Keyser Soze-12 Reviews

Made (2001)

The Most Uncomfortable Movie I Have Ever Seen

[3 December 2001]

Made is with out a doubt the hardest movie I have ever had to watch. Why, you ask? For a couple of reasons.

First of all, the camera throughout the entire movie is handheld and it nearly gave me a headache. The coloring is dark and unattractive. Every character makes sure to say the f-word every five seconds. Puff Daddy is in it. And finally, there's Ricky.

Ricky, played with perfection by Vince Vaughn, is the kind of guy you just want to die a horrible, horrible death for his stupidity. Ricky cannot shut up. He is the most annoying person I have ever seen in my life and his absolute stupidity is insane. And it is because of his character that the movie is so uncomfortable. He is so stupid that it will make you scream at the top of your lungs, and odds are you will probably punch the closest person near you out of shear rage.

Does any of this mean that Made sucks? No. Made is actually a hilarious, well written, and well designed movie, but it is a movie that I never want to see again for the rest of my life. The movie was written, directed, produced, and stars Jon Favreau, the man who co-wrote and starred in Swingers along side Vaughn. Favreau wanted to make this movie uncomfortable and he succeeded, but his great dialog is still there. Favreau is also a terrific actor and he proves that here.

So, which is better, Swingers or Made? Personally, I'd say Swingers. To me, Swingers is a sweet, charming, funny movie built around dialog. In fact, it's, in my opinion, one of the best dialog driven movies I have ever seen. It also helps that I know a guy who IS Trent Walker.

But Made and Swingers are two really different kinds of movies. They both have similar music, dialog, actors, and plot structure but the whole atmosphere is different. Made is gritty, painful to watch, but disturbingly funny. Swingers is sweet, fun, and funny.

So, do I recommend Made? I'm not sure. If you like the Sopranos, you might like this. This is really Swingers mixed with Goodfellas and The Sopranos. But, if you have an aversion to the f-word, don't see it. They say the f-word so many times that it made me sick. I'm not a goodie-goodie Jesus Freak or anything, but hearing the f-word repeated over and over again just isn't right. From a writer's point of view, it's kind of childish and stupid. What if I said the word "mustard" over and over again? It would (mustard) get pretty annoying and (mustard) pointless, don't you think (mustard)? It also shows (mustard) no imagination to repeat that same (mustard) word over and over again (mustard). But, that (mustard) doesn't mean the writing is bad, mustard. This is how people talk now a days, mustard, and Favreau is trying to capture reality, mustard.

But I think in order for the movie to be really good and enjoyable he should have, mustard, cut down on the f-words and he should have brighten the movie up, mustard. This is a comedy, and Favreau should have brightened it up a bit.

In conclusion: If you can handle tons of swearing, drugs, lots of darkness, and a very annoying human being, see this movie. There is a very well written, enjoyable movie here... somewhere. You might have to work at finding it.

7/10

Manhunter (1986)

The Battle of the Hannibals...

[19 November 2001]

Ah yes, Manhunter, one of the most talked-about and debated movies in history. Well, it is not really the movie itself that is debated, but the comparison to its predecessor, The Silence of the Lambs. It is this debate that I wish to discuss.

When it comes to serial killer movies, there is a small percentage of them that are any good and a vast majority that aren't worth a dime. When it comes to the minority, there are three films that stick out: Se7en, The Silence of the Lambs, and Manhunter. Basically, there are three types of people: people who think Manhunter is God and far more brilliant than any other film in existence especially that piece of trash "Lambs" movie, people who have never heard of Manhunter and love The Silence of the Lambs, And finally the people who have seen both films and love Se7en the most. Where do I fit? I'm off in a fourth group of people who see each of these films as equally brilliant and try not to compare them. But, to put your minds at ease, I will do so now.

Manhunter is an artistic and logical film that aims to frighten its audience in the brain. It features brilliant acting and even more brilliant characters. I love the whole idea of a man hunting a killing and becoming that killer in his head because that is terrifyingly realistic. Like all of Michael Mann's films, Manhunter tries to be as realistic as possible in every sense of the word. That is why I love Mann. He has a unique grasp of reality. Guns sound like guns in his films. Characters act like real people. And serial killers act like serial killers. His attention to detail is absolutely amazing, and Manhunter is proof of that. Manhunter is also incredibly artistic, using "out there" lighting and angles.

The Silence of the Lambs takes a very different approach. Instead of freighting the audience with reality, it chooses to do so by another means. It aims for the heart and emotions. Silence is much more personal than Manhunter and tries to scare the audience psychologically, irking the most remote and primal centers of the brain as well as the heart. Also, Silence is much more mainstream, using normal camera angels and basic lighting.

As for Se7en, well, it's a combination of both of those films. It attacks on a psychological, emotion, logical, and, well, every other level. Personally, I think Se7en is a stronger film, because where Manhunter and Silence both have their flaws, Se7en is perfection at one of its highest levels. But that's just my opinion. We're talking about the "Hannibal" films right now, so forget that.

As for Ridley Scott's Hannibal, I'm not going to discuss that because I don't consider it on the same field as the others. It is less of a serial killer movie than it is a gross-out contest. While the other films try to attack you personally and mentally, Hannibal just attacks your stomach, and because of that I feel it is a weak film. It isn't a bad movie, but it isn't great.

Now, both Silence and Manhunter have their faults. Silence has good characters, but none of them are as realistic or as good as Manhunter. When put under this spotlight, Silence fails. This is Manhunter's strongest point. Also, Silence has practically no artistic value while Manhunter is consumed by it. But Manhunter is not without fault. It has aged something awful over the years. The fancy lighting reeks of the 80's and the music is horrible enough to make your ears bleed. There are many shots in the film that I like, but they overuse the color green and there are too many horrible examples of "over-lighting" to bother counting.

Then there is the ultimate battle. The battle of the Hannibals. Lektor or Lecter? Brian Cox or Anthony Hopkins? The answer is both of them. Each actor portrays a version of Hannibal that fits the movie each is in. Brian Cox's performance is much more realistic. He is cunning, deceptive, and everything Lektor should be. Hopkins is evil. No doubt about it. This is Silence's strongest point. I have never seen a movie in my life where I felt pure evil like I do every time I see Silence. I don't know what it is about Hopkins's performance as Lecter, but it is pure evil. While Cox is brilliantly realistic, Hopkins is brilliantly evil. But, here's the trick: if the roles were reversed in those movies it would have sucked awful. Hannibal needed to be one way in Silence as well as another way in Manhunter. They are two different films with two different Hannibals. So you people who keep saying one is better than the other need to jump off a cliff and do us all a favor.

So which is the superior films? In my mind they are equal. But because I'm more of a mainstream person, I will go back to Silence more than I will Manhunter. That doesn't mean Manhunter is less of a film. Actually, Manhunter may in fact be better than Silence. But to me the films are as different as Star Wars and The Bridge on the River Kwai. They both may have a single similarity (in that case, Alec Guinness), but they are two entirely different movies. If someone tried to compare those two they would be shot, and rightly so. So, in conclusion, both films are good, great even, and now I'm going back to my room to watch Judge Dredd.

The Kids in the Hall (1988–2021)

One of the best shows of all time

[14 August 2001]

Kids in the Hall reminds me a lot of Monty Python. No, their comedy methods are not alike; it's just little things that remind me of them. First off, Kids is a combination of two types of skits: bizarre, intelligent skits, and stupid, silly skits. Monty Python was the same way. Next, both comedy groups are foreign, which goes to prove my theory that Americans suck at sketch comedy. The only decent American sketch comedy show I have ever seen was In Living Color, but it's dead as the dodo. Now SNL has its moments. Or, at least, they've HAD their moments.

SNL was good back when Mike Myers, Dana Carvey, Kevin Nealon (my all time favorite Weekend Update anchor), Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Phil Hartman, and Chris Farley were on it. It was like a dream team of talent. Yea, some of their sketches sucked, but mostly, I thought those were the best years for SNL.

Now, SNL is nothing but a bunch of A.D.D. standup-rejects that perform the same skits over and over again. The only good parts are the political satires (which are pretty good), but other than that, the show reeks. Don't even get me started on Mad TV.

There is a good reason for why SNL is bad and Kids in the Hall and Python are good. American sketch comedy has formulas to it, while the others don't. You never know what's going to happen in a Python sketch or a Kids sketch because they are so unpredictable and flat out weird. Shows like SNL are about as predictable as gravity and rarely ever have moments of spontaneity and insanity. Another difference is that SNL drags its sketches for too long. Sometimes, their sketches have good ideas, but they carry on for too long and get old. Some Kids in the Hall sketches are less than 30 seconds long.

An example of a short and "different" Kids sketch is the following: Two guys sit in an office. Both men are applying for the same job at this company. The start talking about which one will get the job. The one on the left (Dave Foley) pulls out a lobster and starts licking it, for no reason. The guy to the right (Kevin McDonald) just stares and asks what he is doing. Foley says that this is his lucky lobster and that it will ensure him the job. He brags for a little while, saying how lucky his lobster is. Finally, McDonald grabs the lobster and says, "Well, looks like I got your lobster now, don't I? HAHAHAH!" That's when the boss walks in and sees him. He says "[McDonald], I was going to give you the job, but you're licking a damn lobster." He looks at Foley. "You have the job now". Then the sketch ends.

SNL is too mainstream for something like that. Now that is comedic genius. Other stand-out skits that I love include the axe murder that needs to borrow an axe, the guy who doesn't realize he's bleeding from the head like a fountain, the "I'M CRUSHING YOUR HEAD!" guy, of course, and the guy who wears a toupee sketch (the one in black and white).

I'm going to speak specifically about Kids now. The show is from Canada, but there are no references to their political leaders or their problems. Mostly, the show could be confused for being American, because they often make fun of our presidents what's going on in our country.

The only problems I have with the show fall into one thing: the weirdness. Sometimes, sketches aren't even funny; they're just weird. Not even the audience laughs at them. These skits are rare, but there is at least one in every 30-minute episode.

My second complaint is Scott Thompson's character, Buddy Cole, the gay bar tender. Now, I'm not homophobic and I don't hate gays, but sometimes these monologues are just too long and too, well, gay. Yea, some of them are funny, but let me tell you, few straight people like watching gay people act, well, gay. It's not that it makes us feel scared or something, we just don't like it. Now, if there were only one or two of these sketches, I wouldn't care, but Buddy is the most reappearing character on the show and I feel like they just wore him out.

So, to wrap this up, Kids in the Hall is one of the most original and hilariously clever shows I have ever seen. Not since Monty Python has there been a show like this. It's sad that Kids in the Hall is gone and has been gone for almost ten years now. Hopefully, another show will come along and replace them. It seems "On the edge humor that nearly breaks the rules of sanity and tastefulness" isn't meant for the USA.

Note: Mr. Show with Bob and David is probably the best American comedy sketch show of all time, but I didn't want it's name mentioned in the same paragraph with that Saturday etc... show. But, like Kids in the Hall, In Living Color, and Monty Python, Bob and David have sadly been cancelled for a while now. It seems that good comedy sketch shows just aren't made for America, because when it comes to television, we have NO taste what so ever. Just look at what we watch. Shows like Big Brother and Drew Carey are the tops shows. This is sad. Truly sad. Now, when it comes to animated comedy (The Simpsons, The Family Guy, South Park) we still rock.

Second note: yes, I think Wallace and Grommet rock too.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Well, this sucks... but the action is tip-top

[13 August 2001]

There are not enough war-in-space movies. There's Star Wars, of course, but for someone like me who wants space dogfight action, it's a little outdated. There's Star Trek, but I hate Star Trek like I hate Barbara Steisand (First Contact wasn't that bad though). The first trailer of Starship Troopers made me believe it was a war-in-space movie. I was about to wet my pants in happiness. Then I saw another trailer and it turned out we fight space bugs on a planet. Eh, it's not as good as space, but giant alien bugs getting blown to peices is still a sound idea! I was pumped for this movie, let me tell you. I may be a big, serious film guy, but I'm also a guy, and a movie about blowing away space bugs sounded like a no-lose situation.

Well, the movie gets some points for its action. This movie has brilliant special effects and puts them to good use (yes you can have good special effects and do nothing with them; remember Episode 1?). The fighting is fun and intense. So, yeah, I like that. Also there is some nudity (but not involving Denise Richards, damn it).

Okay, besides all of that, the movie reeks. Everyone I have ever met liked this movie because of the bug action, but they all, ALL have admitted the movie sucked anyway. Well, it does. First off, you couldn't cast worst people to play these bad characters. Denise Richards is hot, this is true, and it is also true that she wasn't that bad in Wild Things (mainly because she played an annoying, rich, yuppie, white girl which is easy for an annoying, rich, yuppie, white girl). But, she can't act, AT ALL. Casper Van Dein (I don't feel like checking the spelling, shoot me) is one of the worse actors I have ever seen. He looks like somebody you would see in the military, so he looks his part. But he acts like, well, like a soap opera actor. And the other people, well, they all suck too. Actually, Michael Ironside is pretty cool, but other than that, they all suck.

Now the plot sucks, but that should be no surprise to anyone. I knew the plot would suck the moment I heard of this movie. You don't go to see movies like this because of plot. But some plot points are just plain insulting. For example, the main character dies in battle. WAIT, I didn't spoil anything, because the movie isn't over yet due to the fact THEY BRING HIM BACK TO LIFE. No, they don't treat his wounds or anything, he really DIES and they BRING HIM BACK. Maybe I didn't catch that scene right or something, but I swear I think that's how they explained it. Oh, and don't even get me started on the "brain" bug thing... It looks like a crawling anus. No joke.

There are also these scenes which make fun of army recruitment commercials. If you want to know what I mean, do you remember the fake commercials in Robocop (directed by the same guy, Paul Verhoven)? Well, they're a lot like that. Some of them are funny (like when they feed a cow to a bug soldier), but some come off as just plain distracting.

So, I think my mission of pointing out the movie is bad is accomplished, but is the movie good in a fun way? Well, it kind of is. The biggest problem facing this movie (other than the odd assortment of really bad actors; really, I want to shoot who ever is responsible for this casting job) would have to be that the movie has too many human scenes. Normally, character development is good, and I feel like I'm committing the biggest movie-sin of all time in saying this, but there is too much development in this movie. WE WANT BUGS. Plain and simple. People don't go to movies advertised like this for anything else. In fact, we never even get to the bugs until about half way through the damn movie! This is an injustice. Oh well. The training part is pretty funny, as with all movies with training scene.

In conclusion, this movie is horrible. But is it fun? I have concluded, yeah, for now. At some point, another director will come along and make a better space bug movie that will EASILY replace this one. But until then, this will satisfy my male urge for guns, death, and giant space bugs exploding.

Ratings:

On a "serious, film" perspective: 2/10

On a "fun, dumb movie" perspective: 6/10

Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

I missed out on the band wagon on this one, I have never seen a cheesier movie

[13 August 2001]

Cult movies are funny things. People seem to love them for weird reasons. I say this because Big Trouble is a cult movie (possibly the biggest cult movie of all time, or at least one of them) and because I didn't like it. In fact, I thought it was stupid beyond words. It's kind of fun in a harmless way, but I can't understand why so many people love this.

I have never been a fan of John Carpenter. I hear the guy is the nicest director on Earth with no ego what so ever. Well, that may be so, but I'm sick of seeing "John Carpenter's..." on the title to all his movies. I have yet to see The Thing, a movie which has gotten much praise, and I guess I'm an idiot for not yet renting it, but I just don't trust the guy who made Vampires and Big Trouble in Little China.

Big Trouble is a mindless fun movie. I'm sure when it came out, it was the coolest thing on celluloid. I'm sure, because of the special effects and kung fu action, teenagers thought it was the best thing ever made. I rented this a few months ago due to Nick Nunziata's (runner of CHUD.com) complete obsession with. Since then it has come on HBO a million times, and I feel robbed of my money. Anyway, the movie has a lot of problems. One of them is the fact all the actors suck like Orecks. Sorry, but have you actually paid attention to this movie? Kurt Russell is awful. That girl who plays the love intrest (the one from Sex in the City) is twice as bad. Some of the asian guys, like the Yoda-like sage or the evil old guy, are actually good, but every one else is just embarrassing.

Okay, now these special effects aren't really bad. In fact, they're quite good... for the time. But when you make a movie based on effects and action, it tends to not age well. Well, this movie has actually aged well, but the effects don't compare to today's stuff. The kung fu in this movie hasn't aged well at all, sorry. Now if you look at Enter the Dragon, you'll see kung fu and stunts don't always age. Enter the Dragon is still the best martial arts movie ever. But Big Trouble just doesn't compair to, well, anything I've ever seen. Normally, I wouldn't care about that, but when you build a movie around visuals, that's what happens! Thirty years from now, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within won't be remembered or cared about because when you fill a movie with special effects, and nothing else, it doesn't last as long as a movie with a good story, good acting, and a good script, which, I'm sorry to say, Big Trouble has none of.

Overall, I don't hate this movie. I'm not shocked at the fact so many people love it. I know why people love it. But, I still just don't like it. It is a mindless fun movie filled with cheese. But it has too much cheese for my taste. Shoot me, I missed out on this party.

5/10

Gone in 60 Seconds (2000)

A pretty big mess of a movie

[2/10 · 12 August 2001]

This movie is bad. There, I said it. I have a lot of car-obsessed friends who think this is God's gift to film, but listen to me, this movie is no good. Let me explain.

I've got a lot of reasons to not like this movie. Here I go.

The villain in this movie is like a rejected James Bond villain. Had he been a Bond villain, they would have called him Wood Man. The guy is obsessed with wood for some reason. Okay, that's a little weird, but it didn't help that they have a horrible British guy playing him.

Okay, another bad point, if you think this is a kick ass car chase movie, then you haven't seen many movies. There are only two or three car chases in this movie. Actually, the only good chase is the last one, which isn't bad but it isn't Ronin. I have seen some car chases my friend. I am a push over for a good car chase. Ronin is one of my favorite movies of all time just for that reason. But if you want a good car chase, there are better places to look. Rent Bullit, The Blues Brothers, Ronin, The French Connection, or Taxi before you rent this. Especially Ronin. Holy God, those car chases are amazing.

On a technical side, this movie is sad. It's shot like a music video (which is my number one pet peeve). I hate it when directors do this. Example: you have a scene where two guys are talking to each other, you know, basic character development. This is normal, all movies have these. But these music video guys take a 3-minute scene, cut it with 500 different camera angles that cut every second or so. Why can't the camera just stand still at a distance where you can see both guys in one take? If you have two actors who can't remember their lines for a 3-minute character development scene, then you shouldn't have hired them BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACTORS.

Whew, now here is another gripe I have: the waist of talent. Robert Duvall is in this? Angelina Jolie is in this? Giavani Rabisi (however you spell it) is in this? Well, it's hard to tell because each of them has about a total of three minutes of screen time. Why didn't they give them more time? That's my next gripe. Hold on, it gets better.

One of the most difficult types of films that directors can make are films that have many characters. Any director will tell you, they hate this. The reason is because the director must develop each character, explain why they're there and give them some human quality. This takes time, and when you have dozens of characters, that only makes it harder. Only really good directors can handle this. Directors like Guy Richie or David Lean. Hell, it's something that even Spielberg has difficulty handling (look at the Lost World). And let me tell you, Dominic Sena (the director of 60 Seconds) can't handle it. Just trust me on that one. All of the characters seem underdeveloped and as I watch this film, I couldn't really care less what happens to them.

It's funny, because Sena seems to have gotten much better. Swordfish is the definition of a bad ass action movie, a movie Sena directed. I'm glad he's improved since 60 Seconds. Because this was his first big time movie, I can forgive him. But, the movie still sucks.

I will give some pluses to this. It isn't all bad. Sure, there are some funny parts. There are some cool parts (that scene where Vinny Jones blows up all those cars by sticking a rag in the gas tank and lighting it was pretty cool). But, the overall feeling I got from this movie was, "Damn, that was weak." The movie is filled with too many stupid clichés for me to like it (like the ending scene on the catwalk that I saw coming like a cruise ship falling from the sky on a sunny day).

Overall, this movie feels like it was put together in a factory. It feels like a product, not a movie. It feels like it was made only to milk money from teenagers. As a man of film, I hate this. Movies should be made just for making them. Movies should be made to be entertaining and fun or intelligent and provoking. Movies should be made for millions of reasons, but one of them is not just to make money. Sure, movies should have a business aspect to them and producers should look to make money with them. But to make a movie ONLY to make money? That is sad. It's also sad that these types of movies outnumber the other ones. Tisk Tisk.

3/10

PS: Like I said, if you think this movie is "Real bad ass" don't complain to me for being a puss. Trust me, there are more bad-ass-flicks out there than this. Go see Swordfish.

Major League (1989)

I love this movie, the first is always the best

[12 August 2001]

Major League invented the modern day sports film formula. That formula goes as follows: take a team of any sport that is doing really horrible, add a bunch of misfit players with screwball personalities, spend most of the film showing how they have hidden talent, spend what's left of the film showing them kicking everybody's asses, then go into a big "ending game" where they win. Now, we have seen this formula a thousand times. This is quite possibly the most copied and repeated formula ever created because all the movies that use it are exactly the same, only with a different sport and characters with different quirks. What are some movies like this? Well, there's Necessary Roughness, Major League 2 & 3, The Replacements, all those Mighty Ducks movies, and, ummm, about 500 others that I can't think of right now. Just trust me, there are enough clones of this movie to make those anti- stem cell people wet their pants.

What makes Major League different is that is was first (but, if I'm wrong about this, please correct me). To my knowledge, it was the first movie to use this exact formula. Now comedic sports movies have existed since Edison's day, but Major League was the first to do this. And I think it's the best. What makes it better than the clones with the same formula is talent. This film is filled with it. Charlie Sheen playing a pot smoking, car stealing, punk, which is, well, himself. Tom Berrigner before he started making straight to video films (what happened to him? The guy's nominated for an Oscar, then he's flipping burgers at McDonalds. Since when does it work like that?) Renne Russo in her first film, I think. Dennis Haysbert is hilarious as the voodoo man Pedro, my favorite character in the film. Wesley Snipes is great and pretty much unnoticed in this film. Had this movie been made today, he would have gotten top billing, but this was before he was famous.

If I had to pick one thing about this movie that I don't like, it would have to be the routine "big game at the end". The movie is hilarious up to this point, when it gets serious. It's like someone hits the brakes when you're going 80 down the interstate, in what I call comedic whiplash. This happens in a lot of movies (remember Space Cowboys?). But Major League just gets too serious too quickly. But that's my only gripe and it hurts me to say it because I love this little movie.

Yep, I love this movie. It's very close to my heart. It hasn't got the big laughs of some movies, it isn't filled with comedians, it isn't crude, racist, or blasphemous (not that I really care); but it is funny and it has heart. It's just a fun, good ol movie. In fact, I have yet to meet a person who didn't like it. Now I can't say that about the clones.

Rating: Probably a 7 or an 8. Somewhere in that area.

Spartacus (1960)

A classic epic movie

[12 August 2001]

Spartacus is the definition of an epic Hollywood movie. It's not a film; it's a movie. There are no hidden meanings, no tricky camera work, and no brilliant dialog. It's just a fun, epic film.

Now all of that is the exact opposite of the type of films that Stanley Kubrick makes. Kubrick makes smart, cold, beautiful films that use visuals to tell the story instead of actors, usually. Kubrick never made popcorn movies. He never made fun movies (except for Dr. Strangelove, possibly). So it's no wonder that many people do not consider Spartacus to be a Kubrick film. Well, it's not. He may have directed, but this twisted Kubrick love child is not a "Kubrick film". It's a Hollywood picture.

Now that doesn't mean the movie is bad or anything. Oh, God no. The movie is great. It has great acting, a cool plot, cool action scenes (and for a movie made in 1960, that's pretty good), and most of all, it's just down right fun. It's a long movie, but it's still fun.

Normally in my reviews, I rant for as long as I can about every little aspect of each film. I do this because I want to make sure I say EVERYTHING I want to say about each movie, because I hate writing more than one review for each movie. But, for this movie, I've really said all I want to say. It's just a good movie. There's nothing outstanding about it, it's just a classic, epic film. I can't really say why it's so good, it just is.

9/10

Mallrats (1995)

It's a funny flick, but it is a bad movie

[5/10 · 11 August 2001]

Sorry movie Gods, Mallrats is a bad movie. Most people consider it to be the best Kevin Smith movie (though the critics and the box office don't agree), but it's bad. It's still damn funny, but that doesn't make it good.

First of all, the plot is horrible. Now, let's look at Clerks for a second. It had no plot, which made it get. IT just followed two guys around. Anything could have happened. But Mallrats sticks itself in the side by throwing in a boring and rediculous plot. What is it, you ask? Two guys try to win their girl friends back. Well, it doesn't sound that bad, but the fact the whole movie circulates around a dating game show that is taking place in a mall is sad. It really is. It hurts me to think that this was the best plot idea Kevin could think of. A dating game show in a mall? Good god that is awful.

Another really bad idea was Jerremy London. The kid can't act. It isn't all his fault because his character is the basic straight man who's only purpose in the film is to bounce the hilarious jokes from Jason Lee. I wish Smith had taken some more time with this character, because he sucks.

Third bad point: it looks and sounds like Universal just didn't care. The music is, well, too big. It's hard to say what I mean. The music is really dramatic and it really doesn't fit the movie well. There are also these weird, cartoony sound effects that come in that are just awkward. Also, Jay's performance is a bit over the top.

But, on the plus side, Mallrats is hilarious. There are tons of funny jokes (though they sometimes aren't delevered well do to bad acting), there are some great characters (TS aside), and the witty, offensive Kevin Smith humor is all over this film.

Some specific good points: The magic eye guy, the escalator joke, the cookie stand speech, Jay and Silent Bob (as usual), when Brodie is on the game show, and the ending scenes (especially when Jay and Silent Bob walk off into the sunset).

Overall, the movie is weak, poorly executed, and poorly acted. It seems more like Smith's first movie than Clerks, even though it isn't. The whole movie seems like it was made by an amateur, which is weird, because Clerks was so well made (mostly). But, despite this, the movie is still funny. While it is the worst Smith movie by far, it isn't the least funniest. Chasing Amy is the least funny of all his movies (due to the second half being so dramatic) and Dogma does preach too much, but Mallrats is probably his second funniest film in my opinion, with Clerks still ranking number one.

Smith's movies in order of how good they are:

Chasing Amy, Clerks, Dogma, Mallrats

Smith's movies in order of how funny they are:

Clerks, Mallrats, Dogma, Chasing Amy

There ya go. That's my 2 cents. Well, actually that's a couple of bucks worth, but deal with it.

Mallrats: a strong 5/10

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Quite Possibly, the most disappointing movie I have ever seen, it's not that bad, it's just disappointing

[10 August 2001]

I loved Jurassic Park. It totally blew me away. I loved it so much I picked up the book and read it. Then I read the sequel when it came out. I loved the book version of the Lost World twice as much as the original.

The thing about Michael Crichton's books is they can be easily made into movies. I really believe that. His books are practically screenplays, written in three acts (like movies) instead of the usual five (like books). The Lost World was filled with great action scenes, good characters, and a simple plot. I thought that a movie adaptation would be a piece of cake, especially in the hands of Spielberg. Whoa, I was way wrong.

The biggest problem with the movie is that they did not stick with the book. Now I know that a movie adaptation is never as good as the book it's based on (though that's not true with everything, like, say, Fight Club, sorry Chuck). But, the reason that usually is because books can have 6,8, or even 12 characters followed through the book, and the reader can keep up with it. That doesn't work in a movie because you have a limited amount of time to develop characters and in a book you have all the time you want. But the book The Lost World only had a few characters, and they could had cut a few of them out. But oh no. They had to cut out all the good characters like Dr. Thorn, Donson, and Levine, and then replace them with twice as many characters and keep the bad ones like Malcolm.

The Lost World suffers from what I call, `Too much, too quickly'. The plot is way too twisty in all the wrong ways. The characters are all badly developed, not to mention there are too many of them. And all of the wonder from the first film seems to have been totally sucked out. The villain from the book was replaced with an even bigger one. In the book, Donson (however you spell it) who you may remember as the guy who talked Denise Nedry into going traitor in the first film, came to the island to steal eggs. Well, in this movie, Donson has been replaced by hundreds of Engen employees who are trying to steal whole dinosaurs to put into a park back in California. I don't understand why they just didn't keep the simple villains from the book.

Here's an example of a missed opportunity. There is a scene in the book where our heroes are running from some raptors in the night. They hide in a gas station. The raptors stop following them. Levine (a good, scientist character from the book that they just dropped from the movie) notices that the gas station is another dinosaur's territory during the night, but during the day, it's raptor territory. So they sit and wait, not knowing what to do. Daylight comes, and so do the raptors. They pound on every side of the building. The walls eventually collapse, and in come the raptors.

This would have been a perfect scene for the movie, but they left it out. In fact, the only scene from the book that they put in the movie was the trailer dangling from the cliff.

The only good scene in this movie is when the raptors are chasing our heroes in the tall grass. I thought this was brilliant, but unfortunately, they just screwed everything else up.

Honestly, this movie could have been truly great had they stuck to the book. But they chose to replace all the good characters with bad ones, replace all the perfect scenes with crap, and completely throw out anything else good. They also made something's just awkward. Example, in the book the black girl was a student who snuck on board with a black boy. In the movie, the black girl is Malcolm's adopted daughter. Now, I don't want to sound racist or anything, because I'm not, but this is just awkward. And filmmakers don't need awkwardness in their movies. They could have kept both black kids in the movie. In fact, it would have made it better that way. But I don't have a damn clue where they got the idea to make her his daughter.

Normally, I wouldn't care if the writers and directors stuck to the book or not, but The Lost World was TAILOR MADE to be a movie, and it's a real shame they didn't see it through. The movie isn't all bad. It is kind of fun. But it is just so disappointing because this movie could have worked out much better. I don't know what Spielberg was thinking. Jeff Goldblum cannot carry a whole movie, he simply can't, and Spielberg should have known this.

Rating: 5/10

PS: There is a nice blooper I want to point out. When the poachers are hunting some dinosaurs in a field, and the good guys (Malcolm, Julianne Moore, Vince Vaughn, and the girl Kelly) are looking over a cliff at the field, if you look closely, Malcolm grabs the girl's ass. It's hilarious.

Hannibal (2001)

It's a pretty big mess of a movie, but it is worth the money

[7 August 2001]

I was very much looking forward to Hannibal. I started to read the book, but unfortunately, I never got past the first few pages. I just put it down and for some reason I never picked it back up. Oh well. I loved The Silence of the Lambs. I think that Anthony Hopkins portrayed pure evil. Really, I have never seen pure evil on screen. Just looking at him in that movie made me shudder. Not to mention that Ridley Scott directed it. He's not one of my favorite directors, but he does show some potential. I thought that the movie wouldn't be as good as the last, but I thought it would be better than this.

First of all, Hannibal is beautiful. It's a shame this wasn't nominated for Best Cinematography. I swear, this is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Kudos to who ever is responsible.

Second, Julianne Moore is, in my opinion, better at playing Starling than Jodie Foster. I love Foster. She's one of the best actresses out there. But her fake Southern accent always bugged me. It just sounds fake. Not `Nicholas Cage in Con Air' fake, but I never thought it sounded right. Being a born and breed Southerner, I can tell a fake accent when I hear one. Moore actually sounds Southern, which helped, not to mention she's a great actress.

Third, Anthony Hopkins is good.

Fourth, Gary Oldman as Mason Verger is perfect. No one may be able to recognize him, but he does a great job.

Now, let me get to the bad stuff. The movie is nothing like Silence for several reasons. The biggest one is that all of the characters have changed. It's ten years later from Silence. Hannibal has ceased to be the creepy psychopath from Silence and has become more of a philosopher. Starling is no longer the idealistic FBI rookie, but is now a worn out veteran. None of this is bad. But, what made Silence of the Lambs so creepy was that Lector was behind bars. He was down right evil. In this movie he is free and he is no longer evil. Well, he is, but he isn't the same kind of psychological evil from Silence.

Another bad point of the movie is Ray Liotta. He was good in Heartbreakers (shoot me, I liked it) but he is TERRIBLE in this. Egad.

Another bad point is that the movie's ending (I won't give it away) is rather stupid and convenient. This is the second movie I've seen in a row where Anthony Hopkins has cut off his own hand.

My finale complant is the editing. I loved Gladiator, but I hated the way it was edited. Well, Ridley Scott does it again. I hate it when directors cut movies real quick with close ups. I like the camera to be further away from ther action and I like long takes. Shoot me, that's the way I like it. Why? Because when they shoot action scenes real fast (or slow motion), with a million cuts for one scene, where the camera is in the action, it's damn hard to see what's going on. Not to mention it's easy to fake. I love action scenes that are one take long where the camera is back far enough so I can see what the hell is happening. That was a problem with Gladiator and that is a problem with Hannibal.

In conclusion, Hannibal isn't a bad movie, but it isn't great. Like I said, it's a beautiful film with great sets and gorgeous cinematography. It is not as gross or nasty as some people have made it out to be (but it's still rated R, so why the hell do you parents persist in BRINGING YOUR BABIES WITH YOU! FIND A BABY SITTER OR JUST DON'T COME!). Ridley Scott directed the movie well, but it is horribly edited. The story is rather weak. The movie is worth the money but it does not meet the sheer brilliance of Silence. Silence shocked you mentally. Hannibal tries to shock you with blood and guts. It's still a good movie, though it isn't good enough for me to want to see it again. I did enjoy it, but it left me a little unsatisfied.

6/10

Battlefield Earth (2000)

It's almost as if they didn't put forth ANY effort to make a good movies wait, they didn't oh well.

[31 July 2001]

Battlefield Earth is such a bad movie that I doubt any word in the English language can describe it. Horrid? Nah, it's too nice a word. Putrid? Well, that's close, but not quite there yet. Maybe they have a word in Russian, French, or Bosnian that we don't have that can sum up the absolute badness of this film.

Okay, now movies like Super Mario Brothers and Baby Geniuses are bad, but Battlefield Earth just seems like no one tried. The film looks like a third grader shot it. In an obvious attempt to be stylish, the director chose for every shot in the film to be tilted. Every last one. There are no shots anywhere in this film were the camera is parallel with the ground. Also, the director chose to use wipes similar to the ones they used in Star Wars. You know, when one scene cuts to another and there is this big wipe that transition the two? Well, that would be fine, but they keep using the same one over and over again. I swear it looks like something out of PowerPoint.

Then there is the plot. The plot has more holes than Swiss cheese... thirty seconds after you duct tape it to a pipebomb and run. Okay, let me give you a nice run down. 1,000 years in the future, humans have been enslaved by aliens that came down to drain our planet of its natural resources. These aliens act very much like us (though they are all butt ugly). One of them (played by John Travolta) wants to embezzle money from the alien government. So, instead of mining gold from where he is supposed to mine it using alien miners, he is going to mine gold using humans and mine it where he is not supposed to mine it. Now it is nice to know that aliens consider humans to be dirty, stupid animals, which most of them are. It is against alien law to use humans for anything. He takes one of the humans (played by Berry Pepper) and put him next to a "learning machine" that teaches the human a bunch of junk like how to fly, talk alien talk, use weapons, and of course mine. This is the first MAJOR plot hole. He actually takes this uneducated human and makes him smarter.

Another plot hole has to be that when a human revolt gets started that the humans get a bunch of old Harrier jets and fly them to attack the aliens. If this movie took place a hundred or, hell, even two hundred years from now, I could believe that these jets could still work. But 1,000 years? Think about how long that is. 1,000 years ago, the dark ages hadn't happened yet. These film guys want me to believe that 1,000 years from now, every machine on earth is "frozen" and will work no matter what. Right... Oh yeah, and they leave instructions to nuclear weapons just lying around so anybody can find them. Right... And if a nuke explodes on the alien planet, the entire planet will explode because their air is flammable. Right... Ed Wood would be proud.

But the most insulting part of the movie is how damn ugly it looks. In this modern day, when bad movies can masquerade as good ones just do to outstanding visuals (Final Fantasy and The Cell ring a few bells) it is amazing that a movie could look this bad. The aliens are ugly and tall. Well, to make the alien actors taller than everyone else, they wear really huge platform shoes they try to cover up, only they did a bad job. Also, the make up job on Forest Whitaker look like time was taken to make them look like aliens. But the other aliens (the ones you see in the background and ones that have small parts) all look the same and they all look ugly. The film's cinematography is equally bad. Like I said, every shot is slanted. But every shot is dark. Every shot is filled with bland sets and props. Every shot is filled with bad special effects. Yeah, you heard me. Bad special effects. Now, by today's standards, The Day the Earth Stood Still and even Star Wars have bad special effects. But they were made decades ago. In this day and age, when movies like Jurassic Park 3 and Pearl Harbor can get made, filmmakers should at least get the effects right. But, oh no, not for this film.

In conclusion, Battlefield Earth does everything wrong. It is horribly written, horribly acted, and horribly shot. It isn't even funny-bad. I laugh my ass off every time I see Power Rangers: the Movie or even Super Mario Brothers, but this movie lacks so much intelligence that it actually can hurt your mind. Consider Battlefield Earth not to be a movie, but a black hole that sucks your brain dry of any and all intelligence. It actually made me feel bad. The movie is so dark and bad that is made me feel bad about myself. There should be a law against people who have suicidal tendencies from seeing this movie because if they do, this just may be the last step over the edge for them. It is truly sickening how bad this is. How did they not notice? HOW!?

If I ever become a film school professor, I will show this movie to my class to teach them what NOT to do.

Rating: Take the number of stars in the sky, the speed light travels as it is pulled into an event horizon, pie, and the number of times Ted Kennedy has been picked up for driving under the influence, MULTIPLY them together, then you only have about .0000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000001 percent of how God awful this movie is.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Planet of the Apes never really knows what it wants it does have a spectacular ending though

[30 July 2001]

This is a tough movie to review. In its defense, the movie has a charm that I can't resist. The special effects, while nothing to write home about, are good. The makeup effects are brilliant. The story is interesting and involving. But overall, the movie seems a little undercooked.

That is a weird feeling to have in a Tim Burtin movie. His movies are filled with gorgeous and unusual visuals, unusual characters, and flat-out different ideas. But this "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes does not seem like a Burtin movie. It does not have crazy visuals, interesting characters, or anything unusual. The movie is dry as it can be. It's filled with crap dialog. The actors look like apes, but when they speak it sounds like they have a cold (due to the large amount of makeup, but it could have been fixed with dubbing or something).

I think that the movie had a large amount of potential, but it was not left in the oven for long enough. Fox really rushed this movie and it shows. Not in the special effects, but in the story.

Not all of the dialog is bad. There are some nice punches here and there. But the over all script seems rushed.

The characters flat out suck. I'm sorry, but they do. Especially the astronaut Leo played by Mark Wahlberg. His character never seems shocked or amazed at this planet full of apes. There is a moment of adjustment, but he gets used to it too quickly. If some one dropped me on a planet full of apes, I would freak out and I think most other people would too. Honostly, his character is rather boring and not interesting. The only good characters are Ari (Helena Bonham Carter) the ape that has a soft side for humans, Limbo (Paul Giamatti) an ape slave trader, and possibly Attar (Michael Clark Duncan) an ape soldier. But everyone else just seems, well, boring.

One real gripe I have is with Tim Roth who plays the ape general Thade. He does a good job, but he breaths real heavily and it gets annoying. He tries to act like a total "Evil monster" but it would have been better had they just made him into a more emotional guy. It's fine that they made him into a fearless psychopath, but it would have made the beginning moments (where Thade talks about his love for Ari) more believable.

The best part of the movie is the fabulous, Twilight Zone ending that I would never dream of giving away.

Over all, the movie seems lackluster and, well, boring. It's not a bad movie, but I think had they had more time to work on it, it could have been truly great. I liked the first movie a great deal, but I really wasn't looking forward to this too much. I guess I sort of sensed it would be this way. It is worth seeing, but it still lacks a narrative force that makes me want to see it again. It's sad that they didn't take more time with this, because it had GREAT potential. Oh well, it's still better than most of the crap that's out. Except AI. AI is still the best movie of the year, in my opinion. Don't bring the kids.

6/10

As Good as It Gets (1997)

This is how you make a movie. This is Classic.

[8/10 · 24 July 2001]

The problem with plot driven movies is that they are confined to the plot. Any and all plot driven movies (movies that rely on plot instead of character to tell the story) must stay within that plot. Jurassic Park must always involve dinosaurs. Bringing Out the Dead must involve ambulance drivers. Die-Hard must involve terrorists. This is not a bad thing. All of those movies I mentioned above are great movies, but they are plot driven.

It is nice, however, from time to time to see a character driven movie. A movie with no gimmick, no real plot, only characters that tie it together. These movies usually have more than one main character, lots of dialog, and most importantly, they can go anywhere. The characters can jump in a plane and fly to Antarctica if the want to. It is this feeling of open-ness that makes such movies feel so good. As Good as it Gets is one of these movies. Because the movie is character driven, we feel anything can happen.

As Good as it Gets has some of the best characters I have ever seen. There is no real plot. If I had to say what the plot was I would say it's about a crazy jerk who tries to change himself. But that doesn't even come close to describing this movie.

One reason why I love this movie is that I can really identify with the main character, Melvin Udall, played with shear brilliance by Jack Nicholson. You see, I am a little obsessive-compulsive. Not enough to warrant medication, just enough to know I have it. As I have said before in other reviews, I love movies about crazy people. And Melvin is about as crazy as they come. I can really understand why he locks and unlocks his door ten times overtime he comes home. I can understand why he wants to have the same waitress serve him breakfast every day. Obsessive-compulsive people love routine and if anything gets in the way of their routine, they feel violated. They not only want everyday to be like the last, they need it that way.

The acting in this movie is the best I have ever seen in one movie. The cast was perfect. No one plays a better lunatic than Jack Nicholson. The man is so good mer words can not express it. Helen Hunt is great as the cruel, stressful yet sensitive waitress. She deserves the Oscar for this and she has become one of my favorite actresses. Cuba Gooding Jr. has a small part, but he works it beautifully. Greg Kinnear is great as the sensitive and confused gay painter. Even Yeardly Smith (who some of you may know as Lisa from The Simpsons) is good. That just shows how good James L. Brooks is. He assembles on of the greatest casts ever and he directs them with grace and beauty.

Speaking of James L. Brooks, he and Mark Andus have made on of the funniest scripts of all time. This movie has some of the best one-liners I have ever heard (most of which come from Melvin). The dialog is great. This is some of the funniest writing I have ever heard.

Example:

Melvin- Never, never, interrupt me, okay? Not if there's a fire, not even if you hear the sound of a thud from my home and one week later there's a smell coming from there that can only be a decaying human body and you have to hold a hanky to your face because the stench is so thick that you think you're going to faint. Even then, don't come knocking. Or, if it's election night, and you're excited and you wanna celebrate because some fudgepacker that you date has been elected the first queer president of the United States and he's going to have you down to Camp David, and you want someone to share the moment with. Even then, don't knock. Not on this door. Not for ANY reason. Do you get me, sweetheart?

The movie even reminds me of The Simpsons. James L. Brooks is a producer for that show (which in my opinion is the greatest show of all time) and As Good as it Gets is filled with the same sudden, jab to the head type humor of The Simpsons. No, there is no other similarity, it's just that both seem to have the same comic timing.

In conclusion, this is one of my favorite movies and is definitely a classic. I normally hate softy romantic movies. The only thing is As Good as it Gets is anything but a softy romantic movie. Sure the movie has romance. It is, mostly, a love story. But it is NOT soft. It is very hilarious. Melvin is a cranky, brutally honest, meticulous, eccentric man and it is hilarious to watch him. I recommend this to anyone. It's a sweet, intelligent, deep, fresh, funny, and original movie that will continue to entertain me for years to come.

Normally, I believe that every one has an opinion. If I like a movie and you don't, so be it. But, if you don't like this movie, well, I can say with APSOLUTE accuracy that you have no taste. Sorry, you don't.

9/10

Jurassic Park III (2001)

WOW! Think Dino Crisis: The Movie. A few Spoilers, BUT NOTHING MAJOR. This is pure entertainment!

[7/10 · 22 July 2001]

Man, I really wasn't expecting this. Like most sane people, I loved the first Jurassic Park. And, also like most sane people, I didn't care for the second. It was a real shame they screwed that up because the book was so good. Eh, I'll save that rant for another review. But, when I was going into Jurassic Park 3, I wasn't expecting much. I knew the story would be about as flat as paper and the characters would suck. Well, I was right.

Ask yourself, what was wrong with JP2? I'll tell you. The movie had too many characters with too many motives and had a plot with a hundred pointless turns. The thing that made Jurassic Park work so well was the situation. A bunch of people in a theme park attacked by the attractions. The added plus was the attractions were dinosaurs. The second movie has a bunch of people going to another island for no real reason. Okay, there was reason, but it was still stupid.

This is where JP3 comes in. Grant does not want to go to the island. In fact, he's kidnapped (which is the only good plot twist in this movie). Once the movies gets to the island, a giant chase sequence begins. I heavily enjoyed this movie because it showed us more dinosaurs with less plot. The Lost World tried to camouflage the stupid situation with a complex plot. But Jurassic Park III never tries that. It knows how stupid it is. Basically here's the movie: People get on the island, dinosaurs chase people, people get off the island. Oh come on, you know there is a happy ending. I won't tell you who lives and dies though.

The fun of this movie is not the plot; it's the TERRIFIC dinosaur action. This movie takes a more realistic look at the dinosaurs and a scarier one too. The special effects are amazing. One of the greatest scenes in the movie happens in the beginning when a T-Rex (everyone's favorite carnivore) gets into a fight with a Spinosaur (a much bigger dinosaur I have never heard of). The camera moves around the fighting beasts in a handheld shot, panning 360 degrees. I must say, I was worried about ILM with the Mummy Returns's crappy special effects, but they have REALLY redeemed themselves now. The Pterodactyl sequences are equally amazing.

So, in conclusion, this is not a movie for you "Film Scholar" people who think Brazil and Dark City are the greatest movies ever made. This isn't for you hip writers who think David Mamet is God. This is for the average Joe who wants to see some Dinosaurs eat some people. I am a huge action movie fan, and let me tell you, this movie has some of the most breathtaking action sequences I have ever seen.

I have two sides to me: the film side and the movie side. The film side is the guy who likes Mamet, David Fincher, and other artistic stuff. The movie guy loves good popcorn movies. Believe it or not, they were both impressed with JP3. The film guy was amazed at the camera work and special effects work while the movie guy was just impressed by the cool dinos.

Sure the beginning and ending suck. Sure it has an unbelievable plot twist (it involves the kid, but I'm not telling you what it is). Sure the dialog is horrible and the characters (other than Grant) are stupid. But the whole movie isn't made for these things. It is made to impress you with cool dino action. I was also impressed how the movie manages to make fun of itself and it's predecessors. Several satirical jokes are made that I found rather amusing.

So, in final conclusion, if you don't like this movie, well, you're no fun.

Oh, PS: this isn't a kids movie, folks. I know JP and JP2 were family friendly, but this one isn't. The dinosaurs are extremely realistic, so just think about that. Real dinosaurs aren't like Barney; they're monsters and I can guarantee your kid (5 yr to 10 yr) will be scarred for life if you take him into this. This is more of a horror movie than an adventure movie. There were several small girls in my theater when I saw this, and boy-howdie did they cry and moan, "Are the dinos coming back!? Don't let them come back mommy!".

Oh, and don't take them to AI either.

The Big Kahuna (1999)

Good, but boring movie

[20 July 2001]

I love Kevin Spacey. He is one of my 5 favorite actors. The man has a talent for becoming fast talking characters. This is a man that most actors wish they could be because he can do anything. Danny Devito has made some stupid decisions in his life (What's the Worst that Can Happen?) but he is still a good actor. The other guy... I don't know him.

The Big Kahuna was a play. Well, guess what? The movie is a play too. It's almost like watching a bootleg video tape of a play. The entire movie takes place in two rooms: a hotel suite and its bathroom (and ocassionally in a bar, hallway, and another hotel room, but only rarely). The movie has some great writing and some terrific acting. It touches right on the Religious vs. every thing else issue.

This movie had a more personal touch to me because a friend of mine is exactly like the character of Bob Walker. He is so religious that he carries a Bible with him everywhere he goes. I know that some of you are thinking "that's great!", but when you have to live with it, for years and years, it gets old and stupid. Kevin Spacey's character reminds me of myself. I can't understand why someone would make themselves that blind to life and, most of all, that boring. Religious people are the most boring people of all. I don't mean people who love God a lot, I mean people like my friend who have unhealthy obsessions with it. Trust me, I see a lot of these people and they get old quick. Oh well, whatever floats your boat I guess.

Well, enough rabling about my worthless life. The movie has a problem, it's boring. I love slowpaced movies. But this is a little too slow. It's not that the movie never really leaves a hotel room. 12 Angry men ONLY takes place in two rooms, and it is one of the greatest thillers of all time. It's just that all of the talking in the movie drags for too long and I think that it could have been cut down. They should have stuck more with the scenes when the party happens. In fact, we never really see this party because the movie cuts around it. Oh well, it's still a decent movie filled with great writing and excelent acting. If your a fan of both, then check this out. If you're expecting a fall on the floor comedy, go look some place else.

7/10

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

A beautiful, if heavily flawed film. The people are artificial, and so is the story. All artificial, no intelligence.

[5/10 · 11 July 2001]

I have mixed feelings about Final Fantasy. First off, the movie is down right cool. The special effects are absolutely amazing. I couldn't help feel that I was watching a piece of cinematic history. Soon, movies won't even need actors. You watch; they'll completely replace them with CGI people and fake computer voices. But, despite that the movie looks beautiful and the action is great, the other points of the movie are weak. Normally, I can see a weak movie and still love it, but Final Fantasy is flat out, ummm, flat.

First off, I want to explain an idea I had. This is a Japanese movie. Just because the cast is American does not make it American. I know that it was made in Hawaii and everything, but this movie really reminded me of Japanese Animation, or Anime. Why? Well, the first thing about it is there is a mass of stuff. Yea, you heard me. One of the aliens is just a mass of stuff. Remember Akira? Next, the ending really reminded me of Anime. I don't know why, but it did. Next, the movie combines elements of science fiction with spirits, ghosts and other supernatural stuff. I have seen several Japanese cartoon/movies like this.

Okay, I hate Japanese animation because I think it's perverted, unnecessarily gory, and flat out weak. But that's just my opinion. Final Fantasy is not Anime, really. It isn't original, but it isn't Anime either.

Okay, there IS a problem with the special effects. The backgrounds, the objects, the camera motions, and the costumes all look photorealistic. But, as good as the people look, they are not photorealistic. Some people are, however. Dr. Sid is amazing and looks completely real. But other people just look a little off. Also, the voices don't match the lips right. They are dubbed well, it's just that for some reason, it doesn't seem right. It's awkward.

The story is weak. It really, really is. Many people will laugh at how, well, stupid it is. Many people got mad at AI for blending fantasy with science fiction. But, Final Fantasy does that too well. Technically, Final Fantasy is just that, fantasy, but it tries to act like it is science fiction which it flat out is not.

Overall, I kind of liked the movie. It has stupid jokes, dumb dialog, stupid characters, a flat out boring and weak plot, and most of all awkwardness. The movie comes off as weird to me. I am not a weird movie person. But, the special effects are BRILLIANT, despite some other problems. General Hien's leather trench coat is AMAZING. I did like some of the characters. I found that Hien (James Woods) was the most complex and interesting. I did notice how Alec Baldwin's character, Captain Grey, looks too much like Ben Aflack to be a coincidence. I did enjoy it, but the weak plot and characters are very apparent. Most of the plot is a little too `out there' for my tastes, and I'm a guy who loves science fiction. But I did have a good time.

Now, does this classify as a game-to-movie movie? I do not think so. First of all, all of the Final Fantasy games have nothing to do with each other (that I know of). They all take place in different times, on different planets, with different characters. So, this movie, as you can guess, has nothing to do with the games because it isn't a game. That's how I see it. They could have called this Phantoms 2 and nothing would have needed to be changed. Hey, this is Phantoms 2! Ben Aflack is in it!

Rating: 6/10

PS: The fact that Roger Ebert gave this movie a 3 ½ out of 4 stars only goes to prove my theory that Mr. Ebert only cares about pretty effects and fancy lighting and not about the soul of the movie, which is the characters and the plot. Go read the article at CHUD.com about how special effects one day will cease to be special and filmmakers will have to rely on a good story instead.

Swordfish (2001)

Wow. The most amazing action movie I've seen in years

[7 July 2001]

This movie hasn't gotten the attention it deserves. It really hasn't. Of all the movies that are out right now, this was the movie that my friends and I wanted to see the least. But, seeing how I had already seen almost everything that's out, I insisted that we see this. Man, that was a good decision.

Many people believe that the director is the number one guy on a movie set. Well, I believed that once. Now, I know who is the real Kahuna on the set: the producer.

In the Matrix, Joel Silver brought together the perfect people to make the film. Well, he's done it again. Swordfish has some of the best actors, the best cinematography, the best special effects, and the best directing I have seen in a long, long, long, long, long, long time. Because of the hoe-hum reviews this movie has gotten, I wasn't expecting much. Hot damn was I surprised. This is defiantly one of the best action movies I have ever seen and they made it the best that they could have made it.

By now, if you're the internet/movie junkie that I am, you must have heard about the opening sequence. Well, I will NOT give it away because I want everyone to be as shocked as I was, but it is definitely one of the greatest opening scenes EVER. If you want to know a wee bit more, then imagine what would happen if you took one of those incredible-cross-section books (you know, with the cutaway drawings of the Statue of Liberty and other stuff) and applied it to a massive explosion.

Okay, on to the acting. John Travolta is famous for making strings of bad movies, then making a comeback. Well, guess what? After a long, long string of bad movies (Battlefield Earth defiantly classifies as one of the worse pieces of MST3K-acceptable garbage I have ever seen) Travolta has made his comeback. His character is the kind he is best at playing: a gritty crime guy. He reminds be of a combination of his character from Broken Arrow and Vincent Vega with a little genius worked in there. He's one of the best villains I've seen.

The other performances are just as good. Don Cheadle is great as always. Hugh Jackman has shown he isn't just a one hit wonder with X-Men. He really is a great actor, apart from being (and I mean he really IS) Wolverine. Halle Berry was the only person I was disappointed in. Don't get me wrong, she's really hot and all (and we get to see some major skin of her in this movie), but she gives a rather dry performance. It's not bad, it just doesn't match Travolta, Cheadle, and Jackman.

Like I said before, the special effects are brilliant. After seeing the crap in Tomb Raider and The Mummy 2, I am happy to see that Hollywood can actually make good effects that are also practical apart from being really, really cool. Most of the effects are explosions and probably models, which I think look better and more realistic than CGI (Computer Generated Images) could ever look.

The directing is great. I was really surprised by Dominic Sena, the director of Swordfish and the GOD AWFUL redux of Gone in 60 Seconds. He does a GREAT job in Swordfish! Either Joel Silver was constantly looking over his shoulder or he is getting the knack of filmmaking. I am now looking forward to his next film.

Also, the cinematography is very, very similar to The Matrix (I wonder why). Every thing looks like it was shot through a glass of lemonade.

I will say one thing: the whole government conspiracy bit is stupid and it ruins the fun of the movie. It's really the only bad thing about the movie. It's too confusing, it makes no sense, and it just isn't necessary.

In conclusion, this is a real GUY movie. It's filled with big explosions, guns, fast cars, helicopter stuff, computer hacking, bank robberies, government conspiracy stuff, hot girls, Halle Berry topless, and much, much more. It's also a good movie apart from all of that with a good script, good acting, good directing, and more. No, it's not perfect. Some of the computer and conspiracy stuff is a little over the top at times. So far, this is my number one summer movie (and, no, you babies, I haven't seen Shrek yet and AI is not really a summer movie). But trust me, this is a movie you do not want to miss. HOT DAMN THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT!

8/10

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

A good, fun movie, but nothing more

[7/10 · 7 July 2001]

I am not a car person. I try to be, but I'm sadly am not. All of my friends are (or at least most of them) but it's something I never fell into as a kid. Movies are my thing, not cars. So, here I am, review The Fast and the Furious, and guess what? I loved it.

I love a good car chase. Nothing in this world can impress me more than a good car chase. To this day, RONIN still has the best chases (with maybe the Blues Brothers coming in second), but The Fast and the Furious makes a valiant effort. Okay, TFATF has a plot recycled from Point Break (which is justt slightly a better movie). Sure, the car chases will inspire teens to drive like stampeding cows. But, this is the best dumb movie of the summer.

Tomb Raider was stupid beyond belief. Pearl Harbor was like a dumb blond, she looks good but we all no there is no brain in her head. The Mummy Returns was just one long action sequence with bad special effects. Swordfish tried to be smart (and was, for the most part). But the Fast and the furious knows that it isn't the smartest girl at the ball, and it admits it. This movie is about cars, babes, and, ummm, more cars.

Yea, all of the cars are rice burning Hondas or Mitshubishis. There is ONE Volkswagon though...

So, it's not too bright, but it's fun. If you liked Point Break, you'll like this.

7/10

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

This is my last review of this movie, I swear

[9/10 · 6 July 2001]

Okay, I have already written two reviews for AI. My first review was a real review and my second was an explanation of some logic holes. But in my first review, I was really confused whether or not I liked the movie. I knew it was brilliant, but I didn't know if I liked it.

Well, I saw AI for a second time a few days ago. I have come to a conclusion: AI contains alcohol, but in reverse. Let me explain.

I was watching the movie, my second rime, and I was thinking, "Man, this is not as good as I remembered it being." I saw how slow the movie was. I saw how pointless some scenes were. I noticed some really ugly dialog. But, I was enjoying the movie, maybe even more than the first time.

Well, now it's two days later. Guess what? I'm having the exact same after-reaction I had the first time I saw AI. A few days after I saw AI, both times, I became totally obsessed with it. It's like a hangover, but good. I saw how wonderful the movie was. I saw every thing beautifully. Weird. Weird. Weird.

So, what does this mean? Well, it means that AI is not a great movie. But, it does mean AI is a brilliant movie. It has stuck into my mind unlike ANY movie I have ever seen. Now, I remember loving the movie. I did love this movie. But, the second time around, I noticed more of the flaws. But, trust me, there's something about this movie. Something magical I just can't put my finger on. I feel like Richard Dryfuss from Close Encounters because I've become totally obsessed with this movie. I have downloaded all of the trailers. I've read every review by everyone. I've read everything about this movie that was ever written. I have even felt the need to order the poster and preorder the DVD. What's next? Mash potato piles in the shape of Teddy?

Well, I have finally decided my rating. I love the movie, but despite my love, the movie is flawed. It has an ending that is too long. It has some awkwardness I can't put my finger on (the Chris Rock cameo does not belong). But, I still love it. I love the TRON motorcycle guys. I love the Flesh Fair. I love the ending (though it needs some trimming). I love the acting. I love the special effects. But do I love David? Can I love something that is not real? I think David starts out a robot and slowly becomes human. He learns love, hate, jealously, confusion, and weirdest of all, he learns suicide. No, that's not how it ends, but he does try it (if you've seen the movie, THINK!). Is David more human than he seems? I think so. This is one of the many questions that AI asks.

For those of you who hated or disliked the movie, I have something to say: at least AI is asking some questions. No, it doesn't answer many of them. But, did you ever think that maybe the movie shouldn't supply the answers, YOU SHOULD. Just a though of mine.

If you haven't seen AI yet, here's a tip. Don't expect 2001. Don't expect ET. Just go in, relax, have an open mind, and enjoy the show.

Rating (I have it this time): EIGHT and A HALF (8 ½) out of TEN (10)

PS: I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH! THIS IS NOT FOR YOUR KIDS! This is a very creepy and disturbing movie that creeped me out! I never get creeped out! And if I got chilled, then this movie will scare the pants off your 8-year-old.

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (1995)

Ah, ah, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[4 July 2001]

Oh dear lord! I remember when this show came out and I thought, "what the hell is this?" I grew up on Looney Toons, Batman, Ninja Turtles, and Trasnformers (among other stuff), and I really feel sad for anyone who grew up with this. Oh, how bad is this. This, this is pure MST3K. I saw the movie on HBO when it first came out about 6 years ago or something. Well, I was really bored last night and there was nothing on TV. I didn't feel like raiding my video or DVD collection, so I saw this was on. Why not? Let me say, this is the funniest thing I have ever seen.

I laughed my ass off. I couldn't stop myself. Oh, my, god, how funny this movie is. Oh, it's bad, trust me. It's really bad. But this is so bad it's funny as hell. I wish that MST3K was still around so they could make fun of this.

Okay, first off, the villian is a man made of snot. Purple snot. And he fires loogies into the ground that grow into henchmen. HA HA HA HA! Oh, oh, okay. At least Batman fought real people and Spawn fights demons and criminals. These little teenagers fight snot! Oh holy God is this hilarious!

Let's not forget the POWERLAMP! I remember this scene where these "superheros" are in an underground car garadge and they can't see because it's too dark. So, to fix this, one of them says, "POWERLAMP ON!" and these lights on the person's helmet turn on. Oh God! I feel on the floor at that one. Oh, let's not forget the lady who is a cheep knock off of the Witch of the West. She's some Japeneese woman who is dubbed. Badly too. Her voice is totally out of sync with her mouth. Oh, that's funny.

Every thing about this movie is HORRIBLE. There is not enough dark energy in the universe to swallow the shear badness of this movie. But, it made me laugh like a schoolgirl. Oh, this is the biggest joke of all time. You know those TV shows that come on NBC or CBS at 3 o'clock in the morning? Those lost dinosaur shows and alien shows that came from the armpit of Hollywood? Those are ALMOST as bad and funny as this.

Rating: Negative 3,999,834,782,124,000,287,162,652,187,011.99 times PIE

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Here lies your answers to your logic holes ***SPOILER ALERT***

[9/10 · 1 July 2001]

I wrote another review of this movie that was a real review. What follows is a combination of a review and some answers to a lot of questions that people have been asking. Many people are ruining this movie by pointing out logic holes that flat-out don't exist if you just take some time to think about the movie. Remember, this movie is more Kubrick than Spielberg, so it's going to be deep and ambiguous (do you remember the ending to 2001 at all?). I warn you, what follows will spoil the movie, so this is only for people who have seen it. I normally hate giving stuff away, but I felt that these questions needed answering.

Here are some answers for all of the questions that have surrounded AI.

Question number one: why didn't they design David to not eat food if it shorts out his circuits?

Answer: they did, but David overrided his own programming. His brother Martin was making fun of him, and David got angry. He hated Martin. His hatred overcame his program. You may say, "What? That's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard!" Well, it's not, because you do the same thing. In moments of passion, moments of intense emotions of rage or love, human beings loose logic. Haven't you ever been so mad you didn't think about what your consequences are? They designed David to be HUMAN, and they did it too well.

Question number two: why does David's mother abandon him?

Answer: simple, David's journey is an experiment. The company wanted David to escape so they could test exactly how much he loved his mother. The movie actually answers this question rather bluntly, but no one obviously was paying any attention. Remember the scene between David and his maker?

Question number three: What is the deal with the aliens?

Answer: they are NOT aliens, they just look like it (for reasons only Spielberg knows). First off, if you look closely, you can see little parts moving underneath their translucent skin. Second, remember when Joe (Jude Law) said, "The humans know that in the end, all that will be left is us," foreshadowing that one day humans will become extinct and robots will rule the earth. I honestly don't know why so many people didn't get this.

Question number four: What is the deal with the cloning the mother thing?

Answer: They didn't clone her. Think, for a few seconds. The alien-looking robots know that David is really, really important and they don't want to hurt him. They want him to be happy. They also know that he is programmed to be a child. So they make up the whole DNA thing so that David can somewhat understand (and they know about the hair in Teddy's pocket because they had to fix him too). In actuality, the robots just sent messages into his brain that seemed like his mother. In other words, David was dreaming. Remember when David first gets into his new home? Remember how distorted it looks? Remember how blurry it looks? HE WAS DREAMING (kind of). The reason they said it would only last a day is because they knew they couldn't just leave him there forever, so they gave him a boundary, a reason to "wake him up" you could say.

That's just what I think. What do I know, I just took some time to THINK about the movie. This is a deep movie, so don't just write off something that you don't understand to be a logic hole, because the problem is not the movie. The problem is you. This movie is supposed to make you think, like it made me do. Just take some time and think about it. Or just sit there like a stubborn Neanderthal.

The movie does have problems. As a person of film, I am not blinded to that. The ending, while it is a good ending, is too long. The movie drags, which is never a good thing. The movie seems like it ends at the ferris wheel (and if Kubrick was alive, it would have) manly do to the fact that the camera backs off and fades a little, like it's ending. Not to mention Ben Kingsley comes in as the narrator. Another bad thing is Dr. Know. It is way too over the top. The cartoon is way too vibrant and moving around. The movie is too slow for such an animated cartoon to burst in. Not to mention that it's just stupid. I know it serves a purpose, but please…

So, in conclusion, AI is just a fairy tail for adults. It's a movie to loose yourself in. You don't need to think about it, but if you do think about it, think hard so you don't disguise stupidity as logic holes. This movie is way too artistic for mainstream people. It's also weird. It's also creepy. It's also cold and haunting. Kubrick is calling us from beyond the grave. Just accept the movie for what it is. It is the bravest science fiction movie since Gattaca (or Contact, I forget which came last). The same people who hate this movie are the same people who thought The Mummy Returns, Tomb Raider, and Pearl Harbor where classic movies. AI is a classic, whether you like it or not.

Oh, and please remember that this is no kid's movie. There are many images in this movie that creeped me out, so imagine what it will do to your kid.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Without a doubt, the most provocative film I have ever seen. I can't get the movie out of my head.

[9/10 · 1 July 2001]

I have never seen a Kubrick film in the theater. I was too young to see Full Metal Jacket, I wasn't born yet to see The Shining, and I really didn't want to see Eyes Wide Shut. Well, I just came back from seeing one. Don't let the fact that Spielberg gets the credit for writing and directing this. AI is a Kubrick movie.

First, let me show you the VAST difference between the two directors.

Spielberg makes three kinds of movies: Wonder movies (science fiction films that inspire awe like Close Encounters and ET), Adventure movies (movies that take the audience on a fun ride like the Indiana Jones films and Jurassic Park), and lastly, his War movies (which includes Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List). In simpler words, Spielberg makes fun movies. He is an entertainer. He shoots his films with bright colors and swooping movement.

Kubrick was an artist. No two of his movies are alike, but there are subtle differences. I can not put into words Kubrick's style. I just know it when I see it.

AI is not shot like a Spielberg movie. It is shot like a Kubrick movie. It does have Spielberg's patented usage of lights against dark backgrounds. But the movie is SO different than anything Spielberg has done before. Spielberg has never done a movie about ideas. He's toyed with it, but Spielberg is a storyteller, not an artist.

Okay, you want to know about the movie. Well, this movie was written and directed by Stanley Kubrick. I don't care what the poster or credits say, KUBRICK MADE THIS MOVIE.

I swear, I just don't know what to think of this movie. It is a brilliant movie, but it has some serious flaws. I have never come out of a movie totally bewildered but at the same time amazed at what I had just seen. AI is an amazing movie, no matter what anybody says.

The acting in this movie is BRILLIANT. Haley Joel Osment is the best actor I have ever seen. His ability to portray a robot is uncanny. This kid NEEDS a best actor Oscar for this, and trust me, he's getting it. Jude Law is also equally brilliant. Law looks fake. He acts fake. His movements and mannerisms are fake. And it's supposed to be that way. The guy looks like a robot. He is defiantly up for best supporting actor.

Okay, so what did I think of the movie. Well, David (Osment) is a robot. He is programmed to love, or it just seems that way. This is such a weird movie because we can't love David. He is a robot. No matter what he does, he is a robot and he has no feelings. How can you love a robot? But honestly, as the film moves on, I think David learns. He really becomes more human with every passing second.

To be blunt, the movie is pretty weird. I mean, I just don't know what to think. I'm a movie critic, and I can't express what this movie is like. It has totally blown me away. I have to see it again. Not because I didn't catch something, but so I can re-experience the most breathtaking film I have ever seen.

I do want to pick on the ending. I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE IT AWAY! I don't believe in spoiling people. But the ending just seems like it's prolonging the inevitable. It just keeps going. Once you think it's over, oh no, another ACT comes in. Oh, and those are robots not aliens.

There's just one last thing I want to say. When I first learned that Jude Law's character was a gigolo robot, I thought it was the dumbest idea I had ever heard of. But now I understand it. Both David and Joe are programmed to love, just in different ways. Joe loves physically, and David loves emotionally.

Overall, SEE THIS MOVIE. It is not the greatest movie ever made. It will leave you just as unsatisfied as it left me. But this is an awesome movie both in scope and in presentation. But the weirdest thing is how it stuck in my head. I can't stop thinking about it. Weird.

The whole experience of this movie is cold, uneasy, disturbing and uncomfortable, but for some reason, it is truly breathtaking and awe inspiring. I mean, that's what Kubrick movies do. There is one thing about AI that Kubrick never did. AI has heart. It truly does. And heart is something Spielberg does well.

AI is the first real artistic movie, both visually and metaphorically, that Spielberg has done with the possible exception of Schindler's List. This is Kubrick, ladies and gentlemen. He rose from the grave and made this movie. Get over it. There's one thing no one can deny: this movie is historic and an instant classic, even though it isn't that good.

Well, one thing's for sure: AI makes you appreciate humanity.

No rating, just read the review. My head hurts.

PS: THIS IS NO KID MOVIE! DO NOT BRING YOUR KIDS!

Tigerland (2000)

A wonderful film

[29 June 2001]

Normally, I HATE Joel Schumacher. I think most people do. For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, he's the guy who directed Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, among other crap. He's my least favorite direct. I hate him. But I love Tigerland.

Yes, it's true, Schumacher directed an independant movie, called Tigerland. It's is and it isn't a Vietnam movie. It takes place during Vietnam, it's about Vietnam, but it doesn't take place IN Vietnam. It takes place in Tigerland, a fierce boot camp where the army tries to simulate Vietnam the best they can.

This is one of the biggest surprises of the year. Platoon was a personal story about the boys in Vietnam. Apacolypse Now was a plot driven movie about the horror of Vietnam. Platoon was about character, apacolypse Now was about Atmosphere. Tigerland has more in common with Platoon.

Honostly, as much as I love this movie, I hate the way it was shot. The camera jerks around too much and none of the takes are more than three seconds long. I hate it when people do that. I am not a fan of handheld shots. Why don't they have long, swooping shots any more? Is there a steady-cam strike I didn't hear about? Joel Schumacher is a horrible director. It's a good thing he got GREAT talent to act the movie and the script is tip top. I also like how the film has a kind of faided yellow tint to it that makes it look like a documentary from Vietnam.

This is a real HUMAN story about a man who hates the army and wants out, while helping others to their freedom on his way. This year has been pretty absent of any character movies. We've seen mostly big budget, special effect crap. But I really want you to see this movie, all of you. I loved it. It is a truly wonderful and entertaining movie. It makes me angry that movies like this never come to my town, but crap like Tomb Raider does. Hell, even my mom liked it, and she isn't the war-movie-type-person.

9/10

Street Fighter (1994)

I think this takes the cake for worst game to movie conversion.

[28 June 2001]

I remember when Street Fighter 2 came out. Oh, it changed my life. It changed everyone's lives. Why? Because it was an amazingly addictive fighting game with cool moves, cool characters, and cool graphics (at the time). It truly changed the face of video games for ever. I was so excited about the movie...

Well, it's horrible. I mean it's really, really, really, bad. I'm talking worse than Super Mario Brothers bad. Okay, where's the main problem (among many): Jaun Cluade Van Damne. How many people out there like this guy. Okay, the two of you go somewhere and die. Now who thinks he is a horrible actor who is also bad at martial arts mostly due to the fact he is getting too old? Okay, that's about 2, maybe 3 million people. I didn't know that many people came to the IMDB. Anyway, the man is down right one of the worst actors of all time, right next to Daulph Lundgren. And guess what? He does a bad job in this movie.

Okay, next problem. There are too many characters. Aparently, whoever made this movie decided to put EVERY DAMN CHARACTER FROM THE GAME INTO THE MOVIE! Only really good directors can handle a large amount of characters. Well, guess what? This guy sucks, so he failed at his job as well. Oh, and none of the characters are very interesting and I really don't care who lives or dies.

I will say one thing. Casting Raul Julia as M. Bison was a nice touch. The man is a good actor and he shows it. Too bad this was his last movie. If he were still alive, he'd kill himself in shame.

So, other than that, is there ANYTHING to savor about this movie. Well, it does have a cool high tech boat. And the fight sequences are... wait a minute. The fight sequences suck too! There only a few seconds long and they're horribly done!

Okay, in conclusion: this movie suffers from too many characters that the audience couldn't care less about and that no one put any effort into this movie to make it any good. I guess it's pointless to say that the plot is SOOOOOOOOO stupid. If you thought that Mario had a dumb plot, oooooo boy, wait till you see this. No, wait, don't see this. Save yourself while there is still time. This movie isn't funny bad in an MST3K way. It's bad in a way that it will kill you if you stare at it for too long.

2/10