Reviews

If you have not heard of this film, it follows two Sudanese refugees from a refugee camp in Africa to America, where they convince themselves they will find success and riches. Life is harder than expected in the states, and this film beautifully captures the frustration felt when things are not going right. The lives are captured so well many moments seem scripted because they're so perfect. Whether it be on the job, at school, or the time in between, the two boys, Peter and Santino, are very honest with the filmmakers, and make some very thought-provoking comments about life in the states. It's one of the only documentaries I can recall that, when it ended, I wanted it to go on for another two hours. It might be difficult to find this movie cause it didn't get great distribution, but check your local "art house" or independent theater and give this one a go (side note, if you're reading this when it's already on video then definitely it's worth a rent). Rating: 28/40

In order to appreciate ‘True Stories', I think you have to first appreciate the insanity of David Byrne. He was arguably the smartest, most inventive artist of his time, but a lot of what he did was misunderstood. Case in point, a lot of people found this movie to be boring, or unsuccessful in being a mockumentary, or being something other than it intended on. On the contrary, I believe ‘True Stories' was spot on with its intentions, and David Byrne made exactly the movie he wanted to. Much like Andy Kaufman, he enjoyed creating art that amused him, not caring whether other people were amused. Watch him as he goes from story to story in this small town, never judging who he's talking to, only listening with a smile and a nod. Soaking up every chance he gets to be around these quirky characters, which were, by the way, all based off of real people Byrne had read about previously. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to watch ‘Stop Making Sense', see if you enjoy that, and if you do than go out and rent ‘True Stories', because if you liked the former you will most likely eat up the latter on a silver platter. Rating: 27/40

Love, as a word, contains a hundred different meanings. Loving someone covers many situations, depending on the context it's used in and your relationship with that person. Even though certain love might be hard to understand, and even harder to express, Christmas generally is the one time a year where you're allowed to make said expressions, where you're allowed to say how you really feel. Especially in the world Richard Curtis creates in ‘Love Actually'. By using the trendy technique of telling a billion stories at once and having their interdependence gradually revealed, he has crafted perhaps the greatest romantic comedy of this young millennium. With ‘Love Actually' Curtis raises the bar at what we're allowed to laugh at (by showing us what would have previously been considered too risqué), challenges us to keep our eyes open for love (it might be in the place you least expect it), and most importantly challenges the studio system by redefining the romantic comedy market (up until now being monopolized by teens or young twenty-somethings). My hope is that everybody gets to see this movie: it has a wide release over here in the states and it's currently on at least two screens in all those big multiplexes. If you have loved on any level, from a friend to a spouse to your young child, you will find someone to relate to herein. And in a wonderful surprise, someone finally separates the genres ‘romantic comedy' and ‘chick flick', Curtis making a film that's just as side-splittingly funny as it is saccharin and romantic. Cancel plans if you must, but make sure you get out and support this movie in the theaters. If you're reading this after the movie has left the theaters then make sure you go rent it soon, you'll be very happy you did. Rating: 32/40

What an interesting movie. With complete disregard to any of the cinematic rules of decency, Haneke makes everyone in the audience accessories to murder, and he does it with a smile and a wink. Completely unmotivated, the two gloved killers get a joy out of their chosen profession, killing simply because they can. Not only do they kill, however, but they make sure we know they're about to do it, and then go through with it. I can honestly say this film is one-of-a-kind. You will never see a film like this again, and if someone decides to remake this (or the idea) later on, it is not possible for the film to be as shocking. The basic premise is a happy family of three take a weekend trip to their lake house. Once there, the wife is approached by the neighbor's friends to borrow some eggs. The neighbor's friends turn out to be quite unfriendly, and the world as the family knows it quickly gets turned upside down and thrown in a blender. If you have a strong stomach for violence in movies (not the explosion kind, but the personal kind) give this one a shot, but if not stay away as you will undoubtedly hate this movie, or be sickened by it (or both). Rightfully so, ‘Funny Games' did very well at the Film Festivals it was shown in, even winning a couple. Regardless of all the film school nonsense, however, this is simply a powerful film that deserves a chance to be seen. It will throw you for a loop, but in retrospect you'll be glad you saw it. Rating: 32/40

It was a little weird when I sat down to watch Psycho for the first time a few hours ago. Being a fan of horror films, I've been told by everyone that this was the one I have to see. Talk about a reputation to live up to, I didn't honestly see how it could be as good as it was supposed to be. I recently had been hearing great things about ‘A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum', and was disappointed in that, so my solely-based-on-reputation expectations were a little shot, plus I'd heard so much about the shower scene I figured that was the big payoff. Well, in a way that only Alfred Hitchcock can do it, any expectations I had were not only met but shattered. I cannot imagine the impact this movie must have had on audiences in 1960, even watching it forty years later on my DVD player with the volume turned down he rocked my world. If you're someone who hates top 200 lists because they're usually all the same, ignore the fact that this on every one and give it a chance, it honestly deserves any attention it's got over the years. All of the acting is solid, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) is believable in his difficult role and Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) gets scared with the best of em. The soundtrack is perfect, and there's some great cinematography in a few of the more dramatic moments, making ‘Psycho' close to a perfect horror film. I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say that if you haven't seen this movie yet, stop what you're doing and go rent it/buy it/steal it, whatever you need to do to watch it. Rating: 34/40

Remake after remake after remake after remake…it seems that as every week goes by there are two more rumored remakes of old Hollywood, independent, or foreign films. What's the reason? Are Hollywood writers taking a break? Are there no more books being written to translate into screenplays? Do these questions matter? I don't mean to whine, but it seems ridiculous to me that creativity is being stifled in favor of these old tales being rehashed time and again. On to the review…the movie was pretty bad (perhaps I am biased). It scared you at the right times and it was fun to see all the gore the MPAA allowed, but it was no different from any other studio horror film to be released in the past two-three years. Exceptionally average at best, it appeared as if the director was a little confused on how to tell the story. He decided to have both gore and lots of back-story, a technique that has worked in some movies before, but could not pull it off. The chase scenes were erratic and edited like a music video (along with remakes being another trend I hope dies soon), that being a shame because there is some really nice cinematography shot by Daniel Pearl (the cinematographer from the original ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre' as well) and a lot of it is lost during said chase scenes. Overall it was a mess, a bloody, scary, forgettable mess that doesn't need to be seen even once. Rating: 15/40

Director John Stewart should be given a medal. Not only does he play off of every stereotype known to the action genre, but he redefines ridiculous car chases and explosions-for-the-sake-of-them. ‘Action U.S.A.' is a must see for any action fan, and an even muster see for any fan of B-action movies that make you laugh. Where else can you see a house blow up because a car ran through it (without the car being damaged)? From beginning to end this movie will make you laugh, and laugh a lot. Stay far away if you're not a fan of cheesy acting and irrational plot structures, however, as this movie carries them in spades. For those of you whom this sounds even remotely interesting to, go out of your way to find it: I guarantee you will not regret it. Rating: 26/40

With Heathers, director Lehmann has done more than create a movie. He has successfully created an escape for any student not deemed popular by their local school scene. Although the clothes and hair can be linked to a certain era in history, the truths explored within 'Heathers' are universal, and transcend time. A film that treats high school students as capable, intelligent beings who recognize a copy of 'The Bell Jar' lying on the ground in the same breath it treats them as moronic jocks who think with their . well not their brains, is destined for controversy. If controversy was what Lehmann and writer Daniel Waters were looking for, they found it in spades. Not only was it unconventional, showing the demise of the 'popular' kids, but it dealt with teen suicide in a comical way. Not something America was ready for at the time of release, causing many problems initially with simply getting the film shown in theaters. Luckily it has found its niche market now, and is now starting to be recognized as the powerful film that it is. Almost any store rents this movie, so there's no excuse for you to not watch it. Next time you're at the store pick this one off the shelf and give it a spin, even if you don't understand it fully you will be treated to a fantasy that almost every 'unpopular' kid has had at one time. Rating: 33/40

Guilty pleasure is probably the best way to sum up this movie. Producer Joel Silver has a knack for finding bad scripts and adding some explosions and superhuman stunt work to make them interesting. He's at it again, this time with Carl Weathers playing the leading man, the baddest most feared cop in all of Detroit. After a recent event that cost him his Lieutenant position, Jackson (Weathers) has been pushing papers at a desk, waiting for a chance to see some action. Lucky for him, he gets his chance when super-billionaire Peter Dellaplane (Craig T Nelson) starts secretly assassinating his competition in the auto industry. Predictable and stupid, this film is also ridiculous and entertaining. A fun watch on a rainy Saturday afternoon, when you'd rather be outside playing basketball. Otherwise, I think you're safe to pass on ‘Action Jackson' and his action ways. Rating: 20/40

C. Thomas Howell, star of 'Soul Man' and 'The Outsiders', among many other 80's classics, tries his hand at a something a little different in this made for TV suspense thriller. Potentially miscast, Howell pulls off quite a strong performance as the All-American businessman letting his hair down and acting like a rebellious teenager again. Right along side him for every mishap are his uptight business-friend (Nancy Allen from 'Robocop' fame) and the instigator of all this trouble, Linda Fiorentino. Playing a B-movie `scream queen' who's wanted for murder, Fiorentino steals every scene she's in, proving early on that she could even shine in crappy films. Being a TV film, it was pretty cheesy, and not very entertaining, but it did keep me guessing until the last moment, which ultimately is the goal of these types of films. Not one to be in any hurry to watch, but enjoyable if you stumble across it. Rating: 23/40

From beginning to end, Coscarelli has crafted a really cool horror film with ‘Phantasm'. Consisting of really good special effects throughout (especially with the low budget) which give the film a professional feel, it has maintained a status of a top-rate horror film throughout the years. Coscarelli also did a great job casting, as nobody drags the story down or is even slightly unbearable to watch. The idea of having the story focus on what's left of a family was genius, adding an entire dynamic to the film that is non-existent in any of the teen-splatter films of the 80's. The audience really wants these characters to triumph, making this story connect on a sentimental level that's as deep as any horror film I've ever seen. Don't worry though, to balance all the emotion involved, we're treated with some blood, death, and a few good scares. ‘Phantasm' is definitely a film worth renting, or catching at a midnight show. Of course there are a few fallacies of logic throughout, but they are nitpicky and easily overlooked in the scheme of things. Rating: 32/40

For those who enjoyed the original ‘Mondo Cane', this is a less violent, more entertaining collection of sequences from around the world. Less focused on animals, we are treated to a birds' eye view of the crazy customs practiced on and by people. For those who haven't ever seen a ‘Mondo' film, please start with ‘Mondo Cane' and then come back and read this. ‘Mondo Cane 2' has some very shocking images; the most intense I felt was when we watched a Buddhist monk light himself on fire. Overall, however, the focus is on customs that to a foreign eye seem silly or ridiculous, not so much on these violent acts or situations. Filmmakers Jacopetti and Prosperi are masters at reporting truth much the same way a muckraker reports ‘truth', and simply by editing sequences together construct a convincing story that we humans are obsessed with pain and death. A great watch if you get the chance, and if you're really interested in these films there was a great box set released recently containing almost all of Jacopetti's work. It will probably be hard to find to rent, but keep an eye out if you're interested in documentaries as this is one of the best. Rating: 33/40

After the controversy that followed the release of ‘Silent Night, Deadly Night', a sequel was inevitable. And man what a sequel it was. The first 40 minutes of the movie are spent almost entirely in flashbacks to the first one as Ricky (the younger brother from the first movie) is talking to a psychiatrist about his past. After realizing the driving force behind his brother's killings, he has only 40 minutes to exact judgment on said force, leaving almost no time for a movie. The few kills that happen are funny, and enjoyable, but seriously, this is just a bad movie. Infomercials are more intellectually stimulating, and even Troma films try harder than this, and make more sense. If you know someone that owns the Anchor Bay release of the first two movies, watch the last thirty minutes of ‘Part 2', and you'll probably laugh a lot. Otherwise stay away; trust me, you're missing nothing. Rating: 15/40

Let down your guard, your critical nature, and your expectations and you might find this a pleasure to watch. It's cheesy and bad, but in that adorable way that 80's slasher films tend to be. There's sex where it's not necessary, a soundtrack that would make sense only to someone who couldn't hear it, and almost every line is a foreboding bit of dialogue. To contrast the killings, director Sellier chooses to portray Brian as the perfect child, going so far as to have him turn down a sip of alcohol because he packed a quart of milk for lunch. Anyways, watch it one night on cable, or if somebody else rents it. You will be fine if you go your entire life without seeing ‘Silent Night, Deadly Night', but if you accidentally come across it stick around, you'll be pleasantly surprised. Rating: 23/40

Bruce Campbell was perfect in this movie. He's proven himself time and again, but any skeptics need only watch this to be a hundred percent sure he's the real deal. The way the script was written, there could have been nobody except for Campbell playing this role, and Coscarelli knew exactly how to write for Mr. Bruce. Ossie Davis is perfect in this movie as well. In this fantastical world director Coscarelli creates, it's almost possible that he actually is JFK. Besides the two leads, however, I felt ‘Bubba Ho-tep' left a lot to be desired. Every corner of the movie was explained in such detail that I wonder if Coscarelli felt obligated to dumb down the exposition so as to appeal to a larger audience. Speaking of the exposition, we're asked to swallow quite a large `just take it as truth' pill as the audience. Maybe that's where the fun of the movie is and I missed it, but just like a Scooby-doo cartoon (or any other kids detective story) the facts fall into place without an explanation and always at the right time. Despite the irrationality of pretty much everything, I did laugh a lot, so I would say I enjoyed it overall. Please don't have high expectations, however, and don't even think about comparing it with any of the Evil Dead films. Rating: 23/40

With a beautiful journey through the eyes of two angels, Wenders has crafted one of the most original love stories ever to be put to celluloid (and like everything foreign and beautiful, an American company buys the rights, dumbs it down for our audiences and reproduces it without giving any credit to the original…ie ‘The City of Angels'). After always being invisible to people: only capable of hearing their thoughts and comforting their souls, one of the angels longs for the touch of another human; especially after he falls for a circus trapeze artist. He longs to do the things we enjoy, smoke a cigarette or drink a cup of coffee, experience all the emotions we take for granted. The cinematography is great, the dialogue is thought-provoking yet approachable, and the acting is superb. I have not yet seen the sequel, but am very excited to see what Wenders does with the second half of the story. As a last thought, I think it is great Peter Falk (TV's Colombo) was able to do a little tongue-in-cheek acting here, I like seeing Hollywood stars who are willing to poke fun at their established images. Rating: 35/40

Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani) is about to embark on a new life. His wife sells some of their sheets, and with that money they are able to buy his bike back so he can start a new job. His first day on the job, however, someone steals his bike while his back is turned. He runs all over that area of town, but the case seems helpless. Instead of giving up his friend Baiocco (Gino Saltamerenda), and his little buy Bruno (Enzo Staiola) join Antonio in a search all over the city.

Some of said this film is a microcosm for socialism, perhaps just about one man's search for faith (fides in latin, which is the type of bike he had), the epitome of Italian neo-realism, or perhaps just about poverty stricken Italy and the lengths one man would go to ensure some comfort for his family. Personally, I'm not sure which is the most important aspect of the film, but even if it's about none of these, De Sica has definitely created a masterpiece on human emotion and captured the essence of Italy during that time (post WWII). If you're debating whether or not to watch this, I would say believe the hype and ignore any negative reviews you hear, this film is one that needs to be seen. Rating: 32/40

Sylvia Plath was a jealous woman. She had a successful, charming husband which only made it worse. Her insecurities came to fruition when her hubby ran off with another just two years into their marriage. What makes Sylvia Plath's story different from any other tale of adultery? What is unique about her that would justify a retelling on celluloid? Unfortunately, we'll never know. Director Jeffs has successfully taken an interesting story and made it highly uninteresting. For the people in the world that know everything about Sylvia Plath, I'm sure this will be a great story, as they don't need any background into her life. For the rest of the world, however, a little exposition would be grand. Any details at all would be welcome as, despite the broad strokes of her life, we get nothing. What did she teach while in America? What ever happened with her book `The Bell Jar'? What were her children's names? The list goes on and on, but I think my point is proven. Anyways, the cinematography is exceptional, so you film school students will get a kick out of that. There are better examples of cinematography, however, and better examples of broken, jealous relationships (and better examples of a movie), so really there's no reason to watch this. Rating: 18/40

The world of politics can be a dangerous place, and no one knows this more than real life union-activist Jock Yablonski (Charles Bronson). After successfully defeating the long-standing president of the United Mine Workers in a 1969 election, Yablonski and two of his immediate family members were murdered at night while they slept. Rather than focus on the murders themselves, director Mackenzie tells the story of everyone involved with the crime in three separate, but intertwining stories. We follow the campaign trail of Yablonski, the desperation of Tony Boyle and his cronies, and the hired assassins, getting an eagle eye's view into their lives. Done effectively, this is a very powerful tool in helping the audience associate with the characters, and the situations they find themselves in. Whether it was because of the confines of a made for TV movie or just bad direction I'm not sure, but Mackenzie was not successful in representing all sides evenly, and it was glaringly apparent where his biases lie. All of the acting was solid, with Bronson and Ellen Burstyn playing a very convincing married couple. Wilford Brimley turned in another great performance as the racist, corrupt, and all around dirty president of the Mine Workers' Union, and Keanu acted just as Keanu does, albeit without much screen time. If you're fiercely interested in American politics I would say it's worth checking out. If not, don't bother: go outside and take a walk, or learn how to make a new dish, this is not worth your time. Rating: 21/40

Deemed as ‘too serious' by the general American audience, this film was overlooked during its theatrical run. Due to the prominent use of CGI in the film, the purists of Hollywood and the critical world jumped on the anti-hulk bandwagon, judging it solely based on principles. Comic fans, as they do, said it wasn't an accurate enough representation of the story of the Hulk, and their views were tainted. With all of this to go up against, who was left to like it? The few people in America who can enjoy it for what it was (oh yeah, and the rest of the world, but since it was a Hollywood film, there's only one continent the producers judge success on).

Ang Lee created a visual comic book, a revolutionary use of CGI in movies, and, more importantly (based on the interviews with him surrounding the film) the film he really wanted to make. Using probably every tool in Avid (I think that's the name), Ang Lee and Tim Squyres edit the film in a way that the movie feels like and looks like the most accurate comic book adaptation during this whole recent trend, possibly since Dick Tracy (not counting graphic novels, in which case Road to Perdition would obviously be the forerunner). The other stories (Spiderman, Daredevil, etc) may be more accurate, I'm in no position to judge that, but watching the Hulk I felt as if I was reading a comic book, which I can't say for any of the others. Also, it I really liked how it was a more serious story, dealing with these issues in a more serious manner. Comic books have been called the mythology of our times. If this is true, then ‘Hulk' stands alone as the one movie attempting to treat our modern mythology with the respect it deserves. With this film already out on video, go rent it, give it a shot, with a healthy video life a sequel will probably be made, and the adventures of the Hulk can begin. Rating: 30/40

This is more than the third installment to the Scary Movie franchise. With ‘Scary Movie 3', David Zucker has brought his brand of zany, slapstick humor to a new generation. The theater I went to was filled with children, ranging from I guess 12 to about 45. Everyone ate it up. I would bet a majority of the young children in there, unfortunately, do not have cool parents, and had never seen a Naked Gun movie, or had the pleasure of watching ‘Top Secret!'. This parental oversight worked to their advantage, however, and they were rolling on the floors. Those who were still in their chairs had sore cheeks and stomachs because their body couldn't handle this amount of humor. If you have seen the Naked Gun movies, or even some of Jim Abrahams films, this humor might seem old…not very fresh… `been done before', but if you can imagine that this is the first time you've watched Leslie Nielsen be oblivious to immediate danger, or the first time you've seen Charlie Sheen shoot out of bed directly into a metal lampshade … twice (for example), then you too will think this is one of the funniest movies you have ever seen. A hundred references to other films, a joke a second, and a ridiculous amount of pain exacted on a young child make this the best studio comedy, pound for pound, of this year, and possibly of the young millennium. Rating: 33/40

I sat through it, turned it off, ejected it, rewound it, and went on about my day as if nothing had happened. A few hours later I'm sitting down to write this review and I can think of absolutely nothing to write. I know I watched it, and stayed awake for the whole thing, but I was so entirely unaffected by this that here, only a few hours later, I've already forgotten everything. Stay away from this for no other reason than it's terrible. Not a single part is remotely interesting. Rating: 5/40

A true masterpiece in the exposition of human relations, ‘Hannah and Her Sisters' does for marital difficulties and the struggles of a relationship what peanut butter does for jelly. Characters interact like rational humans, the sanctity of marriage is maintained, love conquers, and the list really does goes on. Allen is, again, excellent as the neurotic ex-husband Mickey and Mia Farrow plays the unsuspecting, loyal wife of Michael Caine as if she's been in that situation before. The chemistry between Caine and Barbara Hershey is outstanding (hours of dialogue are spoken in the few moments of silence they have with each other and the way they physically interact), and Dianne Wiest is perfect as the eccentric (struggling) actress who always thinks she's a burden to the family. The family unit is stretched and tested, but does not break, the tests serving only as a glue to make the family stronger, and more flexible, than they already were. Watch it on cable, rent it, or catch it at a midnight showing somewhere, but get out and watch this, you will not be disappointed. Rating: 34/40

Whether or not you have any interest in `old' films, this is a film that cannot be missed. Paul Newman is so indescribably cool in this movie, so mysterious and rebellious, that his performance can and hopefully will inspire non-conformists for generations to come. Put simply, it does not age. He's only a man, and can be beaten, but his spirit is never broken, and his focus never lost. As for the rest of the movie, from end to end it's nearly flawless. Arguably the best script ever written, amazing cinematography from Conrad Hall, and a solid supporting cast gives the viewer the feeling that this is the definitive rebel movie. Surrounded by inmates who have forgotten to think for themselves and believe in themselves, he gets the whole prison believing again. It seems as if the one thing those inmates needed was the hope for freedom, being stuck behind bars and fences can quickly kill a man's will. Luke enters, and is the embodiment of all these hopes, and revels in the trust and camaraderie he is given. If you have the time to be reading reviews about it, use your time wisely and go rent ‘Cool Hand Luke' tonight, you'll be very happy with the outcome. Rating: 37/40

Miles Massey (George Clooney) is an attorney who never loses a case. No matter the challenge, he rises time and again, always making sure his clients end up with a lot of money. As money is, especially in this only slightly exaggerated world of ‘Intolerable Cruelty', what makes the world go round, he is deemed a huge success. He struggles with this idea, however, as he finds himself bored with winning and bored with the money he continues to win. On his most recent case, defending the very guilty Rex Rexroth (Edward Herrmann), Massey meets face-to-face with the first challenge he can remember, Marilyn Rexroth (Catherine Zeta-Jones). An intellectual equal, Marilyn is exactly what Massey looks to for a challenge, and takes it upon himself to accept the challenge.

The Coen's have been getting the majority of attention for Intolerable Cruelty, as this is the new `Coen Brothers' film, which is unfortunate, because Robert Ramsey and Matthew Stone seem to have had an equal part in the final product. Their next project after ‘Big Trouble', the team of Ramsey and Stone have crafted a solid story; one that refuses mediocrity at every turn. The master cinematographer Roger Deakins is back behind the lens, and has once again done his part in baffling the senses with his craftsmanship. Even watching Massey drive down the road after getting his teeth cleaned, it is apparent the movie is in the hands of a master. And lest we forget, the sarcastic tone of the movie is brought to surface mainly through the aural competence of Carter Burwell. Long a Coen favorite, he has a very gifted ability to create atmosphere and mood. As for the movie as a whole, I'd have to say nearly spotless. Definitely a `Coen' film, their style and pacing is prevalent from beginning to end here, and is probably the biggest reason the film carries itself so well. A trend in recent Coen movies is to have the protagonist maintain a certain fixation. Here, Massey's teeth are in focus at every possible opportunity, and create some great gags with the audience. A lot has been said about this movie being a departure for the Coen Brothers, and it not being as deep, or as good, as some of their more acclaimed work. For those people I would say watch it again, and while your opinion might not change on all of the issues, you will probably be able to see it for what it is, an accessible romantic comedy that pokes fun at the state of marriage currently in America. Rating: 30/40