Change Your Image
WillPowerATL
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Liam (2000)
A dark spiral into bitter despair, with no hope in sight.
I don't normally post reviews on this site, in part because I write them for a living, and would rather have people click on the ones I get paid for. (Mercenary, yes, but I have to pay the rent.) After seeing, LIAM, however, I am making an exception. I feel that it is my duty as a moviegoer to warn others about this film, and in order to reach the most people possible, I am posting my criticism everywhere I can.
This film was the darkest, most depressing and most pointless piece of European "sh**e" that I have ever seen. It is a tale of sadness and loss, of bitterness and pain, of persecution and guilt. Unfortunately, there isn't a drop of happiness or hope to balance out all of this negativity. The viewer is left to soak up all of this despair, sinking lower and lower into the darkness, with never a light at the end of the tunnel. All the way through the film, as the world grinds down the poor Irish family, any sane viewer will expect a ray of hope on the horizon. Watching this, you may expect a happy ending or at least a lesson learned. Don't bet on it.
Director Stephen Frears, who is actually responsible for some of my favorite films, like HIGH FIDELITY and DANGEROUS LIAISONS, seems intent on punishing the viewer, making him/her feel the darkness that poverty and despair can bring. Is there a lesson that he is trying to teach us? Maybe it's that being poor in the post-war UK sucks. Whatever it is, it is lost in the telling. Frears uses minimalistic music, dark and dreary cinematography, and straightforward camerawork to make the film seem more realistic and honest, but even this adds to the darkness in the film's story.
Maybe I am just too much an optimist. Maybe I can't handle unhappy endings. Or maybe the timing is wrong. In this period of tragedy and fear, this ode to despair just doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, take my advice and skip this film. Life is hard enough on its own, without the added burden of two hours of grief piled on.
Oh, and the trailer's uplifting approach is a crock of crap. "The Pride of a Father. The Love of a Mother. And the Unbreakable Spirit of one Little Boy." I wonder if the people who made the trailer even saw the film?
The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000)
A Supermodel film: Beautiful but without substance
This film definitely has a 'Robert Redford' feel to it. It has some beautiful cinematography and a wonderful style to it. Beyond that, however, it falls short of being a good film. To begin with, the film is full of unbelievable moments. Although suspension of disbelief is an important part of watching any film, this one pushes the limits. Not only are the golf scenes a bit impossible, but such scenes as the one where the black caddie lounges in the white locker room are not easy to swallow.
Also detracting from the film is the lack of closure or depth to any of the storylines. We have a character scarred by war who neither explains his story nor comes to terms with it. We have a boy at odds with his father, and the two never have a meaningful conversation but just miraculously appear to be reunited. We have a girl left to wait ten years for her man, who simply welcomes him back without ever speaking her mind or seeking retribution. Even the framing sequence is without substance. None of the stories are resolved with any satisfaction, although all are glossed over to make for a happy ending.
Finally, the actors are strong, but don't seem to fit their roles. Charlize Theron's accent is awkward, Matt Damon has trouble pulling off drunk and jaded, and the jovial Will Smith is implausible as the sage mentor. The best roles are filled by the young boy and the two competing golfers, but none of them are written with any great depth.
In the end, there are no lessons learned, no big point to be driven home, no gripping emotional realizations. It is a beautifully shot film...about golf. If you get anything out of it except for "golf is good," then let me know. Believe it or not, I enjoyed the film a bit, but I was disappointed in the fact that it could have been so much more. If I had paid to see it, I would have probably been more than disappointed--I may have been angry. Do yourself a favor and wait for the video version.
Mystery Men (1999)
Good for laughs, and superhero fans...
As a comic book reader, who still sees myself as a total kid at heart, I admit I might have been a bit biased towards this movie. I mean, there hasn't been a good superhero movie out for quite some time (NOTE: Batman Forever was NOT a good superhero movie). I really wanted this film to be good, and unlike most of my recent trips to the cinema (read Blair Witch Project) I wasn't disappointed.
Mystery Men was definitely not a high-effects, tension-filled action flick, it was a comedy. And on that basis, it was a success. It had everyone in the small theater laughing, and got applause and laughs right through the final scene. Stiller and Garofolo are hilarious together, as always, and Azaria adds just the right touch of craziness. William H. Macy plays a great straight man, while Kel Mitchell and the fart-powered Paul Rubens are added just to keep the kiddies happy.
Though the sets are bizarre (and at times seem like ripoffs from both Batman and Blade Runner), and some of the jokes are obvious, it is still just plain funny. There are some lines that will catch even the most jaded viewer off-guard, and bring tears from the belly-laughers among us.
I definitely recommend this movie. Although not an all-time classic, it is twice as funny as the latest Austin Powers retread. The writing is good, and the cast is GREAT. If you're worried, plan on the matinee and pay less, but either way you'll be pleasantly surprised. I mean, who among us doesn't root for the losers once in a while?
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
An Interesting experiment, but failed in some aspects...
Perhaps it was the buildup that killed this movie for me. Since I work in the entertainment industry, I have many friends who have already been to see screenings of this film in various cities, and although reviews were mixed, there were actually several who defined it as "the scariest movie I have ever seen." When I went, I tried to keep my expectations low, so I wouldn't be disappointed, but it didn't work.
This film just didn't scare me. I was impressed with the concept, and the improvisation of the three young actors was, at times, more original and heart-felt than most of the acting I have seen lately in big-budget films. But despite this supernova of creativity, BWP never became more than an interesting experiment for me. The gaping holes and inconsistencies in the story made me think about things too much, and some of the improvisation and events were obviously "goal-oriented," and were too contrived to effectively mesh with the rest of the film's naturalistic methods. In all, there were many times where I had to say, "No way, someone in this situation wouldn't do that!" or even "What is that supposed to be? I don't get it."
Although I am glad I saw the movie, apparently I didn't share the same experience most of my fellow moviegoers did. It seemed to me like I had just sat through a two-hour campfire story, but one told by a novice storyteller. I found myself picking at the inconsistencies, and feeling let down. After several hours of buildup, I left the theater unfulfilled.
Again, I seem to be the only one that thought this. Most of my friends LOVED the film. Of course, most of them are idiots, so don't take their advice. See it on the matinee to really get your money's worth.