glassorange Reviews

Swingers (1996)

"That was so MONEY!"

[9/10 · 16 May 2002]

"Swingers" is such a great movie. It's endlessly fun, slick, and hilarious. With inspired spoofs of shots from "GoodFellas" and "Reservoir Dogs," along with the use of "money" as an adjective, "Swingers" is pure entertainment. Simply put, this movie is MONEY, BABY!

Beavis and Butt-Head Do America (1996)

Come on, it's funny. (chowderhead? what kind of f*cking name is that?)

[7/10 · 5 May 2002]

I knew I had to speak up on behalf of "Beavis and Butt-head Do America" when I saw that someone actually thought that it was a disgrace to our nation (this person is also from Jersey, so I sense they're talking about the U.S. of A., unless they really are as dumb as their comment suggests). Why take the characters of Beavis and Butt-head seriously? They aren't meant to be taken seriously, they're idiots. They're written to be idiots. They aren't supposed to be likeable. What's funny about Beavis and Butt-head isn't the myth that we're supposed to be laughing at the same things they are. What's funny is the fact that these characters find such toilet humor and sexual innuendos funny. Their minds are so warped by sitting on the couch and watching television for some sixteen years that that's all they can understand. These ideas, I think, are pretty successful in getting some solid laughs. So if you don't understand Beavis and Butt-head, than you're what's wrong with the nation.

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)

Not one of Woody's best, but pretty damned funny.

[7/10 · 30 April 2002]

I am a big fan of Woody Allen and having seen some twenty-three of his films, I can safely say that "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" is not one of his best. However, it is still very effective at being a fun, great-looking comedy. His cast is extraordinary and his script, as usual, is filled with very funny material. If you've never seen a Woody Allen film before, don't see "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion." See one of his classics, like "Annie Hall" or "Zelig." This is a funny movie, but it isn't the best introduction to the work of the genius that is Woody Allen.

7/10, or *** (out of four)

Talk Radio (1988)

Another masterpiece from our good friend, Oliver Stone.

[10/10 · 22 April 2002]

"Talk Radio" is one of Stone's very best films. Adapted from Eric Bogosian's play and influenced by Stephen Singular's book, "Talked to Death: the Life and Murder of Alan Berg", this picture is a very effective thriller with an excellent script. There is a brilliant performance by Bogosian here, along with Stone's masterful directing. "Talk Radio" is one that any fan of Stone's will love.

Note: Oliver Stone is often picked-on by IMDb users for "over-directing" a lot. The truth is that Stone is simply a better director than anyone out there, excepting Woody Allen. His films are not made just so they can show off his talents. Films such as "Natural Born Killers," "The Doors," and "JFK" are constantly called "self-indulgent garbage" by those who fail to realize how good the film and script themselves really are. I can agree that "The Doors" was not as great as the other Stone stuff, but "NBK" and "JFK" are underappreciated masterpieces. Those who detest "NBK" seem only to be looking at the screen and not listening to a damn thing that's going on. There were some great ideas behind "NBK" as there are behind "Talk Radio" and most of Stone's other films. So I suggest people stop simply staring mindlessly at the trippy visuals and LISTEN! If you don't realize how good "Talk Radio," etc. really are, then there's something wrong with you.

10/10

Fight Club (1999)

A good film; NOT a great film.

[7/10 · 19 April 2002]

"Fight Club" is a very good movie, but it is held up much higher than it deserves to be. It currently ranks at #33 on the IMDb top 250, so you can understand why my mind was blown when an IMDb user actually called this movie "underappreciated". The truth is that it's OVERappreciated. "Fight Club" is not the groundbreaking, sensational work of genius many fans call it. There aren't any stagerringly original ideas, apart from Fight Club itself. The film is pointlessly overlong, with a ridiculous ending that was not at all needed. So I see no reason why anyone would ever think that this movie was underappreciated. It's obviously not the case. However, it is superbly directed, well-written, and well-acted, so I fell good giving it a rating of 7/10.

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

One of the funniest and best films ever made.

[12 April 2002]

"A Hard Days Night" has got to be one of the funniest movies of all time, firmly holding its place with such classics as "Annie Hall" and "Duck Soup". It is also one of my top five favorite films of all time. The film proved that the Beatles could not only write and perform incredible songs, but that they could act as well. They are assisted in no small part by the extraordinary screenplay by Alun Owen. His dialogue is so unreasonable witty that even Groucho Marx himself would be impressed.

In "A Hard Days Night", we not only see the Beatles as great characters, but we also get some other outstanding characters, such as Paul's mischevious grandfather (Wilfred Brambell) and the dim-witted Norm and Shake (Norman Rossington and John Junkin).

This is a great film with great music and a great screenplay. I recommend this not only to avid Beatles fans, but to movie fans in general.

Sweet and Lowdown (1999)

One of Woody's Best. . . . .seriously.

[9/10 · 11 April 2002]

I am a huge Woody Allen fan. To date, I've seen about twenty of his films. The one I saw most recently was "Sweet and Lowdown", a compelling character study starring Sean Penn as Emmett Ray, the greatest jazz guitarist in the world (except for this gypsy in France). This film mixes documentary with biopic in a way that only the genius of Woody could have pulled off. The performances are excellent, especially those by Penn and Samantha Morton, who was nominated for (and should have won) the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role.

This is certainly not Woody Allen's best film. But "Annie Hall" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" are hard to beat. This may very well be the film to join them in the top three. I've never seen a bad Woody Allen film, but I've only seen two that were better than "Sweet and Lowdown."

Jackie Brown (1997)

Another classic from Tarantino

[10/10 · 11 April 2002]

Out of the three feature-length pictures Quentin Tarantino has made, "Jackie Brown" probably ranks at #3, with "Reservoir Dogs" at #2, and "Pulp Fiction", the very best film ever made, being at #1. However, "Jackie Brown" is still a great film. It displays Tarantino's directing and storytelling talents just as well as when we saw them in his two previous films. His cast is excellent as well, with the title character played by Pam Grier, and some outstanding performances by Robert De Niro, Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, Bridget Fonda, and Robert Forster in an Oscar-nominated role as a lonely bail bondsman.

Tarantino's story is difficult to describe, so I close now, offering this final advice to the reader: By all means, see "Jackie Brown"

The Opposite of Sex (1998)

Despite pointless nitpicking, this is one of the very best films of 1998.

[8/10 · 18 March 2002]

There has been a lot of ridiculous nitpicking from IMDb users aimed at "The Opposite of Sex". For example, one user complains that we never get to see Christina Ricci's breasts when she takes her top off. What this user doesn't realize is that the nudity is not the point of that scene, nor is it necessary for that scene to occur. We can tell she took her top off. The director doesn't need to show us her breasts to prove it. Not that showing Christina Ricci's breasts would put a minus on the film. I really would have enjoyed seeing them, to be perfectly honest. But there's no reason to nitpick this film just because we don't see Christina Ricci's breasts. "The Opposite of Sex" is a wonderful film. One of the best of its year, along with "American History X" and "Pleasantville". If you can say that this is a bad film just because director Don Roos doesn't show Christina Ricci's tits, than why not call "Tombstone" a bad film simply because we don't see Wyatt Earp pull the trigger when he has his gun in Indian Charlie's mouth (at least I think its Indian Charlie. . .who cares). This constant nitpicking is senseless and pointless. This is a great film, in obvious spite of the lack of tits.

Can't Hardly Wait (1998)

One of the very worst of the teen movie genre.

[2/10 · 15 March 2002]

Not all teen movies are bad. Some are actually really good. Such titles include "American Pie" and "The Breakfast Club". The reason these films are good is because they have interesting, realistic characters and interesting, realistic (and often very funny) dialogue. However, "Can't Hardly Wait" from 1998 has no interesting people whatsoever. Maybe one or two realistic ones. No good dialogue, though. None. The fact that so many IMDb users love this film is utterly mindboggling. What's to love in this film that hasn't been done about half a billion times before? There isn't a single original thought in the entire film. The characters that aren't boring and mundane are the ones that are extremely stupid and endlessly annoying. Ethan Embry is a pretty good actor, as we've seen in films such as "Empire Records" and "That Thing you Do". But he gets stuck with a dull character whose script gives him nothing interesting to say. NOTHING! Not one thing in 100 minutes of this godawful picture (just 100? wow, it felt like a decade). It doesn't help that the girl he's a had a crush on for four years (CLICHE ALERT) is played by Jennifer Love Hewitt, who isn't much of an actress in the first place, and whose character isn't any help.

I don't think anything could have saved this film. There is a ridiculous cliche in almost every scene. It's hard to imagine this film existing with out them (though it would be fun imagine this film not existing at all). There are a maybe one or two funny lines, but thats all this films has to offer. Everything else is pointless.

2/10.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

Possibly Scorsese's most underrated film.

[9/10 · 14 March 2002]

"Bringing out the Dead" is a brilliant piece of work, even for Scorsese. He obviously one of the best directors of all time, with such films to his credit as "Raging Bull", "Taxi Driver", "Casino", "Mean Streets", and his absolute best, "GoodFellas". However, this is one of Scorsese's most frequently overlooked works. "Bringing out the Dead" is truly a modern masterpiece, one of my favorite films of the 1990s. It is much too underappreciated for what it is. Not only Scorsese's superb (as always) directing, but the performance by Nicholas Cage is one of his very best as well, even better than "Raising Arizona", maybe better than "Red Rock West", almost to the level of "Leaving Las Vegas".

10/10. I strongly recommend this film, especially to Scorsese fans.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

A surrealist masterpiece that is ahead of its time.

[10/10 · 14 March 2002]

I read a review of "Being John Malkovich" on the IMDb wherein the person posting the comment called it "unrealistic." What this person has failed to realized is that THAT'S THE POINT! This film is not about everyday people, nor was it made to appeal to an everyday sense of logic. This film was made with an extreme amount of imagination. Spike Jonze has made an extremely inventive and brilliant film.

One of the other high points of this film is the cast, which features Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener, John Malkovich himself, Orson Bean, and John Cusack, one of the very best actors of the past two decades (see my review for "High Fidelity"). These actors put forth spectacular performances of brilliant characters, driven in part by Jonze's wonderful dialogue.

All in all, this is a great film. One of the best of the past decade. The fact that it did not recieve an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture is absurd. 10/10.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Its about time.

[9/10 · 13 March 2002]

"Moulin Rouge" is a spectacular film. I generally don't like musicals at all, but I really had fun with this film. It is expertly directed by Baz Lurmann, whose talents were unfortunately wasted in the overindulgent "Romeo and Juliet." He has made a film which lights up the screen almost from beginning to end (emphasis on almost - there are one or two relatively dark scenes).

Lots of people didn't like "Moulin Rouge" because of the story, not only those who posted comments on the IMDb, but most of people I talked to personally about the film. Personally, I like the story, and I think that the extraordinary cast does a terrific job of acting it out. This film is full of energy, excitement, great music, great acting, and great fun. I gave it a 9/10. I recommend to everyone. If you don't like it, apparently you're not alone. If you do like it, however, then you're a real human being.

Two Girls and a Guy (1997)

An underrated, underappreciated masterpiece.

[10/10 · 13 March 2002]

James Toback's "Two Girls and a Guy" is a unique and extraordinary film. Its characters are so genuine and its dialogue so brilliant that it is beyond me how so many people detest this film so much. It is extremely smart and funny, superbly acted, and even better directed.

A lot of people panned "TGAAG" because it was "boring." It's true that there aren't a whole lot of earthshaking events going on. There are no loud noises, explosions, or automobiles catching fire. However, someone who bases their opinions of films on how much of this stuff is there is missing the point. In fact, they're missing the point of cinema altogether. Films are made for art, not to present us with a bunch of miscellaneous objects blowing up. If you respect the art of film, then there is no real reason that you should not like "Two Girls and a Guy."

**** out of ****. One of the best films of the past ten years.

Mallrats (1995)

The bottom of the Kevin Smith barrel

[5/10 · 1 March 2002]

Kevin Smith is a great filmmaker. Unfortunately, most great filmmakers have their occasional not-so-great films (See Oliver Stone's "U-Turn" or Martin Scorsese's "New York, New York"), and for Smith, that film is "Mallrats." This movie isn't by any means horrible. There are some very big laughs, as there always are in Smith's films. However, "Mallrats" gets itself mixed up in a lame storyline and feeds the audience a number of cliches, such as the incompetent security guards and a character played by my worst enemy, Ben Affleck, who it would simply waste valuable seconds to describe. If you've never seen a Kevin Smith film in your life, PLEASE do not start with this one. Each one of his other films give us a much better storyline: "Clerks" observes the lives of, need I point out, clerks in New Jersey; "Chasing Amy" involves a heterosexual male, who's best friend is homophobic, and who falls in love with a lesbian; "Dogma," Smith's very best film, deals with Catholicism in a way that manages to be hilarious while avoiding offesniveness; and finally "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" which sends Smith's characters (played by Jason Mewes and Smith himself) on a series of adventures on their own, with great in-jokes that are especially funny if you've seen the previous Kevin Smith films.

The bottom line is this: If you want to see a film with a good storyline, do your best to avoid "Mallrats". However, if you just want a good laugh (or you just wanna say you've seen all the Kevin Smith films), check it out.

America's Sweethearts (2001)

Surprisingly funny.

[8/10 · 1 February 2002]

I read a lot of scathingly horrible reviews of this film before seeing, so I figured it would suck. I was very much wrong. This film is very funny. The only thing that makes it annoying is Julia Roberts. Her character gets very annoying very soon, but the rest of it works well. If you have the chance, see this film. You'll be surpisrised.

High Fidelity (2000)

Anyone who doesn't love this film needs to be analyzed.

[10/10 · 30 January 2002]

I have read some horribly scathing reviews of "High Fidelity" recently. One person even called it the worst film they ever saw and preferred the plague and ritual suicide to viewing it. Either this person is deluded or they're missing the point entirely (or both). This is a film about people. Real people. It's a hilarious, thoughtful masterwork of cinema. "High Fidelity" is on my list of the ten best films ever made.

A lot of people criticized it for having a "standard" John Cusack performance. I personally don't see anything wrong with that, even though I don't quite agree with it. If you see it as routine from Cusack, you should still respect the performance because it's still a good character. Woody Allen has been playing the same character ever since Alan Felix in "Play it again, Sam," but that doesn't make his films any less remarkable. So I say leave Cusack alone. He's one of the best American actors of modern times. Stop whining about his characters and go watch "Top Gun" or something. "High Fidelity" is a brilliant piece of cinema and if you don't get it, then you don't understand real cinema. There IS romance, but these characters are casual about their romantic existence, that's what makes them real. There is comedy, but it's intelligent, so it goes beyond those who understand only toilet humor. There is drama and these actors with a touch of humanity that is equalled by few films. Those who don't appreciate "High Fidelity" for everything it is need their heads examined.

Top Gun (1986)

Easily one of the worst films I've ever seen.

[1/10 · 29 January 2002]

"Top Gun" is simply one of the dumbest stories ever submitted to film. The movie lacks each and every characteristic of real entertainment that I can think of. The characters are unimaginably dull and dim-witted, the story is typical war movie crap played as a backdrop to a bunch of typical romantic crap, and the dialogue is sub-human. Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis have about as much romantic chemistry on screen as Jay and Silent Bob. None of the actors act the way real people act or talk the way real people talk.

The one thing that really killed me about "Top Gun" was the fact that the capabilities of its actors were so underestimated by director Tony Scott. Tom Cruise has easily proven himself to be one of the great American Actors of modern times, starring in "Born on the Fourth of July," "Jerry Maguire," and "Magnolia," for which he was awarded the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Meg Ryan has proven herself in "Sleepless in Seattle" and "When Harry Met Sally. . .," one of the best romantic comedies ever made. Val Kilmer didn't even want to do this movie, and who could blame him? He's done much better work in films like "Heat," "True Romance," and "Tombstone," in which he played an untouchable Doc Holliday. These are good actors trapped in a horrid film. This is typical, however, of producer Jerry Bruckheimer, who brought us other cinematic duds such as "Pearl Harbor" and "Armageddon."