merits it ( witness my review of _pecker_ from a couple of issues ago ) . so here goes : the juvenile , college-set black comedy _dead_man_on_campus_ is dead on arrival . strait-laced med student josh ( tom everett scott , who manages to remain somewhat likable throughout ) 's blemish-free academic record breaks out into fs , thanks to the influence of his ever-partying roommate , cooper ( mark-paul gosselaar ) , who introduces josh to the sex- and booze-filled nights that come with university life . with the threat of losing an academic scholarship ( josh ) and a life cleaning toilets for his dad looming ( cooper ) , what are two good-hearted slackers to do ? easy--look for a loophole , which they find in the form of an unbelievable rule in the school charter that states that if a student's ( or students' ) roommate commits suicide , the surviving student ( s ) shall receive straight as . so instead of studying , josh and cooper attempt to seek out the most depressed student out there , move him into their dorm room , and drive him to suicide before the semester ends . director alan cohn and screenwriters michael traeger and mike white ( working from a story by anthony abrams and adam larson broder ) take their sweet time to build the head of steam that comes with josh and cooper's diabolical plot . until then , the usual boring cliches of college life ( booze , sex , more booze ) fill the time , which is made to feel longer by _saved_by_the_bell_ alumnus gosselaar's sitcom-bred mugging . that said , once cohn and company do build some comic momentum , they mishandle it . the introduction of the manic , psychotic cliff ( lochlyn munro ) , a potential roommate for josh and cooper , brings some demented life to the uninspired proceedings before being hastily written out in favor of two less interesting candidates : paranoid nerd buckley ( randy pearlstein ) and british death rocker matt ( corey page ) . one wishes that cliff would reappear , but , as they say , be careful what you wish for . not surprisingly , he does resurface , and it then becomes clear that this is a character that is best taken in a small dose ; almost immediately , his extended boorish and sociopathic antics loses its novelty . the same can be said about all of _dead_man_on_campus_ . whatever morbid appeal the far-fetched premise has quickly evaporates , and the self-absorbed characters , especially cooper , pretty much grate from the get-go . _dead_man_ doesn't grow tiresome ; it already _is_ once the clever opening titles are through . as it slogs along to a cheesy , happy-for-all-parties conclusion , _dead_man_ lives up to its title and then some--not only does the movie grow even more tired and die , it still insists on going on . . . like a zombie .

staring , george clooney , arnold schwarzenegger , chris o'donnell and uma thurman with alicia silverstone . well to start this off i'd just like to say a couple things . first is , i miss michael keaton , i miss tim burton and would much prefer to think that these last two batman films are all like a dallas dream sequence . not even from the first film was batman really the 'star' though he was damn close in the first couple anyway . in 'batman forever' and now in 'batman & robin' he's almost pushed to being a bit player . i can't really say if clooney ( who regardless was better than kilmer ) was a very good batman or not . he's given next to nothing to do at all , he might as well not have been there and it wouldn't have made much difference . now , joel schumacher has said that he refuses to bend to the masses that have hated his films and cheered for the return of buton that he wont make batman brooding and dark . fine , i mean granted 'batman returns' while being an awsome film was a bit to dark sometimes . yet his bright neon , campy style is just killing anything this series meant to me . i'm usually very easy on films . i loved 'con air' and other films some critics have slammed . granted that film really was paper thin , cliche ridden , except for one thing , it was fun . there is virtually no fun in this film at all . i couldn't have cared less . it'll thrill the little ones as theres no violence really , none everyone comes out fine in the end like those old tv shows where it ends with everyone laughing . schwarzenegger is awful , i mean really , really bad . . . and this is coming from a regular fan of his work . i love his movies most of the time and the basic reason is he never says much in any of them . he talks all to often in this movie . i would have much prefered to have seen patric stewart in the roll . i believe to truely like a film you have to care about at least someone in a film . i liked alfred but the reason behind it is a cheap shot .

elizabeth is a potent historical drama set in england in the mid-1500s . it is a time when stately royal ceremonies are as commonplace as public burnings . internally , the catholics wage war against the protestants . meanwhile , spain , scotland and france strategize their next moves in the struggle for power . little does england know that a young woman named elizabeth ( cate blanchett ) will be their greatest hope for survival . the film charts elizabeth's tumultuous struggle to gain true power over her kingdom . as a protestant , she is the last person any of the catholic royalty would want to be queen . but her half-sister queen mary ( kathy burke ) , deathly ill and unable to conceive a child , pleas with elizabeth to take over the throne . mary gives her her blessing on only one condition : that elizabeth renounce her faith and uphold the teachings of catholicism across the land . once declared queen , elizabeth immediately finds herself under assault , both by her own subjects ( including the duke of norfolk , played with steely-eyed grace by christopher eccleston ) and by forces abroad . slowly but surely , the neophyte ruler takes england by its reigns and forges a new path for her kingdom . elizabeth is surrounded by a keenly drawn cadre of subjects and advisers . her closest ally is the mysterious sir francis walsingham ( geoffrey rush , in a perfectly subtle performance ) . also on her side is sir william cecil ( sir richard attenborough ) , her well-meaning but misguided chief adviser . with few people she can trust , elizabeth must prove her self-worth any way she can , even if it means being the iron-fisted ruler she secretly despises . blanchett deserves an oscar for her performance as elizabeth . she portrays the young queen with just the right balance of gawky self-consciousness and shrewd charisma . though not a classical beauty , blanchett is able to entrance the viewer with just a coy smile or an impish smirk . she is at home with her character's playful tendencies , particularly in one scene where elizabeth dances unabashedly with childhood friend and lover lord robert dudley ( joseph fiennes ) . whether fending off unctuous suitors or " playing " the houses in court , blanchett's elizabeth radiates a confidence which impossible to dislike . almost as interesting as the character of elizabeth are shekhar kapur's visual delights . he and cinematographer remi adefarasin have crafted a film with a rich color palette that is a feast for the eyes . rolling green hills , extravagant ceremonial galas , dark and foreboding corridors -- all are depicted with a real sense of artistic appreciation . the castles and cathedrals of europe have rarely been doted on so lovingly as they are here . though writer michael hirst's script gets a little murky at times , and his injections of humor get a little overplayed , elizabeth pulses with the right amount of dramatic and cinematic verve to make it just deserving of a theatrical viewing . as a whole , the story survives because elizabeth's struggle is one which deserves attention . by the time she makes her shocking ( but very sensible ) final declaration , we're ready to bow to elizabeth as our own queen .

until i saw the night of the hunter , it had been a long time since i had gasped while watching a movie . forget the others and the deep end ( which veered toward strained dramatics ) , the night of the hunter is by far the scariest movie i've seen so far this year . even though the movie is nearly 50 years old and there's a not drop of blood to be seen . luckily , the night of the hunter , charles laughton's first and final directing gig , has been restored by the ucla film and television archive and is being re-released in october 2001 . so , there's still plenty of time to spill your popcorn all over the place . robert mitchum stars as harry powell , a reverend with a nasty habit of courting and then killing widows for their cash . his newest target is young mother willa harper ( shelley winters ) , whose murderer husband ben ( peter graves ) has hidden $10 , 000 somewhere . powell finds out about the stash and decides to court mrs . harper after he's released and ben is hanged . but finding the money isn't easy for powell , who must contend with his stepchildren ( billy chapin and sally jane bruce ) , who know where the money is , but aren't telling . the hard part about seeing a classic now is the pop culture monster has usually drawn and quartered and then flaunted all the memorable moments , thus ruining the spontaneity and adventure when we finally watch it for the first time . how many spoofs or salutes to the shower scene in psycho have we seen in other movies ? what about the brilliant baby stroller sequence from battleship potemkin ? ( no , i'm not blaming brian de palma entirely for this sampling problem . ) yes , there are some visual elements that other directors seem to have borrowed from the night of the hunter . powell's " love " and " hate " knuckle tattoos obviously influenced spike lee in do the right thing ( remember radio raheem ? ) . and powell's black suit , with black tie and white shirt , could have shaped quentin tarantino's early visual style . seeing the night of the hunter for the first time , i was amazed at how much it crackled with wicked wit and fright and how much intensity was intact . you can now sign me up as president of the robert mitchum fan club . he plays the role with a controlled malice that induces unease every time he appears . he's like the senior class president with an evil streak . if i ever need to stay awake , i'll just picture him crooning , " leaning . . . leaning . . . . " any actor who wants to play a character with a touch of evil should study his performance the way a rabbinical student studies the torah . and credit must be handed out to laughton and cinematographer stanley cortez , who create a series of haunting , surreal shadowy images over the rural depression-era backdrop . it's a testament to both men that they're able to invigorate what has become a hackneyed storyline ( kids harassed by evil guardians ) by sticking to the old maxim that we're more scared by what we don't see . screenwriter and legendary film critic james agee does a beautiful job giving shape and substance to an array of supporting characters : the drunk birdie ( james gleason ) who's haunted by his wife , and the spoons ( evelyn varden and walt spoon ) whose marriage has become a verbal vaudeville act . the only lapse is the movie's third act , when pearl and john run away from home and find a home with the motherly , bible-reading mrs . cooper ( lillian gish ) . her showdown with powell is memorable -- a battle done with dueling hymns . however , the whole segment feels a little rushed and underdone , but it's still a thrill seeing the queen of the silent film era handling a shotgun . do yourself favor and don't miss this if it comes to a nearby theater . note : a series of revealing , but overlong , outtakes preceded the movie . the highlights included the legendary laughton ( who sounds eerily like mr . pitt from seinfeld ) running winters' lines with mitchum , and the adorable , tiny bruce having trouble descending a coal pile . hours more of such footage exists , as laughton liked to keep the cameras constantly rolling . screened as part of the 2001 new york film festival retrospectives ( feature story coming soon ) .

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

did claus von bulow try to kill his wife sunny in their newport mansion ? that is the question reversal of fortune asks you to consider as it opens in a hospital ward , with a comatose sunny von bulow . she is the main narrator of the film , in a narrative trick that was extraordinarily risky for schroeder . the dramatic trick works , as sunny von bulow narrates a compelling story of murder , sex , unhappiness , and a lawyer's moral dilemma as he takes a case he thinks he cannot win . jeremy irons is claus von bulow , in what is his finest role , and one of the most devastingly evil performances in history . he is as hated as any man alive , as cold as a cucumber . his remorse for his wife's comatose condition is nonexistant , and it is no wonder that even his children have difficulty accepting his version of what happened during christmas , 1980 . the background to the case is such . during christmas of 1979 , sunny von bulow fell into a deep coma from which she recovered and awoke . the same situation occured in 1980 , only sunny never woke , and probably never will . when examined , it was found that she had 14 times the normal amount of insulin within her blood . claus von bulow is then accused of attempted murder by his stepson , convicted , and freed on bail . he immediately hires alan dershowitz , the renowed harvard law professor , to acquit him . ron silver is magnificent as a moral lawyer who cannot stand what has happened to him . we follow him through two very different cases ; the case of the johnson case , where two innocent kids are standing on death row for a crime they didn't commit , and von bulow , who he still hasn't figured out . dershowitz doesn't know what happened to sunny , and he is extremely hesitant to take the case . nevertheless , he does , based on certain things which happen during the investigative process that deeply upset him . together with a group of law students , dershowitz concocts a defense and ultimately get the verdict reversed . silver's performance is one of a handful of solid roles in this deep film . schroeder directs on many different levels , with multiple plot lines which blend in wonderfully in the mind of alan dershowitz . there are flaws ; at times , the film gets overly theatrical . yet , due to glenn close's troubled and brutally honest performance as sunny von bulow , the use of her comatose body as a narrator works here fairly well . the flashbacks are good , but at times schroeder doesn't fill in the blanks . the movie could have benefited with the increased attention of certain developments during the film , and it could have used a better ending . the film progressed wonderfully before ending suddenly , without any intelligent conclusion . the supporting characters are often neglected , and dershowitz's team should have been allowed to grow character wise , but schroeder over-simplifies the story and the characters . yet , for all these flaws , the film is deeply engrossing because of irons . as von bulow , he is brutally evil . anti-semitic , prejudiced , arrogant , protective , he is a rotten , lying monster , whose conviction may have been wrong legally , but morally he was to blame . irons plays him to a cold perfection , with pathetic attempts to gain moral support for his claims to innocence . he is an adulterous liar and a cheat who in all likelihood committed the murder . however , the genius of reversal of fortune comes in its distinction between moral culpability and legal responsibility . there is no doubt von bulow is responsible for his wife's death by years of neglect and coldness . however , legally , did he do the murder ? schroeder dares the viewer to make up his own mind . with all the character flaws , reversal of fortune is an engrossing puzzle because it is intelligent ; he wants the viewer to make up his own mind . schroeder taunts the viewer with contradictory revelations , and then mentions that the answer to this compelling puzzle shall be revealed when we join sunny von bulow , in death . for all the failed dramatic theatrics , this is one that works beautifully . we don't know what happened . that sense of legal ambiguousness , along with von bulow's obvious moral guilt , is why reversalf fortune works . in the end , von bulow is as sadistic as ever . irons is haunting , and that is why reversal of fortune is so good .

john carpenter directed this stylish and gory vampire flick to which has it's good side and it's bad . it's held up by some good performances and dazzling special effects leading up to an ending that's pretty satisfying . james woods gives an outstanding performance that almost covers up the movie . the good side : some neat scenes of vampires and violence . the bad : no scares . yes that's right , even though being directed by one of horror's most cherished directors , 'vampires' is the least bit scary , if not at all . james woods stars as jack a vampire hunter out to stop the plans of the 'master' vampire valek played by thomas ian griffith whom wants vampires to walk in the daylight . daniel baldwin plays his sidekick montoya , a wise-cracking guy who really isn't that funny . in the opening scene jack along with montoya and the team of vampire hunters , find an abandoned house to which vampire occupy . of course we all know sunshine kills vampires , and that is just how they kill these vampires : hooking them to ropes and dragging them outside letting them burn to death . after throwing a party for what happened , the vampires that did not die come back to trash it . they kill almost all of jack's team , leaving only a few alive . sheryl lee plays a prostitute katrina who was bitten by valek , but not yet turned into a vampire . she is rescued by jack and ? flees with them on their search for valek . they have to fight they're way against vampires , leading up to a finale that is well-done with great special effects . 'vampires' definately could have been done better . the make-up , special effects and story are first rate , but there is no scares or terror that the film could have had . it to me had more humor than horror , almost being compared to 'fright night' with the mix of violence and comedy . john carpenter does a great job of directing this film . he eases through some tough times and saves the flaws , which are noticeable but forgettable . the script is clever and funny , with many lines that make us laugh out loud . i much enjoyed 'vampires' with a few exceptions . it's one of those films you see but don't take to heart . you enjoy the time you spent and go on . the recently released 'psycho' is the same way , it's not as good as you'd hope but it is fun and entertaining . 'vampires' is a good horror flick with no scares but plenty of other content to please the viewer .

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

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

the calendar year has not even reached its midway point , but that hasn't prevented columbia pictures from trotting out a lavish period drama more befitting of the winter oscar-bait season . bille august's high-profile adaptation of victor hugo's classic les miserables delivers everything one would expect from a classy hollywood epic--handsome production values , strong performances by a top-notch cast , a literate screenplay--with one critically missing element : emotional sweep . for those not familiar with hugo's original novel or the hit stage musical it inspired , the hook of les miserables essentially boils down to something like a 19th-century french-set version of the fugitive . after serving 19 years in a prison work camp for stealing a loaf of bread , the brutish jean valjean ( liam neeson ) is paroled . immediately upon release , he steals valuable silverware from a kindly bishop who takes him in for a night ; he is caught by authorities , only to be forgiven by the bishop , who lets valjean keep the silver to start a new life on the straight and narrow . that he does , and in doing so breaks his parole , which sets the obsessively determined inspector javert ( geoffrey rush ) , who was one of the guards in valjean's prison camp , on his trail . thematically , however , les miserables is a story about redemption , which valjean finds through his dealings with two women , the hard-luck factory-worker-turned-prostitute fantine ( uma thurman ) , and her illegitimate daughter , cosette . years after breaking parole , valjean becomes mayor of the town of vigau , where he forms a warm friendship with fantine after saving her from an unjust arrest by javert . valjean promises the gravely ill fantine he will rescue the young cosette ( mimi newman ) from her cruel caretakers , the thenardiers , and raise the child as his own . the " father " and " daughter " eventually land in paris , where the teenage cosette ( claire danes ) falls for dashing student revolutionary marius ( hans matheson ) . the decades-spanning story is the stuff that cinematic epics are made of , and the danish august turns in his most accomplished english-language work , following the underrated 1994 superstar soap the house of the spirits and last year's stylish but highly preposterous mystery smilla's sense of snow . he and screenwriter rafael yglesias bring the sprawling tale into clear focus and keep the events moving at a brisk pace . production designer anna asp , costume designer gabriella pescucci , and cinematographer jorgen persson give les miserables a sumptuous period look whose accomplishment is mostly matched by the efforts of the cast . neeson is commanding yet endearingly vulnerable ; rush's finely modulated menace is far more rewarding than his overrated , oscar-winning theatrics in shine ; and thurman disappears nicely into her highly unglamorous role . the younger members of the cast fare less well . danes is convincing as cosette , but her overdone lip quivering during her crying scenes becomes a distraction ; and matheson , while competent , is a less interesting robert sean leonard . as technically adept and cerebrally engaging the film is , by the time les miserables was over , my emotions had only been superficially involved . while i was touched by valjean's relationships with fantine and cosette , i was not moved . not even reaching the " touching " level is the cosette-marius pairing . my only previous experience with les miserables is with the musical ( as i am sure many others' is ) , and i was dismayed to see eponine , a friend of marius's who selflessly dies in the name of her unspoken love for him , almost completely jettisoned from this adaptation ( the daughter of the thenardiers , here she is only briefly seen as a child ) . her presence would have added some much-needed conflict and emotional heft to the youthful romance , but i suppose august and yglesias felt one tragic heroine ( fantine ) was enough . even so , as 1998 creeps into summer blockbuster season , les miserables is a thoughtful , well-made , entertaining film , one that will sate moviegoers hungry for a dose of drama before popcorn no-brainers invade the multiplex .

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

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

seen july 8 , 1998 at the crossgates cinema 18 , ( albany , ny ) , theater #7 , at 8 : 15 p . m . with my mom using hoyts cinema cash . [theater rating : * * * 1/2 : very good sound , picture , and seats] it's very rare that any medium of entertainment can give one an authentic , vivid sense of reality and life . all stories are about select moments of time and places in the characters' lives , but only the truly great ones are able to define their realities well enough so the audience can experience it just as the characters do . therefore , " gone with the wind " deserves accolades for its ability to tell the epic story it does , in such a crafted , intricate , and entertaining manner . it's a crowning achievement , not only in filmmaking , but for storytelling itself . the film takes place in georgia before , during , and after the civil war . this plays a major factor in the film's success . to use such a historic setting presents many possibilities and problems since no one was alive at the time to verify its accuracy . it might also seem cliche , boring and other such deterent factors to potential viewers . can a story set so long ago be relatable now ? the film confronts all these problems , paradoxically , by not cronfronting them . it doesn't simply plug in the " right thing " at the " right time , " it creates an entire reality where everything makes sense and said concerns are irrelevant . building a strong foundation is important to all forms of media , without which , what is there to build on ? we're given some backstory here and learn a little about our characters , especially our main character , scarlett o'hara ( leigh ) , a beautiful southern belle with a will of steel , a cunning wit , and a tremendous sense of liberty in such an oppressive time . she knows how her society works , wherein everything she does can and will play a role in the shaping of her life and those around her . right from the beginning we realize how determined she is to have her way no matter what the consequences may be . being the most sought-after woman allows her to manipulate men ( and their women ) to ensure she gets her way , whether it be obvious ( i . e . who will be the one to get her food ) , or subtle ( i . e . getting married just to spite someone ) . the man she claims to love is ashley wilkes ( howard ) , a modest gentleman who does not seem to have the same passion for her as she does for him . he isn't so arrogant and demanding as scarlett , in fact , he's engaged to a woman with a personality much more like his . her name is melanie ( de havilland ) , and she is one of the sweetest , kindest , and most likable characters one will ever see . she and scarlett become very dear friends , but she never suspects the jealously scarlett has for her , and the love she has for her husband . her meekness is both her strongest and weakest characteristic - it defines who she is , but doesn't give her much emotional self-defense . acting a catalyst to the love triangle , and to the story as a whole is the daper , stong-willed , cunning , cocky southern business and military man captain rhett butler ( gable ) . he's quite a character all right - everyone listens to what he has to say even though he's got a bad reputation . butler makes no apologies for his vast amount of money nor his behavior . he tells everyone the much-needed truth in the rigid caste-like society where freewill doesn't seem to exist , everything is done out of honor and tradition . for example , in his first appearance butler tells his fellow southerners there's no way the south could defeat the north if war were to break out . this angers them , not for his lack of faith , but because he has the gall to say it aloud and boastfully at that . " do we have ammunition factories ? do we have food ? do we have a navy ? all we have is tobacco . " all true statements and yet the south still insists he's wrong . butler is a shifty character to be sure , but he takes such pride in his arrogance it's appealing . scarlett notices this too when she first sees him , and from the look butler gives her , we know he's not going to stop until he has her . but scarlett can't get past her need for ashley , and during a scene which sets the stage for the grand story , butler learns of this and continues to throw it back at scarlett forever . and so the story goes on , with scarlett being thrown obstacle after obstacle in her life . the conflicts she must overcome range from taking care of her entire family to finding a proper husband , especially after she is " marked " for life when her first husband dies . this gives the film many opportunities to bring in more characters into the epic story . some are vital for only a few scenes , but their true signifcance will endure throughout the film . in most films only a few characters exist for support in background , but this film is more realistic and believable as it incorporates a supporting cast the size of a small town and everyone has signficance . even people in the background seem more than just extras wandering the set . the costuming design is outstanding so that the film makes for a real sense of time and place . the filmmakers could have easily set more scenes indoors and narrowly focused to avoid having to show the outside , real world , but these types of simple approaches are never taken . the first half of the film depicts the traumatic experience the south faced at the last days of the civil war . fleming is able to convey the horror of it all by painting an image of destruction and letting the viewer decide just how bad it is . one scene has scarlett working as a nurse at a military hospital while we hear a soldier in the background screaming , " no ! not my leg ! don't cut off my leg ! " another scene shows her simplying trying to cross a street , but as the camera pulls back , we see that her path is blocked by hundreds of wounded soldiers , but it is their moaning that's more graphic than all the bloody gore could ever be . as the second half begins , the film concentrates more on scarlett as a completely independent woman who single-handedly takes care of her family and melanie just to spite the tyrany of the north . she manages to resurrect the family plantation , but all the willpower she has can't help her when she must pay exuberhant taxes set by the north after the south's ultimate defeat . this brings rhett butler back into the picture and thus begins their torrid love- hate relationship . most of the second half of the film is somehow related to the relationship ( or lack thereof ) between rhett and scarlett . each uses the other for personal gain , but at the same time they still feel an intimate connection with each other . scarlett continues to use her manipulative powers over men to get what she wants and because rhett can't help but want her more every time she tries to one-up him such as marrying another man and taking over his business . they say opposites attract , but the conflict between rhett and scarlett goes way beyond opposing personalities , it borders on magnetic polarization . they need each other and know this , yet they never seem truly happy together . perhaps they mistake love for passion , and the film leaves it up to us to make this call . both have things the other wants and vice versa , but when they compromise , is it just to get their own way or because they actually care for each other . love and the perception of love are two completely separate things and throughout the final act of the film , we're left wondering if rhett and scarlett ever truly loved each other and why . gable and leigh do have great chemistry , always leaving the viewer wondering which emotions were authentic and which were manufacture . all ? none ? either way is possible and it's a mystery that cannot be solved even upon repeated viewings . it's safe to say most of us won't live such overly dramatic lives as those in " gone with the wind , " but it's still a masterpiece for its ability to give us a sense that we've just experienced a life's worth of joy and pain .

this remake of " la cage aux folles " features a gay couple pretending to be straight in order to pull the wool over the eyes of their son's future in-laws . the couple ( robin williams and nathan lane ) are about as archetypal , or as the less kind might put it ? stereotypical , gays possible . williams owns a nightclub featuring drag queens where his partner performs as the featured star . they live above the club in what could not possibly be mistaken as a heterosexual abode . williams is excellent as should be no surprise . gene hackman as right-wing potential father-in-law is refreshing in one of his few comedic roles . the real star is lane . his attempted transformation from one of the most obviously gay men in the world to the straight-shooting uncle is hilarious . perhaps it is a personal failing on my part , but the crying and screaming drag queen faux high drama just grates on my nerves and the first few minutes of this film are filled with it . luckily ( for me at least ) , it doesn't last long and the rest of the story focuses on the relationship between the men , their son and the deception . the question of stereotypes is a touchy one . these guys personify the homophobic gay image . you can almost hear the swishing . if you think that they are supposed to be representative of every gay man in the world , you'll be outraged . but if you can accept the view is that this is a movie about gay individuals , you'll love it . your choice .

it's wednesday , march 27 , and a murder investigation is underway in charlotte , south carolina . the crime : a young prostitute , elizabeth ( renee zellweger ) , has been brutally slain . one half of her severed body was found in a bag at the train station . the other half was discovered in a trunk at the harbor authority , miles away . the police duo of braxton ( chris penn ) and kennesaw ( michael rooker ) are strapped for leads . at the moment , they have only one possible suspect : wayland ( tim roth ) , a wealthy , unemployed genius who graduated summa cum laude from princeton and appears to be the least likely character to commit such a heinous act . that's the premise for deceiver , a new thriller from the pate brothers , jonas and josh , who made their mark on the film world two years ago at sundance with the movie the grave . deceiver plays out like a mind game between the intellectually superior wayland and the two not- so-bright cops ( captions early in the proceedings let us know that wayland's iq is 151 ; by contrast , kennesaw's is 122 and braxton's is 102 ) . the setting is a police interrogation room where a lie detector test is about to be administered . over three days , as wayland returns to answer more questions , the drama and tension among these three characters gradually escalates until , inevitably , it boils over . other plot elements are thrown in for good measure . wayland suffers from a peculiar kind of epilepsy that can , in stressful situations , render him virtually catatonic or extremely violent . braxton , a compulsive gambler , is deep in debt to a local syndicate . and kennesaw is haunted by a dark , abusive side that delights in terrorizing women , especially his wife ( rosanna arquette ) , whom he suspects of being unfaithful . the foibles and failings of these three are brought into the open as the mystery around elizabeth's death deepens and it becomes unclear who has the upper hand : the suspect or his questioners . deceiver , which mostly transpires in a dimly-lit room and involves a lot of smart dialogue , has the feel of a david mamet play : edgy , claustrophobic , and tense . the atmosphere is explosive , and some of pivotal moments of confrontation are riveting . deceiver has the power to grab an audience . unfortunately , in the end , it succumbs to the need to throw in one last , unexpected twist , and this is its undoing . for , while this surprise will certainly shock most viewers , it also stretches our credulity too much , and raises more questions than it answers . it's only an effective wrap-up if you don't think too carefully about its full implications . of course , the film as a whole plays fast and loose with reality and logic . police procedure is totally ignored and it's almost impossible to accept that any criminal investigation would or could proceed in this manner . but the real focus in deceiver is on character interaction , not plot details . deceiver only occasionally gets out of the police station , and those instances occur primarily during flashbacks featuring the prostitute . the pates employ a number of interesting techniques to present vignettes from elizabeth's final days and hours . the most intriguing of these is to use an unreliable narrator while underlining the discrepancies in his voice-over by visually showing what really happened . moments like this are too effective to be dismissed as gimmicks . the movie , obviously fashioned in the manner of classic film noir , drips atmosphere . there are some fascinating stylistic touches ; for example , although the setting is contemporary , all of the telephones are old-fashioned , rotary models . cinematographer bill butler is given an opportunity to use unconventional camera work to liven up deceiver's look . some of the things he tries ( mostly those that involve the contrast between light and shadow ) work exceptionally well , while others ( like any of several lazy susan shots ) seem more like unnecessary visual tricks . as wayland , tim roth gives the film's top performance , despite occasionally treading the tightrope between acting and overacting . roth makes us believe that wayland is both as brilliant and as troubled as he's supposed to be . the other two leads , chris penn and michael rooker , aren't as effective . both play their characters like familiar types . penn's performance is uninspired ; rooker's lacks subtlety . some of the best work is turned in by the supporting actors . renee zellweger , in a role that's miles away from her star-making turn in jerry maguire , brings a note of vulnerability and humanity to a part that could easily have become a caricature . rosanna arquette is solid as kennesaw's wife , and michael parks delivers several wonderful scenes as a psychiatrist who's entrusted with evaluating wayland's condition . one of the best things about deceiver is that it never talks down to the audience . plot points aren't hammered home , and , although the ending has its weaknesses , everything isn't spelled out in bold letters . the pates give audience members credit for having brains , which is an increasingly rare characteristic for film makers . occasionally gripping and never uninteresting , deceiver is a fine noir effort .

as you should know , this summer has been less than memorable . with a total of 4 decent films , it's not a surprise that these big budget failures keep appearing . with that said , you can pretty much predict what my opinion on " the 13th warrior " will be . the film is based on the michael crichton " eaters of the dead " , in which ahmed ibn fahdlan is banished from his country for looking at a wife of a king . after tarveling for many months , he comes across a gang of norsemen , who are forced to pick 13 men to protect a town from mythical monsters who travel in the fog . so , they start picking men , and are left without 1 , thus ahmed is choosen . so far it sounds interesting right ? not when all of this takes place in 15 minutes . after that , they basically run around killing . that alone shows how much a script is needed for a film , because once your story is introduced , you have the rest of the film to start developing it . obviously that's not the case here . even if you are going into the film expecting an action packed adventure , you will be disappointed . since all the action takes place in fog , it is constantly hard to see a scene clearly due to those circumstances , and to poor camera work . can't the camera men sit still ? i'd like to actually watch a film in focus , but again , they failed to deliver that as well . the film moves on and on until the point , where you can care less about anything but the popcorn you're eating . with corny dialogue , that the characters laugh at for some odd reason , a script that goes nowhere , dull action sequences , a predictable ending , and worst of all weak characters , there's basically nothing to like here , except for maybe the set designs . that's the only thing that honestly caught my interest . when i heard that john mctiernan , the director , wanted his name kept out of the project , that made me wonder why ? well now i know . crichton's greed forced mctiernan to edit his finished product , which led to a big arguement . what's there to argue about anyway ? the film couldn't be saved , no matter how much they spent or casted . seeing films like the haunting and big daddy making money , i wouldn't be surprised to see " the 13th warrior " become a hit . please do me a favor and save your money at all costs , or else you will be lost in the fog , like the film itself .

carla gugino graduates from high school and instead of staying in her small farming town , she goes to college in california . there she meets the residential advisor pauly shore , who is a city boy . when gugino goes back home for thanksgiving , she brings shore with her , and her parents ( lane smith and cindy pickett ) are less than thrilled . dan gauthier , gugino's boyfriend from high school , proposes to gugino . gugino isn't ready for anything like this so she makes up the story that she is engaged to shore . she and shore have to make it look like they are engaged while her parents try to make it end . forget jurassic park , cliffhanger , the firm and last action hero , son-in-law is the film to see this summer . son-in-law is a great romantic comedy that should please the viewers , especially fans of the wiez . when son-in-law is long gone and forgotten , the blockbuster summer films will still be playing and you will have a chance to see them then . this film could also make great video fare for those that are leery of spending seven dollars on it . nothing will be lost by watching it on a television screen . although the basic story line has been done many , many times before , the film is still fun to watch . the laughs are plentiful , especially when the wiez is around . the way some of the jokes are done are new , even though some of the jokes are old . there are also several new jokes that , at least , i haven't seen before . still , when presented right , even old material can be funny still . this film is just basically a light comedy that is great to see if you are in the right mood that doesn't contain much violence or any nudity that is definitely worth full ticket price . the cast for this film does an excellent job . pauly shore ( encino man ) is the star attraction of this film . he is great , and knows how to entertain the audience . pauly shore just seems to take over the entire screen when he is on with expressions and comments that are hilarious . this film would definitely not have been as good with anyone else in this role . carla gugino does a very good job as the farm girl gone city girl . she makes her character believable , on some levels , yet interesting at the same time . the person who played the grandfather ( mason adams , i believe ) also does a great job . the way he delivered his lines kept me laughing throughout the time that he was on the screen . patrick renna , who played gugino's little brother , was a little annoying , but no where as near as macaulay culkin , and for only part of the time , so i can forgive him . tiffani-amber thiessen ( a killer among friends , " saved by the bell " ) does a reasonably good job for the time that she is on screen . she shows that she may have a potential in movies if she can get out of the corny young adults programming on television . she wasn't given overly much to do in the film , but what she had , she does a good job with .

from a major league baseball radio broadcast , featuring play-by- play man harry canary and color man whitey hashbrown , with special guest commentator james berardinelli . hc : as we go to the top of the 8th , we're joined in the booth by film critic james berardinelli , who's here fresh from seeing the new baseball movie , major league : back to the minors , the third in the popular saga taking a lighter look at the majors . nice to see you , jim . as a big baseball fan and a movie reviewer , can you give us the scoop on the new flick ? jb : my opinion : the producers should have stopped while they were ahead , and that was nine years ago . one entry was definitely enough , and i'm surprised there was a third after the anemic showing and low quality of major league 2 . this latest installment has all the earmarks of something that should have been released direct-to-video . it's worse than a mediocre made-for-tv feature . i should also mention that this movie likely won't play all that well in cleveland . now that the real indians are perennial contenders , they have been replaced by the minnesota twins as the cinematic sadsacks . actually , most of the action involves the twins' aaa minor league club , the buzz , rather than the actual major league franchise . hc : sorry to interrupt , jim , but we still have to do play-by-play for the game on the field . leading off this inning is john warren . he steps into the batter's box and takes kent's pitch low for ball one . wh : so , the story's strictly minor league , right ? what's it about ? jb : scott bakula , the guy from quantum leap , plays career minor league pitcher gus cantrell . when twins owner roger dorn , once again portrayed by corbin bernsen , needs a new manager for his aaa team , he offers the job to gus , who is now faced with two daunting tasks : turn the team around and groom hot prospect downtown anderson ( played by walt goggins ) for a promotion to " the show . " with the help of former major leaguers pedro cerrano ( dennis haysbert ) , rube baker ( eric bruskotter ) , and isuro tanaka ( takaaki ishibashi ) , gus gets the buzz on the right track . in fact , he is so successful that he earns the enmity of the jealous manager of the big-league club , leonard huff ( played with over-the-top relish by ted mcginley ) . soon , dorn has arranged an exhibition game that pits gus' overachieving group against huff's overpaid , last-place bunch . wh : can we guess who wins ? jb : the results have all the suspense of watching the videotape of a game when you've already seen the box score . on top of that , none of the mock-ups are presented with much flair . they're not just boring ; they're lackluster . but the major league movies have never been about drama or tension ; they've been about using baseball situations to generate laughs . hc : warren fouls off a fastball . 1 and 1 . wh : are there lots of yuks in this one ? jb : not one , from start to finish . i enjoyed the first major league because it was reasonably fresh and funny . okay , a lot of the jokes were sophomoric , but they made me laugh . the two sequels haven't just been stale , but their humor quotient has been abysmally low . even bob uecker's once-sharp one-liners have turned lame , and they're the closest the film comes to being even vaguely amusing . hc : here's the 1-1 pitch . looooooong drive ? fair or foul ? foul ball ! the count goes to 1 and 2 . wh : does the film at least get the baseball details correct ? jb : yes . there aren't any glaring errors like there were in one of the best-ever baseball movies , the natural . but i'd gladly trade a technically accurate film for one with a good story , believable characters , or even a little genuine humor . heck , the naked gun is a better baseball comedy than major league : back to the minors . wh : it's nice to see old friends one more time , isn't it ? like cerrano , tanaka , and dorn . jb : depends on whether you really care that anyone is back . there aren't any real characters here ? just an assortment of cliched oddballs . yeah , the voodoo hitter , the catcher who can't throw back to the pitcher , the japanese player , and the conceited player-turned-owner have all returned , but who really cares ? they have no depth . notable absences include tom berenger's veteran and charlie sheen's " wild thing . " we don't really miss them , though . hc : breaking ball , low and outside . 2 and 2 . wh : so you're saying that we should give this one a miss ? jb : that's right . to use baseball terminology , it's a three-pitch strikeout . if you're looking for a good movie that involves baseball , try popping the natural , field of dreams , bull durham , or even the first major league into the vcr . actually , this is an oddly-timed release , since baseball fans are likely to be spending more time in parks than in theaters . even the minor league seasons are already underway . don't bother with major league : back to the minors . it's a wretched time- waster . wh : thanks for the advice . jb : you're welcome . hc : and here's the 2-2 pitch . fouled back , right into this booth . hey , jim , heads up ! oops . somebody better get him some ice for that . he may be good at deflecting bad baseball movies , but he needs to learn not to duck into foul balls . odd how warren seemed to aim that ball right at him , almost as if he has a grudge to settle . anyway , back to the action on the field ?

when respecting a director , you must also respect the fact that they are not perfect . woody allen has made a couple less-than good films , and he's my favorite . even martin scorsese hasn't had a perfect track record . kevin smith , after a smashing debut with the classic " clerks " stooped as low to sell-out and make the dreadful " mallrats . " i mean , so far the only director who's made several films , none of which have been bad is richard linklater ( " slacker , " " dazed and confused , " " before sunrise , " and " suburbia " . . . all which were great ) . now , i adore quentin tarantino . his first two films were classic films , the second one being one of the greatest films of all time . but 1995 just wasn't that good of a year for him . he made way too many tv appearances . he mispronounced jackie chan's name on the mtv movie awards . and he made this film . ( he was also awarded an oscar , so i guess that would be a grand exception ) . robert rodriguez is also a great director ; not a brilliant one , but a cool one . i've never seen an alexandre rockwell or allison anders film , so i can't comment on them . but in this crap ensemble director's film , all four give pitiful efforts . pitiful for any director , too . now in all fairness , ensemble director pieces never really work out . i've never seen all of " new york stories , " but have heard the first two films , by scorsese and francis ford coppola are crap ( i saw woody's one , which was hilarious but not totally up to par ) . but i will rate each film individually and then report back to you on the overal average score of the film . exposition : a simple one - a bellhop , ted ( the totally overdone tim roth , who's a god and all , but not in this one , though he has a couple good moments ) is working on new year's eve for his first shift ( ! ! ! ) in an old fancy hotel . he's the only one there ( again : ! ! ! ) and he only has a couple rooms ( yet again : ! ! ! ) . the old bellhop ( the seemingly immortal marc lawrence - who hated pulp fiction actually ) hands over his cap to ted and he goes to his job happily . as the night goes on , he becomes increasingly annoyed and hostile . yea . ( the short films are presented in order , btw ) : the missing ingredient writer/director : allison anders starring : sammi davis , amanda decadenet , valeria golino , madonna , ione skye , lili taylor , alicia witt this one starts it off horribly with no plot , no intrigue , and crap dialogue . the situation is so terrible that it's physically painful to watch . the plot has something to do with a coven of witches needing sperm to bring back a godess who is ( gasp ! ) stuck inside some object in their hotel room . the witch that was supposed to bring it ( ione skye ) calls up ted and asks him if she can perform fellatio on him to get it . yeah , that's what i said . stupid plot , inane characters who aren't interesting at all , etc , etc , etc . the only good thing about this is it has a good cast which , in turn , it wastes pitifully . not even actually funny for a second . my rating ( out of 5 ) : no stars ! ! ! ! the wrong man writer/director : alexandre rockwell starring : david proval , jennifer beals and laurence bender another bad little film with another stupid sex thing going on . ted stumbles into the wrong room or something and gets in the middle of a couple ( david proval and jennifer beals in her attempt at " coming back " ) who are playing sex games . ted tries to escape and we cheer him on so it will end soon . but at least this has a bit of comedy in it , just not that much . and david proval has never overacted as much . and it's " pulp fiction " producer laurence bender who gets to puke from a window . a masterpiece compared to the first one , but still . . . the misbehavers writer/director : robert rodriguez starring : antonio banderes , tamlyn tomita , lana mckissack , danny verduzco , salma hayek would a robert rodriguez film be the same without salma hayek's navel ? nope . luckily she's on the tv dancing so we get to see her . surprisingly enough , when i read the screenplay ( about a year before actually seeing it ) , this one seemed to have the most potential . it was fast-paced , funny , and well , funny . but when i watched it , it seemed anti-climactic and only seemed to gain any momentum towards the end when everything happened at once . antonio overacts nicely and the two kids ( lana and danny ) are funny . but , as i said , it moves slowly and in that way , it's more painful than funny . but the ending was stupid and funny at the same time . oh ! the plot : antonio is a supposed gangster ( assumed , really ) who leaves his two troubling kids home while he and his wife ( tomita ) go out to get drunk at a new year's party . antonio hires ted for a couple bucks to watch his kids all night long , but things go wrong . . . it was okay . the man from hollywood writer/director : quentin tarantino starring : quentin tarantino , bruce willis , paul calderon and jennifer beals ( again ) ironically , this one could be considered the best for a bad reason : it best represents what quentin has done with this film . he plays chester , a spoiled brat actor or something who has just had a huge box-office hit on his hands and is living it up by playing an anti-climactic game from a hitchcock tv episode starring steve mcqueen and peter lorre where they gamble to see if one of them can get light from his lighter ten times in a row . they're drunk and need sober but nervous ted to hold the cleaver and bring it down if the lighter doesn't light . they also pay him a lot of cash . this is so much exactly what this little film is about that it's campy . tim roth was probably payed a lot of money to do this stupid part in this stupid film made by a bunch of people who are high on themselves 'cause they've had hits , major or minor . it took quentin to realize that . but the thing is , it doesn't seem like he realizes that . if he did , i'd give this a good 3 stars . but this sucked . it was anti-climactic and the dialogue wasn't very good . he starts off with a very long steadicam shot then goes to flashes . that makes no sense . it's cool for a while , then he makes it uneven . it's long and it's just not very good . hopefully quentin never repeats what he did with this one . conclusion : what's the moral here ? if you've made celebrated films , don't do an ensemble piece . they should have re-watched " new york stories " and then stopped in their tracks . none of these have any point to them and they're embarrassing to not only the writer/directors , but to the actors 'cause they're working with crap . but i will forgive everyone involved and i especially look forward to quentin's next directing job ( even though he and rodriguez jumped back to the top immeadiately with the cool " from dusk till dawn , " which i found exhilerating ) . i love quentin and i suppose it's good he made " the man from hollywood " because it makes him seem more realistic and not some " god of cinema . " i seem to respect directors if they aren't " gods " and are actually human beings who make mistakes . " the man from hollywood " is his big mistake and let's hope he doesn't return her continuously .

quentin tarantino seems to have a knack for giving his stars big careers . after his pulp fiction , many actors began receiving many offers for jobs . john travolta made his come-back and is now one of today's most bankable stars . bruce willis proved his acting chops and is now considered an actual actor . jackie brown , on the other hand , boasts quite a well known cast , except for the main lead : pam grier . most likely you have heard of her and seen her in films , but she's never really had a breakthrough performance ( her first film was in the roger ebert-written beyond the valley of the dolls ) . that is , until now . jackie brown is a highly anticipated feature film from quentin tarantino , whose last film was the huge hit pulp fiction . after mediocre acting jobs , tarantino returns to what made his name a household one : directing and writing . jackie brown is the result , and it is fantastic entertainment . despite excellent direction from tarantino , the cast steals the film , giving one good performance after another . pam grier gives a stunning performance as jackie brown , and she is supported by an incredible mix of talent--samuel l . jackson , bridget fonda , michael keaton , robert de niro , and robert forster . more than likely , you will see a few of these names in the oscar pool come oscar nominations . describing a quentin tarantino film is very difficult , as you really can't say much or you spoil it for everyone else . i will tread lightly . jackie brown opens with an impressive shot of jackie brown ( grier ) in a blue outfit walking through the airport . the camera tracks along with her , and ends up revealing her occupation . we are also introduced to ordell robbie ( jackson ) , who sells illegal guns to interested buyers . . . for a hefty price . ms . brown carries the money from buyer to ordell in order to keep the cops away . however , an fbi agent ( keaton ) and a local l . a . cop ( michael bowen ) are out to find ordell and catch him while taking the money . they try to reach him through beaumont livingston ( chris tucker ) , one of ordell's buyers , but he mysteriously ends up dead . they try again through brown , but she is hesitant to admit to any wrong-doing . but after unknowingly carrying some drugs for one of ordell's friends ( fonda ) , she is caught and sent to jail . ordell pays her bail through a bail bond agent , max cherry ( forster ) , and then wants to find out what she told the cops . after she claims to have said nothing , she reveals the fact that she will tell them about ordell in order to stay out of prison . ordell doesn't like this , but they both come up with a scheme to throw the feds and cops off their track . this scheme seems to be going as planned , but unexpected occurances may or may not foul up their goal . revealing more would spoil the fun of jackie brown , and that's the biggest reason to go see a tarantino film . tarantino seems to have a fascination with hitmen and unusual predicaments ( and slang terms ) , but they are always done very well and believably . his hitmen are normally cruel , but pleasant , in that nasty sort of way . they talk like normal people , except for when doing business , and they are rude to their girlfriends . of course , this is a tarantino film , and you know you can expect some awkward situations to arise . and perhaps the biggest flaw with jackie brown is the slow middle section in which the pace begins to drop . of course , tarantino fixes this by moving onto the climax of the film , adding a lot of his reservoir dogs-style storytelling to it . things are told from one person's perspective , and then from another , and then from another , each time learning more and more . this all leads up to a very interesting conclusion , which decides who is on whose side . on the technical side of jackie brown , quentin tarantino directs it with the same style as he did with his 1994 film . however , this time around it isn't as nearly as impressive or original . the writing , on the other hand , is quite good , although i do find tarantino's use of slang terms offensive . the story jumps back and forth in time as in pulp fiction , but it's much more easy to understand . his previous film needed a second viewing in order to understand the time differentiation , but jackie brown is very simply to follow , especially considering that the time is given during the " leaps " in time . perhaps this is a result of the screenplay being written from the novel " rum punch " by elmore leonard . the dialogue is pretty much intelligent , and all the characters are fully realized . the cinematography is very well done by guillermo navarro ( who has worked with tarantino on previous films ) and the editing is very good . and as with pulp fiction , the music is a highlight , bringing back memorable songs from the 70s and 80s . the acting side of jackie brown is unforgettable . the performances are incredibly rich , with hidden meaning behind every characters' actions . nothing is quite as it seems , and you can't really tell which side one person is on . the real treat , of course , is pam grier who gives an astonishing performance as jackie brown . her poor living conditions are superceded by her superior wits , which play an important role in the film . watching grieg , i could tell what was going through her mind , even if i didn't know what she was thinking . her face portrays a lot of emotion that you can tell when she is sad , happy , or in deep thought . bridget fonda gives a very good performance as a druggie couch potato . i didn't even realize it was fonda until i saw her name in the final credits ( her performance actually reminded me of heather graham's in boogie nights ) . michael keaton comes across very well , as does michael bowen . chris tucker has a small , but effective performance . samuel l . jackson is very good , but it seems to me that he was replaying his jules winnfield character from pulp fiction ( although much less cynical ) . but no matter . . . jackson is very strong in his role . robert de niro is actually a little annoying at times , but overall he does a good job as one of ordell's perspective clients and friends . robert forster gives one of the best performances in the film , as he has one of the most developed characters . he is present throughout most of the film , and he holds his own against jackson and grier . jackie brown is rated r for language , sex , violence , drug use , and some offensive remarks . as a film by itself , jackie brown is a terrific piece of entertainment , with a complex plot to draw viewers in . however , one can not help but compare it to tarantino's pulp fiction , and expect great results . when compared , it comes up short , but not that short . it's a worthy effort , with terrific acting and some impressive writing from elmore leonard and tarantino . perhaps the best thing about jackie brown is the discovery of pam grier as a major hollywood actress . i can't remember seeing her in anything ( except for a small role in mars attacks ! ) , but hopefully she will get many more roles from this one . expect to see her name floating around the oscar nominations ( and hopefully she will even be able to nab one ) .

as with any gen-x mtv movie ( like last year's dead man on campus ) , the movie is marketed for a primarily male audience as indicated by its main selling points : sex and football . those two items , wrapped in a guilty-pleasure package , are sure to snare a sizeable box office chunk initially , but sales will decline for two reasons . first , the football sequences are nothing new , nor can they be ; the sports genre isn't mainstream and it's been retread to death . second , the sex is just bad . despite the appearance of a whipped cream bikini or the all-night strip-club party , there's nothing even remotely tantalizing . the acting is mostly mediocre , not including the fantastic jon voight . cultivating his usual sliminess , voight gives an unexpectedly standout performance as west canaan coyotes head coach bud kilmer . kilmer is the driving force behind the coyotes' twenty-two conference championships and two state titles in thirty years ; this year he plans to make it twenty-three . unfortunately , when his star quarterback , lance harbor ( paul walker ) , goes down for the count , he's got to rely on the unreliable abilities of backup john moxon ( james van der beek ) . moxon leads the team through its last four games , and then must cope with his newfound stardom , the effect it has on his relationship with girlfriend julie ( amy smart ) , and other temptations that abound in football-crazy west canaan . most regions of the country are not nearly as football-crazy as texas , and so the atmosphere is likely to be lost on most . similarly , the set design is wrong for a high school setting : the teams are decked out with sparkling uniforms , radio headsets ( which never seem to work , however , and instead require coaches to signal plays manually ) , and even a giant bronze statue of coach kilmer . these elements ( as well as the heavy drinking and carousing ) might be more appropriate on a college campus -- but mtv's core audience is the high school demographic . this focus is further emphasized by the casting : james van der beek , of tv's " dawson's creek , " is an understandable choice for the reluctant hero , although he never manages to do anything with the role . other stars are similarly young and unmemorable . there's not much that goes right about varsity blues , and there's not much to like about it , either . everything herein has already been done , and if it hasn't , the movie manages to botch it one way or another . this is certainly missable .

at first i was intrigued by the strange cast and odd creatures on the galaxy quest trailer , but that was before i saw the film . now my view has completely changed . it's time to embrace for impact , because this is a very bumpy ride . the story begins with the cast of galaxy quest including : jason nesmith ( tim allen ) , alexander dane ( alan rickman ) , gwen demarco ( sigourney weaver ) signing autographs at a convention . they meet fans who dress up in costumes , fans who worship the ground they walk on , and a group of aliens called thermians who believe that they are the ultimate saviors against the dreaded alien colony lead by sarris ( robin sachs ) . of course they are unaware of this until they actually begin performing their duties , and meet the ugly aliens themselves . thus begins the long adventure to help save the thermians . the movie plays like a really bad star trek episode , in fact it's worse . i don't even think trekkies will appreciate this weak spoof , because quite frankly it's just not funny . all the jokes are basically collected observations from the series . one such continuous joke involves a simple crew member who believes he will die in space , because no extra on the tv show ever lives , as proven in the star trek series . creative jokes like this may seem like a clever idea , but not when they are used to death . a person can only take so much . we do not need to be tortured , especially when you have to pay for it . it's pretty bad when even tim allen is pitiful . it's not like i expected an oscar worthy performance form him , but a few laughs would have been helpful . speaking of acting , 2 fine talents were wasted as well . sigourney weaver was here to show cleavage , well at least it worked . it's pretty bad when the only entertaining value of the film is cleavage . it just shows you how disgraceful the film really is . alan rickman however was not so lucky . after his last hit ( dogma ) he embarrasses himself by doing this sloppy mess . it's just a shame to see talented actors and actresses throw their ability away . when the film couldn't get any worse , thankfully some nice special effects pop up . like many big blockbusters ( armageddon , the haunting to name a few ) they rely heavily on effects to help boost the film's box office results . times it works , but unfortunately we have to shell out hard earned money and suffer through this junk . when will it stop ? i am getting tired of being suckered into seeing such trash . it may look fine and dandy , but we need to at least have a story . is that too much to ask ? obviously it is . when galaxy quest finally ends , it literally crash lands . aside from the impressive looking creatures from industrial light and magic , it's an embarrassment to the cast , and it's embarrassing to the science fiction genre . it's not the least bit fun , nor was it entertaining . the only place where this movie belongs is to infinity and beyond .

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

robert redford is very good at playing characters who have incredible , god-given gifts , but are able to act like ordinary people . in " the natural " ( 1984 ) , he played the fallen angelic character of roy hobbs , the baseball player who was destined to be " the best there ever was , " but still acted like a humble farm boy . in " butch cassidy and the sundance kid " ( 1969 ) , he was the most dangerous shot in the west , yet he came off like a nothing more than a boyishly good-looking charmer . even in " indecent proposal " ( 1993 ) , where he played a man who was so good at making money that he believed he could buy love , redford was still able to exude an aura of shy decency , especially when reciting a tale of lost love . in his latest film , " the horse whisperer , " based on the best-selling novel by nicholas evans , redford again plays such a character . redford also directed the film although he swore up and down that he would never direct himself in a movie - i suppose the character of tom booker , a man who has the amazing gift of understanding and somehow communicating with horses , was just too good to pass up . despite his enormous and rare gift when it comes to training troubled horses ( a magazine article coins the phrase " horse whisperer " to describe his uncanny talent ) , booker sees himself as an everyday cattle rancher whose greatest fear is growing old and no longer having a purpose in life . booker's talents are taxed into service by annie maclean ( kristin scott thomas ) , a new york magazine editor whose daughter , grace ( scarlett johansson ) , was recently in a horrible accident . the accident , which is filmed with gut-wrenching horror , happens when grace and her best friend are out riding horses - an eighteen-wheeler kills grace's friend , severely wounds and traumatizes grace's horse , pilgrim , and causes grace to lose part of her right leg . annie believes that if pilgrim can be healed , grace will be healed as well , which leads her to booker . at first , she tries to get booker to come to new york to see the horse , but that doesn't work . instead , she packs up grace and pilgrim , leaves her husband , robert ( sam neill ) behind , and heads for the rolling hills of montana where booker runs a ranch with his brother , frank ( chris cooper ) , and his sister-in-law , diane ( dianne wiest ) . in many ways , the film is like a journey , both literally and symbolically . the move out west has always been a great american tradition of renewal , and it's hard not to see annie and grace's leaving manhattan for montana as a variation on the classic theme of city vs . country . in " the horse whisperer , " country is clearly the victor . the city is characterized by claustrophobia and unhappiness , and it is not until the characters arrive in the wide-open spaces of montana that grace's anger at being physically and emotionally crippled begins to dissipate , annie's controlling nature begins to relax , and pilgrim once again learns to trust people . redford is just as in love with the grand montana country in this film as he was when he directed " a river runs through it " six years ago . in many ways , " the horse whisperer " comes from the same poetic vein as " river , " and the movie could probably be a good fifteen minutes shorter if redford had decided to spend less camera-time on the grass and mountains . but then , that would ruin the magic . much of the film's photography is truly elegant , and it creates a palpable sense of the sheer expansiveness of the land . to further emphasize this , redford and cinematographer robert richardson ( " natural born killers , " " platoon " ) cheated a bit by shooting the beginning of the film - which takes place in new york - with mostly cold , harsh bluish filters and a more squarish 1 . 85 : 1 aspect ratio ; when the action shifts to montana , richardson switches to soft-focus and natural lighting , and the screen widens to a 2 . 35 : 1 aspect ratio . in terms of the story itself , " the horse whisperer " gives us the same romanticized view of adultery found in david lean's " a brief encounter " ( 1945 ) and clint eastwood's 1995 adaptation of robert james waller's " the bridges of madison county " ( richard lagravenese , co-screenwriter here also adapted " bridges " ) . although " the horse whisperer " has a strong romantic sensibility , i still find something oddly troubling about this kind of story . it seems to me that there should be some sympathy for the husband who's being left behind for this brief , heart-sweeping affair , but there rarely is . in " the horse whisperer , " the thankless role of being the fuddy-duddy husband falls to sam neill . he plays the character as a decent , hard-working man who is a good husband and father ; his only failure is that he loves his wife more than she loves him . he is at risk of losing annie to booker not because he did anything to drive her away , but simply because he happens to be a normal , fairly uninspiring man . there is one scene that is particularly telling of how the movie feels about each character . it shows booker and robert going into a horse pen - booker is dressed like a classic cowboy with hat and all , while robert looks somewhat frumpy and out-of-place in a baseball cap . as they enter the pen , booker assuredly swings over the fence , while robert hesitates , then opens the gate and , in a goofy moment , forgets to close it behind him . it's a small scene , but it clearly demonstrates the movie's thorough love of the booker character for his romantic roughness . after all , booker represents everything good about the city while robert represents everything banal and unnatural about it . the best scenes in " the horse whisperer " tend to involve not the building romance between booker and annie , but rather the healing process of grace and her horse . although booker's horse-training methods are mythical and unrealistic , the scenes with him and pilgrim are strangely mesmerizing . these are paralleled by the scenes between him and grace , some of which are humorous , and all of which are tender and true . at some point , i wished the movie would drop the whole romance angle and focus on grace more . nevertheless , redford is obviously a romantic at heart , and he brings a light touch to the erotic moments in the film . there are no dramatic sex scenes , but there is a moving scene when he and scott thomas are slow-dancing , always moving ever closer together , that is far more erotic than any scene of sweaty bodies grinding together . although the movie is longer than it should be and is essentially a melodramatic tearjerker with an unsatisfying conclusion that guarantees unhappiness for just about every character , there are enough moments like that which make " the horse whisperer " worth the price of admission .

take a look at the following equation . . . . a christmas carol+ghostbusters=scrooged yes , scrooged is the odd mixture of sentiment , comedy and horror you would get if you mixed those two elements toghether . scrooged is alternatively sick , gross , funny , and then sickly soppy . bill murray plays frank cross , a t . v executive with a horrible personality . he's evil to secretary , actors , crew , everyone , except the t . v's station's boss , of course ( played by the late robert mitchum ) however , he is then visited by a very dead exec , who warns cross that he will be visited by three ghosts , past , present and future ( who is called the ghost of yet to come , for some reason ) sure enough , they arrive , show cross how much of a s . o . b he is , and he changes his way . however , throughout this simple plot , we've got to suffer outlandish special effects , poor comedy , and an very , very mean performance from bill murray . frank cross isn't 'funny' mean , he's just mean . he also isn't very good at emotional scenes , and totally destroys the last ten minutes of the film , with an utterly desperate speech saying how great christmas is , and how he has changed . however , the supporting cast are ok , with good performances from mitchum , allen ( who plays his girlfriend ) and john glover ( who plays cross's 'partner' ) the ghost of christmas past isn't that bad either . sadly , though , the audience has to suffer 25 minutes of 'home alone' style violence from the ghost of christmas present , played by carol kane . whoever thought smacking that kane smacking murray in the head with a toaster was funny , should be fired straight away . and the audience also has to suffer bobcat goldthwait ( the guy with the annoying voice in police academy 3 , if i remeber correctly . . . . ) who , thankfully , dosen't say much . the script is horrendous . michael o'donaghue churns out terrible , bad taste jokes ( which i guess is the whole point really ) then changes direction completely to emotional scenes . and he must of been on some drug when he wrote the final ten minutes , which are awful . the special effects look nice , but do nothing for the film . there's some impressive make up effects also . the music is also good , which is scored by danny elfman . but great effects and make up don't make a great film . scrooged is an appaling attempt to inject some christmas spirit into the audience , seeing as the first 1 hour 20 minutes of the film are so depressing anyway , and the last ten minutes had to make up for it with an godawful speech . why didn't cross just look out his exec window , and ask a young boy to buy a goose for him ? overall , then , you'd have a much better christmas if you avoid this film like something that should be avoided ( perhaps a plague )

over 40 years ago , a japanese production company called toho introduced the land of the rising sun to gojira , a reptilian creature of immense proportions created by mankind's nuclear testing . partly flight of fancy , partly commentary on the exploitation of atomic power and weaponry , gojira emerged from the ocean to terrorize tokyo . a year later , gojira was marketed to the united states by adding three things : a new name , a dubbed english track , and raymond burr . as godzilla , the film took on the rest of the world . thirty years later , toho remade the classic film and once again took it to the american market by adding the same three things ( yes , including raymond burr ) and called it godzilla 1985 . now it's 14 years after toho's remake , and director roland emmerich has allowed the giant lizard to make an american first run . in emmerich's godzilla , matthew broderick plays dr . niko tatopoulos , a biologist who is called in to join other scientists in the south pacific already studying the existence of a radiation-induced super mutant which leaves footprints the size of livingrooms . when the mutant reptile suddenly appears out of the hudson river , tatopoulos and the rest of the team relocate themselves back to the states . meanwhile , tatopoulos's college girlfriend , audrey timmonds ( maria pitillo ) , works in new york city as an assistant to a big-time news reporter . she'd like to be a reporter herself , and when godzilla comes ashore , she figures this is her big break . of course , with the big guy running amok in the city , niko and audrey are bound to cross paths , and are joined by victor " animal " palotti ( hank azaria ) , audrey's trusty cameraman friend , and phillipe roche ( jean reno ) , an operative for the french government , whose nuclear testing started the whole problem in the first place . together they attempt to find and destroy the surprisingly elusive godzilla . with the resources of the most cutting edge special effects houses and the clout of one of the nation's premiere movie production companies , one would think emmerich could make a film truly deserving of the name godzilla . he didn't . right up there with the lost world , godzilla is one of the biggest disappointments in recent cinematic history . the plot is pretty much what we expect : the big dinosaur-like creature comes out of the water and starts smashing new york city , and it's up to our heroes to figure out why this thing is on its rampage and how it can be stopped , while the military makes futile attempts to bring the creature down . the script , however , is painfully bad . it's fraught with lines so corny , they don't even belong in b-movies , and includes many character actions which make you think , " you idiot , " or " you stupid girl . " i suppose when you've got a movie with a giant lizard loose in new york , any other semblance of reality goes out the window as well . why is it that godzilla topples some buildings by merely brushing against them , but is conveniently able to leap atop others ? why do helicopters have to follow godzilla by flying dangerously between buildings where they can lose sight of him , when they could more easily keep track of him by flying a little higher and in a straight line ? why do sidewinder missiles , which have small explosive warheads , blow up entire buildings when they miss godzilla ? why is a mission to bomb madison square garden carried out by three f-18 fighter-bombers , when flights of such aircraft are always comprised of multiples of two ? okay , maybe the last one was a bit nit-picky , but hey , i was on a roll . broderick is usually a good actor , but in this film he's weighed down by an unexciting character and an atrocious screenplay which seem to fight against him every step of the way . hank azaria does what he can , but don't expect to see development of any of the promise he showed in the birdcage . like broderick's , azaria's character is quite simply lacking in color . what really annoyed me was maria pitillo , who actually takes the bad script and makes it worse with her acting . casting must have been asleep on this one . the one bright spot here is jean reno , who oddly enough seems to fit well into a role which is often comedic , quite unlike what we've seem him do in the past . although his character is contradictory to the unfolding disaster , reno brings a style to the role of phillipe which makes him enjoyable . unfortunately , the same cannot be said of the other incongruities . the entire feel of the movie is tongue-in-cheek , and seems to pay comical homage to a dozen or so films that have come before it . this results in a significant amount of parody , which contrasts sharply with the threat of the monster , and ends up just producing a mess . most of the characters seem to be there for comic relief , and almost none are smart enough for the audience to take seriously . although emmerich obviously wanted to make a fun action picture , what good is it to sink millions into a cgi creature whose ferocity is undermined by the humans he threatens ? if we can't take the characters seriously , the threat they face is an empty one because we simply don't care what happens to them . godzilla simply pulls too many punches in its attempt to be a film more light-hearted than it should be . far be it from me to want to see more carnage in the theaters , but here's a behemoth running through the city ! there's bound to be a lot of casualties , but instead godzilla is afflicted with the after-school g . i . joe cartoon syndrome , where almost everyone seems to get out of harm's way just in time . in a couple of scenes , godzilla briefly breathes fire . none of the characters even remark upon this ability , nor is it used to any particular advantage by the filmmakers . it's as if the special effects people just wanted to show that yes , godzilla can do this , just like in the old movie . consider another punch pulled . through creative script writing , you can make a sequel out of just about any movie , but the final scene in this one doesn't just leave the door open , it opens into a hallway leading directly into a room where godzilla ii is waiting patiently . it made me want to gag . emmerich should have done away with 90% of the humor and in-jokes and played this one as a straight action film . with an intelligently written screenplay , godzilla could have been so much more . however , by confusing the viewer with a ton of add-ins and parodies , the movie ends up being something that just doesn't work . now if they only had raymond burr . . . .

while alex browning ( devon sawa ) waits at jfk to leave for a school trip to paris , bad omens seem to surround him . as soon as he buckles into the plane , he has a vision of the plane exploding seconds after take-off . when the vision begins to come true , alex bolts for the door , dragging several students and a teacher in his wake . the plane takes off without them and explodes just as alex predicted . he becomes an object of fear and suspicion among the community , and the tension only increases as the survivors begin to die . alex and another survivor , clear rivers ( ali larter ) , investigate the suspicious " suicide " of a friend , and a mortician ( tony " candyman " todd ) clues them in to the truth : alex interrupted death's design by saving people who should have died in the explosion , and death will want to claim its rightful victims . in order to save himself and the others , alex will have to figure out death's new plan and thwart it . of the countless horror films that have competed for a piece of the " scream " audience , " final destination " is the best so far . talented young screenwriter jeffrey reddick offers a fresh variation on a familiar formula . we've seen hundreds of movies where a group of teenagers are murdered one-by-one by a faceless slasher , but reddick cuts out the hockey-masked middle-man and makes the villain death itself . first-time feature director james wong made the most of that premise . every scene is permeated with creepiness and foreboding , reminding us that death is everywhere , can come at anytime . everyday objects and events vibrate with menace . the most amusing harbinger of doom : john denver's " rocky mountain high , " which is played several times in the movie before someone dies . ( the link is that denver died in a plane crash , and the song includes a line about fire in the sky . ) the performances are stronger than those usually elicited by teen horror . devon sawa , who previously starred in another horror flick , " idle hands , " gives a frantic and convincing lead performance . kerr smith is carter hogan , an antagonist of alex's whose quick temper causes him to pulled off the fatal plane . smith plays carter as filled with anger and confusion that constantly threatens to bubble over into violence . seann william scott , who's also in theaters right now in " road trip , " plays the somewhat dim billy hitchcock and provides a needed counterpoint to the intensity of alex and carter . tony todd's one-scene cameo is delicious but all too brief . bottom line : watchable teen fright flicks are few and far between , but this destination is worth visiting .

good films are hard to find these days . great films are beyond rare . proof of life , russell crowe's one-two punch of a deft kidnap and rescue thriller , is one of those rare gems . a taut drama laced with strong and subtle acting , an intelligent script , and masterful directing , together it delivers something virtually unheard of in the film industry these days , genuine motivation in a story that rings true . consider the strange coincidence of russell crowe's character in proof of life making the moves on a distraught wife played by meg ryan's character in the film -- all while the real russell crowe was hitching up with married woman meg ryan in the outside world . i haven't seen this much chemistry between actors since mcqueen and mcgraw teamed up in peckinpah's masterpiece , the getaway . but enough with the gossip , let's get to the review . the film revolves around the kidnapping of peter bowman ( david morse ) , an american engineer working in south america who is kidnapped during a mass ambush of civilians by anti-government soldiers . upon discovering his identity , the rebel soldiers decide to ransom him for $6 million . the only problem is that the company peter bowman works for is being auctioned off , and no one will step forward with the money . with no choice available to her , bowman's wife alice ( ryan ) hires terry thorne ( crowe ) , a highly skilled negotiator and rescue operative , to arrange the return of her husband . but when things go wrong -- as they always do in these situations -- terry and his team ( which includes the most surprising casting choice of the year : david caruso ) take matters into their own hands . the film is notable in that it takes this very simple story line and creates a complex and intelligent character-driven vehicle filled with well-written dialogue , shades of motivation , and convincing acting by all the actors . the script is based on both a book ( the long march to freedom ) and a magazine article pertaining to kidnap/ransom situations , and the story has been sharply pieced together by tony gilroy , screenwriter of the devil's advocate and dolores claiborne . the biggest surprise for me was not the chemistry between crowe and ryan , but that between crowe and david caruso . dug out from b-movie hell , caruso pulls off a gutsy performance as crowe's right hand gun while providing most of the film's humor . ryan cries a lot and smokes too many cigarettes , david morse ends up getting everyone at the guerilla camp to hate him , and crowe provides another memorable acting turn as the stoic , gunslinger character of terry thorne . the most memorable pieces of the film lie in its action scenes . the bulk of those scenes , which bookend the movie , work extremely well as establishment and closure devices for all of the story's characters . the scenes are skillfully crafted and executed with amazing accuracy and poise . director taylor hackford mixes both his old-school style of filmmaking with the dizziness of a lars von trier film . proof of life is a thinking man's action movie . it is a film about the choices men and women make in the face of love and war , and the sacrifices one makes for those choices -- the sacrifices that help you sleep at night .

the grandfather of italian horror the late mario bava has credits in nearly 100 films and tv movies produced in italy between 1939 and his death in the early 80's . more practiced as a cinematographer than a director , bava nonetheless sat in the director's chair for beyond the door ii , the project which turned out to be his last full-length feature film . alongside the appalling zombie schlock of hacks like lucio fulci , beyond the door ii is simply a revelation . in his day bava was considered by most to be no great filmmaker , yet here he fashioned one of the finest italian horror movies of the 1970's . ( note that the film has no connection with the 1975 exorcist-rip off behind the door , but for some unexplained reason was given this related title for release in the usa and australia . ) this story focuses on dora , a women set upon by a malevolent spirit that channels itself through her young son marco . the film opens with dora , her son and second husband bruno returning to a house by the sea that was the scene of her first husband's suicide and her subsequent trauma 7 years earlier . they hope to put the past behind them , but as small accidents start to befall dora - usually while bruno is away on business - she starts to suspect that marco ( played with uncanny ability by 8 year old david colin jr . ) is somehow involved in the strange goings on . to reveal any more of the story would be unfair . suffice to say that this artfully paced study of a woman suffering a nervous breakdown offers an intriguing plot , loads of atmosphere and solid acting , though the dialogue is somewhat weakened by the dubbing into english . bava coaches a surprisingly good performance from the usually wooden daria nicolodi , wife of famed italian horror director dario argento . her character is invested with sufficient depth to allow the audience real empathy with dora's troubled soul . the music by italian ensemble libra is also effective , mixing odd-sounding 70's rock with classic gothic piano sequences . and there is at least one moment - brilliantly engineered by bava - that is guaranteed to lift you ten feet out of your chair . yet for italian horror , the bloodletting here is surprisingly minimal . lamberto bava and francesco barbieri's script is more concerned with deeper , psychological terrors , with themes of guilt and suffering , with the notion that what we sow will shall - somewhere , somehow - eventually reap . scholars of the genre take note : beyond the door ii is stylish , chilling , and essential .

susan granger's review of " jeepers creepers " ( mgm/ua entertainment ) this nasty , little horror film begins as a bickering brother ( justin long ) and sister ( gina philips ) are driving through the desolate countryside on their way home from college and spy a man dropping wrapped-up bodies down a drainage pipe . when long decides to investigate , there's nothing but trouble . " you know the part in scary movies where somebody does something really stupid and everybody hates them for it ? - well , this is it ! " philips warns . what he finds in the basement of an old , abandoned church is a dying boy with a horrifying , jagged-stitched incision from his neck to his navel , plus hundreds of other mutilated bodies , stitched together on the walls and ceiling like a disgusting tapestry . long flees but now the monstrous , winged creeper ( jonathan breck ) is after both of them ! eileen brennan appears briefly as the cat lady and patricia belcher is jezelle , a psychic who explains the evil creature's bizarre feeding habits . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " jeepers creepers " is a fiendishly visceral 2 with an extraordinarily gruesome conclusion , giving new meaning to the old song " jeepers creepers . " and now - as paul harvey would say - for the rest of the story . what's more scary than the cruelty of the satanic film itself is the fact that writer/director victor salva is a convicted child molester who videotaped himself having oral sex with a 12 year-old actor in california . sentenced to three years in prison , he served 15 months and completed parole in 1992 . when salva made " powder " ( 1995 ) , the story of an albino boy with supernatural abilities , disney studio executives claimed that they did not know about his prior conviction as a pedophile . and now , once again , in this mgm/ua film , that fact is conspicuously absent from his press kit bio .

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 , " 8mm , " raised new hope . it promised to be something unusual . it wasn'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 8mm 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 ; " 8mm " 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 . " 8mm " 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 don'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 didn't have the guts to take tom so far down the dark tunnel that he couldn'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 doesn'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 " 8mm " 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- " 8mm " is especially disappointing because it could have been much more than it is .

the makers of spawn have created something almost as vacuous as this summer's other comic book adaptation , batman and robin . both films make the mistake of adapting for the screen not only the look of their graphic counterparts , but also their monosyllabic dialogue and empty-headed character motivations . in panel-sized morsels , implausible plots and " rambo " -esque dialogue are often overshadowed by the artwork , but on thirty foot silver screens , it's much more difficult to dismiss the shallowness behind the pretty pictures . spawn is ostensibly about an assassin named simmons ( white ) who is framed by a corporate baddie ( played without irony by sheen ) , then set on fire and left for dead . though the movie skimps on the next few plot points , here's what i could determine : said assassin then becomes the leader of satan's army , under the tutelage of a flatulating midget named clown ( leguizamo , grating as always ) . he is renamed , for reasons unbeknownst , spawn , and granted a really cool costume that enables him to become something of a human chameleon . but when spawn spies on a birthday party for his child , he realizes that he can't be the evil superdemon he's expected to be , and he sets about avenging his untimely death . typical of summer blockbusters , spawn is an effects-laden ninety minute rock video . while the visions of hell are laughably crude ( think the virtual reality sequences of the lawnmower man ) , spawn's prehensile outfit and the action sequences are truly something to behold . but the storytelling is completely lacking in emotion ( spawn longs for his wife , but they don't have a single scene together before simmons' death ! ) , conflict ( who will triumph is not anybody's guess ) , and believability ( not that i expected it ) . so many questions are left unanswered , and i'm sure they won't be addressed in the inevitable sequel . while last year's the crow : city of angels suffered similar problems with its narrative ( which was lazy and somewhat incoherent ) , it had atmosphere to spare and genuine moments of hypnotic power . spawn is an in-your-face , screaming banshee of a film ; these guys know how to graft a comic book onto celluloid , but they haven't the faintest idea how to make a movie .

making your first feature film ain't easy . assemble a decent , if not , strong cast , as writer/director robert moresco has done with one eyed king , and you're already ahead of the game . but rehash old plot lines , tired dialogue , and standard clich ? s , and a well-intentioned effort such as this one could jeopardize your chance at a second feature film . how many more movies do we need about a rough neighborhood full of lifelong friends hopelessly turned to crime or worse ? the enormous catalog of such movies might dissuade a filmmaker from making yet another , but here we have it . again . five irish kids in nyc's hell's kitchen make an overemotional pact over some stolen rings on an anonymous rooftop . with teary music . and slow motion . in the film's first scene . the kids grow up to be fairly worthless adults , unable or unwilling to make their way out of the heat of the kitchen . leading the clueless pack is william baldwin as a good-hearted guy who watches out for his buddies and is in tight with local mob head armand assante . i'd like to say that his character gets involved over his head in some sort of blah , blah , blah , but all we seem to get are little tastes of possible plot points . he's concerned about buddy jason gedrick's heroin abuse . he sticks up for jim breuer after he impregnates baldwin's character's sister . he looks into who might be pushing the most moronic-looking counterfeit cash ever made ( a genuinely funny touch ) . but none of this ever really amounts to anything . it seems that moresco's greater concern is to provide that intangible " slice of life " , that flavor of the neighborhood that everyone's been trying to evoke since scorsese's early work . so , we get the drunk guys , hugging and singing together at the local bar , to prove to us that they really love each other . ( do people actually do this ! ? ) we get a lot of tough street talk -- usually mumbled for effect -- and a whole lot of the f-word , whether it sounds like it fits or not . we also get a handful of good actors in small roles that seem to lack purpose . bruno kirby , chazz palminteri , you know , guys you've seen in movies just like this one before . assante is intelligent casting as the man that everyone fears , and baldwin's performance is adequate , but most of the rest of the cast jump into the tough guy persona so thoroughly that it's almost funny . moresco , a theater guy and sometimes tv writer ( including the series falcone ) , obviously labored over this one as anyone might a first child , but the content is probably too personal . as a result , the movie's style is heavy-handed , in need of a considerable amount of toning down . nearly every time an action by the grown up gang recalls something they did as kids , moresco reminds us -- boy does he remind us . with slow dissolves to the earlier scene , running in slow motion , complete with dialogue from the present , just in case we don't comprehend the link to the past . moresco needs to either trust his audience's intelligence , or have more faith in his own presentation rather than beat us over the head with it . his next project should have a little more personal distance , and a lot more subtlety . if he actually gets that chance . reviewed as part of our 2001 boston film festival coverage ( feature story coming soon ) .

bill condon's " gods and monsters " is a fascinating look into the last days in the life of gay director james whale ( ian mckellan ) , who made the horror classics " frankenstein " and " bride of frankenstein . " since i was unfamiliar of whale prior to viewing the film , there is no way to know how accurate the film is , but i suspect that much of it only came from whale's inner fantasies and hallucinations . whale , who fought in wwi and then went on to become known for his work on horror pictures , decided fifteen years before his death at age 67 to quit filmmaking once a homosexual scandal broke out involving him . as the film tells it , during the end of his life , whale , at his large home in l . a . , became infatuated with the tall , handsome , and much younger man , clayton boone ( brendan fraser ) , who was working as the gardener at his home . james whale , we learn quickly was , what many people refer to him as in the film , " a dirty old man . " in one of the opening scenes , a young film enthusiast visits whale's home to interview him and whale agrees , on one condition : for every question he answers , the young man must take off an article of clothing . because of this episode , we know exactly what it is whale wants when he asks clayton to pose for him for a painting , later making the excuse that his bright , white shirt is disracting only so he will take it off . clayon agrees , and doesn't really think much of this , much to the warnings of his friends , becoming more and more intrigued in the stories whale tells him about his past . certainly , the relationship between whale and boone is headed for a downfall , since whale starts to grow a deep love for this young man , even though boone is not gay , and whale himself realizes he is nearing the conclusion to his life , as he begins to seldom suffer mild strokes and moments of true catharsis . " gods and monsters " is an intimate and seemingly respectful portrait of a director who was forced to become somewhat of an outcast , due to his sexual preference , and never got the recognition he would have liked , since he longed to be referred to as a " motion picture director , " rather than a " horror director . " and in one heartbreaking scene , he attends a party with boone being his guest , held by director george cuckor , and finds that many of the other attendees do not recognize him anymore . it is evident that whale's first love in his life was making movies , and when his career ultimately fell apart , so did his passion in life . as played brilliantly by ian mckellen , james whale comes off as a sad , but dignified man , and a person who was not afraid to stand out from others , just as long as he knew he was being true to himself . he never hid the fact that he was gay , however , even if it meant threatening his filmmaking profession , and it was this unblinking honesty that made him a great person . through the complicated relationship that develops between whale and boone , boone , of course , only things of whale as a possible friend or someone he can talk to , while it means so much more to whale , who sees boone as sort of his salvation in life . although boone is only in a dead-end job as a gardener of people's homes , whale views him as the ideal man , not only one that is good-looking , even though it is this attraction that first begins his feelings , but one that will actually listen to him . since whale lives with only his loyal , but disapproving maid ( touchingly portrayed by lynn redgrave ) , it is boone that whale can talk to in his ultimate reclusion from the world , and the only reason whale finally decides to attend the gathering of george cuckor . although an extremely fine and mature picture , a few small elements hold the film back from ultimate greatness . it is appreciated that the film does not pull for any obvious or overly dramatic story developments , but it is a little thin , and the structuring of the " on-again-off-again " friendship at the film's center is fairly predictable . we know early on where these two characters are headed , and we can guess that there will be a final confrontation between the two as the tension slowly builds . in lesser hands , this set-up might have felt too calculated , but it is not in the surprisingly deft treatment and writing that helps the film to be much more than this . also , a subplot is briefly brought up between clayton and a waitress working at a bar ( effectively played by lolita davidovich ) , but abruptly dropped and never brought up again . if the film was not going to follow up on this side story , then it , perhaps , should have been taken out altogether . " gods and monsters " is a heartfelt and intelligent motion picture , impressively directed by bill condon , who , i sense , relates to or fully understands the meaning behind the curious relationship between whale and boone . the film also plays as a tribute to a fine man who met an untimely end . walking away from " gods and monsters , " it was ian mckellen's marvelous and astounding performance that left the most impression on me , and i doubt there could have been anyone who could have stepped into the role more fully and believably . it is a sad testament when a person's true talent and love is unfairly taken away from them , based on the scrutinization and judgement of their personal life , which , ironically enough , is no one else's business in the first place .

call " hush " " stop or my mom will kill . " or " mommy fearest . " or " the hand that robs the cradle . " call it whatever you want , but certainly don't see it unless you're in desperate need of a bad movie-induced chuckle -- " hush " scores so many unintentional guffaws that it almost qualifies as a guilty pleasure . chalk its losses up to frequent stupidity lapses and apparent post-production tinkering ( it was supposed to open about a year ago ) , the latter of which appears to have given " hush " a send-off that's downright infuriating . it's too bad that " hush " is so laughable , because the on-screen talent -- including the pairing of gwyneth paltrow and jessica lange -- is nothing to laugh at . paltrow and johnathon schaech play helen and jackson , a photogenic new york couple on their way to spend christmas vacation at his wealthy , well-to-do family's horse farm/estate kilronan . jackson's mother martha ( lange ) runs kilronan all by herself , and her genteel southern hospitality makes helen feel welcome immediately -- even if her first meeting with martha takes place while helen is in the altogether , caught red-handed after a bedroom romp with her husband-to-be . but it seems that martha's friendly smile masks a much more threatening demeanor ; she's what you'd call someone who loves too much . martha eagerly , deviously wants a grandchild , and then helen will be expendable , as far as she's concerned . if there's one reason to catch " hush , " it's lange . she treats the pedestrian screenplay better than it deserves to be treated , injecting martha ( poorly written though she may be ) with a little empathy to level out the psycho-playing field . when she delves into martha's dark side , predictable cliches -- chain-smoking , staring in mirrors , praying in a confessional to a priest who isn't there , poking a hole in helen's diaphragm so she'll become pregnant ( and she does ) -- abound , but it's moderately entertaining junk because lange is such an interesting actress to watch . veteran performer nina foch is smart and tart as jackson's wheelchair-bound paternal grandmother . the rest of the cast looks ill and uncomfortable , especially paltrow . but can you really blame them ? the character relationships in " hush " hold a certain amount of promise , at least until their psychological impact is blown out of the water by sheer stupidity . idiotic situations ( martha yells at a nearby horse so it will bolt up and knock helen over ) compliment idiotic dialogue ( " why did you yell ? " helen yells back at martha ) , and the film takes the form of one of the shoddier fill in the blank-from-hell flicks ever made . you can see through a great deal of martha's actions and lies from their conception ; why do people who have known this woman for years longer than we have never figure things out ? does nobody communicate or read the newspaper in this town ? if any of her potential victims thought , acted or behaved like normal people , " hush " would be a really short movie . and then there's the climax and ending , which abruptly come when helen starts having contractions after eating some pound cake spiked with a labor-inducing drug normally used on horses . after a really weird chase scene , martha calmly knits in a rocking chair while forcing helen to give birth in a bed all by herself . i won't spoil what happens next except to say that it's contradictory , illogical and ( probably , since i'm no doctor ) medically impossible . the final scene offers no closure , no resolution , no confrontation whatsoever . it's just there , dangling amidst silent displeasure . no one should like this ending , regardless of their feelings on the preceding material . perhaps " hush " 's title is a plea to silence its audience's likely bitter word of mouth while exiting the theater .

play it to the bone , the newest addition to ron shelton's sports - themed repertoire fails in numerous ways . like most of shelton's other great films ( bull durham , white men can't jump ) , this dud unsuccessfully attempts to use athleticism as a method of connecting characters and creating interesting subplots . shelton's films are not considered sports films , but they do heavily revolve around a specific game to tell a story . shelton has been so good in the past at using sports to analyze the structure of society that from his collection of films we are given an examination of different classes and races living in various different regions . play it to the bone is unsuccessful because not only is the boxing theme dull , but the side story of the two guys and a girl travelling across the country is even worse . the film has no social message like its predecessors . the relationship between the friends , two failed boxers who must face off against each other in the ring for 50 thousand dollars , is very confusing for a number of reasons . the whole film , since it is primarily a " buddy picture , " depends on the strength of the friendship the two characters have for each other . unfortunately , it is a very weak bond for the reasons listed below . 1 ) we never see how cesar ( antonio banderas ) and vince ( woody harrelson ) meet . the two are so different from each other , that a scene of how this odd friendship developed should have been mandatory . 2 ) vince and cesar argue every moment possible on their trip to las vegas . there is not one convincing moment dedicated to seeing the characters laugh together or actually agree on something . 3 ) the third character on the trip , grace ( lolita davidovich ) stands in the way . she is in nearly every scene with them , making it impossible to understand the difficulty the two male characters are going to have when they fight each other . 4 ) there are two many interfering , irrelevant side stories . vince is convinced that he sees jesus on a regular basis , cesar yells at the sky in spanish when he is angry , and grace tries to sell her inventions to hotel owner robert wagner . these boring tales only hurt the central plot . 5 ) when it comes to time for the two men to fight , they don't even hesitate to pound each other . wasn't the whole point of the road trip to show that these two are friends who could never hurt each other ? by the time the road trip part of the movie is over with , the film wants to be over . shelton , on the other hand , continues to tell his story . forty five painful minutes remain . the boxing scene between cesar and vince starts out very powerful and interestingly different from other boxing movies . however , the fight goes on for way too long and becomes very repetitive and predictable after awhile , kind of like the whole film .

plot : a down-and-out girl moves in with some over-the-top models and falls in love with a goofy-but-loveable guy from across the street . aaaaaaaaah ! then one day , she sees him knock a woman upside the head with a baseball bat . ooooooooh ! she must then join together with her model-friends to find out whether or not this guy is really goofy-but-loveable , or a psycho killer . aaaaaaaaah ! critique : completely idiotic . okay , so maybe i'm being a little too nice . this movie starts off dumb , moves into the ridiculous and eventually graduates to idiocy . there . . . that's more like it ! and how , you may ask ? well , it's simple really . four of the dumbest stereotypical models in the world ( oh my god , i just found out that the actresses playing the parts are models in real life . . . yipes ! ) join monica potter ( in a role which can only be described as an obvious cry for help ) and freddie prinze jr . ( not the actor , but the character better known as freddie prinze jr . ) , in a plot so stupid and far-fetched , that you have to wonder once more , how crap like this gets by the hollywood bigwigs . this thing stinks to high-heaven . it's just plain embarrassing for everyone involved . i even felt my iq dip below its usual low as toilet humor somehow worked its way into this so-called romantic-comedy-action movie ? ugh . what a pile of dung . hey , i'm actually starting to sound a little like harry knowles here , but i guess i could see where his frustration comes from time to time . it's sad really . a movie which actually had quite a few people in my audience laughing at its idiocy , including the over-used " folks hiding in the bathroom while someone else comes in to take a crap and fart " gag . and how about that dumb blonde model who keeps running into things . pure hilarity ! or maybe i'm just too jaded , too much of a critic , not relaxed enough to enjoy this fluff-piece . . . uuuhhmmm . . . naaaaah ! ! this movie sucks the big one . it's chockfull of stupid characters delivering inane dialogue fitting snuggly into a preposterous plot . this is the kind of movie that has one character inserting another character into a car headfirst to the floor only because . . . well , it's supposed to be funny , see ? you see , that person then has their legs swinging in the other person's face as they drive and that distracts the driver , see , and well , that's kinda funny , no ? harumph . . . yeah , well . . . you get the picture ! anyhoo , freddie prinze jr . . . . nuff said . monica potter , a bad career move , but we might forgive you if you keep up the julia roberts bit . the rest of the model girls . . . well , thanks for being there so i had something to look at , but please apologize to the entire modeling community as a whole , for making them all out to be complete imbeciles ! ! so why the three points out of ten , you may ask ? well , it's simple really . one point goes to the russian model girl and that cool accent ( don't ask me why , but it actually turned me on ) . one point goes out to all of the model girls for being in the movie ( nice window decoration . . . natch ! ) . and one last point goes out to the makers of this film , who spared us any long sorted story , and made sure to give us the opportunity of leaving the theatre after only 90 minutes of manufactured garbage , so that we could run out as fast as we can , grab the next person that we see walking down the street and warn them of the devil that is . . . freddie prinze jr . . . i mean , head over heels . you've been warned , good people . ps : didja notice how i didn't even mention rear window once in my entire review ? i didn't want to taint the memory of the classic flick by having it uttered alongside this thing , but then again , i just did mention it , but i guess it doesn't count in the ps section . . . or does it ? ooooh , whatever . . . i have a headache ! ( i think my brain is coming back to life ) where's joblo coming from ? 10 things i hate about you ( 7/10 ) - coyote ugly ( 6 . 5/10 ) - down to you ( 6 . 5/10 ) - save the last dance ( 7/10 ) - she's all that ( 6 . 5/10 ) - the wedding planner ( 4/10 ) - you've got mail ( 5 . 5/10 )

" through a spyglass , i could see everything . " king louis xvi was beheaded on january 21 , 1793 , but instead of visualizing this act of regicide , legendary auteur eric rohmer's the lady and the duke observes from afar . consider it a view to a kill made abstract . a proper british ( yes , british ) gentlewoman , grace elliott ( lucy russell ) , and her loyal maidservant gaze from a lofty terrace in meudon at the glistening city of paris , where raucous crowds seem tinier than ants . the maid narrates what little she sees of the execution through her telescope ( often muttering , " i don't know , " ) as the sound of cheering patriots and revolutionaries echoes through the air . what we don't see might not be able to hurt us . just close your eyes and think of england . during times of revolution , the aristocracy may feel a false sense of calm in their parlor halls , discussing tumultuous events over glasses of sherry until the walls cave in on them . adapted from elliott's memoirs , journal of my life during the french revolution , rohmer's latest artistic tour-de-force may seem far removed from his domestic comedies ( tales of the four seasons , etc . ) , a period film set during the most violent changes in french history . resisting the temptation for grand-scale theatrics , much of the lady and the duke is about quiet , decisive moments between members of the cultural elite as they determine how to proceed as the world implodes . grace elliott makes for an unlikely protagonist : a headstrong , snobbish blueblood , one unprepared for the machinations of history that sweep her along . a foreigner who accepts the french king as her own , grace's life seems defined by fancy attire and lively political debate with her former lover , the king's hot-blooded cousin , prince philipe , duke of orleans ( jean-claude dreyfus ) . the times are changing , though , and the gears inch ever closer toward violence . during the september massacres of 1792 , she is encountered by a procession of rioters brandishing the head of the duke's sister-in-law on a stake . rohmer makes a harsh transition from tranquil , old fashioned , almost stagy parlor scenes to the swell of an angry mob . in doing so , he achieves what braveheart and the patriot could not : the face of death . when grace sees her friend's disembodied head on a pole , rohmer's attention drifts from the societal change to one woman's reaction shot , laden with hot tears . grace finds herself taking in a fugitive from justice , sheltering him from the mob . through her relationship with the duke , she seeks a passport for this one activist's escape . grace doesn't even understand her own actions ( and the duke reacts in stunned disbelief at how she places herself in such danger ) . she endures persecution from robespierre and his gang of thuggish equalizers , ceaseless police monitoring , house searches , even a brief imprisonment for harmless international correspondence . maintaining her stiff upper lip and pampered life ( her imperious attitude to the servants never changes ) , she becomes a heroine through circumstance . the events themselves are intrusions upon her person , her home , and therefore her values . aristocracy proves a glass house , one that can barely withstand the upheaval of stones . the duke is called to vote on the king's punishment , and despite his hours of deliberation with friends and advisors , talk means nothing in the face of bloody action ( or futile inaction ) . the episodic structure creates a wobbly , jarring detachment from the events of the french revolution , which serves as metaphor but also disconnects potential audience identification . lazy viewers ( and critics ) may also complain that knowledge of french history is required for enjoyment of the lady and the duke . that's foolery , but brings up the valid criticism that rohmer's characters occasionally become didactic . rohmer's imperfect but assured push toward the future remains staunch and notable for casting a cautious eye upon the past while taking bold steps forward into an uncertain future . what may arouse interest in the lady and the duke outside of foreign film enthusiasts with literary and historical passions is rohmer's use of cutting edge digital technology as a means of exploring the theme of artifice as safety net or coping mechanism . the actors were filmed against a bluescreen , then placed against painted backdrops recreating the vastness of 18th century paris . this recreation calls attention to itself in every shot , a technicolor dream of fanciful buildings and wide-open streets . it looks as phony as titanic , but unlike james cameron's debacle , the lady and the duke plays with the notion of false security in those walls of stone . why ? they aren't real . the very foundation rohmer's characters stand upon is false , and in their groundlessness they must discover themselves , in all their insubstantial glory . screened at the 2001 new york film festival ( feature coming soon ) .

here is a film that is so unexpected , so scary , and so original that it caught me off guard and threw me for a loop . okay , it isn't quite original , considering it is a sequel to the box office hit species , but it certainly is smart . most films of this genre are reminiscent of those cheesy b-horror films from the 50s and 60s , and some even become them . however , as we learned with the 1995 small-budget horror/sci-fi film , sometimes expectations can be shattered . a lot of criticism has gone against this film ( from what i have read so far , anyway--yep , all two reviews ) , and it makes me wonder why these types of films are automatically dismissed as gory , laughable pieces of trash . but , the thing is , it isn't . it's well made , well acted , and quite intelligent . i can see most of the critics now complaining about the level of gore or the level of sexuality in the film . but the species series isn't about the lack of these elements . it's about how much it can get into one film . and yet , behind it all , it has this basic premise that allows it to get away with doing so . species ii begins in the present day , though it seems to be an alternate universe . many films ( especially sci-fi ones ) create similar timelines as our realistic one , but change it to fit the film's needs . species ii begins with the arrival of an american spacecraft , the excursion , landing on the surface of mars . aboard is patrick ross ( justin lazard ) , a very bright and very handsome astronaut . patrick is the son of senator ross ( james cromwell ) , who just wants patrick to succeed . well , it would seem that he has succeeded . landing on the surface of mars , he is the first human being to ever do so . of course , he isn't the first ever . about a billion years ago , an alien species supposedly landed on mars and destroyed the perfect living conditions that were able to sustain life . now , of course , the red planet is cold and rocky . no life lives on it . that is , no visible life . patrick , upon leaving the spacecraft and landing on the red soil , collects samples from the ground . he takes them aboard , and puts them in storage . unfortunately , one of the samples contains a form of life , and it gets loose when it is heated aboard the ship . just prior to heading back to earth , this life form creeps along the floor and inhabits the earthlings . they pass out for approximately seven minutes , and then shrug it off as nothing , because they can't even remember . they blame it on a technical malfunction . back on earth , patrick begins to have strong urges to mate with as many women as possible . as we know from the original , this is because the alien wants to breed and take over the planet . however , the children that are bred are half-human , as their father is . patrick is really looking for another alien to breed with , and he finds it in eve ( natasha henstridge ) . eve was cloned from dna taken from sil , the original alien . however , this time around , most of her " alien " urges have been either decreased dramatically , or lie dormant . the project is led by dr . laura baker ( marg helgenberger , reprising her role from species ) , and her motives seem respectable . since she was involved with the original alien attack , she wants to learn how to stop the alien should it come again . and it has . story-wise , species ii is much stronger than its predecessor , but it is also much stronger than , say , aliens ( hey , i love the film , but you can't tell me it was strong on story ) . what surprised me the most with this film was the incorporation of historical facts into the screenplay . in my search for extraterrestrial intelligence course in college , we learned about a piece of rock from mars which landed in one of the poles . this piece of rock contained fossils which may have been proof of life on mars ( later , it was proven that it was not a living creature that created it ) . the script uses this effectively , but also manages to provide a well-balanced plot . beginning with the first man on mars ( something i have always dreamed of seeing ) , i was hoping that the film would turn this element into a useful starting point for the movie . and it does it quite well . the characters are all smart , and they know what to do and what not to do . the only character that seems a little cliched is the general ( george dzundza ) , and yet , he remains logical in everything he does . there are the obvious flaws of course , mostly lying in the technical aspects . the special effects are only mediocre , and some are just plain bad . but for the most part , they remain believable ( i even noticed a homage to the alien series when the mothers gave birth to alien children ) . also , the most realistic ones are usually the goriest , ranging from people being torn open , or someone's head being blown off . however , some plot elements also may elicit laughs from the audience , including a menage a troi that is all but necessary . many people dislike the species series because all it is is an excuse for sex , nudity , and gory violence . however , i tend to disagree . what were the alien films about ? and , if an alien species ever did come to earth , and their sole purpose was to destroy us , wouldn't you mate as quickly as possible with as many people as possible ? my only gripe with this is during the scene where patrick goes searching for a mate in a grocery store . i didn't realize that aliens were that picky on choosing women to mate with ( i just assume it is his part-human side looking for the most beautiful one ) . the acting is quite good for this kind of film . it is a vast improvement over the first film , at least . the acting is the key element to this film : if it was bad , it would have lowered itself into camp ; if it was good , it would have asked for comparison with films like aliens . okay , so it isn't that good . george dzundza is probably the most obvious mistake on casting , as his over-the-top impersonation of a general makes him annoying and distracting . natasha henstridge is limited this time around , as she is usually enclosed in a cage . however , she does manage a very impressive performance with this aspect hindering any of her talent . oh yeah , and she's quite fun to just plain watch . marg helgenberger is immensely better this time around , and her performance is probably the best in this film . michael madsen is so-so , but he isn't annoying , and he soon becomes rather appealing ( with his nice cynic personality ) . james cromwell has a small part , but he makes it much better than what it could have been with a more incapable actor . as i say , any film with james cromwell dramatically increases in likeability . mykelti williamson gives an enjoyable performance , and he gives the film a more down-to-earth feel . and , of course , justin lazard . lazard has so far been ridiculed for his performance , but i think he is effective . sure , he is wooden , but isn't that what his character is like ? the moment when he touches the glass separating henstridge from him was extremely well done , due to the couple's acting . species ii is rated r for strong sexuality , sci-fi violence/gore and language . this is definitely an r rated film that young kids should not see . more than likely , they would probably have nightmares and never have sex for the rest of their lives . hell , i don't even know if i will . what is sure to be a critically lambasted film turns out to be the surprise film of the year . i probably won't see another film where i was expecting so little and got so much for quite a while . director peter medak has crafted a very suspenseful , and sometimes very scary movie out of a mediocre series . medak has also mastered the wonderful " jump ! " moments , and has probably the second scariest moment i have ever seen on film ( scream still has the first ) . strong acting , smart dialogue , intelligent plotting , and a sure-handed director , species ii is exactly what these films should be : entertaining .

modern audiences are more likely to be familiar with les misirables from the pop-broadway musical rather than victor hugo's original tome . adapted several times for the cinema , this latest effort does a superb job of translating the characters , story , and heart of the novel to the screen . liam neeson stars as jean valjean . as a young man , valjean stole some bread to satisfy his hunger . . . and he was sentenced to 19 years of hard labor for his crimes . prison hardened him , and on his release he seems doomed to a life of crime and squalor . however , an unexpected act of compassion changes his outlook on life , and he vows to become a better man . however , he runs up against one man who doesn't believe in reform . inspector javert ( geoffrey rush ) is an obsessive law abider . he has no tolerance for anyone who breaks the rules , even with benign intentions . he once served as a guard at the labor camp where valjean served , and after valjean breaks his parole , javert devotes himself to bringing him to justice . two women also get caught up in the struggle . fantine ( uma thurman ) is an unwed mother suffocating in an unforgiving society . her daughter , cosette ( mimi newman , and later , claire danes ) , is her life , yet she cannot afford to raise her . instead , cosette is sent to live with a cruel foster family which extorts money from fantine , and forces cosette into a life little better than a slave . director bille august manages to create a faithful adaptation of victor hugo's novel , which , though omitting some of the political undertones , remains true to the overall story and tone of the book . hopefully you won't , as some clueless members of the audience did , wonder where all the songs went . the movie manages to be completely engrossing without the andrew lloyd webber flourishes . the experience is bolstered by strong performances throughout , though neeson and rush deservedly take center stage with their core roles . neeson in particular deserves kudos for his portrayal of a man trying to do good , but continually haunted by his past . the supporting cast is also extraordinary . the only actor who dims in comparison is hans matheson , playing the revolutionary , marius . the film slightly loses its luster during his brief love affair , but it is transitory , and truly only distracting when contrasted with the rest of the film . the novel les misirables is , by any account , an epic , both in its scope and in its length . while it would be nearly impossible to cram everything from its pages into a two hour movie , this latest attempt does an admirable job at the translation . it , too , is an epic . . . and one worth seeing .

if this keeps up , jane austen ( sense and sensibility , pride and prejudice ) may have to apply for posthumous membership to the screen writers guild . yet another novel of hers has made the transition to the silver screen . mansfield park is a turn of the century ( 18th century going on 19th ) story about love among the classes as well as an examination into proper society and family ties . ten year old fanny price ( hannah taylor-gordon , jakob the liar ) , taken from her mother and father and the poverty in which they dwell , is sent to live with her aunt and the privileged class at mansfield park , under the stern patriarchal hand of her uncle , sir thomas bertram ( harold pinter , mojo ) spending her days reminded of her lower status , she also invents and writes fanciful stories during her private times . fanny eventually grows to become a beautiful , intelligent , and engaging heroine ( quite unlike the original character which ms . austen originally penned in her novel . ) writer/director patricia rozema ( when night is falling ) is responsible for the textual changes . from a purely dramatic perspective , the revision makes perfect sense and improves the film's audience appeal . what ms . rozema has done is to infuse the main character with much of ms . austen's own personality by including excerpts from the author's journals , giving that dialogue to fanny . the result is a central character that is immediately appealing . as the grown fanny , australian actress frances o'connor ( all about adam ) does wonderfully textured work . at times , ms . rozema has fanny address the camera directly to communicate many of the novel's more introspective observations . this is a difficult device to work seamlessly into a period film and it is to ms . o'connor's credit that it works as well as it does . the central theme which gives the story its legs in an old one . . . whether it is better to marry for love or for social standing ? fanny has fallen in love with her cousin edmund ( jonny lee miller , plunkett & macleane ) who appears fond of her as well . his attentions are soon divided as the stylish and socially acceptable mary crawford ( embeth davidtz , bicentennial man ) enters the picture along with her equally acceptable brother henry ( alessandro nivola , inventing the abbotts ) who eventually sets his romantic sights upon fanny . while mary and henry are evidently less than sincere in their affections , their presence does provide the movie and the main characters with the necessary conflict that keeps our interest until the film's appropriately austen-like ending . other thematic devices include a awkwardly inserted reference to the source of the wealth of mansfield park . . . the slave trade . there is also a hint of both lesbianism and incest but neither is carried very far and is soon forgotten . the motivation for marriage remains the primary thematic thrust . fanny's cousin , maria bertram ( victoria hamilton , persuasion ) is an example of one making a poor match , marrying a well-to-do fool who is able to make her comfortable , but never happy . fanny's own mother , trapped in her chosen life of squalor warns fanny by admitting that her situation is due to the fact that she " married for love . " fanny , given those two terrible examples , and faced with the same choice is understandably indecisive as to which way to lean . the spiritual answer , of course , lies in the middle of those two extremes . marriage is not a cold , calculating decision based upon self-preservation . neither is it a senseless decision made in the warm afterglow of a passionate embrace . in the purest sense , marriage forms an insoluble union whereby two people agree to function as one . " and said , for this cause shall a man leave father and mother , and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh ? " matthew 19 : 5 [kjv] love and logic can be combined . god's word contains both . so does a marriage based upon his truth .

drew barrymore is beginning to corner the market on playing the girl outside - the one who's the awkward klutz or the spunky do-it-yourselfer ; the one who just doesn't fit in with the others . she has perfected these characters in movies such as " the wedding singer " and , most notably , " ever after . " now she's back , starring in what could be called a modern-day cinderella fable - " never been kissed . " you know it's a fable because she plays a copy editor at a newspaper who has her own office as well as a secretary . trust me on this one , no copy editor has seen the inside of a private office since gutenberg ( and i don't mean steve ) invented the printing press . the premise is simple . barrymore's josie geller , at 25 the youngest copy editor ever to be hired by the chicago sun-times , is assigned to go undercover and return to high school to do an expose on what today's teens are feeling and doing . josie ( she says she was named after the '70s cartoon character ) was a geek in high school , so she jumps at the opportunity for a second chance . this time , she thinks , she will get it right and be accepted by the in-crowd . now , what kind of adult - with a good job and a successful career - would actually look forward to reliving the hell that was - and is - high school and adolescence . these are among the many problems that plague " never been kissed . " screenwriters abby kohn and marc silverstein cannot get a handle of josie . their script has her capriciously switching from confident adult to ditzy , blubbering woman-child at the least provocation . and the fact that an adult would put so much stock into trying to become tight with the vapid airheads who are supposedly south glen high school's most popular girls leads you to question her maturity and mental stability . ok , so " never been kissed " is not a sociological expose of today's high school scene . however , certain rules should apply to film , and one of those is consistency of character . among the movie's problems is the ill-conceived conceit that josie would seriously strive to climb the high school food chain and , in the process , lose focus on her assignment . any competent editor would have tossed her ass out the door quicker than you could say " get me rewrite . " to be fair , barrymore is very appealing , but she is given very little to work with . she tries valiantly to get a firm grip on her character , but the script continually undermines her . barrymore comes off best in the physical comedy aspects of the script in which she tries to walk , talk and act like a cool , hip high schooler . otherwise , she is left foundering on a cliched sea of teen-age stereotypes and situations . " never been kissed " is entertaining and funny in fits and starts . it lacks consistency and a firm grasp on what it wants to accomplish . the movie's main bright spot is provided by leelee sobieski as aldys , the outsider who befriends new student josie . josie sees a lot of her former self in aldys , yet still abandons her to hang out with the popular girls . real mature . and that is the main deficiency with " never been kissed . " it's illogical , unrealistic , uneven and undemanding . it has some warm and humorous spots , but not enough to overcome its many obstacles .

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

it's a curious thing - i've found that when willis is not called on to carry the whole movie , he's much better and so is the movie . even though , in the sixth sense he is the " name " , he doesn't have the pivotal role . that honour goes to haley osment who plays cole sear ( cute pun , seer ) a 9 year old boy who can see ghosts . if osment was cute or precious , the director going for the maudlin , this would be nothing more than a movie-of-the-week , thankfully , osment is not only better than that , but in some instances , blows everyone else off the screen in a bravura performance . we get to see his fears , vulnerabilities , strengths and intelligence which makes the sixth sense one of the best movies i've seen this year . the whole cast matches him in quality , with willis giving a fairly low key performance that matches the subject matter . one thing about this movie , its target . this isn't a sfxfest like the haunting or a gorefest , this is more what i'd call a supernatural drama , more interested in characters than in dazzling you with makeup . one caveat : there's a lovely twist in the movie , something like the usual suspects , where you end up replaying the movie in your head rethinking what you have just seen . i was extremely lucky to see it as a sneak preview in toronto , before any hype or critical reviews were out , so i went in with no biases . if anyone want to talk to about the movie before you see it , don't let them . let the director explain on his own pace and you'll enjoy the movie vastly more .

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

as feel-good formulaic as it may be in its own way , shall we dance ? also demonstrates a kind of charming restraint you don't often find in american films . this japanese import tells the story of a middle-aged accountant named sugiyama ( koji yakusho ) whose mundane life is shaken up one night when he spots beautiful mai kishikawa ( tamiyo kusakari ) in the window of a dance school . intrigued by her melancholy demeanor ( and slightly infatuated with her ) , sugiyama signs up for weekly classes at the school -- and , much to his amazement , ends up as attracted to dancing itself as to his young sensei . meanwhile , sugiyama's wife ( hideko hara ) becomes suspicious of his late wednesday nights , and sets a private detective on her husband's trail . in a hollywood film , you can bet that sub-plot would be turned into a stream of slapstick comedy and crazy misunderstandings . in shall we dance ? , writer/director masayuki suo dispenses with it in a matter of minutes , using it to set up later character interactions rather than letting it overwhelm the story with pratfalls . neither does he make the climactic moment of victory a competition between the hero and some mean-spirited token rival . suo gives his comedy the graceful movements of his subject matter , allowing the humor to flow from the characters rather than forcing it upon them . an opening prologue in shall we dance ? goes to some effort to place the film in a sociological perspective , explaining how contrary ballroom dancing is to the japanese sense of propriety . it's a forced message in a story which doesn't need such a culture-specific angle . the dance school in shall we dance ? plays the role of a singles' mixer , with everyone vaguely embarrassed to be there yet taking the opportunity to try on new personalities . most amusing among these new personalities is the one adopted by sugiyama's co-worker mr . aoki ( naoto takenaka ) , a balding systems analyst who becomes a fiery latin lover when he dons a frizzy wig and begins to rumba . sugiyama's awakening is less overt , but koji yakusho does a wonderful job showing a transformation of small steps . it's a delicate performance with a huge heart . shall we dance ? is a fairly lightweight experience , which makes its final half hour rather a long sit . suo crams a lot of exposition into very little time , including an unnecessarily detailed back-story for mai , resulting in a sluggish march towards the resolution . it is here that shall we dance ? feels most hollywood-conventional , attempting to blind-side the audience with a truckload of emotional catharsis . suo might have been better advised to conclude with the small gem of a scene in which sugiyama and his wife take their first tentative dance steps together . that's the real joy of dance shall we dance ? conveys : its ability to create an intoxicating mood of romance which can soften the stiffest shirt .

it's tough to be an aspiring superhero in champion city . just ask mr . furious ( ben stiller ) , the blue raja ( hank azaria ) , and the shoveler ( william h . macy ) . they're trying to break into the biz , but captain amazing ( greg kinnear ) , the city's hero numero uno , hogs all the action . the good captain has his own problems . because he's all but eliminated crime , amazing's endorsement deals are falling through . the public craves a major slugfest , so amazing engineers the parole of his one-time arch enemy casanova frankenstein ( geoffrey rush ) . frankenstein succeeds beyond expectations ; he captures capt . amazing before setting out on his scheme to destroy the city . so , no one is left to save the day but our would-be superheroes , but their abilities are more " little league " than " justice league . " the raja hurls forks at foes , the shoveler hits them with a shovel , and mr . furious just yells at people ( stiller is doing essentially the same character he played in a guest appearance on " friends " ) . after a painful first strike , the guys hold auditions for teammates and add the bowler ( janeane garofalo ) , who carries her dead father's skull in her bowling ball ; invisible boy ( kel mitchell ) , who can only use his powers when no one is looking at him ; the spleen ( paul reubens ) , who blows devastating winds from his rear ; and the sphinx ( wes studi ) , a mysterious figure who will teach them to fight . " mystery men " boasts one of the most talented and eclectic casts ever assembled . in addition to those already mentioned , the credits include lena olin as frankenstein's evil shrink , comedian eddie izzard and the fugees' prakazrel michel as disco-themed thugs , singer tom waits as an inventor of superhero weapons , artie lange ( from " mad tv " ) as another thug , claire forlani ( from " meet joe black " ) as a waitress mr . furious is pursuing , louise lasser ( from " mary hartman , mary hartman " ) as the blue raja's mother , and actor/magician ricky jay as capt . amazing's manager . the cast includes four oscar-nominated actors ! when i saw the list of players early last year , i figured the result would be a can't-miss comedy . yet , i must report disappointment . the script is probably the worst of 1999 . nearly every joke misfires . the stabs at comic books are too obvious to be funny . ( for example , no one can recognize capt . amazing in his secret identity because he's wearing glasses . ) the fart jokes surrounding the spleen are surprisingly the only gags that work . the cast tries hard , especially hank azaria , whose character adopts an effete british accent while in costume , but the script is just too lame to run .

there are those of us who think of leslie nielsen as the bumbling , hapless straight man from the hysterical " naked gun " films , crack an immediate smile and forgive him of whatever wavering movie spoof he's committed himself to starring in since . the wavering movie spoofs , however , are less forgivable . to be fair , " wrongfully accused , " the send-up in question and nielsen's third parody since the last " gun , " isn't quite as excruciatingly humorless as his " dracula : dead and loving it " or " spy hard , " which is a mighty good thing . nielsen is still in tip-top comedic form , able as ever to deadpan his way through even the most horrible puns , but he really needs a screenplay that plays off his talents instead of relying on them , and he needs one very soon . " wrongfully accused " meshes together the premises of " the fugitive " and " patriot games , " casting its always game star as ryan harrison ( get it ? ) , a master violinist who is drawn into an affair with a married temptress ( kelly le brock ) . she , however , sets harrison up to take the rap for the murder of her husband ( michael york ) - a crime actually committed by a one-armed , one-legged , one-eyed man ( aaron pearl ) . harrison is arrested , found guilty and sentenced to death , but escapes from a prison bus , of course , and then is pursued by a determined u . s . marshal named fergus falls ( richard crenna , unnecessarily riffing off of tommy lee jones' already smirky oscar-winning role ) . there's also a mystery brunette ( melinda mcgraw ) and an assassination subplot involving the u . n . secretary general , but like any of it matters . " wrongfully accused " gets off to an assured start , with an in-concert nielsen , touted " lord of the violin " by bare-chested posters , pulling a jimi hendrix on his musical instrument as hundreds of tuxedo-clad mosh in front of the stage . nice touch . most of the scenes that follow , however , never top the opener . ( hysterical exceptions : the mentos and " baywatch " goofs . ) movie parodies are crammed in at an almost-subliminal rate , but most are empty . when a giant snake lunges onto the screen and snatches a cast member a la " anaconda " or baseball players disappear into a " field of dreams " -esque cornfield , there's really nothing to laugh at . other moments , like an interlude in a fishing shop , are so unfocused that you're not sure what you're supposed to be laughing at . there seem to be more cheap references than frenzied send-ups here , so it's possible that director/writer pat proft , by bombarding the viewer with a careless mixture of the two , guarantees something is sure to stick . and what does stick sticks well , particularly the jabs at genre conventions like stylized flashbacks and hard-boiled dialogue , what those " naked gun " s ( which proft collaborated on ) did great ; these bits are so on-target that they allow you to remember " wrongfully accused " as an almost-halfway-there spoof instead of a lame-brained failure . the movie might have been cursed to begin with , opening fast on the heels of " mafia ! " , from proft colleague jim abrahams , and " baseketball , " from proft colleague david zucker , but it's a strong possibility that nobody is going to be accusing " wrongfully accused " of being nielsen's funniest .

i've never been a member of the robin williams fan club . a little bit of his improvisationaly schtick goes a long way , and i sometimes feel as though i'm watching a 40-year-old class clown . in his films , williams has often tried to balance his mania with touchy-feely emotion , leading to wildly uneven performances . mrs . doubtfire seemed ready-made for the same problems , but instead it proves to be williams' best comic screen project yet . while it still contains some characteristic self-indulgence , mrs . doubtfire is nonetheless an engaging belly-laugh comedy served up with high energy . williams stars as daniel hillard , a cartoon voiceover artist with a penchant for irresponsible behavior . one such incident proves one too many for wife miranda ( sally field ) , and she files for a divorce . unemployed , living in a disastrously unkempt apartment and faced with limited time with his three beloved children , daniel decides to respond to miranda's ad for an afternoon housekeeper . he turns to his brother frank ( harvey fierstein ) , a theatrical makeup artist , and emerges as euphegenia doubtfire , a matronly 65-year-old englishwoman . daniel uses his access to the house to keep an eye on miranda's flirtation with a wealthy client ( pierce brosnan ) , to spend time with the children , and to learn something about responsible parenting , all the while trying to keep his identity hidden from the people who know him best . mrs . doubtfire has to overcome a mountain of implausibilities to work , and basically it does so . the most crucial is that no one in the family recognizes daniel , and thanks to the fantastic special makeup that's instantly believable . it may be one of the most convincing transformations ever committed to film , making dustin hoffman's dorothy michaels look like milton berle . more problematic was a series of calls daniel makes to miranda posing as nannies from hell ; it's a bit hard to swallow that she doesn't recognize any of the voices as her husband's . perhaps the biggest contrivance we're asked to swallow is that daniel could make a quick change into mrs . doubtfire in a few minutes . there's more to realistic makeup than slapping on a latex mask . fortunately , these are inconsistencies which only attract attention as the credits roll . during the film , i was generally too busy laughing . after getting off to a slow start involving too much of williams' riffing , mrs . doubtfire kicks into high gear once the wig and pads are in place . daniel's frantic attempt to fool a court officer is wonderful , as is the climactic restaurant sequence , even though i saw the resolutions coming a mile away . clearly , most of the credit for doubtfire's success goes to robin williams . it took putting him in drag , but for once he plays a comic character that isn't just robin williams with a different name . he thoroughly inhabits euphegenia doubtfire , and seems to relish the scenes in which he gets to play her as blunt and foul-mouthed . wisely , he never aims for saintly . his responses to the intrusion of new suitor stu are often petty , but the kind of thing most of us might do with the benefit of anonymity . it's one of mrs . doubtfire's charms that neither daniel nor miranda is perfect , just people trying to be better . as miranda , sally field is solid in a background role , and pierce brosnan is nicely understated as stu . the children are also good , although mara wilson is almost oppressively cute as the youngest . the supporting players merely step aside and allow williams to do his thing . it's easy to see mrs . doubtfire as little more than tootsie warmed over , and it's true that there are both broad themes and specific details in common . but mrs . doubtfire manages to carve out its own space , particularly through the surprisingly honest moments involving a judge's decision and the ultimate status of daniel and miranda's relationship . there's nothing dazzlingly new in mrs . doubtfire , but there are plenty of laughs , and good comedies are always in short supply . and it's nice to see robin williams just act for a change .

i think we should , as responsible citizens , all get together and stop jim carrey from making another movie . he's changing the cinema as we know it--and for the worst . i would willingly rewatch batman and robin rather then again sit through this miserable collection of filmic moments--prologues , epilogues , etc . the premise : a lawyer can't lie for a day . ho , ho . normally a movie made from this premise would be terrible--mr . carrey suceeds in making it unwatchable . i laughed once--and i was laughing at the sight of everyone else laughing . grinding doesn't begin to describe . it pounds on your head so forcefully and so unstoppably that , if you are a normal person , you leave feeling sick . when it's not trying to be funny , it's trying to be melodramatic--but it's just annoying , stupid and sappy . at best . this movie is intended to make people laugh , yes , not to be voted best picture of all time by sight and sound . but , it fails on every possible level . it fails to be funny . it fails to be insightful . it fails to be suspensful . it fails to be fun . they should pay people to see it . it suceeds on one level--it makes me want to get down on the ground and start thanking orson welles , for having lived . if you go in with the intention of coming out alive , please make sure that you are overly fond of boob , fart , pimple and fat jokes--otherwise you will go insane . yes , literally insane . stark , raving mad . it is boring , stupid , melodramatic and in the end ugly . i reccemond it strongly . to ed wood .

in many ways , " twotg " does for tough-guy movies what la confidential did for police stories . there's savviness in its writing and a mature patience in allowing the material to unfold . but , i suppose , we wouldn't expect less from christopher mcquarrie , who was responsible for giving us " the usual suspects " . his writing talents are still in tact as he brings to us a bloody yet intellectual tale of two unabashed but dimwitted thugs and a plan gone awry . the two goons are parker and longbaugh ( ryan phillipe and benicio del toro ) . these two men show the hardened wear of those who have always had it tough . their troubled youths have forged two nihilistic souls who use their amazing gunplay skills to survive . given the choice of minimum wage or petty crime , they'll always choose the latter . yet , they are incredibly foolish planners . actually , these two never really have a plan . they just improvise along the way , hoping that their bravado and arsenal of guns will take care of anything that they might have overlooked . their next scheme , which they cook up about as fast as a mcdonald's burger , is to kidnap some surrogate mother named robin ( juliette lewis ) that was hired by some well-to-do family . if all goes well , they'll receive a nice bit of ransom money and life goes on . what parker and longbaugh do not realize is that robin is carrying a baby for the chidduck family , whose patriarch is a feared crime boss . moreover , two bodyguards ( nicky katt and taye diggs ) constantly escort her . these two protectors find an eerie sense of pleasure when being confronted and tested in life and death situations . they would rather die than fail ; thus their bravado level is equally high . but it seems that the testosterone levels of parker and longbaugh are a bit higher , and they employ some unusual but fun-to-watch tactics to pull off the kidnapping and to outrun the pursuers in a sort of slow-motion car chase down a series of alleyways . the next hour or so , we watch the chidduck camp regroup and assess their situation . during this time , additional plot lines come into play and more and more details are revealed . because the chidduck's can not go to the police and because of the special circumstances involving the kidnapping , we are introduced to more characters that will help to influence the outcome . we discover that not everyone in the chidduck camp is loyal to the cause . as a result , there are undercurrents of a conspiracy , and elements of betrayal and subterfuge . the sepia-toned atmosphere is made all the more fascinating thanks to a terrific soundtrack which emits velvet forebodings , shrills of intrigue and crescendos that tell us of life and death situations that are about to occur . the momentum and the coolness of the film , however , begins to fizzle in the last 30 minutes , which featured an overly extended shootout where our two desperados try to make their way off with the ransom money . you can expect lots of bloodletting and an odd denouement . in fact , you may admire this film more than you like it . yet , for the most part , " the way of the gun " stays on target . it feels cool with its elements of conspiracy and gunplay , and smart for its invective dialogue and tough guy poetry .

the most interesting thing about virus is that the title of the film does not refer to the clunky robotic animals that try to kill our heroes . alas , it refers to our heroes ! as it turns out , the alien race that sends a computer virus to earth ( via the mir space station ) thinks of the human race as a virus -- perhaps even a cancer -- that needs to be eradicated before it spreads any further . after all , we have taken up this entire planet , and if they let us live for another billion years or so , we might advance beyond our solar system and into the next one . but the human race doesn't have much to worry about . after all , there's a woman named foster ( jamie lee curtis ) out there stopping the computer virus . she's the chief navigator on a sea vessel ; travelling with her is captain everton ( donald sutherland ) , steve baker ( william baldwin ) , woods ( marshall bell ) , squeaky ( julio oscar mechoso ) , and richie ( sherman augustus ) . they're all sailing in a typhoon one lovely evening when they stumble across an enormous , abandoned russian satellite ship in international waters . lucky for us , we already saw that the computer virus has taken over the ship and eliminated everyone on board . the evil captain everton thinks he's going to take the ship in and get a reward ; he convinces his crew that there's going to be big money , so they try to salvage the ship . soon , however , when it's apparent that no one is on board and that the ship has no power , they realize that something bad must have happened . finally , they meet nadia ( joanna pacula ) who explains their situation : a computer virus has taken over the ship ! it's creating bio-mechanical life-forms to eliminate the human race ! virus is a truly dumb action thriller , one of negligible intelligence and innovation . when considering the entire film , you will realize that it lacks a single original scene . it's a direct rip-off of nearly every james cameron film ( aliens , the abyss , and the terminator films are the most plagiarized ) ; more importantly , it's basically the same movie as last year's deep rising . i liked deep rising simply because it's funny -- it knows it's silly and derivative . virus takes itself seriously . and , in the most serious manner possible , it steals from every good and bad film of the genre , showing you countless familiar scenes , and sporting a cookie-cutter plot that any film of the sci-fi/horror genre could fit with a little trimming . but what is so amazing about virus is how poorly the whole thing has been thought out . okay , let me get this straight -- the alien race ( which is never really explained ) is basically sentient electricity . they need to make themselves physical , so they use a space station to get onto a ship ( which is surrounded by water , but who cares about that ) . on the ship , they make a bunch of clunky , immobile robots that somehow kill three hundred people . after that , they start using the dead people to create half-human , half-machine creatures that look like the terminator but are much worse at walking around . the leader , of course , is a big creature . every film like this has a big creature at the end , but the big creature in virus is so big that it has to tear down the walls to move around . virus is indeed a cliched film , but the central flaw lies in the fact that the computer virus just isn't very threatening . it's established that they can simply turn off the power to stop it , but the virus has sealed the power room by the time our heroes get there . on one level , virus is almost passable fun . it's really gory , and a few of the scenes have interesting camp appeal ( the director , john bruno , worked on a lot of cameron's films ) . there's also a nice array of actors , even though none of them do any acting ( except for donald sutherland , who does a lot of very bad acting ) . the bottom line , however , is this : virus is a bad movie . it rips off a lot of good movies that are worth seeing . in that order , i recommend that you rent any one of the alien films , simply to admire the qualities of a creature that actually threatens our heroes .

if beavis and butthead had a favorite movie , from dusk till dawn would probably be it . scripted by quentin tarantino and directed by robert rodriguez ( desperado ) , the movie panders to the very worst in sex and violence -- and is incredibly fun to watch . it starts off as a pulp fiction-type crime story , with criminal brothers george clooney and tarantino robbing a convenience store . because this is a tarantino movie , however , it's not just a case of pull the gun and take the loot , it's a case of a hole being shot through someone's hand , a man on fire jumping out behind the counter and the entire store blowing up as they drive away . the opening scene sets the tone for the rest of the movie -- everything overdone and nothing as it seems . clooney and tarantino bring a hostage to the motel and then hijack an rv with a family in it . harvey keitel plays the backslidden ex-preacher and juliette lewis his daughter , whom registered sex-pervert tarantino eyes endlessly . you know you're mentally unbalanced when you find lewis the least bit attractive , although she's not nearly as obnoxious as usual in from dusk till dawn . the first half of the movie has the criminals and hostages trying to get to and through the mexico border , clooney's strategy involving hiding in the rv shower while lewis is on the toilet . it does its trick ; the border guard takes one look at lewis relieving herself and immediately goes blind , never noticing clooney or tarantino . once they get to mexico , it's time to wait at the rendezvous point , a topless bar called titty twister where we're once again reminded tarantino wrote the movie as he drinks champagne off the foot of a stripper . finally , after about ten minutes of intercut boob shots and clooney forcing keitel and lewis to drink with him , the stripper turns into a vampire . soon half the people in the bar are vampires and the other half fall or fight back . that's right , we've come all this way to see a vampire movie . but like everything else , tarantino takes this age-old genre and twists it to his own ends to produce over-the-top entertainment . so we get holy water condom balloons , heads rolling , quadruple impalement on an overturned table and keitel getting bitten by a vampire and announcing he only has a few minutes left before he becomes " a lap dog of satan . " the from dusk till dawn dialogue is 100% tarantino , hovering between absurd and disgusting ( as when they're entering the nightclub and cheech marin announces the main attractions of the titty twister ) , but always entertaining , and is a huge reason the movie is so much fun to watch instead of being one more second-rate gorefest . clooney , keitel and especially tarantino are so over-the-top with their delivery that the dialogue is that much more hilarious , ensuring not one second of from dusk till dawn is taken the least bit seriously . stuff like this would be terrible in any other movie , but tarantino and rodriguez know exactly what to do to entertain people , even if there's absolutely no message or meaning to from dusk till dawn . pulp fiction had the vulgarity and violence for a reason , but this movie just throws it out for cheap entertainment . from dusk till dawn isn't the classic of modern cinema that pf is , but is does prove you can do a good job making a really bad movie .

that is , unless you're one of those people who have seen the preview a thousand times on tv or in the theaters . i can tell you one thing now : they gave the entire movie away . why someone would want to base an entire movie on one premise and then give that crucial detail away in the trailers is beyond me . however , if they * hadn't * given it away , the film would've still been suprisingly devoid of suspense given its subject matter . obviously , the producers thought they could remake " the deep end of the ocean , " throw in tommy lee jones and a couple of cliches and call it an action drama . " double jeopardy " offers solid acting from ashley judd and tommy lee jones , who got first billing even though he didn't see to be on screen half as much as judd did . it also offers some genuinely funny , clever , or full-of-tension moments ( my favorite : judd waking up in the coffin ) , but none of that can salvage the film from its insanely predictable plot . half the time i'm wondering whether i'm watching one of those overhyped tv miniseries , which always turn out to be less exciting than advertised . judging by the beginning , end , and a huge chunk of the middle , i might have been watching a special hallmark presentation too . the movie's stretching for an almost two hour long film with only 30 minutes worth of material . implausible material , no less . loose interpretation of one of the amendments aside , too many times in the movie i thought , " that is * not * possible * . " that kind of stuff is excusable in popcorn movies , but not one like " double jeopardy " that tries to pass itself off as serious drama . everything seems dragged out , overplayed . when they should've kept us in the dark , they let the cat out of the bag too early .

is it just me , or have disney films gradually lost their appeal ? i was almost stunned by the quality of " who framed roger rabbit ? " , a fun , unique look at a world where cartoons and people lived together . " the little mermaid " harkened back to , and perhaps surpassed , the classic disney animations from the first half of the century . however , the endless stream of " the little mermaid " wanna-be's is getting to me . you know the spiel : a lame plot recycled from some well-known story , colorful , almost psychedelic animation , the lead character who learns a valuable moral lesson , the comedic sidekick/sidekicks , the seemingly unattainable love interest , a few catchy songs , a few in-jokes for adults , and the occasional out of place warner-brothers-coyote-fall-off-the-cliff type joke . it's a formula , and like any formula , it gets tiresome . that's why i'm delighted to hear that disney recently picked up the international distribution rights to the works of ghibli , a japanese cartoon studio . from what i've seen of their movies ( " kiki's delivery service " and the already english-dubbed and american- distributed " my neighbor totoro " ) , foreign audiences are in for a treat . these movies , particularly " kiki's delivery service , " are wonderfully original and entertaining . " kiki's delivery service " starts with an unusual premise : kiki , upon hearing forecasts of clear skies , decides it is time for her to leave home . this is unusual because kiki isn't a college student or a young adult making her start on the world , but a thirteen year old girl eager to begin her training as a witch . her mother is also a witch , and as thirteen is the obligatory age for such training , her parents treat her leaving understandingly and put up only token resistance . just the idea of a witch heroine may scare away some audiences , but no mention is made of the occult , and the subject is dealt with harmlessly throughout the movie : kiki's mother acts as a village doctor , and kiki is able to do no more than fly on a broom . kiki must choose a city to move to , and what she chooses is the co-star of the movie : a german seaport town , far removed from the country life she has been used to . initially lost in the impersonal hugeness of her surrounding , she's discouraged , and unable to support herself though her rudimentary skills as a witch . on the verge of leaving for a new town , she uses her power of flight to deliver a pacifier to a baby who dropped it . the favor eventually blossoms into her working as a courier , a one-persons delivery service . this is where the movie becomes shockingly good . kiki's job is a catalyst for her realizing the beauty of the city and the world around her . the townspeople she is put in contact possess an inner worth that doesn't seem forced or artificial , but merely derived from looking at ordinary people in a different light . they're three- dimensional , impossible to quickly evaluate , possessing of faults , and understandably reserving in kindness towards a strange girl . however , each one has something about them , some interest or trait , that makes them interesting and unique . the personal beauty of the citizens is complimented by the beauty of the surroundings : the seaport town genuinely looks impressive , capturing the european charm of a medieval city adapted to the more modern needs of the 1950's . this beauty is beauty with depth ; for every detail left in , dozens are only hinted at . i could probably go on all day , but i won't ; suffice it to say that many of these minor details could have been the highlight of the movie . some of my favorites are kiki's relationship with the baker's husband : although he's quiet , never shown speaking to kiki throughout the movie , and he initially scares her , his kindness wins her friendship . in the garage of a deliveree's house can be found a vintage model t . two old ladies have a relationship evolving from master-servant to friend-friend . such details gives the impression that the beauty shown in the movie is only the tip of the iceberg . added on top of this is a lesson on the importance of self-worth . kiki initially seems to derive much of her self-worth from the beauty of her surroundings and the people around her , but an encounter with a rude girl crashes down her bewonderment , making her question the importance of such beauty . this causes kiki to lose faith in herself . however , kiki comes to realize not only the beauty of her surroundings , but the innate beauty inside her . seeing kiki regain faith in herself is marvelous , and the principal device used to do it is so sublime that i don't even want to hint at it . the ending of the movie has a subtle charm combined with a sense of awe and , ironically , the most disney-esque moment i've ever seen ; if you don't hold your breath in wonder you might want to get medical attention . the movie steers free of many of the disney conventions : there is no violence , however cartoonish , no song-and-dance number , and kiki's pet cat jiji is more a friend than a comedic sidekick , although jiji is given many funny lines and scenes . however , i would be surprised if disney doesn't give jiji more jokes , or at least the voice of some comedian . refreshingly enough , the moral lesson of the movie is not self-contradicted , a habit disney movies have gotten into . " beauty and the beast " 's beautiful belle , for instance , learned that beauty was derived from a person's inside , and was then rewarded by having the beast turn into a handsome prince in snazzy clothing . kiki , on the other hand , learns to separate her wardrobe from her self-image , and nothing more is made of her early desires for better clothing than illustrating her increased maturity at the end of the film . another difference with disney movies is in the style of animation for " kiki's delivery service " : not as colorful and dynamic as disney animation can be , but with a greater attention to realism and detail , it fits the movie to a t . this is particularly true with scenes of kiki's flights . the extreme realism of the birds in flight near kiki is magnificent to behold , and helps these scenes capture the wonder of flight better than any other film i've ever seen . i'm not sure when or how this movie will be released in the united states . disney tentatively plans a theater release of " monoko hime " shortly following the summer '97 japanese release , and should start releasing the other ghibli films after that . i'd guess that some will be released on video and some will be theatrically released in peak seasons with no competing disney release . although the wait is unfortunate , it's good to know that it's being released at all , for " kiki's delivery service " is definitely a movie worthy of widespread promotion and release . watch this movie . along with " man bites dog , " and perhaps something by woody allen , this is the best movie i've ever seen .

perhaps it's time for me to say a little about my reading habits . i really do like to read , and i've enjoyed many books in my lifetime . my problem is that i'm a slow reader , and not very dedicated -- i'll enjoy portions of a book and then set it down for months at a time ( it's taken me the last six weeks to get through the first one hundred pages of anna karenina , even though i'm loving the book ) . in addition to this , i typically don't read anything created after the 19th century . the only reason i bother with this bit of information is because i feel bad admitting , time after time , that i haven't read any of the books on which these films are based ( the only exception , i believe , is great expectations ) . however , i don't think it should be necessary to read the book beforehand in order to judge the quality of the film . needless to say , i haven't read the elmore leonard novel out of sight , on which steven soderbergh's new film is based . i can't say how faithful of an adaptation it is , or if it lives up to leonard's vision . i can say that it's a terrific film , with sharp acting , great dialogue , and pumping full of energy and style injected by soderbergh . it's certainly a nice distraction from 1998's lineup of brainless blockbusters , all hopelessly wishing that size mattered . out of sight proves that it doesn't . i had originally written george clooney off as a one-note actor , incapable of depth but occasionally showing a little flair . after seeing his latest performance in this film , i've changed my mind -- this guy can act , but he also has that forceful presence that most certainly will make him one of those $20 million superstars . here , he plays jack foley , a middle aged guy who robs banks for a living . he does it because it's fun , i think , but the film opens with him getting caught because his car won't start . he goes to jail -- which is interesting -- only to break out five cinematic minutes later with the help of his friend , buddy ( ving rhames ) . we're then introduced to karen sisco ( jennifer lopez ) , a u . s . marshall who , conveniently , is waiting with a shotgun as jack escapes . fortunately , they take her hostage , and she and jack spend some quality time in the trunk together as buddy drives them to safety . the central conflict arises when both jack and karen become obsessed with one another , though their respective jobs make them superficially incompatible . we soon learn that the film is not told in sequence ( and , since this is a gritty crime comedy , flashbacks of pulp fiction should arise ) . at first , i kind of felt that it was a gimmick , but i guess it was a gimmick in pulp fiction , too . it's a fun gimmick , though , and soderbergh treats the material with enough humor that everything comes off naturally . i've only seen a few of soderbergh's films ( i was impressed both with kafka and sex , lies , and videotape ) , but i think he's excellent at what he does . he's an artist without making it obvious , and without being pretentious , which is always admirable . he uses tricks , yes ( lots of freeze-frame stuff here ) , but it all adds to the smooth and quirky currents in the film . as i said , clooney is terrific , and he's matched by lopez . lopez is , of course , beautiful , but she can act , too . i can sense that she's honing in on her skills , for she comes off more natural here than she has in any of her previous ventures ( not that stone gave her much help in the loathsome u-turn ) . the two actors have arresting chemistry with one another -- the best scene in the film , by far , is the seduction scene . the brilliance of this scene is also due , in part , to soderbergh , for he cuts back and forth from their quiet discussion in a bar to the physical act which takes place a few minutes later . the scene is a series of soft nuances and glances , layered upon light dialogue , and the result is one of the better love scenes in recent cinema -- meaningful and engrossing . the supporting cast is strong , led by the always-reliable ving rhames . dennis farina , who plays karen's father , is good , as is don cheadle as the profoundly stupid villain . steve zahn , who plays jack's nearly-brain dead accomplice glenn , steals all of his scenes ( and that's in a film where every scene is already at a high level ) . all of the actors are helped by the dialogue and the intelligently-constructed script by scott frank . out of sight is certainly a light film , although there are a few heavy moments that will linger in the memory . overall , i can recommend it simply as great entertainment . not every film has to change your life , and it's nice to see a movie that uses the art to tell a great story and simply to entertain its viewers . as for the book , this film is good enough to make me believe that there might be something in the text worth looking at .

not since attending an ingmar bergman retrospective a few years ago have i seen a film as uncompromising in its portrayal of emotional truth as secrets & lies . like bergman , director mike leigh is interested in probing his characters' inner depths through hypernaturally blunt confrontations . also like bergman , leigh engages in frequent closeups of his characters' ravished and wracked faces . and the prominent mournfulness of a cello on the soundtrack recalls bergman's own use of a bach cello suite in an earlier film . all that is missing is a discussion of god . which is not to say that secrets & lies is nothing more than an homage to the swedish master . in fact , it is quite possible leigh had no such intentions in mind . nonetheless , what we get is so far removed from the average moviegoing experience -- even from the reason we go to the movies in the first place -- that it takes some effort to adjust to the film's rhythms . once the adjustment is made , however , there are great rewards . one such is the chance to see life on the screen as it really is . though leigh may have adopted some of bergman's stylistic touches , most obviously in an early scene of terse cross-cutting during a married couple's strained conversation , as well as in that somewhat obtrusive score , the overall feeling of the film is that it eschews any " style " at all . whereas bergman uses artifice as a tool to expose reality , leigh makes the camera a mere observer , almost as in a pbs documentary . the effect of this is to focus all of your attention on the actors . it is a tribute to everyone involved that , despite such scrutiny , only infrequently are we aware that anyone * is * acting . much has been made of brenda blethyn's performance , and rightly so , but it is only when you remind yourself that you are watching a fiction that you realize how good she is . there are a few missteps . for one , except for one scene ( tragicomic , as it happens ) , there is scant humor in the film . this leads to a certain monotonous tone throughout . and occasionally ( as with bergman ) the bluntness of the situations can seem forced . for all that , this longish film manages to keep hold of your attention . it is unfortunate that the audience for secrets & lies will most likely be limited to an intellectual elite , for there is nothing inherently intellectual about this film . in fact , it might easily resonate more strongly for millions of working class filmgoers who will likely never see it . there is even a sweet but significant irony in the film's unspoken take on race relations , something an american audience at least would do well to observe . nonetheless , secrets & lies is not for the faint of heart . though there is nothing physically horrific to make one squeamish , the exploration of common human frailty can be so raw and unsparing that it is tempting to turn from the screen . needless to say , it is also very depressing at times . but for many of us , of course , so is life . and though the film is too honest to tack on a phony happy ending , that same honesty allows it to admit that things can also get better .

after the terminally bleak reservoir dogs and the brutally violent pulp fiction , jackie brown seems like something of a light-hearted departure for quentin tarantino . it's more of a ho-hum heist story with characters that speak the tarantino language . luckily , his showcase of actors convert every morsel of possible enjoyment onto the screen , and jackie brown has no trouble entertaining the average viewer . the story introduces us to a street-wise black woman named jackie brown ( pam grier ) , a flight attendant who smuggles money and drugs from one destination to another . she works for a bottom-of-the-barrel airline and receives a minimal salary . but one day , she is picked up by a pair of federal officials ( including michael keaton as the tough-nosed ray nicolet ) , and found with a handsome load of cash and a small bag of smuggled dope . jackie is working for a weapons dealer named ordell ( samuel l . jackson ) , who pays her bail money but suspects her of tipping off the feds about their operation . soon jackie and ordell are plotting a way to smuggle $500 , 000 through to them under nicolet's nose , with the help of ordell's oaf of a partner ( robert de niro ) and drugged-out lady friend ( bridget fonda ) . also entering the picture is a bail-bondsman named max cherry ( robert forster ) , who takes a liking to jackie and agrees at one point to make the situation even more complicated ( how i won't say ) . the big drop-off is undoubtedly the high point of jackie brown , in which numerous double-crosses take place and many clothing store bags ( filled with cash ) switch hands . it's unfortunate that tarantino takes his sweet time getting there , and doesn't offer anything extremely compelling while doing so . there are , as always , amusing exchanges between characters . the funniest repartee is between de niro and fonda , as he becomes annoyed with her constant bickering while making fun of his iq , or lack thereof . the most interesting relationship is between max and jackie . a 56-year old white bail bondsman and a 44-year old black flight attendant with believable chemistry ? you've got to commend the acting . jackie brown is a seriously dragged-out exercise enlivened by such fine acting . the film clocks in at a lengthy 2 hours , 35 minutes . tarantino's talky style manages to hold your attention heavily , but there are more than a few dramatic lapses and crucial lulls in the storyline . also , fans of the director should be prepared for a lighter side to appear . jackie brown has four major shootings , and two of those take place mostly off-screen , so don't be expecting a typical tarantino bloodbath . you can expect frequent foul language , mostly coming way of ordell , who ( much to the dismay of spike lee ) uses the `n' word as part of his regular vocabulary . the acting is the glue that holds everything together . grier , making a sudden comeback from her reign in the 1970's , is more than adequate for the title character . in fact , she's flat-out great . another comeback comes from former tv star robert forster , who does a grand job as max cherry , and is perfectly cast in doing so . michael keaton makes his presence felt , albeit in small but dignified moments , and de niro is ideal in playing the lug-head who goes over the edge . speaking of that , bridget fonda has relatively little to do as ordell's bikini-clad beach babe , and yet she manages to look fairly occupied . there's not a single sign of misplaced dialogue or snubbed line throughout the entire movie . which is a life-saver for mr . tarantino . the story barely holds together in the meantime , and we merely get a small tremor whenever there should be a defeaning earthquake . but oh well . jackie brown manages to be an enjoyable detour from quentin tarantino , even if it is lacking the glaring and original bite of his previous work . let's just hope that the director hasn't gone soft on us .