Change Your Image
Daff-4
Reviews
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)
Ouch
Most of this film was abominable but there were, perhaps, three or four funny moments. Ben Stiller's character was absurd and his motivations nonsensical, Owen Wilson was underused and didn't have a single decent line, the pacing was all wrong and the plotting woeful and DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON AMY ADAM's AMELIA EARHART!!! I simply cannot understand the many posters on here claiming she "stole the movie" or was somehow "a breath of fresh air". Did we seem the same film??? That was the single most irritating portrayal of ANYTHING since Jar Jar Binks! All of that unbearable "hey flyboy" stuff and the hideously over-acted "I'm full of spunky American spirit and can-doism" made me want to barf.
Hank Azaria also annoyed me. In fact, I think he's awful in almost every film he has even made, especially with those ridiculous "accents" he attempts. His character in this reminded me of his equally dreadful performance in Mystery Men where he played an American pretending to be British/Indian who threw forks and delivered such 'hilarious' one-lines as "get forked!" Avoid this film unless you have really really really dumb children who laugh at anything.
Cashback (2006)
A superficial man's desperate attempt to seem "deep"
This film is absolutely LAUGHABLE. It screams of a young art student's desperate attempt to say something meaningful but actually has only the dumbest, most base things to say.
The film's hilariously pretentious and meaningless tagline is "Sometimes love is hiding between the seconds of your life". Make no sense to you on a first read? Good, because it makes no sense after you have seen the film either.
The protagonist in this piece of drivel is an aspiring artist (of course he is) who works in a menial job stacking shelves at a supermarket (ah, the under-appreciation budding artists out there - breaks your heart, doesn't it?) To relieve the tedium of his job, he pretends he can "freeze time" and appreciate the beauty all around him. This is where the film really starts to bite. How does this insightful young man appreciate beauty? What wondrous things can he see that we ordinary folk fail to? Titties!!! Basically, he walks around mentally stripping women in the supermarket and contemplating their bodies. Hilarious. What a GENIUS!!! This wouldn't even be so bad if he was discovering some kind of "hidden beauty" or something all human beings share but is easily overlooked. But no! The only inhabitants of this Sainsbury are Page 3 bikini models! That's right - all perfectly formed, 19-24 year old stunners; waxed, toned and in perfect condition. One of the customers is even KEELEY - the famous Sun topless model. I mean you are JOKING, aren't you? This is a 13 year old boy's idea of "hidden beauty"!!! I won't bother discussing the rest of the woeful storyline that serves as a plot, suffice to say that when our young boy genius walks into a professional art gallery, the owner is immediately dazzled by his mediocre sketches and indicates that he has a big future. Yup, that's just how it happens in real life! If you find this movie interesting or profound, you truly are as ignorant and facile as the director.
Disgracefully bad.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
Excruciatingly unfunny
Apart from about 10 minutes of vaguely amusing dialogue 3/4 of the way through the film, this was an absolute trial! I enjoyed Knocked Up, I didn't mind the 40 Year Old Virgin, but this was just WOEFUL. I cannot BELIEVE this is hanging on to a 7.9 rating on IMDb and can only assume some serious vote rigging.
Apart from anything else, the sight of the lead actor "tackle out" was enough to put me off food for life. I am sure it cracked up some infantile teenagers out there, but it wa sone of those lame "whoa, how CONFRONTING!" moments that people use when they can't think of anything clever.
Who the hell WROTE this turkey??? Avoid like the plague!
Music and Lyrics (2007)
Abysmal
Apart from a few smiles at the 80's video clip played at the beginning and end, this movie a joyless, laugh-less, abomination.
I saw The Holiday last week (another lightweight feel-good rom-com) and while that wasn't exactly brilliant cinema, at least it was vaguely enjoyable. Music and Lyrics does not contain ONE single good line and the characters are dreadful (especially Hugh Grant's - and I normally don't mind the guy.) No-one in our cinema laughed, even once, at anything Hugh or anyone else said, and it wasn't for lack of trying. I have never seen comedy bomb so badly.
Within 5 minutes of the opening video clip ending you will just KNOW you are in for a shocker, as the initial set up isn't funny, isn't plausible and gives you two leads that you do not care about.
I cannot stress how bad this film is and am AMAZED it gets 6.5.
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
If you don't like this show, you are, quite simply, STUPID
Let me start by saying that I loved the original as a child and have the entire thing on DVD. Let me also emphasise the word CHILD in that last sentence.
The original Battlestar Galactica is, when viewed through an adult's eyes, one of the lamest, corniest, most embarrassing pieces of garbage anyone ever bothered to burn onto a disc. It retains its appeal ONLY because people saw it when they were young and so remain fond of it.
To those people that have posted on here complaining that the new series isn't sufficiently like the original I say - THANK GOD IT ISN'T! The original series -
- had exactly THREE ways an enemy fighter could be blown up (the same footage played over and over and sometimes reversed for variety) - contained a mechanical dog that was at least as corny as the Ewoks - was sickeningly sweet and had that eighties "Different Strokes-esquire" feel-good, laugh at anything, sitcom cheeriness about it - never ever made any sense whatsoever (Athena left half way through and no-one ever said why or what happened to her; farcical planets were constantly unearthed whose inhabitants resembled extras from old Bonanza reruns; the Cylons were big, fat, clumsy, incompetent buffoons who were more amusing than terrifying); - and the list rolls on!
If the new series had have been even REMOTELY like this, it would have been laughed off the screen within a month and only a handful of geeky fanboys would have sung its praises.
Thank GOD for this new series. When I read people complaining that the characters are "too serious" or "don't laugh enough" or "don't retain the Egyptian head-markings on their space helmets" I just want to scream. To all such people I say this - go out and rent ALF!!! You clearly have the intellectual capacity of a 10 year old and are entertained by smiling, unrealistic, unfunny, sweet-as-pie, childish fluff. Stop embarrassing yourselves by posting your drivel on this site.
I love the fact that the characters in this series are real and not cardboard cut-outs. OF COURSE they don't all get along! Are people so stupid as to honestly imagine that a group of soldiers thrown together on a military ship after the rest of humanity has been slaughtered are likely to stand around cracking gags and telling each other just how much they CARE?!? I retch at the thought of such a series.
If you want the original Battelstar, go and watch it. I have and it's just plain awful. If you want a gritty, well-made, compelling sci-fi series with three-dimensional characters, start watching the new one.
Congratulations to the writers and producers for not pandering to imbeciles.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
I am quite harsh usually, but this isn't bad
I saw this film tonight and went in with low expectations after reading some negative reviews. I actually thought it was marginally better than the first two, and there were even a couple of instances where something surprised me and the predictable, clichéd course was NOT followed. (Though plenty of predictable things happened too, of course).
Having said all that, this is a comic book film and so don't expect every detail to make perfect sense (though there weren't any moments or aspects that particularly bothered me, as I often find in these type of films - certainly nothing as silly or laughable as occurred in Spiderman 2, not that that film wasn't enjoyable in its own way).
The effects are great, the characters remain true to the first installments in the series, and I honestly cannot see why some people have said it suffers by comparison. Sure, there were a lot of characters to deal with, but the same is true of the other films. Perhaps the only thing I think the original director did better was in his comedic touch. There are only one or two genuinely amusing moments in this film and the rest are just typical average action film one liners.
Basically, if you want to see the trilogy story arc conclude (though the possibility of a further film is, naturally, left open) in a relatively sensible, satisfying and entertaining way, it's well worth it.
Overall, I give it a 7.9. To put this in perspective, I gave Spiderman 2 a 7.7, The Hulk a 3.0, Star Wars Episode 3 a 5.8, Batman Begins a 7.9 and Sin City an 8.5.
PS Be sure to sit through the credits until the very end!
GATTACA (1997)
One of very few sci-fi films with a decent script
Gattaca is a great film. The plot is simple but engaging and all of the performances are first rate.
Unlike its mega-budget sci-fi counterparts, the producers of Gattaca obviously spent more than twenty bucks on developing a decent script. FOR ONCE the viewer is treated to realistic, fleshed out characters who you can actually empathise with. Those responsible for such atrocities as Mission to Mars, Deep Impact etc should sit themselves down in front of Gattica and learn something about film making.
Ethan Hawke is good in the lead role, but Jude Law is absolutely sensational. The supporting cast (including Uma Thurman) doesn't put a foot wrong and the result is a clever, thought-provoking film which holds your attention throughout.
I cannot understand why this film has not received more praise than it has.
Mission to Mars (2000)
Unimaginably terrible
I refuse to write a detailed review for this film. It's already sucked 12 bucks and 2 hours of my life out of me and I'm not about to let it waste any more of my time. Suffice to say this:
Five thousand monkeys typing for five thousand years couldn't hope to produce a script as corny and cliched as this. It's boring, it's embarassing and it marks the first time in my life that I actually threw stuff at the screen.
Magnolia (1999)
A film that tries SO HARD to be brilliant and yet succeeds so well at being mediocre
If you are a dumb person and yet fancy that you are intelligent, you will love this film.
Magnolia contains many elements that seem to have become trendy recently - numerous interlocking plots; millions of characters; bleak subject matter; death, illness, depression, abuse, and so on. For three, gut-wrenchingly awful hours it STRIVES to be clever, it YEARNS to be some sort of 'dark, cinematic masterpiece', and the result is a mediocre, heavy-handed mess.
The one thing this film really lacks is SUBTLETY. For example, one character is a child wiz kid who is thrust into stardom by his pushy, overbearing father (now there's an original idea). Just to make it ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR to all those in the audience that haven't cottoned on to the fact that the kid is being used by his parents, you get 'subtle scenes' like this -
(1) Dad watches kid on the show and says to other parents "okay, let's make some money!"
(2) child wants to leave the set and go to the bathroom but for NO apparent reason (other than to demonstrate cruelty of the parents) his request is refused and he wets himself. "oh gosh, they really ARE mean to the poor little tacker aren't they!"
This is just one of many examples where Magnolia miserably fails to deliver. Others include:
Tom Cruise's 'Frank Mackey'. His performance has been described by some as 'scintillating', but I found it unwatchable in parts. He was ok in the less-demanding scenes, but when he was striding around yelling lines like "worship the cock!" I just laughed my head off. A good actor could have pulled this role off - but Tom is not a good actor - he's an average actor who is made to look good when he plays non-challenging roles (ie: cocky, brash, good-looking guy fighting the good fight - Top Gun, Days of Thunder, Rain Man, Jerry Maguire etc) When stretched, he stinks).
William H Macy's character was an abysmal waste of time.
The quiz kid plot was simplistic and overdone.
The only characters of any interest of all were the policeman (played superbly by John C Reilly) and the junkie he falls in love with. This was the only plotline that drew any emotional or intellectual response from me at all.
Gladiator (2000)
Solid, but nothing special
Walking into this movie, I was extremely hyped. Walking out of this movie, I was reading the list of ingredients on the back of the Malteser packet. Enough said.
Gladiator is certainly worth seeing - the visuals are impressive, the action is fast-paced, and Russell Crowe is gruff and heroic. But that's about all. The script is so-so; the plot is basic and predictable; and, most disappointing of all, you really don't get sucked in emotionally. I mean, all a film like this aims to do is:
(a) present a two-dimensional hero;
(b) do some nasty things to his relatives; and
(c) get you squirming in your seat waiting for the bad guys to get what's coming to them.
It was like this in Mad Max ('Road Warrior' for you Americans out there), in was like this in Braveheart, it was like this in Rob Roy, and it was like this in virtually action/drama ever made. For the film to succeed, an audience should be 'angry' when the relatives get fried, and 'pumped' when the good guy gets revenge. I was pretty non-plussed on both counts.
As for specifics:
Russell Crowe is good but not fantastic (and nowhere near as good as his performance in LA Confidential)
Oliver Reed's character is overdone and annoying (the only thing he adds to the film is the 'pick which scenes Olly is dead in' game - as he died before filming finished and is computer generated in some parts).
The CGI effects are, as always, dreadful. Although the stadium itself looks ok from the inside, the wider shots of Rome look fake. Why they PERSIST with these crappy effects I don't know.
Pitch Black (2000)
Delivers exactly what you want and expect from this type of film
As far as sci-fi/actions films go, Pitch Black is solid and enjoyable. The effects are pretty good, some of the characters are okay (though a few are pretty terrible and you find yourself hoping that the cast is eaten in order of acting talent, which is exactly what happens) and there is a sufficient amount of suspense to keep the thing running.
If you forgive a few of the fairly major plot holes (eg1: the odds of arriving on a planet on the exact day of a solar eclipse which occurs once every 16 years.....; eg2: it's a scientifc impossibility for just one form of life to live on a planet - once they've eaten everything else, they can't just survive by eating eachother (as suggested in the film)) you'll enjoy this film. You won't love it, but you won't regret the price of admission (as you might with films like Mission to Mars, Sphere, Deep Blue Sea, Lake Placid, Aliens 3 and 4, Phantom Menace etc).
Being John Malkovich (1999)
A brilliant piece of film making
This is a wonderfully innovative and entertaining film. So many films TRY for that 'quirky, intelligent' label and fail miserably, so it's nice to see one that actually succeeds.
Being John Malkovich is interesting, thought-provoking and hilarious. I can't think of another film of which I could say the same thing.
Lake Placid (1999)
No matter how low your expectations are, this film will disappoint you
When I walked into the cinema showing Lake Placid, I comforted myself with the following words -
`No matter how bad this film is, it CAN'T be worse than Deep Blue Sea.'
Amazingly enough, I was wrong.
No one walks into a film about a giant, man-eating alligator and expects something brilliant. You don't go in looking for great acting, intelligent dialogue or moving sub-plots. You do, however, expect this:
- some great special effects
- a high body count
- the occasional suspensful scene
- and a couple of quirky, expendable characters that keep you amused for a while until they get killed.
Lake Placid had NONE of these things.
Let's start with the effects or, more accurately, the effect' since there really wasn't much to look at other than the alligator. The alligator was okay; he was big, he was nasty, and he moved a touch better than the giant monsters did back in the fifties. The problem was, he really didn't DO anything. Other than a few snappy scenes involving a helicopter and a bear, the alligator spent most of the film lazing about the lake and failing to kill anyone. In the mass slaughter department, he just wasn't up to it.
As for a high body count, more people die in an average episode of ER than were killed in this film. Whereas you normally sit through a horror film saying
`Oh no, I can't BELIEVE they killed off that character - I was just starting to like him',
this film provokes the opposite reaction. You hate ALL the characters and virtually none of them die.
Suspense was also sadly lacking in this film. There wasn't a single moment where I felt scared, worried, concerned or even a little bit edgy'. The only possible exception was the 80 minute mark, where I began to worry that the film was going to run for two hours. Thankfully, it finished two minutes later.
Finally, I come to the characters' a term I use loosely and only because convention dictates it. I have NEVER hated a cast as much as I hated this one. If I had have been there with them, I would have gladly lopped off their heads and fed them to the alligator, just to spare the audience from any further dialogue.
Bill Pulman is his usual unbearable self, playing yet another `hi, my name's Mr Average' type character.
Bridget Fonda (playing city chick roughs it in the country' gee, there's a new one) stinks up the place from beginning to end and absolutely BEGS to get eaten. The PATHETIC romantic subplot between these two characters is as implausible as it is unbearable.
Betty White, said by some reviewers on this site to have stolen the show' quote unquote (which, I might add, would have been one of the easiest thefts in the history of cinema) was nothing short of EMBARASSING. Sure, if you're thirteen years old you might find one of the Golden Girls swearing her head off hilarious, but for the rest of us, it was just lame.
Brendan Gleeson's Sheriff Hank Keough' was abysmally unfunny and his friendship with kooky nut' Walt Lawson was nothing short of painful.
As for the claim that the film is some sort of spoof' and so shouldn't be taken too seriously', let me just say this I AM SICK TO DEATH of people using these phrases to excuse atrocious crud that is neither funny nor dramatic. It's as if failing to pull off either of these objectives entitles you to say
Hang on guys, lighten up, this wasn't MEANT to be a good film it's all just tongue in cheek!'
Well, if that's the case, why didn't you actually make the film FUNNY? Why not make it a genuine parody give it humour, give it insight, enable it to make FUN of the genre, not just wallow in the middle of it!
David E Kelley has made more money out of less talent than any man on earth. This film demonstrates this perfectly
The Insider (1999)
A good film, but not a great film
The Insider is certainly worth seeing. It tells a fascinating story, boasts an impressive cast and is competently directed. But that is all.
Those people who have posted reviews on this site paying tribute to Michael Mann's genius' and claiming to have burst into tears' during the film, are obviously easily impressed (and/or emotionally unstable). Don't get me wrong. This is a good film, it's just not a great one.
The film's main asset is, obviously, the true story upon which it is based. The lengths to which tobacco companies are prepared to go to suppress information and distort the truth was always going to make captivating viewing. The question is, did the director capitalise on this and create an exceptional film? I don't thing he did.
Michael Mann's directorial style reminds me of a kid who just got a new tool box for Christmas, but doesn't know how to use any of them. The film is DRENCHED with dramatic pauses', meaningful slo mo's' and moving classical scores.' Although such devices are often PRESENT in great films, they don't MAKE a film great. It just depends on how they're used. In this case, Michael Mann simply threw them in everywhere in the hope that people would walk out saying
`I mean, like, wow! How good was that bit where the guy took 15 minutes to peel off his coat? It was just so DEEP!'
If anything, the overuse of these devices gave the film a slightly clinical, colourless feel, which detracted from its emotional impact. I kept sitting there thinking I really SHOULD feel sorry for Jeffrey Wigand, but I just can't seem to empathise with him.'
As for individual performances, I thought the stand out was Christopher Plummer. His portrayal of veteran 60 minutes anchorman, Mike Wallace, was superb.
Russell Crowe was solid as Jeffrey Wigand, but didn't live up to the hype. Although the make-up team deserves full credit for ageing him twenty years (and Russell himself did well to stack on 10 or so kilos for the part), the acting itself was only fair. Those of you who saw his brilliant performance in LA Confidential are bound to be disappointed.
Al Pacino did well playing 60 minutes producer Lowell Bergman', but it was a fairly two-dimensional role tenacious, old school newsman, who plays it by the book and never breaks his word.' All you really needed for the part was a good voice and a haggard face. Al Pacino has these qualities in spades.
The only other performance worth mentioning was Diane Venora's portrayal of Jeffrey Wigand's wife. I thought she was dreadful. I have no idea what type of accent she was trying to pull off, but whatever it was, she failed.
In summary, The Insider is a very solid film. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to not because its brilliantly made, but because it tells an important story.
Deep Blue Sea (1999)
Tori Spelling in a wading pool would have been more frightening than this
If you'd like to know whether you'd enjoy this film, just ask yourself the following question -
"Do you find the idea of genetically engineered 'super sharks' that can read maps, make plans, analyse architectural data, disable security systems, and YET (when convenient) fail to distinguish between a human being and a fire extinguisher, frightening or just plain stupid?"
I opted for the latter.
I certainly didn't expect much from this film. All I wanted was a few slightly suspenseful scenes, a decent line or two and some great visuals. I didn't even get that.
The main problem with the film (and it really is hard to pick out a 'main' one) was this - sharks are scary for 2 reasons:
(a) they're big, dumb, killing machines; and
(b) they live in the ocean a place that they are well adapted to, and that we are not.
Deep Blue Sea did its very best to destroy these principles. For a start, the sharks were smart.' Maybe it's just me, but the idea of a clever, scheming shark, carefully plotting my downfall, doesn't scare me it makes me giggle. A lot of this stems from the fact that they don't have HANDS. Every time they do something clever, they have to execute it with their noses eg: butting open doors, ramming into cameras etc it's not terrifying, it's comical.
Secondly, the sharks are taken out of their element and placed inside a flooded building. There is NOTHING scary about watching a fin hoon up and down a corridor and jump out from behind doors etc. It's just silly.
The other significant problem was that the script was aimed at ten year olds. Let me give you some examples (without giving away any of the 'plot') -
(1) We are told (in one particularly memorable scene) that the sharks' brains contained a substance that could help cure Altzheimers disease. To get more of the substance, the team spends millions of dollars genetically altering the sharks to increase the size of their brains (of course, it would have been much easier just to breed LOTS of the sharks, but what the hell - lets concentrate on making 5 or 6 of them huge).
Anyway, the team is 'shocked' to discover that a "side effect" of increasing the sharks' brains is that they become more intelligent. Side effect???? Side effect???? Surely this is a DIRECT effect? You're telling me they didn't even SUSPECT something like that might happen? Just where did these 'scientists' get their degrees?
(2) At the start of the film, the scientists demonstrate how the 'substance' cures Altzheimers. Now, you'd expect the use of some sophisticated technology here. The substance would need to be extracted, modified, purified, mixed with other substances, bombarded with radiation or heat maybe, and finally administered to a patient.
Or at least, you'd THINK so wouldn't you? But no. In this film, they just stick a syringe into a live shark's head, extract some goo and then squeeze it onto a diseased piece of brain. I mean, for God's sake! Even an IMBECILE must know that cures for diseases are rarely just sucked out of an animal and then 'sprayed' onto the sick and dying.
I KNOW this isn't meant to be an intelligent film and I'm just meant to appreciate it for the action and the effects, but did it have to be THIS dumb.
(3) Probably the single dumbest aspect of the script (an award which was fiercely contested) was the way in which sharks were caught early in the film. 5 sharks are kept in a big underwater cage. Every now and then they need to catch one and drain the goo from their brain. Now, this is a multi-million dollar facility and some of the world's finest minds have supposedly had a part in planning it. So how do they go about catching a one? A guy swims in with the killer sharks (and we're not talking about a one off here, this is standard procedure'), narrowly avoids getting killed and at the last moment pokes a tranquilising dart into them. Come on! Who thought of that?!?!? At one point they even show off' this technique to investors in the project. They all sit around nervously twiddling their thumbs and watching the 50/50 outcome
`and
.he made it! Woo hoo! That Sir, is the way we go about catching the sharks. We lose a guy every couple of weeks, but it's the best method we've come up with. So, do you want to invest in our project?'
Some other, more specific comments :
- the effects weren't bad, but weren't nearly good enough to compensate for the abysmal script
- the film is never, ever scary or suspensful
- LL Cool J (who played Comic Relief') cannot act AT ALL.
- Saffron Burrows (who plays the standard stunningly gorgeous marine biologist who, when the going gets tough, gets her gear off) obviously learnt everything she knows about acting from LL Cool J
- Jacqueline McKenzie's character was DREADFUL. I've never wanted to see someone get eaten more than her (and she was playing a good guy').
- even Samuel Jackson couldn't rise above the rubbish that was written for him.
All in all, this film is a disgrace. If you haven't seen it, please DON'T. It's time people (myself included) stopped ponying up the dough on films like this and FORCED film makers to come up with better scripts.
Dogma (1999)
George Burns was better than this
Dogma is a VERY disappointing film. It's almost as if Kevin Smith sat down one day and said -
"Sure, the premise is weak, the dialogue's average and the characters are thinly drawn, but what the hell - I've got Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Salma Hayek's breasts to pull in the crowds, so what does it matter?"
I am AMAZED at the positive reviews that have been posted about this film. Do you people JUST NOT CARE that half the characters added nothing to the film? Does it not worry you that the ending was an incoherent jumble? Do you really find Silent Bob funny? I mean, how many times can you laugh at the 'guy says nothing for half an hour and then finally pipes up' gag?
I have enjoyed Kevin Smith's work in the past, but Dogma fails to impress on any level. It's not funny enough for a comedy (sure there's a few good lines, but at a strike rate of about one in twenty), it's not fast-paced enough for an action/adventure (and for large segments is just plain boring) and falls WAY SHORT of an intelligent critique of religion or the church.
As for specific criticisms -
- the film is no way 'controversial', and the 'theme' (if you can call it that) is nothing more than simplistic drivel
- Chris Rock (aka Rufus the Apostle) is irritating and pointless
- Salma Hayek makes Chris Rock look good
- Matt Damon and Ben Affleck's characters are poorly developed and inconsistent
- Jay is funny in small doses but gets way too much screen time
- and Silent Bob reminded me of bad street theatre (like those crappy buskers you pass in the street that stand still for hours or mime that they're 'trapped in a glass box')
All in all, I view this film as a missed opportunity. The subject matter was interesting, the cast was solid and the budget was ample, but Kevin Smith made a meal of the script.
American Beauty (1999)
A superbly crafted film. Intelligent, amusing and thought-provoking.
This film is superb.
When I first saw the preview, I wrote it off as just another cliched piece on dysfunctional families and mid-life crises. It is far from that.
If I was to pick one thing that really sets the film apart from your average Hollywood dross, it would be the number of well-defined characters. Even in a GOOD film, it's rare to find more than one character that you can relate to or feel any empathy with. This film has MANY.
Kevin Spacey is, of course, the stand out. His performance (as a man whose passion for life is rekindled after he becomes infatuated with one of his daughter's teenage friends) is stunning. His character is at once funny, poignant and moving. I laughed at virtually every word that came out of the man's mouth.
Annette Bening is also very solid as his wife and I thought Thora Birch did a great job as the slightly troubled teenage daughter (a role which is almost always screwed up).
Wes Bentley (aka 'the spooky guy next door') was also impressive, as was Mena Suvari (who looked like being the ONLY two-dimensional character in the film, up until the final moments). Even the cameos are good! (watch out for Peter Gallagher's 'who's the king, who's the king', 'how does it feel to get done by the king!')
All in all, it's hard to fault this film. It's extremely funny, easy to relate to and quite uplifting (in its own weird way). It also manages to steer clear of the usual cliches and stereotypes that films like this normally ooze (with the possible exception of Colonel Fitts - and even then I still enjoyed his character).
Don't miss it.
What Dreams May Come (1998)
Excruciating
This is the worst film I have EVER seen.
I do not say this lightly. I say it after compiling an extensive list and giving each film careful consideration.
To give you an idea of what this film is like for those who haven't seen it, just imagine this:
- take every schmaltzy, treacle-coated character Robin Williams has ever played (Jack, Mrs Doubtfire, Patch Adams, the works)
- drop them into a bucket
- mince them up with a blender
- pour in half a gallon of maple syrup and sprinkle the contents with fairy floss
- and then stick your head in it for 90 minutes.
It is simply abysmal.