azaro666 Reviews

The Book Group (2002–2003)

Slowly downhill

[5 May 2002]

The premise is so simple that it would seem likely to be a snowballing success.

The fact that the first episode was such a well structured, delicately written and well acted piece, meant that it appeared there was every possibility it could be a well thought through character study over a six week, or however long, period.

Perhaps I am missing something as I have not read all the books that have so far been discussed by the group, but in any case the first episode was the only one that even touched upon the book at any level.

Since then the programme has descended into the characters outside of the group. More about how they react in other environments and the experience that the book group may have had on them. The episodes appear to have been cut very harshly. There are great wapping gaps, with no explanation.

The stuff about Kenny and Claire and the kiss has been forgotten. Barney and Claire and their immediate chemistry. The female obsession of Kenny's hands.

It has to be said that the acting is very accomplished and it is a pleasure to see new actors proving their worth. Perhaps at the end of the run all of the loose ends will be tied up and it will make sense as a whole?

Even so though it needs to be judged on each episodes merits, and doing that is so hard as each episode is so vastly different in genre and style.

It feels like it should have been a two part series, just like Men Only which is one of the best things Channel 4 has ever shown.

All the Pretty Horses (2000)

Stunning but lost in content.

[5/10 · 30 May 2001]

This film is just so beautifully shot and acted that it is a complete and utter dissapointment to think that there was no consideration of dramatic or plotting structure that could possibly hold the thing together and prevent it from being, almost, unwatchable.

The trailer for the movie led us to believe that it would be all about Horses and a love story between two attractive leads. That is the first big mistake for it is nothing of the sort. It is instead, a mini-rites of passage, cum one mans adventure in the new Wild West (i.e. Mexico). It starts off promisingly enough with a chance encounter leading to a spot of the old male bonding, this particularly becomes appealing and had the movie continued this path then there would have been a half decent movie in the making since Billy Bob is very capable of handling male character interplay. At this point there begins to be turns and twists which become far too frequent and come along far too quickly for there to be any emotional travel with the central protagonist.

It all ends up in one big mess which becomes part prison movie, part love story, part horse obsession and mostly a story whose surface is simply brushed and then left alone to re-gather itself.

Damon gives an accomplished performance, but once again Cruz is in-capable of building character or accent. Lucas Black is as ever great and he and Thornton have obviously got a great connection, and as mentioned before the whole look of the movie is stunning but all this counts for precious little if all you are left with is a continual frash frame of someones life. A little like a family photo album detailing different times, it eventually leads you to question what has happened in between the years of your life and it becomes pleasing only as eye candy.

Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth (2000 Video)

Why, please tell my why?

[2/10 · 27 May 2001]

The fact that I even agreed to see this movie is still leaving me answerless, but why this was even made is just dumb-founding. Perhaps a reason for the initial downfall is the fact that the teen slasher movies are being ironic towards what they are doing, yet still Scary Movie was funny, very funny in places so thats obviously not the whole story.

The fact is that in order for comedy to work, you need jokes, lots of jokes usually and yet in the script itself there are no gags, there is no substance to any of the dialogue whatsoever, which leads again to the question begging for an answer, why was this movie made? A script with no gags is made as a comedy.

Most gags are visual and tired to the point of slaying a dead horse. Most are seen to be coming a mile off, and even when a surprise does come up on you there is no appreciation for the simply fact that the it is so bloody slow. The acting, although it is down for comic effect, is wooden. Tom Arnold appears to be the only cast member who is aware of what he is doing, which becomes a bad thing as the rest of the cast look even worse than they would have done had he played it straight. There is no point playing this straight for the simple fact there is nothing there to play straight with.

Its a shame as the trailer actually looked quite attractive and the opening 10 minutes were very promising. All in all this is one huge mess which has clearly been edited down to fit into 70 minutes of pure crap.

Perhaps even some humourous sex/nudity would have helped, which is saying something. In the end though you have got a movie which pretends to be a slasher send up done in the style of the Farrelys, which actually plays a scream done scene for scene, without the words, and a handful of s**t actors.

I cannot un-recommend this movie highly enough.

The Tailor of Panama (2001)

What did I miss?

[5/10 · 25 May 2001]

I am still convinced, even now, that I have missed something with this movie. I am convinced that I fell asleep, after all I must have done because I missed the plot.

The movie plays fine otherwise, after all the acting is fairly spot-on. Curtis is pouting to her best ability, Rush is as always reliable, and Brosnan has really found a role to suit his style of acting but in all truth, what good is any of that if there is no framework to place it within. A bit like having 30 brushes, all the write paints, a lovely easel but no canvas. Something must have been lost from the script, it has to be. I haven't read the book and so cannot be able to place my own finger on it, but surely this cannot have been all that was in it.

There is a clear direction for the film to be travelling in, with the spying and such like, and there is room for some great comedy moments from Brosnan. This espionage style is lost though, as instead it turns into a rather farcical look at greed, desire and lust. The spying is soon stopped and the culmination of the film is that none of what has preceeded has been of any value or benefit. It plays as if there are two films, one which for 90 minutes looked to be boiling up to a twisty turvy crackerjack ending,and the second was a 10 minute ending from a family drama.

It is clearly trying to get one over on the audience and its a cliche to say that memoirs of sixth sense spring up but thats all it is, an ending which surprised no-one and pleased only the director. Boorman has slipped on a real banana hear and makes himself look foolish with an amateur ending.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

Don't let it return again, please.

[5/10 · 21 May 2001]

It is a real atrocity that this movie would even be remade but even more of an atrocity that people will actually be flooding to see it. They will for the simple fact that it is big. Big in special effects to the point of overkill, I mean this bad-boy feels just like a computer game. The problem with a lot of computer games is that they don't have a plot, well dito for Mummy Returns.

It was evident from the first one that Sommers just hasn't got a clue how to write, I mean there are barely any standout moments of dialogue and the fact that it feels like the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles is a bad thing. It feels like an infant has pencilled a few odd words and the whole thing has been jumbled around and strectched into a screenplay. There is simply no struture to the script, not plotting devices, no moments of dramatic tension and no reason for anything that does happen, to actually happen.

The film is bad to worse material. The ever reliable Brendan Frazer is, as ever, reliable. Weisz is OK but Hannah does a risible effort at comedy. There is no point in billing the rock up as he is blink and you'll miss him material. It is a crying shame that so much money should be heaped into such a lame and contrived piece of writing. Fear not though as it is not only writing which is haphazard but the direction itself. Whenever there seems to be some sort of motion to the piece there is an unneeded 10 minutes of slow silent nothingness.

I cannot help but be subjective because the objective opinion would probably make people feel as though this is a decent movie. After all special effects is the only two words which people need to be sold on a movie.

The Dish (2000)

Good, not groundbreaking

[7/10 · 12 May 2001]

I'd love to have given this movie a higher recommendation than the following words but the fact is that it just didn't try to be anythin special. It is a small story of a huge event which is loveable, really loveable but just not enough.

It has obviously had a small budget and that is very apparent, but for all its smallities it is a great film. The story itself is in no way depleted from, not even in the possibilities of national heroicism. The cast is made up from almost unknown actors, with the obvious exception, I say unknown, but that is limited to the amount of irregular movie-goers, for it is made up from very capable character actors, who have been sorely mis-used over the years. That is the films true striking rich gift. None of the actors try in any way to over-shadow the others. Even the smallest roles are executed perfectly, with enough comic timing to applaud.

However, as I mentioned, that is the movies downfall. It never tries to be too challenging, the plotting is slight, which lends itself to being a character led comedy. Whereas the volume of material is never really too substantial, the delivery of lines is almost perfect. There is a definite knack of how to give the line and reward must be given to the director for this. The acting, aside form the comic elements are fairly accomplished.

The bottom line must be brought back, once again, to the fact that there is never too much to focus on. Leaving the theatre you are sure to be saying to yourself that there was nothing wrong with the movie, which is true. However, there are many movies that have nothing wrong with them, but at the same time do not try too make much all right.

Go away from the cinema realising you have seen a good film which will, within a few weeks just blow away and hardly anyone will see.

Its a shame that suck movies are neglected but in the age of the block-buster you need to push boundaries.

Along Came a Spider (2001)

More of the same (yawn)

[6/10 · 12 May 2001]

There is only one or two things which save this movie from being an absolute farce. The first is a fairly accomplished performance from Morgan Freeman who seems incapable of giving a poor performance and leaves the questioned being asked as to where has he been all his life. The second plus point of the movie is a brilliant ransom drop-off which lasts for 10 minutes and culminates in a sequence which leaves you breathless. It really does make you grateful for your money, but the fact that this scene makes you pleased is enough reason to justify your complaint at its obvious downfalls.

A director like Tamahori is more than capable of delivering drama of the highest quality, but the one thing lacking in this thriller is the drama. There is absolutely none at all. The plot is very half-baked and only has enough momentum to carry half the movie. Perhaps this where the drama needs to happen. After all there are enough actors there to give us some drama, but instead the writer has opted out and decided throw us into Hitchcock territory. That just about p***es the audience off, we were clever enough to get up to this point without being lost so why on earth should we tred back over muddy ground.

There are three or four twists thrown in which are not exactly surprising and leave you turning over to your girlfriend and saying I knew that would happen. We are left in the mind of the write rather than the viewer which soon becomes frustrating.

Perhaps every idea in movies has been dreamed up so that now we have become a cinema savvy audience and can see the mysteries before they are. If that is the case then is very unfortunate.

Plot holes, poor direction and characterless characters leave this one as a real disappointment. A great director, one good actor and a terrible script leave the whole in a mess, a pity because up until 55 mins. it was all looking so good.

Antitrust (2001)

Run of the mill

[6/10 · 10 May 2001]

The film may think that it is being clever and on the pulse because of the theme and plot of the movie but to be perfectly honest, the story line is hardly cutting edge. Fair enough we live in this day and age where computers are the biggest thing to have hit, and the internet is the most easily accessible source of info. in the world, and the premise is one which almost happened. Microsoft after all were taken to court and sued over their attempt to erradicate any other software companies production. In that sense the film is correct and Robbins character is obviously Bill Gates, but the plot holes are so frequent that aside from the moviegoer who enjoys cruise control in the cinema, this film will hardly be applauded.

For all its plotting ineptities, and an under sophistication of what a difficult line of work computer programming is, it is a fairly enjoyable romp. It gives Ryan Phillipe a chance to do his best James Bond impression, and the when there is a chance for a thrilling set piece the director (Howitt) certainly knows which buttons to press. However, the cliff hanging moments do tend to be the same one played over and over again.

It is very apparent that a lot has been lost in the editing room, even though the movie still runs at almost 2 hours. There are at least 2 sub-plots which are lost from the trailer and any number of scenes.

The movies major problem is that it thinks it is being so clever by playing with such a topical idea that it is unconcerned with the fact that an idea will not stand up by itself. I am mixed on this film because, as I have said before, although it is plotted badly, overlong, and a little slow it is still very watchable. Perhaps that is due to the male lead who is very watchable, or perhaps there is something in here that after repeated viewings may make more sense and give it broader appeal.

El Dorado (1966)

They don't make 'em like this anymore

[7/10 · 10 May 2001]

Perhaps at the time it came out the movie was just 'another western'. After all it came out in the heady days of hollywood when westerns were what everyone was doing. That is maybe why at the time it wasn't highl acclaimed or respected. After all, Wayne was nearing the end of his reign as the King of Westerns and Mitchum was looking extremely frail. To be fair, it is evident that both men are looking a little tired in the movie, Mitchum especially, although that is the role he is playing.

Today though, this movie stands up as a very enjoyable western with some great dialogue. The formula for the western is always the same as everyone knows. Landowner has trouble, help comes. A reluctant/drunk sherriff is needed but refuses until help in the shape of an old friend arrives. It matters not though as what makes the film is the class and prescence of the actors as well as the dialogue. As mentioned, the dialogue is superb throughout. A young James Caan,an ageing Duke and some hilarious moments from Mitchum make this ideal family viewing on a sunday afternoon. It does leave that question to be answered though, just why the hell don't they make 'em like this anymore?

Captain Corelli's Mandolin (2001)

A real let down

[6/10 · 6 May 2001]

Luckily for me I have not got round to reading the literature upon which this movie is supposedly based on. I say luckily because my opinion on the film would probably have been far more harsh than the one I have at the moment. The problem with the film is that it just doesn't seem to want to do anything for itself. It is more than content with simply letting the camera rove around the spectacular scenery. Don't get me wrong it is breath-taking to watch some beautiful things, but if I wanted to see that and that only I would watch the discovery channel or holiday programmes.

John Madden had promised so much from his recent efforts, and had showed his audience that he was more than capable of handling drama in such a way as to make us care about the characters. However, this just isn't possible. Maybe there is something wrong with the script, because there is so little dialogue that sticks out. Maybe there was some concern from the studio as to the length of the film, it certainly feels as though it has had huge chunks taken away from it, because no studio in the world would let such a shallow piece of writing be made.

One almost feels as though the spectacle of the novel and its success may well have been enough to secure money, and a big box office, and so the writing of dialogue took second place to everything else. I mean look at the cast that they were able to secure, Cage, Bale, Hurt, Cruz, four actors whose most recent films have made them A-list quality. It has all the ingredients to be a film remembered and admired.

The cast though is, mostly dreadful. Nicolas Cage, who is said to have Italian decendancy is mocking in his performance and although he tries to shape off this loveable nonchalant man, the accent simply makes him look mugging. Penelope Cruz walks around for two hours pouting and refusing to drop the accent which is here forte. Hurt gives a solid performance though and Bale continues to play good supporting roles.

The films biggest pratfall though is its confusion to let the audience know what it is actually trying to tell us. There is, what feels like, a love story but why is there love. There is no occasions upon which any chemistry happens, nor incidents which would make two people love each other, only once does he play the mandolin for her. There is also the war story which takes up half of the film and really makes you empathise with Correlis plight but that soon wilts away as the love story comes back. It would have been predictable had the film had any direction, but by never finsihing anything it starts and by leaving the audience asking why it simply fizzles out.

Readers of the book will probably say 'its not the book, but it is still brilliant' but the fact is that book or not, it is a badly acted film which is unsure of what it is functioning as love story/ war movie/ moral tale/ national pride. It is unclear and very much a let down.

The Hole (2001)

Hit and miss... *Sort of spoiler*

[6/10 · 28 April 2001]

This is by no means a straight forward 'yes I liked it' nor a 'that was pure crap'. The problem with The Hole is a problem which a lot of movies seem to have these days, but the opposite. The trailers for movies give away so much of the movie that generally it would be a lot easier to fill in the gaps that we see in the trailers rather than venture to the cinema on a saturday night. You see, the trailer for this movie seemed to go on for a long time and basically I thought I knew the premise of the movie and it seemed like it would be a very chilling, bad guy with a mask who no-one sees kills beautiful young people. This could not be much further from the truth.

It is, instead, a psychological nightmare vision of how far people can push things in the name of love. There is no demon down the hole instead there is a young girl who allows herself to be mentally distorted by a physical longing for a guy.

The writing is quite clearly lending a nod towards similarly structured movies as Rashomon whereupon there is an effort made to give the same story many different view points. A very brave effort which doesnt quite manage to work. This is in part due to the fact that a very promising opening set-up is cut very short, which is a great shame as it was looking to be a really good exploration of what people do in times of crisis. That appraoch is thrown away when the real truth of events comes to life. This gives a very shallow emotional depth to the film and when charcters begin to die there is no attachment, one and possibly even two of the depths are even very risible and the scope for really shocking psychology is over before you are even aware of it.

In attempt to make the audiences head spin as to what went wrong and who did what we are instead left there saying to ourselves, 'yep, i saw that coming'. It does all becoming very predictable and by the end you are applauding yourself and thinking you could have wrote this yourself. That isn't to say that the director doesn't give us our fair share of clench the seat moments. On top of that there is a really good performance from the ever improving Birch who displays a near perfect Toff's accent.

All this is undermined by the dramatic shaping and atmospheric qualities of the movie which in one last bid for cult status throws in an ending in the hope of people terming it this years sixth sense, and shocking the audience with its ingenuity, it doesn't work and makes you wonder whether or not the film has even ended when it has.

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Childrens film for adults alike

[9/10 · 19 February 2000]

The greatness and superiority of Disney is very obvious when watching a movie which has as much class as Toy Story 2. Everyone has seen the first film and opinion was that it couldn't really be stretched and that what made it so good was the novelty. It was a good movie, but good because it surprised the audience with the technology. Things are different in No.2. John Lassetter has made a movie which can rank alongside any other great movie seen in the last 100 years. There is still the cleverness which can be expressed by saying 'this was done on computer' but ahead of all of that is a great childrens story with enough humour and class about it to impress adults as well. I will not discuss the premise as it is hardly Sherlock Holmes, but I will tell you assuredly that for 75% of this movie you will have a smile on your face and a laugh in your belly. They have definetely moved things along a little with the technology as well, so much so that human characters look real and halfway through the film you could swear that the toys are as well. The script is very clever and has similar brilliant one-liners as the first. this truly is the future. Actors who don't need 20 million a movie. Crew working for their art. And a movie which is out to, very simply, entertain. Toy Story 2 cannot be bettered as a movie, and though a better film will come along, this will always rank as a major point in the history of cinema, bigger than the first.

The Bachelor (1999)

A 'Nice' film

[7/10 · 15 February 2000]

It is very much a nice romantic comedy, with its heart in the right place. This isn't attempting to stretch any cinematic boundaries or win oscars it is simply a well done re-make of a good old fashioned tale of love. I have always looked upon Chris O'Donnell as a very charmless actor but he gives his pretty boy features a good acting test and comes across as a very likeable hero. Zellewegger doesn't have much comic flair but has done no damage whatsoever to her 'Meg Ryan' to be career and with a few spots of clever relationship humour and a few spots of genuine hilarity this film is the perfect couples picture.

The End of the Affair (1999)

A shallow story of love.....

[7/10 · 12 February 2000]

Neil Jordan has a diverse manner in his direction of motion pictures, and as evident in The End of The Affair, it is a rather clumsy one. Sure enough this a high quality motion picture, particluarly in the acting of the three leads, as well as most of what there is of a supporting cast. The problem is the depth of the movie and story with which we are presented. Graham Greenes novel is a classic and has epical qualities as did The vampire Chronicles (Interview), but in Jordan's transition from paper to screen, certain things are lost. The movie comes across less of an event and more of a story, he seems to have spent a lot of time condensing the written material into pastiches of the novels content. He rather chops away at certain parts. I am not saying that if he had made a longer movie out of it then it would solve things but as evident in most of Anthony Minghella's and Frank Darabont's work, modern epics do need to have the sweeping quality of the Lawrence of Arabia and other David Lean pictures.

Perhaps he is uncomfortable with padding what he would feel to be a 'nice' love story. With added sub-plotting the movie would have naturally looked more comfortable with being lengthy. The only possible areas for this happening would have been in the character of Parkiss. There is certainly more to be explored there. Mainly thanks to the out-standing performance of Ian Hart, who has a very underrated role in british cinema. His scenes are all with Fiennes and maybe this would put him in the market for more mainstream roles. Fiennes himself is excellent and the love scenes with Moore have a definite chemistry. Stephen rea is always capable of giving a character an emotional twist and he does so again with a lumbered drool. Jordan's direction is by no means bad and he proves once again that he can cross genres with ease. Overall a very good movie which gives a difficult message about love which the majority may not understand.

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

Special effects laden tosh!

[3/10 · 9 February 2000]

Geoffrey Rush is obviously out to prove something. Perhaps it is that because he is such a good actor he can go and make any movie he wishes. He is sorely mistaken.

House on Haunted Hill is a movie of very little appeal and made with very slight intelligence. Some movies can be as bad as this but still stick in your mind for some good things. I'm sorry to say but that just isn't going to be the case with this. Even as an excuse to show off special effects it appears very laboured.

The original movie was eery and all about atmosphere. This is simply about shock tactics. there is absolutley no structure or relevancy to the actiuon. One scene just simply does not link to the next. Characters are simply introduced with a 'Hi, I'm me' approach. There are no backgrounds or reality to them at all.

The whole experience just seems very empty and transparent.

From the opening scene you just know that this ain't gonna be an enjoyable experience.

The one brief glimpse of worthiness in the film is Chris Kattan, who brings a comical edge to what is a laughable film.

American Beauty (1999)

Movie of a lifetime......

[10/10 · 5 February 2000]

With all the hype and word of mouth surrounding this movie it would have been very easy to have gone to see it and then said 'It wasn't as good as everyone made out'. The fact is though, that it actually is, and on a personal level, possibly even better than that. What makes the movie so memorable, above the actual film, was the experience and understanding that this movie is about us. Not many movies can boast that but it was a movie that we can all relate to and all empathise with.

Look Closer, was the tagline for the movie and that is what is needed to experience this film in its true beauty. As well as the surface material which we see on the screenthere is always so much more going on outside of the action. There is such a continuos motion and speed to the movie that never lets up and this is what life basically is. It keeps going and going and before we know it we have lost so much time. Its the story of an (approaching) middle aged man who realises that he has wasted the last twenty years of his life and so decides that he is going to rectify his mistake and live the way he used to. That is the the story of the central character (Spacey), but what makes this movie so captivating is the numerous subplots which closely link to Spacey and his family. The subplots are not merely drawn in at the beginning of the movie and then resolved at the end. Instead they pop up throughout various stages and then are resolved on a natural timeline. The film cannot be sub-genred, it is far too detailed and unique for it to ever be labelled as a family-drama, or a black-comedy. The thing that the movie most closely represents is a soap-opera. However, should American Beauty and its story be put into a soap it would take a good 4 weeks or so to wrap up everything that happens. That is the films main strength, it does not lose itself amidst the mass of story which is taking place. The action is very sudden and the timescale realistic. Before you know it the end is upon you. The cast is fairly impeccable. Spacey can always be relied upon to give a solid performance, but this is his best work, probably ever. He illuminates off the screen and empowers every scene he is in. They say that the hardest roles to play are normal people and that is where the triumph is. He makes a normal person seem very real. Annette Benning plays off Spacey so well and leaves us wondering whether they are actually married. Chriss Cooper has a small but perfectly acted role and then there are the youngsters. Mena Suvari and Thora Birch play off each other with great naturalism and make their relationship very emotive. Then there is wes Bentley, a relative new-comer but a definite star for the future. His role maybe a close representation of him but the beauty he brings to the film is worth the two hours alone.

Look Closer but by all means just look.

Angela's Ashes (1999)

Great acting in true story

[7/10 · 31 January 2000]

Angelas ashes gives examples of some of the best acting you are likely to see in a movie this year (2000). Each cast member should hold their heads high and be very proud to have been a part of this movie. Michael Legge is brilliant as the older Frank and Robert Carlyle proves that he can do no wrong in the cinema world. Carlyle has this amazing ability to pick up an accent and keep it through-out a movie.

The book was basically memoirs and yet the movie tries to string together a story rather than showing someones experience. The title may make the viewer think that it is about Angela but the whole film is Frank and thanks to the three actors who share the role he comes across as a real person. Once again though praise must be heaped upon Carlyle as his alcohol infused character comes off the screen and into the viewers hearts.

The only let down is Parker, we know he likes making in-depth studies of life and more often than not his films need their enormous running time in order to seem complete. Angelas Ashes is different in many ways. There is the thought that maybe the film could have been longer as certain areas appear to have had huge chunks ripped out but on the other hand a lot of characters are introduced that make us wonder exactly why they are there.

The final diagnoses is that this is definetely a movie which is worthwhile viewing. It maybe a little long bit it is cetainly not over-long or unnecessarily long. There are noparts where it sags or loses pace and due to some great acting the whole experience seems very REAL.

Double Jeopardy (1999)

Double Jeopardy but singularly boring.....

[5/10 · 30 January 2000]

Double Jeopardy is just a film. Thats it it simply makes up the cinema numbers.

"What shall we watch if that Sixth Sense movie is sold out?" "We'll watch that Jeopardy movie, the trailer looked good."

The formula is so simple and being that the whole plot was given away in the trailer there was no surprises, twists or plotting which would come as a surprise.

The film itself was structured with 10 minute flashes of action which takes us from one place to the next. Beginning, demise, prison, then so on and so forth. There is no flow or equilibirity to the telling of the story.

Ashley Judd is given the lead role in an industry where women are continually complaining about equality, and then no soonerhave we settled down to watch this womens plight then they introduce a male lead who takes up the pro-ceeding action. Less of a double act and more of a two pronged attack, the predictable plot and dialogue begin to annoy you as you second guess whats about to happen. More often than not we are correct with what is going to happen.

When you begin thinking about the film in your head rather than thinking about the film on the screen it means that attention is lost.

There are a few moments of cleverness, in Jeopardy but the fact is there is no indivuality to the piece. Cardboard characters and set pieces, which almost anyone can imitate are all that we are shown and maybe a revenge movie with a lead female charcter would have been a better end result.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

If all that hype had never happened

[8/10 · 28 January 2000]

If all that hype had never happened and we had the privilege of watching this movie completely free of thought or conciusness. I envy my sister, she saw this movie not knowing anything of the hype. After she watched it she thought it was all real and was traumatised. I had not the pleasure but the brilliance of this film was still apparent. Sure this is a one-off movie which can never be bettered if imitated but this is without doubt the film of a generation. All those blood-scary movies we watched as kids where the thought of seeing Jason killing the women with a shovel are gone, the scare is in your mind not in your sight. It will never be bettered and doesn't deserve to be. Its like Hitchcock always said. Its not the bang that scares the audience, its the anticipation of it.

This film is the breathing metaphor of that statement.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

Cage powers in Scorcese Masterpiece

[8/10 · 28 January 2000]

Nicholas Cage proves that he is about the art of acting and making worthwhile movies. He went through that bout of making knock-about action movies, but in Scorcese's dynamic tale of 48 hours of soul-searching Cage shows his talent. Mixed in with great performances from the rest of the cast Cage holds his hand up for a possible oscar nomination in the role of a haunted paramedic. Scorcese's movie is a difficult concept and very un-nerving. Particularly Tom Sizemores role. The ludicrousy of his act is made to fit perfectly into scale of the onslaught which is witnessed. Scorcese's camera is once again roving with weird angles and peculiar editing techniques. This is his style and emphasises once again that he is the only modern day director to dare push boundaries. Whether they work or not its breath-taking to watch. Memorable.

American Pie (1999)

I'll have another slice

[8/10 · 28 January 2000]

This is a fim which doesn't try to prove anything except that laughter is very good for the soul. The writing is slick and although oscars may not be winging their way to the movie, fans will be. Some memorable lines which kids all across the world will be quoting. Little more can be said as there is no structure to the genius. The acting is great particlularly Chris Klein, the running time perfect and the overall mood is sweet. Just like American Pie.

The Matrix (1999)

The first twenty-first century movie....

[8/10 · 28 January 2000]

The diversity of the brothers Wachowski is quite incredible. Almost trying to prove that it takes no talent to make the same film over and over again (Spielberg?). They go from Bound to this. Bound being a lesbian film-noir, Matrix being a movie which is sure to be imitated as we go technology crazy in the C21. Putting Keanu in a high budget, special-effects laden vision of the future (or the present) may have seemed like a big gamble. Keanu had been making stinkers for a long time and had yet proved he had a real talent or box-office pull. Yet they have placed him in position of what must have been a hard fought for role. Then having seen Keanu as Neo, it is impossible to imagine anyone else being the computer nerd of the future. It may not be a real role of emotional stretch but these are often the hardest ones to bring life to. Keanu manages it and has also cemented his place on the Hollywood A-List.

It is an action movie, for sure. Let that not distract you though. The action is there and also the possibility that effects can over-shadow the ability this movie has to affect. A vision of the vision as bleak as this has been shown before but this movie really does give you the potential to believe that we are already living the future.

The plot may be a little confusing but the pace of the adventure doesn't try to throw the plot out the window. For effects fans, as well as entertainment seekers alike this movie tells us that the future of Keanu as well as the Brothers Wachowski is very bright indeed.

There's Something About Mary (1998)

A love it or hate it movie........

[7/10 · 28 January 2000]

Thats the way the world is unfortunately. There are two types of people those who love movies like this beacuse they are very funny and those who don't because they have a manner which means they have to look for problems wherever they look (Read politicians, minority groups). There really is no need to go and see a movie like this if you want to come out and complain. You've seen their previous movies, don't buy a ticket. The deal with the Farrellys is that they understand that if something is funny then it should be laughed at. Someone falls over, laugh. Don't go and help him up. Mary has the ability to make the viewer laugh. More than once and more frequently than not. In my opinion that makes a comedy a good comedy. I truly believe that you stick any old actors into brilliant material and situations as are in mary then you will laugh. That being said though the ensemble really do pull together and play off each other to startling effect and even the Farrelly regulars have some great moments. Lee Evans in particular has broken America and looks to have a bright future ahead of him in film. Stiller is Stellar and Diaz a bombshell once more. Even Matt Dillon proves 'I can do comedy'.

Cutthroat Island (1995)

Swashbuckle, bam thank you Finnish Man

[6/10 · 28 January 2000]

Renny Harlin should have put a little note before the film starts. It should have read 'This is an action movie, enjoy!'. If that was there then the audience could have put expectations aside and enjoyed two hours of action which evokes memories of the memorable Errol Flynn swashbucklers which 'they just don't make anymore'. This really is a right old enjoyable knockabout, and sure it maybe a touch overlong but thats only because Harlin thought it would be nice to conclude what there was of the plot. The fact is this wasn't meant to be a momentous morale story. Its a piece of entertainment and it does entertain.

Thelma and Louise is a better film but I'd choose this over that anyday. Two hours of pure adrenalin.

Digby: The Biggest Dog in the World (1973)

Children will love it, and maybe you will.

[6/10 · 28 January 2000]

This is one of those movies that evokes all the childhood memories. I still remember viewing this and as a kid and watching it recently it held its greatness. Sure it is a little silly. OK, a lot. That matters not though, big animals and the hysterics they cause may have been the stuff of 1950 B-Movies but it makes for a right old adventure as Digby becomes massive and wreaks havoc across the country. The special effects are obviously terrible but that all adds to the nostalgia, as does Spike Milligan. Above all else this is a slice of british history. Even from the subtleties of them eating breakfast in a british cafe, or the old cars. This is a hark back to a time when british were proud and the movies were innocent.