Reviews

Everyone remember Luke Skywalker from the original "Star Wars?" Remember how he became a huge star after "Star Wars?" Mark Hamill has done voices for the screen, but hasn't really done much acting besides his giant role in is probably considered the biggest Sci-Fi Adventure Trilogy ever. "Where the Heart Is" could be Natalie Portman's big hit. It won't make her a billionaire or the most sought after actress, but it definitely breaks her typecast as "Queen Amidala." The whole movie has a rural, small town feeling about it. Most of the movie takes place in a town where Wal-Mart is the big store. The then pregnant Portman is left behind at Wal-Mart with a handful of money, and nowhere to turn. After having the baby, she becomes a 2-second celebrity, only to have that fall down around her too. "Where the Heart Is" is a tale of a single woman having to face some really hard life decisions, not just for herself, but also for her child, basically alone. Life throws Portman a series of curveballs that would ruin many people, but her character shows amazing strength and grows from them. Mixed in with this is an atypical love story, and an overly friendly small town nurse played by Ashley Judd, who almost needed a bigger part even though the script didn't call for it. Judd, just can't stop having kids and I think ends up with almost a dozen in the end. Do nurses really eat candy that was delivered to new mothers and read their mail? There are several other roles that just weren't developed as much as they should have been. "Where the Heart Is" is a heart-warming encounter. The audience can really feel for Portman's situations. Her character is so pure of heart, that some times instead of relating with her, it's more of a feeling "I wish I was more like that," or "I wish more people were like her."

Well, Ben Affleck's newest film comes in third on opening weekend with around eight million dollars. This guy already is beginning to have cult-like fan following and it seems that he's just getting started. He's starred in 12 movies in the past 3 years and has 3 more slated for release this year alone. Not only does he act, but he's one of those Hollywood, actors, producers, director's, etc. With and Oscar and Golden Globe for writing "Good Will Hunting" and directing a movie called "I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meat Hook, and Now I Have a Three-Picture Deal at Disney" a couple of years earlier he is poising himself to become one the next film legends. "Reindeer Games" is one of those movies that no matter how good you think you are at figuring movies out, if you get the ending right you're just plain lucky. It is also the kind where if you know the ending before you see it, a good part of the movie is ruined. Affleck adds another great performance to his resume. It's kind of hard to see him in an die-hard honest-to-God action movie. Typically these are left to likes of Arnold, Sly, and Bruce Willis. John Frankenheimer helps out a little in this area, because unlike many action movies of late there isn't an exploding vehicle or AK-47 firing of every 40 seconds. Don't get me wrong, there are explosions and automatic gunfire, but it's used more sparingly and adds to the story. The effects, nudity, and macho-ness are not present just for the sake of being there. I think Affleck and Charlize Theron made a great duo. Her career skyrocketed with "The Devil's Advocate" in 1997. She plays her part superbly as well. Many will disagree with me on this part, but I think Gary Sinise is who mad this film good. He plays Gabriel, the moronic villain. This guy is mean enough to shoot an ice fisherman while in his hut, but dumb enough to believe Rudy's lies. Dumb and mean: not the best combination. Sinise pulls it off nicely. I think he just one of those guys that can play a multitude of parts well. "Reindeer Games" is a great guy movie, and a good action-comedy. It's not a chick-flick, but I don't see any reason everyone can't get some enjoyment from it. From some reason I don't really think this movie is going to get much acclaim in the way of awards or in the box office, but it's a good film anyway. Grade: B+

"Hanging Up" is a good title for this film. This movie fills you with the same emotions that go through your head when you hang up on somebody (on purpose). The premise is three sisters, Lisa Kudrow, Meg Ryan, and Diane Keaton, that are faced with a dying parent. That's it, it's a no brainer. Maddy, Eve, and Georgia, respectively, have all grown up and become successful individuals and now their sourly divorced father is suffering from some form of memory loss and is dying. Yes all four main characters are established in the film industry. But really, who cast this movie? Keaton is a whole generation older than the other two. Well, I guess technically it could be possible… I would have much rather seen Jenna Elfman (Dharma and Greg) cast as a sister. Now there's a trio, but maybe they did ask her first, only she read the script before giving her answer. The whole first half or third of the movie involves quick cuts, and split screen style phone calls involving multiple people. Everyone in the movie has a cell phone and they are all on the 5000+ minutes a month plan because in the first hour or so every phone is ringing. This loses its appeal very quickly, and unfortunately the second half doesn't pick up pace at all. Sisters fight. So what? Who doesn't know about sibling quarrels?

The ONLY thing this film has going for it is a few lines of comedy. It seems that Kudrow can't help but to bring a little of Phoebe into the movie with her from "Friends," and Walter Matthau still has his moments even with his senior citizen status. Grade: D-

First of all, I think old Leo got a once in a lifetime deal with "Titanic." Was that a great movie? Well yeah, but other than that he really doesn't have much going for him. Titanic fans will definitely be disappointed with "The Beach." The film starts really well. It is an interesting story about a traveling college age guy, played by DiCaprio, that is trying to find himself like so many other people his age. This carefree, open-minded, and adventurous guy finds himself in Thailand with an opportunity of a lifetime set before him: the chance to travel to a beautiful hidden beach on a remote island (with Pot all over it to boot). Right around halfway through, the story takes a turn for the worse. It's almost like another director took over halfway through production. Or maybe it was one of those half written scripts that somebody else finished. Either way the movie certainly went downhill from there. A few minutes are even seen as a video game in which Leo runs through a jungle. I'm not sure if he was delusional or just high, but the movie definitely turns from interesting drama to a weird "Apocalypse Now" rendition.I haven't read Alex Garland's book, but I have to believe that it's better than John Hodge and Danny Boyle's version. I can't really recommend this movie, even though I know all the DiCaprio fans will go anyway. Just don't say I didn't warn you. D+

The three scream movies were written somewhat as a Trilogy. I always like it when a writer(s) thinks everything through far enough to make three movies. "Scream 3," however, was a huge disappointment. It certainly didn't deserve the 35 million it grossed last weekend; the movie is a prime example of the return client idea. None of the genres you'd think this movie would be a member of really fit. Instead of the Suspense, Thriller, or Horror genres, it became more of a who-done-it mystery than a boo-ahh crowd pleaser. Horror movies (which this is supposed to be) more than any other require a certain amount of "willing suspension of disbelief." The idea is that as a viewer, you know what is happening on the screen wouldn't or couldn't happen in real life, but it's on the screen so you cut a little slack and keep watching. There is a point where something becomes just so unbelievable that nobody could cut enough slack to momentarily believe what is happening. Wes Craven and company stepped about 5 feet across this line. There were some clever ties to the other movies, particularly the first. You have to really look for some of the references - almost to the point where I wonder if it was done on purpose or if I'm just reaching for a trilogy tie. The character Randy from the previous films has a short-lived but vital appearance that I really liked, and there was this hilarious part when the killer (garbed in the traditional Stab outfit) throws a knife at Dewey, played by David Arquette. Overall I'd have to say the acting was below par, but I don't think anyone was in the delusion that "Scream 3" was up for the Oscars. The audience jumped maybe 2 or 3 times, and laughed half a dozen. I don't think anyone was really on the edge of their seat. The story did tie up some loose ends, and brought a little closure for the trilogy. I said this movie was a disappointment, but it wasn't horrible. It just had something to live up to and didn't meet the standards. "Scream 3" was better than the second, but doesn't hold a candle to the original. It might be worth it just to see that Knife scene.

The three scream movies were written somewhat as a Trilogy. I always like it when a writer(s) thinks everything through far enough to make three movies. "Scream 3," however, was a huge disappointment. It certainly didn't deserve the 35 million it grossed last weekend; the movie is a prime example of the return client idea. None of the genres you'd think this movie would be a member of really fit. Instead of the Suspense, Thriller, or Horror genres, it became more of a who-done-it mystery than a boo-ahh crowd pleaser.

Horror movies (which this is supposed to be) more than any other require a certain amount of "willing suspension of disbelief." The idea is that as a viewer, you know what is happening on the screen wouldn't or couldn't happen in real life, but it's on the screen so you cut a little slack and keep watching. There is a point where something becomes just so unbelievable that nobody could cut enough slack to momentarily believe what is happening. Wes Craven and company stepped about 5 feet across this line.

There were some clever ties to the other movies, particularly the first. You have to really look for some of the references - almost to the point where I wonder if it was done on purpose or if I'm just reaching for a trilogy tie. The character Randy from the previous films has a short-lived but vital appearance that I really liked, and there was this hilarious part when the killer (garbed in the traditional Stab outfit) throws a knife at Dewey, played by David Arquette. Overall I'd have to say the acting was below par, but I don't think anyone was in the delusion that "Scream 3" was up for the Oscars. The audience jumped maybe 2 or 3 times, and laughed half a dozen. I don't think anyone was really on the edge of their seat. The story did tie up some loose ends, and brought a little closure for the trilogy. I said this movie was a disappointment, but it wasn't horrible. It just had something to live up to and didn't meet the standards. "Scream 3" was better than the second, but doesn't hold a candle to the original. It might be worth it just to see that Knife scene.

Grade: C+

The movie begins with a 007ish representation of a spy of some sort (Ewan McGregor) working for some British agency. His new mission has something to do with his boss. Johanna (Ashley Judd) is introduced as some sort on conspirator, or secret agent, then moves right up the chain to murderer, to some form of serial killer. The odd thing is, that McGregor, who I guess is supposed to be 'the good guy,' turns out to be a mental case that lost a couple cards from his deck more than 7 years ago when his wife left him. McGregor drops everything and risks his life for no apparent reason. Judd saves the film by showing style (and that's not all). At any given point, we don't really know what is going on. We don't even really know who he works for, even at the end. As a matter of fact, all the characters where flimsy and one-dimensional. Not a single character was developed. This movie had no consistency and in general was incoherent. If I was charged with telling you what this movie was really about, I'd be at a lost of words. Spys: check, digital gadgets: check, sex appeal: check, script: of some sort, story: I guess so. C-

Wow! That was such a great movie! Ha! Just kidding. Two pretty awful movies in about 2 weeks (Super Nova and Galexyquest). All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't pay to see this movie. The acting seemed straight out of school (and not a particularly good school at that) and the storyline just fizzled out after about…ooooh… 5 minutes. There where a few good special effects, and I think I laughed twice....once for sure. Some of the actions they took and technologies they used in the film weren't adequately explained either. I suppose if you've watched Star Trek for a while you could piece it together, but the movie should take care of that. Speaking of Star Trek, ship receives strange distress signal through deep space from a far away planet. No matter how obscene the idea is, the ship goes out of its way to answer the call, only to find out that signal wasn't what it appeared to be… Ring any bells? This movie wasn't even original. The only reason this movie didn't get an F is that eventually I may find a movie where I will get up and leave before it's over and did manage to somehow sit through Supernova. I'm reserving the F's for those films. D-

This movie actually stirred several emotions within me. I could actually relate to the characters in the film, though on a lesser magnitude. The feelings conveyed in scenes by the screenwriter/ director Kris Isacsson mimicked true life feelings that I personally have experienced as well as seen others go through. The actoring however, seemed sporadic. They rose for the challenge, but then when particularly great acting wasn't needed, it wasn't there. Not only is this a great romance/"date movie," it was a pretty good comedy also. It brought quite a few good laughs. This was a pretty good flick, definitely worth the money. As for the theater ambiance, I'm not quite sure with 8 people in a theater built for about 550 it was almost like a private screening.

This is my pick so far for "Film of the Year." Robin Williams brings his well-known charisma to this movie even though he physically doesn't appear until about 3/4 the way through. This is a technological saga of love and freedom. The evolution of the machine to a self-conscious creature, and the hurdles that it/he faces. Some films cover a real-time span of a couple hours, others of days or years. As you can probably deduce from the title this covers about 200 years. And it doesn't really jump around a whole lot, it covers it all fairly thoroughly. There are instances where the Robin Williams' character learns about "the facts of life," and appropriate ways to swear. For these reasons some may not want smaller children in the theater. But it is no worse (probably less so) than prime time TV.

"Sometimes the only way to stay sane is to go a little crazy." What a catch phrase for a movie. Winona Ryder meets up with Angelina Jolie and the two find the meaning of "normal" together. The movie tends to be a fairly deep, "thinking movie." However very good all in all. The acting was excelled both in lead and supporting roles. I think many people can find a few points to relate with people in this move, where the movie differs is in the actions the characters take. A believe the language was a little 'adult,' but I was pretty engrossed in the movie and can't honest remember for sure.