Reviews

My review of SPACE JAM has always been the same: if you go into this expecting the definitive cinematic adaptation of the classic LOONEY TUNES shorts and everything that made them great, especially the work of the great Chuck Jones, you will be disappointed. But if you go into this accepting it for what it is, a family-themed sports-fantasy movie that just happens to feature the LOONEY TUNES characters in it, then you'll be adequately satisfied. This isn't a great movie, but it does give you exactly what you pay for.

The movie is directed by Joe Pytka, who'd mostly directed music videos and commercials, including several Super Bowl TV spots (which, pre-YouTube, was considered the golden timeslot for the highest quality commercials you'd see all year). And that's exactly what this movie really is: one feature-length commercial. A commercial for LOONEY TUNES, the NBA, and hip hop music, all rolled up into one movie filled with corporate logos.

The plot: aliens invade and threaten to enslave the LOONEY TUNES characters and make them attractions on their planet's theme park. So Bugs, Daffy, Porky, and the gang must come up with a plan and eventually decide to...challenge the aliens to a basketball game? Really? As pretty much every critic pointed out, these are characters known for such zany hijinks and slapstick-filled adventures that break the laws of physics. That they would pick something as mundane as a basketball game feels out of character. Chuck Jones disliked the movie and said his version of Bugs Bunny would have outsmarted the aliens in about seven minutes and not needed anyone's help to do so.

The movie is aware that it has a flimsy premise, but it needs it in order for the gimmick to happen: Bugs has to recruit Michael Jordan from our world to help the gang. Jordan coaches our heroes and they play in the big game, filled with CGI and-then groundbreaking FX. He has a dorky sidekick Stan (Wayne Knight) and a surprise ally in Bill Murray. Murray is actually the best thing in the movie, as his trademark ad-libbed, wink at the audience, "What the hell am I doing in this movie?" schtick plays well in a movie this self-aware.

The live-action portions of the movie are its weakest element. Which is a shame as there's some good acting by Jordan, Knight, Murray, and cameos by other NBA players (Charles Barkley and Larry Bird), as well as Patricia Heaton and Dan Castellaneta. But they are blandly- directed and feel like a collection of sketches with lame jokes, basically what you would expect from a director of commercials working with a cast of mostly athletes with little acting experience. And get ready to see tons of basketball-playing footage and shot-after- fetishistic-shot of baskets being dunked and Jordan making every jumpshot in slow-motion with graceful precision; in other words, what you've seen in countless athletic commercials before.

The animated portions of the movie are much stronger, featuring more colorful visuals, fun cutaway gags, and the usual mayhem and slapstick we've come to expect from these characters. Bugs Bunny is voiced by Billy West, and while he can never measure up to the legendary Mel Blanc, he does a great job giving us more or less what we expect this iconic prankster to be. Daffy, Porky, Tweety, Sylvester, Taz and Elmer are all there as well and each one manages to get in a few of their classic quips and gags. None of it ever lives up to the humor of the classic shorts of Chuck Jones and his contemporaries, but it generally works.

It's hard to explain what a sensation this movie was at the time. To any kid growing up in the early '90's, Michael Jordan was a God. He was the biggest athlete in the world who appeared in countless commercials and, while maybe not a professional actor, definitely had charisma and screen presence that matched his family-friendly persona. Even if you were a kid who didn't follow sports (like me), you heard about Michael Jordan on a daily basis: I still remember the entire school talking when this mythic figure announced he was leaving basketball to attempt a career in baseball, and his eventual return to basketball. I would argue there hasn't been a professional athlete since who has had the global popularity Jordan had in his prime. If you were a studio exec in 1996 and had to greenlight a film to serve as a starring vehicle for Jordan, having him act opposite a bunch of cartoon characters was probably the best option.

And on that note, everything about SPACE JAM is very mid-'90's: the hip hop soundtrack, the aggressive sense of humor, the attempts to give the cartoon characters edgy dialog and a "hip" attitude, the emphasis on athleticism and cast consisting mostly of NBA all-stars, and the pop culture references, right down to PULP FICTION.

SPACE JAM is junk food, filled with corporate logos, created for the sake of making money. But as a piece of nostalgia intended for kids, it's harmless fun. What else can I say but: that's all, folks!

This is one of the few examples of a film that I've really gone back on and changed my mind about. I don't usually pull a complete 180 on my opinion of a film, but this one did it.

I love Disney's original SLEEPING BEAUTY from 1959; one of the studio's most gorgeous- looking films with a hypnotic, poetic quality, and a strong villain. When I saw MALEFICENT for the first time, I fell for its spell. I liked that here was a live-action fairy tale movie that WASN'T about big CGI-battles (there's only one small battle at the very beginning). Here was a movie that showed the dark side of fairy tales (even having a subtextual date-rape scene) with a slower pace, more visual-oriented storytelling, and had a Feminist message. Plus I liked Angelina Jolie and her dynamic with her servant Diaval (Sam Riley). I even bought the Blu-Ray.

But with each repeat viewing I began to find more flaws in the film. One is the complete destruction of the characters of the three fairies Flora, Fauna, and Merriweather (they change the names to Flittle, Knotgrass, and Thistletwit for some reason, but whatever. It's basically those characters). They are turned into complete idiots. The Nostalgia Critic actually worded it best: it feels as if the screenwriter of this film had a personal vendetta against the creator of those characters. I can understand that in order to make Maleficent seem like the heroine of the story, the movie has to downplay these fairies, but it's pushed much too far. They come off grotesquely stupid and incapable of raising a child. We see almost no interaction between them and Aurora.

Speaking of Aurora, Elle Fanning is horribly bland. This is supposed to be the most beautiful princess to ever live, and she offers little in terms of character or personality. Believe it or not, the animated version of the character actually had more screen presence with her ethereal singing voice. Another problem with the story is the pace: there is a 16-year gap in the story where nothing happens. The entire middle act of the film is just Maleficent watching Aurora grow, the two bond, and 16 years pass within the story with little conflict. The film tries hard to compensate for this lack of progression by inserting lots of filler of King Stefan going mad. Even at a mere 88-minute runtime, the film seems dragged out. It's really hard to make a story compelling when the plot literally has to stop and not move forward for 16 years until it can progress.

Prince Philip is truly given nothing to do. The movie is trying to go for the same message as FROZEN; the "true love" of the story is between two women (in this case a mother and daughter-figure) instead of romance. But while I can appreciate this modern take on the fairy tale narrative, it's just so sloppily done to the point that Philip is a non-character who gets kicked out of the movie. When he shows up again at the very end, it feels like a tacked-on "Oh yeah, we forgot about him" moment. FROZEN was much smarter in its subversive take on the genre.

The 1959 animated film is not intended to be realistic. It embraces the fact that it's a fairy tale and has all the Hollywood and Disney archetypes of the 1950's. Sure, it wasn't big on character development, but it had some nice magical moments. You could enjoy the whimsy of Aurora and Philip meeting and falling in love, the humor of the three fairies, and the menace of Maleficent. It was a pure fairy tale.

But this film, made for a 2014 audience, is slightly harder to pigeon-hole. It's not quite sure if it wants to be a pure fairy tale that throws logic completely to the wind or if it wants to be a more adult, gritty, realistic, and sophisticated take on the story. Once you look beyond the performances of Jolie and Riley, the only two actors in the movie who are actually engaging, you're left with a pretty meh story.

By the third time I saw the film, my problems with it were so large that I realized I would probably not be likely to watch it again, and ended up selling the Blu-Ray to someone. And that perfectly sums up MALEFICENT: it casts a spell on you once, but it soon wears off once you start thinking too much.

Like many others, I grew up in the '90's with FULL HOUSE. It was a big deal then, but we all know today how hokey and sappy it was. Episodes filled with corny jokes, cutesy moments of kids mugging to the camera, lame dialog and overused catchphrases, sentimental lessons, any serious subjects introduced were always resolved happily by the end of the episode without any consequences, and most infamously, the kids never got punished for anything they did. And let's not forget some truly ridiculous episodes, such as Michelle visiting the history museum and breaking the dinosaur. It's a series that I think even the fans will nostalgically poke fun at.

When we heard Netflix was doing a continuation of the series, I think we all collectively groaned. When we heard it was going to be called FULLER HOUSE, I think we all groaned again at possibly the laziest title in history. But, having now watched all 13 episodes, I found the new series fun and cute. It's wholesome entertainment with a slight self-aware tone and a retro '90's feel. They didn't do anything new or even really try to be different: they just went back to what worked the first time. In short: it is what it is.

As others have pointed out, the very first episode is terrible. It's really a reunion special that offers no purpose other than to see all the original cast members again, and takes a self-indulgent 35 minutes before finally setting up the new series. Nothing against John Stamos, Bob Saget, Dave Coulier, and Lori Loughlin, but the show gets A LOT better once they leave and it can grow into its own. I almost flat-out recommend skipping the first episode entirely. The second episode is the real pilot.

FULLER HOUSE is guilty of all the same sins as the original series; you'll find the same types of lame jokes, the same sappy moments, and everything always being unrealistically happy again at the end of each episode. But it also has a lot of heart. And I've found that it's a big hit with young kids, some of whom considered the original series an old classic and binge-watched this new one in a single weekend. And if the show is a hit with kids, which are the true target audience, then it's doing something right.

The new cast feel like a family and work well together. I don't really like Candace Cameron, who is a bland and boring lead. However, the real surprise is seeing how well Jodie Sweetin and Andrea Barber have turned out as adult-actresses, considering their long absence from acting. I had heard that Barber had completely given up acting and was working an administrative job at a university while Sweetin had a drug problem she fortunately got over. Both these actresses have recovered well and made a fine comeback. They're both talented and frankly, deserve better material than this. The new child actors are fine: my favorite new character is Ramona, Kimmy's half-Argentinean daughter, played by Soni Nicole Bragas. I like that Kimmy would have a daughter who's just as snarky as she is but also smarter and more rational than either of her parents. And just in general I like having a Latina character represented on the show. I predict Bragas has a good career ahead of her.

So, at the end of the day, I would say FULLER HOUSE is neither a better nor worse show than FULL HOUSE was; it's exactly the same. If you liked the original, you'll like this and if you thought the original was corny, you'll find this one corny. But at least FULLER HOUSE is honest and knows exactly what it is, and I will say it made me smile a few times. Accept the show for what it is and just have fun with it.

You do have to give Mel Gibson and the marketing behind this film credit; they made a film that is a very difficult to review as a film and not as a theological position. Their goal was to get people talking about Christianity and they certainly succeeded. All I can do is offer my critique and why I think this film fails.

This is an extremely simplistic portrayal of Jesus and all the events of the Crucifixion. Focusing so much on violence might have worked if the violence had at least been realistic and not excessive to the point of borderline slapstick. The dramatic slow-motion is so over the top, the portrayal of Satan feels like something out of a superhero movie, and the Resurrection of Jesus is done like something out of Spider-Man. It's not an emotionally moving moment; it's just visual gadgetry. "Gosh, look, kids. He's got a CGI hole in his hand!"

There're two scenes in particular that I find dangerous and arguably distort the message of the story: The first is Judas's suicide; instead of an act of genuine shame, he is punished by seemingly an external force of demon children. The other is the Bad Thief on the cross; when he mocks Jesus, a crow comes down and pecks his eye out. The reason these two scenes are dangerous is that they basically preach the following: "People who are mean to Jesus deserve to be punished, and wrathfully!" It's this same mentality responsible for so much violence in the world.

Mel Gibson's vision of God does not seem to be loving but very grotesque and visceral. What bothered me was how this film was marketed into manipulating people into thinking you were being shown "what really happened." I'm surprised by the large number who feel they MUST love this movie if they are Christian; giving it a negative review is like saying you hate God. I'll give you an example: one of my friends loves the score of the movie and I'll admit, it's very good. But while listening to it he remarked: "I'm becoming closer to the Lord." Ahem, can you say manipulation?

Finally, regarding the infamous issue of anti-Semitism: while I don't think the movie itself is intentionally trying to be so, the seeds of it are there, and it's something Gibson could have been more sensitive about. His drunken antics and anti-Semitic remarks subsequent to the film's release have not helped his case much.

I won't deny the cinematography is great, and the use of the original languages is certainly creative; though then why are all the characters whitewashed? Why is Jesus Caucasian? If you're going to go through all trouble of making the languages authentic, why not make the film racially authentic?

At the end of the day, how you feel about this movie is going to come down to your personal religion, which is why it's such a hard film to review. But for all its visual tricks, the movie is ultimately just a movie and Gibson is just a man. Neither one "owns" the Christian religion, nor can represent it. Now if you want to see a superior film version of this story, check out Pasolini's THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW.

I've always been surprised that so many fans of the series rank this entry so highly, many calling it their favorite. In my opinion, this is actually the weakest of the five Sellers entries made within Sellers's lifetime (I don't count TRAIL or the non-Sellers entries as officially part of the series).

STRIKES AGAIN has many great individual scenes that work as stand-alone skits, such as Clouseau destroying the piano, or crossing the castle moat, etc. But as a story, it isn't very cohesive. Of all the films, this is the one least grounded in reality and becomes mostly a cartoon; even the caricature of Gerald Ford adds to this feeling that you're watching a SNL sketch more than a developed-narrative.

My big issue is that I don't like Dreyfus being turned into an evil villain with a James Bond-style plan to destroy the world. It seems to go against his whole character. Of course Herbert Lom gives it his all and no one will deny his talent, but for me, Dreyfus works best as Clouseau's long-suffering boss. The best scenes of SHOT IN THE DARK and RETURN are all Dreyfus having to deal with Clouseau and being slowly physically-injured and driven insane by Clouseau's incompetence. And almost every single person I know always says the best scene in REVENGE is Dreyfus delivering the eulogy at the funeral, which is basically an extension of that. But STRIKES AGAIN takes this running gag about Dreyfus hating Clouseau and ramps it up to an extreme. Dreyfus is robbed of his dignity here and reduced to a madman.

And what about the great Peter Sellers? He actually doesn't feel like he's in the movie that much. Of course he is; he gets top-billing after all. But this movie just feels less about Sellers/Clouseau than the other ones do. The Clouseau character is best used when he's trying to solve a mystery and bumbles around, solving things by accident. Here, he doesn't seem to have much command of the story; he's more a pawn of the story who just falls down a lot. Even the climatic scene, in which Clouseau literally saves the world by just falling on a catapult and knocking a laser over--it just feels like lazy writing.

Supposedly, Sellers was disappointed with this entry and I can see why. He's in the movie, but so much of his great charm and comedic persona feel absent or are overtaken by the crazy plot. And, as we all know, all future sequels completely ignored the events of this film and pretty much pretended it never happened. What does that tell you? If you find this movie funny, that's fine. But if you want to really see a more Clouseau-oriented film that shows Sellers at his peak, check out either SHOT IN THE DARK or RETURN.

-THIS WAS HARRISON FORD'S MOVIE AND NO ONE ELSE'S

The movie started and I began to get into it, but I found something in it wasn't quite taking off. Three protagonists are introduced: Finn, Rey, and Poe Dameron. Poe is right away the most colorful and amusing, yet the movie disposes of him for most of its screen time. So we follow Finn and Rey as they eventually meet each other, get caught up in an adventure bigger than them, and run away from the First Order, and I just found myself drifting. These two characters felt stiff; their dialog was perfunctory and they were just there to move the story forward. I kept thinking "Wait, tell me more about this First Order and Kylo Ren. Finn was conditioned since birth to be a Stormtrooper? That's interesting. Tell me more about how that works. Can others break away too?" Instead the characters kept running and shooting with no backstory. I figured that the quest to find Luke Skywalker would lead to explanations, but instead of being on a linear journey, the characters keep getting sidetracked. Throughout this entire first act, I found myself oddly detached from what I was watching: something wasn't clicking together.

Then, Han Solo shows up, and from that point on, he dominates the movie. If you were to cut all of Han's scenes and edit them together, you'd have a complete film with a clear protagonist and arc. Ford is so warm and colorful, full of human moments, that you're reminded why he became the breakout star of the original film. His scenes with Leia are fantastic and have strong human emotion. In the second half of the film, Rey and Finn felt delegated to secondary status and their arcs seemed half-hearted as we follow Han to confront Ren. Furthermore, the objective of our main characters changes. They suddenly stop caring about the map and their new goal becomes to take out the Death Star Thing That Isn't the Death Star. Only after it's taken down does R2-D2 magically come alive and go "Oh, now I can return to your original objective and tell you where Luke is, because the plot needs me to."

-TOO MANY TWISTS TO COMPENSATE FOR LITTLE PLOT

I feel like another movie needed to take place between the end of RETURN OF THE JEDI and the beginning of this film, and that would probably have been a more interesting film than this one. THE FORCE AWAKENS keeps hitting you with twists and reveals while leaving other things unexplained. Every time something was revealed I would think: "Tell me more about that. I'm curious about the backstory." But the plot they chose to use as a vessel for these reveals just isn't very strong. It's full of homages/rehashes of elements from the 1977 film. There's a MacGuffin hidden in a droid, the villain wears a mask that isn't quite the Darth Vader mask but basically is, there's a Supreme Leader Snoke who isn't quite Palpatine but fills the same role, they have to destroy something that isn't the Death Star but basically is, etc.

-THE VILLAINS ARE TERRIBLE

Snoke and Gen. Hux are all generic villains with generic villain plans. They just say villainy things and want to take over and conquer and be evil. Kylo Ren is a little more interesting once we learn his true identity, but what we got was too little. Instead of making this guy look like Vader and do Vader-y things, I wanted to see him go in his own direction. What is his reputation like? Do others fear him? I was never intimidated nor felt threatened by him.

-YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MOVIE DESPERATELY NEEDED?

A scene where our hero characters all sit around and just talk a little, showing their human side, specifically saying things like:

Finn: "You know that guy Kylo Ren? Let me tell you about about the legend surrounding him and what a horrible mystique he has and all the bad things he's done and why we're all scared of him. And let me also tell you a bit about the First Order and what makes them bad guys."

Rey: "That's interesting but let me now tell you about something called the Force and the weird quasi-religious thing I feel sometimes. I don't know what it is or what it means, but I want to learn more about it. My life feels empty; like I'm destined for something but don't know what."

Finn: "Wow, I just realized for the first time what it feels like to have an identity and think as myself and not part of a collective. That's so interesting. I want to explore this more."

Han: "Aww, kids, let me talk to you a little bit now about the magic and sense of wonder of the universe so we can bond as characters and my death will have a more profound affect on you later on."

"ALL THESE THINGS YOU'RE CRITICIZING ARE GOING TO BE EITHER EXPLAINED OR FLESHED OUT BETTER IN THE SUBSEQUENT FILMS!"

Well, yes, I should hope they will be. And maybe I'll like THE FORCE AWAKENS better on repeat viewings after learning whatever it is the sequels will reveal. But for right now, all I can do is judge it as a standalone film, and all I see are shortcomings.

"HEY, AT LEAST IT WAS BETTER THAN THE PREQUELS!"

Yes, it was. It definitely was the first STAR WARS film since 1983 to have a sense of grit and feel grounded in reality, with real locations and an epic sense of scope. They succeeded with flying colors in that department. But I just don't feel a baton was properly passed on as well to this new cast of characters, as they were aiming for.

Why would I ever write any kind of review on CITIZEN KANE, a film that's been analyzed to death and is considered to film what Shakespeare is considered to literature? I actually have a good reason: in recent years, I've noticed more and more people seem to dislike the film, mostly because of its hype. Supposedly Ingmar Bergman called it boring. Now I happen to be a Bergman fan, but considering the dude made some pretty slow-paced movies, those are strong words! I can understand why many might feel let down by the story. The hype "Greatest Movie of All Time" implies that you are in for a great, sweeping GONE WITH THE WIND-style epic. Instead it's a smaller film about an unsavory character. It also focuses a lot on the newspaper business, which may not seem very relevant to modern audiences. My friend Zelda summed it up quite well:

"I think that at this point, the film is more appreciated by directors than it is by general audiences. I know that what Orson Welles was doing with the camera, with angles, lighting, whatnot, was revolutionary - but I know this because I've been told this. As a plebeian when it comes to such things, those aspects don't stand out for me as much, and I understand they're big factors in what make that movie a classic. Instead what I have is a puzzle of a story, which, while interesting, is not compelling emotionally enough for me to place it in my top films list."

This is a fair point, so here is what I propose. I will write a review about KANE where I will not ONCE mention the technical breakthroughs of the film. Forget about the cinematography, score, editing, etc. I will simply analyze the film's Story and why I feel that it is actually a very powerful and heartbreaking story.

CITIZEN KANE can be summed up easily: it's the story of a man who can never get over having been rejected by his mother and is incapable of feeling love.

This point might only be fully clear on repeat viewings. Mrs. Kane only has one scene in the movie, but we linger on her a bit, allowing her to dominate the scene. After that she is only mentioned in passing. Kane talks about her death on the same night that he meets Susan for the first time. We never know exactly how Kane feels about her, and what exactly he is thinking when he tears the room apart is left to our imaginations, but we feel the weight of it. We observe him cheat on one wife with the next and we're not told why. Yet when analyzing the facts, we do know why. We also observe him alienate his friends. On the surface this may seem to just be a petty drama, but only after we get the full story are we able to understand why this man so desperately needed to be loved.

Kane remains elusive; he is ultimately the protagonist of the Story, but he is always a mystery to us, and he is portrayed both positively and negatively. This moral ambiguity applies to most of the supporting the characters as well. If you notice, we remain on a last-name basis with almost every character in the film: Kane, Leland, Bernstein, Thatcher, and Thompson. With Thompson it is taken a step further in that we never even see his face properly, making it clear that although we are following this reporter around, he is more a symbol than a character, and it is Kane's story that should be our focus. Developing the characters in this way makes them seem like regular people, occupying a story rather than starring in it.

Finally, there's the issue of the ending. Rosebud is obviously a MacGuffin and perhaps people were expecting some sort of big reveal. The film has the confidence to end on a puzzle; Rosebud is revealed not in the style of a detective solving the case with a big "Aha!" gimmick, but as a subtle artifact that rewards us for paying attention and makes us think about how it fits in. Had the film ended in a different way, perhaps we wouldn't be talking about it today, but the fact that only moments after Rosebud is revealed it is then destroyed are perhaps the saddest moments of the story and what have caused the tale to resonate.

I don't think any film deserves the title "greatest ever made" because that's obviously going to be subjective. Here it is has perhaps done more harm than good. If CITIZEN KANE were a novel, it would not be a great sweeping epic like WAR AND PEACE, which is perhaps what too many people expect. It would be a very short and quiet novel. It is about a person's life, but it only observes it rather than embellishes it. It is not a melodrama but a voyeuristic study. At the end of the film, we see Kane's entire lifetime reduced to boxes and boxes of scrap, and we are asked whether or not a man's life can be summed up so simply. Or maybe we know that such a collection of junk is all any of us will ever have.

This is a bad movie. What's so interesting is that James Rolfe is so well-liked and has such a large and loyal fanbase who have been devoted to him and this production for years. In fact, I'm one of the folks who contributed to the IndieGoGo campaign and I supported the project from the start and followed every Cinemassacre update. You'd think this would guarantee a great audience response, and yet it hasn't. Looking at all these IMDb reviews, I keep seeing the same points being made, all by people who, like myself, are fans of the webseries and of Mr. Rolfe. The movie is just bad. It is so mediocre that even the hardcore fans, which I would certainly say I was at one point, have had to admit this.

Why is it bad? Here's all the reasons:

BAD JOKES AND DIALOG

Name one exchange of dialog that actually made you laugh in this movie. It's all lame jokes like "How do you pronounce debris?" and "Tin foil has foiled my plans!" If this was meant to be a comedy, they seriously needed to find a gag-writer to punch up the script.

NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

The Nerd, despite being a fun character when he's giving reviews, doesn't offer much as a lead character. He doesn't really grow or have a clear motivation. His only real "arc" is that he goes from not wanting to review the Eee Tee game to reviewing it. And a bunch of crazy, convoluted stuff happens to him. But when it's over, you don't really care.

In addition to that, there's a bunch of new characters who you also don't really care about. Ideally, the Nerd's sidekick should have been either Mike Matei or Kyle Justin, but scheduling prevented either of them from a starring role and they are relegated to just cameos. Okay, fine, but if you have to create a new original sidekick, at least do more with the character. As others have pointed out, Cooper is bland and uninteresting, and the Mandi character appears to have an aborted arc. Initially she seems to just be exploiting the Nerd to promote Eee Tee 2, but somewhere along the line she changes and falls in love with Cooper, though when this happens is unclear. The script really couldn't decide what to do with Mandi.

In addition to that, there's an alien character voiced by Robbie Rist. This was a missed opportunity to create a great character that would have filled us with a sense of magic and wonder. Instead the character is a dumb throwaway gag.

THE PLOT DOESN'T WORK

A bunch of crazy stuff happens, but there's no emotion or scope to it at all. Why does the Nerd randomly choose to go to Area 51? Because the plot needs him to. Why is there a subplot of Sgt. McButter capturing Mandi who misleads her to Vegas in front of a green screen? Because they couldn't think of anything for Mandi to do in the second half of the film. Why is there a giant monster at the end? Because Rolfe likes GODZILLA movies.

There's no tension or drama or feeling that anything is really at stake here. The characters never seem worried even when their lives are supposed to be in danger, the villains are goofballs, the giant monster is tacked on, and when it's all done, all any of this comes down to whether or not the Nerd will review Eee Tee. Is that really all there is to this?

I get the impression this script must have seemed better on paper. The fact the story got so crazy must have seemed very funny. But when executed, it's just a mess.

SPECIAL FX

They went for intentionally cheap and campy effects, but the result is uneven production value. If you're going to hype up the fact that this is a big-scale movie and not an Internet video, you should make it look better than an Internet video. And there is WAY too much green screen.

FINALLY, IT'S TOO LONG

This movie did not need to be nearly two hours. Most viewers have acknowledged getting bored around the one-hour mark.

Rolfe may have spent years working on this movie, but in the end, it's had its quick release and has been almost immediately forgotten. I predict it will be completely forgotten two years from now and Rolfe will be back to making Internet videos.

This is a tough film to review. GoNY was a major "film event" on its release, yet it wasn't quite what people were expecting. While I do like it, I found it took me about 3-4 viewings to fully get it, and since then, the film has lingered a bit as a mixed bag. The conclusion I came to is that this is a good film, but also a victim of story problems and overhype.

The backstory is that Scorsese came upon a history book on NYC and fell in love with this period. Wanting to make a film set in this time, he commissioned a script to be written that covered all the main points he wanted (the draft riots, illegal boxing, NYC's competing fire departments). And because of this, what we get is a film more interested in its setting, historical context, and political subtext than it is in its A-story.

On the positive-side, no one can deny the film's production value: larger-than-life sets, sweeping cinematography, meticulous attention to detail. The film has a great sense of scope. Most of all, the film is very rich in subtext. Scorsese tells us the story of the US being born and deconstructs the idealistic image of "the Land of the Free." Immigrants are exploited off the boat and enlisted in a war they know nothing about, politics are corrupt, northerners are either racist or indifferent to the Civil War and flat-out hate Lincoln. Parallels are immediately drawn with the state of the US today, with immigration, rigged elections, and "Native Americans fearing foreign influence" (a phrase that takes on an ironic meaning given today's definition of the term). The film ends with a shot of modern NYC with the World Trade Center standing proudly, having a very haunting effect and making us think of modern violence. The movie had the perfect tagline: "America was born in the streets" and this motif is depicted perfectly.

But while this internal story is great, the external one it's placed upon just...isn't all that great. The main plot is filled with tropes and clichés about a man named Amsterdam seeking revenge on a gang-leader. Amsterdam is not a very interesting lead character, and it's one of DiCaprio's less compelling roles. His romance with Jenny (Cameron Diaz) is not particularly strong either, and there are many hackneyed narrative devices (surrogate father, lovers triangle, blood vendettas). The narrative itself isn't quite cohesive: there's a whole subplot about Brendan Gleeson's character running for office in a rigged election and then getting killed. Why is this there? It appears towards the start of the third act, takes up 20 minutes of screen time, and hurts the pacing. John C. Reilly is also in the film in a role that feels like it was once much bigger.

The one thing everyone loved about the film was Daniel Day-Lewis; a whole new generation of filmgoers first discovered him in this role, given his long absence from the screen at the time. The thing is that, it's now difficult to not compare the role to his later role in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. The two characters look and sound similar, and Daniel Plainview blows Bill the Butcher out of the water. Watching it today, Bill almost feels like a dress-rehearsal for the superior performance as Plainview.

Finally, GoNY was also hurt by its marketing. I remember seeing the very first trailer in the summer of 2001, as it was originally intended to be released that Christmas season. It ended up being delayed a year due to issues in post production (and I suspect also partially due to 9/11). So when it was finally released in Christmas of 2002, it had been a year and a half of seeing trailers and hearing so much about film. The marketing campaign was extremely aggressive, promising a great historical epic, campaigned hard for Oscars that the film seemed tailor-made to sweep, and especially made a point of emphasizing "C'mon and give Scorsese that long-overdue Best Director Oscar." In the end, it failed to win a single award, which seemed to be a clear sign of rejection by audiences (COLD MOUNTAIN had a similarly-obnoxious marketing campaign the following year which also backfired).

I still remember seeing the film opening weekend with a packed house. The moment it began to end and the music swelled, half the audience started getting up and leaving. Outside in the lobby everyone was talking about their odd reaction. It wasn't necessarily outright negative, but just an overall feeling of "Is that it? Why did it need to be so long to just be that? After all the hype, there's a lot less to the movie than it seemed." I suspect Scorsese intended the film to be something quite different, but along the way Harvey Weinstein turned it into an epic, intended Oscar juggernaut, which it was not.

Speaking of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, that may be a good template for what Scorsese was going for. That film is also large in scope with a director's passion for a historical setting and attention to detail that clearly shows, but the narrative is much less Hollywood, more intimate, unconventional yet engrossing. It's an approach that would have served GoNY well. As it stands, GoNY has its fans, but has never quite reached the heights of a classic, or influenced the public consciousness. A good film, but a missed opportunity.

If you're reading this, you're probably already a MWC fan and I don't need to tell you what a great show it was. The England Show three-parter is one of the most unique episodes of the series with an ending that really frustrates me, so I wanted to write about it. Had it only been done a little better, it could potentially have been the best storyline of the entire series.

Looking at the three parts as a whole, you basically have a feature-length Bundy adventure, with a creative premise that's more ambitious in scope than every other episode. The whole backstory behind the curse and Lower Uncton living in eternal night is a creative idea, the premise of having Lower Uncton out to kill the Bundys to end the curse while Upper Uncton is out to kill them to keep the curse while the Bundys themselves are oblivious to both parties is brilliant, and the subplot with Marcy and Jefferson getting lost in London is great too. There are so many classic moments: Al's speech at Speaker's Corner, Al killing the fish, and the "I'm Too Sexy" dance.

The whole thing has so much potential but it all falls apart at the end, due to there not being enough story for three full episodes and the writers not having a very strong ending planned. Basically it breaks down like this:

Part 1 - Great! Creative premise and funny stuff.

Part 2 - Still generally good, though feels a bit padded out.

Part 3 - Terrible! Let down, cop-out ending.

Why is Part 3 so bad? First off, it really does feel like they wrote themselves into a corner and didn't know how to end the story. Obviously the story had to end with the curse being lifted or the whole thing would have felt anti-climatic, yet obviously they also couldn't kill off our beloved Bundys. So they throw in Al being in a jousting tournament that just feels lame and anti-climatic and kills all the tension that was built up previously when we really felt the Bundys were in danger, then the curse gets lifted for a completely arbitrary reason (cop-out ending!), they get away, and the story ends with a throwaway gag about Al stealing a towel from the hotel, which feels unconnected to the main plot. Even the Marcy and Jefferson subplot seems to barely get attention by Part III.

On top of that, the episode just feels really cheap. I realize this was a low-budget sitcom made at a time when Fox was a fledgling network, but whereas the first episode generally got by and made good use of the London setting, Part 2 starts to show a nosedive in production value, and it really gets bad by Part 3. I can forgive the poor special effects when the Bundys are at the border between day and night (though that scene goes on way too long), but the whole jousting tournament feels so small and limited with only a handful of extras. Or Kelly rescuing the family by driving the horse-cart; the shot feels rushed and was likely filmed with doubles. Basically, you just get a very strong sense of the show being forced to work with limited resources, which hurt the narrative quite a bit, especially after so much build-up.

Something else that makes the whole thing feel hollow is the Bundys' lack of reaction to what's going on. They never seem particularly surprised to learn about the existence of a supernatural curse or Lower Uncton being in eternal night. You'd think Al would be somewhat taken aback to learn that his being alive is causing a village to live in darkness. But it's just kind of glossed over. And if our heroes aren't really engaged in what's going on, it hurts the feeling of conflict.

My personal favorite Oliver Stone film is NIXON (1995), a really in-depth and well-rounded look at a controversial and polarizing figure. Despite Stone being politically the opposite of Nixon, he delivered a surprisingly strong portrait, which managed to be sympathetic, critical and tragic. In early 2008, I first heard about plans for a similar film about George W. Bush and grew excited. Sadly, Stone would not be able to pull NIXON off again.

I remember seeing the first teaser trailer for W. It showed Josh Brolin in character, being told "You're a Bush! Act like it!" by his father, followed by a montage of all the key players set to "What a Wonderful World." I sent this teaser to my father, who had had no idea that this film was being made. He responded "Is this a trailer for a real movie, or is it an Internet skit?" He wasn't joking; he genuinely didn't know. And that right there sums up the whole problem that the finished film would have; it's VERY confused about it's identity and tone. My father managed to articulate it all perfectly.

W. never quite gets off the ground as a film. It seems to want to be a serious biopic in the tradition of NIXON and your typical Oscar-bait bio, but it constantly veers into caricature and outright parody. In fact most of the marketing made the movie look like a comedy, with Bush Jr's malapropisms appearing on the posters. Part of this is due to the decision to rush the film into production while Bush Jr was still in office, making the events seem too recent and not really reflected on. By 2008, we had seen so many caricatures and spoofs of the Bush administration and this film didn't seem to be doing much of a new spin on the material.

But anyway, onto the film itself (I'm not discussing politics in this review. Either you love or hate the Bush family and administration. I'm discussing the film's version of events and how they play as a film). The main narrative arc of the movie is that Bush Jr is forever living in the shadow of his family legacy, in particular clashing with his stern father and his brother Jeb being the preferred son. As such, Bush Jr, initially written off by his parents as a drunken failure, eventually enters politics and becomes president to prove himself. His entire reason for invading Iraq is to show his father "I did what you couldn't do." Yet his presidency is ultimately viewed as a failure for the country, and he has tragically only damaged the family legacy he so wanted to measure up to.

This angle is an interesting one, and the scenes involving Bush Jr's youth and entry into politics play well. However, the whole storyline is just too thin, and all the scenes depicting the actual presidency and Iraq invasion lack any real weight. The film offers no real political commentary; just a dramatization of the life of a man who isn't all that interesting. Unlike Richard Nixon, Bush Jr isn't a very interesting or engaging protagonist, and he never seems to be directly responsible for what happens to him, and thus is neither heroic nor tragic. When the film ends at a brisk two hours, you are left with a very superficial portrait that seemed to barely skim the surface.

One final point to bring up involves Richard Dreyfuss, known for being very politically active, and who plays Vice President Dick Cheney. I remember hearing at the time that Dreyfuss was considering retiring from acting, but came back to take on this role specifically out of desire to criticize the Bush administration (although Dreyfuss ended up appearing in further films afterward, so maybe it was just a story). Dreyfuss ended up being disappointed with the finished film and called Stone a fascist. Perhaps a bit extreme, but Dreyfuss made two very good points about the film that summed up its problems: 1) It never reaches any real conclusion about its subject matter, and 2) It's missing a very important character: the American people. As such, we're shown the highs and lows of Bush Jr's presidency, but not the impact it had or consequences for the average citizen, and the films ends up lacking real historical context.

In the end, W. is a film more interesting in its concept than its execution. Supposedly it was rushed out in an attempt to influence the 2008 election, but in the end, the film had some hype at the time, only to be generally forgotten after the election. Had Stone waited twenty years, he could have made a more nuanced biopic from the perspective of later history, as he did marvelously in NIXON. Instead he gave us a tiny film with nothing to say.

The central problem with Heaven's Gate that eclipses all else is it's lack of narrative cohesion. I appreciate the slow-moving introspective films of Kubrick, Leone, and Terrence Malick. In Heaven's Gate the story (or arguably abundance of strands that never fully gel as a story) is not slow-moving; it doesn't move at all. There is a feeling of ineptness to this writing; plot points are set up with no pay-offs, conflicts are improperly introduced, and some characters just wander in and out of the movie at random, most notably John Hurt. Supposedly there was to be more to his character, but many of his scenes got canceled as he had to leave to make The Elephant Man. Well, I guess it's better to play a deformed man than be in a deformed film.

The movie starts with a 20-minute prologue of a graduation ceremony that is often criticized for being irrelevant to the rest of the film. I actually found this sequence to be well-shot and successfully conveyed a feeling of epic grandeur. Had their been more focus on Joseph Cotton's speech, audiences would have been able to better connect with the scene and see how it connects thematically to the rest of the story. The problem is that Cimino focuses more on this grandeur and spectacle then he does on the content, and this flaw continues throughout the film. My criticism isn't that nothing has happened 20 minutes in; it's the fact that by the 90 minute mark you still don't know what the hell the movie's about.

Stuff just happens with no feeling of flow or narrative. Jim and Ella swim together. People play an early baseball game. Someone gets killed. Jeff Bridges shows up to play a hollow shell of a character. 52 takes were spent on a scene where Jim cracks a whip in bed. Was it worth it? Well, let's just say that were it not for that anecdote, I would have no memory that that scene is in the movie. One of the most famous scenes is the skating rink sequence with the fiddler. I had seen this scene before on YouTube and found it to be very lovely as a stand-alone scene. Ironically, when I actually saw it in its proper context in the film, it no longer seemed magical. The scene is tragically undermined by the excess of nothing that precedes it.

Here's an example of dysfunctional storytelling: it is revealed (via a very dull boardroom scene) that the cattlemen association have a list of 125 settlers they plan to have killed. Okay, so this is supposed to be our story's conflict. It is then 40 minutes later before this is EVER brought up again, and when it is, there is no new development; it is simply mentioned in passing dialog. It's like the story was an afterthought that got buried. It also doesn't help that the settlers are stock characters who are never developed.

The other plot line in the movie is a love triangle between the three leads. This has two problems: 1) It never really meshes with the cattlemen vs. settler plot line and feels like a different movie, and 2) It's already in full swing when the story begins. I would have preferred to have been told a story about the development of this triangle rather than just observing it already happening.

Another anecdote I've heard is that during the intermission at the premiere, Cimino noticed the audience was subdued and was told "Because they hate the movie." I think I can understand that audience quite well. When I reached the intermission, I did not "hate" the movie, I just felt empty by the vapid nothingness being put on screen (it also doesn't help that the intermission happens at a completely arbitrary moment with no sense of rising action).

The irony is that there's nothing really "bad" about the movie aside from its screenplay. The music is great, the sets are great, that actors do a good job with the scarce material they have, and the cinematography can at times be some of the best ever put on film. Yet somehow this makes the movie EVEN WORSE. The fact that it looks so pretty only adds to the feeling of disconnect; it makes the movie seem out of touch with reality. The final battle is fairly exciting, and I will admit that the movie has a shining moment of greatness when a character is surprisingly killed in a heartfelt scene. Had the movie ended right there, it would actually have been a strong ending. But no, we're treated to badly-conceived epilogue on a yacht. As with the prologue, I see what Cimino was trying to do, but it fails because of lack of character development. Again, Jim's personal story never meshed with the story of the rest of the film.

Heaven's Gate is certainly not the worst movie I've ever seen (that honor will always go to Problem Child 2) but it is the messiest in terms of storytelling. I know there are many who defend it and call it a misunderstood masterpiece. I always respect everyone's opinion and have tried to read these arguments, but I feel like they are just playing a game of pretend. Each fan brings their own interpretation to the nothingness on screen. For me, Heaven's Gate did something far worse than bore me or fail to entertain; it left me feeling angry.

I've always had mixed feelings about Dogma, and I feel that the best way to sum it up is as follows:

As a comedy, the movie is hysterical! It has some incredibly funny dialog, mostly delivered by Alan Rickman, Jason Lee, and Jason Mewes's characters. As an adventure movie, it has a very creative plot and keeps you hooked throughout its journey to its epic and apocalyptic conclusion.

Where the movie fails and fails miserably is at being any sort of actual commentary on religion. Despite the many conversations about religion and dogmas held throughout the film...nothing all that "deep" is ever really said. The movie ultimately has a shallow message of "God is cool. Just have a sense of humor and an open mind." And this is a shame because Kevin Smith is clearly a bright guy who knows a lot about church history; he even claims in the closing credits that the film represents his lifetime's worth of religious reflection. You'd think he'd have said something a little more sophisticated.

In fact, despite being somewhat controversial when it came out, the movie never really is all that shocking. Yes, I realize there are religious zealots out there who get "offended" by even the slightest things (Angels and prophets using curse words! Jesus having a 13th apostle! Jesus being black! God being a woman!). But with all due respect, none of those things are REALLY controversial. I would have liked the movie to have been deeper and delved into greater issues like: the possibility of God not existing, or Jesus having been an invented character, or exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, or what about the role of Judaism and Islam? That would have given the film a lot more weight in my opinion.

Fortunately, as I said, the movie is a lot of fun, and so I am able to sit back and laugh at what it offers. Rickman, Lee, and Salma Hayek all give the best performances. I do feel Linda Fiorentino is somewhat underwhelming; despite being the lead character, she frequently seems like the dullest thing in the film. I have heard that she and Smith did not get along, and maybe that affected why there seems to be so little to Bethany.

Dogma is a very fun and entertaining movie, but alas, it's not very deep, despite what the director seemed to think of it. Listening to Kevin Smith on the DVD commentary track is almost sad; he talks about how he was disappointed the movie didn't get Oscar nominations. Well, here's why: BECAUSE YOUR MOVIE HAS A SCENE WITH A POOP MONSTER! Smith could have made a stronger, deeper film if he had really tried. Instead he just made a little comedy, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a very good movie to laugh with; it's just not good for much more than that.

I saw this film as part of the Bronx Film Festival and was truly blown away by its production value. The movie looks fantastic and has just the right mix of wit and horror to keep you engaged. There is no reason this should not be playing on big screens across the country.

In a post-dirty bomb NYC, four squatters hide out in the remains of an old building and discover what happens when they consume some "yogurt." What happens...is not quite what you might expect.

Each of the four leads are fantastic, and much of their interplay may remind audiences of Dawn of the Dead, though the atmosphere is much grittier and the danger seems more real. A cameo by Roy Frumkes as a Donald Trump spoof adds to the fun. The direction is also excellent, and I especially love the mise-en-scene in most of the flashback scenes.

But where the movie goes above and beyond are the visual effects, which are some of the most creative I have EVER seen in a movie. Alice's fate in particular both made me squirm and left me in awe. I would certainly rank this film as superior to something such as Avatar or other recent Hollywood blockbusters because not once during Avatar did I ever wonder "How on Earth did they do that?" Here I wondered that quite a bit. The visual effects in this movie help carry a story that, despite being a thriller, has a lot of heart. And that's what the magic of cinema is all about.

I should mention that I've never seen the original Slime City. I definitely hope to as soon as I get a chance, and will then check this film out again, as I'm sure I will gain an even better understanding of this story and its characters. Regardless, Slime City Massacre is a fun, creepy, amusing, and ultimately rewarding experience for any audience, whether they like horror or not.

Maggie Marvel is a fun indie comedy about a female assassin who is also a single mom. In the course of the story she must balance both of these lives, for the sake of her daughter...but there's also a plot line about her mobster colleague, Bobby Shay, who hires Maggie for a job so he can be with a fellow assassin named Dixie, which turns Dixie into Maggie's rival...and there's also a plot line about Maggie's estranged father Dutch, who's also the criminal kingpin...which leads into another plot line involving a ditzy actress who is hired to fool Dutch...plus a subplot in the middle involving a bank heist and a German princess...and here's where the film's fatal flaw turns up.

The plot of the film is unnecessarily convoluted and I found myself confused as to what the story was ultimately about. Maggie is a likable heroine, but the story went all over the place and I didn't feel like she was given enough reason to experience the character arc that she does. In fact, I would say the Bobby Shay character feels like the film's protagonist at times.

And then there's the problem of the climax: there simply isn't one. Throughout the film, Cindy, the ditzy actress, is studying Bobby and eventually gets hired to play Maggie in order to fool Dutch. I thought it was really fun how this subplot was woven into the main narrative. But then the movie completely drops the Dutch plot line and turns Cindy into the villain of the story! This feels very messy and artificial; Cindy is a comedic side-character, not the antagonist of the film. If anything, I expected a final showdown between Maggie and Dixie, but their rivalry plot line is ALSO completely dropped!

Despite all this, I do enjoy the film's premise and the humor is great. I actually felt they should have made the humor even darker and just made it a full-out comedy. Instead it feels halfway between comedy and drama. The acting is VERY good. Both Selena Beretta and Dan Brennan have great screen presence and do a fantastic job carrying every scene they're in. Diane & Sabrina Brennan are also wonderful. My favorite is Dasha Kittredge as Cindy, who has great comedic timing.

All in all, this is a film worth seeing, as it is a truly refreshing indie comedy with a lot of energy in every shot. With a little more work on the script, it could have been great, but the result will have you chuckling.

It's been three years since this film came out. I still remember going to an advanced screening with my girlfriend. She was a die-hard fan of the books and had gotten me into them. When the movie ended I looked at her to see she was pouting sadly. We both knew it wasn't very good.

What's so frustrating is that the potential was clearly there. The cast is great and the first half hour or so is excellent. But once Lyra's adventures start, the film becomes very choppy, events feel rushed, explanations and characters feel tossed in, some scenes even feel out of order, and the result is a messy movie lacking drama. Watching it, you definitely get the sense that more scenes were filmed, most infamously the ending. The book's ending was shot but then cut shortly before the release to end on an upbeat note. What New Line failed to consider when making this absurd decision was that the film's new ending was abrupt, unsatisfying, unclimatic, and left audiences underwhelmed. Whenever I talk to people who saw the movie without reading the book, they tend to respond with "Yeah, I kinda liked it...I think," not quite sure that they fully got the story. Even Chris Weitz was disappointed with the released version of the film.

Underlying this whole affair was a controversy over a taboo subject. Pullman's book series is openly critical of religion, initially just the Catholic Church, and eventually Christianity in general. And that was what made the series provocative and unique! With the movie, everyone tried to tip-toe around this or apologize for it. People would say "Oh, the books aren't really anti-religion; they're just anti-church." Nicole Kidman even said that she would never do the movie if she had felt it was REALLY anti-Catholic.

Why can't people understand? It's OKAY TO BE AN ATHEIST! And it's OKAY to create books and films that challenge religion and ask provocative questions! I'm an atheist and feel no shame in it, neither does Philip Pullman. It's sad that New Line was too scared to tackle a major subject.

Not that it mattered because religious fundamentalists attacked the movie anyway without seeing it. I still remember getting random emails from coworkers "warning" me about this new movie that we had to boycott because it was "preaching atheism to kids" (I never understood why that's apparently wrong but preaching religion to kids is acceptable). Other people made comments like "I'm scared to see the movie because I hear it attacks Christianity." And my response is: you're entitled to your beliefs, but then isn't Pullman entitled to his own? If you're honestly scared of anything that criticizes your beliefs then, sorry to say this, but you are living proof of how religion can control people.

In the end, The Golden Compass was a colossal screw-up: a good book adapted into what could have been a potentially good film, chopped up into a messy film by a studio fearing controversy, and further tarnished in reputation by religious individuals who are offended by the sheer existence of atheism. New Line may have made a more profitable movie if they had challenged religion more directly and marketed it as "The Controversial New Fantasy That Has Everyone Talking." Instead they ruined Weitz's film. BOTTOM LINE: New Line owes an apology to Weitz, and both of them owe an apology to Pullman.

The summer of 1996 was an exciting time. Despite being one of the most popular children's authors of the modern era, very few films adaptations had been made of Roald Dahl's work, and now all of a sudden, two were coming out in the same year. Of the two, I was much more excited for James and the Giant Peach, a classic of my childhood. To my surprise, Matilda ended up being the stronger film, and a movie that's endured with many children who grew up in the late '90's. I appreciated Matilda when it came out, and over the years it's really grown on me. Even as an adult, it's a movie I love and remember very well.

What I love about this story, both in the book and in the movie, is that it empowers children to be independent and not rely on parents and educators, who are portrayed as far from perfect but very flawed. Matilda is a gifted, resourceful, and kindhearted little girl. Yet her parents are self-absorbed, ignorant buffoons who barely know how old she is, and her principal is an abusive tyrant. Only in her teacher does she finally find someone who supports her. I think this rings true to a lot of children. Miss Trunchbull, while obviously exaggerated for comedic effect, represents a problem that I think exists in many schools: educators are more concerned with discipline and authority than they are with actually helping students.

What makes this movie so great is how much heart it has. A lot of Dahl's writing is so wacky and grotesque that I don't think it works on film (The Witches had that problem). Matilda tells a very human story, even when it does get grotesque. Mara Wilson and Embeth Davidtz both do an excellent job and carry the weight of the film. Danny DeVito's direction also deserves credit. DeVito seems to really "get" Dahl's writing; I especially love the way he directs the "chocolate cake" scene. Another director would've had a difficult time making chocolate cake seem like a punishment, but DeVito sets up and shoots the scene in a way that gets under your skin. I love the way he manages to make the cake look disgusting and the Cook look a little creepy. It's little touches like that that make the film great. I also admire DeVito's decision to play dual roles: he plays Matilda's unpleasant father and he is also the story's narrator. This makes the story seem very personal and his narration truly captures the heart of the tale.

The movie is not 100% faithful to the book. Yes, the story is Americanized (though Miss Trunchbull remains British), and some new material is added probably to make the story more commercial (such as a subplot with two bumbling FBI agents, and a thrilling scene where Matilda returns to Miss Trunchbull's house at night). However, these additions do not hurt the story at all, but actually flesh it out. In my opinion, a lot of Dahl's books suffered from weak climaxes, but this film gets it right, while at the same time retaining everything that made Dahl's writing shine.

Dahl and DeVito clearly remember that being a child can be a very scary time. Adults tower over you and have the power to bully you. This film captures that, and its power continue to live on as children continue to embrace it.

Let me start off by saying I love Fawlty Towers and consider it one of the greatest shows in history. If you're reading this, you're probably already a fan and don't need me to say much about the show. However, I wanted to comment on this episode because I notice it tends to polarize fans. So I wanted to analyze it a little bit.

Many people, including myself, dislike this episode because of how unpleasant the Mr. Hamilton (Bruce Boa) character is. On the other hand, I've met many who love the episode for exactly the same reason. I can't help but wonder if there are cultural reasons for this; if we were to poll the fans, would it be mostly Americans who had a problem with the character and non-Americans who didn't? It's an interesting point to consider; Hamilton represents every horrible American stereotype there is, and I suppose Cleese deserves credit for being so merciless. But I think the result is uneven and the episode would've been better had the character not been so mean and vicious.

Many of us leave the episode feeling angry at Hamilton and feeling bad for Basil. Hamilton is different from just about every other guest character on the show. Mrs. Richards, the semi-deaf guest in "Communication Problems," was also a guest from hell, but she was annoying in a funny way. Put Mrs. Richards in any other situation outside of Fawlty Towers and she would've brought her humor with her. You can apply this to all the guest characters: most of them are eccentric and irritate Basil in a humorous fashion. But Hamilton is simply a bully and he starts pushing Basil around literally the moment he enters the hotel and even threatens violence when things go badly. Basil, ever the kiss-up to this apparently wealthy guest, just takes it. The problem is that this set-up does not automatically invite humor; Hamilton is not funny and Basil squirming and making wisecracks becomes the source of the comedy. Compare this to the situation in "The Hotel Inspectors" where Basil, believing the guest might be a hotel inspector, initially kisses up to him, only to fail in various funny/embarrassing situations, and then upon learning the guest isn't, turns vengeful. That was funny. Here, Basil just gets bullied and continues to take it.

It doesn't help that Polly and Manuel are barely in the episode, and thus Basil must carry all of the humor himself. I won't deny that there's a lot of humor in the middle-section of the episode, as Basil struggles to make the dinner amidst confusion, and says the classic line: "I'm afraid we're out of Waldorfs." But again, I find myself feeling bad for Basil (even though I know the character is traditionally a jerk and deserves what he gets) because Hamilton is simply being unfair in making unreasonable requests (ordering dishes that aren't on a menu, saying "What the hell is this?" when he gets canned orange juice even though he never asked for it to be freshly-squeezed) and showing rage at any conflict. I just rewatched the episode and was taken by how much anger he shows just in placing his order; he yells "I want a Waldorf Salad" like a child throwing a tantrum and grabs the table knife as if it were a violent weapon! Later he threatens violence against a chef he's never even met!

Finally, it all climaxes with a scene where Hamilton cruelly humiliates Basil in front of all the guests. It's one thing to have all the guests comment on their dissatisfaction, but even then Hamilton orders Basil to stay put and listen to them or else he will "bust his arse." Man, he's showing an unusual level of sadism and even peanuts Basil's tie afterward to laugh at him like a schoolyard bully. Of course, Basil deserves this since he generally treats his guests horribly (the first 5 minutes of the episode do a great job of showing what horrid service Fawlty Towers gives its guests), but watching him get it from Hamilton seems cruel and, worst of all, not funny. It should be mentioned that almost every episode ends with Basil "losing" in some way. Who can forget the wonderful comic endings of "Gourmet Night," "The Wedding Party," and especially "Communication Problems," all of which end with Basil left in frustration, made funnier by all the efforts he has been making to the contrary. Again, those situations create comedy because of how they've been set up. But just watching Basil (no matter how much deserves it) be humiliated by another mean character in a very cruel way simply isn't funny. What makes it funny is Basil going off on a rant about Nazi Germany and then checking himself in as a guest, but this only further proves my point: the Hamilton character is unpleasant and does not invite humor, and it is only Basil on his own that brings in the joke.

Ultimately, I watch Fawlty Towers to laugh, not to feel angry at the characters afterward. I'm relieved to find others feel the same way and comment that Hamilton brings a certain "darkness" to the episode. I also saw a comment on the Wikipedia article for this episode that summed up the problem perfectly: "The episode makes it ambiguous whether Basil or Hamilton is the antagonist." In any case these criticisms of this one episode do not overshadow the greatness of a fantastic series that will live on.

Howard Ashman was, in my humble opinion, under-appreciated as one of the great American playwrights, stage directors, and lyricists, who was taken from us all too young.

The original 1960 film of Little Shop by Roger Corman was a quirky, deliciously dark humored B-movie. From that, Ashman wrote a stage play, further developing the characters and situations, with songs co-written with his collaborator Alan Menken, and created one of the great cult musicals. Weird, wacky, extremely dark humor about subjects such as sadism and masochism, yet strangely touching. Sometimes it's compared to Rocky Horror or Sweeney Todd, but it's very much an original work. Seymour and his talking plant, Audrey and her tacky outfits, and the sadistic dentist.

This 1986 film, directed by Frank Oz, is a near perfect translation of the play, mostly because Ashman wrote the screenplay himself. Just about every aspect of the film fits like a glove. Oz was the perfect director, as his mix of comedy with puppetry skills was perfect for the plant. Audrey II really does come to life, and the special effects are perfect. Rick Moranis was ideally cast. Seymour is a difficult character to play because he has to be nerdy yet also the lead. In some productions I've seen, Seymour comes off as creepy and not really a likable leading man. Moranis makes the character instantly sympathetic. Ellen Greene is perfect as the likable but ditzy Audrey (personally I prefer Kerri Butler's take on the character, but Greene is fantastic). And Steve Martin steals all his scenes as the dentist, making it a fun, energetic sequence. The songs are all classic, from "Somewhere That's Green" to "Suddenly Seymour" to "Skid Row," plus the original song "Mean Green Mother From Outer Space."

It comes so close to being perfect, and it falls short because the ending is changed from the stark, hard-hitting one of the play to a tacked on happy one. Many people have defended this change, stating that the original ending worked on stage, but is too dark/upsetting on a movie screen. Maybe so, but all the same, it really is the RIGHT ending to the story. Seymour and Audrey are two lovable losers who are also dreamers, yet their story is ultimately a tragedy; to me, that's the whole point. I know all the reasons why they made the change; it doesn't change the fact that what they came up with a very artificial ending.

Little Shop is often compared to Rocky Horror, but the difference is Rocky Horror is considered a classic film and its cult following is legendary. Little Shop has never been seen as much more than just a dark comedy. The difference is that Rocky Horror had the guts to have a dark ending, and that made it into a little more than just a comedy. Regardless, the film does convey Ashman and Menken's talent, and as the years pass, more and more people have come to appreciate the genius that was Howard Ashman.

The first time I saw this movie, I thought it was just okay. The childhood sequences were great, but the story was long, and I guess I felt it lost its way as it went on.

A year passed before I saw it again. I had only meant to watch a little bit, and soon found myself sucked into watching the whole thing again. Something just clicked that second time, and the first 40 minutes in particular held a lot more weight. That is why I feel this film, more than any other, NEEDS to be seen multiple times to be understood.

This movie is not really about gangsters, or prohibition, or unions. This is all the window-dressing. This movie is about three characters: Noodles, Max, and Deborah. Or rather, it is about one man's life, the two people he loves, and the choices he makes. It is one of the few films that really seems to capture an entire life on screen. And, while this may sound clichéd, it's a story of the American dream, of wasted potential, of the mistakes we make in our lives, of what it is to be an old man. It tells an interesting story in its flashbacks, but then wraps a "modern-day" story around it that is built on its own mystery. Indeed, the movie is one big puzzle; it's probably the best example of flashback structure ever done on film. Yes, even better than Citizen Kane.

The movie has some flaws, mostly because it was conceived on such a vast scale. As you watch it, you definitely get the sense some scenes are missing, and that some characters (Patsy, Cockeye, and Eve, in particular) feel underdeveloped. However, the movie is able to get away with this because what it DOES offer is so strong, and Robert DeNiro's performance, so unstated, is so good. Despite its long run-time, it's actually a very tight story; nearly every scene is about Noodles, and that's why it is so intimate a portrait.

From a technical standpoint, you also have excellent art direction, costumes, and Ennio Morricone's best score. "Deborah's Theme" is one of the finest pieces ever composed. Also, no one ever mentions the cinematography, which is so rich, particularly in the childhood scenes.

It's interesting that I've never been a fan of Sergio Leone's westerns. Here is a film so different from most of his main body of work, not only in physical setting, but in structure and tone. Once Upon a Time In America, along with Fanny and Alexander, is one of the few films that truly makes me think of a novel in film form.

Most people will tell you the best action movie of all time is either Raiders of the Lost Ark or Die Hard. Both good. But Aliens has a striking maturity to it, due mostly to Sigourney Weaver's performance and the gritty, military environment.

Aliens will always be one of my all-time favorite films. The first film introduced us to the alien species, and features excellent direction by Ridley Scott, but THIS is the film that really established this universe, its technology, and who Ripley is, and it's THIS film that all the other Alien sequels have been compared to. James Cameron, who has proved himself a great director and science-fiction writer, took what Scott created and made his own epic.

It's hard to explain why Aliens is loved by so many. It has a strong human element, brought about by the Ripley-Newt relationship. Most action movies try to tack on love stories, that usually feel clichéd. The mother-daughter angle was a surprisingly nice touch, yet it is done without being overly sentimental or hokey. Carrie Henn gives a fine performance, while Sigourney fully deserved her Best Actress nomination.

The visual effects are so good that you often are unaware of them. It was not until recently checking out the DVD features that I realized many of the "sets" are actually miniatures. The score by James Horner (despite the off-screen tension between Horner and Cameron) is one of his best. The Sulaco is a beauty to look at, as is much of background of this film. The supporting characters really establish a family of marines. Part of the reason this film holds up to repeat viewings is how colorful each character is, even the ones that die early in the film like Apone and Frost. The humans are truly the focus of the film, not the aliens. In fact, it is over an hour before the aliens even first appear.

But for anyone who complains this pacing is too slow, don't worry, you'll get your money's worth of action in the last 40 minutes. The tension in the final sequence when the Queen Alien is first introduced always raises my blood pressure. This would be the peak of the series.

The only real criticism I've ever had of the movie is that the title is a bit plain and generic. Every time I say "I love the movie Aliens" I feel a little silly, and I usually have to clarify by adding "you know, the James Cameron movie" so the other person knows what I mean.

Well, rest assured, Aliens (you know, the James Cameron movie) is actually excellent film-making with an iconic and complex heroine, and one of its kind: a war movie in outer space.

If you're reading this, you already know about this movie, so I won't waste time telling you what it is, how dark/somber it is, how it isn't for everyone, how some Wizard of Oz fans hate it, how unique its backstory was, how its director never made a single other film, or how strange it is to see electric shock treatment in a film with a talking chicken. All I will say is that I simply adore it.

-I love the haunting look on Fairuza's face as the camera pans to her in the opening shot, and the heartfelt gravity in Piper Laurie's voice when she says "It's past one in the morning."

-I love the way mirrors are a reoccurring symbol throughout the film.

-I love the strange sadness I feel as Fairuza speaks solemnly to the adults that tower over her.

-I love the moment of hesitation Aunt Em shows before she leaves Dorothy at the clinic, and doesn't even turn around.

-I love when Dr. Worley asks Dorothy how she's doing, and she responds "I wish I wasn't tied down."

-I love when Dorothy and Billina first arrive in the Deadly Desert, and as she balances her way on the giant boulders, a claymation eye on the rock pops open.

-I love when she pulls down the lunch pail, the reaction of the strange face floating on the rock, and the face reporting the news to unseen Nome King.

-I love the fun turn-of-the-century music playing during this whole sequence.

-I love the moment when, trapped by the Wheelers, Dorothy finds Tik Tok, and the wonderful moment they share.

-I love the moment when Mombi first removes her head.

-I love that wonderful/creepy Neil Gaiman/Coraline moment when Dorothy reaches for the Powder of Life and wakes up the disembodied head that screams her name.

-I love the flight of the Gump, the feeling of escape, David Shire's wondrous score, and that moment when Dorothy says "I'm awfully sleepy, but I'm glad I have my own head to be sleepy with."

-I love how in that moment when Dorothy cries in the Nome King's lap, in a cold stone hall that seems like it must be infinitely lonely, he pats her shoulder, and strangely, cries himself. Are these crocodile tears? Does he have some second personality that does care? We'll never know.

-I love the scene when Dorothy eats the rock cakes and melted silver, the gravity in her voice when, talking about Jack, says with little hope "Maybe he'll be lucky," and the intimate moment she shares with Tik Tok as she winds his thinking.

-I love the creepy bewilderment felt in the ornament room, Tik Tok's green tears, and the moment she hugs him.

-I love the restoration of Oz, when she tells the crowd they're the best friends anyone could have, and when they say they understand, I love the pure heartbreak in her voice as she asks "Do you?"

-I love and feel infinitely sad for Dorothy as she rushes to say goodbye to her friends, not able to fully do so as the screen turns white, then we see shots of the clouds, and finally the camera pulls back on Fairuza's gorgeous eye, already open, as her voice, filled with melancholy, murmurs a quiet "Goodbye."

-Finally, I love the final scene, as Dorothy sees Ozma in the mirror, her reflection, so she can finally live in both worlds, and finally she runs outside with Toto, and David Shire's score reaches its crescendo.

This is how Return To Oz has touched me, and why it will always be one of my favorite films.