Datasets:

gmihaila

/

movie_rationales_truncated

like 0

capsule : the much anticipated re - adaptation of the pierre boulle novel comes to the screen as a dark and a little dreary film with lots of chases and fighting , but very little intelligence . visually there is much to like about this version , but the approach is to take an adventure after the style of gulliver 's travels and treat it as an action film . that makes it a film without much center . , 0 ( -4 to +4 ) pierre boulle , author of the bridge on the river kwai , wrote planet of the apes ( a . k . a . monkey planet ) , the novel , as a social satire . it reads a lot like a fifth book of gulliver 's travels . humans discover a planet in which the roles of apes and humans have been reversed , not unlike the roles of horses and humans on jonathan swift 's island of the houyhnhnms . the novel moves somewhat slowly to create some suspense in revealing all the things most film fans know to be true about the nature of the planet . it seems to me there is also a statement about human cruelty to animals , but perhaps i was just looking for that . when rod serling adapted the novel into a film released in 1968 , he added a number of serling touches , familiar from episodes of the twilight zone and changed the ending to make it more serling - ish . the final irony of the original version has become film history . without it there could never have been a " planet of the apes " film series . i can surmise only that serling ran into serious script problems in how to handle the tricky question of language . in the book the apes had their own language and the human eventually learned that language . that could have been done in the film , but that would have required the entire film to be subtitled for the non - ape - speaking . serling avoided this by having the apes speak english and , of course , there is some justification for that by the end of the film . justifying why the apes spoke english may have even been the inspiration for his surprise ending . but serling never tackles the all - important question of why a supposedly intelligent human never shows any curiosity or even surprise that the apes speak his own language , a language they had no opportunity to ever hear . few viewers questioned this serious plot hole , however , and the film has become well respected in cinema history . partial credit at least should go to jerry goldsmith whose extremely inventive score is one of goldsmith 's best if not his best . when the film 's success called for sequels , the filmmakers turned up the violence and they added well - intentioned , though not very subtle , political messages about what was happening in the united states of the 1960s and 1970s . while the first film had a little shooting of guns and what was there seemed a little half- hearted , by the second film , beneath the planet of the apes , there was a good deal more violence and from that point on the series had a lot of violence and chases . the series concluded with battle for the planet of the apes in 1973 . now director tim burton tries his hand at adapting the original book again . for those who thought that the 1968 version was not very faithful to the book , burton 's new version is even less faithful . first , he does not really reverse the roles of the humans and the apes . he has them both be intelligent , articulate races battling for a dominance of the planet currently in the hands , uh , make that paws , of the apes . that could be a good story too , but it is not planet of the apes . as with the mission impossible films and so many other cinematic homages to the third quarter of the last century , the title makes promises that the filmmakers have no intention of honoring . in 2029 leo davidson ( mark wahlberg , not this world 's most expressive actor ) works on a space station increasing the intelligence and usefulness of apes . then a convenient time storm sweeps him up wizard - of - oz - fashion and drops him on an alien planet . ( yes , he survives this storm , but then no storm is perfect . ) he quickly finds , not greatly to any surprise he shows , that on this planet apes rule and humans drool , but everybody talks . and the language they talk is earth- english . apparently it does not even occur to leo that there is a mystery that needs to be explained about that . the fact it does not occur to leo and apparently did n't occur to tim burton either is the heart of the real horror of this film . both just assumed that if apes were going to talk the language they would speak would be english . in any case having one talking race dominating another makes this not a look at human - animal relationships and more one of the master - slave relationships . outside of sudan and a few other countries this is a less relevant topic . leo is captured to be used as a slave but also is discovered by ari , played by helena bonham carter . ari is an attractive ape with close ties to high political power . she is bent on making the world a better place . perhaps in a previous draft of the script she was called hil - ari . in any case with makeup that stifles her usual pout , carter is just about as attractive as she has ever been in a film . she may want to consider this to become her standard look from this point forward . it is not long before leo escapes with some human and only a couple of sympathetic apes . this is a further abandonment of the source material . the chase severely limits the interplay of ape and human and the examination of each 's place in this reversed society , each important in the book . we can not see how the society works because most of the screentime society has broken down . we see the humans either separated from the apes or fighting them . burton chooses visceral thrills over cerebral ones at almost every turn . this is a miscalculation , as characters so lacking in empathy value are difficult ones to place much emotional investment in . they are basically chess pieces and the viewer has little reason to root for them to win . the 1968 script had little subtlety , with lines like " i never met an ape i did n't like , " but at least we cared for what happened to taylor , the main character . most of what this film has to offer is in the visuals . the visual work is spotty but generally nicely done except that so much of the film takes place in the night or in fog . this tends to limit close looks at the makeup . in general it seems much improved from 1968 . the makeup team is led by rick baker instead of john chambers , who did it for the 1968 version . in 1968 chambers makeup was a jaw - dropper . it was realistic enough to almost be believable but flexible enough to show emotion . chambers is good , but if anyone had a chance to best him it would have to be baker . today audiences have higher expectations ; baker 's visualization is really an improvement . these visuals work nicely . what does not work is the wire- assisted leaps some of the apes make . they look like they were inspired by the physics- defying leaps of crouching tiger , hidden dragon . apes spring incredible distances . some of the best scenes are apes running into battle looking like they have ape posture , but when they start flying through the air the effect is lost . one final visual problem is that the film frequently shows its budget in what should be spectacular battle scenes the camera shows us only a small group of people close - up . since the days of lon chaney and boris karloff few actors have crossed over to stardom in a role that required heavy make - up . the one actor who has a shot is paul giamatti . it is not that his lines are so good , most are silly jokes . but he delivers them very well . he was always a watchable actor , but has not yet made stardom . as the ape - trader limbo he over - emotes to overcome his ape make - up , but does it very well . in doing so he makes himself the most interesting thing on the screen . he is probably the best thing in the film and conjures up memories of peter ustinov 's performance in spartacus . as an in - joke there are several lines in the script borrowed from the 1968 film and an old ape played by charleton heston becomes an allusion to the first film by itself . danny elfman 's score has a nice primitive feel , but jerry goldsmith 's 1968 tour de force score is a real classic . that score and the whole film will be remembered when the 2001 film is forgotten . i rate the remake 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .

0NEG

dreary film with lots of chases and fighting , but very little intelligence . visually there is much to like about this version travels and treat it as an action film . that makes it a film without much center . , 0 ( -4 to +4 ) pierre boulle honoring . in 2029 leo davidson ( mark wahlberg , not this world 's most expressive actor ) works on a space station increasing the intelligence and and apparently did n't occur to tim burton either is the heart of the real horror of this film . both just assumed that if apes were going to and only a couple of sympathetic apes . this is a further abandonment of the source material . the chase severely limits the either separated from the apes or fighting them . burton chooses visceral thrills over cerebral ones at almost every turn . this is a miscalculation , as characters so lacking in empathy value are difficult ones to place much emotional investment in . is really an improvement . these visuals work nicely . what does not work is the wire- assisted leaps some of the apes make posture , but when they start flying through the air the effect is lost . one final visual problem is that the film frequently shows its budget in what that score and the whole film will be remembered when the 2001 film is forgotten . i rate the remake 4 on the 0 to

i wish i could accurately describe the theme music for part 3 . the best way i can put it is that it 's funky . i know this is an odd question , but remember the opening music of " police academy 4 : citizens on patrol " , when steve guttenberg and michael winslow perform the title song " citizens on patrol " during the opening credits ? it 's just like that . anyway , part 3 takes place a day after the events of part 2 ( so technically still 1985 ) . this time , a group of horny teens ( who also bring along two aging hippie potheads for some reason ) head up to a cabin on crystal lake for a weekend of sex and weed . it turns out that one of the teens had been attacked by jason earlier in her life ( which must have been between parts 1 and 2 ) so why she has returned to crystal lake one day after a new batch of murders is beyond me . she 's the lone survivor this time . part 3 was originally shown in theaters in 3-d , and from what i can tell from the video , it looks as though they may have been fairly decent effects . jason had long , wild hair when he was unmasked in part 2 . now , one day later he 's completely bald . also , it being one day later , it ca n't be friday the 13th now can it ? oh well . steve miner is the only director who helmed more than one film in the series . [ r ]

0NEG

crystal lake one day after a new batch of murders is beyond me . she 's the lone survivor this time . part ca n't be friday the 13th now can it ? oh well . steve miner is the only director who helmed more than

jessica lange is one of the most inconsistent actresses working today . from time - to - time , she blows away audiences with powerful , intense performances . on the other hand , this is the same woman who made her jaw - droppingly awful feature debut in dino delaurentiis ' king kong . and , much as lange would probably prefer movie - goers to develop amnesia regarding that particular entry on her resume , every once in a while she does work that is reminiscent of it , if only in quality . hush is one such example . lange is so bad here that she might have been fun to watch if the rest of the film was n't such a prime example of motion picture tedium . the film opens , as many so - called " psychological thrillers " do , by posing as a light drama . we are introduced to jackson ( johnathon schaech , last encounter in tom hanks ' that thing you do ! ) and helen ( gwyneth paltrow ) , a picture perfect young couple who are very much in love . jackson is taking helen home for the holidays so she can meet his mother , martha ( lange ) . the moment i first saw martha , i started looking for fangs . soon , the wicked witch of the east is plotting a way for her son to get helen pregnant ( this involves poking a hole in a diaphragm ) . once that goal is accomplished , she manipulates events so that the expecting couple moves out of new york city to the horse farm where she lives . as long as she gets her way , martha is a perfectly amicable person , but when helen defies her , it 's a declaration of war . hush has three very simple problems : it 's incredibly dumb , it 's incredibly boring , and it 's incredibly predictable ( at least up to the stupefying ending ) . this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it , with the exception of a couple of nice shots of snow - covered fields and a quick glimpse of gwyneth paltrow 's bare buttocks . frankly , it 's embarrassing to watch a respected actress of lange 's stature give a performance like this -- it 's like a bad blanche dubois ( the role she played in a 1995 tv version of a streetcar named desire ) . meanwhile , paltrow does her best to get through her dialogue without gaping at the stupidity of some of her lines , and schaech attempts a passable imitation of an inanimate object . as in all psychological thrillers , the battle lines are clearly drawn . here , it 's mom and against wife , with jackson caught in the middle . of course , since schaech 's character is poorly - developed and badly acted , it 's impossible to say how he feels about being in that situation . maybe someone should ask him if he 's familiar with oedipus . martha is , of course , the evil one . how do we know she 's evil ? she smokes cigarettes and drinks hard liquor -- two sure signs that the devil is at work . on the other hand , helen is a good girl . the evidence for this is that she 's nice to old ladies and treasures a locket with a picture of her dead parents . that 's about it for character development . beyond that point , hush is just a series of increasingly hard - to - swallow coincidences , contrivances , and moronic plot twists . however , the first 85 minutes are just a warm - up for the ending , which is as anticlimactic as it is profoundly dissatisfying . i ca n't imagine anyone , no matter what they thought of the movie as a whole , liking this conclusion . either there was some serious last - minute editing or someone left out a few pages of the script . before the climax , i disliked hush ; by the time the end credits started , i hated it . viewers invest something in every movie they watch , no matter how good or bad it is . cheating them like this is offensive and unpardonable . most entries into this worn - out , worm - eaten genre are n't especially good . films like consenting adults , the hand that rocks the cradle , and single white female rely on stock plots and predictable twists to propel the narrative along . in general , however , they 're directed with a degree of competence that assures a level of sustained tension . that 's not the case with really bad thrillers like this , which fail to generate even a momentary heart palpitation -- the characters are too bland and the plot is too uninvolving for anyone in the audience to care . indeed , the title of this movie probably refers to what the producers hope viewers will do in lieu of telling their friends what they really think of this sorry piece of celluloid .

0NEG

in quality . hush is one such example . lange is so bad here that she might have been fun to watch if the rest of the film was n't such a prime example of motion picture tedium . the film opens , as many so - called , it 's a declaration of war . hush has three very simple problems : it 's incredibly dumb , it 's incredibly boring , and it 's incredibly predictable ( at least up to the stupefying ending ) . this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it , with the exception of a couple of nice shots a quick glimpse of gwyneth paltrow 's bare buttocks . frankly , it 's embarrassing to watch a respected actress of lange 's stature give of a streetcar named desire ) . meanwhile , paltrow does her best to get through her dialogue without gaping at the stupidity of some of her lines , and schaech attempts a passable imitation of an inanimate object . as in all psychological thrillers , the battle lines middle . of course , since schaech 's character is poorly - developed and badly acted , it 's impossible to say how he feels about a locket with a picture of her dead parents . that 's about it for character development . beyond that point , hush is just a series of increasingly hard - to - swallow coincidences , contrivances , and moronic plot twists . however , the first 85 minutes are just a warm - up for the ending , which is as anticlimactic as it is profoundly dissatisfying . i ca n't imagine anyone , no matter what the movie as a whole , liking this conclusion . either there was some serious last - minute editing or someone left out a few pages of the script . before the climax , i disliked hush ; by the time the end credits started , i hated it . viewers invest something in every movie they watch , no matter how good or bad it is . cheating them like this is offensive and unpardonable . most entries into this worn - out , worm of sustained tension . that 's not the case with really bad thrillers

synopsis : sonny koufax ( adam sandler ) is a rich , childish , angry man who has just been dumped by his girlfriend vanessa ( kristy swanson ) . in a bid to impress vanessa sonny impersonates his friend kevin ( jon stewart ) and adopts a 5 year old boy named julian ( cole and dylan sprouse ) while kevin is on an overseas trip . under sonny 's supervision julian soon learns to lie to women , tell people how he " wipes his ass , " throw tantrums , and scream for his " god damned " treats . self centered , julian breaks a school classmate 's arm without apologizing or even realizing he has done anything wrong . meanwhile sonny bribes julian with sugary talk , food , toys , and flashy promises in order to get the kid to perform . not surprisingly the government takes julian away from sonny 's incompetent supervision , and this leads to a custody battle . opinion : it 's a movie about an embittered creep teaching a little kid to be a jerk , and we all get cheap laughs because for 90 minutes the innocent kindergartner never finds out what it means when he mimics all the bad boy behavior . that 's the essence of big daddy . but there 's a bigger issue involved : marketing . movies that are rated pg and pg-13 are heavily marketed towards children of preteen age and below . on tv , film clips advertise these movies as family - friendly hit comedies . then when you go see them they turn out to be either raunchy sex acts like austin powers with characters named fat bastard - - or big daddy where adult characters get their jollies by buddying up to naive five year olds and encouraging them to experiment with drugs and mistreatment . folks in hollywood are trying to develop a preteen market for raunchy stuff , but i think most american parents would agree that early childhood is a time of mental innocence that should be protected from uncaring media market exploitation . to many american mothers there 's probably nothing more pathetic and unsettling than the sight of a theater full of unsupervised little eight year olds laughing raucously as movie character father adam sandler jokes about a woman 's " ice cold tits . "

0NEG

leads to a custody battle . opinion : it 's a movie about an embittered creep teaching a little kid to be a jerk , and we all get cheap laughs because for 90 minutes the innocent kindergartner never finds out . that 's the essence of big daddy . but there 's a bigger issue involved : marketing . movies that are rated pg and from uncaring media market exploitation . to many american mothers there 's probably nothing more pathetic and unsettling than the sight of a theater full of unsupervised little eight year olds laughing raucously as movie character father adam sandler jokes about a woman 's " ice cold tits . "

certainly no one would rent ed wood 's glen or glenda ? expecting to see a good movie , but this screwy discourse about transvestitism betrays a level of incompetence that i did n't know was possible . in fact , wood 's infamous plan 9 from outer space actually seems pretty tame by comparison . watching glen or glenda ? i found myself occasionally wondering if wood had originally made two or three separate movies and accidentally edited them together ; as a result , it is actually quite entertaining in that it is unintentionally hilarious . the movie starts out as what mostly seems like a bad documentary , with endless , repetitive narration about transvestites , how difficult it is for a transvestite to look at his girlfriend 's clothes without being able to wear them , how transvestites are not necessarily homosexuals , and how the main character , glen / glenda is ( as it reminds us probably half a dozen times ) " not half man and half woman , but man and woman at the same time . " the camera work is terrible - occasionally the camera lingers on , say , a closed door while the characters talk off - screen , or inexplicably zooms in on someone 's ear or nose . wood also makes copious use of mostly irrelevant stock footage , which leads to voiced - over non - sequiturs like , " yes , our world is a busy and frightening place , with so many people driving their automobiles . " finally , there is occasional commentary from bela lugosi as a sort of omniscient being who seems to inhabit a frankenstein - style laboratory , delivering pointless lines such as , " people . . . all with their own thoughts . . . their own ideas . . . . " while lightning crackles quasi - ominously overhead . had wood continued in this vein , glen or glenda ? probably would have been remembered as nothing more than a poorly done documentary with the occasional inappropriate horror - movie touch . unfortunately , he then wanders so far off into left field that you have to wonder if he had been eating some funny mushrooms when he wrote the script . " pull the string ! pull the string ! " announces an alarmed lugosi as stock footage of buffalo appears . there is another crash of lightning before lugosi returns , this time warning us , " beware . . . beware the big green dragon that lurks outside your door ! . . . it eats little boys . . . and puppy dogs ' tails . . . and big fat snails ! " a bizarre nightmare sequence , which is probably meant to be symbolic but instead is just incredibly stupid , ensues , during which glen / glenda finds his fiance trapped under a fallen tree - in the living room . someone who is apparently intended to be the sinister " green dragon " ( but looks more like a klingon from the original star trek series ) appears to be orchestrating all this , though the film is far from clear on this point ( to put it kindly ) . near the end of this scene - and here i must confess that wood lost me completely - is a violent sexual encounter on a couch that features two characters who do not even appear in the rest of the movie and is scored by goofily upbeat folk music . after this scene ends ( not a moment too soon ) , glen or glenda ? returns to its documentary style , but at that point any lingering sense that wood had the slightest idea what he was doing is pretty much gone . the film wanders to a dumb happy ending that also seems to abandon much of what it was trying to say about transvestitism , but at that point it did n't matter much what happened . as soon as the aforementioned sex scene was over , glen or glenda ? had pretty much cemented its place in my mind as the most incoherent film i had ever seen . i honestly think that if i picked up my camcorder and deliberately tried to make the worst movie i possibly could , it still might not match glen or glenda ? for sheer cinematic disaster . i am giving this movie an f , but i 'm not sure that quite does it justice .

0NEG

glenda ? expecting to see a good movie , but this screwy discourse about transvestitism betrays a level of incompetence that i did n't know was possible . in fact , wood 's infamous plan 9 from outer space actually seems pretty tame by comparison . watching glen or glenda ? i found myself occasionally a result , it is actually quite entertaining in that it is unintentionally hilarious . the movie starts out as what mostly seems like a bad documentary , with endless , repetitive narration about transvestites , how difficult it is for a transvestite but man and woman at the same time . " the camera work is terrible - occasionally the camera lingers on , say , a door while the characters talk off - screen , or inexplicably zooms in on someone 's ear or nose . wood also makes copious use of mostly irrelevant stock footage , which leads to voiced - over non - sequiturs like , " yes , our world is a busy who seems to inhabit a frankenstein - style laboratory , delivering pointless lines such as , " people . . . all with ? probably would have been remembered as nothing more than a poorly done documentary with the occasional inappropriate horror - movie touch . unfortunately , he then wanders so far off into left field that you have to wonder if he had been eating some funny mushrooms when he wrote the script . " pull the string ! pull the string ! , which is probably meant to be symbolic but instead is just incredibly stupid , ensues , during which glen / glenda finds his though the film is far from clear on this point ( to put it kindly ) . near the end of this scene - and here returns to its documentary style , but at that point any lingering sense that wood had the slightest idea what he was doing is pretty much gone . the film wanders to a dumb happy ending that also seems to abandon much of what it was had pretty much cemented its place in my mind as the most incoherent film i had ever seen . i honestly think that if i picked up my , it still might not match glen or glenda ? for sheer cinematic disaster . i am giving this movie an f , but

the second serial - killer thriller of the month is just awful . oh , it starts deceptively okay , with a handful of intriguing characters and some solid location work . after a baby - sitter gets gutted in the suit- ably spooky someone's - in - the - house prologue , parallel stories unfold , the first involving a texas sheriff ( r . lee emery ) , a gruesome double murder , and the arrival of a morose fbi agent ( dennis quaid ) on the eve of voting for the local lawman 's reelection . the second pairs a hitch- hiker ( jared leto ) with a friendly former railroad worker ( danny glover ) . they 're headed west , toward the rockies and away from the murder scene . which one is the killer ? well , it does n't really matter , 'cause when writer / first - time director jeb stuart ( die hard ) finally spills the beans , you wo n't take his choice seriously anyway . the whole thing goes south about an hour in , with the tale taking hairpin turns that i certainly could n't follow . and through the whole thing there 's quaid , playing with the most intense monotony this side of steven sea- gal . i guess i 'm glad that i did n't walk out-- there 's some nice train stuff at the end and a fun nod to dr . strangelove .

0NEG

the second serial - killer thriller of the month is just awful . oh , it starts deceptively okay , with a first - time director jeb stuart ( die hard ) finally spills the beans , you wo n't take his choice seriously anyway . the whole thing goes south about an hour in , with the tale taking hairpin turns that i certainly could n't follow . and through the whole thing there 's quaid , playing with the most intense monotony this side of steven sea- gal . i guess i

this is my first review that i post to this newsgroup , and i kind of feel like i have to say something negative about this film . no one else seems to care that it takes certain liberties that should not be taken with a historical story . however , even if one thinks of it as fiction , " the prince of egypt " remains shallow . but i 'll begin from the beginning . the biggest difference between the original , biblical story and this version is that moses has some semblance of divinity in the bible , whereas the animated version gives the impression of a reluctant hero . maybe it 's just me , but if i knew i had god on my side , i 'd have a little bit more confidence . there are other differences as well , such as a lack of important female characters and the passing over of the original pharoah 's death like it 's nothing but a thing . most of all , though , the story 's focus has shifted . rather than being a story about father - son , man - ethnicity , man - god , " the prince of egypt " is almost solely about the brother - brother relationship between rameses and moses . i was originally excited about this story element until i saw the movie , where it came off as maudlin . rameses and moses squabble like children and then , in the interests of peace , moses saves rameses ' butt , even though moses was the one who started it . . . * yawn * i did n't care anymore by the time moses ran off for murdering an overseer ( which , of course , never happened in the original story - moses was exiled ) . but enough about the differences . let 's talk about the movie itself . it features a moses who , in the interests of making the character more human , lacks any divinity whatsoever , which is n't convincing at all to anyone who knows who god is . it features a cookie - cutter " i - wanna - please - dada " rameses , who at least is given dignity by the voicework of ralph fiennes ( from schindler 's list , among other things ) . the film also features an extremely annoying character by way of the " new - improved " miriam , voiced by the ever - antsy sandra bullock , even though the most irritating thing about her is her tendency to burst into song for no apparent reason ( here bullock is replaced by a singing voice ) . speaking of which , it contains * very * annoying music . it contains shallow writing . it features extraordinary animation , which is one good thing i can say about this film . most of all , it contains an attempt to commercialize , homogenize , and mass - market a story about a manifestation of god . i am not christian , but i got the impression of blasphemy . the writers and producers took a butcher knife and chop - chopped into the story .

0NEG

it as fiction , " the prince of egypt " remains shallow . but i 'll begin from the beginning . the . there are other differences as well , such as a lack of important female characters and the passing over of the original pharoah 's death like it 's nothing but a thing . most of all , though , the story 's this story element until i saw the movie , where it came off as maudlin . rameses and moses squabble like children and then , moses was the one who started it . . . * yawn * i did n't care anymore by the time moses ran off for murdering an overseer the character more human , lacks any divinity whatsoever , which is n't convincing at all to anyone who knows who god is . it features 's list , among other things ) . the film also features an extremely annoying character by way of the " new - improved " miriam , voiced by the ever - antsy sandra bullock , even though the most irritating thing about her is her tendency to burst into song for by a singing voice ) . speaking of which , it contains * very * annoying music . it contains shallow writing . it features extraordinary animation , which is one good got the impression of blasphemy . the writers and producers took a butcher knife and chop - chopped into the story .

for " original sin , " the road to the screen has been rocky . initially slated for release last november , the film was bumped twice , finally landing in the dog days of summer 2001 . advance screenings of the film were denied to all but a few critics , generally a sign that the studio realizes it has a dud on its hands . so is " original sin " really all that bad ? yes it is , but the melodrama does offer some rewards . the location settings are gorgeous and there is a healthy sprinkling of t&a ( with angelina jolie providing the " t " and antonio banderas the " a " ) . more importantly , the movie is entertainingly bad . veteran readers know that , as a rule , i do n't encourage people to patronize lousy films . most of the time , there are plenty of quality offerings on the marketplace that are more deserving of our money and besides , the " let 's go laugh at the failings of others " mindset reflects an elitism that makes me uncomfortable . but things are different this summer . quality films , to put it mildly , have been few and far between , so as far as i 'm concerned , it 's fair to find our kicks where we may . " original sin " will never join such treasures as " valley of the dolls , " " road house " and " showgirls " in the bad movie hall of fame , but it 'll do until something worse comes along . the film , adapted by director michael cristofer from the cornell woolrich novel , " waltz into darkness " ( which was also the source for the 1969 francois truffaut film , " mississippi mermaid " ) , opens in a turn - of - the - century prison , as jolie 's character , slated for a dawn execution , tells her lurid tale to a priest who appears desperately horny . the freshman writing class tone is quickly established when she says things like , " this is not a love story , it is a story about love . " wary of local gold - diggers , cuban coffee dealer luis antonio vargas ( banderas ) makes arrangements to secure a mail order bride from america , listing himself as a mere clerk to dissuade foreign gold - diggers . a practical man , luis chooses a frumpy looking lady , hoping she will be a loyal mate able to provide him with children . imagine his surprise when his fianc ? e , julia russell ( jolie ) , turns out to be infinitely more attractive than the woman in the photo . julia explains that she sent a different woman 's image because she did n't want to be selected solely for her pretty face . luis then confesses his deception , leading julie to state , with great significance , " we have something in common , we are both not to trusted . " after their wedding , luis and julia retire for a glorious night of carefully choreographed lovemaking , with their bodies positioned to display her breasts and his bottom as erotically as possible . jolie and banderas are attractive people and watching them naked is fun , although the filmmakers ' insistence on using one of banderas ' legs to cover jolie 's crotch makes it look like he 's trying to climb her . luis , the stupidest man who ever lived , immediately instructs the bank to make his personal and business accounts available to julia , despite the fact that she seems nothing like the woman with whom he corresponded . his blissful ignorance continues as the warning signs mount up . luis must force julia to write to her sister emily , who is frantic over her lack of communication . shortly after julia complains about the chirping of a pet bird , it is found on the floor of its cage with a broken neck . finally , when she cleans out his accounts and disappears , luis begins to suspect that something might be wrong . incidentally , if you 're afraid i 'm giving too much away , rest assured that all of this happens in the first 30 minutes of the movie , leaving plenty of time for numerous dopey plot twists , a great deal of operatic acting and more footage of her tits and his ass . along the way , private detective walter downs ( played by thomas jane , who was terrific as mickey mantle in the hbo movie " 61 * " ) turns up , hired by the frumpy woman 's sister to find out what happened to the real julia . luis is also eager for the detective to track down the con artist , having decided that if he ca n't have her , he will kill her . oh , the pathos of it all . the cast appears to recognize the trashiness of the story , adjusting their performances accordingly . banderas is suitably impassioned , while jolie alternates between vamping and pouting ( and with those lips , she can really pout ) . as for thomas jane , he starts off acting suspicious and cagey , then accelerates to a snidely whiplash level of nastiness . his most startling moment comes when , to prove his power to humiliate , he forces luis against a wall , verbally taunts him while rubbing his cheeks against those of luis and then finishes establishing his dominance with a full - on kiss . if anyone ever questions the difference between sex and rape , show them this chilling scene . and if anyone ever questions the difference between real drama and a laughable potboiler , show them " original sin . "

0NEG

all but a few critics , generally a sign that the studio realizes it has a dud on its hands . so is " original sin " really all that bad ? yes it is , but the melodrama does offer some rewards . the banderas the " a " ) . more importantly , the movie is entertainingly bad . veteran readers know that , as a rule , of the movie , leaving plenty of time for numerous dopey plot twists , a great deal of operatic acting and more footage of her tits and his ass . oh , the pathos of it all . the cast appears to recognize the trashiness of the story , adjusting their performances accordingly . banderas is suitably impassioned , while jolie alternates between , he starts off acting suspicious and cagey , then accelerates to a snidely whiplash level of nastiness . his most startling moment comes when , to prove if anyone ever questions the difference between real drama and a laughable potboiler , show them " original sin . "

one would think that david duchovny , star of the cult favorite " x - files " would be very careful in choosing his leading man cinema roles . at least one would hope so . one would be seriously incorrect . eugene sands ( duchovny ) is a surgeon so dedicated to his craft that he becomes addicted to amphetamines to stay awake and work more . it turns out to be a bad plan when he loses a patient and his license while under the influence . ten months later , in a seedy bar to score synthetic heroin , the doctor gets a chance to ply his trade when assassins gun down a customer . using a plastic water bottle and bar tubing , sands operates and saves his life . smalltime hoodlum raymond blossom ( timothy hutton ) is impressed with the cutlery skills on his associate . he kidnaps and then offers down - and - out eugene a position in his organization . blossom needs a doctor to patch up gunshot victims that would be problematic at a hospital . sand 's temptation is that this will give him a chance to practice medicine again albeit illegally , big chunks of cash to fuel his habit and close proximity to the gangster 's womanfriend claire ( angelina jolie ) , this film 's babe factor . the would - be big time operator is desperately in need of help . on the run from russian mobsters ( the bad guys that seem to be all the rage in this year 's films ) and trying to cut a pirate software deal with the chinese mafia , blossom is surrounded by blood . after a few medical misadventures , the physician grows disenchanted with his employment . an encounter with a couple of psycho surfer dudes who threaten to blow him away unless he " fixes " their dead buddy cements his feeling that he is in the wrong line of work . when the fbi visits and forces him to become an informant , there is no question that he needs to be somewhere else . oddly enough , these seem like they could be exciting scenes . the film disproves that assumption . then a bunch of other uninteresting things happen . writing this only two days after seeing the film , its a struggle to remember the events . you can take that as a solid lack of recommendation . for all the coolness that duchovny exhibits in " x - files " , it 's a surprise that his big screen presence is so lacking in charisma . the doctor is particularly bland and dull . even the cold turkey bit which is rife with dramatic possibilities come across as banal . a little chocolate and minor sweats get him through heroin withdrawal . like virtually everything else in the film , it 's a missed opportunity . the fox mulder detachment does n't work here . oscar - winner hutton 's manic mobster is much more difficult to get a handle on . played partially for comedy and partially as crazed killer , blossom almost becomes real , but then sinks into goofiness . most of the time hutton looks as if he 's searching for his character and coming up empty . jolie also makes a few false moves towards creating a three - dimensional human being before giving up and turning into scenery . the most interesting aspect of her performance is watching her pouty lips threaten to take over the screen . the rest are n't any better . michael massee 's eccentric fbi agent never revs up . one of blossom 's henchmen steals a few moments of the show as a quirky gunman reminiscent of val kilmer 's doc holliday in " tombstone " . his two - gunned blasting as he does a bizarre dance is the high point of the film . but that 15 seconds is n't worth sitting through the other 90 minutes . first time film director andy wilson ( known for his work on the british television series " cracker " ) appears to be attempting to jump on the " pulp fiction " bandwagon . the best of these movies combine a sense of style and flash with significant substance . the second - rate ones concentrate on just one of these aspects . " playing god " does neither well . the basic idea of the film is solid . and then it goes nowhere . even worse , it plods back and forth , up and down a long and winding road before it ends up nowhere . fox fails yet again in his search for intelligent life .

0NEG

exciting scenes . the film disproves that assumption . then a bunch of other uninteresting things happen . writing this only two days after seeing the film to remember the events . you can take that as a solid lack of recommendation . for all the coolness that duchovny exhibits in " it 's a surprise that his big screen presence is so lacking in charisma . the doctor is particularly bland and dull . even the cold turkey bit which is rife with dramatic possibilities come across as banal . a little chocolate and minor sweats get him through as crazed killer , blossom almost becomes real , but then sinks into goofiness . most of the time hutton looks as if he 's searching for his character and coming up empty . jolie also makes a few false moves towards creating a three - dimensional human being before giving up and turning into scenery . the most interesting aspect of her performance is watching basic idea of the film is solid . and then it goes nowhere . even worse , it plods back and forth , up and down a long and winding road before it ends up nowhere . fox fails yet again in his search for intelligent life .

" i would appreciate it if you did n't do that again . " starring jet li , bridget fonda , tch ? ky karyo , burt kwouk . directed by chris nahon . rated r . it 's no secret that martial arts film often use their plot simply to get from one action sequence to another . when the fight scenes are enough to justify paying admission , there is no problem with this , as in most jackie chan projects and a lot of the hong kong actioners . when they are n't , well , we 're in bad shape . kiss of the dragon , jet li 's second consecutive american misfire , plays like one big miscalculation , and fails even as the most rudimentary entertainment . now before i start getting e - mails angrily touting the genius of jet li , let me explain myself . li is as spectacular as ever here , and i do n't think anyone would ever dare call his martial - arts - star skills into question . the problem is n't with him , it 's with the movie 's tone . the much touted fight - scenes here are filmed with such unflinching , unrelenting brutality that they are unpleasant to watch . they 're joyless , perfuctory ; li 's rogue chinese detective is more of a killing machine than a hero , a terminator with a black belt instead of a metal skeleton . but even the terminator in judgement day had a sympathetic side . the plot is n't relevant , but if you 're curious , it 's some nonsense about a chinese law enforcement officer ( li ) sent to paris to investigate a possible drug ring and encounter a corrupt chief of police ( tcheky karyo ) , who kills people and does sinister things with no motivation whatsoever . oh yeah , and li 's character is also an acupuncture expert who is able to ease pain and/or kill at the touch of a needle . " kiss of the dragon " is the name of an acupuncture maneuver , in which you stick a needle in a precise location on the back of the victim 's neck , somehow redirecting all of the body 's bloodflow to the brain and killing the poor sap more or less immediately . there 's a vague attempt to humanize li by having him fall in love with a downtrodden prostitute , whose daughter is being held hostage , for some reason , by the villain . this is one of the worst love stories i have ever seen on screen , even worse than the one in pearl harbor . there 's no conviction whatsoever as the movie barely pays lip service to it ; it 's only here because someone apparently thought there should be some kind of boy - meets - girl subplot . kiss of the dragon was written by luc besson , whose screenplay the messenger : the story of joan of arc , for all of that film 's flaws , was at least thoughtful . i do n't know why the guy got himself involved in this train wreck , but perhaps he wanted to so something more mainstream after the neverending weirdness of the fifth element and the aforementioned stylized biopic . i suppose you could call this mainstream , but i 'll choose the bizarre any time of the day . if action scenes in a movie are going to be brutal instead of dazzling , you need a story to justify watching them . the filmmakers behind kiss of the dragon should have rethought their strategy . no one will walk out of this misbegotten project smiling , but i hear rush hour 2 is coming in just a few weeks .

0NEG

kong actioners . when they are n't , well , we 're in bad shape . kiss of the dragon , jet li 's second consecutive american misfire , plays like one big miscalculation , and fails even as the most rudimentary entertainment . now before i start getting e - mails angrily tone . the much touted fight - scenes here are filmed with such unflinching , unrelenting brutality that they are unpleasant to watch . they 're joyless , perfuctory ; li 's rogue chinese detective is more of a is n't relevant , but if you 're curious , it 's some nonsense about a chinese law enforcement officer ( li ) sent for some reason , by the villain . this is one of the worst love stories i have ever seen on screen , even worse than the one in pearl harbor . there 's no n't know why the guy got himself involved in this train wreck , but perhaps he wanted to so something more mainstream if action scenes in a movie are going to be brutal instead of dazzling , you need a story to justify watching them . the filmmakers behind kiss of the dragon should have rethought their strategy . no one will walk out of this misbegotten project smiling , but i hear rush hour 2 is coming in

the rich legacy of cinema has left us with certain indelible images . the tinkling christmas tree bell in " it 's a wonderful life . " bogie 's speech at the airport in " casablanca . " little elliott 's flying bicycle , silhouetted by the moon in " e . t . " and now , " starship troopers " director paul verhoeven adds one more image that will live in our memories forever : doogie houser doing a vulcan mind meld with a giant slug . " starship troopers , " loosely based on the robert heinlein novel , is the story of an interstellar war between humans and giant insects . in the hands of verhoeven , the mammoth sci - fi battle flick is one of the most astonishingly bad films ever made , a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale . to put it simply , it 's a bug bomb . in " robocop " and " total recall , " verhoeven displayed a gift for creating an entertaining mix of violence , special effects and social satire , and " starship troopers " starts off in similar fashion , with a tongue - in - cheek futuristic military recruitment ad that shows promise . things go downhill fast , though , as we meet our heroes , a group of buenos aires teens preparing to graduate from high school . inexplicably , johnny rico , carmen ibenez , dizzy flores and xander barcalow are played by square - jawed anglo kids who look like they just stepped out of a mountain dew commercial . it 's a veritable " alpha centuri 90210 " as we watch the love - smitten teens squabble in the name of love . michael ironside plays their teacher , who waves around a cheesy fake severed arm while lecturing about civic responsibilities . eventually , the kids join the military , with dreams of glory in their addled little minds . one of their classmates , carl jenkins ( " doogie houser 's " neil patrick harris , ) snags a job in military intelligence because of his strong psychic abilities . he displays his gift by psychically ordering a pet ferret to crawl up his mother 's leg . a long , dull boot camp sequence follows , enlivened only by an extended coed shower scene where the recruits swap snappy banter as the " showgirls " director 's camera roams over their buff bodies . finally , a full hour into the film , the war finally starts and we meet the enemy . the bugs hail from klendathu and colonize planets by hurling their spores into space . they attack starships by spinning around and firing deadly plasma blasts from their rears . yes , incredible as it seems , the bugs actually kill with cosmic farts . a phenomenally large amount of money was spent creating the computer animated insects and the results are mixed at best . sweeping distant shots depicting hordes of giant bugs racing to attack are both impressive and scary , but the close - ups are a different matter . the insects have an odd , artificial look , like origami creations with a mottled plastic coating . the attack scenes are intensely violent , as one would expect from verhoeven , but the overall look is too phony to generate any real tension . while the action is frantic , the military strategy , wildly illogical even by hollywood standards , grows tiresome quickly . verhoeven tries to spice things up by throwing in more satiric news coverage , but the faux - jingoistic scenes of children " doing their part for the war effort " by squishing roaches on a sidewalk are n't enough to make up for the long stretches of sheer dreck . one can only guess what paul verhoeven was trying to do here . his customary one part satire , two parts ultra - violence formula is way out of whack , and most of the film just flounders . in " showgirls " fashion , some scenes are almost bad enough to be good . an intergalactic kegger party , with jake busey playing " dixie " on a green plexiglas fiddle , has a certain bizarre appeal . a sex scene between two of the teens achieves a smarmy charm , enhanced a few minutes later when the female receives a fatal jab from a bug , but tells her hero that she does n't mind dying . " it 's okay , " she gasps , " i got to have you ! " and then , of course , there 's doogie 's mind meld with a bug . it 's possible that verhoeven was attempting to create an homage to the era of the original novel . heinlein 's pre- " stranger in a strange land " books were aimed at adolescent males , and " starship troopers " has the antiseptic retro - future look of late 50s / early 60s sci - fi . the one cityscape shown is a jetsons - like gleaming metropolis , with flying cars whizzing past an obvious matte painting . the hairstyles are retro too , straight from the frankie avalon , annette funicello school of fashion . ultimately , verhoeven 's motives are irrelevant . he has produce a gargantuan film that fails as an action film or as a social satire . it even fails to be an entertaining bad movie . avoid " starship troopers " at all costs .

0NEG

verhoeven , the mammoth sci - fi battle flick is one of the most astonishingly bad films ever made , a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale . to put it simply , it 's a bug - cheek futuristic military recruitment ad that shows promise . things go downhill fast , though , as we meet our heroes , a . michael ironside plays their teacher , who waves around a cheesy fake severed arm while lecturing about civic responsibilities . eventually , the kids pet ferret to crawl up his mother 's leg . a long , dull boot camp sequence follows , enlivened only by an extended of money was spent creating the computer animated insects and the results are mixed at best . sweeping distant shots depicting hordes of giant bugs racing violent , as one would expect from verhoeven , but the overall look is too phony to generate any real tension . while the action is frantic , the military strategy , wildly illogical even by hollywood standards , grows tiresome quickly . verhoeven tries to spice things up by throwing in on a sidewalk are n't enough to make up for the long stretches of sheer dreck . one can only guess what paul verhoeven was trying satire , two parts ultra - violence formula is way out of whack , and most of the film just flounders . in " showgirls " fashion , some scenes are fashion . ultimately , verhoeven 's motives are irrelevant . he has produce a gargantuan film that fails as an action film or as a social satire . it even fails to be an entertaining bad movie . avoid " starship troopers " at all costs .

tim robbins and martin lawernce team up in this road movie comedy . robbins plays an exec who discovers his wife having sex with his boss . he goes into depression , and drives around his neighbourhood until he arrives inside the usual ' ghetto ' side of every american city . there , lawernce attempts to steal his car , but to no avail , and is dragged along with robbin 's on a trip to arizona . there , they hold up a store , are mistaken for two other robbers ( just like in my cousin vinny ) and are chased by the police , and the other robbers . of course , there 's gags along the way , usually from lawernce . although the film is midly funny , and quite watchable , there 's something so horribly familiar about it all . this film should really be called beverly hills midnight run there 's lawernce with his wisecracking and heavy profanity , just like eddie murphy in beverly hills cop , and pratically the same idea as midnight run . it 's full of all the road movie cliches , and even has a ' comedy ' car chase , which just seemed so eighties . even the credit sequence seemed to be out of a steve martin , or chevy chase , eighties comedy . there also is n't much chemistry between robbins and lawernce . in planes , trains and automobiles , there was real chemistry between steve martin and john candy . in nothing to lose , there is hardly chemistry at all . towards the end the chemistry seems to work , but for the bulk of the film , there is hardly any , the director directs the film in a workman like fashion , but gets the jokes across . and although there is no chemistry between the two leads , they give good performances on their own . lawerence gives a good eddie murphy performance , and robbin 's is alright aswell . however , robbin 's performance is nowhere near as good as the characters he played in jacob 's ladder , and the player . in fact , if you want to see robbin 's do comedy much better than in nothing to lose , i suggest you rent out the hudsucker proxy , where he is much funnier . nothing to lose does have some funny moments in it , however . the humour is n't particulary sophisticated , but if you enojyed dumb & dumber , you might enjoy this . the characters in arizona are funny , and there 's also a good scene where robbin 's asks a shopkeeper which ' threatening approach ' was better , lawerences ( which consisted of lawerence threatening to shoot the shopkeeper 's ass , and swearing a lot ) , or himselfs , ( which was speaking in a deep , scary voice ) but the gags are predictable , the lack of chemistry infurating , and the ending too far - fetched and ' perfect ' nothing to lose then , is robbin 's first ' bad ' movie ( and hopefully his last ) , and suggests that odereick should twice before making another film . he nearly ruined carrey 's career with ace ventura : when nature calls , let 's hope he has n't ruined robbin 's ( or even lawerence 's ) with nothing to lose .

0NEG

is midly funny , and quite watchable , there 's something so horribly familiar about it all . this film should really be called , or chevy chase , eighties comedy . there also is n't much chemistry between robbins and lawernce . in planes , trains and martin and john candy . in nothing to lose , there is hardly chemistry at all . towards the end the chemistry seems to work , is alright aswell . however , robbin 's performance is nowhere near as good as the characters he played in jacob 's ladder , was speaking in a deep , scary voice ) but the gags are predictable , the lack of chemistry infurating , and the ending too far - fetched and ' perfect ' nothing to lose then , is

capsule : not as bad a sequel as crow 2 or batman & robin , but still horribly putrid , cheesy and ill - conceived . this one belongs in saturday morning cartoons . . . extended review : you know , about halfway through this movie , i realized that if you hacked out everything except the fight scenes , you 'd have a damn fine 35 minutes or so of flashy , hong kong style martial arts . beautifully choreographed by robin shou , who also plays liu kang , the fight scenes are both mind - blowing and graceful , acrobatic enough to make olympic gymnasts weep . this is what made the original so fun , but unfortunately for the sequel , we are without the frenetic directorial style of paul anderson . instead , they got john r . leonetti , the cinematographer for the original mortal kombat . not a good choice . while the fight scenes are brutal and eye - popping , the rest of the movie looks like standard made for tv fare . the acting is sub - par , which i could endure if it were not for a . ) the director 's style , b . ) the special effects , & c . ) the treatment of the story and characters . a . ) mr . leonetti should go back to lighting , in my opinion . i could say dozens of bad things about him : he way overuses slow - motion , he has no eye for action , he ca n't get even mediocre performances out of actors , and so on . but by far his worst move was the way he treated jumping . apparantly , everybody can now fly . hell , i 'm all for the occaisional gravity defying flip kick and whatnot , but not when it happens every few minutes , and is done so poorly . better jumping and acrobatics has been seen in xena : warrior princess . in short , they should have gotten paul anderson back . or at least let robin shou direct . . . b . ) unlike the first one , whose sfx were vibrant and somewhat realistic , mk : a 's special effects are bland , fake looking , and overall just plain bad . i counted at least half a dozen times that blue - screening was painfully obvious . had this movie been made in the 80 's , it would have been ground - breaking . but in today 's industry , it does n't even look finished . c . ) now for the _ really _ bad parts . i admit , i 'm an avid fan of the mortal kombat series . the games are amusing diversions , an easy way to work off stress and anger . the first movie was a mindlessly fun thrillride . this could have been a really cool movie . it is n't . the writers apparantly deemed it necessary to lower the target audience from teens to preschoolers . some of the plot elements are just plain stupid . how stupid ? take , for instance , how our heroes move around . they use giants spheres the roll around underground , supposedly at thousands of miles per hour . . . oh boy . . . even worse is the treatment of secondary characters . blink and you 'll miss 'em . most characters had more depth in the video games . if you thought batman & robin was bad about this , you ai n't seen nothin' yet . a good 75 % of the characters are introduced , kick somebody around a bit , then either die or are forgotten about . there 's no explanation at all for this . and for the final blasphemy , the fight that all the fans were waiting rabidly for , the fight hyped to be the most intricate of the movie , lasted about 3 minutes and then just sort of . . . ended . it almost made me weep . to sum it all up , rent it on video , and fast - forward through everything except the fight scenes .

0NEG

sequel as crow 2 or batman & robin , but still horribly putrid , cheesy and ill - conceived . this one belongs in saturday morning cartoons . . this is what made the original so fun , but unfortunately for the sequel , we are without the frenetic directorial leonetti , the cinematographer for the original mortal kombat . not a good choice . while the fight scenes are brutal and eye - popping , the rest of the movie looks like standard made for tv fare . the acting is sub - par , which i could endure if it were not for should go back to lighting , in my opinion . i could say dozens of bad things about him : he way overuses slow - motion , he has no eye for action , he ca n't get even mediocre performances out of actors , and so on . but by far his worst move was the way he treated jumping . apparantly , everybody but not when it happens every few minutes , and is done so poorly . better jumping and acrobatics has been seen in xena somewhat realistic , mk : a 's special effects are bland , fake looking , and overall just plain bad . i counted at least half a dozen times that blue - screening was painfully obvious . had this movie been made in the 80 's ground - breaking . but in today 's industry , it does n't even look finished . c . ) now for the _ really _ bad parts . i admit , i 'm an avid fan of to lower the target audience from teens to preschoolers . some of the plot elements are just plain stupid . how stupid ? take , for instance , how per hour . . . oh boy . . . even worse is the treatment of secondary characters . blink and you 'll miss 'em . most characters had more depth in the video games . if you thought batman & robin was bad about there 's no explanation at all for this . and for the final blasphemy , the fight that all the fans were waiting rabidly and then just sort of . . . ended . it almost made me weep . to sum it all up , rent it on

in " the astronaut 's wife , " charlize theron plays a young woman with a nervous demeanor , pixie - hairdo and demon spawn unwittingly growing in her belly . if only her name was n't jillian , the makers of this embarrassing bit of sci - fi shlock could have come up with a far more appropriate title : " rosemary 's species . " what a shame it is to see such a gifted actress as theron - oscar - worthy in " the devil 's advocate " - struggle with the lamest rip - off of a screendom classic in recent memory . ok , maybe " the astronaut 's wife " deviates from " rosemary 's baby " turf for its set - up , which finds our heroine terrorized not by satan 's minions but her possessed husband ( johnny depp ) , a shuttle pilot whose mission mishap leaves him , um , a changed man . predictably , he and the missus get it on in a sequence best described as unpleasant , his evil seed impregnating her with twins and realizing that great " bowfinger " line about " alien love . " theron 's " advocate " character faced a similar dilemma , the horror there resonating strongly . " astronaut " provides only artificial anxiety . last year 's equally noodle - headed " species ii " spun a similar premise about the breeding habits of an extraterrestrial on earth , but at least that movie more or less knew it was garbage . " the astronaut 's wife " is grave and humor - free , passing its increasingly silly story off as full - fledged serious , right down to an ambiguous finale that is n't even going to satisfy those who 've stayed with it thus far . here 's a hint : it involves lots of water , electrical equipment , a special effect from " the abyss " and the tots who doubled up as adam sandler 's co - star in " big daddy . " draw your own conclusions . director / writer rand ravich coats the proceedings in dynamic sights masterminded by legendary " e . t . " cinematographer allen daviau , but too often favors the film 's visual presentation over the story he 's trying to tell . this bodes horribly for each dramatic development , like the surfacing of a suspicious nasa official ( " speed " 's joe morton ) to instigate jill 's slow and stupid comprehension of the truth . his hyper - erratic behavior is probably supposed to give wife a paranoid edge . instead , he adds to the phoniness . theron and depp are certainly beyond this junk and will get other chances to prove themselves this fall - she as part of an imposing ensemble case in the john irving adaptation " cider house rules , " he in the lead of tim burton 's eagerly - awaited " sleepy hollow . " undeserving of such talent , " the astronaut 's wife " manages to be derivative , dull and uninvolving despite its seemingly ripe potential for unintentional laughs . in space , no one can hear you scream . but in a movie theatre , everyone can hear you snore .

0NEG

only her name was n't jillian , the makers of this embarrassing bit of sci - fi shlock could have come up with a far more appropriate title : " rosemary 's species . " what a shame it is to see such a gifted actress as theron - oscar in " the devil 's advocate " - struggle with the lamest rip - off of a screendom classic in recent memory . ok , , the horror there resonating strongly . " astronaut " provides only artificial anxiety . last year 's equally noodle - headed " species was garbage . " the astronaut 's wife " is grave and humor - free , passing its increasingly silly story off as full - fledged serious , right down to an ambiguous finale that is n't even going to satisfy those who 've presentation over the story he 's trying to tell . this bodes horribly for each dramatic development , like the surfacing of a supposed to give wife a paranoid edge . instead , he adds to the phoniness . theron and depp are certainly beyond this junk and will get other chances to prove themselves this fall burton 's eagerly - awaited " sleepy hollow . " undeserving of such talent , " the astronaut 's wife " manages to be derivative , dull and uninvolving despite its seemingly ripe potential for unintentional laughs . in

for a good ten years or so , super cool chow yun fat has enjoyed god hood status in the hong kong action scene . now , he has followed in the footsteps of director john woo , ( who launched chow 's super stardom in the acclaimed ' a better tomorrow ' ) by moving to hollywood . i had some reservations about this move and it would seem i was right to have them . chow plays a hitman who is doing jobs in order to repay a debt . his final job requires him to kill a policeman 's seven year old boy . this he refuses do and runs . however , he is forced into a violent confrontation when his family are threatned and replacement killers are brought in to do the job . cue around 80 minutes of various and quite frankly tedious shoot- outs which take place in various locations . some thought had gone into making them a bit different but unfortunately they end up being just plain boring . the car wash scene , i found myself laughing at how stupid it looked . tut tut . the emphasis during the constant action seemed to be on the accompanying music , ( i could have sworn one piece was ripped out of a bruckheimer movie ) and not on the content . mia sorvino ( a passport forger ) is dragged into the affay and also provides a lame love interest as well as being rather handy with a gun . director antoine arqua has clearly not observed chow 's excellent acting capabilties and simply requires him to mutter a few lines of broken english and look flash as he stands and shoots . chow 's trademark of twin pistol shooting is saved for the finale ( which in fairness is quite good ) and there 's not even a toothpick in site . and as for making chow shoot like a cop , well that 's damned unforgiveable . to round up , the replacement killers is a pretty darned lame first outing for chow . it would appear he has left asia for a 90 minute pop video . this is not what we wanted at all , considering john woo was the exec producer . ( did he have no say so at all ? ) watch ' the killer ' again and weep at the difference . review by chris hill . " there 's room at the top , they are telling you still , but first you must learn how to smile as you kill , if you want to be like the folks on the hill . "

0NEG

to do the job . cue around 80 minutes of various and quite frankly tedious shoot- outs which take place in various locations . some thought had gone into making them a bit different but unfortunately they end up being just plain boring . the car wash scene , i found myself laughing at how stupid it looked . tut tut . the emphasis during the constant action seemed to be on content . mia sorvino ( a passport forger ) is dragged into the affay and also provides a lame love interest as well as being rather handy with a has clearly not observed chow 's excellent acting capabilties and simply requires him to mutter a few lines of broken english and look flash as he stands and shoots . chow 's trademark of as for making chow shoot like a cop , well that 's damned unforgiveable . to round up , the replacement killers is a pretty darned lame first outing for chow . it would appear he has all ? ) watch ' the killer ' again and weep at the difference . review by chris hill . " there 's room

libby parsons ( ashley judd ) has the perfect little life -- a rich husband , a cute son , and a house on the ocean -- but when her husband nick ( bruce greenwood ) takes her sailing , she awakes to find him gone and her hands covered with blood . just as she makes it to the deck and picks up the bloody knife lying there , the coast guard arrives in response to a distress call her vanished husband sent . she 's convicted of his murder , of course , and leaves her son matty ( benjamin weir ) with her best friend ( annabeth gish ) . time passes , and the friend disappears with matty . during their last phone conversation libby hears matty yell " daddy ! " and realizes that her husband is still alive . libby serves six years , growing harder and driven by the desire to kill nick ( based on the theory that because of the " double jeopardy " amendment she can off him with impunity ) . when she gets parole , she 's sent to a halfway house run by travis lehman ( tommy lee jones ) , a former law professor who ruined his life with a drunk driving accident . after a little breaking and entering and some destruction of property , libby jumps parole and lams it across the country looking for nick and matty . travis pursues , naturally . " double jeopardy " is a watered - down version of " the fugitive , " with jones sleep - walking through his well - worn pursuer persona . although libby never leaps from a bus that collides with a train , she manages to get into a few nail - biters -- chased down the beach by a jeep , chained to a car that plunges into the ocean , sealed in a coffin -- that add some much needed thrills to an anemic , slow - moving script . character development is thin . travis ' intriguing backstory is mentioned a couple times but has no effect on the story . ( i think they only made him a former law professor so that he could verify the double - jeopardy theory when libby gets the drop on nick . it 's a long way to go for one line ) . there 's considerable sexual tension between travis and libby ( hey , there 's something " the fugitive " did n't have ! ) , but it never goes anywhere . libby is a tv - movie everywoman , but judd 's intense performance draws us in and makes us forget that her character has no distinguishing characteristics . this is judd 's most prominent role to date , and she proves that she can light up the screen . let 's hope hollywood gives her more to work with next time around . the quality of director bruce beresford 's movies seems to depend on luck . when he has a good script and a strong cast , he turns out oscar - caliber work like " ' breaker ' morant , " " driving miss daisy , " and " tender mercies . " when he does n't . . . we get " double jeopardy . " screenwriters david weisberg and douglas cook previously collaborated on " the rock , " a script which probably benefited from the numerous uncredited rewrites . bottom line : ashley judd tries hard but ca n't save this predictable bore .

0NEG

down version of " the fugitive , " with jones sleep - walking through his well - worn pursuer persona . although libby never leaps from a bus that collides a coffin -- that add some much needed thrills to an anemic , slow - moving script . character development is thin . travis ' intriguing backstory is mentioned a couple times but has no effect on the story . ( i think they only made him a former intense performance draws us in and makes us forget that her character has no distinguishing characteristics . this is judd 's most prominent role to date rewrites . bottom line : ashley judd tries hard but ca n't save this predictable bore .

as far as " mystery men " is concerned , the burning question is less " is it really as bad as it looks from the trailer ? " ( the answer there is an unequivocal " yes " ) and more " how in the name of sweet jesus did first - time director kinka usher get such a first - rate cast to act in this muck ? " " mystery men " features greg kinnear as the heavily - sponsored captain amazing and geoffrey rush as his arch nemesis ( singular ) casanova frankenstein . a veritable police lineup of hot hollywood talent plays the superhero wannabes of the title , who join forces to get c . amazing out of a tight spot when c . frankenstein puts the screws on champion city . there 's william h . macy as the mild - mannered shoveler , hank azaria as the cutlery - flinging blue raja ( no knives , but a phony english accent that 's just as sharp ) , ben stiller as mr . furious ( whose only power seems to be his ability to get hot under the collar ) , janeane garofalo as a crazed bowler with her father 's skull interestingly preserved , wes studi as a rhetoric - spouting cowled avenger , and kel mitchell as the token ( and , adding insult to injury , invisible ! ) black guy . bringing up the rear , so to speak , is paul reubens ( yes , that 's pee wee herman paul reubens ) as . . . well , let 's just call him the gas man . the production design is overblown , the special effects are overdone , and the script ( based on bob burden 's " dark horse " comic book series ) is overbaked . the appealing actors are uniformly good and stiller is even stellar , but they ca n't begin to save " mystery men " --it 's just one big mess . you 're better off renting the video and pressing fast - forward to get to the funny bits . i believe i counted three .

0NEG

men " is concerned , the burning question is less " is it really as bad as it looks from the trailer ? " ( the answer there is an unequivocal " yes " ) and more " how in the name of sweet jesus did first - time director kinka usher get such a first - rate cast to act in this muck ? " " mystery men " features greg kinnear as , let 's just call him the gas man . the production design is overblown , the special effects are overdone , and the script ( based on bob burden 's " dark horse " comic book series ) is overbaked . the appealing actors are uniformly good and stiller is even stellar , but they ca n't begin to save " mystery men " --it 's just one big mess . you 're better off renting the video and pressing

the swirling sick feeling hit me just a few minutes into " heartbreakers . " ray liotta 's character was making out with his secretary when his new wife knocked on the door of his office . while scrambling to collect himself , he frantically shouted to her , " just wait a sex ? er , i mean sec ! " i was struck by a wave of revulsion , thinking , " geez , did n't lines like that die when ' three 's company ' was canceled ? " over the next few minutes , as the barely double entendres and lingering cleavage shots grew more numerous , i realized that the mindset behind " heartbreakers " predated " three 's company . " suddenly , i had an out - of - body experience as my internal way - back machine swept me to the mid-1960s . all across america , the counter - culture was growing like wildfire , but there was scant evidence of it on tv . while young people were challenging traditional values on the streets , frustrated teenagers like me were stuck at home , sulking while our parents enjoyed the latest bob hope special . women in skimpy bathing suits would prance onscreen while hope made growling noises and leered at their breasts . on another channel , dean martin made wisecracks about " booze and broads " and peter lawford , decked out in love beads and a nehru jacket , purred suggestive one - liners as he ogled the go - go dancers . the adults laughed and laughed . " heartbreakers " reeks of that stagnant mentality , from its lingering shots of jennifer love hewitt 's vah - vah - voom breasts to its leaden screenplay , which paints women as haughty schemers and men as drooling buffoons too sex - obsessed to realize they are being manipulated . in addition to liotta and hewitt , the cast includes sigourney weaver , gene hackman , jason lee , nora dunn and anne bancroft . i ca n't imagine what drew performers of their caliber to this project . perhaps they thought it was a parody of the sniggering sex comedies of the ' 60s . if so , they were sadly mistaken . the story revolves around a mother - daughter con - team . it opens with the marriage of max ( weaver ) to dean ( liotta ) , a new jersey chop shop operator . having withheld sex until the honeymoon , max pretends to pass out on their wedding night . the next morning , she feigns illness , sending a very horny dean off to the office , where he ends up in the arms of his new secretary . just as the two are about to get overtly physical , max bursts into the room and catches them . the " horrified " bride dissolves the union , garnering a healthy cash settlement along the way . of course , the secretary was really her daughter page ( hewitt ) and the whole thing was a set - up . the women move on , but an irs agent ( bancroft ) catches up with them and demands a huge amount of money to cover unpaid taxes . in desperate need of funds , max and page head for palm beach to replay the scam . their mark this time is william b . tensy ( hackman , in hideous make - up ) , a decrepit tobacco tycoon obsessed with the joys of smoking . max starts to put the game into action , but page is so repelled by the old man ( and angry with her mom ) that she slips off to enact her own score , targeting jack , a laid back young beach bar owner who is worth a fortune . complications arise when page realizes that good - natured jack is stirring actual emotions in her steely little heart . as if that was n't enough , dean reappears on the scene with revenge on his mind . the attempt to weld a romance onto a caper comedy served only to remind me of the infinitely superior " a fish called wanda . " i wo n't bother to compare the two . suffice to say that everything done right in " wanda " is done wrong here . " heartbreakers " is soulless , inept and , at 123 minutes , at least a half - hour too long . sigourney weaver and jennifer love hewitt throw themselves into their parts , but have nowhere to go with the metallic characters . gene hackman is utterly wasted in a one - note , one - joke part that has him doing nothing but smoking , coughing and waxing rhapsodic about smoking and sex . poor jason lee is stuck in the ingenue role and the normally charismatic actor comes off as merely bland . ray liotta manages to squeeze a tiny bit of humanity and humor into his walking clich ? , but only a bit . the low point in the film has weaver employing a russian accent bad enough to make boris and natasha wince , while doing half - assed slapstick with a broken off penis from a statue . bear in mind , though , that this is merely the worst segment of a movie made up of nothing but low points . if you remember bob hope specials with fondness , this might be your cup of tea . as for me , i 'm going to watch " a fish called wanda " now and try to forget i ever saw " heartbreakers . "

0NEG

the swirling sick feeling hit me just a few minutes into " heartbreakers . a sex ? er , i mean sec ! " i was struck by a wave of revulsion , thinking , " geez , did n't lines like hewitt 's vah - vah - voom breasts to its leaden screenplay , which paints women as haughty schemers and men as , jason lee , nora dunn and anne bancroft . i ca n't imagine what drew performers of their caliber to this project . sex comedies of the ' 60s . if so , they were sadly mistaken . the story revolves around a mother - daughter con time is william b . tensy ( hackman , in hideous make - up ) , a decrepit tobacco tycoon obsessed with the joys to say that everything done right in " wanda " is done wrong here . " heartbreakers " is soulless , inept and , at 123 minutes , at least a half - hour too long . sigourney weaver and jennifer love hewitt throw themselves into their parts , but have nowhere to go with the metallic characters . gene hackman is utterly wasted in a one - note , one - joke part that has him doing nothing but smoking , coughing and smoking and sex . poor jason lee is stuck in the ingenue role and the normally charismatic actor comes off as merely bland . ray liotta manages to squeeze a tiny bit of his walking clich ? , but only a bit . the low point in the film has weaver employing a russian accent bad that this is merely the worst segment of a movie made up of nothing but low points . if you remember bob hope specials with fondness ,

" american pie " alums jason biggs and mena suvari star in this summer 's attempt to capitalize on the youth market looking for a comedy about young people they can relate to that combines generic hollywood cute couple - ness and zany comedy . it 's about an a+ student ( biggs as " paul " ) who gets a scholarship to some college in new york city who sticks out like a sore thumb and falls for dora ( suvari ) a ditzy heroin - chic goth chick who has no ambition or self - respect whatsoever and allows herself to be pushed around just like " hick - boy " paul is . so we 've got a fish - out - water formula mixed with meet - cute romantic comedy which ideally should make for a good movie . unfortunately the atrocious screenplay and boring direction by " clueless " auteur amy heckerling successfully manages to screw up everything about the film . these characters are totally unrealistic and unbelievable - it 's as if everyone under age 30 is a stoned raver . there 's no background or details to anyone or anything , it 's just a bunch of cartoon characters running into each other . not to mention the story itself which is virtually non - existant and contains so many plotholes it 's like swiss cheese . even the basic editing is bad . if you 're looking for a romantic comedy stay far away from this one because it is neither romantic nor funny . i saw this in a packed cinema on opening night and the audience barely laughed at all . if you 've seen the commericials you 've seen all the " funny " parts ( which are all from the first five minutes ) .

0NEG

comedy which ideally should make for a good movie . unfortunately the atrocious screenplay and boring direction by " clueless " auteur amy heckerling successfully manages to screw up everything about the film . these characters are totally unrealistic and unbelievable - it 's as if everyone under age 30 is background or details to anyone or anything , it 's just a bunch of cartoon characters running into each other . not to mention the story itself which is virtually non - existant and contains so many plotholes it 's like swiss cheese . even the basic editing is bad . if you 're looking for a romantic comedy stay far away from this one because it is neither romantic nor funny . i saw this in a packed cinema on opening

last summer , a feature - length version of the avengers hit theaters to the tune of a unanimous critical panning . based on the famous 60 's television show , the film was an enormous box - office flop and a huge disappointment for warner bros . a year later , the studio is up to their old tricks again , with the unnecessary revival of the robert conrad program the wild , wild west . but it sounded promising : the same tag - team of star will smith and director barry sonnenfeld , who both contributed to make men in black such a financial success , is at the reins again . and co - star kevin kline is attached to the project , as well as a substantial budget to spice up the special effects . i mean , what could possibly go wrong ? the answer is just about everything . wild wild west is a cinematic abomination - a film that was so entirely pointless to begin with that it is never given a proper chance to get out of the gate . there are a lot of fancy special effects , and a handful of distinguished actors who try desperately to tunnel through the inane plot and make a lasting impression . but the script is so deliriously uneven , the entire movie so off course , that no human being or technical achievement has a chance to salvage it . at square one , we have a bizarre case of casting . will smith plays james west , a renegade cowboy who was originally played by white actor robert conrad in the tv series . my guess regarding the casting of african - american smith is a simple one : the actor + a cozy summertime release = big bucks for all those involved . smith is a very talented performer who usually brings swift assurance to any comic relief material , but this is not an ideal role for him . he 's too much of a joker . i heard that initial casting included george clooney in the lead role , and frankly , that sounds a lot more plausible . what makes matters worse is that smith goes through the role with such self - assurance in his eyes ; you can practically sense his contentment with the fact that he knows wild wild west will be a huge hit at the summer box office . the plot involves west and cross - dressing government agent artemus gordon ( kevin kline ) , who are assigned by the president to recover a group of kidnapped scientists . the trail leads to the diabolical dr . arliss loveless ( kenneth branagh ) , a man with no lower body who speaks in a dry , witty southern accent . loveless has taken the country 's top technical minds hostage so that they can assist in his deranged plan of total government control , using lethal superweapons to destroy entire towns . one such weapon is an 80-foot mechanical tarantula , bearing eight spindly legs of thrashing metal and spewing enormous fireballs left and right . the visual effects that bring this metallic bug to life are spectacular , seamlessly blending computer - generated imagery with the western surroundings . unfortunately , all of these effects seem so detached from the story , and can do little to support the film 's plot deficiencies , which are undoubtedly the main problem . wild wild west is a running gag that never truly works . most of the jokes , usually care of smith , die on arrival . if it 's one thing that could possibly be the saving grace , it 's the performances , and even they are mostly off - kilter and poorly delivered . kline is admirable , but he has little to do but invent silly devices on the spot . salma hayek is wasted as the romantic interest , because she is viewed as little more than that - window dressing to look pretty and create conflict between west and gordon . branagh , an esteemed shakespearean actor and director , adds marginal enjoyment to the film . but even he is so utterly weird and over - the - top . rarely is a film so lost in itself as wild wild west is . i suppose there 's always one turkey of the summer season ; a highly anticipated , big - budget release that manages to completely disappoint . wild wild west is such a movie , and will probably go down as one of the biggest disappointments of 1999 . but it is highly unlikely that this will go down in defeat at the box office . perhaps after this , audiences will be less assured when they see will smith 's name stamped on a summer movie . after such hits as independence day and mib , wild wild west is not an impressive addition to the resume .

0NEG

studio is up to their old tricks again , with the unnecessary revival of the robert conrad program the wild , wild west answer is just about everything . wild wild west is a cinematic abomination - a film that was so entirely pointless to begin with that it is never given a proper chance to get out of the gate . there are a lot of fancy special effects , of distinguished actors who try desperately to tunnel through the inane plot and make a lasting impression . but the script is so deliriously uneven , the entire movie so off course , that no human being or technical achievement has a chance to salvage it . at square one , we have a bizarre case of casting . will smith plays james west , a renegade cowboy and frankly , that sounds a lot more plausible . what makes matters worse is that smith goes through the role with such self blending computer - generated imagery with the western surroundings . unfortunately , all of these effects seem so detached from the story , and can do little to support the film 's plot deficiencies , which are undoubtedly the main problem . wild wild west is a running gag that never truly works . most of the jokes , usually care of smith , die on arrival . if it 's one thing that could possibly be saving grace , it 's the performances , and even they are mostly off - kilter and poorly delivered . kline is admirable , but he has little to invent silly devices on the spot . salma hayek is wasted as the romantic interest , because she is viewed as , adds marginal enjoyment to the film . but even he is so utterly weird and over - the - top . rarely is a film so lost in itself as wild wild west is . i suppose there 's always one turkey of the summer season ; a highly anticipated , big - budget release that manages to completely disappoint . wild wild west is such a movie , and as independence day and mib , wild wild west is not an impressive addition to the resume .

at the outset of swordfish , john travolta 's gabriel shear is pontificating about the status of american cinema today . basically , he says , it boils down to a lack of imagination among the majority of writers . how ironic , as travolta seems to be describing his latest venture . swordfish is loud , violent and amoral . it has the audacity to justify murder and mayhem in the name of sustaining our way of life . and how does travolta 's gabriel plan to do this ? by robbing billions from his own government and using the funds to out - terrorize terrorists . swordfish is a very cynical movie . it relies on an audience 's perception of our leaders as ineffectual and duplicitous and on terrorists as non - human , faceless entities not worthy of compassion or consideration . the movie 's plot is preposterous with enough illogical leaps that if the film ever slowed down , you 'd actually see how ridiculous it all is . this is a live - action road runner cartoon , moving so quickly that it 's over before you can catch your breath to ask any reasonable questions . the storyline revolves around super hacker stanley jobson ( hugh jackman ) , recruited by gabriel to crack the government 's computer codes so gabriel can gather billions for his anti - terrorist campaign . talk about whacked - out patriotism . my objections to swordfish are many . the body count is high , but that is expected in a movie of this sort . it 's becoming a bore watching anonymous soldiers , police officers and government agents blown to bits . another example is the family dynamics between stanley , his 10-year - old daughter and his ex - wife . stanley , though having served time in prison for hacking , is shown as a loving and caring father , forbidden by his ex to see his little girl . audience animosity is immediately created for his former spouse by showing her as a drinker and smoker who also sometimes stars in her new husband 's adult films . thus when she is found murdered late in the movie , neither stanley nor his daughter are allowed any time to grieve . in fact , subconsciously , many in the audience are probably glad she was killed . then there is the sequence involving one of gabriel 's henchman holding a gun to the head of stanley 's daughter to coerce the hacker to download the key computer program for gabriel . children as pawns have become a most unwelcome clich ? in recent films . there is enough violence in the real world involving children without having to make them on - screen victims as well . yea , it 's only make believe , but that does n't mean you have to tolerate it . travolta is cool , deadly charming and flamboyant as the near - crazy gabriel . his character is reminiscent of his villainous characterizations in broken arrow and face / off . jackman looks dour through most of the proceedings . his only moment of any depth comes when he finally is able to create the worm to get inside the government database . his sense of joy and accomplishment is one any computer whiz can appreciate . halle berry is decorative and lovely as gabriel 's assistant , while don cheadle is given little to do as the head fbi agent hunting gabriel . swordfish plays like a comic book with a larger - than - life character in gabriel . viewers align themselves with him despite their uncertainty if he is hero or villain . and maybe that is the movie 's underlying flaw : there is no real hero to speak of , only those doing their upmost to survive . and that is not enough . this is one swordfish that should have been thrown back in the water .

0NEG

seems to be describing his latest venture . swordfish is loud , violent and amoral . it has the audacity to justify murder and mayhem in the name of sustaining our way of life . and how does travolta 's gabriel plan to do of compassion or consideration . the movie 's plot is preposterous with enough illogical leaps that if the film ever slowed down , you 'd actually see how ridiculous it all is . this is a live - action road runner cartoon terrorist campaign . talk about whacked - out patriotism . my objections to swordfish are many . the body count is high , but that is computer program for gabriel . children as pawns have become a most unwelcome clich ? in recent films . there is enough violence in the real world involving . yea , it 's only make believe , but that does n't mean you have to tolerate it . travolta is cool , deadly charming and flamboyant as characterizations in broken arrow and face / off . jackman looks dour through most of the proceedings . his only moment of any depth comes when he lovely as gabriel 's assistant , while don cheadle is given little to do as the head fbi agent hunting gabriel . swordfish plays like a comic book with a larger - than - life character in gabriel , only those doing their upmost to survive . and that is not enough . this is one swordfish that should have been thrown back in the water .

it 's probably inevitable that the popular virtual reality genre ( " the matrix , " " existenz " ) would collide with the even more popular serial - killer genre ( " kiss the girls , " " se7en " ) . the result should have been more interesting than " the cell . " as the movie opens , therapist catharine deane ( jennifer lopez ) treats a catatonic boy ( colton james ) by entering his mind through some sort of virtual reality technique that 's never fully explained . after months of therapy sessions in a surreal desert , catharine has no success to report . meanwhile , killer carl stargher ( vincent d'onofrio ) has claimed another victim . his particular hobby is to kidnap young women , keep them in a glass cell overnight , and drown them . he takes the corpse and soaks it in bleach , then suspends himself over the body and jerks off while watching a video tape of the drowning . although carl 's been doing this for awhile , he 's recently become sloppy , and fbi agent peter novak ( vince vaughn ) is closing in fast . not fast enough , though , to keep carl from sticking another woman ( tara subkoff ) in the cell or to catch him before he suffers a schizophrenic attack that leaves him in a coma . from the videos in carl 's house , peter can see that the drowning cell is automated and will fill with water forty hours after the abduction . to save the kidnapped girl , peter has to find the cell before the end of the day , and comatose carl 's not talking . so off they go to catharine in the hope that she can go inside carl 's mind and find out where the cell is in time . the focus of " the cell " in on the ornate interior of carl 's mind , but the universe director tarsem singh creates seems more an exercise in computer - generated spectacle than an exploration of the psychotic personality . for the most part , it 's style without substance . in his own mind , carl is a decadent emperor in flowing robes , ming the merciless , as well as a frightened boy ( jake thomas ) abused by his father . all in all , the mind of a psycho killer turns out to be a strangely dull place , and i kept wishing i could fast - forward to the next development . singh is best known for directing music videos , particularly rem 's " losing my religion , " and " the cell " seems very much like a really long , really slow mtv video with the sound deleted . singer lopez seems to think she 's in a video as well ; she devotes more time to posing in elaborate costumes than she does to acting . the premise had great promise . the computer - generated world within carl 's mind could have been a bizarre , surreal universe governed by insanity and symbolism rather than logic . the first room catharine enters in carl 's head shows this promise . she finds a horse standing in center of the room ; suddenly , sheets of sharp - edged glass fall into the horse , dividing it into segments . the panes of glass separate , pulling apart the pieces of the still - living horse . this scene is twisted , disturbing , and thought - provoking , because the psychological importance of the horse and its fate is left to the viewer to ponder . another element that should have been developed is the effect on catharine of merging with the mind of a psychopath . their minds begin to bleed together at one point in the movie , and this should have provided an opportunity to discover the dark corners of catharine 's own psyche . like sidney lumet 's " the offence " or michael mann 's " manhunter , " " the cell " could have explored how the madness of the killer brings out a repressed darkness in the investigator . however , catharine 's character is hardly developed at all , and lopez has no depth to offer the role . bottom line : do n't get trapped in this one .

0NEG

kiss the girls , " " se7en " ) . the result should have been more interesting than " the cell . " as the movie opens catatonic boy ( colton james ) by entering his mind through some sort of virtual reality technique that 's never fully explained . after months of therapy sessions in a surreal desert of the psychotic personality . for the most part , it 's style without substance . in his own mind , carl is a decadent all in all , the mind of a psycho killer turns out to be a strangely dull place , and i kept wishing i could fast - forward to the next development . singh is best known for losing my religion , " and " the cell " seems very much like a really long , really slow mtv video with the sound deleted . singer lopez seems to think she 's in a video as well ; she devotes more time to posing in elaborate costumes than she does to acting . the premise had great promise . the computer - darkness in the investigator . however , catharine 's character is hardly developed at all , and lopez has no depth to offer the role . bottom line : do n't get trapped in this one .

synopsis : an aging master art thief , his supplier , and a young , buxom security consultant are all not who they first appear to be ( or are they ? ) in this convoluted mess involving a risky heist during the millennium . comments : this movie was boring . plain and simple . entrapment should not have been boring . it stars sean connery , who can still carry an action film despite his age , catherine zeta - jones , a likeable enough film presence , and ving rhames , ultra - cool star of pulp fiction and mission : impossible . it takes full advantage of the y2k computer bug fears ( a current " hot topic " in the news ) in its storyline , which is set at the end of 1999 . it has some genuinely well - staged action sequences . so , what went wrong ? plenty , unfortunately . the major problem with entrapment is its script . it has a been - there , done - that feel to it . nothing seems particularly inventive or original , so the whole movie lacks suspense and drags ( it runs nearly two hours ) . the screenwriters , for example , periodically use a countdown to the millennium as a means of transition between scenes ( i . e . " 4 days to the millennium " ) . this device was used much more effectively in the overlooked sci - fi film strange days . the characters are not who they appear to be at the beginning , which is neat at first but the device wears thin once the umpteenth " surprise " revelation is made . entrapment , in other words , relies too heavily on the audience not knowing what each character 's true motive is , resulting in a convoluted story which leaves many scratching their heads in confusion . the star power here is quite strong , but the viewer ca n't help but feel the actors are wasted in this production . sean connery is given such mind - numbing lines as " never trust a naked woman . " ving rhames ' character seems like an afterthought ; he 's not developed at all . the camera zooms in frequently and leeringly at catherine zeta - jones 's tight wardrobe . this , in and of itself , is not bad , but , after a while , it has a juvenile feel to it . at least the species movies hold no bones about the fact that they 're exploiting the female body . entrapment does the same under the thin disguise of plot development ( sean connery supposedly falls in love with the girl while watching her , in tights , arc and pivot around laser beams ) . the tagline for this movie reads " the trap is set . " it sure is , on those who spent money to see this movie . entrapment really is n't that bad ; it is watchable . i would suggest , however , one waits until this is on cable or television to see it .

0NEG

to be ( or are they ? ) in this convoluted mess involving a risky heist during the millennium . comments : this movie was boring . plain and simple . entrapment should not have been boring . it stars sean it has some genuinely well - staged action sequences . so , what went wrong ? plenty , unfortunately . the major problem with entrapment is its script . it has a been - there , done - that feel to it . nothing seems particularly inventive or original , so the whole movie lacks suspense and drags ( it runs nearly two hours ) . the screenwriters at the beginning , which is neat at first but the device wears thin once the umpteenth " surprise " revelation is made . entrapment , in other words , relies too heavily on the audience not knowing what each character 's true motive is , resulting in a convoluted story which leaves many scratching their heads in confusion . the star power here is quite strong , but the viewer ca n't help but feel the actors are wasted in this production . sean connery is given such mind - numbing lines as " never trust a naked woman . " ving rhames ' character seems like an afterthought ; he 's not developed at all . the camera zooms in frequently and leeringly at catherine is not bad , but , after a while , it has a juvenile feel to it . at least the species movies hold no bones about 're exploiting the female body . entrapment does the same under the thin disguise of plot development ( sean connery supposedly falls in love with the girl this movie reads " the trap is set . " it sure is , on those who spent money to see this movie . entrapment really is n't that bad ; it is

the first image in " final fantasy : the spirits within " is a computer - animated close - up of a human eye . it 's a beautiful piece of work , remarkably detailed and quite convincing . when the picture pulls back to reveal the owner of the eye , however , things change . the young woman has mesmerizing hair , although it hangs too artfully ? even by movie standards ? to be believed . the facial features are more detailed than any computer - animation seen to date , but the result is more reminiscent of a very well - crafted doll than anything human . she is pretty , but bland , and not nearly expressive enough to come off like a person . all the characters in " final fantasy " are like that . of the core group , the younger white men and women are all athletic , attractive and indistinct , like applicants for a tv reality show . the black man is taller and burlier , and the aging scholar is bald , with wrinkles and a beard . none of them appear to be based on individuals ; they all look like the products of general descriptions given a police sketch artist . it gets worse when they talk and move . why is the sarcastic voice of steve buscemi , he of the great twisted face and snaggleteeth , coming out of the mouth of some dreary ken doll ? why , for every fluid physical gesture , do we also see herky - jerky puppet - style motions ? more to the point , who decided a full - length computer animated movie featuring " hyperreal " ( their term , not mine ) humanoids was a good idea ? " final fantasy " is based on a phenomenally popular video game i 've never played , with a story straight out of japanese anime , which more often than not leaves me bored and depressed . if you 're a fan of either , please spare me your letters , as i will focus solely on the finished film and not its source materials . with an expression - challenged cast , " final fantasy " mixes turgid action scenes with heaps of mystical shit . the result is ugly , confusing and boring . note : the following reveals the basic plot . if you want to have a fighting chance of making any sense of the movie , i suggest you read it . earth is at war with aliens that appear to feed on human souls . most of our planet is devastated , with humans living in a few protected cities . while the bulk of the survivors focus on military strategies , aki ross ( voiced by ming - na ) and her mentor , dr . sid ( donald sutherland ) , believe in a more organic approach . they operate on the notion ( quoting straight from the press kit ) " that all life forms have signature spirit waves that can be identified and contained . aki and dr . sid collect a series of organic specimens whose spirit signatures combined will form a wave of equal and opposite intensity to the spirit wave of the alien force . the waves will , in effect , cancel each other out and disarm the foreign contagion . they have collected six of the eight key spirits needed to complete their wave . they are on a desperate hunt to find the remaining two spirits before their time runs out . " are you still with me ? there 's only a little more . aki is infected with the alien force . dr . sid has developed a method of confining the contagion and keeping it from killing her , but the defense wall wo n't hold much longer . already , the alien is communicating with aki through her dreams . aiding aki and dr . sid are the deep eyes , a group of hard - as - nails types that would have felt at home with the troops in " aliens . " capt . gray edwards ( alec baldwin ) heads the task force that consists of a wise guy ( buscemi ) , a tough woman ( peri gilpin ) and a gentle giant ( ving rhames ) . throwing a monkey wrench into the plans is the requisite dumb ass : in this case general hein ( james woods ) , who wants to use the zeus cannon to bomb the aliens back to the stone age , even if it destroys earth as well . so there you have it . like most of the anime i 've seen , the plot combines apocalyptic settings , lots of shooting and fuzzy spirituality , all wrapped up in a save - the - earth bow . but i 'm bored with apocalyptic settings . i understand why so many live - action films employ them ? they 're cheap ? but animated films can show anything , so why wallow in an industrial trash heap ? the action scenes and shoot - em - ups do n't satisfy either . the humans move oddly and their facial features are so muted that the talented voice cast ca n't bring them to life ( in fact , their efforts merely emphasize what we 're missing ) . aki is especially disappointing ; with her lack of expression and flat delivery , she looks and sound like a brunet version of weena , the eloi girl from 1960 's " the time machine . " drab color choices and aliens that appear to have been created in jell - o molds sap the pizzazz from the big set pieces . students of computer animation may be fascinated with the technology behind " final fantasy : the spirits within , " but i found it sub - par across the board . " futurama " does more effective battle visuals , the kids in " south park " are far more expressive than these mannequins and any old episode of the contemporary version of " the outer limits " does better doom and gloom sci - fi . so who needs this ? not me .

0NEG

a very well - crafted doll than anything human . she is pretty , but bland , and not nearly expressive enough to come off like a person . all the characters in " final fantasy " are products of general descriptions given a police sketch artist . it gets worse when they talk and move . why is the sarcastic out of the mouth of some dreary ken doll ? why , for every fluid physical gesture , do we also see herky - jerky puppet - style motions ? more to the point , who decided a full - , with a story straight out of japanese anime , which more often than not leaves me bored and depressed . if you 're a fan of either , please on the finished film and not its source materials . with an expression - challenged cast , " final fantasy " mixes turgid action scenes with heaps of mystical shit . the result is ugly , confusing and boring . note : the following reveals the basic plot . up in a save - the - earth bow . but i 'm bored with apocalyptic settings . i understand why so many live - action films cheap ? but animated films can show anything , so why wallow in an industrial trash heap ? the action scenes and shoot - em - ups do n't satisfy either . the humans move oddly and their facial features are so muted that the talented voice cast ca n't bring them to life ( in fact , their efforts merely emphasize what we 're missing ) . aki is especially disappointing ; with her lack of expression and flat delivery , she looks and sound like a brunet version of girl from 1960 's " the time machine . " drab color choices and aliens that appear to have been created in jell - o molds sap the pizzazz from the big set pieces . students " final fantasy : the spirits within , " but i found it sub - par across the board . " futurama " does more effective battle visuals , " does better doom and gloom sci - fi . so who needs this ? not me .

plot : token director alan smithee steals the only copy of his film " trio " from the studio , after they complete the " final cut " without him . he threatens to burn the film reel if they do not allow him to keep his vision . critique : wow . i really ca n't remember the last time a movie sucked on so many levels ! the " comedy " in this film is pathetic , obvious and dated ( oj simpson jokes galore ) . the plot is uninteresting , boring and bad . the structure of the film is annoying , repetitive and pretentious . the acting is pretty bad , especially jackie chan , who ca n't act to save his life . the cameos are lame and seem forced , and the ending blows chunks . all in all , this movie believes itself to be a clever , humorous and edgy look behind the closed doors of hollywood , but comes across as a boring , stupid and completely unentertaining piece of shite . i love to see movies about hollywood shenanigans , but this one bites the big one . see it if you like to watch really bad movies , otherwise skip it , because it will just have you hating every star that makes an appearance in it . luckily for us all , this mess only lasts about 80 minutes , and miramax honcho harvey weinstein plays a lead - faced detective . by the way , is there any reason why the studio or the producer could n't have cut another version of the film by the way of all the filmed stock that was left over ? who knows , who cares , this " satire " sucks the bag . little known facts about this film and its stars : ironically , the original director of this film , arthur hiller , also requested his name be taken off the credits and replaced by the dga 's alan smithee moniker . this was after the film 's production company , cinergi pictures , preferred the cut made by producer / writer joe eszterhas to his . the original script of this film included arnold schwarzenegger and bruce willis . eszterhas announced through the media during post - production that cinergi pictures did n't have the money to pay for soundtrack . he said that he would finance the soundtrack from his own money and asked to submit tracks for it to him . he received 9 , 200 cds and cassettes from mostly unknown and unsigned artists , listened to all that was sent ( at least a couple of tracks from each record ) and compiled the soundtrack . this film practically swept the " razzie awards " in 1999 , given out to the worst of all movie categories of the year , with no less than the " worst picture " award , the " worst screenplay " ( joe eszterhas ) , the " worst supporting actor " ( joe eszterhas ) , the " worst new star " ( joe eszterhas tied with jerry springer ) and the " worst original song " ( " i wanna be mike ovitz ! " as written by joe eszterhas ) .

0NEG

him to keep his vision . critique : wow . i really ca n't remember the last time a movie sucked on so many levels ! the " comedy " in this film is pathetic , obvious and dated ( oj simpson jokes galore ) . the plot is uninteresting , boring and bad . the structure of the film is annoying , repetitive and pretentious . the acting is pretty bad , especially jackie chan , who ca n't act to save his life . the cameos are lame and seem forced , and the ending blows chunks . all in all , this movie believes itself to edgy look behind the closed doors of hollywood , but comes across as a boring , stupid and completely unentertaining piece of shite . i love to see movies about hollywood shenanigans , but this one bites the big one . see it if you like to watch really bad movies , otherwise skip it , because it will just have you hating every star that makes an appearance in it . luckily for us all , this mess only lasts about 80 minutes , and miramax honcho harvey was left over ? who knows , who cares , this " satire " sucks the bag . little known facts about this film and its stars tracks from each record ) and compiled the soundtrack . this film practically swept the " razzie awards " in 1999 , given out to the worst of all movie categories of the year , with no less than the " worst picture " award , the " worst screenplay " ( joe eszterhas ) , the " worst supporting actor " ( joe eszterhas ) , the " worst new star " ( joe eszterhas tied with jerry springer ) and the " worst original song " ( " i wanna be mike ovitz ! " as

plot : a rich guy who does n't believe in love , orders a mail - order bride for himself . that very evening , the couple is married and fall madly in love soon thereafter . but what 's this ? one of them might not be the person they are pretending to be ? wow . . . a sin , indeed . critique : easily one of the worst movies that i 've seen all year . too long , too boring , too predictable and too ridiculous for anyone interested in watching a good movie . what the hell were they thinking when they made this thing ? ( it 's no wonder that the film has been sitting on the racks for about a year ) this felt like a really bad tv movie of the week , with some nudity stuffed in from time to time , just to wake up the audience . have you ever switched channels and fallen upon one of those ridiculously melodramatic tv movies , one that you just could n't help but switch back to from time to time , just to make sure that it was n't part of some sick joke ? well , this movie is exactly like that , only it is n't a joke , it is n't on tv and you are asked to pay money to see it ! ! i say again . . . what the shite were they thinking ? okay , so where do i start ? first of all , the trailer of this film gives away the movie 's main plot twist , the betrayal . so for the first half hour of the film , you 're basically just sitting there , watching these two " lovers " go through the motions until the " betrayal " occurs . whoopee , big surprise . second of all , angelina jolie is horribly miscast in this part . why ? well , it 's like this : not for one second do you ever believe that she is not a nasty backstabbing woman ! i mean , it 's like all of those people who complained about jack nicholson being psycho from the start of the shining , well , the same goes here . every look in jolie 's eyes screams " psycho " ! then of course , you have the case of the " patsy " husband , a man who just ca n't seem to figure out anything in time . i mean . . . how boring is that for the audience ? you 're watching this guy screw up time after time after time , and somehow , we 're supposed to feel sorry or care about this dude . no , thanks ! and if we do n't care about him , and we really do n't care about her ( she 's a beeyatch and as confused as we are about her actual motivations in the film ) , who the hell are we supposed to care about in this film ? well , i 'll tell you . the only thing that i was worrying about the whole way through this picture was whether or not i 'd actually fall asleep before the end credits rolled . no suspense , no chemistry between the leads , no real love or passion , no sense of surprise , plenty of plot holes for everyone and an extra moronic ending . so why am i even giving this film a rating of three points ? well , it 's actually pretty simple . i liked the locations in the movie and the groovy score , but my primary reason for slipping three notches onto this bedpost is for the gratuitous shots of jolie 's boobies ( that 's two points right there ! ) and another one for antonio 's ass ( hairless , just for the record ) . everything else in this movie was pointless , boring and just plain stupid . try imagining a soft - porn movie . . . but without the plot ! that 's pretty much what you 've got here . a low point in the careers of both stars . oops , i almost forgot to mention the crappy dialogue . . . god oh mighty . . . make it stop ! ! where 's joblo coming from ? american psycho ( 9/10 ) - cruel intentions ( 8/10 ) - eyes wide shut ( 6/10 ) - fatal attraction ( 8/10 ) - playing by heart ( 7/10 ) - under suspicion ( 7/10 ) - what lies beneath ( 8/10 ) - what women want ( 4/10 ) - whipped ( 7/10 )

0NEG

. . a sin , indeed . critique : easily one of the worst movies that i 've seen all year . too long , too boring , too predictable and too ridiculous for anyone interested in watching a good movie . what the hell were they thinking when they made this thing ? ( it 's no wonder that the film has been sitting on the racks for about a year ) this felt like a really bad tv movie of the week , with some nudity stuffed in from time to time see it ! ! i say again . . . what the shite were they thinking ? okay , so where do i start ? first of through the motions until the " betrayal " occurs . whoopee , big surprise . second of all , angelina jolie is horribly miscast in this part . why ? well , it 's out anything in time . i mean . . . how boring is that for the audience ? you 're watching this guy screw up time after time supposed to feel sorry or care about this dude . no , thanks ! and if we do n't care about him , and 'd actually fall asleep before the end credits rolled . no suspense , no chemistry between the leads , no real love or passion , no sense of surprise , plenty of plot holes for everyone and an extra moronic ending . so why am i even giving this film a ass ( hairless , just for the record ) . everything else in this movie was pointless , boring and just plain stupid . try imagining a soft - porn movie . . that 's pretty much what you 've got here . a low point in the careers of both stars . oops , i almost forgot to mention the crappy dialogue . . . god oh mighty . . . make it stop ! ! where 's joblo coming from ? american psycho ( 9/10

not a great twelve months for either of the principals from this movie . earlier this year , nora ephron wrote and produced one of the year 's least likeable " comedies " called hanging up , featuring a bunch of annoying women ( ironically , lisa kudrow played one in that film as well ) who barely have time to care about anyone but themselves . ick . . . real sweet stuff . but her little unsuccessful project was nothing compared to what john travolta went through earlier this summer , with a film entitled battlefield earth . i seemed to be the only person on this planet who somehow appreciated the film , even if it was on a " cheese " factor , as everybody , and i mean everybody else , pretty much classified the movie as one of the worst disasters of all time . yipes . . . another beauty . so what happens when you put these two people in the same room and come out with a movie co - starring the ever - versatile lisa kudrow ? uhhhm , you guessed it . . . not much . plot : in order to escape major financial difficulties , a local weatherman hooks up with his ball - picking lotto girlfriend and rigs the state lottery . but as more and more people find out about their scheme , more and more people demand a part of their winnings , and more and more problems arise . critique : simply stated , i did n't laugh once during this entire picture . for a comedy , it offered me a few smiles , a bunch of nincompoops as characters , a miscast john travolta hamming it up and lisa kudrow , in what can only described as a " sluttier " version of her character of phoebe on tv 's " friends " . this film was not as disastrous as i thought it would be , but it was pretty close . thankfully , the clips of travolta dressed up in goofy outfits , dancing as the weatherman were left in the film 's trailer , and not in this final cut . and not unlike the worst movie of the year so far , beautiful , this film also managed to feature many unsympathetic , idiotic and just plain irritating characters in its cast . foremost was travolta 's character , who declined to give us any reason to care for him once in the entire movie . and for me , the casting choice of john travolta for this role was just plain wrong . he did n't fit the part . i just saw him in get shorty the other day and thought about how perfect he was for that role . a cool , calculating roughneck with a certain hip , suave " je ne sais quoi " . in this film , he looks like he 's trying to be funny , trying to be bad , trying to be good . we 're not supposed to be able to notice that , and when we do , at least in my case , i consider it a wrong choice in casting . add that to lisa kudrow , boring us with yet another one of her patented " dumb blonde " routines , but this time , dressed in sexier outfits . michael rapaport , stretching one small acting muscle to play the guy who is n't quite up at the same speed level as everyone else . and a truckload of empty comedic bullet shells , and you 've got yourself an extremely quiet audience anticipating punch lines that never quite materialize . the only real good thing that i could say about this film is that its story was actually half - interesting and never really bored me . i also liked michael moore 's perverted cousin character , and i loved , and i say it again , loved the character that bill pullman played . give this dude his own movie ! he played a lazy cop , a man who tries everything not to do any real work . he fakes injuries to get off duty , tries to avoid arrest situations so that he wo n't have to fill out any forms . . . now there 's a base of humor . sadly , the filmmakers decided to bring him into play with only about half an hour left in the film . and there 's not much else i can say about this movie , folks . on the whole , it was lame , included a slew of unlikable characters fiddling around in a pool of unfunny lines , and very little of interest for any target audience . but get somebody to write up a movie featuring that lazy cop played by pullman and i 'm there !

0NEG

co - starring the ever - versatile lisa kudrow ? uhhhm , you guessed it . . . not much . plot : in order to escape major financial difficulties and more problems arise . critique : simply stated , i did n't laugh once during this entire picture . for a comedy , it offered me a few smiles , a bunch of nincompoops as characters , a miscast john travolta hamming it up and lisa kudrow , in 's trailer , and not in this final cut . and not unlike the worst movie of the year so far , beautiful , this film also managed to feature many unsympathetic , idiotic and just plain irritating characters in its cast . foremost was travolta 's character , who declined to , the casting choice of john travolta for this role was just plain wrong . he did n't fit the part . i just saw him in get shorty the other when we do , at least in my case , i consider it a wrong choice in casting . add that to lisa kudrow , boring us with yet another one of her patented " dumb blonde " routines , but this time , dressed in sexier outfits . at the same speed level as everyone else . and a truckload of empty comedic bullet shells , and you 've got yourself an extremely quiet audience anticipating punch lines that never quite materialize . the only real good thing that i could say . . now there 's a base of humor . sadly , the filmmakers decided to bring him into play with about this movie , folks . on the whole , it was lame , included a slew of unlikable characters fiddling around in a pool of unfunny lines , and very little of interest for any target audience . but get somebody to write up a movie featuring

the stereotypical american male has an undeniable fetishistic love of sports cars . producer jerry bruckheimer plays upon that attraction with a movie so loaded with testosterone and laced titillatingly with shot after frenetic shot of powerful muscle cars , sleek foreign road huggers and iconic speed machines that many males will leave the theater in an orgasmic haze . gone is 60 seconds is an orgy of maleness gone horribly awry . cage is legendary retired car thief , memphis raines ( do n't you love cute movie names ) , who must call upon his time worn skills to save his thick - headed brother ( ribisi ) from being killed . seems a murderous crime boss ( eccleston ) with a fetish for wood ( insert your own joke ) hired brother kip to steal a ridiculous amount of expensive , exotic autos . fifty cars , to be exact . poor kip screws the pooch and bungles the job badly . if the cars are n't delivered in three days , bossman has a casket carved out just for kip . literally . if only someone could save him . hmmmm . . wonder what memphis is doing ? in order to give the film some emotional heft , there are several subplots designed to tug at our heartstrings or give us the thrill of . . . yawn , excuse me , dramatic tension . shadowing memphis is an old law enforcement foe ( lindo ) who 's looking to send memphis away . will he catch him ? there 's old flame sway ( jolie ) , who had her heart broken by memphis years ago . will they get back together ? shortsighted , thrill seeker kip idolizes his brother , yet resents him for moving away from the family . will they reconnect ? raines old mentor ( duvall ) has long since left the life of crime . will memphis get him finally caught as he pulls him back into the life , one more time ? can you answer all these questions correctly in 2 seconds without seeing the film first ? i 'll bet you can . following the opening credits , which fill you in on the accomplishments of the raines family through a montage of old photos , we was taken full throttle into the splendor that is memphis . he 's first shown living the good life teaching young children to drive go - carts . in a later scene , as misfit brother kip knowingly tells memphis he has the stolen car situation under control , all the while making breakfast , a metaphor is made of shakespearean proportions . just as a pan of grease flares up with kip clueless to how to quell it , big brother memphis calmly and efficiently throws some salt on it . looks like everything might turn out alright after all . you know this because the music swells on the crest of violins . that 's about as strong as the characterization gets , which is a shame . bruckheimer has a real talent for loading his movies with an obscene amount of talent given the task at hand . monumentally underused jolie portrays an empty headed sexpot whose idea of sex revolves around cars and memphis . or maybe it 's just the cars . duvall trots out his ornery , but sweet old codger outfit . i 'm sure he 's still laughing at taking a paycheck for this one . lindo projects a warm hearted , but tightly focused detective that almost transcends the material . the biggest waste of resources is vinnie jones , who plays a mute accomplice of memphis . without saying a word , he is easily the most charismatic person in the movie . like a blast of nitrous oxide , he attacks each scene with a straightforward zeal . too bad his minutes onscreen are so few . somehow , bruckheimer manages to attract top hollywood acting talent to high concept , poorly written movies , gussies up the film with lots of gold hues and pleasingly stylized action and they sell like proverbial hotcakes . every time something clever happens it 's counterbalanced by something so overtly wrong that it jerks you back into realizing you 're watching a movie . there 's a innovative usage of black lighting that goes from being a novelty to a part of the plot . it 's counterbalanced by an extremely feeble attempt at humor by having an asian american repeatedly failing a driver 's test . imagine the yuks . there 's a segment where one of the thieves shows another his cool fake fingerprint trick . it 's countered by the lame semi - subplot of a car being stolen with a bunch of heroin in the trunk . the ramifications are never explored . then there 's the ridiculousness of the many cops who actually shoot at fleeing cars . not only is it stupid , but it 's against the law . this is a movie made of pretty , but tepid car chases strung together by just enough character interaction to move the plot along . gone in 60 seconds aptly describes how long it 'll take for this marginally entertaining , but empty film to leave your memory .

0NEG

in an orgasmic haze . gone is 60 seconds is an orgy of maleness gone horribly awry . cage is legendary retired car thief , memphis raines heartstrings or give us the thrill of . . . yawn , excuse me , dramatic tension . shadowing memphis is an old law because the music swells on the crest of violins . that 's about as strong as the characterization gets , which is a shame . bruckheimer has a real talent for loading his movies obscene amount of talent given the task at hand . monumentally underused jolie portrays an empty headed sexpot whose idea of sex but tightly focused detective that almost transcends the material . the biggest waste of resources is vinnie jones , who plays a mute accomplice of , he attacks each scene with a straightforward zeal . too bad his minutes onscreen are so few . somehow , bruckheimer manages to attract top hollywood acting talent to high concept , poorly written movies , gussies up the film with lots of gold hues . every time something clever happens it 's counterbalanced by something so overtly wrong that it jerks you back into realizing you 're watching a movie . there 's a innovative usage of black lighting that a part of the plot . it 's counterbalanced by an extremely feeble attempt at humor by having an asian american repeatedly failing a driver 's his cool fake fingerprint trick . it 's countered by the lame semi - subplot of a car being stolen with a bunch of heroin in the trunk . the ramifications are never explored . then there 's the ridiculousness of the many cops who actually shoot at fleeing cars . not only is it stupid , but it 's against the law . this is a movie made of pretty , but tepid car chases strung together by just enough character interaction to move the plot along . gone in 60 seconds aptly describes how long it 'll take for this marginally entertaining , but empty film to leave your memory .

first and foremost i think this movie comes to grief at the hands of the pg rating it 's been given . for those of us who have n't read the james lee burke novel that heaven 's prisoners is based on , do not rabidly go out and buy tickets to movies featuring the combined talents of alec baldwin and eric roberts , feel vaguely depressed by the notion of swamps , gangsters with louisiana accents , plots , sub - plots , more plots , and well , really just want to see teri hatcher naked , this is one movie you 're going to worry the price of admission over . hopeful still ? well , let me share my moment of sheer panic , and then the cold enervation of the big let - down when a semi - robed hatcher purrs to alec baldwin , " what do you think of my butterfly ? " . butterfly ? , i asked myself , what butterfly ? ! and then it hit me . . . the scene had been snipped ! damn you , godless pg rating , show us her butterfly ! ! we want to see the goddamn butterfly ! ! ! so . . . no naked teri hatcher . forget about that . okay ? now . . . heaven 's prisoners is about ex - alchoholic ex - cop dave robicheaux ( alec baldwin ) who 's trying to discover life anew running a bait shop and boat hire business with his loving , down - to - earth wife annie ( kelly lynch ) . everything dull , but hunky dory until a plane carrying illegal immigrants crashes almost ontop of the couple while they 're on their boat . the plane nosedives into the water and sinks , but from its wreckage robicheaux rescues a little pixie - faced salvadoran girl whom he and his wife immediately decide to adopt . what they do n't realise is that the plane 's pilot was also a drug dealer , and that the plane had been sabotaged by the latter 's erstwhile colleagues . when robicheaux discovers this , he predictably , against the advice of his wife , a well - meaning dea agent , and two gangsters who rough him up , begins ' poking his nose where it do n't belong ' , we know that the man deserves all the misery he 's going to get . the question now is whether or not you want to be dragged along for the ride through a tedious , meandering yet utterly suspenseless plot with an unlovable hero as your guide . as dave robicheaux , alec baldwin is fat . . . no seriously , this is not the svelte , thinking man 's hero of the hunt for red october , it is an out - of - shape guy who does n't look too good in a roof - top chasing scene . he 's also unconvincing in the movie 's dramatic moments , acting with what as far as i can tell is a steven segal - like economy of expression . three - quarters of the way through the show , while you 're probably waiting for the next scene in a bar where robicheaux contemplates succumbing to the temptation of the whiskey bottle , getting drunk and beating up someone or getting beaten up , you 'll want to beat on him a little yourself . on the other hand , mary stuart masterson ( some kind of wonderful , fried green tomatoes , benny & joon ) cast as a down - and - out stripper who has her fingers broken is quite a breath of fresh air , with just the right mix of cynicism , warmth , insecurity and humour to be the movie 's only endearing character . eric roberts as bubba rocque , always believable as the woman - abusing bad guy who knows how to box ( see final analysis , coincidentally also directed by phil joanou ) is believable here as the woman - abusing bad guy who knows how to box . and lest we forget teri hatcher 's role in all this , this being her rather well - publicised paid vacation from playing lois lane on tv 's " adventures of lois & clark " . . . she is totally ridiculous as rocque 's manipulative and seductive cajun wife , coming across as devious as a mildly disgruntled au pair who 's trying to get back at an employer who has n't been giving her enough days off . it 's probably safe to say that her day job beckons . and at the end of our day , none of this is really worth 2 hrs and 12 minutes of our personal misery . the flying inkpot 's rating system : * wait for the video . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .

0NEG

price of admission over . hopeful still ? well , let me share my moment of sheer panic , and then the cold enervation of the big let - down when a semi - robed hatcher purrs to alec baldwin ? , i asked myself , what butterfly ? ! and then it hit me . . . the scene had been snipped ! damn you , godless pg rating , show us her butterfly ! ! we want to see the goddamn butterfly ! ! ! so . . . no naked teri hatcher . forget about that . okay ? now . . . heaven 's prisoners is about ex to - earth wife annie ( kelly lynch ) . everything dull , but hunky dory until a plane carrying illegal immigrants crashes almost ontop of he 's going to get . the question now is whether or not you want to be dragged along for the ride through a tedious , meandering yet utterly suspenseless plot with an unlovable hero as your guide . as dave robicheaux , alec baldwin is fat . hero of the hunt for red october , it is an out - of - shape guy who does n't look too good in a roof - top chasing scene . he 's also unconvincing in the movie 's dramatic moments , acting with what as far as i can tell is a steven segal - like economy of expression . three - quarters of the way through the show drunk and beating up someone or getting beaten up , you 'll want to beat on him a little yourself . on the other hand , mary stuart masterson ( " adventures of lois & clark " . . . she is totally ridiculous as rocque 's manipulative and seductive cajun wife , coming who has n't been giving her enough days off . it 's probably safe to say that her day job beckons . and at the end of our day , none of this is really worth 2 hrs and 12 minutes of our personal misery . the flying inkpot 's rating system : * wait

it 's amazing how a comedian can have the some of the funniest stand - up around but completely fall flat in the movies . take adam sandler . on the basis of his first two cds ( " they 're all gon na laugh at you ! " and " what the hell happened to me ? " ) , he 's the best thing to hit comedy since robin williams . but when you put him in front of a camera , it just is n't the same . i kind of enjoyed happy gilmore and thought that it warranted a marginal recommendation , but his latest film , the waterboy is about as funny as a root canal . seriously , i 'm willing to wager than there were more laughs in saving private ryan than there are here . in fact , i found this movie to be more depressing than comedic . the first half hour generated not one smile in me , with it 's scenes of emotional abuse towards adam 's character of bobby boucher not only by the cruel football players , but also by his very disturbed mother ( kathy bates - what is the world coming to ? ) . granted , after the film gets rolling , there are a few mild chuckles throughout ( i 'm even willing to admit that it actually had me laughing once or twice ) , but not nearly enough to sustain the waterboy for it 's nearly hour and a half running time . you 're all familiar with the plot because you 've seen it at least a million times before ; everyone picks on the hero until he shows a hidden talent and leads the underdog team to victory over the champions , in the process not only winning the respect of his teammates but also getting the woman he loves . and believe me , i 'm not giving anything away by saying that sandler 's team wins . if you would actually feel any degree of suspense watching this movie , then god be with you . the only things that keep this bomb from getting the big banana are the winning performances from henry winkler as the insecure coach and the severely underrated fairuza balk as bobby 's love interest . i mean , they should be lending their talents to some loftier purpose , but they do extremely well with what they are given here . kudos to both of them . my advice to adam is to try and follow in the footsteps of veteran comedians like williams and steve martin , who made a very smooth and successful transition from stage to screen . rely more on actual comedy rather than strange voices and rude noises to make people laugh . or maybe even show what dramatic talent he might have , like jim carrey did with the recent truman show . with the obvious and considerable talent that he possesses , he just ca n't keep going on like this .

0NEG

it 's amazing how a comedian can have the some of the funniest stand - up around but completely fall flat in the movies . take adam sandler . on the basis of his gilmore and thought that it warranted a marginal recommendation , but his latest film , the waterboy is about as funny as a root canal . seriously , i 'm willing to wager than there were more laughs in saving private ryan than there are here . in fact , i found this movie to be more depressing than comedic . the first half hour generated not one smile in me , with it 's scenes of emotional abuse towards adam actually had me laughing once or twice ) , but not nearly enough to sustain the waterboy for it 's nearly hour and a half watching this movie , then god be with you . the only things that keep this bomb from getting the big banana are the winning performances from henry winkler as the insecure to screen . rely more on actual comedy rather than strange voices and rude noises to make people laugh . or maybe even show what

according to popular film opinion , a film 's greatness is determined by time . take for example " casablanca . " great film , even today . it 's still as powerful as it was when it came out and still as romantic and tragic . another example would be " star wars , " which had a very , very healthy box office gross despite the fact that we had all seen it about 3 billion times before . but as i rewatched " independence day " when it came out on video after being the number one hit of 1996 , i kinda felt like it was n't as cool as when i had first seen it . i had liked it when i saw it the first time ( * * * was my original view ) and basically saw it as a good " escape film . " but when i rewatched it , i felt cheated . thus , the curse of the " event film . " " independence day " is like that kid who come out of nowhere and makes everybody happy at once ( except for a couple kids - the critics , in this situation ) . but after a while , this kid becomes annoying and you just wait for the next one . well , this kid is the " event film " in my little analogy . and when i rewatched " independence day , " not only did it not look cooler at all on the big screen , but i felt insulted the whole time . there are too many gaping craters in the plot and you just are n't sure if it 's comedy or hokey drama . one scene , you 'll see a hilariously nebbish scene between jeff goldblum and judd hirsch ; the next you 'll see a bunch of military uptight guys walking around , saying corny lines . the worst is a scene between brent spiner and bill pullman where spiner is sayinig something innocently funny but is barked like a junkyard dog by bill pullman who gives him the most unitentionally funniest speech since the end of " glen or glenda ? " now this annoying kid 's problem is that in the process of trying to make everyone like him all at once , he shows he has no balls . and " independence day " has no balls . it plays it safe everywhere . it throws in a ton of action that is borrowed from other superior films . the chase scene between the alien ship and will smith is straight out of " star wars . " i mean , is n't that devil 's den ? and the aliens are about as anticlimactic as demi moore 's breasts in " striptease . " they 're these octopus men , boring freaking octopus men . i mean , come on . the aliens in " 2001 " were more interesting and you did n't even see them ! basically the plot is straight from a b - movie from the 50s : aliens come to earth and we wonder if they 're hostile or peaceful . okay , it 's an interesting topic , but it 's not handled greatly . now they are n't and somehow a computer geek , jeff goldblum , figure out they 're using our satellites as a countdown to destruction . yep . these aliens are not only heavily armed , they 're stupid too . they also use the same kind of computer as we do , but that comes about later . the president ( bill pullman ) , who 's under attack for being a wimp , decides this would be a nice time to be belligerent , and he decides he 'll stay in the white house which the aliens have covered . i do n't care if it 's bob freaking dole in the white house , get him out of there . i do n't care if you have to inject him with sodium pentathol , just get him out of there . later on , he 's stupid and wants to fly in the attack on a big alien ship . i think it 's time for impeachment for this guy . he 's more senile than reagan on pot . then there 's a cocky pilot ( will smith ) who is the only person to survive the counter - attack on the second day and becomes moses in leading his children to the elusive area 51 ( the film 's only sign of being brave ) . his girlfriend 's a stripper sharing a subplot with " striptease " in that she has to do it for her son . come on , she has a fighter pilot boyfriend / soon - to - be fiance . i think she can quit that job and get a more respectable job at long john silvers . she 's also the few , the proud , the lucky to survive the igniting of l . a . ( as well as her dog , who narrowly survives ) . there are some bright spots . they tossed in enough old film homages to keep me laughing . the best one is when jeff goldblum ( nicely named david ) turns on his computer and a picture of hal comes up and says , " good morning , dave . " and they even played r . e . m . 's " it 's the end of the world as we know it ( and i feel fine ) at the beginning . and judd hirsch steals the film by actually acting great ( he 's a stereotype , but i just loved the man anyway ) . but there are no real subtle comic moments . will gets way too many one - liners and he has no one to play off of ( execept jeff towards the end , and the two do great ) . as i said , this film has no balls . it is just aiming for a crowd pleaser and that 's what it is . but after a couple months , we all move on to the next " event " film while intaking little films and a couple indy ones for good measure . but at least the indy ones last for a lifetime . this one 's short on batteries .

0NEG

escape film . " but when i rewatched it , i felt cheated . thus , the curse of the " event film . and when i rewatched " independence day , " not only did it not look cooler at all on the big screen , but i felt insulted the whole time . there are too many gaping craters in the plot and you just are n't sure if it 's comedy or hokey drama . one scene , you 'll see a hilariously nebbish goldblum and judd hirsch ; the next you 'll see a bunch of military uptight guys walking around , saying corny lines . the worst is a scene between brent spiner and bill pullman where spiner he has no balls . and " independence day " has no balls . it plays it safe everywhere . it throws in a ton of action that is mean , is n't that devil 's den ? and the aliens are about as anticlimactic as demi moore 's breasts in " striptease . " they 're these octopus men , boring freaking octopus men . i mean , come on . the aliens in " 2001 " were more interesting and . okay , it 's an interesting topic , but it 's not handled greatly . now they are n't and somehow a computer geek , but i just loved the man anyway ) . but there are no real subtle comic moments . will gets way too many one - liners and he has no one to play off of ( execept jeff towards the end , and the two do great ) . as i said , this film has no balls . it is just aiming for a crowd pleaser and that 's what it is . but after a couple months , we all move at least the indy ones last for a lifetime . this one 's short on batteries .

by trying to satisfy every kind of viewer , it 's possible that sphere may end up pleasing no one . action lovers will be bored by what they will see as an interminably boring setup . audience members who crave more intellectual fare will be disgusted by the film 's sudden collapse into mindless storytelling and by the ending , which is an insulting cop - out . somewhere out there , maybe there 's a small cadre of film - goers who will appreciate sphere 's dubious charms , but i 'm not among them . i sincerely hope the novel is better than the movie ( i no longer read anything by either michael crichton or john grisham ) , because if the finished motion picture product is anything to go by , it 's hard to understand why the rights were optioned . sphere is the kind of first- class mess that only a top - line director with an a - list cast can create . with expectations high ( and how could they not be , considering that another barry levinson / dustin hoffman collaboration , the excellent wag the dog , is still playing in theaters ? ) , something this bad ca n't help but look even worse . the last time a big - name , big - budget film displayed this level of ineptitude was last year 's batman & robin , and everyone knows how that movie was received . sphere starts out a little like an amalgamation of contact and james cameron 's the abyss , but , somewhere along the way , it collapses into the cellar with another recent science fiction effort , event horizon . science and philosophy , which are used to good effect during sphere 's first hour , give way to mindless , confusing action sequences . attempts at characterization fall apart . intelligent writing , which is evident early on , is replaced by hackneyed drivel . special effects take over as the plotline devolves into incoherent silliness . but all that is just in preparation for the ending , which is inexcusably awful . this is the time - honored deus ex machina device used to its worst effect . i left the theater feeling cheated by the way crichton and his screenwriters had chosen to end the film . there is some promise , but it 's all in the setup . we 're introduced to norman goodman ( dustin hoffman ) , a psychologist who once wrote a $ 35 , 000 report for the government about what to do in the event that a crashed space ship is discovered . when one is found in the middle of nowhere , 1000 feet below the surface of the pacific ocean , norman is called in to be part of the welcoming committee . on the team with him are beth halperin ( sharon stone ) , a biochemist who was once his student and lover ; harry adams ( samuel l . jackson ) , a mathematician who earned his first doctorate at the age of 18 ; ted fielding ( liev schreiber ) , an astrophysicist who is awed by the opportunity to explore alien technology ; and harold barnes ( peter coyote ) , the government operative in charge of the mission . together , the five descend into the bowels of the ocean , where they rendezvous with a temporary sea base on the ocean floor from which they will attempt to make first contact . for a while , sphere had me fooled into thinking it was going to take an astute approach to the man - meets - alien situation . the overall scenario is not without promise and several plot twists ( such as the revelation that the enormous craft is actually an american space ship , apparently from the future ) offer intriguing possibilities . then , right around the one - hour mark ( that 's the time to sneak into the theater next door and check out whatever 's left of titanic ) , the virtually non - stop action begins , and , once it starts , the script becomes superfluous . this might be acceptable if director levinson generated some legitimate tension , but , instead , he relies on loud , overbearing music , strange camera angles , and quick cuts to make things " exciting . " additionally , because none of the characters are well - formed ( a common failing in anything penned by crichton , who 's more interested in technology than people ) , viewers do n't develop much of a rooting interest . it makes sitting through sphere a frustrating and pointless experience . what about that a - list cast ? not surprisingly , the most energetic performance is given by samuel l . jackson , but his harry is n't a person ; he 's a walking plot device spouting occasionally - witty dialogue . dustin hoffman is n't lively or particularly good -- it 's ironic that this , which may be his worst work in a decade , has arrived in theaters on the heels of his best actor nomination ( for wag the dog ) . sharon stone and peter coyote are both flat . their characters exhibit little evidence of emotion ; automatons would have been as effective . then there 's queen latifa , who , despite getting fifth billing in the credits ( ahead of liev schreiber , who boasts at least quadruple her screen time ) , has less than a handful of lines and almost nothing to do other than inflate the body count . i like to think that levinson and hoffman , recognizing how uninspired this movie was likely to be , chose to make wag the dog as a sort of penance ( the low - budget picture was filmed during sphere 's lengthy pre - production phase ) . if that 's the case , forgiveness is granted . i 'm less inclined to look favorably upon crichton , although he has a few enjoyable titles on his resume ( jurassic park and the levinson - directed disclosure come to mind ) . even if his novel was butchered in the adaptation process , crichton 's credit as a producer disallows him absolution . he was a willing participant in a creative travesty . no wonder sphere is being released in february , in the midst of the early year 's cinematic wasteland . it deserves no better than to get sunk by the unstoppable titanic , which should plow sphere under on its way to a ninth - consecutive weekend atop the box office heap .

0NEG

sphere may end up pleasing no one . action lovers will be bored by what they will see as an interminably boring setup . audience members who crave more intellectual fare will be disgusted by the film 's sudden collapse into mindless storytelling and by the ending , which is an insulting cop - out . somewhere out there , maybe there 's a small to understand why the rights were optioned . sphere is the kind of first- class mess that only a top - line director with an a dog , is still playing in theaters ? ) , something this bad ca n't help but look even worse . the last time a big - name , big the abyss , but , somewhere along the way , it collapses into the cellar with another recent science fiction effort , event horizon . effect during sphere 's first hour , give way to mindless , confusing action sequences . attempts at characterization fall apart . intelligent writing , which is evident early on , is replaced by hackneyed drivel . special effects take over as the plotline devolves into incoherent silliness . but all that is just in preparation for the ending , which is inexcusably awful . this is the time - honored deus ex machina device used to its worst effect . i left the theater feeling cheated by the way crichton and his screenwriters had chosen to stop action begins , and , once it starts , the script becomes superfluous . this might be acceptable if director levinson generated some legitimate tension , but , instead , he relies on loud , overbearing music , strange camera angles , and quick cuts to make things " exciting . " additionally , because none of the characters are well - formed ( a common failing in anything penned by crichton , viewers do n't develop much of a rooting interest . it makes sitting through sphere a frustrating and pointless experience . what about that a - list cast ? not jackson , but his harry is n't a person ; he 's a walking plot device spouting occasionally - witty dialogue . dustin hoffman is n't lively or particularly good -- it 's

shakespeare in love is quite possibly the most enjoyable period piece ever made for the silver screen . it is both humorous and romantic in a very unique blend that can successfully entertain any audience for the nearly 2 and and a half hours that it occupies . that is , however , not to say it is a good film , a quality production or anything of the sort . shakespeare in love is an incredibly cheap illusion that truly pans out to be very little quality or original work . the finest sign of this may be the plot , in looking back , there seems to be little more than a thin , predictable plot that is only carried by the portrayal of people that we revere in our history books . philip henslowe ( geoffrey rush ) owns 1 of the 2 theatres in london . it is at the peak of the royal theatre era , and queen elizabeth ( the recently damed judi dench , by , appropriately enough , queen elizabeth ii ) is very much a fan . however , to directly quote the film , he has " cash flow problems . " through a long set of events , it becomes apparent that his entire life is dependent on his next show doing well enough to pay off his debts . so , mr . henslowe employs the young playwright , william shakespeare ( joseph fiennes ) to pen a comedic production . however , the young writer has a severe case of writer 's block , and blames it on the fact that his love life is struggling as well . he has the title in mind , romeo and ethel , the pirate 's daughter ( even that joke loses steam after a while ) but ca n't seem to put words to paper . then , as only hollywood could have it , through a long set of twisted events , he meets viola de lesseps ( gwyneth paltrow ) and falls madly in love , thus curing his writer 's block . there are many other little issues that mr . henslowe encounters , but they all pan out to be much ado about nothing . the first realization that i reached in watching this film is that one of the messages given is that a show should not always be credited to it 's author . ironically , that could n't be truer here . the great scenes that will sweep audiences away are not the scenes that fit in the plot , but rather the recitals of shakespearean lines by actors playing actors . one of the most breathtaking moments in this film does not involve the character of shakespeare or queen elizabeth or even the theatre owner , but rather 2 young children named romeo and juliet who chose to end their own lives in the name of love . so it is that i am offended by the fact that marc norman and tom stoppard are credited with writing this production , and the name william shakespeare is no were to be seen beyond a character 's name in the credits . the acting in this entertaining yet poor film is often thin to the point that it would not have survived even in queen elizabeth 's theatres . joseph fiennes may just be the worst of fall though . he is tragically unbelievable and comically bad . gwyneth paltrow is little more than satisfactory in her lead position as well . however , the supporting cast does almost save the day . geoffrey rush is nothing short of incredible and judi dench is breathtaking . they both seem to have shown that as proven actors they could survive in this film of weak links . you will also find a very good performance by ben affleck in his first real role since good will hunting ( no , armageddon does n't qualify as real acting . ) . and rupert everett was cute in his small part as well . but not even they could save this sad excuse for a film , so it remains plagued by poor performances . when all is said and done , shakespeare in love is only worth the trip if you want to be entertained . however , as the film so kindly pointed out , entertainment may be fun , but it is n't necessarily quality . and this certainly is n't quality . perhaps this may be best compared to a john grisham novel , as a dear friend of mine often does compare things to his work . simply put , it is far - fetched , poorly crafted , but very entertaining .

0NEG

or anything of the sort . shakespeare in love is an incredibly cheap illusion that truly pans out to be very little quality or original work . the finest sign of this may be the plot , in looking back , there seems to be little more than a thin , predictable plot that is only carried by the portrayal of people that end their own lives in the name of love . so it is that i am offended by the fact that marc norman and tom stoppard are credited with writing seen beyond a character 's name in the credits . the acting in this entertaining yet poor film is often thin to the point that it would not have survived even in queen elizabeth 's theatres . joseph fiennes may just be the worst of fall though . he is tragically unbelievable and comically bad . gwyneth paltrow is little more than satisfactory in her to have shown that as proven actors they could survive in this film of weak links . you will also find a very good performance by part as well . but not even they could save this sad excuse for a film , so it remains plagued by poor performances . when all is said and done , shakespeare in fun , but it is n't necessarily quality . and this certainly is n't quality . perhaps this may be best compared to a john of mine often does compare things to his work . simply put , it is far - fetched , poorly crafted , but very entertaining .

at times , you 'd think edtv would be an entertaining film . i mean , who can resist the story of your average joe becomming a celebrity by having his life filmed every minute of every day ? but this average joe , ed perkuny , ( matthew mcconaughay ) , is a sappy , lifeless creation that wanders around , trying to solve everyone 's problems and settle his own . mcconaughay is awful , especially because he is trying to pull off his usual hollywood charm with a 3 week beard and torn jeans . frankly , he had more charm in the devestating flop the newton boys . he overacts in every way : his overexaggerant body language , obsession with kissing women every second he gets the chance , and that cliched scene where he loses someone in his life , and drops to his knee and cries . the rest of the cast is very good ; especially martin landau ( as ed 's step - father ) , who plays a cute role as the close - to - death old guy that makes all the witty comments . jenna elfman is good , ( but a little overemotional ) ; her main problem is that she keeps getting sucked into bad films , i . e . ca n't hardly wait , and krippendorf 's tribe . woody harrelson , as ed 's brother ray , does his usual egg - headed role , with his comic wit as well ( he wrote a book entitled , " my brother pissed on me . " ) elizabeth hurley is perfectly cast as the easy slut , and dennis hopper , in a quick cameo as ed 's biological father , is a nice choice ( ironically coming after the role he turned down as christof in the truman show ) . ellen degeneres stood out as the executive who , after awhile , decides the show must not go on much to the opposite of the head exec , rob reiner 's opinion . i hate to compare this film to the truman show , but the fact is , i was ashamed to see this movie . it felt that i had dropped from college to kindergarten after seeing truman and ed . edtv had no real wit or genius ; it was typical hollywood . extracting the tv part of the movie , you have the simple plotline : man steals brother 's girlfriend , girlfriend leaves town , man gets new slut girlfriend to feel like he can move on , slut breaks up with him , real girlfriend comes back , and voila , you have a romance . i got so restless during this movie , i almost walked out . the only reason it does n't drop below a " c " grade is because of the fine supporting performances . ad2am " i almost lost my nose . . . and i like it . i like breathing through it . " -jack nicholson , chinatown

0NEG

, ed perkuny , ( matthew mcconaughay ) , is a sappy , lifeless creation that wanders around , trying to solve everyone 's problems and settle his own . mcconaughay is awful , especially because he is trying to pull off his charm with a 3 week beard and torn jeans . frankly , he had more charm in the devestating flop the newton boys . he overacts in every way : his overexaggerant body language , obsession with kissing women every second he gets the chance , and that cliched scene where he loses someone in his life , and drops to his knee and cries . the rest of the cast is very good ; witty comments . jenna elfman is good , ( but a little overemotional ) ; her main problem is that she keeps getting sucked into bad films , i . e . ca n't hardly wait , to the truman show , but the fact is , i was ashamed to see this movie . it felt that i had dropped from college to kindergarten after seeing truman and ed . edtv had no real wit or genius ; it was typical hollywood . extracting the tv part back , and voila , you have a romance . i got so restless during this movie , i almost walked out . the only reason it does n't drop below a

five years after his directorial debut based on stephen king 's writings called the shawshank redemption ( 9/10 ) , writer / director frank darabont returns to the big screen with another prison film based on the famous scribblings of stephen king . unlike the latter film , this one is a big , long , laborious bore . plot : a seven - foot death row inmate is discovered to have secret healing powers . critique : this film is slow , drawn - out , boring , uninteresting , unexciting , predictable and topped with a couple of one - dimensional " evil " characters . its only positive attribute lies in its actors who all do credible jobs and its message of hope and belief in miracles . the real miracle of my night was the fact that i did not fall asleep during this straightforward , unimpressive film about a guy with special powers who we never truly understand or care about . of course , much like all other death row cell blocks , this one is filled with decent inmates who all happen to be " misunderstood " , except for one cookie - cutter crazy guy who is evil personified . and let 's not forget all the guards on death row , who also happen to be angels from the heaven above , except for one cookie - cutter crazy guard who is also evil personified ( and is there any reason why there are about six guards when there appears to be no more than three inmates ? ? ? ) . am i supposed to identify with anyone in this film ? or even more importantly , am i supposed to give a rat 's ass about anyone in this film ? well , if i was , i sure missed that boat , because the only thing that i ended up caring about during this entire picture was the obscene amount of fat that tom hanks has been able to burrow under his loose chin . furthermore , there is absolutely no reason in the world why director frank darabont needed to take three hours and ten minutes out of anyone 's life to present this story . in fact , the story is empty within itself . i truly did not get anything out of the film other than the fact that there is a guy on death row who has special powers to heal , and we are left wondering if he should still be executed or not . wow . how interesting . the plot 's utter predictability is also at fault here with one guess as to whom is to get healed by the gentle monster in this film ( we are told that one certain lady has a tumor early on in the movie ) . whip out those thinking caps , kids ! hmmm , and i wonder what will happen to those two cookie - cutter " evil " guys who have nothing in their system but hate and negativity . hmmmm , now think hard here , boys and girls . what a crock ! i am guessing that this film was supposed to be some three - hour exercise in spirituality , but unfortunately for me , it was neither spiritual or the least bit engaging . in fact , it was one big bore . i did n't see the point of the movie , i did n't see the point of the story and i certainly did n't see the point in tom hanks ' big double - chin . all in all , a bad movie starring some great actors doing solid work , especially michael clarke duncan as the man of the hour , john coffey . give that man an award or something !

0NEG

scribblings of stephen king . unlike the latter film , this one is a big , long , laborious bore . plot : a seven - foot death row inmate is discovered to have secret healing powers . critique : this film is slow , drawn - out , boring , uninteresting , unexciting , predictable and topped with a couple of one - dimensional " evil " characters . its only positive attribute lies in its actors who and its message of hope and belief in miracles . the real miracle of my night was the fact that i did not fall asleep during this straightforward , unimpressive film about a guy with special powers who we never truly no more than three inmates ? ? ? ) . am i supposed to identify with anyone in this film ? or even more importantly , am i supposed to give a rat 's ass about anyone in this film ? well , if i was , i sure missed that able to burrow under his loose chin . furthermore , there is absolutely no reason in the world why director frank darabont needed to take three hours and ten minutes out of anyone 's life to present this story . in fact , the story is empty within itself . i truly did not get anything out of the film other than the fact that there is a guy on be executed or not . wow . how interesting . the plot 's utter predictability is also at fault here with one guess as to whom is to get healed ) . whip out those thinking caps , kids ! hmmm , and i wonder what will happen to those two have nothing in their system but hate and negativity . hmmmm , now think hard here , boys and girls . what a crock ! i am guessing that this film was supposed to be some three - hour exercise in spirituality , but unfortunately for me , it was neither spiritual or the least bit engaging . in fact , it was one big bore . i did n't see the point of the movie , i did n't see the point of the story and i certainly did n't see the point in tom hanks ' big double - chin . all in all , a bad movie starring some great actors doing solid work , especially michael

synopsis : a small town thug convinces a dimwitted high - school student to spy on his girlfriend , who is babysitting three unruly kids for their alcoholic parents on a friday night . while this is going on , the thug , the father , the boyfriend , and a kid reaching the onset of puberty all have fantasies about the babysitter . comments : to say this movie is bad would be quite an understatement . i 'm not sure what writer and director ferland was hoping to accomplish with the babysitter . suspense ? family drama ? humor ? erotica ? elements of each of these genres exist in the film , yet it fails to successfully achieve any of them . instead , the babysitter is a dull , lifeless movie which manages to bore and ultimately irritate its viewers . i suppose this film could have been watchable if it were n't for the fact that the characters are universally unappealing . alicia silverstone is completely wasted playing jennifer , the babysitter . her character has absolutely no depth at all , and her sole purpose in the movie is to be the object of the other characters ' fantasies . everyone else in the film seems to be in a competition to see who can stoop to the lowest level by the time the film ends . the parents are alcoholics who become increasingly obnoxious as the movie proceeds . the father ( played by j . t . walsh ) fantasizes about the babysitter ; the mother fantasizes about her husband 's best friend . none of these fantasy sequences , trust me , are things that need to be seen , but we see them anyway , complete with cheesy , make - out saxophone music . the thug , in the meantime , proves that he 's evil through his annoying habit of smashing half - empty beer bottles all of a sudden and for no apparent reason . the most absurd character , however , is the babysitter 's boyfriend who seems catatonically brain - dead . the thug , in a manipulative , iago - like manner ( though he does n't really need to try hard ) , manages to talk the boyfriend into binge - drinking , smoking grass , running away from cops , and playing peeping tom on his own girlfriend in a matter of minutes . incredible ! ( of course , the boyfriend 's original plan for the evening was , try not to laugh , to sit in an empty diner and read catcher in the rye by j . d . salinger . ) if the goal of the babysitter was to be suspenseful , then it fails . there are surprisingly few tense moments in this film , and nearly all of them come at the final minute . by that time , however , the audience is so tired of the inane characters that no one truthfully cares what happens to any of them . no suspense occurs in the dream sequences either because every single one of them is obviously a dream sequence from its inception . if the goal of the babysitter was to be humorous , then it also fails . i found nothing even remotely funny about the boozing parents who seemed , at times , to be played for laughs . if the goal of the babysitter was to be dramatic , then , once again , it fails . the characters are one - dimensional and uninteresting . finally , if the goal of the babysitter was to be titillating ( the type of film destined to be played ad infinitum on hbo at 2 in the morning ) , then it fails as well . the dream sequences are n't erotic ; they are too brief and , outside of one very short scene , contain no nudity . i ca n't completely trash this movie . the first 10 minutes or so vaguely resemble an interesting film , and the conclusion sports a halfway decent fistfight . the other 79 minutes , though , are a drag . silverstone 's character , at the end of the movie , turns to her boyfriend and asks " what were you thinking ? " i asked myself the same question , having spent 99 cents renting this turkey .

0NEG

puberty all have fantasies about the babysitter . comments : to say this movie is bad would be quite an understatement . i 'm not sure what writer and director ferland each of these genres exist in the film , yet it fails to successfully achieve any of them . instead , the babysitter is a dull , lifeless movie which manages to bore and ultimately irritate its viewers . i suppose this film could have been watchable if it were n't for the fact that the characters are universally unappealing . alicia silverstone is completely wasted playing jennifer , the babysitter . her character has absolutely no depth at all , and her sole purpose in the movie is to to be seen , but we see them anyway , complete with cheesy , make - out saxophone music . the thug , in the meantime , proves that the rye by j . d . salinger . ) if the goal of the babysitter was to be suspenseful , then it fails . there are surprisingly few tense moments in this film the final minute . by that time , however , the audience is so tired of the inane characters that no one truthfully cares what happens to any of them . no suspense occurs in the dream sequences either because them is obviously a dream sequence from its inception . if the goal of the babysitter was to be humorous , then it also fails . i found nothing even remotely funny about the boozing parents who seemed , at times , of the babysitter was to be dramatic , then , once again , it fails . the characters are one - dimensional and uninteresting . finally , if the goal of the babysitter was on hbo at 2 in the morning ) , then it fails as well . the dream sequences are n't erotic ; they are too brief and , outside of one very short scene , contain no nudity . i ca n't completely trash this movie . the . the other 79 minutes , though , are a drag . silverstone 's character , at the end of the myself the same question , having spent 99 cents renting this turkey .

working in the motion picture industry must be a constant source of frustration for a front - line african american actress like jada pinkett smith . despite being one of the freshest talents available , pinkett smith has often been relegated to playing thankless supporting parts ( a low down dirty shame , the nutty professor ) . the problem is , of course , that there are n't many good roles available for black women . take away the likes of waiting to exhale , set it off , soul food , and eve 's bayou , and all that 's left is a chance to be someone 's girlfriend , a local whore , or a murder victim . as a result , for pinkett smith 's first opportunity atop the marquee , she is stuck in a stupid , formulaic romantic comedy with the unpromising title of woo . actually , woo , the latest directorial effort from daisy v . s . mayer ( party girl ) , could have been worse than it is . the film offers a few funny ( albeit juvenile ) moments and the on - screen relationship between pinkett smith 's woo and tommy davidson 's tim is appealing on those rare occasions when the two are n't forced to play it dumb for the sake of an endless barrage of cheap gags . unfortunately , huge portions of the movie are insulting to the intelligence of anyone with a triple - digit i . q . the situations are painfully contrived , the main characters are lifted right out of sit - coms , and the supporting players are so incredibly stupid that i wondered whether they all participated in some kind of " free lobotomy " lab experiment . woo is a spontaneous , energetic young woman who has been looking for love in all the wrong places . her latest relationship , with a testosterone - overdosed drug - dealer , came to an abrupt end when she refused to wear a beeper . now , her transvestite / medium friend celestrial ( girlina ) predicts that she 's about to meet mr . right , and that he 'll be a virgo . later that day , woo is given an opportunity to go out on a blind date with tim , a shy man with a penchant for neatness and order , who just happens to be a virgo . it 's not love at first sight , however . things get off to a rocky start when tim makes an awkward pass , and they get even worse when the pair arrives at a swanky restaurant to enjoy a " quiet " dinner . in the one - hundred year history of motion pictures , there have been a ton of bad " white " movies about mismatched lovers , so i suppose it 's only fair that we get a " black " effort of the same low caliber . as in all romantic comedies , we know from the beginning that woo and tim are going to end up together . the question is , are their courtship rituals entertaining ? in a good entry to the genre , the audience becomes caught up in the love story , no matter how familiar it is . in woo , the constant reliance upon unfunny , moronic humor sinks the project . for those who enjoy spotting continuity gaffes , there 's a huge one in woo involving a corvette with a broken window that miraculously repairs itself ( added to that is the mystery of how the car looses its top ) . sadly , that 's one of the film 's most enjoyable sequences , and the entertainment value is entirely unintentional . despite exuding charm from every pore , there 's little that pinkett smith and davidson can do to save their characters or david c . johnson 's script . since it misses the mark by so much , a better name for woo might have been whoops .

0NEG

for pinkett smith 's first opportunity atop the marquee , she is stuck in a stupid , formulaic romantic comedy with the unpromising title of woo . actually , woo , the latest directorial appealing on those rare occasions when the two are n't forced to play it dumb for the sake of an endless barrage of cheap gags . unfortunately , huge portions of the movie are insulting to the intelligence of anyone with a triple - digit i . q . the situations are painfully contrived , the main characters are lifted right out of sit - coms , and the supporting players are so incredibly stupid that i wondered whether they all participated in some kind of " free lobotomy " lab experiment . woo is a spontaneous , energetic young woman who no matter how familiar it is . in woo , the constant reliance upon unfunny , moronic humor sinks the project . for those who enjoy spotting continuity gaffes , there 's a huge one in woo involving a corvette with a broken window that miraculously repairs itself ( added to that is the mystery of how the car looses its top ) . sadly , that 's one of the film 's most enjoyable sequences , and the entertainment value is entirely unintentional . despite exuding charm from every pore , there 's characters or david c . johnson 's script . since it misses the mark by so much , a better name for woo might have been whoops .

there is a scene early in jakob the liar that hints at how much better it could have been . the scene is set in a jewish ghetto in poland circa 1944 , where a one - time cafe proprietor named jakob heym is walking resolutely through the streets , fists stuffed into coat pockets . to one side of him , residents scavenge for food in the street ; to the other side , german troops beat a group of jews . jakob , however , never stops moving . it 's an efficient , effective set - up for the character , who is clearly nobody 's idea of a hero at the outset . he is a man who has responded to the horror of his surroundings by withdrawing from them , excising his moral peripheral vision . the set - up is critical because fate will turn jakob into a reluctant savior . after a visit to a german commandant 's office and a moment alone with a turned - on radio , jakob learns that russian troops are quite near . when he brings this first news of the war in years to his fellow jews , they become convinced that he must have a radio , which is a punishable offense in the ghetto . the good news brings hope to the ghetto ; the everyday specter of suicide vanishes . a private man of limited creativity finds himself burdened with creating stories of russian military progress just to keep his neighbors alive . this promising story of an ordinary person doing the extraordinary is burdened from the outset by casting : the " ordinary person " in question , jakob heym , is played by robin williams . i am of the depressing opinion that williams is growing less assured as an actor in his " serious " roles with every passing year . compare his dramatic scenes in the world according to garp and moscow on the hudson with what dreams may come or patch adams , and see how much more mannered he has become ( or , at the very least , how much less sensible at choosing material ) . jakob the liar depends on the notion that jakob has to struggle to craft his fictions , but williams always looks like he 's struggling _ not _ to craft them . when he improvises a radio address by winston churchill for ailing 10-year - old orphan lina ( hannah taylor gordon ) , he seems relieved that he can finally get wacky . oh yes , and then there 's that little girl . some viewers will undoubtedly consider the hero 's fanciful stories for a young charge too reminiscent of life is beautiful , but those scenes are n't problematic because they 're familiar . they 're problematic because they 're jarring and distracting , introducing a cutesy relationship into a film that should n't have been about cutesy relationships . jakob 's character arc may be about his willingness to act for the benefit of others , but there are plenty of others without poor little lina . every scene with her feels contrived , pulling jakob the liar away from its central story of hope coming to a previously hopeless people . it is a pleasant surprise to find that jakob the liar is a much grittier production than you might expect from a hollywood - ized holocaust , combining the weighty subject matter with dark humor in some effective ways . director peter kassovitz , working from jurek becker 's novel , crafts some nice scenes between jakob and the other townspeople , and draws solid performances from armin mueller - stahl ( as a once - revered doctor ) and bob balaban ( as a barber drifting into depression ) . there are just too many things going on that prove distracting , whether it 's the sketchy romanctic angle involving liev schreiber as an earnest former prizefighter , or williams ' incongrous presence , or a sweet but utterly irrelevant little girl . jakob the liar deals with too delicate a subject for such fumbling , and has too compelling a central character to waste . and after one wonderful early scene , you can see the film wasted and fumbled away .

0NEG

, jakob heym , is played by robin williams . i am of the depressing opinion that williams is growing less assured as an actor in his " serious " roles with every passing year . compare his dramatic scenes in the world according to has become ( or , at the very least , how much less sensible at choosing material ) . jakob the liar depends on the notion that those scenes are n't problematic because they 're familiar . they 're problematic because they 're jarring and distracting , introducing a cutesy relationship into a film that should there are plenty of others without poor little lina . every scene with her feels contrived , pulling jakob the liar away from its central story balaban ( as a barber drifting into depression ) . there are just too many things going on that prove distracting , whether it 's the sketchy romanctic angle involving liev schreiber as an earnest former prizefighter , or williams ' incongrous presence , or a sweet but utterly irrelevant little girl . jakob the liar deals with too delicate a subject for such fumbling , and has too compelling a central character to waste . and after one wonderful early scene , you can see the film wasted and fumbled away .

first troy beyer wrote the critically panned " b . a . p . s . " now she makes her directorial debut , writing , directing , and starring in this sub - par film about women talking about sex . though not without redeeming qualities , this film is bad . the basic story follows three single friends -- jazz ( beyer ) , lena ( randi ingerman ) , and michelle ( paget brewster ) -- in their search for love . jazz has an idea for a local talk show ; it would feature women talking about sex and dating . she and her friends make a demo tape of interviews with the women of miami . the film itself is sprinkled with these real interviews throughout , both as part of the plot and as commentary on the situations of the main characters . the fact that they are real provides a refreshing break from some of the more melodramatic moments in the film . there are several moments of bad acting , corny dialogue , and emotional overextension . in a low - budget independent film from a first - time director , these faults can sometimes be forgiven , if the screenplay is fresh and solid . that is not the case here . the script suffers from random plot developments . there are four or five of these turns in the plot , each one raising the question " where did that come from ? " at one point , a character has a lifelong reconciliation with her mother . we are supposed to be moved , but since the scene is completely un - led - up to , we really do n't care if she and her mother get along . we 've never seen her mother before . we never see her again . who cares ? what 's worse , these sudden developments are supposed to engage our sympathy . at another point , a character announces that she ca n't have children . apparently , this is devastating . we would n't know this because she never talked about having kids before , but we are nevertheless expected to be devastated for her . the scene feels like an afterthought , its emotion manipulative and shallow . these scenes grow worse and worse , culminating in an absurd climax . two scenes were played with such overwhelming melodrama that i found myself laughing . one scene is a lover 's spat between two minor characters . the other has the main characters expressing their copious grief by cleaning house in wails of despair and clouds of ajax . thinking on these scenes , it is hard for me to admit that the film has redeeming qualities . but it does . first , it is original . we men often wonder what women talk about when they are alone in groups , and i imagine this film gives me a pretty good idea . it 's something i do n't think has been the subject of a film . second , the interviews of the miami women are sincere . taken together , they form a mosaic picture of miami beachwalkers and bistro diners . the mosaic is made of sound bites and stereotypes , but each tile is some woman 's real experience . neither the picture of women , nor their picture of men , is truly representative , but the point is that both sets of generalizations are telling in their own way . at some level , the stereotypes that emerge can be called true . i can imagine some people liking this film when its characters talk about their " likes , dislikes , skills , and thrills , " but on the whole , it 's pretty bad . and that makes it even harder to forgive the bad acting , corny dialogue , and emotional overextension . i 'll give beyer one more strike , and then she 's out . rated r ( almost got an nc-17 ) for explicit sexual dialogue and nudity .

0NEG

her directorial debut , writing , directing , and starring in this sub - par film about women talking about sex . though not without redeeming qualities , this film is bad . the basic story follows three single friends -- jazz fact that they are real provides a refreshing break from some of the more melodramatic moments in the film . there are several moments of bad acting , corny dialogue , and emotional overextension . in a low - budget independent film from a and solid . that is not the case here . the script suffers from random plot developments . there are four or five of these turns in . we are supposed to be moved , but since the scene is completely un - led - up to , we really do n't care if she and her mother get along . we 've never seen her mother before . we never see her again . who cares ? what 's worse , these sudden developments are supposed to engage our sympathy we are nevertheless expected to be devastated for her . the scene feels like an afterthought , its emotion manipulative and shallow . these scenes grow worse and worse , culminating in an absurd climax . two scenes were played with such overwhelming melodrama that , dislikes , skills , and thrills , " but on the whole , it 's pretty bad . and that makes it even harder to forgive the bad acting , corny dialogue , and emotional overextension . i 'll give beyer one more strike , and

susan granger 's review of " mulholland drive " ( universal focus ) whatever david lynch is selling , i 'm not buying . from the writer / director of " blue velvet " and " twin peaks " comes another dark , mysterious thriller that opens with an automobile accident on mulholland drive , the serpentine street that twists high in the hollywood hills . dazed , a beautiful brunette ( laura elena harring ) emerges and stumbles down a hill , slipping unobserved into a ' 30s - style apartment as the tenant leaves for a trip . the next morning , a dewy blonde ( naomi watts ) from deep river , ontario , arrives in la with dreams of stardom in her suitcase . her aunt owns the apartment and the two women meet . the brunette has amnesia so the blonde tries to help her discover her identity along with her latent lesbian lust . meanwhile , a hotshot director ( justin theroux ) , whose wife is in bed with the poolman , is forced to cast a certain actress in his new film and there 's an assassin ( mark pellegrino ) roaming the city . the tortuous paths of these various characters - and others named cookie , coco and cowboy - intersect at various points but the plot remains elusive because , midway through the story , lynch has the brunette and blonde play two different women in an alternate reality , leaving a huge wad of cash , a blue metallic key , a paralyzed mogul and a lot of questions that go unanswered . elena harring and particularly naomi watts are gifted actresses , effectively making the subtle switch . the same can not be said for former m . g . m . dancer ann miller who 's stiff and self - conscious , speaking - like most lynch players - in staccato tones . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " mulholland drive " is a frenzied , frustrating 4 . originally designed as an episodic tv pilot , this surreal triumph of suspenseful style over substance is packaged as a puzzle with several of the key pieces left out .

0NEG

( universal focus ) whatever david lynch is selling , i 'm not buying . from the writer / director of " blue velvet , coco and cowboy - intersect at various points but the plot remains elusive because , midway through the story , lynch has the , a blue metallic key , a paralyzed mogul and a lot of questions that go unanswered . elena harring and particularly naomi watts are gifted actresses , effectively making the subtle switch . the same can not be said for former m . g . m . dancer ann miller who 's stiff and self - conscious , speaking - like most lynch players - in staccato tones . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " mulholland drive " is a frenzied , frustrating 4 . originally designed as an episodic tv pilot ,

georges polti once wrote a paper called " the thirty - six dramatic situations , " in which he asserted the fact that all drama could be defined by no more than thirty - six different situations . this may be the modern restatement of the biblical prophecy from ecclesiastes , " there 's nothing new under the sun . " the faculty , the latest movie by from dusk till dawn director robert rodriguez , certainly proves this in typical hollywood fashion . there 's not a measureable fraction of original material in this unworthy outing . drawing elements from both the puppet masters and invasion of the body snatchers , screenwriter kevin williamson ( of scream 2 credit ) gives us a horror tale set in middle america ( ohio ) one eventful fall . making use of a cast of unusually stock characters , williamson designs an alien invasion that will not be done independence day - style but rather " through the back door . " parasitic aliens take over the faculty of a run - down high school and soon have infested most of the student body , leaving it up to the ensemble of principal characters to win the day . the lack of gusto is the movie 's major stumbling block . even though the genre has seen movies that have a lack for quality such as this , they 've been saved by an energetic approach . this casts more than a shadow of a doubt on williamson 's ability , who enjoyed success with the wes craven - directed scream but could n't pull anything solid in for this outing or i know what you did last summer . although he designs the faculty with more of a sci - fi bent than his typical slasher picture , it still comes down to the same results : throw the stock characters in a steel cage match and see who comes out alive . on that level , the main roles are played by virtual unknowns . only the recognizeable elijah wood ( deep impact ) is at the front ; other than that , the screen veterans are saved for the minor roles of the alien teachers . perhaps williamson has it in mind to champion these up - and - comers to the fame that their scream and last summer counterparts achieved ; but to do that , they 'd all need to star in their own wb television show about the horrors of puberty a la " dawson 's creek . " needless to say the acting is far from top notch , nor does necessity ask that it should be . there is a moment or two of genuine horror , but unfortunately williamson and rodriguez did not take the story far enough in the sci - fi direction to make any use of it . in sum , the faculty was just one long shot that did not pay off .

0NEG

rodriguez , certainly proves this in typical hollywood fashion . there 's not a measureable fraction of original material in this unworthy outing . drawing elements from both the puppet masters and invasion the ensemble of principal characters to win the day . the lack of gusto is the movie 's major stumbling block . even though the genre has seen movies that have , they 've been saved by an energetic approach . this casts more than a shadow of a doubt on williamson 's ability , who enjoyed success with the wes craven - directed scream but could n't pull anything solid in for this outing or i know what you did last summer . although of puberty a la " dawson 's creek . " needless to say the acting is far from top notch , nor does necessity ask that it should be . is a moment or two of genuine horror , but unfortunately williamson and rodriguez did not take the story far enough in the sci - fi direction to make any use of it . in sum , the faculty was just one long shot that did not pay off .

the most popular trend of the last couple of years has been the twist ending . watching one of these movies , everything seems to make sense until suddenly you are blown away by an unexpected surprise . when the film ends , there is a moment of confusion , then recollection , then some more confusion , then possibly a second viewing for clarification . this is a description of an ideal twist that perfects everything it sets out to do and more . good surprises make movies fun to watch . then there are the bad twists . you either know what is going to happen ten minutes into the movie ( i 'm talking about you reindeer games ) or you did not guess the ending because it is so outrageously stupid . screwed perfectly suits the latter description . what starts out as a dumb guilty pleasure which should be fun to mock with a group of friends ends with a complex finale with way too much going on . by the writers of man on the moon and the people vs . larry flynt , scott alexander and larry karaszewski leave milos forman behind and take a stab at film directing . whoops . screwed is an inane christmas carol gone berserk with few genuine laughs and many acting embarrassments . norm macdonald stars as willard filmore , a hard working chauffeur who just wants a little respect from his rich , old , insidious boss , miss crock ( elaine stritch ) . when he overhears her plans to fire him on christmas day , willard is convinced by his best friend rusty ( dave chapelle ) to kidnap crock 's beloved dog and hold it for a ransom of one million dollars . too excited to pay any attention , the hapless losers ' plan goes awry when the dog escapes and returns home . now crock thinks willard has been kidnapped and the two friends , realizing they can make even more money , decide to stage the fake kidnapping . of course , everything that could go wrong does . the first forty - five minutes of screwed is harmless entertainment - a guilty pleasure that should be enjoyably bad . but the convoluted script eventually builds into a disaster that is impossible to bear . the more idiotic these characters get , the more reckless the script becomes . at one point , i wanted to get out of my seat and yell at these characters : " no , you idiot ! " i 'm not just talking about willard and rusty , who were extremely annoying , i 'm also talking about the cops in this film . a monkey could have solved this case within an hour but these guys ( headed by murder one 's daniel benzali ) were just too clueless to forgive . they give real cops bad names . also poor danny devito apparently does not know how to turn down a role these days . looking almost identical to his penguin in batman : returns , every time he appeared on the screen i had to shake my head in disbelief . he just did n't belong in this movie . macdonald and chapelle are veterans at these kinds of movies but devito made the film much worse than it already was , gross out humor is certainly not his forte . if you 're a fan of norm macdonald 's other chaotic comedy , dirty work , you might actually love this near - sequel . otherwise , do n't get screwed out of your hard - earned money .

0NEG

( i 'm talking about you reindeer games ) or you did not guess the ending because it is so outrageously stupid . screwed perfectly suits the latter description . what starts out as a dumb guilty pleasure which should be fun to mock with a group of friends ends with a complex finale with way too much going on . by the writers of man on the moon and a stab at film directing . whoops . screwed is an inane christmas carol gone berserk with few genuine laughs and many acting embarrassments . norm macdonald stars as willard filmore , a hard forty - five minutes of screwed is harmless entertainment - a guilty pleasure that should be enjoyably bad . but the convoluted script eventually builds into a disaster that is impossible to bear . the more idiotic these characters get , the more reckless the script becomes . at one point , i wanted to get out 'm not just talking about willard and rusty , who were extremely annoying , i 'm also talking about the cops in this ( headed by murder one 's daniel benzali ) were just too clueless to forgive . they give real cops bad names . also poor danny devito apparently does not know how almost identical to his penguin in batman : returns , every time he appeared on the screen i had to shake my head in disbelief . he just did n't belong in this movie . macdonald and chapelle are veterans at these kinds of movies but devito made the film much worse than it already was , gross out humor is certainly not his forte . if you 're a fan of norm macdonald 's , you might actually love this near - sequel . otherwise , do n't get screwed out of your hard - earned money .

" spice world " is just one long promotional film for the british girl band the spice girls . sure there 's a hint of humor in there every once in a while . actually , there 's a couple of pretty good jabs at the spice girls . but overall , who cares ? not me . if you do n't know by now , the spice girls sing songs of love and friendship and responsibility and girl power , yet dress like streetwalkers from a lower middle class neighborhood . in " spice world " they ride around in their big tour bus , whining about having to do photo shoots and give interviews . amazingly , all the talk they do about keeping commitments and upholding responsibilities only really applies to fun things , things they want to do , not things they are required to do to keep earning money . and they keep babbling about " girl power " when they should really be talking about " cleavage power " . i mean , if all it takes is girl power , then why are they only one thread away from bursting out of their skimpy outfits ? the film is pg , but really with only some very minor dialogue changes and scene extentions , you 'd have yourself one raunchy adult film . by the way , there 's something in the opening credits which says " based on an idea by the spice girls " . wow , they got idea credit ! i certainly wish that was a new trend in hollywood . . . giving credit for simply having the thought " say girls , let 's make a movie ! " the supporting cast fares well . roger moore ( the real james bond ) mockingly plays the cliche - spewing " chief " of the spice girls , and darn it all , he 's fun to watch . mark mckenney also is good as a screenwriter trying to pitch film ideas to the band 's manager ( richard e . grant ) . one question though : george wendt ? you 'd think that " spice world " would envoke one of two reactions in people . if you like the spice girls , you 'll like them even more afterwards . and if you ca n't stand them ( like me ) , then " spice world " will really make you sick . oddly , the audience i saw the film with , roughly 50 twelve year - old girls , sat in silence for the entire film . well , not the two who sat directly behind me . they kept muttering " this is stupid " over and over again . maybe there is hope for humanity after all . [ pg ]

0NEG

" spice world " is just one long promotional film for the british girl band the spice girls . sure couple of pretty good jabs at the spice girls . but overall , who cares ? not me . if you do n't know by now , the spice " they ride around in their big tour bus , whining about having to do photo shoots and give interviews . amazingly are required to do to keep earning money . and they keep babbling about " girl power " when they should really be talking about " cleavage power " . i mean , if all it takes is girl power , then why are they only one thread away from bursting out of their skimpy outfits ? the film is pg , but really with only some , you 'll like them even more afterwards . and if you ca n't stand them ( like me ) , then " spice world " will really make you sick . oddly , the audience i saw the film with , not the two who sat directly behind me . they kept muttering " this is stupid " over and over again . maybe there is hope for humanity after all .

i read the new yorker magazine and i enjoy some of their really in - depth articles about some incident . they will take some incident like the investigation of a mysterious plane crash and tell you what happened in detail . it becomes a real education in what agencies get involved and how theories are suggested , and what kind of pressure the investigators are under , and just about any other aspect you can think of . frequently i get the feeling that the article sounded exciting , but i am being told in more detail than i really wanted to know . often i get to the middle of a story and say , ok , it sounded good but i now have invested more time than i am willing to spend on this subject . film is a different medium . it is a visual medium . that slows down the telling of stories much more than people realize . i frequently am surprised to find out how short a film script is and how much of the pages are empty space . the magazine article and the film script are two very different media . the insider is a film adaptation of the vanity fair article " the man who knew too much " by marie brenner . it is too much an adaptation of a magazine article slowed to the pace of a film . it really verges on being tedious at least at times . for years the seven big companies knew that they dealt in an addictive drug that caused a host of unhealthy side - effects . but they pretended for the public that it was unproven and they did not really believe it . the business was incredibly profitable and the proceeds translated into the political power to squelch and discredit any political movements against big tobacco . the tide turned when a former vice - president of one of the companies was convinced by the cbs 60 minutes news team to tell the public how much the tobacco companies really knew about the health effects of smoking . the resulting pressure to stop the story created a small civil war at cbs . who were the major people involved , what were their motives , how was the story almost killed , how did it get aired anyway ? that is the story covered in surprising detail by the insider . this all could have been enthralling , but it is not the sort of thing that a stylist like michael mann would be likely to do well . and in the end , he failed . to make a long story short , the film needed a director who knew how to make a long story short . the film opens with the cbs 60 minutes team in iran with the assignment to interview a terrorist . we get a taste for their personal style and how they get the upper hand . they go from being one newsman blindfolded at the hands of the terrorists to the actual interview with mike wallace ( played by christopher plummer ) . there the news team under producer lowell bergman ( al pacino ) are ordering around the terrorists and getting away with it . this seems to have nothing to do with the main line of the story , but later when the tobacco industry is so much harder to manipulate than committed terrorists , we have a wry irony on who really has clout in the world . terrorists can grab the headlines , but the tobacco companies have the real position of power . incongruously intercut with the iran interview sequence we see jeffrey wigand ( russell crowe ) dejectedly returning from work to his home . we discover that he has been fired and his career brought to a complete halt unexpectedly . he had been a very profitably rewarded vice - president in charge or research and development at brown and williams tobacco ; now he was unemployed and needed money to support his family . rather than support him his wife liane ( diane venora ) demands of him what are they supposed to do for income . meanwhile the 60 minutes team trying to do a story on fires started by cigarettes have obtained some data they do not understand . they offer wigand $ 12 , 000 just to interpret the data . wigand 's severance agreement swears him to secrecy about anything he knows about tobacco dealings , but he is reluctantly he stretches the severance terms . he is willing to read some documents from another tobacco company and interpret them for bergman . in spite of the secrecy , wigand 's former employers seem immediately to know wigand is talking to 60 minutes and he is warned off by former boss thomas sandefur played michael gambon in an all too brief but deliciously sinister role . and so the game begins . wigand is irate at his negative treatment for what he still considered continued to be loyalty to his agreement and his former employer . meanwhile someone is playing very rough with wigand and his family . the film examines wigand and the pressures placed on his family as they are caught between two powerful giants . wigand has always wanted to make tobacco safer and has natural sympathies with getting the story out . he and his family are assaulted psychologically and financially by the giant tobacco industry that had never lost a legal fight . al pacino is given top billing but the wigand family is the core of the insider . the story is told slowly and in just a bit too much meticulous detail . the film is 157 minutes and is an extremely demanding film for the audience . the musical score by pieter bourke , lisa gerrard , and graeme revell is one of the worst in recent memory . it puts ominous chords under some scenes and using voice in ways that become a distraction that gets in the way of the storytelling . also disturbing is the casting of christopher plummer as mike wallace . plummer and wallace are such different types and wallace is too well - known for even so good an actor as plummer to play him convincingly . this film might have been a really engaging experience under another director 's control . michael mann was the wrong person to helm this film and the insider lacks intensity because of his style . i rate it a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .

0NEG

knew too much " by marie brenner . it is too much an adaptation of a magazine article slowed to the pace of a film . it really verges on being tedious at least at times . for years the seven big companies knew that they like michael mann would be likely to do well . and in the end , he failed . to make a long story short , the film needed the wigand family is the core of the insider . the story is told slowly and in just a bit too much meticulous detail . the film is 157 minutes and is an extremely demanding film for the audience . the musical score by pieter bourke , lisa gerrard , and graeme revell is one of the worst in recent memory . it puts ominous chords under some scenes and using voice in ways that become a distraction that gets in the way of the storytelling . also disturbing is the casting of christopher plummer as mike wallace . engaging experience under another director 's control . michael mann was the wrong person to helm this film and the insider lacks intensity because of his style . i rate it a 4 on the 0 to

i should have known , damn it , i should have known . ewan mcgregor - codename : " eye " - is pointing a high - tech rifle - ly gadget at a fat , bald business - oriented american engaging in illicit sexual activities in a window across the street . we get the requisite electro - green through - the - sight view . we the audience , seeing a high tech rifle - ly gadget , of course think that eye is going to assassinate the target , but instead , he pulls the trigger and the rifle takes twenty or so hazy , low - quality photographs , which eye then proceeds to fax and e - mail to everyone in his target 's office . all right , so thirty seconds in , i was slightly befuddled by this seemingly pointless rifle / camera , but i was still open minded . . . maybe there 's a really good reason for it . i 've got reason to believe , you see - i admire a lot of ewan mcgregor 's previous work . . . and he 's obi wan ke- friggin - nobi for god 's sake . and director stephan elliot 's last movie priscilla , queen of the desert was a quirky little delight . there 's some genuine talent involved here . i think at the twenty minute mark , there was still a spark of hope in my heart . eye has been assigned to investigate the leader of his organization 's son ( i still have no idea what this organization was - british intelligence ? national spy ring ? private investigation ? ) , who is apparently stealing from his trust fund . he has received his assignment from k . d . lang , through an elaborate and expensive teleconferencing briefcase . when eye tracks his target to an expensive- looking secluded house , he witnesses a mysterious and beautiful woman ( ashley judd ) take a knife out and proceed to stab the poor bastard . ok , that 's odd , i think to myself , this could be interesting . then she starts to cry , and through her tears exclaims " merry christmas , dad ! " for the first time . so begins our tale of obsession . . . or . . . something . the rest of the movie involves ewan mcgregor 's eye character following ashley judd around to every corner of the united states , totally and completely obsessed by this woman from afar . throughout his entire professional life , he has been a voyeur ; so when he falls for someone , the only way he can handle it is to watch and drool through telescopes and cameras . fine , that 's a lovely premise , i suppose . but gosh darn it , if you 're going to go there , you better have some sort of explanation . and that 's precisely where this film fails . this is the kind of movie that pisses me off . it 's an abortion , a collection of half - formed and wasted ideas that amounts to absolutely nothing in the end . it pretends it is something that it is not - a surreal and deep psychological character study wrapped in a high - tech thriller . here , the filmmakers have confused " surreal " and " deep " with " vaguely unclear " and " crammed full of insultingly obvious metaphors . " i never , even for an instant , had the foggiest idea why eye would fall so in " love " with this woman who changes wigs and kills people . the movie offers only two explanations , neither of which make a lick of sense . explanation number one : the obnoxious presence of eye 's imaginary daughter , who was taken away from him by his wife some time ago , tells him he should n't leave ms . judd . explanation two , which by the end of the film has been beaten into our heads through imagery and dialog and even the title of the movie : " beauty is in the eye of the beholder . " whoo hoo , that helps , thanks a bunch , case closed . that 's as deep as it gets , folks . there is an attempt at an explanation in the final minutes , which , instead of tying everything together , ends up being as profound as a clever sixth - grade mad lib . there are secondary characters that move in and out of the picture and serve little or no purpose except to make the audience wonder what the hell the point was . my personal favorites include : the prison - matron modeled after austin powers ' frau farbissina , who apparently taught ms . judd everything she knows about wearing wigs ; jason priestley 's awfully played dirty desert vagrant # 1 , who tries to emulate dennis hopper a la blue velvet , but fails miserably ; and the cop - who - sees - ashley - fleeing - an - accident - scene - and- then - wants - to - pay - for - sex- but - is - shot . each one in this sad little parade is a little more pointless than the last . the script pays no attention to the laws of time and space . any time one of the frequent location changes occurs , the camera zooms in on a souvenir snow globe , and minutes , weeks , or years could have passed . bewilderingly inane stylistic decisions plague the whole affair - one character passes a glass of cognac to another in a slow - motion close - up awash in a lot of bass . ewan mcgregor at one point takes up residence in a bell tower just so he could be repeatedly awakened and deafened by the giant bell . jason priestly starts philosophizing about sharks , then laughs maniacally . . . cut to random guy with eye patch . . . iguana out of focus . . . iguana comes into focus . wow , man . when i found out afterward that this film was based on a novel , it came as no surprise to me . there are plenty of elements here that , if extended and fleshed out more , would have made for a decent story . and i would n't be surprised if i found out there was an hour and a half of footage cut from this movie lying in a landfill somewhere , or waiting in the wings for the dvd special director 's cut . . . not that anything would ever possess me to purchase such a thing to find out what i was missing . the last ten or so minutes featured a conversation between the eye and the judd that was supposed to be some sort of revealing exposition . some guy in the back of the theater was talking on his cell phone , and this time i did n't particularly care all that much because what was happening on the screen was a steaming pile of unholy crap ; the audience around me chuckled and whispered sentiments similar to what i was thinking . someone near cell - phone - guy did eventually yell , " shut the hell up ! " , but it was a lot funnier when we thought he was talking to the screen .

0NEG

i should have known , damn it , i should have known . ewan mcgregor - codename : " eye " - to investigate the leader of his organization 's son ( i still have no idea what this organization was - british intelligence ? national spy , you better have some sort of explanation . and that 's precisely where this film fails . this is the kind of movie that pisses me off . it 's an abortion , a collection of half - formed and wasted ideas that amounts to absolutely nothing in the end . it pretends it is something that it is not - a surreal and deep psychological character study wrapped in confused " surreal " and " deep " with " vaguely unclear " and " crammed full of insultingly obvious metaphors . " i never , even for an instant , with this woman who changes wigs and kills people . the movie offers only two explanations , neither of which make a lick of sense . explanation number one : the obnoxious presence of eye beauty is in the eye of the beholder . " whoo hoo , that helps , thanks a bunch , case closed . that 's as deep as it gets , folks . there is an attempt at an explanation in the final minutes , which , instead of tying everything together , ends up being as profound as a clever sixth - grade mad lib . there are secondary characters that move in and out of the picture and serve little or no purpose except to make the audience wonder what the hell the point was . my personal favorites include : the prison - matron everything she knows about wearing wigs ; jason priestley 's awfully played dirty desert vagrant # 1 , who tries to emulate dennis hopper a la blue velvet , but fails miserably ; and the cop - who - sees - ashley - for - sex- but - is - shot . each one in this sad little parade is a little more pointless than the last . the script pays no attention to the laws of time and space . any time one of the frequent location changes occurs minutes , weeks , or years could have passed . bewilderingly inane stylistic decisions plague the whole affair - one character passes a glass of cognac to another of the theater was talking on his cell phone , and this time i did n't particularly care all that much because what was happening on the screen was a steaming pile of unholy crap ; the audience around me chuckled and whispered sentiments similar

as bad as " mimic " was , it definitly scared me . " mimic " continued the frightening hollywood trend of taking a foreign director who shows a lot of creative ingenuity and style , and completely flushing it when he comes to america to make a movie . director guillermo del toro was recently imported from mexico after he made the award winning and inventive horror film " cronos . " that movie worked because it took an unconventional story , unique characters and well written plot and dialogue to create a truly scary movie . in " mimic " , del toro does n't bother to give us anything original . the plot is a stupid combination of " aliens " meets " species " meets " jurassic park . " the characters have been recycled from a few hundred other movies . there 's nothing new in " mimic " . it 's just a bunch of old tricks that rarely work . at the end of the movie , you 're stuck wanting your money back . maybe the worst thing about the movie is that del toro followed another annoying trend of recent movies : he forgot to turn the lights on . i do n't understand why suspense movies lately have to follow the " seven " trend and be set in dark , dank areas . watching " mimic " i was tempted several times to yell at the screen " turn the lights on ! the switch is to your right ! use common sense ! just do it ! you 'll be able to see the monster in the corner ! " there 's a scene where mira sorvino is standing in subway station while the lights are flickering on and off . it looked like the light operator was having a seizure , and sorvino did n't even notice - she just stood there looking like she was having deep thoughts . " hmmm . . . . i think bean soup would be good for dinner tonight . " " mimic " has a lot of incidental shock tactics ( boo ! just kidding ! ) and follows them up with the real scare , but nothing in this movie scares you . the audience in the theater never jumped during suspenseful moments ; i think they were bored , too . i should n't blame del toro . he is n't the first successful foreign director to come to hollywood and make a bad movie . hong kong director john woo made two of the best action films of all time , " the killer " and " hard boiled " then came to america to make the stupid " broken arrow . " french directors luc besson ( " la femme nikita " ) and george sluizer ( " the vanishing " ) followed woo 's lead and made dumbed down versions of those movies . robert rodriguez , who directed the terrific low budget " el mariachi " came to hollywood and directed the horrible , high - budget " desperado . " i do n't know why a foreign director who shows such talent in his country ca n't make a good american movie . woo finally broke through and made " face / off " , but it still is n't up to par with his earlier films . i get the feeling a hollywood producer sits in his office , chews on a big smelly cigar and says to the director , " welcome to america ! i bet you must be tired after being on that boat for so long . do you speak english ? now , i know you think you 've made good movies in the past , but now you 're in america , so things are a little different here . just remember what the american audience always wants , and you 'll be fine . they want to see at least one big breasted woman , characters that they 've seen a thousand times before ( because change scares americans ) , and you always need a cheesy feel - good ending to wrap things up . if you do n't make that kind of movie , you 'll be shining my shoes in no time . "

0NEG

scary movie . in " mimic " , del toro does n't bother to give us anything original . the plot is a stupid combination of " aliens " meets " species " meets " jurassic park . " the characters have been recycled from a few hundred other movies . there 's nothing new in " mimic " . it 's just a bunch of old tricks that rarely work . at the end of the movie , you 're stuck wanting your money back . maybe the worst thing about the movie is that del toro followed another annoying trend of recent movies : he forgot to turn the lights on . i and follows them up with the real scare , but nothing in this movie scares you . the audience in the theater never jumped during suspenseful moments ; i think they were bored , too . i should n't blame del toro . he is the first successful foreign director to come to hollywood and make a bad movie . hong kong director john woo made two of the audience always wants , and you 'll be fine . they want to see at least one big breasted woman , characters that they 've seen a thousand times before ( because change scares americans ) , and you always need a cheesy feel - good ending to wrap things up . if you do n't make that kind of movie

darren ( jason biggs ) , wayne ( steve zahn ) , and j . d . ( jack black ) have been best friends since the fifth grade . like the three musketeers , they 've been together through thick and thin . but , when darren meets an attractive , but cold - blooded and manipulative , psychiatrist , judith ( amanda peet ) , the long time friendship is placed in danger . it 's up to wayne and j . d . to rescue their best friend in " saving silverman . " " silverman " has its heart in the right place , but the story , by newcomers hank nelken and greg depaul , is too lightweight to sustain the tale of the battle for darren 's soul . based on their experience of a friend making a major marital mistake , the story is centered on the three , life long amigos . when wayne introduces darren to judith , he does n't realize that he has opened a pandora 's box of disaster for himself and j . d . judith was once in a relationship where her boyfriend was the dominant figure until he died in a kick boxing match . since then , she has sought a new mate - someone she can boss around and mold into her own vision . enter darren silverman . once they realize the magnitude of their error in judgement , wayne and j . d . try everything they can , including threats and bribery , to get judith to free darren . nothing works until the duo come up with a plan - kidnap judith and get darren back together with the girl he called his one and only , pretty sandy perkus ( amanda detmer ) . the only problem here is that sandy is about to take her vows to become a nun . things spiral out of control as judith repeatedly attempts to escape while wayne and j . d . play cupid . the boys even bring their idol , neil diamond , into the picture to help resolve things . thinking about it , this is a real mishmash of contrivance and coincidence that is held together solely by the comedic efforts of steve zahn and jack black . the pair is able to elicit the film 's only laughs with their goofy antics and child - like behavior . they are relegated to providing slapstick guy humor and the two are more than equal to the task . steve zahn has been steadily honing his comedic acting skills and gives some complexity to wayne , the " brains " of the gang . jack black has the big - guy moves of a chris farley , giving j . d . an amusing physical presence . the neat thing is that the two actors are able to get fresh laughs from stale material . the rest of the cast does n't fare as well , though . jason biggs is the straight man of the musketeers and gets very little to do ; though having watched his previous films ( " american pie " and " loser " ) i 'm not sure what attraction biggs actually has . amanda peet is caustic as the manipulative judith . there is no humanity at all to her character as she single - mindedly strives to recreate darren into her mind 's image . she 's a monster that wayne and j . d . must defeat to save their friend . unfortunately , there is no dimension to her character . amanda detmer brings nothing ( or gets nothing ) as darren 's one and only . r . lee ermey , as the psychotic coach , made a bad decision taking this role . tune - meister neil diamond gives a good - natured cameo perf as the boys ' idol and savior . production values are on par with the rest of the film - lackluster and non - involving . director dennis dugan has a track record for broad comedy with films like " big daddy " and " beverly hills ninja , " but falls flat with " saving silverman . " the 2001 movie year has yet to provide us with a " good " film to sink our teeth into . at least , with " saving silverman , " we get a couple of funny perfs from zahn and black . too bad that the rest of the film lacks their level of humor . kick boxing deaths and conflicted nuns are not the makings of a good comedy . i give it a c- .

0NEG

, by newcomers hank nelken and greg depaul , is too lightweight to sustain the tale of the battle for darren 's soul . based on their experience of picture to help resolve things . thinking about it , this is a real mishmash of contrivance and coincidence that is held together solely by the comedic efforts of with their goofy antics and child - like behavior . they are relegated to providing slapstick guy humor and the two are more than equal to the task the two actors are able to get fresh laughs from stale material . the rest of the cast does n't fare as well , though . jason biggs is the straight man of the musketeers sure what attraction biggs actually has . amanda peet is caustic as the manipulative judith . there is no humanity at all to her character as she single - mindedly strives to recreate darren into her mind 's image . she . d . must defeat to save their friend . unfortunately , there is no dimension to her character . amanda detmer brings nothing ( or gets nothing ) as darren 's one and r . lee ermey , as the psychotic coach , made a bad decision taking this role . tune - meister neil diamond gives a good - are on par with the rest of the film - lackluster and non - involving . director dennis dugan has a track record for broad daddy " and " beverly hills ninja , " but falls flat with " saving silverman . " the 2001 movie year a couple of funny perfs from zahn and black . too bad that the rest of the film lacks their level of humor . kick boxing deaths and conflicted nuns are not the makings of a good comedy . i give it a c- .

" an intimate , character - driven drama about a troubled youth at a crossroads in his life , " read the press notes for _ reach_the_rock _ . i 'm not really sure what film that statement is describing because those words bear little resemblance to the slow , completely uninvolving bore i saw -- at least , it certainly does not describe what goes on for most of the film . alessandro nivola plays robin fleming , a troubled , directionless 21-year - old who has a penchant for breaking storefront windows in a small town . police sergeant phil quinn ( william sadler ) takes him in , and what ensues for the first 70 minutes is a tedious series of sneak - outs and sneak - ins where robin slips out of his jail cell , breaks a window , then returns , all without quinn ever noticing . also added to the pointless proceedings is some would - be humorous shenanigans involving quinn 's dimwitted deputy ernie attempting to engage in clandestine patrol car sex with his girlfriend donna ( karen sillas ) . with a half hour ( if even that long ) remaining , director william ryan and writer john hughes ( yes , john hughes of ' 80s youth films and _ home_alone _ ) finally approach something close to a point . turns out robin still pines for his high school sweetheart lise ( brooke langton ) , who has long gone on with her life , and hughes 's main concern at long last reveals itself as a tired " live in the present and for the future " message . most moviegoers , however , will likely be asleep by that time . wide awake , however , is the cast , who individually tackle their showcase dramatic scenes with energy and skill -- thus revealing the _ real _ purpose behind this listless enterprise : to serve as a series of acting exercises . such a glorified workshop may have its rewards for the actors , but it leaves audiences with a booby prize . ( opens october 16 )

0NEG

statement is describing because those words bear little resemblance to the slow , completely uninvolving bore i saw -- at least , it certainly does not , and what ensues for the first 70 minutes is a tedious series of sneak - outs and sneak - ins where robin , then returns , all without quinn ever noticing . also added to the pointless proceedings is some would - be humorous shenanigans involving quinn 's dimwitted deputy ernie attempting to engage in in the present and for the future " message . most moviegoers , however , will likely be asleep by that time . wide awake , however , is the cast , skill -- thus revealing the _ real _ purpose behind this listless enterprise : to serve as a series of acting exercises . such a glorified workshop may have its rewards for the actors , but it leaves audiences with a booby prize . ( opens october 16 )

vampire 's is a rude , chauvinistic movie where women are portrayed as pawns of abuse , present only to pleasure men , feed vampires , readied to be bashed or beaten - till one 's sensibilities is shocked by the low iq and mentality of this regressive movie . to make matters worse , the buffoons that go hunting vampires are all rednecks , and deserve to have their heads bitten off , if not , their bodies carved in half . the dilemma of hating the ' heroes ' as much as the ' villains ' , makes one wish that the ' hand of god ' would suddenly appear and blast both parties into oblivion . james wood portrays jack crow , a man obsessed with killing vampires , whose soul reason for living is based on revenge ( they killed his parents ) , but this is not a good excuse for being more obnoxious than the vampires . as for adam baldwin , he is nothing more than a stooge who is ordered to beat women when the director shouts ' action ' , and the script should have been reworked to avoid much offence against the female sex . as for the claims that the catholic church created ' dracula ' , well that is the second most sacrilegious suggestion , outside the fact that priests and monks bear the brunt of the vampire fury , with enough blood spilt to make the inquisition look tame . an awful movie on all counts , my suggestion is to bring back buffy and bury this group of incompetent , rude vampire slayers .

0NEG

vampire 's is a rude , chauvinistic movie where women are portrayed as pawns of abuse , present only to pleasure men , feed vampires , readied to be bashed or beaten - till one 's sensibilities is shocked by the low iq and mentality of this regressive movie . to make matters worse , the buffoons that go hunting vampires are all rednecks on revenge ( they killed his parents ) , but this is not a good excuse for being more obnoxious than the vampires . as for adam baldwin , he is nothing more than a stooge who is ordered to beat women when the director shouts ' action ' , and the script should have been reworked to avoid much offence against the female sex . as for the claims that catholic church created ' dracula ' , well that is the second most sacrilegious suggestion , outside the fact that priests and monks bear the brunt of the vampire fury , with enough blood spilt to make the inquisition look tame . an awful movie on all counts , my suggestion is to bring back buffy and bury this group of incompetent , rude vampire slayers .

synopsis : blond criminal psychologist sarah chooses to copulate with greasy tony the mysterious puerto rican rather than bearded cliff the wisecracking neighbor upstairs . in the meantime , someone sends sarah rotting flowers , puts her name in the newspaper 's obituary column , and kills her cat . comments : never talk to strangers , a colossal waste of time , moves slower than molasses in winter to arrive at a conclusion which should be obvious to the audience 20 minutes into the film . one would n't think that two genuine movie stars , antonio banderas ( evita ) and rebecca de mornay ( hand that rocks the cradle ) , and the acerbic comic genius dennis miller ( " saturday night live " ) would be involved in such a celluloid backfire as this turkey . not only are they in it , however , but de mornay executive produced it . what was she thinking ? never talk to strangers centers upon sarah , a psychologist examining the ill - tempered max , a murderer soon to stand trial . she receives a sudden visit from her father which elicits flashbacks of some tragedy in her early childhood . two men woo her ; tony the " security consultant " wins her over ( so they have passionate sex replete with cheesy saxophone music ) . a lot of psychobabble is thrown around about multiple personality disorder , but the movie asks its audience not to derive the obvious conclusion between mpd and sarah , and instead offers several male characters as red herrings . 86 minutes , the running time of this cinematic mess , thus , seem like 86 hours . a good chunk of never talk to strangers is spent upon sarah and tony . why would the career - minded , professional sarah feel attracted to the walking steroid with a black hat called tony ? that 's one of the film 's mysteries which are never answered . regardless of motive , de mornay and banderas strip down and have sex several times in what passes for eroticism . they also manage to go out before copulating occasionally -- in one of the stupidest scenes of the film , tony takes sarah to a carnival that 's * right outside * his dingy apartment ( that way , they can hurry back and have sex quickly ) . also , apparently , the weather changes quickly in their locale : they 're at this outdoor carnival one day before having sex ; the next day , they 're out playing in the snow before having sex . the filmmakers attempt to produce a suspenseful plot interspersed with tony and sarah 's " character development . " someone is out to get poor sarah ( though most of the audience should have figured out who before any of this starts ) . rotting flowers , a writeup in the obituary , and a beaten neighbor are just a few of the bad things which happen to her . suspense cliche number one also occurs : whenever someone is stalked in thrillers , by any means , if the stalked has a pet , that pet will die . oftentimes , to even further the cliche , the murdered pet is a cat ( suspense filmmakers , for some reason , just do n't like cats ) . sarah , in never talk to strangers , receives a package and , lo and behold , discovers her mutilated cat within . suspense at its very derivative ! as stated before , never talk to strangers is a poor excuse for a film whose sole purpose seems to be exploiting banderas and de mornay 's bodies as often as possible . comedian dennis miller is completely wasted here ( he 's not given lines that are suitable for his persona ) and does n't even appear all that much . maybe , in a way , he 's lucky for that . early on in the movie , sarah tells tony , after meeting him in a supermarket , that she had been advised to never talk to strangers . allow me to advise that you never watch this stinker .

0NEG

her cat . comments : never talk to strangers , a colossal waste of time , moves slower than molasses in winter to arrive at a conclusion which should be obvious to the audience 20 minutes into the film . one " saturday night live " ) would be involved in such a celluloid backfire as this turkey . not only are they in it , however , but de mornay executive produced it . what was she thinking ? never talk to strangers centers upon sarah , a psychologist " wins her over ( so they have passionate sex replete with cheesy saxophone music ) . a lot of psychobabble is thrown around about multiple personality disorder , but the movie asks its red herrings . 86 minutes , the running time of this cinematic mess , thus , seem like 86 hours . a good they also manage to go out before copulating occasionally -- in one of the stupidest scenes of the film , tony takes sarah to a carnival that 's * few of the bad things which happen to her . suspense cliche number one also occurs : whenever someone is stalked in thrillers , by any means , if the stalked has a pet , that pet will die . oftentimes , to even further the cliche , the murdered pet is a cat ( suspense filmmakers lo and behold , discovers her mutilated cat within . suspense at its very derivative ! as stated before , never talk to strangers is a poor excuse for a film whose sole purpose seems to be exploiting banderas and de bodies as often as possible . comedian dennis miller is completely wasted here ( he 's not given lines that are suitable for she had been advised to never talk to strangers . allow me to advise that you never watch this stinker .

a sensuous romantic comedy , about as appealing as your average lightweight tv sitcom . there is no special ingredient on the menu for what is dished out , its the kind of stuff i 've seen before and was made nauseous by its silly idea of love and what it thinks is funny . the film plans to exploit the beauty and sweetness of its delicious star pen ? lope cruz , who plays a brazilian chef with a magical touch for bringing out the spices in her preparations , the aromas just sensually waft from her cooking pot , but who ca n't get by on looks alone in this transparently predictable story . pen ? lope was wonderful in pedro almod ? var 's " all about my mother , " but here she is so visible in such a stale story , where she can only smile and tease the audience by having us see a constant barrage of cleavage shots as she bends when cooking , that she somehow looks ridiculous , as if she got egg all over her face . the best you can say about her , is that she 's not to blame for this picture being so off . this exploitation of sex film without even delivering nudity or sex , is in my opinion , worst than a raunchy film that delivers what it says it will . the story is all about the love , motion sickness , and cooking ability of isabella ( cruz ) , who is born in bahia , brazil and learns to cook at an early age from her parents ' cook . to cure her motion sickness , her parents tried every remedy , until they went to a spiritualist who prayed to the goddess of the sea for her cure . she is able to control it now as long as she does n't drive a car , ride elevators , follow in dancing , and is the woman on top when making love . in other words , she has to be in control of things . in her small fishing town she falls in love with a handsome macho latin waiter , toninho oliveira ( murilo ben ? cio ) and marries him . they open up a successful restaurant , where she slaves away in the kitchen but he gets all the credit for it , even though he 's a loafer . one night she catches him in bed with another girl and decides to leave for san francisco . we do n't see her in flight , so i ca n't tell how she handled her motion sickness problem -- unless she flew the plane . she visits her friend 's apartment monica ( harold perrineau jr . ) , who is a cross - dresser , blending right into the san francisco scene . to cast away her love for the irresistible toninho , she calls her spiritualist friend and gets her to cast an irreversible spell , freeing her from ever loving him again . her luck changes when a local tv producer cliff ( mark feurerstein ) gets a whiff of her cooking and storms into her cooking class as if were in a spell and presents her with her own live tv cooking show . you can really write the script from here on by yourself . . . as the despondent toninho begins to realize what a good thing he had , but things continue to go bad for him : there is a curse he caused on the fishing in his village , there is no chef to replace his wife , as the restaurant is about to close for good . so he comes to san francisco , figuring he can charm her again . he brings along with him his guitar playing musicians , the ones he used when courting her , when he serenaded her under her window . he sees his wife on tv with monica as her sidekick , the yuppie tv producer chasing after her , and sees that she is no longer charmed by him . when he sneaks on her tv show set and tries to woo her with his musical group and him singing corny love songs to her , the ratings go up and he 's hired as a regular on the show . the show gets so big , that the network honchos come onboard , taking it national . but they want to change the ethnic flavor of the show , get rid of monica because he 's a freak , have isabella cook with tabasco instead of the brazilian peppers she uses , and they change her ethnic dresses to low - cut vanna white type of sexy dresses . cliff , her would - be boyfriend , acts creepy and sides with the network big - shots , even though he loved everything she did . these tv scenes were not only bad stereotype scenes of tv honchos , they were revolting . it was an insult to one 's intelligence . i 'm sure that i 'm not spoiling the ending for anyone , when i tell you that toninho reforms his macho ways and together they cook up a meal that breaks her spell of loving him again . if the film was n't terrible enough , monica and cliff act on their attraction for each other and become lovers . it was so awkwardly done , that it had no sense of truth or humor to it . this film might as well have been made by the same network guys featured in this film , because it does n't look or feel like an almod ? var film , the type of film it aspired to be , but more like a film that was interferred with from above . its more like a futile commercial film that is more annoying than charming and more dull than chic , as it searches for box office heaven .

0NEG

a sensuous romantic comedy , about as appealing as your average lightweight tv sitcom . there is no special ingredient on the menu for what is dished out , its the kind of stuff i 've seen before and was made nauseous by its silly idea of love and what it thinks is funny . the film plans to exploit the beauty and sweetness of its delicious star pen ? who ca n't get by on looks alone in this transparently predictable story . pen ? lope was wonderful in pedro almod ? mother , " but here she is so visible in such a stale story , where she can only smile and tease the audience of cleavage shots as she bends when cooking , that she somehow looks ridiculous , as if she got egg all over her face . the best you can say about her , is presents her with her own live tv cooking show . you can really write the script from here on by yourself . . . as the despondent toninho begins to realize though he loved everything she did . these tv scenes were not only bad stereotype scenes of tv honchos , they were revolting . it was an insult to one 's intelligence . i 'm sure that i 'm not spoiling the meal that breaks her spell of loving him again . if the film was n't terrible enough , monica and cliff act on their attraction for each the type of film it aspired to be , but more like a film that was interferred with from above . its more like a futile commercial film that is more annoying than charming and more dull than chic , as it searches for box office heaven .

let me just start this review off by saying i am a huge fan of professional wrestling and have been for fifteen years . i am not too fond of ted turner 's world championship wrestling , however , and i am even less fond of it now after seeing this ridiculous excuse for a wrestling movie tonight . the plot concerns two losers named gordie boggs ( david arquette , aptly cast as a neandrathal ) and sean dawkins ( scott caan ) who are so obsessed with professional wrestling that they believe everything they see on wcw monday nitro is something more than a flashy show . when they finally get to see their hero , wcw world champion jimmy king ( played by oliver platt . i personally would have gotten a wrestler to play king ) , he ends up getting screwed over by evil promoter titus sinclair ( a wasted palitaliano , in a role originally meant for real - life wcw president eric bischoff before he was fired and rehired six months later , and if anyone reads this who knows bischoff , they will agree with me that the role of sinclair had his name written all over it ) , they embark on a quest to find him and help him get his title back . when they find him , they discover in horror that jimmy king 's real life is nothing like it is on wcw tv . king is a drunken atlanta native rather than an english king . after convincing king that they do n't care that his persona is n't real , gordie and sean sneak him back onto wcw monday nitro , after which sinclair agrees to book him in a main event steel cage match for the wcw title and his job back in las vegas at wcw 's pay - per - view . gee , whiz , there are so many things wrong with this movie , i do n't know where to begin . yes , i do . . . 1 . the characters of gordie and sean show you what eric bischoff , wcw president who thought up this project , thinks of wrestling fans . he thinks of us as idiots who take everything wrestlers do seriously . he actually thinks wrestling fans are dumb enough to believe this is meant to be taken seriously . i got news for you , eric : nobody above the age of four is dumb enough for that , this is 2000 , you know , not 1985 ! i know he 'll probably cover arguments up by saying it is n't meant to be taken seriously but it is , because that 's how big an ego bischoff has . 2 . there was a documentary made in 1998 , wrestling with shadows , that documented the owner of the world wrestling federation , vince mcmahon 's screwing bret " the hitman " hart out of the title . this movie 's storyline is basically a comic rip - off of that plot with the poor man 's wayne and garth thrown in . eric bischoff is trying to make vince mcmahon look bad with the character of titus sinclair , but any wrestling fan knows titus is more like bischoff than mcmahon , and that vince did what he had to do to bret hart . 3 . the movie 's main wrestler , jimmy king , has an english king gimmick and the audience cheered big for him . no wrestling fan actually enjoys characters like that in this day and age , we want bad asses today ! 4 . why make this a comedy , instead of an emotional , rocky - style drama ? i know wrestling is n't a sport , but you can still get behind a guy who struggles as a wrestler and finally makes it in the end . 5 . in the movie , gordie starts up an ill - fated romance with nitro girl sasha ( the lovely rose mcgowan . what she sees in that freak marilyn manson i 'll never understand ) , only to find that she has hospitalized king 's trainer for sinclair . would n't it have been easier to just have them fall in love instead of doing the typical spy - girl - for - the - bad - guy cliche ? i hate that . 6 . last , but certainly not least , there was not one single moment in this movie that i could not predict would happen , nor did i laugh once either . the world wrestling federation should have been the wrestling company to make the movie , for these reasons : 1 . they 're the better promotion . 2 . they have better and younger talent , performers and wrestlers . 3 . they give their fans what they want and do n't treat them like idiots . 4 . they 're winning the ratings and they 're the promotion everybody cares about . 5 . simply put , they could make a movie a hundred times better , and they could do a wrestling movie the right way . the only good thing about this movie was they played outtakes at the end . and if i spoiled it for you , good , i saved you from wasting seven dollars .

0NEG

i am even less fond of it now after seeing this ridiculous excuse for a wrestling movie tonight . the plot concerns two losers named gordie boggs ( david arquette , aptly cast as a neandrathal ) and sean dawkins ( scott caan vegas at wcw 's pay - per - view . gee , whiz , there are so many things wrong with this movie , i do n't know where to begin . yes , i do . . . 1 . the characters of gordie and sean show you " the hitman " hart out of the title . this movie 's storyline is basically a comic rip - off of that plot with the poor man 's wayne and that she has hospitalized king 's trainer for sinclair . would n't it have been easier to just have them fall in love instead of doing the typical spy - girl - for - the - bad - guy cliche ? i hate that . 6 . last , but certainly not least , there was not one single moment in this movie that i could not predict would happen , nor did i laugh once either . the world wrestling federation should have been the wrestling promotion everybody cares about . 5 . simply put , they could make a movie a hundred times better , and they could do a wrestling movie the right and if i spoiled it for you , good , i saved you from wasting seven dollars .

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 did n't change : travelling but not getting anywhere . each time i awoke in a sweat , terrified . you do n'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 do n'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 does n'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 . do n't hesitate . strike now while the iron is cold .

0NEG

battlefield long , boring and just plain stupid battlefield earth a film review by michael redman copyright 2000 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 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 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 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 , 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

hey , i 've got a great idea for a movie ! ok , here it is : we 'll get tim allen to pull angry faces for about two hours or so ! what 's that ? sounds too boring ? ok , how about this then : we still have tim allen pull faces for about two hours , but half of them are angry looks and half of them are " i 'm in pain ! " looks ! what 's that ? that still does n't sound funny to you ? how about if we through in some " ewwwww ! " looks ? still not funny ? if you answered " no , that does n't sound funny " , then ( ding ding ding ! ) you 're absolutely correct ! for richer or poorer is a moronic farce about a rich married couple ( played by tim allen and kirstie alley ) who seek refuge in an amish community after their bumbling accountant ( wayne knight , best know as newman on tv 's " seinfeld " ) gets them in trouble for tax evasion . what ensues is a badly scripted and horribly directed 114 minutes of cinema hell . what makes this all wrong is that nobody seems to have what the film needs . . . namely , talent ! backing up , the married couple is brad and caroline sexton ( allen and alley ) , a popular snobby duo who seem totally in love to everyone else , but in reality are on the brink of divorce . just as their marriage seems to be hanging from it 's final thread , brad discovers that his accountant , bob lachman ( knight ) , has been engaging in illegitimate deals in the sexton 's names . the irs catches on , but since everything points back to the sexton 's and not lachman , there is nothing much to do . . . except run away and join an amish community . first time screenwriters jana howington and steve lukanic give us a couple of chuckle - out - loud moments , and even some decent laughs here and * way * over there , but there is so much to cringe at in this horribly made film that you 'll likely miss the laughs while regurgitating popcorn . alley is absolutely unwatchable , and the chemistry between her and allen is about as believable as my chemistry homework from tenth grade ( which , i inform you , was total b . s . ) . allen and alley are in no way convincing as tycoons , nor are they very convincing as an amish couple ! this entire movie is one bad ill - conceived notion that should have been curtailed from the very beginning ! the amish in this movie are also flimsy and unconvincing . it 's such a trite , stereotypical script that i imagine the actors that were cast ( noticing that they 're all predominantly tv figures ) were probably the only ones they could get ! bryan spicer 's directing does n't help one bit , either . in fact , listing spicer 's filmography ( which includes the first " power rangers " movie and the big screen adaption of mchale 's navy ) is more of an insult than a r ? sum ? ! now that i 've pretty much run for richer or poorer into the ground , i will let you in on the best thing about it . it bumped seven films up a notch on my " worst of " 1997 movie list . that 's right , thanks to this film ranking at number 3 for the year 's worst , six films are now not seemingly as bad , and a smile like yours , previously inhabiting the number ten spot , now does n't have to suffer the ridicule of making my bottom ten list . if you look at it in that respect , for richer or poorer will end up making someone happy after all !

0NEG

hey , i 've got a great idea for a movie ! ok , here it is : we 'll get tim allen to pull angry faces for about two hours or so ! what 's that ? sounds too boring ? ok , how about this then : we still have tim allen pull faces for about two hours , but half of them are angry looks and half of them are " i 'm in pain ! " looks ! what 's that ? that still does n't sound funny to you ? how about if we through in some " ewwwww ! " looks ? still not funny ? if you answered " no , that does n't sound funny " , then ( ding ding ding ! ) you 're absolutely correct ! for richer or poorer is a moronic farce about a rich married couple ( played by tim allen them in trouble for tax evasion . what ensues is a badly scripted and horribly directed 114 minutes of cinema hell . what makes this all wrong is that nobody seems to have what the film needs . laughs here and * way * over there , but there is so much to cringe at in this horribly made film that you 'll likely miss the laughs while regurgitating popcorn . alley is absolutely unwatchable , and the chemistry between her and allen is about as believable as my chemistry homework from tenth grade ( which , i inform you , was total b . s . ) . allen and alley are in no way convincing as tycoons , nor are they very convincing as an amish couple ! this entire movie is one bad ill - conceived notion that should have been curtailed from the very beginning ! the amish in this movie are also flimsy and unconvincing . it 's such a trite , stereotypical script that i imagine the actors that were cast ( noticing only ones they could get ! bryan spicer 's directing does n't help one bit , either . in fact , listing spicer 's filmography ( which that i 've pretty much run for richer or poorer into the ground , i will let you in on the best thing about it . it bumped seven films up a notch on my " worst of " 1997 movie list . that 's right , thanks to this film ranking

even the best comic actor is at the mercy of his or her material , as this subpar submarine comedy proves . down periscope stars kelsey " frasier " grammer as an inept navy captain who is given command of his own ship as part of a corrupt officer 's ( james coburn ) plan to get him out of the navy . like any lame emsemble comedy , the officer assigns him to a group of misfits like the guy who wants to be kicked out , the fat guy who eats all the time , the beautiful woman who does n't belong there ( lauren holly ) , the second - in - command who does everything by the book ( rob schneider ) , the crazy old guy who freaks everyone out ( harry dean stanton ) and so on . then comes the transparent plotline . first grammer has to fix up the delapidated korean war ship the navy has given him , and that comes courtesy a sad sight gag montage that includes a guy with a mop knocking schneider overboard . after the ship is fixed up come the early drills , where everyone seems completely inept , like the electrician who ca n't connect wires so instead lets the current run through himself every time grammer gets on the phone . finally , and this covers the final hour of the movie , grammer has to lead his men ( and holly ) to overcome the other ships in a wargames exercise . and he has to be a clever rebel to do it , in scenes that stretch all levels of believability . first they 're singing " louie louie " like a bunch of drunk sailors to throw the radar of the other ship off , then thirty minutes later , they 're making whale mating noises to throw the radar of the other ship off . the whole while , evil captain coburn is overacting underwater , cursing grammer ( as most people watching the movie probably are too ) . it 's all predictable without any original humor to redeem it . the jokes are right out of " mchale 's navy " and other cut - rate sitcoms of the past . there 's one scene where schneider looks through the ship 's pantry in disgust , holds one food can up and announces , " this expired in 1966 ! " i yelled back at the screen , " so did these jokes . " i watched this movie with the whole family and everyone hated it . my mom was so bored she brought out the coupon book midway through and , around the start of the second hour , i started writing my will . the blame ca n't really be placed on the stars , though . kelsey grammer is good in this , he just does n't have anything to work with . his character is said to have gotten so drunk one night that he had " welcome aboard " tatooed on his penis . grammer probably did something even worse -- got really drunk and agreed to appear in a movie he knew nothing about . same for holley ( save the penis part ) , who is likeable in down periscope just because she 's so gorgeous . as for schneider ( whose character is downright annoying ) , there was nowhere to go but up after surf ninjas , although he 's still in the depths of the comedy ocean after jumping the " snl " ship . my theory is that down periscope is one of those movies that got the green light before the script was even written as a formula comedy ( " okay , it 's police academy in the navy with frasier at the helm and the chick from dumb and dumber . " ) and after everyone was signed on turned into a disaster . judging from the video box , most other movie critics agree with me . the only quote the down periscope copy writers could dig up came from the prevue channel 's jim ferguson . i guess even jeff craig from " 60 second preview " ( who said tank girl " kicks butt ! " without ever seeing it ) did n't like this .

0NEG

at the mercy of his or her material , as this subpar submarine comedy proves . down periscope stars kelsey " frasier " grammer out ( harry dean stanton ) and so on . then comes the transparent plotline . first grammer has to fix up the delapidated korean war ship the navy has given him , and that comes courtesy a sad sight gag montage that includes a guy with a mop knocking schneider overboard has to be a clever rebel to do it , in scenes that stretch all levels of believability . first they 're singing " louie louie " like off . the whole while , evil captain coburn is overacting underwater , cursing grammer ( as most people watching the movie probably are too ) . it 's all predictable without any original humor to redeem it . the jokes are right out of " i watched this movie with the whole family and everyone hated it . my mom was so bored she brought out the coupon book midway through and , around the start of the second hour , i started writing my will . the blame ca n't really be placed on the . kelsey grammer is good in this , he just does n't have anything to work with . his character is said to have gotten so drunk she 's so gorgeous . as for schneider ( whose character is downright annoying ) , there was nowhere to go but up after surf ninjas , although he 's still in the depths of the comedy ocean after jumping the " snl " ship . my theory dumber . " ) and after everyone was signed on turned into a disaster . judging from the video box , most other movie

movies do n't come much more ridiculously titled than " i still know what you did last summer , " but since the movie in question is best described as ridiculous , the title sort of works as a warning . more than a silly - sounding mouthful to blurt out to the ticket vendor , this horror sequel 's moniker also contains a grievous oversight that anyone who saw the original will be able to spot : what " you " did _ last _ summer " you " actually did the summer _ before _ last summer , and since " i " knew about it _ this _ summer as well as _ last _ summer , it 's really illogical to say that " i " _ still _ know what " you " did _ last _ summer . the filmmakers would have at least made sense with the shorter " i still know , " the longer " i still know what you did two summers ago " or the appropriate " stupid people getting hacked to bits . " that last suggestion is the preferable one since the characters in this film do things that are the polar opposite of smart . for example , if your roommate is plagued by terrible nightmares as a result of being stalked and nearly murdered not long ago , would you sneak into her room late at night and hide in the closet , even if it was just to locate and borrow a cute little dress ? probably not , but that 's precisely what college student karla ( pop diva brandy ) does to best friend julie ( jennifer love hewitt ) , resulting in the first in a long line of phony frights . julie , you 'll recall , was one of the sole survivors at the end of 1997 's surprise hit " i know what you did last summer , " after a slasher with a grudge to bear - it 's a _ long _ story - began trying to pick off her , her buddies and various others in their coastal carolina village . in this installment , the plot picks up as karla wins a trip to the bahamas , and julie , yet racked by guilt , decides that maybe a tropical getaway will help ease her mind . yeah , right . their island paradise has room , of course , for one more in the form of the still - alive killer ( muse watson ) from the first film . he sports the same gorton 's fisherman get - up , a heavy hat and rain slicker that mask his identity , but why he 's still trying to stay anonymous is a mystery this movie never solves . . . though i suppose his hook - hand would look funny protruding from the sleeve of a leisure suit . in a sense , that 's the movie 's glaring flaw - everybody knows who the bad guy is , thus evaporating the level of paranoid tension nicely sustained by its prequel . the murders and attempted murders in that film were vivid and scary , but trey callaway 's derivative " i still know " screenplay makes the fisherman just as dumb as his pretty potential victims . when julie lays blissfully unaware in a tanning bed , giving him a perfect chance to wreak vengeance once and for all , what does he do ? he twist - ties the lid shut and cranks up the uv rays - you 'd think he 'd want her gutted now instead of a skin cancer victim later . even prequel " summer " lovers might balk at how little there is here beyond sporadically amusing absurdity and a few neat - o shots of blood flowing from toned teenage flesh . the innovative gallows humor that scribe ( and " scream " wunderkind ) kevin williamson injected into " i know " 's unfolding story is sorely missed , replaced with the grating antics of a white rastafarian cabana boy who smokes weed and tosses off slang like " yo " ; you 'll cheer - not shriek - when he ends up with a pair of hedgetrimmers firmly implanted in his chest . if " i know what you did last summer , " however effective , was just the kind of movie that those subversive " scream " flicks poked fun at , then the deadly " i still know what you did last summer " deserves a full - blown roasting on " mystery science theatre 3000 . "

0NEG

know what you did last summer , " but since the movie in question is best described as ridiculous , the title sort of works as a warning . more than a silly - sounding mouthful to blurt out to the ticket vendor , this horror sequel 's moniker also contains a grievous oversight that anyone who saw the original will be able to . " that last suggestion is the preferable one since the characters in this film do things that are the polar opposite of smart . for example , if your roommate is plagued by sleeve of a leisure suit . in a sense , that 's the movie 's glaring flaw - everybody knows who the bad guy is , thus cancer victim later . even prequel " summer " lovers might balk at how little there is here beyond sporadically amusing absurdity and a few neat - o shots of blood flowing injected into " i know " 's unfolding story is sorely missed , replaced with the grating antics of a white rastafarian " i still know what you did last summer " deserves a full - blown roasting on " mystery science theatre 3000 . "

synopsis : a humorless police officer 's life changes when he befriends a super - smart , super - adorable golden retriever named einstein and a cute , young blond scientist . unfortunately , einstein shares a psychic link with a bigfoot - sized ape - creature trained by the blond scientist to be an unstoppable killing machine , and this rogaine - nightmare is loose and after the dog and the girl . meanwhile , a group of white , chain - smoking , gun - toting nsa agents in sunglasses and business suits tries to kill all the other characters in the movie . comments : watchers reborn , a cheaply made direct - to - video turkey , is the fourth sequel to the first film version of dean koontz 's bestselling novel watchers . technically , this should have been called watchers v , but it seems that this cycle of horror movies , much like many other sequel - crazy film series , has decided to drop the numbers from the titles . ( even the star trek movies dropped the numbers from their titles after star trek vi . ) the makers of watchers reborn probably want to fool unsuspecting video rental customers into thinking this might be a good movie instead of a crappy fifth installment of a film series which should have died a long time ago . this really is n't a good movie . have you ever rented a movie and recieved a sinking feeling about it when you watched the previews preceding the feature presentation ? well , any hope a viewer may have had , perhaps because he is a fan of novelist dean koontz or actor mark hamill , will be dashed by the time he 's seen the trailers tagged on before the beginning of watchers reborn . they 're awful . these commercials cover films like a strange stripper movie called shadow dancer , some weird crap about a dead indian , teens , and wolves , and an " action " movie called detonator starring scott baio . scott baio ! what idiot dreamed this movie up ? after surviving these abysmal trailers , the person finally gets to watch the movie he rented : watchers reborn . " maybe it wo n't be * that * bad " he may say to himself . " perhaps , just perhaps , the bottom - of - the - barrel film fluff advertised before it is greatly misleading . watchers reborn , after all , is based on that cool book dean koontz wrote a decade ago . it stars mark hamill -- luke skywalker himself from that terrific star wars trilogy . lou rawls is even in the mix ! " unfortunately , the force is certainly no longer with mark hamill ( he looks very sick here ) , and this movie shares only basic plot elements with watchers , the book . the latter is really too bad . koontz is a hack writer producing way too many thrillers for his own good , but he is still my favorite hack writer . koontz has a writing style which is succinct and suspenseful . people who read many of his books , however , often complain of repetitive plot devices . it 's definately not a koontz book if there is n't ( 1 ) a psychic , ( 2 ) a super - intelligent dog , or ( 3 ) a psychotic killer who likes ripping out people 's eyeballs . watchers has all three devices , which may explain why it 's arguably the most popular of koontz 's books . the idea behind koontz 's novel , though highly implausible , is very interesting . basically , a biological war machine is created : a smart dog can be released in battle , track down its target , and then relay the target 's position , psychically , to a large creature designed to kill in hand - to - hand combat . silly but kind of neat too . i 'm sorry . i do n't mean to ramble on about matters not directly linked to watchers reborn , the movie . i suppose i just do n't want to talk about the movie itself . this turkey is really cheesy . no one in this movie can act , including mark hamill , and it 's difficult seeing the aged luke skywalker stumble around trying to be the hero . the cheese factor is only increased when he 's involved in an implied sex scene with the blond biologist / geneticist / zoologist / whatever - the - f * * k - she's - supposed - to - be whom he befriends . mercifully , the filmmakers opted not to do nudity . to be honest , the only half - convincing actor in the film is the golden retriever who plays einstein . you know a movie is bad when a dog outacts all of its human counterparts . i find it difficult to relate how laughable the action sequences are in this movie . and the creature ! yes , the creature out after poor einstein is some guy in a furry suit and a mask which poorly imitates the werewolves in the howling . this creature is shot about 500 , 000 times , but it 's okay . the creature has the ability to kill people by swinging his arms around and pushing . oh , he can also rip body parts off , allowing for many scenes of fake hands and arms being thrown around . cheesy gore . that 's another main element of watchers reborn . it has many bloody scenes which are thoroughly unconvincing and only increase the film 's campiness rather than its suspense . ultimately , i gave watchers reborn a star and a half because bad horror / sci - fi film buffs may get a few kicks out of the film 's silliness ( though this film will tax even their patience -- it 's an 83 minute film , but it feels like four hours ) . also , i hate to admit , i have survived far worse than this . anyone who has sat through the christopher lambert and natasha henstridge debacle known as adrenalin : fear the rush will know what i mean . finally , i could n't help but think that watchers reborn would work well as " bot fodder " for the creative folks behind one of my all - time favorite shows , " mystery science theater 3000 . " this thought alone helped me survive watchers reborn with a smile on my face . rated r , watchers reborn contains dozens of blood - spattered bodies and unconvincing gore . it also has violence , obviously . i would n't recommend it for the little kids , but i 'm sure even young teens would make it through this movie okay . instead of watching this film , however , i recommend reading koontz 's book . trust me , it 'll be time much , much better spent .

0NEG

named einstein and a cute , young blond scientist . unfortunately , einstein shares a psychic link with a bigfoot - characters in the movie . comments : watchers reborn , a cheaply made direct - to - video turkey , is the fourth sequel to the first film version into thinking this might be a good movie instead of a crappy fifth installment of a film series which should have died a long time ago . this really is n't a good movie . have you ever rented a movie and recieved a sinking feeling about it when you watched the previews preceding the feature presentation ? trailers tagged on before the beginning of watchers reborn . they 're awful . these commercials cover films like a strange stripper movie called shadow dancer , some weird crap about a dead indian , teens , and wolves , movie called detonator starring scott baio . scott baio ! what idiot dreamed this movie up ? after surviving these abysmal trailers , the person finally gets to watch the movie he say to himself . " perhaps , just perhaps , the bottom - of - the - barrel film fluff advertised before it is greatly misleading . watchers reborn , after all , . lou rawls is even in the mix ! " unfortunately , the force is certainly no longer with mark hamill ( he looks very sick here ) , and this movie shares only basic plot elements with watchers , the book . the latter is really too bad . koontz is a hack writer producing way too many linked to watchers reborn , the movie . i suppose i just do n't want to talk about the movie itself . this turkey is really cheesy . no one in this movie can act , including mark hamill , and it 's difficult seeing luke skywalker stumble around trying to be the hero . the cheese factor is only increased when he 's involved in an implied sex scene with the blond biologist / geneticist / zoologist / whatever - the - f * * k - she's - supposed - to - be whom he befriends . mercifully , the filmmakers opted not to do nudity . to the film is the golden retriever who

you should have heard the old guys in the crowded bathroom following the " odd couple ii " sneak preview . they were as happy a group of men as i 've ever encountered . " what a great movie , " exclaimed one gent at the urinal , " everything was so true ! " " yeah , " laughed a man standing next to him , " i drive as slow as that one guy did . my kids give me holy hell for it ! " " and peeing is a big part of my day , just like with felix , " chuckled another fellow , as he fastened his trousers up around his nipples and prepared to rejoin his wife . if you 're over 60 and in the habit of driving at least 20 miles per hour below the posted speed limit , " neil simon 's the odd couple ii " may be just the film for you . others will likely be less charitable . while " the odd couple ii " is amiable enough , neil simon 's shockingly lazy screenplay feels like a slapped - together tv reunion show , suffering from wheezing situation comedy set - ups and jokes straight out of the borscht - belt . simon , once the toast of broadway , has apparently shifted his sights from the great white way to the neighborhood multiplex in branson , missouri . the contrived story , involving the marriage of their kids , provides the excuse for a reunion between oscar madison and felix unger , who have n't seen each other in 17 years . the former roommates fly into california from their respective homes for the wedding and , quite literally , run into one another at the airport . they take off in a rental car for the ceremony in san molina , get lost and have a series of " wacky " adventures on the road . jack lemmon and walter matthau reprise their roles as felix the neat freak and oscar the slob . while there is an undeniable chemistry between the pair , the impact of their reunion is lessened by the fact that they 've headlined three films together since 1993 : " grumpy old men , " " grumpier old men " and " out to sea . " still , the two veteran actors are fun to watch . matthau , whose magnificently rumpled face looks like a big pile of laundry with eyes , has a field day as oscar , the crown prince of the curmudgeons . lemmon , looking pastier than usual , is fine as the ever- annoying felix , who still punctuates his chronic whining with occasional allergic honks of " phnah ! phnah ! " despite their bickering , the characters have real affection for each other , providing a welcome respite from the non - stop barrage of insults that marked their previous three films together . unfortunately , matthau and lemmon 's charm is n't enough to compensate for simon 's hack script , which would n't pass muster even on a upn sitcom . one contrived situation follows another , lathered with enough stale one- liners to supply a dozen would - be comics on open - mike night at the local comedy club . if someone drags you to this film and you find yourself as bored as i was , try entertaining yourself by counting the product placements . burger king gets one , as does the el pollo loco taco joint , but budget rent - a- car really hits the jackpot . between script references to their business and shots of signs and stickers bearing their company name , i could n't keep count of all the plugs . i did , however , keep track of some of the swearing . i came up with four " god - damns , " three " shitheads " and two " fucks . " the inclusion of those particular profanities seemed odd for a film aimed at an older audience , but the theater full of seniors appeared to have no problem with them , howling like crazy every time the boys let rip with a naughty word . it 's sad that a writer of neil simon 's stature has grown desperate enough to resort to swearing for cheap laughs , but not surprising when you look at what else gets passed off as humor in this tepid exercise . one running gag involves oscar and felix 's inability to remember the name of the town where the wedding is to be held . at one point , the men actually spend 30 seconds just free - associating , riffing off variants of the word " san . " the sequence is so creatively bankrupt that it is simply embarrassing . one of the oldest maxims of film - going is " beware of movies that use the author 's name in the title . " " neil simon 's the odd couple ii " is no exception to the rule . while the production has enough minor pleasures to warrant a tv viewing on some lazy sunday afternoon , it has no business playing in a movie theater . of course , there 's a bathroom full of old guys who would strongly disagree with every word i 've written , and would probably whip my " young - whippersnapper " ass to boot . one thing 's for sure , though . they 'll never catch me in a car chase .

0NEG

couple ii " is amiable enough , neil simon 's shockingly lazy screenplay feels like a slapped - together tv reunion show , suffering from wheezing situation comedy set - ups and jokes straight out of the borscht - belt . simon , once the toast of broadway , has way to the neighborhood multiplex in branson , missouri . the contrived story , involving the marriage of their kids , provides the of insults that marked their previous three films together . unfortunately , matthau and lemmon 's charm is n't enough to compensate for simon 's hack script , which would n't pass muster even on a upn sitcom . one contrived situation follows another , lathered with enough stale one- liners to supply a dozen would - be comics on open - mike night at the local comedy club . if someone drags you to this film and you find yourself as bored as i was , try entertaining yourself by counting the product placements . time the boys let rip with a naughty word . it 's sad that a writer of neil simon 's stature has grown desperate enough to resort to swearing for cheap laughs , but not surprising when you look at what else gets passed off as humor in this tepid exercise . one running gag involves oscar and felix 's inability of the word " san . " the sequence is so creatively bankrupt that it is simply embarrassing . one of the oldest maxims of film - going

the army comedy genre has never turned out a truly good movie ( if you do n't count neil simon 's biloxi blues ) . year after year , more predictably cliched military movies come out -- most recently sgt . bilko -- and none of them ever manage to be anything more than a rehash of the last . i thought stripes would be different . with ivan reitman as director , bill murray as star and harold ramis as co - star and co - screenwriter , it seemed like it would be ghostbusters in the army . instead , it was a bunch of unfunny crap in the army . murray , about as funny and sophisticated here as he was in meatballs , plays a loser cab driver who sees the army as his only chance for success , and convinces his friend ramis to enlist with him . so he does , and we get the obligatory drill sergeant from hell , head - shaving and marching / singing sequences , more mind - numbingly stale here than ever . the characters are even less original , ranging from underachieving slob john candy to incompetent captain john larroquette . all the big name stars in stripes ( and even larroquette ) fall victim to the lame , rehashed material and are never really likeable , murray in particular . he only gets a few decent lines in , although those barely - funny one liners pale in comparison to the hilarious peter venkman character he played three years later in ghostbusters . he was even better in caddyshack , for crying out loud . as with a lot of the late 70 's / early 80 's comedies , stripes is a completely juvenile movie only a child would like but is so sex- obsessed no child should be able to watch it . i 'm sure it seems funny on paper to have candy pay over $ 400 to mud wrestle five beautiful women , but while watching it all that was coming out of my mouth was the admonition " dear god ! " every few seconds . stripes is n't the playful kind of sex comedy , either . most of the time it seems downright misogynistic , as when larroquette uses his telescope to peer into the women 's showers or murray lifts a female m . p . onto the stove and , with an i - know - what - you - like look on his face , says he 's going to give her the " aunt jemima treatment , " which means shoving a spatula under her butt repeatedly . you do n't want to stick around as the scene progresses and he uses an ice cream scoop on her genital region . " i 'm not enjoying this , " the woman protests . my sentiments exactly .

0NEG

do n't count neil simon 's biloxi blues ) . year after year , more predictably cliched military movies come out -- most recently sgt . bilko -- and none of them ever manage to be anything more than a rehash of the last . i thought stripes would be different . with ivan seemed like it would be ghostbusters in the army . instead , it was a bunch of unfunny crap in the army . murray , about as funny and him . so he does , and we get the obligatory drill sergeant from hell , head - shaving and marching / singing sequences , more mind - numbingly stale here than ever . the characters are even less original , ranging from underachieving slob john candy to incompetent captain big name stars in stripes ( and even larroquette ) fall victim to the lame , rehashed material and are never really likeable , murray in particular . he only gets a few 70 's / early 80 's comedies , stripes is a completely juvenile movie only a child would like but is so sex- obsessed no child should be able $ 400 to mud wrestle five beautiful women , but while watching it all that was coming out of my mouth was the admonition " dear god ! " every few seconds . stripes is n't the playful kind of sex comedy , either . most of the time it seems downright misogynistic , as when larroquette uses his telescope to peer into uses an ice cream scoop on her genital region . " i 'm not enjoying this , " the woman protests . my sentiments exactly .

" mercury rising " has numerous flaws , but there is one that really stands out : its central plot device is unnecessary . that 's right . the major aspect of the film , that which is supposed to make it different from other routine government conspiracy / action flicks could be dropped from the beginning , and the movie would turn out exactly the same , if not better . this central device is the fact that a nine - year - old boy is autistic . his name is simon , and an evil government bureaucrat named nicholas kudrow ( alec baldwin ) wants him dead because he unknowingly cracked a supersecret government code slipped into the back of a puzzle magazine by its programmers just to see if someone could beat it . simon is intended to be the heart and soul of the film , and we are supposed to feel for him because he is a poor handicapped child thrown into a violent , unfair world against his will , with only a renegade fbi agent played by bruce willis to protect him . the fact that he is autistic does nothing for the emotional intensity or the plot necessities of " mercury rising . " i suppose the original novel upon which the movie was based did much more with this aspect of simon 's character and his relationship with willis , but here it is lost . miko hughes , the young actor who plays simon , goes through the prescribed motions of being autistic : he walks slowly , drawls his words , kicks and screams when he 's touched , and has a hard time looking at other people . it 's a difficult role for an adult , much less a young child , to play , and unfortunately hughes never convinces us that he is n't playing like he 's autistic . unlike dustin hoffman 's performance in " rain man " or leonardo dicaprio 's in " what 's eating gilbert grape , " we are always painfully aware that hughes is acting . however , unlike " rain man " which used its character 's autism in unique and interesting ways to build a credible and touching story , " mercury rising " could go right about its generic , predictable plot with simon being simply a really smart but really shy kid . hell , he does n't even have to be shy . in fact , the movie might have been more interesting if he had had a more active role , rather than just being carted around under willis ' arm . willis ' character , art jeffries , is a disillusioned fbi agent who has been removed from undercover work and is now doing menial tasks like listening to wiretaps with rookies who are happy to be doing anything . he becomes involved with simon when he is called to check out a murder scene at simon 's house , where his father has apparently shot his mother in the back and then committed suicide . of course , we know that is n't the way it happened happen because we saw an evil , square - jawed government hitman with a mean - looking crew - cut knock off the parents . simon was able to get away , and jeffries finds him hiding in a secret compartment in a closet , which the rest of the chicago police department had overlooked . jeffries -- who is accused by several characters at different times of being paranoid although his actions never suggest it -- knows there is something more , and he makes it his personal mission to go against everything and everyone in order to protect simon . this is quite a task because that same hitman who knocked off simon 's parents is crawling everywhere , attempting to kill simon at the hospital , on the highway , and every other place he goes . late in the movie , jeffries is forced to enlist the aid of a pretty young woman named stacey ( kim dickens ) who he meets at a coffee shop . of all the hard - to - believe aspects of the movie , this is the worst . i can believe in the decency of the human heart , but stacey 's character is far too accommodating . not only does she agree to watch simon while jeffries runs off to solve the mystery , she lets him into her apartment at two o'clock in the morning when she knows the police is after him , and then lets him leave simon in her apartment which means that she has to forgo a business trip that is desperately needed to pay the rent . the grinding squeals of the rusty plot machine are almost overbearing at this point . the movie might have been redeemed by some good action sequences , but even here " mercury rising " does n't rise to the challenge . the movie was directed by harold becker , who has made some good suspense films including " sea of love " ( 1989 ) and " malice " ( 1993 ) , but his talent is nowhere to be found in this latest excursion . there is one fight on a streetcar between jeffries and another hitman ( played by peter stormare ) that is so ineptly directed , shot and edited , that i had no idea 1 ) exactly where they were on the streetcar , 2 ) who was hitting who , and 3 ) where this hitman came from and how he knew where jeffries and simon were . the grand finale takes place on the roof of a tall building , and features a harrowing ( yawn ) scene where simon walks along the very edge of the building , not because he has to , but because it 's more suspenseful that way . taken as a whole , " mercury rising " is an tepid , confused movie that lacks style , wit , and any traces of a sense of humor . usually willis brings his personal brand of understated humor to his roles , but here he is too straight and serious . this is because the movie wants to be an action flick and a heartfelt drama at the same time , but it ends up failing on both fronts . maybe the book was better , but the way it 's handled here is a perfect case study in formula filmmaking guaranteed to bore .

0NEG

" mercury rising " has numerous flaws , but there is one that really stands out : its central plot device is unnecessary . that 's right . the major aspect of the much less a young child , to play , and unfortunately hughes never convinces us that he is n't playing like he 's autistic . 's in " what 's eating gilbert grape , " we are always painfully aware that hughes is acting . however , unlike " rain story , " mercury rising " could go right about its generic , predictable plot with simon being simply a really smart but really shy dickens ) who he meets at a coffee shop . of all the hard - to - believe aspects of the movie , this is the worst . i can believe in the decency of the human trip that is desperately needed to pay the rent . the grinding squeals of the rusty plot machine are almost overbearing at this point . the movie might have been redeemed by some good ) and " malice " ( 1993 ) , but his talent is nowhere to be found in this latest excursion . there is one fight on a streetcar between jeffries another hitman ( played by peter stormare ) that is so ineptly directed , shot and edited , that i had no idea 1 ) exactly where roof of a tall building , and features a harrowing ( yawn ) scene where simon walks along the very edge of the taken as a whole , " mercury rising " is an tepid , confused movie that lacks style , wit , and any traces of a sense of humor . usually willis brings his personal brand of understated humor a heartfelt drama at the same time , but it ends up failing on both fronts . maybe the book was better , it 's handled here is a perfect case study in formula filmmaking guaranteed to bore .

i have never been a " star trek " fan , and , to tell the truth , out of the five films in the series that i have seen ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 8 , 9 ) , i have disliked all of them . i do , however , always go into one of these with an open mind , and the ninth film in the series , " star trek : insurrection , " is no exception . dropping almost completely the hard - core sci - fi element of the previous one in the series , " first contact , " " insurrection , " tells the story of a planet that holds only 600 people , known as the ba'ku , as well as the fountain of youth . at the start of the picture , the villagers go under attack by a second alien species , known as the son'a , who want to push all of the ba'ku out so that their own race will not die out . also attacking the ba'ku is data ( brent spiner ) , a robot from the star trek enterprise . after returning to jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the gang on their space ship , no one can understand why data was somehow taken over by another force . so several of the star trek members travel down to the planet of the ba'ku , where picard meets up and starts to fall in love with one of the inhabitants , a sultry , kind alien woman ( donna murphy ) , who is over six - hundred - years - old , but looks to only be in her thirties . " star trek : insurrection , " is a completely unoriginal and cheap - looking installment in the series , and is a big step down from , 1996 's " first contact , " which at least appeared to try to make something a bit different . in , " insurrection , " however , it plays like a low - rent episode of the television show , due to the small - scale , generic storyline , and an emphasis on one - liners rather than excitement . the film was filled with nearly non - stop comedy , and worse yet , most of it fell flatter than a cartoon character that drops off a cliff . meanwhile , when there were action sequences , they were not at all interesting or inventive , relying on that old reliable ticking timer that counts down very , very slowly . this plot device , which is seen in just about every action film made nowadays , is getting old fast . are filmmakers so bankrupt of ingenuity and ideas that they must always have a timer ticking away during the climax ? another element of , " star trek , " films in general is that picard seems to always have to have a love interest , but then she always miraculously disappears when the next film is made two or three years later . although donna murphy , who falls victim to this thankless love interest role here , is actually one of the few characters that we get to know in the 103-minute running time , alfre woodard was far superior in , " first contact . " she should have returned for this one , but i do n't blame her for not wanting to waste her time with this movie 's disappointing and often lifeless screenplay , by michael piller . " star trek : insurrection , " is perhaps the weakest film in the " star trek , " series , although i have not seen what is widely considered the worst , " star trek v : the final frontier . " " insurrection , " is the type of " safe " sequel that will bewilder non - fans , since it is so low - tech compared to most of today 's blockbuster action films ( although most of these are honestly not very good , either ) , and should disappoint the loyal trekkies , since it could have easily been better if the makers had realized that the screenplay needed to go through a few more drafts . on second thought , they probably should have completely thrown the script out . that way , they could have come up with a story that at least had a sign of intelligence and freshness .

0NEG

thirties . " star trek : insurrection , " is a completely unoriginal and cheap - looking installment in the series , and is a big step down from , 1996 's " first contact , " which different . in , " insurrection , " however , it plays like a low - rent episode of the television show , due to the small - scale , generic storyline , and an emphasis on one - liners rather than excitement . the film was filled with nearly non - stop comedy , and worse yet , most of it fell flatter than a cartoon character that drops off a cliff . meanwhile , when there were action sequences , they were not at all interesting or inventive , relying on that old reliable ticking timer that counts down very , very slowly . this plot device , which is seen in just about every action film made nowadays , is getting old fast . are filmmakers so bankrupt of ingenuity and ideas that they must always have a timer ticking away during or three years later . although donna murphy , who falls victim to this thankless love interest role here , is actually one of the , but i do n't blame her for not wanting to waste her time with this movie 's disappointing and often lifeless screenplay , by michael piller . " star trek : insurrection " is the type of " safe " sequel that will bewilder non - fans , since it is so low - tech compared to most of today 's blockbuster action films ( are honestly not very good , either ) , and should disappoint the loyal trekkies , since it could have easily been through a few more drafts . on second thought , they probably should have completely thrown the script out . that way , they could have come up with

while the summer movie season approached its long awaited cessation , we had yet another shoddy , subordinate disposable celluloid superhero movie brought on by the inexorable hasten from the major studios to please kids with everything they think kids will go for to disburse their seven bucks . and , once again , we have one of the worst films of the year . the trend of the moment-- and bear in mind it 's a trend not a movie - is spawn , and if you 've seen the animated series on hbo you 'll recall it embodies the lost life of a disfigured man , an individual who has transpired the ultimate punishment : he 's been sent to hell . todd mcfarlane , the creator of the spawn comic book , must have had a tough time sitting through spawn , for his creativity and themes about resurrection and loss of identity were all being jettisoned in favor of reliable special effects , style over substance , ambience over anything else . not only does spawn rely entirely on special effects , the story , about a bewildered individual who must take on a group of * bad guys * and * find himself * in the process is realized in such a sordid , incapable manner , it becomes indigestible after a while . every character in this film is lifeless , vacuous and seemingly written by a depressed college student . the story begins , like in every superhero movie in this age , with a man living an idyllic life . al simmons ( michael jai white ) , a government agent / assassin shares the love of his wife , wanda ( theresa russell ) and daughter , has a tongue - in - cheek , wiseass partner , terry ( d . b sweeney ) and is content with the job his boss , jason wynn ( martin sheen ) , provides him . the next element in the film is the part when things go awry . and as expected , everyone turns the tables on poor al . as the two are investigating their latest mission at some sort of biological weapons plant , al is befriended by jason , and dies in a gory and truly sickening scene . inevitably , it leads everyone to the conclusion that he has passed away . hence , jason 's mischievous master - mind plan , to ` conquer the world " is just commencing its initial stages , when al makes a pact with satan himself , agreeing to command the devil 's army to take over the world and he gets to see his family again . so , our pal al has been uplifted to hell , and while his transformation from normal guy to spawn takes place , his ol' partner terry forms a relationship with his wife . time passes . and now spawn is present in the grotesque inner city , the ghetto where cog ( nicol williamson ) teaches spawn how to utilize his neat artifacts , his motorbike , armor , etc . . . this character is merely a poor man 's obi wan kenobi without all the mythological hoopla . now the stage is set spawn , the new ` enemy of evil ' vs evil . and evil takes the cake , doubtlessly . john leguizamo 's deliciously heinous performance as the injurious clown working for wynn is the film 's relief point . all this anguish , pain , half - baked themes and putrid action scenes are invisible to leguizamo , who steals the show and derives joy from his character , which is basically a compilation of so - so one liners . and then there 's martin sheen . whichever way you look you will find carving boards near his pitying and downright appalling last two years . his selections calls for an immediate firing of his agent . as the megalomaniac boss , his caricature plays like a bad dream out of a b - movie , scrambled , and left in the shelf to rot . this is the man that starred in films such as apocalypse now and wall street . i 'd never thought i 'd be saying this , but at this juncture , charlie sheen 's career is in better shape . spawn is a movie in which realism , or even an attempt to draw a parallel between the problems of the hero and real life is identifiable . for most of the film the vapid michael jai white consumes his time ogling , jumping through roofs , and performing all kinds of acrobatic exercises which even batman and robin accomplished better . it constantly reminded us we were watching a superhero movie-- a very bad superhero movie . continually the film kept on depending on special effects , and sadly , this is how pictures are being made . perhaps no other movie better than spawn illustrates the deterioration of cinema through computer wizardry . the filmmakers seem to have forgotten every human element possible . the quality of this film is abysmal and insulting . it is perceptible that director mark dippe , attempted to touch the psychological chord that tim burton 's batman did touch , the desperation of a man whose life has all but evaporated in one spontaneous act . but bruce wayne had human elements to him . he was pensive , resourceful and had relationships , which made our perspective on him equally human . the character of al simmons seems to be longing for a drastic change , as if he 's fatigued about being normal . and as all superheroes , batman , superman , the phantom , they must possess an element of normal civilians to make us think they are extraordinary . none of this is present in spawn . the fighting sequences are weakly executed , the dialogue is penny - dreadful and the art direction an odious duplicate of blade runner 's . as an example of this film 's vastly creative imagination the writers of spawn decided to include a poor orphan boy who is abandoned and beaten , and then rescued by spawn , so our emotions tend to be a little more sympathetic . admittedly , i did laugh once in the film , and that 's when todd mcfarlane showed up in an unexpected cameo as a bum . it is no wonder why so american children grow up with no engrossment for art or literature . besides blaming a large portion of it on the laughable school system , i condemn the other part to garbage like spawn . movies that present no admiration , no captivation , no richness and vague interest in what children are being subjected to . and kids will continue to see films like spawn , simply because they are unable to differentiate what makes an imaginative , wondrous film from an insipid and wasteful one . children are not muppets . and spawn unapologetically targets children .

0NEG

movie season approached its long awaited cessation , we had yet another shoddy , subordinate disposable celluloid superhero movie brought on by the inexorable hasten from the major studios to please kids with everything they seven bucks . and , once again , we have one of the worst films of the year . the trend of the moment-- and bear in mind guys * and * find himself * in the process is realized in such a sordid , incapable manner , it becomes indigestible after a while . every character in this film is lifeless , vacuous and seemingly written by a depressed college student . the story begins , like in every superhero movie , his motorbike , armor , etc . . . this character is merely a poor man 's obi wan kenobi without all the mythological hoopla . now the stage is set spawn , the new working for wynn is the film 's relief point . all this anguish , pain , half - baked themes and putrid action scenes are invisible to leguizamo , who steals the show and derives joy from his character , which is basically a compilation of so - so one liners . and then there 's martin sheen . whichever way it constantly reminded us we were watching a superhero movie-- a very bad superhero movie . continually the film kept on depending on special effects , and sadly , this is how pictures are being made . perhaps no other movie better than spawn illustrates the deterioration of cinema through computer wizardry . the filmmakers seem to have forgotten every human element possible . the quality of this film is abysmal and insulting . it is perceptible that director mark dippe , attempted this is present in spawn . the fighting sequences are weakly executed , the dialogue is penny - dreadful and the art direction an odious duplicate of blade runner 's . as an example of this laughable school system , i condemn the other part to garbage like spawn . movies that present no admiration , no captivation , no richness and vague interest in what children are being subjected to . and kids to differentiate what makes an imaginative , wondrous film from an insipid and wasteful one . children are not muppets . and spawn unapologetically targets

it 's not a bad thing to update old stories . it 's done all the time in the oral tradition . the difficulty with this film is not that the tale has changed , it 's that it 's dry . the new cinderella , danielle ( drew barrymore ) is not sitting around waiting for her prince to come . she 's a woman of the late twentieth century albeit situated in sixteenth century france . when her father dies , she stays on in his house even though she is mistreated by her wicked stepmother rodmilla ( anjelica huston ) . she works by day , but reads sir thomas more by firelight at night . although the story is updated , you know the plot . danielle meets prince henry ( dougray scott ) , goes to a ball disguised , is later found out and they live happily ever after . the movie is often like watching a filmed play . theater in real life is engrossing . theater on the screen is usually lifeless . there does n't seem to be much going on . the camera can be a star of films . here it 's a co - conspirator . danielle 's convictions are compromised . a socialist and a feminist , she pretends to be royalty to get her man . a kind woman , her last act in the movie is one of revenge . the most enjoyable characters are the most cartoonish . the fairy godmother stand - in , leonardo da vinci ( patrick godfrey ) is fun to watch as the eccentric old man who advises danielle . huston is enjoyable in her over - the - top wickedness . in all fairness , my companion loved the film . maybe it 's one of those " chick flicks " that men do n't like . it is certainly a date film . nearly the entire audience was couples . oh well , maybe it 's good for something .

0NEG

later found out and they live happily ever after . the movie is often like watching a filmed play . theater in real life is engrossing . theater on the screen is usually lifeless . there does n't seem to be much going on . the camera can be a star of films . here it 's a co - conspirator . danielle 's convictions are compromised . a socialist and

i suppose it 's unfair to criticize a movie like hudson hawk , which has been panned by reviewers and moviegoers alike since it 's 1991 release . michael lehmann 's action - comedy was quick to win the title ` biggest box office flop of all time ' , or close thereof . the movie stars bruce willis as renowned cat burglar hudson hawk , who 's just been released from sing sing prison after many years in isolation ( ` let me put it this way , ' he explains , ` i never saw et ' ) . greeting him is his old friend and partner in crime ( played by danny aiello ) , who becomes the subject of many amusing fat jokes . these are rather welcome in a movie filled with so many completely unfunny sight gags , cartoonish villains and unbelievable coincidences . it appears as if director lehmann did n't know when to stop all the absurd silliness , and he piles on layer after layer of utter ridiculousness as the movie propels itself toward the finish line . if at some point during hudson hawk you make the assumption that things could n't get goofier , you 'll soon be eating your words . but , i 'm inclined to say that this film is not quite as terrible as it 's box office numbers suggest . it 's fast - paced and entertaining , if you 've got incredible patience and a warped sense of humor . for the first portion of this review , i 'm going to try and center on the positive aspects of hudson hawk . wish me luck . first and foremost : bruce willis is a good sport . while i 'm not entirely sure what he was smoking when he co - wrote this script , willis is quite aware that the entire project is a big , fat , ugly joke . he constantly gives deadpan reactions to things that are very silly and out - of - place , which means he has more than his share of deadpan reactions . another plus is the appearance of andie macdowell as a schizophrenic nun and love interest for the title character . they meet when hudson goes on a mission to steal a priceless book from the vatican , and their relationship escalates in interest from there . it 's unfortunate that mcdowell 's one - note character is used just as an excuse for there to be a predictable plot - twist , and she offers absolutely no encouraging chemistry with willis . but now i 'm rambling on again about the negative things , are n't i ? enough of the charade - for the most part , hudson hawk is an excruciating experience . it 's stupid , pointless and repetitive . i can only wonder what bruce willis fans thought after exiting the theater , because this film really does n't have the potential to please anyone . action fans should take note that hudson hawk is composed of 90 % comedy , and even the action sequences are skittery , rushed and poorly edited . and those expecting a hearty laugh or two will find it difficult even to smirk during all of the headache - inducing hi - jinks . do n't get me wrong , this film is not devoid of laughs . it 's too bad most of them are unintentional , or just plain forced . the impressive cast looks suitably embarrassed . it 's understandable to see willis and aiello in a movie of this caliber , but as for the presence of future academy award winner james coburn i 'm not entirely sure . coburn plays a former nemesis of the hawk who again comes into play , and he looks unsure of his place the entire movie . especially when he resorts to martial arts during the final showdown , and has a fight with willis that would look right at home in a jackie chan film . things get more bizarre when we 're introduced to his team of rejects named after chocolate bars , including future nypd blue star david caruso as the speechless , card - flipping kit - kat . if that 's not enough for you , there 's richard e . grant and sandra bernhard hamming it up as a deranged couple on the brink of a convoluted economic takeover . their crotch - biting pooch provides a couple of the big laughs here . wait , maybe the only big laughs . . . i 'm not sure what kind of movie everyone had in mind when filming hudson hawk . i ca n't even begin to start about the film 's absurd plot ; but let 's not get into that . i suppose there 's some amusement viewers could derive from the ridiculous premise , if they were that desperate . but hudson hawk never even has a clue of where it 's going from minute one , and from there it 's 90 minutes of pure cinematic muck .

0NEG

unfair to criticize a movie like hudson hawk , which has been panned by reviewers and moviegoers alike since it 's 1991 release . michael lehmann 's action fat jokes . these are rather welcome in a movie filled with so many completely unfunny sight gags , cartoonish villains and unbelievable coincidences . it appears as if director lehmann did n't know when to stop all the absurd silliness , and he piles on layer after layer of utter ridiculousness as the movie propels itself toward the finish line . a good sport . while i 'm not entirely sure what he was smoking when he co - wrote this script , willis is quite aware that the entire project is a big , fat , ugly joke . he constantly gives deadpan reactions to things that are , and their relationship escalates in interest from there . it 's unfortunate that mcdowell 's one - note character is used just as an excuse for there to be a predictable plot - twist , and she offers absolutely no encouraging chemistry with willis . but now i 'm rambling on again charade - for the most part , hudson hawk is an excruciating experience . it 's stupid , pointless and repetitive . i can only wonder what bruce willis fans thought after exiting the theater , because this film really does n't have the potential to please anyone . action fans should take note that hudson hawk is 90 % comedy , and even the action sequences are skittery , rushed and poorly edited . and those expecting a hearty laugh or two will find it difficult even to smirk during all of the headache - inducing hi - jinks . do n't get me wrong , this film is not devoid of laughs . it 's too bad most of them are unintentional , or just plain forced . the impressive cast looks suitably embarrassed . it 's understandable to see willis and aiello in movie everyone had in mind when filming hudson hawk . i ca n't even begin to start about the film 's absurd plot ; but let 's not get into that . i suppose there 's some amusement viewers could derive from the ridiculous premise , if they were that desperate . but hudson hawk one , and from there it 's 90 minutes of pure cinematic muck .

if there were a subject just screaming to be made into a film , it was studio 54 , the late steve rubell 's infamous new york discotheque , which came to symbolize the taboo - smashing excesses of the disco era 's heyday : easy drugs and even easier sex between everyone , all set to a thumping dance beat . so when miramax started production on _ 54 _ last year , the buzz of hype and resulting anticipation began : an edgy film as down - and - dirty as the club itself , written and directed by a promising first - timer ( mark christopher ) and starring some hot young talent ( salma hayek , neve campbell , newcomer ryan phillippe , and mike myers in his dramatic debut ) . my , how easily does the worm turn . hype turned into damage control when word got out about 11th - hour reshoots ( wrapped only a month ago ) , a rash of studio - imposed edits that left virtually the entire cast and crew ( especially christopher ) unhappy , and the very likely possibility that miramax would not screen the finished film for critics . at the last minute , though , miramax did decide to screen the film ( so hastily scheduled was the screening that myers 's last name was misspelled on the invitation , not to mention the numerous typos in the press notes ) for a media audience that came away noticeably less than impressed , myself included . and with good reason -- somehow , some way , the supremely disappointing _ 54 _ has made the historically hip haven of hedonism . . . boring . although christopher has distanced himself from the finished film , he still must shoulder some of the blame for _ 54 _ 's lifelessness . _ 54 _ focuses , for the most part , on a tight - knit trio of employees at the club : coat check girl / aspiring disco diva anita ( a wasted hayek ) ; her busboy husband , greg ( breckin meyer ) ; and , most prominently , the fresh - from - jersey shane o'shea ( phillippe ) , who enjoys a quick rise from busboy to head bartender . these characters are about as generic as those descriptions . in focusing on the hired help , christopher really missed the boat . with the exception of the flamboyant , always - woozy rubell ( myers , in a well - modulated turn ) , the meaty stories to be told at studio 54 are not the workers ' but those of the people who went there to party ; not necessarily the numerous vip guests , but the wild eccentrics who managed to be picked from the crowd by the club 's famously hard - ass doormen and dance ( among other things ) the night away with the rich , famous , and infamous ( the only taste of the crowd comes by way of ellen dow 's feisty dottie , a disco- and drug - crazed granny , but she 's a peripheral character at best ) . as such , aside from the expected overhead crowd shots , there is precious little actual _ dancing _ in _ 54 _ . what is a disco film -- especially one about the pinnacle of the movement -- without the dancing ? even whit stillman 's _ the_last_days_of_disco _ , which was n't so much concerned with disco as it was witty dialogue within a group of hip - to - only - themselves club - hopping preppies , featured at least one extended dance scene . dancing is n't the only thing glazed over in _ 54_--so is the sex , but that may not be entirely christopher 's fault . from what i 've heard , his original vision was something considerably more dark and daring , starting with the shane character : he was conceived ( and actually filmed ) as a wild , morally ambiguous bisexual , which would have made an efficient springboard to cover the pansexual pleasure palace aspect of studio 54 's legend . but somewhere between principal photography and the final cut , shane was defanged and quite literally straightened out ; consequently , so was the film . aside from a brief glimpse of erotic encounters toward the beginning of the film , shane 's fleeting dalliance with seductive socialite billie ( sela ward ) , and an abbreviated bedhopping montage , the sexual dimension is just about ignored . shane , in this incarnation , is sanitized to the point of blandness , an idealistic do - gooder who pines for a frequent guest at the club , julie black ( campbell ) , a worldly soap star with , yes , a heart of gold . this tacked - on " romance " would have been slightly less tedious if either campbell or phillippe made some connection with each other or the audience . they fail on both counts . ultimately , _ 54 _ 's failure comes down to three letters : f - u - n . as in , there is n't any to be had for the audience . too much time is spent with the boring shane , and too little is spent on the club floor , where all the action took place . anyhow , though , whatever time is spent on the 54 floor is not used very effectively . when anita finally gets her big break and perform onstage at the club , it should be a euphoric height , for her , the crowd , and the audience ; however , the moment does n't get a chance to reach that level , for it is cut short by a moment of forced sentimentality , which also mars the film 's conclusion ( one of the last - minute reshoots ) . strangely upbeat and wistful , the resolution is wholly unconvincing and unsatisfying . there is an interesting portrait of studio 54 out there -- two of them , in fact -- but _ 54 _ is not one of them . they 're on cable tv : a couple of documentaries produced by e ! and vh1 . these two fascinating looks at the club and all the sordid goings - on within it show that there 's still a great disco movie to be made . the problem is , after the critical and certain box office failure of _ 54 _ , the subject may have run its hollywood course .

0NEG

. my , how easily does the worm turn . hype turned into damage control when word got out about 11th - hour reshoots ( wrapped only a month ago ) , a rash of studio - imposed edits that left virtually the entire cast and crew ( especially christopher ) unhappy , and the very likely possibility that miramax would not in the press notes ) for a media audience that came away noticeably less than impressed , myself included . and with good reason -- somehow , some way , the supremely disappointing _ 54 _ has made the historically hip haven of hedonism . . . boring . although christopher has distanced himself from the finished film , he still must shoulder some of the blame for _ 54 _ 's lifelessness . _ 54 _ focuses , for the most part coat check girl / aspiring disco diva anita ( a wasted hayek ) ; her busboy husband , greg ( breckin rise from busboy to head bartender . these characters are about as generic as those descriptions . in focusing on the hired help , christopher really , and an abbreviated bedhopping montage , the sexual dimension is just about ignored . shane , in this incarnation , is sanitized to the point of blandness , an idealistic do - gooder who pines for a made some connection with each other or the audience . they fail on both counts . ultimately , _ 54 _ 's failure comes down is n't any to be had for the audience . too much time is spent with the boring shane , and too little is spent on the club , whatever time is spent on the 54 floor is not used very effectively . when anita finally gets her big break and perform reach that level , for it is cut short by a moment of forced sentimentality , which also mars the film 's conclusion ( one of the last - minute reshoots ) . strangely upbeat and wistful , the resolution is wholly unconvincing and unsatisfying . there is an interesting portrait of studio 54 out

a hotshot lawyer gets an obviously guilty child molester acquitted , and shortly after during the victory celebration gets offered an opportunity to show his prowess in new york city . the lawyer , kevin lomax ( keanu reeves ) is not offered a job yet , he is asked to simply pick a jury . he accepts . the jury he selects work out well and before long he is offered a job with the firm . making his decision easy is the fact that not only is he offered big money , but a gorgeous apartment . he convinces his wife , mary ann ( charlize theron ) to make the move to new york . the first case given to him is a big test ; a " winless " case concerning a man who sacrifices animals in his basement . the charge was health code violations and kevin once again shows his skill and earns an acquittal . his new boss and partner in the firm , john milton ( al pacino ) is quite impressed and takes kevin under his wing , explaining many of his philosophies on law , women and sex , and angles the promise of a blissful , wealthy life . kevin 's next case is a dream case , given to him by milton himself ( much to the chagrin to his colleagues ) , defending a triple murder suspect who has had a history of problems with the law . although kevin 's career is taking off , his home life is not doing very well . mary ann is starting to have numerous problems . she is experiencing severe depression over kevin 's long hours , and before long is having horrible dreams and hallucinations of people turning into ghouls , their faces becoming horribly disfigured . kevin does not help matters by dismissing his wife . he does not spend more time with her as he explains to milton that he needs to spend as much time on the case as possible to get it over with , then focus all of his attention on his wife . not helping matters is the fact that kevin is having ideas about a possible affair with a sexy lawyer ( connie nielson ) also working with the firm . mary ann falls deeper into her madness as kevin spends more time away from home . kevin eventually looses control of his life and has to institutionalize his wife , and gets disturbing news from his mother ( judith ivey ) about the mystery concerning the identity of his father . he also starts to lose control of his case . kevin learns that all of his problems have been caused by the work of one man . that man is his boss , mr . milton , a truly evil character who just may be the devil himself . kevin must somehow confront milton and thwart whatever diabolical plan he has in store . but how do you defeat the devil ? why is it that most courtroom scenes in the movies are absurd ? do filmmakers really believe that " normal " courtroom drama does n't fit the bill and they have to juice them up ? the courtroom scenes in this movie would never happen in a real courtroom , which would n't have been too bad if it were n't keanu reeves trying to pull it off . i give reeves credit for trying hard , but throughout the movie i never saw the kevin lomax character , just an actor trying very hard to play kevin lomax and coming up short . charlize theron defines the term " over - the - top " in her performance as mary ann lomax , a disappointment in contrast to her good performance in " 2 days in the valley " . the only good performance in the movie is by al pacino , but i kept asking myself what the heck he was doing in this mess ? maybe he felt it would be interesting playing the devil , and you can tell he is having fun doing so , but his skill as an actor can not save the poor performances and lackluster script that surround him . it 's pretty standard stuff , including the fact that the hotshot lawyer appears to be the only competent person on the planet who can do anything right in the courtroom . please read no further if you do not want the ending spoiled , but i have to get something off of my chest . in 1986 i remember watching a movie called " wisdom " with emilio estevez and demi moore , and the ending of that film did the worst possible thing that a movie could do . what i like to call " guess what , it was all a dream " scenario . in " wisdom " the two lead characters are killed at the end , only to have one of the characters " wake up " from an apparent and say " gosh , i 'm glad that did n't really happen ! " . i considered it inexcusable the way the audience was toyed with . well , the same thing happens in " the devils advocate " , and although arguments could be made surrounding whether it was actually a dream ( perhaps milton went back in time to try a different route for his plan , since it failed and he is the devil ) , but the point is that the last 90 % of the film did n't happen . i know it 's a stretch , after all it is a movie and nothing really happened , but i just get annoyed to get toyed with like that . of course , the dream ending could almost be forgiven if the story that precedes it was at least an interesting one . as i recall , " wisdom " was a decent film . " the devil 's advocate " is not . the devils advocate directed by taylor hackford john milton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . al pacino kevin lomax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . keanu reeves mary ann lomax . . . . . . . . . . . charlize theron mrs . lomax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . judith ivey eddie barzoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jeffrey jones christabella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . connie nielson written by randy turgeon , march 18 , 1998 .

0NEG

is it that most courtroom scenes in the movies are absurd ? do filmmakers really believe that " normal " courtroom juice them up ? the courtroom scenes in this movie would never happen in a real courtroom , which would n't have been too bad if it reeves credit for trying hard , but throughout the movie i never saw the kevin lomax character , just an actor trying very hard to play kevin lomax and coming up short . charlize theron defines the term " over - the - top " in her performance as mary ann lomax , a disappointment in contrast to her good performance in " 2 days performance in the movie is by al pacino , but i kept asking myself what the heck he was doing in this mess ? maybe he felt it would be interesting playing the devil but his skill as an actor can not save the poor performances and lackluster script that surround him . it 's pretty standard stuff , including the fact that the hotshot lawyer appears to 'm glad that did n't really happen ! " . i considered it inexcusable the way the audience was toyed with . well , the same thing happens in " the last 90 % of the film did n't happen . i know it 's a stretch , after all it is a movie and nothing really happened , but i just get annoyed to get toyed with like that . of course , the dream ending could almost be

the spy game is up . you can thank charlie 's angels -- the movie -- for that . when did banality and pandering become okay ? just steal from hong kong , the matrix , and a kitschy tv show from the mid-1970s and that 's a movie ? charlie 's angels is one of the worst examples of action film homogeneity and shameless duplicity in any film i 've seen in ages . charlie 's angels is dumb . just plain dumb . as we all know , three of the hottest females on the planet -- drew barrymore , cameron diaz , and lucy liu -- are three super - agents working for the mysterious millionaire named charlie . they all drive fast cars , look oh - so - fabulous even in the morning , and do n't seem to get a scratch even when fighting armed men , having buildings explode ten feet in front of them , or flying through the air in matrix slow - motion . and while the entourage spends 90 minutes romping around in cleavage - busting wetsuits , cleavage - busting waitress uniforms , and cleavage - busting wet t - shirts , they scarcely succeed in resembling so much as a group of annoying , drunk sorority girls , the kind who hit on everybody at a party . the actual plot revolves around the ridiculous story of a millionaire computer engineer -- the great sam rockwell -- who gets kidnapped by a mysterious rival computer company . of course , the rival wants control of his new personal identification system , which involves such latter - day buzzwords as gps , cellular tracking , and even mainframe . the amazing crispin glover lends his acting chops as a crazed henchmen involved in all the nasty things that happen to the angels -- like battling each of them in many round - robin matrix rip - off ( again ) fight sequences and harboring a strange attraction to sliced - off locks of the angels ' hair . the coup de grace is bill murray as bosley , serving as charlie 's manservant , or , more to the point , the angels ' pimp . the rest of the movie comprises a revenge arc , enough costume changes to fill three productions of les miserables , carbon - copy fight sequences that would lend credible evidence to a jackie chan and the wachowski brothers lawsuit for intellectual property theft , and the strange transformation of sam rockwell into mickey rourke 's long - lost brother . charlie 's angels starts off with a bang and ends up being a soggy burrito left out overnight . nothing is difficult , plausible , or believable in any of the angels ' actions . it feels like the matrix , mission : impossible 2 , and cleopatra jones and the casino of gold all rolled into one . diaz is a knucklehead . barrymore is the " dangerous one , " mean and tough and about as believable as katie holmes in the role . liu is just . . . lucy liu , looking good in a skin - tight black leather suit . the list of movies from which charlie 's angels is directly lifted is equally astonishing . the writers apparently ran the copier all night stealing scenes from armageddon , lethal weapon ii , all of jackie chan 's movies , the great escape , saturday night fever , revenge of the nerds , payback , darkman , dr . no , the matrix ( as mentioned ) , and even tv 's friends . it 's a shame , too , because one of the many screenwriters , john august , was at the helm of last year 's favorite , go . then again , what can you expect from a director known solely as " mcg . " there is no camp value in the film , no interesting main characters , no invigorating action scenes , no reason at all to waste your time except to ogle the hot chicks and enjoy the performances of a few supporting players . note to hollywood : next time , let 's leave the tv shows on the tv .

0NEG

charlie 's angels -- the movie -- for that . when did banality and pandering become okay ? just steal from hong kong , the matrix , and and that 's a movie ? charlie 's angels is one of the worst examples of action film homogeneity and shameless duplicity in any film i 've seen in ages . charlie 's angels is dumb . just plain dumb . as we all know , three of the hottest and cleavage - busting wet t - shirts , they scarcely succeed in resembling so much as a group of annoying , drunk sorority girls , the kind who hit on everybody at a party . the actual plot revolves around the ridiculous story of a millionaire computer engineer -- the great sam rockwell costume changes to fill three productions of les miserables , carbon - copy fight sequences that would lend credible evidence to a jackie chan and the wachowski brothers lawsuit for intellectual property theft , and the strange transformation of sam rockwell into mickey rourke 's long - lost . charlie 's angels starts off with a bang and ends up being a soggy burrito left out overnight . nothing is difficult , plausible , or believable in of gold all rolled into one . diaz is a knucklehead . barrymore is the " dangerous one , " mean is directly lifted is equally astonishing . the writers apparently ran the copier all night stealing scenes from armageddon , lethal weapon ii , all of jackie as mentioned ) , and even tv 's friends . it 's a shame , too , because one of the many screenwriters , from a director known solely as " mcg . " there is no camp value in the film , no interesting main characters , no invigorating action scenes , no reason at all to waste your time except to ogle the hot chicks and enjoy the performances

i have always been a fan of director neil jordan , from his early work , such as 1984 's " the company of wolves , " to 1992 's " the crying game , " and 1994 's " interview with a vampire . " his latest film , " the butcher boy , " is a return to his roots in ireland , but unfortunately , it is not a successful homecoming . told through the eyes of a 12-year - old irish boy , francis ( newcomer eomann owens ) , this peculiar film follows him as we learn a little about his decidedly unstable life . his father ( stephen rea ) is an indifferent alcoholic , his mother ( fiona shaw ) is mentally ill and always in and out of hospitals , and francis himself delights in terrorizing the mother of one of his friends after he is forbidden to see him anymore . francis is the type of boy who always has a lot to say , but mostly fluctuates between sarcasm and frightening honesty , and it quickly becomes apparent that he may very well be a little psychotic , even capable of brutal murder . the premise of , " the butcher boy , " is one that could have very well been turned into a thought - provoking , disturbing motion picture , but somehow nothing works . francis is in almost every scene , but we learn very little about him , as if the film was distancing itself away from him when , i suspect , we were actually supposed to sympathize with him . this is definately not young owens fault , however , because he gives a brilliantly accurate performance , and is able to also seem menacing as well . the fact that we do n't get close to his character is because of the sloppy screenplay . the supporting characters are no help , though . rea is wasted , and has practically no scenes where he actually talks to his son , or to anyone else for that matter . he usually seems to just be sitting watching the television throughout . shaw has a little bit more to work with , since she has one touching scene in which she talks to francis in a time of despair , but is out of the picture just as we are beginning to know her . and singer sinead o'connor appears rather effectively as the virgin mary who occasionally gives francis advice . the pacing is all off in , " the butcher boy . " although the story could have been dynamite , it moves at a deadeningly slow rate , and i found my mind wandering every once in a while . it is also very episodic , because the developments in the story fly by with no satisfying payoffs . at one point , francis is sent away to a juvenile prison , and an odd , possibly sexual relationship begins to develop between a priest and himself , but nothing comes of it . i 'd rather think of , " the butcher boy , " as a brief diversion for director jordan , rather than a total misfire . he has already proven to be a strong director , but he lucked out with this latest film . what could have been a courageous , unsettling character study of an emotionally disturbed young boy , only manages to be an ineffective , uninvolivng bore .

0NEG

is a return to his roots in ireland , but unfortunately , it is not a successful homecoming . told through the eyes of a 12-year - old a thought - provoking , disturbing motion picture , but somehow nothing works . francis is in almost every scene , but we learn very little about him , as if the film was distancing itself away from him when , i suspect , we were actually n't get close to his character is because of the sloppy screenplay . the supporting characters are no help , though . rea is wasted , and has practically as the virgin mary who occasionally gives francis advice . the pacing is all off in , " the butcher boy . " although the story could have been dynamite , it moves at a deadeningly slow rate , and i found my mind wandering every once in a while . it is also very episodic , because the developments unsettling character study of an emotionally disturbed young boy , only manages to be an ineffective , uninvolivng bore .

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 . ca n'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 could n't be saved , no matter how much they spent or casted . seeing films like the haunting and big daddy making money , i would n'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 .

0NEG

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 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 . ca n't the camera men sit still ? i actually watch a film in focus , but again , they failed to deliver that as well . the film moves on and on until the point 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 arguement . what 's there to argue about anyway ? the film could n't be saved , no matter how much they spent or casted . 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 .

if i were one of those arrogant critics who thinks his review has some great impact on the success or failure of certain films , i might say that i review movies that do n't look particularly good because i 'm doing a service to my readers by warning them against seeing it . if that were true , i could put a banner at the top of my site that reads : " shay casey : seeing bad movies so you do n't have to . " but i know that 's bunk - you're going to see whatever movies you want to no matter what i say . so i have to tell the truth : every once in a while i get a nasty , masochistic urge to see a bad movie . you know the feeling , when you 're sick of seeing all these damn academy award contenders and you want to see something you can have a ball trashing mercilessly . sometimes i think that 's why anyone goes to see pauly shore movies , ever . admit it : sometimes you like seeing bad movies . so do i . so i saw " supernova . " truth be told , " supernova " was n't quite as bad as i thought it might be . maybe i just felt sorry for the actors , or maybe i thought it could have been decent if the studio had n't started tinkering with the director 's ( walter hill ) final cut , causing him to want his name removed . maybe i 'm becoming a softy . in any case , i did n't find " supernova " as bad as the advance buzz would have me believe . but it 's still bad . the film takes place aboard the medical space vessel " nightingale . " the crew includes captain a . j . marley ( robert forster ) , his new second officer nick vanzant ( james spader ) , head medical officer kaela evers ( angela bassett ) , medical technicians yerzy penalosa ( lou diamond phillips ) and danika lund ( robin tunney ) , and computer technician benj sotomejor ( wilson cruz ) . there are some attempts at " characterization , " but all that means is that nick has a shady past involving a drug addiction , which puts kaela on edge , yerzy and danika have a relationship that requires them to make kissy - faces at each other every five minutes , and benj ( apparently gay ) is in love with the computer ( apparently female ) . do n't expect any more explanation , because you wo n't get it . anyway , the crew gets a distress call from a location deep in space to which a failed mining operation had been sent . during the dimension jump ( i think that 's what it 's called , but do n't hold me to it ) , the captain is killed and the man who sent the distress signal ( peter facinelli ) is brought on board . he calls himself troy larson , making him the supposed son of a man kaela once had a relationship with . then a bunch of really predictable stuff starts happening . have you seen " alien ? " have you seen " event horizon " ( a lame movie in its own right ) ? good . then you 've seen " supernova . " post - production cuts or not , there is nothing original about this screenplay , and nothing unpredictable either . after all , no one 's going to think for a second that troy wo n't turn out to be a villain . but the bigger problem with " supernova " is that it can ' t just stick to the simple plot it 's afforded . numerous re - writes ( the script may be credited to three people , but it 's a gross underestimate ) have crammed this lean 90-minute film with tons of extraneous plot threads that all remain underdeveloped . was there something about a limping robot shaped like a fighter pilot ? did the ship 's computer learn something about humanity ? what was that glowing lava lamp artifact troy brought on board with him ? and just what does the film 's title signify , if anything ? as far as i can tell , it refers to a very small plot detail that is n't developed , just like the rest of these unnecessary story elements . character relationships in this film also make very little sense . for some reason , every person in this film keeps having sex . we get an unusually early sex scene between phillips and tunney within the first 10 minutes . bassett and spader 's characters start off hating each other . fifteen minutes and one bottle of pear brandy later , they 're engaging in some hanky - panky . when troy the creepy stranger shows up on the ship , of course both female crew members will fall in love with him . every single shift in character interaction happens extremely suddenly , which is only one of the many obvious clues to how much this film has been cut . the most prominent example , however , may be the fact that when the film starts , there are no opening credits ! furthermore , the end of the film looks like they took what were originally intended to be the opening credits and spliced them in right before the real end credits . maybe that 's why the film 's title is mentioned twice during the end credits , right between james spader and robert forster . right after you get over the shock of not being told what movie you 're seeing ( lest you decide to walk out upon making that discovery ) , you might notice that the movie seems to have dropped you right in the middle of a scene , with little - to - no introduction to any of the characters or situations . the rest of the movie feels like they skipped over the middle stuff in the character changes ( you know , where they explain things ) and just went from point a to point b . point a : danika is thoroughly enamored of yerzy and is ready to have his baby . point b : tunney is now shagging troy and yerzy is unusually obsessed with the lava lamp thing . does n't make sense . since i did n't understand anything about these characters ' motivations , did i care when troy abruptly starts murdering them one - by - one ( and he does , knocking off three of them in about 10 minutes ) ? not a whit . it 's a shame , because this cast contains a lot of talented actors looking for something to do . they do n't find it . bassett and spader say every line in the same monotone voice with the same blank expressions on their faces . sexual tension ? more like constipation . maybe they 're just embarrassed at having to utter such howlers as " this thing was made by someone more powerful than god and a whole lot less nice . " not that we ever find out who that is , mind you . the climax of their relationship ( taking place in a transport pod ) is probably the film 's biggest forehead - slapper . as troy , peter facinelli inhabits the most obvious villain in history that no one ever suspected . he 's awfully one - note , but it 's not as if he 's given any more notes to work with . the rest of the cast does even less . tunney stands around looking cute , then scared . phillips broods . cruz flirts with the computer . then they all die and a star blows up or something , but i really was n't paying much attention by then . " supernova " is pretty awful , but i 'm cutting it a little slack merely because i expected less than what i got . that 's it . if you expect it to be good ( for whatever reasons you may have ) , you 'll probably hate it more than i will . even the special effects are fairly unimpressive , nothing you have n't seen before , and suffice to say the script is n't going to save the film . honestly , though , what do you expect from a film with about a dozen writers and a director who had his name removed and replaced with a pseudonym ? it usually results in a bad movie , and that 's what " supernova " is .

0NEG

as the advance buzz would have me believe . but it 's still bad . the film takes place aboard the medical space vessel and computer technician benj sotomejor ( wilson cruz ) . there are some attempts at " characterization , " but all that means is that nick has a shady past involving a drug a man kaela once had a relationship with . then a bunch of really predictable stuff starts happening . have you seen " alien ? " have you supernova . " post - production cuts or not , there is nothing original about this screenplay , and nothing unpredictable either . after all , no one 's going to think wo n't turn out to be a villain . but the bigger problem with " supernova " is that it can ' t gross underestimate ) have crammed this lean 90-minute film with tons of extraneous plot threads that all remain underdeveloped . was there something about a limping robot shaped like is n't developed , just like the rest of these unnecessary story elements . character relationships in this film also make very little sense . for some reason , every person in this film female crew members will fall in love with him . every single shift in character interaction happens extremely suddenly , which is only one of the many obvious clues to how much this film has been cut . the most prominent example , however , may be , you might notice that the movie seems to have dropped you right in the middle of a scene , with little - to - no introduction to any of the characters or situations . the rest lava lamp thing . does n't make sense . since i did n't understand anything about these characters ' motivations , did i care when troy abruptly starts murdering them one - by - one ( and he does , knocking off three of them in about 10 minutes ) ? not a whit . it 's a shame , because this cast contains a lot of talented actors . they do n't find it . bassett and spader say every line in the same monotone voice with the same blank expressions on their faces . sexual tension ? more like constipation . maybe they 're

for timing reasons having to do with baby sitters , we recently went to a multiplex and saw undercover blues . i would give it one half of a star for guts . anyone in a movie this bad would have to have guts . i later read a ny times review that said kathleen turner and dennis quaid had gotten so plump they looked like they had the mumps in the show . the script was the worst part . they had characters who talked with funny accents in an attempt to make you laugh . they had lots of " great " sight gags like two people trying to go in a door together and therefore bumping shoulders against the door . turner and quaid both kept smiling like some idiots on a game show . the good news is that we were smart enough to vote with our feet and left . buy some tickets and give them to your worst enemies . tell them the show is great and smile a lot . * * * * = one of the top few films of this or any year . a must see film . * * * = excellent show . look for it . * * = average movie . kind of enjoyable . * = poor show . do n't waste your money . 0 = one of the worst films of this or any year . totally unbearable . review written on : september 29 , 1993 opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer 's .

0NEG

one half of a star for guts . anyone in a movie this bad would have to have guts . i later read a ny times review that said kathleen turner and dennis quaid had gotten so plump they looked like they had the mumps in the show . the script was the worst part . they had characters who talked with funny accents in an attempt to make you laugh . they had lots of " great " sight gags like two people trying to go in a door together bumping shoulders against the door . turner and quaid both kept smiling like some idiots on a game show . the good news is that we were smart enough to vote with our feet and left . buy some tickets and give them to your worst enemies . tell them the show is great and smile a

the obvious reason for producing a sequel to an immensely popular movie is to acquire continued profits . the rationale is sound , but in many cases of this and recent years , the sequel is a shoddy product that 's exposed for the cash - milking vehicle it really is . last year 's speed 2 and scream 2 , as well as this year 's species ii have all been products that have been decisively less than satisfactory . in some cases , a sequel can even discredit its predecessor , as with the latest neo - slasher flick , i still know what you did last summer . whatever uniqueness the original might 've had now seems trite and overplayed when paired with this abominable thriller . julie james ( jennifer love hewitt ) and ray bronson ( freddie prinze jr . ) are back from the original to star in i still know , reprising their roles in typical fashion . julie and ray experience a rather predictable falling - out at the beginning of the movie , leaving the door wide open for newcomer will benson ( matthew settle ) . will and julie hit it off , and along with friends karla ( brandy norwood ) and tyrell ( mekhi phifer ) , the foursome heads off to a radio station - giveaway vacation in the tropics . unfortunately , things are n't so peachy once they arrive , and with a regularity you could set your watch by , the infamous fisherman ( muse watson ) is back with his hook . it 's another bloody showdown , complete with cliffhanger ending . there 's not much that 's original about i still know , and with the market saturated by gen - x thrillers like this one , it 's unlikely that i still know will get any recognition other than that of a bad sequel . for die - hard fans of the genre , this will be required viewing material , but the bottom line is that the material here is just recycled from the original i know what you did last summer . the aura of thrillerism surrounding the plot is n't heightened by skillful scripting or camera work , but rather a tense , string - based score and manipulative editing . the man with the hook ends up becoming very belittled this time around when the script gives him too many lines of dialogue -- he goes from being a scary figure to a nutcase in a few short and painful moments . much of the mystery is dropped for the sake of getting the point . the whole reason the plot exists - julie and karla must guess the capital of brazil in order to win the trip from the radio station - is a dead giveaway , lessening suspense and creating a hurry - up - and - wait timing problem . and , whereas the killer 's identity might 've been a question in the first movie , it 's almost a given here , which changes the dynamic of the movie drastically . three or four teens run automatically from a man in a rain slicker they nonchalantly refer to as " the killer . " they 're almost used to it , and the performances show it - not hewitt , nor prinze , nor brandy , nor phifer give a decent show . and so , in the end , it 's left wide open for a third movie and - most likely - a brand new supporting cast . god help us .

0NEG

cases of this and recent years , the sequel is a shoddy product that 's exposed for the cash - milking vehicle it really is . last year 's speed 2 and scream 2 , last summer . whatever uniqueness the original might 've had now seems trite and overplayed when paired with this abominable thriller . julie james ( jennifer love hewitt ) and ray 's another bloody showdown , complete with cliffhanger ending . there 's not much that 's original about i still know , and with the market saturated still know will get any recognition other than that of a bad sequel . for die - hard fans of the genre , but the bottom line is that the material here is just recycled from the original i know what you did last summer . the aura of thrillerism surrounding the plot is n't heightened by skillful scripting or camera work , but rather a tense , string - based score and manipulative editing . the man with the hook ends up becoming very belittled this time around when the script gives him too many lines of dialogue -- he goes from being a scary figure to a nutcase in a few short and painful moments . much of the mystery is dropped for the sake to win the trip from the radio station - is a dead giveaway , lessening suspense and creating a hurry - up - and - wait timing problem . and , whereas the killer 's identity might 've used to it , and the performances show it - not hewitt , nor prinze , nor brandy , nor phifer give a decent show . and so , in the end , it 's - most likely - a brand new supporting cast . god help us .

i 'm a dedicated fan of writer kevin williamson 's work . he always finds a clever way to spice up old material with witty dialogue and fresh ideas that stem from his inventive brain . with teaching mrs . tingle , his directorial debut , williamson has reached the end of his rope . what used to be intelligent about his films is hopelessly stale here . the components are all there , including an encouraging premise that all high school students can relate to . but where are the thrills ? the laughs ? both are supposedly absent from this draggy exercise in elaborate revenge . and what a shame that is . i loved the scream films - heck , i even enjoyed the sci - fi goofiness of the faculty . kevin williamson was the reason horror films were such a big draw at the box office . teaching mrs . tingle , a black comedy that will leave a gaping void in his optimistic followers , may put an end to his reign . or perhaps it will encourage him to spend more time perfecting a script than to worry about his directing duties . i still have my faith , but i fear the name of kevin williamson may soon be a forgotten echo of the past . the title character of his pet project is a vicious , uncaring history teacher who is played deliciously over - the - top by british actress helen mirren . mrs . tingle is basically every student 's worst nightmare : a heartless human being bent on distributing poor marks to even the most hard - working of her pupils . the principal ( michael mckean ) is horrified of her , and she is unanimously despised among her fellow staff members . i enjoyed the fact that everyone in the hallway quickly steers out of her way . mirren 's performance is one of the very few delights in this distressingly hollow black comedy that goes down like a flat soft drink . in other words , it 's a poor substitute for williamson 's best work . the plot is a big problem here . material that could have been enjoyable is rendered totally ridiculous by poor handling on the part of the director . the likable katie holmes plays leigh ann , an over - achiever hoping to get a college scholarship . but typical mrs . tingle says her history project , which she worked on for countless hours , is laughable . later on while studying in the gymnasium , a classmate ( barry watson ) offers her a photo - copied duplicate of mrs . tingle 's final exam . leigh ann 's best friend ( marisa coughlan ) encourages her to use it . alas , the old hag herself finds the three scheming , and snatches the test , and prepares to talk to the principal in the morning . in the morning . . . how convenient ! the three students head to mrs . tingle 's house , attempting to set the facts straight and clear leigh ann 's name . things get out of hand , and the teacher gets knocked unconscious in a tussle . the plan is to tie her to a bed and try to get some reasoning out of her . of course , not everything goes entirely to plan . besides pointless sub - plots involving the football coach ( jeffrey tambor , horribly wasted ) , there is little by way of actual progress . there is no urgency to the situation ; little tension or laughs are involved . the humor is completely inconsistent . after many of the jokes , the theater was so silent i could have heard a fly sneeze . you continue to await some momentum in the story , something that could possibly revive the slow pace . a moment like that never arises . williamson also does a handsome job of wasting some of the key supporting players , including the talented mckean and larry sanders ' vet tambor . and the beautiful vivica a . fox has one lifeless scene as a caring guidance counselor , and then williamson disposes of her character entirely . on the plus side , holmes and coughlan are admirable ( with the latter giving a frighteningly believable exorcism impression ) , and molly ringwald has an amusing cameo appearance as a substitute teacher . while everything is pretty lifeless , teaching mrs . tingle remains watchable . there are a few promising ideas that pop up now and again , but anything remotely interesting is squandered by the inane script . mirren is easily the best reason to keep watching . she is convincingly evil and fun to watch , but even her gifted delivery ca n't save individual scenes that flounder in boredom . if there is one word for the movie surrounding her , it would be ` disappointing ' . basically , kevin williamson is his worst enemy here . his uneventful direction prevents any aspects of his screenplay to be appreciated ( not that his writing here is especially good ) . we will see , when rookie screenwriter ehren kruger writes the third installment in the scream franchise this christmas , whether williamson is for real .

0NEG

. what used to be intelligent about his films is hopelessly stale here . the components are all there , including an that all high school students can relate to . but where are the thrills ? the laughs ? both are supposedly absent from this draggy exercise in elaborate revenge . and what a shame that is . i loved the scream films - heck , i . teaching mrs . tingle , a black comedy that will leave a gaping void in his optimistic followers , may put an end to his reign . or perhaps it will encourage him to spend more directing duties . i still have my faith , but i fear the name of kevin williamson may soon be a forgotten echo of the past . the title character of his pet project is a performance is one of the very few delights in this distressingly hollow black comedy that goes down like a flat soft drink . in other words , it 's a poor substitute for williamson 's best work . the plot is a big problem here . material that could have been enjoyable is rendered totally ridiculous by poor handling on the part of the director . the likable katie course , not everything goes entirely to plan . besides pointless sub - plots involving the football coach ( jeffrey tambor , horribly wasted ) , there is little by way of actual progress . there is no urgency to the situation ; little tension or laughs are involved . the humor is completely inconsistent . after many of the jokes , the theater was so silent i could have heard a fly sneeze . you continue to await some momentum in the story , something that could possibly revive the slow pace . a moment like that never arises . williamson also does a handsome job of wasting some of the key supporting players , including the talented mckean and larry sanders ' vet an amusing cameo appearance as a substitute teacher . while everything is pretty lifeless , teaching mrs . tingle remains watchable . there are promising ideas that pop up now and again , but anything remotely interesting is squandered by the inane script . mirren is easily the best reason to keep watching even her gifted delivery ca n't save individual scenes that flounder in boredom . if there is one word for the movie surrounding her , it would be ` disappointing ' . basically , kevin williamson is his worst enemy here . his uneventful direction prevents any aspects of his screenplay to be appreciated (

a film that means well , but is too pushy in promoting its belabored point and too sentimental to be compelling as a drama . it 's jeroen krabb ? 's melodrama about a community of jews in antwerp in 1972 who ca n't forget their bitter past . the heroine is an attractive , carefree , nonreligious 20-year - old , chaja ( fraser ) , who wants to forget her jewish roots by getting involved in student demonstrations , screwing a student rebel leader , and living with her gentile friends away from her nagging mother ( s ? gebrecht ) and her self - absorbed , eccentric father ( schell ) . her parents are survivors of the holocaust concentration camps , and her home life is filled with angst . her mother is in denial about the past always busying herself by cooking soup and baking cakes and complaining about everything , while her father is more openly loving but has recently been absorbed in searching for two suitcases filled with mementos , a family album , silverware , and his old violin . he buried them in a garden during the war while fleeing the nazis , but ca n't locate them now due to all the changes in the city . out of frustration after quitting her job as a dishwasher and facing eviction from her apartment , she reluctantly accepts a job as a nanny with an hasidic couple that an old man in her parents ' apartment building , mr . apfelschnitt ( topol ) , tells her about . the hasidics are ultra - orthodox : they do n't go to the cinema or watch tv , adhere to strict dress codes , and strictly observe their religious laws . chaja is at first put off by the way they expect her to follow their rules , but soon finds the wife , mrs . kalman ( rossellini ) , to be kind and she becomes attached to one of her 5 children , a 4-year - old named simcha ( monty ) who does n't talk . the stern mr . kalman ( krabb ? ) is not friendly to her and considers her to be a whore because of the way she dresses . to hammer home the point of how anti - semitism has n't gone away there 's a barrage of overdone and uninvolving scenes with a sneering concierge ( bradley ) , who keeps making nasty remarks about jews and tries to make things inconvenient for them by preventing the jewish family from using the elevator . the film is done in by its ham - fisted script as the story , adapted from carl friedman 's book " the shovel and the loom , " goes from one false note to another until it gets lost in all the goo of its sentimentality . it starts off telling chaja 's story of how she 's a lost jewess trying to find her identity , then to her nanny role as she loves a mute child stuck in an insulated environment , and then it makes it a story about the lingering effects of the bitter past that ca n't be forgotten . the effort seemed heavy - handed , as the film kept delivering too many obvious messages that it ponderously kept delivering through the stock characters . the supporting cast consists of all wooden characters who give their roles a cartoonish flavoring : chaja 's parents are given no human shades , while the janitor villain was a particularly annoying role that was one - dimensional and falsely acted . the only ones who fought through the script and showed some feelings were fraser , whose effervescent face was expressive of both the trying times she was going through and the joys she felt -- but most admirably showing how she could be so mistaken as to think that she could forget her roots ; while rossellini gave a warm performance of a woman suffering in silence , but is strong in accepting her faith . topol 's reassuring performance as the wise man who says all the right things to fraser , acts as the true voice of the filmmaker in explaining all the sufferings with common sense . the film brazenly uses little simcha to get across its agenda of pointing out how the patriarchal world can be cruel when it ca n't love : it starts out by showing how under chaja 's loving care he 's taken to the duck pond and soon starts jabbering away , beginning by saying ' quack , quack ' and then going on to ask the four questions during a passover seder . but by showing how the boy is so terrified of his strict father that he wets his pants in his presence , refuses to speak because of his stern dad , and eventually becomes the victim of a tragic accident , the film thereby exploits the boy 's sufferings and his story just becomes tiresome and not sincerely done . i felt i did n't just see a movie , but i attended a lecture for the whole 100 minutes of this serious but unappetizing story . it was the kind of movie that you hoped would somehow end soon , as it seemed to be in the habit of rehashing its same viewpoint unnecessarily -- the message it keeps sending was already received . in the last shot where father and daughter are hopelessly digging for the lost luggage , one has the impression that no one in the film learned anything about themselves or the past . that seems strange , since i thought that was what this film was supposed to be about . unless i was mistaken and the film 's real aim was to make us cry over simcha .

0NEG

a film that means well , but is too pushy in promoting its belabored point and too sentimental to be compelling as a drama . it 's jeroen krabb ? 's melodrama about a semitism has n't gone away there 's a barrage of overdone and uninvolving scenes with a sneering concierge ( bradley ) , who keeps the elevator . the film is done in by its ham - fisted script as the story , adapted from carl friedman 's book " the shovel and the loom , " goes from one false note to another until it gets lost in all the goo of its sentimentality . it starts off telling chaja 's story of how of the bitter past that ca n't be forgotten . the effort seemed heavy - handed , as the film kept delivering too many obvious messages that it ponderously kept delivering through the stock characters . the supporting cast consists of all wooden characters who give their roles a cartoonish flavoring : chaja 's parents are given no human shades , while the janitor villain was a particularly annoying role that was one - dimensional and falsely acted . the only ones who fought through the script and and eventually becomes the victim of a tragic accident , the film thereby exploits the boy 's sufferings and his story just becomes tiresome and not sincerely done . i felt i did n't just see a movie attended a lecture for the whole 100 minutes of this serious but unappetizing story . it was the kind of movie that you hoped would somehow end soon , as it seemed to be in the habit of rehashing its same viewpoint unnecessarily -- the message it keeps sending was already received .

the tagline for this film is : " some houses are just born bad " . so i did n't expect too much from this . but i had preserved a little spark of ope as i entered the theatre . i thought : liam neeson , cathrine zeta jones and jan de bont . i thought , mabe it will be fun ? and in fact the beginning was rather intriguing . but by the end of it i thought : why liam neeson and cathrine zeta jones , jan de bont ? . these great actors are basically helpless with this muddled mess that defies any rationality . here is the story : in the monstrously over - decorated mansion known as hill house , visitors are tricked by an unknown doctor ( liam neeson ) into being guinea pigs in a fright experiment under the guise of an insomnia investigation . among them is a sophisticated bisexual ( cathrine zeta jones ) , a cynical dope ( owen wilson ) and a gentle and emotional lady ( lily taylor ) . actually , the doctor is researching the " primordial fear reaction " and intends to plant disturbing ideas in his subjects and watch what happens . but he gets unexpected help from the house itself . it rumbles , hums and belches forth remarkable sights . portals become veiny stained - glass eyeballs . a fireplace guarded by stone lions gapes like a sinister mouth . filmy cherubic spirits take shape under sheets and billowy curtains . but the computerized spooketeria rarely feels real , placing an emotional wall between audience and screen . the second half of the film is basically about the main heroine running back and forth from the sinister lamps and evil furniture . is that exciting or what ? the worst thing about it is that it did n't have to be bad . it 's based on a great book , ` ` the haunting of hill house , '' by shirley jackson . a 1963 adaptation of the book was scary and intelligent . it played with the greatest fears of our sub conscience . " the blair witch project " , that cost less than an old car , managed to shock and terrify the audiences from their senses . and with a $ 70 mill . budget , de bont and screenwriter david self make hash out of a perfectly lovely piece of terror . de bont has a style of filmmaking so out of line with the material that it is , in itself , frightening . he is the master of the extravagant special effect and the big visual adrenaline rush . but why give him a more serious material ? in the end " haunting " will only haunt its fledgling studio ( dream works skg ) and de bont 's career as a director . yet it would n't be fair to say that everything is bad . the effects are truly impressive and the house is wonderfully decorated -- beautiful , mysterious , magical and spooky . but this is where the good things end . the music is blaring , the floors moving , the ceiling morphing and the pictures on the walls screaming -- and all of this , every second , every moment of screen time , is absolutely without life . it 's nothing more than a special effects - extravaganza ; visually impressive , but intellectually hollow thriller that simply does n't engage . at first you do not know what 's going on . is this part of the experiment ? are these hallucinations ? projections of the subconscience ? paranoia ? but in the end it shows out that this is actually happening . the house is actually possessed . it is at that point when all your hopes for a good entertainment disappears out of the window . for ever , i sat in anticipation for a decent climax and that 's what i got ? i believe hichock once said that " it 's better to wait for a climax , than to see one " . this may be true , and it might actually work , but there is only one problem -- jan de bont is not hichock and the things that he shows are not scary , only stupid . they are impossible to take seriously . any paralells that you might have heard before , linking this picture to kubrick 's " the shining " , are absolutely baseless . " shining " had class , style , story , acting , but most of all talent and originality . " haunting " has only special effects and art direction to boast of . and those elements alone are not enough to make it a good film . casting good actors for small , pale parts only makes things worse . but i guess that no matter what i or other critics say or write , most of you will see this film anyway , even if the tagline would say : " some films are just born stupid " .

0NEG

, jan de bont ? . these great actors are basically helpless with this muddled mess that defies any rationality . here is the story : in the monstrously over spirits take shape under sheets and billowy curtains . but the computerized spooketeria rarely feels real , placing an emotional wall between audience and screen . the second half of the film is basically about and evil furniture . is that exciting or what ? the worst thing about it is that it did n't have to be bad . more serious material ? in the end " haunting " will only haunt its fledgling studio ( dream works skg ) and de bont 's career every second , every moment of screen time , is absolutely without life . it 's nothing more than a special effects - extravaganza ; visually impressive , but intellectually hollow thriller that simply does n't engage . at first you do not know what 's going is actually possessed . it is at that point when all your hopes for a good entertainment disappears out of the window . for ever , i sat in anticipation for a the things that he shows are not scary , only stupid . they are impossible to take seriously . any paralells that you might have heard before , most of all talent and originality . " haunting " has only special effects and art direction to boast of . and those elements alone are not enough to make it a good film . casting good actors for small , pale parts only makes things worse . but i guess that no matter what i or tagline would say : " some films are just born stupid " .

porter stoddard ( warren beatty ) is a successful architect married to successful fabric designer ellie ( diane keaton ) for twenty - five years . they and best friends mona ( goldie hawn ) and griffin ( garry shandling ) are about to face marital crises in a film most well known for its torturous path to the screen , " town and country . " " town and country " has a pedigree befitting it 's title with an all star cast photographed by oscar nominated cinematographer william fraker and mouthing the words of screenwriter buck henry ( " the graduate " ) under the direction of peter chelsom ( " funny bones " ) . after years of reports of budget overruns and reshoots and the racking up twelve different release dates , the media has been prepped for beatty 's next " ishtar . " so , is it that bad ? the answer is no . but it 's not very good either . the major problem with " town and country " is that it 's unstructured and random . stoddard is immediately established as a philanderer , having just bedded a flaky cellist ( nastassja kinski ) . next scene finds him and ellie celebrating their anniversary in paris with mona and griffin . then mona spies griffin hustling a redhead into a motel and begins divorce proceedings ( buck henry cameos as both couples ' divorce lawyer ) . ellie thinks she 's overeacting , but sends porter to support mona on a trip to check out her family 's mississippi manse . the two childhood friends end up in bed together , making us wonder why they 'd never become a couple to begin with . back home , their second coupling is interrupted by ellie bursting in to tell mona she thinks porter 's cheating on her . porter goes off on a trip with griffin to sun valley , idaho to have more comic misadventures with wacky women as griffin attempts to tell him that he 's gay . the four friends , along with every woman porter 's dallied with , all end up back in new york city somewhat happily ever after . although the film begins promisingly , resembling a woody allen take on new york city wasps , too many strands drift off into nowhere . the stoddard household is huge , containing two adult children ( josh hartnett , " the virgin suicides " and tricia vessey , " kiss the girls " ) , their colorful bedmates and a maid who 's just imported her shirtless boyfriend from the rainforest back home . after an amusing early scene that has porter overhearing three bouts of lovemaking while in search of a nocturnal snack , the six supporting players are dropped except for an out - of - nowhere appearance by the formerly forgotten son . porter 's romantic misadventures with women ( other than mona ) are equally mishandled . once the marital discord begins , the film seems as if it was editted with a machete , stopping and starting , never regaining its rhythm . while beatty gets off a few tart observations , his character is mostly passive and bemused . maybe we 're supposed to feel sympathy for an adulterer who does n't initiate his own sex romps ? keaton 's ellie has a trusting nature that 's a result of her own self involvement resulting in an unlikeable character . hawn smartly recycles her mature sex kitten wives of " the out of towners " and " the first wives ' club " while shandling 's relegated to true second banana status . kinski is bland and unmotivated . andie macdowell takes a weirdly unappealing role and does what she can with the screenplay 's most bizarre subplot , which finds charlton heston as her rifle toting , billionaire daddy and marian seldes as her alcoholic , wheelchair - bound , foul - mouthed mother . heston and seldes are fun , as is jenna elfman as a sun valley bait and tackle salesgirl who brings porter and griffin to a halloween party . oscar nominatored cinematographer william fraker gives the film a nice look , but director chelsom shows none of the quirkily and blackly humorous depth he brought to films like " hear my song " and " funny bones . " the script is this film 's weakest link - it 's telling that most of the ( few ) laughs come from old - fashioned physical slapstick and the sight of beatty in a bear suit . while " town and country " is n't exactly painful to sit through , it mostly just lays there .

0NEG

it that bad ? the answer is no . but it 's not very good either . the major problem with " town and country " is that it 's unstructured and random . stoddard is immediately established as a philanderer , having a woody allen take on new york city wasps , too many strands drift off into nowhere . the stoddard household is huge , containing two adult snack , the six supporting players are dropped except for an out - of - nowhere appearance by the formerly forgotten son . porter 's romantic misadventures with women ( other than mona ) are equally mishandled . once the marital discord begins , the film seems as if it was editted with a machete , stopping and starting , never regaining its rhythm . while beatty gets off a few tart observations , " the first wives ' club " while shandling 's relegated to true second banana status . kinski is bland and unmotivated . andie macdowell takes a weirdly unappealing role and does what she can with the screenplay 's most gives the film a nice look , but director chelsom shows none of the quirkily and blackly humorous depth he brought to films like " hear my song " and " funny bones . " the script is this film 's weakest link - it 's telling that most of the ( few country " is n't exactly painful to sit through , it mostly just lays there .

* * the following review contains spoilers * * " please someone stop joel schumacher before he vomits into a film canister again and tries to pass it off as a movie . " -- chuck dowling , the jacksonville film journal i wrote the above sentence in my review for 1997 's batman and robin . apparently , no one heard my words . oh , how i wish you had heard them . oh how i wish someone had stopped him . . . because he 's done it again . the plot of 8 mm is similar to the 1977 paul schrader film hardcore , a surprisingly decent and engrossing tale . in fact , it was everything that 8 mm is not . in the opening minutes of 8 mm , we see private detective tom welles ( nicolas cage ) working on a case for a prestigious member of the u . s . government . keep this fact in mind , cage is trusted with an important case , which he solves . he returns home to his wife and new daughter , and even finds time to rake his yard ( keep that in mind too , it 's important as well ) . he 's hired by a rich elderly woman to solve a mystery . after her husband 's death she comes across a film in his private safe . it appears to be snuff film , a sort of urban legend of the pornography industry in which someone is actually brutally murdered for the camera . the woman wants welles to locate the young girl in the film , hopefully to disprove that it is in fact a snuff film . so he sets off on a journey into the sordid underworld of sleaze to discover the truth about the film . the main problem with 8 mm is that the whole film is completely pointless . welles is actually selected for the case by the old woman 's lawyer ( anthony heald , an actor who always plays the same type of character , that being a bad guy ) . when you first see him , your first instinct is that he 's behind the whole thing . the choice of casting does the film in . then , as welles begins his investigation , at times we will see a shadowy figure following him . the only person it could possibly be is the lawyer ( or someone sent by the lawyer ) because no one knows welles is even investigating anything yet . so your first instinct has now been confirmed . then , when it is in fact revealed that the lawyer is a part of the whole thing , he tells welles that he was chosen for the case because he was young and inexperienced ( in one of those ridiculous " since we 're going to kill you anyway , why not tell you the whole thing " moments ) . but earlier when we see welles being hired for the case he 's told that he was hired because he comes highly recommended . huh ? also , when the lawyer reveals himself to be a part of the whole thing , his main goal is to get the film back . so why did he give it up in the first place ? ! the lawyer had the film the whole time , then gave it away to the private detective thinking that he would just give up on the case and return the film ? ! it 's totally absurd . . . and this is the screenwriter of seven ? late in the film there 's a confrontation between all the main characters , and after a struggle one of the character 's guns ends up underneath a car . cage , who has been handcuffed to a bed , is rapidly trying to get to his gun , which is on a table . james gandolfini 's character goes for the gun under the car in what is supposed to be a scene of " suspense " . you see , the gun is just slightly out of reach from the side of the car he 's trying to reach it from , and so instead of going around the car to the other side ( where he can easily reach it ) he just keeps stretching . go around to the other side of the car ! ! this goes on for minutes . then , after cage gets his gun , gandolfini then decides it would be best to go around to the other side of the car . boy , schumacher is really really getting on my nerves . i think the final straw would be when cage returns home , devastated by everything that he 's seen on this case , and then is no longer able to rake his lawn ! we actually see a shot of him pathetically poking at leaves in his yard . other things that bugged me about 8 mm : one would be the music , if you can call it that . whenever the score starts up , it sounds like techno music , and then this awful indian or middle eastern type music will accompany it . awful decision there joel . another is cage 's performance . at this point he 's capable of a wide range of performances , either good or bad . for 8 mm , he delivers a very wooden one , and only shines when he 's interacting with joaquin phoenix ( who gives a great performance as a porn shop clerk with a heart of gold who helps cage with his case ) . you 're capable of much better mr . cage . now as for you mr . schumacher . . . i 'm starting to doubt if you 're capable of anything else besides urinating onto the institution of american cinema . [ r ]

0NEG

* the following review contains spoilers * * " please someone stop joel schumacher before he vomits into a film canister again and tries to pass it off as a movie . " -- chuck dowling , the jacksonville film journal of sleaze to discover the truth about the film . the main problem with 8 mm is that the whole film is completely pointless . welles is actually selected for the case by the chosen for the case because he was young and inexperienced ( in one of those ridiculous " since we 're going to kill you anyway , why not tell you the whole thing " moments ) . but earlier when we see welles being hired for told that he was hired because he comes highly recommended . huh ? also , when the lawyer reveals himself to be a up on the case and return the film ? ! it 's totally absurd . . . and this is the screenwriter of seven ? late other side of the car . boy , schumacher is really really getting on my nerves . i think the final straw would be when cage returns home , devastated by everything of him pathetically poking at leaves in his yard . other things that bugged me about 8 mm : one would be the music , up , it sounds like techno music , and then this awful indian or middle eastern type music will accompany it . awful decision there joel . another is cage 's performance . at , either good or bad . for 8 mm , he delivers a very wooden one , and only shines when he 's interacting with joaquin of gold who helps cage with his case ) . you 're capable of much better mr . cage . now as for you mr . schumacher . . . i 'm starting to doubt if you 're capable of anything else besides urinating onto the institution of american cinema . [ r ]

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 .

0NEG

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 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 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 ' 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 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 .

it would be hard to choose the best american political thriller . some people would probably pick the manchurian candidate and others ( myself included ) would pick seven days in may . both those films were tense exercises in chills . the two films came out within two years of each other and both were directed by the same man , john frankenheimer . but that was 1962 and 1964 respectively . for most of the rest of his career frankenheimer has turned out some decent films , but has shown little of the promise that those two thrillers showed . each of those films had memorable characters and a tense plot . they had almost nothing in the way of chases or gunplay . the thrills all came from the plot . ronin is like a film made by another man . somewhere behind all the shooting and explosions and car chases there are the rudiments ofa plot , but we see only tiny pieces of it . we get a clue here and one there as to what is going on but j . d . zeik 's screenplay is a bit obscure . the film begins explaining that a ronin is a masterless samurai . when a samurai has failed in the job of protecting his master from death , he becomes a ronin , much like a gunfighter in the american west . if you miss the opening , do not worry . this film will explain again what a ronin is . sam ( played by robert de niro ) is the modern equivalent of a ronin . he is a free agent who seems to have really good instincts about how to stay alive the world of a professional killer . he clearly was in a dangerous business at one time and now he seems to be drifting around on his own somewhere in france . sam is recruited from a montmartre bar by dierdre ( natascha mcelhone of the truman show ) , an irish woman , to be part of an action to steal a mysterious metal case . dierdre is very tight - lipped about what is in the case . sam joins a team of four others : vincent ( jean reno of the professional / leon and mission impossible ) , spence ( sean bean , tv 's richard sharpe , and also patriot games and goldeneye ) , and gregor ( stellan skarsgard of breaking the waves and good will hunting ) . also along is larry ( skipp suddeth ) . the group seems to know their business , particularly sam , but each is in his own way cold and professional with his own field of expertise . their only human side seems to be in tensions among the members of the team . the story is not very easy to follow . it is never clear who is double - crossing whom and who is working for whom . somehow russians ( who may or may not be the russian mafia ) and irish radicals are involved trying to get their hands on a certain metal case . some very good actors are involved in this film . one wonders what they saw in the script . the characters are mostly one - dimensional professional killers . they know their work , and seeing their thought patterns adds some interest to the film , but for this group deep feeling between two people is teaming up with another killer so that neither is killed . by the end of the film we never really got to know anybody . maybe that is the secret of why such good actors took parts , since these are not very demanding characters to create . in addition to the above characters the film also features jonathan pryce and michael lonsdale ( the latter of moonraker and of the superior thriller the day of the jackal ) . as a revival of a sort of action film that was popular in the 1960s , i was hoping that there would be something here to grab onto and enjoy . unfortunately there are no deep characters , and little to make us care who eventually ends up with the metal case or why they want it . i rate ronin a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale . non - spoiler : incidentally , the tale of the 47 ronin has been filmed multiple times , usually under the title chushingura or as the 47 ronin . also one frequently sees in japanese art the image of a man breaking down a door with a huge mallet . this is the first blow of the 47 ronin .

0NEG

on but j . d . zeik 's screenplay is a bit obscure . the film begins explaining that a ronin is a some very good actors are involved in this film . one wonders what they saw in the script . the characters are mostly one - dimensional professional killers . they know their work , and seeing their thought would be something here to grab onto and enjoy . unfortunately there are no deep characters , and little to make us care who eventually ends up with the metal case or why

the main problem with martin lawrence 's pet project , a thin line between love and hate , like any fatal attraction variation where the protagonist is a man , is that his character is an irresponsible jerk , and if that is the case , it does n't seem to do anything except justify the woman 's actions . that is especially the case in lawrence 's darnell wright . he is one of those macho guys with women lined up a mile long . now do n't think i condone this just because i 'm male . my philosophy is , if you are one of the few heterosexual males lucky enough to get your hands on a beautiful , kind girl , you should treat her like a princess and respect her . darnell does n't think like this . he sleeps with these girls once and dumps them . and by the period in the film he discovered that his newest target , beautiful , wealthy brandi web ( played nicely by whitfield ) who runs a successful real estate business , is out to kill him for dumping her for his childdhood friend mia ( king ) , i found myself thinking , " i 'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy ? " after all , it is largely darnell 's fault . if he is lining up all these women , you 'd think he 'd have enough common sense to think it would backfire on him one day , as his mother says it does . but he does n't , so you get the sense that he 's not only irresponsible , but also pretty dumb . you especially get this sense that he 's dumb after brandi tells him she killed her husband for allegedly abusing her . ( i 'd put my pants on in two seconds after that ! ) now , brandi is a psycho bitch , but it 's hard not to agree with what she says to darnell during the finale about guys like him treating her like garbage . one final flaw , though , is letting brandi fall for darnell to begin with . brandi is a classy , intelligent woman with an mba from harvard , who initally resists darnell 's " immature play " as she calls it , as any woman like her would in real life . but all of a sudden she says yes . but when you listen to darnell 's four letter word vocabulary watch his actions , you wonder why such an intelligent woman would fall for a guy like darnell period , much less have such an unhealthy obsession for him ! lawrence can be good when he wants to , but in order to prove it , he needs to let other people write and direct his movies . look at this movie . four writers , as a result it 's too long ( two hours , when it could 've easily worked at ninety minutes ! ) and it has a lot of subplots and characters that appear and disappear as quickly as they came ( which makes me think the writers did n't get along ) , all of which is n't necessary . there are some bright spots , though . whitfield , regina king , della reese , and bobby brown all do what they can with lazily written parts , and they help it out a lot . and there are some funny parts ( like , for example , the scene where reese attempts to fight whitfeld for harrassing her son and damaging her property ) , but they 're just not enough to sustain the film .

0NEG

the main problem with martin lawrence 's pet project , a thin line her for his childdhood friend mia ( king ) , i found myself thinking , " i 'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy ? " after all , it is largely darnell 's fault . finale about guys like him treating her like garbage . one final flaw , though , is letting brandi fall for darnell to darnell 's four letter word vocabulary watch his actions , you wonder why such an intelligent woman would fall for a guy like at this movie . four writers , as a result it 's too long ( two hours , when it could 've easily worked at ninety minutes ! ) and it has a lot of subplots and characters that appear and disappear as quickly as they came ( which makes me think the writers did n't get along ) , all of which is n't necessary . there are some bright spots , though . whitfield , and bobby brown all do what they can with lazily written parts , and they help it out a lot . and

capsule : lesbianism examined in the same hushed and reverential tones reserved for a terminal illness . potentially interesting idea made stagy and boring . claire of the moon is such an impossibly serious and sober movie that i was waiting for someone to sneeze , just to break the ice . it 's a perfect example of what my wife calls an s . f . e . movie , where s . f . e . means so f * * * ing earnest . movies like this need wit and brashness to be absorbing . claire is one strained speech after another , written delivered with all of the energy and spontenaity of a dmv clerk . claire takes two women , claire and noel , both writers , and throws them together in the same cabin at a women - only writer 's retreat . claire wrights light comedy , while noel is a scholarly authority on porn and sexual behavior . obviously , the two of them are going to have plenty to talk about , and for the entire one hundred and twelve insufferable minutes of this movie , that 's all they do : talk . the movie sets up its ( microscopic ) plot with beat - a - dead - horse - into - glue obviousness . the evening talks at the camp are chaired by a motherly type named maggie , a self - professed lesbian , and when noel owns up to also being a lesbian , claire looks like she 's been hit with a sockful of wet sand . the movie then quickly degenerates into lots of scenes where noel glances at claire with significance , and claire looks out over the water reflectively . ( ugh ! ) the most amazing thing about the movie is how people so intelligent can talk so much and yet get so little through their thick heads . all of this , of course , leads up to a scene of complete inevitability : claire and noel , in a scene that should have come an hour earlier , because then the movie ends without even the benefit of reflection about what 's just happened . we never get a hint about how any of this has changed anyone , only how they felt about things that did n't even happen yet . the problem with claire . . . is not lesbianism as such , but the leaden way it 's handled . why is it that any " serious " ( a better word would be adult or at least thoughtful ) examination of sex in a movie almost always winds up producing a movie that 's unwatchably boring ? the way this movie deals with lesbianism , we might as well be watching an overheated docudrama about aids . many other movies have used the same subject in ways that are a thousand times better -- more engaging , more creative , more intellectually and artistically interesting . look at john sayles ' lianna , or the interesting and little - seen desert bloom ; both of them have more life and vibrancy than claire . what this movie needed was a good swift kick in the pants .

0NEG

tones reserved for a terminal illness . potentially interesting idea made stagy and boring . claire of the moon is such an impossibly serious and sober movie that i was waiting for someone to sneeze , need wit and brashness to be absorbing . claire is one strained speech after another , written delivered with all of the energy and spontenaity of a dmv clerk . claire takes two women , claire and noel , are going to have plenty to talk about , and for the entire one hundred and twelve insufferable minutes of this movie , that 's all they do : the movie sets up its ( microscopic ) plot with beat - a - dead - horse - into - glue obviousness . the evening talks at the camp are chaired by with a sockful of wet sand . the movie then quickly degenerates into lots of scenes where noel glances at claire with , and claire looks out over the water reflectively . ( ugh ! ) the most amazing thing about the movie is how people all of this , of course , leads up to a scene of complete inevitability : claire and noel , in a scene that should . . . is not lesbianism as such , but the leaden way it 's handled . why is it that any " serious " ( movie almost always winds up producing a movie that 's unwatchably boring ? the way this movie deals with lesbianism , we might as well be watching an overheated docudrama about aids . many other movies have used the same subject in of them have more life and vibrancy than claire . what this movie needed was a good swift kick in the pants .

the great actor james woods once said ( and i 'm paraphrasing ) , " if sex is n't messy , then you 're not doing it right " . a truly profound statement , and one that could be made for the entire mad slasher genre ( just replace " sex " with " your mad slasher film " ) . for those uninformed souls , the mad slasher genre ( or sub - genre ) is a melding of horror and exploitation elements put to the service of a plot that follows an identical outline : a usually masked but always crazed killer stalks and kills attractive teens a la halloween . urban legend is a mad slasher flick , but one that is so sanitary , bloodless , and nudity free , that with its irony laden dialogue and beautiful ( though not overly talented ) cast , it more closely resembles an overlong wb television special . for film makers , gore is one of the two weapons they have at their disposal in a stale , fright - free horror movie , as stephen king once said ( again paraphrasing ) " if you ca n't scare your audience , gross em ' out , if you ca n't do that , make em ' laugh " . alas , urban legend succeeds only at the latter , though not by intention . i actually find the fact that this film became a minor success ( $ 40 million domestic box office gross ) more frightening than anything in it . it seems that audiences ' tastes have been whittled down to such a degree that any movie even claiming to be scary is given the benefit of the doubt . the promotion for urban legend sure promised thrills , but how can anyone with a three digit iq argue that it provides them . unfortunately , these kinds of flicks will continue to be produced because people no longer have expectations ; one idiotic super - hyped blockbuster flick after another has desensitized audiences to the point where films do n't need to do anything more than promise a good time without the added pressure of delivering . if anyone disagrees i would love for them to explain the box office successes of shit like batman and robin , wild wild west , and godzilla . but forget all that , it goes without saying that mad slasher films ( or any other exploitation off - shoot ) will be made without an ounce of craft ( especially considering the sheer volume that are produced ) . allow me to present you with the real fault of the mad slasher film : the lack of enthusiastic exploitation . these flicks are n't harnessed with any lofty aspirations , so why not break free and give your audience a bloody good time ? sadly out of the literally hundreds made , i would estimate that maybe three are at all worth while . and urban legend would certainly not be included amongst those three . despite its considerable production value and the absence of any boom mics slipping into frame , it is just as awful as any no budget entry in the slasher sweepstakes . as far as the possibility of some good natured exploitation urban legend 's setting alone offers a myriad of promising possibilities : it takes place on a college campus , which is always an appropriate playground for the crazed killer . you see , the campus is a community made up almost entirely of young people all in the midst of strange hormonal surges percolating beneath the surface . all those young people are growing up together , going through all kinds of inexplicable emotional highs and lows , so naturally some weirdness is expected . all the better for that elusive crazed killer . coupled with the copious amounts of scantily clad coeds running around , and the introduction of a little exploitation into the proceedings should be a relatively easy task . but alas , urban legend is not only idiotic and clich ? ? full ; it 's way too clean , a slasher flick for the whole family with no nudity , little gore , and much stupidity . this is the kind of movie where the killer drags dead victims from the scene of the crime for no reason other than , i dunno , exercise . it 's the kind of movie where the villain calmly purses a running - like - the - wind - prey , yet still manages to catch that prey through some really awful editing techniques . it 's the kind of movie where characters run into each other just as a loud clash reverberates on the soundtrack . i really wish filmmakers would just retire that whole loud - noise - jump - scare thing . yes the audience jumps , momentarily frightened , but would n't anyone if a loud sonic boom suddenly infiltrated a quiet room . i lost all hope for the possibility of any genuine scares in urban legend about ten minutes in when i caught a glimpse of the killer . apparently filmmakers are running out of creative ways to disguise their mad slashers . in scream it was a ghost mask ( scary enough ) , in i know what you did last summer it was a fisher man 's rain slicker ( in the middle of summer no less ) , and in urban legend the disguise sinks to the level of mel brooks parody : the villain wears an oversized parka with a fury hood ( ooh ? ? ? scary ) intended to conceal his / her identity . for urban legend 2 i humbly suggest a donald duck costume . though i must admit , urban legend does have a winning premise for what could have been a somewhat entertaining exploitation film . the film 's killer slices and dices comely college students to the tune of famous urban legends ( you know , like the babysitter gets threatening phone calls only to find that they 're coming from inside the house ) . i wo n't spoil the surprise as to what urban legends are used , after all the film does offer fine 2 : 00 am cable viewing if you happen to be intoxicated enough . sad to say , it does n't include my favorite urban legend : a fairly graphic antidote concerning richard gere and a very unhappy gerbil . now that would be scary . before i leave you , i would like to bring to your attention the third most irritating thing about the film ( the first being the lack of craft , the second the lack of exploitation ) -- its characters , all of whom are just about the most annoying group of people i 've ever spent an evening with . only jared leto ( looking like a carbon copy of rob lowe from back in the day ) and alicia witt , as the resilient heroine , avoid vexatiousness . the most annoying of the bunch is a tie between noxima girl rebecca gayheart and sitcom star michael rosenbaum , as a supremely irritating lout ( so irritating i actually cheered his painful death , and i am not a cruel person ) . ironically those aggravating sacks of human waste provide the only entertainment in the film ; if viewed as a vicarious fantasy urban legend can be mildly entertaining . after all this is a movie that features the kind of faux hipsters i ca n't stand getting slaughtered , which is at least better than watching an entire film about people i ca n't stand not getting slaughtered .

0NEG

of the two weapons they have at their disposal in a stale , fright - free horror movie , as stephen king once said ( again paraphrasing ) n't do that , make em ' laugh " . alas , urban legend succeeds only at the latter , though the promotion for urban legend sure promised thrills , but how can anyone with a three digit iq argue that it provides them . unfortunately , these kinds of flicks will continue to be produced because people no longer have expectations ; one idiotic super - hyped blockbuster flick after another has desensitized audiences to the point where films do n't need to do any other exploitation off - shoot ) will be made without an ounce of craft ( especially considering the sheer volume that are produced ) with the real fault of the mad slasher film : the lack of enthusiastic exploitation . these flicks are n't harnessed with any lofty aspirations the absence of any boom mics slipping into frame , it is just as awful as any no budget entry in the slasher sweepstakes . as far as the possibility the proceedings should be a relatively easy task . but alas , urban legend is not only idiotic and clich ? ? full ; it 's way too clean , a slasher flick for the whole family with no nudity , little gore , and much stupidity . this is the kind of movie where the killer prey , yet still manages to catch that prey through some really awful editing techniques . it 's the kind of movie where characters a loud sonic boom suddenly infiltrated a quiet room . i lost all hope for the possibility of any genuine scares in urban legend about ten minutes in when i caught of summer no less ) , and in urban legend the disguise sinks to the level of mel brooks parody : the villain wears an oversized parka with a fury as to what urban legends are used , after all the film does offer fine 2 : 00 am cable viewing if you happen to be intoxicated enough . sad to say , it does n't include my you , i would like to bring to your attention the third most irritating thing about the film ( the first being the lack of craft , the second the lack of exploitation ) --

the premise of turbulence is i 'm sure very familiar to us all . we 've seen it before in passenger 57 , executive decision , and countless other flicks that are good in there own way . you know , terrorists take over a plane , ask the police on the ground for what they what and so on . turbulence starts out with a " convict " ray liotta being accused of a crime . you think there is no way he could have done it , he 's so open and kind . he is taken in and is subsequently transported on a commerical plane to la . this is already a problem . there is no way that convicts would be transported on the same commercial flight that normal passangers would be on . anyway , it is christmas eve and everyone is waiting to get to la and spend christmas eve there . well , convict one manages to stop the flight in its proverbial " tracks " and liotta , still as calm as ever , takes the other convict out . he also has eyes for lauren holly , a flight attendent , and seems to grow closer to her . " the plot stops here " i did n't like this movie because it seemed to be a rip off of every other airplane movie i 've ever seen . at one point , mr . liotta looked exactly like jack nicholson in the shining ( i 'm serious ! ) . it was like they stole for every other movie down to a " t " . the only reason i did not give this 0 stars is because it had some okay stunts . do n't even bother !

0NEG

is subsequently transported on a commerical plane to la . this is already a problem . there is no way that convicts would be transported closer to her . " the plot stops here " i did n't like this movie because it seemed to be a rip off of every other airplane movie i 've ever seen . in the shining ( i 'm serious ! ) . it was like they stole for every other movie down to a " t " . the only reason 0 stars is because it had some okay stunts . do n't even bother !

a movie laced with a good blend of action , comedy , and a heavy dose of musical celebrity guest appearances sounds pretty gourmet , but even the best ingredients can be thrown together in the wrong way , creating a dismal and unsatisfactory product . eighteen years after the blues brothers hit theaters , blues brothers 2000 is being unleashed , minus half of its original duo ( the late john belushi ) and nearly all of its original charm . dan aykroyd reprises his role ( as well as his co - writing credit ) as elwood blues , the sharp dressed con man who wreaked havoc on a self - proclaimed " mission from god " along with his brother jake and their blues brothers band nearly eighteen years ago . as we begin , elwood is being released from a state penitentiary along with the news of his brother 's death in prison years ago . completely on his own , elwood decides to trace his roots back to the orphanage where he spent his childhood , only to discover that everyone he has ever known has passed away . but elwood is n't completely without family . it seems he has a half - brother of sorts - not a real brother mind you , just the illegitimate child of his bluesman pseudo - father curtis ( cab calloway from the first film ) , who has also passed on . despite inklings from mother superior mary stigmata ( kathleen freeman ) to do otherwise , elwood seeks out his only remaining family in an effort to start up an all new blues brothers band . working as a police commander , cabel chamberlain ( joe morton ) , has an immediate disliking for elwood , who nonchalantly fills cab in on his mother 's affair years ago and then goes on to steal his wallet . following elwood around is the lonely orphan buster ( j . evan bonifant ) , who quickly learns to become a mini - elwood . when bartender mighty mack mcteer ( john goodman ) joins the group , the blues brothers band is complete , and once again , the group travels the country , crashing cars , blowing things up , and obstructing peace with more than just solid blues rock . meanwhile , cab 's personal vendetta against elwood leads him on an impassioned manhunt for his next - to - next - of - kin . > from this point , the movie turns into a series of music videos with a few bits of acting in between . those hoping for an interesting and/or funny yarn are given too many musical interludes while those heavily interested in the music are given too much of a story . only the extremely avid blues fans should attempt getting thru these two hours . for those people , it may be worth it , for luckily there is much more music than shoddy attempts at acting , but when the story does intrude upon the festivities , the film is heavily bogged down with unfunny jokes , musicians turned stiff actors , and the pointless 10-year- old buster attempting to add some sort of home alone cuteness to the whole thing . appearances by musical legends such as aretha franklin , james brown , eric clapton , and a whole slew of others are the high points of the film , but they also confirm why these people are musicians and not actors . blues brothers 2000 is deserving of one whole star simply because if you really , really love this kind of music , you might kind of , sort of like this movie . many , many scenes are nauseatingly unfunny , and if you do n't have a passion for very deep blues / rock , you 'll be bored out of your skull . much of this film seems nothing more than aykroyd 's self - serving vanity project , but no matter how much fun aykroyd may be having with this , none of the excitement is passed on to the audience . and seeing three guys in three - piece suits goofily dancing around with poker faces can only be funny for so long . unfortunately , those two seconds are over about fifteen minutes into the film .

0NEG

pretty gourmet , but even the best ingredients can be thrown together in the wrong way , creating a dismal and unsatisfactory product . eighteen years after the blues brothers hit theaters , blues brothers 2000 is being unleashed , minus half of its original duo ( the late - of - kin . > from this point , the movie turns into a series of music videos with a few bits of acting in between . those hoping for an interesting and/or funny yarn are but when the story does intrude upon the festivities , the film is heavily bogged down with unfunny jokes , musicians turned stiff actors , and the pointless 10-year- old buster attempting to add some sort of home of like this movie . many , many scenes are nauseatingly unfunny , and if you do n't have a passion for very deep blues / rock , you 'll be bored out of your skull . much of this film seems nothing more than aykroyd how much fun aykroyd may be having with this , none of the excitement is passed on to the audience . and seeing three guys in three - piece suits goofily dancing around with poker faces can only be funny for so long . unfortunately , those two seconds are over about fifteen minutes into

if only austin powers : the spy who shagged me had been just half as original , zany , silly and totally enjoyable as its predecessor , it would have easily been one of this summer 's biggest pleasures . if only . in fact , the spy who shagged me is the exact opposite of the original ; instead of refreshing the audience with one clever parody after another , the filmmakers bombard us with used - up , tired jokes taken directly from the first one . take the scene where austin powers ( again played by mike myers , but with only a fraction of the giddy enthusiasm he displayed previously ) confronts a henchmen on the side of a cliff . after being pushed off the ravine , the bad guy is of course assumed dead . but suddenly , we hear a pleading voice coming from down below ; he 's only injured . a similar scene played very well in the original international man of mystery , but here i was insulted by it . did the filmmakers really believe the audience would laugh at a rip - off ? apparently i overestimated the intelligence of the average movie - goer , considering that the film has pulled in over $ 200 million in domestic theatrical grosses alone . do i hear the sound of a franchise heading our way ? having said that , though , i still can not deny the film its merits . the basic plot was delightfully silly enough to sustain my interest somewhat ; dr . evil ( mike myers , in the second of his three roles ) , having constructed a time machine , goes back to the year 1969 in an attempt to snatch austin power 's " mojo " ( do n't you just love that word ? ) whilst he is cryogenically frozen . when austin gets wind of this ( after a great intro explaining the absence of elizabeth hurley 's vanessa kensington ) , he too travels back in time to re - claim his sexual drive , accompanied by the hot - to - trot felicity shagwell , played by heather graham . this sounds stupid , i know , but in the movie it starts to make some kind of weird , off - the - wall sense , and it worked for me . then there 's mini - me ( verne troyer ) , a . . . petite clone of myer 's dr . evil , exactly 1/8 in size . troyer 's persona alone gains the film an extra half - star , contributing to one particularly hilarious scene where he attempts to nibble on his own mini - mr . bigglesworth . just try to ignore the fact that , at 2'8 ' ' , he would make dr . evil 's height rise to just over 21 feet . no matter . however , there are only about four hearty laughs throughout the entire hour and a half ( the most notable being the now infamous tent scene ) , and that just is n't enough to warrant even a minor recommendation . if there is in fact an " austin powers 3 " , they should just kill off secret agent powers and put the emphasis on dr . evil and mini - me . unconventional , yes , but there 's no denying that it 'd make for a better movie .

0NEG

have easily been one of this summer 's biggest pleasures . if only . in fact , the spy who shagged me is the refreshing the audience with one clever parody after another , the filmmakers bombard us with used - up , tired jokes taken directly from the first one . take the scene where austin powers ( again played well in the original international man of mystery , but here i was insulted by it . did the filmmakers really believe the audience would laugh notable being the now infamous tent scene ) , and that just is n't enough to warrant even a minor recommendation . if there is in fact an " austin powers

in the series of the erotic thrillers that flooded the videoshelves in the early 1990s came this french - canadian co - production by max fischer . the movie is set in paris where its hero , struggling american author david mirkine ( judd nelson , at the time specialised in playing losers and people at the edge of sanity ) suffers a terrible writers bloc . he manages to overcome crisis after beginning romantic relationship with beautiful model anabelle ( laurence treill ) . unfortunately , she hangs out in jet set circles , which gradually makes mirkine pathologically jealous . her connection with powerful david caravan ( pierce brosnan ) would make mirkine step the line between reason and sanity and put in motion whole series of violent and tragic events . although few pseudoerotic scenes and some elements of the plot do indeed make this film an erotic thriller , drama would probably be more appropriate genre label . pacing of the film is simply too slow to thrill the viewers , and those patient enough to sit through its entirety have to wait a long time between any interesting or significant developments . low budget also becomes painfully visible , and physical attributes of laurence treill are the only thing worth watching in this film . unfortunately , this film has too little of those supposedly erotic scenes , so those who wanted to watch erotic thriller have all the reasons to feel disappointed . instead , they would have to settle with pointless , slow scenes involving nelson , brosnan and laurence treill 's attempts of serious acting . all of those definitely not worth spending hour and half of someone 's precious time .

0NEG

, drama would probably be more appropriate genre label . pacing of the film is simply too slow to thrill the viewers , and those patient enough to sit through its entirety have to wait a long time between any interesting or significant developments . low budget also becomes painfully visible , and physical attributes of laurence treill are the only thing worth watching in this film . unfortunately , this film has too little of those supposedly erotic scenes , so those who wanted to watch erotic thriller have all the reasons to feel disappointed . instead , they would have to settle with pointless , slow scenes involving nelson , brosnan and laurence treill 's attempts of serious acting . all of those definitely not worth spending hour and half of someone 's precious time .

here i sit at my computer about to write my review of the recent action comedy " bait " starring jamie foxx and david morse . this is a review i do n't even want to write because i 'd just be laying the same criticisms on it that i would with any other so - generic - and - predictable - it's - beyond - ridiculous piece of hollywood fluff . if they 're not going to give us , the audience , just a little credit and put something together with half a brain , why should i waste my time and mental energy criticising it ? last summer i took this same approach with my review of " the mummy , " in that review i just quoted phrases my reviews of other sub - par movies . i think i shall do the same thing here but with a few less quotes ( not all are applicable ) . i hope this goes to show you what i think of " bait " and why you can find out all you need to know about it without having to take a wild guess . it 's genuinely unfunny ( i , and the other audience members only laughed once during the entire two hours ) , unoriginal and unthrilling . it 's not so bad to the point where it 's fun to watch because of its badness and it 's no so bad you absolute loathe it and are pained by watching it , it 's just such a cliche in and of itself , that , uhh . . . lost my train of thought . anyways , here 's those quotes , enjoy ! " getting an audience 's attention right from the beginning plays a major role in how today 's films work . we want to have something exciting to watch , not a slow build - up of a story ( god forbid ! ) , and this film plays right into the mainstream 's hands . . . " - review of " armageddon . " " it 's clear the film does n't want to waste time on reality and thus the attempt to establish plausability ( the most minimal amount necessary ) comes across as a half - assed effort . supporting characters and shady sup - plots are introduced , but as is the case with films made up of a large cast of characters , only a handful have any real significance . . . there 's a fine line separating homage from plagiarism . . . , " - review of " godzilla " ( 1998 ) " unfortunately , as is the case with most modern thrillers , once the film showed potential for authenticity and intelligence , the cliches and action sequences take over , " - review of " the jackal . " chad'z movie page is back after heavy renovation . reviews of nearly all mainstream movies playing today ! get my reviews of everything playing at your local cineplex so you can better make an informed decision on what to see . do n't forget to vote on my poll and sign the guestbook !

0NEG

a review i do n't even want to write because i 'd just be laying the same criticisms on it that i would with any other so - generic - and - predictable - it's - beyond - ridiculous piece of hollywood fluff . if they 're not going to give us , without having to take a wild guess . it 's genuinely unfunny ( i , and the other audience members only laughed once during the entire two hours ) , unoriginal and unthrilling . it 's not so bad to the point where absolute loathe it and are pained by watching it , it 's just such a cliche in and of itself , that , uhh . . . lost my train story ( god forbid ! ) , and this film plays right into the mainstream 's hands . . . " - review of " armageddon . ( the most minimal amount necessary ) comes across as a half - assed effort . supporting characters and shady sup - plots are introduced , but as is the case with films only a handful have any real significance . . . there 's a fine line separating homage from plagiarism . . . , " - review of " godzilla " ( 1998 ) " unfortunately , as is the case with most modern thrillers , once the film showed potential for authenticity and intelligence , the cliches and action sequences take over , " - review of " the jackal . "

tv 's buffy finds herself on the other side of the supernatural spectrum in " simply irresistible . " sarah michelle gellar , that never - ceasing crusader against never - ending evil every tuesday night on the wb network , here plays a down - on - her - luck chef suspected of dabbling in witchcraft after her flailing restaurant receives help in the form of magically scrumptious meals . taste test results : some vampire slaying , though out of place , would have really livened this excruciating movie up . " simply irresistible " is actually quite easy to deny , a disaster of culinary and other proportions pretty much from the opening on . gellar 's amanda finds herself falling for harried henri bendel exec tom ( sean patrick flannery of powder ) around the same time she discovers an uncanny ability to mystically manifest emotions in her cooking , a secret ingredient that arouses both his interest in her and the public 's in her tiny tribeca eatery . all this love and sorcery have a lot to do with the telekinetic crab that also figures into the story , a tale that at times plays like an american spin on 1993 's mexican classic " like water for chocolate . " several differences : one , " like water " did n't have a telekinetic crab , and two , " like water " was a good film . " simply irresistible , " on the other hand , is about as challenging as an easy - bake oven . amateurishly staged scenes cancel each other out in their badness , from an embarrassing seduction in a literal vanilla fog to an impromptu dance sequence where tom and amanda do their best fred and ginger - though fred and ginger never took part in anything this garish . the intrusive musical score distracts from the flat dialogue at regular intervals , but it 's not like you 're were going to miss much . in fact , take away the few instances of salty language and this has made - for - disney channel written all over it . but a majority of " simply irresistible " 's resistibility factor has less to do with the afore - mentioned overkill than the bland leads - tom and amanda are so thin and ambiguously defined that there 's just no fun rooting for their inevitable " happily ever after . " nor do the otherworldly powers that serve to bring them together make sense , so we 're left with a ho - hum relationship based on enchanted eclairs ; it 's not going to last long , people . perhaps sensing this , the filmmakers have piled on weird supporting characters for acting vets like betty buckley , dylan baker and patricia clarkson , but they do n't go anywhere either . in fact , nothing in " simply irresistible " goes anywhere save for gellar , and she does n't go somewhere so much as you wish she 'd go _ somewhere _ - like to a better movie . already proving major talent with relatively few big- and small - screen roles , she 's the sole reason this overcooked souffle is n't completely fit for the garbage disposal , looking smashing in her todd oldham - designed duds and investing much more in her perfunctory part than she ever gets in return . it 's certainly a dish best not served in it 's current condition , but one can only guess that , without gellar , " simply irresistible " would be strictly unwatchable .

0NEG

though out of place , would have really livened this excruciating movie up . " simply irresistible " is actually quite easy to deny , a disaster of culinary and other proportions pretty much from the opening simply irresistible , " on the other hand , is about as challenging as an easy - bake oven . amateurishly staged scenes cancel each other out in their badness , from an embarrassing seduction in a literal vanilla fog to an impromptu dance sequence where tom and amanda do their best fred and ginger though fred and ginger never took part in anything this garish . the intrusive musical score distracts from the flat dialogue at regular intervals , but it 's not like you " 's resistibility factor has less to do with the afore - mentioned overkill than the bland leads - tom and amanda are so thin and ambiguously defined that there 's just no fun rooting for their inevitable them together make sense , so we 're left with a ho - hum relationship based on enchanted eclairs ; it 's not going to last long , people . perhaps sensing this , the filmmakers have piled on weird small - screen roles , she 's the sole reason this overcooked souffle is n't completely fit for the garbage disposal , looking smashing in her todd oldham - designed duds and investing much more in her perfunctory part than she ever gets in return . it 's certainly , without gellar , " simply irresistible " would be strictly unwatchable .

the 13th warrior reeks so badly of melodrama and poor acting that it carries a worst scent than a canine 's least appetizing residue . the best part of the film would be a close contest between the closing credits and a brief moment in the middle where the screen goes entirely white and you hope that the film has slipped and caught ablaze in the projector . my vote goes for the ending credits , where you can start trying to put the awful experience behind you . ibn fahdlan ( antonio banderas ) is an important official who is banished from his home for sleeping with another man 's wife . he encounters a group of norse warriors who convince him to join them on a mysterious journey to be taken by 13 men . fahdlan is chosen as the 13th and last warrior in a moment that is so desperately overacted and overdone that numerous persons at the screening i attended broke out into laughter . the movie proves to be a new low point for banderas , who 's acting seems closer to that of his role as the lover and caretaker for a dying gay man in 1993 's philadelphia , than that of a warrior . in the film 's supposed pay off scene , he exclaims " i was wrong , these are not men ! " , a line intended to be the most memorable quote of the production . unfortunately , banderas delivers it in a fashion that makes chevy chase 's career look like oscar material . the film , based on michael crichton 's best selling novel , eaters of the dead was shot under that name some three years ago , and after numerous rewrites not only does the dialogue seem completely phony , but the plot is incredibly difficult to follow . at the same time , the 13th warrior makes you think about numerous questions . questions like " why do the characters always have perfect lighting on them even when it is pitch dark ? " , " why does no one ever have blood cover both sides of their face , but rather just one side ? " and finally , " will the manager give me a refund ? " 90 minutes into the 103 minute film , a man invites of the warriors " come with me , there is a woman who can help . " unfortunately , there is nothing that could help this film . the most appropriate ending would have been for the 13 men to join hands , form a chorus line , and break into a rendition of " springtime for hitler . "

0NEG

the 13th warrior reeks so badly of melodrama and poor acting that it carries a worst scent than a canine 's least appetizing residue . the best part of the film would be a credits , where you can start trying to put the awful experience behind you . ibn fahdlan ( antonio banderas ) is the 13th and last warrior in a moment that is so desperately overacted and overdone that numerous persons at the screening i attended broke out into laughter . the movie proves to be a new low point for banderas , who 's acting seems closer to that to be the most memorable quote of the production . unfortunately , banderas delivers it in a fashion that makes chevy years ago , and after numerous rewrites not only does the dialogue seem completely phony , but the plot is incredibly difficult to follow . at the same time , the 13th warrior makes but rather just one side ? " and finally , " will the manager give me a refund ? " 90 minutes into the 103 minute film , a man , there is a woman who can help . " unfortunately , there is nothing that could help this film .

i 've heard it called " jaws with claws " and that 's a fair summation of the plot , though that tag line does little to quantify quality . director stephen hopkins ( blown away , predator 2 ) and screenwriter william goldman ( maverick , misery ) would have you believe that this is an epic historical drama about man against nature , based on what really happened in africa to the railroad workers trying to build a bridge to the 20th century . they 've stacked the deck with two big stars ( val kilmer , michael douglas ) , a bigger production design , beautiful photography ( by academy award winner vilmos zsigmond ) , and a score so overblown that it makes the lion king soundtrack sound like chamber music . the movie does n't make a lick of sense , though , either as an epic or as your basic boo - fest . in fact , some of the bits are so laughably ludicrous that you may think you 've stumbled into the sequel to mystery science theater 3000 : the movie . how about the three guys with rifles , who trap a lion and then ca n't even hit the damned thing ? or the ham - on - wry acting of michael douglas , who chews more scenery than the animals ever do ? ? or , my favorite , lions so agile that they can even climb onto rooftops ? ! ?

0NEG

academy award winner vilmos zsigmond ) , and a score so overblown that it makes the lion king soundtrack sound like chamber music . the movie does n't make a lick of sense , though , either as an epic or as your basic boo - fest . in fact , some of the bits are so laughably ludicrous that you may think you 've stumbled into the sequel guys with rifles , who trap a lion and then ca n't even hit the damned thing ? or the ham - on - wry acting of michael douglas , who chews more scenery than the ever do ? ? or , my favorite , lions so agile that they can even climb onto rooftops ? ! ?

billy crystal reappears in yet another high concept comedy . he tries to infuse some life into it , but it gets bogged down with sentimentality and a lack of sophistication . sammy ( billy crystal ) is a struggling agent at the end of his ropes . he 's separated from his wife , serena ( kathleen quinlan ) , and down to his last serious client . . . in a low - budget film shooting in romania . but in a turn of bad luck , sammy wrecks his car . . . only to be mysteriously saved by a giant ( gheorghe muresan ) . but this giant has a heart of gold . he leads a solitary life , helping out the monks at a local monastery . his only longing is for his long lost love , lilianna ( joanna pacula ) , who has since moved to america . sammy , seeing a golden ticket , convinces max to become an actor ( represented by sammy , of course ) , and come back to america . and so sam and max bounce from pathetic job to pathetic job , with sammy dangling a meeting with lilianna as a carrot before max 's nose . but slowly sammy 's deceptions begin to haunt him . but will he develop a conscience before the innocent max becomes disillusioned . the humor in my giant is n't the world 's greatest . mostly , it falls under the category of " boy . . . he 's so big ! " , and that can only go so far , no matter how hard the talent tries . still , its slightly amusing parts are longed for when the movie gets bogged down in sappy moments . the film 's best moment ( and that 's not saying much ) is a bit part by steven seagal , playing himself . between executive decision and this , all of seagal 's best roles have been cameos . maybe he should consider a change of work : steven seagal , the character actor ! gheorghe muresan is n't a natural actor at all , and his thick cotton - mouthed accent certainly does n't help . in fact the only thing he adds to the role is his immense stature . originally , the concept was designed several years ago for andre the giant . andre also had a hefty accent , but he displayed a knack for comedy in the princess bride . . . something muresan should have studied for some pointers . why does billy crystal continually get caught in these pathetic comedies ? he 's proven that he can be much funnier than these formulaic films allow him to be , and yet , like a glutton for punishment , he keeps coming back . that does n't mean we have to .

0NEG

tries to infuse some life into it , but it gets bogged down with sentimentality and a lack of sophistication . sammy ( billy crystal ) is a struggling agent . . he 's so big ! " , and that can only go so far , no matter how hard the talent tries . still , its slightly amusing parts are longed for when the movie gets bogged down in sappy moments . the film 's best moment ( and that 's : steven seagal , the character actor ! gheorghe muresan is n't a natural actor at all , and his thick cotton - mouthed accent certainly does n't help . in fact the only thing he adds to the . why does billy crystal continually get caught in these pathetic comedies ? he 's proven that he can be much funnier than these formulaic films allow him to be , and yet , like a

movies can do the two big es very well : educate and entertain . in the best of all possible worlds , they accomplish both . on the red planet , they fail entirely . in the near future , a manned mission is sent to mars to observe primitive plant growth . this film does a remarkable job of demonstrating exactly how exciting watching algae grow would be . after some mumbo - jumbo about an ecological disaster on earth and an interminable wait to reach the fourth planet , the ship falls apart almost as fast as the movie does . the ground crew of people you could n't care less about is trapped on the surface without food , water or air and stalked by a deadly rogue cyberdog . the one potentially interesting character ( carrie - anne moss ) spends her time alone in the orbiting ship talking to a computer . attempting to graft " 2001 " esque space mysticism with " terminator " robot horror , first time director antony hoffman ca n't seem to figure out what 's going on . neither can we . did n't he have anyone who could step back from the shooting and make sure there was a coherent story ? could n't he have used the money saved by only having to pay half a dozen actors to hire a scriptwriter ? there are so many mis - steps . every opportunity to create dynamic tension is thwarted by plot holes and lackluster direction . why introduce the theme of faith vs . science if the crewman who could comment on it disappears early only to die _ offscreen _ ? the audience begins the film waiting for something to happen . two hours later , they 're still waiting . despite our greatest hopes , there is no life on the red planet .

0NEG

, they accomplish both . on the red planet , they fail entirely . in the near future , a manned mission is sent to mars to observe primitive plant growth . this film does a remarkable job of demonstrating exactly how exciting watching algae grow would be . after some mumbo - jumbo about an ecological disaster on earth and an interminable wait to reach the fourth planet , the ship falls apart almost as fast as the movie does . the ground crew of people you could n't care less about is trapped on the surface without food , water or terminator " robot horror , first time director antony hoffman ca n't seem to figure out what 's going on . neither can we . did n't he have anyone who could step back from pay half a dozen actors to hire a scriptwriter ? there are so many mis - steps . every opportunity to create dynamic tension is thwarted by plot holes and lackluster direction . why introduce the theme of faith vs . science audience begins the film waiting for something to happen . two hours later , they 're still waiting . despite our greatest hopes , there is no life

capsule : an insult . a stupid and incompetent movie that does n't even have the benefit of being trashily enjoyable . weslely and woody would do well to leave this off their resumes . money train is one of the worst movies i have ever seen . it 's not simply idiotic , it 's contemptuous of its audience . it tries to make us swallow things that a better movie would be stopped cold by or just plain omit entirely . it 's a waste of wesley snipes and woody harrelson , who are enjoyable actors in their own rights but are nauseating here . it 's not even fun as trash . woody and wesley star ( maybe that 's not the right word ) as new york city transit authority police . they have a job which could actually be the core of a really interesting movie : one of them plays drunk possum to attract chain - snatchers and the other does lookout . i had a whole headful of legal and ethical questions surrounding this , raised by a documentary i 'd seen on the subject once , but the movie does not waste any time with being intelligent or thought - provoking . see if you can follow this . they chase a kid down the tunnel and into the station where the " money train " , the heavily armored car that picks up all the cash from the token books , is parked . the guards on the train see this kid running at them , lift their machine guns , shout " halt ! " and then open fire when the kid does n't stop running at them . blam , the kid 's dead . then woody and wesley show up , and of course the other ta cops hate them ( why ? ) , and a pushing match starts , and someone gets decked , and . . . i covered my face . i 'd seen enough . i 've never seen a movie work so hard and in so little time to destroy , systematically , any chance of being credible or interesting . fed up with the bs at their job ( most of it their own goddamned fault ) , woody and wesley hatch this plot about how to rob the money train . hence the title , in case some of you ( all two of you ) did n't figure it out yet . then there 's this subplot about a maniac who torches token book clerks , * and * a love story , * and * a holdup -- no , two holdups , sorry , easy to lose track in a movie this braindead -- * and * a mob boss who wants his money . there was n't a minute when i gave a horse 's ass about any of it . neither woody nor wesley play characters that are interesting for a single minute . we do not care about them . they are not interesting . they are noisy , loud , stupid , foolish jerks who whould have flunked out of the police academy . they deserve to get shot -- or run over , as the case may be . they only exist to rehash the kind of dynamics that was * written * into a movie like white men ca n't jump , and which simply does not exist here . they are idiots , and we 're expected to root for them . bullcrap . the movie is completely schizophrenic in its tone and texture . what exactly is this mess ? a cop movie ? police procedure is not given a moment 's genuine thought anywhere . a thriller ? the subplot with the token booth killer is inept , a throwaway that should have been ditched in the rewrite . a comedy ? the few jokes that do work are wasted . a drama ? all dramatic tension between both principals is freeze - dried and off - the - rack . there 's not a moment in the movie where i felt like i was listening to genuine human beings talk ; it 's all screenwriterese , that bizarre analect where every sentence ends in a punchline and the primary mode of expression is the unique conjunctions of four - letter words . ( actual dialogue excerpt : " fuck you . " " what ? " " you heard me : fuck * you * . " " no : fuck * you * ! " ) look . i 'll be honest here . i 've tried writing screenplays , and even * i * suspect that if i tried to pitch this mess , i 'd get laughed out of the office . anyone interested in hearing my ideas for a few good movies can write me and hear my pitch , because god knows i know i can do better . i 've weasted enough time on this piece of tripe .

0NEG

capsule : an insult . a stupid and incompetent movie that does n't even have the benefit of being trashily enjoyable . weslely and woody would do well to leave this off their resumes . money train is one of the worst movies i have ever seen . it 's not simply idiotic , it 's contemptuous of its audience . it tries to make us swallow things that a cold by or just plain omit entirely . it 's a waste of wesley snipes and woody harrelson , who are enjoyable actors in their own rights but are nauseating here . it 's not even fun as trash . woody and wesley star ( maybe that 's not , and someone gets decked , and . . . i covered my face . i 'd seen enough . i 've never seen a movie work so hard and in so little time to destroy , systematically , any chance of being credible or interesting . fed up with the bs at their job ( sorry , easy to lose track in a movie this braindead -- * and * a mob boss who wants his money . there was n't a minute when i gave a horse 's ass about any of it . neither woody nor wesley play characters that are interesting for a single minute . we do not care about them . they are not interesting . they are noisy , loud , stupid , foolish jerks who whould have flunked out of the police academy . , and we 're expected to root for them . bullcrap . the movie is completely schizophrenic in its tone and texture . what exactly is this mess ? a cop movie ? police procedure is not given a thriller ? the subplot with the token booth killer is inept , a throwaway that should have been ditched in the rewrite . a comedy ? the few jokes that do work are wasted . a drama ? all dramatic tension between both principals is freeze - dried and off - the - rack . there 's not a moment in the movie where is the unique conjunctions of four - letter words . ( actual dialogue excerpt : "

alexander dumas ' the three musketeers is one of the most often - adapted literary works , and for good reason : the swashbuckler is a legend rather than just a story . perhaps the musketeer , a new film that " reimagines " the novel in the spirit and style of the matrix , is one adaptation too many . it 's just awful : spiritless , silly and unforgivably boring , transforming the timeless classic into a mish - mash of old - as - time clich ? s and incoherent , repetitive action sequences . this time , d'artagnan is played by calvin klein model justin chambers , who ca n't even pronounce his character 's name . as a boy , he watched his father get killed by febre ( tim roth ) , a lackey of power - hungry cardinal richelieu . he vowed to have vengeance . after undergoing intense training under an expert swordsman , he goes looking for his enemy . on his quest , he embroils himself in a struggle for control at the highest levels of the french government . the royal musketeers have lost their gusto , what with their jobs being taken over by the cardinal 's own guards . only a few loyal swashbuckers remain , among them athos and portos ( who are only figureheads in this movie ) . together with d'artagnan , they fight to extricate the queen ( catherine deneuve ) from the traps that febre and richelieu are trying to plant . oh , and as an afterthought , d'artagnan falls in love with the poor maid at the local inn ( mena suvari ) . just thought i 'd mention that . now , look : i do n't know whose idea this was , but whoever is responsible deserves a severe tongue - lashing . i have nothing against " modernizing " classic works of literature - at the very least , they can inspire viewers to actually read the book - but films as dull as this have no positive side effects . director peter hyams , known for such masterpieces of modern cinema as timecop and end of days , has jettisoned everything that was great about dumas ' masterwork : the sense of excitement , cause , and camaraderie . instead , we get impressively choreographed but somehow vacuous , uninvolving action sequences that emerge from emptiness and lead to nothing . when the musketeers finally get to holler " all for one , and one for all , " i could have sworn that was dumas rolling in his grave that i felt . maybe the reason for the utter lack of suspense here is the hyams 's tone , which is unreasonably dark and brooding when you consider the reader 's digest condensed version of the story that he gives us . it 's as though anything that may have been construed as " fun " was purposely expunged from the production . the joylessness of the proceedings , from the oppressively shady lighting to the mechanical fight scenes , can be felt in every frame . chambers ca n't act ; suvari , roth and deneuve can , but are n't given the chance . and when push comes to shove , the use of stunt doubles is distractingly obvious , though at least roth gets to play a villain without having to wear an ape suit . some movies seem sloppy and careless , clearly made for a quick buck . with the musketeer we get the sense that it was meticulously crafted to be awful . the film is intricate , stylish and precise , hitting the wrong note every single time .

0NEG

of the matrix , is one adaptation too many . it 's just awful : spiritless , silly and unforgivably boring , transforming the timeless classic into a mish - mash of old - as - time clich ? s and incoherent , repetitive action sequences . this time , d'artagnan is played by i do n't know whose idea this was , but whoever is responsible deserves a severe tongue - lashing . i have nothing against " modernizing " classic works can inspire viewers to actually read the book - but films as dull as this have no positive side effects . director peter hyams , known for such masterpieces of and camaraderie . instead , we get impressively choreographed but somehow vacuous , uninvolving action sequences that emerge from emptiness and lead to nothing . when the musketeers finally get to holler " all all , " i could have sworn that was dumas rolling in his grave that i felt . maybe the reason for the utter lack of suspense here is the hyams 's tone , which is unreasonably that may have been construed as " fun " was purposely expunged from the production . the joylessness of the proceedings , from the oppressively shady lighting to the mechanical fight scenes , can be felt in every frame . chambers ca n't act ; suvari , roth and deneuve can , but are comes to shove , the use of stunt doubles is distractingly obvious , though at least roth gets to play a villain with the musketeer we get the sense that it was meticulously crafted to be awful . the film is intricate , stylish and precise ,

in this re - make of the 1954 japanese monster film , godzilla is transformed into a " jurassic park " copy who swims from the south pacific to new york for no real reason and trashes the town . although some of the destruction is entertaining for a while , it gets old fast . the film often makes no sense ( a several - hundred foot tall beast hides in subway tunnels ) , sports second - rate effects ( the baby godzillas seem to be one computer effect multiplied on the screen ) , lame jokes ( mayor ebert and his assistant gene are never funny ) , horrendous acting ( even matthew broderick is dull ) and an unbelievable love story ( why would anyone want to get back together with maria pitillo 's character ? ) . there are other elements of the film that fall flat , but going on would just be a waste of good words . only for die - hard creature feature fans , this might be fun if you could check your brain at the door . i could n't . ( michael redman has written this column for 23 years and has seldom had a more disorienting cinematic experience than seeing both " fear and loathing " and " godzilla " in the same evening . )

0NEG

copy who swims from the south pacific to new york for no real reason and trashes the town . although some of the destruction is entertaining for a while , it gets old fast . the film often makes no sense ( a several - hundred foot tall beast hides in subway tunnels ) , sports second - rate effects ( the baby godzillas seem to be one computer effect multiplied on the screen ) , lame jokes ( mayor ebert and his assistant gene are never funny ) , horrendous acting ( even matthew broderick is dull ) and an unbelievable love story ( why would anyone want to get back ) . there are other elements of the film that fall flat , but going on would just be a waste of redman has written this column for 23 years and has seldom had a more disorienting cinematic experience than seeing both " fear and loathing " and "

when i first saw the preview for cruel intentions , i turned to my friend and said , " dangerous liaisons for kids ! " it was clear to me that the film would be an obvious chunk of plagiarized nonsense , owing everything it is to stephen frears ' 1988 masterpiece . imagine my surprise to see that writer / director roger kumble has given credit to his source material : choderlos de laclos is recognized for his novel les liaisons dangereuses in the opening credits . and i was impressed . in fact , i was much more impressed with this recognition than with the actual film , which is an appalling excuse for a movie . it 's kiddie - porn hackwork , complete with earthy sex - talk and fully - clothed hand - jobs . i suppose this kind of movie was inevitable ; with all the teen high - school angst movies coming out , there was certainly room for a pretentious and laughable movie about a bunch of teenagers who think they 're smarter and more beautiful than all the other people on earth combined . cruel intentions is a mess in every possible way , and it fails primarily in the way i expected it to : i hated all the characters , and i hate everything they do . i also hate ryan phillippe , so perhaps my opinion is not as objective as it could be . phillippe plays ( check out this name ) sebastian valmont . wow . is n't that a memorable name ? i could just say it over and over again . sebastian valmont . it kind of rolls off the tongue , in the spirit of phrases like sanguine vapors and velvet sandwich . sebastian valmont is the coolest guy who ever walked the earth ; there is no woman he ca n't have , no material object out of his reach . he has all the money , all the sex -- all at his fingertips . and , luckily , his parents never enter into his life -- no , in the world of cruel intentions , adults do n't really exist . the ones who do are irritating . sebastian valmont lives with his stepsister , kathryn merteuil ( sarah michelle gellar ) , the bitch - queen of the universe , and also the woman every man wants . since these two rich kids are so bored , they only thing they can do is challenge each other with meaningless sexual liaisons . kathryn wants sebastian valmont to de - virginize cecile caldwell ( selma blair ) , a naive dork - chick who has somehow wronged kathryn . but it 's too easy for sebastian valmont -- he wants to nail annette hargrove ( reese witherspoon ) , the " paradigm of chastity and beauty . " so , sebastian valmont and kathryn make a deal ( which is too explicit to state here ) . but -- dear god ! -- sebastian valmont actually begins to fall for poor annette hargrove . dangerous liaisons is a great movie because the characters are all believable , and because of its masterful acting . cruel intentions is bad for many reasons , but it lacks both believable characters and masterful acting . kathryn merteuil is simply a hateful witch , a girl so loathsome that i would probably enjoy pouring hot lead on her . she is supposed to be mean , but glenn close gave the character some depth in dangerous liaisons . gellar , while aesthetically pleasing , is one - dimensional and utterly repulsive . witherspoon has a truly beautiful face , but her character is n't the moral staple she 's supposed to be : sure , she wo n't have sex until she 's in love ( is this really a * moral * issue ? ) , but she does some things in the last few scenes that are more than a little reprehensible . but i ca n't forget mr . phillippe , who continues to exceed my expectations with his impenetrable , invulnerable blandness . i have to give him credit and say that he did , in fact , manage to change his facial expression about three times during the course of cruel intentions . and there 's one point in the film in which he shouts , thereby defeating my hypothesis that he is vocally monotone . true , he is bad , but it does n't help that he has no character to work with . kumble has drained all the interesting aspects from this character , leaving us with a sex - crazed lunatic who is supposed to be sympathetic because he falls in love with a moral flower and shuns the wicked bitch . the film fails in every other way , too . first of all , nobody talks like this . even the " intellectuals " i know do n't bother with this kind of pointless and pretentious yammering . for a while , the movie looks like it might play itself for laughs , but it ends up taking itself so seriously that there 's no way we can join it . cruel intentions also manages to come off as soft - porn in more than one scene . earlier i mentioned a fully - clothed hand - job ; this occurs between kathryn and sebastian valmont , both of whom are intended to be hateful at this point in the movie . so , if we hate them , then what 's the point of an extended sex scene ? titillation , of course . it ca n't even work under the pretense of " meaningful love scene , " because we hate the characters . it 's interesting to note some of the parallels between cruel intentions and dangerous liaisons . kumble is clearly familiar with the earlier film ; many of the scenes have a similar tone , and there are moments in frears ' film that kumble imitates almost completely ( such as the last scene , in which [ spoiler warning ! ] the antagonist is humiliated in front of her peers ) . but kids do n't act like this . nobody acts like this . in his translation , roger kumble forgot character development and sympathy -- some pretty crucial elements . the result is a picture of confounding badness , a kiddie - porn mess that thinks it 's really deep and profound . i 'll give cruel intentions credit for realizing its influences , but that does n't change the fact that it 's awful .

0NEG

and said , " dangerous liaisons for kids ! " it was clear to me that the film would be an obvious chunk of plagiarized nonsense , owing everything it is to stephen frears ' 1988 this recognition than with the actual film , which is an appalling excuse for a movie . it 's kiddie - porn hackwork , complete with earthy sex - talk and fully - clothed hand - jobs . i suppose this kind of movie was inevitable ; angst movies coming out , there was certainly room for a pretentious and laughable movie about a bunch of teenagers who think they 're smarter the other people on earth combined . cruel intentions is a mess in every possible way , and it fails primarily in the way i expected it to : i do n't really exist . the ones who do are irritating . sebastian valmont lives with his stepsister , kathryn merteuil which is too explicit to state here ) . but -- dear god ! -- sebastian valmont actually begins to fall for poor annette hargrove and because of its masterful acting . cruel intentions is bad for many reasons , but it lacks both believable characters and masterful acting . kathryn merteuil is simply a hateful witch , a dangerous liaisons . gellar , while aesthetically pleasing , is one - dimensional and utterly repulsive . witherspoon has a truly beautiful face , but her phillippe , who continues to exceed my expectations with his impenetrable , invulnerable blandness . i have to give him credit and say that thereby defeating my hypothesis that he is vocally monotone . true , he is bad , but it does n't help that he has no character to work with . kumble has drained all the interesting aspects from this character , leaving us with a sex - moral flower and shuns the wicked bitch . the film fails in every other way , too . first of all , nobody talks like this . " i know do n't bother with this kind of pointless and pretentious yammering . for a while ,

everyone knows that old rule , ' never work with children and animals . ' in this latest horror flick mimic case , it 's ' never work with children and genetically enhanced killer animals ' instead , as mimic features both of these and succeeds in doing nothing except mildly engaging the audience . the film begins in new york , where we see children dying from a mysterious disease , which is being carried by cockroaches . dr . susan tyler ( sorvino ) creates a genetically enhanced bug ( the ' judas ' breed ) , however , which is designed to kill all cockroaches . the bug does it 's job , the cockroaches all die , and the terror is gone . ' three years later ' appears on the screen , and we discover that the judas breed is back , bigger than ever , and ready to kill . the spin on this bug , however , is that it can mimic it 's predator , and in this case . . . . it 's humans . that should teach us for squishing all those bugs . what should be a roller coaster ride with bugs everywhere , tons of gory deaths and some massive set pieces instead turns out to be a rather subdued , almost boring movie which plods along at a very slow pace . perhaps the movie was trying to be thought provoking , and trying to avoid the ' predator ' type movie it could easily have become . if it is , then the director and writers have made the wrong move , because this is perfectly suited to be an all out action fest . the director , who bought us cronos , a far superior film , directs the film in a calm , and frankly dull movie . there are few exciting sequences , instead just a lot of people talking . if the dialogue was intelligent , then it would be all right , but it 's sadly babbling nonsense . in fact , the script is embarrsingly weak , and the characterizations not much better . sorvino and company are as 2d as characters come , with the script not bothering to develop them . there is some action in this film , but it 's directed in such an annoying way , it 's just infuriating to watch . the camera cuts all over the place , disoreitating the audience , and instead of involving the audience in the action , it merely alienates them . the peformances are o . k , if slightly below average . sorvino is o . k , although she 's not very good at conveying terror , or anything emotion really . the supporting cast are all sterotypes , with characters such as a big black security guard with a foul mouth , a geeky scientist with spectacles , and what could be the most stereotypical mexican ' old timer ' ever . their reasonable good fun , however . mimic , then , may fail with it 's story , pacing and characters , but the film does look good . like dark city , mimic is a definite case of style of content . it may be a bit too gloomy for it 's own good , but the sets look nice , and parts of the film are directed well . but looks are n't good enough to save mimic from the depths of mediocre , somewhere where it should n't really belong . a good opportunity , then , wasted . a shame . overall rating= review by david wilcock ? 1998

0NEG

' instead , as mimic features both of these and succeeds in doing nothing except mildly engaging the audience . the film begins in new york , where we and some massive set pieces instead turns out to be a rather subdued , almost boring movie which plods along at a very slow pace . perhaps the movie was trying to be thought provoking . if it is , then the director and writers have made the wrong move , because this is perfectly suited to be an all film , directs the film in a calm , and frankly dull movie . there are few exciting sequences , instead just intelligent , then it would be all right , but it 's sadly babbling nonsense . in fact , the script is embarrsingly weak , and the characterizations not much better . sorvino and company are as 2d as characters come , with the script not bothering to develop them . there is some action in this film , but it 's directed in such an annoying way , it 's just infuriating to watch . the camera cuts all over the place , disoreitating the audience , and instead of involving the audience in the action , it merely alienates them . the peformances are o . k , if slightly below average . sorvino is o . k , although she 's of style of content . it may be a bit too gloomy for it 's own good , but the sets look nice , and parts of but looks are n't good enough to save mimic from the depths of mediocre , somewhere where it should n't really belong . a good opportunity , then , wasted . a shame . overall rating= review by david wilcock ? 1998

this movie tries to present itself as the sequel to jan de bont 's debut as a director , 1994 surprise hit speed . but the only thing the two movies have in common is sandra bullock as the female lead . annie ( sandra bullock ) is in the wrong place at the wrong time again . she 's going on a cruise with her new boy - friend alex ( jason patric ) , and of course it is her ship that is kidnapped by john geiger ( willem dafoe ) who has a bone to pick with the shipping line . they sacked him after he got sick . now he wants the diamonds stored in the ship 's safe for compensation . that actually is the whole storyline . speed 2 could do without dialogues . the movie is all about images and remarkable sound . i do n't really know why this is called an action movie . except for a few scenes that are vaguely reminiscent of speed this goes along the lines of the desaster movies of the 70ies . first we are introduced to a number of people who are going to be important later on in the movie . then desaster strikes . sandra bullock was said to have been glad that she could take action this time around . i looked for the " action " but could n't find it . most of the time she is part of the decoration . the only time she is part of what happens is when she can have a shot at defusing a bomb and freeing some passengers trapped behind a fire door . now we know that she can handle a chain saw . we also know that fire doors on cruise ships can be cut apart in seconds . the bomb defusal of course goes wrong , but only the furniture is damaged , not our heroes who still are needed . jason patric alias alex spends most of his time flirting with annie , helping other passengers and frolicking in the water . his initial sea - sickness is suddenly gone , because there are ship , crew and passengers to be saved from evil geiger . he does a pretty good job but i ca n't blame keanu reeves for declining this part . then there 's willem dafoe , the villain , who desperately tries to look as frightening as frankenstein 's monster . he does n't succeed , though . an untidy appearance is n't enough to convince the viewer of his psychopath potential . before he tries again to make us believe he is a dangerous man he should practise for a while in front of a mirror . i ca n't really recommend speed 2 . you will probably like the movie if you like funny situations that are n't meant to be funny . especially the showdown , when the ship first runs into an oil tanker and then dissembles a whole village is a treat . there you get to see the most superfluous scene in the movie . in keeping with last year 's desaster movie tradition a dog is miraculously saved from certain death . a really funny ( and meant to be funny ) scene takes place on the oil tanker right before the collision . some crew members watch two ships colliding in an old movie . had they looked out the window they would n't have missed the huge ship racing toward them . those of you who still want to see the movie should pick a theater with a large screen and a good sound system to enjoy the visual effects and the phantastic surround sound effects . in an adequately equipped theater it 's as if the explosion were going off all around you and you can feel the seats vibrate . but the ilm special effects ca n't save the movie . for all the money they could have done better .

0NEG

glad that she could take action this time around . i looked for the " action " but could n't find it . most of the time she is part of the evil geiger . he does a pretty good job but i ca n't blame keanu reeves for declining this part . then there 's willem dafoe , the villain , who desperately tries to look as frightening as frankenstein 's monster . he does n't succeed , though . an untidy appearance is n't enough to convince the viewer of his psychopath potential . before he tries again to make us believe he is a dangerous man he should practise for a while in front of a mirror . i ca n't really recommend speed 2 . you will probably like the movie if you like funny situations that are n't meant to be funny . especially the showdown , when the ship first runs feel the seats vibrate . but the ilm special effects ca n't save the movie . for all the money they could have done better .

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 .

0NEG

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 adopts an effete british accent while in costume , but the script is just too lame to run .

8 mm , written by seven scribe andrew kevin walker , has an interesting idea which is ruined by hollywood formula to become a bog standard murder mystery . nicolas cage plays family man detective tom welles , who is asked by upper class toff mrs . christian ( myra carter ) to investigate an movie found in her recently deceased husbands safe . the movie happens to be an mythical ' snuff movie ' , where the girl featured in the film appears to get brutally slashed . all mrs . christian wants to know if the girl in the film was killed or not . welles agrees , and soon gets pulled into the seedy underworld of porn movies , with video clerk max california ( phoenix ) as his guide . although the ' snuff ' industry has n't really been examined in mainstream cinema , 8 mm still makes a rather plodding thriller which just seems to be a bit sicker than most . the snuff movie within the movie is certainly disturbing , although the jerky camera angles and grainy image takes some of the shock away . 8 mm has the problem of not wanting to shock too much , and apart from a few moments , most of the action in the film is nothing you have n't seen from another standard thriller . the cast help towards the entertainment , apart from an hideous performance by the increasingly lazy nicolas cage . while he was fun and breezy in earlier films such as raising arizona ( 1987 ) , ever since leaving las vegas ( 1995 ) , cage has lost much of his acting talent and appears to be on autopilot , such as in the terrible snake eyes ( 1998 . ) here , in 8 mm , he 's boring , uninteresting and has a dull monotonous voice . and in this overlong thriller , these virtues do not help keep the suspense up . only when cage is onscreen with the excellent phoenix does the film start moving , as phoenix is a true talent . his performance is a great break away from the gloom , and he 's just purely enjoyable to watch . catherine keener is completely wasted as cage 's wife , although she delivers a far better performance than her character deserves . her character , though , is hugely underwritten , one of the most wasted characters of the year . also fun is fargo 's peter stormare as the wildly over the top snuff film director . as this film is written by the person behind seven , 8 mm is filled with doom and gloom , and no - one appears to know how to use an light switch . unlike seven , 8 mm is n't too clever , and the twist is pathetic and startlingly obvious when it arrives . lacking the strong characters seven featured , 8 mm ultimately becomes uninvolving plot wise , and relies on the graphic scenes to provide any entertainment . but director joel schumacher , the completely wrong guy for the job , puts style over content , and while the direction and look are good , it 's just not very disturbing . schumacher also has no idea how to shock and audience , and though we are meant to be looking at the ' dark belly ' of the porn industry , it does n't exactly leave an haunting impression on the viewers mind , which misses the point . also , the last 20 minutes are so hackneyed , so cliched , it 's amazing to think it 's the same film you 're watching . 8 mm is far from an success , a ' snuffed ' opportunity . with a boring lead character , ' controversial ' scenes that manage not to be controversial , and a director obsessed with looks , what could have been one of the most shocking films of the year is a dumb thriller . ultimately , 8 mm is probably worth renting on home video , unless your desperate to see what the snuff film within the film looks like . and trust me , the rest of the 2 hours are not worth it .

0NEG

andrew kevin walker , has an interesting idea which is ruined by hollywood formula to become a bog standard murder mystery . nicolas cage image takes some of the shock away . 8 mm has the problem of not wanting to shock too much , and apart the cast help towards the entertainment , apart from an hideous performance by the increasingly lazy nicolas cage . while he was fun and breezy in ever since leaving las vegas ( 1995 ) , cage has lost much of his acting talent and appears to be on autopilot , such as in the terrible snake eyes ( 1998 . ) here , in 8 mm , he 's boring , uninteresting and has a dull monotonous voice . and in this overlong thriller , these virtues do 's just purely enjoyable to watch . catherine keener is completely wasted as cage 's wife , although she delivers a far her character deserves . her character , though , is hugely underwritten , one of the most wasted characters of the year . also fun is fargo 's peter stormare as the seven , 8 mm is n't too clever , and the twist is pathetic and startlingly obvious when it arrives . lacking the strong characters seven featured , 8 mm ultimately becomes uninvolving plot wise , and relies on the graphic scenes to provide any , it 's just not very disturbing . schumacher also has no idea how to shock and audience , and though we are meant to be looking at the point . also , the last 20 minutes are so hackneyed , so cliched , it 's amazing to think it 's the same film you 're watching . 8 mm is far from an success , a ' snuffed ' opportunity . with a boring lead character , ' controversial ' scenes that manage not to be one of the most shocking films of the year is a dumb thriller . ultimately , 8 mm is probably worth renting on trust me , the rest of the 2 hours are not worth it .