Change Your Image
theshape79
Reviews
Ringu (1998)
Its as good as most say it is, but not the greatest.
Contains Spoiler I have to say I don't see why more people don't like this movie. All these posts saying that the film bored them to sleep, or that it wasn't really scary at all perplex the hell out of me. Ringu in my opinion was one of the most intense horror films I had seen for a long time, all thanks to a director who deserves more attention than some that are currently recieving it. What makes Ringu so intense is the combination of dark images, with one of the creepiest soundtracks in recent memory. Sure everyone can agree that the image of Sadako emerging from the television is scary, but with the inclusion of a sound like nails on a chalkboard to me everything was intensified. This is what the remake failed to understand for the most part( although this version does overdo it a bit with the creepy music, scary image shock. Sadako emerging from TV good, Reiko's picture distortion a little too much) opting for beautiful haunting images, and a good score from Hans Zimmer. Another plus is the thought of what is seen offscreen. For example when Reiko sees the Man with the Shrouded head reflected at the end of the film, or the image of Sadako in the television after the tape is first viewed, these are moments that work better than just a blur on a screen that the remake presents to the viewer. Another thing that amazes me about Ringu is that the story never loses control of itself like the remake does. Scenes like Ryuji's psychic visions, or the contents of the tape itself seem perfectly logical to the narrative. This can't really be said of the overly long video tape, the weird horse death scene, or Brian Cox's suicide in the remake. Oh and by the way the kid is less annoying in this film. The filmmakers here didn't saddle an eight year old with deep philosophical quotes that sound as corny as Maize. That just brings back to many painful Episode One memories (Are you an angel?) All is not well though. Even though it was perfectly logical the Ryuji tough guy act and Reiko scaredy cat act got on my nerves. Sure it fits with the characters and their professions, but I like the remakes use of the two characters better. Also better was the setup for the ending, which just sort of happens in this one. In the remake I liked the false pretense (Even though I already new what was to come) that Noah and Rachel were going to get back together and be a happy family with Aiden. And that moment (where it should have ended) where Rachel turns the chair around, priceless. Also disturbing was the fact that Reiko chooses to show the tape to her father to save Yoichi. Knowing who she going to show the tape to sounds mean since its her own father, even if it does set up the sequel in Ringu 2. Still a great flick, worth watching if you don't get annoyed when people in different countries actually speak in their native languages. I've heard too many complaints from people who didn't want to see it because its a foreign film.
Gangs of New York (2002)
One little thing keeps the movie from greatness.
Even after being withheld from the viewing audience for so long I was ready to give this movie the benefit of the doubt. Everything was clicking into place for the material to astound me. The costuming and cinematography were brilliant, the sets built by hand amazing, and the actors put on performances of a lifetime. The story was even involving despite the time old revenge thy family cliche. But then the movie got hit in the face by the romantic subplot. Theres nothing truthfully wrong with most of the romantic scenes in the film. There are the good scenes like Jennie nursing Amsterdam back to health after his mauling by Bill, or Amsterdams reaction to Bills little display of Knife Throwing using Jennie as his assisstant. But when the first scene started and the two began to bicker with each other, I knew exactly where this was headed; Jennie used to be Bill's girl!!! And suprise suprise Amsterdam some how becomes pigheaded in his treatment of her until one night of passionate lovemaking. To me if both of these plot points had been left out for more convential scenes of the two falling in love, the romance would have been a little less hard to swallow. As it is whenever Dicaprio and Diaz began bickering on the screen, I began to nod off in my chair.
As for the rest of the movie though, Scorecesse has directed the film which should definitely be up for the running in the best picture category this year. Everything mentioned before under his watchful eye smacks of perfectionism. The history while disjointed from the great book, is noticably applied in scenes. While no review would be complete with out mentioning Daniel Day-Lewis's brilliant portrail as Bill the Butcher. If he was not nominated this year for some kind of award, then it proves every single award for film is a sham.
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)
Oh why, why did I waste my free Blockbuster rental on this.
Three Signs that a movie should never have been made BY: Theshape79
Sign #1: When the movie is released everyone mistakes the movie as being based upon a game that was released a year earlier to coincide with the original release date of the movie. Upon the new release a so called sequel is released to coincide with the movie, even though people still believe the movie is based on a gameboy advanced FPS.
Sign #2: The aptly named Kaos proves that his name applies both to onscreen action and onscreen story. No one scene or plot revelation makes any sense, causing the viewer to scratch his head in befuddlement (thats a word look it up!) The story then drags the onscreen action down with due to a director who uses too many explosions, too many slow motion gunshots, and too much damn techno music. (Personal note, onscreen action should be hard and tough, not the musical that goes with it)
Sign #3: Lucy Liu would seem far more interesting in a movie about her opening a jar of pickles. However hard this may seem she seems absolutely bored in this movie and it only add to the boredom of the movie. Even if she stripped naked and started cavorting in front of the cameras (Mental brain freeze occurs) it could not save what is at the core a severely dead movie that plods from plot hole to plot hole.
Signs (2002)
Not really scary, but better than some suggest.
I can't really understand why people seem to think this movie was so scary. Yeah theres an intensity to certain scenes, and some scenes have a certain atmosphere that adds to the intensity, but all in all theres nothing really jump out of my seat scary. Alien hands all of the sudden popping out from behind grates and underneath doors aren't scary. Dogs barking aren't scary. The only thing mildly scary (meaning that again something adds to a creepy atmosphere) are the aliens speaking. Besides the fact that the movie wasn't scary, I found most of it so well made it held my attention throughout. I liked the little facts that the writer/director shows us about the family and the affects tragedy that they have suffered from affecting them through the movie. I liked Mel Gibson, a stoic tough guy actor in American movies, reluctance to use profanity to scare off prowlers in the night. I like the adults interaction with the children. And the little things the kids do that make them fun to watch. And I especially like the fact that this is an alien invasion movie seen from one perspective, not some Hollywood sized Independence Day style epic with multiple big names phoning in performances whilst doing battle with aliens in what can only be described as scenes that wish they could be from Star Wars. Thats an interesting side to the story that intrigued me, even though it adds to a possible plot hole in the storyline. Throughout the movie there are no scenes of ruined desicated cities are huge alien armies. The only time we really know the aliens are attacking is when they surround the house and we can hear them instead of seeing them. That scene in particular is one the more intense scenes that the film can muster, and truly involve me as a viewer. One more note though, is the fact of faith in the movie. I know its interesting to have someone examining his faith during a time as portrayed, but doe it have to reach the level of sermonizing that it reaches in this particular film. When these scenes occur it really drags down the proccedings and puts a damper on the fun of the film.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Hopefully an extended DVD edition will improve upon the flaws...
...mainly that characters took a back seat to action and special effects to the follow up. Not once in this film did I get involved with the plight of any human characters in this film unlike the first one which provided ample characterization. Its almost like every critic who said that Fellowship was too long and boring was listened to. Action was piled upon action upon action leaving scenes like Theoden crying over the grave of his recently dead son, or Wormtongue's obsession of Eoeowyn unexamined. Scenes like Legolas predicting doom at Helms Deep or the death of Haldir amongst the fallen elves had little of the impact that it should have had. Even Christopher Lee who was very effective in FOTR was given little if nothing to do in this film. The only character I had any interest in watching was the CGI Gollum who with the combination of Andy Serkis's performance, writing, and computer wizardry turned out to be the best actor in the movie. Just watch the Spiderman like scene where he argues with himself over betraying Sam and Frodo, or the one after he is captured by Faramir and try to tell me any of the characters showed that much depth. I didn't see any. If Jackson is smart he will provide a different extended cut which builds upon the characters instead of the action sequences. Well to take a breath from my complaints, I still did enjoy the film. There is a lot of good action to be had throughout the film, including the use of Warg riders of Isengard, and the eventual attack upon Helms Deep. Of special note is the use of Gimli who effectively lightened the procedings just a bit, with some injection of humor. The visuals are still spectacular, with the attack on Isengard by the Ents a standout, or of course thousands of types of Uruk-Hai and Orks that are sent from Isengard, with special mention of the towering Oliphaunts who carry giant fortresses on their backs. The camerawork by Andrew Lesnie still impresses me. While the score is good, not as great and memorable as the first one. And the acting is generally good throughout with new standouts being Bernard Hill(Still the most overlooked actor in Titanic) and a particularly slimy turn from Brad Dourif as Wormtongue. One more small complaint, is anyone else tired of seeing huge amazing action sequences intercut with the most boring scenes imaginable. I hated it in Attack of The Clones, and even more so here since they cut back and forth with the confrence of the Ents. Thats a good idea wasn't it; huge dramatic battle, then a meeting between tree, back to huge amazing battle. And did anyone else kind of laugh( even thogh I guess they did show Rohan's hopelessness against Isengard ) the scenes where young boys no younger than eleven readying for battle against the six foot tall, massively buitlt uruk-hai. Now thats an action sequence I wouldn't want to see.
The Ring (2002)
Good if a little clashing in its personality.
I was almost ready to totally fall in love with this surreal fright fest. It has a lot going for it in its cold visual style, assured performances, and a story that is already begining to be copied by lesser American Films (I do admit the fact that I make that statement in reference to a lesser American Remake of supposedly superior original) But in the last ten minutes alone a couple of things began to pop out in my mind. Take for instance the fact that they make a message about parents not truly taking part in the lives of their children. Sure this might have been a part of the Japanese film, that I must admit I have not viewed but wish to see even more after seeing this version. But its hollow and reasonably foul to a story that was so cold dark and forboding. Another thing is what I shall now call the Vanilla Sky syndrome, the fact that American remakes of small foreign films feel the need to explain everything down to the most minor of details. Sure this film left some plot points more ambiguous but it helps add to the general creepiness of the experience in my opinion. Thats truly the only quibbles I had with this otherwise solid thriller. The look is great mixing some bastardized Japanese vision with that of any David Fincher film. The use of images from the cursed video and the race to find out the meanings of those images kept me entertained. Another thing to comment on was the PG-13 rating. Unlike lesser films this sort of benefits to mood of the piece, usually showing quick gory glances of Samara's victims than sustaing a shot is interesting. All in all a good film for a season which will probably soon be flooding in a pool of crap that the horror genre is usually associated with. Now lets hope American fans can get a legitimate release of the Japanese film on DVD. I hear the director of the original is miffed that it hasn't been released yet in America.
Le pacte des loups (2001)
Interesting Mix, but it loses shape at the end.
After all the mixed reactions of Brotherhood of the Wolf, I was glad to finally see one of the most interesting films of 2001. Is it perfect, no, but then what film truly is under the scrutiny of the eyes of the worlds population. The first thing it seems I have to comment in on is the fighting, since eighteenth century French Nobleman having the fighting skills of a less talented Donnie Yen is weird for some. Personally I felt that the director might be tired of generic action scenes that clutter movies like these. The scenes themselves aren't as intrusive as one might believe, and don't achieve the epic grandeur of fights like those found in the Once Upon A Time in China films. The story itself is a minor disappointment. The first half of this long film is perhaps the best half with its hunts, courtings, and of course maulings. Its a tight well told, fun horror adventure conspiracy yarn that kept me entertained throughout. But then the second half rolls around, and thats where I thought the film started to lag a little. Not enough to hurt my enjoyment, but as soon as the monster attacks Gregoire and Marriane at the house it looses some type of story element that held the first half together for me. Next are the actors who didn't really seem all that bad to me. Even Mark Dacassos who I've never really watched in his American films has some type of magnetism that he lacks in roles. In fact the only problem other than the story that I really wanted to quibble with was the beast itself. When its finally revealed after several clever attacks, I myself began to wonder what the hell it really was with its spiny back, and head that looks like a Triceratops head with religious symbols carved into it. Was it a lion brought back from Africa and made to look more spooky by the cult. Or was that how Christophe Gans inteded it to be. Whatever the answer it dosen't diminish my appreciation for this fun movie.
Behind Enemy Lines (2001)
Be smart if you like no-brainer action flicks, and rent this.
I must admit, maybe I had too much in my hopes for this flick. The trailer made it seem interesting, it had actors I respected, and lets face it I wanted to see some good old American's triumphing over evildoers. Now if that sounds like I enjoy stupid action flick, trust me I do. Cliffhanger and Broken Arrow sit on top of my guilty pleasures list. But there comes a time when I just have to draw a line at how much stupidity I can take, and Behind Enemy Lines takes the cake in that department. It is without the doubt the stupidest, loudest, lamest excuse for a popcorn flick I've ever seen. The story which at first seems to want to make a serious statement on American intervention in foreign wars slowly degrades into a chase film of the lamest kind. Not only do you get the tried and true villians suffering from can'thitthebroadsideofabarnitis, but the film ramps up the morallizing in the last half where most of the time is spent disobeying orders and flying illegaly into a foreign land and rescuing Wilson. Theres even another annoying subplot involving said character wanting to resign from the navy because he feels that he isn't doing enough good to make a difference? Can you guess what happens in the end. For those with the eyes of hawks who have seen the Dennis Quaid film Savior, look closely at the massacre flashback scene and tell me if those people or the footage itself looks vaguely familiar. Next annoyance are the action sequences themselves, which are cranked up so much, and over edited to be mind boggling. Its not enough that the action is sped up but the director seems to think that shaking the camera alot will add to the suspense. Shall I even go into the scene where Wilson having donned the garb of an enemy soldier valliantly walks past the enemy soldiers, then not ten feet away unmasks and starts to run away. No wonder none of those guys can shoot him if they don't see his unmasked persona running from them. And dont even let me go into the scene where Wilson runs through a mine field setting off explosions left and right without a recieving a scratch while three soldiers are blown to smithereens. Does the movie have a redeeming quality? I do think so. If anything is good its the performances by Owen Wilson and Vladimir Mashkov. Wilson seems to have this every man way that suits his character more than if he had been played by a muscular action film hero. And Mashkov's tracker seems to be one of the cooler action villians I've seen. He speaks when he needs to, but most of the time is quiet and remorseless which sets his character apart from the usual loud obnoxious villians we're used to seeing in films like these. Folks do yourself a favor. Theres a film out on video and DVD now called No Mans Land. Its a thousand times better, with great characters, and story that depresses the viewer only because the subject isn't one for a happy ending. Personally I felt depressed after renting this because I had been suckered into renting it.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Provides a great reason to read the book.
Author Mark Bowden in a recent interview said his initial reason upon writing the first draft the script for Black Hawk Down was to at least make it good enough to sell another million copies of his book, which in my opinion is one of the greatest non-fiction books on war ever written. After seeing the movie I wouldn't be suprised if he did. Black Hawk Down is a gripping intense war movie that surpasses films like The Thin Red Line, and Saving Private Ryan. It takes its time showing the battle of Mogadishu from both sides of the conflict. One of its strengths is in showing the preparations of the Adid militia in readying for the oncoming battle to the foibles of the American soldiers who thought the operation to capture two of Adids top men would be a simple operation only lasting half an hour. Every action is plotted in minute detail making the battle seem more like a chess match. Its scenes like a soldier bleeding to death from a wound in his leg to the heroic actions of two delta team snipers that end up costing them they're lives that make the film so much more than a typical war movie. These were real people and these events really happened. Unlike films like Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gates, which had largely ficional stories surrounded by true stories you can't help but be amazed at this film. If theres anything I can criticize, I think the film feels somewhat incomplete. A major concern voiced by critics is the lack of showing the motives of the Somalians which is why some have called it a racist movie. As the book took some time to give you a feel of why the Somalians would attack men sent to help them, little or no information is given in this respect. While that hurts the story, I will defend the film in the fact that not all Somalians are shown as vicious blood thirsty savages. You the viewer should make your own decisions on this subject. Another problem is that the film feels somewhat incomplete because of the addition of two scenes. It feels like it wants to show you the aftermath of the battle but instead ends it without providing any resolution to the scenes other than a post script at the end of the movie. Other than these few minor details everything else is spot on from the performances ( Australian Eric Bana is a standout as is Josh Hartnet who overcomes any stumbles he took with Pearl Harbor ) to the production itself. As I was leaving the movie, I heard a teenager ask his father what the moral of the story was. It seems he found the movie bloody and pointless. If I was the father I would have made the son read the book before asking that question. That way at least he would have had some understanding of what is one of the best films this year.
Get Carter (1971)
Did they actually try and remake this one.
After viewing the 2000 remake of this gangster film classic I decided to invest more time with the original( Which I had never seen ) since as a rule the original is always more superior to any remake. What I found was a film that is more consistently violent, grim, and most unpleasing to those who enter expecting something along the lines of Payback. Make no mistake this is a hardcore badass crime movie that dosen't soften the supposed bad/good guy like Payback or Stallone's remake of Get Carter did. Everyone who crosses him dies a most painful way, and he's not afraid of hurting innocent bystanders either. And I even liked the fact that the movie wasn't afraid to kill off its protagonist in the end as most big budget blockbusters tend to shy away from these days. See this movie if you were sickened by Stallones Carter remake ( or shall I say over-bugeted music video {kinda like Pearl Harbor}) see this one. Just don't expect to be overly happy at the end.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Michael Bay should not have directed this.
Let me begin my comments on Pearl Harbor by saying this could have been a good movie if it weren't for Michael Bay. Now I have nothing against Michael Bay. I believe he is capable of directing fun, excitingly big stupid movies. But should a film detailing an infamous attack where thousands of Americans be big and stupid. No. Bay is just not the type of director that should be directing an epic picture of this scale. In my opinion Pearl Harbor could have been much more. There are scenes here that in a better directors hands could have been staged differently and perhaps more succesfully. A better director might have eliminated the cliche riddled plot, and axed the mundane storyline. He might have hired better actors or at least helped the ones he had into crafting a skilled performance. As I see it a movie detailing the attack on Pearl Harbor all the way up to the famous raid by General James Dolittle would be a very interesting movie indeed. But the problem lies with Bay and him alone. Its the way he directs. Scenes are too short that should be long. There isn't enough time to flesh out characters that are interesting, and with the fact that the three you have are about as interesting as a fly on a windowsill, thats a bad thing. Even the Japanese should be more insulted by this tripe since they are shown to be bloodthirsty war mongers who only wish to attack America so they can continue raiding China unabated. The only interesting character I found in the movie was a dog aboard one of the destroyers. This movie feels more like a three hour music video instead of an epic the size of The Longest Day, or The Godfather. If you should even be interested in the least of seeing this, be smart and do like I did; rent the DVD. That way you can at least skip to the battle scene (the only thing Bay seems able to do right) The only qualm I had with this is one bad special effects shot that shows planes that look the size of model air planes zooming by the sinking ships, and the fact that the overall feel of the scene made it feel like Independence Day, which dosen't really show any respect for an event of this magnitude.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Great movie, but wheres Peeve's?
I have to say this movie utterly left me flabbergasted. Not having read J. K. Rowlings immensly popular novels, and ignoring the jeers of my friends I went to see this movie with small expectations and returned a huge fan of Harry Potter. Where to begin with what the movie does right. First off is the casting of only British actors especially in the leading roles. To me thinking of some American actor stumbling around as Potter or Granger faking a British accent would have been just terrible. Thankfully Chris Columbus who seems to be the last person I would be praising after Nine Months, decided to steer off from that Hollywood movie machine idea. And speaking of the actors, they all do a wonderful job fleshing out the characters especially the young leads. Daniel Radcliffe finds just the right note making Harry Potter a character every audience member can envy and cheer at the same time time. Emma Watson plays the feisty Hermione Granger almost exactly as she is written in the book with that little bit of tartness I think most young girls have at that age( at least my sister does anyway.) Tom Felton hits just the right note of pure arrogance and prissyness as Draco Malfoy that you just want some to stand up and slap him during the movie. And Rupert Grint has fun delivering some of the funniest lines in the movie while also becoming equally as heroic as his two counterparts when the time calls for it. As for their older counterparts, they all play to greater range than would usually be called for in a movie of this type. Richard Harris is a standout as headmaster Albus Dumbeldore and Maggie Smith shines as Minerva McGonagle. Their not acting because their grandchildren are fans of the books, their in the movie because they believe in what they are performing. Another thing to note is Hogwarts itself. Everything is set to the screen amazingly intricate detail from the great hall to some of the classrooms themselves. Of special note, one of my favorite parts from the book is also one of the best set designs in recent memory, the huge wizard's chess board under Hogwarts. I also liked the fact that they didn't point out most of the special effects (i.e. ghosts, and moving pictures.) Some of these add too the visual flair of Hogwart's while enhancing the overall setting. When they do focus on special effects some are grand and exciting like the quidditch match (WOW) while others just fail to impress like Fluffy the three headed dog. Another thing, and this is very minor mind you is the exclusion of Peeves the poltergeist. As I found him to be one of the funner characters I wish they could have added him somewhere in the movie. Perhaps in one of the scenes involving Harry and his friends sneaking around the school at night while being followed by Mr. Filch the schools caretaker, he could have popped up. Maybe? Anyway thats just a small complaint to an otherwise terrific film. Sure its long, but trust me its well worth the price of the ticket. Take the kids, they might have as much fun as you will watching it.
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Absolutely the most satisfying movie I've seen this year.
Sure its not the greatest movie I've seen this year, but unlike movies I've left feeling they could have done better on, I left Monsters Inc. feeling happy. Maybe it was the charm of Boo, or Billy Crystal and John Goodman's chemistry, it just all seemed to click for me. I like the way Waznowski and Sulley disguise little boo as monster. I like the fact that monsters need screams to power their gigantic city. I love everything about the movie. It was just utterly charming.
Band of Brothers (2001)
Definitely at the top of my list for one of the best shows produced for television.
I didn't really want to comment on the show like others did, until it was actually concluded. Now that the show finished last night all I can think to say is Wow! This has truly been one of the best things I have ever seen produced for any format of entertainment, except novel since historian Stephen Ambrose fills in a lot more information that the series just couldn't handle. Every actor from Damian Lewis to the man who played Private Hall in the first episode performed admirably. Of special interest is Lewis who's character really matures as the show progresses, Ron Livingston who in episode nine loses some of the cockiness that his character Nixon exhibits throughout the show, Matthew Settle who plays the intimidating Capt. Ronald Speirs just seems to ooze the violent edge the character needs, and Donnie Wahlberg who unlike his brother seems to play more interesting characters. Also of special interest is David Schwimmer as Capt. Herbert Sobel. Even though the character is pretty much a piss ant, there is that one moment after he loses command of the company that you sort of feel sorry for him. Another plus is the production crew who really turned England into four different countries. No one place from Carentan to Bastgone looks like the same country. Another plus is the special effects, which really shine in episode two and four. The night jump on Normandy with the flak exploding around planes and one plane bursting into flames looks as good as anything done for a major film. Also whoever thought of including snippets of interviews with real easy veterans definitely help set the tone for the episodes. A good choice in my opinion. If you haven't seen this show you owe it to yourself to watch any repeat. If you love informative movies about WWII by the DVD Set which will hopefully be released sometime soon. Another thing to note is the documentary which has interviews, film footage, and war time photos of the actuall easy company. I hope its as good as it looks.
The One (2001)
Good Jet Li martial arts action flick.
The One has to be one of the strangest films I've seen this year. Its got a goofy story filled to the brim with some of the oldest cliches ever. Its got confusing characters who just when they're about to develop a personality get moved to the back burner for the action sequences, which a pretty cool actually. And then theres a scene with evil Jet Li screaming " Your're all my bitches! " to a bunch of scraggly looking convicts before beating the hell out of them. To say all, I liked it! Just wish they had focused on developing the script as much as the action sequences.Still its humor was right on, and the action was constant. Fight scenes were choregraphed well especially one I thought was good, the eventual fight scene between the two Li's.
All in all it was better at entertaining me than most of the supposed popcorn flicks over the summer that ended up being total crap.
The Thing (1982)
It scared the hell out me when I was a kid...
, but then again so did the old guy from Poltergeist II. Unlike that flick though, The Thing still manages to hold up in the horror department due largely in my opinion to three things: Its gruesomely creative effects, an eerie and scary setting, and possibly its tense and involving storyline. Hell, it even made Wilfred Brimley scary. Trust me if you like old school horror films, not the overly derivative and boring stalker killing dozens upon dozens of uninteresting teenagers who seem to think sex and booze are the national pass time, pick up the DVD( Like Halloween widescreen is the only way to go to get the true effect of Carpenters film ). You probably wouldn't be disappointed.
The Musketeer (2001)
As you've never seen it before, and hopefully won't see it again.
Now I'm tired of being so negative about movies when I comment on them, but I just thought I'd share my thoughts on whats being billed as the worst adaption of the Dumas classic yet. I kinda liked it. Not in the way a fanboy gloats over a Star Wars film, or in the way someone sees Grave of the Fireflies, and has no intentions of seeing it for a while after the first viewing. It appealed to me on the level that someone might gleefully admit to liking something the likes of The Beach or even (UGH!) Lost in Space. Overall the Peter Hyams direction was more directed at the eye instead of the brain, Xin Xin Xong's choreogrophy was great minus the fight scene at the end which I still get a weird kind of Once Upon a Time in China vibe off of. The actors all seem to be having a fun good ole time dressing up in costumes and playing with sharp pointy weapons ( Minus Justin Chambers who actually made me appreciate what Chris O'donnel brought to the role in the 93 film, and Mena Suvari who can look pouty and cute all she wants its all for nothing if you don't emote. Speaking of which the both of them seem to be reading directly from the script instead of acting.) Thats just some of the stuff I liked. What I hated was Gene Quintano's awful script. Dialouge falls out sounding at times like its in another one of his Police Academy movies while the whole plot of kill the Queen and Lord Buckingham seems to want to be just a sidepoint. Now I know they probably wanted to create something the likes of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or even The Swordsman series. But those are martial arts films based on martial arts novels (forgive me if I've made a mistake in that quote since it is quiet impossible to find either of those books in America.) The Three Musketeers isn't meant to be some silly Martial Arts swordfighting flick, however much you rape it for the movie. It wasn't written by a man who thought to himself" Oh god I hope they get Ching-Siung Tung to direct!" I emplore Hollywood stop raping Dumas. Make something original like you used to do. We don't need another Musketeer's adaption. Still after some of the dreck that we've been spoon fed this year, at least this helping was a little easier to swallow.
Just another thought before I sign off. Before the movie actually started there were trailers for the re-release of Iron Monkey directed by Yuen Wo Ping and Windtalkers directed by John Woo. I just thought that was funny since I was going to see a movie that wanted so much to emulate the style that those films have.
Blood: The Last Vampire (2000)
A good show that leaves the audience wanting more.
What can I say, but I really loved this anime film. All 48 fricking minutes of its short, well made, coolness. The story of what I was able to peace together, involves Saiya some sort of immortal vampire hunter who might just be a vampire herself, even though thats left to the audiences imagination since the bulk of the story involves suspense with well done action sequences. At the start of the film shes sent off by her boss and his cronie to American Air Force base where there seems to be an infiltration from three confirmed vampires. She then sets off to exterminate them while trying to save a school nurse who seems to be the target of the vampires attention. What follows is then is one long sequence that makes up the rest of the film as Saiya and her boss battle the three vampires while trying to save the life of the nurse. Then its over. Just like that. No resolution to little plot details, like the origins of Saiya, or how she came to work for the orginization that she works for. You never really understand the point of the vampires beyond the fact that they're the villians and they bite peoples necks to kill them. Or for that matter why Saiya acts the way she does at the end of the film. Looking back at what I liked about this film, I think I would have to rank this as another digitally animated film from this year, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Unlike that film though, which left the intrigued viewer wanting more from the story. This film just leaves you wanting more story period. The direction, the animation are all top notch high grade stuff. Its just at the end, you leave yourself feeling as this has been nothing more than a well made tech demo. Well I hope its not, since I'm praying for a longer sequel to be made soon.
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
An exciting if slightly flawed WWII Thriller. Spoilers Involved.
Enemy at the Gates proves to be one of the most exciting war films I have ever seen for the fact that it dosen't really focus on the battle of two armies, but of two men who hunt each other down in the bombed out ruins of Stalingrad. The cast throughout is excellent with special mention two the duelists Jude Law, and the great Ed Harris( who was robbed of an award for his performance in Pollock). James Horner provides a rich musical score while William Frassie photographs what I think should be some of the most beautiful images captured on film this year. Also mention should go to Wolf Kroeger who provides a stunning backdrop for the story with his great production design. One of the most amazing things about the movie to me was the fact thats it's focus was centered on the Russians vs. the Germans, something that we rarely see coming from an American film with this caliber of talent involved. But then again its the story of the sniper duel that maintains the focus, and thats where the bulk of the entertainment lies since most other aspects of the battle seem to be a moot point for the filmmakers which also brings the production down a little for major plot point of the film.
Director Annaud tightly raps the audiences attention on the duel ingenuiously heightening the suppense at all the right moments. Of note is a point of film where hiding Russian snipers have blindly walked into the first trap set by German sniper Konning. The trap may be escaped, but time is running out for a flight of bombers have just started a bombing run that appears to be headed straight for them. Another good point leaves Russian sniper Zaitsev stranded in open ground hiding behind a stove, all the while his image is reflected on shards of broken glass for the German sniper to see. Its all very exciting for the film and unfortunately very fictional as I found out after reading William Craig's book. Throughout director Annaud and Goddard make use of several historical facts from the book that are used as mere details. Two details in particular hurt the film. One is the afformentioned romantic triangle. There was romance between Vassili and Tania in real life that could have easily been fitted in the film but the inclusion of Danilov whom also falls in love with Tania is a mistake. It drags part of the story down and feels contrived especially since according to the book he was only a witness to the duel.
Another problem, which was a major one for me was the execution of the boy, Sascha by Major. Koning. As described in Craig's novel, Sascha was a fifteen year old cobbler who was hanged in front of his parents for spying upon the Germans. This is something I find serious not to be toyed with lightly. In the film however it comes near the end that Koning uses the boy then hangs him to draw Vassili out into the open, when he discovers the boy trying to alert Vassili of the Germans plan. This doesn't seem right to me. It also hurts the character of Major Koning who throughout the film seems a noble assassin sent to a task that must be done. After he kills the boy he becomes a monster. It just dosen't fit in with the whole of the movie. Still it is an exciting thriller that should not be missed by war movie fans or for that matter suspense thriller fans. Just don't count on it as a good record of the history of one of the most bloody battles of WWII.
Rush Hour 2 (2001)
Is it good to laugh at the closing credits more than the entire film?
Now this is sad, real sad. I love Jackie Chan and like Chris Tucker. But this movie was just a disappointment. The best things about it were a couple of o.k. action scenes, Zhang Ziyi who I'll like even if she appears in a movie only for a second of film, Jackie Chan who has a funny scene involving his reaction to a female secret service agent, and the credits which were funnier than the rest of the movie combined. The story was a confusing mess( what the hell was up with that whole Carters dead thing during the first ten minutes of the movie? It didn't need to be there if they weren't willing to follow it up and make it last or for that matter funny), Don Cheadle was wasted in a minor cameo as was Kenneth Tsang as Lee's superior, and who could forget Roger Ebert's favorite joke at the craps table involving racial matters. Ebert just forgot to mention the nail in the coffin of an already terrible joke, the use of the " I have a dream! " speach from Martin Luther King. Folks, wait for this one on video. Or rent Drunken Master II which is a better, funnier, more exciting Chan film altogether.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Not as bad as some would make you believe, just not destined to blow an intelligent viewer away.
It should be stated up front, I kind of liked Jurassic Park III. It has more efficient action than the first, and there is no lack of sensible thought like the second film seemed to feature. Its just a good old time at the movies, when films like Pearl Harbor and The Mummy Returns fail to deliver the goods. It has alright acting from such notable actors like Sam Neil to the always dependable William H. Macy, and the screenplay from the writers of Election never fail to deliver jokes that should at least elicit a smile from an audience member(I especially liked the use of Barney the Purple dinosaur for one crucial scene, and the location of a certain sattelite phone that won't stop beeping.) There is also a scene featuring Pteradons that for my money excedes the Dog warriors of Anubis scene in The Mummy Returns. So if your're looking for something fun see crammed in among all the crap thats invaded the theatres this summer, try out Jurassic Park III. Its not that bad.
The Mummy Returns (2001)
Short and Sweet
This movie sucked BIGTIME. Theres my review for all to read, and its coming from someone who enjoyed the first one. This aneurism of a movie takes away all that made the first film such a sleeper hit with me. Gone is the humorous and somewhat quick banter between that showed actors fleshing out underdeveloped characters, to be replaced with the lamest two bit overly dramatic and unrealized crap a writer can think of. Remember that body sucking fatality that the mummy used to kill victims off screen in a sort of Temple of Doom fashion; well its shown here in all its digital glory and what can I say but,No. I can't accept this as being something that shouldn't be shown. Just go back to not showing it so I can have my fun of imagining what its supposed to look like. Theres so many things wrong with this flick I thought I'd talk about to things that I liked. One was the scene involving the little boy pestering his captor by asking Are We There Yet, which went on for about a whole minute before the man was driven insane. That little bit reminded me of what was good in the first one. Another thing was the mummified Pygmies. Those things were so cool and without a doubt the most awesome things in the movie I wish I could recommend it because of them alone. But I cant. Oh and for those supporters of this so called Popcorn Flick, too much butter salt on the popcorn isn't good for you. See the truth, this film is just one long and overly drawn out headache.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)
A slight disappointment with what was overall an exceptional film.
Final Fantasy:The Spirit Within Looks awe inspiring. Lets get that out of the way first. No other film this year can stand toe to toe with its computer generated imagery. In fact no other movie has such a self contained vision as the one in this movie. Throughout the whole film I was completely amazed by sights like the desicated New York City which puts the one in Spielberg's A.I. to shame ( even though that statue underwater as David was sinking did look pretty cool ) or even what I thought was the coolest effect, the soul suck the phantoms perform on their screaming victims.
It seems like the filmmakers know that they have some cool visuals; all throughout the film characters are shown going through even bizzare circumstances than they had at the begining, as if its all to show the artistry of the person behind the computer screen. Heck, before too long you'll start noticing things like the movement of hair, or even the feathers of a bald eagle. In repeat everything looks good!!!! Now if it only sounded just as good. When it comes to story I think thats where the movie falters. Don't get me wrong; everything playing out on the screen is quiet easy to understand if you just listen while you watch. Even particular plot points are handled deftly so as to make them more understandable. Its just the whole story seems better suited to an RPG than a feature length film. Theres little plot details or romances that feel like they're just dumped on an audience instead of explained like they might be in a game. Its as if the story would work better if it were a little longer instead of cutting in to jump right into the action, as a movie unfortunately demands. Now I don't want to sound like I'm totally bashing the film. I'd take this one over all the Super Mario Bros. and Mortal Kombats alike. I just wish they put as much effort into the story as they did the visuals.
Pay It Forward (2000)
I almost thought it was o.k. (spoilers)
After seeing the terrific A.I. this weekend I decided to watch Pay It Forward on Pay Per-View on Haley Joel Osmet's performance alone. For a while I was wrapped up in a simple but interesting story. Osmet of course showed me why he would of been a better canidate for Anakin Skywalker than Jake "Yippe" Lloyd, with acting that is simply impressive for a boy his age. Also excellent were performances from Kevin Spacey as his scarred teacher, Mr. Simonet and Helen Hunt as Osmet's recovering alcoholic mother. This had a chance to be a good film from performances alone. From these three actors I could overlook the run of the mill t.v. movie of the week episodes like the revelation of Mr. Simonet's scars or the return of Jon Bon Jovi as the abusive father. But like A.I. which left audiences with silly happy wrap everything in a nice red bow and present it for audience approval ending, this film just had to go cheese. Watching this reminds me of something I said recently about Spielberg "When your're handed crap by veteran director at least you know your're receiving good crap" which I thought up after viewing The Mummy Returns then seeing The Lost World again for the first time in three years. Who thought it was a good idea to kill off Osmet's character then end the film with a candle light vigil. No, its not. That whole one scene for me felt like Mimi Leder had left Nigel Tufnel in charge of the emotional content of the film, who then dedcided to turn everything up to an eleven blowing any thing useful out of the water with a full blown weep moment. Grave of the Fireflies earns my tears. This just earns my pity.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
What a excellent movie...almost.(Spoilers)
I just got back from seeing A.I. Artifical Intelligence. All I can say is what was Spielberg thinking with that ending. For two hours I sat enraptured by a story surrounded by pure Spielberg Schmaltz, and was loving it until the ending. Did we really need to know David was frozen with Teddy? Did we have to see him two thousand years into the future being unthawed and studied by aliens wishing to learn more about the human race? Personally I thought it an odd choice for a man who has won two academy awards for best director. But it wasn't my movie. Also an odd choice, choosing Chris Rock as the voice of the robot at the flesh fair. Taking what is an evil and disgusting scene with robots tortured and mutilated then adding a wise quipping robot played by Chris Rock just seemed a tad odd for a scene that should have played as a horror scene. But as I said before I did like the movie. Haley Joel Osmet better hope he can keep acting this good as he grows older, because again he excedes expectations and makes what I thought was one of the most endearing sci-fi screen characters. And Francess O'connor who I haven't heard much about also amazed me, especially in the scene where she leaves him in the woods instead of taking him to be destroyed at the robot manufactuer. Kudos should also be given to the Production Crew who create some of the most amazing futuristic landscapes since Blade Runner. But still, that ending was an odd choice.