Reviews

It's sad that Brode's agent let this script get sold to Playboy. It really is. This was supposed to be a legit film at one point. On the other hand, nothing is better (for this viewer) than soft-core pornography and bad acting. And, he did get paid for this. All in all, you can't beat adding a piece of smut to your collection that you helped craft.

Let's see.

No one in the theatre laughed. No one really empathised with Ryan Phillipe. And Tim Robbins is no Bill Gates.

There are a lot of reasons Antitrust was mediocre Yet, I do go in with an open mind, so here's the recap.

To begin, the premise did seem intriguing. It reminded me of the "ripped from the headlines" stories they parlay on "Law and Order." Tim Robbins is this software mogul who steals code from others and turns it into an innovation. In the process, he's been under watch by the Justice Department, a la Bill Gates and their anti-democratic practices. He's trying to create a global communication network called Synapse, which will string together all sorts of information devices. He needs the aid of Ryan Phillipe, a recent com-sci grad from Stanford.

Needless to say Robbins is nothing short of Satan himself and Phillipe crusades to end his tyranny. Now see, I don't really have a problem with this. There are no truly innovative plot lines. Even something as fantastic as "Being John Malkovich" is simply an old philosopher's fancy about consciousness. However, there is always room for perspective and unique presentation that livens a film. Antitrust has none of that. Everything is banal and boring, leaving us neither amused nor enlightened. While the plot may zag a bit, its attempts at cleverness are little more than cheap trickery. In fact, even when we are thrown for a loop it's not done in a logical fashion.

And forget about an aesthetically pleasing look. The film has about one shot that seemed to have art or intellect behind it, while the rest relies on a cheapened computer motif.

The one redeemable quality for those who weren't there because they thought it was "Cruel Intentions 2" might have seen the computer jargon. I, an aspiring cyber-dweeb, revealed in buzzwords like protocol, firewall, shells, and giggled with nerdy delight at the sight of a Linux gooie.

I hate to be so caustic, but when a movie like this is manufactured there is little apology on the producers part. And thus little regret on mine.

Yours in ambivalence, SkS

The concept for Final Destination was a good one. Young kid with clairvoyance cheats death by hopping off a plane before it blows up, then has to avoid death coming back for it's just dues. From there we proceed to watch cast members drop faster than Madonna's pants. The characters were a little underwritten, but the camera work and lighting was done quite well. Our protagonist has a situation similar to a Hitchcock film --- an ordinary man (kid) caught in extraordinary circumstances. The death scenes are fairly elaborate and best of all the killer is the unseen force we all must meet someday. Mix in a cliffhanger ending and we find a thrilling and satisfying movie. I gave it a 7 out of 10.

I recently saw 8MM and I didn't want to go out into the world after it. This was ten times more sadistic than Se7en, maybe on account of the violent pornography but maybe it was just because of the message. Se7en was about "the world is an awful place but worth fighting for." This had two interesting signals: "Evil is a trap you cannot attempt to understand or flirt with" and "Those who are evil do it without motive, it's innate." I heard this had to get cut just to get an R rating and it showed when Nicolas Cage was in porn shops and such, because overall the movie was disturbing. It did delve into the ruining of the mind through this disgusting evil, which gave it some outstanding qualities. However, the kind of evil it explores is not for everyone, as it really runs into the heart of sin and the slums of humanity.

The big critical whining that has centered around Gus Van Sant's Psycho(1998) is the idea that there is no need to remake a practically flawless film. At the outset that seems like the right thinking. Hitchcock's original was a masterful display of sadistic mind games, not to be imitated. However, the imitation here is for a two-fold purpose: To reinterpret the film for a new generation, and to educate those ignorant of the original, ultimately re-igniting Hitchcock's version. Granted, some of the "new interpretations" are a bit risque and grotesque (the masturbation scene, the spider crawling out of a dead corpse's mouth),but this is the 90's; we crave disgust. What Van Sant really does though is take a classic and try to bring it to an audience feeding on $200 million dollar movies about a stupid ship that we know is going to sink. With a touch of 90's roughness, Psycho, the film we all know, gains a mission: education.

This movie ranks high in its genre, 80's teen angst. Its almost "The Graduate" with a few call girls. There is Joel Goodson, the would-be college boy who is nervous about his future because his board scores aren't like his other suburban friends 1500's. One week his parents go away and taking his friends advice of saying, "What the ****?" He starts in with liquor, music, dad's car, and ladies. It's a great depiction of the good student with a little free time and a lot of oat sowing to do before the real world beckons him. Tom Cruise does a good job as the pretentious and idealistic Joel, learning love from the hooker Rebecca De Moirnay, and getting into trouble. I know its a very relative subject for seniors gearing up for college, so its accomplishes it mission as a message film. Overall its **1/2 , doing well in its category, but not appealing to all.

On the AFL's top 100 movies, this one placed twentieth, and deservedly so. It was the brutally real depiction of mental institutions and their inhabitants. Jack Nicholson did a masterful job as the sly criminal who thought a trip to the nut house would shorten his sentence. There is a host of would-be superstars in the movie: Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, Brad Dourif,and other semi-notables. What really brought me aback by the film was the flip in our vision of MacMurphy and "Chief" by the end of the film. It really made me wonder if there was a loose "Of Mice and Men" (John Steinbeck) connection going on. Euthanasia seemed to be suggested and the fact that Chief was much like Lennie made me think a bit...the end result might just be a modern twist.

Although this June is my graduation date, being born in the 80's gives me a sense of cinematic heritage to be proud of: Sixteen Candles holding one of the top honors. Along with Fast Times at Ridgemont High(1982), Ferris Bueller's Day Off(1986), and John Hughes' other teen-comedy The Breakfast Club(1985), Sixteen Candles is the most endearing comedy of that decade. Molly Ringwald was our favorite teen sensation and Anthony Michael Hall proved to fit well as the love-crazed Freshman. It's a very fun movie that characterizes teen life perfectly from the family dinner to the dance scene to the parents-are-away-time-to-party scene. It's a good twist, instead of guy chases girl, the younger sophmore yearns for the senior who is already endowed with a blonde bombshell. He finds a certain keen interest in her after he learns that she likes him(as guys tend to do) and fate starts to pull things together. John Hughes wrote this movie with an all too real teen touch and the warm-heartedness that made audiences applaud it for so many years.

Horror movies had sort of run into a rut before Scream came along with its wit and new take on these predictable films. It is, in the simplest terms, a spoof, (a very scary spoof). But there were two things that made it so good: 1, Everyone was a suspect, 2,The Killer could have been anywhere at anytime. The fact that the audience had to deal with something popping out around every corner and hints at every character being the evil-doer made it intriguing and frightfully entertaining. Our movie buff, Randy, directed us through the film with his accurate insight into the horrific plot unfolding around him..."There's always some stupid bulls!@t reason to kill your girlfriend, that's the beauty of it all: SIMPLICITY! Besides, if it gets too complicated, you lose your target audience." Comments like these made it so enlightening and showed writer Kevin Williamson's ingenuity and brilliance. Overall it should be remebered as the horror film of the 90's.

Much like today in 1998 the early 80's were known for their fancy of teen or high school movies. The seventies were a bit of lull for film, having highlights like Jaws,Star Wars, and Close Encounters, but overall were lacking that comedic kick that America needs. So along in '82 comes a film like Fast Times at Ridgemont High, bringing back that teen angst and young decadence. It did "all the little things right", emphasizing America's youths world of drugs, a sex-crazed society, and their place in life. It inspired along the Ferris Bueller story, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Risky Business, and other films that made the 80's the great decade it can now be seen as.