Datasets:

jingjietan

/

polarity-sentiment

like 0

vikings v . bears ? no , this isn't the lineup for monday night football . rather , these are the two opposing forces that will battle to the death in " the 13th warrior , " a film that is as dramatically flat as it is gratuitously gory . based on michael crichton's book , eaters of the dead , this viking saga tries to evoke the mysticism of fabled norsemen and the glorious battles that they fought . their strength and honor would eventually etch their place in history among the greatest warriors that ever picked up a sword . luckily for the vikings , however , their warring abilities were not as clumsy as this film . antonio bandaras is ahmed , a travelling ambassador . accompanied by his friend ( omar shariff in a cameo ) , they eventually come across a small viking village . we see that the vikings are an extremely proud group whose greatest strength is their fortitude . they laugh heartily , revel in their arrogance , and sing songs of battles won . but their festivities are about to be halted when a messenger boy arrives to tell the village leader that a great evil is threatening their land . help is needed quickly . an elderly , fortune-telling witch arrives . after a brief incantation , she proclaims that 12 warriors and one more " not of norse blood " are needed to ensure victory . personally , i always wonder why people believe these oracles when they look so haggardly and on the brink of insanity . nonetheless , 12 men eagerly accept their place while ahmed becomes the pivotal 13th . the group then sets out to do the greatest battle of their lives . of course during their ride , ahmed becomes the target of fun for the other 12 burly viking warriors . but he ably shows that it's not the size of the dog in the fight but rather the size of the fight in the dog . he is able to overcome the proud arrogance of the vikings , but will his skills ( and that of the group ) be enough to defeat whatever evil is menacing the countryside ? it does not look promising . these creatures , resembling bears , are strong and have high morale . they are fearless and display a desire for decapitating the heads of their enemies . they attack by the hundreds and the next strike will come soon . the warriors prepare their defenses and pray to their gods . they are ready to sacrifice their lives . " this is a good way to die , " says one of the fallen warriors . despite the larger-than-life battle sequences , i was unmoved by the entire experience . at many points , i was even confused . for example , somewhere in the middle of the film , a sub-plot creeps up involving the prince of the threatened land . he seems to have an agenda to elevate himself to greater power during this crisis . however , the sub-plot never fully materializes , and we are left scratching our heads as to the purpose of its inclusion . there are other questions that i had , but the real problem was that the story ( little of it that there was ) offered no characters to love or hate . the leader of the viking warriors had the most charisma . however , banderas's role is completely underwritten and it is unclear why being the 13th warrior makes him so special . an entire rewrite of the ahmed character is in order . also , much of the action takes place during torrential downpours or at night , which made battles very difficult to follow . i would have preferred more time looking at the viking culture and how their beliefs shaped their decision to do battle against the enemy . as it stands , the film manages more confusion than intensity . it would make thor cry .

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

sandra bullock in high heels and wielding a chainsaw ? yup , it's gotta be summer . just when you thought the pointless sequel had gone the way of franchise films and direct-to-video releases , into port slams speed 2 : cruise control , the gloriously godawful follow-up to the 1994 sleeper about a bus rigged to explode if it slowed below a certain speed . the gimmick , this time , is an ocean liner rigged to , well , crash into stuff . sound exciting ? dennis hopper's disgruntled bomb squader , the villain of the first film , has given way to willem dafoe's disgruntled computer programmer , a maniac whose main beef has something to do with having to use live leeches , i kid you not , as a self-treatment for copper poison- ing . ( and said poisoning induced by prolonged exposure to electro- magnetic fields , no less ! calling dean edell . . . ) so , he overrides the boat's computer , convinces the crew to abandon ship , and sends the remaining passengers , those who couldn't evacuate in time , on a col- lision course with destiny . ( oddly , no one thinks to just . . . jump off the back of the boat . ) with keanu reeves electing not to return-- perhaps he read the script ? -- the job of john mcclane goes to jason patric ( sleepers ) , as the * second * la cop and swat team member that that bus drivin' babe annie ( bullock ) has dated . ( what are the odds ? ) they're on this caribbean cruise for pleasure , as are a handful of requisite stock characters , including a deaf teenager ( ! ) who has a crush on the hero ( ! ! ) who also knows how to sign ( ! ! ! ) . ( and you thought the raptor slam was a cool summer movie move ? wait till you see the feats that * this * little girl can do , when stuck on a shipboard elevator ! ) bullock is her pesky , perky self , though she ends up with far less screen time than her top billing suggests . ( those paying attention to her bikini- and tank- tops probably won't complain , however ) patric is the main man in motion and that's damn good , 'cause when he stops to talk , he's only slightly less monotone than his predecessor . ( his first lol line is to ms . bullock : " i'd like to boogie with you . " ) of course , nobody in front of the camera embarrasses themselves quite the way that returning director jan de bont does . he also produced this mess , which is insulting even by the most lax summer standards . ( con air , buddy , father's day , romy and michelle's high school reunion , murder at 1600 , 8 heads in a duffle bag , anaconda , vegas vacation , meet wally sparks , metro , bevery hills ninja , the relic , all is forgiven ) . worse , he's spent a hundred mil on a premise that doesn't even live up to its title ! there's no sweat-inducing motion of the ocean here-- just two hours of shaky handheld camera work and a handful of cross-cut exteriors , all leading up to the big slam , when the love boat sideswipes an oil tanker and then plows into a harbor town . ( oh , how far we've come in twenty years . remember the simple fun of seeing a locomotive smash into railway station in the silver streak ? ) admittedly , either of the aforementioned sequences is worth the price of admission . it's just the rest of the movie-- the other hundred or so minutes-- that's pure nonsense . and wonderful nonsense at that . i know he didn't intend to , but de bont has done one thing right : he's created the hands-down funniest film of the year . so , now , allow to present a few more things that made me laugh : o a box with a big label : " fiber optic converter " o plain english , whole-sentence computer instructions o an entire sequence devoted to opening a fire door o jason patric's character walks onto the bridge and immediately understands everything that's happening o a ships' navigator who speaks in a scottish accent and actually gets to say " i canna override it ! " o willem dafoe's amazing arm-mounted keyboard o two living , breathing adults ( bullock's character and the first mate ) who have to be told , step by step , how to disconnect a trip wire from the pin of a hand grenade . duh o " no wait ! " screams the ship's intercom o yet another damn dog in peril o fishing reel . pontoon plane . memories of weekend at bernie's

i've noticed something lately that i've never thought of before . pseudo- substance - hollywood faking deep meanings in their films . have you ever seen a movie that you really enjoyed , then when you look back , you realize there was something missing ? more and more , filmmakers seem to be putting out well rehearsed , melodramatic films that evoke strong connotations of being a great film , but if you step aside and reflect on your movie going experience , you may just discover nothing more than elegantly presented fluff . i'm not trying to say city of angels is that bad . it had a lot going for it , but somewhere along the way , it faltered . somehow , underneath the seemingly poetic beauty of it all , there was a gigantic hole somebody covered with iridescent performances and glossy cinematography . the predictable ending that shattered our hopes ( even though we saw it coming ) only added to the disappointment . but for over an hour , city of angels is well worth the time . nicolas cage is seth , a guardian angel who , like hundreds ( likely thousands or even millions ) of other angels , spends eternity watching over the citizens of mortality ; humans never aware of how much celestial intervention occurs in their life . meg ryan , in her most subdued performance yet , plays maggie , a doctor who begins to ponder exactly who it is we're fighting against when we fight to keep someone alive . after losing a patient on the surgery table , these questions envelope maggie , and seth , the angel who was there to oversee the patient's transition into the afterlife , is immediately captivated by the doctor . he begins following and observing maggie , falling more and more in love with her everyday . angels , who we quickly learn are not and never were humans , can not experience human sensations such as taste and touch , but they do have the ability to make themselves seen to anyone they desire . seth's adoration is too much to resist , and eventually he does appear to maggie , quite regularly , although such a thing seems taboo among the angelic community . the angels are interestingly presented , all of them dressed in black and more reminiscent of hitmen than traditional glowing white entities , but it's a nice touch that never seems like a mere attempt at uniqueness . cage is a wonderfully versatile actor ( think face/off , raising arizona , and it could happen to you - what a combo ! ) who slips into the role of a heavenly agent quite nicely but threatens sappiness more than once . it's nice to see ryan pick up roles like this and the one in courage under fire . the two aren't very comparable to each other , but they both deviate from her usual " intelligently ditzy " romantic comedy roles , and it's an impressive side of ryan movie goers rarely have the chance to enjoy . but even though the two leads do an impressive job , it is dennis franz who grabs us with his interpretation of a hospital patient who knows more than meets the eye . it's a shame that with so much going for it , city of angels falters so much in its final stages , leaving us with the realization that an emotionally incredible movie was out there , they just didn't know quite how to get to it . they struggle for an impacting conclusion and wind up with painful thud rather than an exhilarating high . filmmakers should know your final impression will be the one you linger on , remember , and convey to others thru word of mouth , so after telling us for 60+ minutes that this film is a glorious masterpiece , they sure leave us with a disheartening taste of mediocrity in our mouths . based on the german film wings of desire ( that being the english title , of course ) , city of angels is ninety percent success , enough to make most people forgive its shortcomings , even the devastatingly disappointing ending . most movie goers , the non-cynics anyway , will be too wrapped up in the surreal atmosphere to give criticism to that which needs to be criticized . nonetheless , city of angels is beautifully captivating , which is probably enough to satisfy those poetic viewers who will appreciate a delve into rich emotional territories .

i recall the trials and tribulations of my high school years . it was a period that would mercilessly force me to exit boyhood and thrust me into the unwelcome arms of adulthood . but of all the experiences that i collected throughout those tender years , i can honestly say that the toughest and the scariest thing that i had to cope with was my raging hormones and my crazed curiosity about girls and sex . yes , more scarier than my seventh grade english teacher and even scarier than the bullies that constantly hounded me , trying to deal with my personal wonderment about sex was like trying to fight an invisible monster . for all teenagers , it's almost like a rite of passage . and what we did was sometimes downright nasty , sometimes funny , and sometimes shocking . and all of that is terrifically and shamelessly brought to light in what might be the funniest movie this summer . `american pie' is a comedy about four sexually frustrated seniors that enter into a pact to lose their virginity by the end of the school year . just how great are their hormones raging ? one of them notes , after watching disney's the little mermaid , that ariel is soooo hot . the four schoolmates are kevin , oz , finch and jim . kevin is the only one with a steady girlfriend , but doesn't want to have sex until the time is just right . but what is the perfect time ? there is just no way to know , and that frightens him . oz is the big jock who decides that the way to score with the girls is to listen to them and to be more sensitive . he joins up with a jazz choir and discovers that getting in touch with his feminine side has some tremendous advantages . finch is the phobic hermit who doesn't stand a chance with any girl . so , he pays someone $200 to start spreading rumors about his prowess . suddenly , girls are lining up to go out with him . but among these friends , it is jim that is the most curious and the most fearful . when he has a chance to romp with a pretty exchange student , his inexperience comes shining through . he has much to learn , and will do anything to seek out this kind of knowledge . this may include watching scrambled porn channels or experimenting with mom's apple pie in a scene that is completely shocking , raunchy , yet unbelievably funny . the one thing that i want to say about this film is that it well deserves its `r' rating . there is stuff in here that is completely gross in the same manner that `there's something about mary' was gloriously ribald . in fact , at first this film received a sinful nc-17 rating before a couple of more cuts finally brought it down to a teen-accessible rating . but i guess after seeing the no-holds-barred coarseness of south park , this seems tame by comparison . teens and anyone who can still remember their acne years are the ones that will laugh hardest . but unlike many teen sex comedies , there is a genuine intelligence at work here . these are four normal boys who have a natural curiosity about sex . their plans of action are thoughtful and they think about the consequences . they know what they want , yet temper it with responsibility . but almost always , it's impossible to know how to fight the invisible monster , and it's these episodes that make `american pie' such a carnal delight to watch .

my filmcritic . com colleague norm schrager nailed session 9 , brad anderson's throwback to spooky horror films from the 70's . it worked as an eerie homage without being self-referential or smugly postmodern . genre aficionados will acknowledge the similarities in tone to stanley kubrick's the shining and george romero's dawn of the dead without being taken out of the engrossing narrative ( i . e . , a psychologically addled waste management team clears out an abandoned lunatic asylum ; unspeakable dread ensues ) . in a double-whammy for 2001 , anderson shoots and ( mostly ) scores again with his eclectic riff on time-travel episodes from the twilight zone , appropriately titled happy accidents . much like session 9 , the cards are played very close to the vest here . is boyish , eccentric " sam deed from dubuque , iowa " a futuristic voyager from the year 2470 or just your run-of-the-mill psychologically disturbed nutcase let loose on the present-day streets of nyc ? as played by wonderful character actor vincent d'onofrio ( full metal jacket ) , it's up in the air whether or not we should accept his detailed monologues about life after the polar ice caps have melted . the question proves to be moot , at least for a time . even if the whole thing proves to be a creative delusion , one agrees with the character judgment passed down on him by his new girlfriend , ruby ( marisa tomei ) : " he's a freak , but he sure tells a good story ! " neurotic ruby thinks she may have found true love after a series of nightmarish dating disasters ( the junkie , the fetishist , the artist , the frenchman , etc . ) , but isn't quite sure how to handle " sam deed " when he starts explaining the barcode on his arm , his elaborately constructed fake identity , his pathological fear of dogs , his ability to speak five different languages , and his mission to change a crucial moment in time that may have ramifications on time's alternate realities . ( don't ask . ) it's all a bit much to take in . ruby's close friend gretchen ( cuz ya can't have a love story without the token friend , though nadia dajani invests the thankless role with warmth ) chalks it up as a sexy role-playing game , but her cautious therapist ( holland taylor ) warns her that co-dependency is rearing its ugly head again and she's in over her head with yet another doomed relationship . who ya gonna believe ? despite her winning an academy award , marisa tomei has always struck me as an annoying and unwelcome screen presence , one that undermines the pleasure of watching happy accidents . her brassy new yawk attitude never really meshes with her desperate desire to appear " cute " to her adoring fans . being loud and flashing a ( disingenuous ) smile does not necessarily equal " substantial and sexy . " it takes more than a crack team of hair and wardrobe people to imbue her with personality . then there's that damned voice , which strains to be oh-so-adorable . look , this stuff is purely subjective . some people feel this way about richard gere , others cannot bear to watch robin williams' hyperactive schtick . for my money , it's m . tomei with a bullet . happy accidents is a romantic comedy filtered through twelve monkeys ( or , more appropriately , chris marker's la jetee , especially with those still framed " memory " photographs anderson employs as a stylistic device throughout ) . modern manhattan is filmed with an otherworldly , vaguely alien eye with a color scheme oddly reminiscent of logan's run . as the stranger in a strange land , d'onofrio walks slightly out-of-step , wonderfully affable but often inscrutable with his wayward expressions and bemused detachment . this is science fiction told mainly via the power of suggestion ( though it often falls into the sci-fi trap of having entirely too much forced exposition -- we want deeds , not words ! ) at least twenty minutes too long , happy accidents eventually gets around to a race-against-time scenario that puts " sam deed " to the ultimate test . no movie can live in ambiguity forever , but anderson seems terminally unable to provide satisfactory conclusions to his otherwise well structured recent narratives . ( let's pretend the loathsome and predictable next stop wonderland never happened , shall we ? ) there are also some slow , repetitive stretches as ruby and sam go over the same arguments again and again over whether or not he's crazy . the premise is strong enough to sustain interest , but it's enough to throw a nod in the general direction of rod serling for wrapping up his ideas in half-hour time slots , commercials included .

natural born killers is really a very simple story that , in essence , has already been told in bonnie & clyde with some major variations in emphasis , mood and degree . both films glamorize " outlaws , " in one case bank robbers and killers and in the other mass murderers . both relate the story of a couple liberated by love . but where bonnie & clyde was partial and subtle , natural born killers is total and blatant . where bonnie & clyde was social , natural born killers is psychological . what bonnie & clyde hinted at , natural born killers confronts and explores . what bonnie and clyde stole , mickey and mallory kill . to examine natural born killers as nothing more than a psychological odyssey of realization and exposure of the frauds surrounding them , expressed metaphorically as killing , subdues the mysterious power this film wields . for the most part , when mickey and mallory kill , they kill all that frustrates them unnecessarily , they kill what is trying to kill them , they kill what dissembles and cowers from life , they kill what needs to be killed . this mythos is at least as old as the hindu trinity . brahma created . vishnu preserved . and siva destroyed , but he destroyed what needed to be destroyed to make way for the useful creations of brahma . the following may be painfully mundane but metaphorically so accurate , i'm forced to say it for clarity's sake : a plumber must remove the old lead and copper pipes , that is , destroy the old plumbing system in order to replace it with the new one made of plastics . your plumber , bonnie and clyde , mickey and mallory , and siva are all productive destroyers . i think you could say without much of a challenge that religion is responsible for more killing and death , presently and historically , than any other phenomena . muslims kill christians . hindus kill muslims . christians kill pagans . jews kill christians , etc . you could reverse subject and predicate in each instance and still not be challenged . religion is an orgy of killing . the institution of the state only misses first place for technical reasons like it hasn't been a major player for as long or the two are frequently indistinguishable . " the state is the divine idea upon earth , " hegel said , meaning it is absolute , all-powerful , ineffable , unassailable , infallible , authoritarian and patriarchal just like jhvh , allah , god , etc . well , what does all this have to do with natural born killers ? let me first say that religions of this nature , in the ideal , take the place of sex . consider the catholic church , which in its hey-dey , took religion as seriously as any other religion or institution ever . god takes the place of sex as manifested in all those vows of celibacy taken by the pope , cardinals , bishops , monks , etc . they forego the one , in order to come closer to the other . during the middle ages , when this doctrine was unmitigated and unchallenged , the most repressive regime the west has ever known in terms of scope and magnitude rose to power . ( parenthetically , witness plato as well . in the republic , he attempted to launch the first systematic absolutist regime . not coincidentally he was something of a mystic himself , regularly assailing the passions . ) catholicism , as policy , attacks the passions as evil . it sees intercourse only as a means to perpetuate the species not as a way to pleasure . masturbation is considered a sin with the sacrament of penance necessary for absolution . this is religion , this is authoritarianism in its essence . as further evidence , the nazis had the same attitudes as the church on these matters . our culture , most of the cultures of the world have been steeped in this tradition for thousands of years . we can't help but adopt , even internalize some of these same authoritarian attitudes , leading to a destructive split between the biological and social self . mickey and mallory knox internalized them , too , then through spontaneous sexual awareness sparked in each one of them by the presence of the other , discovered them , and began expurgating them from themselves and from the world in the process unifying themselves . it is a straightforward liberation through sex . as some good patriarch once observed , " you can maintain control as long as everyone keeps their clothes on . " m&m had a vision of what the world would be like without contradictions . they saw what civilization and culture and everyday life would be like under such conditions . " the moment of realization is worth a thousand prayers , " as mickey says . as a the most consistent and impassioned critic of western culture there is nietzsche applying his typical stridency to the matter : let us look each other in the face . we are hyberboreans--we know well enough how remote our place is . " neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the hyberboreans " : even pindar , in his day , knew that much about us . beyond the north , beyond ice , beyond death--our life , our happiness . . . . we have discovered that happiness ; we know the way ; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth . who else has found it ? --the man of today ? -- " i don't know either the way out or the way in ; i am whatever doesn't know either the way out or the way in " --so sighs the man of today . . . . this is the sort of modernity that made us ill--we sickened in lazy peace , cowardly compromise , the whole virtuous dirtiness of the modern yea and nay . this tolerance and largeur of the heart that " forgives " everything because it " understands " everything is a sirocco to us . rather live amid the ice than among modern virtues and other such south-winds ! as far as i can tell , this is what the movie has to say . its alleged critique of the media is only secondary , tertiary , quaternary , subsidiary for sure . for example wayne gayle's first report ends with some gen x dude saying , " if i were a mass murderer i'd be mickey and mallory , " in his most excellent bill and ted voice . on one level you cd make the humdrum observation that because the media had glamorized these two psychopaths that the uncritical , impressionable gen x dumb guy confused the matter and took them for heroes . it seems more likely that he made an independent judgement at a subconscious level recognizing what m&m were up to and confessing that if he had the balls to be so honest with himself he'd be just like them , killing and destroying what deserves it . let me exemplify what i've been saying by analyzing a scene from the film , namely the scene where mallory fucks the gas station attendant , kills him , and then castigates him for giving her " the worst fuckin' head i've ever had in my life ! ! ! " now , i never claimed that mickey and mallory had a perfect relationship , because demonstrably they didn't , and this scene and the ones leading up to it show us this . sometimes they are the source of each others frustrations , but unwilling to kill each other , since they love each other so much and are responsible for each others liberation , they must kill in place of their lever . it's no secret that in this scene mallory fantasized that her victim was mickey . as the attendant approached he took on mickey's character in the eyes of mallory . she needed to kill him because of he kidnapped that girl in the hotel room and was having secret fantasies about her while making love to mallory . upon discovery , mallory views this as a betrayal , judges him , and commutes his sentence on someone else . the style of the movie is a whole 'nother matter that i won't get into very deeply but surely it is partially responsible for its power . let me just say that its editing has the opposite effect of a western with shots that linger forever on a salon entrance or the like suggesting the expansiveness , barreness and boredom of the frontier lifestyle . the rapid succession of all those 8mm , 16mm , 35mm images from various perspectives with a soundtrack sometimes in sync and sometimes out of sink instills a skittish , frenetic mood . also , jungian archetypes abound . these can't help but trigger deep psychological responses we can barely understand especially when they flash across the screen for barely a few frames . some of the best scenes and lines that come to mind . ( quotes are paraphrased only ) : mickey to mallory : " one of these days i'm gonna be cummin' for you , " in prison , while mallory jacks mickey off . semen is a symbol for great potential and things to come . at the time they haven't yet had sex nor have they killed anyone yet . the two of course go hand in hand . for an even more explicit semen scene see silence of the lambs . mickey during his marriage to mallory : " as creator of my universe , i pronounce us man and wife . " the way woody delivers this line is truly haunting , but telling , too . it reveals m&m are well on their way to expunging all their destructive tendencies and replacing them with positive ones . this is what mickey means by " creator of my universe , " he is giving himself or creating for himself healthy attitudes . it is not necessarily a schizophrenic retreat into solipsism as it first appears . scagnetti's first meeting with mallory is through her pubic hair he plucks from the gas station attendant's mouth . the indian sage releasing mallory's father , who was reincarnated as a snake : " old man , go be a snake , " after telling his " snake story " that ends with " bitch , you knew i was a snake . " after mickey shoots this sage to death during a bewildering nightmare , mallory says , " you killed life ! ! ! " this is another telling quote because it implies they didn't see themselves as killers of life . then what were they killing up to that time ? in some case just those zombies faking their way through life , the living dead , as it were . in other cases , all the anti-life forces , the cops and their parents . the butterfly just before the movie shifts into the prison . it of course symbolizes rebirth . dr . emil reingold , as portrayed by steven wright , passing judgement on m&m : " mickey and mallory know the difference between right and wrong , they just don't give a damn . " this is reminiscent of nietzsche's whole philosophy , and maybe a direct reference to his beyond good and evil . mickey : " the rabbit says the moment of realization is worth 1000 prayers . " mickey ( again in his interview ) : " me and you , we are not the same species . " notice when the escape is in progress we get some role reversals in terms of leadership and control . mickey the prisoner becomes the leader of his little gang . the wardens become prisoners and the civilians like wayne gayle and his producer follow the leader , no matter who it is . mickey : how ya feelin' ? wayne : fucking great ! mickey : you got the feelin' ? wayne : i'm alive . i'm alive for the first fuckin' time ! what an incredible transformation this is . he got the feeling and he couldn't contain himself . what a feeling . that feeling of metaphysical freedom that you can create your own universe . mickey when almost caught in a dead end , " think , think , think , think . " go figure it out . dwight ( tommy lee jones ) in general , because he may be the sickest fuck in the whole film . his whole attitude can be summed up with , " destroy them ! ! ! "

capsule : earthy , experimental , difficult , shockingly frank ( even for 1997 ! ) , and ultimately refreshing story of a black man on the run from the cops . the first few minutes of sweet sweetback's baad asssss song ( yes , i checked -- that's the correct number of ss ) are without dialogue , just eerie montages of sounds . a young boy , obviously malnourished , is taken in and fed up by several loving mother-surrogate figures . then one of them takes the boy to bed for a sexual initation ( underneath the title credits ) that's far more confrontatory and shocking than any ten basic instincts -- probably because it has the directness and clumsiness of real life , something we're not used to seeing on screen . this is one tough movie to swallow , no matter who you are , but that probably reflects more on how pallid and unchallenging movies have gotten lately . ( i suspect the sex scenes in movies like el topo and salo would probably melt the synapses of most modern audiences . ) the plot is simple but not simpleminded . sweetback , hassled by two white cops who are apparently just looking for an excuse to beat up on a black man , breaks his bonds and runs like hell . along the way he moves through a good many of the kinds of environments that we are only just now being seen in a more serious light in the movies -- or at all , for that matter : the slums , the missions , the ghetto . in other , lesser , movies , sweetback would be machine-gunning everything in sight and the end credits would roll over a pile of bodies ; in this one , we get taken on a kind of a tour of the depressing and anarchic world that sweetback takes for granted . ssbas first appeared in 1971 and was promptly rated x ( " by an all-white jury " , as director melvin van peebles crowed in his legendary ad campaigns ) , and it's hardly surprising why . there's a good deal of sex in the movie , but it's handled in a way that's unsettlingly frank -- a frankness that spills over into the rest of the movie . in one scene , sweetback visits a friend's house in the hope of getting sanctuary there , and the other man chats him up while on the toilet . we're not used to coming this close to people in real life , let alone in the movies -- especially not people who are not made out to be glamorous . the movie is also full of experimental stylistics that are relatively unused today , but probably because of that seem curiously fresh and new in van peebles' hands . one scene , in which a man is interrogated by the cops , is loaded full of menacing energy as they fire off a gun inches from his ears , and suggest his deafness through a cleverly edited soundtrack . another note : ssbas is not so much anti-white ( that would be too easy ) as anti-authority , and as the movie goes on to demonstrate , authority exists in many forms -- governments , churches , and even the paranoid inside of one's own mind . ssbas is ultimately about thirsting for freedom -- and it looks like we could use a little more of that in our movie diet , god knows .

bruce willis and sixth sense director m . night shyamalan re-team to tell the story of david dunne ( willis ) , a stadium security guard who has been having some problems at home that are affecting his relationship with his wife and child . on a return trip from new york where he was trying to get a job , dunne is in a horrible train accident that he is the only survivor of . to make things even stranger , dunne has also escaped the accident completely unscathed . a comic book art dealer named elijah price ( samuel l . jackson ) , who was born with a degenerative bone disease that causes his bones to be so brittle that they break constantly , has been seeking out someone like dunne his entire life . price felt that there had to be someone exactly the opposite of him . . . someone whose bones would be so strong that they would never break . price contacts dunne and convinces him to come down to his gallery for a talk where he suggests that dunne could quite possibly be something akin to a superhero from the comic books price used to read when he was a child . dunne doesn't believe him at first , but price assists him in discovering his " powers " and helps him hone his craft until he discovers what his true calling really is . writer/director m . night shyamalan had a tough act to follow with his sleeper hit the sixth sense . how exactly does one follow up on one of the biggest and most popular thrillers in recent years ? for shyamalan , the answer must have come as easy to him as nuclear physics does to kindergartners . does this new film measure up to his breakthrough box office smash , though ? the answer to that question is not a very easy one , either . as far as pacing goes , the sixth sense seemed almost interminable . it wasn't until the surprise ending was revealed that i realized the film was actually intentionally ( and perfectly ) paced in order to give the audience ample time to re-connect all of the information they had seen once the climax had been reached . for unbreakable , shyamalan gave the film a much more satisfying pace which , in many ways , blows away the film that had come before . the story moves along at a steady pace and shyamalan's direction is excellent , with the camera almost constantly moving . there are tons of great shots in the film , not least of which is a conversation that opens the film between willis' character and another train passenger . the shot seems as though it were filmed like we were watching the two talk from between the train seats and the camera steadily glides back and forth between the two actors as they speak . also very impressive is the film's score by james newton howard ( who also scored shyamalan's sixth sense and the similar film stir of echoes , as well as this year's dinosaur ) . several of the scenes are driven by a very catchy beat and help to increase the tempo of the film . one of the best examples of this is a scene in which dunne goes into a train station to " exercise " his powers . the music , in combination with the stellar visuals , really go a long way towards making this an incredible movie . if there was any one soundtrack i would make a must purchase this year , this one would be it . the film also boasts some great performances , including a precocious child actor trying to vie for the oscar throne left vacant by haley joel osment . willis turns in a great performance as the sad sack dunne , who just can't seem to figure out why he's been depressed for the last few years . his character almost seems pathetic when we first meet him , but he eventually grows into his own under elijah's tutelage . jackson is one of the better actors of our time , and here he turns in yet another great performance as the ever injured elijah . though his hairstyle is absurd , jackson seems to infuse such a great deal of pain into his role that the mortar board hairdo can easily be overlooked . robin wright penn's role seems slightly underwritten , but she still manages to get across the intense hurt of her character's need for love from her husband and her desire to make things work again . spencer treat clark , as the dunne's young son jeremy , shows that shyamalan still has a knack for picking young actors , and he turns in one of the most competent performances in the film . out of all the characters , jeremy's is perhaps the most emotional , and clark does a great job with the role . where the film does lose points though , is during its " surprise " ending . shyamalan has said in interviews that he was going to do an ending that blew away the one presented by the sixth sense , but i found myself saying " that was it ? ! " when unbreakable revealed its own ending . it's not that the ending is bad , it's just that the ending doesn't quite have the emotional punch that the other film's did . plus , it almost seems like it sets itself up for sequels ( and i won't reveal the ending here , but you'll understand what i mean when you see it ) . essentially , what all of this means is that shyamalan has made another good film with unbreakable . the only real problem is that the ending doesn't quite fill the shadow left by its predecessor . as long as it isn't held to the standard that sixth sense set ( which it ultimately will be ) , it should be a remarkably well liked film . one thing seems clear , though . shyamalan definitely has an affinity for comic books that he would like to share with the world and many comic book fans will also delight the vision he presents in this film .

bruce lee was a bigger-than-life martial artist ( and ) actor . bruce's unique character ( i . e . , self-produced sound effects , etc . ) and seemingly perfected martial art and physique were all well portrayed by the actor , james lee . the story is told from his wife linda's point of view where she put a lot of family and practical side of bruce lee's life . however , you can't help but like , whenever the fight scenes are on , what he can does with his body and that familiar bruce attitude and character . i also like the little bits of insight scenes about bruce lee's life before he became famous : scenes like bruce practicing pronunciation of english . it seemed as if he was no better than anybody else . scenes like bruce delivering chinese food as a delivery boy ridding a bike through the american college looking at the ( all-white ) students , cheerleaders , and athletes . it seemed he too wished for the american dreams and hopes . in conclusion , the movie was well made , it produced a realization of who bruce lee was , and actor james lee was so much like bruce you have to remind yourself that he is just an actor . and the fighting scenes were all excellent . so go see it and enjoy the movie . p . s . if you have seen the movie unforgiven by clint eastwood , then the feeling left after dragon was very much like the feeling you got after the unforgiven .

i wish i could say that there is something more to the new star wars installment than what you see in the commercials , but there isn't . george lucas is an expert at crafting triumphant , special effects-bound flicks and he has done it again . this is the first star wars film i've seen on the big screen , so , of course , the impact was much greater than when i watched the three original episodes on video . what is compelling about the phantom menace is not its disposable story , but its amazing visuals . basically , the film's plot is centered around trade disputes between two planets . qui-gon ( liam neeson ) and his young apprentice obi-wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor ) set out with the animated jar-jar binks to fix the mess that may result in war . when their ship breaks down and they are stranded , they find a young boy , anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) and his slave mother . qui-gon strongly believes that anakin is destined for jedi greatness and immediately takes him under his wing . anakin participates in a heart-pounding podrace , one of the highlights of the film , to get the equipment needed to fix qui-gon's ship . however , most everyone is doubtful about entrusting the future to some unknown slave boy . meanwhile , queen amadala ( natalie portman ) is frustrated and at wit's end , being na ? ve and young and having so much responsibility on her shoulders . there are hardly any emotional scenes in the film- even when we discover that anakin will be leaving his slave mother behind to begin jedi training , the frenzied excitement of the whole film wears down the poignancy to the size of a crumb . this does not prove that the phantom menace is poorly made for it is brilliantly made . in all the star wars films , human emotions that we , the audience , can identify with are usually nil , but the films are for pure enjoyment , not for uplifting purposes . despite the fun of watching the movie , the phantom menace is not without flaws . for starters , we have the ill-conceived , moronic character jar-jar binks who should be considered a threat to star wars galactic society and to the audience . what a klutz ! george lucas clumsily tried to create a fun character that would be as memorable as , say , yoda , r2-d2 , or c3-po , but , alas , his efforts were in vain . secondly ( this may be good or bad , depending on your point of view ) , the movie's atmosphere is so different from the familiar comic-book feel of the previous three star wars installments . this is due , perhaps , to the utter complexity to this movie's plot and the higher level of sophistication of the visual effects used here . the movie seems to be reaching for epic proportions . i can't say much about the acting , though acting has never been what you saw star wars movies for anyway . however , there is absolutely no pizzazz to the performances- they are straightforward and , at times , stale . natalie portman has a great presence , but her turn as queen amadala makes the queen a stoic , unfeeling ? enigma . there is nothing we can hold onto in her performance to make us believe the trade predicament is anything of importance . jake lloyd is the only actor here who has an ounce of evident spunk . despite the inevitable faults , there is so much to enjoy about the movie . the heightened excitement of the final sequences doesn't quite surpass the famous the empire strikes back climactic scenes , but they are amazing and edge-of-your-seat fun in their own rite . the film is a treasure to look at . the visual effects are astonishing 99 . 8% of the time- the awe-inspiring , mouth-opening , eye-popping sight of the underwater city is nothing short of production design and special effects genius . not since 1997's the fifth element has there been a film as drenched in visual treats as this one . the production design is reminiscent of the fifth element , the previous star wars movies , kubrick's 2001 , maybe even of fritz lang's classic silent metropolis . however , all the sets are so original . the original star wars movies can't even match the grandeur of this film's visuals and that is a sheer pleasure for the viewer- it gives us hope of even greater things for the upcoming episode . the costumes are remarkable and have jean-paul gaultier written all over them . whether its queen amadala's gigantic wardrobe complete with gold-embroidery and feathers , or the jedis' simple brown uniforms , the costume designer has fused talent with outrageousness . the costumes are one of the true delights of watching the movie . as for john williams' score , i don't think he's done one as complex or powerful since ? i can't even remember . it is as epic as his schindler's list score and as thrilling and zestful as jaws . it includes the bare bones of his music from the previous three films , but williams has added on , made the music much more intense and moving . what with the overwhelming hoopla that circled this movie , one might come in with high expectations and be disappointed . there is very little to hate in the film : it's a very accomplished and skillfully made flick . it is the best " fun " film and the best big-budget film out today , most definitely .

there's a moment in schindler's list when a number of jews are trudging through snow , clean and crisp , dark edges and frost on the ground . one girl waltzes through , wearing a red dress that stings the eyes . it is probably the finest moment through out the film . when i first saw it i began to cry , though i could not say why . this landscape is the setting of many small moments that add up to one big whole . when one man is shot in the head we see blood oozing out onto the ground -- so black and murky , its almost pomegranate red . at another time we follow a young boy as he runs , searching for a hiding spot before finally squeezing into a toilet -- which is already occupied . like so ( citizen kane , fargo , the godfather , the godfather part ii , greed , ) many of the greatest american films , schindler's list plays with the concepts of money , power , and soul . but this is a movie about a man who does the right thing . starkly emotional , and brutally powerful , schindler's list strips away everything on the outset and leaves us ony feelings . the following that it has gained is not suprising -- this is probably , thus far , the best film of the decade . steven spielberg has always been a skilfull filmmaker -- his assured hand churned out both jurassic parks , jaws , the indiana jones films , and e . t . -- but it wasn't until 1993 that we saw what a brilliant man he can be . the product of his genuis is really something to see -- it can bring tears to your eyes just as it uplifts you . throughout , we sense the deep control which he so masterfully spreads . we watch oskar schindler ( liam neeson ) grow from an arrogant , self important man who hires jews only to save money into a moving figure , with a deep sense of pride and accomplishment . the film requires much work , and can be a harrowing experience -- go expecting a quick entertainment and you'll be bitterly dissapointed . it does reward the patient viewer . this is a mature spielberg , and his deft hands shape an absoloute masterpiece . this eqsuisite , beautiful film is a rare gem . it does a good job of summarizing why i love movies . it leaves one breathless , uplifted , and with much to think about . afterwards you can reflect on individual images , visions , and people . laconic , removed , schindler strides through the film a detached prescence who watches all , does much , and leaves feeling as if he could , should , have done more then he did and was able to . the change seems natural -- in the hands of a lesser filmmaker , it would be crude and would cheat the audience . instead we are told a tale , told a story . the film is punishing to watch , yes . but anyone who allows themselves to get involved will experience a miracle , and a genuine masterpiece of a movie .

capsule : bleak and point-blank -- just the way it should be . makes its case with cold-blooded precision and intelligence . " serial killer chic " is a relatively new entry to the cultural vocabulary , and one of the more stomach-turning ones . i've never found someone automatically admirable or even interesting because they killed creatively or in great numbers , and because of that i had apprehensions about seeing henry . i wasn't sure i wanted to see the story of multiple murderer henry lee lucas portrayed as some kind of nihilistic hero/antihero . thankfully , that's not the way henry works . the director , john mcnaughton , took a small budget and a gallery of actor friends and created a chilling and intelligent piece of work . it doesn't provide cheap-jack explanations for henry's behavior : it shows him up for what he is , an unrepentant and un-idolizable man who killed when the mood struck him . at the film's opening , henry's friend ottis toole has a sister , who comes by to stay while she tries to find work in chicago . in a viciously riveting scene , he admits matter-of-factly to having murdered his own mother , and she covers his hand with hers . they are damned together from that moment on . henry and ottis eventually begin to kill for fun . the movie is especially good at showing how they seem to have drifted casually into it : there's a scene where the two go to buy a new tv . the pawnbroker they talk to goads henry with ugly words , and henry responds by stabbing the man to death with a soldering iron . no preface -- it smashes into us as suddenly as it does the broker . in a scene which many damned the movie for , unseen , they steal a video camera and film the murder of a whole household , playing it back over and over again for their own enjoyment . the movie itself , however , does not glorify the killings , but shows instead that henry feels no joy at his work , only irritation . henry succeeds thanks to excellent writing and direction as well as acting . michael rooker is credible as henry from the first frame , just standing there , and the rest of the cast works by being unaffected and casual as well . the producers had originally comissioned a slasher film from mcnaughton , but he decided to give them something more memorable , and consequently the film nearly didn't see release . the film does not glorify or justify -- it just shows us , with unflinching coldness , what henry was . i'm hard pressed to see how anyone can see this and consider henry any kind of " victim " or " hero " . then again , probably , so would henry .

satirical films usually fall into one of two categories : 1 ) long-term satire where everything , including the jokes , is somehow related on a large scale ( i . e . " dr . strangelove " ; 2 ) situation satire in which the comedy and themes are derived moment by moment and scene by scene ( i . e . " men in black " ) . what's unique about " wag the dog " is that it doesn't necessarily fit either of these descriptions , and yet is both at the same time . the result is a clever comedy based on an original , smart premise , even if the focus does tend to wander a bit . if there's anything that affects americans the most it's politics and showbusiness . in this age of information and technology , we've been so conditioned by the media and the entertainment industry in our ways of perceiving things , it's gotten to the point that we are practically controlled by it . we need the media to bring us the most up-to-date news , but we also need the escapism of hollywood to counter all that thinking . this film starts off well by quickly establishing these ideas , and then presents an interesting scenario : if politics , the media coverage of politics , and the entertainment industry are so closely related , couldn't someone with the power and authority to manipulate one of the aspects manipulate them all ? that's the idea conrad brean ( de niro ) , a professional washington spin doctor , comes up with in order to restore the president's good name who has been accused of child molestation just weeks before the election . brean , along with the president's top advisor , winifred ames ( heche ) , fly to california to meet up with hot-shot movie producer stanley motss ( hoffman ) . they pitch him an idea to " produce " the image of a war with albania ( it's a country no one's heard of so they people will buy it ) . soon the wheels are in motion and the film's riffing satire comes into play . we're inundated with the hollywood mind set as motss brings in a number of experts to help manage the situation , such as a folk singer , visual and sound effects technicians , and a modern style expert known as the fad king ( leary ) . the initial atmosphere is rich with numerous pop culture references where everything somehow relates to something on tv , in the movies , or in the news . the characters' dialogue is witty and funny , although some of the actual jokes and gags seem rather sitcom-esque . for example , one scene shows motss and brean's production crew filming an actress portraying a poor albanian refugee . motss ordered a kitten for the girl to carry , but instead wound up with a dozen different dogs . since it's all computer-enhanced anyway , she ends up cradling a bag of tostitos with the kitten to be inserted later . this demonstrates the film's ability to take a relatively ordinary situation and make it smart and funny just through the premise . but then there's the gags and one-liners that , although are humorous , seem a little gratuitious in the long run such as motss not being able to remember the actress's name , or , whenever a problem emerges , always responding with , " this is nothing ! " by the time the film makes it to the midpoint , everything that is going to happen in terms of plot happens . the first act is quickly paced , while the second act contains most of the jokes and is the core of the film . every ten minutes or so a new problem crops up that motss and brean must deal with , and it's always fascinating to see what they do and how they do it . the screenplay provides good characterization and actually deals with most of the problems head-on in realistic manners . however , it does have a tendency to avoid things and shift its focus from the election campaign and false war smokescreen to something a bit off the subject . as the third act rolls around the satirical nature becomes more concerned with the situations and less so with the big picture . what had started off as a brilliant , somewhat harmless conspiracy to fool the general public begins to seem more like something that would happen in a movie . still , the situation comedy is quite funny , especially a montage showing the entire country flinging old shoes into trees to honor sgt . willie schumann - a war hero motss and brean concocted . truly great satire manages to create for an entertaining story that makes you laugh at the time , but think about afterwards and " wag the dog " at least succeeds in this respect . however , in retrospect it seems like so much more could have been done , namely by extending the running time and filling in the plot holes . then again , it's a valiant effort .

deep rising is one of " those " movies . the kind of movie which serves no purpose except to entertain us . it does not ask us to think about important questions like life on other planets or the possibility that there is no god . . . screw that , it says boldly , let's see some computer generated monsters rip into , decapitate and generally cause irreparable booboos to a bunch of little known actors . heh ! them wacky monsters , gotta love 'em . of course , since we can rent about a thousand b movies with the same kind of story , hollywood must give that little extra " oumph " to get people in theaters . that is where deep rising fails , which is a good thing . confused ? let me explain : despite all them flashy effects and big explosions , deep rising is still , at heart , a good 'ol b movie . luckily , it's a very good b movie . the worst cliches in movie history are a b movie's bread and butter . therefore , things that would destroy a serious movie actually help us have a good time while watching a movie of lower calibre . of course we know there's a big slimy creature behind that door , that one person will wander off to be picked off by said monster and we always know which persons or person will make it out alive . we just don't know when or how horrible it will be . i went to see deep rising with my expections low and my tolerance for bad dialogue high . imagine my surprise when i discover that deep rising is actually , well , pretty darn funny at times . a funny b movie ? well , that's new . these flicks are not supposed to make us laugh . ( except for a few unintended laughs once a while . ) and before you know it , treat williams , wes studi and famke jansen appear on the big screen . hey ! i know them guys ( and gal ) from a couple of other movies . cool . familiar faces . so far so good . our man treat is the hero , he'll live . wes is a staple of b movies , he is the token victim . we know he'll buy the farm but he will take a few creeps with him on the way out . famke is the babe , 'nuff said . there is also a guy with glasses ( the guy with glasses always dies ) a black person ( b movie buffs know that the black guy always dies , never fails ) and a very funny , nerdy guy . ( ah ! comic relief . how can we possibly explain having to kill him . . . let him live . ) after the first fifteen minutes i felt right at home . i know who to root for and who i need to boo too and a gum to chew . ( please kill me . ) suffice it to say that for the next hour and a half i jumped out of my seat a few times , went " ewwww " about a dozen times and nearly had an orgasm over all the explosions and firepower our heroes were packing . i'm a man , we nottice these things . all in all , i'd recommend deep rising if you are looking for a good time and care to leave your brain at the door . . . but bring your sense of humor and excitement in with you . the acting is decent , the effects top rate . how to best describe it ? put together the jet ski scene from hard rain , the bug attacks from starship troopers , a couple of james bond like stunts and all those scenes from friday the thirteenth and freddy where you keep screaming " don't go there , he's behind you " and you end up with deep rising . for creepy crawly goodness , tight t-shirts , major firepower and the need to go to the bathroom every fifteen minutes from seing all that water .

i'm not quite sure how best to go about writing this review . i must admit that i was a little disappointed by barry levinson's political satire " wag the dog , " but in retrospect , this has less to do with the film itself than with false expectations i had going into it . quite a few of the reviews i have read led me to believe that this film was absolutely hilarious and would make me laugh out loud the whole way through , and it didn't do that . they also led me to believe that it would deliver a vicious and all-too-true attack on the way the american political media works , and it didn't quite do that either . a few of them even suggested that it would prove a worthy successor to stanley kubrick's " dr . strangelove " in the tradition of political black comedy , and it most definitely didn't do that . that said , " wag the dog " is actually a very clever satire on the shady manipulations of political figures and those who assist them . the story revolves around the attempts of political spin doctor conread brean ( robert deniro ) to distract the american public from the accusations that the president , who is up for re-election in two weeks , sexually harassed a young girl in the oval office . the accusations , the script suggests , are probably untrue , but as brean so pointedly puts it , that isn't particularly relevant : the scandal is likely to derail the president's campaign regardless of its truth or falsehood . brean , along with his assistant ( anne heche ) , decide to contact hollywood producer stanley motss ( dustin hoffman ) to enlist his help in concocting enough propaganda and special-effects trickery to make it appear that the u . s . is going to war with albanian terrorists and thus propel the president to victory on a wave of patriotic fervor . as i said , " wag the dog " is not quite as laugh-out-loud hilarious as i had expected , but there are some genuinely funny moments to be found here , such as when , in an echo of a familiar movie clich ? , the camera pans out over an urban sunset to the strains of uplifting , inspirational music , then cuts to a studio to reveal that the singing is coming from a group of musicians whom motss has assembled to perform " we have the right to fight for democracy . " another scene shows us how , with modern editing equipment , an actress running across a sound stage with a bag of potato chips can be turned into a frightened young girl and her kitten fleeing a terrorist attack on her village . the most consistently effective gag revolves around the propaganda team's attempt to forge a fictional war hero out of sgt . william " old shoe " schumann ( woody harrelson ) , an ex-military officer who turns out to be a first-class psycho . of course , not everything goes as planned ; the cia , for example , realizes what's going on and strikes a deal with the president's electoral opponent to report to the media that the " fighting " has ended , forcing motss and brean to come up with a new angle on the supposed albanian crisis . still , even with the cia's involvement , the film falls a little short in terms of making this scenario believable . regardless of the official word from the president or the cia , wouldn't the major media outlets have eastern european correspondents who could verify that there is , in fact , no fighting going on in albania ? the film never addresses this question , nor does it show the reactions of the american public to the news of the apparent war except for a few scenes which border on the farcical , such as when basketball fans litter the court with shoes in support of the aforementioned sgt . schumann ; we are apparently meant to assume that everyone is buying it . there was also an instance , towards the end of the film , in which one of motss's forced reinventions of the story seems to contradict what he and brean had been selling to the public thus far and could conceivably have given the game away . with these plot holes , " wag the dog " doesn't quite work as a satire of american politics , but it does send up the mentality that might lead to these kinds of machinations in the first place . brean and his advisors never seem concerned that what they are doing is unethical ; rather , they worry about how convincing it will be and whether or not they have enough money to pull it off . the film takes a decidely dark turn towards the end , as we learn how far they are willing to go in order to keep the propaganda campaign a secret . motss and his hollywood buddies , meanwhile , seem completely out of touch with the rest of the world and just see this undertaking as another creative project . in fact , one of the sources of conflict in the film is motss's increasing restlessness with the idea of not being able to take credit for producing the fake war ; in his mind , it is the greatest work of art he has ever created . i think it's fair to say that " wag the dog " underachieves a little bit : more attention to the public reaction and tighter plotting might have made this into a four-star film and a classic satire . still , the issue of an american president using war and patriotism to distract from scandals or domestic unpopularity is a very real one . wag the dog takes the issue one step further and asks , what if the war wasn't even real ? with this premise and the talented cast , the film still delivers more consistently than most , whatever its flaws .

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 don'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 wouldn'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 didn'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 wasn'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 wasn'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 don'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 )

oh god how many john grisham lawyer films we have been munundated with ! in a perfect world , " a civil action " would be a breath of fresh air . it's cynical about lawyers in a way that grisham isn't . it's romantic in the exact opposite way a grisham book/film isn't . and , the capper , it has no distinct ending , and the law in hollywood films is that above all else , you must have an ending . even if it's based on a true story , a true story which hasn't yet ended , you must supply an ending , a false one , but an ending nevertheless . hell , " a civil action " is even more sly and more witty than any of the grisham works put together ( and that includes " the firm , " the only novel of his that will ever be regarded as a classic ) . yet it's also oddly and slightly unsatisfying . weird . this is , in fact , a steve zallian film , not just the work of a hack , and zallian is the director of the much-admired " search for bobby fischer " ( didn't see it ) and writer of none other than " schindler's list . " in short , i like this guy , and am a sucker for the way he tells his stories . after all , apart from the obvious it's-a-holocaust-film and it's-a-spielberg-film , isn't " schindler's list " just a damn brilliant film , not so much a holocaust film as it is a wonderful character study . " a civil action " is the same way : it's narrative is split between being a lawyer film and being a character study . and it's here that the film seems to go a bit wrong . the main complaint of this film is that while , yes , it's an engrossing lawyerly tale , it has no real ending , and that's not necessarily the problem with the film . it's that it's just kind of unsatisfying . if this were a great film , it would feel complete , and still end basically the same way . but this film just seems to end , and i don't want to be stupid and suggest an alternate ending should be tacked on : imagine , if you will , being one of those the film is about , looking forward to this film , and then discovered the truth has been through a surrealistic and unpleasant hollywood filter , just so the many won't bitch about what is , essentially , genuine . but the fact that it just ends is not , in all actuality , what is wrong with it . it's rather that zallian has chosen , in the last half hour , to adandon the traditional lawyer story , and chose the other part of his story , the one about the lawyer , one jan schlictman ( john travolta ) , who's shown in the opening and throughout most of the movie as a heartless but brilliant lawyer , brilliant because he's manipulative and he always wins . it wishes to make it all about jan in the end , but the truth is , his change , although nicely done , is not full . we see him suffering from a personal crisis , and travolta does do a pretty good job in depicting his change of heart , but in the end , we don't fully believe it . and i think that the problem is when he has made his decision , the film choses an odd angle to go at , a noble one , but one that gives the film's conclusion that of incompleteness . in the opening of the film , we see him doing his old schtick , manipulating courts , winning cases effortlessly , and then discussing on a heard radio interview how great he is at his job and how much he cares for his cases . in short , he's full of bullshit and we know it . in the film , he takes a case that is hardly desired : a town where several of the children have died mysteriously of lukemia and the source of the illness seems to be from a local factory that may or may not have been dumping waste into the river . point one , it's not of the usual criteria ( jan points out , wickedly , that dead or wounded children aren't nearly as sympathetic as those struck down in the midst of their success ) . point two , it has been through several lawyers . after turning them down , jan changes his mind ( a muddled scene - he stops his car on a bridge , looks out . . . is he feeling a sense of overachievement ? ) , and he and his team of lawyers ( tony shalhoub , zeljko ivanek , and accountant william h . macy ) head out to the town to do battle with the town's company . they spend millions of dollars examining the land , test the water , what have you ( this is where stephen fry , a possible oscar nominee for his brilliant performance in " wilde , " pops up thanklessly ) , and in the meantime question the parents of the dead children , and then , unsuccessfully , the workers at the plant . they also find themselves clashing with a brilliant lawyer for the company , the eccentric jerome facher , played by robert duvall ( more on him later on ) . as we progress , we get so involved in the way the story is being told , which is engulfing everything around it , including the individual and brief stories of some of the townspeople ( one of the best is a bit with james gandolfini as an employee of the plant living across the street from kathleen quinland , who lost her child , who begins to have a personal crisis ) . things begin to go downhill for the lawyers in the second half , as they are up against impossible odds : the judge ( john lithgow ) is not only a strickler , but a pal of facher ; the employees of the plant are either afraid or to loyal to testify ; no concrete evidence is being found , depsite the money spent to find it ; and they are quickly running out of money . as macy mortgages everything he can , including their homes and their office , he slowly loses his sanity ( his meatiest role since , oh , " fargo " ) , and we the audience begin to feel a real loss of hope for our protagonist . in fact , the last half hour is such a change from the rest of the film and so unresolved that it has been widely panned as not being up to par ( owen gleiberman , especially , criticized the film for not being overly-dramatic . . . i suppose like a grisham novel ) . this wouldn't be so if the change in jan had not been handled the way it is : instead of having a change of heart and automatically being perceived as good , he's seen as being still full of bullshit . because he doesn't take stock in the cares of his partners , and causes them all to lose their money and noteriaty in the lawyer field because he wants to help the people of the town , he is instead seen as being of good nature but not sure how to bring that out . the final half tries to redeem this , as must have been the point of making this in zallian's mind , but what follows is a series of scenes where we merely see him making personal stands for his beliefs , and though he has changed considerably from the opening moments when he's seen speeding back and forth from the town that wishes to employ him ( and thusly receiving two speeding tickets ) , we still feel that the big change in his life is that he's not rich and esteemed anymore ( the film's final title card is witty but in all actuality shallow ) . the fault is not that there is no closure to the court case ( it's still going on , you know ) , but that its personal story feels like it needs either another chapter or another angle in the final one it has . we need to feel like the character has really made a big change in his life , and that the story is how a story of strife like the one of the town could inspire such a whopping change in his personal life . it only feels like half of that . maybe even less . and it's not travolta , who does a great job here ( though never to be a truly memorable performance of his ) , but rather zallian , whose final chapter needs a rewrite . up to then , though , it's an engrossing drama , one of the best of the year in fact , and one of the best lawyer films , period . the reason is because it recognizes that a court trial is not about those being defended or prosecuted , but rather it's about the lawyers , the knights who battle eachother . we learn that the company is almost positively to blame for the deaths in the town , but the reason it can't be blamed is because it has the best prosecution you can find . and duvall's facher is such a brilliant character and he does such a magnificent job at portraying that man that it's almost easy to overlook how subtley great he is . facher is seen as an elderly man , a goofy eccentric , carrying a broken brown bag with stickers on it , eating lunches out of paper bags , and making a point to take time out of his day to listen to the radio , and scold anyone who interupts him . but look deeper and you see a master at work : his evil and manipulative nature are hidden under the eccentricities that others don upon him , and it's difficult as hell to clearly generalize him in any way . that's why i liked this film : it's hard to put a pointer on . you can never see exactly where this film will land , and even when the credits roll , you still aren't sure what to make of it . call it the zallian effect . same thing happened with " schindler's list " ( not that i'm comparing oskar schindler to jan schlictman ) . each film is so greatly crafted that you can't help but get involved in its broad storytelling , interesting characters , and , most peculiarly , the wit that comes along with it . if only it felt totally complete ( like , say , " schindler's list , " though at this point it may be unfair to make comparisons between the two ) , it might have been one of the best films of the year , and along with that , a full breath of fresh air .

note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned . during the three years since the release of the groundbreaking success pulp fiction , the cinematic output from its creator , quentin tarantino , has been surprisingly low . oh , he's been busy -- doing the talk show circuit , taking small roles in various films , overseeing the production of his screenplay from dusk till dawn , making cameo appearances on television shows , providing a vignette for the ill-fated anthology four rooms -- everything , it seems , except direct another feature-length film . it's been the long intermission between projects as well as the dizzying peak which pulp fiction reached which has made mr . tarantino's new feature film , jackie brown , one of the most anticipated films of the year , and his third feature film cements his reputation as the single most important new american filmmaker to emerge from the 1990s . things aren't going well for jackie brown ( pam grier ) . she's 44 years old , stuck at a dead-end job ( " $16 , 000 a year , plus retirement benefits that aren't worth a damn " ) as a flight attendant for the worst airline in north america -- and she's just been caught at the airport by atf agent ray nicolette ( portrayed with terrific childlike enthusiasm by michael keaton ) and police officer mark dargus ( michael bowen ) smuggling $50 000 from mexico for gun-runner ordell robbie ( samuel l . jackson ) , who has her bailed out by unassuming bail bondsman max cherry ( robert forster ) . the loquacious ordell , based out of a hermosa beach house where his horny , bong-hitting surfer girl melanie ( bridget fonda ) and agreeable crony louis gara ( robert de niro ) hang out , operates under the policy that the best rat is a dead rat , and he's soon out to silence jackie brown . meanwhile , the authorities' target is ordell , and they want jackie to help them by arranging a sting to the tune of a half-million dollars . only through a series of clever twists , turns , and double-crosses will jackie be able to gain the upper hand on both of her nemeses . although jackie brown marks mr . tarantino's first produced screenplay adaptation ( based on the elmore leonard novel " rum punch " ) , there's no mistaking his distinctive fingerprints all over this film . while he's adhered closely to the source material in a narrative sense , the setting has been relocated to los angeles and the lead character's now black . in terms of ambiance , the film harkens back to the 1970s , from the wall-to-wall funk and soul music drowning the soundtrack to the nondescript look of the sets -- even the opening title credit sequence has the echo of vintage 1970s productions . the opening sequence featuring ms . grier wordlessly striding through the lax , funky music blaring away on the speakers , is emblematic of films of that era . the timeframe for the film is in fact 1995 , but the atmosphere of jackie brown is decidedly retro . of course , nothing in the film screams 1970s more than the casting of pam grier and robert forster as the two leads , and although the caper intrigue is fun to watch as the plot twists , backstabbing , and deceptions deliciously unfold , the strength of jackie brown is the quiet , understated relationship developed between jackie and max ; when they kiss , it's perhaps the most tender scene of the year . tenderness ? in a quentin tarantino film ? sure , there've been moments of sweetness in his prior films -- the affectionate exchanges between the bruce willis and maria de madeiros characters in pulp fiction and the unflagging dedication shared by the characters of tim roth and amanda plummer , or even in reservoir dogs , where a deep , unspoken bond develops between the harvey keitel and tim roth characters -- but for the most part , mr . tarantino's films are typified by manic energy , unexpected outbursts of violence , and clever , often wordy , banter . these staples of his work are all present in jackie brown , but what's new here is a different facet of his storytelling -- a willingness to imbue the film with a poignant emotional undercurrent , and a patience to draw out several scenes with great deliberation . this effective demonstration of range prohibits the pigeonholing of mr . tarantino as simply a helmer of slick , hip crime dramas with fast-talking lowlifes , and heralds him as a bonafide multifaceted talent ; he's the real deal . this new aspect of mr . tarantino's storytelling is probably best embodied in a single character -- that of the world-weary , sensitive , and exceedingly-professional max cherry , whose unspoken attraction to jackie is touching . mr . forster's nuanced , understated performance is the best in the film ; he creates an amiable character of such poignancy that when he gazes at jackie , we smile along with him . much press has been given about the casting of blaxploitation-era icon pam grier in the lead , with the wags buzzing that mr . tarantino may do for her what his pulp fiction did to bolster john travolta's then-sagging career . as it turns out , ms . grier is solid in the film's title role , although nothing here forces her to test her range . i do have to take exception to the claim that this film marks her career resurrection , though -- she's been working steadily over the years , often in direct-to-video action flicks , but also in such recent theatrical releases as tim burton's mars attacks ! and larry cohen's original gangstas ( where she first teamed up with mr . forster . ) of course , it's true that her role here was a godsend -- a meaty a part as this is rarity for * any * actress , let alone one of her age and current status in the industry . while jackie brown may disappoint those looking for another pulp fiction clone , it marks tremendous growth of mr . tarantino as a director whose horizons are rapidly expanding , and whose characterizations have never been better . and while the film's narrative doesn't really warrant a running time of 155 minutes , it's filled with such sumptuous riches , ranging from the brashness of the vivid soundtrack to entertaining , inconsequential conversations between the characters , that there wasn't an unengaging moment . with an impressive trio of feature films under his belt , it'll be interesting to see what he tries next .

are we victims of fate in life or can we create our own destiny ? director/writer brad anderson seems to be saying yes to both questions in his witty film " next stop wonderland " . the two main characters , alan and erin , spend the entire movie in each other's orbit , catching glimpses of one another , yet not quite connecting until the inevitable conclusion . is it fate that keeps them near each other and ultimately puts them together ? does this predestination carry over to all aspects of life ? as the film starts , erin castleton ( hope davis ) , a melancholy 29- year old late shift nurse , is ending her live-in relationship with her boyfriend ( hoffman ) . rather , he is ending it with her . arriving home from work , erin finds her boyfriend parked in front of their apartment , car packed with his belongings . in a fumbling , amusing and self deluding ramble , he instructs erin to watch a videotape he's made detailing why their relationship is doomed to fail and why he's leaving . it's obvious he lacks the courage to confront her directly as he rails on about accomplishing something with his life and taking a stand , all the while backpedaling his way out of their relationship . he then flees the scene with the grace of an inept thief . erin's mother ( holland taylor , in a surprisingly effective , small role ) , fearing that her daughter will be without a man in her life , takes out a personal ad for erin . to erin's embarrassed horror , the ad describes her as a " frisky , cultured , carefree professional with a zest for life " . eventually , erin responds to the tidal wave of responses , which makes for some of the most humorous , telling moments of the movie as she meets prospective suitors and " poseurs " . alan , a plumber and aspiring marine biologist , first spots erin as he's cleaning the inside glass of a fish tank at the boston aquarium . wearing a wet suit and goggles , he follows erin from window to window , separated by the glass as erin , oblivious to his gaze , enjoys the fish . later , we see him on a train as she sits on a platform outside , mere feet away . the movie spends it's entirety having their paths circle each other without crossing . there are several subplots involving alan . one concerns his attempts to get on the job track at the boston aquarium , thereby escaping his apparent fate to carry on the family plumbing business . another subplot involves his father's desperate attempts to force fate's hand by gambling away his life at the dog track . a distracting focus is put on alan's debt to a loan shark and the manner in which he pays it off . the movie tries too hard to make alan a likable guy . thankfully , his dream- guy persona is counterbalanced by erin's distant , yet fundamentally hopeful , personality . the film moves along at an unhurried pace , albeit too much so in the latter third , as we wait for the two to meet . co-writers anderson and lyn vaus throw a couple of possible red herrings into the mix as the two find other possible relationships . the films shifts into a much slower gear as we wait for these romances to blow over . when alan and erin eventually do meet , we see that perhaps they both were destined for each other as they share a lingering , almost subliminally knowing , gaze . it's a sweet , measured moment . the disappointment comes in the fact that we've come to know the pair , yet we don't get to view their impending romance . the film's inherent belief in the subtle persistence of fate and the wonder it can bring to one's life makes " next stop wonderland " a quiet pleasure in a cinematic landscape littered with explosions , shallow characters and overdone special effects .

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

in the mid-1980s , following the splendid debut in hugh hudson's greystoke and relative success of first highlander film , it looked like christopher lambert's acting career might go somewhere . but , it wasn't meant to be , which became obvious following highlander ii . in this decade christopher lambert became associated with films with low budgets and even lower quality . very often such films were science fiction , which meant that the fans of that genre learned the hard way what to evade anything starring christopher lambert . whether it was because of real lack of talent , terrible miscasting or simple bad luck isn't important - the end result was almost always horrible . the same can be said for fortress , 1993 science fiction film directed by stuart gordon , director who created cult following with his 1980s horror gorefests like reanimator and from beyond . the movie is set in 2018 . for some undisclosed reason , usa introduced strict population control and couples are barred from having more than one child . jake ( christopher lambert ) and karen brennick ( lori laughlin ) broke that law and are caught by authorities on the border . sentenced to 31 years in prison , they are both thrown into fortress , privately owned correctional facility , equiped with state-of-the-art futuristic technology and run by computer called zed . although equiped with gismos that regulate every aspect of inmates' lives and make any escape impossible , prison authorities often use violence . jake survives many ordeals and earns respect of some inmates which would help him when he begins planing the escape . such escape should become necessity , because the warden poe ( kurtwood smith ) begins showing unhealthy interest in karen . after rather intriguing beginning and some interesting special effects that depict the futuristic settings of prison , this film soon starts sinking into mediocrity . the reason is in the screenplay that quickly degenerates into whole series of prison movie clich ? s and situations that are painfully predictable . by the time brennick begins his escape from fortress , those situations not only begin to look predictable , but utterly implausible too . of course , film never tried to explain why the country that lacks resources to support its present population happens to spend bucketloads of money on ultra-expensive supertechnology with sole intention of keeping alive most useless and dangerous members of the society . the initially interesting plot is done even more wrong by stereotyped characters , played by not too interested or talented actors . lori laughlin , although physically attractive , shows the acting ability of sequoia . kurtwood smith as prison warden is rather uninspired , capable of solid , yet forgettable performance . lambert's performance is also good , but even the bigger talent couldn't help this film , destined to end in oblivion .

oliver stone's latest feature is the last one standing in the long line of biographies of american presidents . it's a three-hour long saga about the life of one of the most hated and misunderstood leaders of the 20th century . stone doesn't hold back anything as he digs deep inside politics and legal maneuvers of the white house . the director holds nixon responsible for everything he has done . at the same time he creates a very human character , a brilliant and tortured man that is caught in the dirty game of politics , which is here pictured as a wild animal . he is simply trying to tame it . but the occasional switch to the raging sky and the clouds swiftly fleeing over the white house as events run ahead of the president's ability to control them . stone doesn't in any way apologize for nixon . he blames not only nixon's own character flaws but also the imperial presidency itself , the system that , once set in motion , behaves with a mindlessness of its own . " nixon " is a modern shakespeare story - a saga about a ruler destroyed by his fatal flaws . there's something almost majestic about the process : as nixon goes down in this film , there is no gloating , but a watery sigh , as of a great ship sinking . sir anthony hopkins is staggering and plays nixon with incredible honesty and understanding , creating a very emotional picture of the 37th american president . joan allen's magnificent and captivating performance is certainly worth an oscar statuette . she is strong and loyal as mrs . nixon . the rest of the cast is equally magnificent , including : james woods , j . t . walsh , paul sorvino , ed harris and bob hoskins . everyone does a serious and demanding job , no one are disappointing . stone never loses focus and his direction is steddy , honest and determined . he is displaying the historical facts and at the same time concentrating at the human element . at times he is showing to black and white showing flashbacks from nixon's youth and childhood . the flashy editing by brian berdan and frank corwin , robert richardson's rich cinematography and john williams' musical score create a hectic and bizarre atmosphere . the film's only fault is that it's a bit tiering and overloaded with too much political material and legal maneuvers . still it's an honest and captivating - a solid piece of movie making .

as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood doesn't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions . this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) . they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges' life by shooting an unarmed pow . that's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances . certainly hodges is not complaining . years pass . hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer . childers , is now a respected and much-decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould . because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops . childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command . after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd . more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down . childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians . he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film . did childers violate authorized u . s . military rules of engagement ? or are there simply no rules in war ? the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions . the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s . where is the accusations from the arab leaders ? where is the u . n . ? the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ? this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism . these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair . what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking . one of the earliest apparent problems with 'rules of engagement' is its lack of credibility . the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed . a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality . that is precisely why it's not offensive . it is completely unobjective . many stories are started and never finished . many questions are asked , but never answered . a lot of parallels are referring to nothing . it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film . is it about arab mentality ? america's foreign policies ? america's role in the world ? corruption in the higher circles ? it goes on and on . it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot . it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one . i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film . in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film . though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage . i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed . it's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe . the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict . even the actors can not save this film from going under . though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of . they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back . jackson is gray and jones uninteresting . the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks . the time has come for the verdict . on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty . on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty . but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it's inconclusive and often silly plot that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population . i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad-guys . this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth . however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states . and that it's not a coincidence that u . s . residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .

in essence , good will hunting is an ordinary story told well . taken as a whole , there's little that's special about this tale -- it follows a traditional narrative path , leaves the audience with a warm , fuzzy feeling , and never really challenges or surprises us . but it's intelligently written ( with dialogue that is occasionally brilliant ) , strongly directed , and nicely acted . so , while good will hunting is far from a late-year masterpiece , it's a worthwhile sample of entertainment . like scent of a woman , which was released around this time of the season five years ago , good will hunting is about the unlikely friendship that develops between a world-weary veteran and a cocky young man . the formula for the two films is similar -- both of the principals learn from each other as they slowly break down their barriers on the way to a better understanding of life and their place in it -- but the characters are different . al pacino's slade was a larger-than-life individual ; robin williams' sean mcguire is much more subtle . and matt damon's will hunting uses pugnaciousness to supplant the blandness of chris o'donnell's charlie . will is a troubled individual . as a child , he was the frequent victim of abuse . an orphan , he was in and out of foster homes on a regular basis . now , not yet 21 years old , he has accumulated an impressive rap sheet . he has a short temper and any little incident can set him off like a spark in a tinder box . but he's a mathematical genius with a photographic memory and the ability to conceive simple solutions to complex problems . while working as a janitor at mit , he delights in anonymously proving theorems on the math building's hall blackboards . then , one evening , his anonymity is shattered when professor lambeau ( stellan skarsgard ) catches him at work . will flees , but lambeau tracks him down . unfortunately , by the time the professor finds him , will is in jail for assaulting a police offer . the judge agrees to release will under two conditions : that he spend one day a week meeting with lambeau and that he spend one day a week meeting with a therapist . eventually , once several psychologists have rejected the belligerent young man , sean mcguire , a teacher at bunker hill community college , agrees to take the case . after a rocky start , the two form a rapport and will begins to explore issues and emotions he had walled up behind impregnable armor . and , as will advances his self-awareness in sessions with sean , he also learns about friendship from his buddy , chuckie ( ben affleck ) , and love from a harvard co-ed named skylar ( minnie driver ) . the script , by co-stars matt damon and ben affleck , is not a groundbreaking piece of literature , and occasionally resorts to shameless manipulation . the characters are well-developed , however , and there are times when the dialogue positively sparkles . at one point , will comments that a session with sean is turning into a " taster's choice moment . " later , will gives a brilliant , breathless diatribe against the nsa that has the rhythm of something written by kevin smith . ( note : since smith co-executive produced good will hunting , it's not out of the question that he had some input into this scene . ) director gus van sant ( drugstore cowboy , to die for ) culls genuine emotion from his actors , and this results in several affecting and powerful scenes . there's an edginess to some of the sean/will therapy sessions , and the offscreen chemistry between matt damon and minnie driver ( who became romantically linked while making this film ) translates effectively to the movie -- the will/skylar relationship is electric . likewise , the companionability of damon and affleck is apparent in the easygoing nature of will and chuckie's friendship . many of the individual scenes are strong enough to earn good will hunting a recommendation , even if the overall story is somewhat generic . matt damon , who recently starred as the idealistic young lawyer in the rainmaker , is solid ( although not spectacular ) as will . minnie driver ( last seen in grosse pointe blank ) adds another strong performance to a growing resume ( and it's refreshing that she was allowed to keep her british accent rather than having to attempt an american one ) . the outstanding performance of the film belongs to robin williams , whose sean is sad and wise , funny and somber . arguably the best dramatic work in the actor's career ( alongside what he did in the fisher king ) , williams' portrayal could earn him a best supporting actor oscar nomination . adequate support is provided by ben affleck ( chasing amy ) and stellan skarsgard ( breaking the waves ) . like most of what comes before it , the ending of good will hunting is completely predictable . but meeting expectations and following a familiar path aren't always bad things in a movie , provided the film accomplishes those goals with a modicum of style and an attention to detail . good will hunting does both , and , as a result , earns a rating commensurate with the " good " in the title .

if there's one thing i just can't stand , it's a film that oozes with sentimentality . here's a note to all film makers : films are more effective when the emotions of the characters speak for themselves . swelling , saddening music is not a good way to tell us that the people in the film are unhappy , and that the situation is hopeless . alas , my giant is a film that uses manipulative sentimentality so frequently and with such high intensity that i forgot as i watched it that there are other ways of getting audience members choked up . what reminded me was that i wasn't choked up , or even the slightest bit moved , for that matter . my giant is a forced , contrived , and conspicuously un-cute ( i detest the word " cute " but i've chosen to use it because the makers clearly wanted to create a " cute " film here ) . it takes a premise that might have been interesting ( i liked the preview ) , and bogs it down with endless plot turns and cliches , all of which are intended to get some kind of easy emotional rise from the audience . maybe it will work for some people . it didn't work for me . billy crystal plays sam cayman , an agent who , at the beginning of the film , is in romania . he's in romania because the kid actor he made famous is doing a film . the screenplay has him in romania so he can get fired , get in a car accident , and get saved by an enormous individual who stands almost eight feet tall . his name is max ( gheorghe muresan ) , and sam thinks he'd be a great movie star because of his size . subplots are as follows : sam has a son and a wife ( kathleen quinlan ) , and he's never around for them , so they move to chicago . max is in love with a woman named lilianna who moved away from romania twenty years before the film begins . sam convinces max to go back to america with him so they can make lots of money , and so their various subplots can all be resolved . sam is broke . max is dying . pass the kleenex . my giant , as a comedy , is only moderately funny . it has its moments , the best of which features steven seagal making fun of himself . in one great scene , sam gets his son on the phone to talk to seagal ; of course , his son doesn't believe that he's actually speaking to seagal , and he goes off about how bad of an actor he is ( i would quote the line i like but it would probably lose its effect ) . crystal is always entertaining , and he has a few good lines here ( some of which are subtle throwaways that many will miss entirely ) ; often , however , he's countered by a slew of jokes that aren't funny , and cause an involuntary rolling of the eyes . muresan is kind of fun to watch , but he just can't act very well . quinlan , on the other hand , is a great actress who needs to get a role that shows off her talents . she was underused last year in both event horizon and breakdown , but at least in those films she had moments in which she could show us her stuff . here , the best thing she gets to do is fake a romanian accent . all of these disappointing ingredients create a film that , for much of its running time , is simply mediocre . as my giant lumbers to its inevitable conclusion , however , director michael lehmann ( who did a great job directing the underrated hudson hawk ) and scriptwriter david seltzer pile on every cliche imaginable , each one intended specifically to pull at our heartstrings . sam's multiple engagements with his family are all completely hackneyed ( how about a main character who has a healthy relationship with his family ? ) . later , it turns out the entire story is supposed to be a great big metaphor signifying sam's reunion with his family . and some people might think that what sam does for max towards the end is a valiant thing , but i had a few morality problems with it ( and i apologize for being vague ) . it's icky . it drips with gooey , wannabe human emotions . my giant could have been a straightforward and funny family film . more importantly , it could have been moving on a level far deeper than it is . instead , it's a complicated , overlong , and under-engaging film that elicits too few laughs and strives for superficial tears . and since it left me feeling completely unmoved , i stand by my position that sentimentality is evil and will ultimately destroy the world .

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

" return to horror high , " wants to be a couple different types of movies at once . the film tells the story of a low-budget horror movie being filmed at the closed-down crippen high , a school where a group of serial murders took place five years before . but what the cast and crew don't know is that a real killer , maybe the same one that was never apprehended , is going into action again . on one level , " return to horror high " is a slasher movie , and it is at this level that it works the best on . watching the film , which was made in 1987 , i couldn't help but take notice that the killer's costume was almost identital to that of the ghostface in , " scream , " and " scream 2 . " on another level , the film wants to be a slapstick comedy , and there are many hints of this throughout . unfortunately , most of these jokes fall flat . and the last thing the film wants to be is a " behind-the-scenes " look at an exploitation film being made . the only problem is that , while much of it is supposed to be from the movie itself being made , no cameras are shown filming it , thus making it far more confusing than it had to be . and to top it all off , the " twist " ending makes very little to no sense whatsoever , and so we are basically left with feeling as if we wasted our time . there are story developments that are beyond ludicrous , and plot holes you could drive a winnebago through . if you see the film , or have seen it , you'll know what i mean . the premise of " return to horror high , " is admittedly pretty crafty , and i liked the atmosphere of the school , which is where the whole thing takes place . but director froehlich , judging from this movie , is an incompetent director , except for being able to film the seldom suspeneful scene . well , come to think of it , there is only one scene that is actually scary , and it has to do with two actors being locked in a room as the killer tries to break in . but other than that two-minute distraction , " return to horror high , " is certainly no great shake . note : look for george clooney in a supporting role as one of the actors on the film . and strangely enough , he is the first character to get the ax . . . literally .

let's face it : since waterworld floated by , the summer movie season has grown * very * stale . with no new eye-candy for four weeks straight , we've had to sustain ourselves on the quasi-nutritional value of cheatin' husbands , traveling chocolate salesmen , and computer- generated serial killers . sigh . thank god for desperado . the freewheeling sequel to el mariachi--director robert rodriguez's notorious $7000 debut--stars a cool antonio banderas as the returning guitarist with no name . he's a man in black with revenge on his mind , and an arsenal in his case . ( the woman he loved was killed in the first film . ) so , he spends the entire story shooting drug dealers ; sort of a tex-mex version of the punisher , if you will . there isn't much of an emotional core to desperado . rodriguez is having too much fun finding new and innovative ways to pay homage to john woo . ( and sergio leone . . . and sam peckinpah . . . ) some may wince at the body count--at least 100 graphic killings is a fair estimate--but it's all played for laughs . big , broad , hispanic laughs that , for me , recall the physical comedy of blake edwards and his pink panther films . sick , slick fun .

a movie like mortal kombat : annihilation works ( and must be reviewed on ) multiple levels . first , there's the rampant usage of randian subtext that pervades the entire movie . but occasionaly , almost as if making an ironic , self-depreciating remark , the movie tosses in clearly marxist imagery . no no . . . just kidding . had you going there for a moment , didn't i ? in all seriousness however , and to be fair to the movie , it * is * necessary to provide two viewpoints : that of a movie watcher unfamiliar ( or only marginally familiar ) with the whole mortal kombat phenomenon , and that of a fan of the first movie and/or a fan of the games . the first movie ( mortal kombat ( 1995 ) ) concerned itself with a martial arts tournament that would decide the fate of earth ( and it's 5 billion inhabitants ) . the mortals won , and in theory this should have prevented the emperor shao khan from taking over the earth . unfortunately , shao khan was a poor loser , and the very final scene in mortal kombat showed him arriving anyway , ready to take over the planet , as our heroes assumed a fighting stance . the first movie was extraordinarily entertaining for those ( like myself ) who are fans of the game . i'd even go so far as to say that many folks who didn't know about the game probably enjoyed the movie . the writers and directors knew the limitations of both their cast and of the basic story itself , and they didn't try to overachieve . there were a lot of really cool fight scenes ( with really cool accompanying music ) , intersperesed with some distracting ( but ultimately non-intrusive ) bits of fluff passing itself off as a plot . and , as we know , the movie was a smashing success at the box office . mortal kombat : annihilation picks up precisely where that movie left off , with some introductory exposition to clue in those who may not have seen the first movie . shao khan has decided that he's going to take over the earth * anyways * , and to hell with some silly rule about mortals winning the tournament . thereafter follows approximately 85 minutes of film that alternates between being confused , being trite , being silly , and being just plain stupid . one gets the general impression that the producers of the movie thought " hey , that last movie was such a success that we can get more money and make a * real * movie now . " too bad they didn't simply stick with the formula from the first movie . i could write volumes about the things that are wrong with this picture , but here are the high points : * the acting is truly bad . sandra hess ( playing the sonya blade character ) is particularly execrable , especially in scenes where she tries to convince us that she loved johnny cage ( a character from the first movie who gets greased at the beginning of this movie ) . * in one of the worst pieces of mis-casting i think i've * ever * seen , james remar plays raiden , the god of thunder . in the first movie , christopher lambert played raiden and played his character as though he was in on the joke : a french actor playing a japanese thunder god being revered by chinese mystics . i generally like it when actors are cast against type ( tim " tiny " lister , jr . being cast as the president of the u . s . in the fifth element , for example ) , and remar has always been one of my favorite " utility " actors but he's so totally wrong for this part that he doesn't even have the luxury of amused self-awareness . * there are too many characters that are introduced as being potentially important , but then never seen again . * there are a number of completely meaningless story sidetracks , including a muddled scene where liu kang ( robin shou ) seeks out nightwolf ( litefoot ) , has a mystical hallucination , and then wanders off with jade ( irina pantaeva ) . for these reasons ( and many others ) , i can only give the movie a 2 . . . . . . unless you're a huge fan of the games and/or the first movie . in that case , the following critiques also apply : * sandra hess , while being an even worse actress than bridgette wilson ( who played sonya blade in the first movie ) , is much more convincing as a fighter . wilson looked like she was simply mimicing some movements taught to her by the fight choreographer . hess looks like she actually knows some martial arts , and puts together a much more believable fight scene . * in the fights , each of the characters does at least * one * thing they do in the game ( and often more ) . sonya does her " kiss of death , " jax does his " earthquake , " liu kang does his " animality , " and so on . a big bonus for those of us who were looking for similar moves in the first movie and found them only rarely . * there aren't as many fight scenes in this movie as there were in the first , because the folks making the movie mistakenly try to hang a more robust plot in between . silly , silly folks . and the lamest fight involved two of the women in what turns into a mud-wrestling match . lame and so obviously sexist even i ( politically incorrect , for the most part ) noticed and remarked upon it . * the special effects are generally better , except for the final fight scene between the emporer and liu kang in which both perform their " animalities . " motaro and sheeva are both more convincing and lifelike than goro was in the first movie . for folks like myself who loved the first movie and enjoy the games , i give this a 5 . you'll probably like it , but not nearly as much as you liked the first one .

lucas was wise to start his star wars trilogy with episode 4 : episode 1 is a boring , empty spectacle that features some nice special effects . after the familiar 'a long time ago . . . . ' opening , the film starts with the opening yellow crawl that features in every star wars movie and computer game . the plot is that the trade confederation are blocking off supplies to the peaceful planet of naboo , ruled by queen amidala ( portman ) jedi knights qui-gon ( neeson ) and obi wan ( mcgregor ) are sent to negotiate a deal with the confederation to stop the blockade . however , this simple blockade is not all it seems , and the jedi knights soon have to deal with many more dangers , including facing the evil darth maul ( ray park . ) they also meet the future darth vadar , anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) star wars is largely a failure in all the major areas of filmmaking : script , direction and characters . the script desperately tries to make an thin and boring story into a two hour epic . the trade confederation plot is just not as exciting as the death star , and as the film goes on the drama becomes more and more non-existent . there's no underlying tension , and no urgent need to see what the outcome is . the film also takes a leisurely pace in telling the boring story , which doesn't help . there's no snap to make the film work , it moves at a plod . the script is boring : all the characters speak in morals , especially anakins mother . there's no group spirit evident here , and when all characters can speak only in profound statements or bark orders , it's evident that not much is going to happen . the two leads are hideously boring , static characters given little to do and too much time to do it . qui-gon and obi-wan hold no presence on film , and give little for the audience to root for . the audience will probably warm more to bad guy darth maul , if he had been given more screen time . maul is one of the most underused bad guys in film history , even if he does provide the only 'straight' plot line in the film ( all the other plots in this film are to be concluded throughout the trilogy . ) anakin is annoying and unlikeable . , instead of cute and huggable as lucas no doubt intended . it's probably not surprising that his hateful little boy , unfortunately blessed 'ani' by everyone he knows , joins the dark side and kills everyone as quickly as possible . the comedy relief is supposedly provided by the gangly jar jar brinks , although in the end none is provided in the film by him . although his floppy features will no doubt be great for stuffed toys , the lines and actions he is given are painfully unfunny . the only good laugh is when his tongue is burned by a 'pod' racer , because i knew he wouldn't be able to talk for a while . queen amidala is a nothing in the film , she serves no real purpose apart from the fact that she must 'serve her people , ' and go goo-goo over anakin . again , her role will become more important in the later episodes , and is given little to do here . the actors don't help the movie much either . liam neeson seems bored and embarrassed , and seems desperate to leave the movie as quickly as possible . mcgregor comes across as a posh mothers boy , with little charm . the casting director must have chose him because he's scottish like alec guinness : there's little other explanation for it . natalie portman is plagued by hideous costumes and a poor script , but she delivers a spunky performance . and jake lloyd looks at everyone with hateful eyes and delivers his lines in a bored voice . there's very little talent evident with him , it's hard to see why lucas chose him when there are better child actors out there . he's not even very 'cute . ' the main claim of the film , the special effects , are okay . there's nothing impressive about them , yet they complement the story well . the cgi takes away much of the human element , however . the battle droids for example , the replacement for the stormtroopers , are characterless little computer graphics , lacking the humour and humanness that came from the stormtroopers . episode 1 is just disappointing . it's got high production values , but little else . the music is meandering , except near the end . the plot gives us no-one to root for , or even care for . the effects are nice , but dull . the plot goes on for half an hour longer than it should . there's an air of manufacturing among the whole sorry affair , and many clich ? s are catered for throughout the film . apart from a remotely exciting pod race sequence , episode 1 is a dry affair that serves little purpose , except to make money and to get us to watch episode 2 to see what happens to the many unfinished plot lines in the film . disappointing is barely the word . rating=

a new entry in the " revisionist history " genre of filmmaking , dick suggests that two not-too-bright teenage girls are the cause of the uncovering of the nation's biggest presidential scandal . kirsten dunst and michelle williams star betsy and arlene , who while trying to deliver a fan letter from arlene's watergate hotel room , accidentally stumble across g . gordon liddy ( played dead-on by harry shearer ) and the infamous break-in . when they recognize liddy later on during a white house field trip , they are ushered into a conference room , questioned as to what they know , and leave as official presidential dog walkers . the girls manage to unwittingly uncover every bit of the watergate scandal while performing their duties , but have no clue as to what they are getting involved with . when they discover that nixon ( another dead-on performance by dan hedaya , who actually favors nixon slightly , unlike anthony hopkins ) has been abusive to checkers , the presidential dog , thanks to the conversations that he always recorded , they quit and become disillusioned . during a prank phone call the girls make to woodward and bernstein , events are set into motion that eventually lead to the president's resignation . this film starts off promisingly with an aged woodward and bernstein arguing with each other on an obvious larry king-type talk show ( featuring a cameo by french stewart ) about revealing the identity of " deep throat " . from there , we are subjected to bodily function humor and just about every bad " dick " joke one can derive from this type of supposed comedy . at one point , the girls are having to scream over a high school band playing on the steps of the lincoln memorial . the band manages to stop right as dunst screams " you have to stop letting dick run your life ! " much to the horror of everyone standing within earshot . several other variations on this wordplay surface all throughout the film . if this movie had been smarter i would have been less likely to fault it's juvenile bathroom humor , but it's not . the film was apparently made for relatively younger people because every major player in the watergate scandal is introduced and shoved down the audience's throat in the least subtle way possible . i don't recall oliver stone's nixon having to pander to it's audience , but of course that film wasn't a comedy aimed squarely at a 13-20 year-old film going audience . the only redeeming thing about this movie is it's remarkable supporting cast . i wanted to see more of ferrell and mcculloch's woodward and bernstein . those two characters are the sole basis for my rating . i wish they had been given more screen time , but unfortunately , they are only relegated to the final half-hour . their constant bickering and fighting over trying to get the story are a major highlight , especially mcculloch's constant thwarting of ferrell's attempts to gather information from the girls ( who , in the course of the narrative are revealed as deep throat , so named thanks to an ill planned trip to a porno theater by betsy's brother ) . the other members of the cast are excellent in their portrayals of their particular characters , but are given nothing to work with . i'd like to see the same cast portray these characters in a script more suited towards their comedic abilities . as for the two leads , dunst and williams can definitely do better . they come off as what could best be described as romy and michele : the early years in this particular film , a highly dubious distinction at best . stay through the first half of the end credits though , to see an interesting scene involving dunst and williams suggestively sucking on lollipops emblazoned with the title of the movie . an excellent idea marred by poor execution , dick could have been a great movie . less of the juvenile humor and more of the smarter comedy displayed by the woodward and bernstein scenes , could have made this film a wonderful satire of the nixon presidency as seen through the eyes of two naive fifteen year olds . as it stands though , dick offers nothing but what filmmaker kevin smith so accurately defines as " dick and poopie " jokes . and that , to me , does not make a funny movie . [pg-13]

like the great musical pieces of mozart himself , amadeus is a true work of art . it is one of those few movies of the 80's that will be known for its class , its style , and its intelligence . why is this such a good film ? there are almost too many reasons to explain . the story : court composer salieri ( f . murray abraham ) feels waves of different emotions going through his head as wolfgang amadeus mozart ( tom hulce ) comes into his life as the young genius composer . salieri feels envy , and jealousy , but at the same time is fascinated with mozart's brilliance and ingenious . we travel through mozart's life as a composer , through his struggles , his triumphs , and ultimately , his demise . the acting : abraham is magnificient as salieri ; his acting range enables him to focus on each individual emotion and express it through his speech and body language . this performance earned him a well deserved oscar . tom hulce is interesting as well as mozart , a quirky , annoying bratty kid with an annoying laugh . he's strong , but weak at the same time , and must be aided by his wife ( elizabeth berridge ) , who is good in her role , but lacks dramatic depth . jeffrey jones , in a smaller , more dignified role than such roles in stay tuned and mom and dad save the world , is cast perfectly because of his noble charm . the movie : every element of this movie works . the costumes and makeup are very memorable , as well as its stunning art direction , and unforgettable scores ( adapted from mozart's original music ) . while wolfgang amadeus mozart was a genius at music , milos forman proves with his film that he is a genius of filmmaking . this movie is a classic that will be remembered for years to come . ad2am " i almost lost my nose . . . and i like it . i like breathing through it . " -jack nicholson , chinatown

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

with the exception of their surrealistic satire barton fink , the films of joel and ethan coen fit into two broad categories : quirky and sometimes darkly humorous takes on the " film noir " genre in which crime schemes go wrong and spin increasingly out of control ( fargo , miller's crossing , blood simple ) , and off-the-wall comedies centered around an eccentric , scatter-brained lead character ( raising arizona , the hudsucker proxy ) . their latest offering , the big lebowski , falls within the latter category , though there are elements of the crime-gone-wrong theme and even a touch of satire to be found in this film . the main difference , however , is that while the protagonists of raising arizona and the hudsucker proxy had lofty aspirations and ideals but didn't quite have the brains to get it all together , the main character of the big lebowski seems like a fairly intelligent guy who's wise to the world , but he doesn't really want to do much of anything besides go bowling , smoke pot , and generally relax . that main character is jeffrey " the dude " lebowski ( jeff bridges ) , introduced by the film's rambling narrator ( sam elliott ) as " quite possibly the laziest man in los angeles county . " the dude is unemployed , needless to say , and spends most of his time at the bowling alley with his two best friends , walter ( john goodman ) , a borderline-psychotic who's in the habit of pulling a gun when he thinks somebody's cheating in a bowling match ( " has the whole world gone crazy ? ! " he shouts at a suspected cheater ) , and donny ( steve buscemi ) , who's always a few steps behind the conversation and is constantly berated by walter for it ( " donny , you have no frame of reference here ! " ) . these three seem to more or less live for bowling tournaments , and as the film begins they are anticipating an important match with rival bowler jesus quintana ( john turturro ) , who , when we first meet him , is doing a dance in the bowling lane to accompany a spanish version of " hotel california " and , if it's possible , seems to be even more of a head case than walter . if that doesn't give you a good idea of this film's absurdist tone , then perhaps this will : the entire scenario which drives the story is set in motion by two thugs mistakenly urinating on the dude's rug . they've mistaken him for a millionaire of the same name who is also known as the " big " lebowski ( david huddleston ) and whose nymphomaniac wife bunny ( tara reid ) owes money to porn producer jackie treehorn ( ben gazzara ) . the dude goes to the big lebowski seeking compensation for his ruined rug ; he doesn't have any luck , but when bunny is apparently kidnapped , the elder lebowski asks him to deliver the $1 million ransom . unfortunately , walter gets involved and fouls up the drop-off , and before they can try again to get the money to the supposed kidnappers , the dude's car gets stolen , along with the briefcase containing the money . soon , the dude is being harassed not only by the big lebowski himself but also by treehorn and by a group of german " nihilists " who demand the ransom money even though they may not have been involved in the kidnapping in the first place ; the dude and walter suspect that bunny may well have kidnapped herself in order to extort money from her husband to repay her debts to treehorn . meanwhile , the big lebowski's daughter maude ( julianne moore ) , a feminist avant-garde artist who likes to make grand entrances swinging through the air naked , wants to recover the money for her family . the plot , however , is really just a vehicle for all these bizarre characters to run wild and wreak their own unique forms of havoc . the previews for the big lebowski feature creedence clearwater revival's " run through the jungle , " and it fits : the coens see los angeles as a veritable jungle of oddballs and nutcases , with the sometimes bewildered dude left to run through it and try to avoid any more trouble ( usually unsuccessfully ) . the film doesn't feature quite as many one-liners and sight gags as the coens' other comedies ( though there are a few hilarious moments of visual humor , particularly in the dude's dream sequences and acid flashbacks ) , but it more than makes up for it with the sheer fun of watching these strange characters interact . the film sometimes seems a little disjointed as a result - you get the feeling that the coens have not only set their characters loose in this " jungle " but are also themselves running crazy through the jungle of their own twisted imaginations - but for the most part the characterizations are interesting enough to overcome the shaky plotting and what turns out to be a somewhat anticlimactic resolution . there's also a noticeable ( but not too heavy-handed ) thread of social commentary in the big lebowski , which , incidentally , takes place just as the gulf war is about to begin ; at the beginning , we see george bush on television making his " this aggression will not stand " speech . the coens take aim at just about every elite l . a . subculture in the book : the egotistical wealthy businessman ( " the bums will always lose ! " shouts the big lebowski at one point ) , the porn industry , the overbearing malibu policeman who berates the dude for disturbing their " peaceful beach community , " and so on . by the end , we really start to admire the dude , who almost certainly harbors the least " aggression " of anyone in this story ; his passive resistance ( emphasis on " passive , " albeit ) to the elite emerges as something more than just another quirky characterization in a film overflowing with quirky characters . he also turns out to have a pretty well-functioning brain in his head , even if he doesn't like to use it very much ; his sarcasm towards treehorn and the malibu policeman shows that he knows when he's getting a run around , and he does manage to unravel the kidnapping mystery by the end . the coens certainly poke fun at the dude for his laziness , but they don't just treat him as fodder for cheap shots either . i think that , more than anything , is what makes the big lebowski a standout comedy : it manages to approach characters like the dude and , to some extent , walter , with genuine affection while still acknowledging that they are pretty scatter-brained . audience members may find themselves surprised at how much they like the un-dynamic duo by the end of the movie , given that they seemed like nothing more than the butts of an extended joke at first . " it's good knowin' he's out there , the dude , takin' it easy , " posits the narrator towards the end . i dare say that truer words have seldom been spoken .

no , i did not read the novel by thomas hardy , " jude the obscure , " his final novel ( final because this film created such an outrage that he never wrote again - see : i did do some research on it ) about a man who is plagued with bad luck throughout his entire life . but , after watching the movie , i can imagine how incredibly depressing it is . " jude " is a satirical film from start to finish about society's way of spitting out and chewing up those unwanted in its system , but what's remarkable is how timeless this film is . the film takes place in the late 19th century ( or early 20th - wasn't really sure ) , but its story could even be retold today in modern form , although it'd be kinda different ( a given ) . it tells the story of jude ( christopher eccleston - the psychotic accountant from " shallow grave " ) - a simple , dim-witted young man with big dreams . in its bleak , foreboding opening , shot in grainy black and white , he gets a lesson from phillotson ( liam cunningham ) , his teacher : as they stand upon a mountain , looking upon a city in the distance , he says all you have to do is work hard and you can have anything in the world . after marrying and divorcing an immature woman named arabella ( rachel griffiths ) because they frolicked in the hay ( literally ) but did not ultimately share anything in common , he moves away to a town with a giant university , with a chance to learn more , and get ahead in life . taking a welding job , he works hard while studying constantly for his college bars , reciting latin over and over again , and training himself . but when he sends his application for the school in , he is bluntly told to just remain a worker . another reason for going to this town was because someone in his family lives there : sue ( kate winslet ) , his cousin and a very intelligent but kinda mischevious young woman who wants to be a school teacher . she and jude click eventually and become very endearing friends , so much that when she spends the night at his flat after running from her apprentice teacher job ( for none other than phillotson at the local school ) , there are rumors that she and jude did some nasty business ( nudge nudge ) . several twists turn in the storyline , and eventually jude and sue do do some nasty business ( an interesting scene , to say the least . . . ) , and are soon born into a controversial non-wedlock , as she eventually gives birth to their baby , and jude inherits his son from arabella , who turns up again after awhile . because they aren't married , and because they're cousins , they run into problems with every place they go to , carrying around two children everywhere , and only staying in lodges for a very brief period of time , then moving on . if you didn't think this was harsh enough , wait till you see what happens later on . . . the sad truth is that jude is one of the miserable people who can never get any luck in this world . he will never gain any true happiness , and any happiness that happens to him will be fleeting , and will probably bring more horrible instances to his life . part of it is his fault - he's too optimistic , and too gullible . but society has a way of taking these people , and hurting them until their death . the ending of " jude " is bleak because it has to be ( although i hear the ending of the novel is even worse - guess i'll have to read it now ) . " jude " offers a satirical view on society's cruelties , but shows no way of curing this , and thank heavens it doesn't . there's no way to relinquish the selfishness of society , and any solution would be too small to cure such a mass problem . satire has always been one of the few ways of changing certain people's minds , and that's what " jude " is . sure , it's one hell of a downer , but it needs to be . the film also posesses two fantastic performances from its two leads , and some good supporting work along with it . christopher eccleston ( slightly resembling richard edson with his new look and dumb expression ) plays jude wonderfully , sometimes bringing a big dumb smile to his face , and making him kind of child-like at other times . kate winslet , in a pre- " titanic " performance , is brilliant , nailing every psyche of her character , and creating someone who's troubled but very seductive with her personality . kate may be the best actress in her age group ( if you don't believe me , see " titanic , " branagh's " hamlet , " " sense and sensibility , " and " heavenly creatures , " the latter one being my favorite performance of hers ) . in the supporting roles , liam cunningham is a wonderfully flawed teacher , exposing all his bad parts , but ultimately being a pretty good person ; and rachel griffiths is wonderfully immature as jude's wife , whom he never divorces . " jude " moves at a very slow pace , and keeps taunting its viewers with chances of happiness for its protagonists , which would drive some people nuts . but those who appreciate good social commentary with their films , no matter how slow or downright depressing they are ( this one is both ) will appreciate " jude , " though i doubt anyone truly enjoys it .

the police negotiator is the person with the entirely unenviable job of going into ground zero and attempting to talk a dangerous criminal out of doing whatever he or she intends to do . lives are often at stake , and the criminal is usually armed and most likely mentally unstable , prone to turn on the negotiator at a moment's notice . the negotiator must therefore be something of an actor , psychologist , and sham artist , in addition to being a police officer ; he must be able to think on his feet and either work toward the goal of ending the confrontation without violence , or failing that , must be prepared to facilitate the conclusion of the crisis through firepower . most of all , the negotiator must be able to enter a situation with as little intelligence about the scenario as possible , and quickly gain control of the situation , dominate the conversation , and influence the perpetrator into thinking that the end of the conflict is what he really wants . it takes a pretty smart person to do that . but what if the hostage-holding criminal is just as smart ? what if he's also able to think on his feet ? in fact , what if he also knows all the tricks to turning the situation to his favor ? it is this circumstance which forms the basis for f . gary gray's the negotiator . in this film , police negotiator danny roman ( samuel l . jackson ) is tipped off by his partner to corruption within the chicago police force . when his partner turns up shot to death and internal affairs finds incriminating evidence in roman's home , roman becomes the prime suspect of both embezzling from the police disability fund and murder . faced with the scorn of most of the police department , and under close scrutiny by the media , roman is forced to turn in his badge in one of those typical scenes in the captain's office . i don't quite remember if the captain actually said , " i hate to do this , but . . . " , although it wouldn't surprise me if he did . luckily , the film soon shakes off the conventionalism and concentrates on the interesting premise mentioned above . after being offered a take-it-or-leave-it deal by the district attorney , roman resolves to prove his innocence by walking into the office of internal affairs inspector niebaum ( j . t . walsh ) , taking him and others hostage , and proclaiming he has been framed . although roman's actions seem forced due to the compressed nature of his motivational build-up , gray redeems himself by involving us with the negotiations between roman and fellow police negotiator chris sabian ( kevin spacey ) which soon ensue . jackson , while a superb actor , is miscast in the role of roman . the actor has become so popular , and so often identified as a protagonist ( notable exceptions can be found , such as in jackie brown ) , that we as an audience have a difficult time believing he will carry out his threats . the script also clearly sets him up as the good guy who is only trying to prove his innocence . how can we believe he's going to shoot a hostage , no matter if the hostage tried to kill him earlier ? unfortunately , this preconception saps the film of some of it's would-be suspenseful moments , and anything good left in those scenes is largely attributed to jackson's acting ability . almost every time he's in a scene , jackson steals it without looking back . when spacey appears , the film has already run about a third of its course . his is an interesting character . made out to be some kind of negotiating superman , our first look at him has him hopelessly trying to get his family moving to set out on vacation . " i can talk a man out of blowing up the sears tower , but i can't talk my wife out of the bedroom or my daughter off the phone , " he says . when he gets the call to action , however , he quickly changes gears and becomes the man we expect him to be . soon , his character has to negotiate not only with roman , but also with the swat commander ( david morse ) who is itching to send in a team to take roman out , all the while keeping wary of the fbi agents who are waiting to take over the operation , should negotiations fail . this complex set of pressures are reflected well in sabian the negotiator and spacey the actor . as the second protagonist , spacey measures up nicely . gray really lucked out with this cast . david morse as commander beck , ron rifkin as commander frost , and john spencer as police chief al travis are all more than competent , and can hold their own in scenes with jackson and spacey . the only problem is the bit of typecasting that results from these choices : morse played a similar role in the rock , rifkin played the d . a . in l . a . confidential , and spencer played a police detective in cop land . with the level of acting , however , this can be forgiven . also in the supporting cast , paul giamatti as rudy , one of the hostages , is notable for the comic relief he provides . his character is initially so slimy , and giamatti himself just looks so shifty , that you expect to laugh before he even says anything . fortunately , this doesn't distract from the seriousness of the rest of the film , but instead provides some nice breathers from the level of tension which gray manages to sustain throughout . j . t . walsh , as the suspicious internal affairs inspector , clocks in with one of his final performances . sadly , the talented but underrated actor passed away in late february of this year , and the soon to be released pleasantville will mark his last film . walsh appeared in dozens of movies such as good morning vietnam , backdraft , and nixon . for one of his best performances , check out sling blade , in which he plays a mental patient sharing a ward with billy bob thornton . when jack nicholson accepted his best actor oscar in march , walsh was one of the men to whom he credited his success ( the actors performed together in a few good men ) . the negotiator is actually dedicated to walsh , and while inspector niebaum may not have been his best role , it certainly characterizes the type of character for which walsh had become most famous for playing . in the end , the negotiator has a plotline that parallels it's reality . we're served with the premise that two equally deft negotiators are battling each other to resolve the conflict in the manner which will suit each of them best . as an audience , we're also given a situation where two wonderfully talented actors are thrown into a movie , and we'd like to see if one will dominate the film . both provide some pretty good entertainment .

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 didn'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 can'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 doesn'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 can't understand what he says , and the trouble with action stars like him is they cannot 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 don't want to waste your time , rent any of the other batman movies from blockbuster . any other .

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 don'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 isn'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 ) doesn'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 . "

some movies' pre-release buzz is so insistent on their high oscar potential that when they're finally released , everyone just goes along with it . thus sometimes , films unworthy of any award sans the razzie become oscar hopefuls and some even score nominations . last year it was the thin red line . this year's " winner " is the hurricane , pure unadulterated tripe that is all of a sudden being received with critical plaudits and votes in the office oscar pool . acclaimed director norman jewison's biopic retreads all the conventions of courtroom movies without any of the fun . and that's supposed to be ok because , see , it's a true story . it's about rubin " hurricane " carter ( denzel washington ) , a legendary african american prizefighted who is unjustly convicted of triple homicide with the help of a ghastly ( racist ! ) detective ( dan hedaya ) who's had it in for the " big-shot " hurricane ever since he arrested him for stabbing a white man with a knife ( in self-defense but who cares , right ? ) when rubin was only ten . he is to serve three life sentences with no possibility of parole . most of the film takes place when he is in his 15th year in prison . to the rescue -- lesra martin ( vicellous reon shannon ) and his team of wanna-be detectives . lesra is an african american teenager taken in by three well-off canadian white people ( hanna , unger , schreiber ) to get an education . lesra and his buddies go to a book sale where lesra picks out his very first book -- " the sixteenth round , " rubin's autobiography . immediately thereafter , schreiber's character tells lesra " sometimes we don't pick the books we read , they pick us . " hmmm . after a few visits to the prison , they become convinced of rubin's innocence and launch their own full-scale investigation even though two juries have convicted him . they meticulously go through all the files and revisit all the old witnesses ( i wonder if any of them might be cranky old women who slam the door in their faces ? ) and in the course of their relentlessy tedious sleuthing uncover obvious evidence confirming the hurricane's innocence that was either ignored or never seeked out during the first two proceedings . of course , we're already told that he's innocent . a movie like this is especially frustrating because we're not being shown everything significant that happened to carter during this period in his life . all too obviously , we're getting the hollywood watered- down version . that would be ok except that the parts we are getting is milked for every single drop of melodrama that the filmmakers could possibly squeeze out of it . it's almost cruel . the melodrama isn't of the entertaining kind either ; it's the hokey , rammed-down-your-throat variety where every emotion is exaggerated to the point of absurdity . witness the villain ferociously grinding his teeth at the final trial or the constant pseudo-saintliness of our four protagonists . the hurricane is your basic courtroom movie except it's a no-frills courtroom movie . it's formula stripped to the bare necessities . you have your wrongly accused black man . you have your melodramatic final courtroom scene . but there's nothing else . you'd expect some sort of involving investigation . but that's not necessary since we're implicitly informed of his innocence . thus the whole middle portion of the movie is reduced to the protagonist brooding . brooding to himself . brooding to other inmates . brooding to lesra . brooding to lesra's canadian friends . brooding in letters . i don't think i'll ever look at brooding the same way again . it wasn't long before i got tired of hearing the hurricane's exceedingly deep meditations on his condition . i wanted something to happen . as for washington's performance in the title role -- i figured i'd have to address it sooner or later considering the amount of attention it's received -- he is top notch , though still boring . how is that possible ? well , he does what jewison wanted him to do perfectly . unfortunately what jewison asked him to do is a load of crap . what a waste of a great performer . speaking of wastes , why the hell did john hannah agree to do this ? he's an extremely talented actor and i love him dearly , but what is he doing here ? to call his character ( along with schreiber's and unger's ) a stick figure would be a gross understatement . all three of them come off as veritable mother theresas , as benevolent as do-gooders come . if they're to play a major part in this movie , why not make them real people , with real feelings and emotions ? look : if you're going to make a formula movie , don't undermine the formula . courtroom dramas can be fun , but this is ridiculous . not only is it trite , it's boring .

the most interesting part of " can't hardly wait " just happens to be not only the most human , but for many of us , the one part that many of us can easily relate to . that is the character of denise ( lauren ambrose ) , the film's sole sarcastic member who mocks everything that goes on in the film , and at one point sits down on a couch and looks totally bored . the film wisely holds over this moment , nicely showing her alienation in the midst of a large high school party . . . almost too nicely . for some members of the audience ( read : me ) , this is basically a mirror of what's going on with them watching this film . we sit there wondering why we've even bothered to see a film about a long high school party we probably never felt the desire to go to in the first place . i would actually highly recommend this film if it satirized all of this . after all , this film is filled with a bunch of pathetic stereotypes much of which i went to high school with . everyone's here : the jock , the homecoming queen , the nerd ( and his dominions of trekkies and x-philes ) , the alienated wannabe writer , the school spirit girl , the pothead ( s ) , the wigger , etc , etc , etc , and weirdly enough this film shows them as superficial , lame , and basically as a bunch of losers . except for denise , who rolls her eyes at everything , and easily becomes the most likable character even before she speaks ( her yearbook entry , something which is done for each main character , quotes oscar wilde - definite pointers there ) . unfortunately , the writers and directors take several major misteps on the way to making this into an admirable and even likable film . the film , as i said , portrays most of its characters as superficial and just totally ignorant to everything . however , instead of sticking with this , perhaps even going a bit further with it , they let this lie , and actually make these characters into our heroes . we follow several of them , all a bunch of moronic stereotypes with only a shread of humanity and realism , and tries to tell boring and overly melodramatic tales about them as if we actually cared and/or identified with them . and if we did , we certainly don't want to revisit that state of being . here's a quick low-down : it's graduation , and we follow a bunch of seniors on the last night , otherwise known as the " american grafitti " or , to a lesser extent , the " dazed and confused " cliche . the formal just followed them as they drove aimlessly ; the latter did a little bit of that and featured a big outdoor keg party . " can't hardly wait " just opts for a big indoor keg party , and a little bit of aimless driving , albeit of the i'm-whining-because-i-can't-get-a-girl-i-want brand . we follow many people around , but mostly we trail preston ( ethan embry , of " that thing you do ! " ) , the alienated writer , who's been pining over the homcoming queen , amanda ( the totally overrated jennifer love hewitt ) , for the entirety of high school because he thinks they shared a moment their freshman year over a freaking pop tart . now that she's broken up with her football player boyfriend , mike ( peter facinelli ) , he decides to go to the party with a note he's written declaring his " love " for her in the hopes he'll build up the guts to give it to her . . . even though he's leaving for a multi-week intensive writing program hosted by none other than kurt vonnegut ( okay : the ingenius vonnegut or some icky noxema spokesperson ? ) . since that plot is incredibly lame and a track record of what goes on with it wouldn't be able to carry a commercial let alone a feature film , and because it's a party , there are some more main characters , such as : william ( charlie korsmo , finally surfacing after " dick tracy " ) , the nerd ( and his dominions ) who has come up with a ridiculous plan to publically sabotage mike , who's humiliated him for years , but gets too caught up in drinking to do it ; kenny ( seth green ) , the wigger , who has decided that this party will be where he will finally get laid ( uh huh ) ; and denise , the only exceptional character , who unfortunately gets stuck in a bathroom ( don't ask ) with kenny where the two characters let down their characters and are allowed to follow the laws of plot cliches from point a to point b with nary a bit of characterization involved after awhile . ugh . the main comparison this film is getting to another film is actually not " american grafitti " or " dazed and confused , " two films that embraced and ultimately made humans out of many of its high schoolers ( not to mention were extremely entertaining ) , but to john hughes films of the 80s , most notably " sixteen candles . " the big difference in the two is that that film managed to not only embrace but even satirize its main characters , and did so equally and in an entertaining fashion . this film forgets to satirize its characters , and ultimately tells a story about a bunch of uninteresting stereotypes . . . and then says that it's all okay . we can't take this film seriously , nor can we take this as fun , so really what good is it ? but i will tell you some things i did like : i liked the direction , except for a couple too-over-the-top features , like way-too-glossy jump cuts ( it's like an oxymoron ) and other obscurities . generally , though , elfont and kaplan do have graceful camera movement , and even manage to capture an altman-esque feel to their film from time to time ( a thing with a note , though , is too hokey to really be admirable ) . i actually did like seth green , for once in about a decade ( when he played a very young woody allen in " radio days " ) - his desintegration of his wigger character was almost believable . . . almost . and , of course , lauren ambrose is wonderful as denise , the one character we could have used some more of , even though it would have changed the entirety of the film . however , the character of denise really doesn't work with the film , when really thought about . she's far too witty and realized ( at least for the first half ) to belong in this film , and whenever she appears , she automatically gives everything a delightfully satirical tone . she's not just the cynic or the intellectual ; she's just a very interesting character who provides entertainment even if it further damages other already damaged characters . she may ruin the film more , but at least when she's on screen we can sit up and think to ourselves " well , at least we'll be entertained . " a couple other things that just don't work : mike's character , who suffers an epiphany throughout the film but in the end acts as though he has forgotten everything : too much the sacrificial lamb for the film in general ; the aimless , bitchy driving by preston to try and get over his inability to shack up with amanda - give me a break ; and perhaps the one thing that just doesn't work at all : jenna eflman's uncredited cameo as an angel - just didn't work , but nice try . basically the worst thing about this film , the real reason i'm giving this such a low rating , is because it refuses to give us any fully realized characters and then insists we follow around complete stereotypes from other movies doing things that are inane and unlike anything we'd do . we don't feel for these characters because for most of us , we aren't stereotypes going through the motions to worn subplots . the acid test for high school movies is : does it at all capture the feel of what it's portraying ? the answer for this film is no . nice try , though .

phaedra cinema , the distributor of such never-heard-of classics as " soft toilet seats , " " trailer : the movie , " and " the one armed boxer vs . the flying guillotine , " has sneaked its latest release , " the sculptress , " into a few theaters this weekend hoping to cash in on a handful of halloween holidaygoers looking for a right good scare . " the sculptress " is a scary proposition all right , but not in the way its producers intended . from the outset it's easy to see why some of the larger , more reputable chains aren't carrying it : the film looks like a straight-to-video release from the early '80s that's been dusted off ( not very carefully ) and re-issued in theatrical format . that staple of schlocky z-movies jeff fahey ( " the lawnmower man " ) plays a washed-up shakespearean actor lacking in some basic people skills . when he's not reliving his glory days in his ramshackle nob hill apartment , screaming scotch-induced " hamlet " soliloquies well into the night , he's out and about on the streets of san francisco stalking loose women . fahey's dobie sizes up his victims ( actually just one , a peep show performer name of sylvie ) dressed like one of the guys from kraftwerk , and approaches them in the ridiculous attire of a bavarian count replete with a cane , dark glasses , and a false beard ( just in time for halloween ! ) . " do you have a castle ? " sylvie asks dobie seductively when he flashes the bulging contents of his wallet outside a coffee shop . " jah . with ze many turrets " is dobie's perplexing reply . the real " star " of the film ( and i use that term extremely loosely ) is katie wright , who plays the sculptress of the title . sarah is new in town , studying at the prestigious sf art institute under the mentorship of a " genius " frenchman , played by the beret-wearing patrick bauchau . that's convenient , because sarah would one day like to live and work in paris ( you won't believe the film's final shot , with its cheesy eiffel tower backdrop and " rosemary's baby " -inspired imagery ) . bauchau's character criticizes sarah's work publicly ( her clay busts keep turning into gargoyles--perhaps she's possessed . . . by an incubus ! ! ? ) but he still manages to talk her into dinner . whereas wright does a decent english accent , her talents pretty much end there . on the other side of the wall , dobie's troubled past is succinctly summarized in a scene in which he thumbs through an old scrapbook of newspaper clippings with headings like " actor delivers a stunning macbeth , " actor courted by hollywood studio , " " actor renounces hollywood for priesthood , " and " prostitute fingers priest in sex scandal . " the film's plot could have been just as easily condensed . " artist moves in next door to shakespearean psychopath . " " yawns ensue . " so dobie rants and raves and sarah chips away at large blocks of granite till way past their bedtimes . late in the film , their paths finally cross with mind-numbing results . nobody else in the apartment complex appears to mind all the racket , but one old dear does go ballistic when sarah's bathtub overflows . no , we don't see wright in the tub ( or fahey for that matter ) , and the gore quotient is virtually nil , so for a horror film " the sculptress " is surprisingly lacking . the only thing worth looking at is san francisco , and writer/director ian merrick manages to make even it look dreary , windswept , and deserted . " the sculptress " isn't even bad enough to be fun . luckily , a limited release has made it easy to avoid .

you've got mail is a timely romance for this impersonal , computer-driven decade . two people who've never met confide in each other via e-mail without revealing their true identities . nora ephron's contemporary update of the shop around the corner retains the basic plot : two people who despise each other unwittingly become enamored with each other through their anonymous correspondence . ephron , who co-wrote the film with her sister , delia , as well as directed it , knew what she was doing by reteaming tom hanks and meg ryan as the at-odds couple . ryan is kathleen kelly , owner of a small children's bookstore , while hanks is joe fox , who heads up a chain of mega bookstores ( think barnes & noble ) . their charm and chemistry are the glue that binds this film , even through some of the script's rough spots . for the ephrons invested so much effort in their protagonists that they give short shrift to the talented supporting cast , including parker posey , greg kinnear , jean stapleton and steve zahn . yet no one is really going to complain because the ephrons know their audience - and what the paying public wants is hanks and ryan . and the two are kept busy . one , the other or both are in nearly every scene . hanks has his decent guy routine down pat , yet each time he does it , it seems effortless , spontaneous and fresh . ryan smoothly moves between spunky and vulnerable , with a sexy touch of winsomeness added to the brew . their scenes together sparkle , even though they lack the nostalgic romanticism of sleepless in seattle . and the shadow of that earlier hit hangs over you've got mail like dried-up mistletoe . the sparks created by the earlier movie are , by necessity , not evident here . true , these are two people seeking true love , but you've got mail is more comic and less poignant than its predecessor . the ephrons' script is witty and sharp . however , as a director nora ephron is a bit uneven . some scenes drag , while others , especially when hanks and ryan are revealing their souls via e-mail , are crisp and tidy . also , the script gets sloppy toward the end with characters merely disappearing from the story . a nice , romantic soundtrack adds to this date-night special . overall , you've got mail is a lush and cute outing , taking advantage of the star appeal of its two leads . it's a nice holiday movie , one for holding hands and snuggling . committed to lifelong learning through effective communication

the working title for no looking back was long time , nothing new , and rarely has there been a more apt name for a motion picture . even though this movie clocks in at a relatively skinny 96 minutes , it seems to run long enough to engulf two titanics . writer/director edward burns has trotted out a hackneyed storyline , the trajectory of which will be instantly recognizable to anyone who hasn't spent their life in seclusion . instead of tweaking the formula a little to invigorate the proceedings , burns is content to allow the film to ramble aimlessly towards its irritatingly predictable conclusion , offering precious few momentary pleasures along the way . no looking back is dominated by three very dislikable characters whose constant presence on the screen is painful . the most appropriate ending would have been a triple suicide , and the sooner , the better . alas , that's not the case , and those who stick with this film for its entire length will be forced to endure the prolonged company of this wretched trio . and , to further depress audiences , burns has shot the entire film on cold , rainy days in a gray new york state beach town . peeks of sunshine are few and far between . no wonder the characters are all so miserable . first of all , we have charlie ( burns ) , a generation x slacker who abandoned his girlfriend three years ago after she had an abortion , then spent some time bumming around in california before deciding to come home . that girlfriend is claudia ( lauren holly ) , and , after picking up the pieces of her life following charlie's departure , she has moved on , shacking up with one of charlie's old school buddies , mike ( jon bon jovi ) . the two have a comfortable relationship , but it's apparent to even a blind person that they're not right for each other . claudia years for some spice in her life ; mike wants to settle down and have children . then charlie re-enters the mix . so who , if anyone , will claudia end up with ? who cares ? ? no looking back goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure that we're not especially interested in the outcome of the romantic triangle . so what if no one finds happiness -- these characters don't deserve it anyway , especially after wasting 90 minutes of our time . they aren't real people -- they're a writer's construct stumbling through a too-obvious storyline . they should know the ending as well as we do . and burns should have given his audience more credit and presented them with a plot that at least offered a surprise or two . another frustrating thing about no looking back is that burns has populated the film with a group of potentially-interesting supporting characters . blythe danner is solid as claudia's housebound mother , connie britton is suitably high-strung as claudia's neurotic sister , and jennifer esposito is eye-catching as a bartender in search of a little romance . sadly , all we get is quick glimpses into their lives , although a movie about any of them would have been far more intriguing than the story burns has chosen to tell . none of the lead performers are going to wow critics with their thespian attributes . edward burns is pushing the edge of his limited range here . jon bon jovi shows more acting ability than one might reasonably expect from a singer branching into a different career , but he could still use a little polish . the worst case is lauren holly , who presents a completely bland claudia . as portrayed here , she's hardly the kind of woman who would inspire even a moment's interest , not to mention undying love . burns' ex , the monumentally untalented maxine bahns , would have been hard-pressed to do a less inspired job . when he released the brothers mcmullen , edward burns was revered as the wunderkind of the 1995 sundance film festival ( robert redford has apparently stuck with him -- the aging actor/director executive produced this mess ) . two films and three short years later , the luster has faded . some movie makers have only one good film in them . with back- to-back duds like she's the one and no looking back to follow the delightful brothers , burns is beginning to look like a member of that undistinguished club .

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

titanic is , without a doubt , the best movie i've seen all year . and believe me , i'm not an easy critic to impress : the english patient was too long , men in black was over-hyped , and several of the " big summer releases " were dead in the water . thank god this film got delayed until december . it's my christmas present . titanic is in the tradition of the old hollywood epics of years-gone-by , and it is truly a stunning film . while watching this picture you are completely mesmerized , never taking your eyes off the screen , nor checking your watch to see how much longer it's gonna last , despite its 3 hour plus running time . as a friend of mine , who's a true titanic-buff , said " if someone doesn't like this film , it's because they didn't want to . " truer words are hard to come by . of course , it doesn't hurt that this film comes from one of my favorite directors , james cameron , who is unarguably the greatest action director of all time . if you wish to argue that point with me , look at his list of credits : the terminator , aliens , the abyss , terminator 2 , true lies , etc . still care to disagree ? not only has cameron helmed the directorial duties of this film , he also wrote , produced , and edited it . and to show his true faith for the project , he renenged all directing fees and percentage points to ease the budget costs . it's obvious he truly loves titanic . the film opens with footage , both real and fake , of an underwater excursion by special submarines to the bottom of the atlantic , where a team of explorers lead by bill paxton are searcing for a diamond called the " heart of the ocean " , which , according to bill paxton's character , would be worth more than the hope diamond today . their search turns up , dissapointly , no diamond , but instead a drawing of a young woman wearing the diamond . this picture is broadcast on cnn and is seen by a 101 year old woman named rose , who claims to be the girl in the picture . she is flown out to sea to meet bill paxton and to tell them about the diamond . almost all of the rest of the movie is her narration of the past . rose's narration shows us how she was an unhappy young girl , engaged to a rich man named cal hockley ( billy zane ) that she didn't want to marry . her mother is pushy and obnoxious , and cal hockley is arrogant . they are boarding the titanic , which is sailing to america , and this is where she is to marry cal . meanwhile , a young man named jack dawson ( leonardo dicaprio ) and his italian friend ( danny nucci ) win two 3rd class tickets aboard the titanic in a poker game . they are overjoyed , and rush aboard just as the boat is leaving . for them , this is their ticket to america , to a better life . for rose , she is sailing to her doom . the first hour and a half or so of titanic tells the story of how rose dewitt ( kate winslet ) and jack dawson fall in love . it's the classic wrong-side-of-the-tracks story , and does sometimes resort to a few cliches . but as i said above , the love portion isn't sappy and doesn't " weigh the film down " , as some critics have said . it's sweet , and it didn't make me restless at all , despite the fact that i usually hate love stories . of course , it might help that cameron introduces some pretty interesting characters to help keep our eyes glued to the screen . most of these people actually were passengers on the titanic back in 1912 , including the enigmatic molly brown ( played by the talented kathy bates ) , the captain of titanic ( bernard hill ) , and so on . all of these characters add an extra depth to the film , and make it that easier to watch . of course , things really start to get going after the hour and a half mark , where the titanic strikes the iceberg and begins a slow sink to the bottom . the sinking is depicted realisticly , and the effects are truly amazing . it is not told in a heroic fashion sense either , as people are portrayed as panicking , pushing others aside to get on the limited lifeboats , and drowning and dying horrible deaths . the best part of the movie , in my opinion , comes at the very end , when we flash back to the future . the crew , who at first had been skeptical of rose's story , now are totally aborbed by her . rose goes out onto the ship's ledge , and we then learn a secret about her that catches us off guard . we then see a dream of rose's , in which she returns to the titanic and is dancing with jack dawson . most people i talked with after the movie saw this as only a dream . however , i think it symbolized more ; i think it meant that rose had died , and is going to a sort of heaven , which would be the happiest part of her life : her and her one true love , jack . if anyone has seen the movie and would like to voice an opinion about this , e-mail me at venom8@hotmail . com .

alchemy is steeped in shades of blue . kieslowski's blue , that is . with its examination of death , isolation , character restoration , and recovery from loss , suzanne myers' new independent film echoes the polish director's internationally-acclaimed 1993 release . language aside , the principal difference between the films is that , while kieslowski took great pains to draw us into the main character's world , alchemy keeps its viewers at arm's length . as a result , while we're able to appreciate the film's intellectual tapestry , it is emotionally distant . alchemy is divided into three chapters : " charity " , " faith " , and " hope " . while there are common themes and story elements running through all three , the single constant is the main character , a sculptor/russian translator named louisa ( rya kihlstedt ) . when the film opens , she's living with her painter boyfriend , whom she believes to be cheating on her . following his sudden death in an automobile accident , louisa's life is thrown into turmoil . events swirls around her , and she can't find a source of stability . in her quest to make sense out of her loss , she befriends her late boyfriend's mistress , visits her ill sister , and , eventually , abandons her old life by joining a " back-to- nature " cult . alchemy successfully explores a variety of compelling issues . in addition to asking the basic question of how a person should cope with the unexpected death of a loved one , it probes beneath the surface of concepts like the importance of faith in the healing process , the meaning of love , and the nature of art . does personality restoration come through interacting with others or escaping from the familiar ? are artistic epiphanies the result of focused solitude or of living life , with all of its various distractions , to the fullest ? myers' challenge is to make these subjects , art film staples , engrossing in a new context . through louisa's struggles , she succeeds . while alchemy isn't always emotionally appealing , it never loses its fascination . even when we're not connecting with louisa , who is often more of a locus for ideas than a fully-developed personality , there's enough material on-screen to hold our attention . the cinematography is stunning . city scenes are tinted with blue , adding a cold , bleak dimension to the film's early portions . later , when louisa reaches the " wilderness " , we're treated to a dazzling array of autumnal splendor -- brightly-colored leaves in the trees and on the ground . it's a startling-but-effective visual contrast that emphasizes the changes taking place in louisa's life as she travels the road back to emotional stability . the title refers to the practice of a group of mystical faith- healers who use " alchemy " to provide for the needs of the body and soul . and , although louisa partakes of their peculiar brand of medicine , it's ultimately love and companionship , not alchemy , that brings solace . her pain is assuaged only when she lets go of the belief that the inherent safety of being alone is life's ultimate goal . even though louisa's final transformation lacks the impact it could have possessed had she been a more vital character , it's still an intriguing and enlightening process to watch . alchemy isn't pure magic , but , especially during its best moments , it's close .

review- peter jackson's the frighteners has received some notice for setting the record for most computer effects ever in a movie , and still coming in at the extremely cheap $30 million price tag . but for those who were dismayed by this year's blockbusters like twister and independence day , the frighteners has much more to offer than special effects . and for those worried wether or not peter jackson would compromise to hollywood you can rest easily . the frighteners is as far removed from hollywood as a high-profile movie can get . michael j . fox stars as frank bannister , a con artist who can speak to ghosts . he uses this ability to set up a scam in a small town where his ghost buddies scare the hell out of people , then he comes and pretends to get rid of them . this is how he has made a living ever since his wife died in a car crash 5 years ago . frank's latest customers are a young couple , played by trini alvarado and peter dobson . when dobson ends up dead , alvarado starts to take an interest in fox . but dobson's spirit is still around as he refuses to beleive he's dead . this leads to a very awkward and amusing dinner date between fox and alvarado , with dobson tagging along as a ghost . things start getting complicated for fox when he is accused for a series of murders taking place in the town . fox sees someone named the soul collector crushing the heart of the victims , but noone else can see that . so when fox shows up to try and save each victim , naturally people suspect he is the killer . fox sees that alvarado is next on the soul collector's hit list , and the last half hour of the movie deals with fox's attempts to save her from this evil spirit . there are many wonderful twists and turns in the screenplay written by peter jackson and frances walsh . the movie starts off as a black comedy , and ends up a horror-action film . the mix between these genres are perfect . no laughs are sacrificed in the name of horror , and vice versa . one point of contention might be a lackluster score by danny elfman . but that hardly seems like a flaw when you have such a diverse cast all in top form . michael j . fox delivers one of his best performances to date as a man who hides the sorrow of his wife's death , and then is forced to confront this later on . alvarado , looking like andie macdowell , makes a great frightened , tough , and smart heroine . and jeffery combs , as a paranoid fbi agent , is brilliantly bizaare . the frighteners never once feels like it is running long . the first hour is as funny as any comedy this year , and the last half hour is as thrilling as any of the big budget blockbusters . this movie is probably what casper would've looked like if david lynch directed it . it's easily the best film of the year , so far .

the film starts out with a creepy opening sequence to which has the now classic and creepy score by writer/director/producer john carpenter who in my mind is a brilliant director , he really is . he wrote this film , he directed this film , he produced this film and he made the excessively creepy score to this film . i think he is and always will be famous for this classic which after 21 years has not lost it's popularity or it's ability to scare the wits out of people . i think i have seen 'halloween' over 100 times and each time i find something new and brilliant , and each time i am scared even though i know what is going to happen . i own three different versions of the film : a vhs regular version that came with a limited edition 20th anniversary t-shirt , a boxed edition vhs in a hardcover case digitally re-mastered with the original theatrical widescreen presentation , in a nifty plastic picture decorated box with a numbered snow-globe . in other words i am completely and utterly obsessed with the film . it has changed horror movies forever and spawned six sequels with only 2 , 4 , and 7 being truly good . it also spawned several cheap imitations of the film that were offensive in some ways to a true halloween fan . since i heard about halloween being released on dvd in a limited edition of 30 , 000 copies , i knew i had to buy one no matter what ! i did and man to me it's the best dvd ever manufactured with the brilliance of the film . no words can describe the dvd . in 'halloween' michael myers is a evil person whom killed his sister in cold blood 16 years ago in 1963 . now in 1978 grown up and in a mental hospital michael myers escapes to go back to his hometown of haddonfield , illinois , followed by his past doctor sam loomis . the person michael is targeting is laurie strode who is played by jamie lee curtis in her film debut . why is he stalking her ? check out halloween ii it explains it all . on this unholy night on october 31 , 1978 laurie strode and her two friends are going to have the time of their lives , which is trying to stay alive . the whole film is filled with terrifying moments most coming from just seeing michael myers walk . nick castle who played the shape in the first movie did an incredible job , and no other person in any other halloween flick can do what he did . what john carpenter did in 1978 is made a ground-breaking new film , with scares , wit , and style . the movie is flawless if not perfect . no other movie or sequel has lived up to this one , and in my opinion never will . 'halloween' will be like 'psycho' and still be extremely popular even almost 40 years later . i just hope someday 'halloween' will be released in a new dolby soundtrack with the 4 extra scenes on the dvd edition . 'halloween' isn't just another slice-and-dice horror flick , it's an intelligent , horrifying and best film experience ever made . see 'halloween' and be scared . . . . then watch it again ! reviewed by brandon herring october 7 , 1999 .

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

james cmaeron's breakthrough feature was the first of his films to showcase his obsession with technology and more specfically technology run amok . for those of you who do not know the plot : in 2029 machines have engineered a nuclear for the expressed purpose of wiping out the human race . human survivors are systematically hunted down and destroyed . however , some humans are fighting back led by the heroic john connor . to stop connor , the machines send a terminator ( arnold schwarzenegger ) back to 1984 to murder connor's mother , sara ( linda hamilton ) , and thus prevent connor from ever being born . in response , the humans send a protector , kyle reese , played by michael biehn . images of machines and of humans' reliance on machines dominate the film . even though the characters know that the benign oil drillers of 1984 will become the ruthless hunter killers of 2029 , humans continue to use the machines . in the climax of star wars , luke relies on the force alone--his own spiritual power--to destroy the death star . in the terminator , however , sara must use another machine--a giant hydraulic press--to vanquish her enemy . cameron seems to be implying that this reliance on technology is inescapable--and he's not happy about it . unabated technological growth brings about the terminator's other obsession : the apocalypse . we have plenty of imagery regarding armageddon : thousands of human skulls line the streets of future la . children watch the flames in a burning television . when the terminator arrives in 1984 an almost biblical lightning storm precedes him . even though the " future is not set , " there is no doubt about where the world is headed at the end of the movie : the machines will rise and the humans will have to struggle for their very existence . all sara can do is await it . ( cameron doesn't wimp out like he does in terminator 2 ) the end of the world is the human race's own fault , too . after all it is the humans that created in the evil machines in the first place . back in 1984 , when the cold war was still in full effect , the film must have been seen as a very apt metaphor for nuclear war ( another obsession of cameron's ) . these days , one can read a criticism of machine-like behavior in humans . true , humanizing touches are put into paul winfield's and lance henriksen's detective characters , but the terminator is also able to move through the city undetected . cameron also draw parallels between the mechanical efficiency between the terminator and reese when they first arrive in 1984 la . from a technical standpoint the terminator is very well done . arnold schwarzenegger is a perfect antagonist--unstoppable , merciless , obdurate . we are not meant to empathize with this ultimate killing machine as we are in some of schwarzenegger's later works ( eg , commando ) , but fear him . cameron and hurd's script basically depicts a one hour and forty-five minute chase , taking a few moments here and there to explain time travel and develop the romantic subplot . while we do see the hackneyed dialogue cameron is now so well known for , there is also considerable suspense especially for the first time viewer who may be unsure of kyle reese's intentions . cameron directs the film at a rapid , kinetic pace . either the camera is moving or something within the frame is moving--usually both occurs . the violence is not particularly graphic ( temple of doom's heart-pull scene outgrosses the terminator's ) , but it is brutally staged making it that much more effective . for a low budget film , the terminator's special effects and art direction ( especially in 2029 la ) are remarkably well done . special mention should be made of the stop motion effects work at the end of the film depicting the terminator endoskeleton . it is some of the best stop motion i have ever seen . one thing that doesn't hold up after all the years , however , is linda hamilton's hairdo .

has hollywood run out of interesting characters and plot-driven suspense thrillers that we must spend two hours watching will smith and a gritty gene hackman exchange obtuse dialogue and run around dodging fireballs ? in enemy of the state , that is exactly right . a few parts the net , and a few parts conspiracy theory , enemy is about as exciting as watching smith talk to cgi aliens in 1997's lame brained men in black . will this guy ever get a real role ? he has the bruce willis syndrome . the plot is bascially smith , playing a lawyer , getting into hot water with some high government murderers , who assassinated a powerful political figure earlier in the movie , when a tape of the killing gets into his hands . he inlists the help of an old conspirator ( hackman ) , and , at the end , er . . . you know . enemy was one of the worst films of last year . not only was it sloppy in telling its story and getting its facts straight , the acting was mediocre when it should have been energy driven , and i didn't like how smith always magically out-smarted the badies when all the other extra characters , seeming more intelligent than smith , somehow got run over by a truck . enemy came out around the same time as the superior star trek : insurrection . i know these two films are different in , well , everything , but the fact that enemy outgrossed insurrection just baffels me . somehow , quality can't overshadow quantity .

" he's back , and it's about time . " was the motto for this television series pilot ( i call it a pilot , i don't care what fox network says ) revival of the cult classic british tv show , doctor who , that spawned no series , which means there are no smart network execs out there ( not exactly news to a lot of people , i know ) . the motto was well chosen . the series was simple , it was about this time lord scientist called the doctor with thirteen lives who traveled around in a type forty spaceship called a tardis outsmarting all kind of alien baddies , including the evil daleks , and the master , who appears in this feature , played very badly by eric roberts . as good as this revival was , there is something missing from it to make sure it was really doctor who . is it the acting ? hell , no ! paul mcgann is just as good as any of the other seven guys who've played the doctor ( including his predecessor and off-screen friend sylvester mccoy , who appears once more for the regeneration scene ) . he looks right for the role , is a brilliant actor , and slips effortlessly into the role , the way my two favorites jon pertwee and tom baker would . daphne ashbrook brings class to her role as dr . grace holloway , the doctor's first companion that he kisses on screen , she is not your typical female companion who screams , and spends her free time making coffee for the doctor , she is a tough , spunky american , and ashbrook shows this well . young yee jee tso shows promise as chang lee , and i've seen him in other stuff in which he usually plays the punk kid who dies at the end ( this film included ) , which , imho , wastes his talent . the only problem with the acting is eric roberts . one time he had to say to mcgann's doctor , " i always dress for the occasion . " but he broke it up , and said it so slowly that it wounded up sounding like a song lyric , " i always . . . dress . . . for the occasion . " you need an actor less slow and less reliant on moving his hands to act , and who's also british , like mcgann is as the doctor . executive producer phil segal said he was casted because fox insisted on having one american star in the role . i dunno who thought of casting him , but if they're reading this : news flash : eric roberts is * not * a star ! he rides on his sister's coattails , and any hit movie he makes has nothing to do with him . is this problem the kisses to the past ? they have references to the show so subtle that non fans would not notice them , only whovians would , and they're good . is it the script or the movie as a whole ? the script is a classy piece of work , featuring a master who can spit slime out of his mouth and nice dialogue , and the movie as a whole is one fans will love , and it is a good stand alone viewing for nonfans to enjoy the series . so what is it ? simple : no plot . the master , on his last legs , sends for the doctor to rescue him after the daleks put him on trial on their planet skaro and exterminate him . the doctor attempts to take his remains back to gallifrey , but they accidentally land in san francisco , 1999 , december 31 , where the master , with young street hood chang lee's help , opens the eye of harmony , which will suck the earth through it at midnight if the doctor , with the help of female surgeon , dr . grace holloway , doesn't close it by then . virtually no plot . i was told the movie would've featured the daleks on screen and started with more of a courtroom drama between the master and the daleks , but a lot of rewriting went on on the set . that shows how smart people are , as it would have made the movie a hell of a lot more interesting , and that would've gotten a four star rating out of me .

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

i wonder if budget is at all a criterion for whether or not a movie can be considered an exploitation flick . take the professional , for example . it boasts extremely glossy cinematography , a couple of recognizable name actors , and a couple of fairly impressive explosions . it's also basically about violence and cheap titilation , and features a central relationship between a middle-aged man and a twelve-year-old girl with a decidedly ambiguous sexual dimension . the professional is all over the map , and its pretensions of being about anything more than its most unpleasant elements simply make it all the more unpleasant . the professional of the title is a new york hit man named leon ( jean reno ) , brutally efficient but also very isolated . one day he is forced to let someone into his life when a girl from his apartment building knocks on his door . her name is matilda ( natalie portman ) , and the rest of her family has just been killed by crooked and very wired d . e . a . agent norman stansfield ( gary oldman ) after matilda's father tried to rip him off . leon reluctantly takes matilda in , then begins to teach her his profession when she says that she wants to avenge the murder of her young brother . the two become closer , which makes them all the more vulnerable when stansfield learns that they know too much , and sets out to eliminate them both . writer/director luc besson has gone this route before with his popular french import la femme nikita , a slick potboiler about a female assassin . there is no question that besson can make a great * looking * film ; with the assistance of cinematographer thierry arbogast , he has created a film chock full of moody close-ups and evocative lighting . but beneath the shiny wrapper , there isn't nearly as much going on as besson would like us to believe . the relationship between leon and matilda never clicks because neither one is given a character to develop . leon is mostly a collection of quirky traits , all intended to show us that for a hired killer , he's really not so bad a guy : he drinks lots of milk , takes meticulous care of a potted plant , and enjoys gene kelly movies . jean reno succeeds at giving leon a haunted and desperate quality , but he never makes an emotional connection to matilda . natalie portman is all wrong for a part that called for a much grittier quality , but she doesn't have too much to work with , either . besson would have been better served spending more time trying to bring his characters to life , and less on feeble attempts at humor which are often embarrassing . a silly game between leon and matilda involving celebrity impersonations is completely out of place , as is a scene where matilda shocks a hotel manager by announcing that leon is her lover ; character is thoroughly sacrificed for a cheap gag . gary oldman's entire part is something of a cheap gag , wild-eyed and way over the top , but at least he is interesting to watch . there isn't a real person to be found anywhere in the professional , which isn't always a problem in an action thriller , except that this one is trying to pass itself off as something more . a more disconcerting problem with the professional is that it plays around with the sexuality of a twelve-year-old in a really distasteful way . there were only two real choices for dealing with that component of leon and matilda's relationship : confront it head on , or ignore it entirely . but besson flirts and teases the audience with the idea that he's going to show them a forbidden love story , while choosing simply to focus his camera on portman's rear end and dress her in skimpy clothing . this is to say nothing of the questionable decision to make it look like quality paternal time when leon is teaching a child to load a 9mm pistol , or the blood which is spilled aplenty . a great deal of the time , the professional is just plain sleazy , and all the soft filters in the world can't disguise that fact .

when i first heard about scream in 1996 , i was told that it was a spoof of horror movies . from the master of the horror himself , wes craven , it ridiculed the cliches of the genre by overemphasizing them , by making the teenagers do what they know they're not supposed to do when a serial killer is stalking them ( don't run up the stairs when you can easily go out the front door , never say " i'll be right back , " etc . ) . when i first heard this description , i figured that it was an easy way out of making a bad movie . how hard is it to make an extremely terrible film but claim it is actually a mockery of other bad movies . was this wes craven's remedy from making " real " bad movies such as vampires in brooklyn ? it just seemed cheap to me . then i actually saw the movie and the first twenty minutes , involving drew barrymore and a nail-bitingly intense phone conversation , completely changed my attitude . scream is not only a clever parody of your standard horror flick , it's also a pretty scary movie . if you've seen a million of these kinds of films , you know exactly what is going to happen . this is part of the fun of watching scream . the movie reminds avid horror fans how similar and repetitive the genre is and it also reminds them how great a guilty pleasure it can be to watch pointless and predictable violence to innocent , attractive teenagers . to those who rarely see these types of movies , scream is a thrilling unpredictable ride that could be mistaken as a serious slasher film . there's nothing wrong with that misjudgment though . i have witnessed viewers from both sides of the audience , the newbies to horror and the fanatics . their opinions on the film were so different but both very positive . from these varied reviews , i am convinced that scream has not only revived the teen horror movie and the normal teen romance movies but also the hilarious parodies of these and other categories . films that both deride and celebrate genres like galaxy quest and the big hit would not have existed , in my opinion , if it was not for the outstanding success of scream . the low - budget 1996 gem may , alongside pulp fiction , be the most influential film of the 1990's . this influence may exist to the chagrin of some moviegoers who despise movies like teaching mrs . tingle or television programs such as dawson's creek but to others such as myself , we congratulate the movie that has opened new doors for excellent young actors , screenwriters , and directors . scream is also an extremely funny movie thanks to its quickly-paced script by kevin williamson . within the film are characters who tell other characters , as well as the audience , the basic rules and cliches of a horror movie . mainly from the rants of randy ( jamie kennedy ) and stu ( matthew lillard ) , we are reminded not only of the obvious and hilarious rules but also some of the more subtle stereotypes that when thought over are mostly true as well ( the virgin always survives ; have sex and you're dead meat ) . not only are we treated these rules on a plate but also the rules are referenced to a number of different films and actors . the script feels like an obsessive essay from a college film geek who has nothing better to do but find every little blunder from every little film for his own self-satisfaction . in this case , williamson finds these errors for the audience's satisfaction and amusement . i hear there is a new movie coming out called scary movie which is a spoof of scream , which is a spoof of scary movies . i will certainly see the film but i have the feeling that this parody will be more obviously ridiculing the genre rather than scream's perfect subtlety . however my last gut feeling about this stuff , scream , was dead wrong . . . so who knows .

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

the jekyll and hyde story told from his maid's point of view is , in a word , " dark " . you wouldn't expect something bright and cheery based on robert louis stevenson's novel , but the film is surprisingly dreary and dismal . jekyll/hyde ( john malkovich ) is terminally depressed and desperate . mary reilly ( julia roberts ) is a victim of monstrous child abuse and the anti-woman sentiment of the times . director stephen fears' version of the london slums makes us marvel that anyone survived them . the lighting level is exceedingly low throughout the movie : it almost appears to be filmed in black and white . the direction and cinematography are brilliant and liquid . scenes flow into the next scene like honey oozing off a strawberry . ( except there's no red , of course . ) the look is so moody and melodramatic that you'll be shocked when you leave the theater . i saw it at a matinee and took quite a while to adjust to the sunny skies afterward . often the jekyll and hyde archetypes are viewed as splitting a whole person into components of good and evil or perhaps cerebral and emotional parts . here the doctor is intellectual and perhaps good , but certainly powerless . his alter ego is forceful and totally without conscience . two parts that make up a whole . neither are capable of functioning without the other and once separated , disaster is inevitable . the differences between the two characters would be more effective if it were accomplished by demeanor and attitude . when we finally see the transformation , the special effects thrust the story into the realm of science fiction , not the psychological horror that the tale demands . roberts and malkovich are skillful in their roles . both are suitably melancholy , fitting in with the rest of the film . the only flash of life and color comes from glenn close ( and her lips ) as the madam of a whorehouse where hyde lives , and surprisingly , jekyll apparently frequents . life and color maybe , but this is not close's best role . she seems little more than a cardboard cutout character . a beautiful film in its own dreary way . you'll appreciate the filmmaking craft , but don't expect to leave in an upbeat mood .

near the end of 1996 , analysts remarked that the year would be the last in which disney would stand alone as the animation king . the following year , 1997 , saw the first sleeper entry into the genre from a studio other than the magic kingdom : twentieth century fox gave baronial russia to the masses in the form of anastasia . at best , that's all it was -- a sleeper hit , designed to surprise but not shake the industry . in 1998 , however , things have been decidedly different . there have been a number of pushes on disney's death grip on the market , and fifty-one weeks into '98 , a new champion has emerged . dreamworks' the prince of egypt succeeds where all of the other conventionally animated products have failed . the other two contenders , warner brothers' quest for camelot and disney's own annual entry , mulan , lacked inspiration and drive respectively . although camelot was borderline-abysmal , and can't really be considered a shot at the title , mulan had the makings of winner . unfortunately , it was saturated with traditional , disney-cute animation , and lost points against the rapidly-changing face of the competition . in making the prince of egypt , dreamworks has strayed from all of these hallmarks and created a genuinely unique product . the animation is flawless , and , aside from a bug's life , is the best-looking movie to date . the animators have nimbly mixed both flat and spatial effects , and the 2d/3d combination is something that artists from disney and fox have heretofore struggled with . the key to success , however , was that the visuals were used not just because they looked cool but also as a method of advancing the plot . namely , some of the most important action sequences ( like the parting of the red sea ) were done almost entirely in 3d . dreamworks is the first studio to prove that they've got the stuff of success , and that they're capable of challenging disney . the story is also well-written , and the characters voiced with talent . for the most part , the plot follows its source material -- the book of exodus -- although only in the most general sense . the writers took a few creative liberties , and most do not damage the story in any way . in fact , the shakespearean relationship between moses ( val kilmer ) and the pharaoh rameses ( ralph fiennes ) makes the story more interesting if anything . moses , a hebrew , is saved from the slaughter of the firstborn sons by his mother when she sets him in a basket on the nile ; he floats into the pharaoh seti ( patrick stewart ) 's palace and is taken in by the royal family . moses grows up but learns of his heritage and flees into the desert , where he discovers the burning bush and is commissioned by god to return to egypt and free the slaves . by this time , rameses is now pharaoh , and the two brothers , now on opposite sides of the line , face off in a battle of wills and divine intervention . the cast of voices is most impressive , and also includes such noteables as sandra bullock , jeff goldblum , danny glover , and steve martin . the script does not have a lot of one-liners in it , and god is reduced to a voice that might well be mistaken for the same one that spoke to kevin costner in field of dreams , but overall the story is exciting and interesting . it's decidedly for an older crowd , and the tykes who haven't had a few years of religion class will be hopelessly lost . but for those who make the bid , the prince of egypt can be a great watch .

originally titled 'don't lose your head' , this parody of the scarlet pimpernel story was the first carry on to be produced by rank film productions . two english fops , the 'powdered , be-wigged , be-ribboned' sir rodney ffing ( sidney james ) and his counterpart lord darcy pew ( jim dale ) decide to travel to revolutionary france in an attempt to rescue their fellow french royalists and aristocrats from losing their heads by the guillotine . due to a series of machinations and disguises , they are largely successful . ffing becomes known as 'the black fingernail' because he leaves a calling card behind which shows two fingers sticking up , one with a black fingernail . after the fingernail rescues a prominent royalist the duc de pommfrit ( charles hawtrey ) , citizen robespierre ( peter gilmore ) orders the head of the secret police citizen 'the big cheese' camembert ( kenneth williams ) and citizen bidet ( peter butterworth ) to follow the fingernail to england and do away with him . ( in fact , darcy and ffing are their coachmen ! ) once at calais , the fingernail meets jacqueline ( dany robin ) and they fall in love instantly . he tells her his identity and gives her his locket . when camembert realises that the fingernail is nearby , he searches the inn at calais and captures jacqueline , thinking that she is wearing a diguise and is really the fingernail ! jacqueline is imprisoned in the bastille and camembert , his love desiree dubarry ( joan sims ) , and bidet all travel to london in pursuit of the fingernail . they pretend to be of noble stock , calling themselves the duc and duchesse de la plume de ma tante ( with bidet their assistant ) and are invited by darcy to a ball held by ffing . desiree finds out that ffing is the fingernail by wearing the locket around her neck , but she ends up falling in love with him . ffing attempts to stall camembert so that he can return to the bastille to rescue jacqueline , camembert has her moved to the 'chateau neuve' , and a climactic sword-fight decides who will lose their heads at the end of the film ! a more complex story than most carry ons , this film enjoys good production values ( sets , costumes ) and an on-form cast . sid james is excellent as the english fop and black fingernail , kenneth williams excels as the evil camembert , and peter butterworth expertly plays the substantial part of camembert's thick-witted crony . other acting honours go to joan sims who is perfect as desiree and charles hawtrey who is excellent as the french aristo pommfrit . although it suffers from a disasterously over-long sword fight at the end of the film , it is largely successful due to the performances of the main stars , its slick and professional production , and its better-than-usual script . definitely one of the best of the series and a joy to watch .

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

seen august 8 , 1998 at 6 p . m . at rotterdam square cinemas ( rotterdam , ny ) , theater #6 , by myself for free using my sony/loews critic's pass . [theater rating : * * * : good seats , sound , and picture] war is a topic that can't help but be glorified any way it is portrayed by the media . movies , documentaries , and even history books have a way of making the darker side of humanity exciting since the most general aspects are focused on , such as strategy , politics , and victory . it's easy to forget war , in its most basic form , is a battle of armies out to slaughter each other . forgotten more easily is the fact that each soldier , no matter what his rank or importance , is a real flesh-and-blood person and not just a number . " saving private ryan " is one of the few films that dares play up this aspect , especially in its unapologetic , realistic delivery . it proves there's a huge difference between battling and killing . the film opens with one of the most graphic , disturbing scenes in recent memory . it's world war ii , d-day to be exact , and the u . s . military is invading omaha beach where the nazis are more than ready for them . spielberg uses many techniques to create for a total sense of reality . instead of positioned cameras , the footage here seems to have been shot by camera operators running alongside soldiers as if they were just as scared . there is no sense of stability , but of constant , anxious , and confusing motion , giving us the feeling of being in the middle of the battle , and just a vulnerable as the poor troops . " poor " is a proper word to describe how pathetic and yet innocent the men fighting are . there is little to no dialogue throughout the loud battle and no prologue to define any characters . we don't get the feeling these are handsome actors playing heroic roles , but that these are men about to kill and be killed for reasons beyond their understanding . the nazis are not portrayed as enemies to be hated , but as people that must be destroyed because they're there . in the movies , the good guys can run through a firestorm of bullets and bombs and not get a scratch , but in reality that wouldn't happen . the men have nothing to shield or protect them besides some metal flanks and dead bodies . they are sitting ducks and we realize this through the perspective of the well-secured germans who can actually see who , what , and where they're shooting , unlike the americans who must fire in a general direction to avoid getting their heads blown off . perhaps the film is flawed by not providing any backstory on the war itself and who the men really are , but that seems to be part of the theme . the film seems to rely on the audience's sense of patriotism , that the american military is " right " and good and that the nazis are " inherently evil . " the battle scene eventually focuses on a group of men who have miraculously survived and made their way close to the enemy stronghold ( a whole 50-foot progression ) , and begin to inflict some damage . i have to admit that once the first glimpse of victory over the nazis sprang up , i couldn't help but feel some sense of joy and relief . to triumph against all odds is a cliche to be sure , but there's nothing cliche about the graphic , detailed , atmosphere here because it really happened . one of the most surprising aspects of the film is how little story construction there is , and yet the events that take place make sense and are interesting . the plot is practically irrelevant since the film is more concerned with the reality of the war and the soldiers we meet . tom hanks stars as captain miller , a relatively average man who happens to be the leader of a platoon . he's never obsessive or any such generic , cartoonish characteristic that might dominate a character like this . he doesn't want to be there any more than his men , but when he is given a mission he intends to carry it out . the mission the film is concerned with is , as the title states , saving private ryan . through a series of command started by an ordinary clerical worker , it is brought to a general's attention that three brothers from iowa have been killed in action and their mother will receive notices of each's death simultaneously . when they learn a fourth brother is stationed somewhere in europe , they make it a top priority to have him returned safely to his mother . it's easy to sympathize with this situation , after all , no one should have to lose all their children at once . but finding one man in this war is , as miller puts it , " like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles . " the saving of private ryan isn't just a dramatic device , but a thematic one . his salvation represents the sense of innocence the country , the world even , was trying to convince itself it still had . when miller's company hears of the mission , they scoff at the idea assuming he is dead , but miller isn't so quick to shrug it off . he knows the only thing that can really save soldiers from death is hope , and now he has the opportunity to make someone's sense of hope a reality . the mission to find ryan gives miller's group a destination , but not direction . along the way many things happen to them , both good and bad . a few battles are fought , not to be major accomplishments for the war , but because they encounter german soldiers and have no other choice . the act of killing itself becomes one of the film's major philosophical metaphors . the soldiers don't mind killing other soldiers in blind battle , but when they come across a lone survivor who begs them to let him go , they can barely stop themselves from killing him in cold blood as some kind of vengeance for their losses . unfortunately , death is a fact of war , and most films try to avoid it when it comes to the main characters , but here spielberg doesn't want us to think these men are invincible . in fact , only a small amount of color and personality is sketched into each man , and the performances are good enough to make this method work . although the characters are somewhat typical , the actors maintain control over the material at all time . whether they're arguing with each other , telling stories of back home , or fighting the germans , they never go overboard and always seem believable . sure , there's a zinger here and there , but war doesn't change the fact boys will be boys . if and when one dies we too can feel the loss , even though we hardly knew them . the final act brings the story full circle with another tremendous , violent battle sequence . private ryan has been found , but facing four to one odds , can the americans defeat the germans and keep ryan alive ? that's not a premise for thrills , it's symbolic of everything the film has worked for . it would be wrong to say the film has either a happy or sad ending , it ends the way it must end . i remember reading a " calvin & hobbes " comic strip where calvin asked his dad something like , " dad , how do armies of men killing each other solve problems ? " " saving private ryan " is the adult version of that question .

seen at the 21st portland international film festival film title : supermarket woman director : juzo itami country : japan 1997 cinematography : yonezo maeda music : toshiyuki honda cast : nobuko miyamoto , masahitko tsugawa , shiro ito , yuji miyake , akiko matsumoto super features : typical itami film . . . funny and pointed in its own way . if you don't care how and what the food you buy goes through in your local supermarket , then this film is not for you . . . . maybe it is better to ignore it , as this strong and biting satire , as only juzo itami can deliver , will give you an insight as to what some foods go through . having , in the past , made films that pulled every punch imaginable , from the family traditions ( the funeral ) , to taxes ( a taxing woman & a taxing woman returns ) , to the diabolical gangsters ( minbo ) , to hospitals ( the seriously ill ) , juzo itami , this time takes on the supermarkets' own war , to get the consumers . and while this film has its funny side , in the crazy situations that it creates , it also shows another side , which is very much the attitude of a corporate structure that is more concerned with its profits than it is with any customer . goro has a supermarket . and a competitor comes into the neighborhood , trying to take him out of business by providing less expensive prices for everything that is sold in the supermarket . bargains galore , its name , has in mind the closure of goro's humbler venue , so that in the end it can mark up its prices in any way it can . goro hires hanako , a housewife whose talents seem to be better suited to management , than they are in anything else . hanako , as she gets familiar with the operation , discovers many of the tricks of the trade , done by many of the elders in charge of each section of the market . and the procedures , are not always " fresh " food , but a new packaging and a new date , to try and convince the customers that quality is on the shelves . hanako's ideas take hold , starting with a few of the women that work in the supermarket , being that they do not even shop there at all . and hanako discovers along the way that a few giveaways here and there make a bit of a difference . if not cause some serious problems in the running of the store . a price error , forces them to give away eggs for very low prices , and causes the store a few hassles , but , it brought the people in , and everyone knows that these customers will buy a few other things . as the operation gets stronger , the competition also has trickery up its sleeve , and it has been undermining much of the operation by paybacks to one of the store managers , as well as the meat and fish elder supervisors . eventually these people are found out , and hanako has to tread slowly and carefully , until in the end they all have a showdown . and here , the truth and honesty win out , and even one of the elders decides to stay rather than go to work for the corrupt opponent . in the process , they also find that " freshness " ( with some very funny jokes on this word as well ) becomes a much more important tool than they imagined . with some very nice performances , in this hectic , and fast paced film , this film gives us a sitting of two hours that is satisfying in many ways , although a failed love story between goro and hanako does not come off much , even though towards the end it is suggested . but this would take away from the satire and its strengths . with food gags all over the place , the film lets you have it . and what fun it is . worth seeing . ( editorial ) the director of this film , juzo itami , died shortly after the film was finished , and he left behind a legacy of comedy and satire that is rare , and uncompromising . we would wish that he had been able to make one about film making , of which he must have had a few stories to tell , but we will have to do with much of the japanese society , and its many errant ways . . . . not to say that these things do not happen anywhere else . . . . america is no less guilty of any of these subjects at all , should anyone have the guts to tackle it . . . we could learn something along the way , too . . . . worth seeing , specially , is a taxing woman and its follow up a taxing woman returns . the funeral is also good , although not as funny as the later films . tampopo is also very enjoyable . all four of these films are available in video , which means your best local site for foreign film may have them . . . ask for it .

deserves recognition for : achieving the near-impossible task of making a grander monument to self-love than steven seagal's on deadly ground . capsule review : a question : after the floating baby ruth that was waterworld , what in the @$&% were the hollywood execs who gave kevin costner the money to make another post-apocalyptic movie thinking ? in this 3 hour advertisement for his new hair weave , costner plays a nameless drifter who dons a long dead postal employee's uniform and gradually turns a nuked-out usa into an idealized hippy-dippy society . ( judging by the costuming at the end of the movie , the main accomplishment of this brave new world is in re-inventing polyester . ) when he's not pointing the camera directly at himself , director costner does have a nice visual sense , and it is undeniably fascinating to see such an unabashedly jingoistic film in the trust-no-one 90's ; but by the time the second hour rolled around , i was reduced to sitting on my hands to keep from clawing out my own eyes . mark this one " return to sender " .

dr . alan grant ( sam neill , " jurassic park " ) is becoming disillusioned . paleontology is no longer the sexy science it once was since the ingen corporation cloned his subject matter . his lectures bring people interested in his adventures on isla nubla rather than his research and funding dollars are drying up . when the kirbys ( william h . macy , " fargo " ; tea leoni , " the family man " ) ask him to be their guide for an anniversary flyover of isla sorna ( the notorious site b of " the lost world " ) he's disdainful , but once they wave their checkbook , he reconsiders . however the kirbys haven't given dr . grant their real agenda in " jurassic park iii . " of course , we , the audience , have been tipped off , given that the film begins by showing us eric ( trevor morgan , " the patriot " ) , a young boy , and ben ( mark harelik , " election " ) going for a paragliding adventure off that same island that goes awry ( and looks like cheesy rear projection ) . grant's established back home with a new right hand man , billy brennan ( alessandro nivola , " love's labour's lost " ) on site at a dig in montana sorely lacking funds . he also pays a visit to old flame dr . ellie sattler ( laura dern , " jurassic park " ) , now married to another with a young son who calls grant 'the dinosaur man' apparently for the sole purpose of dredging her up again for the film's poorly imagined finale . grant takes billy along on the kirbys trip , which is really an illegal gambit to save their son , that young paraglider . the couple aren't millionaires , making grant's check bogus , and they're separated as well ( eric was with amanda's new boyfriend , not that that makes much sense ) , meaning we're in for some gooey family dynamics while waiting for the dino dining . the kirbys hired hands ( and obvious bait ) are a threesome led by mr . udesky ( michael jeter , " the gift " ) . ( didn't anyone consider that casting michael jeter and william h . macy together and not having them be related was a little odd ? ) as directed by joe johnston ( " october sky , " " jumanji " ) ( spielberg only produced this one ) from a risible script by peter buchman and the " election " team of alexander payne & jim taylor , " jurassic park iii " is nothing more than a quickie monster flick with a couple of new dinos ( a spinosauraus , which goes head to head with the t-rex , and pteranodons ) . the plot , as it were , is a series of coincidences combined with extreme leaps of faith and a trifecta of stupid cell phone tricks . the effects are no longer new , and , as shot by television cinematographer shelly johnson , rather murky looking at times . film editing by robert dalva ( " october sky " ) was presumably done by machete , to keep this down to a 90 minute run time . i know of no other reason to explain the ridiculous ending which features the survivors confronting a pack of raptors , then being saved by the most ludicrous of logic jumps within a few minutes . 'original' music by don davis just repeats john williams' original themes . while neill and young morgan attempt to inject some humor and humanity into the proceedings , the rest of the cast are plodding unexceptional . " jurassic park iii " will probably provide some quick entertainment for those who go into it knowing what to expect , the same crowd who maybe liked " the lost world : jurassic park . "

in , " the muse " albert brooks plays steven phillips , a hollywood screenwriter who after winning a humanitarian award for his work is dumped by his studio . they claim that he's lost his edge and his agent is quick to agree with them . he knows that he needs to write something fresh and original and quick or else his career will be over . so he turns to his " best " friend , jack ( jeff bridges ) another screenwriter who's enjoyed success after success . on the way over to jack's house steven sees jack helping an attractive woman ( sharon stone ) into a cab and begins to think : is he having an affair ? when confronted , jack relunctently tells him that this mystery woman is , in fact , a muse , a mythological figure who is believed to have inspired all creativity , and has helped him garner his success . " she doesn't do any actual writing , " he is told , " but inspires you . " steven is excited by what he's hearing and asks jack to call her up to see if she'll take steven on as a new client . jack arranges a meeting between the two and suggests that steven bring her a present , preferably something from tiffany's . after the meeting the muse , sarah decides to take on steven , but at a price : she wants a suite at the four seasons and wants steven to perform odd tasks for her ( like bringing her salads in the middle of the night . ) steven's wife ( andy macdowell ) sees him at a food store and questions him about why he has tampons in his wagon . steven confesses everything and , although at first suspicious , she later allows sarah to move into their guest room and eventually into their life . the only question for steven is if the muse is worth all the trouble he's going through for her . and that's a question only time will tell . " the muse " is albert brooks' sixth film as writer/director/actor ( he co-wrote with monica johnson ) and although it's a good movie it's not up to the level of his best works ( " defending your life " and " mother " ) . the problem lies in the script , and for a movie that relies on its dialogue for its humor , there aren't nearly as many laughs as they are chuckles despite a few good one-liners . it has a great premise but doesn't deliver up to it's full potential . but , i like albert brooks in this film and i think that we can all identify with steven phillips a little bit . he may whine and complain , but he just wants to support his family and be happy . and i like sharon stone in this movie too ; it's a nice change of pace for her . and i also enjoyed the cameos featuring the likes of rob reiner , james cameron and martin scorsese . and although " the muse " doesn't have as much to say about hollywood as robert altman's " the player " i still left the theater feeling good . and that's something i wish i got out of more movies .

after a rather disappointing " mary railly " , stephen frears is now officially back in business with a comeback worthy of praise . this is one of the best surprises of this season -- a sweet , small budget comedy with a big heart . in fact it's not even a comedy . it's a drama or even more precise -- a clever satire on human relationships and needs . based on a 1995 critically acclaimed novel by british author nick hornby , ``high fidelity'' is a wry and likable story about a man's quest for fulfillment and happiness . rob gordon was a dj . it seems that he could make everything spin -- except his own life . now he owns championship vinyl , a little musical store , somewhere in new york . when he suddenly gets dumped by his girlfriend , a gorgeous blond attorney , life suddenly looses every purpose . decimated , humiliated and on the verge of a mental ( and emotional ) breakdown , he starts meditating over his life and the way it could have been -- about what's right and what's important . he starts " categorizing " life , dividing it into " top 5 lists " . and the most important is the " top 5 list " over the most painful breakups of his life , starting with 5th grade , when he found his young girlfriend with another boy . though you might think that people change , grow more mature with age , it just doesn't seem that way and all rob's relationships were different versions of that first . where did he go wrong ? was it he that screwed up ? or maybe life just stinks ? while he is lost in his own self-pity , he must think of the " top 5 list " over his needs for the future , find the right elements and mix his life together . with clever parallels to the cult of celebrity , music and with incredibly direct narration , it addresses the average audience member , in other words -- people like you and me . although a lot of this honor should be addressed to the screenwriter ______ and frears , the director , the acting is equally important as the written word . and here john cusack should absolutely be mentioned . he is simply superb . it is as much his movie as it is frears' . the film would not be the same without him . cusack -- whose character is sadder , wiser and 35 -- brings intelligence and warmth to post- mod irony . most of his dialogue is delivered directly to the camera -- not an easy task -- but cusack pulls it off . his interpretation feels so emotionally right , so incredibly realistic and precise that frears' message simply can't be ignored or overseen . the other members of the cast do an equally remarkable job . both ______ and jack black are fabulous . even catherine zeta jones appears in a role where she actually acts , not just looks beautiful . however , the most unexpected pleasant surprises is provided by todd louiso who delivers a spectacular comic performance as rob's co-worker and friend dick . this is such an impressive achievement that it's almost worth a oscar-nomination . he is simply a joy to behold . otherwise , everyone are in their place , and at the right time -- all part of frears' colorful blend . pretty much like edward norton's " keeping the faith " , this film doesn't follow any formula or belong to any genre -- it's dramatic , tragic , sarcastic , comic and even cynical , but never bitter or angry . it's a little bit of everything , pretty much like life itself . nothing seems unreal or staged . it reflects reality as a mirror . as you watch it , you go through the same emotional problems as the main character . you feel and think and reflect . this effect has become a rarity nowadays . although it's primarily about the perils of love , ``high fidelity'' is secondarily about pop music . rob owns championship vinyl and his employees , timid dick ( todd louiso ) and overbearing barry ( jack black ) , are fellow music snobs . music is the language in their lives , the measure by which they define themselves and mark the significant events of their lives . and so does the movie . it is as much a musical film as anything else , as rob's journey is wonderfully portrayed through carefully inserted musical fragments . in the end , you have gained something while watching it . it's not the film of the century or even of the year . it's not an special effects extravaganza . it doesn't require big explosions or digital creatures to succeed . it's a small movie about the big things . and even though it does not contain heavy philosophy , you feel as if you have experienced something of significance , and you will experience that nice warm feeling for quite some time .

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

dark city is such a rare treat : it ? s a stunning , hyperkinetic vision of a place where our reality is fused with noir , science fiction and the darkest nights in manhattan and london . to boot , it is accompanied by an intense , well written and thoughtful story . movies of this caliber and idea aren ? t made too often , and it ? s unfortunate that i waited this long to see it . alex proyas , who ? s previous film the crow looked good but couldn ? t cover up the terrible acting or story , here shows a near masterpiece ; a combination of metropolis , edward hopper and phillip marlowe , fused seemlessly . at times it moves beyond film into artwork . it is the story of ? strangers ? , aliens from another planet ( and we know they ? re aliens because they shave their heads and wear overcoats ? one of the detractions of the film ) who experiment on humans to discover what makes them live , what makes up our ? soul ? . these aliens are superior to humans because they have mastered the ? ultimate technology ? of shaping matter with their mind , called ? tuning . they are aided by a human scientist , played by kiefer sutherland , who has ? betrayed his kind ? and at the start of the film watches as the entire city stops at exactly midnight . during this time , john murdoch , played swiftly by rufus sewell , wakes in a bathtub in a room with a swinging overhead light ( a terrific visual effect - not only is murdoch confused , but so is the audience ) . without a memory and a strange guilt that he may be a killer , he receives a phone call to flee , as the strangers are after him . i don ? t want to proceed to much further with the explanation of the story ; one of the pleasures of the film is watching it develop , in a way regaining murdoch ? s ? identity ? along with him . it ? s a pleasure to watch the characters develop through the cinematography . murdoch ? s wife , anna , is introduced through a stunning beam of light : she is a lounge singer who sings into a bright spotlight . shadows , outlines of men in hats watch , as she gently curves through the shine . we see the outline of her body from behind , an hourglass , as she sings a slow , rhythmic song . a great entrance . however , a film such as this is only successful if the morals and themes behind it are strong enough to leave the viewer satisfied . the city is nice to look at , but if it ? s a poor story then it ? s not worth watching . blade runner was popular not only because it ? s visuals , but it ? s story and themes were thought out and provoked strong response from the audience . it is discussed it and argued , therefore a success . other science fiction films of recent times , such as the fifth element , are nice to look at , but are dropped and forgotten because the cookie cutter moral behind them is so flimsy . we ? re left with ? love conquers all ? after finishing the fifth element . dark city is not so easily explained away . as the strangers discovered , locating the human soul and discovering what makes us survive is not such an easy task . where is reality ? dark city is certainly the best science fiction film of the 90 ? s , and ranks along with the best made in the 80s , such as blade runner and the two aliens films . perhaps it ? s the best of the both decades ; it had the darkness of the aliens films , as well as the visuals and compelling story of blade runner , but moved beyond , i think , because the themes behind it were much stronger . anyone who wants to make an argument for better science fiction films please feel free to write , i ? d love to hear it .

" being john malkovich " is the type of film we need to see more . today's films are either blockbusters that entertain us with tiresome formulas , or those that have similar themes . malkovich falls under none of these categories , and it's quite refreshing to see that occur . this strangely provoking story , is actually somewhat understandable . john cusack plays a puppeteer trying to make it to the big time . his wife ( cameron diaz ) supports the both of them by working at a petstore , which explains the obscure pets they keep in their apartment . when cusack finally realizes he needs to get a job , he finds an ad for a filing clerk . when he reaches the building , he arrives at a 7 1/2 floor . it's there that he discovers a secret portal that leads to being john malkovich for 15 minutes at a time . meanwhile , cusack meets a business partner ( catherine keener ) , in which he falls madly in love with her . the only problem is , she has no interest in him what so ever . the whole portal thing , isn't just a toy , in fact , it becomes cusack's dream . being inside malkovich's mind , gave him the opportunity to basically control mlakovich , like a puppet , and to fulfill his fantasies . i don't want to give away too much , but cusack becomes too attached with his discovery . in my opinion , this idea is absolutely brilliant . it's really quite scary to think that someone could become you , control you , be you . it makes you wonder why we act like we do , and why sometimes we blurt out things or act out something out of the blue . even if the script is super sharp , i can't help but find the ending displeasing . it could have lead up to something more , or at least an amusing conclusion . it tried to explain a mythology about the portals , that made it seem rushed . other than that , i had a very enjoyable time . the acting was quite delightful as well . john cusack has finally been given a chance to prove his ability , and he does it well . he's by far the most underrated actor due to a lack of popularity , but i'm hoping that will change . cameron diaz was her usual charming self , although i felt that part was wrong for her , but she pulled it off . john malkovich himself continues to creep out people with his eerie facial expressions and tone of voice . who else's mind would be better to explore ? the director , spike jonze , who appeared in last month's three kings really catches my attention with this project . i knew he was bizzare , but not to this extreme . he too is likely too receive media attention . " being john malkovich " isn't an excellent film , but it is definitly entertaining and will eaisly become a cult favorite . what's even better is the film's puzzling message . . . am i nick lyons ?

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

those print and television ads trumpeting that " 'grease' is still the word " are right on the money . to celebrate its 20th anniversary , this quintessential movie musical is getting the royal treatment reserved for classics like " star wars " -- a well-deserved , red-carpet rerelease . that's fantastic , especially when considering of all the classic characters and scenes the film has served up -- who can forget aspiring beautician frenchie ( didi conn ) being serenaded by her tell-it-like-it-is guardian angel ( frankie avalon ) ? or the hard-nosed principal ( eve arden ) reminding the student body to " be an athletic supporter " by rooting for the home team ? or national bandstand emcee vince fontaine ( edd byrnes ) flirting with marty ( a pre- " empty nest " dinah manhoff ) ? and these are all probably considered minor moments . . . a very skinny john travolta and a very young olivia newton-john have the respective leads of danny zuko and sandy olsson , and their pairing still ranks as one of screendom's most effervescently charming . for those eight of you who aren't familiar with the story , here's a brief recap : greaser bad boy danny and aussie good girl sandy are reunited for their 1959 senior year at rydell high after a brief fling during the summer ; both thought she was going to return to her native continent before school started , but both were wrong . sandy tries to rekindle their relationship , but danny's too cool a cat to fall for her wholesome appeal in front of his t-bird buddies ( including jeff conaway ) . so sandy hooks up with a gang herself -- the pink ladies , headed by sassy , sexy rizzo ( stockard channing , just superb as an independent woman well ahead of her time ) -- and danny , who still really feels love for her , attempts a compromise of ideals in order to win her back . the drag race finale is yet something of a drag , and i never have thought much of " greased lightening , " the film's big " guy " number ( that choreography -- ack ! ) , but " grease " 's flaws amount too few to carp . the movie's first showpiece is " summer nights , " where danny and sandy separately recount wildly different versions of their fun-in-the-sun romance . not only is " nights " tremendously catchy , but it's also a smart look at how men and women see the same events with varying eyes . there has yet to be a live-action musical sequence that rivals the one-two punch of " you're the one that i want " and " we go together , " " grease " 's euphoric cappers . all this and some of the most pleasing moments come from the smaller , quieter moments ; the oscar-nominated " hopelessly devoted to you " is a lovely showcase for newton-john , and channing's lamenting ballad " there are worse things i could do " is one of " grease " 's most unjustly overlooked tunes . the soundtrack is remastered ( though travolta still hits that awful high note at the end of " nights " ) and the restored widescreen allows us to see previously pan-and-scanned-out choreography , but nothing else has changed -- no computer-generated backgrounds , no outtakes or new musical numbers , no jabba the hutt cameos . and it's a testament to " grease " 's timeless success that nothing needs to be changed -- it's the same all-around blast it's always been , with an appealing cast in a fun story told with great music . to '90s viewers , " grease " will probably recall disco and bellbottoms as much as it made its original audience nostalgic for doo-wop and poodle skirts . but regardless of what decade it transports us to , we can all agree on one thing -- without a doubt , " grease " is still the word .

this is the kind of movie that makes one appreciate disney's live- action george of the jungle . tarzan and the lost city , the latest attempt to bring edgar rice burrough's legendary hero to the big screen , is one of the most inept and ill-timed of any tarzan adventure so far . badly conceived and poorly executed , tarzan and the lost city appears headed for a quick trip to video store shelves . i have no idea why the producers chose now to bring back tarzan ; it's not as if there are legions of new fans clamoring for his next movie . furthermore , it's even more curious that this film is rated pg , which , by definition , rules out any sex or explicit violence . and , while i'm not advocating the excesses embraced by the 1981 bo derek version of the story , tarzan deserves a slightly more adult approach than the one used in the embarrassing production . of course , no tweaking of the content to change the rating could have saved tarzan and the lost city , since the film's troubles originated with the script and were propagated all the way down the line . imagine george of the jungle stripped of all ( intentional ) humor , and you have a fair idea of what this tarzan is like . with its uninspired action and tepid adventure sequences , the film barely registers a pulse . anyone in search of a relatively entertaining , family jungle adventure should check out the 1994 version of the jungle book , which uses the same basic elements to much better effect . the only worthwhile element of tarzan and the lost city is the pretty scenery ( which , unfortunately , includes the two lead actors ) . the film doesn't attempt to re-tell the origin story ? the thinking is that it has been done often enough . instead , tarzan and the lost city introduces us to lord graystoke a . k . a . john clayton a . k . a . tarzan the ape man ( casper van dien ) several days before his marriage to lady jane porter ( jane march ) . he is living happily in england , enjoying the benefits of being a land-owning noble . meanwhile , in central africa , the dastardly nigel ravens ( steven waddington ) , a self-proclaimed scholar and explorer , believes he has found the way to the lost city of opar , which he calls the cradle of civilization . on the way there , he and his band of mercenaries do all sorts of nasty things , like burning native villages , to earn the wrath of the locals . one shaman , determined to stop ravens from unearthing opal , sends a mystical message to tarzan for help . with lady jane following close behind , he returns to the jungle where he was born . its patently obvious that casper van dien ( one of the pretty-boy heroes of starship troopers ) was not hired on the basis of his acting ability . with his plastic facial expressions , monotone voice , and complete inability to make convincing animal noises , his range rivals that of steven seagal . his pecs , however , are impressive , and director carl schenkel makes sure that he is given every opportunity to show them off . jane march , on the other hand , has to keep her shirt on , which may be a first for her . some six years ago , march give a solid performance in jean jacques annaud's steamy the lover . since then , she made the career-killing decision of appearing opposite bruce willis in the color of night , which exploited her every acting defiency . tarzan continues this trend . march may be attractive , but , at least judging by this performance , she can't act . meanwhile , steven waddington has serious trouble summoning up the menace necessary to be a really detestable bad guy . instead , he turns out to be little more than a nuisance . the story line is pure formula , which has largely been true throughout the years for almost all of the tarzan movies . the problem is that this one seems so childish and lifeless . the romantic elements are all contrived ? in fact , lady jane's presence is necessary only so she can be captured and subsequently rescued by her buff fiance . the special effects are truly bottom-of-the-barrel ( including some laughably bad men in ape costumes ? apparently , animatronics were too expensive for this production ) . and , of course , as with all jungle movies , there are the obligatory cute animals . over the years , the legend of tarzan has been one of the most popular sources for film series material . the most famous ape man was johnny weismuller , but no less than two dozen other actors have essayed the part ( including gordon scott , who is widely believed to be the best actor to tackle the role ) . weismuller made 12 tarzan features ; van dien will probably fall 11 short of that number . and , having seen tarzan and the lost city , i would argue that the movie-going public would have been well served if he had missed by 12 .

underrated movies are a common reoccurrence in show business today . 1998's 'hope floats' was extremely underrated and was one of the best movies of the year . we always get films that make big money at the box-office but critics and audiences pan on them . this year 'double jeopardy' is one of those films . critics are calling it predictable and worthless , audiences are disappointed with it and think it was a disappointment . but as i viewed 'double jeopardy' i found that it was a great movie , it has a surprising sense of humor and a big dose of heart , along with heart-pounding suspense and twists and turns here and there it certainly is a really good movie . the always wonderful ashley judd plays libby parsons , a woman with a seemingly normal life : a great loving husband , a beautiful son and a great friend . her husband nick parsons has made a surprise for her and is going to buy her the sailboat she has always wanted . after a night of bliss libby wakes up in the middle of the night to find blood all over her and all over the sailboat , her husband is missing and there is a bloody knife on deck . of course being in shock she picks it up and a coast guard comes over and sees her . however she isn't immediately ceased until they find out his life insurance was worth two-million dollars and they start to wonder rather she killed him for the money . she pleads not-guilty but is found guilty and sent to prison for six years . while making a phone call to her best friend who adopted her son for her and she hears him say hi to his dad , which makes libby's heart stop right there . she realizes she must get out and prove that he isn't dead , one of her cell-mates tells her that as long as she has been convicted of a crime she cannot be convicted of it again . which means she can shoot him in the middle of mardi gras and they cannot do anything about it . after she gets out she goes to a halfway house run by parole officer tommy lee jones . he is a man who has had his share of bad things . while out for the day she breaks into a school and tries to track down her kid and husband , leading up to some jaw-dropping twists that are both predictable and not . whatever happens the film was excellent to me . i found the writing well-written as well as the acting was great . ashley judd is such a talented and beautiful actress that she is a hero in a sort in this movie . even if you know what is going to happen in the end , you don't know how . this is one of those movies that you really do know what is going to happen , except you don't know how they are going to make it happen . it could be one way or another , it could be this way or that way . the movie is highly stylized and extremely well-made . it gets most of it's power from the two leads : ashley judd and tommy lee jones both give excellent performances . the characters are well-realized and believable and we feel libby's pain when she cannot see her child for 6 years . even though a lot of critics didn't like the film , i loved it . the director took his time making the movie , and put a lot of shadowing in the movie . i found it not to be boring at all and it's only flaw comes from some predictability . it moved at a fast pace , has suspense , humor , heart and great acting . it earns it's right to be a great movie and to me that's what it was .

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

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 doesn'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 .

that's the question i asked myself when venturing nervously into " the wedding singer , " the latest film to star the saturday night live alumnus . does he draw laughs from his sad , puppy dog expression and don't-hate-me-for-being-a-simpleton observations ? or do fans giggle when he screams at the top of his lungs at people ? or is it just the fact that he sings songs with silly lyrics that bowl audiences over ? well , there's a little bit of all of that in " the wedding singer " and while i exited the theater still not one hundred percent sure of mr . sandler's thing , i did have a surprisingly good time . that's because , in a nutshell , " the wedding singer " is one of the sweetest movies you're ever likely to come across . that's right . sweet . the humor in the film runs the gamut from dumb to mildly amusing to laugh-out-loud hysterical but the tone ? well , it's just lovely . i have to admit i was half-expecting farting armpit humor , gratuitous nudity , superfluous , cloying subplots , and some nasty , unnecessary violence . instead ? well , i've said it before . sweet . the year is 1985 and sandler plays robbie hart , the eponymous wedding singer , a job aspiring rock stars often settle for . when robbie's fianc ? e dumps him at his own altar , robbie gets depressed and turns to a plucky waitress called julia ( drew barrymore ) who has some problems of her own ( she's marrying a hunky junk bonds dealer who , unbeknownst to her , isn't that big on monogamy ) . it isn't giving anything away to say that robbie and julia fall in love . aww . . . sandler and barrymore are a good match and they're assisted by some terrific cameo appearances , including steve buscemi and jon lovitz , whose individual scenes are perhaps the funniest in the film . writer tim herlihy ( with uncredited assistance from carrie fisher ) keeps the story bubbling along to its predictable conclusion . it doesn't all work but it's handled with such light-heartedness that robbie and julia coming together generates more smiles than groans . herlihy and director frank coraci have done a great job of recreating the sights , sounds , and affectations of the 1980s . the soundtrack--an ever-present force in the film--is packed with wall-to-wall hits of the period , new wave upon new wave of songs from billy idol's " white wedding " to the smiths' " how soon is now ? " to culture club's " do you really want to hurt me ? " the mix of music and fashion would make " the wedding singer " a great double feature with " boogie nights . " if you grew up listening to the cure and a flock of seagulls and the psychedelic furs , then " the wedding singer " is bound to put a nostalgic hop in your stride . if you're a fan of the lovable , laughable adam sandler , well . . . let's just say that " the wedding singer " might well be the only film in recent memory to make * me * want to rent " happy gilmore . "

in chocolat , a chocolate shop owner tells her customers to look into a spinning object of obscure textures , patterns , and lines , hoping she'll be able to foresee the kind of chocolate they'll most enjoy . some scoff the idea , but everyone who gazes into the complexity of the spinning object winds up seeing something different than the next , revealing personality traits which the person may not have known they had before . this can easily stand as a model for chocolat as a whole : on the surface , it appears to be a light , fluffy fable with no depth or true worth , but when one takes a second , deeper look , chocolat's true colors begin to shine through . making a bold statement about organized religion and those who practice it , lasse hallstrom's chocolat is flawlessly acted and meticulously crafted-not to mention one of the best films of the year . what gives chocolat its magic , much like hallstrom's 1999 winner of two academy awards , the cider house rules , is its willingness to say what's on its mind without holding back to prevent offending audiences . the bold and honest message hallstrom conveys with chocolat will no doubt outrage a select group of viewers , but those who are willing to suspend their bitterness because they feel they are being intimidated or attacked should find themselves to be in agreement with what the film says about narrow-mindedness . chocolat centers its story around the small french village of lansquenet , where majority rules , and the majority lives by only one law : religion . the bulk of the townspeople ( with few exceptions ) are preparing for the sacred time of abstinence , lent , but when the independent thinking , seemingly non-religious vianne rocher ( juliette binoche ) and her daughter anouk ( victoire thivisol ) make the village their home , the people will be tempted beyond belief by the mouth-watering confections in the chocolate shop vianne opens . many are predictably opposed and deeply offended by vianne's opening of the chocolate shop just in time for lent , especially the mayor , comte de reynaud ( a cartoon-like alfred molina ) , who will stop at nothing to put her out of business . on the other hand , the shop is a delight to others , including the cranky armande voizin ( judi dench ) , who sits day by day in vianne's shop , telling the single mother about her unfortunate detached relationship with her grandson ( aurelien parent-koening ) , which comes as a result of his mother ( carrie-ann moss ) believing armande is a bad influence , as she does not hold the same , strict religious beliefs that she does . also a fan of the chocolate is the nervous wreck josephine muscat , whose husband is constantly beating her , to whom vianne offers a home and befriends . juliette binoche is charming and honest as vianne , genuinely capturing her character's determination to turn the narrow-minded townspeople into more happy , independent human beings , but most of chocolat's success is unquestionably a result of the remarkable performances of the supporting actresses . lena olin , previously nominated for an oscar in 1989 , deserves her second nomination for her earnest , moving portrayal of a lost , scared woman torn between staying true to her battering , manipulative husband or leaving him to live the life which for which she longs . judi dench is sharp , incisive , and occasionally greatly touching as armande voizin . carrie ann-moss , in what is likely to be her first largely noticed ( and acclaimed ) role since the matrix , shows a more solid side of her acting skills not previously seen , crafting a character that the viewer both sympathizes with and despises simultaneously . victoire thivisol shows much promise as anouk , a young girl hoping her always-on-the-move mother will eventually settle down . a trade ad for chocolat sums up best the power the actresses have on screen with the tagline : " five extraordinary women , one extraordinary movie . " that's not to say the men don't do their share , though : alfred molina makes for a sly and utterly repugnant antagonist , hugh o'conor adds quite a bit of comic relief as the priest who seems to not even know why he is who he is , and johnny depp gives a strong performance as the pirate roux , who enters the film late in the game and sparks the romantic interest of vianne . the technical aspects of chocolat are strong across the board : lasse hallstrom directs his enchanting fable with great care , perfectly balancing the elements of each genre to be found within the film . cinematographer roger pratt brings an atmospheric , fairy tale look to the film , and rachel portman's masterful score is her best and most memorable since the cider house rules . chocolat , adapted by robert nelson jacobs from the joanne harris novel , is a wonderful little treat of a film , one that will most likely win over the hearts of audiences and the votes of academy members this winter , and the aggressive backing of miramax films assures the latter . while not as powerful as the cider house rules , lasse hallstrom's chocolat is a film which works on all levels-as a drama , a comedy , a fable , a romance , and a fairy tale . and it even lives up to its name : it is delicious to savor the taste of , easy to digest , and , like all excellent chocolate , it is memorable for days afterward . the bottom line : chocolat is pure pleasure .

seen may 31 , 1999 on home video ( rented ) . one of the best things about the movies is that they can make you really start to wonder and analyze things in your own , everyday life that you might not have thought much of otherwise . with some films it might be just a secondary issue , but with `dark city' what we get is nearly an entire film committed to philosophizing and theorizing about human memory and how it defines who we are , which is a poignant theme made through an absolutely beautifully-constructed film with the kind of story and setting that could only happen in a movie . there's an old role-playing computer game called `d ? ja v ? ' wherein the player takes on the role of a man who can't remember who he is , where he is and how he got there . the goal is to gather as many clues as possible to figure that out and along the way overcome a conflict . the premise to this film is not unlike that game , only this time we don't have control over the protagonist . we begin by meeting a seemingly ordinary man living in an extremely dark and dirty city ( actually , it's more than just the city , it's the whole reality ) that isn't just that neo-gothic look ( a la `batman , ' `blade runner , ' ) , but is so fully developed it's almost a different genre completely . later he will learn that his name is john murdoch ( sewell ) , but for now he has no idea what's going on other than the fact something is not right . the fact there's a dead body in the corner goes to enhance the feeling of paranoia and a mysterious , hurried call telling him to leave immediately is also very chilling . this opening scene alone goes a long way to define the setting of the film and its bizarre , horrific tone . the man doesn't know who he is nor where he's going and it's interesting to follow him since we the viewers have no idea either we can sympathize and identify with him . in fact , this is the way all stories begin since it's impossible to know the history of a character , their feelings , values , morals , etc . until after we've observed them for a while . but in this case , the total feeling of amnesia is an excellent tool towards characterization , developing the mood and outlining the story . eventually , some semblance of a plot begins to unfold as it appears that john is a serial killer wanted by the police . we met inspector frank bumstead ( hurt ) , a quiet , unemotional , soft-spoken deadpan man who appears to have been on the trail of the killer for some time . two other important characters are also introduced : dr . daniel p . schreber ( sutherland ) , a neurotic psychiatrist who claims to be john's doctor ; and emma murdoch ( connelly ) , a jazz singer dolled up to look like a caraciture right out of the old dick tracy serials or any given leading lady of the old film-noir movies . it was schreber who contacted john for reasons that are continually revealed throughout the course of the film . he also contacts emma , which further helps the film reveal what is seemingly a complex , mysterious back story . but absolutely nothing is as it appears to be in `dark city , ' which is what makes it so fascinating throughout its continual scenes of confusion and vertigo . everything the filmmakers want us to see has some significance - considering how intricate the detail is to every single shot , its lighting , art direction and overall production design , they don't seem to be able to afford any gratuities . however , that might also be what's keeping it from reaching its maximum potential . by continuing to follow john as he wanders around this strange place , so much unlike the real world we know , we come to realize that it's all a hoax . everyone in the city is the subject of an experiment being conducted by a race of aliens to understand what makes humans tick in their efforts to somehow save themselves from extinction . but , as the film's tagline says , `last night , one of us went off . ' for reasons that are never clearly explained , it appears that john possesses telekinetic powers to can do pretty much whatever his mind can conceive ( a process known as `tuning' ) . the aliens , which look like very old bald human men with pasty skin , also possess the power en masse and use it to change the city every night at midnight . at the same time all the humans fall asleep and after the changes are made , they awake and either continue where they left off or begin a new life they have no idea they did not have until then . this premise certainly is interesting and director and co-screenwriter alex proyas is able to keep the film consistently mysterious in this regard . he does provide some explanations such as that dr . schreber is an assistant to `the strangers' because he somehow could synthesize memory into chemical form . the aliens mix and match the memories of the city's population to see who will change and who will not . in the process this creates for a good deal of deep , thought-provoking philosophies that could be applied to the real world . however , where the film errs is by not playing up the idea of memory versus the human heart as to what makes a person who he or she is . the main characters are all closely intertwined within the seemingly complex murder mystery which never actually happened , yet when they start to go through some of the expected emotions it comes off as distant , static and cold ( mediocre performances by hurt and connelly don't help either ) . for example , john realizes emma is not and probably never was his wife so he does not feel an emotional bond to her , yet in some scenes crucial to the film's plot , we are expected to believe they do have a genuine love for each other , which is also part of the film's climax and ending . and that's what proyas seems to be inferring with the film , but never quite manages to convey in its fullest sense . ironically , this is what made his first film `the crow' work so well , which had a similar theme of struggling to find hope and the human spirit within a nearly identical , dark twisted world . with `dark city' the messenger seems to be mistaken for the message . still , the film is by no means bad and is consistently entertaining and enjoyable . there's a lot to like here , most notably the sheer visual look and style of it all which accounts for at least half the reasons the film is able to tell the story it does . the story as a whole is one of the most original to come out of hollywood in years . `dark city' is what the movies are all about - the escape from the real world .

a welcome cinematic trend over the past couple of years has been to make the works of shakespeare more accessible to the younger audiences who are the vast majority of moviegoers by contemporizing the bard and altering the settings to familiar surroundings . a prime example of this is 1999's 10 things i hate about you , which was basically the taming of the shrew in a high school . less successful was last year's adaptation of hamlet with ethan hawke as the heir apparent of the denmark corp . here the setting was the corporate world of new york . now comes o , a faithful retelling of one of the most tragic of shakespeare's tragedies . like 10 things i hate about you , the stage is a high school - a private prep school where odin james ( mekhi phifer ) is the on-court general , the basketball team's standout player . julia stiles , featured in 10 things i hate about you as well as performing ophelia in hawke's hamlet , plays desi brable , odin's girlfriend , whose father also happens to be dean of the institution . josh hartnett ( pearl harbor ) is on hand for the villainy , playing the scheming hugo , who sets the tragic wheels in motion . o was actually filmed a couple of years ago , but was shelved because of the columbine high school tragedy . the movie , directed by tim blake nelson - best known for his co-starring role in o brother , where art thou ? - and written by brad kaaya , is very grim . an air of tragedy weighs it down from the opening scene to the closing credits . and that is how it should be . of all of shakespeare's tragedies , othello is the most harrowing , not because of any body count , but because of the psychological havoc wreaked by iago , whose motivation in the sheer pleasure of his treachery . kaaya's profane-filled script - after all , these are high school kids - does offer hugo a subtle motive of sorts . the young man considers himself the basketball team's prime utility man who does a little bit of everything - pass , shoot , rebound - but is constantly in the shadow of odin . plus his father , the team's coach - played with a ferocious intensity by martin sheen - showers more love and concern on his star player than on his own flesh and blood . the script follows the familiar lines of the classic . hugo begins dropping hints to odin concerning desi's fidelity , eroding the star's confidence in those he considers closest to him , affecting both his relationships and his game . it all ends in blood , of course , which is why the movie was originally shelved . the performances in o vary . phifer is at first cocky and self-assured , emotions he handles with ease . he also does quite well displaying odin's darker side ; his defensive sensitivity about being the only black at the institution , his growing distrust of those he loved , his rage and the erosion of his belief system . hartnett is appropriately cool and machiavellian as he weaves his deadly web of lies and deceit , turning friend against friend , and lover against lover . stiles seems a bit stilted , but occasionally also rises to the occasion , moving from adoration to confusion to fear of her young knight . the film does contain a few missteps : a subplot involving hugo's theft of the school mascot is left hanging . also desi's actions concerning michael ( andrew keegan ) , odin's former teammate and best friend who was kicked off the team because of one of hugo's machinations , is puzzling . why she would continually be seen with michael - however innocent the circumstances - when she knows her man suspects the two of cheating behind his back . it is irrational . but these are minor carpings . overall , o is a stylish and faithful adaptation . if nothing else , it may encourage some people to read the original text , and that will counterbalance the severity of this feature .

a big , busy boxing satire with a surprisingly paltry punch , the great white hype stars samuel l . jackson as a shameless boxing promoter whose plan to boost sagging pay-per-view revenues is to " invent " a white contender ( peter berg ) to challenge his black heavyweight " champ " ( damon wayans ) . ( the logic is that people will pay more to see black vs . white than black vs . black . ) he may be right , in an absurdly accurate way , but the film doesn't give us a reason to care . as a scathing sports spoof , hype is just that : unfunny , unfocused , and , at times , just plain pointless . as a commentary on race relations , it's even * less * effective . the dialogue is the best of this mess , lines like jon lovitz exclaiming " i cannot make caviar out of fish eggs ! " writers tony hendra and ron shelton also do good on the street slang , though we never hear enough of it . the script isn't strong enough , though , to support the aggressive camera work of director reginald hudlin ( house party ) . he comes across as absolute overkill . the great white hype * almost * turns around at the end , at the big match , when hudlin attempts an extended gag of rock-concert proportions . with costumed dwarfs , gangsta rappers , and the " champ " dressed as death , only then do we get a glimpse of the spoof that should've been .

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

steve soderbergh's " sex , lies , and videotape , " which won the grand prize at the cannes film festival in 1989 , arguably began the resurgence of independent films . made on a shoestring budget of $1 . 2 million , with then relatively unknown actors , it is a provocative , thoroughly original drama . the film mostly focuses on the four central characters , all in their late 20's-early 30's . ann ( andie macdowell ) , an unfulfilled housewife , is married to john ( peter gallagher ) , an insensitive lawyer , who , unbeknownst to her , is having an affair with her younger sister , cynthia ( laura san giacomo ) . complicating matters even worse is graham ( james spader , who won best actor at cannes ) , john's old college buddy , who comes to stay at their house . ann is absolutely won over by him , even though she clearly has stated that she has very little interest in sex . that is the set-up for the last hour of the picture , and since the film is entitled , " sex , lies , and videotape , " it is best to keep the rest of the story developments at bay so that they will come as a genuine surprise . director steven soderbergh has proven to be a wildly offbeat filmmaker , ranging from the independent , to the mainstream ( 1998's " out of sight " ) , to the downright kafkaesque ( 1997's " schizopolis " ) . he is the type of director who obviously takes a lot of chances , and believes in the work that he does , and , " sex , lies , and videotape , " is probably his most confident , and maybe even best , to date . the performances are superb from all four leads , but macdowell stands out in what is probably the main character . she is always a very winning actress , but this is probably her most three-dimensional role that she has had ( with a close second being altman's 1993 mosaic , " short cuts " ) . the other parts are perfectly cast as well , from spader's ominous graham , to gallagher's self-involved john , to giacomo's outspoken cynthia . the final act of the film , especially , comes right out of left field , and turns out to be both shocking and oddly touching , and it would be criminal to give away the film's secrets . suffice to say that , through one powerful sequence , ann is able to somewhat come out of her shell , and john learns a valuable lesson about honesty , as well as deception . the film has one fault , however . the characters are almost all emotionally cold and isolated from one another , and often unlikable . if there had been a few extra scenes with gallagher , it probably would have helped , since his relationship with macdowell isn't quite as explored as i would have liked . " sex , lies , and videotape , " although minorly flawed , is still easily a brave and adult motion picture that is far more mature and honest about its subject matter than the usual film . soderbergh clearly knew what he was doing while he was making it , and the final product certainly proves this .

i saw this film on christmas day expecting an upbeat comedy . boy was i in for a christmas dissapointment ! after an hour of the movie , i was ready to change rooms-into another theater ! read on to see what i have to say . . . . four rooms : starring : tim roth , jennifer beals , antonio banderas , quentin tarantino , valeria golino , madonna , bruce willis , marisa tomei , alicia witt , lili taylor , and ione skye . possible stars ) " four rooms " was supposed to be one of the biggest hits of the year . key word here : " supposed . " four of the biggest directors in hollywood : quentin tarantino , robert rodriguez , alexander rockwell , and alison anders were all directing one big film with a big and popular cast . i guess it was all just too much because this turned out to be the biggest flop of the year and it could of been great . the plot : it's new years eve and it's a bellboy's first day on the job . he encounters many mysterious and kinky hotel guests as he tries to handle all his own problems . tarantino told his directors this plot , and each of them wrote a script . it turned out each of them had written a dark comedy . anders wrote and directed the tale about a coven of witches ( madonna , valeria golino , alicia witt , and ione skye ) , which was the worst one out of all of them . the second room ( jennifer beals ) was better , but lacking in plot . this room was about a man who accuses every man of sleeping with his wife . the third room ( antonio banderas ) was the best roomm , about two rambunctous kids that trash a hotel suite . the final one ( tarantino , willis ) was about a movie star wanting the bellboy to chop off someone's finger . the movie was just plain trash . there was nothing here that even makes up a quality film . it was not funny , and i didn't hear one laugh in the theater throughout the whole film . tim roth is horrible as the bumbling and mumbling bellboy , and he ruins every joke in the film . the supporting cast loses meaning to the word support and the only mentionable actors/actresses are antonio banderas and jennifer beals . marisa tomei appears in a stupid cameo role . this movie is the worst film of the year and the film could have been great , perhaps like a more upbeat " plaza suite , " but it wasn't . as trashy as it was , some people will call it classic . do you call a man chopping off a finger with madonna's chest showing a classic film ? look for more of ken's kritic korner coming soon ! please check the newsgroups under the movie reviews section for updated reviews . p . s . " four rooms " made number 1 on my top ten worst list of 1995 .

arnold schwarzenegger has been an icon for action enthusiasts , since the late 80's , but lately his films have been very sloppy and the one-liners are getting worse . it's hard seeing arnold as mr . freeze in batman and robin , especially when he says tons of ice jokes , but hey he got 15 million , what's it matter to him ? once again arnold has signed to do another expensive blockbuster , that can't compare with the likes of the terminator series , true lies and even eraser . in this so called dark thriller , the devil ( gabriel byrne ) has come upon earth , to impregnate a woman ( robin tunney ) which happens every 1000 years , and basically destroy the world , but apparently god has chosen one man , and that one man is jericho cane ( arnold himself ) . with the help of a trusty sidekick ( kevin pollack ) , they will stop at nothing to let the devil take over the world ! parts of this are actually so absurd , that they would fit right in with dogma . yes , the film is that weak , but it's better than the other blockbuster right now ( sleepy hollow ) , but it makes the world is not enough look like a 4 star film . anyway , this definitely doesn't seem like an arnold movie . it just wasn't the type of film you can see him doing . sure he gave us a few chuckles with his well known one-liners , but he seemed confused as to where his character and the film was going . it's understandable , especially when the ending had to be changed according to some sources . aside form that , he still walked through it , much like he has in the past few films . i'm sorry to say this arnold but maybe these are the end of your action days . speaking of action , where was it in this film ? there was hardly any explosions or fights . the devil made a few places explode , but arnold wasn't kicking some devil butt . the ending was changed to make it more spiritual , which undoubtedly ruined the film . i was at least hoping for a cool ending if nothing else occurred , but once again i was let down . i also don't know why the film took so long and cost so much . there was really no super affects at all , unless you consider an invisible devil , who was in it for 5 minutes tops , worth the overpriced budget . the budget should have gone into a better script , where at least audiences could be somewhat entertained instead of facing boredom . it's pitiful to see how scripts like these get bought and made into a movie . do they even read these things anymore ? it sure doesn't seem like it . thankfully gabriel's performance gave some light to this poor film . when he walks down the street searching for robin tunney , you can't help but feel that he looked like a devil . the guy is creepy looking anyway ! when it's all over , you're just glad it's the end of the movie . don't bother to see this , if you're expecting a solid action flick , because it's neither solid nor does it have action . it's just another movie that we are suckered in to seeing , due to a strategic marketing campaign . save your money and see the world is not enough for an entertaining experience .

one way of telling if a film is good or not is by the length . if a film is only 90 minutes , but feels like 300 minutes , then it's crap . but if a film last 2 1/2 hours , and feels like 90 minutes , then it's excellent . boogie nights falls into the latter catagory . the director , anderson , delivers a funny , hip , yet sometimes violent film , which flies along . mark whalberg , a . k . a marky mark , plays eddie adams , a seventeen year old with a certain 'gift' in the midriff area . jack horner ( reynolds ) is a adult film director , who decides that eddie would be great in the adult movie business . after running away from home , eddie joins jack , changes his name to dirk diggler , and starts making erotic movies . in the movie business , dirk meets a whole load of characters ( which the film introduces very quickly and slickly ) such as scotty ( phillip seymour hoffman ) , rollergirl ( graham ) amber ( moore ) and floyd ( phillip baker hall ) , and little bill ( william h . macy ) all the characters are well written , well played , and the audience gets to know them pretty well , thanks to the excellent script . we learn about ambers grief about not being able to see her child due to a divorce , rollergirls hard time at school , and little bills wife , who sleeps with everyone except her husband . but the best thing about the excellent boogie nights is paul andersons direction and writing . the direction is fast , thrilling , and never holds up . there are some great shots , some lovely steadiocam and handheld camera sequences , and lots of other neat directional touches . the writing is fabulous , with some intelligent dialogue , some funny dialogue , but none of the dialogue is crap , like most hollywood films ( such as the lost world : jurassic park ( 1997 ) , or tommorow never dies ( 1997 ) . ) boogie nights really is a spectacular feat of direction and writing , on par ( and sometimes betters ) quentin tarantino's films resevoir dogs ( 1992 ) and pulp fiction ( 1994 ) the soundtrack is also excellent . like american graffiti ( 1973 ) , the film features some great old songs on the soundtrack , which heightens the atmosphere , and gives the film an extra lift . also , the costumes are great . the clothes really do look like what people wore in the seventies and eighties . the film , although excellent , does have some flaws . firstly , wahlberg , although excellent , cannot do highly scenes which require him to be angry . in both scenes where he has to act angry , his acting is so 'off' , the scenes tension and anger is lost . but the rest of the cast are excellent . burt reynolds is brilliant , julianne moore shows real emotion , and william h . macy is great aswell ( but he always is . ) another flaw with the film , though , is that the ending seems a bit tacked on . it seems anderson saw the film was going on a bit , and needed to wrap up quickly . it's a shame , really , as the rest of the film is perfectly paced . but they're small niggles really . boogie nights is an excellent film . superb directing , writing , acting and music , all combine to make one spectacular film . whatever you do , do not miss out on boogie nights .

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

it is simply amazing how " the green mile " developed in its three hour running time . based on the stephen king series of the same title , the film starts out painfully slow , with underdeveloped characters and idiotic dialogue . however , as the plot begins to progress , the film turns into pure perfection with outstanding performances and wonderful direction . frank darabont , who masterfully followed a prisoner's story in " the shawshank redemption " , this time follows the perspective of a prison guard , paul edgecomb ( tom hanks ) . through edgecomb's experiences on a cell block known as the green mile where death row prisoners wait and repent , the audience sees good and evil on both sides of the law . from an evil prison guard to an evil prisoner , " the green mile " is successful in creating sympathy for kind-hearted hard working guards and hard thinking prisoners . the plot follows edgecomb and four other guards as they meet a variety of prisoners and after having strong relationships with each eventually are forced to execute them . the performances by veterans and new comers to back up these original characters are superb . the ensemble acting in the film is perfect . hanks , david morse and barry pepper as guards are wonderful and are fitting for their roles . they are the characters we most relate to because of their calm less extreme roles . they are given the positions to make rational decisions at difficult times and they are the ones who fulfill the demands of the audience . the more unique characters perfectly create friction on the green mile and make the story interesting and exciting . some particularly note worthy roles of the unique characters include doug hutchinson , sam rockwell , and michael duncan . hutchinson , playing percy wetmore , a cowardly guard who hides his true feelings by tormenting others gives the greatest performance of the movie . every time he appears on the screen , the attitude of others is very uncomfortable and the creepy expressions he is able to create are effectively terrifying . it would come as no surprise if hutchinson was nominated for an academy award as best supporting actor , not only because he did a wonderful job as wetmore , but also because he stole every scene he was in away from veteran oscar winner tom hanks . rockwell , an independent film veteran , plays his role as wild bill wharton to perfection . as a prisoner who taunts and harasses the guards at all hours , he really gets under your skin and irritates you for having to watch him torture others . this irritation he creates makes his performance so believable . the last noteworthy performance belongs to duncan , as the enormous convicted killer john coffey who happens to hold the power of curing the ill . duncan does a wonderful job playing a frightened child-like behemoth , very similar to lennie small in of mice and men . his desire for love and the extinction of hate evokes the most compassion because it is very obvious that he is suffering for no just cause . his pain creates pain for the viewer . however , it takes over an hour for duncan to be introduced completely in the film . the film opens with a ridiculous present day setting which contains a scene that jabs at " the jerry springer show . " the scene , containing one old man complaining about how all guests on the show are inbred and rednecks . not only is this observation entirely pointless and out of place , but it is also hackneyed beyond all belief . as the film flashes back to 1935 , graham greene is quickly executed without any introduction . his death seems very rushed and without any knowledge of who he is , the scene is neither sad nor convincing . greene is not even given a final word , like some of the other characters , and we don't even see him walk the infamous green mile . however , as the film begins to specifically introduce more characters , such as coffey and eduard delacroix ( michael jeter ) as well as the five prison guards , the film becomes more interesting . the speed in " the green mile " is perfect . if time was a matter of concern and the film was edited to the two hour mark , it would have been unsatisfactory because we would not be able to know the characters as they are or as they treat others . the three hour running is perfect for plot development and by the end of the film , a great amount of love or hate is attached to each character . " the green mile " is so good following the rough beginning , that when the pivotal moment at the very end finally comes , it is almost impossible not to feel some sort of sadness for every person in this scene . fighting back tears was a difficult task that i barely succeeded in doing . if you survive the first third of " the green mile " sit back and enjoy the remainder for some priceless entertainment .

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

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

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

george little ( jonathan lipnicki ) wants a little brother . after mr . and mrs . little ( hugh laurie and geena davis ) visit the orphange , they decide to adopt stuart , a talking mouse ( voiced by michael j . fox ) . george isn't so fond of his new brother when stuart arrives at the little house , and neither is snowbell the family cat ( voiced by nathan lane ) . george and stuart eventually bond while preparing for a remote control boat race , but snowbell wants stuart out of the house ( he's unable to live with the taunts of other neighborhood felines saying it's ridiculous that a mouse has a pet cat ) . stuart little is a mix of live action and computer generated imagery ( cgi ) . the character of stuart , while obviously a computer generated image , grows on you as the film progresses and you'll soon see him as much more than a mere special effect . there is also a great deal of animal training involved with this film , as many of the " supporting cast " are actual cats ( with computer animated mouths so they can speak ) . it's fascinating to watch these cats give performances without an actual mouse to interact with . stuart little is a charming family film . there are some great laughs in the movie ( with a script co-written by the sixth sense's m . night shyamalan no less ! ) , some moments that can only be described as " too cute " ( the boat race sequence is what won me over ) and even the majority of the one-liners ( common nowadays in children's films or films featuring nathan lane ) are tolerable . kids and parents will love this one . stuart little is available on dvd from columbia tristar home video . there are two different dvds on sale : one contains the film in full frame , and the other presents the film in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1 . 66 : 1 . both versions feature choices of either dolby surround or dolby digital 5 . 1 audio . both versions also contain the following extras ( and hang in there with me here . . . there's a lot of them ) : a full length audio commentary track by director rob minkoff and animation supervisor henry anderson , a full length audio commentary track by the visual effects supervisors , an isolated score track , an interactive trivia game , an interactive featurette that goes step by step through eight of the effects in the film , a making of documentary that originally aried on hbo , and a stuart little read-along story ( which you can read yourself or have stuart read for you ) . there are also three music videos , and six theatrical trailers ( called thecatrical trailers . . . get it ? it's funny ! ) for stuart little and five other columbia tristar releases : the adventures of elmo in grouchland , madeline , the nuttiest nutcracker , muppets from space , and baby geniuses ( the only bad thing about this entire dvd . . . i did not want to be reminded of the awfulness that is baby geniuses ) . dvd-rom features are also on the disc , including web links and a demo of the stuart little cd-rom game . but wait . . . there's still more ! there's a section called " basement treasures " where you will find the auditions of the film's animators , six deleted scenes which you can select to view with or without commentary from the director , a visual effects gag reel , a production gag reel , and an incredible eight minute storyboard sequence detailing the original concept for the boat race scene ( with commentary from the director ) . the first commentary track features director rob minkoff and animation supervisor henry anderson . they give insightful and detailed thoughts about the film's production . minkoff likes to point out scenes where other screenwriters came in and polished up the script , namely writers like scott alexander and larry karaszewski ( who wrote the people vs . larry flynt and ed wood ) and lowell ganz and babaloo mandel ( who wrote splash and multiplicity , among others ) . anderson is very appreciative of the animators who worked with him and often points out which animator worked on each scene as they occur . the second commentary track features visual effects supervisors john dykstra and jerome chen who discuss more specific details of the effects in the film . movie fans will enjoy the informative first commentary track , serious animation buffs will love the second one . now i know this is slightly off topic , but it is related specifically to this dvd so i must voice this now . one of the music videos on the disc is for a song called " i need to know " by a group called r angels . this video features four mid-teenage girls ( the singers obviously ) having a slumber party . the girls ask a ouija board " i need to know . . . who to do , who to do , who to do " as the song begins . they then sneak out of their house , and along the way they strike a pose and their slumber party pajamas are magically transformed into middle class streetwalker outfits . then they head to a party and dance suggestively with the guys while singing lyrics like " i'll be your pleasure all the time . . . just say the words that you'll be mine " . um . . . what the hell ? what does this have to do with stuart little ? how is this in any way a song suitable for a kids movie , let alone a video suitable for a kids movie on dvd ? when the video concludes , the words " to be continued " appear . oh i can't wait to see who they've slept with when the toy story 2 dvd comes out . kids won't care about most of the special features on this dvd , but those of us who can sometimes be turned into a " kid at heart " thanks to a winning family film sure appreciate them . this is the way to do dvd , a good movie loaded with great features at a reasonable cost . the di$ney people could learn a lot from columbia tristar .

lisa cholodenko's " high art , " is an intelligent , quiet drama . its strongest quality , aside from the top-notch central performances , is the perceptive way in which the film , also written by cholodenko , observes its characters . they are all flawed people , some more troubled than others , but they are not judged . judging the characters in this picture would be a creative misstep on the filmmakers' parts , because no one , no matter how bad off they are , deserve to be negatively judged if they are involved in some serious problems that they cannot break free of . syd ( radha mitchell ) , a 24-year-old woman living with her longtime boyfriend james ( gabriel mann ) , has recently been awarded an ideal job at the high-profile photography magazine , " frame . " she very much enjoys where her career is headed , but is often not taken very seriously by her managers , who are always giving her petty jobs to do , when she knows she could be doing more important things . one night , while taking a bath , syd notices a leak coming from the apartment above hers , so when she goes up there to inform them of it , she meets lucy beliner ( ally sheedy ) , a thin , worn-out , and unhappy woman , who lives with her drug-addicted german girlfriend , greta ( patricia clarkson ) , a pathetic former actress who is usually so out-of-it that she often is in and out of conciousness . syd quickly strikes up a conversation with lucy , and discovers that she used to be an acclaimed photographer ten years before . lucy claims she doesn't want to get back into the profession , but syd manages to convince the " frame " editors to do a piece on her work . all the while , syd begins to grow deep feelings for lucy , even though she has never previously been attracted to a woman , and lucy starts a battle with her personal demons . " high art , " is such an effective motion picture because it is never suger-coated or idealized , but instead an honest and convincing portrait of a handful of unhappy people whose lives are going nowhere , while syd's luck begins to rise . the film in no way is about lesbianism , but about love , which was a refreshing change of pace from the usual stereotypical portraits of homosexuality . as lucy and syd grow closer and closer together , we really do believe that they are falling in love with each other , even if the relationship might be doomed . with this picture , ally sheedy's star has risen once again , thanks to her touching , nearly flawless portrtayal of lucy , a woman who , in the course of a decade , has found her life consumed almost entirely by drugs , which has taken away her once-blossoming career . her characted really is tragic , and one particular scene involving lucy and her mother , in which lucy admits to her that she has a drug problem , and her mother matter-of-factly responds by saying she can't help her , is heartbreaking . although not autobiographical , sheedy has had drug problems in her past , and i suspect she brought that knowledge of already being in lucy's footsteps to her role . also very good is radha mitchell as syd , who previously starred in the slight 1997 australian comedy , " love and other catastrophes , " wh caught me by surprise with her performance . easily being able to pass as christina ricci's older sister , mitchell obtains the same natural charisma that has made ricci so popular recently . as accurate as almost every detail is in , " high art , " i wish the relationship had been more tightly written involving syd and james , who , played by gabriel mann , is left with a throwaway role . by the time he finds out about syd and lucy , he disappears from the film , and i wish there had been another scene where they confronted each other . this is a very minor fault , however , in a film that is full of riches . although many of the characters are stuck in a hopeless pit of despair , syd and lucy are intelligent people who recognize their problems . the character of dominique ( anh duong ) , the " frame " editor who decides to give syd a chance with her ideas , was also written to be far more mature than expected . and the one sex scene in the film was beautifully and originally done . for once , it did not invlove steaminess , or violent sexual activity , or gratuitous nudity , but focused on the actual characters , who love each other , and their insecurities involved in making the decision to actually have sex . " high art , " which won the screenwriting award at the 1998 sundance film festival , marks the superior feature film debut of cholodenko , as well as sheedy's strongest , and best , role to date .

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

another formula 'feel good' quirky comedy from the british isles , much like " waking ned devine , " and a host of other popular low budget movies that turned a nifty profit off a thin story line . it is filled with likable establishment types living in a quaint town , such as tolerant vicars and policemen , plenty of eccentrics , and of locals who stick together through thick and thin . the strength of this film lies in its rational theme , that smoking pot should be legalized since it is even less dangerous than drinking alcohol . the film is tolerable until after its first hour , it then falls completely apart , becoming just too absurd to consider as anything but sitcom fluff gone completely bananas . but its long overdue message of decriminalization for certain drugs is on target and allows the film to , at least , be viewed as containing a pertinent message . its message is especially appropriate nowadays considering the 'war on drugs' is about to be escalated into colombia . the drug war has been a total failure so far and with no hope of it being won by law enforcement methods in the future , it has so far just ended up causing america's jails to be overcrowded with non-violent drug prisoners and offers zero hope of curtailing america's drug usage and drug supply . billions of dollars have just been allocated by congress to get officially involved in the colombian civil war , by backing a corrupt government ( remember vietnam ! ) with the idea that military might could stop the cocaine and marijuana harvests in that country . everything about this proposed action smacks of vietnam , with this scenario closer to home , so what probably awaits such an effort is a more futile result than the other war . the film's mild theme of showing squares getting into the weed business and finding it acceptable by the public , something that should have been accepted some 40 years ago , is a theme long overdue for public acceptance , but one that is better received late than never . there has to be some common sense in distinguishing what drugs should be legalized and how to educate the public on this , rather than making it a police matter altogether . the film opens in a quaint cornish seaside village at the funeral of the husband of a middle-aged woman , grace ( brenda blethyn ) , who fell out of an airplane , evidently committing suicide . the widow soon finds out her husband was a bigger bastard than she imagined . he left her with a stack of enormous bills and put up , without her knowledge , their comfortable 300 year old house as collateral for a failed business venture by taking out a second mortgage . the widow finds herself bankrupt and with no marketable skills to pay back her husband's enormous debts and prevent her from losing the house and becoming homeless . she also knows that he was having an affair with a sophisticated woman from london , honey ( quick ) . what makes the affair doubly unsatisfying , is that when conferring with honey , she finds out that he was a tiger with her in bed but refrained from having sex with her . even though the locals try to help the bankrupt widow out as best they can , the creditors swoop down on her like vultures . her gardener and handyman , matthew ( ferguson ) , decides to stay on with her , despite his last check bouncing . since she is an expert amateur horticulturist , he convinces her to help him revive his hemp plants , which he grows for private use . the two soon see this as a possibly big business opportunity , as grace works miracles with the plants which turn out to be high-quality stuff . for grace , this is a way to save her house and get her out of debt ; for the scotsman , matthew , it offers a chance for him to continue to live in this beautiful village and earn enough money to marry his fisherman girlfriend nicky ( valerie ) . the locals all let the illegal activities go on undisturbed : the police sergeant ( campbell ) pretends not to notice what the bright lights in grace's greenhouse is for , the friendly vicar ( phillips ) counsels about the wisdom of not taking action over something that you can't control , and the doctor ( clunes ) enjoys smoking the weed for recreation . the story becomes incredulous when grace decides to go to london and score with a big-time drug dealer instead of having matthew go , because she finds out nicky is pregnant and doesn't want matthew to end up in jail . it is interesting to note , that no one thinks smoking grass is bad for you , only that one can go to jail . the scene with grace on portobello road in the notting hill section of london , trying to find a drug dealer , while dressed out of place , in a white dress and hat one would wear to a tea party in cornwall but not on the streets of notting hill while looking to make a drug deal , was completely hokey and the film descended into a huge black hole , whereby it never recovered its dignity . the film moves into the formula mode , whereas grace beats the odds against her failing to survive , as she meets an international drug dealer , a frenchman ( tcheky karyo ) , who is first seen threatening to cut off her fingers but later becomes her business partner and husband as she becomes a millionaire and writes a best selling fiction book about her experiences , thereby becoming a celebrity . things work out in a ridiculous way , where there is a total breakdown in the character development of grace , where this matronly figure suddenly becomes merely a cartoon figure instead of live flesh and blood . there are a lot of silly giggles that come forth and the film has just enough of an acting performance by brenda blethyn to breathe air into it before it comes to its belated finale , as it drones on with its transparently gratuitous upbeat tone , until it makes the audience feel good that the sweet old lady succeeded . this 'unhip' film leaves one with the impression that smoking and growing pot is silly , but should be tolerated as something naughty middle-aged widows screwed by their terrible former husbands must do in order not to remain destitute . ummm !

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 ain't broke don'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 can'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 , don't put any thought into that guys . also , bean makes way too much noise in the film . the character doesn'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 hadn'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 wasn't for a couple of scenes where it appears as though mr . bean is having sex with things . and even that isn'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]

much ado about nothing . ah , how sweet the irony ! it's accepted wisdom in some circles - among english literature nuts , mainly - that whenever a critic knocks shakespeare they are only doing so through ignorance . he just doesn't " understand " shakespeare , you will hear them say . the bard's work is apparently beyond criticism . what a load of old cobblers . if these arbiters of public taste think kenneth branaugh's film of shakespeare's " comedy " much ado about nothing is comedy in any modern sense of the word , it's time to get a life . get monty python . get woody allen . get john waters . whatever . just get a real taste of some clever , witty , risky comedy . and banish this nonsense to where it belongs . drama and tragedy was shakespeare's strength . to my sensibilities - and i'm no stick in the mud - much ado about nothing resonates with no spark whatsoever . no kidding : this film ranks among the most embarrassing two hours i have ever spent in a cinema in my 20 years of movie going . the only thing that stopped me walking out was loyalty to my lady friend , as this was our day out and i hadn't seen her in ages . but boy , does she owe me one ! i won't spend too much time on the plot . basically , we follow the trials and tribulations of two would-be couples - one young , the other older . there's some dark treachery amongst all this , but everyone is so awfully jolly that you'd hardly know it . mind you , there's nothing wrong with the basic story . good romantic comedies based on similar premises abound . nothing wrong with most of the cast , either . branaugh , emma thompson and denzel washington are all talented performers . the problem is the script , or more accurately , shakespeare's original text . light comedy shouldn't be complex . yet wrapped in elizabethan english , the dialogue becomes difficult to comprehend . for this alone it will be a problem for modern audiences unschooled in shakespeare and in search of nothing more than a good , undemanding laugh . the only laughs to escape my belly were brought on by the gloriously inept performance of keanu reeves , the actor once again miscast as a jealous half-brother or something . but when dissected and understood , what it all boils down to is that this stuff is just so goddamn lame . this is comedy so clean and nice and corny and so devoid of danger that it leaves this viewer totally cold . ho , ho , ho , boy likes girl ! ho , ho , ho , men are such klutzes ! ho , ho , ho , she's so awfully clumsy ! oh please ! there's wit in here somewhere , i'm told . i call it pretentious . something lightweight striving to be something sophisticated through clever wordplay . in the end , it's cringeworthy . watching some of the cinema patrons around me collapse with laughter made much ado about nothing a very weird movie going experience . comedy ? bah , humbug !

elmore leonard has quickly become one of hollywood's favorite authors . out of four film adaptations in as many years , the witty and inventive out of sight gives get shorty a run for its money as the best leonard adaptation around . george clooney stars as jack foley , a nice bank robber . . . you know the type , he uses his charm and his wits rather than a gun . but even charming guys end up unlucky , and jack ends up in jail . but not for long . he plots an escape with the help of his best friend , and fellow robber , buddy bragg ( ving rhames ) , and their slow-witted pothead associate , glenn michaels ( steve zahn ) . but jack didn't count on u . s . marshal karen sisco ( jennifer lopez ) . appearing at the right place at the wrong time , karen gets involved in foley's escape attempt and the subsequent manhunt to bring him in . however , karen develops a rapport with jack foley , and finds that she begrudgingly likes the guy . but , can love prosper on opposite sides of the law ? or can karen straighten out jack before he goes too far in pursuit of just one last crime . clooney , who has had a string of solid , but never stellar , film roles , delivers his best performance to date . he blends into his role here perfectly as the risk taking jack foley , who's willing to gamble everything on the chance that karen sisco might be his true love . jennifer lopez does an excellent job as well . she actually has a trickier role than clooney , as a woman who has to balance her emotions with her sense of duty . she and clooney develop good chemistry together . the film boasts a superb ensemble . steve zahn gives a hilarious performance , and steals nearly every scene he's in . don cheadle is appropriately sinister as a violent ex-con who may or may not be teaming up with foley . albert brooks is enjoyable as a white collar criminal who talks too much for his own good . out of the cast , only dennis farina seems underused as karen's ex-lawman father . steven soderbergh gives the film sharp and stylistic direction . with an affectation for freeze frames , he delivers a unique take on the film's action and love scenes that places out of sight a notch above routine crime films . a recurring series of flashbacks makes the film seem more complex than it actually is . devoid of its bells and whistles , out of sight is actually a fairly straightforward crime story . however , there are only a few spots in the film that seem bare , and they pass quickly . with smart dialogue , good characters , and an excellent cast , out of sight easily smoothes over the rough spots in the plot and delivers on both the action and romantic fronts .

scream 2 has a titillating little scene that lays down the unwritten law of horror movie sequels quite well . during a film-class discussion , windsor college students articulate what these inevitable laws are , and why sequels never live up to the originals . a few rare exceptions are noted , but they left out one . . . scream 2 ! 1996's surprise horror blockbuster scream became an instant hit and developed an obsessive coterie of fans which included almost every teenager in america ! a sequel was unavoidable , but luckily the re-teaming of writer kevin williamson and director wes craven gives us nothing to fear in the way of lost entertainment . in fact , at the risk of sounding sacrilegious to all the adorning fans of scream , i would say that scream 2 might even be the better film ! sidney prescott ( neve campbell ) , the sinuous heroine who survived a series of murders in woodsboro , ca in the original scream , is now two years older and off to college , majoring in theater . meanwhile , tv journalist gale weathers ( courtney cox ) , who covered the murders in the first film , has since written a book about the dreadful events ; a book titled " stab " , which has been developed into a major motion picture . as scream 2 opens , a crowd of overzealous teenagers are piling into a crowded movie theater for the premiere of " stab " , and before long , a young couple are butchered to death , unnoticed in the midst of hysteria . this marks the beginning of a new murder spree as an unknown " copycat " sets out to repeat what's been done . . . and finish what hasn't ! of course the killer is just as obsessed with movies as the killer in the first film , and yes , movies play a huge role in the bizarre psychological outlook the murderer holds as he/she goes about slaying an assortment of gorgeous twenty year olds , but this * is * a sequel , and without deviating from the original groundwork we are still given a fresh outlook on horror movies . this is in large part due to williamson's deliciously written script , which will easily leave you satisfied . as much as the film condemns the use of cliches , it is riddled with them , but it is done so effectively , and with skillful direction by craven , that you're not bound to complain . i will note , however , that the " whodunit ? " did wind up being the first person i suspected , but believe me , i kept changing my mind as i tried to stay one ahead of the movie . all the actors outdo themselves here . we're not talking oscar performances , but cambell , cox , david arquette as dewey riley , and jamie kennedy as randy all give surprisingly satisfying performances that go beyond their last outing . the characters remain true to their roots , and yet show a clear sign of development over the last two years . we can see how the events in the first film has affected them , but we don't lose any of the luster that made them such a delight to watch in the first place . the nice thing about scream 2 is that it doesn't seem off-kilter from it's predecessor . it's a natural , smooth , and believable ( as far as horror films go ) transition from film to film . we skip two years , but there doesn't seem to be any holes or shortcuts taken in connecting the two flicks . it flows so well that you feel more like you're reading chapter two of a book ( long chapters , eh ? ) than just revitalizing a cast of familiar faces . while main characters are usually the only connection in sequels , scream 2's entire plot structure correlates * completely * with the first , making for immediate fondness and absorption . as i said before , scream 2 easily lives up to , if not surpassing , it's precursor . the only reason scream will likely be hailed above scream 2 is because it was the first . this doesn't mean that it overcasts the unique , whimsical humor or overall caliber of it's sequel , it just means that scream will forever be known as the movie that mocked it's own while maintaining it's sought-after qualities . if ever a film followed it's original so well , it would be scream 2 , and it makes this a definite must-see for all those unbridled scream fans out there . scream 2 fits snugly alongside scream , and will hopefully receive as many high remarks . it would top off the series quite well , if it weren't for the fact that two movies don't really make a series . it's unlikely to assume that a scream 3 won't appear in the next few years , but if they do decide to turn this into an undeniably acclaimed horror-trilogy , let's hope they can keep up the fantastic work . like they say , don't mess with perfection . . . but when a money-making smash-hit is almost guaranteed , who's gonna listen ?

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 doesn'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 doesn'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 isn'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 isn'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 can'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 .