Reviews

A quick-moving serial drama, "Traveler" is one of ABC's new summer-season shows... and from the preview premiere that aired May 10th, it looks extremely promising.

Jay, Tyler, and Will are grad students on the cusp of embarking on a two-month long summer roadtrip, stopping off in New York for one last night of the high life before they begin driving. Events unfold, however, that place the trio smack dab in the middle of a terrorist attack, and subsequently they're considered the prime suspects and pursued by the authorities.

But things are a bit more complex than they seem, and the problems continue to become more and more labyrinthine as the premiere goes on. A mix of modern political thriller, post-9/11 conspiratorial mystery, and well-constructed eye candy, "Traveler" promises to be a solid entry into ABC's roster of productions. I know I'll be watching once the show premieres in late May.

Unfortunately, a very predictable film. Though Ms. Holmes does a fine job -- as, arguably, does pretty much everyone involved in this film -- the script is astonishingly predictable to anyone who's familiar with the formulae of movie-writing. If you've seen either "Fight Club" or "A Beautiful Mind", you'll guess the "surprise twist" a mile away.

Anyways. Nice sets, good overall sense of tension, solid cinematography... but the script was sadly lacking and derivative, and the pace of the film seemed slow. 5/10.

Although Vin Diesel has a great deal of star power, he needs to choose his new roles better, in my opinion. "XXX" was hackneyed, poorly scripted tripe which had the slight benefit of decent special effects and lots of explosions. The production design was lame, the costuming decent, and the character interaction laughably bad.

For a good spy thriller, catch "Alias" and skip "XXX".

George Lucas, it should be noted, has gotten some things right in "Attack of the Clones". He minimized the screen time of most of the more offensive and irritating characters from Episode I -- namely (Rastafarian refugee) Jar Jar Binks and the (Nipponese Empire) Trade Federation executives. He also managed to jettison cutesy Jake Lloyd.

Unfortunately, he also dumped most of the good lightsaber fights, and kept his wooden directorial style. Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor -can- do fantastic acting work, as evidenced in movies like "Trainspotting" and "The Professional" and "Beautiful Girls". But with a cliche-ridden, shallow script and a decrepit fool in the director's chair, even the best of actors and actresses are dragged down into the mud.

Co-written by Lucas and Jonathan ("The Scorpion King") Hales, the script has all the energy of three-day-old roadkill. It's rife with cheesy slapstick bits, recycled dialogue, and predictable plotting. The special effects are serviceable, but fairly obvious to anyone with an experienced eye. The lightsaber duels are pedestrian compared to the dynamic, quick-moving duels of "The Phantom Menace" (or even of "The Empire Strikes Back"), with the slight acrobatic exception of Yoda, master of Jedi-Fu.

Lucas needs to be chained up well away from the typewriter and director's chair. Give someone else the basics to write from, and let someone else helm the next episode. Perhaps those others can move the series away from the less-than-impressive spectacles that Lucas's meddling has brought to pass. After all, it worked for "The Empire Strikes Back".

Exciting, humorous, longing, tension-filled, cute... Pixar's new "Monsters Inc." covers an enormous range of emotions in the course of its hour-and-a-half running time. Frankly, it feels quite a bit longer than that -- the movie absolutely draws you in.

John Sullivan ("Sully" - voiced by John Goodman) and Mike Koslowski (voiced by, of all people, Billy Crystal!) are the top "scaring" team at Monsters Inc. -- a major company in another dimension, where the society is powered by the energy contained in kids' screams. To ensure that there is power to run Monstropolis' everyday society, the Monsters need to keep scaring kids and getting those screams -- "We scare because we care" is the corporate slogan, showing that M.I. is the driving force behind that dimension's economy and society.

Close behind Sully and Mike, though, is the treacherous Randall (voiced by Steve Buscemi), a multi-limbed chameleon-like monster with a scheme to top Sully and Mike and keep the company in the black. Naturally, things start to go wrong when a human child from the other side manages to get into the Monster's dimensions... particularly since common knowledge holds that kids are actually toxic and poisonous to monsters!

You'll gasp in awe, you'll be convulsed with laughter, and you'll smile sadly at the amazing visions, witty humor, and brilliant storyline. I cannot recommend this film enough; I'd go see it multiple times at full price in the theaters.

(This is, of course, helped by the "introductory" animation -- a hilarious piece called "For the Birds". *grin*)

P.S. - my guess is that Pixar put together their standard run of "bloopers" for the film, to be run during the credits, but are holding the new credits back a month or so to get people to come and see the film again during the Christmas season. I'm pretty certain I will!

Although the fu is powerful in this Jet Li vehicle, the plotline is slow as molasses and easier to read than your average elevated-train map. "Oh, I cannot break the law, I must remain in my cell and be judged. Wait, you say my cousin is in danger? Wong Fei-hung to the rescue!" Predictable and unimpressive. Additionally, the acting was shallow even for a kung fu movie. I've seen porn films that emoted more effectively than the actors found here.

Anyone who claims "this is the best kung fu movie ever!" is culturally deprived, and needs to be exposed to better works like Enter the Dragon, Fist of Legend (the 1995 version with Jet Li), and The Legend of Drunken Master. All three are vastly superior to this, even though the kung fu was quite solid. Only 6/10, for having decent fight scenes but not straying an iota from the age-old wuxia cliches.

Never before had I seen such astonishing computer animation, such intriguing concepts, such intrigue and mystery, and such solid humor worked into a concept which could've gone down in flames. I had a wonderful time stretching my imagination! ... and then the previews for "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" and "Shrek" ended, and the horrid spectacle that was "Dungeons & Dragons" began. It had so, sooooooo many shortcomings, I can hardly begin to list them, but I'll try.

A composer who thinks that rousing emotions in the audience through music should be done, not gently, but with a sledgehammer. The music was virtually always inappropriate and blatantly manipulative.

Someone needs to inform Jeremy Irons that he is not Jerry Lewis or Robin Williams' impression of Jerry Lewis. Someone needs to inform Bruce Payne that he is not, nor will he ever be, Ray Park. Someone needs to inform Zoe McClellan that she ain't Madonna, and should leave the anatomically correct breastplates somewhere else. Someone needs to inform Tom Baker (the King of the Elves), Topper Lilien, and Carroll Cartwright (the scriptwriters) that they owe Yoda and George Lucas usage fees for the blatantly stolen message. Someone needs to inform the costuming department that they could go to a Renaissance Faire or SCA event and get better costumes. Someone needs to point Danny Braet (head of visual effects) and the rest of the special effects department towards little-known films like "Dragonheart" and "Jurassic Park" to see how reptiles are well-represented by special effects. Someone -really- needs to get a clue as to script consistency (as in, differing effects from the same causing spell... why does the spell-passage stay open on the receiving end in one case, yet close in between arrivals in another?) and relative plausibility (if the bloody antagonist can control beholders, what the hell is he doing bothering with dragons?!?). Finally, someone needs to track down the director, shoot him dead, dismember him, and bury the parts in widely scattered unmarked graves.

On the other hand, Lee Arenberg did a solid job with the material he was given. And it's great to MST3K pretty much the entire film. : ) At one point, the guy I went to the movie with leaned over after one of my comments and said "Stop that!"

I wittily replied, "Stop what?"

"Stop being funnier than the movie!"

I'd rate it 2 out of 10, and that only because you can MST3K away to your heart's delight.

You want the truth about this film?

It's a two-and-a-half-hour nature documentary, with occasional references to WWII thrown in. Too many characters, brief plotlines that the audience is never taken back to, no real characterization (hell, we never get to meet the soldiers long enough; they all blend together), and a ton of pretentious sitting on hills pondering navels and the nature of the universe.

Quite possibly one of the worst novel-to-movie adaptations I've ever read, even though the book was nothing to brag about. Try renting "L.A. Confidential" instead... it's far better than this ridiculous trash.

I saw it at matinee and still thought I paid too much. Don't waste your time or your money.

Judging by some of the other comments I've read, I must be one of the few who prefers actual humor and irony in my movies as opposed to the recent spate of over-raunchy jokes on bodily functions and obesity. I actually found "The Replacements" to be a solid, enjoyable comedy.

Sure, it's a bit formulaic. But it's less obtrusively offensive than most of the "innovative new comedies" which have been released recently. The sports scenes are solidly done, injecting the suspense which is often felt when watching actual games. Of course, given the status of the movie as a Hollywood flick it was bound to come out with the underdogs on top. Watching the team get there is half the fun.

Solid camraderie, fairly good characterization, actual humor (as opposed to "Ewwwwwww! *nervous laughter*"), and an excellent soundtrack all work together to make this a great, enjoyable film. Catch it at the theaters... at matinee, if possible, but it's still worth it for full price anywhere but California. One word, in closing:

Cheerleaders!

... it could have been a bit more believable. In the first film, adrenaline and action was sacrificed upon the altar of (dubious and semi-comprehensible) plot and (Brian DePalma's lackluster definition of) "style". Unlike many others whose posts I've read, I didn't care for M:I-1. It was slow and unstylish, despite the director's desires... and whoever did the research for the Internet sequences fubar'd them with cheesy, low-tech AOL-looking images.

M:I-2 had the style that the first film was missing. Settings and technology in this film actually appeared to be slick-tech, and portions of THIS film where certain characters were breaking into high-security areas weren't handled in as poor a fashion as the first. (Poisoned coffee? Sensors which don't register the sound of keyboard typing, which is certainly louder than a whisper? And above all, being able to hack into CIA's security systems? Has no one heard of a firewall?) Where M:I-2 lost my suspension of disbelief was the numerous car explosions (those not caused by plastique, anyways), proof that all film terrorists must be buying their automobiles from Yugo. =)

For the most part, M:I-2 was more coherent in style and comprehensibility, even if (or perhaps because?) it was possessed of a simpler and more linear plot than the first. The action sequences were better conceived and filmed (it amazes me that people can be impressed by the poor-effects, yawnable "hook the helicopter to the train" schtick). Overall, Woo is a far more capable director than DePalma seems to have become (with his last three directorial efforts, M:I-1, Snake Eyes, and Mission to Mars being particularly unentertaining).

As for performances -- Tom Cruise turns in a decent performance, for an action movie. =) Dougray Scott is fairly solid as the villain. Thandie Newton is, well, passable as a "master thief", although I wish she'd had more opportunity to show off her skills instead of simply being a face on screen. That complaint also applies to most of the remaining support cast, but then, they ARE supporting cast. M:I-2 is definitely a star vehicle for Tom Cruise, but in my opinion it's a fairly fun one.

My rating: 8/10. But be sure to see it in a theater with good sound; it'll lose something on video or in a venue where the speakers aren't high-quality.

Bravo, film-makers! It's good to know that Hollywood still has a few storytellers hidden away and uncorrupted by the pursuit of money alone. Ye gods, what an excellent film.

As a number of people have previously mentioned what this film is about, I'll avoid that topic and simply expound on what I liked about the film: Acting. Plot. Dramatic tension. Humor. Dialogue. Little, enjoyable "twists". Overall impact, making you think... this is an intelligent movie, which uses subtlety more often than the sledgehammer school of moviemaking (typefied by Professors Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer).

Although at times I found a few of the twists predictable, for the most part they resonated with me, occuring to my mind just as the action took place on-screen. In general, this is one of the finest movies I've seen this year, and though a great deal of 2000 stretches ahead I hope to see "Frequency" among the nominees at next year's Oscars.

My rating overall: 9.5/10... and that half-point off pretty much _only_ for the kinda hokey Garth Brooks song at the end. =) This will likely be remembered as one of the best films of the new century.

There's a very simple reason why the acting was "bad" in Phantom Menace. It's not because the actors involved are poor or without talent -- just look at the people involved. Liam Neeson. Ewan McGregor. Natalie Portman.

All three of them are extremely talented individuals, who have a tendency to put everything they've got into a movie. No, the true blame for how bad this movie is lies with one person: George Lucas.

You can see it in his other movies -- everything which he's directed, the acting is poor. This is because the man has no directing talent. His ideas are solid and imaginative, but his execution of them is lousy.

I only hope that the second and third episodes return to the quality of the first two movies... and yes, I'm excluding RotJ for a reason. It simply wasn't as good. Maybe if we're lucky, someone else will direct. Doubtful, with Lucas's overinflated ego, but possible.

My rating: 2/10. And that only for the impressive duels, generally impressive costuming, and raw potential (however unused) in the movie.

And remember, genocide of Gungans is not a bad thing.

Overall, I think that "The Cider House Rules" was quite a good film. It stood out as an excellent example of filmmaking, editing, and cinematography. However, in acting it is only moderately good. Often, I consider good acting to be the ability to make me, as a viewer, forget that these _are_ actors, and that they actually are the people they're portraying. That kind of experience is, unfortunately, rare. *shrug* And was I the only one who thought that Tobey Macguire looks far, FAR too young to be bedding Charlize Theron?

Again, a good film, but not the one I'll be rooting for come the Academy Awards.

Rating: 7/10.

Ye gods, this movie was awful. Anyone who has any familiarity with the internet, computers, or common sense should track down all the original prints of the film and throw them into the nearest ocean, never to be seen again.

The movie's one saving grace: Angelina Jolie. I suppose everyone's got to get their start in a bad movie somewhere. Other than that, the producer and director should be shot, dismemembered, and have their parts buried in widely seperated unmarked graves.

Rating: 1/10.

Truth to be told, I went into "Pitch Black" unsure of what to expect. I'd read a couple of reviews in the paper, largely forgotten shortly thereafter, and naturally seen the previews and ads. Given how movies have disappointed in the past, these days I go into theatres with as few expectations as possible.

I was thoroughly impressed by this movie.

In the tradition of Aliens, Predator, and the like, Pitch Black makes a fine addition to the genre. All such films share some common factors -- unknown beasties, a limited area in which to move, and people getting killed off in sundry nasty ways. But although the basis is similar, the plot and implementation was still impressive. The cinematography and imagery were superb, the acting excellent, and the special effects impressive. (My primary concern with effects-generated beasties is whether or not you can tell it was effects-generated, that is, does it look like a Harryhausen stop-motion beast. Pitch Black passed that test with flying colours.)

I have to give a nod to Vin Diesel, who probably was a significant part of why this film was as good as it was. Each of the main characters had their flaws nonetheless, Vin stands out above the rest of the pack, and not merely in physical stature (though that certainly was a part of it). In sheer presence and in deeds his was the character that had the audience's attention. The entire theater was clapping and cheering at one point!

This movie portrays an interesting trinity of protagonists and how they react to the situation they've been placed in. The "taste" of the movie, if you can consider it so, was savory and thick. It's certainly the best sci-fi movie I've seen since "The Matrix" -- "The Phantom Menace" was shallow and ephemeral, "Galaxy Quest" was decent but too much of a satire to find a place in my memory, "eXistenZ" was too bizarre, "The Astronaut's Wife" possessed of a weak storyline, "The 13th Floor" not bad, but too predictable- you get the picture. And let's not even talk about "Supernova".

The only real difficulty I had with it was the choppy editing during the first 20 minutes or so. A few more moving shots, used to emphasise transitions, would have upped my rating that final point.

Overall: 9/10.