Reviews

My rating: 5 out of 10. Willow was a breakthrough fantasy film in the late 1980's, largely for special effects improvements. The story centers around a young "peck" (dwarf) farmer, Willow, who finds a baby on the shore of a river. The baby is prophecied to bring about the downfall of the evil queen and is being hunted by her servants. Willow joins forces with a crazy rebel warrior "Madmartigan" to protect the baby from the Queen's forces.

Willow is a fairy tale disguised as a fantasy. The film attempts to show how a small person (common man) can triumph over evil. Indeed, Howard goes to great lengths to film the "peck" culture at work and play. Ron Howard's devotion to Willow's culture shows how Howard appears to take the film away from the fairy tale and ground the story in three-dimensional characters with actual feelings and lives.

Once we cut away from Willow to the evil queen, or Willow stops being the protagonist (led by Madmartigan or the shape-changing scorcerer), the film's sense of reality falls apart. If this were a true fantasy, grounded in some alternate reality, would Ron Howard coach his actress, "can I get that cackle a little more devilish?". I can only guess that Lucas' script and direction of the project had more to do with this embarrassment. We've seen what Howard can do with a good script.

In the DVD extras, Ron Howard appears to suggest that the film was really George Lucas project, and it shows, as most special effects from Star Wars-Return of the Jedi have been reinserted 5 years later (two-headed monster, scene change style, score, etc.).

Kilmer has flashes of brilliance as crazy rebel Madmartigan. His love interest, Joanne Whalley, is unnecessary to the plot but not unpleasant to look at. These two have considerable chemistry (they were later married) but Lucas doesn't seem to have a reason for bringing them together.

Warwick Davis (Willow), first "noticed" playing an Ewok for Lucas in Return of the Jedi, plays his role with intelligence and passion. He is really the one bright spot in the film.

The Brownies are annoying and do not have any real purpose in the film (a.k.a. Jar Jar Binks).

This film also contains the first use of morphing, a tool used to make images appear to change from one form to another. It was later used in many other films and has led us into the CGI age.

The action leading up to the climax was intense, however the "siege" at the queen's castle and scorcerers duel appeared anticlimactic and used a "God in the Machine" plot device to end the film.

If you want a film with action and some heart, then you will enjoy Willow. If you have a difficut time believing a prophecy that a baby will determine the fate of the world, then this film really isn't your cup of tea. If you are somewhere in the middle, then you are like me and wishing Ron Howard could have had someone other than George Lucas write the script.

Rob Schneider stars as "Deuce Bigalow", a down and out fish-tank cleaner who begrudgingly becomes a male gigolo in order to replace a real gigolo's expensive fish tank. While the plot is derivative and the jokes appeal to the least common denominator, the one thing that sets this film apart from other recent films starring recent SNL graduates (Mike Ferrell, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, David Spade), is that Rob Schneider is actually a likeable guy.

While Adam Sandler is insulting people, Rob Schneider plays the "everyman" caught in the worst possible scenario: becoming a man-whore. While many of the gags make light of disabilities (narcolepsy in a bowling alley, fish martini, blind woman cooking eggs, turretts syndrome at Yankee Stadium, prosthetic leg, etc.), we come to see through Schneider's "everyman" eyes that these women are important and deserve love like anyone else.

If you liked Ben Stiller in "There's Something about Mary" or Jack Black in "Shallow Hal", you should like Rob Schneider as "Duece Bigalow, Male Gigolo". If you are easily offended by jokes about people with disabilities, then you will not like this film.

Monsters, Inc. is the type of film Disney used to make. Sure the computer animation is new, but the old Disney formula is the same here. Great animation, lovable characters, a simple plot, and slapstick humor are what made Disney films like 101 Dalmations, Dumbo, Pinnochio, etc. all great childrens films. Monsters, Inc, however has done what these films could not do by extending its audience beyond your standard 3-11 year old.

The creators of Monsters, Inc. have paid enormous attention to detail in their work such that jokes like an ooze-generating monster mopping a floor, or an abominable snowman serving yellow snow cones (No, its lemon!) will entertain adults who normally don't find animation very interesting.

It is fortunate that Disney (Pixar in this case) has chosen to veer away from the formula that made its animated cartoons go "over the top" in the past. Yes, I mean the singing! The music chosen for this film goes over well and does not steal the show from the principal actors (Billy Crystal and John Goodman) and features a duet from the two at the closing credits (Oscar nominated song "If I didn't have you".

Crystal works well as the scare "coach" Mike Grebalski (spelling?). Disney could have chosen "over the top comedian Robin Williams for this part but wisely chose Billy Crystal whose comedy was light hearted and fun. Goodman gave a stellar performance as scare legend "Sully", the scarer who falls in love with a little child.

While there were some plot holes (how did Mike get back from the snow world?), I thoroughly enjoyed this film and recommend it to anyone, especially to those with children.

Buy Rating (0 = burn all copies of this 1 = good for USA network on Saturday night 2 = wait to come out on cable, network TV 3 = worth a rent 4 = buy it cheap on VHS 5 = buy it on DVD

5 of 5 stars

Normally sci-fi turns me off. Why? They get so technical and nerdy on you and you know this kind of stuff could never happen in the first place!

Battlefield Earth is a film that has no pretense about scientific plausibility. Could jets dormant for over a 1,000 years fly again? Of course not. Could primate-like humans learn to fly them so fast? Never! But at least we didn't get some garbage about reversing the poles or extrapolating the giggahertz or something.

I had fun watching this movie. John Travolta and Forrest Whitaker make a good team (as evidenced by Phenomenon, a much better sci-fi flick). I enjoyed the political satire and how even aliens play political games to get ahead in life.

Suspend disbelief a little and enjoy it. Its not quite as bad as everyone says!

Buy Rating 2 out of 5 stars (wait for it to come on cable)

Sick and wrong. Pathetic desperate women hook up with losers from Alaska. What's next? Looking for Love: Mail-order brides from Japan?

Why even bother with the marriage angle? From the looks of it, all they want to do is shack up. Fox needs to pull the plug on proposal point and rename it "lets shack up for a couple of episodes" point. Anyone who likes this show, please defend it. I could use a few laughs!

This film seems ripped from the latest headlines. Go see this film. The directing is excellent. The script is better than your typical action flick. I really enjoyed watching the toys in the movie -- the jet-copter, the talking fridgerator, the hologram girlfriend (wish I could program my wife like that!), the futuristic cars, etc.

Although Arnold really didn't have someone his equal to fight against, I thought the action scenes were really good. The comedy was really good as Arnold keeps killing off the same people. "Don't you guys ever stay dead?" and "When I told you to screw yourself, I didn't mean for you take it literally!".

Go rent this movie. The plot isn't rocket science but it will make you think about the implications of cloning humans.

This flick has so much potential. I loved all the office jokes. But once the crew tried to steal cash, the film went downhill. I got really bored of the story after that point. The characters were so whiny that it sucked the life out of the story. I rate the film a 6. Oh the potential!!! Gary Cole gets my MVP of this film for his portrayal of the boss. You go Mr. Brady!

The first time I saw this film I was impressed. Sure Jar Jar was annoying but the action was enough to keep me interested and I was anxious to find out how the Empire would be formed. After watching it a second time, knowing the action that would take place, I listened carefully to the dialogue. Again, Jar Jar's mangled English was of course annoying. The new thing I really noticed was that none of the characters seemed to really know what they were doing in the movie. The dialogue was awful and the hinted "relationship" between Anakin and his babysitter at the end was sick and wrong.

Natalie Portman was a disappointing Queen Amidala as Lucas' misguided attempts at multiculturalism transformed her into some Japanese princess whose personality was so wooden, it made Al Gore look like Ronald Reagan. If Lucas was trying for a new Princess Leia, he found the wrong actress. Leia in the original Star Wars delivers her lines with wit and spark. Amidala delivers her lines in an utterly boring and unconvincing monotone.

Jake Lloyd is the worst actor of the bunch, however as cute little Anakin Skywalker (affectionately called Anny by everyone). Do metachlorines cause bad acting? That may explain why young "Anny" treats the scene where he is leaving his mother behind like he is going out on a campout (Gee mom, can I go?) That would also explain why young Anakin expresses his "love" for Amidala at the end...."Space is cold. I care for you alot. I guess. Can I have some ice cream?....(if that doesn't make you gag, nothing will). Maybe the fear Yoda sensed in Anakin was the fear that after this he'll never get another acting job again.

Possible deleted scene on the DVD release:

Amidala: Stop that.

Anakin: Stop what?

Amidala: My hands are dirty.

Anakin: My hands are dirty too. We've been finger painting all day, remember?

Amidala: I happen to like nice men.

Anakin: I know I am a bad boy. You need more bad boys in your life.

Amidala: Kiss me!

Anakin: Okay but will you read me a bedtime story afterwards? You are the greatest babysitter/girlfriend ever!

It must be the metachlorines. Maybe Lucas has an especially high count himself. Overall grade: C+.

Somewhere in Hollywood, some guy made a pitch that goes like this: "Mummy was such a blockbuster hit! But we need to get the 5-12 year old crowd in order to sell all these action figures and lunch boxes. Lets do another Mummy Movie: Home Alone meets Indiana Jones! A wise-cracking kid will fend off evil mummies while his worried archeaologist parents try to find him before the end of the world happens."

This film had some good moments, don't get me wrong. I liked the pygmy scene, and the flashbacks to ancient Egypt. Those were great. But what was up with the constant making out between the O'Connells after every "rescue"? Come on, they've been married like 10 years or something...the flame is gone! Its a good thing Alex was with Ihmoutep or he would have probably said "Get a room, Mom and Dad!" Lets face it, Home Alone meets Indiana Jones didn't work in Star Wars Episode I (which was worse) and it doesn't work here!

I would have given this film a 7 but due to all the sappy kissing scenes I give it a 5.

During the first 20 minutes, I was riveted by the plot. The animation was spectacular. The score and sound effects were booming, especially as played on DVD. The dialogue was not as bad as some say. Actually it was quite believable. Buscemi stole the show with his wisecracks. I don't think this film was "predictable". If it was, then why are there so many unanswered questions at the end. If anything it was too unpredictable. Somehow along the way, the characters failed to explain how the eight spirits would get rid of the aliens. Second, I have a problem with the general. OK, his family was killed by the aliens and he is consumed with killing them. But you don't get to that position without having some common sense. He already had proof of her dreams to wake the council up, why did he have to let the aliens in the city. Third, how come the Zeus cannon is so powerful that it can destroy the Earth's Gaiia but fail to kill Captain and Aki when they are down in the crater. I guess I was expecting a nuclear blast or something. Fourth, how do the phantoms "feed" off the Zeus cannon? Fifth, how does Aki manage to project the spirits to kill off the aliens and Sixth, why does Captain have to die to save everyone?

Overall a 7 for animation, compelling characters, and score. I deduct points for plot holes and some unbelievable characters (the general)

Shows like Charlie's Angels and the Love Boat should stay in the era of disco, bell-bottoms and rollerderby. Its a shame that the new millenium has to start out by shamelessly borrowing from old TV shows. I like a good parody when I see one (Naked Gun, Hot Shots!, etc.) but this film was so cheesy and predictable. The part about Drew Barrymore missing a bullet was ridiculous. Everything about the movie was awful. See this at the risk of having your intelligence insulted. What's next? Dukes of Hazard the movie starring Tom Cruise and George Clooney and Cameron Diaz as Daisy?? Enough with the TV show parody, its not funny any more. One interesting note: Check out the DVD Shrek and see Cameron Diaz's "interview" as Princess Fiona. She references Charlie's Angels...soo funny! Rating: 5

Favorite moments: pardon me boy, is this the transylvania station? what knockers! the blind man trying to pour coffee! what hump?

What a classic movie!

Fellowship of the Rings is definitely my choice for movie of the year. Having read the books in high school, I was anxious to see what Hollywood would do to this story. Most modern epic "blockbusters" have let CGI and special effects steal the show. For example, watching Star Wars' "droid wars" was like watching a Disney cartoon. The people who brought us "The Mummy Returns" were so busy with the CGI that they forgot to get two decent actors and a script. Planet of the Apes had great scenery but the main character was very boring and unlikeable.

With Lord of the Rings, you get everything you want in a great movie.

1. A great story -- unlikely hero must carry the Ring of Power to heart of all evil and destroy it 2. Visual effects -- Lush, expansive, visionary, new, etc. 3. Script -- Written with intelligence. You can tell the actors actually have something to say. 4. Acting -- No cheesy hollywood jokes for the most part. Ian McKellum and Wood were fabulous. 5. Action/suspense -- You can't get much more action packed than this.

I can't understand why the critics are so upset about the ending. Empire Strikes Back ended with Luke, Leia and the two droids looking out into space and it was the best of the Star Wars movies. Had Peter Jackson left this scene out, we would not have understood the difficult journey that lies ahead for these two unlikely heroes.

I wish Hollywood would take notes from this movie. Get rid of the cheese. Tell stories with some weight. And don't sacrifice the story for the CGI/special effects.