Datasets:

gmihaila

/

movie_rationales_truncated

like 0

your first clue that something is n't gon na be quite right with the movie you 're about to see : it 's heavily christmas - themed and its release date is , oh , say , at the end of february . your second clue that something is n't gon na be quite right with the movie you 're about to see : charlize theron , one of the movie 's dubious stars , makes an appearance on the daily show in which , when asked if her new movie 's any good , she replies with the equivalent of a verbal sigh . . . assuring us that , yeah , it sure is a movie , all right ! and there 's some scenes like those you 'd expect to find in a movie , and there 's some action . . . and there 's other . . . stuff . . . too . how to immediately grab my attention : open your movie with five dead guys in santa claus suits . then show a caption reading " six days earlier . . . " ya know , i was honestly interested to find out what killed all those poor santas . . . how to immediately lose my attention : follow your opening scene with a terminally dull nice - guys - who - don't - deserve - to - be - in - prison scene . write a line for the one of prisoners like " i just want to go home and eat christmas dinner and watch some ball with my dad . " then , have ben affleck actually say that line , on film , and forget to leave it on the cutting room floor . for good measure , throw in a poorly motivated prison riot and have affleck 's best buddy stabbed . . . aw . . . and just two days before his release , too . already the cliches are piled on thick , and when it rains , it pours . how to take my attention , dash it violently against the rocks , and make it so that i 'm contemplating my strategy for calling " shotgun " about an hour before i know the credits will roll : deny your characters the ability to think . have ben affleck , for some reason i 'll never understand , pretend he 's his dead prison buddy so that he can get his girlfriend , played by charlize theron . have gary sinise show up and force the two of them to participate in a poorly planned casino heist . the villains ' big idea ? kidnap affleck because he used to be a security guard at the casino , force him to tell you where all the doors in the place are , then dress up in santa suits , create some " diversions " and rob the place . on paper , it seems like the stuff of a potential caper comedy , but veteran director john frankenheimer wrongly picks up that piece of paper and thinks he 's looking at the makings for some sort of clever action - crime thriller . it 's not like the man is n't capable . . . far from it . he 's the man responsible for classic political thrillers like the manchurian candidate and seven days in may . he wowed me with some the most memorable car chases i 've ever seen in last year 's ronin . but he 's certainly guilty of churning out some certifiable losers . . . put reindeer games on the shelf of shame with his 1996 version of the island of dr . moreau . step one in making your movie as easily forgotten as possible : cast ben affleck in the role of the world 's most generic hero . he gets no good one - liners , he does n't get to shoot or implode anything in new and interesting ways , and all we know about him is that he regrets his past as a car thief and wants a cup of hot chocolate and piece of pecan pie . his name is rudy ( short for rudolph , in all likelihood . see , it 's called reindeer games . get it ? get it ? shut up . ) in the past , affleck has been at his best as a supporting actor , and reindeer games does nothing to further his viability as a leading man . step two in making your movie as easily forgotten as possible : gary sinise 's villain dresses and looks like the most standard movie crook a filmmaker could have some up with . he 's dirty and potty - mouthed , he 's got long , scruffy hair and a goatee , and i fully expected him to walk out of the casino carrying sacks with giant dollar signs on them . he 's also extremely inept at what he does . he thinks garish cowboy costumes and santa suits make acceptable disguises , and he trusts affleck 's character to pull through even after , time and time and time again , he tricks him and lies to him and nearly kills him . but instead of tapping into the comic possibilities of this role , sinise seems to think he 's playing some sort of tough , smart , and smooth criminal mastermind , rather than the complete moron that was obviously written into the script . [ on a side note , gary sinise wins this week 's " title ! " award , as he 's the one who gets to awkwardly cram the name of the movie into one of his lines early in the proceedings . last week 's winner was natasha henstridge for the whole nine yards . ] how to take your bad idea and make things worse : include two or three plot twists that , instead of making the apparently stupidity of the plan seem suddenly intelligent , make the plan seem even more ridiculous and unlikely . this is a bad movie . and what 's worse is that , except for a few moments near the not - so - stunning conclusion as the preposterous is replaced by the ludicrously preposterous , reindeer games never really gives us the satisfaction of being laughably bad . if they 'd done that much , at least i would have been entertained .

0NEG

your first clue that something is n't gon na be quite right with the movie you 're about to see : it oh , say , at the end of february . your second clue that something is n't gon na be quite right with the movie you 're about to see : charlize killed all those poor santas . . . how to immediately lose my attention : follow your opening scene with a terminally dull nice just two days before his release , too . already the cliches are piled on thick , and when it rains , it pours . how to take my attention , dash it violently against the rocks , and make it so that i 'm contemplating my a potential caper comedy , but veteran director john frankenheimer wrongly picks up that piece of paper and thinks he 's looking at 've ever seen in last year 's ronin . but he 's certainly guilty of churning out some certifiable losers . . . put reindeer games on the shelf of shame with his 1996 version of the island of dr . moreau . step one in making your movie as easily forgotten as possible : cast ben affleck in the role of the world 's most generic hero . he gets no good one - liners , he does n't get to shoot or implode anything in new and interesting ways , and all we know about him is that he his best as a supporting actor , and reindeer games does nothing to further his viability as a leading man . step two in making your movie as easily forgotten as possible : gary sinise 's villain dresses and looks with giant dollar signs on them . he 's also extremely inept at what he does . he thinks garish cowboy costumes henstridge for the whole nine yards . ] how to take your bad idea and make things worse : include two or three plot twists that , instead of making the apparently stupidity of the plan seem suddenly intelligent , make the plan seem even more ridiculous and unlikely . this is a bad movie . and what 's worse is that , except for a few moments near the not - so - stunning conclusion as the preposterous is replaced by the ludicrously preposterous , reindeer games never really gives us the satisfaction of being laughably bad . if they 'd done that much , at least

carry on at your convenience is all about the goings - on in the factory of a toilet manufacturer , wc boggs ( kenneth williams ) . once they have won an order to manufacture 1000 bidets in two months and charles coote ( charles hawtrey ) has designed a suitable model , the factory employees set to work but are interrupted by union representative vic spanner ( kenneth cope ) and friend bernie hulke ( bernard bresslaw ) who call them out on strikes on the slightest pretext . meanwhile , chief foreman sid plummer ( sid james ) is growing tired of his wife beattie ( hattie jacques ) and her budgie . he would much rather live next door with fellow boggs worker chloe moore ( joan sims ) but once he discovers that the budgie can predict the winners of horse races , he is over the moon and flush with money . his daughter , myrtle plummer ( jacki piper ) , is going out with wc 's son lewis boggs ( richard o'callaghan ) and this causes conflict on the staff day out to the seaside when vic spanner vies for her attentions . in the end , if the strike does not cease , boggs will have to close down his factory , but the support of a group of women led by coote 's wife - to - be and spanner 's mother , agatha spanner ( renee houston ) , try to resolve the situation . also , sid realises that his budgie has caused him nothing but trouble since it started predicting horse race winners . there are some good performances , as usual , from sid james and kenneth williams in their standard roles . charles hawtrey is third billing but only appears in a few scenes . his part is mildly amusing . richard o'callaghan is appealing as bogg 's stuck - up son , patsy rowlands is funny as miss withering , bogg 's assistant , and renee houston is terrific in her small part as agatha . however , sole acting honours go to hattie jacques as beattie plummer . although her character is not directly involved with the main storyline , she manages to input a great deal of pathos and feeling into her character . a marvellous performance from a marvellous actress . the film suffers from annoying performances by bernard bresslaw and especially kenneth cope . in his carry on debut , cope overdoes his role as spanner making him so annoying as to be unfunny . joan sims returns as the love interest ( instead of barbara windsor ) . sims ' ' usual ' part as the downtrodden wife was taken by hattie jacques . additionally , bill maynard as fred moore is very poor . this carry on movie tries it best to entertain the viewer : - the locations and wealth of characters are appealing . however , the toilet humour becomes tiresome very quickly and some of the performances leave a lot to be desired . this movie does not know where it is going . it was made in 1971 and talbot rothwell the scriptwriter seems to be in two minds whether to go for ' bluer ' jokes or to maintain the ' innocent ' jokes success of most of its predecessors . that is why this film suffers . a minor carry on film whose major asset is the performance by hattie jacques . the new ' minor - regulars ' such as o'callaghan and piper are not able to enliven the movie and the toilet humour becomes humourless after a while .

0NEG

character . a marvellous performance from a marvellous actress . the film suffers from annoying performances by bernard bresslaw and especially kenneth cope . in his carry on debut , cope overdoes his role as spanner making him so annoying as to be unfunny . joan sims returns as the love interest ( instead jacques . additionally , bill maynard as fred moore is very poor . this carry on movie tries it best to entertain locations and wealth of characters are appealing . however , the toilet humour becomes tiresome very quickly and some of the performances leave a lot to be desired . this movie does not know where it is going . it was made in 1971 and talbot rothwell the success of most of its predecessors . that is why this film suffers . a minor carry on film whose major asset is not able to enliven the movie and the toilet humour becomes humourless after a while .

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 " .

the title is taken from the writings of ralph waldo emerson describing the life of a traveler as ' anywhere but here . ' there is n't one thing about this mother - daughter relationship melodrama that felt honest . it relies on a contrived minor character to tell both mother and daughter what was obvious to do in order to straighten out their dysfunctional lives , as for some reason they could n't figure it out for themselves . if the film looks familiar , that is because " the slums of beverly hills ( 98 ) " went over the same ground but was fortunate to be more comical and perceptive due to alan arkin and natasha lyonne performances , in which they were fortunate to have a much sharper script to work with . alvin sargent 's script was weak and annoyingly claustral . wayne wang 's ( " the joy luck club " ) inept direction made a weak script even weaker by his inability to tell the story unfolding without the voiceover relating what the action could n't convey . pushy mother adele august ( susan sarandon ) forces her 14-year - old daughter ann ( natalie portman ) to leave a small midwestern burg to go cross - country with her to beverly hills . the daughter resents her twice divorced , unstable but exotic , schoolteacher mother , bullying her to be an actress as a means of escaping a humdrum life . the daqughter does n't even like the used gold mercedes mother buys to drive to lala land in and ca n't stand the beach boys records mom enjoys hearing on the car radio . so it becomes a question of who knows best , as the ladies fight it out between them , until the predictable sweet ending comes in this yawner . adele 's dream of greener pastures in beverly hills soon does n't look that good , as she lands a job in a slum school , has her precious car scratched by the unruly kids , and settles into a job she hates in order to financially survive . daughter pines for small town wisconsin and her friends there . during one of many arguments with her free - spirited mom , they go for ice cream and while mother is being ticketed , she runs away , only to be chased down by friendly traffic cop ( michael milhoan ) , who offers her wise counsel . with the cop 's zen wisdom passed onto the daughter , she will survive living in many different addresses in beverly hills until she reaches 17 and then she plans to get way from mom by using her good grades to go to brown university instead of ucla . during their stay in beverly hills , she grows from feeling awkward in beverly hills high to immediately having many high school girlfriends and even a high school rich boy admirer-- a t . s . eliot ( corbin allred ) reader . but the transition of her life into beverly hills had no feel of reality , as everything seemed staged and unemotional . when she learns her cousin benny ( shawn hatosy ) , who happens to be her best friend dies in a traffic accident back in wisconsin , she returns for the funeral and in those reunion scenes it was n't clearly shown why she wants to stay there , and for that matter , it was never made clear why the mother wants to leave so badly . the film is one big battle of wills between mother and daughter over their dreams . i guess what the filmmaker is trying to say , is that mom is a bad dreamer and the daughter is the observant one , able to recognize mother 's faults when not in growing pains and in need of parenting herself . mother has a series of setbacks , like being dumped by her dream - boat dentist ( bochner ) she met on the beach , and witnessing her daughter mimic her whiny optimistic sayings when trying out for an acting part . but mother learns that her daughter has grown - up and is independent and that she has to stop living her life through her . she learns this when the same wise cop who told ann what to do , is about to ticket her and this time will remind the mother of the right thing to do . this of course results in the corny ending , showing that mom 's heart was always in the right place , only she went about it in the wrong way . this was just one of those films where you want to be anywhere but in the theater where this film is showing .

0NEG

a traveler as ' anywhere but here . ' there is n't one thing about this mother - daughter relationship melodrama that felt honest . it relies on a contrived minor character to tell both mother and daughter what was obvious to do in order to straighten out their dysfunctional lives , as script to work with . alvin sargent 's script was weak and annoyingly claustral . wayne wang 's ( " the joy luck club " ) inept direction made a weak script even weaker by his inability to tell the story unfolding without the voiceover relating what between them , until the predictable sweet ending comes in this yawner . adele 's dream of greener pastures in beverly hills . but the transition of her life into beverly hills had no feel of reality , as everything seemed staged and unemotional . when she learns her cousin benny ( shawn hatosy right thing to do . this of course results in the corny ending , showing that mom 's heart was always in the about it in the wrong way . this was just one of those films where you want to be anywhere but in the theater where this film is showing .

tomb raider . fun ? exciting ? challenging ? given the unprecedented popularity ( especially among teenage boys ) of the video game that sports an uber - buff , pistol packin ' babe who raids , well . . . tombs , you have to believe it 's these three things and more ! " lara croft : tomb raider , " the big screen variant of said video game , which features a pumped - up angelina jolie ( the oscar ? winner for " girl , interrupted " no less ) in the title role is , however , none of these things . it is n't fun , it is n't exciting , and the only challenge is seeing how long you can stay in your seat ( i suffered through to the bitter , bitter end ; the wife opted for barnes & noble at the 45-minute mark ) . directed by simon west with the same subtlety he brought to " con air , " " tomb raider " is an empty - headed , big budget bore . the story borrows unintelligently from that mother of all turkeys " hudson hawk " ( the same hokum about planetary alignments and sacred stones that , when brought together , well . . . who the heck cares ? ) and it makes " super mario bros . " ( bob hoskins ' ill - advised career move ) look like " rocco and his brothers " ( that classic of italian neo - realism ) . i 'll go out on a limb here and say i suspect there 's actually more character development in the video game than the movie proper . this is where the jolie defenders / video game nuts jump in and say this movie is n't about character development it 's about kicking serious butt ( or bum , since ms . croft hails from england 's green and pleasant ) . with lips , breasts , and biceps all inflated to the max , lara croft is all about posturing , and jolie has a hard time simply standing still without trying to look tough . ok , let 's forget challenging . should n't " tomb raider " be , at the very least , fun and exciting ? should n't our butt - kicking heroine also encompass the sophistication of , say , james bond with the wit of indiana jones ? there 's no humor to be found anywhere in " tomb raider , " even though it tries hard from time to time . even " the mummy returns " did n't take itself too seriously . the villain here is noticeably lacking , the special effects are ridiculously overblown and unnecessarily complicated , and the script is non - existent . to liven things up ( perhaps ) , jolie 's live father jon voight puts in a few minutes as lara 's dead father lord croft ; talk about a stretch . one thing i had n't expected from the film is that jolie affects a slightly better english accent than her pa ( although i suspect that thin - looking moustache he 's forced to wear gets in the way some ) . unsuccessful ? not entirely . if anything , " lara croft : tomb raider " makes you want to check out the video game itself to figure out exactly what all the fuss was about .

0NEG

role is , however , none of these things . it is n't fun , it is n't exciting , and the only challenge is seeing how long you can stay in your seat ( i suffered through to the bitter , bitter end ; the wife opted for barnes & noble at the 45-minute mark ) . directed by simon west with the same subtlety he " con air , " " tomb raider " is an empty - headed , big budget bore . the story borrows unintelligently from that mother of all turkeys " hudson hawk " ( the same hokum about planetary , james bond with the wit of indiana jones ? there 's no humor to be found anywhere in " tomb raider , " even though it tries n't take itself too seriously . the villain here is noticeably lacking , the special effects are ridiculously overblown and unnecessarily complicated , and the script is non - existent . to liven things up ( perhaps ) , jolie

walt disney studios may have finally met its match with the lush animation in twentieth century fox 's anastasia . but judging by the latest efforts from the don bluth studios , the visuals are the only thing fox has to brag about . disney 's recent classics have occasionally stretched credibility in such films as pocahontas , the hunchback of notre dame , and to a lesser extent , hercules . with anastasia , fox has gone so far as to throw all facts completely out the window . some may say - so what ? it 's just a kid 's movie . well . . . if you have young kids , beware , as they may be noticeably frightened by the visuals of a corpse - rotting rasputin zombie , whose body parts continually fall off in a disconcertingly real way . consider yourselves warned . nevertheless , the animation is quite stunning at times . don bluth has used computer animation extensively throughout , occasionally rivalling photographic quality . and yet in other scenes , the hand - drawn material seems of the saturday - morning tv crowd , which leads me to wonder . . . was this rushed to market to combat disney ? the plot , as anyone who had read history before knows , concerns the attempt to return anastasia to her royal family after she was lost in the overthrow of the romanovs in 1916 . not that anastasia is much concerned with what really happened . as for the plot --- go rent disney 's candleshoe . you 'll see 60 % of anastasia there .

0NEG

a lesser extent , hercules . with anastasia , fox has gone so far as to throw all facts completely out the window . some may say - so what ? it 's . well . . . if you have young kids , beware , as they may be noticeably frightened by the visuals of rivalling photographic quality . and yet in other scenes , the hand - drawn material seems of the saturday - morning tv crowd , which leads me to wonder . . . was

here 's something to chew on : what 's the favorite food of big , cheesy - looking special effects monsters like the one lurking in the bowels of a luxury liner in deep rising ? the obvious answer to this question is cardboard , because that 's the depth of the most fully- developed character in this painfully generic creature feature . deep rising demonstrates all the originality and vitality of something scripted by a computer . in fact , considering the rigid adherence to the expected formulas , perhaps it was . the most astonishing thing about deep rising is the exceptionally high level of gore . not since starship troopers have this many chunks of flesh ( both human and non - human ) been scattered in all directions . we learn some bloody trivia , as well , such as how a sea monster spraypaints in red ( it drinks a human being then spits out the liquefied remains ) and what it does with half - digested leftovers . i suppose deep rising 's gallery of grotesque images represents fun stuff for those who love the macabre , but it does n't do much for me . on the surface , and that 's about the only level at which this film can be analyzed , deep rising feels like tremors grafted onto titanic ( everyone else is citing the equally valid aliens / titanic connection , since james cameron directed both ) . in going for the big disaster angle of titanic and the tongue - in - cheek mayhem of tremors , deep rising somehow misses both marks by a wide margin . the film is not humorous , tense , or exciting . in fact , it 's downright boring , and , despite being half the length of cameron 's current box - office champ , deep rising feels like the longer movie . is it really necessary to say anything about the plot ? probably not , since it 's easy to guess , but i 'll go ahead and oblige anyone who wants a synopsis . the film opens by introducing us to a gang of bad guys on board a mercenary ship . in addition to the usual cast of psychopaths and lunatics , there 's finnegan ( treat williams ) , the boat 's pilot , who 's supposed to be an indiana jones knockoff ; joey ( kevin j . o'connor ) , the inept sidekick who 's supposed to be lovable and funny ( but is really just irritating ) ; and hanover ( wes studi ) , the " mastermind " ( and i use that term lightly ) of the operation . their goal : attack a cruise ship , clean out the safe , then sink it using some illegally - acquired torpedoes . the problem is , by the time they reach the argonautica , the titanic - like luxury liner has turned into the marie celeste . aside from a beautiful jewel thief ( famke janssen ) and a couple of crew members , there 's no one on board . the reason soon becomes obvious -- the ship has been taken over by a bad special effect that is supposed to resemble an octopus with teeth and more than eight tentacles . the cast , which is led by treat williams , is primarily comprised of has - beens and probably - never - will - bes ( two exceptions : wes studi , best known as the villain in the last of the mohicans , and djimon hounsou , amistad 's cinque ) . williams , once a " ca n't miss " prospect in hollywood , has fallen so far out of favor that the best he can do these days for a lead role is a film like deep rising , and his inability to create a charismatic or interesting figure here may sink whatever is left of his sputtering career . famke janssen , who will forever be known as xenia onatopp from goldeneye , is the perfect bland match for williams . given her limited acting abilities , it 's likely that she was chosen for this part primarily on the basis of her physical attributes . unfortunately , a bra defeats the purpose of having her in a wet tee - shirt for half of the picture . meanwhile , kevin j . o'connor , who has entirely too much screen time , exhibits all the appeal of fingernails scratching a blackboard . these days , audiences are becoming more difficult to impress with computer - generated special effects . this is a lesson that writer / director stephen sommers ( who previously helmed the live - action jungle book ) needs to learn . the days of jurassic park , when viewers were astounded by the mere spectacle of seeing something big and imposing on screen , are past . now , movie - goers are looking for the sophistication of titanic -- visuals that are so well - incorporated that it 's impossible to tell where they end and where " reality " begins . in deep rising , the monster , like everything , is artificial and unconvincing . unfortunately , the fundamental problem audiences are faced with here is n't so much the idiotic monotony of this individual picture , but the poor quality of the entire bankrupt genre ( although , to be fair , deep rising is a particularly bad entry ) . even once this film has sunk out of sight , the knowledgeable viewer knows it wo n't be the last of its kind . like the slimy , slithering things that inhabit the air vents and pipes of these movies , more are waiting just around the corner in ambush . and that consideration , unlike anything on screen , is truly horrifying .

0NEG

to chew on : what 's the favorite food of big , cheesy - looking special effects monsters like the one lurking in the bowels of a luxury the depth of the most fully- developed character in this painfully generic creature feature . deep rising demonstrates all the originality and scripted by a computer . in fact , considering the rigid adherence to the expected formulas , perhaps it was . the most astonishing thing about - in - cheek mayhem of tremors , deep rising somehow misses both marks by a wide margin . the film is not humorous , tense , or exciting . in fact , it 's downright boring , and , despite being half the length of cameron the cast , which is led by treat williams , is primarily comprised of has - beens and probably - never - will - bes ( two exceptions : wes studi , best known as " ca n't miss " prospect in hollywood , has fallen so far out of favor that the best he can do these days for a role is a film like deep rising , and his inability to create a charismatic or interesting figure here may sink whatever is left of his sputtering career . famke janssen , who will forever be known as is the perfect bland match for williams . given her limited acting abilities , it 's likely that she was chosen for this picture . meanwhile , kevin j . o'connor , who has entirely too much screen time , exhibits all the appeal of fingernails scratching a blackboard . these days , audiences are becoming more difficult to deep rising , the monster , like everything , is artificial and unconvincing . unfortunately , the fundamental problem audiences are faced with here is n't so much the idiotic monotony of this individual picture , but the poor quality of the entire bankrupt genre ( although , to be fair , deep rising is a particularly bad entry ) . even once this film has sunk out of n't be the last of its kind . like the slimy , slithering things that inhabit the air vents and pipes of these movies , more are waiting just around the corner in ambush

this is an adaptation of h . g . wells ' acclaimed novel ' the invisible man ' . the actors are kevin beacon and elizabeth shue . the director is paul verhoven . that , plus a quick demonstration of the amazing special effects in the trailer , should be enough to lure us into the theatre . the problem is to keep us there . i ca n't imagine anyone who would like to see this movie a second time . working on a top secret military project , sebastian caine ( kevin beacon ) -- an eccentric genius , that calls himself " god " , has discovered the secret to invisibility . the first two faces are completed . now , it is time for " the next logical step " -- human . caine volunteers for this risky experiment . but when he is made invisible , something goes wrong . while his ex - girlfriend linda ( elisabeth shue ) desperately tries to find something to return him to normal , he learns that invisibility is more of a prison than a superpower . but that 's not the bad thing -- an unexpected side - effect of the drug sends him careening into paranoid megalomania . he is naturally given a couple of modest superpowers , just enough for him to survive immolation from a flame thrower and an explosion of about a quart of nitroglycerine . soon every sense of decency is forgotten . the little intelligence that was left disappears as verhoven looses control and the film turns into an alien - rip - off , where caine is walking like a half finished terminator , spooking , scaring and killing everybody . though it 's based on a novel called ' the invisible man ' , the title has been ironically changed to ' hollow man ' that sums up the film very nicely . this is a very silly production . laughable , actually . apparently verhoven 's imagination does n't stretch too far . for him the only worthwhile reason to become invisible is so you can case the girls ' locker room undetected . it is this primitive schoolboy mentality that eventually kills the movie . being invisible , gives you the opportunity to be who you are , to do what you want without being influenced by society . in many ways it gives you an illusion of having a life without consequences . the nature of man and his place in society is what the novel is truly about . all that , the depth and true horror of the book is gone and only special effects make you remain in your seat . caine does use his power voyeuristically in hollow man . but since this is a modernization , in other words a dehumanization , he does n't stop there . he becomes a rapist . and then , of course , a murderer . you 'll start wondering why such actors as beacon and shue found themselves in such film in the first place . shue 's talent is barely seen , josh brolin is underused and the rest of the cast suffer mostly for the lack of talent . kevin beacon is the only one that performs gracefully . his face is not seen for the most part of the film , and the only way he exists is as a disembodied voice . there are times when his presence actually saves the film from being completely embarrassing . in the end the effects are the only reason to see this film in the first place . being probably the best technical achievement since " jurassic park " , they are absolutely amazing . we observe the layers of skin , muscle , tissue , and bone being peeled away as a body is slowly rendered invisible . we see a beating heart , inflating lungs , and veins pulsing with newly - pumped blood . there are a couple of inventive shots with smoke , fire , air and water , but are a few scenes like that worth attending a movie for ? what is truly disturbing is that with a great book , talented actors and a grand budget , this could have been so much more . pretty much like jan de bont ( " twister " , " haunting " ) , paul verhoven has never made anything extraordinary . he was responsible for several good films ( " basic instinct " and " starship troopers ) " and some incredibly bad films ( " showgirls " , " total recall " ) , but he has never made anything that was great . in a way " hollow man " fits perfectly in this collection . it 's not better or worse than verhoven 's average film . he proves once again that he is incapable of handling more complex issues . and so , instead of depth and chills , verhoven inserts some of his trademarks : stupid dialogue , and lot 's of dull action with blood and naked bodies . he even throws in some of the worst of film clich ? s - the slowly advancing fireball , the villain who comes back from the dead , etc , etc . - and tops the whole thing off with one of the most ridiculous endings of the year ( you 'll be screaming " nooooo ! " and attempt to run towards the exit in slow motion ) . and all we can ask is why ? the answer is simple . though hollywood is a movie producing machine , the business of moviemaking has to be about something more than money . it has to be about telling stories , not marketing them . it has to be about transporting us to a different place , to dazzle us with magic and cleverness . to make us care , to make us think and feel . verhoven has obviously missed that point and this film is a proof of that . it 's all flesh and bones , but no soul . a void where its imagination should be .

0NEG

theatre . the problem is to keep us there . i ca n't imagine anyone who would like to see this movie a second time . working on a top secret military project , sebastian nitroglycerine . soon every sense of decency is forgotten . the little intelligence that was left disappears as verhoven looses control and the film turns into an alien - rip - off , where caine is walking like a half finished terminator man ' that sums up the film very nicely . this is a very silly production . laughable , actually . apparently verhoven 's imagination does n't stretch too far . for him the only worthwhile reason to become invisible room undetected . it is this primitive schoolboy mentality that eventually kills the movie . being invisible , gives you the opportunity to be film in the first place . shue 's talent is barely seen , josh brolin is underused and the rest of the cast suffer mostly for the lack of talent . kevin beacon is the only one that performs gracefully a disembodied voice . there are times when his presence actually saves the film from being completely embarrassing . in the end the effects are the only reason verhoven 's average film . he proves once again that he is incapable of handling more complex issues . and so , instead of depth and chills , verhoven inserts some of his trademarks : stupid dialogue , and lot 's of dull action with blood and naked bodies . he even throws in etc . - and tops the whole thing off with one of the most ridiculous endings of the year ( you 'll be screaming " nooooo ! " and , to make us think and feel . verhoven has obviously missed that point and this film is a proof of that . it

eddie murphy has a lot riding on harlem nights . as the movie 's writer , director , executive producer , and star , murphy will shoulder all of the blame if harlem nights fails . but at the same time , he 'll receive all of the credit if it succeeds . should you sacrifice your hard - earned cash to support murphy 's risky gamble ? well , that depends on whom you trust more : me or eddie murphy . here 's what murphy thinks : " i think the audience is expecting a good time . they gon na get sexy . they gon na get funny . they gon na get drama . they gon na get all of that . i think it 's the best movie i 've done " ( paramount radio network ) . here 's what i think : harlem nights is charmless , unoriginal , disappointing , and almost without question , the worst film of the actor 's career ( i have n't seen best defense ) . and guess who 's to blame ? ! the movie 's problem is not murphy 's direction : harlem nights is a fairly good looking film . no , the project was probably doomed even before the cameras rolled . murphy 's awful script is the culprit . let 's count the mistakes he makes in his first attempt at screenwriting : ( 1 ) murphy shatters the record for the most profanity in a motion picture . yes , he even outdoes his own work in raw . practically every line of dialogue in harlem nights contains at least one four letter word . and after 15 minutes , it gets irritating . ( 2 ) murphy wastes the talents of his fine cast . richard pryor , redd foxx , michael lerner , and della reese face the impossible task of carving out credible characters from a script riddled with stereotypes . each of them shines occasionally , but basically what we have are good performers stuck in a bad vehicle . ( 3 ) the movie demeans women by depicting them solely as sexual objects and as pawns in power struggles between men . murphy has admitted in interviews that he is weary of women in his private life , which is really neither here nor there . but when murphy puts his bitter feelings on 3 , 000 movie screens across the country , it 's another matter altogether . you 're forced to swallow some pretty gruesome stuff . for instance , murphy punches della reese in the stomach . and he shoots jasmine guy in the head . this is a mean - spirited movie , folks ! lovely newcomer lela rochon gets off easy in her role as a common whore , but only because she does n't have any scenes with murphy . thank god : he might have run her over with a bulldozer . ( 4 ) murphy has written for himself perhaps his blandest role to date . the loveable eddie murphy charisma emerges only once or twice during the film . murphy would rather give his character a spiffy wardrobe than a spiffy personality . sometimes it seems as if murphy made harlem nights just so he could wear fancy suits and look debonair . ( 5 ) the plot is a shameless rip - off of the sting . if you 're going to make another sting movie , you 've got to do something original . murphy 's tale of warring nightclub owners in harlem ( circa 1938 ) fails to add anything new to the formula . ( 6 ) to get laughs , murphy makes fun of stuttering . you know a comedy is digging deep when it resorts to ridiculing the handicapped . ( 7 ) murphy 's idea of drama is a scene in which his character apologizes for the first time in his life . for what ? for shooting reese 's little toe off ! needless to say , murphy shows little , if any , promise or imagination as a screenwriter . in all fairness , however , a few rays of sunshine do manage to break through the gloomy cloud surrounding the movie . danny aiello is fun to watch as a dirty cop on the take . aiello stands out in the large , ensemble cast : he obviously relishes the opportunity to play such a nasty character ( a racist detective with mob ties ) . aiello 's zesty performance gives harlem nights some much needed spice . another bright spot is arsenio hall , who has a hilarious , show - stopping cameo as a cry - baby gangster ; hall virtually steals the spotlight from murphy . in fact , hall 's ten minutes on screen are the funniest ten minutes in the movie . unfortunately , his character is completely irrelevant to the plot ; murphy should have given hall a much bigger role . of course , i 've already mentioned that i did n't care for murphy 's character , but i have to admit that i did love his neckties . they are simply spectacular -- almost worth the price of admission .

0NEG

. here 's what i think : harlem nights is charmless , unoriginal , disappointing , and almost without question , the worst film of the actor 's career ( i have n't seen best defense ) . and nights is a fairly good looking film . no , the project was probably doomed even before the cameras rolled . murphy 's awful script is the culprit . let 's count the mistakes he makes in his first attempt at screenwriting : ( one four letter word . and after 15 minutes , it gets irritating . ( 2 ) murphy wastes the talents of his fine cast . richard pryor , redd foxx face the impossible task of carving out credible characters from a script riddled with stereotypes . each of them shines occasionally , but basically what we have are good performers stuck in a bad vehicle . ( 3 ) the movie demeans women by depicting . ( 4 ) murphy has written for himself perhaps his blandest role to date . the loveable eddie murphy charisma emerges only once or and look debonair . ( 5 ) the plot is a shameless rip - off of the sting . if you 're going to make of warring nightclub owners in harlem ( circa 1938 ) fails to add anything new to the formula . ( 6 ) to get 's little toe off ! needless to say , murphy shows little , if any , promise or imagination as a screenwriter . in all fairness , however , a few rays screen are the funniest ten minutes in the movie . unfortunately , his character is completely irrelevant to the plot ;

because no one demanded it : david duchovny in a romantic comedy ! at last , both his romantic magnetism and his comedic brilliance are mined for all their resources ! the choice of duchovny may have something to do with the plot , which could be fodder for a valentine 's day episode of " the x - files . " bob rueland ( david duchovny ) loses his wife elizabeth ( joely richardson ) in a car accident . at the same time , grace briggs ( minnie driver ) is in the hospital , waiting for a heart transplant . grace gets elizabeth 's heart , and it leads her to bob . it 's the romantic equivalent of all those horror films where someone gets a transplant from a serial killer and then is driven to slaughter people . four writers are credited with contributing to the story . that does n't seem possible . despite being a solid two hours long , " return to me " adds little to the " boy meets girl / boy loses girl " formula and , as a result , is terribly tedious and slow - moving . duchovny and driver seem unable to generate any sparks , and i kept wishing for a fast - forward button to move their scenes along . since driver has managed to work well in romantic roles before , i blame duchovny . he 's out of his element without the manufactured and static sexual tension of his tv series ( and i 've always thought that the relationship between mulder and scully on " the x - files " comes off more sibling - like than hot - and - bothered ) . there 's something about duchovny that makes me uneasy . regardless of the role he 's playing , he comes off as a weirdo . the only redeeming quality of " return to me " is its hilarious supporting cast . the circle of friends and relatives around bob and grace is constantly playing matchmaker , and they generate the only laughs in the movie . carroll o'connor is grace 's grandfather marty o'reilly . when bob comes into marty 's restaurant after hours , marty immediately begins quizzing bob about his marital status . when marty discovers that bob is a widower , he invites bob to join his poker game and introduces him with the declaration , " this is bob ! his wife is dead ! " the poker buddies are just as desperate to find a mate for grace and greet bob enthusiastically when they hear the news . also funny : bonnie hunt as grace 's best friend megan and james belushi as megan 's husband joe . married with children , megan and joe provide a useful counterpoint by showing the mundane results of romance . although it 's rare to see him in a movie that premieres in a theater , belushi delivers his lines with great comic skill . rounding out the impressive supporting cast are david alan grier as bob 's best friend and robert loggia as marty 's brother - in - law angelo . in only the lead actors lived up to the standards set by the rest of the cast . bottom line : if you are compelled to see this movie , watch it on video so you can fast - forward to scenes with carroll o'connor and james belushi .

0NEG

girl " formula and , as a result , is terribly tedious and slow - moving . duchovny and driver seem unable to generate any sparks , and i kept wishing for a fast - forward button to move their scenes along . since driver has managed to work well in romantic - bothered ) . there 's something about duchovny that makes me uneasy . regardless of the role he 's playing , he compelled to see this movie , watch it on video so you can fast - forward to scenes with carroll o'connor and james belushi .

i 'm not sure if silvio horta wrote urban legend before or after the success of scream , but i 'm guessing after just because it seems he may not have had time to write a second draft . seriously , this idea -- a psycho bumping off people in the style of urban legends -- is a great one and i wish it could have been pulled off . the first sign of trouble comes with the painfully insipid dialogue . an example : " that [ car crash ] must 've been awful . . . for everyone involved . " you can tell that the writer intended that something a little more airy was supposed to have been said , just no one figured out what . i know in slasher movies there is n't supposed to be a lot of great characterization and i myself do n't mind cardboard cutouts , but please do n't let the cutouts be so damn bland . one reason movies like scream , star wars and diva have become so treasured is because they feature charismatic actors playing interesting characters . aside from jared leto and joshua jackson ( who are n't on the screen long enough ) no one in urban legend makes the grade . alicia witt shows none of the acerbity or wit she displayed on cybill , rebecca gayheart actually looks unattractive ( not to mention as dumb as a post through 3/4 of the film ) and robert englund just cruises on auto pilot . good thing brad dourif is here , but wait . . . he 's only in the movie for five minutes _ and _ he 's just redoing his good - natured stuttering character from one flew over the cuckoo 's nest . which brings me to another aspect of urban legend : it 's unoriginality . the film most blatantly ripped off is scream ( another reason that makes me think silvio horta wrote this after craven 's and williamson 's great success ) . urban legend tries to deconstruct modern - day folklore much the same way scream deconstructed slasher films , but it does n't quite succeed . it 's best stab at self - reflexivity is poking fun at " that girl in the noxzeema ad " ( ie , rebecca gayheart ) we also have another killer - taunting - his - victim - on - the - phone routine in urban legend and quick , what movie is this exchange of dialogue from : female protagonist : why ? villain : why ? why ? ! ? congratulations to those of you who answered scream and/or urban legend . like i said , this movie could 've been great . if only silvio had worked or been allowed to work a little longer on the script . still , at least urban legend had some pretty cool death scenes and a somewhat realized whodunit angle which makes this slasher is waaaayyyyyy better than i know what you did last summer .

0NEG

and i wish it could have been pulled off . the first sign of trouble comes with the painfully insipid dialogue . an example : " that [ car crash ] lot of great characterization and i myself do n't mind cardboard cutouts , but please do n't let the cutouts be so damn bland . one reason movies like scream , star wars and ( who are n't on the screen long enough ) no one in urban legend makes the grade . alicia witt shows none of the acerbity or wit she displayed on cybill , rebecca gayheart actually looks unattractive ( not to mention as dumb as a post through 3/4 of the film ) and robert englund just cruises on auto pilot . good thing brad dourif is here , but wait me to another aspect of urban legend : it 's unoriginality . the film most blatantly ripped off is scream ( another reason that makes me think silvio much the same way scream deconstructed slasher films , but it does n't quite succeed . it 's best stab at self - reflexivity is

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

0NEG

and is - high school and adolescence . these are among the many problems that plague " never been kissed . " screenwriters abby kohn and marc silverstein can not get a handle of josie . their script has her capriciously switching from confident adult to ditzy , blubbering woman - child and one of those is consistency of character . among the movie 's problems is the ill - conceived conceit that josie would seriously strive to climb the high school to be fair , barrymore is very appealing , but she is given very little to work with . she tries valiantly to get a firm grip on her character , but the script continually undermines her . barrymore comes off best in the physical comedy aspects like a cool , hip high schooler . otherwise , she is left foundering on a cliched sea of teen - age stereotypes and situations . " never been kissed " is entertaining and funny in fits and starts . it lacks consistency and a firm grasp on what it wants to accomplish . the movie 's main bright spot is provided by out with the popular girls . real mature . and that is the main deficiency with " never been kissed . " it 's illogical , unrealistic , uneven and undemanding . it has some warm and humorous spots , but not enough to overcome its many obstacles .

" come on , silent bob ! we 're going to hollywood . " starring jason mewes , kevin smith , will ferrell , shannon elizabeth , seann william scott , chris rock , jason lee , ben affleck . directed by kevin smith . rated r . jay and silent bob strike back is a dumb movie disguised in a smarmy interior . kevin smith , coming off the wonderful , challenging dogma , fills it with sub - road trip gross - out jokes and expects us to buy it because he 's just oh - so - ironic . but when a movie is so self - aware it becomes about nothing but itself , we can hardly be expected to pay for admission . jay and silent bob , two new jersey stoners who hang out at the doorstep of convenience store selling pot , have appeared in almost all of smith 's movies but , if i 'm not mistaken , have not starred in one until now . they find out that there is a movie based on the comic book that is based on them being made in hollywood . this presents two problems : a ) they have n't received a penny in royalties and b ) nerds on the internet ( " what 's the internet ? " ) are talking trash about them . what is there to do except go to hollywood and stop this movie from being made ? on the way -- they 're hitchhiking , because who knew you needed tickets to take a bus ? -- they run into a group of hotties who pretend to be with an animal - rights group , but are really jewel thiefs who parade around in charlie 's angels - style outfits . of course , they set jay and silent bob up to look like the thieves , so that there is a massive manhunt going on during the second half of the film . will ferrell , who again proves himself incapable of doing anything but sketch comedy , shows up as the wildlife marshal inspector who thinks the two have stolen a monkey . the movie will probably please only smith 's die - hard , undiscerning fans ; everyone else will be critical of this mind - bogglingly stupid effort following some the sophisticated cinema that he churned out in years past . any appeal the movie has will come from the " in " jokes , most of which i think i understood , but the movie is " in " to the point of absurdity . there needs to be something holding it together other than its own smugness . once jay and silent bob get to hollywood , the movie abruptly switches gears from gross - out comedy to ridiculously broad hollywood satire . countless " hot " movie stars and personalities make an appearance , from smith veterans matt damon and ben affleck to wes craven , but jay and silent bob strike back resorts to such low - brow gags as another scream sequel with a monkey as the killer . get it ? they 're so desperate for another movie , they ran out of ideas and used a monkey ! a monkey ! as often happens with writers who are working below what they are actually capable of , most of the really good lines are throwaways , while the big , painstaking gags mostly fall flat . one of the funniest lines in the movie flies by : when asked to comment on the clitoris ( do n't ask ) , jay responds : " the female clitoris ? " kevin smith is a talented writer ( though i agree that his films would be better off if he 'd let a real director take the helm ) , and jay and silent bob strike back holds true to his promise to make a more facetious film . unfortunately , it 's also shapeless , pointless and largely unfunny . smith 's " verbal trampoline , " as ben affleck once called his distinctive dialogue , takes a back seat to his dubious instincts as a populist filmmaker . this was supposed to be the movie that did n't offend anyone , but it 's offensive because it 's terrible .

0NEG

rated r . jay and silent bob strike back is a dumb movie disguised in a smarmy interior . kevin smith , coming off the wonderful , challenging dogma , fills it with sub - road trip gross - out jokes and expects us to buy it because he 's just oh - so - ironic . but when a movie is so self - aware second half of the film . will ferrell , who again proves himself incapable of doing anything but sketch comedy , shows up as the wildlife marshal only smith 's die - hard , undiscerning fans ; everyone else will be critical of this mind - bogglingly stupid effort following some the sophisticated cinema that he churned out in i understood , but the movie is " in " to the point of absurdity . there needs to be something holding it together other jay and silent bob get to hollywood , the movie abruptly switches gears from gross - out comedy to ridiculously broad hollywood satire . countless " hot " movie stars and personalities make wes craven , but jay and silent bob strike back resorts to such low - brow gags as another scream sequel with a monkey as the killer are working below what they are actually capable of , most of the really good lines are throwaways , while the big , painstaking gags mostly fall flat . one of the funniest lines in the movie flies promise to make a more facetious film . unfortunately , it 's also shapeless , pointless and largely unfunny . smith 's " verbal trampoline , " as ben be the movie that did n't offend anyone , but it 's offensive because it 's terrible .

let me begin by saying that this is easily the worst movie in the entire official ( and even unofficial ) james bond series . it is so full of self - parody and silly characters that you would almost believe you were watching a spoof . an omen of what is to come is provided by the pre - credits sequence , a dull affair featuring a confrontation between a man ( it 's difficult to give a better description since no mention of him is made elsewhere in the movie ) and the assassin of the title . a song with woefully terrible lyrics follows , and the rest of the movie is even worse . the plot might have been a pleasant change from the usual rule - the - world so often found in the james bond movies of the 70s , but here we get a confused mismash about a fabled assassin , francisco scaramanga ( christopher lee , putting in a performance which is one of the rare saving graces of this movie ) who someone has apparently payed one million dollars to in order to remove roger moore 's 007 . there is also a flimsy connection with the energy crisis and a missing solar cell with 95 % efficiency . it 's as much of a mess as it sounds . bond is " helped " in his task by mary goodnight ( ekland ) , whose character could n't possibly be any closer to the stereotypical bimbo . during the course of the movie she gets locked in both a closet and a car trunk , blunders around a control room accidentally setting off a laser and serves no purpose in enhancing the plot whatsoever . maud adams ( later to star in octopussy ) is a much more stronger and useful character , but she hardly features in the movie . scaramanga 's lackey is a dwarf called nik - nak , who rather fittingly is also possibly the silliest henchman in the series , serving up annoyance and weak dialogue in equal measures . worse still is an almost total lack of action throughout the whole movie . there is but one fight sequence about fifteen minutes in ( not counting a ludicrous scene where two teenage girls beat up several dozen trained martial artists -- another misguided attempt at humour ) . the solitary car chase might have been a highlight , but the " action " is interrupted on a frequent basis by a redneck sheriff ( j . w . pepper , played by clifton james of live and let die " fame " ) yelling stupid comments out of the passenger window . he is easily the most irritating character in a james bond movie . even his presence could have been made bearable by one of the most impressive car stunts in cinematic history , a 360 degree twisting loop jump over a broken bridge -- could have been , except somebody got the idea to dub a mocking whistle tone over the final print . on top of that debacle , the whole end of the film is an anticlimatic sequence in scaramanga 's " funhouse " . the only good thing that came out of this movie was that the producers had to make the next film in the series ( the infinitely superior " the spy who loved me " ) a great film in order for the bond franchise to survive .

0NEG

let me begin by saying that this is easily the worst movie in the entire official ( and even unofficial ) james bond series . it is so full of self - parody and silly characters that you would almost believe you were watching a spoof . an omen of what is to come is provided the movie ) and the assassin of the title . a song with woefully terrible lyrics follows , and the rest of the movie is even worse . the plot might have been a pleasant change from the james bond movies of the 70s , but here we get a confused mismash about a fabled assassin , francisco scaramanga ( christopher lee and a missing solar cell with 95 % efficiency . it 's as much of a mess as it sounds . bond is " helped " in his task by mary goodnight ( ekland ) , whose character could n't possibly be any closer to the stereotypical bimbo . during the course of the movie she gets locked around a control room accidentally setting off a laser and serves no purpose in enhancing the plot whatsoever . maud adams ( later to star in octopussy ) is also possibly the silliest henchman in the series , serving up annoyance and weak dialogue in equal measures . worse still is an almost total lack of action throughout the whole movie . there is but one fight teenage girls beat up several dozen trained martial artists -- another misguided attempt at humour ) . the solitary car chase might have been a stupid comments out of the passenger window . he is easily the most irritating character in a james bond movie . even his presence could dub a mocking whistle tone over the final print . on top of that debacle , the whole end of the film is an anticlimatic sequence in scaramanga 's " funhouse " . the only good

since director steven zaillian previously wrote the powerful screenplay for 1993 's steven spielberg drama " schindler 's list " and directed 1993 's intelligent " searching for bobby fischer , " his new film , " a civil action , " should most likely be looked upon as an unfortunate misstep in an otherwise prosperous career . what does n't make sense is how such high - profile and superb actors as john travolta , robert duvall , william h . macy , and kathleen quinlan got involved in this project , which is both dull and completely ineffective . the film , which involves a small community of children who mysteriously died of leukemia , certainly contains the type of story to be emotionally - charged , but somehow all signs of feeling have been completely removed from the proceedings , leaving us with nothing more than a poorly - done courtroom drama . based on a book by jonathan hart , which was consequently based on a true account , " a civil action " is set in 1982 in the town of woburn , mass . , where personal injury lawyer jan schlictmann ( john travolta ) decides to take on the case of eight families who simply want an apology for their children 's death from leukemia due to unknown causes . jan originally decides to drop the case , but when he stumbles across to corporate giants , grace and beatrice foods , who have plants located near the families ' homes , he sees all of the pieces suddenly fall into place : the two companies have been leaking harmful chemicals into the nearby lake which , thus , goes into the city 's drinking water . suddenly , after hearing about the families ' heartbreak and personal stories , he begins to care for them and becomes determined to get to the bottom of the mystery , even though he is warned by his staff accountant ( william h . macy ) that no money is coming in to them , only going out . also figuring into the story is jerome facher ( robert duvall ) , beatrice foods ' corporate counsel , who finds himself in heated waters when jan will not accept his $ 20-million offer to settle the case . coming from such a talented writer , director , and cast , not to mention one of the most interesting film composers , danny elfman , " a civil action " is an astoundingly empty - headed drama , one that includes an intriguing story and somehow transforms it into an admittedly tiresome and occasionally even boring experience . perhaps one of its major problems was that in its attempts to be a relatively uncommercial motion picture , zaillian has misplaced its refreshing unconventional attitude with an absence of magnetism and even meaning . watching the film , i could n't help but notice its similarities with 1997 's far , far superior film " the sweet hereafter , " which dealt with a lawyer , played brilliantly by ian holm , investigating a school bus accident that killed a number of children . in his attempts to find someone who may have been responsible for the accident , holm interviews the grieving parents , as well as the sole surviving passenger , a teenage girl , which starts to remind him of his own teenage daughter , a young drug - addict who has run away from home . not only was the plotting similar to " a civil action , " but it also had the same exact running time of 115 minutes . considering this , it is amazing how fulfilling and truthful " a sweet hereafter " was , not only concentrating on the school bus accident , but delving deeply into ian holm 's character and his own personal demons , as well as the teenage girl . in " a civil action , " however , i have no idea where the running time went , since the film is virtually two hours of nothingness . we do not get to know the parents very well , nor any of the main characters . through its whole duration , i did not learn one thing__not one thing__about travolta 's lawyer character , jan schlictmann , who does n't appear to have any sort of life or purpose outside of his job . every scene is tediously related directly to the premise , and therefore , there was no one for me to care about or root for . you 've got to work pretty hard , actually , to not get an audience to become involved in the parents ' plight , since their children are dead , but that is exactly what " a civil action " does . to be honest , i would be fairly hard - pressed to state an aspect of the film that i actually liked . aside from one flashback to when a man 's young son died on the way to the doctor , i remained unmoved and passive about what was going on in the scenes , and more than once found my mind wandering . i could say the performances were good , but who 's fooling who ? since every character is one - dimensionally written , no one 's acting abilities are challenged in any way . travolta plays a lawyer well enough , but that 's about all he does . duvall virtually sleepwalks through his role , apparently only appearing to give one - liners at every chance he gets . and what in the world is kathy bates doing in the picture 's final scene , as a judge ? she appears unbilled , since it is just a cameo , but why did she even agree to do it in the first place ? finally , when the conclusion arrived and the end credits began to role , the film left me with another question : what was the point ? abruptly ending without any susceptible momentum , where none came before that to begin with , " a civil action " seemed to me , at least , to be an example of how not to make a courtroom drama , and it certainly did not do justice to the very serious subject matter the film deals with .

0NEG

action , " should most likely be looked upon as an unfortunate misstep in an otherwise prosperous career . what does n't make kathleen quinlan got involved in this project , which is both dull and completely ineffective . the film , which involves a small community of been completely removed from the proceedings , leaving us with nothing more than a poorly - done courtroom drama . based on a book by jonathan hart , which , danny elfman , " a civil action " is an astoundingly empty - headed drama , one that includes an intriguing story and somehow transforms it into an admittedly tiresome and occasionally even boring experience . perhaps one of its major problems was that in its attempts to be a relatively uncommercial motion picture , zaillian has misplaced its refreshing unconventional attitude with an absence of magnetism and even meaning . watching the film , i could n't help but . in " a civil action , " however , i have no idea where the running time went , since the film is virtually two hours of nothingness . we do not get to know the parents very sort of life or purpose outside of his job . every scene is tediously related directly to the premise , and therefore , there was no one for me young son died on the way to the doctor , i remained unmoved and passive about what was going on in the scenes , and more than once found my mind wandering . i could say the performances were good , but who 's fooling who ? since every character is one - dimensionally written , no one 's acting abilities are challenged in any way . travolta plays a lawyer well enough , but that 's about all he does . duvall virtually sleepwalks through his role , apparently only appearing to give one - liners at every chance he gets . and what in the world is kathy bates doing role , the film left me with another question : what was the point ? abruptly ending without any susceptible momentum , where none came before that to begin with ,

synopsis : al simmons , top - notch assasin with a guilty conscience , dies in a fiery explosion and goes to hell . making a pact with malebolgia , a chief demon there , simmons returns to earth 5 years later reborn as spawn , a general in hell 's army donning a necroplasmic costume replete with knives , chains , and a morphing cape . sullen , wise cogliostro and flatulating , wisecracking violator vy for spawn 's attention . comments : when todd mcfarlane left marvel comics ( where he had made a name for himself as a first - rate comic book penciller on the " spider - man " titles ) to join the newly - formed , creator - owned image comics , a new comic book legend was born : spawn . mcfarlane 's " spawn " immediately became a commercial and critical success and a defining comic book series of the 1990s . mcfarlane created a hero who was not only original but visually intricate , allowing mcfarlane to utilize his knack for artistic detail to the max . the early " spawn " issues brilliantly capture mcfarlane 's genius at illustration and show his early attempts at writing . with the popularity of " spawn " and the success of the current warner bros . 's batman film franchise , a movie version of some sort seemed inevitable for spawn . in the summer of 1997 , hence , new line cinema released spawn , a live - action film based on the groundbreaking series . this topheavy exercise in violence and special effects unfortunately topples quickly and leaves fans of the comic book , like me , numbed by how much spawn misses the mark . what happened ? why is spawn so bad ? todd mcfarlane himself executive produced this disappointing misfire and even appears in a cameo . i do n't think , however , that his presence necessarily hurt ( or helped ) the film . i place the blame , in part , on the recent hollywood trend , fueled by public demand apparently , for special effects blow - out movies utilizing the latest computer technology . these films focus upon the effects at the expense of everything else : character , plot , dialogue , etc . spawn , reflecting this trend , shows the audience one gratuitous scene after another populated with morphing characters and filled with unnecessary pyrotechnics . hardly a minute goes by in this film without fires , explosions , knives and chains appearing out of nowhere , glowing eyes , or constantly transforming demons . a lot of it is visually interesting and technically solid , do n't get me wrong , but , because the script and cast are n't engaging , spawn ultimately comes across like overwrought wallpaper ( the surface may capture the eye , but nothing exists underneath ) . spawn 's translation of the comic book suffers the most at the storyline level . mcfarlane 's spawn was a tortured hero . a mercenary by trade , al simmons was nonetheless a warm man in love with the beautiful wanda . having died and journeyed to hell , he made a pact to return to earth to be with wanda . simmons , however , discovers that his memories are fragmented , his body a creepy mess , and his wife married . despite his sometimes violent nature , readers could n't help but feel sympathetic toward his plight as the spawn of the underworld . spawn attempts to show all of this but does not spend nearly the time it should to do so . when the characters are developed , they seem absurd rather than touching . the cartoonish dialogue and implausible subplot ( a general possesses the antidote to a supervirus called heat-16 which he wishes to unleash to enslave the world ) do not help matters . spawn , in an apparent attempt to duplicate the success of batman , also unwisely spends too much time on a villain , the violator ( batman favored the joker over batman ) . john leguizamo , like jack nicholson in batman , receives top billing in the cast as the violator ; michael jai white ( al simmons / spawn ) is second . i ordinarily find leguizamo an intensely annoying presence in films which seems to make him a perfect candidate for the violator . the film , however , spends so much time on the violator 's offensive antics that they grate on the nerves . apparently meant to be the comic relief in the film ( as nicholson was in batman ) , especially when contrasted with the sullen spawn , the violator 's lines are oftentimes grotesque and unfunny , leaving the audience wishing he would leave . leguizamo does a satisfactory job in the role , but he is seen far too often in the film . michael jai white , a relative newcomer to theatrical releases , seems to be an appealing actor , and he handles his role adequately , but we see little of him without various masks on . more time needed to be spent on white 's character before he became spawn for the movie to pull at the heartstrings . a special note should be made about martin sheen as the over - the - top , obnoxious , evil general wynn . easily the hammiest performance in the movie , it 's hard to imagine how sheen mucked up his role so much ; after all , he played a vietnam assasin brilliantly in the great apocalypse now . sheen 's excessive demeanor do not help the audience accept him as a mastermind villain and comes as a surprise considering his extensive career in film . many other elements conspire with the disappointing script and abundant special effects to drag spawn down . mtv - style , jerky , in - your - face editing is one of them . flames , for example , roll across the screen sometimes to announce a shift in setting . cogliostro , unlikely wannabe guide for spawn , serves as a poor narrator for the film . he goofily tells the audience , at one point , that " how much of [ spawn 's ] humanity is left remains to be seen , " as if the audience really cares as one violent sequence leads to another . the music , finally , assaults the audience as much as the manic violence and offensive dialogue . loud and obnoxious hard rock fused with drum loops dominate some scenes . to be fair , however , marilyn manson 's " long hard road out of hell " effectively compliments spawn 's return to earth , while filter and the crystal method 's " ( ca n't you ) trip like i do " proves a surprisingly fitting theme song . for as good a comic book as it is , " spawn " did not spawn a good movie . spawn , instead , suffers from too much pomp and circumstance , and too little plot and character development . it receives two stars for its technically well - done special effects . many other films , though , have equal , if not superior , special effects and are much better . rated pg-13 , spawn seems more violent than many r - rated movies and probably would n't be appropriate for the very young .

0NEG

series . this topheavy exercise in violence and special effects unfortunately topples quickly and leaves fans of the comic book , like me , numbed by how much spawn misses the mark . what happened ? why is spawn so bad ? todd mcfarlane himself executive produced this disappointing misfire and even appears in a cameo . i do n't blow - out movies utilizing the latest computer technology . these films focus upon the effects at the expense of everything else : character , plot , dialogue , etc . spawn , do n't get me wrong , but , because the script and cast are n't engaging , spawn ultimately comes across like overwrought wallpaper ( the surface may capture the eye , but nothing exists underneath ) . spawn 's translation of the comic book suffers the most at the storyline level . mcfarlane 's spawn was a to do so . when the characters are developed , they seem absurd rather than touching . the cartoonish dialogue and implausible subplot ( a general possesses the antidote to a supervirus called apparent attempt to duplicate the success of batman , also unwisely spends too much time on a villain , the violator ( batman favored the when contrasted with the sullen spawn , the violator 's lines are oftentimes grotesque and unfunny , leaving the audience wishing he would leave . leguizamo does a satisfactory job in the role , the - top , obnoxious , evil general wynn . easily the hammiest performance in the movie , it 's hard to imagine how extensive career in film . many other elements conspire with the disappointing script and abundant special effects to drag spawn down . mtv - style , jerky , in - your sequence leads to another . the music , finally , assaults the audience as much as the manic violence and offensive dialogue . loud and obnoxious hard rock fused with drum loops dominate some scenes . not spawn a good movie . spawn , instead , suffers from too much pomp and circumstance , and too little plot and character development . it receives two stars for its technically well -

i ca n't recall a previous film experience where the fairly good time i was having turned as sour as quickly as it did during feeling minnesota . for forty minutes or so , i was lured into a loopy if occasionally over - wrought romantic comedy , and i was even giving keanu reeves the benefit of the doubt . then , rather suddenly , i was clubbed over the head with a nasty bit of violence ; shortly thereafter , i was whacked in the gut by another . feeling minnesota is a film that made me feel violated , as though i had trusted writer - director steven baigelman to bring me a cool glass of water and instead he threw acid in my face . feeling minnesota tells the story of a topless dancer named freddie ( cameron diaz ) who finds herself in deep trouble when her boss red ( delroy lindo ) suspects her of stealing from him . red 's punishment is to force freddie to marry his bookkeeper , sam clayton ( vincent d'onofrio ) , who is far from the man of freddie 's dreams . enter jjaks ( keanu reeves ) , sam 's estranged younger brother , who arrives at the wedding just in time to catch freddie 's eye and have sex with her in the bathroom . united in their mutual attraction and their mutual loathing of sam , jjaks and freddie take off together , but sam is n't ready to let them go without a fight . freddie , meanwhile , is n't ready to let sam 's money go without a fight , and thus begins a series of violent confrontations . there is both style and substance to the beginning of feeling minnesota , as baigelman opens with an effective montage showing jjaks and sam 's intense sibling rivalry as boys , and their mother ( tuesday weld ) sending jjaks away to live with his father . it does a great job of setting up jjaks ' unstable life , a life which has landed him in trouble for petty crimes and always trying to please his family ; reeves ' wounded look is just right for jjaks . the wedding sequence includes a number of nice moments , most notably the aforementioned bathroom scene in which a simple question is given a very funny spin . most important , baigelman begins to establish the connection between freddie and jjaks with humor and economy , as in a scene where they both spontaneously begin singing along to the replacements ' " i will dare " on the car radio . you would have every reason to expect that relationships -- both familial and romantic -- would be the focal point of feeling minnesota . unfortunately , you would be dead wrong . i suppose i should have expected daisies and valentines after an early scene in which red threatens freddie as she tries to avoid the wedding , but i certainly did n't expect what i got . what i got was yet another in a long line of recent films trying to ride the tarantino wave by mixing gags and brutality , or rather creating gags about brutality . suddenly , the story of romantic entanglements and family conflict becomes a story about a corpse , and everything which had come before degenerates so completely that virtually nothing is recognizable . the sibling rivalry not only becomes little more than an excuse for one round of beatings after another , but there is no consistency to the characterizations . vincent d'onofrio turns in a manic performance as sam , whose jealousy , competitiveness and apparent sense of inferiority seem far more in keeping with what we know about jjaks , while reeves turns into a framed hero too reminiscent of chain reaction , and both of them spend most of the second half of the film screaming and covered in blood . there are films which have managed to employ a radical shift in tone successfully ( jonathan demme 's something wild and neil jordan 's the crying game come to mind ) , but they did n't try to draw an audience with the promise of relatively innocuous entertainment . i do n't want to dismiss baigelman 's successes out of hand -- he gets a fun performance out of dan aykroyd as a crooked cop , and some well - crafted comic moments -- and it is not his fault that fine line has chosen to promote feeling minnesota as a light - hearted caper . it _ is _ his fault that he violates his own characters for the sake of shock value , and that he ca n't make his two halves into a whole . feeling minnesota left me feeling used , and there 's not much funny about that .

0NEG

benefit of the doubt . then , rather suddenly , i was clubbed over the head with a nasty bit of violence ; shortly thereafter , i was whacked in the gut by another . feeling minnesota is a film that made me feel violated , as though i had trusted writer - director steven -- would be the focal point of feeling minnesota . unfortunately , you would be dead wrong . i suppose i should have expected daisies and valentines family conflict becomes a story about a corpse , and everything which had come before degenerates so completely that virtually nothing is recognizable . the sibling rivalry not only becomes little more than excuse for one round of beatings after another , but there is no consistency to the characterizations . vincent d'onofrio turns in a manic promote feeling minnesota as a light - hearted caper . it _ is _ his fault that he violates his own characters for the sake of shock value , and that he ca n't make his two halves into a whole . feeling minnesota left me feeling used , and there 's not much funny about that .

wolfgang petersen 's latest , the perfect storm , is like a pineapple . it only tastes good after arduous peeling and digging - if you try to eat the fruit , spikes and all , it 's going to hurt ? quite a bit . ok , maybe that was a confusing analogy , so here 's my main complaint about the latest man battles nature flick : there is n't really much of a story to tell . basically , a massachusetts fishing crew goes out to sea on a small boat , called the andrea gail , and gets stuck in the middle of " the storm of the century . " how much time does it take for petersen to tell this story ? not nearly enough . so he spends the majority of the film developing pointless side stories which all eventually become superfluous . audiences want to see the storm , they want to see a fight for survival but what they get is a lot of cliched , maudlin drivel . the last quarter of the perfect storm is utterly perfect in every aspect , but just try lasting the first three - quarters . i have yet to read sebastian junger 's the perfect storm , but from what i have heard it is an unforgettable tale . based on a true story , the book must have found some other way to introduce the characters because in the movie version , the approach is weak . using a wonderfully patriotic score by james horner , petersen almost hides the in - your - face banality . right away the central characters are introduced : the gritty , determined captain ( george clooney ) , the ingenue ( mark wahlberg ) torn between his job and his girlfriend ( diane lane ) , the loving father ( john c . reilly ) , the comic relief who 's always trying to get laid ( john hawkes ) , the new guy ( william fichtner ) who immediately antagonizes a crewmate and the quiet , french guy ( allen payne ) . so many problems strike the opening segment of the film that the remaining portions directly suffer . it is not the all - star cast 's fault , just the characters designed for their portrayal . allen payne 's character never speaks in the entire movie , not because he is mute , but because he 's never given any lines ! are we supposed to root for a guy whose face and voice we are never given a chance to interact with ? fichtner 's character is terribly underdeveloped - we do n't know what he 's doing there , where he 's from , or who he 's supposed to be . the remaining four fishermen are all cardboard stereotypes ( hawkes says to a female stranger in one scene " you know what would look good on you ? me ! " ooooh real creative ) . as the script advances and the andrea gail floats farther out into the waters , the crew continues to not feel human . only when the storm takes center stage does the movie jump out of its sleepwalk . the computer - generated images of gigantic waves crashing against a helpless boat are thunderously real . i can only imagine if this was an imax film , this city kid would surely never go in the water again . this is loud , jolting entertainment - adjectives that completely negate the rest of the film . the perfect storm was unfortunately a disappointment . the maelstrom lived up to its potential but everything else failed to do so . i guess i 'll stick to that other survival spectacle ? you know the one on cbs ?

0NEG

ok , maybe that was a confusing analogy , so here 's my main complaint about the latest man battles nature flick : there is to introduce the characters because in the movie version , the approach is weak . using a wonderfully patriotic score by james horner , the quiet , french guy ( allen payne ) . so many problems strike the opening segment of the film that the remaining portions directly suffer . it is not the all - star cast 's a chance to interact with ? fichtner 's character is terribly underdeveloped - we do n't know what he 's doing there supposed to be . the remaining four fishermen are all cardboard stereotypes ( hawkes says to a female stranger in one scene the rest of the film . the perfect storm was unfortunately a disappointment . the maelstrom lived up to its potential but everything else failed to do so . i guess i 'll stick to

synopsis : valerie , a high school junior who does n't look a day under 22 , writes bad poetry , complains about how much she hates school , fantasizes about a young guy on trial for raping and murdering six women , chooses him as a pen pal , and plays hooky to see him in court . after a jailbreak , the killer puts on big sunglasses , wears a half - buttoned jacket , and uses his fatal charm to go after valerie . comments : " alan smithee " directed fatal charm , which should have been more appropriately titled " fatal bore " or " fatal crap " . if you find out that a film you 're about to see is directed by " alan smithee , " then you should seriously , seriously , seriously consider watching something , anything , else . " alan smithee " is a pseudonym which a number of directors have used when they produce something really bad . frankly , i 'd be embarrassed if i had directed this turkey , so i think i understand why the director might have picked the " alan smithee " moniker for this film . where to begin with this painfully poor thriller ? let 's start with the acting . it 's pretty bad . amanda peterson plays valerie and shows at least some talent ( the rest of the cast do n't ) , even though her performance is n't exactly stellar material . she 's also miscast ; she seems way too old to still have a year of high school to complete . her scenes with valerie 's mother , played by mary frann , are a joke . the two look as though they 're a couple of coworkers going out to lunch together , rather than a daughter with her mother who just does n't understand . christopher atkins , a handsome enough actor who plays the killer , adam , looks like a clown in the second half of fatal charm . trying to appear malicious and dangerous , he wears large sunglasses and a half - buttoned jacket . if disney decided to do a zany comedy caper about the unabomber , atkins would probably be a perfect candidate for the lead , but he does n't cut it here . early on in the movie , a number of scenes occurs in a courtroom . outside of the laughably poor performances given by the actors portraying lawyers , the people sitting in the benches provide the silliest effort at drama in the film . they constantly shift and turn and arc their heads in mock interest in what has got to be one of the worst perfomances that a large group of people have given at one time ever . fatal charm 's storyline , such as it is , inspires more yawns than thrills . the script belabors a red herring , early on , about a second suspect who may have committed the murders for which adam ( atkins ) is charged with . this suspect , however , turns up strangled and drowned halfway through the film : an obvious plot fault . even for the idiots who did n't consider the movie 's title as valerie and a blond newsreporter commented how innocent and charming the defendant seemed , it becomes quite obvious that adam is dangerous when the other suspect washes up . so , the audience must wait ( if they have n't already stopped watching ) as the necessary details fall into place and the killer goes after the heroine in the drawn - out finale . the video box for this dud describes fatal charm as an " erotic thriller " . a thriller it is n't , and neither is it particularly erotic . i ca n't imagine , if someone were in the mood for something " erotic , " that he 'd be happy after watching this fluff . a few erotic moments occur in the film ; they take place in a van with little lighting and are filmed out of focus ( see , they 're supposed to be valerie 's fantasies -- how creative ) . on a personal note , i was disturbed by the ludicrous english literature class shown in this film which valerie had to suffer through . it 's no wonder why she hated high school so much . as an instructor of english myself , i have a hard time accepting the fact that in a course emphasizing great literature , a teacher would stoop to reading a student 's bad poetry ( of course , it 's valerie 's ) about boyfriends out loud and then embarassing its author in front of class with questions about the poem 's inspiration . i guess the public school system is still setting dubious standards for its students . fatal charm wo n't charm anyone , unless there 's someone that 's charmed by boring , lifeless , insipid , suspenseless thrillers . if you happen upon this turkey , just keep moving on .

0NEG

fatal charm , which should have been more appropriately titled " fatal bore " or " fatal crap " . if you find out that a film you 're see is directed by " alan smithee , " then you should seriously , seriously , seriously consider watching something , anything , else . " alan smithee " is a pseudonym which a used when they produce something really bad . frankly , i 'd be embarrassed if i had directed this turkey , so i think i understand why the director might moniker for this film . where to begin with this painfully poor thriller ? let 's start with the acting . it 's pretty bad . amanda peterson plays valerie and shows at least some performance is n't exactly stellar material . she 's also miscast ; she seems way too old to still have a of scenes occurs in a courtroom . outside of the laughably poor performances given by the actors portraying lawyers , the people sitting in the benches provide the silliest effort at drama in the film . they constantly shift and heads in mock interest in what has got to be one of the worst perfomances that a large group of people have given at one time ever . fatal charm 's storyline , such as it is , inspires more yawns than thrills . the script belabors a red herring , early on , about a second suspect who may turns up strangled and drowned halfway through the film : an obvious plot fault . even for the idiots who did n't consider the drawn - out finale . the video box for this dud describes fatal charm as an " erotic thriller " . , " that he 'd be happy after watching this fluff . a few erotic moments occur in the film ; -- how creative ) . on a personal note , i was disturbed by the ludicrous english literature class shown in this film which valerie had anyone , unless there 's someone that 's charmed by boring , lifeless , insipid , suspenseless thrillers . if you happen upon this turkey , just keep moving on .

a highly intelligent life form that is completely electronic in nature , beams itself onto a russian science vessel . well , this is the point where the movie strays from becoming a decent and original movie and simply becomes a predictable sci - fi thriller . anyhow , this life form takes control of the computers on the russian vessel then starts creating highly advanced robots to help it in its gruesome task of exterminating the ? virus ' known as man . the original crew of the russian vessel is all but exterminated , and then a hapless crew on a tug discovers the derelict ship and tries to salvage it . no more needs to be said as to what happens and where the conflict lies , the movie is that predictable . the story is full of very shallow characters that do n't do much other than subsist . the captain of the tug , played by donald sutherland , makes irrational choice after irrational choice leaving the audience wondering as to how he has survived long enough to reach his age ( looks to be in his 60 's ) . to add to this we 're shown this motley crew that at times seems to be highly skilled in specific fields , and at others seems barely capable of basic tasks . some of the supposed capabilities of the characters leads one to wonder what they are doing on a tug transporting cargo in the middle of the pacific , in a typhoon no less . none of the characters seem to work together at all ; they are always bickering and vying for some form of control . this makes no sense what so ever and only takes away from the story , a story that is full of holes and is extremely predictable . all the flaws of the actual story are only helped along by the special effects . the waves that are generated to be part of the typhoon make it look like boat was is small model sitting in a tub and someone is simply creating waves . it looks genuinely fake , granted trying to recreate a typhoon or hurricane can not be easy by any stretch of the imagination but having the storm approach in a style similar to the huge wave of deep impact only ends up looking corny and amateurish . also on the topic of flaws , the robotics that the advanced life form creates seem to move extremely slowly , why ? if this life form that is so advanced as to be able to create these robotics , should it not be able to create them move faster ? regardless , the special effects in this movie in many cases take away from the film rather than add to it . as to the actual casting for the movie , finally there is nothing to complain about . the actors were superb , but then again it is highly doubtful that chimpanzees would have had difficulty acting the roles . having the cast that was present probably saved this movie from being an absolute catastrophe . watching these actors act this story out made it bearable , if barely . the one saving grace of this movie is that it was highly action packed and there always seemed to be something happening . so if you are going into this movie not expecting to see anything grand and are only going to kill some time and watch a mediocre sci - fi thriller then you wo n't be too disappointed . as the movie is but the latest in a genre that was originally created by aliens , it does little more than try to cash in on that aspect . this movie would be best left for video and even then you might be advised to simply wait for one of the major networks to air it on tv .

0NEG

beams itself onto a russian science vessel . well , this is the point where the movie strays from becoming a decent and original movie and simply becomes a predictable sci - fi thriller . anyhow , this life form takes control of the as to what happens and where the conflict lies , the movie is that predictable . the story is full of very shallow characters that do n't do much other than subsist . the captain of the tug , played by donald of the pacific , in a typhoon no less . none of the characters seem to work together at all ; they are always bickering and vying for some form of control . this makes no sense what so ever and only takes away from the story , a story that is full of holes and is extremely predictable . all the flaws of the actual story are only helped along by the in a tub and someone is simply creating waves . it looks genuinely fake , granted trying to recreate a typhoon or hurricane can style similar to the huge wave of deep impact only ends up looking corny and amateurish . also on the topic of flaws , the robotics acting the roles . having the cast that was present probably saved this movie from being an absolute catastrophe . watching these actors act this story out made it

this movie is based off the wildly popular video - game series of the same name . before this film , the game had a few spin - off cartoons- which were ok . but the idea of doing a movie is insane . it should have been animated , if it should have been done at all . instead the people do the best they can with a talented cast . yet it still fails . the plot is completely different from the game 's plot- i 'm not complaining about that . the story involves the mario bros . having a plumbing business in brooklyn and having to compete with a rival company . eventually they find a construction site by their nemesis , which happens to be enviromentally un - safe . so , due to luigi 's ( john leguizamo ) girlfriend - princess daisy - they go and investigate . they get transported to a blade runner - esque world lead by king koopa ( dennis hopper ) . somehow a plot dealing with all the dinosaurs being mutated and transported to an alternate futuristic mega - city jumbles in . the plot is fine- better than the movie deserves . the acting is ok . this seems to be more of a visual film . the special effects are good , especially on the robotic yoshi . however the film drags and is no fun . and it leaves itself open to a sequel , which probably wo n't ever be made . this movie begins sort of promising , but ends up leaving a weird taste in your mouth . so if you want to watch a sort of odd movie starring the excellent dennis hopper , then watch super mario bros . : the movie . you could do worse . but you could definitely do better . . .

0NEG

few spin - off cartoons- which were ok . but the idea of doing a movie is insane . it should have been animated , if it should are good , especially on the robotic yoshi . however the film drags and is no fun . and it leaves itself open to a sequel , made . this movie begins sort of promising , but ends up leaving a weird taste in your mouth . so if you want to watch a sort of

studio 54 attracted so many weird and bizarre people to its gates that it 's a wonder why the film about the life and death of the studio centers itself on one very boring , cliched individual , not to mention an ensemble of people who would n't be at all fascinating unless they worked at the studio , which they did according to this film . are we supposed to believe that out of all the strange folk who populated the studio nightly , that a character who is a bland ripoff of tony manero would really make a good protagonist for the film about it ? " 54 " belongs in the elite group of films known as " the big disappointments " : the films that attain so much hype and/or so much potential in its creation that they come off worse than they are when they are finally finished . i was heavily awaiting " 54 , " not the least because i 've become fascinated with the infamous club , which has been the subject of an engrossing documentary that 's been running all summer on vh1 , which is , weirdly enough , much more intriguing and engrossing than this " edgy " film . perhaps more importantly , " 54 " is part of the blossoming subgenre , " the 70s nostalgia film , " which has been picking up mighty steam , what with " boogie nights " and " the last days of disco " coming out within the year , and both being such damn good movies that not only captured the feel of a certain time period ( the late 70s party and the early 80s wakeup period ) , but brought us interesting and real characters , like scotty , the tragically gay boom mike operator from " boogie nights , " and charlotte , the ironically clueless and bitchy co - protagonist from " the last days of disco , " not to mention several others . " 54 " deals not so much with the timeline of the studio ( how it began , how it was run , how it ended ) - that 's all dealt with in the narrated opening and finale - but more interested in the characters who populated it . this is a definite plus . here 's a film that could have been a fascinating 2 hour plus film about the tragic people who went there to party , and had to wakeup in the 80s when things like diseases , economy problems , and perhaps worst of all , reagan , all hit and forced everyone into a rude awakening . the story of the studio is tragedy in itself : let 's look at how it all affected the people . but this film does n't let that happen . it gives us a half - assed protagonist named shane o'shea ( ryan phillippe , from " i know what you did last summer " ) , who 's chief character trait is the fact that he 's from new jersey , which also happens to be his chief character flaw ( i guess ) . he 's dim - witted , into being part of " the scene , " and soon finds he 's become a bit of a rave amongst the studio regulars . . . a bit like " saturday night fever , " ' cept no travolta and no real interest put into him . poor , poor phillippe struggles to make him interesting , but all he is a half - assed character and not at all our ticket to the glimpse of the decadence going on inside the club that he could have been . shane begins to hang out with some other denizens of the club , like anita ( salma hayek ) , a wannabe donna sommers , and her young hubby , greg randanzo ( breckin meyer , from " clueless " ) , who helps shane become a bartender and rise to a bit of fame . although he begins to get somewhere when he sleeps with the foxy billie auster ( sela ward ) , an exec of sorts , he falls in lust with a soap star named julie black ( neve campbell ) , and thus the boring romance subplot that 's all too not necessarily important to anything else in the film and never really becomes interesting at any point in the film . the film 's sole point of interest and one major strongpoint is the all - too necesary personage of steve rubell , played by mike myers ( you heard me ) . rubell , the famous head of the studio acted as if he never stopped partying ever , and is an easy metaphor for the life and times of his creation , but the film , thanks to a surprisingly strong performance by myers , makes him out to be more than that . notice the scenes sole shocking scene , where he tries to get felatio from one of his male employees in turn for a promotion : myers brings the humanity to rubell in this scene , and a couple others , that some of us who 've only seen him on tv never saw , and proves to be perhaps the one aspect of studio 54 that this film actually nails . first time feature director mark christopher proves that he 's a better director than a writer , though not too terribly much . his story is trite and shallow , as are his characters , and his direction is shockingly flat , especially for a film about this subject . it 's as if he had a great story to tell , but instead opted for the easier route . the studio 's recreation is amazingly accurate , though , and very impressive , but his direction is never captivating enough . some people say that a film does its job if it makes you want to visit the locale it takes place in ( despite the film 's tone , i still want to go to rome and its many nightclubs after i saw fellini 's " la dolce vita " ) , and when i watched " 54 , " i did n't particularly want to stay .

0NEG

the film about the life and death of the studio centers itself on one very boring , cliched individual , not to mention an ensemble of people who would n't be at all fascinating unless they worked at the studio , which they did populated the studio nightly , that a character who is a bland ripoff of tony manero would really make a good protagonist for " belongs in the elite group of films known as " the big disappointments " : the films that attain so much hype and/or so but this film does n't let that happen . it gives us a half - assed protagonist named shane o'shea ( ryan phillippe , from " i , poor phillippe struggles to make him interesting , but all he is a half - assed character and not at all our ticket to the glimpse of named julie black ( neve campbell ) , and thus the boring romance subplot that 's all too not necessarily important to anything else in the film and never really becomes interesting at any point in the film . the film 's sole point of interest and one than a writer , though not too terribly much . his story is trite and shallow , as are his characters , and his direction is shockingly flat , especially for a film about this subject . it , though , and very impressive , but his direction is never captivating enough . some people say that a film does its job

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

0NEG

it . sleepy hollow has some unique features , but the script is a terrible mess . for those who remember disney 's fantastic " adventures version was at least interesting , while burton 's film drags on far too long , without any suspense or frights . while the stories are similar , the new version adds too much to the once likable story , and throws in some weak dialogue to top it off . ichabod crane ( johnny depp the headless horseman is an intriguing character , but the story has so many holes that even he nor depp can save this disaster . in the original , the headless horseman was meant , it had audiences in deep thought . burton however concentrates far too much on the atmosphere , and how to make the main characters heroes . he takes no risk what so ever , and this is where he fails . another pathetic element of the film was the script . like i said earlier , he just stuffed too much in at one time , and made it look real sloppy , kind of like the mess the headless horseman made with his victims . he completely butchered the story to pieces . thankfully there are a few factors that i particularly , i doubt i could have remained awake , because quite frankly i was getting sleepy . just when i thought christina ricci was getting to it 's too tempting to let go , even if the script is mush . the atmosphere too was quite involving . i should least burton 's films are eye candy , even if they are trash . the only real scenes of value were the tree depp and casper van dien . other than that , i wish i could just fast forward through all the gaping holes in the film , and just sit back and stare at the scenery . by the end , i can only think back and laugh at how bad sleepy hollow developed . this is the biggest disappointment of the year , especially when such a talented director like burton handles a project like this . do n't waste your time or money , because your head will feel hollow .

plot : a rich psychiatrist with a great home life gets his cute daughter kidnapped by some bad guys who want him to extract some information from the mind of one of his nutty patients . of course , the patient is not cooperative and the doctor only has a few hours to comply with their demands , before they kill his daughter . pretty good premise , no ? critique : if you 're not a fan of movies packed with plot holes , inconsistencies and yes , even more plot holes , heed my words and skip this hollow thriller . and i do n't like saying that either , since this film actually had some potential and started off pretty well . sure , the story is basically just an amalgamation of ransom , primal fear and nick of time pureed into one , but the whole " psychiatrist working against the clock " thing , actually had me engaged at first . but it 's at about the halfway mark of this movie , that the bottom drops out and all that we 're left with are a lot of questions and very few plausible answers . we get the overly smart kid who manages to " pull one " over on the bad guys . we get a weak woman with her leg in a cast beating the crap out of a tough bad guy . we get douglas ' character , a new york uppedity psychiatrist , suddenly turning into an action hero , with moves and attitude to boot . and what about the film 's main plot point ? why would the bad guys still give a crap about this thing after 10 years , and even more so , why would they only give the shrink until the day 's end to do his part ? ( you waited 10 years , what 's another few days ? - or why not set up another heist instead ? ) . i 'll tell you why , it 's because we would n't have a ( bad ) movie otherwise , that 's why ! and many , many more . ugh , whatever the case , it was just about the time that douglas ' character suddenly removed murphy 's character from the mental home ( and how come she went with him so nicely ? i thought she did n't trust him ) , that i turned to my buddy and asked when the movie had turned into a joke . and a few bogus chase and action sequences later , we were left with a long - winded ending that did little to answer any other questions i might 've still had , and actually brought up even more contradictions . badly put together , this movie features some decent acting , some nice cinematography and an initially interesting premise , but loses it all in a haze of plot miscues which ultimately leave you with little care for anyone . in fact , if it was n't for brittany murphy 's excellent portrayal of a traumatized teen , jennifer esposito 's embarrassing performance as a police woman ( yeah , right ! watching her delivering lines was the funniest part of this flick- but it was n't supposed to be ) and michael douglas ' cool " regular guy " part , there would be little reason to remain seated until the end of this picture . incidentally , can anyone please give me one good reason why esposito 's character was in this movie in the first place ? she was completely superfluous . and on top of all that , by the end of this flick , the director seems to have realized how dumb the audience must be to have bought most of the garbage that he 'd been shoveling out for the hour and a half prior , and decides to add insult to injury by flashing back to an earlier character 's death when one of the bad guys dies , just so we know ( as an audience ) , that the two are interrelated somehow . ooooh , thanks , mr . fleder . . . i appreciate the spoon - feeding , dude . . . yum , yum . . . but how about explaining every other plot point in your film that made no sense ? whatever . either way , i do n't give a rat 's ass because this movie is a dog and that 's unfortunate because it actually did have some good points going for it . see it if you like dumb thrillers . incidentally , if you appreciated along came a spider , you will likely enjoy this film as well . they both start off with interesting premises , only to toss all logic and sense out the window about halfway through . where 's joblo coming from ? along came a spider ( 4/10 ) - girl , interrupted ( 5/10 ) - kiss the girls ( 7/10 ) - primal fear ( 7/10 ) -- seven ( 10/10 )

0NEG

critique : if you 're not a fan of movies packed with plot holes , inconsistencies and yes , even more plot holes , heed my words and skip this hollow thriller . and i do n't like saying that either , at about the halfway mark of this movie , that the bottom drops out and all that we 're left with are a lot of questions and very few plausible answers . we get the overly smart kid who manages to you why , it 's because we would n't have a ( bad ) movie otherwise , that 's why ! and many , many more . ugh , whatever the case , it was just about the time , that i turned to my buddy and asked when the movie had turned into a joke . and a few bogus chase and action sequences later , we were left with a long - winded ending that did little to answer any other questions i might 've still had , and actually brought up even more contradictions . badly put together , this movie features some decent acting , some nice cinematography and an initially interesting premise , but loses it all in a haze of plot miscues which ultimately leave you with little care for anyone . in fact , if it was n't for brittany excellent portrayal of a traumatized teen , jennifer esposito 's embarrassing performance as a police woman ( yeah , right ! watching character was in this movie in the first place ? she was completely superfluous . and on top of all that , by the of this flick , the director seems to have realized how dumb the audience must be to have bought most of the garbage that he 'd been shoveling out for the hour and a half prior , and decides to add insult to injury by flashing back to an earlier character 's death when audience ) , that the two are interrelated somehow . ooooh , thanks , mr . fleder . . . i appreciate the spoon - feeding , dude . . . yum , yum . . . but how about explaining every other plot point in your film that made no sense ? whatever . either way

i wish more films would take on issues of faith and morality in the modern world . and i wish that film - makers would use commandments as a blueprint on how _ not _ to do it . writer / director daniel taplitz has created a bizarre conglomeration of satire and soul - searching in this tale of seth warner ( aidan quinn ) , a man of faith who runs into a streak of bad luck which usually inspires country - western lyrics : his pregnant wife drowns , his home is destroyed by a tornado , he loses his job and his dog is crippled by a bolt of lightning . convinced that god has broken his half of the covenant , seth decides to break his , and sets out to turn every " thou shalt not " of the ten commandments into a " thou shalt " ( and vice versa ) . his wife 's sister rachel ( " friends " ' courteney cox ) wants to help seth ; rachel 's selfish husband harry ( anthony lapaglia ) , who tends to break a few commandments of his own , thinks seth is a lunatic . thus begins a film which picks the wrong tone for every occasion . taplitz is n't interested in treating seth 's tragedies as genuinely tragic , making it impossible to sympathize with him . composer joseph vitarelli provides a score full of whimsical woodwinds , turning seth 's sacrilegious mission into an amusing lark ; quinn 's performance as seth is all wild - eyed fervor without any genuine pain . the actual breaking of the commandments is almost treated as an afterthought , with one through five dispatched in a five - minute montage . the result is a character whose actions feel less like the authentic responses of an anguished man than the machinations of a high - concept movie plot . it 's not even entirely clear that commandments is about seth . corporate attorney rachel is given a case which is supposed to soften a hard heart we see no indication she has , while harry gets his comeuppance as part of seth 's " false witness . " only courteney cox strikes a note of reality in a solid performance ; she is sane center around which too equally troubled men revolve . even she ca n't force taplitz to decide whose story this is , or what we should have learned about dealing with the struggles in our lives and our relationship with the infinite . by the time seth makes a singularly biblical reappearance late in the film , it has become clear that taplitz is aiming for a fantastical fable which makes no connection with real human experience . commandments is a bad comedy which could have been a decent drama if daniel taplitz had had the guts to take faith -- and the loss thereof -- at all seriously .

0NEG

_ to do it . writer / director daniel taplitz has created a bizarre conglomeration of satire and soul - searching in this tale of seth warner ( aidan quinn ) seth is a lunatic . thus begins a film which picks the wrong tone for every occasion . taplitz is n't interested in treating seth 's tragedies impossible to sympathize with him . composer joseph vitarelli provides a score full of whimsical woodwinds , turning seth 's sacrilegious mission into an amusing lark ; quinn 's performance as seth is all wild - through five dispatched in a five - minute montage . the result is a character whose actions feel less like the authentic responses of an anguished man than the machinations of a high - concept movie plot . it 's not even entirely clear that commandments is , it has become clear that taplitz is aiming for a fantastical fable which makes no connection with real human experience . commandments is a bad comedy which could have been a decent drama if daniel taplitz

the high school comedy seems to be a hot genre of the moment . with she 's all that and varsity blues behind us , and several more set for release later in the year , the teen comedy seems to be experiencing its own renaissance . however , you would n't know it from the quality of the latest entry : jawbreaker . this shockingly bitter candy definitely has a sour center . the most popular , and most feared , clique at reagan high school have an unexpected dilemma . they have accidentally killed one of their own , the " teen dream " , liz purr ( charlotte roldan ) , choked on a giant jawbreaker during a kidnapping prank for her 17th birthday . now the three surviving girls must decide what to do . it takes little time at all for the group 's leader , courtney ( rose mcgowan ) , to decide to cover it up . the ditzy marcie ( julie benz ) is game to go along , but the clique 's final member , julie ( rebecca gayheart ) , has a guilty conscience . to make things worse , another student , the hopelessly geeky fern mayo ( judy evans greer ) accidentally discovers the truth . the girls ' cover is surely blown . . . not so fast . thinking quickly , courtney offers fern a once - in - a - lifetime chance . after a quick makeover , fern is transformed into vylette , the beautiful " new girl " at school , and a full - fledged member of the popular crowd . does this mean that popularity is the key to getting away with murder ? or will this finely honed plan crack over time ? jawbreaker is obviously attempting to be the heathers of its generation , and failing miserably , i might add . it manages to capture the mix of murder and teen social observations , but misses three crucial elements : sharp dialogue , witty characters and the much - needed humor . it is possible that jawbreaker might have succeeded in being ( darkly ) humorous if it was n't shackled to its dead - weight plot . the film 's most innovative twist is the makeover of fern mayo . at this point , jawbreaker seems poised to spin wildly into the uncharted depths . but then , all of a sudden , the innovation stops . the film becomes mired in the murder - and - cover - up plotting , which quickly saps what little life and energy there was right out of the film . in the film , rose mcgowan fares the best . as the manipulative clique leader , she truly dominates every scene she 's in ( not a difficult feat in a crowd such as this , however ) . it 's a character crying out for a better movie ( or at least another decently drawn character with which to interact . ) jawbreaker does n't quite know how to handle its semi - likable characters : fern and julie . either one could effectively end the movie at any time by simply revealing what she knows . the lengths to which the film goes to prolong the plot have the unintentional effect of distancing us from these characters . as their motives become murky and unclear , the film finally falls to the point that it does n't really matter who wins or loses , since all sides have become equally detestable . " detestable " is a good word to describe the film , jawbreaker . it 's certain that , like the murder weapon described in the film 's title , jawbreaker will be triggering more than one gag reflex in the audience .

0NEG

from the quality of the latest entry : jawbreaker . this shockingly bitter candy definitely has a sour center . the most popular , and most feared , clique attempting to be the heathers of its generation , and failing miserably , i might add . it manages to capture the mix of murder and teen social observations , but misses three crucial elements : sharp dialogue , witty characters and the much - in being ( darkly ) humorous if it was n't shackled to its dead - weight plot . the film 's most innovative twist is the makeover depths . but then , all of a sudden , the innovation stops . the film becomes mired in the murder - and - cover - up plotting crowd such as this , however ) . it 's a character crying out for a better movie ( or at least another decently drawn character with which to interact . ) jawbreaker does n't quite know how to handle its semi - likable characters : fern and julie lengths to which the film goes to prolong the plot have the unintentional effect of distancing us from these characters . as their motives become murky and unclear , the film finally falls to the point that it does n't really matter who wins or loses , since all sides have become equally detestable . " detestable " is a good word to describe murder weapon described in the film 's title , jawbreaker will be triggering more than one gag reflex in the audience .

capsule : a wild jungle woman and an 11-story gorilla are discovered in tibet and taken to hong kong where the gorilla escapes and causes havoc . this is a laughable 1977 rip off of king kong ( 1976 ) , itself a rip - off . production values are low and audiences seem to like the film mostly for derisive laughter . , high -2 ( -4 to +4 ) - directed by ho meng - hua . - this film is provided to be a sort of laughing stock to finish the festival . - an earthquake uncovers an 11-story tall gorilla in the himalayas . a hunter , chosen because he just broke up with his girl and is at loose ends , gets sent to find the ape and finds a sort of female tarzan who controls the ape . - evelyne kraft is the jungle girl in a leather bikini that she is pasted into so she always looks on the verge of bouncing out of . - gorilla actor has no idea how gorillas move and suit is terrible . nice miniature effects , however . - has almost a music video inside it of jungle girl playing with animals like chi - chi the leopard . - several places there is narrative that is nearly incoherent as if there are missing scenes and the viewer has to guess what happened in the interim . - actual location shooting in mysore . ape shown badly matted behind temple . - combining of images usually pretty bad . incompetent matching of film stocks . - stock footage frequently used . - gorilla brought to hong kong by greedy entrepreneur who really abuses the ape before it escapes and tears things up real good .

0NEG

where the gorilla escapes and causes havoc . this is a laughable 1977 rip off of king kong ( 1976 ) , itself a rip - off . production values are low and audiences seem to like the film mostly for derisive laughter . , high -2 ( -4 to +4 ) - - hua . - this film is provided to be a sort of laughing stock to finish the festival . - an earthquake uncovers an the verge of bouncing out of . - gorilla actor has no idea how gorillas move and suit is terrible . nice miniature effects , however . - has almost leopard . - several places there is narrative that is nearly incoherent as if there are missing scenes and the viewer has to guess what happened in the interim . - actual location shooting in mysore . ape shown badly matted behind temple . - combining of images usually pretty bad . incompetent matching of film stocks . - stock footage frequently used .

` the bachelor ' is one of the best terrible movies you will ever see . wading through this gooey , detestable sludge is quite the chore for even a dedicated romantic . those hoping to find some genuine charm and feeling behind this chris o'donnell vehicle should wander elsewhere ; ` the bachelor ' is a painfully clumsy mess strung together with a few brief moments of surprising poignancy . awaiting these moments by enduring the rest of the film is certainly not worth your time or money . although he has not quite evolved out of the stereotypical pretty - boy cocoon , chris o'donnell has an effortless charm as an actor . most will recognize him as the high - flying robin from the two latest ` batman ' films , but other abilities are evident behind his boyish smile . can o'donnell carry the weight of a film on his shoulders ? perhaps , if he found the proper vehicle . . . but ` the bachelor ' falls far short of the requirements . the actor just ca n't register with such a pathetic screenplay as the guiding light to success . a few instances of adorable humor aside , it becomes apparent that no one could save the festering mess that is ` the bachelor ' . o'donnell plays jimmie , a hopeless romantic in his late twenties who 's progressing in a serious relationship with anne ( renee zellweger ) . jimmie takes anne out for dinner to the restaurant specifically used for proposals , and attempts to ask for her hand in marriage . the problem is that his proposal sucks . big time . you can tell things are n't going pleasantly , because jimmie gets the infamous ? deer - in - the - headlights ' look when anne questions his approach . and then , the plot ( along with the stupidity of the movie ) thickens . jimmie 's grandfather ( peter ustinov ) dies suddenly , leaving a video will behind for his grandson ( who also happens to be his only living relative ) . everybody is speechless when grandpa declares that he is passing down an inheritance in the amount of 100 million dollars to jimmie . of course , there 's a catch : he must get married before his 30th birthday , stay joined with his bride for an entire decade , and produce healthy children within the first five years . the bad news is that jimmie 's birthday is the following day . with anne out of town , he must find a willing bride to share his riches with . . . and within a very limited time frame . there are certainly a few worthwhile aspects of ` the bachelor ' . for one , the movie 's approach is interesting and not dripping with clich ? . another is the colorful cast . o'donnell and zellweger are cute together , and the supporting cast tries relentlessly to rescue the film from drowning in it 's own mediocrity . ustinov is enjoyable as the cranky grandfather figure , and james cromwell is sincere and effective as a wise priest dragged through jimmie 's marital adventures . and now the cons : the approach may be interesting , but in trying an old - fashioned method , director gary sinyor gives the film a synthetic feel . the characters are drawn with obvious , broad strokes , and the plot is bogged down with everything humanly imaginable . yes , ` the bachelor ' is far more frustrating than cute . the screenplay is lamely written , and the subject matter poorly conceived . the considerable charm of the two leads is thoughtlessly wasted , along with whatever promise the film initially contained . potential goes out the window early to suit sinyor 's ` colorful ' approach , but not a minute of this hapless drivel seems accustomed to the director 's wishes . ` the bachelor ' becomes lost without a homing beacon to save it . you 've seen the tv spots , have n't you ? o'donnell is madly rushing down a deserted street and the caption reads ` what is this man running from ? ' in actuality , he 's fleeing from thousands of angry brides who want to marry him and inherit his fortune ( it 's one of the few enjoyable sequences in the film ) . after seeing the movie , i believe that the approaching horde could be something else . o'donnell could be running from his angry fans , who have just endured ` the bachelor ' , and are hunting him down for revenge .

0NEG

best terrible movies you will ever see . wading through this gooey , detestable sludge is quite the chore for even a dedicated romantic . those hoping to find vehicle should wander elsewhere ; ` the bachelor ' is a painfully clumsy mess strung together with a few brief moments of surprising poignancy . awaiting these moments by enduring the rest of the film is certainly not worth your time or money . although he has not quite evolved out of the proper vehicle . . . but ` the bachelor ' falls far short of the requirements . the actor just ca n't register with such a pathetic screenplay as the guiding light to success . a few instances of adorable humor aside , it becomes apparent that no one could save the festering mess that is ` the bachelor ' . o'donnell plays jimmie approach . and then , the plot ( along with the stupidity of the movie ) thickens . jimmie 's grandfather ( peter ustinov ) : the approach may be interesting , but in trying an old - fashioned method , director gary sinyor gives the film a synthetic feel . the characters are drawn with obvious , broad strokes , and the plot is bogged down with everything humanly imaginable . yes , ` the bachelor ' is far more frustrating than cute . the screenplay is lamely written , and the subject matter poorly conceived . the considerable charm of the two leads is thoughtlessly wasted , along with whatever promise the film initially contained . potential goes out the window early to suit sinyor 's ` colorful ' approach , but not a minute of this hapless drivel seems accustomed to the director 's wishes . ` the bachelor ' becomes lost without a homing beacon to save it . you 've seen the tv spots , have n't

topless women talk about their lives falls into that category that i mentioned in the devil 's advocate : movies that have a brilliant beginning but do n't know how to end . it begins by introducing us to a selection of characters who all know each other . there is liz , who oversleeps and so is running late for her appointment , prue who is getting married , geoff , liz 's boyfriend , neil , her previous boyfriend , ant who has written a screenplay . for the first hour , we get to know these people through everyday activities , as they talk on the phone , go out to dinner , hang clothes on the line . the interactions seem so truthful and guileless that it is almost as if the film - makers hid cameras around the place and filmed these people unbeknownst to them . at times , the events border on the ridiculous , like the screening of the film , but they still seem in keeping with the characters and their lives . this does n't sound like a brilliant premise for a film - " we just follow a lot of people around who are vaguely related " - but it 's the execution of the idea that makes topless women talk about their lives so engrossing . unfortunately this level of honesty is n't maintained . with about half an hour to go , a sense of impending doom invades topless women talk about their lives and from there is descends into melodrama . such a disappointment after such a brilliant start . the actors are all quite good with ms . danielle cormack as liz being particularly impressive . the energy of her character is palpable and is a major reason the movie is so watchable . a lot of the performances are a bit rough around the edges but this suits totally the documentary feel of the film . it seems like these are real people we are watching rather than actors playing roles . that is why the melodramatic turn of events comes as such a shock . up till that point , i was transported to this world where these real but mildly insane events were taking place . while the final half hour is not beyond the realms of possibility , it 's unlikely in a way that is jarring to someone caught up in the world of the film . not just the events , but also the tone of some of the end is wrong , clashing strongly with the sense of fun that has preceded it . this is not to say that topless women talk about their lives is not a good film . as stated above , the first hour is superb and even the end is above average . it just takes a turn which means that an otherwise brilliant movie loses some of its gloss .

0NEG

filmed these people unbeknownst to them . at times , the events border on the ridiculous , like the screening of the film , but they makes topless women talk about their lives so engrossing . unfortunately this level of honesty is n't maintained . with about half an hour to go , a their lives and from there is descends into melodrama . such a disappointment after such a brilliant start . the actors are all roles . that is why the melodramatic turn of events comes as such a shock . up till that point , i was transported to half hour is not beyond the realms of possibility , it 's unlikely in a way that is jarring to someone caught up in the world of the film . not just the events , but also the tone of some of the end is wrong , clashing strongly with the sense of fun that has preceded it . this is not to say that topless women talk takes a turn which means that an otherwise brilliant movie loses some of its gloss .

beware of movies with the director 's name in the title . take " john carpenter 's ghosts of mars " ( please ) . if the carpenter brand name was n't superglued to the title , this embarrassment would surely have bypassed theaters entirely and gone straight to its proper home on the usa network . and i would have been spared a headache . the latest from the director of " starman , " " halloween " and " escape from new york " is a lousy western all gussied up to look like a futuristic horror flick . the production is set on mars in 2176 , where humanity looks for relief from the overpopulation strangling their home world . six hundred and forty thousand people in a matriarchal society live and work at outposts all over the red planet , terra - forming to make it more hospitable for future generations . a matriarchal society . terra - forming . sounds pretty intriguing , eh ? well , do n't get your hopes up .

0NEG

beware of movies with the director 's name in the title carpenter brand name was n't superglued to the title , this embarrassment would surely have bypassed theaters entirely and gone straight to its proper home on the usa network . and i would have been spared a headache . the latest from the director of " starman , halloween " and " escape from new york " is a lousy western all gussied up to look like a futuristic horror flick . the production generations . a matriarchal society . terra - forming . sounds pretty intriguing , eh ? well , do n't get your hopes up .

august and september are a wasteland when it comes to children 's films , and october is a dumping ground for munchkin movies the studios do n't want to see slaughtered against family - oriented thanksgiving films . last year , the benevolent studio gods gave us digimon , and this year , they bestow max keeble 's big move on delighted moviegoers across the country . parents will be thrilled because they 'll finally have something to drag little austin and kayla to see that does n't smell nearly as much like ass as digimon did . do n't get me wrong - keeble , which is actually only a " ment " away from being a fetish film , is n't that entertaining . in fact , you 'd be better off waiting to blow your disposable income when the real kiddie pics ( monsters , inc . , harry potter ) come out next month . but if dubya dubya iii tells you to go out and spend money to stimulate the economy , then you 'd better do it ( because gassing up the minivan twice a week just is n't going to cut it ) . we first see young max keeble ( alex d . linz , home alone 3 ) as a pint - sized superhero , delivering newspapers with the pinpoint accuracy of a david beckham cross , foiling the diabolical plans of the evil ice cream man ( jamie kennedy , jay and silent bob strike back ) and landing the neighborhood honey ( brooke anne smith ) , who , by the way , is the hottest chick in a disney film since emmanuelle chriqui played claire boner in snow day . the scenario is , of course , a dream . max is really a doofus and he wakes up on his first day of junior high school with a pessimistic attitude , no luck with the ladies and only two friends , both of whom can kindly be described as social outcasts ( and who were both in snow day ) - the perpetually robed robe ( josh peck ) and a clarinet - playing cutie named megan ( summer catch 's zena grey ) , who harbors secret feelings for max . things do n't get any better for max when he arrives at school . he has to contend with , among other things , a red - hot science teacher ( amber valletta , family man ) , a pair of polar - opposite bullies ( noel fisher and orlando brown ) , and an illiterate principal ( larry miller , the princess diaries ) who 's secretly diverting the school 's last dime into the football program . when max 's father ( grownup nerd robert carradine ) unexpectedly announces the family is moving to a new town at the end of the week , max decides this is the perfect time to exact revenge on everyone who pisses him off . whoa - do n't worry , parents . he does n't do it klebold - harris style . it 's all pretty tame stuff , but max ends up in hot water when dad nixes the move , leaving his son dangling in the wind like so many tampon strings . director tim hill ( muppets from space ) adds a few nice touches , like max 's voiceover character introductions for the film 's main characters and a flashback scene that 's pretty funny , but there is n't too much else happening here stylewise . . . unless you count some farting , a little puking , and a couple of bizarre cameos from tony hawk and lil ' romeo . 1 : 30 - pg for some bullying and crude humor

0NEG

" ment " away from being a fetish film , is n't that entertaining . in fact , you 'd be better off waiting to blow your disposable income when the real kiddie pics ( monsters , inc . characters and a flashback scene that 's pretty funny , but there is n't too much else happening here stylewise . . . unless you count some farting , a little puking , and a couple of bizarre cameos from tony hawk and lil ' romeo . 1 : 30 - pg for some bullying and

the event horizon is the boundary of a black hole . . . and , in the future , it 's also the name of a spaceship that vanished when it tried to go faster than the speed of light by traversing through its own portable black hole . naturally , this is the setup for the other event horizon . . . the movie . when the ship suddenly appears at the point that it vanished at , just outside of neptune , the crew of the ship called the " lewis and clark " has to go to investigate , and dr . william weir , the creator of the " event horizon , " gets to come along for the ride . if you 've glanced at a poster for this movie , you know that , supposedly , what follows is " infinite terror . " well , i do n't know about the " terror " part , but " infinite " certainly seems to qualify . . . event horizon is a mean - spirited , gory , sick excuse for a film . it starts off as an alien rip - off , and then degenerates into a pointlessly bloody slasher flick after about 40 minutes . at least for those first 40 minutes it 's an * interesting * rip - off of alien . that 's a lot more than can be said for the rest of them movie , which seems to go on forever . it not a scary monster movie , nor is it a psychological thriller . it is simply a movie which tries again and again to make the viewers feel sick to their stomach at the site of extreme gore . you 've seen this kind of movie before . the hellraiser series had plenty of scenes containing this sensibility . this is a kind of movie for which i have no respect , a kind of movie which i had hoped died out years ago . it is quite possible for a movie to frighten or shock its audience without resorting to nothing more than gore , but event horizon takes the low road , and the viewers pay the price . there are many good , respectable performances , from fishburne and neill most noticably . paul anderson 's direction is impressive , as it was in mortal kombat . there are many nice special effects , mostly dealing with numerous common objects floating around in zero - gravity . the sets are beautiful to gaze upon . and richard t . jones ' character ( cooper ) is hilarious and extremely likable ( more so than most characters i 've seen in recent movies ) for the little screen time that he has . and none of this can save the movie from being a d - grade level of film . the idea of a ship that has some sort of life within its walls , a life that knows the fears and inner skeletons of the human passengers , is a promising one . a haunted house story in space is n't such a bad idea . but the final execution is extremely disappointing . that 's not to say that philip eisner ( here making his feature film - writing debut ) does n't have talent . for those first 40 minutes , he manages to make a tired premise interesting , adding in aspects of unique flavor into a rip - off story , and that 's something that not too many writers can do . he even has one scene that , though it also tries to sicken the audience , has a honestly tense feel to it ( the scene in question deals with one of the crew being in an airlock while others try to save him from floating into space ) . he definitely has something of a gift , but it 's not fully on display here . i certainly will look forward to seeing more from him , and i hope that his future work fully explores his talent and the story possibilities of the premise . but because of what this movie degenerates into , i have little or no respect , and got little or no enjoyment , out of it . if this is what we have to look forward to in the future of film , then i agree with laurence fishburne 's sentiment - " god help us . "

0NEG

certainly seems to qualify . . . event horizon is a mean - spirited , gory , sick excuse for a film . it starts off as an alien rip - off , and then degenerates into a pointlessly bloody slasher flick after about 40 minutes . at least for those first be said for the rest of them movie , which seems to go on forever . it not a scary monster movie , nor is it a psychological thriller . it is simply a movie which tries again and again to make the viewers feel sick to their stomach at the site of extreme gore . you 've seen this kind of movie before . hellraiser series had plenty of scenes containing this sensibility . this is a kind of movie for which i have no respect , a kind of movie which i had hoped died out years ago . it is quite possible for a movie to frighten resorting to nothing more than gore , but event horizon takes the low road , and the viewers pay the price . there are and none of this can save the movie from being a d - grade level of film . the idea of a ship that has some sort in space is n't such a bad idea . but the final execution is extremely disappointing . that 's not to say that philip eisner ( his talent and the story possibilities of the premise . but because of what this movie degenerates into , i have little or no respect , and got little or no enjoyment , out of it . if this is what we have to look forward

there is a rule when it comes to movies . a sequel is never as good as the original . there are very few exceptions to this rule , and texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation is not one of them . now if you also take into consideration that the original chainsaw massacre was a really bad movie , and that this is n't even the first sequel to it , you have a recipe for a very painful viewing experience . do n't be fooled by the presence of up and coming talents matthew mcconaughey ( a time to kill ) and renee zellweger ( jerry maguire ) . they made this movie before they were stars . judging by their performances they also made it before they took any acting lessons . it 's a wonder they ever worked in hollywood again after appearing in this turkey . apparently the producers of this film realized just how bad it was , because it sat unreleased for years until someone decided that they might be able to capitalize off the success of mcconaughey and zellweger . apparently the two young stars were none too happy about this thing ever seeing the light of day . and i do n't blame them , they would have been better off if this had been some sort of porno flick starring the two of them . unfortunately for them it is a horror film in which zellweger plays your typically stupid horror film character . while mcconaughey plays a guy who wears a mechanical brace on his leg that he controls with a television remote control . ( hey , do n't say i did n't warn you . ) to make matters worse , leatherface , the chainsaw wielding maniac , who was never the scariest of psychopathic killers at the best of times , has now become a full blown cross - dresser , and spends the entire movie in drag . there is a plot to this movie but it is n't worth mentioning . let 's just suffice to say that a group of teenagers are in the typical wrong place at the wrong time and are left to the mercy of remote control man ( mcconaughey ) and his lipstick wearing chainsaw revving half - witted sidekick . man , i ca n't get over just how bad this movie is . this film has absolutely no redeeming qualities . even the obligatory topless babe shot was n't enough to hold my interest for more than 2 seconds . the writing is bad , the direction is even worse , but both of those things look good in comparison to the acting . this is the sort of movie that they should make people in prison watch . a guarantee you , if criminals thought that they would be subjected to this film they would never break the law again .

0NEG

this is n't even the first sequel to it , you have a recipe for a very painful viewing experience . do n't be fooled by the presence of up . they made this movie before they were stars . judging by their performances they also made it before they took any acting lessons . it 's a wonder they ever worked in hollywood again after appearing in this turkey . apparently the producers of this film realized just how bad it was , because it sat unreleased for years until someone decided sort of porno flick starring the two of them . unfortunately for them it is a horror film in which zellweger plays your do n't say i did n't warn you . ) to make matters worse , leatherface , the chainsaw wielding maniac , who was drag . there is a plot to this movie but it is n't worth mentioning . let 's just suffice to say that a group his lipstick wearing chainsaw revving half - witted sidekick . man , i ca n't get over just how bad this movie is . this film has absolutely no redeeming qualities . even the obligatory topless babe shot was n't enough to hold my interest for more than 2 seconds . the writing is bad , the direction is even worse , but both of those things look good in comparison to the acting . this is the sort of movie that they should make people in prison watch . a guarantee you , if criminals thought that they

as a hot - shot defense attorney , kevin lomax ( keanu reeves ) has a special talent for picking juries that will ultimately acquit his clients . he is also an excellent judge of character , knowing just which strings to pull to sway the jury while breaking down a potentially damaging witness 's testimony . and , on top of that , he 's a damn good trial lawyer . in the opening scene , it is obvious that the defendant that he represents is guilty , but it does n't hamper lomax 's desire to creatively squeeze his client through the doors of reasonable doubt , thereby getting an acquittal . his unblemished record of victories soon captures the attention of one of the most prestigious firms in the country , headed by john milton ( al pacino ) . he is brought to their headquarters in nyc , where he immediately impresses milton , and is subsequently offered a full - time position as head of their newly - created criminal law division . lomax is soon given the case of his life . he must defend a real estate tycoon who has been charged with a triple homicide . the draw of fame and his desire to prove just how good he really is begins to isolate him in his own hell . he works late , defends the guilty , pledges his soul to his firm , and begins to neglect his smart but fretful wife , mary ann ( charlize theron ) . but what starts off as a promising john grisham - like story about conscience - stricken lawyers takes an abrupt detour as supernatural forces begin to tinker with the story . it begins like a typical parable where a small - town boy makes it big , but then has to balance his sense of self against the allure of money , power , and greed . but milton is far more than just a corrupt partner of the firm . quite literally , he is the devil in disguise , and as the movie progresses , he reveals some uncanny talents that one could have only if he had sold his soul long ago . freaky and frightening things begin to happen , and after much of the film has elasped , milton 's horrifying intent is finally revealed . the movie tries to give us two separate and distinct acts . the first involves the comeuppance of lomax as a big - city trial lawyer . the second focuses on milton and his ulterior motive for employing lomax . unfortunately , the two never mix well into a cohesive story , and what we get are two underdeveloped stories that rely too much on one shaky revelation to tie them together and an impressive production piece to give it an underlying atmosphere . granted , the film is very handsome - looking . you 'll enjoy the final scene where the wall mural seemingly comes to life during a heated speech given by pacino . you 'll also like the images of power and temptation expressed through the fleshy and flashy parties . you 'll also feel the loneliness and insanity that sets in with mary ann , knowing that her husband is slowly drifting away . this was one of the better storylines , but unfortunately , is only a sub - plot . as with all thing 's involving the devil , you can expect nothing but the worst . in the first few scenes , reeves anchors the film , but then slowly drifts into the background . his path from self - vanity to self - consciousness is never fully explored . his actions seem arbitrary , and his reasons for them not fully known . pacino 's comical portrayal is spirited , but the vanity of his character begins to shift the focus of the movie . there is another plot or two that is introduced , but never gets revisited . the focus seemed inconsistent throughout , and the final payoff seemed quick and cheap . this movie tries to be horrifying , thrilling , and dramatic all at the same time . however , while the devil 's advocate strives to get noticed , ultimately it makes very little impression at all .

0NEG

john grisham - like story about conscience - stricken lawyers takes an abrupt detour as supernatural forces begin to tinker with the story . it begins like a typical parable where a small on milton and his ulterior motive for employing lomax . unfortunately , the two never mix well into a cohesive story . this was one of the better storylines , but unfortunately , is only a sub - plot . as with all thing 's involving the devil , you can expect nothing but the worst . in the first few scenes , reeves anchors the path from self - vanity to self - consciousness is never fully explored . his actions seem arbitrary , and his reasons for them not fully known . pacino 's comical portrayal is spirited , but the two that is introduced , but never gets revisited . the focus seemed inconsistent throughout , and the final payoff seemed quick and cheap . this movie tries to be horrifying , thrilling , while the devil 's advocate strives to get noticed , ultimately it makes very little impression at all .

i 'm not sure i should be writing a review of the witches of eastwick , because i 'm not sure just what the hell ( pardon the expression ) was going on in it . however , i can express the most important observation i made of it , i . e . i did n't like it . if i had to summarize this film , i think i 'd conclude it was an updating of one of those old new england folk tales of someone selling their souls to old scratch and how they try to get out of the deal . that 's the kernel of it , anyway . tossed into this are little bits and pieces that occasionally seem to be saying something about men and women , feminism , the role of the devil , modern reformers , and friendship . unfortunately , little or no effort is ever made to follow up and elucidate on these concepts ; they 're simply thrown out and then left to rot while the film goes on apace . actually , i think that most of the audience was even more confused than i was . they came in expecting some kind of supernatural comedy , on the level of ghostbusters , and were a bit confused to be getting a folk tale with philosophical overtones . they laughed , or tried to laugh , at moments that were either barely funny , or much more horrible than funny , as if that could bend the film away from it 's rather frightening direction . three women ( cher , susan sarandon , and michelle pfieffer ) live in eastwick , a small midwestern town . one night , while drinking late into the evening , they begin wishing for the ideal man to drop into their lives . in seeming answer to their idle daydreams , a wealthy eccentric moves into a mansion on the hill and seduces each one by attempting to be everything they want him to be . he soon shows evidence of mystical -- perhaps demonic -- power , and his devotion to the women 's merest fantasies or wishes has dangerous overtones . even worse , when ignored his moods become ugly , and he mistreats the women for spurning him . anyway , the problems : all three female characters are fairly uninteresting , and several are cardboard stereotypes , especially sarandon 's character . we never get inside them , never feel sympathetic to them , because their dialogue and personalities seem pretty bland . as for nicholson , well , even the devil needs a direction to go in , and while darryl van horne is the most interesting character in the movie ( due to the grace of the screenwriter and , more importantly , nicholson 's acting ) , he still ca n't be yanked in one direction and then another without making him a little vague . and then there 's the special effects . not in themselves -- they were n't that good -- but their overuse . i was almost positive , until i saw the credits , that the witches of eastwick was either produced by alexander salkind ( who has turned out the slop named superman ii and iii and supergirl ) , because of the big name actors in dopy stunts , or stephen spielberg , after the 18th vomit scene and the nicholson - blown - down - the - street stunt . nope , it 's another bunch of guys , and directed by george miller , who has shown great skill with stunts / special effects before ( the road warrior , " nightmare at 20 , 00 feet " episode of twilight zone : the movie ) but apparently does n't know when to turn off the wind machine and let his people act . f'gawds sake , guys , this is jack nicholson ! let him loose ! let him grin demonically ! skip the splitting earth and fake lightning ! watching the scene where nicholson is tossed out of the car by the voodoo doll , all i could think of was , " what a waste " . if you 're going to use slapstick like that , use it up on pee wee herman . nicholson does what he can with the role , and when he can find his bearings , can be extremely good ( the scene in the church , for instance ) , but most of the time , he seems a bit stiff , as if he 's not sure what he should be doing next . and no wonder . this script goes all over the map , giving you the feeling that it 'd just love to be allegory , but it 's not sure about what-- maybe if you give it time it 'll think of something . so what is the witches of eastwick ? a horror movie ? a folk tale ? a comedy ? a statement about women ? an examination of the religious right or comparitive morality ? i tend to think of the image that seems to dominate the movie for me . . . watching someone regurgitate half - digested bits of food and cherry pits all over rooms , people , the screen , and ultimately , the audience . in other words , a mess . ( $ 2 . 00 ) if you like nicholson enough to watch him here ; maybe 25 % of his charm is able to make it through the logjams of others .

0NEG

writing a review of the witches of eastwick , because i 'm not sure just what the hell ( pardon the expression ) was going on in it . however , i can express the most important observation i made of it , i . e . i did n't like it . if i had to summarize this film , i of the devil , modern reformers , and friendship . unfortunately , little or no effort is ever made to follow up and elucidate on these concepts ; they 're simply thrown out and then left to rot while the film goes on apace . actually , i think that most of the audience , or tried to laugh , at moments that were either barely funny , or much more horrible than funny , as if that could bend the film away from it 's rather frightening direction . three women ( cher , susan sarandon , and anyway , the problems : all three female characters are fairly uninteresting , and several are cardboard stereotypes , especially sarandon 's character . we never get inside feel sympathetic to them , because their dialogue and personalities seem pretty bland . as for nicholson , well , even the devil " episode of twilight zone : the movie ) but apparently does n't know when to turn off the wind machine and let his people act . f'gawds sake , guys , this is jack nicholson ! let him loose ! let him grin demonically ! skip the splitting earth and voodoo doll , all i could think of was , " what a waste " . if you 're going to use slapstick like that for instance ) , but most of the time , he seems a bit stiff , as if he 's not sure what he should be doing next . and no wonder . this script goes all over the map , giving you the feeling that it 'd just love

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

0NEG

life - forms to eliminate the human race ! virus is a truly dumb action thriller , one of negligible intelligence and innovation . when considering the entire film , you will realize that it lacks a single original scene . it 's a direct rip - off of nearly every james cameron film ( aliens , the abyss , and the terminator films are the most plagiarized ) ; more importantly , it 's basically the same -- it knows it 's silly and derivative . virus takes itself seriously . and , in the most serious manner possible , it steals from every good and bad film of the genre , showing you countless familiar scenes , and sporting a cookie - cutter plot that any film of the sci - fi / horror trimming . but what is so amazing about virus is how poorly the whole thing has been thought out . okay , let me get this straight -- the tear down the walls to move around . virus is indeed a cliched film , but the central flaw lies in the fact that the computer virus just is n't very threatening . 's also a nice array of actors , even though none of them do any acting ( except for donald sutherland , who does a lot of very bad acting ) . the bottom line , however , is this : virus is a bad movie . it rips off a lot of good movies that are worth seeing . in that

an american werewolf in paris is a failed attempt to recapture the humor and horror of john landis ' 1981 feature , an american werewolf in london . where the original had comedy , the sequel has the kind of revolting silliness that can be found in tv sit - coms . where the first installment had chills , this one has sequences that are inappropriately , unintentionally funny . in short , while an american werewolf in london has become something of a minor classic in its genre , the woeful an american werewolf in paris seems destined for late nights on cinemax ( it even has the necessary gratuitous nudity ) . the film opens with a trio of daredevil americans -- andy ( tom everett scott ) , brad ( vince vieluf ) , and chris ( phil buckman ) -- sneaking up to the top of the eiffel tower to drink wine and do a little bungee jumping . soon they have company in the person of serafine ( julie delpy ) , who has decided to end it all . she jumps , but andy , with a bungee cord attached , goes after her , and manages to save her ( at the price of a major headache ) . serafine disappears , but a smitten andy seeks her out . however , once he learns his would - be girlfriend 's dark secret , he wishes he had n't . she 's a werewolf , cursed to change into a hideous beast when the moon is full , and , to make matters worse , he has suffered a nasty bite himself . actress julie delpy is far too good for this movie . she imbues serafine with spirit , spunk , and humanity , which gives us an emotional stake in the character 's fate . this is n't necessarily a good thing , since it prevents us from relaxing and enjoying an american werewolf in paris as a completely mindless , campy entertainment experience . delpy 's injection of class into an otherwise classless production raises the specter of what this film could have been with a better script and a better cast surrounding her . delpy 's previous credits include such memorable ventures as krzysztof kieslowski 's white and richard linklater 's before sunrise . she was radiant , charismatic , and effective in both . given the nature and level of the material she has to work with here , she gets as close as possible to those adjectives . it could be argued that delpy is the only reason to see an american werewolf in paris , but even her most devoted fans should consider giving this one a miss . and if your primary objective is catching a glimpse of her in the buff , check out either killing zoe or the passion of beatrice -- those movies have intelligible plots in addition to breasts . the rest of the cast acts at a level considerably below that of delpy -- which is to say , they give performances appropriate for the screenplay . tom everett scott ( that thing you do ) plays the lead like he 's in a made - for - tv movie . it would be kind to call him bland . actors vince vieluf and phil buckman , as andy 's friends , are no more impressive . julie bowen ( happy gilmore ) is suitably fetching as werewolf meat . and respected french actor thierry lhermitte has a brief turn as another monster meal . on the technical side , it 's all bad news . the computer - generated werewolves look painfully unreal . the creatures would probably have been more believable had they been men in wolf suits . repeated use is made of the " werewolf cam " , an infrared wolf 's point - of - view approach that 's interesting the first couple of times it 's employed , then becomes tedious . and the soundtrack includes some alternative grunge rock tunes that clash violently with the on - screen action they 're matched to . director anthony waller , who displayed a confident , edgy style in mute witness , stumbles with this material , never being able to make the comedy and horror elements gel . as a result , we get the worst werewolf sequel since the howling ii : your sister is a werewolf . ( i will give waller credit for killing off a dog , though -- something that 's rarely seen in movies these days . ) an american werewolf in paris is marginally entertaining in a " bad movie " sort of way , but that 's a dubious distinction . ultimately , it 's an unfortunate effort , for , while it is n't unbearable to sit through , it is n't a howl , either .

0NEG

an american werewolf in paris is a failed attempt to recapture the humor and horror of john landis ' london . where the original had comedy , the sequel has the kind of revolting silliness that can be found in tv sit - coms . where the first installment had chills , this one has sequences that are inappropriately , unintentionally funny . in short , while an american werewolf in london campy entertainment experience . delpy 's injection of class into an otherwise classless production raises the specter of what this film could have been those movies have intelligible plots in addition to breasts . the rest of the cast acts at a level considerably below that of delpy -- which is to say , they 's in a made - for - tv movie . it would be kind to call him bland . actors vince vieluf and phil buckman , as andy as another monster meal . on the technical side , it 's all bad news . the computer - generated werewolves look painfully unreal . the creatures would probably have been more believable had they been men in wolf suits . repeated use is made of the " werewolf cam interesting the first couple of times it 's employed , then becomes tedious . and the soundtrack includes some alternative grunge rock tunes that clash violently with the on - screen action they 're matched to displayed a confident , edgy style in mute witness , stumbles with this material , never being able to make the comedy and horror elements gel . as a result , we get the worst werewolf sequel since the howling ii : your sister is a werewolf a " bad movie " sort of way , but that 's a dubious distinction . ultimately , it 's an unfortunate effort , for , while it is n't unbearable to sit

depending on who you ask , the original sin was either the eating of the apple , the act of disobedience against god , or the act of betrayal . but in case you did n't know this , do n't bother remembering it . . . the words " original sin " never come up in the movie of the same name , let alone the concept of it . the closest the film even gets to catholicism is in its narrative ( the story is told by angelina jolie to her priest while on death row in cuba , circa 1900 ) . regardless of its senseless title , original sin does actually have a plot ( albeit one of the most mangled acts of screenwriting since the art of war , based on the book waltz across darkness ) . boy ( antionio banderas ) places personal ad sometime around 1900 , searching for a wife . since this is a century ago , we narrowly dodge a remake of green card , only to find that the girl ( jolie ) faked her photo and is actually beautiful . skipping a few moderately useless sex scenes ( getting the question out of the way , yes , we get to see angelina jolie 's breasts again ) , the girl turns out to be a con artist , swindles boy for his money , and heads for the hills . original sin then briefly tries to be a thriller . we see boy go whore - chasing , saying he wants to find girl and kill her . but as soon as boy actually finds girl , instead of following what might have been a promising ( or at least not completely fucking boring ) thriller , the film degenerates into the worst dissection of the virgin / whore complex since milk money . girl toys with the idea of reforming her con - girl past , all the while avoiding the " other man , " a lover that keeps making her start these scams in the first place . add insult to injury with some of the worst stylistic choices in cinematic history ( literally half of the film is either in slow motion or uses a strobe effect ) , and acting roughly the caliber of a b . b . gun , and original sin is one of the most torturous films of the summer , definitely front running to make my bottom ten of the year . do n't even bother with original sin , but if you do go , be honest with yourself and admit its pure sex appeal . just keep in mind that although this film may not be the most original on the block , it 's much worse than a sin . this is sacrilege .

0NEG

on death row in cuba , circa 1900 ) . regardless of its senseless title , original sin does actually have a plot ( albeit one of the most mangled acts of screenwriting since the art of war , based on the book might have been a promising ( or at least not completely fucking boring ) thriller , the film degenerates into the worst dissection of the virgin / whore complex since milk money . girl toys with the idea of making her start these scams in the first place . add insult to injury with some of the worst stylistic choices in cinematic history ( literally half of the film is either in slow motion or uses a strobe effect ) , and acting roughly the caliber of a b . b . gun , and original sin is one of the most torturous films of the summer , definitely front running to make my bottom ten of the year . do n't even bother with original sin , but may not be the most original on the block , it 's much worse than a sin . this is sacrilege .

wizards is an animated feature that begins with a narration of epic proportions . over black and white drawings , we are told that the earth is destroyed in an apocalyptic nuclear exchange , sending the remnants of humanity through generations of radiation - induced mutation . the " original " inhabitants of the earth , fairies and elves , return to populate the globe , along with their evil , mutant counterparts . one day ( and i say " one day " not to be trite , but because that 's exactly how it happened - no advance notice ) , a fairy queen gives birth to twins , one good and one evil . the twins grow up to be powerful wizards , the good one embracing magic , and the bad one utilizing technology to attempt to expand his evil empire . we are given the notion that an ultimate battle must occur between the forces of magic and those of technology . as unoriginal as the premise is , i was still somewhat interested in how this story would play itself out . there 's a lot you can do in an animated fantasy world , after all . i soon learned , however , that the fantasy was the expectation of a decent film . once the transition was made from still art to color animation , an entirely different feel takes precedence . rather than the epic saga promised by the narration , we get a goofy - looking world of a saturday morning cartoon . not just the look , mind you , but all the zany sounds like > honk boing for years , blackwolf has lost his battles against the magical forces of good , since his armies of ogres and other mutants would get dispirited or distracted soon after battle is joined . however , blackwolf now has a secret weapon : nazis . yup , adolf hitler , the luftwaffe and the wehrmacht . okay , not the real things , but an archival film his minions dug up . projected into the sky for all to see , it inspires his own army while shocking the enemy into submission long enough for the ogres to hack them up . before you know it , there are dead elves everywhere . this is just as well . the characters are so bad that the viewer does n't care about any of them . they 're either silly , sappy , or both . the dialog gets much of the credit for this . an example is when avatar nonchalantly says , " well , looks like my brother and i begin our final battle . " not very formidable when he 's also the guy who says , " this is the biggest bummer of a trip i 've ever been on . " my favorite line was from a sideline fairy who is asked by her child why good ca n't fight back against the nazi - charged evil . her response is , " they have weapons and technology . we just have love . " suffice to say , the characters are strictly two - dimensional , and we therefore do n't expect anything more than the obvious to happen . which it does . the only unexpected occurrence is the way the final battle between brothers is played out , which is anticlimactic and disappointing . please note that it is the action that is unexpected . that it is disappointing is not . the film could n't settle on a particular mood . it seems to move from dark to light with the cuts from scene to scene and even angle to angle . scenes which are seemingly meant to contain deep meaning are ruined by acts of levity . the dramatics , which seem to occur at random , are overly staged and overly acted , detracting from any kind of value or even enjoyment which could otherwise be gleaned . ralph bakshi , the director , makes an obvious attempt to get a message across in this film : hitler and the nazis were bad . so who does n't know this already ? well , maybe children . okay , so you might say that this is a movie for children . it 's not . in the scenes where good fights evil , there 's a lot of violence and gore that children should not be seeing if they 're watching a cartoon . so is the film for adults ? if so , we probably do n't need to be bashed over the head to get the point . why not have the bad guys be symbolic of the nazis instead of using old propaganda in a seriously disjointed attempt to show us something we already know ? wizards gives us a lot of footage of nazi tanks and airplanes , and hitler giving speeches . however , we do n't see any reason why they should be considered bad . we see no atrocities being committed , not even any real battle footage . there is absolutely no connection made between the armies of evil and the third reich , and we 're not even given a cursory explanation as to why this stuff is inspiring in the first place . this needed to be thought out much more thoroughly if a point were to be made , since subject matter such as this deserves better treatment . i 'd like to assume that bakshi was trying to say that the same nationalist movement that drove the nazis could happen anywhere , at any time , and we must therefore be vigilant . however , i 'm not sure if i want to give him that much credit .

0NEG

between the forces of magic and those of technology . as unoriginal as the premise is , i was still somewhat interested in how this story rather than the epic saga promised by the narration , we get a goofy - looking world of a saturday morning cartoon . not just the look , mind you , but all the zany sounds like > honk boing for years , blackwolf has lost his battles against the dead elves everywhere . this is just as well . the characters are so bad that the viewer does n't care about any of them . they 're either silly , sappy , or both . the dialog gets much of the credit for this we just have love . " suffice to say , the characters are strictly two - dimensional , and we therefore do n't expect anything more than the obvious to happen . which it does . the only unexpected occurrence is final battle between brothers is played out , which is anticlimactic and disappointing . please note that it is the action that is scenes which are seemingly meant to contain deep meaning are ruined by acts of levity . the dramatics , which seem to occur at random , are overly staged and overly acted , detracting from any kind of value or even enjoyment which could otherwise be gleaned . ralph bakshi , the director , makes an obvious so is the film for adults ? if so , we probably do n't need to be bashed over the head to get the point . why not have the bad guys be symbolic of the armies of evil and the third reich , and we 're not even given a cursory explanation as to why this stuff is inspiring in the first

inspired by the 1958 film house on haunted hill starring vincent price . directed by william malone . starring geoffrey rush , famke janssen , and chris kattan . rated r ( contains violence , profanity , and brief nudity ) . synopsis : eccentric millionaire price offers $ 1 , 000 , 000 to each of his guests who appear at a gathering at a former sanitarium . the only catch is that they have to survive the night at the establishment , an establishment haunted by its former staff and patients . comments : house on haunted hill is based upon the original 1958 film of the same title directed by william castle and starring vincent price . in an obvious homage , the millionaire 's name is price and he sports a thin mustache like price used to have . this is a pretty bad horror film , yet bad horror films sometimes are very entertaining , and house on haunted hill is just such a film . it is , surprisingly , better than another recent haunted house remake , the haunting , a film which owes its basis to the classic horror novel by shirley jackson . the haunting had literary pretensions and fell flat on it face . house on haunted hill owes its lineage to a b - movie 40 years old and makes no illusion that it 's a crappy horror movie . thus , somehow , it proves slightly more successful . i ca n't think of another recent film which has had such an eclectic cast . it is this cast which lifts this ho - hum thriller into a borderline entertaining exercise in camp horror . price , the main character , is played by geoffrey rush , the academy - award winning actor of shine . rush seems to be making a downward spiral in the movie industry , a spiral reminiscent of ben ( ghandi , schindler 's list ) kingsley 's ridiculous appearance in the camp sci - fi classic species . i do n't know why , but sometimes it 's entertaining to see " quality " actors in bad movies . more surprises ? rising star taye diggs plays a stereotypical african american sports figure ( rather lamely too ) , and singer lisa loeb ( ! ) appears as a tv news reporter . the highlight of the cast , however , has to be saturday night live member chris kattan . kattan 's comic sense provides several good humorous moments as he plays the hysterical proprietor of the former sanitarium . while the first half of the film leaves the audience guessing as to what 's exactly going on , the second half dissolves into standard ghost story stuff and loses some of its suspense . a disappointingly cheesy ending really mars this movie too . house on haunted hill , i suspect , has just about left the second - run theaters . it 's worth catching on cable next year , if you get a chance . if you have a choice , pick this movie over the haunting , it 's the better of two evils , you could say . though , more appropriately perhaps , it 'd be better to say that it 's the better of two turkeys .

0NEG

sports a thin mustache like price used to have . this is a pretty bad horror film , yet bad horror films sometimes are very entertaining , an eclectic cast . it is this cast which lifts this ho - hum thriller into a borderline entertaining exercise in camp horror . price , the main character , is played by the academy - award winning actor of shine . rush seems to be making a downward spiral in the movie industry , a spiral reminiscent of ben ( ghandi , schindler star taye diggs plays a stereotypical african american sports figure ( rather lamely too ) , and singer lisa loeb ( ! ) appears as to what 's exactly going on , the second half dissolves into standard ghost story stuff and loses some of its suspense . a disappointingly cheesy ending really mars this movie too . house on haunted hill , i suspect , has appropriately perhaps , it 'd be better to say that it 's the better of two turkeys .

capsule : liebes meets tod . this was a film about sex and death . a morgue attendant accidentally revives a dead woman through necrophilia and brings her into his world which is heavy on orgies . this film says something obscure about the relationship of sex and death , but imparts no insights . to make matter worse this print was poorly subtitled into english from french . 0 ( -4 to +4 ) - an attractive 18-year - old dies on a disco floor and gets sent to a morgue . one of the attendants , ben ( jean - marc barr ) is so attracted by her that he attempts necrophilia . we see him crawling away after a shock . in the middle of sex the dead teen has come back to life . - the morgue attendant was just adding a new form of sex to his collection of kinks . he was already part of a group that gets together for s / m sex . the revived teen , teresa ( elodie bouchez ) joins them . - moral dilemma of teresa 's father . ben has abused his daughter 's body , but in doing so has saved her life . - part of this opaque allegory is a man saved from suicide who joins in the sexual hijinx . also involved is a man in the final stages of dying of aids , a close friend of the morgue attendant . he does not get involved in the orgies . - the subtitles of our print were white , often on a white background making them often hard to read , but i do n't think there was a whole lot of meaning there that was lost . - the title means " do n't let me die on a sunday . "

0NEG

obscure about the relationship of sex and death , but imparts no insights . to make matter worse this print was poorly subtitled into english from french . 0 ( -4 to +4 our print were white , often on a white background making them often hard to read , but i do n't think there was a whole lot of meaning there that was lost . - the title means " do n't let me

you know that a movie has issues when most everyone in the audience comes out laughing . . . and it 's not a comedy ! and what a strange career path for director chuck russell . he starts his career off with a decent take on the " nightmare on elm street " series with his debut as director on installment number three . he follows that up with the blob the very next year , but waits another six years to do his next piece , a little film called the mask starring jim carrey , and then one more star vehicle in eraser two years after that . so then he thought , " let me wait another five years , get a weak script jammed with cliches and hope that jimmy smits and kim basinger could pull it out of its ashes " ? ! ? strange dude and one crappy flick . plot : a six - year old girl is believed to be some kind of mysterious prophet sent down from god . a satanic cult wants the girl to switch over to their side , while the girl 's aunt wants to . . . well , save her from those damn devil worshippers ! enter one occult expert agent , plenty of bobo cops and lots of nuns praying , and you 've just about got the gist of things here . critique : with plot holes the size of my ass , this movie barely squeezes any sense out of its clich ? -ridden plot , with wasted talent , cheezy effects , bad dialogue and unintentional laughs to boot . what 's good about this movie ? well , rufus sewell is pretty fun to watch as the head of a creepy runaway children 's shelter / satanist supreme , with seriously wicked eyes and just enough ham in his performance to go with all of the cheese lying around . the little girl is also pretty good but unfortunately her character does n't really do all that much . and believe it or not , i was actually enjoying some of the film 's first half hour , which starts off with some promise , but not before bonehead moves after bonehead moves from our protagonist , basinger , just drown the film 's entire basis of believability . for some reason , it takes her more time than anyone to figure out that her niece is gifted , and even longer to figure out that every move that she makes . . . is a dumb one ! add that to the entire police force of incompetents , save for jimmy smits ( whose talent agent advised him that playing the exact same cop character from nypd blue would be a good career move ? at least change the clothes , jimmy ! ) , zero scares , zero thrills and even less actual drama , and you 've got yourself a pretty bad movie . and why would respected actors like christina ricci and ian holm take bit parts in this movie ? did they owe the director a favor or something ? together , they barely have five minutes of screen time , but i suppose that ricci 's hospital room scene might be worth a look for some of you horn - dogs . the worst part about this movie is its hilariously unbelievable ending , which features police officers coming up with the brilliant idea of " sneaking up " on a man 's house , who they know to be guilty of a crime ! uuuhmm . . . how 's about knocking on the door and arresting his sorry ass , officers ? ! anyway , i do n't usually inscribe spoilers in my reviews but the stupidity of some of these characters is just too difficult to describe without validating it with solid idiotic proof ( and there was plenty to go around ) . and did basinger lose some of her acting " talent " during her hiatus from the profession after her 1997 oscar win ? difficult to say if it was her lines that were really bad , or if she just delivered them poorly . either way , little originality , very obvious computer effects , little thrills , little drama and very little entertainment value , certainly bestow the honor of one of the worst movies of the summer upon this film . but if you really do n't mind a rehashed gobbledygook of various satanic and " kid " -based thrillers , and enjoy watching films that do n't bring anything new to the table . . . well , drink some beers , smoke some beans and rent this video , because it may just be one of the funnier thrillers of the year .

0NEG

you know that a movie has issues when most everyone in the audience comes out laughing . , " let me wait another five years , get a weak script jammed with cliches and hope that jimmy smits and kim basinger could pull of its ashes " ? ! ? strange dude and one crappy flick . plot : a six - year old girl is about got the gist of things here . critique : with plot holes the size of my ass , this movie barely squeezes any sense out of its clich ? -ridden plot , with wasted talent , cheezy effects , bad dialogue and unintentional laughs to boot . what 's good about this movie ? well , around . the little girl is also pretty good but unfortunately her character does n't really do all that much . after bonehead moves from our protagonist , basinger , just drown the film 's entire basis of believability . for some reason , it takes her more time at least change the clothes , jimmy ! ) , zero scares , zero thrills and even less actual drama , and you 've got yourself a pretty bad movie . and why would respected actors like christina ricci and a look for some of you horn - dogs . the worst part about this movie is its hilariously unbelievable ending , which features police officers coming up with the brilliant i do n't usually inscribe spoilers in my reviews but the stupidity of some of these characters is just too difficult to describe without validating it with solid idiotic proof ( and there was plenty to go around ) . hiatus from the profession after her 1997 oscar win ? difficult to say if it was her lines that were really bad , or if she just delivered them poorly . either way , little originality , very obvious computer effects , little thrills , little drama and very little entertainment value , certainly bestow the honor of one of the worst movies of the summer upon this film . but if you really do n't mind a rehashed gobbledygook of various satanic and " kid " -based thrillers ,

adam sandler vehicles are never anything special , but continue to make a load of money . which really goes to show the sad state of cinema today . while good comedies like rushmore , to choose a recent example , gets limited release and does n't make a lot of money , big daddy got a huge release and has made a lot of cash . it 's also nothing special and does n't deserve the money it 's making . but i digress . sandler plays sonny koufax , a unemployed new yorker with a seemingly low mental age . his girlfriend makes a ultimatum to him : either wise up and get responsible , or she 's leaving him . by a strange set of events , koufax ends up with julian ( played by twins cole and dylan sprouse ) a five year old kid . after a failed attempt to impress his girlfriend with the child , koufax decides he wants to keep the child . however , social worker mr brooks ( mostel ) finds out that koufax is n't the real father and wants to take julian back . koufax along with his new girlfriend layla ( lauren adams ) fight to keep the child . big daddy really is n't that good . many of the jokes revolve around toilet humour , and supposedly we are meant to find julian and sonny peeing against a wall to be funny . there 's the occasional good one liner , but these are usually strangely delivered wrong and lose most of the humour . the film , after all these silly gags , then suddenly turns sentimental , and this is where big daddy really goes from bad to hideous . the court scene at the end of the film is useless and unbelievable , and not helped by the soppy overacting . it 's a poor attempt to win over the audience . adam sandler basically plays the same role he has in his last few films ( except the wedding singer . ) joey lauren adams is much , much better , and deserves a far better film than this trash . steve buscemi pops up in a funny cameo , and his scenes are pretty funny . rob schneider is also funny as a crazy delivery man . the two twins who play julian are o . k , they start out rather well , but then becoming annoying and brattish halfway through and finally turn ' all american ' wholesome goodness at the end of the film , where the tear juice is turned up high . big daddy is really nothing special , and is not even worth it for a few chuckles . although it is actually well put together , with nice direction , good production design and even some montages , this professionalism ca n't help the fact that the script and characters are trash . big daddy is for die hard fans of sandler , and that 's about it .

0NEG

huge release and has made a lot of cash . it 's also nothing special and does n't deserve the money it 's making . but i digress . sandler plays sonny koufax , adams ) fight to keep the child . big daddy really is n't that good . many of the jokes revolve around toilet humour , and supposedly we are meant to find julian and sonny peeing against a wall to be funny . there 's the occasional good one liner , but these are usually strangely delivered wrong and lose most of the humour . the film , after all these silly gags , suddenly turns sentimental , and this is where big daddy really goes from bad to hideous . the court scene at the end of the film is useless and unbelievable , and not helped by the soppy overacting . it 's a poor attempt to win over the audience . adam sandler basically plays much better , and deserves a far better film than this trash . steve buscemi pops up in a funny cameo , k , they start out rather well , but then becoming annoying and brattish halfway through and finally turn ' all american ' wholesome tear juice is turned up high . big daddy is really nothing special , and is not even worth it for a few montages , this professionalism ca n't help the fact that the script and characters are trash . big daddy is for die hard fans of sandler

deserves recognition for : making this relatively youthful critic feel extremely old and crotchety20 capsule review : this is what feel - good family entertainment has morphed into in the 90 's : an hour - and - a - half commercial , disguised as an unnecessary remake , in which the defining image is that of a grown man launching a volume of green protoplasmic goo out of his ass . ( between this , rocketman , and george of the jungle , disney has recently eclipsed longtime champion troma as the studio most likely to include a fart joke in a film . ) as the absent - minded professor who invents the titular computer - generated goop , a listless robin williams manages the difficult task of making original lead fred macmurray seem sprightly . the only thing that made this film borderline tolerable for me is my newly - founded but firm belief that writer / producer john hughes is going to spend his eternal afterlife being conked in the noggin by all of the different blunt instruments he 's used for comedic effect in films like this and the odious home alone series . take your kids to see boogie nights instead .

0NEG

family entertainment has morphed into in the 90 's : an hour - and - a - half commercial , disguised as an unnecessary remake , in which the defining image is that of a disney has recently eclipsed longtime champion troma as the studio most likely to include a fart joke in a film . ) as the absent - minded professor who invents seem sprightly . the only thing that made this film borderline tolerable for me is my newly - founded but firm belief

any movie that kills emilio estevez off in the first fifteen minutes has something going for it . unfortunately , this and the familiar theme music are the only worthwhile things about mission impossible , directed by brian depalma . the first problem is that this film has absolutely no connection with the tv show whatsoever , aside from the music . the tv show was about an impossible mission force whose deft teamwork , orchestrated by jim phelps , allowed them to counfound evil dictators of mythic banana republics from inflicting their sordid schemes upon the world . teamwork was the key . this film is set up as a cross between james bond and depalma 's " blow out , " where the john travolta character was the victim of real and imagined conspiracies from all directions . it was travolta 's vulnerability that made that film so exciting and claustrophobic . in this film , tom cruise is basically omniscient ( believe that ? ) and so there 's no fun going on here whatsoever . the story is about as contrived as contrived gets , and is full of holes . there are basically two memorable sequences : one involves breaking into a kubrickesque computer room -- a task that could have been made much easier had the characters a whit of common sense ( suffice it to say that the alarm system is disengaged when the computer operator is in the room ) ; the second involves a high - speed train , a helicopter , and the chunnel and does not have to be seen to be disbelieved . the actors are all miscast , especially emannuelle beart as jim phelps wife , who can not act , and ving rhames as a computer hacker ( ! ) , who looks lost and embarrased to be in this movie . tom cruise is no james bond , and jon voight looks more like bobby " the brain " heenan than jim phelps . brian depalma 's career has been bafflingly erratic . at his best , he beats hitchcock at his own game ( " blow out , " " carrie , " " body double " ) but this is not his best . the screenplay was partly written by robert towne , who wrote the best scenario of the seventies in " chinatown , " but this script is perfunctory at best , and terrrible at worst . the cinematography has a comic book red / blue emphasis , which is nice to look at , but the suspense sequences are all telegraphed and this movie even features the old " killer who talks too much before shooting thus giving the victim time to think of an escape " trick . please do n't spend your money on this ; it 'll only encourage hollywood to make more .

0NEG

things about mission impossible , directed by brian depalma . the first problem is that this film has absolutely no connection with the tv is basically omniscient ( believe that ? ) and so there 's no fun going on here whatsoever . the story is about as contrived as contrived gets , and is full of holes . there are basically two memorable sequences : one involves does not have to be seen to be disbelieved . the actors are all miscast , especially emannuelle beart as jim phelps wife , who rhames as a computer hacker ( ! ) , who looks lost and embarrased to be in this movie . tom cruise is no james bond , and jon scenario of the seventies in " chinatown , " but this script is perfunctory at best , and terrrible at worst . the cinematography has a comic book red / blue time to think of an escape " trick . please do n't spend your money on this ; it 'll only encourage hollywood to make more .

movies based on video games , such as street fighter or mario bros . , have never generated much interest at the box office . but when the first mortal kombat movie came out in 1995 , it did surprisingly well . with a simple story , a pulsating soundtrack , and lots of awesomely choreographed fight scenes , the movie moved quickly and displayed lots of energy . it got my vote for ' the movie where i expected the least and got the most ' . and , if you have n't had the opportunity , i would definitely recommend that you see it on video . in the world of mortal kombat , based on the popular arcade game , dark forces from outworld try to infiltrate earth 's realm with the ulimate goal of total conquest and the destruction of humanity . the mortal kombat refers to a competition , fought by human mortals against outworld 's minions , which if won , will guarantee earth 's safety for another generation . mk2 picks up almost immediately after the humans return victoriously from competition . despite their victory , however , a gateway has somehow opened , and outworld continues in its quest to conquer earth . outworld 's warriors include an impressive collection of fighters , including shao kahn , mintoro ( a centaur ) , sheeva ( a four - armed ogre ) , and sindel . earth 's mortal warriors , under the leadership of the benevolent god , lord rayden , includes liu kang , princess kitana , sonya blade and jax , who must fight against outworld 's forces . it 's an easy enough premise , but unfortunately ( very unfortunately ) , the writers try to do too much with the movie . it is only a video game , after all , but the on - screen version tries to go beyond it 's comic book boundaries by adding depth , a conceptualization of self - worth , and worst of all , a love story . this becomes very awkward , because all of the players are fighters and nothing more . they are likable and impressive when they are showcasing their martial arts and fighting skills , but look extremely awkward and uncomfortable when they are required to actually act . this becomes embarrassingly apparent , for example , as the movie tries to develop a romantic bond between liu kang and princess kitana . the original mk was smart in letting the players do what they do best . they spoke little , but fought a lot . thus , the movie was easy to digest . however , mk2 tries to give these players a certain amount of depth , an element that was lacking in the first movie , but the attempt here fails miserably . this uneasy feeling is readily apparent , for example , whenever you hear lord rayden speak . not only does he talk in riddles and offer enigmatic ( e . g . useless ) advice , but he speaks so slowly as if to simulate infinite wisdom . try reading this half as fast , and you 'll hear what i mean . but the movie is not a complete fatality . fight scenes are well - choreographed , highlighted by terrific acrobatics and agility . and players of the game will be rewarded with the inclusion of practically every character from the video game , although their screen time amounts to nothing more than a cameo . even if you 're not familiar with the video game , each fighter has their own costume and unique weaponry to easily differentiate themselves . but it 's just too little of what movie - goers and especially fans of the game will expect . oddly , the inclusion of the human element actually pollutes the purity of the mortal kombat essence . and the poor acting results in a muddled movie that offers the viewing audience little chance for survival . ( i am now talking very slowly as if to simulate infinite wisdom ) . rent the first one , but the sequel is for kombat fans only .

0NEG

forces . it 's an easy enough premise , but unfortunately ( very unfortunately ) , the writers try to do too much with the movie . it is only a video game , after all depth , a conceptualization of self - worth , and worst of all , a love story . this becomes very awkward , because all of the players are fighters and nothing are showcasing their martial arts and fighting skills , but look extremely awkward and uncomfortable when they are required to actually act . this becomes embarrassingly apparent , for example , as the movie tries to develop element that was lacking in the first movie , but the attempt here fails miserably . this uneasy feeling is readily apparent , for example , whenever you hear lord rayden speak actually pollutes the purity of the mortal kombat essence . and the poor acting results in a muddled movie that offers the viewing audience little chance for survival . ( i am now talking very slowly as if

if you do n't think kevin kline in drag is funny , wait ? til you see will smith in drag - it 's even less funny . by the time jim west ( smith ) disguised himself as a belly dancer to bail his captured comrade , artemus gordon ( kline ) , from the clutches of evil dr . loveless ( branagh ) , i was unequivocally bored by wild wild west , the new summer blockbuster from men in black director barry sonnenfeld . is the old west really a breeding ground for high comedy , anyway ? ( if your answer is no , then you recall rustler 's rhapsody or back to the future part iii ; if your answer is yes , you 're thinking of blazing saddles , but that movie was a parody of the western genre , not a nineteenth century romp . ) 1869 . jim west is a quick - draw lawman who teams up with brainiac federal agent gordon , under orders from president grant ( kline again , whose impression , for all we know , is dead - on ) , to apprehend legless loveless , the mad inventor who is plotting to divvy up the united states and sell it back to britain and spain . how will loveless accomplish this ? well , by hulking around the desert in an enormous , mechanical tarantula , of course . bosomy dance hall girl rita escobar ( hayek ) , whose scientist father was kidnapped by loveless , joins west and gordon on their gadget - filled train . ( gordon first discovers rita in a cage , waiting to be rescued . ) racial politics obviously prevented the filmmakers from pairing dull rita romantically with west , despite the movie 's " hip " attitude toward the black thing . ( west automatically shoots anyone who calls him a " nigger " before that person can finish speaking the word . super . ) at any rate , i kept waiting for rita to say something humourous , but she 's a walking dress - up toy . ( her single comic moment is also the best shot of the film : she bashfully reveals bare bumcheeks through the peek - a - boo flap of her pyjamas . ) jim west is the role that finally stymied will smith , whose comic timing has always been hit or miss , as episodes of " the fresh prince of bel - air " demonstrate . smith 's a better reactor than actor , which is why he was so thoroughly engaging in men in black - he did n't start out a hero . in wild wild west he 's required to exude eastwood cool and amuse at the same time ( and from frame one ) , a difficult feat i 'm not sure any living performer could pull off . smith is ill equipped , for example , to handle the moment in which jim west performs stand - up for some rednecks at his own hanging . what attracted sonnenfeld to this material ? this is n't the first time he has adapted a tv show for the big screen ( the addams family , anyone ? ) , but it 's the first big stinker of his career as a director . wild wild west is poorly - paced bombast , full of doa gags ( ted levine shows up as a general who uses a gramophone horn for a hearing aid ; levine played buffalo bill in the silence of the lambs - he 's too intense to get an intentional laugh ) , lousy special effects ( the bluescreening is amateurish - foregrounds are never proportionate to the backgrounds ) , and frequent illogic . ( to wit , its ridiculous villain so badly wants jim west out of the way that he . . . drops him onto a steel platform to do battle with some generic , ugly henchmen , instead of shooting him at point blank rage with one of the many guns on board the tarantula . ) wild wild west 's bright spots , such as the cool opening credits sequence , bai ling 's all - too - brief appearance as a femme fatale , or the brilliant " his master 's voice " joke , are all part of the film 's first half , which is more clever and enjoyable , at least , than its second . when , towards what seemed like the end of wild wild west , gordon proposes the idea of building an airplane and west rejects it , there was a collective groan among audience members : it meant we were going to have to sit through another loud action sequence before gordon builds the glider , the invention of which would inevitably lead to the proverbial whiz - bang finale .

0NEG

clutches of evil dr . loveless ( branagh ) , i was unequivocally bored by wild wild west , the new summer blockbuster from kept waiting for rita to say something humourous , but she 's a walking dress - up toy . ( her single comic moment is also the best not sure any living performer could pull off . smith is ill equipped , for example , to handle the moment in which addams family , anyone ? ) , but it 's the first big stinker of his career as a director . wild wild west is poorly - paced bombast , full of doa gags ( ted levine shows up as a general who uses 's too intense to get an intentional laugh ) , lousy special effects ( the bluescreening is amateurish - foregrounds are never proportionate to the backgrounds ) , and frequent illogic . ( to wit , its ridiculous villain so badly glider , the invention of which would inevitably lead to the proverbial whiz - bang finale .

if you have ever seen fox tv 's special car chase programs , you 'll have a good idea about the content of ronin , the new action " thriller " from director john frankenheimer . the film involves a mysterious briefcase , that several groups of terrorist want to get their hands on . an irish women , dierdre ( played by the truman show 's natascha mcelhone ) , hires a group of mercenaries to assist her in getting the briefcase . among the people she hires are sam ( robert de niro ) , vincent ( jean reno ) , and gregor ( stellan skarsg ? rd from good will hunting ) . dierdre 's groups assignment is too seize the briefcase while the current owners are transporting it . they accomplish this task , but a traitor is in the bunch and the briefcase is soon on the run again . the briefcase stays on the run , as the movie leads the viewer through several plot twists that are badly executed . the writer seemed to be attempting to make a smart action movie , but failed to understand that just because there are surprises , it does n't add too the credibility of a senseless script . the plot twists get no reaction because they come at a time where no one cares what is going on , after the apparent climax of the film . but to add to the excitement , as i mentioned earlier , there are endless car chase scenes . they are unrealistic and fail to add anything to the story . do n't get me wrong , i love car chases , but they were overdone and too long here . we never do find out what 's in the briefcase , but i doubt anyone cares by the time they finish sitting through this two hour long attempted thriller .

0NEG

movie leads the viewer through several plot twists that are badly executed . the writer seemed to be attempting to make a smart action movie , but failed to understand that just because there are surprises , it does n't add too the credibility of a senseless script . the plot twists get no reaction because they come at a time where no one cares what is going on , after the apparent climax of the film . but mentioned earlier , there are endless car chase scenes . they are unrealistic and fail to add anything to the story . do n't get me wrong , i love car chases , but they were overdone and too long here . we never do find out what 's in the

the happy bastard 's quick movie review wild wild west a better name for this movie might 've been " wild wild waste " . warner bros . , in an attempt to get their own men in black style of movie , had managed to lasso in some big names ( actor will smith and director barry sonnenfeld , the duo behind mib 's success ) in order to get their own fourth of july blockbuster , a contemporary big - screen update to the classic western / sci - fi series the wild wild west starring robert conrad . but somehow , they ran into a problem along the way . they were so busy trying to fill specific roles that they forgot one in general that would 've made all the difference- a story writer . wild wild west 's story and script was compiled by six different people , rather than just the one who put the brilliant touches on men in black , ed solomon . if warner bros . had gotten him , the movie would 've possibly been five times better than what it is . heck , ten times . as is , however , the story and screenplay is a mess , filled with dead laughs , enough racist and sex jokes to make even will cringe as he 's performing them , and a complete lack of chemistry that made the tv show work so well . here 's the story : us army member james west ( will smith ) teams up with creative genius artemus gordon ( kevin kline ) to take on a ruthless villain by the name of arliss loveless ( kenneth branagh ) , whose lower half was blown off during the civil war , leaving him to roll around in a steam - controlled wheelchair . they catch onto a plot of his involving a superweapon that can basically be considered an 80-foot tarantula ( although it looks bigger than that ) , hellbent on destroying anything in its path . as i said , the way the script unfolds is a complete mess . but the acting does n't help either . kevin kline is miserable as gordon , failing to display even a smidgeon of care as he did in the 1985 western silverado . smith seems to be having a better time as west , although he 's not nearly as charming as he was in mib . branagh goes excessively over the top as the villain , perhaps to the point where we ca n't even stand to look at him or his strange beard . and salma hayek is along for the ride to search for her missing father , but mostly she exists just for sexual attention . her acting is barely passable , but what a " breath of fresh ass " . director barry sonnenfeld is n't of great help either . even though he shows some good creativity at some points , his overall urgency for directing is lost . it 's as if he feels he 's directing a tv movie , a big no - no when you 're helming what 's supposed to be a big - screen hit . last but not least , there are huge gaps of logic that are just plain unacceptable . at one point , smith defies gravity when first boarding kline 's train . he jumps on the back , gets launched straight up in the air , and somehow manages to land three cars ahead on the train- while it 's still in motion ! also , he seems to be strangely comfortable talking about racism in front of a lynch mob , particularly considering the fact that his family was killed by the likes of such folks . last but not least , why is he still making kissing faces when he knows he 's not kissing a woman as he 's looking through a peephole at the enemy ? ! the only saving grace for wild wild west come mostly in the form of special effects . the huge mechanical spider is a technical marvel , very authentic looking and considerable to the creativity of the show . there 's also a good sequence involving metal magnet neckbraces and spinning saw blades , but , again , a logic question comes into play regarding their polarity . i would say sit back and have a good time with wild wild west , but it really is n't possible . if the racist and sex jokes do n't bother you , the performances will . if the performances do n't bother you , the story will . if the story does n't bother you , the racist and sex jokes will . there 's no end to the vicious circle . go rent men in black instead and pretend smith and tommy lee jones are wearing cowboy hats . you 'll have a better time . if you do go , keep an eye out for robert conrad in a role as president grant . i bet he wishes he were somewhere else . . .

0NEG

the happy bastard 's quick movie review wild wild west a better name for this movie might 've been " wild wild waste " . warner bros . , in an attempt to get heck , ten times . as is , however , the story and screenplay is a mess , filled with dead laughs , enough racist and sex jokes to make even will cringe as he 's performing them , and a complete lack of chemistry that made the tv show work so well . here destroying anything in its path . as i said , the way the script unfolds is a complete mess . but the acting does n't help either . kevin kline is miserable as gordon , failing to display even a smidgeon of care as he did in the 1985 western silverado . smith nearly as charming as he was in mib . branagh goes excessively over the top as the villain , perhaps to the point where we , but mostly she exists just for sexual attention . her acting is barely passable , but what a " breath of fresh ass " though he shows some good creativity at some points , his overall urgency for directing is lost . it 's as if he feels he 's directing big - screen hit . last but not least , there are huge gaps of logic that are just plain unacceptable . at one point , smith defies gravity when first wild west , but it really is n't possible . if the racist and sex jokes do n't bother you , the performances will . if the performances do n't bother you , the story will . if the story does n't bother you , the racist and sex jokes will . there 's no end to the vicious circle . go rent men in black instead and pretend smith

old soldiers never die , they just turn into cliches soldier a film review by michael redman copyright 1998 by michael redman the warrior and the lover are two personality aspects that find it difficult to exist in the same body . jungian archetypes , these two opposites need each other to create a whole , but it 's difficult to integrate both . often we 'll encounter lovers who think everything is just wonderful and , with the help of jung 's magician , sit around imagining grand schemes . without the drive to manifest their plans , much less the wisdom to recognize the darkness , all they have are dreams . warriors on the other hand , are ready to go to war at the drop of a hat , and will do combat with every last bit of their energy . they do n't care enough about anything to know what 's worth fighting for : gladiators who live only for the battle . this dichotomy not only describes individuals that we all know , but can also illustrate societies . america during the late sixties was a conflict between old style cold warriors and the new hippie lovers . todd 3465 ( kurt russell ) is a living , breathing archetype . chosen from birth as a soldier , he is raised by the government to be a killing machine . his childhood is cruelty and competition . he is indoctrinated with the big rules . never question authority . winning is everything . strength beats knowledge . a veteran of numerous intergalactic wars , todd is 40 and he 's obsolete . a new generation of genetically engineered soldiers are faster and stronger . left for dead after a test battle with the best of the new killers , caine 607 ( jason scott lee ) , he 's unceremoniously dumped as trash on arcadia 234 , a garbage world . obviously our hero is still alive . he finds a group of shipwrecked settlers abandoned on the planet who nurse him back to health . when the peace - loving colonists get a good look at who todd is , they are afraid of him and he is exiled to live by himself amid the junk on an environmentally hostile world . they are the other good guys . these lovers find that they need a warrior when the military coincidentally chooses this world to conduct exercises for their improved human weapons . todd finds himself in the role of protector . what could have been a fascinating look at the roles played in our culture and the fears of an ultra - right wing future is ruined by turning the film into a cartoon . the effects are mostly second - rate explosions or jerky slow motion . the plot is old hat . we do n't get even a glimpse at the society that created the soldiers . hardly anything makes sense . the film 's science fares badly . with all the remarkable advances we 've made in just 37 years ( the film takes place in 2036 ) , we 're still stupid . after conquering the stars , for some reason we use vast amounts of energy to load up huge space ships with rubbish tote it to a landfill light years away . even stranger , the garbage barges appear to double as time machines . virtually all the trash is vintage 1960 . there is nothing in the story that is not predictable . the first thing that todd sees after coming back to life is sandra ( connie nielsen ) , the woman just a little too beautiful to be living in such harsh conditions who is taking care of him . it does n't take a genius to foresee that her husband is n't going to be around much longer . is it a shock to find out that the film 's climax is an unarmed battle between todd and caine ? who would you guess wins ? some of the scenes would work if this were a comedy . todd 's first awakening of human emotion comes when he glimpses connie 's nipple poking through her thin blouse . later as he sits by his lonely campfire , a tear rolls down his dramatically lighted cheek in slow motion . supposedly this clich ? is n't meant to be humorous . dastardly col . mekum ( jason isaacs ) with a pencil - thin mustache is as real as snidley whiplash . responsible for last year 's quirky and visually enticing but problematic " the fifth element " , director paul anderson sees the film as " shane " in outer space . maybe , if shane were played by sylvester stallone in rambo mode . the movie does n't even work as an action film . there is never a question as to the outcome . somehow the new superior soldiers do n't prove much of a match for todd . the acting is n't anything to write home about . nielsen almost comes across as a real person but is soon relegated to a background victim . russell is buffed - up and does a credible job but it 's not much of a challenge . uttering around 100 words during the film , mostly what todd does is hit things and stare grimly into space . gary busey as todd 's commanding officer is completely wasted in his low - key role . everything blows up and occasionally it looks cool . sometimes the sets are impressive . unfortunately " occasionally " and " sometimes " do n't make a film . most disappointing is that the screenplay is by david webb peoples who wrote " blade runner " , possibly the best science fiction movie ever made . sharp - eyed viewers will notice a few obscure references to that film . peoples says that this is not a " blade runner " sequel , but a " sidequel " that takes place in the same universe . although that may have been the intent in his original script , the result is more like a bad television series that the " blade runner " replicants watch to pass time . perhaps those artificial humans would find this entertaining . ( michael redman has written this column for over 23 years and wants to wish everyone an appropriate halloween . . . whatever you 'd like it to be . )

0NEG

old soldiers never die , they just turn into cliches soldier a film review by michael redman copyright 1998 by the fears of an ultra - right wing future is ruined by turning the film into a cartoon . the effects are mostly second - rate explosions or jerky slow motion . the plot is old hat . we do n't get even a glimpse at the society that created the soldiers . hardly anything makes sense . the film 's science fares badly . with all the remarkable advances we 've made in machines . virtually all the trash is vintage 1960 . there is nothing in the story that is not predictable . the first thing that todd sees after coming back shane were played by sylvester stallone in rambo mode . the movie does n't even work as an action film . there is never a question as to the outcome . somehow the new superior soldiers do n't prove much of a match for todd . the acting is n't anything to write home about . nielsen almost comes across as a real person but space . gary busey as todd 's commanding officer is completely wasted in his low - key role . everything blows up and " sometimes " do n't make a film . most disappointing is that the screenplay is by david webb peoples who may have been the intent in his original script , the result is more like a bad television series that the " blade runner " replicants watch to pass

" what is this , a homicide or a bad b - movie ? " that is the prophetic question asked by one of the leads in one of the early scenes of this movie . let me clear things up for you cupcake , this is n't a bad b - movie , it 's a really bad b - movie . so bad , it 's almost good . almost , but not quite . the movie starts off in the 1950 's with space aliens sending a botched experiment down to earth . it is a bunch of slug - like creatures that kill people and take over their bodies . the slugs ' first and only victim in the fifties is cryogenically frozen where he is of no danger to anybody . that is , until two loser university students unfreeze him in 1986 . he , and the slugs inside him , promptly begin wreaking havoc and turning more co - eds into slug zombies . a slightly crazed cop ( tom atkins ) and the requisite girl with the face of an angel ( jill whitlow ) join these two geeky university students ( jason lively and steve marshall ) to do battle with the slugs . it more or less falls on the four of them to make the world safe again from the evil slugs . the acting is bad with a capital b . the story is worse . and the special effects are somewhere between an old rerun of star trek and what you see in a home movie . the only saving grace was the requisite tit - shot courtesy of jill whitlow . it had absolutely nothing to do with the story -- but i liked it . actually , it was the high point of the movie for me . of course , that is n't really saying much . the story moves around in a hap hazard fashion . which gives it a leg up on some other horror films . unlike most movies of this genre , there actually is a story . not a great one , but it is there . this is one in a long line of movies from the 1980 's that were thrown together to capitalize off the success of the friday the 13th , halloween and nightmare on elm street movies . you could randomly select a movie out of the horror section of you local video store and probably luck into something just as good if not better . but night of the creeps might make a nice addition to a b - movie horror marathon . just do n't be too upset if you ca n't find it . you really wo n't be missing that much .

0NEG

. let me clear things up for you cupcake , this is n't a bad b - movie , it 's a really bad b - movie . so bad , it 's almost good . almost , but not quite . the movie starts off in the 1950 's with make the world safe again from the evil slugs . the acting is bad with a capital b . the story is worse . and the special effects are somewhere between an old rerun of star trek and what you see in a home movie . the only saving grace was the requisite tit - , that is n't really saying much . the story moves around in a hap hazard fashion . which gives it a leg up on some other be too upset if you ca n't find it . you really wo n't be missing that much .

there 's a scene early on in " jawbreaker " where a character utters the unintentionally prophetic line , " that is * so * not funny " . how right she was . this pathetic tale of three high - schoolers who accidentally kill their best friend in a birthday kidnapping prank gone horribly awry is never even remotely funny . or fun . or original . not content with the too - obvious " heathers " heisting , the filmmakers proceed to lift freely from a staggering variety of sources , including " carrie " , " bride of frankenstein " , " blue velvet " , and even shaw 's pygmalion , itself recently remade as " she 's all that " . " jawbreaker " is a pastiche , and not even an enjoyable one . i find it extremely telling that the most engaging part of the film is the credit sequence , a jawbreaker factory montage inexplicably backed by veruca salt 's " volcano girls " ; serving as a blueprint for the rest of the film , the song has absolutely nothing to do with the footage we 're watching . just close your eyes and pretend you 're listening to an alt - rock station ; you wo n't be missing anything . the blame for a mess this big has to be spread around among the principals . rebecca gayheart , following roles in " scream 2 " and " urban legend " , should have known better than to take yet another role in yet another teen body count movie . pam grier has totally wasted any credibility she might have gotten from her role in quentin tarantino 's " jackie brown " . and rose mcgowan should just quit acting . she has no charisma , no presence , and no acting skills other than rolling her eyes and looking disaffected . mcgowan manages to be upstaged by her real - life boyfriend , rocker marilyn manson , whose fifteen second role here is far more interesting than anything any of the " real " actors are doing . manson , sans trademark makeup & contact lenses , and with an obviously fake moustache , looks eerily like nicholas cage ; who woulda thunk it ? that crack about direction by committee was n't merely a pithy sound - bite . stylistically , thematically & narratively , " jawbreaker " is all over the map , varying wildly in tone & content from scene to scene . though credited solely to writer / director darren stein , one gets the feeling that no two scenes here were actually guided by the same hands . if stein was indeed responsible for the whole of this atrocity , someone needs to get the man some drugs , pronto . prozac , lithium , kava , ritalin , something , anything . he 's quite obviously in desperate need of chemical help . " jawbreaker " is a monumental waste of effort and resources , and quite likely one of the single worst films i 've ever seen . to call " jawbreaker " garbage would be to insult garbage . bad flicks for the rest of the year are safe ; i 've already got my pick for worst film of ' 99 . " jawbreaker " runs approximately 90 minutes , though it feels longer than " titanic " , and is rated r for language , sexual situations and graphic violence . not recommended for kids , teens , or anyone else .

0NEG

not funny " . how right she was . this pathetic tale of three high - schoolers who accidentally kill their best friend in a birthday kidnapping prank gone horribly awry is never even remotely funny . or fun . or original . not content with the too - obvious " heathers " heisting , the filmmakers proceed to lift freely from a staggering variety of sources , including " carrie " , " bride of frankenstein she 's all that " . " jawbreaker " is a pastiche , and not even an enjoyable one . i find it extremely telling that the most engaging rock station ; you wo n't be missing anything . the blame for a mess this big has to be spread around among the principals . rebecca yet another teen body count movie . pam grier has totally wasted any credibility she might have gotten from her role in quentin tarantino 's " jackie brown " . and rose mcgowan should just quit acting . she has no charisma , no presence , and no acting skills other than rolling her eyes and looking disaffected . mcgowan stylistically , thematically & narratively , " jawbreaker " is all over the map , varying wildly in tone & content from scene to was indeed responsible for the whole of this atrocity , someone needs to get the man some drugs , pronto . prozac , lithium , kava , ritalin , something , anything . he 's quite obviously in desperate need of chemical help . " jawbreaker " is a monumental waste of effort and resources , and quite likely one of the single worst films i 've ever seen . to call " jawbreaker " garbage would be to insult garbage . bad flicks for the rest of the year are safe ; i 've already got my pick for worst film of ' 99 . " jawbreaker " runs approximately 90 minutes , though

can you say " dated " ? you can if you 've seen rosemary 's baby which , like the exorcist , was a thrilling horror film in its time but seems boring and laughable in the decades that have passed since its original release . " mystery science theater 3000 " has skewered the bad films of the past , but let me tell you , it could do a number on the " good " ones too . rosemary 's baby stars mia farrow ( from the time she was actually good - looking ) as an innocent housewife and her not - so - innocent husband ( john cassavettes ) , an actor who takes an easy , albeit evil , road to success . it all seems so harmless in the beginning . mia and john move into an apartment where several past murders have been committed . ( there 's also a skull in the living room , but it 's only for decoration . ) their elderly neighbors pop in for a housewarming . all 's well for about the first hour of this slow - moving film , until mia eats some of the neighbors ' chocolate mousse and passes out . when she comes to , she finds herself in a darkened room with a bunch of people yelling and dancing like savages and a big , evil man raping her -- a foreshadowing of her future life with woody allen . it seems like a dream and , when she finds herself pregnant , she almost forgets about it . and everyone 's helping with the pregnancy . the neighbors have some wonderful vitamin potions for her to drink , a good - luck charm for her to wear around her neck , and the name of an obstetrician who 's been in the business 66 . 6 years . meanwhile , mia begins having chronic stomach pains and losing a lot of weight . before too long she looks just like the lead singer of the cranberries . that 's when you know your health 's failing . the only person in the movie who 's the least bit suspicious of all this is an old friend ( maurice evans ) who calls mia up to give her the bad news -- and immediately falls into a coma . by about the two - hour mark i felt the same way . rosemary 's baby is way too long , and leads up to a payoff that 's about as boring and laughable as the rest of the movie . i guess someone put a spell on this movie .

0NEG

can you say " dated " ? you can if you 've seen rosemary 's baby which , was a thrilling horror film in its time but seems boring and laughable in the decades that have passed since its original release all 's well for about the first hour of this slow - moving film , until mia eats some of the neighbors ' i felt the same way . rosemary 's baby is way too long , and leads up to a payoff that 's about as boring and laughable as the rest of the movie . i guess someone put a spell on this movie .

" the 44 caliber killer has struck again . " starring john leguizamo , mira sorvino , adrian brody , jennifer esposito , michael rispoli , bebe neuwirth . rated r . summer of sam will be remembered as a waste of spike lee 's abilities . lee is a great filmmaker , often exhibiting kinetic visual flair on par with brian depalma and martin scorsese and a storytelling ability comparable to steven spielberg . but here , he gets himself into a bind . his latest effort is a case of a director pretending he has something to say when in reality there is little of substance to absorb from his work . the summer of 1977 was an unusual summer in new york city . it was the hottest summer on record . to boot , new york 's first serial killer was on the loose : calling himself the son of sam , david berkowitz killed 9 people in the new york area and frightened the whole city population . so it was understandable that when nyc was hit with a citywide blackout , people went berserk , causing billions of dollars in damage to the city . the movie 's focus is on a group of twenty - somethings during that fateful summer : vinny ( john leguizamo ) , a club - hopping , adultrous hairdresser , his benevolent wife dionna ( mira sorvino , looking young ) , ritchie ( adrian brody ) , a punk who becomes an outcast as well as a son of sam suspect , a gang of small time mobsters and a few more minor characters . we follow them through their roller coaster lives , thrown out of whack even more by the recent killings . vinny and dionna have marital problems because vinny cheats and dionna tries to please him , make him stay faithful to her . ritchie gets shunned by his group of friends because he has started to become more and more " eccentric , " and has degenerated to the point of dancing in gay night clubs and making porno films with his girlfriend . tensions build and conflicts arise as the anniversary night of son of sam 's first murder looms ; the night he promises he will strike again . a local gang with too much time on its hands makes a list detailing all of the people that its members think might be suspects . at the top of the list is ritchie . vinny , an unwilling part of the said group , is called upon to set a trap for his friend . as we watch these proceedings , some of which are painfully graphic , the dreaded " so what ? " question springs to mind . from the way this movie is made , i 'd have guessed that spike lee was trying to tell us something , but as i searched deeper it became clear that there is very little there to find . lee touches on so much -- the media , the 70 's punk scene , the details of the actual killings , as well as the characters ' very personal dilemmas -- but he does n't bring all of his topics together to form a coherent theme or make a discernible statement . all is not lost if a movie turns out to be hollow ; it can be a saving grace for the film to be enjoyable . too bad summer of sam does n't get any help here . frankly , it 's a bore , a redundant and repetitive two hour and twenty minute film that does n't entertain beyond its first half hour . there is no suspense because the film refuses to be fully about the murders and little involving drama because the film is too muddled and its focus too vague . leguizamo 's turn as vinnie is annoying and whiny . the script makes it clear that we 're supposed to believe that his character is flawed , but still a good guy . you 'd never guess from his performance . adrian brody and especially mira sorvino fare better . sorvino gives a riveting , touching performance in a banal movie ( i 'm tempted to think that i liked her because nearly everything else around her was inane ) ; her character is affecting and her emotions true - to - heart . brody , too paints an effective portrait of a young guy desperate for attention who gets a little more than he bargained for . summer of sam has some superficial elements of a good film : it looks great , it has a few notable performances and i suppose it 's pretty well directed , in a purely technical way . but it 's also empty , pretentious and boring . like last year 's the thin red line , it 's a movie by a director who does n't know what he wants to say but goes ahead and says it anyway . ? 1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

0NEG

rated r . summer of sam will be remembered as a waste of spike lee 's abilities . lee is a great filmmaker , often exhibiting kinetic these proceedings , some of which are painfully graphic , the dreaded " so what ? " question springs to mind . from the way this movie is made , i , but as i searched deeper it became clear that there is very little there to find . lee touches on so much -- the media , well as the characters ' very personal dilemmas -- but he does n't bring all of his topics together to form a coherent theme or make a discernible statement . all is not lost if a movie turns out summer of sam does n't get any help here . frankly , it 's a bore , a redundant and repetitive two hour and twenty minute film that does n't entertain beyond its first half hour . there is no suspense because the film refuses to be fully about the murders and little involving drama because the film is too muddled and its focus too vague . leguizamo 's turn as vinnie is annoying and whiny . the script makes it clear that we 're supposed better . sorvino gives a riveting , touching performance in a banal movie ( i 'm tempted to think that i liked her well directed , in a purely technical way . but it 's also empty , pretentious and boring . like last year 's the thin red line ,

wow , a film without any redeeming qualities whatsoever . i 'm amazed that someone thought this was a story that must be told on screen . many blacks in hollywood complain that they are not nominated for awards based on their race . i think first they need to concentrate their energy on themselves , and stop making movies which makes them look like nothing more than sex - crazed buffoons . even i 'm offended by it . bill bellamy is a " player " which means he sleeps with a lot of women and lies to them . what a pleasant main character . one day , his friends decide that they want to find out how to be a player . why they decide this " one day " i have no idea . how many years have they been friends and why all of a sudden would they want to learn ? anyway , bellamy agrees to teach , and his wonderful lesson to his friends consists of letting them ride in his car while he rides from house to house having sex with women . this is the bulk of the film folks , guys riding from house to house , one keeps getting out to have sex , while the others sit in the car . since russell simmons is producer , and since the official title of the film is " def jam 's how to be a player " , i was ready to be jumping up and down and stomping my feet and beating the person next to me because of the comedy . amazingly , aside from gilbert gottfried 's 90 seconds of screen time , there was no comedy in the film for me to express myself in such a manner . instead of jokes , there 's just an endless stream of profanity and naked breasts ( and naked breasts are n't so bad , but naked breasts alone do n't make a good movie ) . be sure to bring along your ebonics to english dictionary as well . gilbert gottfried 's character serves as one in his very brief appearance , asking for explanations as to what is being said . they should have brought him along for the entire film . [ r ]

0NEG

wow , a film without any redeeming qualities whatsoever . i 'm amazed that someone thought this was a story that must be told on screen . many blacks in hollywood complain that they are not look like nothing more than sex - crazed buffoons . even i 'm offended by it . bill bellamy is a " player " which means from gilbert gottfried 's 90 seconds of screen time , there was no comedy in the film for me to express myself in such a manner . instead of jokes , there 's just an endless stream of profanity and naked breasts ( and naked breasts are n't so bad , but

bob the happy bastard 's quickie review : the odd couple ii grumpy old men , it ai n't . hell , my fellow americans , it ai n't . walter matthau and jack lemmon team up again for an even more worn out vehicle than any of their films over the past few years . odd couple ii feels terribly generic , where in the first movie , made thirty one years ago , feels like a wonderful tale . that 's like repackaging campbell 's soup in a generic food can , really . how writer neil simon could 've made such a horrible mistake in screen writing is beyond me . throughout the movie , i really did n't laugh once . honestly . i mean , there were dumb situations , yeah , like the cropduster who let these old geezers have it without any notice , but they just really did n't seem funny to me . and that car rolling off the cliff ? the only way i would 've seen humor in that is if they were still in it . and the ending gets all super - mushy , too . in the final twenty minutes or so , lemmon meets a girl he thinks is the one , then loses her ; matthau talks to his son ( a wasted jonathan silverman ) about his amrriage to lemmon 's daughter ; and , of course , lemmon and matthau have another roomie situation on their hands . ooh , i really gave a lot away there , i 'm sure . consider it a hospitable gester , you wo n't waste your time renting this muck .

0NEG

. walter matthau and jack lemmon team up again for an even more worn out vehicle than any of their films over the past few years . odd couple ii feels terribly generic , where in the first movie , made thirty one , really . how writer neil simon could 've made such a horrible mistake in screen writing is beyond me . throughout the movie , i really did n't laugh once . honestly . i mean , there were dumb situations , yeah , in that is if they were still in it . and the ending gets all super - mushy , too . in the final twenty minutes or so , lemmon loses her ; matthau talks to his son ( a wasted jonathan silverman ) about his amrriage to lemmon 's daughter i 'm sure . consider it a hospitable gester , you wo n't waste your time renting this muck .

the summer of 00 ' was n't a very good one for devout cinephiles . it offered no blair witches or sixth senses ; the best big budget hollywood could do was an efficient x - men adaptation and a flawed but entertaining shaft update . nurse betty signals the unofficial end of that dreadful summer movie season and the commencement of a potentially brighter fall movie season , that battery - charging ( at least for critics who have to sit through every piece o ' shit that moseys into multiplexes ) time of year when all those oscar contenders ( read : " quality " films ) compete for audiences . alas betty has the dubious distinction of being the first overpraised junk heap of the new season . it 's also indie director neil labute 's first attempt at something resembling a mainstream picture , and i 'm sad to report it 's a resounding failure ( at least on this web site ) , a mess that 's as hopelessly saccharine as people have accused labute 's previous films of being unrelentingly masochistic . i went in expecting something decent , for betty was gleefully praised , it 's screenplay even winning an award at cannes , but i exited shaking my noggin in bewilderment . are critics so desperate for something unique that they 're blind to how derivative the particular brand of " uniqueness " betty dolls out is ? for the first time labute is working from a script he has not written , and he seems unsure of how to handle the material . betty tries to be hip like pulp fiction ( this is another flick featuring a pair of strangely bright and articulate hit men ) , enchanting like the wizard of oz ( of which this film makes several allusions to ) and heartwarming like [ stick in your favorite loveable misfit movie ] , but by the end it left me cold with its calculated desperation . it 's labute 's half hearted attempt to make a crowd pleaser and he does n't even seem to have half that heart in it . nurse betty concerns a soap opera addict , betty ( brilliantly played by renee zellweger ) , who witnesses the killing of her husband , del ( aaron eckhart playing the most casually loutish husband since richard benjamin in diary of a mad housewife ) by two hit men ( morgan freeman and chris rock ) . she happens to have her most beloved soap on in the background and somehow merges the two realities . she 's blocked out her husband 's death and thinks she 's a character in her favorite soap , a reason to love . betty sets out on the road to la ( with some drugs unknowingly stashed in her car trunk ) searching for her soap boyfriend dr . david ravell ( greg kinnear ) while the two bickering hit men follow in not so close pursuit . the labute who birthed the extraordinary in the company of men , slipped a bit ( but not much ) with his sophomore effort , your friends and neighbors , then fell straight on his ass with bash , a play he penned that was recently aired on showtime . the play demonstrated no forward movement as an artist , only labute 's persistence in wallowing in the horrid things " average " people do to each other , usually with out realizing how horrid they themselves are . in the play , paul rudd , as an obnoxious jock , delivers a monologue detailing how he once followed a gay man into a bathroom and beat him maybe to death , while his clueless girlfriend essentially regards his sadistic behaviors as something along the old maxim " boys will be boys " . another character , schlubby businessman reacts to the loss of his job by actually killing his own baby ! what was once so powerful about labute 's work , the casual , nonchalant cruelty and selfishness ( often elements we all have in us amplified to a disgusting degree ) had become so over the top it was borderline comic . obviously , at this point , labute could use a dose of some different kind of material before he pigeon holes himself further , but nurse betty is n't it . he clearly has little passion for what he 's doing here , instead replacing his mojo with strained quirks ( one of the hit men is a huge soap fan , and the character of betty would be little more than a one joke gimmick if zelllweger had n't managed to transcend that ) tailor made to appeal to the widest possible audience . nearly every scene between chris rock and morgan freeman fatally slows the picture down , as the two are made to enact soft - boiled tarantino - esque dialogue . they evince little chemistry , with rock constantly in over the top rant mode , acting more like an angry comic than any thing resembling a hit man ( an occupation that 's represented far too frequently in movies nowadays ) . i think rock is a great comic yet he has n't been able to bring his feral intelligence to movies , whenever he acts , and no matter the part , it 's like he 's doing the damn chris rock show . surprisingly ( at least considering her work in me , myself and irene ) renee zellweger gives a revelatory performance , building on her baby faced , apple pie looks . that wide - open face and helium voiced earnestness suggests a little girl not fully grown into her thirty - year - old body . it 's the best work she 's ever done . freeman is effective as always , though his performance nonetheless suffers because it seems at odds with where the movie wants to take it . the actor plays the role in his usual calm , collected manner , though the flick tries to insinuate a symbolic kinship between his character and betty 's , suggesting that both are controlled by their fantasies rather than reality . that 's interesting but the movie does n't do anything with it other than crash land the sub - theme into a labored speech in the midst of a badly staged gun battle . the film has good moments ( many of the scenes involving a very good greg kinnear , especially his confrontation with zellweger ) , an almost soothing , lyrical score ( and you know a movie 's in trouble when the score sticks out as one of the best things about it ) but nothing jells , it 's parts , good or bad , are so disparate as to be opposing . the film might have worked had it settled on being one type of film , a mainstream , female forrest gump or an oddball art film , but as both if it falls as flat as diet coke . betty 's screenplay makes the mistake of relying too much on concurrence , without which betty would n't make any progress in the film . nurse betty is a film driven by coincidence rather than charter , like how betty becomes a nurse in the film , a job that she takes in order to get closer to her imaginary lover ; she happens to be at the hospital at the exact moment that a drive by shooting takes place and miraculously knows how to take care of the victim 's wound because she happened to see how on tv , which leads to her being offered a room with the victim 's girlfriend who eventually gets betty into a party where she meets kinnear ? ? ? a little too tidy , don'tcha think . betty has an interesting theme , though it does n't even seem aware of this . the current state of tv has been leaning towards reality television what with the enormous success of survivor and moderate success of big brother , with more on the way . this is a film about a women so deluded as to think that her favorite soap opera is reality ( ironically real - life survivor sean kennif has taken a part as a doctor on the soap opera guiding light ) . instead of exploring this timely matter in a way relating to the current tv craze ( since the film does largely appear to be a satire of television , albeit one that would feel more appropriate in the ' 80s than the ' 00s ) , the film simply uses betty 's delusions as a plot device to get her from point a to b . no progress is made and little is unearthed except that maybe labute could use a bit of rest and a lot of contemplation .

0NEG

audiences . alas betty has the dubious distinction of being the first overpraised junk heap of the new season . it 's also indie director a mainstream picture , and i 'm sad to report it 's a resounding failure ( at least on this web site ) , a mess that 's as hopelessly saccharine as people have accused labute 's previous films of being 's screenplay even winning an award at cannes , but i exited shaking my noggin in bewilderment . are critics so desperate for something unique that they favorite loveable misfit movie ] , but by the end it left me cold with its calculated desperation . it 's labute 's half hearted attempt to make a crowd pleaser and he does n't even in us amplified to a disgusting degree ) had become so over the top it was borderline comic . obviously , at this point , labute could use . nearly every scene between chris rock and morgan freeman fatally slows the picture down , as the two are made to enact soft - boiled tarantino - esque dialogue . they evince little chemistry , with rock constantly in over the top rant mode , acting more like an angry comic than any thing ever done . freeman is effective as always , though his performance nonetheless suffers because it seems at odds with where the movie wants to take it . the actor plays the role in his usual calm the movie does n't do anything with it other than crash land the sub - theme into a labored speech in the midst of a badly staged gun battle . the film has good moments ( many , it 's parts , good or bad , are so disparate as to be opposing . the film might have worked had it settled on or an oddball art film , but as both if it falls as flat as diet coke . betty 's screenplay makes the mistake of relying too much on concurrence , without which betty into a party where she meets kinnear ? ? ? a little too tidy , don'tcha think . betty has an interesting theme , though it does n't device to get her from point a to b . no progress is made and little is unearthed except that maybe labute could use a bit of rest

what do you get when you rip - off good movies like woody allen 's bananas and martin scorsese 's after hours ? you 'd think you 'd get the best of both films . instead you get woo . falling in somewhere between def jam 's how to be a player ( which was awful ) and booty call ( which was ok ) , woo is yet another in the embarassing genre of showing african - americans to be nothing more than sexual buffoons . the whole film plays out as a black version of after hours , as wild woman woo ( jada pinkett smith ) goes out on a blind date with straight - laced tim ( tommy davidson ) . mayhem follows them . for some unknown reason ( read : contrived screenplay ) davidson puts up with all of woo 's antics for the entire night , which include her destroying his bathroom mirror , stealing things from his house , violently questioning him ( accusing and belittling him actually ) about previous girlfriends , causing a riot in an elegant restaurant , and other various infuriating things that any normal person would n't tolerate . but for the sake of this bad movie ? sure , why not ? there are a few chuckles in the film , the best being the scene swiped directly from bananas . in this case , davidson is running from thugs , gets into a subway car as the doors are closing , starts to taunt the thugs , then the doors open back up again . a good joke , but a stolen one . another chuckle is provided by billy dee williams ' cameo as himself . movies like woo are seemingly released every three months or so , and not one of them has ever been a hit . woo wo n't be one either . so why was it made ? and more importantly , is n't there anyone else besides me who thinks these films are offensive ? everyone involved should really reconsider their careers at this point . [ r ]

0NEG

what do you get when you rip - off good movies like woody allen 's bananas and martin scorsese booty call ( which was ok ) , woo is yet another in the embarassing genre of showing african - americans to be nothing more than follows them . for some unknown reason ( read : contrived screenplay ) davidson puts up with all of woo 's would n't tolerate . but for the sake of this bad movie ? sure , why not ? there are a few thugs , then the doors open back up again . a good joke , but a stolen one . another chuckle is provided by billy dee williams ' hit . woo wo n't be one either . so why was it made ? and more importantly , is n't there anyone else besides me who thinks these films are offensive ? everyone involved should really reconsider their careers at this point . [ r ]

wild things is a way to steam up an otherwise dreary early spring day ? provided , of course , that you 're the victim of a frontal lobotomy . there is , in fact , no doubt about who this motion picture is aimed at : movie - goers in their late teens and early twenties -- the most lucrative target group . this is film noir for the mtv generation : fast - paced , slick , flashy , gleefully mindless , and hollow to the core . wild things is easily one of the five dumbest movies to arrive in theaters during the first eleven weeks of 1998 . i 've seen more convincing drama ( with nearly as much bare flesh ) on that pinnacle of narrative quality , baywatch . wild things wants to dupe viewers into thinking it 's a thriller with a real story . what it is , however , is a series of increasingly- improbable and shockingly predictable plot twists . everything in between those serpentine moments is filler -- a flash of a breast , a spatter of blood , and some of the most idiotic dialogue this side of a steven seagal movie . the film tries so hard to surprise its audience that the twists end up being easy to guess -- just take a stab at the most unlikely thing to happen , and that will probably be it . using this approach , i was right three times and wrong only once . that 's not a good average for a production that wants to keep viewers in the dark about what 's around the next corner . the ad campaign uses two things to sell this movie : the hot , young cast and the old standby , sex . both have an abundance of screen time , although i 'll admit that the film 's erotic content is somewhat less impressive than i expected . nothing about wild things is exceptionally risqu ? . the soft - core sex sequences are generic , and do n't generate much heat . the lesbian kisses ca n't hold a candle to those in bound . theresa russell and denise richards have only token topless appearances ( neve campbell , possessing an iron - clad " no nudity " clause in her contract , keeps her clothes more or less on ) . the film 's greatest curiosity is a full frontal shot of kevin bacon climbing out of the shower . maybe a few girls will skip seeing a fully - clothed leonardo dicaprio for the thirteenth time in titanic to catch a glimpse of what kyra sedgwick ( mrs . kevin bacon ) is familiar with . the director of wild things is john mcnaughton , whose last effort was the finely - tuned psychological thriller , normal life . that movie featured copious sex , a pair of real characters , and a powerful script . it 's difficult to believe that something this shallow could come from the same film maker . but i suppose we all need to put food on the table . mcnaughton appears to have completely lost his way here , in what is obviously a stab at mainstream success ( his previous wide - release picture , mad dog and glory , was a box - office disappointment ) . quick cuts and pretty sunrises ca n't even begin to cover up this movie 's flaws . the main character ( and i use that term lightly , since no one in wild things shows more than an occasional flash of personality ) is sam lombardo ( matt dillon ) , a guidance counselor at florida 's blue bay high school . a student , the deliciously curvaceous kelly van ryan ( denise richards ) , has a crush on him . one afternoon , she comes to his house to wash his car , and , when she leaves , her clothing is torn . after confessing to her mother ( theresa russell ) that she was raped , she goes to the police station , where she tells her story to detectives ray duquette ( kevin bacon ) and gloria perez ( daphne rubin - vega ) . they are skeptical about here claims until another girl , suzie toller ( neve campbell ) , comes forward with a similar tale . meanwhile , sam , convinced that he 's being set up , goes to a shyster lawyer ( bill murray ) for help . the acting in wild things is n't very good , but none of the principals have much to work with . this is definitely not a character- based motion picture . not only does the ludicrous screenplay ignore the possibility that someone in the audience may have a triple - digit i . q . , but it does n't bother to give any of the on - screen individuals even a hint of depth . the men and women populating the picture are there to look nice , but nothing more . matt dillon is given plenty of opportunities to flex his biceps . neve campbell gets to model the slutty look . denise richards strikes a fetching pose in a see - through , one - piece bathing suit . and nothing in the film gets a rise out of kevin bacon . the only one who 's even remotely interesting is bill murray , and he seems to think he 's in comedy , not a thriller ( maybe he 's got the right idea ) . columbia pictures has specifically requested that critics not reveal the film 's ending , which prompts the question : which ending do they want kept secret ? wild things has no less than three ( one occurs during the end credits , so stay seated ) , all of which are jaw - droppingly absurd -- a feat that joe eszterhas ( the writer of basic instinct and showgirls ) would be impressed by . thanks to jeffrey kimball 's polished , kinetic cinematography , wild things always looks great , and george s . clinton 's score keeps it pulsing and throbbing . but , no matter how shiny the superficial sheen is , this is still trash , and , like all garbage , it stinks .

0NEG

generation : fast - paced , slick , flashy , gleefully mindless , and hollow to the core . wild things is easily one of the five dumbest movies to arrive in theaters during the first eleven weeks of 1998 . i 've thinking it 's a thriller with a real story . what it is , however , is a series of increasingly- improbable and shockingly predictable plot twists . everything in between those serpentine moments is filler -- of a breast , a spatter of blood , and some of the most idiotic dialogue this side of a steven seagal movie . the film although i 'll admit that the film 's erotic content is somewhat less impressive than i expected . nothing about wild things is exceptionally risqu ? . powerful script . it 's difficult to believe that something this shallow could come from the same film maker . but i all need to put food on the table . mcnaughton appears to have completely lost his way here , in what is obviously a stab at mainstream success a shyster lawyer ( bill murray ) for help . the acting in wild things is n't very good , but none of the principals have much to work with . this is definitely not a character- based motion picture . not only does the ludicrous screenplay ignore the possibility that someone in the audience may have a triple - digit i . q . , but it does n't bother to give any of the on - screen individuals even a hint of depth . the men and women populating the picture are there , so stay seated ) , all of which are jaw - droppingly absurd -- a feat that joe eszterhas ( the writer of , no matter how shiny the superficial sheen is , this is still trash , and , like all garbage , it stinks .

like a good action film should , " metro " has action that keeps you involved . some action films have action sequences that are so conventional , our attention is detracted and diverted by other thoughts . " the ghost in the darkness , " which opened a few months ago , is a film that s action was so bland and uninvolving , it not only invited my thoughts to divert me , it nearly put me asleep . but " metro " is one of the best action films in a while . it is hip , sharp , nifty , and has nice little pieces of suspense and comedy . eddie murphy was in bad shape for a while . and this invites me to mention last year s " the nutty professor , " which was his blessed revival back to the position at which he used to be . " metro " happens to be a lot better than any film in the " beverly hills cop " series . that is because " metro " takes itself seriously , but doesn t prevent itself from having a little fun . eddie murphy is at his best in the roles of responsible , and controlled people . the " beverly hills cop " movies all featured eddie as a reckless , wild cop , always crossing the line by just an inch . in " metro " he plays a hostage negotiator , so negotiation is his job , not his hobby or his preferred way out of trouble . his character in " metro " takes himself seriously . eddie murphy s mischievous trademark grin is hardly anywhere to be found in " metro , " and perhaps it is quite better off that way . murphy plays scott roper , and as i previously mentioned , he is a san francisco hostage negotiator . in the first tense situation in the film , we are introduced to roper s kind of work , as he tries to calm down a confused , unkempt young criminal who has taken captive the entire capacity of the san francisco bank he is holding up . murphy handles the scene seriously , without his usual happy - go - lucky , misfit humor . the film develops when its villain is established , and the villain here is the beguiling michael korda , a jewel thief , and murderer who likes to let cops know of his hostage fatalities by giving them the ear of the victim . " metro " takes different twists and slight turns , and there is one great , virtuoso chase scene , involving the a cable car . cars flip . cars crash . cars turn over . and it is done so good in this film , i was reminded of " speed , " and the speeding bus that couldn t go under fifty mile per hour for very significant reasons . there are also some other good scenes in " metro " that a lot of films would rather choose not to have . scenes like the one with roper and his new partner are at the horse track roper is a gambler who knows all the tricks and roper teaches his partner a few little methods of betting and winning . of course , the writers tried to disguise the scene as being insignificant by having roper draw parallels between hostage negotiation and gambling . the scenes between roper and his girlfriend are nice , too . those are the scenes that make up " metro , " which is mainly about eddie murphy s maturing as a personality . the actor that i most enjoyed seeing in " metro " was michael rapaport , who plays roper s new partner , a lip - reading , book - skimming genius , and a master of observation . it was not the actor s presence that pleased me as much as the role he was cast in the role of a proclaimed genius . rapaport is an actor who i usually see in the role of the dimwit the really , really dopey dimwit . i hardly recognized him in " metro , " and it was quite a joy to be able to see him in a role like this i feel that i respect him more . there are two main types of villains in movies like this : the ones that are part of the story , and the ones that are devices . the villain in " metro " is no more than a device , but he is a darn good villain nonetheless . he is played by michael wincott , whose voice is pushed out in a abraded rasp , as if he smokes a cigarette between every take . wincott makes his villain , korda , as mean as could be , the classic type of villain who would push an old lady down a flight of stairs just for kicks , like richard widmark in " kiss of death . " and , in addition , wincott s physical appearance and mannerisms , in the film , actually reminded my of an arrogant friend i use to have , who is no longer on my good list . i liked " metro , " and i do not think would have worked with any other actor but eddie murphy . his past roles were the great ones but they were also a precursor to the maturing that would later take place , possibly from murphy s growing as a person , now having a family . " metro " is a no - nonsense movie . it works as a buddy movie , which it does not overplay . it works as a dry comedy , which it does not overplay . it works as a suspense film , which it does not overplay . and it works as an action film , where it does have a tendency to occasionally go all - out . but who cares ? it still remains serious , and it does not overdo itself . oh , and there were plenty of explosions in " metro , " as well . how nice it was of the filmmakers to give us those . if there is one major objection i had to " metro " , it was the length , an area where a lot of action films seem to wear out their welcomes . " metro " is a film that lasted a little too long , but it was still entertaining , and it gave me something to do while i waited for it to end . paul haynes " >

0NEG

their welcomes . " metro " is a film that lasted a little too long , but it was still entertaining , and it gave

capsule : dumb dud of an entry in the body heat sweepstakes , and now something of a landmark for having spawned a jillion clones . basic instinct 's worst crime is that it 's not just a bad movie , but in many ways , an incompetent one as well . it 's stupid in itself , and stupid to think its audience is as stupid as it is . it 's supposed to be a thriller , but the plot is dead on its feet , and ultimately arbitrary ; it 's only put into the movie to jerk us around . it 's also supposed to be sexy , but it 's instead got the unpleasant rawness of a teenager showing younger kids his collections of dirty pictures . it 's a ripoff . the story opens with a rock star being murdered while in the throes of orgasm . the biggest suspect is an authoress , catherine tramell ( sharon stone ) , who wrote a novel in which the murder was eerily presaged . or maybe it 's the work of a copycat ? these and other plot threads get fed to the detective who 's on the case ( michael douglas ) , who has a few problems himself . like we wonder if his elevator goes to the top floor . we can measure with a stopwatch the time from them setting eyes on each other to the moment they are doing the mattress dance . joe eszterhas has written the screenplay , and he uses a device that he used before in the much better jagged edge : the killer 's identity is kept a secret until the movie 's final shot . this is n't in itself a problem -- the problem is that up until that point , we 've been given nothing to work with . every clue in the movie -- every clue -- is ambiguous . the whole thriller aspect of the movie is a shill . red herrings , dead plot threads , violence , and kinky sexuality litter the movie like potholes in manhattan streets . they add up to zip , because they 're not happening to people we care about . douglas 's character is foulmouthed and bitter and that 's it ; stone 's character has an iron - on smile that never changes ; the rest are forgettable . when we do n't even have the luxury of giving a damn about anyone in the movie , who cares what happens in it ? especially with an ending that is not only unsatisfying , but in many ways inexplicable ? ( a friend of mine once came up with a rule of thumb about movie characters : " if no one in the movie behaves like anyone you know , or would * care * to know , just leave ! " ) one of the nastier things about the movie is the way it treats lesbianism not as an integral part of someone 's life , but as a kind of kink -- something to thrill men with . i despair whenever i encounter this kind of stupidity in mainstream entertainment ; are we still so culturally neanderthal that the only way to include something like that in a big - budget hollywood film is as a hefnerism ?

0NEG

capsule : dumb dud of an entry in the body heat sweepstakes , and now something of for having spawned a jillion clones . basic instinct 's worst crime is that it 's not just a bad movie , but in many ways , an incompetent one as well . it 's stupid in itself , and stupid to think its audience is as stupid as it is . it 's supposed to be a thriller , but the plot is dead on its feet , and ultimately arbitrary ; it 's only put into the movie to jerk supposed to be sexy , but it 's instead got the unpleasant rawness of a teenager showing younger kids his collections of dirty pictures . it 's a ripoff . the story opens with a rock star being murdered -- the problem is that up until that point , we 've been given nothing to work with . every clue in the movie -- every clue -- . the whole thriller aspect of the movie is a shill . red herrings , dead plot threads , violence , and kinky sexuality litter the movie like potholes in manhattan streets . they add up to zip , because they 're not happening to people we care about . douglas 's character is foulmouthed and bitter and that 's it ; stone 's character has an iron - on smile that never changes ; the rest are forgettable . when we do n't even have the luxury of giving a damn about anyone in the movie , who cares what happens in it ? especially with an ending that is not only unsatisfying , but in many ways inexplicable ? ( a friend of mine once came up with care * to know , just leave ! " ) one of the nastier things about the movie is the way it treats lesbianism not kind of kink -- something to thrill men with . i despair whenever i encounter this kind of stupidity in mainstream entertainment ; are we still so culturally neanderthal

capsule : gal is a 50s - ish london cockney gangster who has retired to spain . his old associates want him for one last job and send the vicious don to give him an offer he ca n't refuse . a standout performance by ben kingsley as don can not save what is essentially a set of cliches recycled from old westerns . , 0 ( -4 to +4 ) roger ebert asks in his review of sexy beast , " who would have guessed that the most savage mad - dog frothing gangster in recent movies would be played by . . . ben kingsley ? " my response would be that anyone who has seen alan arkin in wait until dark , henry fonda in once upon a time in the west , or anthony hopkins in the silence of the lambs should have guessed it . they should know that the way for a film to create a really creepy sociopath is cast someone who generally plays mild , sympathetic , or even ineffectual character roles . the same characteristics that make an actor seem gentle in most of his roles can work in his favor when a role calls for him to be fierce and vicious . that is the principle that works for kingsley in sexy beast . gary " gal " dove ( played by ray winstone ) has retired from a london career of crime and is living on a luxurious villa in spain . life has become a routine of sunning himself and relaxing . but his paradise is about to be shattered by a one - two - punch . the first punch is a boulder that comes rolling down the hill next to the villa . the second punch comes from gal 's past . back in london gang boss teddy bass ( ian mcshane , tv 's lovejoy ) is planning to break into a safety deposit room in a bank and he wants gal . he sends his most rabid henchman don logan ( ben kingsley ) to fetch gal . don will accept any decision gal makes from " yes " to " certainly . " however , if gal says " no " don will do whatever it takes to turn it into a yes including threatening guy 's ex - porn- star wife deedee ( amanda redman ) . in the meantime don knows just how to get under everybody 's skin . kingsley makes don a compact package of fury and nastiness . there are some serious problems in louis mellis 's and david scinto 's script that should have been caught before filming . when we see the actual crime we have no idea why gal was so important to its success . beyond an ability to use skin - diving gear , no special talents are required of him . any local hood could have done what gal is needed for . additionally the crime involves digging from a swimming pool to the bank vault , flooding the vault . no only could they have let the water out of the pool and avoided the complication altogether , but there is by far too much water to be accounted for by what was in the pool . in spite of the provocative title , the story is cliched and overly familiar . i know i have seen all the plot elements of sexy beast in old westerns like the law and jake wade . the story is usually of the reformed outlaw , a robert taylor type , who has hung up his guns and is trying for a life of peaceful respectability . the old gang , however , wants to do one more job with their old buddy and sends a rabid richard widmark type to go and git ? i m . it is not a great plot . in sexy beast even the plot twists have gray beards . perhaps the film has a little more respectability because it was made not as a western but as a stylish british gangster film . it is an old plot dressed up to look new . if the plot is old , at least the style is creative . this is director jonathan glazer 's first film , but he has reputedly done some notable tv ads for guinness stout . his style does have some unexpected touches including some very odd dream sequences . cinematographer ivan bird uses a lot of half lit scenes . we see one side of a person 's faces . but the other side fades into the darkness , a sort of metaphor for the half - world these characters in - habit . half of everything that is happening is also kept hidden . we yanks will have a hard time with some of the dialog . at least in my theater it was difficult to make out the words with the quiet speaking , the heavy accents , and the cockney language . sexy beast is a very and familiar minor plot lent respectability in the us by being done in what is here a still somewhat novel genre , the london crime film . the plot may be new to british crime films , but it would be overly familiar as a western . further respectability comes from ben kingsley 's high - powered performance . i give it a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .

0NEG

by ben kingsley as don can not save what is essentially a set of cliches recycled from old westerns . , 0 ( -4 to +4 makes don a compact package of fury and nastiness . there are some serious problems in louis mellis 's and david scinto 's script that the pool . in spite of the provocative title , the story is cliched and overly familiar . i know i have seen all the plot elements widmark type to go and git ? i m . it is not a great plot . in sexy beast even the plot twists have gray plot may be new to british crime films , but it would be overly familiar as a western . further respectability comes from ben kingsley

synopsis : back - up quarterback moxxon becomes starting quarterback midway through his senior year of high school , even though he 'd rather read " slaughterhouse five " than the playbook . evil football coach kilmer throws away moxxon 's book , though , while the evil team physician injects painkillers into the players . in the meantime , moxxon 's kid brother forms a cult , and a bubblegum - blond cheerleader smears whip cream on herself to seduce the new star quarterback . comments : since i usually review horror and science fiction films , i feel a little out of my league discussing this teen football movie . ( pun intended . thank you ! ) varsity blues was produced by mtv , and it really shows . several extended scenes allow for a continual soundtrack of mediocre pop songs meant to appeal to the adolescent male audience this crap was intended for . the teenagers all have reasons for their melodramatic angst . the adults all have problems , of course , and , as one - dimensional characters , they are all fanatically obssessed with how their local high school football team performs . yes , this movie represents high school life in mtv - land . this is a land where your health teacher is also a part - time stripper , your ice cream store attendant girlfriend wears an egyptian ankh around her neck , your kid brother forms a " cute " cult , your football coach is an uncaring , obssessive madman , and your friends ' lives consist of nothing but getting laid and driving around in cop cars naked . all you , as the main character , want to do , however , is read " slaughterhouse five " and attend brown university in the fall . well , at least this is a little more realistic than mtv 's " the real world . " varsity blues stars james van der beek , this week 's teen tv star making the leap to the big screen . he plays the hick moxxon adequately , though some of his emotional dialogue will make people chuckle . ( " you dawn't own mah life ! " who would want to ? ) jon voight , the stock evil guy in countless other movies , is , surprise , the stock evil guy here . but is he really evil , or is he a product of society ? after all , everybody , young and old , in this movie has no life whatsoever and do nothing but obssess over high school football . maybe the pressures of the 90 screaming fans at the football field drove evil coach kilmer evil . the film 's screenplay never answers this burning question . at times , iliff 's story does show glimmers of touching or humorous scenes , but , before the audience gets their hopes up that there might be something redeeming in this movie , they get trashed with another lengthy party sequence or overwrought football game . the movie 's pacing is slow , and the plot turns are mindnumbingly obvious from start to finish . i suppose i 'm being a little hard on varsity blues . maybe i 'm just a little miffed that i had to pay 3 bucks to see it , even though it was dollar night at the cinema . something about a request from the studio made the theater charge more money . i found the film oftentimes ludicrous and boring . three guys in front of us smuggled beer into the the theater . i wished i had thought of that . alcohol , lots of it , may have helped the viewing experience .

0NEG

. several extended scenes allow for a continual soundtrack of mediocre pop songs meant to appeal to the adolescent male audience this crap was intended for . the teenagers all have reasons for adults all have problems , of course , and , as one - dimensional characters , they are all fanatically obssessed with how their local big screen . he plays the hick moxxon adequately , though some of his emotional dialogue will make people chuckle . ( " you dawn't own mah life ! " who would want to ? ) jon voight , the stock evil guy in countless other movies , is , surprise , the stock evil guy here . but is he really evil , or is he that there might be something redeeming in this movie , they get trashed with another lengthy party sequence or overwrought football game . the movie 's pacing is slow , and the plot turns are mindnumbingly obvious from start to finish . i suppose i 'm being a little hard on varsity blues . maybe i 'm just a little miffed that i had to pay 3 bucks to see it from the studio made the theater charge more money . i found the film oftentimes ludicrous and boring . three guys in front of us smuggled beer into

susan granger 's review of " american outlaws " ( warner bros . ) thomas edison 's " the great train robbery " ( 1903 ) was the first western ever made and " jesse james under the black flag " ( 1923 ) first introduced the outlaw folk hero . now , more than 20 similarly - themed pictures later , jesse james and his notorious gang of outlaws ride again in a banal mtv spin on an american legend . the story begins as jesse ( charasmatic colin farrell ) and his brother frank ( gabriel macht ) , cole and scott younger ( scott caan , will mccormack ) and trusty comanche tom ( nathaniel arcand ) , after four years of fighting for the rebs in the civil war , return to liberty , missouri - only to discover union troops are occupying their hometown . and an avaricious east coast railroad baron , thaddeus rains ( harris yulin ) , is forcing farmers to sell their land at less than true value , aided by allan pinkerton ( timothy dalton ) and his infamous detectives who , back then , were just thugs who provided security . but when ma james ( kathy bates ) becomes one of their victims , jesse and the rest of the guys ( gregory smith , ty o'neal , joe stevens ) form the james - younger gang to wreak revenge by attacking the railroad 's supply lines , sabotaging track and robbing the banks where the payroll is kept . plus there 's romance - between jesse and a spunky hometown gal , lee mimms ( ali larter ) . working from a politically - correct , clich ? -drenched , sanitized and revisionist screenplay by roderick taylor and john rodgers , director les mayfield keeps the action fast - paced and goes for lightweight laughs when he can . the choppy editing hurts but russell boyd 's cinematography , luke reichle 's designer duds and trevor rabin 's music lend authenticity . on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " american outlaws " is a galloping , formulaic 3 . it 's the wild west re - visited as a date movie .

0NEG

jesse james and his notorious gang of outlaws ride again in a banal mtv spin on an american legend . the story begins as jesse larter ) . working from a politically - correct , clich ? -drenched , sanitized and revisionist screenplay by roderick taylor and john rodgers , director les mayfield paced and goes for lightweight laughs when he can . the choppy editing hurts but russell boyd 's cinematography , luke reichle 's designer duds and trevor rabin 's music lend authenticity . on the of 1 to 10 , " american outlaws " is a galloping , formulaic 3 . it 's the wild west re - visited

dear god , this is a fantastically bad film ! regardless of what i say about knock off , you ca n't grasp its awfulness from my words . you have to see it and experience it for yourself . here 's the kicker , though -- i suggest that you do so . yes , this is a bad film -- easily one of the most incompetent films of the year -- but it has a certain misguided charm that makes it a unique kind of disaster to endure . in fact , i enjoyed myself for most of its brief running time , despite the dreadful acting and a completely incomprehensible story . do n't get me wrong : i 'm not excusing knock off . it reaches an unacceptable level of badness ; it 's so incoherent that i wonder if it was hacked up worse than the avengers was . it also features some truly terrible performances from lela rochon , michael wong , paul sorvino , and -- of course -- jean - claude van damme . it does , however , have the entertaining presence of rob schneider , and the excessively inventive and pretentious direction of tsui hark . as i watched it , i occasionally wondered if it was aware of its own awfulness . now , in retrospect , it seems clear that it was n't , but it 's still a fascinating kind of mess . i do n't like writing plot descriptions ( it is , by far , the most boring part of writing a review ) , but , in this case , i 'm off the hook : there is no way i could write an accurate synopsis for knock off . for the sake of comparison , i had no trouble understanding the usual suspects during my first viewing . i paid closer attention to knock off , and the only thing i am able to say about it is that van damme plays a dude named ray , and is accused by the cia ( i think ) of selling knock off products ( knock off products are , of course , products that look like name - brand materials but are generic and cheap ) . i do n't know what any of this has to do with martial arts , but there are lots of martial arts in the film . ray is good at martial arts , so when he has to beat up bad guys , there 's no problem . rob schneider plays his sidekick , although i had no idea who he really was by the end of the film . lela rochon is just some woman who accuses them of stuff , while paul sorvino is both the good guy and the bad guy at once ! in fact , every character goes through so many shifts from good to bad that the end provides absolutely no insight into what any of them really do . in that order , knock off is completely incoherent and makes absolutely no sense . but what a strange mess it is . it was written by stephen e . de souza , who also wrote die hard and 48 hours . can this be the same man ? i do n't see how , unless , of course , huge chunks of the film have been removed for the sake of running time . knock off seems to have an interesting premise ( as far as action films go ) , but there 's no semblance here . for instance , van damme is introduced , and then seconds later he 's running a chariot race through the streets of hong kong . why ? who knows . what are the implications of this ? i have no idea . most action films abandon depth in favor of action , and this is normally a problem . knock off , however , is the first film that i would have preferred to see with all of the talky sequences cut . the acting is embarrassingly bad : rochon , in particular , delivers each of her lines with stiff and talentless insincerity . sorvino , in addition , deserves better than this . van damme is bad , but he 's charming in that bad way , and so i ca n't say that he 's hard to watch ( although i rarely understood what he was saying ) . the only exception is rob schneider , who is actually quite funny a lot of the time . tsui utilizes so many tricks that he makes john woo look tame by comparison . they 're all pointless gimmicks though , such as shots of the inner - workings of a knock off running shoe . but his action scenes are never boring : one particular piece inside of a fruit factory ( a fruit factory ? ) is well - choreographed . lots of the scenes are pitched well to comedy , such as our heroes ' first encounter with the rochon character . but did tsui know that his film is beyond ludicrous ? i hope he did , for the alternative is a frightening thought . knock off has the feel of a truly terrible exercise in camp mania . if it were boring , i 'd give it zero stars . but it 's not boring : it 's loud and excessive and completely incoherent . it 's also funny , even when it is n't meaning to be funny . a bad film that succeeds as entertainment does n't deserve to be fully lambasted . i recognize knock off for its irrefutable badness , but i ca n't deny it 's zany , useless charm . oh , i know , they 're just action scenes looking desperately for a real story , but they 're fun action scenes amongst a crowd of laughably inane concepts . it 's fun to admire the awfulness of a film like this , but that does n't excuse the fact that it is , indeed , awful .

0NEG

dear god , this is a fantastically bad film ! regardless of what i say about knock off , you ca n't grasp its awfulness from my words . you have to see it and experience it for , though -- i suggest that you do so . yes , this is a bad film -- easily one of the most incompetent films of the year -- but it has a certain misguided charm that makes it a unique kind of disaster to endure . in fact , i enjoyed myself for most of its brief running time , despite the dreadful acting and a completely incomprehensible story . do n't get me wrong : i 'm not excusing knock off . it reaches an unacceptable level of badness ; it 's so incoherent that i wonder if it was hacked up worse than the avengers was . it also features some truly terrible performances from lela rochon , michael wong , paul sorvino , direction of tsui hark . as i watched it , i occasionally wondered if it was aware of its own awfulness . now , in retrospect , it seems clear that it was n't , but it 's still a fascinating kind of mess . i do n't like writing plot descriptions ( it martial arts , so when he has to beat up bad guys , there 's no problem . rob schneider plays while paul sorvino is both the good guy and the bad guy at once ! in fact , every character goes through so many shifts from good to bad that the end provides absolutely no insight into what any of them really do . in that order , knock off is completely incoherent and makes absolutely no sense . but what a strange mess it is . it was written by stephen e . who knows . what are the implications of this ? i have no idea . most action films abandon depth in favor of action to see with all of the talky sequences cut . the acting is embarrassingly bad : rochon , in particular , delivers each of her lines with stiff and talentless insincerity . sorvino , in

welcome to your oh - so typical sequel . it tries to be twice as big as it 's predecessor , yet ends up twice as shallow . shallow . . . . hmm . . . now there 's an idea . maybe if the ill - fated cruise liner in this movie had struck a shallow reef early on things may have turned out better . the first thing that struck me . . . and surprised me , was that the camera work ( for the opening sequence anyway ) was terrible . looked like the cameramen were drunk and kept tripping on their own feet . . . . . . very different to the original movie . the characters ? well , not many of the characters actually * had * characters , but here 's a rundown . annie , who was the highlight of the the original , must have seriously banged her head in the train crash at the end of the first movie . why ? because something 's got to account for her losing that many iq points . even though annie was n't exactly a rocket scientist in speed , here some of her actions just make you want to beat your head against a wall . for instance , after successfully using a chainsaw to cut a hole in a door so that a group of people can escape noxious gases - she stands in the middle of the opening for about five minutes till someone reminds her that the people ca n't get ut till she get 's the chainsaw out of their faces . . . . bang bang bang in point of fact sandra 's character is turned into little more than one of those scantly dressed extras from hercules , who constantly has to be rescued . jason patric ? all i can say is bring back keanu . keanu reeves might have the emotional range of a tree stump . . . but that 's one more tree stump than jason has . i do n't think he changed facial expressions all movie - jason , smile for the cameras ! ! now frown ! . . . i said frown . . . . oh . . . you are . . . bang bang bang . . wooden just does n't describe this guys performance , but it 'll have to do . the bad guy . . . . . ahh . . . william dafoe - there 's a bright move . how can you go wrong with the star from that acknowledged classic , body of evidence ? ( yes , that is sarcasm ) . his wide eyed maniac of a character does n't start out too bad . . . . but goes steadily downhill as the movie progresses . in the end he degenerates to chasing annie around for a hostage , even though he already has the money and can escape . . . . bang bang . though i 'd like to give this movie a double thumbs down , there were some nice sequences . considering the movie cost over 100 million dollars - you 'd hope there 'd be at least a couple . the real eye - popper for me , even though it was given away in the trailer . . . . bang bang . . . . . was the sequence where the cruise liner sideswipes the oil tanker . this looks terrific and i was very surprised to hear that the cruise liner in it was . . . . completely computer generated ! wow . . . . i do n't think i 've ever seen a cg model look so real before . the sequence where jason patric in trying to disable the propellers from under the ship is also terrific , and the only time during the entire movie where you get that feeling of . . . . speed . this lack - of - speed problem affects many sequences . such as the oil tanker part . . . . . it was - " oh no , we 're going to hit the oil tanker ! " , 20 minutes later - " oh no , we 're going to hit the oil tanker ! " 20 min . . . . you get the point . this movie failed simply because it did n't live up to it 's name . . . . there was very little feeling of speed . in the original movie , the lead characters had to make split second decisions to survive . . . . . in this movie it felt more like - " well people , we 're gon na run into that there island in a few hours - i think i might stroll over to engineering and see if i ca n't turn off the engines . . . i 'm passing the cafeteria on the way , can i get anybody anything ? " the ending of this movie really is terrible . even though it features what i 've since found out is one of the most expensive sequences ever in a movie - it just does n't work at all . the part where the liner crashes through the town looks very realistic , but . . . . surprise surprise - it just takes waaaaay too long . it seemed to go for 15 minutes before the ship finally stopped . one thing that struck me as extremely poor scriptiing was that as the ship crashes through the harbour and town , around 25 people are killed by the ship . . . . and there 's only 15 or so people left on the ship . so when it stops safe and sound and the characters are all cheering - the audience is sitting back and thinking - " wait a sec . . . this is a happy moment because ? " bang bang then there was the dog . . . . . i almost fell out of my seat when i saw the bit with the dog dodging the falling debris . putting a dog in peril has become the ultimate hollywood cliche . . . . . . every movie seems to have a ' dog - in - danger ' sequence - volcano , dante 's peak , independence day , daylight , twister . lost world . . . . . . etc , etc . this movie is a perfect example of how not to make a sequel . director jan de bont should try watching the orignal movie and this one back - to - back and see if he realises where he went wrong .

0NEG

be twice as big as it 's predecessor , yet ends up twice as shallow . shallow . . . . hmm . . . now there 's an idea camera work ( for the opening sequence anyway ) was terrible . looked like the cameramen were drunk and kept tripping on their own feet . . . . . . very different to the original movie . the characters ? well , not many of the characters actually * had * characters , but here 's a rundown . annie , who rocket scientist in speed , here some of her actions just make you want to beat your head against a wall . for instance , after successfully using a chainsaw to that 's one more tree stump than jason has . i do n't think he changed facial expressions all movie - jason , smile for the cameras ! ! now you are . . . bang bang bang . . wooden just does n't describe this guys performance , but it 'll have to do . the bad n't start out too bad . . . . but goes steadily downhill as the movie progresses . in the end he degenerates get that feeling of . . . . speed . this lack - of - speed problem affects many sequences . such as the oil tanker part . . . you get the point . this movie failed simply because it did n't live up to it 's name . . . . there was very little feeling of get anybody anything ? " the ending of this movie really is terrible . even though it features what i 've since found realistic , but . . . . surprise surprise - it just takes waaaaay too long . it seemed to go for 15 minutes before the ship finally stopped . one thing that struck me as extremely poor scriptiing was that as the ship crashes through the harbour and falling debris . putting a dog in peril has become the ultimate hollywood cliche . . . . . . every movie seems to , etc . this movie is a perfect example of how not to make a sequel . director jan de bont should try watching the orignal

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

0NEG

began watching it . strike one was the fact that someone had scrawled the word garbage on the videotape 's sticker in black marker ( not typically a good sign when you rent a watching the trailers that come before it ? well , the cheesy films being advertised before tracks of a killer were films that no one ever heard of starring people no one knows , and they all looked bad ( definately not a good sign ) . tracks of a killer itself completed the strikeout . about the only positive thing this film had going couple larson will later threaten . brolin 's character , for some inexplicable reason , thinks its a great idea to spend some time time the characters arrive at the cabin , this film begins to become tedious . apparently , brolin 's successor 's test involves chopping with an hour to go and only three characters , which really is n't enough to sustain it . the film 's writer must have taken a cue to be killed again by the killer in a scene so ludicrous it 's worthy of a chuckle or two . outside of that chuckle , unfortunately , tracks of a killer will just bore you as the obvious plot is drawn out ad infinitum and the actors , for some reason , become increasing obnoxious . if you 're in a video store and thinking about renting this turkey , do n't . make tracks to a far superior

there should be a requirement that a potential viewer be under a certain film iq in order to see " mission to mars . " there are probably quite a few people who are going to enjoy it , and most of them will probably be those who have seen very few films of its kind . but there are those who will not , and those will most likely be people who have already seen one or more of the following movies : " 2001 : a space odyssey , " " armageddon , " " apollo 13 , " " the abyss , " " close encounters of the third kind , " " e . t . the extra - terrestrial , " " alien , " and " aliens . " why ? because there is not one original idea in " mission to mars . " all of it is cribbed from other films ( and in most cases , better films ) . if this is the sort of thing you do n't mind , you might like the film . of course , there are other reasons not to like " mission to mars , " the main one being a script written by people who seem to assume their audience is filled with people who have n't used their brains in some time , and who do n't intend to start during the film 's running time . " mission to mars " manages to be both stupid and boring at the same time . the plot , cribbed greatly from " 2001 , " concerns a team sent to mars , the first manned trip ever made to the red planet . luke graham ( don cheadle ) leads the team , jointly formed of americans and russians . the team encounters a mysterious monolith that emits a strange pulse ( this being nothing like the pulse - emitting monolith in " 2001 " -- that one was on the * moon * ) , but when they try to study it , a giant sand tornado comes out of the top and swallows them ( all except luke , who survives long enough to send a garbled message back to the rotating space station , which looks strangely like the rotating space station in " 2001 " ) . a rescue mission is planned with husband & wife team woody blake ( tim robbins ) and terri fisher ( connie nielsen ) , obligatory pilot with a troubled past jim mcconnell ( gary sinise ) , and extra crew member phil ohlmyer ( jerry o'connell ) along for the ride . after some zero - gravity dancing , they run into problems when one of their engines is blown , forcing them to attempt a desperate landing aboard a supply vessel . now stranded on mars with minimal supplies , the team must decide whether or not it can risk entering the monolith or if they should return home . after all , that monolith just might contain information about how life originated on earth . " mission to mars " is one of those films that makes a critic wonder where to start when talking about all the things that are wrong with it , so let 's start with one of the things that does work : director brian de palma manages to create some eerie tension in a few scenes during the middle of the film . that 's it . everything else fails . the failure is n't de palma 's fault ; he 's working from an atrocious script . only during the sequence aboard the ship ( looking an awful lot like the jupiter vessel in " 2001 " ) where the rescue team 's air begins running out and they must frantically search for the hole and patch it up does " mission to mars " come to life . a scene where they attempt to save a comrade floating away into space also provides some tension , until you realize that the entire danger / more danger / attempted rescue sequence has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film ; it 's just a contrived way to generate thrilling scenes . take it out , and the plot is n't affected in any way . the sequence also suffers from a few plot holes ( as does the rest of the film ) : why is the ship 's computer ( which sounds strangely like hal from , uh , " 2001 " ) able to detect a hole in the main chamber but not one in the engine ? why did tim robbins ' character have to go outside the ship when the solution easily presented itself from inside ? should n't the astronauts be better trained to deal with a hull breach ? why are the characters such idiots ? because the script makes little attempt to properly develop them . all the " conflict " is clumsily delivered in excruciatingly obvious exposition in the opening scene ( which rips off orson welles and robert altman by utilizing a long opening tracking shot ) during which the characters repeatedly tell each other about things all of them should already know : " jim , it 's too bad you ca n't go on this mission because you were determined ' psychologically inadequate ' because your wife died right before you were to go on the mission together " -- does anyone really talk like this ? ca n't we find out these things in a less grating matter , like maybe in a flashback ? the whole film is like that . the filmmakers are not content to merely show us something and assume we know what 's going on ; they must * tell * us exactly what we 're looking at * every * time . sample dialogue from the film : ( shot of mars ) astronaut a : " look , there 's mars " astronaut b : " you sure that 's mars ? " astronaut a : " yeah , that 's mars all right . " astronaut c : " hey , are you guys looking at mars ? " that exchange is n't actually in " mission to mars , " but i would n't be surprised if it were . for all their cribbing from kubrick , spielberg , james cameron , and even ron howard , the makers of this film have n't learned to do something all those directors did very well : show and do n't tell . de palma used to know how , but seems to have forgotten . this is mentally - challenged filmmaking ; they assume the audience wo n't get what 's going on , so they explain everything five times over . fourth - graders may appreciate this , but more learned viewers will have their intelligence insulted . the principal actors sleepwalk their way through " mission to mars , " never managing to do away with an apparent " i 'm just here to get a paycheck " attitude . cheadle stumbles over his awkward lines . armin mueller - stahl manages to thoroughly embarrass himself in an unbilled cameo . robbins puts his game face on and phones in his standard " decent guy " performance . and sinise hams it up with " wistful " facial expressions while watching tapes of his dead wife ( played by kim delaney , who only has one scene during which she still manages to deliver some ridiculous dialogue in a heavy - handed monologue about the meaning of life ) , and especially during the stolen - from - no - less - than - three - movies ( a lollipop to whoever names them ) conclusion , which combines endless , obvious explanation and sub - par cgi effects with gagging sentimentality and is sure to alienate any viewers who had been enjoying the show up until then . and of course , these aliens from mars who facilitated the evolution of life on earth are entirely different from the aliens in " 2001 " who facilitated the evolution of life on earth ; those aliens were from an * unknown * world . it could be said that fans of brainless action films might enjoy " mission to mars , " but such a comment ignores the fact that the film is also incredibly slow - going . leisurely pacing might have helped a film with a little more substance to it , but all of the substance of " mission to mars " has been stolen from other films , and those other films dealt with their ideas in a much more thoughtful fashion and generally contained more engaging characters . supposedly we 're intended to choke up when one character decides not to return home at the end of this one ( totally different from the one - character - decides - not - to - return ending of " armageddon " ) , but i suspect most people will either be laughing or groaning . me , i alternated between the two . there is only one good thing about the way " mission to mars " finally ends : the fact that the movie is over .

0NEG

, " and " aliens . " why ? because there is not one original idea in " mission to mars . " all of it is cribbed from other films ( and in most cases , better films ) . film 's running time . " mission to mars " manages to be both stupid and boring at the same time . the plot , cribbed greatly from " 2001 , " concerns a team sent to makes a critic wonder where to start when talking about all the things that are wrong with it , so let 's start with one of the things the middle of the film . that 's it . everything else fails . the failure is n't de palma 's fault ; he 's working from an atrocious script . only during the sequence aboard the ship ( looking the entire danger / more danger / attempted rescue sequence has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film ; it 's just a contrived way to generate thrilling scenes . take it out , and plot is n't affected in any way . the sequence also suffers from a few plot holes ( as does the rest of the film ) : breach ? why are the characters such idiots ? because the script makes little attempt to properly develop them . all the " conflict " is clumsily delivered in excruciatingly obvious exposition in the opening scene ( which rips off orson welles together " -- does anyone really talk like this ? ca n't we find out these things in a less grating matter , like maybe in a flashback ? the whole film how , but seems to have forgotten . this is mentally - challenged filmmaking ; they assume the audience wo n't get what 's - graders may appreciate this , but more learned viewers will have their intelligence insulted . the principal actors sleepwalk their way through " mission just here to get a paycheck " attitude . cheadle stumbles over his awkward lines . armin mueller - stahl manages to thoroughly embarrass himself in an unbilled cameo . robbins puts his game face delaney , who only has one scene during which she still manages to deliver some ridiculous dialogue in a heavy - handed monologue about the meaning of life )

underwater science fiction stays submerged sphere a film review by michael redman copyright 1998 by michael redman one of the most unpleasant experiences that can occur in a movie theater is when a cast of fine actors end up in a film that wastes their talents . you keep thinking what they might have accomplished with the time they squandered . psychologist norman goodman ( dustin hoffman ) is called to the middle of the pacific ocean to work with the survivors of a plane crash . when he arrives at the site , he discovers that there is no plane , but rather an enormous spacecraft that has been sitting 1 , 000 feet below the surface for almost 300 years . having written a paper for the bush administration on how to handle first contact , he is chosen to head up the team of scientists investigating the ship . his group as outlined in his report , consists of beth halperin ( sharon stone ) , a biochemist ; harry adams ( samuel l . jackson ) , a mathematician ; and ted fielding ( liev schreiber ) , an astrophysicist . unfortunately it turns out that the writing was a blow - off project for goodman who did it for the money and named his then - colleagues to the team . " after all , " he explains , " who reads government documents ? " lead by harold barnes ( peter coyote ) , a top secret federal operative , the group descends to a mobile undersea headquarters set up next to the alien vessel . once there they stroll over , knock on the door and explore the still - operational ufo . discovering the surprising origin of the ship and the crew finds an astonishing gigantic golden liquid metal sphere . when adams enters the sphere , the weirdness unfolds . a storm rolls in on the surface and the team is forced to remain below just as an unseen presence begins to communicate through their computer . " my name is jerry . i am happy " flashes across the screen . this is unsettling for the psychologist . " what happens if jerry gets mad ? " he asks . barnes is more pragmatic : he needs a last name because he ca n't put in his report that they made contact with an alien named jerry . then the situation turns bad . deadly beasts appear from nowhere . a gang of jellyfish kills one of the navy personnel . lethal sea snakes attack goodman . a giant squid batters the habitat just as adams is reading " 20 , 000 leagues under the sea " . the suspicious scientists turn against each other . this has all the makings of a first - rate thinking man 's science fiction film . however even the finest ingredients do n't go very far in the hands of a chief who does n't seem to care about his product . director barry levinson has churned out a mish - mosh that does n't engage the audience beyond a few skillful suspense scenes . the first of the film zooms by as the situation and players are introduced without any characterization or justification . it 's much like speed - reading a novel and realizing that you missed the nuances . it does n't get any better when the action scenes begin . while the actors do an adequate job with their limited roles , the people are still flat . oddly they hardly have reactions when deaths occur around them . after adams experiences the interior of the sphere , no one bothers to ask him what happened . their history together is an intriguing plot device but is barely exploited . even goodman and halperin 's ill - conceived affair when she was his student is just mentioned in passing . her psychotic tendencies are talked about but never convincing . there 's a truism that items shown early in a movie must be used before the ending , but here they are far too obvious . when an emergency mini - sub is explained , you know what 's going to happen . the movie affectations are nothing more than distracting . chapter headings that divide the movie have no function . the shaky camera work muddies already perplexing chaos . much of what goes on is confusing and difficult to follow . although some of the disorientation eventually is understandable , a great deal of it is n't . even a science fiction film must be internally consistent . there 's too much here that does n't make sense . are the manifestations real ? the jellyfish kill queen latifa ( in a throw - away role ) and the squid nearly destroys the outpost , but the bites of the fatal snakes have no effect . a scene in the sub suggests that it 's illusion , but earlier episodes indicate that it 's not . not everything has to be explained to death , but there are major questions that the film never answers . where the ship came from is clarified , but how it ended up on the ocean floor in 1709 is merely alluded to . even the enigmatic sphere is still mysterious when the credits roll . the climax is followed by 15 minutes of epilogue that does little but weaken the already labored tale . after pre - release audience testing , the actors were called back to re - shoot the ending . it 's difficult to imagine how the original could have been worse . following the recent tradition of lengthy films , this weighs in at over two very long hours . the weak scenes could have been cut , but then there would n't have been much left . the movie was supposedly held up by effects work , but there 's nothing special on the screen . we never even see the monstrous squid or the menacing storm . stealing from " alien " , " the abyss " and the disastrous " event horizon " , this film has learned nothing from them . remarkably levinson and hoffman 's other currently showing film is " wag the dog " , a smart and entertaining piece of work . this one could have been titled the same sans one word .

0NEG

film review by michael redman copyright 1998 by michael redman one of the most unpleasant experiences that can occur in a movie theater is when a cast of fine actors end up in a film that wastes their talents . you keep thinking what they might have accomplished with to care about his product . director barry levinson has churned out a mish - mosh that does n't engage the audience beyond a few skillful suspense scenes . the first of the film zooms by as the situation and players are introduced without any characterization or justification . it 's much like speed - reading a novel . while the actors do an adequate job with their limited roles , the people are still flat . oddly they hardly have reactions when deaths occur around happened . their history together is an intriguing plot device but is barely exploited . even goodman and halperin 's ill - conceived affair in passing . her psychotic tendencies are talked about but never convincing . there 's a truism that items shown early in be used before the ending , but here they are far too obvious . when an emergency mini - sub is explained , what 's going to happen . the movie affectations are nothing more than distracting . chapter headings that divide the movie have no function . the shaky camera work muddies already perplexing chaos . much of what goes on is confusing and difficult to follow . although some of the disorientation eventually is understandable , even a science fiction film must be internally consistent . there 's too much here that does n't make sense . are the manifestations real ? the jellyfish kill queen not everything has to be explained to death , but there are major questions that the film never answers . where the ship came from is clarified , but the climax is followed by 15 minutes of epilogue that does little but weaken the already labored tale . after pre - release audience testing , the actors worse . following the recent tradition of lengthy films , this weighs in at over two very long hours . the weak scenes could have been cut , but then there would n't have been much left even see the monstrous squid or the menacing storm . stealing from " alien " , " the abyss " and the disastrous " event horizon " , this film has learned nothing from them . remarkably levinson and hoffman 's other currently showing film

renowned hong kong action director tsui hark first teamed with jean - claude van damme on the action star 's 1997 pairing with dennis rodman , _ double_team _ , and managed to make what initially appeared to be a disaster into a slick , stylish , and somewhat diverting action timekiller . tsui continues to energetically pile on the visual razzle dazzle in his latest collaboration with the muscles from brussels , _ knock_off _ , but this time around , style neither save a script that is at best ridiculous , and at worst incomprehensible ; nor hide a host of truly lousy performances . writer steven e . desouza 's fairly straightforward plotline is n't as outre as _ double_team _ 's strange yarn involving a secret think tank / prison , but it makes about as much sense , which is little . van damme plays marcus ray , a hong kong - based sales rep for a jeans company ( ! ) who stumbles upon a russian terrorist scheme to implant powerful microchip - sized bombs in hk product exports to the u . s . --dolls , electronic equipment , and , yes , jeans . it 's all part of some type of ransom scheme , but all i remember is -- and i kid you not -- graphics on a cia computer screen showing a map of the world , bombs detonating , and an hat - wearing figure on the other side of the world bursting out into laughter . . . . . . which is what the crowd at the showing i attended spontaneously did throughout _ knock_off _ . while all of van damme 's films have its share of unintentional laughs , mostly due to the stiff acting " skills " of the physically agile van damme , _ knock_off _ delivers more than usual ( though not as many as van damme 's embarrassing directorial effort , 1996 's _ the_quest _ ) . a lot of the laughs are earned by some particularly painful lines by desouza : " i smoked that badass like a roman candle ! " and " entrepreneurship , babycakes ! " standing out among my favorites . but it is indeed the pathetic performances that provide the bulk of _ knock_off _ 's laughs . van damme is true to laughable form , perhaps even worse than usual . early scenes actually _ require _ him to make funny with co - star rob schneider ( improbably cast as a deep cover cia agent posing as marcus 's business partner ) , and the sight and sound of the still - heavily - accented van damme haplessly trying to drop punchlines is hilarious in the wrong way . even typically good actors are not immune to the bad acting bug . paul sorvino is unconvincing and terribly overwrought as schneider 's cia superior ; and lela rochon , playing an investigator for the jeans company , spends the entire movie in perpetual snarl mode . in rochon 's defense , though , her role requires her to do little more than display her toned legs , exquisite bone structure , and perky bosoms , the latter coming in handy for one key scene where she must fish for microbombs stuck in her ample cleavage . tsui picks up where he left off visually in _ double_team _ , juicing up the proceedings with inventive camera work . here , though , tsui 's visual razzle dazzle borders on over kill , coming off as desperate attempts to shield the inanity of the entire enterprise . for each nifty trick tsui pulls off , such as a recurring visual theme that has the camera literally going through the circuitry of electronic devices , there are others that are completely superfluous . this is especially disconcerting when the trick in question could be clever when used in the right context . for instance , one scene early on has marcus putting his hand in a box . as he puts his hand in , the same action is shown from an overhead camera angle in a rectangle at the corner of the screen . it 's undoubtedly an interesting visual , but it would have been nice if its use actually amounted to something . the test of a van damme movie boils down to the action sequences , but surprisingly , those in _ knock_off _ leave much to be desired . tsui does what he can to make something of them , employing freeze frames , blurred motion , and unconventional camera angles , but there is nothing fundamentally special about the fairly generic chase and fight sequences written by desouza . there is n't anything as preposterously amusing as the climactic tiger / land mine fight in _ double_team _ , let alone anything remotely close to tsui 's legendary hong kong works ( but that 's a given going in ) . if tsui has any hope of approaching his countryman john woo 's stateside success , he would do best to break free from van damme . . . before it 's too late . if he continues his involvement with b - grade movies such as _ knock_off _ , the respect he has from hk action fans will continue to diminish . . . that is , if it has n't already disappeared entirely after this fiasco .

0NEG

_ knock_off _ , but this time around , style neither save a script that is at best ridiculous , and at worst incomprehensible ; nor hide a host of truly lousy performances . writer steven e . desouza 's fairly straightforward plotline hong kong - based sales rep for a jeans company ( ! ) who stumbles upon a russian terrorist scheme to implant powerful all part of some type of ransom scheme , but all i remember is -- and i kid you not -- graphics on a cia computer screen showing a map of the world , bombs detonating , and an hat - wearing figure on the other side of the world bursting out into laughter . . . . . . which is what the all of van damme 's films have its share of unintentional laughs , mostly due to the stiff acting " skills " standing out among my favorites . but it is indeed the pathetic performances that provide the bulk of _ knock_off _ 's laughs . van damme is true to laughable form , perhaps even worse than usual . early scenes actually _ require _ him to make sound of the still - heavily - accented van damme haplessly trying to drop punchlines is hilarious in the wrong way . even typically good actors are not immune to the bad acting bug . paul sorvino is unconvincing and terribly overwrought as schneider 's cia superior ; and lela rochon , playing an investigator for the jeans company , spends the entire movie in perpetual snarl mode . in rochon 's defense , though , her role inventive camera work . here , though , tsui 's visual razzle dazzle borders on over kill , coming off as desperate attempts to shield the inanity of the entire enterprise . for each nifty trick tsui pulls off , such circuitry of electronic devices , there are others that are completely superfluous . this is especially disconcerting when the trick in question could be clever when used sequences , but surprisingly , those in _ knock_off _ leave much to be desired . tsui does what he can to make something of , blurred motion , and unconventional camera angles , but there is nothing fundamentally special about the fairly generic chase and fight sequences written by desouza . there is is , if it has n't already disappeared entirely after this fiasco .

upon first viewing of this movie , the phrases " been there " and " done that " come quickly to mind . spy hard manages to steal almost every joke from the zucker brothers films , the most popular of which are airplane and the naked gun series . stealing stuff can be profitable in this industry , but only when you steal the right stuff . what little plot there is involves dick steele , aka . agent wd-40 ( leslie nielsen ) trying to save the world from an almost deranged madman played by andy griffith . along the way to it goal ( goal ? ) , the film manages to spoof mainly the james bond type films , but also manages to hit on films such as home alone and sister act . the trick about spoofing is that you have to actually be funny , or at the least , satirical . spy hard achieves neither , as it borrows all of the wrong elements from the superior zucker brothers films . the " dick , the world is in danger . what is it ? well , it 's a big roundish ball floating in space around the sun . . ( i 'm paraphrasing ) " type of exchange is used at least four times in the opening ten minutes of the film , each time getting progressively less funny . what they should have stolen were the background sight gags which were so effective in the zucker brother 's films while writing their own dialogue . director rick friedberg focuses more on the mug shots of his actors ( especially nielsen , who can do this quite well ) than on the delivery and context of their lines , much of the time cutting the punchline short . the whole film seems to be in a race with itself to be over , as is evident in the final sequence , where there is no comedic denouement after the climax . as was usual in the zucker brothers films and in spy hard , the end credits tend to replace this by being out of context . one of the more amusing was , " captain of the enterprise . . . . . . james t . kirk " . overall , i thought this was a very weak effort . while all of the right films to spoof were chosen , they used none of the right spoofing methods . next time they should " spy " a little bit harder . * * * * = excellent . one of a kind . must see . * * * = entertaining . worth the price of admission . * * = fair . nothing much special . * = what were they thinking ? ?

0NEG

upon first viewing of this movie , the phrases " been there " and " done that " come quickly to mind . spy hard manages to steal almost every joke from the zucker brothers films , the most popular of least , satirical . spy hard achieves neither , as it borrows all of the wrong elements from the superior zucker brothers films . the " dick times in the opening ten minutes of the film , each time getting progressively less funny . what they should have stolen were the background sight and context of their lines , much of the time cutting the punchline short . the whole film seems to be in a race with itself to be over , as is evident in the final sequence , where there is no comedic denouement after the climax . as was usual in the zucker . kirk " . overall , i thought this was a very weak effort . while all of the right films to spoof were chosen , they used none of the right spoofing methods . next time they should " spy " a little

first impressions : critically , a close - to - awful film , but money - wise , it has been doing ( and will continue to do ) great . a sometimes - funny film that sags and lags and oftentimes gets boring . an orginal plot that grows old real fast . one of the only 90 minute films that i 've gotten bored through . men in black has defied the odds . when i first saw that the flick was 89 minutes long , i thought maybe that this was a poor attempt at an independence day type film that just ran out of gas . however , i now realize that not only did men in black run out of gas , but the film in 90 minutes manages to show off a very original idea ( which summer audiences have embraced ) that becomes old about 25 minutes into the movie . tommy lee jones and will smith play two " government " agents who are responsible for keeping order in alien society . the ridiculous plot begins when an alien " bug " , played weirdly by vincent d'onofrio , who was so great in full metal jacket , lands on earth to retrieve a galaxy that 's somewhere on " orion 's belt . " anyway , the basic plot revolves around jones and smith to stop this bug from getting the galaxy , or a higher power will blow up the earth . the premise is ridulous , but that is not why i did n't like this film . i love original plots . this one had an original one . but director barry sonnenfeld did something to this film that ruined its plot : he made the film drag and also put in unncessary elements in it that are found in romance films . whenever i saw d'onofrio 's bug stomp and eat people in the film , it got terribly boring after a while . while smith 's wise - cracks did fill in the gaps , it was n't enough . and also , i can not believe the screenwriters elected to have a sub - plot where tommy lee jones missed his former lover because as an alien agent , they ca n't have contact with any humans really . and here i see jones , at a satellite computer , watching his lover plant the garden ? a sentimental moment in an alien movie ? nice try , but i do n't think so . it does n't work here . it just makes the movie even more ridiculous and even more boring : we do n't only have aliens to worry about , but now we have jones 's conscience . i came into the movie not wanting to see jones 's conscience , but wanting to see a real action movie that had lots of aliens in it . maybe it 's unfair that i partly judged this movie on what my expectations were . nevertheless , even though some parts are indeed funny , the plot in this movie grew old and boring -- quick .

0NEG

first impressions : critically , a close - to - awful film , but money - wise , it has been doing ( a sometimes - funny film that sags and lags and oftentimes gets boring . an orginal plot that grows old real fast . one of the only 90 minute films that i 've gotten bored through . men in black has defied the odds . when i now realize that not only did men in black run out of gas , but the film in 90 minutes manages to show original idea ( which summer audiences have embraced ) that becomes old about 25 minutes into the movie . tommy lee jones are responsible for keeping order in alien society . the ridiculous plot begins when an alien " bug " , played weirdly or a higher power will blow up the earth . the premise is ridulous , but that is not why i did n't like did something to this film that ruined its plot : he made the film drag and also put in unncessary elements in it that are found in romance films . whenever 's bug stomp and eat people in the film , it got terribly boring after a while . while smith 's wise - cracks nice try , but i do n't think so . it does n't work here . it just makes the movie even more ridiculous and even more boring : we do n't only have aliens to worry about nevertheless , even though some parts are indeed funny , the plot in this movie grew old and boring -- quick .

there are movies that pose a question in its first five minutes and spend the rest of the time trying to answer it . then there are movies that spend the whole time posing questions and try to answer it all in the last five minutes . writer - director john herzfeld 's two days in the valley falls into the latter category . weaving together a grabbag of seemingly unrelated characters , herzfeld 's tries very hard to keep the audience guessing with a altmanesque series of parallel stories . hitmen lee ( james spader ) and his partner dosmo ( danny aiello ) pop a guy in bed while leaving his drugged wife becky fox ( teri hatcher ) lying next to him showing the audience where on her behind she got nicely pricked . an understandeably shocked becky runs out of the house the next morning before hailing down a couple of vice cops , ( jeff daniels ) and wes ( eric stoltz ) . a murder is not vice territory , flirting with asian prostitues is , but wes would rather play inquisitive detective . meanwhile , washed - up director , teddy ( paul mazursky ) is about to end his life . but before he can do that , he must find a good home for his dog . enter nurse audrey ( marsha mason ) , who takes the dog and teddy for a ride . stuffy art dealer , allan hopper ( greg cruttwell ) has kidney stones . while struggling about his fancy house , he switches between moaning in self - pity and dropping condescending hints about his loyal secretary 's ( glenne headly ) plain appearance . do n't be surprised if you find yourself asking more than once just what the hell is going on . you might like that feeling of cluelessness . herzfeld does answer all the questions in the course of time and pieces it all rather neatly in the last five minutes . the jigsaw puzzle assembled is n't stunning by any means though . the characters lack the stature or moral complexity of altman 's real - life heroes in short cuts , even though they are interesting and funny . funny , that is if you are n't comparing them to the likes of tarantino 's pulp chcaracters . the tie - up is tidy but nowhere near the squeaky clean resolution of ( director 's name ? guy who also did last seduction ) red rock west . two days is n't a bad movie but there is n't much else to it than the screenplay novelty of the linkage of seemingly unrelated characters . it 'll keep you guessing alright but you wo n't remember the answers five minutes after the credits . the flying inkpot rating system : * wait for the tv2 broadcast . * * a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha ! * * * pretty good , bring a friend . * * * * amazing , potent stuff . * * * * * perfection . see it twice .

0NEG

valley falls into the latter category . weaving together a grabbag of seemingly unrelated characters , herzfeld 's tries very hard to keep the audience loyal secretary 's ( glenne headly ) plain appearance . do n't be surprised if you find yourself asking more than once just what the hell is going on . you might like that feeling of cluelessness . herzfeld is n't stunning by any means though . the characters lack the stature or moral complexity of altman 's real - life heroes in short cuts

warning : may contain slight mild spoilers . rated : r for intense violence / gore , some strong sexuality and language . starring : arnold schwarzeneggar , robin tunney , rod stieger , gabriel byrne . running time : 132 minutes we go into a movie theater , boom ! the lights go down , our hearts race , we go through ten minutes of preview and finally the movie we 've been waiting to see for a long time comes on . we sit there , watch in disbelief that this movie is as bad as it is . why should n't i have know what i was getting myself into . again like this past summers hit " stigmata " , " end of days " may be worse . it 's not like this is any kind of original idea , it just throws in some " rosemary 's baby " , along with " the devil 's advocate " a little " exorcist " and some " stigmata " here and there . whala you have " end of days " a movie that is extremely disappointing and by the previews made it look terrific . sadly but truly again like most recent films , all the good parts are in the trailers . the plot which is very confusing at times is also very ludicrous and the movie is destined to be a hit in the first weekend , and flop in the next . jericho cane ( arnold schwarzneggar in hit typical macho role ) is a cop who finds out that he is chosen to track down satan ( living in gabriel byrnes body ) and stop him from impregnating christine york ( robin tunney ) because if he does , and she gives birth all existence as we know it will cease to exist . he has to do this before it turns into the year 2000 , and strangely he 's trying to fight him 5 minutes before 2000 comes . he seeks help from the catholic church and help from rod stieger ( in a terrific role ) and tries to save this girl leading to an ending that 's satisfying , but turns into a typical action movie . that 's pretty much it on plot . it does have the razzle and dazzle of a great action movie , and with the 100 m dollar budget parts seem to show it , parts you have to wonder where all the money went . as for arnie ? good role , ok performance . i think since he is getting a little older he is held back a lot of his stunts . the thing that disappointed me was the fact that there was nothing to the film . in the trailers it looks like a good scary , action film and ends up being a boring , long and preposterous drama that leads into something else that leaves us with questions . gabriel byrnes ( who ironically played a priest in " stigmata " ) here plays satan and gives a good performance but again seems held back and not into his character . two years back al pacino gave a terrific performance in the fun " the devil 's advocate " and here it seems like the idea of him is in the character also . robin tunney ( great performance as always ) plays satan 's main person whom he wants to impregnate to carry his child . of course rod stieger gives another great performance which really is n't nothing new . the direction by peter hyams is at times a bit overblown , though not nearly as the visual style was in " stigmata " . here we are given great camera work , and some great scenes that are terrifically directed but sadly just do n't work in this movie . the script written by andrew marlowe has a few witty lines , but again the movie is all style and no substance and by the ending finale climax i was ready to go home . only a few things work here and those are a few of the performances , the writing and visual style , but the storyline and the finished product do n't work as well . the sad thing is that " end of days " had so many things going for it . the plot could have been more organized , the action scenes could have been more brainy and less mind - numbing . at times it seems like " armageddon " and started to get old and tiresome . hollywood is running out of ideas bad , and like i 've always said before needs new ones . even with its 100 m budget " end of days " is less than pleasing . in fact the 100 m dollar budget is at least 30 m over , and easily could have had a 70 m budget . maybe i sound crazy , but i am really looking forward to the new exorcist film , and hope that they make it as good as the original . we need to get new ideas and stop recycling old ones just to make money at the box - office . we need to get more films like " the blair witch project " that could scare people to death , while people thinking well what exactly is scaring them and how do i know that it is in fact the blair witch . overblown effects , stupid and thin plot - line , good performances , disappointing . . . . umm yup those pretty much describe " end of days " .

0NEG

a long time comes on . we sit there , watch in disbelief that this movie is as bad as it is . why should n't i have know what i was have " end of days " a movie that is extremely disappointing and by the previews made it look terrific . sadly but truly again like most recent films , all the good parts are in the trailers . the plot which is very confusing at times is also very ludicrous and the movie is destined to be a hit in girl leading to an ending that 's satisfying , but turns into a typical action movie . that 's pretty much it on plot . it he is held back a lot of his stunts . the thing that disappointed me was the fact that there was nothing to the film . in the trailers it looks like a good scary , action film and ends up being a boring , long and preposterous drama that leads into something else that leaves us with questions . gabriel byrnes ( who ironically played a priest in n't nothing new . the direction by peter hyams is at times a bit overblown , though not nearly as the visual style was in , and some great scenes that are terrifically directed but sadly just do n't work in this movie . the script written by andrew marlowe has a few witty lines , but again the movie is all style and no substance and by the ending finale climax i was ready to go home . only a few things work here and those are the writing and visual style , but the storyline and the finished product do n't work as well . the sad thing is that " end of days plot could have been more organized , the action scenes could have been more brainy and less mind - numbing . at times it seems like " armageddon " and started to get old and tiresome . hollywood is running out of ideas bad , and its 100 m budget " end of days " is less than pleasing . in fact the 100 m dollar budget is at the original . we need to get new ideas and stop recycling old ones just to make money at the box - office . know that it is in fact the blair witch . overblown effects , stupid and thin plot - line , good performances , disappointing . . . . umm yup those pretty much describe

" my name is jack carter , and you do n't want to know me " says our brooding anti - hero ( sylvester stallone ) . take his advice ! to know this guy is as rewarding as being thrown over a terrace . and to watch this film is almost as painful . " get carter " is a gloomy looking , unimaginative film that offers no joy . jack carter is as tough as tough guys come . he works out of vegas as a self - described ' financial adjuster ' . explaining his duties , he says , " people make promises and break them . i help them remember . " he has a chiseled body full of tattoos . he has the weathered look indicative of a man who has seen his share of hard times . he speaks in a hushed but menacing tone of voice . in other words , this is sylvester stallone acting like . . . sylvester stallone . and like most of his previous roles , his character is a shallow , one - dimensional thug whose modus operandi is to talk tough , hassle a few hapless people , find out what he needs to know , and then dispense his own kind of justice . with the charisma of a pit bull , being tough is all that jack carter knows . yet , even tough guys know when to put family first . as the story begins , we learn that jack 's little brother has died in a car accident . the police attribute it to heavy drinking . however , jack is suspicious , believing that he was ' taken out ' . he takes a break from his vegas duties and tries to see if he can find the truth . as he pokes around , he runs into several lowlife characters . they include a shady business partner , a prostitute , a dweebish millionaire molded after bill gates , and an oily owner of a porn website . any one of them may know something about his brother 's death . all of them have the means of carrying out the deed . but do n't expect an exercise in sleuthing where well - placed clues lead carter to the truth . he 's all brawn and no brains , so there are no epiphanies during his investigation . instead , he uses intimidation to muscle his way forward , cycling through this circle of suspects . flustered with his lack of progress , he cycles through them again and again . this all gets tiring fairly quickly . by the time the film launches into its final act , we 're numb from its pedestrian pace . oddly , as a tough - guy thriller , it starves us for action . admittedly , there is one nifty chase sequence , but this is related to a tangential and needless plot ( carter 's vegas ties send thugs to retrieve him ) . the story also fails to generate any kind of emotion . stallone has the personality of a slab of stone . and the look and feel of the film is perpetually downcast . the weather is constantly overcast or rainy . meanwhile , most shots take place at night , in dimly lit rooms , or in dark alleys . it 's just impossible to get stirred about that kind of atmosphere . as a result , " get carter " amounts to nothing more than a flat thriller , bereft of clever moments and devoid of any excitement . you 're better off leaving this guy alone .

0NEG

hero ( sylvester stallone ) . take his advice ! to know this guy is as rewarding as being thrown over a terrace . and to watch this film is almost as painful . " get carter " is a gloomy looking , unimaginative film that offers no joy . jack carter is as tough as tough guys come stallone . and like most of his previous roles , his character is a shallow , one - dimensional thug whose modus operandi is to talk tough , hassle a few hapless people , find out what he needs to know , and then dispense his own kind of justice . with the charisma of a pit bull , being progress , he cycles through them again and again . this all gets tiring fairly quickly . by the time the film launches into its final act , we 're numb from its pedestrian pace . oddly , as a tough - guy thriller , it starves us for action . admittedly , there is one nifty chase sequence , but this is related to a tangential and needless plot ( carter 's vegas ties send thugs to retrieve him ) . the story also fails to generate any kind of emotion . stallone has the personality of a slab of stone . and the look and feel of the film is atmosphere . as a result , " get carter " amounts to nothing more than a flat thriller , bereft of clever moments and devoid of any excitement . you 're better off leaving this guy alone .

you would think that this film 's dismal failure would be due to american filmmakers getting hold of a brilliant british comedy and " americanizing " it . you 'd be wrong , since full blame can be placed on the very folks who wrote and created the series : rowan atkinson , robin driscoll , and richard curtis . should you ever happen to meet those chaps , do me a favor . grab them by the hair and yell really loudly in their ear , " what were you thinking ? ! have you ever heard the phrase ' if it ai n't broke do n't fix it ' ? ! " then walk away . the film concerns mr . bean ( atkinson ) and his visit to america while escorting the painting of " whistler 's mother " to an american buyer ( played by burt reynolds , in the type of bit part that his success in " boogie nights " should hopefully do away with ) . now how or why mr . bean is sent on this trip makes no sense , and i ca n't even describe how the film explains it . the point is that mr . bean comes to america and causes wacky trouble . problems problems problems , where to begin ? first , the score music from the tv show has been completely replaced by score that is either at times one note away from the score from " beetlejuice " or one note away from the score from " rob roy " . then , the song choices are totally uninspired . " good vibrations " ? " i love l . a . " ? wow , do n't put any thought into that guys . also , bean makes way too much noise in the film . the character does n't speak much , but in the series you really only heard the laughter of the audience , and maybe the occasional murmur from mr . bean . each episode was like a chaplin silent movie . in the film , bean is constantly moaning , grunting , whining , etc . it 's annoying , and just plain wrong for the character . the main problem though is that it 's just not funny . with each episode of the series there would be dozens of really great laughs crammed into less than 30 minutes . multiply that running time by three however , and the laughs steadily decrease . they even have the gaul to repeat jokes from the series . sad , and creatively lazy . as a series , " mr . bean " only ran for about 13 episodes or so . why on earth did atkinson and the gang decide it was time to completely rework everything ? 13 half - hour episodes certainly had n't exhausted all possible situations . all i can say positively for the film at this point is that it 's almost appropriate for all ages , if it was n't for a couple of scenes where it appears as though mr . bean is having sex with things . and even that is n't a very positive statement . please guys , go back to england and go back to television so you 'll make me laugh again . [ pg-13 ]

0NEG

you would think that this film 's dismal failure would be due to american filmmakers getting hold of a to meet those chaps , do me a favor . grab them by the hair and yell really loudly in their ear , " what were you thinking ? ! have you ever heard the phrase ' if it ai n't broke do n't fix it ' ? ! " then walk away . the film concerns mr . bean the score from " rob roy " . then , the song choices are totally uninspired . " good vibrations " ? " i love l a chaplin silent movie . in the film , bean is constantly moaning , grunting , whining , etc . it 's annoying , and just plain wrong for the character . the main problem though is that it 's just not funny . with each episode of the series there would be . multiply that running time by three however , and the laughs steadily decrease . they even have the gaul to repeat jokes from the series . sad , and creatively lazy . as a series , " mr . bean "

robin williams has the rarest of gifts : the ability to rise above the most inept material and suffuse it with his irreverent style . overwhelmingly , his worst films are pleasantly diverting at worst and enjoyable at best ( with the notable exception of flubber ) . so when i , the one person who has refused to abandon him despite patch adams , tell you that not even williams can save his latest project , you know it 's in trouble . jakob the liar is a confused , muddled little movie ; a generically " uplifting " film with a fundamental contradiction : the message it delivers is depressing as opposed to inspiring and the movie does n't realize it . williams plays jakob haim , a jew imprisoned in a polish ghetto during world war ii . one night he wanders outside after curfew and is promptly sent to the office of a high - ranking german officer for his punishment . jakob gets off easy and he gets to hear approximately 30 seconds of a radio broadcast . the announcement ( in english , but punctuated by a triumphant " heil hitler ! " ) is that russian troops are only miles away from jakob 's ghetto . liberation ! he thinks . the next day , jakob tells the news to his closest friend , a volatile prize fighter named misha ( liev schreiber ) , who despite being sworn to secrecy passes the message along . soon , it is a common assumption in the ghetto that jakob has a radio hidden in his home -- a crime punishable by death . this is absurdly false , but the more jakob tells the people of the ghetto this , the more convinced they become that he is abreast of the latest developments in the war that is to decide their fate . the danger , of course , is that the germans allegedly have informants throughout the ghetto , and rumors about the radio can get out and put jakob in great danger . in a curiously irrelevant subplot , jakob finds a 11-year old girl who has separated from her parents and decides to hide her in his small home . apparently he is afraid that she will be discovered , and goes to great length to make sure of that -- just why the idea frightens him is never made clear . he and the girl build an uninvolving , generic relationship that never goes anywhere and is as irrelevant at the end as it was in the beginning . the moral of the story is that hope is the best medicine . but jakob the liar forgets that the hope that jakob brings to his ghetto is false . such hope inevitably leads to expectations of its realization and when those expectations are n't met , the results are far worse than if there was no hope . that 's the film 's biggest detriment : it is based on a false assumption and thus comes off as painfully false . it 's never moving because it does n't give us anything to be moved by . jakob the liar fails to tug any heartstrings which destroys its purpose for existing . robin williams does n't inject the film with life , as a matter of fact , he seems a little out of it , as if crippled by his fake accent . he is stragely unenthusiastic ; his character is one who spreads hope but his performance is lifeless , hopeless . not since good will hunting has he abandoned his signature style to this extent ; this is n't the robin williams we know and love . in good will hunting he became a serious actor and won an oscar for it . here , he is more of a wannabe serious actor ; an impostor . jakob the liar will be compared with last year 's life is beautiful because it is being marketed as a " holocaust comedy " . it 's not a comedy . it tries , sometimes , but it rarely works . is it a melodrama ? a war movie ? a character study ? no , no , and no . jakob the liar is the kind of movie that ca n't be placed into a category ; not because it covers so many different genres but because it fails at just about every one it attempts .

0NEG

the rarest of gifts : the ability to rise above the most inept material and suffuse it with his irreverent style . overwhelmingly , even williams can save his latest project , you know it 's in trouble . jakob the liar is a confused , muddled little movie ; a generically " uplifting " film with a fundamental contradiction : the message it delivers is depressing as opposed to can get out and put jakob in great danger . in a curiously irrelevant subplot , jakob finds a 11-year old girl who has separated is never made clear . he and the girl build an uninvolving , generic relationship that never goes anywhere and is as irrelevant at the end as it was in the beginning . the moral of the story is that hope is worse than if there was no hope . that 's the film 's biggest detriment : it is based on a false assumption and thus comes off as painfully false . it 's never moving because it does n't give us anything to be moved by . jakob the liar fails to tug any heartstrings which destroys its purpose for existing . robin williams does n't inject the film with life , as a matter of fact , he seems a little out of it , as if crippled by his fake accent . he is stragely unenthusiastic ; his character is one who spreads hope but his performance is lifeless , hopeless . not since good will hunting has he abandoned his actor and won an oscar for it . here , he is more of a wannabe serious actor ; an impostor . jakob the liar will be compared with last year not a comedy . it tries , sometimes , but it rarely works . is it a melodrama ? a war movie ? ; not because it covers so many different genres but because it fails at just about every one it attempts .

say , tell me if you 've seen this before : a crisis on - board a commercial airliner causes a stewardess to have to fly and land the plane herself . airport ' 97 anyone ? ray liotta is a psychotic serial killer being transported from new york to california on christmas eve . amazingly , on what would seemingly be a busy day of travel on one of the most flown routes , only about six other passengers are on the flight . anyway , they take off , liotta escapes and kills all the police and the pilots , and stewardess lauren holly locks herself in the cockpit to fly the plane . the story is beyond routine , the script is embarrassing ( at one point , this jumbo jet is flying completely upside down ) , the characters are worthless , and the performances are annoying . surprisingly , co - writer steven e . de souza actually wrote the first two " die hard " movies ! " turbulence " takes place at christmas time , yet the film was released a few days after the holidays . brilliant marketing , as no one cares about anything having to do with christmas after december 26th . the studio knew they had a bomb , and purposely dumped it out when the fewest number of people would see it . [ r ]

0NEG

locks herself in the cockpit to fly the plane . the story is beyond routine , the script is embarrassing ( at one point , this jumbo jet is flying completely upside down ) , the characters are worthless , and the performances are annoying . surprisingly , co - writer steven e . de do with christmas after december 26th . the studio knew they had a bomb , and purposely dumped it out when the fewest number of people would see it .

it should have been a classic . a great cast of respected supporting actors . an interesting premise of loser comic book characters . however , " mystery men " proved to be one of the great disappointments of 1999 . the jokes were bland and hackneyed from talents who have previously made audiences laugh with their unique rituals . the number of cliches and shallow characters made the film difficult to sit through seriously hurting its attempt of having a fast paced premise . the script tried to deliver a series of small jokes throughout the film but without a big laugh - out - loud joke and mediocre small jokes , it failed miserably at being entertaining at all . the jokes were not funny for a number of reasons . they had been used a number of times before in previous films , the best ones , which were mediocre to begin with , were ruined in the trailer , and the expectation of laughing at clever , unique gags from clever unique comedians when there were none to laugh at greatly damaged the film . " mystery men " might have worked if it was an ensemble cast of newcomers trying to break into the business . but with veterans doing this kind of junk , it really questioned whether their other work was as funny as originally thought . thankfully most actors in this movie will appear in five other movies before the new year arrives to help viewers forget this little movie . the film follows a band of wannabe superheroes living in a wannabe gotham city who are ridiculed by their fellow citizens and villains because of their clumsiness and failure to save they day and capture the bad guy . the fact is these pathetic losers are not needed because their city already has a successful superhero , captain amazing , who has recently captured every evil - doer in the city . captain amazing ( played terribly by an uninspired greg kinnear ) , because of his success in the past , is worried that he will lose popularity . after freeing one of the most notorious bad guys in the city ( geoffrey rush , overacting just a bit too much ) to keep himself busy , things get out of hand when captain amazing is captured . it is up to the wannabe superheroes to save the day . by the time this section of the plot is finished , the interest for what happens ( if you have n't already figured it out ) is very low . there are very few scenes which catch the viewers complete attention . the first scene in the film , which shows the wannabes trying to save the day , feels like it was seriously edited down . right when it was beginning to become slightly funny seeing these actors get humiliated at an old folk 's home by some masked goons , captain amazing comes in and saves the day ? or ruins the movie . instead of editing this scene , more editing should have been done in areas such as the unnecessary romance between mr . furious ( ben stiller ) and monica , a waitress ( claire forlani ) or the vast majority of the film , which is the heroes talking at a coffee table about how their day was . a simple rule : more silly action is needed in order to make a silly action movie work . another major problem with " mystery men " is that every actor in it seemed very uncomfortable and consequently gave terrible performances . the film depended on its cast to work fluently together , like a bunch of old friends working together in an amiable reunion . however , most characters seemed like they did not even want to be in this film or at least the script made it seem this way . to pull one of the actors in this film randomly out of a hat , paul reubens , who disappeared from acting to everyone 's joy , returns here leaving very little to be impressed about . as a wannabe who uses flatulence for a weapon , all of his jokes must therefore be fart jokes . fart jokes that have all been heard before and will inevitably be heard again in future films thanks to the success of " american pie " and " there 's something about mary . " " mystery men " drags on towards the end to a point where anything else in the world is more entertaining . anyone with a brain knows each one of the heroes is going to be successful at their talent in the end and each one is going to contribute in a helpful way . so why continue to watch ? this film is far from a worthy guilty pleasure . " mystery men " indeed does this and every time a character succeeds another one congratulates him and says " i knew you could do it ! " " mystery men " fails in every category it attempts to pass . what makes this film so bad is that it had the potential to be wonderful and unforgettable . terrible acting , terrible script , and a terrible waste of time changes opinions about all of these actors . " i 'm unpredictable ! " an overexcited ben stiller shouts out . no ben , you 're the complete opposite .

0NEG

comic book characters . however , " mystery men " proved to be one of the great disappointments of 1999 . the jokes were bland and hackneyed from talents who have previously made audiences laugh with their unique rituals . the number of cliches and shallow characters made the film difficult to sit through seriously hurting its attempt of having a fast paced premise . the script tried to deliver a series of small without a big laugh - out - loud joke and mediocre small jokes , it failed miserably at being entertaining at all . the jokes were not ones , which were mediocre to begin with , were ruined in the trailer , and the expectation of laughing at to break into the business . but with veterans doing this kind of junk , it really questioned whether their other work was as evil - doer in the city . captain amazing ( played terribly by an uninspired greg kinnear ) , because of his success in the notorious bad guys in the city ( geoffrey rush , overacting just a bit too much ) to keep himself busy , things get out of which shows the wannabes trying to save the day , feels like it was seriously edited down . right when it was beginning to become slightly funny captain amazing comes in and saves the day ? or ruins the movie . instead of editing this scene , more editing should have been done in areas such as the unnecessary romance between mr . furious ( ben stiller ) and monica in order to make a silly action movie work . another major problem with " mystery men " is that every actor in it seemed very uncomfortable and consequently gave terrible performances . the film depended on its cast to work fluently disappeared from acting to everyone 's joy , returns here leaving very little to be impressed about . as a wannabe who uses flatulence for a weapon 's something about mary . " " mystery men " drags on towards the end to a point where anything else in the world is more entertaining . anyone with a brain knows each one of the a helpful way . so why continue to watch ? this film is far from a worthy guilty pleasure . " mystery men " indeed does this and every you could do it ! " " mystery men " fails in every category it attempts to pass . what makes this film so bad is that it had the potential to be wonderful and unforgettable . terrible acting , terrible script , and a terrible waste of time changes opinions about all of these actors . " i

in my review of " the spy who shagged me , " i postulated an unbreakable law of film physics : every time a sequel is as good as or better than the previous film in the series , it is followed by a third movie that is a bore . the cause is probably complacency ; a studio sighs with relief when part 2 lives up to expectations and figures part 3 is a sure thing . " scream 3 " provides the latest proof of this rule . in los angeles production has begun on " stab 3 : return to woodsboro , " the most recent installment in the series of movies inspired by the murders surrounding sidney prescott ( neve campbell ) . however , life soon starts imitating art , and " stab " cast members turn up stabbed . smelling yet another book deal , gale weathers ( courteney cox arquette ) comes to the set to investigate and finds her ex - boyfriend dewey riley ( david arquette ) acting as a technical consultant and getting chummy with jennifer ( parker posey ) , the actress playing gale in " stab 3 . " elsewhere , our heroine sidney is living in hiding under an assumed name . . . until she gets a phone call from a familiar evil voice . the late randy meeks ( jamie kennedy ) makes a surprise guest appearance via video to explain the rules of a trilogy . he notes the third chapter in a trilogy has an overabundance of exposition and a huge backstory to contend with . indeed , " scream 3 " tries to link its murders back to the one that started it all , the murder of sidney 's mother maureen before the beginning of the original " scream . " at the scene of each murder in " scream 3 , " the killer leaves a photo of sidney 's mother maureen as a teenager in hollywood and even includes a note claiming to be her real killer . to find out who the killer is , our intrepid investigators have to uncover what happened during maureen 's missing years when she was a starlet appearing in low - budget horror films . ( even with that little information , you can probably already guess what the killer 's relationship to sidney is ) . unlike its predecessors , " scream 3 " does n't have the guts to even suggest that the central characters might be the killer . the characters we do suspect are all undeveloped , so that by the end we do n't even care who the killer is . the jaded detective ( patrick dempsey ) ? the kinky producer ( lance henriksen ) ? the driven young director ( scott foley ) ? the ingenue ( emily mortimer ) ? the character who turns out to be the killer seems to be selected at random . wes craven supposedly filmed three different endings to keep the real one a secret , so it 's quite possible the one in the final cut was randomly chosen . the series ' trademark references to other horror films have become trite and obvious . possibly it 's the absence of screenwriter kevin williamson , who penned the first two , or maybe it 's that the hip ironic stance eventually consumes itself and a series that parodies film cliches eventually becomes a cliche . i groaned as an attack on sidney from the first " scream " was repeated moment - for - moment in the hollywood set of her home . at some point , referencing becomes just a means to cover up a poverty of new ideas . " scream 3 " also continues the tradition of having an eclectic set of cameos and familiar faces in small roles . look for jenny mccarthy , carrie fisher , patrick warburton ( puddy from " seinfeld " ) , roger corman , and jason mewes and kevin smith ( as jay and silent bob ) to walk through at some point . all these bit players put forth more effort than the series ' returning stars , who are probably saving their energy for the long post- " scream " job search . another prediction i made in a previous review has come to pass : more movies are copying " the blair witch project " 's web strategy . " scream 3 " has three official websites that ( wink , wink ) pretend that the events of the movie are real and provide additional backstory information not covered in the movie . the sunrise studios site ( scream3 . com ) has trailers for other sunrise releases as well as the " latest ' stab 3 ' news . " there 's also a gail weathers official site ( galeweathers . com ) and a sunrise sucks site that has more " stab " scandals the studio wants to cover up ( sunrisesucks . com ) . craven and company promise that this is the last installment in the " scream " series . while i hope that 's true , i do n't hold out much hope - horror movie series are even harder to kill than their monsters . there 's a " halloween h2k " in the works , even though michael myers was beheaded in " h20 , " and a " freddy vs . jason " has been talked about for awhile , despite the fact that both characters were " killed off . " there 's bound to be a " scream 4 " someday , even if it starts over with a new set of movie - star wannabes . bottom line : they should have called this one " yawn . "

0NEG

suggest that the central characters might be the killer . the characters we do suspect are all undeveloped , so that by the end we do n't even care who the killer is . the jaded detective ( patrick dempsey ) ? the ? the character who turns out to be the killer seems to be selected at random . wes craven supposedly filmed three different endings to keep . the series ' trademark references to other horror films have become trite and obvious . possibly it 's the absence of screenwriter kevin williamson , or maybe it 's that the hip ironic stance eventually consumes itself and a series that parodies film cliches eventually becomes a cliche . i groaned as an attack on sidney from the hollywood set of her home . at some point , referencing becomes just a means to cover up a poverty of new ideas . " scream 3 " also continues the tradition of set of movie - star wannabes . bottom line : they should have called this one " yawn . "

i want to be involved in show business one day . and i refuse to do any sequels to any movie i may make because i believe they only get worse . this movie proves it for me . i was a little worried about the last batman film , as i thought joel schumaccer , taking over from tim burton , would screw it up . i also assumed val kilmer would screw up as bruce wayne . they did n't . kilmer did a good job , and the cast was left to carry the movie , which they did ( even jim carrey as the riddler and i ca n't stand jim carrey ) , because schumaccer messed up the direction with his glitzy gotham and his awkward camera angles . this film is different . the cast is still impressive , but here , not only does schumaccer mess up with the direction ( he 's one of those directors who 's good with actors , terrible with camera angles ) , but writer akiva goldsmith does n't really give an impressive cast anything to do . the cast is impressive : clooney is a surprisingly good wayne / batman , o'donnell is a crafty robin as usual , they could 've casted somebody better as batgirl ( my friend likes neve campbell ) , but silverstone is not bad , and thurman is a good poison ivy . the major problem is schwarzenegger , who is a terrible freeze . his accent is so heavy , you ca n't understand what he says , and the trouble with action stars like him is they can not act , and they know it , but they figure that if they flex their muscles , say a limited amount of stuff , and kill a bunch of guys , then they figure nobody'll notice . that 's the trouble with me , * i * notice . schwarzenegger does not deserve billing over clooney , or as much money as he got for this , but hollywood thinks he does . patrick stewart was the person i 'd heard that was considered to play freeze , and he would 've been so much better . or sean connery , but not arnold " i 'm not an actor , but i play one in real life " schwarzenegger . i realize that you must be a star to play a major role in a batman film , but it would 've been nice if they 'd casted a star that had talent for the role . akiva goldsmith 's screenplay avoids some stuff that happens in a normal batman film . in a regular batman film , they 'd concentrate on the relationship with the girlfriend a little more , but elle macpherson 's julie madison is so limited here that we never get a real sense of who she is . there is talk of a fifth batman movie . my interest to see it is low , but i hope it 's better than this . if you do n't want to waste your time , rent any of the other batman movies from blockbuster . any other .

0NEG

sequels to any movie i may make because i believe they only get worse . this movie proves it for me . i was . the cast is still impressive , but here , not only does schumaccer mess up with the direction ( he 's one of those directors who 's good with actors , terrible with camera angles ) , but writer akiva goldsmith does ivy . the major problem is schwarzenegger , who is a terrible freeze . his accent is so heavy , you ca n't understand what he says , and the trouble with action stars like him is they can not act , and they know it , but they figure that much better . or sean connery , but not arnold " i 'm not an actor , but i play one in real life " schwarzenegger . i realize that you must be a star little more , but elle macpherson 's julie madison is so limited here that we never get a real sense of who , but i hope it 's better than this . if you do n't want to waste your time , rent any of the other batman movies from blockbuster . any other .

for a movie with such deep religious and spiritual undertones , it is surprising to find the messenger : the story of joan of arc such an ungodly mess . in the early to mid 1400 's , there was little in the way of spiritual light to be found shining from the heart of a man or woman . the church was a dismally dark and oppressive place . france was involved in " the hundred years war " against england . there was no strong political leadership in the country . morale was low , there being little hope for the future . it was within this setting that a young french girl began hearing " voices " and seeing " visions . " convinced that these were messages from god , she brazenly demanded to see the dauphin in order to deliver the message directly to him . the message : if he would give her an army to command , she would deliver to him the crown . he does . . . and she does . then , once seated on the throne , he abandons her to her english captors . director luc besson ( the fifth element ) may have co - wrote the script but he never appeared to have a proper handle on the material . the inconsistencies of the cast , the confusing blur of the violent battle scenes , the inappropriate musical score , and the lack of a vibrant life force at the center of the film adds up to a largely disappointing end product which is oftentimes unintentionally laughable . his biggest miscue was to cast his wife , milla jovovich ( the fifth element ) in the title role . ms . jovovich , looks spectacular as joan , clad in battle armor , astride a similarly protected horse . if looks were enough to fully convey a character , she would have been brilliant . since it is n't , she tried ( and failed ) to act the part . her joan is unbalanced , " inspiring " the troops merely by screaming stridently and waving her banner or sword over her head like a woman possessed . john malkovich ( being john malkovich ) fares a bit better as the dauphin , who joan would see on the throne as charles vii . an easily manipulated man , his weakness of character foreshadows the betrayal of joan which would lead to her death . faye dunaway ( the thomas crown affair ) gives a strong performance in minimal screen time as the dauphin 's mother - in - law and chief advisor . the army under joan 's command are comprised of comical figures , more stooges than soldiers . the one exception would be tcheky karyo ( la femme nikita ) as dunois , the man who was leading the attack prior to joan 's arrival . trying to plan a systematic campaign , he sees his leadership authority negated by joan 's insistence on following her " visions . " dustin hoffman ( sphere ) has a small inhuman role as joan 's conscience which begins speaking to her while awaiting trial . dressed like cloaked monk , he leads her to doubt herself and her " revelations . " as well she should . scriptures do speak of revelation . god , via his gift of holy spirit , is able to communicate to men . three of the nine manifestations of holy spirit listed in 1 corinthians 12 deal with receiving revelation . they are : word of knowledge , word of wisdom , and discerning of spirits . even the scriptures themselves are a result of god giving revelation to his " holy men . . . who spake as they were moved by holy spirit ( i . e . by revelation . ) " but the scriptures also caution us : " beloved , believe not every spirit , but try the spirits whether they are of god : because many false prophets are gone out into the world . " 1 john 4 : 1 [ kjv ] joan 's end , ( being burned at the stake at the age of 19 ) , the frenzy ( mob rule ) and blood lust her inspiration wrought , and the death , pain , or suffering which followed her campaign all point to a devilish influence rather than a godly one . while her conviction and intense believing remains an admirable quality , she was , as others have been before and since , misled by the spiritual master of deception . as a messenger , she was quite effective . she was just confused as to whose message she was carrying .

0NEG

find the messenger : the story of joan of arc such an ungodly mess . in the early to mid 1400 's , there ) may have co - wrote the script but he never appeared to have a proper handle on the material . the inconsistencies of the cast , the confusing blur of the violent battle scenes , the inappropriate musical score , and the lack of a vibrant life force at the center of the film adds up to a largely disappointing end product which is oftentimes unintentionally laughable . his biggest miscue was to cast his wife , would have been brilliant . since it is n't , she tried ( and failed ) to act the part . her joan is unbalanced , " inspiring " the troops merely by screaming stridently

possibly the years the most anticipated film and finally it arrives here in the uk . it smashed u . s box office office records in it 's opening weekend and will no doubt do the same here . but is it any good ? in a word , no . i 'll elaborate further . the story is as follows . apparently there were two islands with dinosaurs on . one where the dinos lived untouched by mankind and the other a tourist attraction which failed before it even opened . ( see jurrasic park . ) imgen , the company that funded jurrasic park , want to reccover their losses by taking more dinos off the other island and move them to a new attraction in san diago . realizing what a bad idea this is , proffessor john hammond ( richard attenborough ) decides to send a team to document the dinosaurs , so as to rally public support to preserve the island . enter familiar mumbling man jeff goldblum who only agrees to go when told his girlfriend is already there . so , basically , what you have is this . two teams , one sent to catch and move some dinosaurs to the mainland and the other , trying to document them , being forced to work together , fighting for survival against the dinosaurs ' firm intentions on eating them . a fairly good idea , however it 's let down by one slight problem . it 's crap . over two hours of chase scenes gets way too boring , way too quiclky . add to this a terrible script and some feeble attempts at some occasional characterisation and you end up very disinterested . it becomes background noise while your mind starts concentrating on things like , ' what 's for tea ? ' and ' should you cut the lawn later ? ' ( yes , you should ) . it 's a shame then really , that spielberg has lowered himself into making what essentially is a blatant cash in , which adds practically nothing to the far superior jurrasic park . with only a few creative and genuinely tense scenes and fabulous c . g . i dinosaurs ( the t . rex 's have to be seen to be believed ) , there is nothing else to recommend the lost world . a very dissapointing sequel , indeed .

0NEG

on eating them . a fairly good idea , however it 's let down by one slight problem . it 's crap . over two hours of chase scenes gets way too boring , way too quiclky . add to this a terrible script and some feeble attempts at some occasional characterisation and you end up very disinterested . it becomes background noise while your mind starts concentrating on things like , ' later ? ' ( yes , you should ) . it 's a shame then really , that spielberg has lowered himself into making what essentially is a blatant cash in , which adds practically nothing to the far superior jurrasic park . with only a 's have to be seen to be believed ) , there is nothing else to recommend the lost world . a very dissapointing sequel , indeed .

" holy man " boasts a sweet , gentle , comic performance from an unusually subdued eddie murphy and a few moderately funny skits . unfortunately , to get to the good stuff you have to sit through a painfully long set - up , loads of tedious filler , interminable shots of jeff goldblum stammering and twitching , a superfluous romantic subplot and quite possibly the most annoying performance of robert loggia 's career . if ever a movie screamed " wait for video so you can fast - forward through all the dull and annoying parts , " this is it . eddie murphy plays g , a robed nomadic pilgrim wandering the land enjoying the moment and spreading his spiritual message . a chance meeting with ricky hayman ( goldblum ) , a stressed - out executive of a home - shopping channel , and kate newell ( kelly preston ) , a no - nonsense media analyst , results in physical injury to g . quicker than you can say " the odd couple , " g ends up rooming with an extremely leery ricky . after some script gymnastics , g appears live on the air at the good buy shopping network , wreaking havoc on the cheesy product demonstrations , enraging network owner mr . mcbainbridge ( loggia ) , and becoming a national media sensation . " holy man " attempts to be several things at once . it tries to satirize home shopping networks , but it 's difficult to effectively make fun of something that is already a self - parody . the film attempts to teach us that collecting material possessions is merely a futile attempt to fill the spiritual holes in our hearts , but that 's common knowledge already . " holy man " also tries to present a story of redemption , as ricky hayman tries to decide whether to exploit g 's good will to achieve financial security or do the right thing at the expense of his career . anyone want to place a wager on his final decision ? the one genuine asset in " holy man " is eddie murphy , who gives a charming performance , sharing love , good will and relevant advice to all those around him , while beaming his million dollar smile at just the right moments . murphy is delightful and the film takes off whenever he 's onscreen . unfortunately , he 's not onscreen enough . jeff goldblum gets the lion 's share of screen time and his tired storyline weighs the proceedings down . as his potential love interest , kelly preston tries to brighten things up , but she transforms from an all - business media shark to an empathic softy far too quickly and the abrupt change reeks of contrivance . the other principal actor , robert loggia , wastes his talents in a one - note turn as a ruthless , screaming monster . structurally unsound and way too long , " holy man " is appealing when murphy is onscreen and dull when he is n't . instead of dropping your money at the theater for this trifle , wait until it hits video and fast - forward past everything except the murphy scenes . g suggests that we focus on enjoying the moment and that 's the best way to do so .

0NEG

subdued eddie murphy and a few moderately funny skits . unfortunately , to get to the good stuff you have to sit through a painfully long set - up , loads of tedious filler , interminable shots of jeff goldblum stammering and twitching , a superfluous romantic subplot and quite possibly the most annoying performance of robert loggia 's career . if ever a movie screamed " wait for video so you can fast - forward through all the dull and annoying parts , " this is it . eddie murphy plays g becoming a national media sensation . " holy man " attempts to be several things at once . it tries to satirize home shopping networks , but and the film takes off whenever he 's onscreen . unfortunately , he 's not onscreen enough . jeff goldblum gets the lion 's share of screen time and his tired storyline weighs the proceedings down . as his potential love interest , kelly preston tries an all - business media shark to an empathic softy far too quickly and the abrupt change reeks of contrivance . the other principal actor , robert loggia , wastes his talents in a one - note turn as a ruthless , screaming monster . structurally unsound and way too long , " holy man " is appealing when murphy is onscreen and dull when he is n't . instead of dropping your money

it 's actually not so bad that dreamworks decided to release the love letter at about the same time as star wars episode i : the phantom menace , because this way less people will have to sit through this dreadful little comedy . and no , i really do n't feel guilty about wishing this movie death at the box - office . really , i do n't . not at all . the plot has been done before -- a mysterious , unaddressed love letter shows up in a small town , causing confusion for everyone who reads it . the center of the ensuing disaster is bookstore owner helen ( kate capshaw , and by the way , what is it with bookstore owner main characters ? in the past year and a half we 've seen them in life is beautiful , you 've got mail , this movie , and the upcoming notting hill ) , who finds the letter in between couch cushions in the bookstore . she immediately starts testing other people to see who it might be from , and comes to the ( incorrect ) conclusion that the author of the note is a young employee played by tom everett scott . he , reading the letter himself , assumes that she wrote it for him . after a while , they fall in love ( well , duh ) . kate feels guilty about getting in a relationship with someone more than twenty years younger than her , and she also feels guilty because at the same time she is also involved with the town fireman ( tom selleck ) . to add to her turmoil , her mother shows up ( blythe danner , who apparently must have had her daughter when she was about 9 ) and her trusted bookstore manager ( deadpan ellen degeneres ) quits . supporting characters are n't called supporting for nothing . their purpose is n't just to move the plot along , they 're also supposed to give the storyline a backbone . to do this , they must exhibit at least marginal depth and must also be interesting . rarely can a movie work if it puts an interesting protagonist in the middle and surrounds her with hackneyed , dull , cardboard secondary characters , especially when at the core of the movie is the protagonist 's various interactions with them . this is the love letter 's damning error . capshaw 's character is as good as i have seen present in recent romantic comedies , but the people that surround her are all either underwritten or purely one - dimensional . because of that , the love letter is awkward and insincere . even worse -- it 's a bore . i liked capshaw and her helen , but everyone else is painfully fake , undermining the little drama or sexual tension that has the potential to exist . there is nothing particularly hilarious about all this either -- and besides degeneres ' wisecracks , there 's little that is even a little amusing . this is not a completely thoughtless film and director peter ho - sun chan does a good job of portraying helen 's yearnings and various subtle complexities . but it 's far from profound . there is n't a common theme running through the proceedings , thus the movie seems thoughtfully pointless . really , this is a harmless little movie ; it 's far from an abomination and it 's not torturous to sit through . but bad , it is . awful , it also is . the love letter is a failure , and an inane failure at that . ? 1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

0NEG

because this way less people will have to sit through this dreadful little comedy . and no , i really do n't feel guilty about wishing this movie death at the box - office . really , i do an interesting protagonist in the middle and surrounds her with hackneyed , dull , cardboard secondary characters , especially when at the core of the movie is interactions with them . this is the love letter 's damning error . capshaw 's character is as good as i have romantic comedies , but the people that surround her are all either underwritten or purely one - dimensional . because of that , the love letter is awkward and insincere . even worse -- it 's a bore . i liked capshaw and her helen , but everyone else is painfully fake , undermining the little drama or sexual tension that has all this either -- and besides degeneres ' wisecracks , there 's little that is even a little amusing . this is not a completely thoughtless film and director portraying helen 's yearnings and various subtle complexities . but it 's far from profound . there is n't a common theme running through the proceedings , thus the movie seems thoughtfully pointless . really , this is a harmless little movie ; abomination and it 's not torturous to sit through . but bad , it is . awful , it also is . the love letter is a failure , and an inane failure at that . ? 1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

surrounded by hype , high hopes , and the promise of an over - the - top performance by clueless 's brittany murphy , do n't say a word looked full of promise . hell , when i hear that " i 'll never tell " whisper on the tv commercial , goose bumps run up my spine . alas , word is filled with little but disappointment , a kooky mix of girl , interrupted and ransom , with michael douglas and company collecting a paycheck to plod through a vapid and dull kidnapping thriller . douglas stars as nathan conrad , renowned new york psychologist , devoted father of jessie conrad ( skye mccole bartusiak ) , and loving husband to aggie conrad ( famke janssen ) . after a gang of jewel thieves , headed by sean bean 's koster , kidnaps his daughter , nathan is forced to extract from his new patient , the catatonic and violent elisabeth burrows ( murphy ) , the location of some hidden bank job booty that her father hid from the koster gang a decade ago . but with hard - nosed detective sandra cassidy ( jennifer esposito , doing her best j . lo impression ) tracking down koster and his gang of hoodlums , the stakes are raised as nathan races against the clock to crack the mystery of elisabeth 's head in order to get the goods inside . the catch - nathan only has until five o'clock to solve the puzzle ! whoa , the suspense is almost too much . do n't say a word loses the audience inside of 15 minutes . murphy looks and acts like linda blair from the exorcist during the first part of the movie , then turns around and reprises like her role from girl , interrupted . and the only real " crazy " to be found in the film is director gary fleder 's ( things to do in denver when you 're dead ) staggering use of flashback sequences . oliver platt , famke janssen , and even sean bean are decent actors , but the stuff they are given here -- such as a bedridden wife fighting off the token black guy with her crutch -- is insulting and demeaning . additionally , the use of the surveillance cameras and laptops to track nathan 's every move is downright unbelievable . how do ex - cons fresh out of the big house afford all this equipment ? despite its flaws , do n't say a word is surprisingly some of the best mainstream film you 'll find this month -- and audiences will lap it up . americans love lukewarm , half - baked thrillers starring big names and accompanied by cheap thrills . someone get me my lithium !

0NEG

tv commercial , goose bumps run up my spine . alas , word is filled with little but disappointment , a kooky mix of girl , interrupted and ransom , with michael douglas and company collecting a paycheck to plod through a vapid and dull kidnapping thriller . douglas stars as nathan conrad , renowned is almost too much . do n't say a word loses the audience inside of 15 minutes . murphy looks and acts like linda blair from the fighting off the token black guy with her crutch -- is insulting and demeaning . additionally , the use of the surveillance cameras and laptops to track nathan 's every move is downright unbelievable . how do ex - cons fresh out of the big house afford all this equipment ? despite its flaws , do n't say a word is surprisingly some of -- and audiences will lap it up . americans love lukewarm , half - baked thrillers starring big names and accompanied by cheap thrills . someone get me my lithium !

some concepts seem patently hopeless from the beginning , a live - action version of mr . magoo being a prime example . the cartoon figure mr . magoo , the bumbling blind man , can be quite funny , but only in small doses and only within the confines of animated images . if you think naked gun star leslie nielsen is a dubious choice to play the role of the short guy who runs into walls , you are right , but there is an even more astonishing selection . for a director they tapped hong kong 's stanley tong , whose resume consists mainly of a handful of movies featuring martial arts expert jackie chan . the story , such that there is one , is about a large , stolen ruby , which looks a woolworth reject . mr . magoo gets it and , of course , does not realize he has it . mayhem then ensues as the bad and the good guys chase each other with mr . magoo frequently oblivious to the fact that anyone is being chased . like home alone 3 but without any class , mr . magoo can only be described as painfully bad . fifteen minutes of it feels like an eternity . the movie 's humor is pathetically lame , and the pacing is way off . when one is stuck in a theater for an hour and a half watching what claims to be a motion picture , one looks for some solace . mr . magoo provides only three such moments . the movie begins and ends with the classic cartoon version of the character , who exudes his usual charm . the only other saving grave in the movie itself is angus , the sweet little bulldog . angus demonstrates more genuine emotions and a wider acting range than any of the humans in the picture . finally , the ending credits contain outtakes of the movie , which have some of the genuineness and spontaneity that the movie badly lacked . rather than attempt to adapt mr . magoo to a non - cartoon movie , nielsen makes the strategic mistake of trying to literally be a human version of the cartoon . he has trouble sustaining the squinting eyes and the affected voice , and even when he does it comes off as awkwardly unfunny . my wife managed to get some sleep during the movie , but i was not so lucky . hopefully , this picture will force producers to think harder about which subjects have promise and which do not . mr . magoo runs 1 : 37 . it is rated pg for comic violence and would be acceptable for all ages . my son jeffrey , age 8 , said he thought the movie was good and really funny , but recommends you not choose it if you want an action movie . he said he liked home alone 3 much more . his friend maxim , age 9 , said that he thought it was good but very silly and parts did not make sense . his other friend nickolas , age 8 , said he 'd give the movie * * * 1/2 , but that it was really silly .

0NEG

some concepts seem patently hopeless from the beginning , a live - action version of mr . magoo . if you think naked gun star leslie nielsen is a dubious choice to play the role of the short guy who runs anyone is being chased . like home alone 3 but without any class , mr . magoo can only be described as painfully bad . fifteen minutes of it feels like an eternity . the movie 's humor is pathetically lame , and the pacing is way off . when one is stuck in a theater for an itself is angus , the sweet little bulldog . angus demonstrates more genuine emotions and a wider acting range than any of the humans in the picture . finally , the ending credits contain outtakes of the , which have some of the genuineness and spontaneity that the movie badly lacked . rather than attempt to adapt mr . magoo to voice , and even when he does it comes off as awkwardly unfunny . my wife managed to get some sleep during the movie , but i was not so lucky . hopefully , this picture will force producers to think 9 , said that he thought it was good but very silly and parts did not make sense . his other friend nickolas , age 8 , said give the movie * * * 1/2 , but that it was really silly .

breakdown is an moderately entertaining , if underwhelming , thriller . kurt russell and kathleen quinlan play couple jeff and amy taylor , taking the scenic route to california through redneck country . however , while in the middle of nowhere , their jeep decides to break down , leaving them stranded . a friendly truck driver , warren ( walsh ) , offers to give them a lift to town . although jeff rejects the offer ( he wants to stay with his car ) , amy agrees , hops into warren 's lorry , and promptly disappears . jeff wonders where the hell she is , and when he later catches up with warren and warren says he has never seen amy in his life , the plot thickens and jeff goes on a chase to find his wife . although comparisons can be made with this film to deliverance ( 1972 ) and the vanishing ( 1993 ) plot wise , the latter two are far superior character and script wise . kurt russell is o . k as jeff , although he can seemingly only pull of one expression , which is angry . throughout the whole film , he looks angry ( or just pissed off . ) quinlan is o . k again , but again she can only pull off one expression , which is looking dorky . throughout the whole film , she looks dorky . j . t walsh ( who , sadly , recently passed away ) is fine as warren ( who we soon find out is a kidnapper ) although his actual character is pretty weak , and not really menacing enough . the supporting cast do their best aswell , with rex linn as a doubting sheriff , and the other kidnappers . the story , written by first - timer jonathan mostow ( who also directs ) is o . k , if surprisingly familiar and sometimes extraordinarily stupid . some of the things the characters do in this movie is beyond the bounds of idiocy . there are some flaws with the plot also , as the characters do the complete opposite to logical ( presumably to keep the story ' exciting ' ) and also the fact that the story just is n't strong enough to sustain the audience 's attention . the picture moves along very slowly also . it almost threatens to drop dead . the picture does pick up towards the end , but by then it 's too late . mostow directs the action sequences well enough , however . the film does n't really come to a satisfying conclusion , either . the ending tries to be bleak , but just comes off annoying . breakdown could of been a far more enjoyable picture had it had a stronger cast and director . instead , it just turns out to be merely average . a missed opportunity . overall rating= review by david wilcock

0NEG

breakdown is an moderately entertaining , if underwhelming , thriller . kurt russell and kathleen quinlan play couple russell is o . k as jeff , although he can seemingly only pull of one expression , which is angry . throughout the whole film , ) quinlan is o . k again , but again she can only pull off one expression , which is looking dorky . throughout the whole film who we soon find out is a kidnapper ) although his actual character is pretty weak , and not really menacing enough . the supporting cast do their best aswell , with who also directs ) is o . k , if surprisingly familiar and sometimes extraordinarily stupid . some of the things the characters do in this movie is beyond the bounds of idiocy . there are some flaws with the plot also , as the characters do the complete opposite to logical story ' exciting ' ) and also the fact that the story just is n't strong enough to sustain the audience 's attention . the picture moves along very slowly also . it almost threatens to drop dead . the picture does pick up towards the end , the action sequences well enough , however . the film does n't really come to a satisfying conclusion , either . the ending tries to be bleak , but just comes off annoying . breakdown could of been a far more enjoyable picture a stronger cast and director . instead , it just turns out to be merely average . a missed opportunity . overall rating= review by david wilcock

ugh . that about sums this movie up . just , ugh . the original godzilla movies are somewhat of a cult classic , and when reviewing the previous films , each film had a certain degree of intelligence . and that was the reason they found such an enviable cult following ; in spite of bad special effects , horrible dubbing , and a man in a lizard suit , they maintained a certain degree of . . . how to put this ? . . . dignity ? not quite the word i 'm looking for . you understand , right ? and in 50 years , godzilla has maintained that degree of ' whatever ' . leave it to america to screw the whole thing up . > from the ' geniuses ' that brought us " independece day " , arguably the worst sci - fi movie of all time , to ruin whatever reputation godzilla had . while they do bring us eye - popping special effects that will amaze you , they lost what was at the center of all the original godzilla movies -- a storyline . summing up the movie is simple . heck , i can do it in one sentence : giant lizard attacks a giant city and a bunch of nobodies stop it . simple as that . matthew broderick stumbles over his lines , and it 's hard to picture hank azaria in any role besides his classic dog - walking character on the television show " mad about you " . the dialogue seems to be improvized , almost as if there was no rehearsel done at all . i can see the scene on the set right now . " all right ! we spent all of this money making big special effects , and we 've got ta get this movie out by summer or it 's going to bomb in our faces . so , you actors just say what ever comes to the top of your head , all right ? make up something , m'kay ? good . roll film ! ! " the special effects are enough to keep you interested through one viewing , and some of the cinemtography is well - done ( the scene with the black umbrellas comes to mind ) . still , an hour into it , you will become antsy , wondering how long they can drag it out . and drag it out they do ! ! i have to laugh . the slogan for the film is , " size does matter " . i think they cut this too short . it should read , " size does matter . acting does not . "

0NEG

ugh . that about sums this movie up . just , ugh . the original godzilla movies are somewhat of a cult classic godzilla has maintained that degree of ' whatever ' . leave it to america to screw the whole thing up . > from the ' geniuses ' that brought us the worst sci - fi movie of all time , to ruin whatever reputation godzilla had . while they do bring us eye - popping special effects that will amaze you , they lost what was at the center of all the original godzilla movies -- a storyline . nobodies stop it . simple as that . matthew broderick stumbles over his lines , and it 's hard to picture hank azaria in television show " mad about you " . the dialogue seems to be improvized , almost as if there was no rehearsel done at all . i can see the scene on the set right now . " all right ! we spent all of this money making big special effects , and we 've got ta get this movie out by summer or it 's going to bomb in our faces . so , you actors just say what ever comes to the top of your head , all right ? make up something , m'kay ? good . roll film ! ! " the special effects are enough to keep you interested through mind ) . still , an hour into it , you will become antsy , wondering how long they can drag it out . and drag it out they do ! ! i have to laugh . the slogan for the film is , " size does matter

ripe with explosions , mass death and really weird hairdos , tsui hark 's " double team " must be the result of a tipsy hollywood power lunch that decided jean - claude van damme needs another notch on his bad movie - bedpost and nba superstar dennis rodman should have an acting career . actually , in " double team , " neither 's performance is all that bad . i 've always been the one critic to defend van damme -- he possesses a high charisma level that some genre stars ( namely steven seagal ) never aim for ; it 's just that he 's never made a movie so exuberantly witty since 1994 's " timecop . " and rodman . . . well , he 's pretty much rodman . he 's extremely colorful , and therefore he pretty much fits his role to a t , even if the role is that of an ex - cia weapons expert . it 's the story that needs some major work . van damme plays counter - terrorist operative jack quinn , who teams up with arms dealer yaz ( rodman ) to rub out deadly gangster stavros ( mickey rourke , all beefy and weird - looking ) in an antwerp amusement park . the job is botched when stavros ' son gets killed in the gunfire , and quinn is taken off to an island known as " the colony " -- a think tank for soldiers " too valuable to kill " but " too dangerous to set free . " quinn escapes and tries to make it back home to his pregnant wife ( natacha lindinger ) , but stavros is out for revenge and kidnaps her . so , what 's a kickboxing mercenary to do ? quinn looks up yaz and the two travel to rome so they can rescue the woman , kill stavros , save the world and do whatever else the screenplay requires them to do . with crazy , often eye - popping camera work by peter pau and rodman 's lite brite locks , " double team " should be a mildly enjoyable guilty pleasure . but too much tries to happen in each frame , and the result is a movie that leaves you exhausted rather than exhilarated . the numerous action scenes are loud and headache - inducing and the frenetic pacing never slows down enough for us to care about what 's going on in the movie . and much of what 's going on is just wacky . there 's a whole segment devoted to net - surfing monks that i have yet to figure out . and the climax finds quinn going head - to - head with a tiger in the roman coliseum while yaz circles them on a motorcycle , trying to avoid running over land mines and hold on to quinn 's baby boy ( who 's in a bomb equipped basket ) -- all this while stavros watches shirtless from the bleachers . did i mention " double team " is strange ? when it all comes down , this is just another rarely entertaining formula killathon , albeit one that feels no need to indulge in gratuitous profanity . rodman juices things up with his blatantly vibrant screen persona , though , leading up to a stunt where he kicks an opponent between the legs . but we did n't need " double team " to tell us he could do that , did we ?

0NEG

ripe with explosions , mass death and really weird hairdos , tsui hark 's " double team " must be the result of a tipsy hollywood power lunch that decided jean - claude van damme needs another notch is that of an ex - cia weapons expert . it 's the story that needs some major work . van damme plays counter - terrorist operative jack quinn " should be a mildly enjoyable guilty pleasure . but too much tries to happen in each frame , and the result is a movie that leaves you exhausted rather than exhilarated . the numerous action scenes are loud and headache - inducing and the frenetic pacing never slows down enough for us to care about what 's going on in the movie . and much of what 's going on is just 's a whole segment devoted to net - surfing monks that i have yet to figure out . and the climax finds quinn going head - to ? when it all comes down , this is just another rarely entertaining formula killathon , albeit one that feels no need to indulge in

synopsis : a man whose lover , paris , was murdered agrees to test out an experimental virtual reality home unit system . the subject escapes from the real world and his current girlfriend , laura , and becomes addicted to virtual reality , which , due to a design flaw in his unit , recreates the dead paris . comments : virtual seduction , executive produced by roger corman and lance h . robbins , serves as a cheaply - made precursor to strange days , a far superior film . both movies deal with desperate men who have trouble relating to their current lovers because they are ( ab ) using technology to be with former lovers ( in strange days , the technology utilized recorded dreams rather than virtual reality ) . interestingly , both films also take place a couple of years from now during the turn of the new millenium , though strange days uses the setting far more effectively . this exemplifies the problem with virtual seduction . it 's not bad for what it is : low - budget science fiction concerning the psychological dangers of virtual reality . unfortunately , it 's been done before and since in much better films , a fact which ultimately leaves the sci - fi fan bored by this movie . virtual seduction has many faults ( one of them is the fact that the video inexplicably has its own trailer before it begins ) . the film 's script explores the possibilities of virtual reality interestingly at first , but its treatment of the subject matter gets heavy - handed and wooden as the movie progresses . many important scenes seem too dark ; the lighting could have been improved significantly . the cast , a collection of veteran b - movie actors and sitcom regulars , do only a mediocre job in their roles . jeff fahey , of the original lawnmower man , convincingly , though unenergetically , plays the lead character . carrie genzel plays paris , the vr lover , but ami dolenz , as the current love interest , seems like a much more interesting and attractive character with a caring personality , which does n't lend credence to the film 's premise . meschach taylor , of the once popular designing women sitcom , adequately plays a scientist working on the project , but his performance is n't something to write home about either . virtual seduction is one of those harmless movies to which you could do some light manual labor and not mind having it on in the background . in other words , one could fold laundry while glancing up at it every now and then , but it 's rather boring to just sit and watch . the movie is surprisingly not as violent as one expects from b - movies in this genre , but it is still an adult r - rated film due to sexual situations and a suicide attempt . this turkey , ultimately , is n't awful , but it 's not particularly interesting or unique either . do n't be seduced into watching this movie unless you 've got several loads of laundry and nothing else to watch .

0NEG

roger corman and lance h . robbins , serves as a cheaply - made precursor to strange days , a far superior film . both science fiction concerning the psychological dangers of virtual reality . unfortunately , it 's been done before and since in much better films , a fact which ultimately leaves the sci - fi fan bored by this movie . virtual seduction has many faults ( one of them is the fact that the video at first , but its treatment of the subject matter gets heavy - handed and wooden as the movie progresses . many important scenes seem too dark ; the lighting could have been improved significantly . the cast , a collection of veteran b - movie actors and sitcom regulars , do only a mediocre job in their roles . jeff fahey , of the original lawnmower man , convincingly , though unenergetically , plays the lead character . carrie genzel plays paris adequately plays a scientist working on the project , but his performance is n't something to write home about either . virtual seduction is one of those harmless movies glancing up at it every now and then , but it 's rather boring to just sit and watch . the movie is surprisingly not as violent as one due to sexual situations and a suicide attempt . this turkey , ultimately , is n't awful , but it 's not particularly interesting or unique either . do n't be seduced into watching this movie unless

yeah , yeah , the advertisements did n't even try to conceal the fact that this movie had only one hook - sex . neve campbell and starship trooper 's denise richards getting it on ? ok ! yeah , it 's a decent two minutes of film erotica , but even if that 's your main interest in this film , there 's plenty of cheeziness to sit thru in exchange for those two minutes . wild things does have a lot more to think about than you might expect however . nearly every single scene is a huge plot twist guaranteed to leave you guessing , or at least curious to see the next turn , throughout the entire movie . but this fast - paced , razor - sharp turning of events does n't leave much time to enjoy the surprises . we start off in a high - class california high school where every student resembles a supermodel in the making . guidance counselor sam lombardo ( matt dillon ) seems to catch the eye of every student , particularly kelly van ryan ( richards ) , daughter of the locally prestigious family whose social status is about as high as their bank accounts . right off the bat , kelly is using every asset she has in an effort to seduce " mr . lombardo " . the fund - raiser car wash seems the opportune time , particularly when you wash your guidance counselor 's jeep in all white clothes and take plenty of precautions to insure you 'll be soaked from head to toe when you 're done . on the weekend of the car wash , kelly 's attempts at seduction fall flat , and when they do , she concocts the tale that sam in fact raped her that day . naturally sam is thrown into a state of panicked shock at these accusations . but the otherwise unsubstantial fabrications soon lead to a criminal trial when a low - class , marijuana smoking student by the name of suzie toller ( campbell ) comes forth with a near identical story , also involving her trusted guidance counselor . pitting himself against the communities most respected names and authoritarians , sam must prove his innocence thru the aid of his makeshift defense attorney , ken bowden , played by bill murray . yes , that bill murray ! sound like a good , complete movie ? yes , that alone could have been , but this is just the beginning . in fact , the trial is over about fifteen or twenty minutes into the film . it is merely used to launch the most twisted story of recent time . by the time the movie finishes , you will have gone thru every plot twist imaginable . unfortunately , with so much going on , you 're not given enough time in one predicament to be as effectively shocked when a new twist comes about . this is just one way director john mcnaughton fails to make this movie as fun as it could 've been . the 113 minutes fly by , and although it never feels underdeveloped , this pretzel of storytelling could 've been much more richly realized had a slower pace been taken . the acting is incredibly reminiscent of fox prime - time soap operas , which no , is not a good thing . and it 's not just campbell , who happens to hail from the prime - time fox soap " party of five " , but everyone suffers from heavily melodramatic overtones . dillon , who was so charming in his understated role in last year 's in & out , gives the best performance , and murray 's surprising appearance adds some comedic flare to the film . in fact , if the whole movie had been promoted as a subtle comedy , even if it was the exact same film , i would actually give it a better grade . that 's how cheezy it comes off . but aside from these two , the rest offer nothing more than some good eye - full 's . in the right hands , wild things could 've been a wickedly delightful , scrumptiously twisted thriller , but instead we get juvenile overuses of profanity and some very laughable displays of acting . and what 's up with these people passing as high school students ? i realize hollywood often casts older actors to play teenage roles , but when i realized it was n't supposed to be a college they were at , i had to snicker . i wo n't lie - this is definitely a guilty pleasure . as corny as it is , it 's got some interesting aspects and could deserve at least a " b " for effort . but if you just want to admire denise richards , go for last year 's starship troopers , which was every bit as campy , but a million times better . of course , if seeing her breasts is your most important goal , you 'll be right at home with wild things . perhaps the wildest thing of all is that somebody actually looked at this and thought it deserved to be in theaters .

0NEG

if that 's your main interest in this film , there 's plenty of cheeziness to sit thru in exchange for those two minutes . wild things does into the film . it is merely used to launch the most twisted story of recent time . by the time the movie finishes , you will have gone thru every plot twist imaginable . unfortunately , with so much going on , you 're not given enough time in one predicament to be as effectively shocked when a new twist comes about . this is just one way director john mcnaughton fails to make this movie as fun as it could 've been . the 113 fly by , and although it never feels underdeveloped , this pretzel of storytelling could 've been much more richly realized had a slower pace been taken . the acting is incredibly reminiscent of fox prime - time soap operas , which no , is not a good thing . and it 's not just campbell , who happens time fox soap " party of five " , but everyone suffers from heavily melodramatic overtones . dillon , who was so charming in his understated , i would actually give it a better grade . that 's how cheezy it comes off . but aside from these two , the rest offer nothing more than some good eye - full 's . in the a wickedly delightful , scrumptiously twisted thriller , but instead we get juvenile overuses of profanity and some very laughable displays of acting . and what 's up with these people passing as n't lie - this is definitely a guilty pleasure . as corny as it is , it 's got some interesting aspects and could deserve

i was recently told that in china their had been strong protests against the release of red corner , and this is apparently because of the way it shows the injustice of many chinese laws . but if you ask me , the real truth of the matter is that the chinese critics association were determined not to punish the population into viewing richard gere running across rooftops in search for a fellow american . or more the point , anyone that allows him to bask in his own less - than - subtle presence . this is not an insult to gere , as i consider him to be a rather talented actor , but more the choice of character and responsibility of his role . if a film is solely about one person , the main actor must give a faultless performance in order for it to really work . although gere 's performance is in no way poorly acted , it is far from perfect , and i look forward to seeing him star with other talented actors that can reduce the need for him to carry a film by himself . this is where he truly belongs , and if you are reluctant to believe me than look no further that primal fear ( with the sensational edward norton ) , the jackal ( with bruce willis ) and pretty woman ( with the delightful julia roberts ) . in red corner gere plays classy lawyer jack moore , who is guilty of the same personality traits as his character martin vail in primal fear , bold and up front , who thinks he is three steps ahead of everybody else but is actually two steps behind . it is with invulnerability of both mental and physical kind that the character of moore is portrayed , which left me barracking for the chinese to haul his sorry ass into jail . it does n't take long from the film 's beginning for jack moore 's charm to work on a pretty chinese lady , and in no time they are in bed together in a hotel room , drunk and cheerful . yet instead of a hangover , poor jack finds himself covered in blood and the chinese chick dead on a couch . he is arrested and hauled into a chinese prison . his cell , food and rights , all terrible . now trapped in a foreign land without adequate aid from the american embassy , lawyer shen yuelin ( bai ling ) defends his case by initially pleading guilty to the charge of murder . jack and shen argue about their countries different laws ; shen stating that ' they will shoot you in the back and charge the cost of the bullet to your family . ' as the plot thickens , scenes get progressively more ridiculous , ranging from richard gere running over rooftops in search of the us embassy to a scooby doo ending where the least expected but - you - knew - along criminal is discovered . red corner is one of those films where you sneer , laugh or vomit you 're way through all of its minutes . what should have been a politically taunt thriller is little more than a pointless expedition to see how stressed out richard gere can act . this is not to say that the film does not have its moments , there are some tense court room scenes that are shrewdly created , telling the tale of foreign injustice and government corruption . but what they amount to spoils the effect of having them in the first place , perhaps this is why red corner is so frustrating to watch . if you look at the films overall concept fairly broadly , the basic idea is quite tangible . it is upon the film 's execution where the diminutive plot twists and developments fail to impress or innovate - the evidence that goes missing , the high powered officials shielding the truth and intolerable love angles have all been done so many times before . if that was n't bad enough , red corner 's dialogue is purely laughable on many occasions . shen yuelin attempts to gain sympathy by reciting renaissance of a destitute relationship with her deceased father , whilst jack moore is eager to talk about chinese musical instruments when he could have been working on a plan to free himself . taking itself far too seriously , red corner is not half the film it intends to be . although it would have benefited from the help of a more valuable supporting cast , the film 's main fault is in the bizarre ( and often out of place ) way of unfolding a story which is n't that meritorious anyway . whilst richard gere still proves that has what it takes to be known as a decent actor , i would think twice before going to see him attempt to manage such a serious yet hollow drama again . martin vail where are you ?

0NEG

more the point , anyone that allows him to bask in his own less - than - subtle presence . this is not an insult to gere , as gere 's performance is in no way poorly acted , it is far from perfect , and i look forward to seeing him star with to your family . ' as the plot thickens , scenes get progressively more ridiculous , ranging from richard gere running over rooftops in search of the us embassy to a scooby doo ending where the least expected but - you - knew - along criminal is discovered . red corner is one of those films where you sneer , laugh or vomit you 're way through all of its minutes . what should have been a politically taunt thriller is little more than a pointless expedition to see how stressed out richard gere can act . first place , perhaps this is why red corner is so frustrating to watch . if you look at the films overall concept fairly . it is upon the film 's execution where the diminutive plot twists and developments fail to impress or innovate - the evidence that goes missing , the high powered angles have all been done so many times before . if that was n't bad enough , red corner 's dialogue is purely laughable on many occasions . shen yuelin attempts to gain sympathy have been working on a plan to free himself . taking itself far too seriously , red corner is not half the film it intends supporting cast , the film 's main fault is in the bizarre ( and often out of place ) way of unfolding a story which is n't that meritorious anyway . whilst richard gere still proves that has what it

not so long ago , men by the names of peckinpah , ford , leone , and eastwood made westerns . real westerns . these were some of the best films of the twentieth century . those days are gone . now we have crap like wild wild west to pass for the western . and that record is not improved with the unbearable tale of american outlaws . outlaws is yet another re - telling of the jesse james legend , courtesy of b - movie king james g . robinson ( producer of such classics as wrongfully accused and chill factor ) . delayed since the spring , this version stars the irish hunka hunka burning love colin farrell ( the best part of schumacher 's tigerland ) as the bad - ass jesse james . alas , any sense of his character has been left on the ranch , leaving us with only cute chicks like ali larter ( minus the whipped cream ) to watch . the spin this time around : fresh from serving as southern militiamen in the civil war , jesse james ( farrell ) , his brother frank ( gabriel macht ) , and his pal cole younger ( scott caan ) lay down their arms and head home to missouri to tend the family farms after the war has ended . but trouble is brewing in their small town of liberty when evil railroad baron thaddeus rains ( harris yulin ) and his cronies rollin parker ( terry o'quinn ) and allan pinkerton ( timothy dalton ) demand the boys turn over their lands to the railroads . the jameses and the youngers then join forces to fight the railroad -- by robbing banks up and down missouri , thus cutting off the railroad 's financial surplus and playing robin hood to the local people . along the way , the boys squabble over who 's the cutest of the gang , who 's the most popular cowboy in the gang , and who ought to go on mtv 's total request live . they rob numerous banks with identical interiors , always with the kindest of hearts , strutting in their grungy dusters as moby songs play in the background . the witty banter they share could be plastered within a hallmark card . the biggest disappointment here lies in the acting of colin farrell . after a great job in tigerland , farrell walks through this role easier then nicolas cage in gone in 60 seconds . and his american accent rivals richard gere 's irish accent in the jackal . combined with feeling like bonanza : the teen years , this homogenized production ( toned down to get the ever - popular pg-13 rating ) gives us an invincible jesse james that quickly grows tiresome and boring . the unbearable villains courtesy of timothy dalton and thaddeus rains spend the entire film proclaiming that everyone should be hanged , sucking out any energy left in the film . not to mention : the real story of jesse james and his gang bears no resemblance to the plot of american outlaws . instead , the movie is full of old , outrageous tales about the wild west -- tales which went out of style in 5-cent magazines about a century ago .

0NEG

some of the best films of the twentieth century . those days are gone . now we have crap like wild wild west to pass for the western . and that record is not improved with the unbearable tale of american outlaws . outlaws is yet another re - tigerland ) as the bad - ass jesse james . alas , any sense of his character has been left on the ranch , leaving us with only cute chicks like ali larter they share could be plastered within a hallmark card . the biggest disappointment here lies in the acting of colin farrell . after a pg-13 rating ) gives us an invincible jesse james that quickly grows tiresome and boring . the unbearable villains courtesy of timothy dalton and thaddeus : the real story of jesse james and his gang bears no resemblance to the plot of american outlaws . instead , the movie is full of old , outrageous tales about the wild west -- tales which went out of

actually , i 'm fairly sure the experience of having my flesh torn and mutilated by barbed wire would have been more positive than watching this movie . " baywatch " babe pamela anderson lee proves once and for all that she should keep her double - d 's on the small screen . at least there you do n't have to pay to see her cleavage . and for those viewers out there who would only lay down money for this movie in hopes of seeing pam topless , hate to burst your bubble , but there are no full - fledged nude scenes in barb wire . you would n't be reading this review right now if i had known that fact going in . i ca n't go back in time and reverse my mistake , but i can warn other horny teenage boys out there . they do tease us a few times with scenes where you almost see her topless but if she is nude , it 's so quick you ca n't even tell for sure whether you 're seeing her andersons or not . a nipple hallucination sort of thing . barb wire was adapted from a comic book , interesting because pamela is probably the only woman who looks like a comic book character in real life , even wearing low - cut leather to do office work ( businesswoman bondage wear ) and having unreal body proportions . yes , like the mona lisa , pamela anderson is a man - made beauty , probably in more senses than one . she is a definite beauty , though , and looking at her is never an unpleasant experience . you 'd just think the woman who began her career as a playboy playmate would n't have any reservations about appearing nude in the movie , because it 's obvious she was n't pulling a sharon stone and trying to make people pay attention to her acting skills . i mean , she shows off more cleavage here than a jeweler 's convention . the movie is set in the year 2017 , " the worst year of my life , " pam says . ( " the worst movie of the year , " i say . ) america is going through a second civil war and pamela is a nightclub owner in the only free city in the nation ( silicone valley , i think ) . she also hires herself out as a bounty hunter when the price is right , posing as first a stripper and later as a prostitute . but do n't call her " babe . " she hates that , and reminds us of that fact way too many times . imagine , a woman who does a trapeze strip tease in a bar while having a hose sprayed on her being referred to in such a sexist , demeaning term . a liberated woman like pamela anderson should n't have to hear words like " babe " during a strip tease , especially since that movie about the talking pig was such a success . the plot ( ha - ha ) revolves around a pair of contact lenses that allow their wearer to pass through the congressional directorate 's retina scanners . in the words of one of the characters , they 're " more than meets the eye . " reminds me of the " transformers " cartoon , and i sure wished the movie could somehow be transformed into something decent , but that never happened . no , the movie just continued on its path of lame action scenes starring pamela van - damme , big - busted kickboxer , and her resistance accomplices , ex - boyfriend axel ( tamuera morrison ) and cora ( victoria rowell ) . thank god they did n't name her cora reef . one bad character name is more than enough . pamela originally does n't take sides , giving some speech about she 's only loyal to the money they pay her , but she changes her mind once the congressional bastards kill her blind brother , jack noseworthy of bon jovi " always " video fame . i still do n't know if barb wire is a step up or step down for noseworthy , but he definitely is nose worthy ( even if he is n't sponge worthy ) . pam gets ready to avenge his death by grabbing up an armful of semi - automatic weapons and strapping an ammunitions belt to her chest . it 's not rambo . . . it 's bimbo ! mark my words , barb wire will be all over the cinemax network in a year . it 's got all the elements of the direct - to - video releases featured on hbo 's bastard cousin , the cable channel i 'd never watch if it did n't somehow come free . it 's got the non - titillating scenes of voyeurism , laughable flashbacks , bad dialogue and action cliches out the wazzoo . there 's even a narrator at the beginning setting up the movie 's premise while the words scroll up the screen . someone needs to tell pamela the wookie this ai n't star wars . if you 've seen any action flick of the past fifteen years , you 'll recognize plenty of lifted elements . barb wire has the obligatory trucks flipping over , car crashes , explosions , broken glass and slow - motion shots of bodies falling hundreds of feet to their death . this is one of those automatic - pilot movies anyone could write or direct . barb wire has only two things going for it . . . and i think you know what those two things are .

0NEG

actually , i 'm fairly sure the experience of having my flesh torn and mutilated by barbed wire would have been more positive than watching this movie . " baywatch " babe pamela anderson lee proves once for this movie in hopes of seeing pam topless , hate to burst your bubble , but there are no full - fledged nude scenes worst year of my life , " pam says . ( " the worst movie of the year , " i say . ) america is going through a second civil war and pamela movie about the talking pig was such a success . the plot ( ha - ha ) revolves around a pair of contact lenses that allow their something decent , but that never happened . no , the movie just continued on its path of lame action scenes starring pamela van - damme , big - busted kickboxer it did n't somehow come free . it 's got the non - titillating scenes of voyeurism , laughable flashbacks , bad dialogue and action cliches out the wazzoo . there 's even a narrator at the beginning setting seen any action flick of the past fifteen years , you 'll recognize plenty of lifted elements . barb wire has the obligatory trucks flipping over , falling hundreds of feet to their death . this is one of those automatic - pilot movies anyone could write or direct . barb wire has only two things going for it

part buddy comedy , part fish - out - of - water story , part nature tale , meet the deedles is not nearly as interesting as any of those archetypes . in fact , it is an invitation you ought to disregard . phil and stew deedle ( paul walker and steve van wormer ) are the twin sons of the famous millionaire , elton deedle ( eric braeden ) , founder of deedle enterprises . elton wants his sons to be the perfect heirs to his fortune . . . instead the two are careless hawaiian surf bums . to set them straight , he enrolls them into a strict wyoming boot camp , to which the pair inevitably go . after several misadventures in wyoming , where the duo is stunned to discover there 's no surf , the brothers deedle stumble upon a routine mistaken identity plot . they arrive at yellowstone national park , where they are believed to be two new park ranger recruits . rather than slinking back home and disappointing their dad , the deedles play along . phil , actually , has other motives : the beautiful park ranger jesse ( a . j . langer ) , who unfortunately happens to be the beloved stepdaughter of the overprotective park ranger captain douglas pine ( john ashton ) . yellowstone has a problem . it 's only a week before the famous geyser old faithful celebrates its one billionth birthday , and the park is being overrun with prairie dogs . not just one or two . . . thousands of them . the deedles are assigned to eliminate the p . dog menace , not knowing that it all is part of a fiendish plan by disgraced former head ranger frank slater ( dennis hopper ) . the brothers deedle are n't supposed to be out - and - out stupid , like the team from dumb and dumber , or bill and ted . instead , their brains just operate in a different , simpler , realm . a more accurate comparison would be with carrot top in chairman of the board , a film which , unfortunately , this one resembles in several hideous ways . the central problem with meet the deedles is that it simply just is n't funny . there 's a moment when phil utters the line , " insert laugh here " , which nearly sums up the entire meet the deedles experience . the result is n't bad in a run - shrieking - from - the - theater type of way . instead , it 's merely bad in an excruciatingly boring sort of way . the cast seems decent , but they 're never asked to do anything remotely interesting . instead , the film inundates the audience with countless shots of people and/or cars rolling downhill in the forest , and with constant annoying references to other disney films . you 'll have much better luck finding a good spot to surf in wyoming than finding entertainment in meet the deedles .

0NEG

story , part nature tale , meet the deedles is not nearly as interesting as any of those archetypes . in fact , it is an invitation you ought to disregard . phil and stew deedle ( paul walker and steve in chairman of the board , a film which , unfortunately , this one resembles in several hideous ways . the central problem with meet the deedles is that it simply just is n't funny . there 's a moment when phil utters the line , " insert laugh here " , which nearly sums up the entire meet the deedles experience . the result is n't bad in a run - - the - theater type of way . instead , it 's merely bad in an excruciatingly boring sort of way . the cast seems decent , but they 're never asked to do anything remotely interesting . instead , the film inundates the audience with countless shots of people and/or cars rolling downhill in the forest , and with constant annoying references to other disney films . you 'll have much better

adam sandler is n't known for appearing in deep , thought - provoking films , but he 's still a really funny guy . most of his movies are successful not because of the film making behind them , but because they let sandler do what he does best without a stupid plot to drown him out . big daddy is the first film in which the story seems more important than sandler 's comic performance , and it 's a miserable failure . sandler plays a thirty - something loser who gets attached to an orphaned young boy ( played by cole and dylan sprouse ) . as one might expect from the synopsis , director dennis dugan resorts to the usual bag of manipulative and sentimental sequences , including a repulsive courtroom battle and a lot of teary scenes in which characters say " good - bye " to one another ; in addition , there 's a ridiculous amount of disgusting toilet humor ( urine and vomit both get more screen time than sandler himself ) . there 's a hilarious running joke featuring a female doctor who previously worked at hooters , and the film features passable performances from sandler , joey lauren adams ( as the love interest ) , and the two young boys , but the film on the whole is trite and disappointingly unfunny .

0NEG

seems more important than sandler 's comic performance , and it 's a miserable failure . sandler plays a thirty - something loser who gets expect from the synopsis , director dennis dugan resorts to the usual bag of manipulative and sentimental sequences , including a repulsive courtroom battle and a lot of teary scenes in which characters say - bye " to one another ; in addition , there 's a ridiculous amount of disgusting toilet humor ( urine and vomit both get more screen time than sandler himself ) . there 's a hilarious running joke featuring a female interest ) , and the two young boys , but the film on the whole is trite and disappointingly unfunny .

at the end of an action scene in " lara croft : tomb raider , " a wall collapses near the nubile warrior . with her face on the floor , she gazes into the rubble , then grins abruptly and says " oh , my car keys ! " i mention this scene because it was the only moment in the whole damned production that made me smile . based on an incredibly popular video game , " lara croft : tomb raider " is a lousy movie . the structure goes like this : poorly - staged action sequence , boring exposition , poorly - staged action sequence , boring exposition , etc . etc . , the end . basically , the film exists to showcase angelina jolie 's puffy lips and enhanced tits . close - ups are framed oh - so - carefully to include her million dollar bazooms . running scenes highlight her bouncing breasts in vintage " baywatch " fashion . there 's even include a shower scene that offers a brief side view of them . but the filmmakers are so inept they ca n't even flash the audience correctly . the one extended display of nudity is of - get ready for this - a guy . for no particular reason , a muscular supporting character strolls around naked for about 30 seconds , with each shot composed to barely cover his package , ? la " austin powers . " now , i enjoy a good looking male body as much as the next gay guy , but what the hell is beefcake doing in a t&a flick aimed at heterosexual males ? of course , what else should one expect in a film that does virtually nothing right ? " tomb raider " sets up elaborate action set pieces , then renders them incomprehensible with needless jump cut editing ( a promising dual bungee cord battle is ruined by excessive cuts ) . it promises a series of exotic locales , then delivers cavernous sets and grimy matte paintings with smoggy skies . throw in some bargain basement computer graphics and you end up with the ugliest movie to come down the pike in many moons . intended to be a rousing " indiana jones " style adventure , " tomb raider " lacks any sense of tension . the low point comes when lara is " threatened " by statues of monkey warriors and a giant multi - armed shiva figure that come to life courtesy of cgi . easily the lamest menaces i have ever seen , the creatures move like snails and fall apart with a single shot from a gun . if you ever have to be chased by monsters , pray that you get the monkey warriors . " tomb raider " tells a story , sort of . once every 5 , 000 years , the planets align . a group of very bad men are out to find two halves of an object that , if reassembled just as the planets align , will give them control over time itself . lara 's goal is to stop them and rescue her long - missing poppa ( jon voight , jolie 's real life dad ) . none of this matters though , because stunning gaps in internal logic assure that the plot of " lara croft : tomb raider " is as lame as ever other aspect of the film ? except angelina jolie 's lips and breasts .

0NEG

keys ! " i mention this scene because it was the only moment in the whole damned production that made me smile . based on an incredibly popular video game , " lara croft : tomb raider " is a lousy movie . the structure goes like this : poorly - staged action sequence , boring exposition , poorly - staged action sequence , boring exposition , etc . etc . , the end . basically , the film exists to that offers a brief side view of them . but the filmmakers are so inept they ca n't even flash the audience correctly . the body as much as the next gay guy , but what the hell is beefcake doing in a t&a flick aimed at heterosexual males ? of course , what else should one expect in a film that does virtually nothing right ? " tomb raider " sets up elaborate action set pieces , then renders them incomprehensible with needless jump cut editing ( a promising dual bungee cord battle is ruined by excessive cuts ) . it promises a series of exotic locales , then delivers cavernous sets and grimy matte paintings with smoggy skies . throw in some bargain basement computer graphics and you end up with the ugliest movie to come down the pike in many moons . intended indiana jones " style adventure , " tomb raider " lacks any sense of tension . the low point comes when lara is " threatened " by statues of monkey shiva figure that come to life courtesy of cgi . easily the lamest menaces i have ever seen , the creatures move like snails and fall apart with dad ) . none of this matters though , because stunning gaps in internal logic assure that the plot of " lara croft : tomb raider " is as lame as ever other aspect of the film ? except angelina

when robert forster found himself famous again after appearing in " jackie brown " , he immediately signed up for a little film called " american perfekt " . this was almost two years ago . i waited patiently for the film to be released , but it never was . finally , i forgot about it . the other day , though , while i was perusing the selection of the local video store , i stumbled upon , you guessed it , " american perfekt " . i immediately rented it and with a certain amount of glee , rushed home to view it . having now seen the film , i understand why it never saw theatrical release . " american perfekt " is a jumbled mess . the storyline is non - existent . it took me half the movie just to figure out what was going on . and at that point , the only thing i really knew for sure was that the movie was * never * going to introduce a plot of some sort . it wants to get by on quirkyness and so - called charm alone , and it just does n't work . robert forster plays a psychiatrist who picks up amanda plummer , and they head off on the road together . along the way to no discernable destination , they run into all sorts of kooky and wacky characters . i suppose this free - wheeling , no plot style is supposed to give the film an element of danger and excitment , but all it did was make me sleepy . i 'm all for trying new things within the realm of film , but not at the expense of coherence . nothing in this movie makes sense . the actions of the characters go unexplained , even when they 're truly bizarre . i 'll give you an example , without giving too much away . david thewlis has a part as a drifting con - man . at one point , mid - way through the movie , he runs forster and plummer off the road with his car . as he passes them , we see that his face is covered in blood . do you think we would get an explanation as to what happened to him ? you would think so , would n't you . " american perfekt " is a waste of time . nothing is gained from watching this movie , except maybe a migraine . and if you do rent it , do n't bother trying to figure out what 's going on in the hopes that everything will be resolved by the end . this does n't happen . and no explanation is given for the misspelling of " perfect " , either .

0NEG

amount of glee , rushed home to view it . having now seen the film , i understand why it never saw theatrical release . " american perfekt " is a jumbled mess . the storyline is non - existent . it took me half the movie just to figure out what was going on . and at that point , the only thing i run into all sorts of kooky and wacky characters . i suppose this free - wheeling , no plot style is supposed to give the film an element of danger and excitment , but all it did was make me sleepy . i 'm all for trying new things within the film , but not at the expense of coherence . nothing in this movie makes sense . the actions of the characters go unexplained , even , would n't you . " american perfekt " is a waste of time . nothing is gained from watching this movie , except maybe a migraine . and if you do rent it , do n't

you 'd think that after awhile hollywood would stop trying to make movies out of video games . it has n't worked so far . " street fighter ? " " super mario brothers ? " " wing commander ? " " mortal kombat ? " not a watchable film in the bunch . still i held out some hope for " tomb raider . " after all , the game 's premise is heavily influenced by the indiana jones trilogy and all the mummy movies , so there are cinematic elements imbedded in the concept . however , despite the potential of the project , " tomb raider " proves to be yet another bomb . the plot is a convoluted accumulation of nonsense probably borrowed from a dozen bad movies . there 's a once - ever-5000-years alignment of planets coming up , and the illuminati have to find both halves of an ancient triangle that controls time in order to take over the world . of course , the ancient folks who divided the triangle buried the halves in tombs on opposite sides of the world . our heroine , lady lara croft ( angelina jolie ) , finds the key that opens the tombs in relics that her dead father ( jon voight ) dug up . she figures that if she gets the triangle , she can bring her dad back from the dead . of course , no one was expecting much of a plot from this movie anyway . in both video games and action movies , the plot is just an excuse for the action sequences . however , the action in " tomb raider " shows little style or originality . there 's lots of shooting and some kung fu fightin ' , but none of it progresses beyond the level of a cheap direct - to - cable flick . the other goofy archeologist flick of the summer , " the mummy returns , " was much better ; it had its flaws , but its action was creative and large - scale . since winning her academy award for " girl , interrupted , " jolie has n't taken any projects that would display her acting talents . " tomb raider " seems to be more interested in displaying her breasts ; so much attention is drawn to them that it 's a shame there 's no oscar for best performance by a wonderbra . while we do n't see much of her acting ability ( with the exception of a wonderful upper - crust british accent ) , we do get a hint of jolie 's less savory side . considering the rumors of incest that hang over jolie and her supposed obsession with death , having lara be obsessed with resurrecting her dead father ( and uninterested in any of the living males around her ) seems a poor choice . having jolie 's real life father jon voight play the dead dad makes it even creepier . i have n't decided what to make of director simon west yet . his first feature was the star - studded disaster " con air , " but my opinion of him improved with " the general 's daughter , " which was thick with sultry atmosphere . now this train wreck . i hope he improves again because his next project is the big screen version of the cult tv series " the prisoner . " hollywood has already screwed up " the avengers , " and " the prisoner " represents a chance for redemption . ( by the way , speaking of british tv , " red dwarf " fans should look for chris " rimmer " barrie in his first major film role ) .

0NEG

the potential of the project , " tomb raider " proves to be yet another bomb . the plot is a convoluted accumulation of nonsense probably borrowed from a dozen bad movies . there 's a once - ever-5000-years alignment of planets . however , the action in " tomb raider " shows little style or originality . there 's lots of shooting and some kung fu fightin ' , but none of it progresses beyond the level of a cheap direct - to - cable flick . the other goofy archeologist flick of the summer , would display her acting talents . " tomb raider " seems to be more interested in displaying her breasts ; so much attention is drawn to them that it no oscar for best performance by a wonderbra . while we do n't see much of her acting ability ( with the exception of a wonderful upper - crust uninterested in any of the living males around her ) seems a poor choice . having jolie 's real life father jon voight play the dead dad makes it even creepier . i have n't decided what to make of director daughter , " which was thick with sultry atmosphere . now this train wreck . i hope he improves again because his next project