Seen the trailer? Funny, huh? Enjoy it, because the actual scene in the movie is edited so as to drain ninety percent of the humor out of it. The jokes in this scene, and pretty much the rest of the movie, are telegraphed so excruciatingly that the anticipation of the joke becomes the joke. And anticipation isn't funny enough to sustain an entire movie. American Pie 2 certainly could have been stupider and more offensive than it actually was, and I appreciate the fact that it wasn't, but it still doesn't make it worth the experience. Once in a while, there is a truly surprising, actually laughable moment, but not nearly enough to fill a movie. And most of the funny moments are killed by dragging them on endlessly, long after everyone's got the gag. I could go on with the problematic aspects of this movie, from the grossly uneven character use to the red light that a number of cars roll blithely through, but the bottom line is that this movie failed to hold itself together, which is really quite sad, considering how little it would have had to do to fulfill its somewhat limited promise.
Reviews
20 Reviews
The Shooting
(1966)
Why was Jack Nicholson employable after this?
8 January 2001
Director Monte Hellman has been lauded for shooting two movies at the same time for the rumored price of $150,000. An impressive feat, but a duplicatable one, as long as one isn't concerned about sound. Or plot. Or character development. As Hellman apparently wasn't when he made this film. The dialogue is often incomprehensible, especially unfortunate since this leaves us with a movie depending heavily on shots of people riding to carry it. The Shooting isn't even able to resolve the meagre elements of a plot it has. It sets up a reasonable premise, albeit excrutiatingly slowly, wherein this one guy somehow related to our heroes has been shot for inscrutiable reasons by persons unknown. And this mysterious girl comes along and hires our heroes to escort her to her destination. So they ride. And they ride. They ride for a long time. Boy howdy, do they ride! And then Jack Nicholson shows up and, wouldn't you know it, they ride some more! So we have a bunch of people that we don't really know anything about riding. And eventually, there's some fairly undramatic shooting, thinly living up to the promise of the title, an inexplicable slow motion sequence, and then, while resolving nothing in the process, the movie, mercifully, ends. At this stage, bafflement, followed by a slow sensation that one's better off not thinking about it, is normal.
Gladiator
(2000)
S'alright, but only that.
24 December 2000
An all right but not very worthy heir to Roman epics like Ben Hur and Spartacus, Gladiator runs overlong for its meagre story and fails to dazzle with pitifully poor fight scenes. It has a good cast and a decent plot, but there simply isn't enough of anything to keep one's attention for two and a half hours. Some judicious edits and a new choreographer would have served this piece extremely well.
Hurts quite a bit. Cute dog, tho'.
15 August 2000
Hardly one of Nick Nolte's proudest moments. Nor any of the other stars, as a matter of fact. It's not their fault; they're all hampered by a rotten script. The movie isn't funny enough to be a comedy, but there really isn't enough of a plot as such to carry it as a drama. Events in this movie just sort of happen with little lead-in or follow-up, and it fails to even wrap up satisfactorily. Absolutely not worth sitting through the highly irritating opening theme music. ...Still, the dog really is cute.
X-Men
(2000)
Better than most comic book adaptations, but still falls somewhat short.(minor spoilers)
15 July 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I'm the first to admit I'm something of a purist in my comic adaptations. I don't look for absolute faithfulness. I accept that the movie is in an alternate reality, but I do want each character to act reasonably within the bounds of their comics persona. That said, I'd say the X-Men was about 70% there.
Overall, it was a fairly good script with decent dialogue (although it certainly slips occasionally. Listen for Storm's closing remark to Toad for a particularly odd line). Without the inaccurate characterizations bothering me, this movie would rank much higher, though there are still some plot holes you could drive a Mack Truck through.
Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, and Ian McKellan are all outstanding in their respective roles. Most of the rest of the cast is acceptable to good, with the notable exceptions of James Marsden (Cyclops), Ray Park (Toad), and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Mystique). It's not really the actors' fault in the case of the latter three; they're just miscast and mishandled. Marsden is too young to play Cyclops and he plays him as an unlikeable little snot. One wants to see Wolverine skewer the jerk. Cyclops is a straight arrow; he's not a snot. Mystique isn't mute, reptillian, or a nudist, nor is Toad a wise-cracking, hip, young tough with tongue-flicking, goo-spitting action. All these characters have lost what made them special in the comics.
The movie plays like someone did their homework on the source material and then someone else willfully ignored it. There are some great cameos (watch for Iceman, Jubilee, Shadowcat, Pyro, the New Mutants and probably others), but there are also problems. The filmmakers went to the trouble to include Henry Peter Gyrich, but then spell his name wrong in the credits. A major plot point also hinges around Rogue being able to steal Magneto's powers, when it's an explicit fact that Magneto is the only known person resistant to her powers.
Overall, not a bad effort at all. I've seen much, much worse. But there's still room for improvement.
Overall, it was a fairly good script with decent dialogue (although it certainly slips occasionally. Listen for Storm's closing remark to Toad for a particularly odd line). Without the inaccurate characterizations bothering me, this movie would rank much higher, though there are still some plot holes you could drive a Mack Truck through.
Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, and Ian McKellan are all outstanding in their respective roles. Most of the rest of the cast is acceptable to good, with the notable exceptions of James Marsden (Cyclops), Ray Park (Toad), and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Mystique). It's not really the actors' fault in the case of the latter three; they're just miscast and mishandled. Marsden is too young to play Cyclops and he plays him as an unlikeable little snot. One wants to see Wolverine skewer the jerk. Cyclops is a straight arrow; he's not a snot. Mystique isn't mute, reptillian, or a nudist, nor is Toad a wise-cracking, hip, young tough with tongue-flicking, goo-spitting action. All these characters have lost what made them special in the comics.
The movie plays like someone did their homework on the source material and then someone else willfully ignored it. There are some great cameos (watch for Iceman, Jubilee, Shadowcat, Pyro, the New Mutants and probably others), but there are also problems. The filmmakers went to the trouble to include Henry Peter Gyrich, but then spell his name wrong in the credits. A major plot point also hinges around Rogue being able to steal Magneto's powers, when it's an explicit fact that Magneto is the only known person resistant to her powers.
Overall, not a bad effort at all. I've seen much, much worse. But there's still room for improvement.
Excalibur
(1981)
Dismal. Never has a director been so appropriately surnamed.
18 May 2000
Not so much one bad movie as three or four bad movies haphazardly stuck together, Excalibur lurches from one embarrassing and baffling scene to the next. Terrible dialogue, bad acting, laughably inappropriate theme music, and a special effects department that thinks that enough fog can make anything look good (they're wrong). Gee, how could one possible resist this?
Ragtime
(1981)
Pretty disappointing.
15 May 2000
Although equipped with a decent cast and art director, the movie Ragtime completely fails to capture the spirit of the book. It eschews Doctorow's portrayal of the twenties, actually fairly cinematic in and of itself, to narrowly focus on Coalhouse. It fails to even convey that part well, making drastic changes to the book for no good reason and weakening the story. Not an impressive effort.
Lady in the Lake
(1946)
Hardly a classic, but great fun nonetheless.
29 March 2000
If you want a great, serious Philip Marlowe mystery, go check out "The Big Sleep." If you're in a lighter mood, however, this one is well worth watching. The POV is cute and leads to some decent effects, but it's also tremendously goofy sometimes. The dialogue really sells it though. The lessons I learned from this movie were 1) Only men can handle guns. 2) Having four thumbs is bad. 3) Never, ever tell anyone the time. 4) If you try hard enough, you can drink whiskey through your eyes. I'm sure there are hundreds more gnomic sayings, easily applicable to daily life, scattered through it!
Seriously, though, it was a lot of fun to watch, mostly because of the problems with it, and I'd highly recommend it.
Seriously, though, it was a lot of fun to watch, mostly because of the problems with it, and I'd highly recommend it.
Spirits of the Dead
(1968)
Fellini sinks to new depths.
14 March 2000
I'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.
The Skulls
(2000)
A hoot and a half.
3 March 2000
Rarely have I laughed so hard at a film, even if it's not intentionally funny. The Skulls is a badly shot, badly dialogued, and badly plotted film, and it still tries to portray itself as being deep and probing. It seems likely that the film was written while shooting, which might as least begin to explain the endless cliches and plot loopholes. The characters are mostly motiveless, moving about to the tune of tired old characterizations, which aren't even carried out particularly well. If you can't call the final fate of at least half of the characters within five minutes of their introduction, you've got problems. Still, worth watching just to see it try to take itself seriously.
Erin Brockovich
(2000)
The movie that makes cleavage a personality trait.
4 February 2000
It's not a very classy movie, but overall it's pretty enjoyable, despite the near complete lack of conflict. It's certainly courtroom drama lite. The love story, if it's even possible, has less punch than the law story. Still, it manages to overcome the lack of direction and endless cliches to cohere into a reasonably entertaining movie
Pretty classy for a 50's sci-fi flick.
28 January 2000
A movie well worth watching. Reasonable and creative special effects for the time and a coherent plot to boot. However, there's amusing schlock, too. It's still absolutely earmarked as a fifties film, as doctors light up in the hospital, the police lock corpses away in cells, and the army blasts at practically all animate objects. It also features the usual highly creative scientific explanations. "Neutralized electricity", anyone?
Buck Privates
(1941)
Weak effort from normally strong comedy team.
28 January 2000
The main problem with this movie is that it's barely an Abbott and Costello movie. They have a few good bits and the Andrews Sisters are enjoyable, but the main characters are involved in a hopelessly cliched love plot. It might as well be a war propaganda film, as the army emerges looking like the greatest summer camp ever.
Blow-Up
(1966)
Dreadful movie. And mimes.
9 January 2000
Yeah, it's got Vanessa Redgrave, but that's about all this movie has in its favor. Monolithically slow paced, with many scenes in it that do nothing to forward plot, character establishment, or character development and the longest establishing shots you could ever hope to see. Somewhere in the middle, a slight hint of a plot develops, but this is quickly given up in favor of topless girls. Antonioni proves unable to resolve in a satisfactory manner even the slight plot he's presented and the whole thing is simply a mess. I suppose it's supposed to be an allegory, but it's not a very clear or telling one, certainly not enough to justify sitting through the irritating opening credits.
2001: A Space Odyssey
(1968)
Don't watch it without the remote handy.
7 December 1999
Kubrik could have had a short, well-done film if he'd just done the crisis in space segment. It is most excellently done. And then we have the other twelve hours of the movie. At least, that's what it feels like. Feel free to watch it if cartwheeling through space for minutes on end while music somewhat analogous to the sounds of Gregorian monks attacked by killer bees plays in the background is your cup of tea. Be my guest, but I'll pass, thank you.
Not nearly as good as it should have been.
24 November 1999
MST3K: The Movie is nothing more than an elongated episode of the series and hardly one of their best. There are great moments, as there always are with Tom, Mike, and Servo, but not as many as there often are. The additional sets and camera angles during the interludes just detract from the bits, which aren't at their best either. See it, by all means, but be sure to check out the regular episodes for more enjoyment.
Has its faults, but the cast justifies it.
22 November 1999
As musical adaptations to the big screen go, this one is actually pretty good. Zero Mostel and Jack Gilford are marvelous in one of their unfortunately relatively rare movie appearances. Oddly enough, most of the songs have been cut from the movie. Apparently the director felt it was adequate to replace them with an overly long chariot scene. Still, the chemistry is magic and the script well nigh impossible to fault.
State Fair
(1945)
A definite "What The--?!" movie
22 November 1999
State Fair is not a badly done movie, as musical movies go. What raises it above utter pap is the sheer inanity is exudes. There's no actual conflict in this movie. The entire dramatic tension of the film seems focused on the issue of whether the pig will stand up or not. It would be hard to describe the characters without giving away too much of the "plot" (I use the term loosely), but suffice it to say that they may seem fantastically dull, but this is compensated for by their apparent total lack of morals or compassion. Still, worth a look if you're in a mood to gawk at the oddity.
To Kill a Mockingbird
(1962)
Very faithful to the novel, but unfortunately ultimately incoherent.
17 November 1999
Overall, only an adequate job of adapting the novel. The movie is far too faithful to the book to remain cogent as a movie. The vignettes are done very well, but there is no real sense of the sequences building towards anything. The acting is quite good and Gregory Peck is absolutely resplendent as Atticus Finch, although his dramatic speech is overwritten.
The Screaming Skull
(1958)
No movie that threatens the audience with death can be bad.
17 November 1999
C'mon, people. This one's just fun all the way. The main villain is a skull who is rather unconvincingly underhand-pitched towards his enemies by an off-screen technician. Plus, free coffins if you die of fright from the movie! What's not to love?
Tell Your Friends