Change Your Image
Dave-214
Reviews
Cats & Dogs (2001)
Big laugh at the beginning - then a lot of small chuckles
I have to admit, the opening sequence was the best animal "slap-stick-comedy-routine" I have seen in many years. It had me doubled over and howling and so was the entire audience. Then we saw the rest of the movie.
I expected a little more than what I was presented with. The laughs were there, especially some of the sight gags between "Mr. Tinkles" (Sean Hayes) and the Maid. Alas, they were not hearty laughs that were promised in the promotional trailers and the movie's laughter potential was never really achieved. It was enjoyable watching cats operate motor vehicles but this has been done countless times before with kids, so you had the "...been there
seen that..." effect.
Overall, let the kids enjoy this one at a matinee and if any adults want to see it wait for the DVD or Video.
Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
Take the kids and go have some fun with this one!
Disney animators have had fun in creating this movie and their pride shows through bright and clear. The kids are going to love this one for the action and adventure. The adults will enjoy the "20,000 Leagues Beneath The Sea" and "Journey to The Center of The Earth" comparisons that the Disney animators have made throughout the picture. The animation is "Disney Perfect" as is expected and the characters are enjoyable.
This one has some scary spots for the really small kids so parents be ready if you take children under age 5, you may have some reassuring to do quickly.
Overall Kids of all ages (A.K.A. adults and children) should go and see this movie. It is 95 minutes of fun for everyone.
Dr. Dolittle 2 (2001)
Quick, someone get the Crash Cart - we have no pulse here!
A little slow on the take-off, a lot slower through the middle, and if it was not for the cute talking animals it would have been totally stopped before the predictable ending came through.
Eddie Murphy's character of John Dolittle comes off as a cross between Dr. Dolittle (the Rex Harrison version), Dr. Ben Casey and Jimmy Hoffa (not the Jack Nicholson version either). At first look, he seems to have a difficult time deciding whether he is a Medical Doctor of Humans or a Dr. Ruth for the animal world. Next, he is in the forest "organizing" the animals into a world-wide "wildcat strike" (pun intended).
The film contains a predictable plot line, with some notable laughs along the way that are too far apart to save it. Several unexplained sub-plots detract from what enjoyable entertainment there is to derive from the main plot.
Don't even bother with it on Pay-Per-View, wait for the release of the DVD or Video or better yet, wait for it on network TV when its free. It won't take that long for it to make the transition and you won't miss the portions they cut out for the commercials.
Shrek (2001)
Side-splitting laughter all the way
An hilarious spoof on many a fairytale and fable that we remember from our youth and from life today! From the opening scene reference to the alleged history of how mail order catalogs serve a dual purposes in life, to one of the closing scene lines about celebrity `fairytale' marriages, this film is packed full of fun and surprises.
It is worth the money to see it over again and perhaps a third time just to enjoy all of the hidden references to fictional fairytale circumstances and real-life fabled events. The young kids will catch the newer sarcastic tones and the baby-boom generation will laugh harder than they have in years!
One caution to parents of kids under 6 years this film does contain some graphically displayed humor that may be offensive, but the language is suitable for all ages. Take the kids and see who laughs the loudest you might just be surprised!
City of Angels (1998)
A Waste of Good Material & Actors
This story has so much potential, and yet "City of Angels" manages to deliver such a disappointing, mish-meshed concoction of a story line - it's not worth the effort to sort out. I've heard Meg Ryan's character described as everything from an "Atheist" to a "non-believer" - from my perspective, Dr. Rice was agnostic. She perceived that there was "something" or "someone" out there, more powerful perhaps, and perhaps having control over what she believed her own hands, mind and intellect ruled over. This possibility intrigued her and though she resisted strongly, she wanted to believe in and explore this line of thinking.
Enter Nicholas Cage's "Seth" character, an angel who proverbially has "all the answers" to Dr. Rice's questions, and to the questions of the entire movie audience it seems as well. Seth however, either doesn't realize what the questions are, or chooses not to dispense his knowledge.
"We" (movie audiences) tend to credit or blame the actors themselves for everything that happened (or in this case - doesn't happen) within the movie. Though the acting itself and to some extent the depth of the character portrayal rests squarely on their shoulders - not everything else does. With "City of Angels" Meg Ryan, Andre Brauher, and Dennis Franz work very hard to save a poorly written story line so full of plot holes it couldn't hold frozen water in January. Here, the "blame" for an ineffective movie rests completely on the Director (Brad Silberling), and the Screen Writer (Dana Stevens).
The references to the sensual lines from Hemingway's "A Moveable Feast", coupled with the on screen chemistry between Dr. Rice and Seth could have melted the screen with pure passion. Instead of this passionate heat, Silberling & Stevens serve up a pre-pubescent couple stumbling through the Joys of Cooking. What a waste!!
Then there's Andre Brauher, and Dennis Franz. Franz's character has "been there and come back", so-to-speak and Brauher's character cannot deny his interest of "what's it like?" Once again the movie audience is teased with the possibility of on screen heat, this time from a different source.
Once again - unfortunately for the audience - the chemicals are not mixed (directed & written) properly and we are left out in the cold. There are numerous "opportunities" where either the direction or the writing went in one direction, but the film went another.
Finally - no, I didn't slight Nicholas Cage's effort (?) in this film. His portrayal of Seth was perfect - that is, it would have been perfect for "Psycho", "The Shining", or any number of other psychotic thrillers.
In scenes where tenderness should have reigned, we received a bulging eyes, raspy voiced, stern faced portrayal of a character that would have frightened even Alfred Hitchcock! In a dark hospital corridor, late at night - if I bumped into Cage's Seth - I would not have spoken, I would have run like H---!!
Unfortunately for the movie audience, this wasn't an isolated incident. Cage's characterization of Seth portrayed this psychotic behavior throughout the entire film. If directed to this or if written in this fashion, Nicholas Cage should have taken the initiative to soften Seth's approach & demeanor. Here, the actor does have to take some of the responsibility of the outcome.
Over-all, I'm sorry - - sitting through "City of Angels" was a waste of my time and I don't recommend that anyone else waste theirs.