Reviews

Artistically, the first SpiderMan was a failure. It was everything wrong with big budget Hollywood flicks--horrible, soap opera acting with ignorant, mind-numbing scripts that have so many loop holes in their logic as to make any fanboy pray for an aneurism. This movie, amazingly, was far better than its predecessor.

In terms of where it started, Spiderman2 is easily the best sequel of all time! I say that simply because, while Godfather 2 was excellent, so was The Godfather. Spiderman 2 is excellent, but SpiderMan was crap. The level of improvement from original to sequel is astonishing.

I'm not sure I believe Raimi directed this film, though. He's never done anything to prove (IMHO)he had any talent for non-camp material, but somehow he pulled this one off. Anyhow, most fanboys were thankful for the greatest improvement of all: less Willem Dafoe.

This movie took "The Blair Witch Project" and mixed in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and created a stupid piece of crap. Just another teen horror flick that lacks all the originality, gore (for the 70s), and low-budget creepiness of either of the 2 above-mentioned movies. The 7th Heaven Girl (jessica whatever) did an okay job, but nobody shone in this movie. Nothing is standout in it, aside from Tobe Hooper's near bout with homelessness. I figure his destitution must be what convinced him to allow this thing to be made. No artistic explanation exists to support such a decision.

This movie did a pretty good job of killing his big-screen presence for 30 more years, at least! FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION AND HAVE ONLY SEEN THE CLEANED-UP DVD, YOU AIN'T SEEN SQUAT!!! My comments will go towards the original theatrical/vhs release, the stuff before that attempt to clean it up on dvd. That crap don't fly with me (no pun intended). Where do I begin to complain?

After watching this movie, I came to the conclusion that Superman's ability to propel himself at near limitless speeds (which look oddly slow in the bad bluescreen of this film) lies in his super-flatulence. I say that because of the smell I noticed while watching it. Where the hell did Superman get "rebuild-the-great-wall-of-China-vision"?!? When did he develop telekinetic ray beams (when he lowered the citizens held aloft by Nuclear...ugh....Man). When did Lois Lane become a crack whore? When did Perry White die, only to be reanimated? When did Jimmy Olsen turn 45? When did Christopher Reeve lose all the muscle from his previous 3 movies, only to show up at 135 lbs soaking wet for this one? When did human beings learn to talk in space? Why didn't Mariel Hemingway implode when Nuclear...ugh...Man dropped her in space?!? When did Gene Hackman's career go so wrong? Why didn't Mariel burn up in earth's atmosphere when she was carried in and out of it? How the hell could Superman push THE MOON (a plot device stolen from a cartoon episode of He-Man)?!? Why would a clone of Christopher Reeve look like a gay 1980s aerobics instructor? Why did they reference a first Nuclear...ugh...Man when those scenes were cut? Why did Superman's cape's S-shield peel apart? Why did the wires show at all times? Why did Superman go flying in front of bad bluescreen with a crack-addicted skeleton? Why were a large portion of the flying shots stock shots from Superman II or III? When did Superman become a fascist dictator, spitting on the sovereignty of not only the United States, but the United Nations (the mecca of all you commies out there)? When did Nuclear War have ANYTHING to do with Krypton's sun blowing up the planet? There are more questions, mostly relating to continuity of the movies, but I don't wanna go into them. This movie made me ashamed to be a SuperFreak--even at 12 years of age (when I first saw it). The wires have been cut out of the dvd, the color's been enhanced (the original blue screen shots looked 30 years old, even in 1987), and the blue screen's been digitally 'repaired.' If you want to see how this movie REALLY looked, get an old VHS tape of it. They're everywhere. But, you'll see all the crap I'm talking about. This movie will make you hate America's greatest pop icon.

This movie was simply awful. The first 2 Terminator movies were pieces of scifi history. This contrived piece of crap is nothing more than a standard action flick. Arnold delivered comedic line after comedic line after comedic line. That might not have been so offensive if this was Commando II. However, for a Terminator film, it's insulting to its legacy. The absence of Cameron and Hamilton is noticeable, and Stahl and Daines (who appears to be 35 now) are unconvincing, at best. Arnold attempts to carry the movie with standard action stunts and one liners, but there's no meat to this sandwich, folks. The story is lame, and the characters are worse. The ending isn't a surprise to anyone familiar with the scifi genre, wherein surprise "unhappy endings" abound. If you can, avoid it at all costs. Personally, I hope Arnold doesn't come back for any future cinematic outings. Not until he's gotten a better agent.

Let's drop all pretentions for a moment. Monster's Ball had one selling point: Thornton doggy-styling Berry. The critics raved over this scene: "...it shows their humanity." and "...portrays their weakness." and "...this movie will fly over the heads of some." Whatever. I've seen enough "I spit on your grave" movies to understand one basic tenet of life: I understand the stark reality that sex doesn't equal love or emotion of any kind. It equals sex. Get over yourselves. Ask yourself this question: WOULD THIS MOVIE HAVE BEEN AS GOOD WITHOUT 'THAT SCENE?' Your answer will determine where you will always stand on this movie. The acting is pretty good, but there's little or no character development for Berry's character (Spacek was screwed!!!). I get it: two screwed up people lead screwed up lives and then, by freak, screwed up chance, find each other. There's no happy ending, only the reality of their screwed up lives going on, most likely with each other. I've seen it before. So have you. If not, then look around. It was good, but it wasn't all this and that.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. Cool. Keaton reprising Batman. Also cool. Danny DeVito...waitaminnit: why is Danny DeVito in this movie? why is there an additional "big bad," thus taking away from the character development between Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle? This is the inevitable simple equation that every comic adaptation proves, but Hollywood either doesn't care or isn't smart enough to catch on: 1 superhero + 1 supervillain = great movie, while 1 superhero + X supervillain(s) = bad movie. Superman and Batman prove the first half of this equation. Superman 2 is an example of a rare exception (as there are to all rules); however, it had Superman 1 to help build up Zod as a nemesis. X-Men barely survived it. All subsequent Batfilms died as a result of it. Too many characters to focus upon requires either 18 hours of footage or the elimination of characters. You can't build characters without scenes of them. You can't have scenes of them if you have to have scenes of the other 13 characters in the film. Pfeiffer as Catwoman is the only saving grace of this film.

After SpiderMan and Xmen2, I was expecting very little from Hulk. While the aforementioned movies were entertaining enough, they pale in comparison to Ang Lee's Hulk. I thought the CGI in the commercials looked cartoony, at best, and wretched, at worst. However, once you are drawn into the movie, the CGI becomes brilliant,at times; it's acceptable, at others. It's nowhere near as expressive as Gollum from LOTR:The 2 Towers, but the musculature (and hard work it takes to make that believable) serves its purpose. Bottom line: the CGI doesn't detract from the story, but boosts it at the appropriate times: and that's the most one can expect at this stage from CGI characters. The acting is on the mark, with Bana very convincing as Bruce Banner. Nolte and Connely deliver in their roles equally well. The direction, however, is a little mixed. At times, the segues and fades that Lee chose in this movie were awesome. However, the oddly spaced moments of turning the screen into a comic page were not only irritating, they snapped you away from the movie itself. The 'comic pages' only remind you that this is based on a comic, and therefore, shouldn't be taken seriously. This would seem to be the exact opposite of what you'd want to achieve. The music by Danny Elfman is nonexistent, at best, and merely more of his usual drivel. He evidently blew his wad on Batman. Aside from the odd direction, this could've been a classic comic adaptation, almost up to Superman and Batman levels. On a 4-star scale, it gets 2.5 stars. As it was, the odd 'comic screens' and poor music hold it back.

The 1977 Hulk adaptation done as a pilot for the TV series was, by TV standards...well, incredible. Lou Ferrigno and Bill Bixby were perfectly cast in their roles. The "special effects" were about all they could do at the time, so you can't hold the body paint or Tina Turner wig against them. They didn't detract from the story at all, but rather, boosted it: making them superior to most special effects today. The origin, of course, was rewritten, as was Hulk's level of power, to make them more believable. Well, it worked, and this version of the Hulk is still a favorite among Hulk fans to this day. Interesting to note is the music and sound. First of all is the opening "Dr.David Banner...physician...scientist..." segment. It's not present in this movie, since this was only the pilot. Also, you'll notice the sound of wailing voices as he transforms, in contrast to the weird Twilight Zonish-noise used from mid-1st season until its end. "The Lonely Man" theme (played at the end of each episode) gave this show its own signature, and helped to boost otherwise lame episodes, giving them more poignancy than deserved (of the series run, "The First," and "Bride of the Incredible Hulk" were the best [both 2parters]). I really felt the lack of a signature sound/theme is one of the key factors holding back the big-budget movie that just came out.

How can you not root for Harry Potter? In one scene, we establish him as the 2nd saddest child in cinematic history (the saddest being Charlie from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory): seeing a kid drawing his own birthday cake in dirt. My God, I was practically traumatized watching this. The first 30 minutes of child abuse was crushing my poor heart, and then the cake scene. I honestly wouldn't have objected to Harry becoming a hatchet murderer at that point--you couldn't have made me side against him. So, to witness him go on and discover his roots in magic, and actually find happiness in that world? I was all for it....but I still wanted to beat the tar out of the Dursleys.

...gaping at this movie! Gollum is easily the greatest CGI character of all time, flipping his digitally-created finger at the upcoming "Incredible [Shrek]!" Based on Tolkien's legendary books, the story is superior to mere scifi/fantasy trite. The directing (by the amazing Peter Jackson) is beyond the ability of the English language to praise! It's only too bad Peter Jackson will be snubbed by the Academy's disdain for scifi/fantasy in lieu of socialist dogma. The acting was simply wonderful, with Wood, Astin, Mortensen, McKellan, etc. surpassing anything in the history of scifi/fantasy! I can't wait for the third installment!

Spider Man is hurt by two words; "What if?" What if...James Cameron hadn't backed out. What if...Wes Bentley had gotten the role? What if...they had found someone who could write? What if the guy who directed Darkman hadn't gotten anywhere near it? All that aside... Spider Man was HELPED by a few other factors: Post-911 psyche of American audiences. We wanted a feel good movie, and they gave us one. Next, Toby Maguire surprised me at how well he performed. I never would've guessed this one. Like Christopher Reeve, he came into a role no one thought he'd succeed with, and made it his own. Overall, Spidey's an entertaining flick with SPECTACULAR special effects (CGI/ blue-screening a person in the swinging shots ain't easy, folks), but lacks a dynamic script. It's not on par with the legends of comic-to- movie translations, Superman and Batman (the first films of each), but it'll do.

I don't know how to describe this movie. I'm left with an empty feeling and a kind of anger at how stupid this crap gets! If Anakin was so God-powerful, or at least predicted to be in Episdoe 1, then why is he so dadgum stupid and weak? He can't use the force to track a bounty hunter in the 2Fast2Stupid race sequence, he can't use the force to outrun her, and he can't use the force to find her in a crowded pub. Can he use the force to open a can of beans? At least then, there'd be a use for it. This movie achieves what few movies can... it both sucks AND blows.

Here's a great idea: never let people see screentests with better actors than the one you chose. Jake Lloyd was easily the worst performance of a child actor in history. He made me root for Sebulba (spelling?) in the pod race. Forget the abomination of Jar-Jar Binks, let's talk about that rotten little kid. Why didn't Lucas CGI a kid in there? It couldn't have been worse, could it? Why didn't Liam Neeson do that weird fading thing ObiWan does in episode 3? Is there any logic to this stuff at all? I am seriously doubting it. Sheesh, I don't need to go too far into this flick--it'll take all week to discuss the bad...

...but not this one. The Lion King is Disney at its family-oriented BEST! This is one of its few films in recent decades that belongs with its classics! The animation is great, the voice-acting superb, and the characters...well, quite animated! Don't just rent this one, it's a keeper.

Who cares how they got to this movie as long as they got to it? The ewoks are dumb. Harrison Ford seems to "phone it in," and the black- screen is horrible (especially for something from ILM). So, why did I give this thing a 7? Mark Hammill. The only reason for watching this movie is the very reason I loathe the others: STORY. The resolution of the Father-Son conflict comes to a climactic head in this movie. Maybe it's Freudian, but it's comforting to witness Luke's compassion and love for his father proving wiser than Yoda and Obi-Wan's "kill him and let God glue back together the pieces of Darth Vader" mentalities. In the end, Vader saves Luke's life. Which, really, brings us to a conundrum, doesn't it? Wouldn't LUKE be the one the prophesies foretold of bringing balance to the force (opposed to Anakin, as believed in Episodes 1 and 2, and stated in interviews with Lucas)? Think: Darth slaughtered the Jedi and oppressed people for years! Luke, however, followed a path of enlightenment, and saved his father (and, by extension, the universe) from himself and the Emperor's grip! This one aspect of the story was so well-done, I feel it saved the entire Star Wars run.

I've never understood the fascination with this film. The special effects aren't that impressive (simple mat-shots done on black-screen with inanimate objects) even by 70s standards (Superman's were far superior as they required matting a moving person). The story is practically plaguiarized from Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress". The characters play like a cheesy soap opera, with bad dialogue to match. The only person in the film with onscreen charisma is Harrison Ford (which explains the directions of careers after the SW films). The fascination that "Warmongers" have had with this series of movies (this one, in particular)is beyond my meager understanding: It's obvious to anyone who isn't a sick freak obsessed with these movies that Lucas & co. made it all up as they went along (no epic master plotline as many mongers wish to believe--Lucas was on a journey with no destination), which left them with each successive production to try and write their way out of the box they'd previously written themselves into (luke i am your father-but you killed my father-only in a manner of speaking--what nonsense is that?).Sorry, gang. I'm not drinking Lucas's KoolAid anytime soon.

Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?

I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.

Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.

This is what movie-making is all about! No pc soapbox, no one trying to convince you to follow some socialist utopian agenda, just pure, undilluted storytelling! And, Ridley Scott (screwed at the oscars) delivers with this cinematic masterpiece!

Crowe is phenomenal as Maximus, the hero of the story. Maximus is driven by an insatiable thirst for revenge, yet beneath that burns the love for the dream of Rome, shared by the former emperor (Harris). But, Joaquin Phoenix (also screwed at the oscars) turned in one of the most disturbing portrayals of evil in moviedom. Commodus (played by Phoenix) can't be purely hated--look at his upbringing. But, his actions can ONLY be hated. And, the threat he poses to his own people cannot be settled through talk or appeasement. One cannot reason with insanity. They are, by nature, unequivocable, and Maximus/Commodus portray these elements beautifully.

The characters are believable, played perfectly, and the story is impeccably blended with action, drama, and even romance. This is easily the greatest movie produced in the modern era!

Jurassic Park was highlighted by its spectacular special effects. It recharged the interest in big-budget special effects flix, and proved a simple hollywood rule: it doesn't have to be good, as long as it's good enough.

The special effects in this movie cannot be challenged. The perfect use of animatronics and CGI (it revolutionized the CGI industry in hollywood) is unsurpassed these 10 years later. It sparked a million knockoffs, whether in genre (dino-movies) or special effects (every God-awful pixel of CGI puked out by the hollywood braintrust)-- for further info on bad CGI, be sure to catch the upcoming HULK movie). They remain some of the greatest (if not THE greatest) special effects in cinematic history. The story, however, is pitifully inferior to the book. The characters are unimportant in the movie, taking backseat to Steven Speilberg's Dino-F/X. Jeff Goldblum's character, who was pivotal to the book (as he spoke for us, the reader), served no greater purpose than comedic value in this movie. Thus, it garners the low rating of 6 stars I gave it.

How often is it that a remake is vastly superior to the original? Not often is the answer. The Thing is the only one that comes to mind. This movie, much more true to the short story ,"Who Goes There?" from whence it was based, is far more magical and encompassing than "The Thing [From Another World]" from the 50's.

This is one of those all-rare instances in Hollywood where the special effects SUPPORT the story instead of take its place. They serve to enhance the movie experience, and suspend your disbelief entirely. If John Carpenter never makes another good film (he hasn't since), he can go to his reward knowing he made this one. Solid acting,editing, music, and top-notch special effects highlight this film: one of science fiction's greatest movies.

Superman is my favorite all-time film. No sense lying about it, as you'll figure it out from my glowing review. This was the first movie my father ever took me to see. I remember it as if it was yesterday (although my mind has probably filled in a lot of blanks).

Christopher Reeve was Superman. Period-end-of-paragraph. Singularly, the greatest casting job in history. He helped redefine the character for a new age.

Gene Hackman was marvelous as Lex Luthor. Superficially, he was a walking joke, but beneath that, you can see just a twinge of insanity. One of Hackman's most underrated performances, I think.

The special effects were vastly superior to anything else of its day. All "Star Wars" had to do was photograph a couple of non-moving models and place them in front of a black matte. Superman had to work with a moving human being and real backgrounds, not the white-dots of outer space.

This movie created the comic genre, and addicted a generation of kids to comics. It remains, and shall remain, the benchmark for all comic book adaptations. None have come close.

Incredibly inferior to the remake, "John Carpenter's The Thing," this movie failed to capture my imagination. It simply cashes in with the Frankenstein "monster run amok" formula, and fails to do anything impressive, even for the 50's. Overrated has a name. Here it is...