Phil_H Reviews

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Almost 3 hours of nothing

[4/10 · 3 June 2023]

John Wick: Chapter 4 is almost three hours of Keanu Reeves engaged in a gunfight, bookended with meaningless dialog-in-place-of-plot, and a lot of people being thrown down stairs. Of all the "Wick" movies, this is clearly the weakest one yet. Was anything added to the overall Wick-universe narrative? No. Did we see a whole lot of inconsequential people die? Yes. Did Keanu Reeves say "yeah" a lot? Yes.

Look, I was hoping for SO much more than this. A meaningful ending to the series (which it isn't, because apparently this made so much money they are working on a fifth film), but what we got here was something in very much need of more script doctoring and less "bang-bang."

With a little more work, this could have been an average movie. Don't talk to me about stunts or cinematography or the choreography of the actors in-play, wow me with a plot that makes sense and moves the story forward--John Wick 4 does not move the story forward. It just says "let's shoot a bunch of people, okay?" And that's what it does... for 3 hours.

In the end I was of the following opinion once the credits rolled: ...and?...

We all deserved better than this. John Wick did, too.

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

In war, nobody really comes home

[7/10 · 7 November 2022]

A visceral, gruesome showing of what happens in dead-locked trench-warfare. Camaraderie abounds, personal loyalties, and naivety is on full display. But, in the end, the real question is: Is it worth it? What cost could possibly justify what little changes that were gained? The German title for this is "Nothing New In the West", indeed, nothing much happened other than a great many of the young who were sent were killed, fed into the war-machine for the gain of a few; and all that happened was a temporary peace before the continent was again embroiled in chaos and destruction.

Some people are complaining that this is an anti-war film. Of course it is. It's meant to be so. War is, as the aphorism tells us, hell. People of good character cannot love killing. That should be impossible. But yet, here we are having to explain to arm-chair warriors about the horrors of conflict.

This is a film worth watching. It will, no doubt, reinforce the opinion that war is the worst of all possible outcomes.

She-Hulk: Attorney at Law (2022)

Less "woman against the men" and More Action. Please?!

[3/10 · 26 August 2022]

There's a lot to have fun with She-Hulk. Great character. Strong (no pun intended) back-story. A plethora of bad guys to take on. The works. But....first 2 episodes felt like the writers were aiming for a generic "super feminist" and hadn't done much in the way of actual research into the character, her motivations, and who she is as a person. Ok, now it's time for this series to get with the program and kick the action into overdrive. She-Hulk was known for getting things done, kicking butt, and being funny (and breaking that 4th wall.) We need more action and less "let's talk about..." that we don't need. The story against Emil/The Abomination.... YES! Get to it. Don't bog it down. Let's make this show more action oriented than Ms. Marvel (which I liked) and Moon Knight (which I thought was a different take on Marvel than we'd seen before, so that was cool.) But if the writers are planning on sticking us with "YAY! Girl Power!" and not Super Hero Action (which is why we're viewing), then they're wasting our time and doing this wonderful character a disservice. And if they do.....then take a star away from my review....a falling star that could have been saved.

Morbius (2022)

Painfully Average

[5/10 · 27 May 2022]

Morbius is not great or good, nor is is terrible. It's simply average as a film. There's nothing inherently wrong with it other than to say I think the script should have marinated in the hands of more capable people for about another year. Having said that...there are worse ways to waste a few hours, so grab a drink and a snack and dive in to the world and just take it for what it is.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Not worthy of #1

[6/10 · 26 July 2008]

I am about to become a pariah amongst my friends. I am a fan of movies in general, a fan of comics overall, and a big fan of comic movies. Having just returned from "The Dark Knight," I can now say that this movie is not worthy of the absolute obedience and hype that has surrounded it since Heath's unfortunate demise.

Make no mistake, Heath's performance was brilliant and suitably creepy and zany--as the Joker ought to be. This is, in my opinion, his finest role and portrayal, and he will no doubt receive a best supporting actor Oscar (and had he lived, I'm sure he still would receive this award.) Mr. Bale's performance was....well, the same as "Batman Begins," that is to say: gruff and gravely while in-costume, and idle playboy when not...which a touch of golden heart. More of the same of what we have previously seen. Nothing new to report.

The rest of the cast was as good as could be hoped.

People are giving this movie a very high score, and to be utterly honest, this isn't worthy of such praise. Heath was absolutely wonderful, other than that this is pretty much a wash for average.

I was entertained, which is great; but this isn't the be-all of cinema and most certainly does not deserve the #1 spot. There are better movies out there.

I give this a "6", which isn't a bad score to give; but it isn't as high as what many have given. This means only one thing: they are deluded. They're giving the score out of remorse for the loss of Heath, not for the film as it is.

In the end, "The Dark Knight" is good, but just not great.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Just not "it"

[4/10 · 30 May 2008]

Ford, Lucas and company tried really hard to relive the past and bring us another summer like the one when I got to first see Raiders of the Lost Ark; unfortunately, you simply cannot capture lighting twice.

Where Raiders was new, fun, exciting and well put together; Indy IV just seems haphazard, trite, and underwritten entirely. And that's the pity, because as a long time fan of the series, I really wanted this to do well, but I just can't get over the fact that everyone just seemed to go through the motions.

Compared to Belloq and Nazis, Russians and Spalko just don't stand up as worthy adversaries of Dr. Jones. Karen Allen served no real purpose in the film; whereas in Raiders she actually did something. Shia was a lot better than I thought he'd be, but he's completely overwhelmed by Harrison Ford. Not even in the same caliber at all. "Unworthy" is a word that comes quickly to mind.

(And no, the world isn't ever going to be ready for "The Adventures of Mutt Williams," so I can only hope they don't go that direction. If they do, I won't be following.) Stick with Raiders (the only really good one of the series.) I'm sure there won't be a "next time"; and even Sallah's children will not be able to save Indy from this unfortunate fate. What an undramatic ending for what started out with such promise.

Finding Neverland (2004)

Excellent in every way.

[6/10 · 30 December 2004]

Although this review contains no real spoilers, I will mark this as having some to be on the safe side. But I bet you know the tale already, it is after all about "Peter Pan." This is a movie of loss and gain; of boys that grow up too fast, and boys that never grow old; of wonder and cynicism; happy and sad. It's all that at the same time. It's excellent, and probably Depp's best role to date.

I felt sorry for what happened to the characters, I worried, and I was happy when the children "found themselves again." I'm not sure how truly accurate the film is, but that doesn't matter: it is a film, and some suspension of belief is needed; and they never said this was a biopic.

It isn't often that a film like this comes about. They're rare, like trips to Neverland by an adult, something to be cherished.

Having said all that, this is still not a "perfect" movie, the flaw is that I don't believe this will withstand multiple viewings, but I could be wrong. Pathos aside, this is a good film, excellent even; but not worthy of too high a rating. It would be a disservice to rate this too highly, and equally so too low; so I have to give it a nice, round, "6" out of "10." Still, you should see this. It's worth the price of admission.

Birth (2004)

Birth fails to deliver.

[1/10 · 13 November 2004]

In what can only be one of the worst movies of 2004, "Birth" doesn't even deliver anything worthy of the talent available.

The sound was misplaced and utterly wrong for mood-bringing; the cinematography was slow and lackluster; the acting was stiff, as if we were watching a painting dry; the dialog was meaningless and tired (did they even bother to attempt to strengthen their lines?)

This sort of film can be the death of careers, and I certainly hope so.

We paid good money to watch what is effectively nothing more than Nicole Kidman making semi-angst filled expressions at the camera. That does not a film make, regardless of what some of the overly dramatic elitists may demand to the contrary.

'Birth' is unimaginative and unworthy of time, effort, or space. In the theatre, people expect something, sadly this provides nothing.

Save yourself the trouble, stay well away from 'Birth.' It's more like 'death,' or 'boredom.'

Lowest possible score: '1' out of '10.'

Monster (2003)

Mediocre Movie filled with great performances

[5/10 · 31 May 2004]

`Monster' is a film filled to the brim with great performances, but is handicapped by it's slow motion and lackluster cinematography. Many times I sat in the theater on the edge of bored-only to be aroused by the talent displayed. Then it was back to the same old thing. There were moments of insight and clarity, but it was too far between them.

Although I cannot expect every film to blow me to the back of my seat with every shot, I was expecting something more considering the fact that the entirety of the subject matter could fill volumes about Eileen's life.

Instead, she was a plain old hooker with a gun. Maybe that's how she really was, but it wasn't quite enough.

Theron's OSCAR notwithstanding, there's really no meat to this film. Surely, she deserved the award; however, I find it sad that she had to win it for this particular piece of cinema.

Really, I can't say that this is a bad film; only that it is not a great film, which is bad enough considering the talent arrayed.

I can only give this a `5' out of `10,' making this just average. `Monster' is indeed a film filled with great roles, but the wrapping wasn't enough for it.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

The tale is full in its telling. A finale worthy of praise.

[9/10 · 21 December 2003]

Long has the road been, and long have we traveled it. The circle of the saga is complete, the ring of Doom is destroyed and Middle-Earth is saved from the vile clutches of the Dark Lord.

It has not been an easy trek, to be sure; we've seen some very majestic scenery; we've heard the words spoken that before were only intoned in our minds. Through it all, we stood our ground with Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas, Sam, Pippin, Merry, and Frodo. Truly we are also a part of the Fellowship.

Having seen now the long awaited conclusion to this epic trilogy, I left the theatre somehow wanting more. The ships sailed from the Grey Havens, the last of the Elves have taken their places in the Undying Lands, the age of Men has come – yet I so still wanted to see more.

I wanted as well to see the battle of Eowyn and the Witch-King played out as it was written; I wanted to see Shelob in all her majesty. I was hoping that the final installment-that we have waited so very long to see-would be more true to the tale in those important places (well, they were important to me, at least.)

At least I am proud to say that I saw King Aragorn kneel before the Hobbits in tribute. At least the Many Partings were relatively well displayed. And to hear Gandalf laugh! This is what I imagined. Indeed, it was like spring after a long winter; like water to a parched land.

Pity, there was no Scouring of the Shire. No Saruman. No finale to the final film. For that I am sad.

How I wished to utter perfection. Only to leave wanting…

Still, I will not weep over the ending, nor the telling of the tale. A marvelous ride it has been. So that leaves me with the paramount question: how good is it?

It's good. Better than most films; but it's not as good as I had hoped it would be. Thus it cannot obtain a `10' rating. But is it on par with the other two? If you recall, I gave both The Fellowship and The Two Towers a `9' rating…high praise, indeed.

The Return of the King feels like a hollow victory, in a sense, because I know that next year there is no sequel to tide me. Quite lamentable. I can only hope that Peter Jackson will acquire the rights to The Hobbit after his version of King Kong is finished. But I digress..

Surely, this is a good film, the main points of the novel are covered and the quest is brought to the ending as it should. In the end, I think, the finale is just as good as the others in the trilogy, and it is only my own sadness that we shall not see another next year that makes me hesitant.

In my heart of hearts I know this tale is completed, full, and as near a vision to Tolkien's masterwork that could possibly be hoped. And it is with that feeling I shall follow. If you are a fan, or just a story completeist, then you must see this. This is the culmination of your desires and hopes. It's solid, and I give this a `9' out of `10' making this series well worth owning, well worth seeing, and well worth the price.

I will be seeing this again. I bet you will, too.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Interesting and thought provoking

[6/10 · 31 August 2003]

Although I normally hate Michael Moore, I watched this intently. I must say it was really well put together for someone who I dislike. And it does, if nothing else, make you think--which is what I suspect was all that Moore wanted.

Go see this movie, let it make you think, then do something that will help eliminate the problem.

I give this a "6" out of "10." Not too bad for someone that I don't think too highly of.

Shogun (1980 TV Movie)

Coming soon to DVD!

[7/10 · 14 July 2003]

Yep, on September 23, 2003, Shogun will be released as a 5-disc DVD set. Hop on over to Amazon and preorder it. It is by FAR the greatest mini-series ever made for television. I think it's better than Roots (which was amazing as well). This is how TV was supposed to be. Now (finally) you can have the whole thing on DVD--and it's far cheaper than the VHS copies, which were selling in some places upwards of $200 USD.

Bruce Almighty (2003)

Glad it wasn't me with the power

[6/10 · 25 May 2003]

Occasionally, I've been known to utter things like "If I were in charge," and I must admit the idea of power is appealing I will equally admit that I am not capable of handling such powers as Bruce is given in this movie. We're all very fortunate that it wasn't me.

That being said, we could have done worse than have God imbue Bruce with omnipotence. Naturally, with Carrey, hilarity ensues. But there is a great, and important, message in "Bruce Almighty," that being: be content and nobody (even God) is out to "get you." The idea that God would give such power to a mortal as a "lesson" is great, and mankind not being to worldly the sort of messed up things that happen are pretty plausible--even if it is a comedy.

I don't see this as an attack on beliefs, and I don't see this as your average Jim Carrey movie either; it's a little bit more than that. And that makes it more worthy of viewing than any other Jim Carrey movie to date. Sufficiently so that I believe I can say this might be his best work (even more so than The Truman Show.)

Solid "6" out of "10." There's a good story and it's pretty funny too. Check it out.

Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003)

Great Television, and a warning

[7/10 · 20 May 2003]

When television rises to heights where series like this comes into being it is truly living up to the potential the creators of this particular medium envisioned.

Hitler here is portrayed slightly humanized, or at least more so than ever before; and that makes him more of a monster in the end: he is no boogey-man of our nightmares, no invention to scare the young, but a real man who walked, talked, and plotted evil. The sheer fact that he did live makes him even more of a warning to the present and future of mankind--too easily can people slide into inaction, fall into the crowd mentality of "groupthink" and allow for good to be overcome.

This mini-series depicted the beginnings of the evil that would shape the century's most devastating conflict; and my only complaint is that the actor portraying Hitler did not don colored contact lenses--this would have completed the role and brought about a stunning bit of realism to the performance.

Television, most often maligned for its violence and sex, rose to heights not often seen with this. Great viewing and a warning. We must never forget.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Not what was expected

[5/10 · 15 May 2003]

*****SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD*****

I was fortunate enough to be able to view Matrix Reloaded on Wednesday at a sneak preview show here locally.

After the block-buster of The Matrix, I expected Reloaded to be more than the first: more impressive, more expansive, and just plain more.

What you get, in reality, is just more of the same. Not better, just an extension of the first movie (which is what was planned.) However, that's not great--and certainly not what was expected. I expected to be blown into the back of my seat--I expected there to be richer and better special effects; but what we got was the same "bullet time" leftovers from the Matrix. I find bullet time to be boring now, and need something better than this one "catch effect" to impress me--and sadly, Reloaded has this in so many places that it's almost like they were hinging the whole film on it. That's insulting.

I loved The Matrix, as did many; Reloaded isn't the Matrix. It's "ok" but not "great." Had there been more substance to this fantasy I'd be a happier man.

Agent Smith returns in mass--looking for "purpose" to his now meaningless existence. I look for him to have a pivotal role in the final installment--shades of Gollum, perhaps?

The fight scenes and the chase on the freeway were nice, but that does not make a movie. I have no choice but to give The Matrix Reloaded a "5", indicating it as average film-fare. The Brothers "W" should have known better. The fans wanted more and were left wanting. Perhaps the final installment (due later this year) can redeem this otherwise mediocre effort.

Spirited Away (2001)

Don't believe the hype

[4/10 · 16 April 2003]

I just saw `Spirited Away' (Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi), and have to tell you that this is no `Akira.' Although the animation is crisp, clear, and flawless for what it does it breaks no new ground and doesn't deliver what I would consider an Oscar-worthy performance. The plot, if one can call it that, is thin; amounting to very little. This is Japanese `Alice in Wonderland' on hallucinogens.

I'm completely at odds with all the rave reviews: this doesn't deserve any of it. I suggest everyone take a deep breath, and step back from being an otaku for just one second and rethink their viewpoints. For the uninitiated, this is pure fantasy gibberish. I have no choice but to give this movie sub-par ratings because of the plot-which is practically nil. I gave it the rating I did only because it is wonderfully colored and next to Akira is as flawless as anime will ever get; but at the same time its non-existent plot breaks the whole thing apart, and what you're left with is … well … nothing. It's all style and no substance.

I give this a `4' only because it shows how good Japanese anime can look. Pity it was hobbled by not having a story worth sitting through.

Jackass: The Movie (2002)

Some people are just lucky, I guess...

[5/10 · 13 April 2003]

Definitely an acquired taste, Jackass is something that you either hate or love.

I'm one of those people that think it's funny (usually), and believe that it's definitely one of the more "creative" things around.

Having said that, I'd like to reiterate what MTV and even Johnny himself has said on numerous occasions: don't try this at home, kids. Chances are, if you tried, you'd end up dead. But I guess these guys (I won't call them "professionals," since they're really not) are just lucky to still be living.

Jackass is exactly what I thought it would be--therefore it has to get a score above "1"; since it was average and didn't go out of its way to impress me with more, it's getting a "5." But don't be fooled, this isn't cinema as you might normally apply the term. It's documentary, insanity, and humor mixed with stuntman and self-destructive instincts.

But it's also funny. So, want to laugh at idiots who darn near kill themselves? Watch Jackass.

Want brilliant and topical humor that's "higher class"? Go someplace else--this is definitely not it.

How these guys got a show amazes me. I wouldn't have bankrolled this, but some people are just lucky, I guess.

Bringing Down the House (2003)

Just as expected

[5/10 · 16 March 2003]

One might think that this movie would produce perhaps a new idea or two; but it didn't. One might think that with Steve Martin (a tried-and-true comedy legend) you can't go wrong with this.

You'd be wrong.

Although this film is funny in parts, it's not "great." Really, it's average, and I'm being nice. There isn't any new material being brought to bear, there's no new insight, there's even the same racial, stereotypical, jokes (albeit updated with modern language.)

Is this bad? No. Is it good? No. It's average. I give it a "5". You could spend far worse time than seeing this. You could also do something more constructive with your time--like mow the lawn or shovel snow.

I can't recommend this to anyone who isn't already a fan of this genre.

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003)

Formulaic yet funny

[5/10 · 9 February 2003]

This movie follows in exactly the way you sort of expect it will, but is still funny. There's nothing truly "bad" here; conversely, there's nothing truly "wonderful" here either. I would have to say this is average fare for the genre.

That doesn't mean you won't enjoy it. I laughed many times at some of the antics. I also groaned a couple of times at the schlock. All in all, I could have thought of worse ways to spend my time (and money.)

If you want a light-hearted romantic comedy, then this is definitely for you. If you want something new to be brought to the genre, then this is not your movie.

All in all, still worth seeing. I give this a "5" out of "10", average, but not being pulled in either direction.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Amazing and worthy of acclaim.

[9/10 · 22 December 2002]

Following my review of `The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring' I waited a year for `The Two Towers.'

It was worth the wait. I shall not write a massive review like I did for the predecessor, but rather I will say this: Peter Jackson does it again. `The Fellowship of the Ring' was granted by me a score of `9,' making it a film worthy of the highest honors, yet it was not perfect.

`The Two Towers' is in the same ranking--imperfect, yet amazing and equally worthy of acclaim.

I am in the (not so) sad position of having to give this movie a `9' score as well. Marking the first time, I believe, that I have found a series to have not dwindled in value, production, or in the nebulous `fun factor.' Really, this isn't that surprising since `The Two Towers' was filmed simultaneously with `The Fellowship of the Ring.'

Therefore, I say: go, get in line now. See it; take somebody who will appreciate it. Enjoy.

This movie is wonderful. Score: 9 out of 10. It's a modern classic, just like `The Fellowship of the Ring.'

The Ring (2002)

What's the deal with foreign cinema?

[3/10 · 10 November 2002]

I've seen lots (and I mean *lots*) of foreign movies, and almost without exception, they suck. Badly.

Then comes (from Japan) a remake of "Ringu," called "The Ring." I've never heard of "Ringu," so I look some information up on it. It sounds promising, even though the basic idea is kind of silly, but with the suspension-of-belief in full-off mode I figure, why not, it is just a movie.

Apparently, "Ringu" and "The Ring" are pretty close to one another (I'm not about to go learn Japanese so I can really find out.)

If that is true, then "Ringu" is garbage as well. Because "The Ring" is truly worthless junk. Plot? Oh, no, can't be bothered with one that makes sense (even with my belief suspended). Acting? Lame. And where does one find kid actors with creepy eyes? Do they have a cattle-call for ugly?

Shocks? Ok, one or two, but only because of the use of LOUD (and repetitive) sounds.

Scary? Nope. Stupid? Yep. This movie belongs in the class of "Jeepers Creepers" and "Blair Witch."

Thus I can tell you, from years of experience (also called abuse) from watching foreign movies that there still are only a handful of good movies coming out of the rest of the world, whereas in the USA we beat their annual total each year, and still have time to produce drek (like "The Ring.")

Stay away from "The Ring". Before you die of boredom, you see "The Ring."

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Clearly Aweful

[1/10 · 3 September 2002]

This movie is pathetic. It's twice as bad as you think. Yes, it's just that bad. The following this "film" has is comprised of geeks, dorks, losers of all sort, and wannabes. And yet even with how absolutely bad this movie is, every year at Halloween, it's in the theatres, on TV, and rented out everywhere.

That's amazing. To say the fans are rabid is an understatement; to say this film has staying power is equally an understatement. Make no mistake: I hate this movie, absolutely; but I am also impressed with the number of folks who have taken up its mantle.

Perhaps, in the end, it's just me. Maybe I don't "get it." Perhaps...

But, frankly, I'd rather *not* get it. It's garbage. It barely qualifies as a film. It's one of the absolute worst movies ever made, I'm amazed that the performers ever had careers afterwards. Just goes to show you that Hollywood (and people in general) are forgiving...except for me. Don't waste your time or money. Don't get sucked in.

Signs (2002)

The ads are deceiving...

[5/10 · 3 August 2002]

You think this is a thriller, that's only partly right. You think this is about crop-circles and aliens; and that's only part of the tale as well.

What this is really about is losing one's faith. Losing love. Losing in general.

The aliens, the crop-circles, the whole thing you see in the ads is just a decoy, a ruse if you will, to mask what's really going on.

The ads say "Don't see it alone." I did. And everyone else in the theatre with me who was with someone didn't fare any better. We all saw the same thing.

What we saw was a movie that was not as good as "The Sixth Sense" or "Unbreakable," but was good on it's own merits. ...Well, except for the alien... That was a guy in a rubber suit and it showed.

But again, the aliens were a mere backdrop; and a not very good one at that.

"Signs" is clearly better than many movies out there, but not nearly as good as what we *thought* it would be. That's what really saddens me. SO much so I have to give this the lowest rating yet for Mr. Shyamalan.

"5" out of "10," and he gets those mostly for effort. True there are some jolts here and there, but that, in the end, just isn't enough for "Signs" to warrant anything more. I would have liked to see the movie I thought this was going to be.

So did everyone else who saw it with me.

Reign of Fire (2002)

If we were to apply logic, we come to interesting conclusions.

[5/10 · 13 July 2002]

****WARNING!!! Some Spoilers ahead!!!****

The "first" dragon we see is the male (the only one, according to the movie, all the rest are females we are told.) This leads us to some interesting thoughts, none of this may be held to truth if sequels come out, but nonetheless here I will ramble my own ideas.

One male dragon, presumably in stasis since the end of the middle-ages (that's when the last of the dragon imagery that man has is done...Saint George and all that); this dragon is awakened, and within a year there are millions.

That means eggs. Lots of eggs…all in stasis as well. Preserved, just like he was, since the middle-ages.

Who then is to say that there aren't going to be hidden clutches of eggs left after the remaining females are dead at the end of this movie's predictable timeline? That could be fun. But wait, no males mean the eggs are not fertilized, which means in turn that the eggs won't come "alive." We're safe!

Or are we?

`Jurassic Park' taught us one thing: there is at least one species of animal that can switch gender when there are no choices for successful mating. Who is to say that dragons can't do the same thing?

That's why I said that evil word "sequel" earlier.

Check this out: At the end of the predictable timeline of this movie, after the successful elimination of the only male, there are only females. This means that they will eat each other (only females) until there is only one left. At that point, this female if it isn't killed outright by humans, will force a stasis on itself just to survive (of course this might all be done anyway once the food is gone); and this means that it will *know* that it is the only dragon left (or at least it will have a darn good idea.) During its stasis, it will morph/gender change, so that when it awakens it won't be female anymore, and thereby can fertilize the millions of eggs left by itself and its sisters.

But that whole theory is beaten by the sheer fact that no known species on Earth does that. It would be odd, to say the least, at least as odd as the sheer idea of dragons in the first place, for nature/evolution to allow such a messed up system to come into being.

Which leads me to the idea that there *are* other males out there, still sleeping. And those unfortunate Britons just happened to awaken one.

That means more males to be found, that means more babies once awakened, that means….yup, there's that `sequel' word again.

The idea can self-replicate. And if `Reign of Fire' does well enough at the box-office, and you know how Hollywood loves that cash-register sound, there will be plans for more (minus Matthew McConaughey of course.)

This all leads me to my actual review (the above was just stuff I wanted to get off my chest.) Matthew McConaughey reminded me of a `G.I.-Joe' character brought to life, he seemed to be acting too tough for his own good. Almost, but not quite, laughable.

Other than that, it was an average film. Out of `10,' I give it a `5.' Solid average. If you like dragons, if you like Matthew McConaughey, if you like post-apocalyptic stories, then go see.

But I do expect a sequel if the $$$ is high enough. We'll see if I'm close at that time.

Shallow Hal (2001)

Weird tale with important message.

[5/10 · 5 July 2002]

***Short spoiler ahead***

Hal has problems, all stemming from the final words of his father. What happens next is a list of failed romances because of that; until he gets fixed by a TV self-help guru.

***End of spoiler***

I bet you gleaned that much off the box-cover. I admit it's not much of a spoiler, but it is important, and the premise is valid. "Beauty is only skin deep," as the saying goes. Hal does get "fixed," and later broken, but then overcomes both and becomes a better person because of it.

I enjoyed Shallow Hal because of the message, and the slight-of-hand that goes on (Hal sees perfection in the "imperfect", and vice versa). Important lesson for us all.

"5" out of "10." Average, really, but that's not the point. The point is, this movie does make a lot of sense, and strikes a chord with us all once we see it. At least that's how I felt. I know what it's like being an outcast because of looks (and no, I'm not multiple hundreds of pounds in weight); but you don't have to be. Everyone goes through that sort of thing at one time or another. And, if we're lucky, we find the one person who sees past all that, to the inner us.

In "The Abyss" the line is "see with better eyes..." It's a line I've often quoted. And it's true. Hal does see with better eyes (albeit by force at first), but later he has become a real person and not shallow at all.

Sometimes wisdom is revealed in the strangest ways. This is one of those times.