bd74 Reviews

Hidden Colors (2011)

A preposterous and ridiculous documentary

[23 January 2013]

Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this documentary is that the cast members claimed that several famous historical figures were black even though there is no actual proof that any of those figures were black. One of the examples given of a supposed "black" historical figure is Queen Charlotte of England (wife of King George III). First of all, she lived in the 1700s, and there was no photography at the time. The cast members claimed that because Charlotte's facial features in paintings make her appear to be part-black, she was therefore a "black woman". Mind you, not only did Charlotte have white skin, but she was also the daughter of a DUKE. She married a KING. What's the likelihood that a black or biracial woman was born into a European royal family and ended up marrying a king? And not just any king. The king of then-powerful England. To put things in perspective, Queen Victoria who was born in the following century married a man who just happened to be her first cousin. That's how royal marriages typically happened: royals married other members of royal houses, sometimes their own first cousins. It's completely ridiculous to think that a black person could somehow have sneaked their way into marrying into a royal house. Mind you, there's no actual proof that Charlotte was either black or biracial, yet this documentary runs off with the claim that she was. And that's just one example of some of the ludicrous claims made in this movie.

Also, one of the cast members is Shahrazad Ali, who is a very controversial black author with an absurd black-centric mentality. I remember her from the late 80s and early 90s when she used to be an occasional guest on talk shows. Her presence in this film, along with the outrageous claims made in it, make this simply a preposterous documentary that only the idealistic and gullible would take seriously.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

The "magic" is gone

[26 November 2005]

The first three Harry Potter movies were magical. This movie, however, isn't of the same caliber as those movies. That "magical" element that was present in the first three movies was lacking in this one. The Goblet of Fire just didn't dazzle me the way that the previous three Harry Potter movies did.

I initially was expecting this to be a movie that would top the Prisoner of Azkaban (which, in my opinion, is the best movie of the Harry Potter series) in terms of quality. After all, this movie looked spectacular in the previews. Unfortunately, this movie turned out to be a huge disappointment. The best way to describe this movie is that it was a convoluted mess. It felt like if I was watching several different stories lumped together into one movie. Furthermore, it was a boring movie.

The young characters are older now, and the series (as expected) has gotten progressively darker. And, we finally get to see what Lord Voldermort looks like. Still, I wish that this movie had been directed by Alfonso Cuarón, who did a fantastic job directing the Prisoner of Azkaban. Considering that that movie already contained dark elements (Dementors, a werewolf, etc), it would've been nice to see Cuarón wield his creative wand and make this movie even spookier (and more stunning) than the last.

I satisfied my curiosity by going to see this movie. But, had I known that this movie would turn out to be a letdown, I would've waited until it was out for rental. This is clearly the worst movie of the series.

Underworld (2003)

An engrossing gothic flick

[22 September 2003]

I heard about this movie sometime last year, while it was still in production, and I was really looking forward to seeing it. The whole concept of a movie featuring a group of black-clad gothic characters appealed to me. Well, I went to see this movie on opening day, and it did not disappoint me at all. This is a movie about a centuries-old feud between two mythical creatures of gothic lore: vampires and werewolves. It stars the alluring Kate Beckinsale as a vampire that hunts werewolves with the intention of exterminating them. It also stars Scott Speedman as a human who happens to provide a link between the feuding vampires and werewolves. Michael Sheen plays the leader of the Lycans--the werewolf clan which lives in the bowels of the city. Sheen's performance is clearly the best performance in the movie, and his appearance (long hair, goatee, and alabaster complexion) suits his werewolf ringleader character perfectly. The werewolves' meager existence among the city's "underworld" is contrasted by the aristocratic vampires and their opulent Victorian trappings. The movie's dark and mysterious sets are top-notch, and the movie itself was filmed in the beautiful European cities of Budapest and Prague, adding more of a gothic atmosphere to the film. The action sequences are amazing--in particular, the opening sequence is astonishing. This movie is everything that a gothic movie should be like, especially since it combines fantasy, action, suspense, and horror. I actually felt scared during some parts of the movie. The only thing that I disliked about the movie is that some of the actors who play vampires had to wear a pair of cheap-looking blue contact lenses. Other than that, everything else in the movie is wonderful. The movie turned out to be much better than I expected it to be, and I'm thinking of seeing it again. The ending of this movie serves to indicate that there will be a sequel...and I will definitely go to see the sequel.

Mrs. Brown (1997)

A story of friendship

[10 September 2003]

It's the 1860s, and the aging Queen Victoria is still grieving over the death of her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. A couple of years have passed since his death, but the black-clad Queen has not been able to get out of her state of melancholy, and she has chosen to retreat to her home on the Isle of Wight. John Brown, a servant highly respected by the late Prince Albert, is brought in from Scotland to attend to the Queen. Mr. Brown is determined to lead the Queen out of her misery. Since he is in charge of the Queen's horse, he takes the Queen out to ride the horse every morning, in hopes that the fresh air will do her good. At first, the Queen is stubborn and reluctant to spend time with him. Within time, she gives in and a friendship is formed between the two. Through it all, Mr. Brown demonstrates an unmatched allegiance to the Queen.

This movie was incorrectly billed as a love story, but it is actually a story about the power of friendship and how two people from polar opposite social classes (a servant and a monarch) end up becoming friends. In the film, the members of the British aristocracy look down upon the friendship between Mr. Brown and the Queen; when they speak of the Queen, they refer to her as "Mrs. Brown." Nevertheless, the bond shared by Mr. Brown and the Queen is merely an amicable one, and that bond is broken only Mr. Brown's untimely death. Billy Connolly cleverly portrays the saucy and arrogant Mr. Brown, while the Queen is played with precision by the very talented Judy Dench. Their performances bring this movie to life, and the movie itself manages to show that friendship can be a powerful thing.

The Age of Innocence (1993)

One of the better films of the 1990s

[10 September 2003]

This is a film directed by Martin Scorsese that follows the lives of a group of upper-class New Yorkers in the late 19th Century. Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, and Michelle Pfeiffer play three characters caught up in a love triangle during a period in time when society dictated what type of behavior was to be considered appropriate and acceptable, and any stray from the norm would serve as ground for ostracism. This film was quite a change from some of the other films that Martin Scorsese has directed, especially his better-known violent films. He managed to make this a compelling film that tells the story of life in an intricate little world of privilege where keeping up appearances was of extreme importance. Scorsese's direction, the performances of the three leads, as well as the cinematography, production design, and costumes make this one of the better films of the 1990s and one of Martin Scorsese's best films.

Madonna: Truth or Dare (1991)

In the midst of controversy...

[30 June 2003]

Between 1987 and 1993, Madonna underwent the most controversial period of her life. This documentary highlights one of the most notorious events right in the midst of that period of controversy: her 1990 "Blond Ambition" tour, which spanned four months and took place in Japan, North America, and Europe. The tour was way ahead of its time, featuring innovative music, tour-de-force dance moves, magnificent sets, and dazzling costumes designed by French fashion designer Jean-Paul Gaultier. It turned out to be arguably the best concert ever (certainly Madonna's best concert to date). At the same time, the tour was considered blasphemous for involving the use of religious images and symbols, and it was called racy because of simulated sexual acts that were performed on stage.

What's noteworthy about this documentary is that it shows a behind-the-scenes look at, not just the tour, but also Madonna's life during the tour's run. On stage (and backstage) she's a hard and demanding diva. Yet, this film enables viewers to see another side of Madonna, who according to Warren Beatty, doesn't want to live off-camera. You get to see Madonna surrounded by different people: her entourage, her family, and other celebrities...but you also get to see her all by herself in some scenes. In one scene you hear someone compare Madonna to a little girl lost in a storm. One can only wonder if Madonna, who although is the biggest star in the world, could be the loneliest person in the world. I saw this documentary when it played in theaters, back in 1991, and it was great to see it on the big screen. I especially enjoyed seeing the scenes of the actual concert. I now own this film on DVD. This documentary was definitely the perfect medium with which to immortalize the then-controversial, pre-motherhood Madonna at the height of her career.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Looooong And Boooooring!

[24 May 2003]

I waited four years to see the sequel to one of my all-time favorite sci-fi movies, only to be let down. "The Matrix Reloaded" turned out to be a major disappointment. It's not like I set my expectations too high, because I did not know what to expect from this Matrix sequel. When I first heard that the sequel was going to be released this year, I thought, how more stunning than the original Matrix movie could the sequel possibly be? Well, the astounding action sequences and the innovative special effects that wowed audiences in "The Matrix" are still there in "The Matrix Reloaded." The special effects and the action sequences in the sequel are truly astonishing. But what happened to the intriguing plot that made "The Matrix" so remarkable? It appears that the Wachowski brothers were more concerned with visually impressing the audience. I guess they forgot that in order to entertain the audience, the movie needs to have fascinating story as well. I struggled to stay awake during most parts of the movie, and I actually felt relieved when the movie ended. The Wachowski brothers had the opportunity to make a sequel that would top "The Matrix," but this movie pales in comparison to the original. I'm convinced of one thing, which is that "The Matrix Reloaded" is not worth all of its hype. The movie was certainly not worth the time and money I spent to watch it. Those are two hours, eighteen minutes, and seven dollars that I will never be able to get back. Based on what I saw in this movie, I will NOT be watching the next Matrix movie.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Why do some movie directors make stupid movies?

[6 November 2002]

Talk about a waste of celluloid. Think of all the money that goes into the entire production of a movie. I visited the Website for this movie some time ago. The site made this movie seem like if it would be an interesting movie, especially since it's a movie that deals with the concept of time travel (supposedly). I finally got around to seeing this movie. While watching it, I was trying to figure out what the heck this movie was about. Was this a movie about a paranoid schizophrenic who has hallucinations? Was this a movie about time travel? Was this a movie about a sinister extraterrestrial? Did the movie have to do with any of that at all? All I know is that I was very bored while watching this movie. What's even worse than the movie itself is the reaction of some of the viewers of this movie. I can't stand reading reviews from people who try to find hidden symbolism or try to look for a subliminal layer in all the films that they watch, when there is none of that. Can't they just watch a movie and review it objectively, for what it is, rather than trying to look for a nonexistent underlying meaning to the movie? A stupid movie is simply that: a stupid movie. A boring movie is simply that: a boring movie. "Donnie Darko" is nothing but a glorified B-Movie

Monster's Ball (2001)

You're kidding, right?

[16 June 2002]

***contains spoilers***

This movie received critical acclaim...but for what? The plot is rather silly. This is a movie about a racist white man and a black woman who end up falling in love (more like lust). The movie itself is not really boring or bad, but at the same time, there is nothing outstanding about this movie. This film was lacking intensity. I do not think that the director of this movie handled the subject matter of the movie well enough. The story did not move me. And, for its running time of 112 minutes, everything in the movie just happened too quickly. Too quickly! Had this been a longer movie, more screen time would've given us the chance to get to know these characters better, and to know what drove them to make the choices/changes that they made in their lives. For example, Billy Bob Thorton's character, Hank, is a racist. He despises black people. Then all of a sudden he stops being racist, in just a matter of days. How does a person go from being a racist to not being a racist in such a short period of time? And how did Hank and Leticia (Halle Berry's character) end up falling in love within that time frame...or why did they? These two characters, Hank and Leticia, have things in common: he has a son, she has a son...Hank is abusive to his son, Leticia is abusive to her son....his son dies, her son dies. Was the point of this movie to make us think that the deaths of their sons made these people needy, and that their need is what brought them together? The sex scene made them appear as needy, affection-starved people. That sex scene was unintentionally funny. I laughed during the whole scene. I remember reading a review of this film that was written by a movie critic, in a magazine. That review described Halle Berry's performance as "astonishing". Well, after seeing this movie, I was not astonished. Her performance did not impress me. Her tear-ridden speech at the Academy Awards ceremony was much more worthy of an acting award than her performance in this movie. In my opinion, her character changed throughout the movie. At first Leticia seemed aggressive...then later she came across as a passive person. It seemed as if she was playing two characters rather than just one. And what was the meaning of the expression on her face after she discovers that there was a link between Hank and her late husband? Was it resignation, because she had no one else in her life other than Hank to help her out and because she had nowhere else to go? Who knows. This movie left me guessing a lot of things. I will point out that I liked Billy Bob Thorton's performance. I especially liked Peter Boyle's performance as his bitter racist father. Overall, this could've been a much better movie.

Spider-Man (2002)

I didn't miss out on anything

[8 May 2002]

As a movie lover, I thought that I had missed out on something big because I didn't go to see "Spider-Man" during opening weekend, considering that this movie broke box office records and all. I went to see this movie today, and I realized that this movie was average at best, and I didn't miss out on anything. The fact that droves of people went to see this movie this past weekend proves that this movie was marketed very well. The previews had made this movie seem like it was going to be larger-than-life. I remember seeing the first preview for it last December, when I went to see "Lord of the Rings". At that moment, I couldn't wait to see "Spider-Man". Now that I've seen it, I can only wish that this had been a better movie. I was expecting so much more. I remember that I used to love watching the Spiderman cartoon on tv when I was a little kid back in the early eighties. In fact, when I walked into the movie theater today the theme song from that cartoon played in my mind: "Spiderman, Spiderman...your friendly neighborhood Spiderman..." I was truly hoping that the "Spider-Man" movie would be as enjoyable as the cartoon had been. Yet, I was let down with what I saw. Willem Dafoe (who already has a weird appearance) spent most of his screen time making all sorts of unusual facial expressions, as he struggled with his inner beast...and the Green Goblin costume was just too fake-looking, too unrealistic. Tobey Maguire was a good choice to play Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but he and Kirsten Dunst had no chemistry. And, the special effects were a bit too much. In a lot of the scenes, the special effects made this movie look like if it were a movie made on a computer, rather than a movie filmed with a camera. Anyway, by seeing this movie, I gained peace of mind. I wanted to see just how good of a movie this was, and if it was worth the hype. Fortunately, I only paid $3.50 for the ticket, since I went to the twilight show. Needless to say, I was disappointed. One thing I did find appealing was the preview for "The Hulk", and the fact that it is being directed by Ang Lee, of all people. I surely look forward to seeing how that movie is going to turn out.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

We'll have to wait a whole year?

[23 December 2001]

And then another year after that...just to see the conclusion of this tale? I don't know if I'll be interested in seeing the two upcoming movies by then. I saw this movie last night, and going into the theater, I thought this would turn out to be an amazing movie. Unfortunately, it was not. Why didn't I walk out of the theater with a "WOW!" feeling? Perhaps it's because this movie was not all that great...or not as great as I thought it would be...nor as great as the previews, commercials, and marketing hype made it out to be. It reminds me of all the pre-release hype for "The Phantom Menace" 2 years ago. I've never read any of J.R.R. Tolkien's books, nor did I know what this story was going to be about, prior to the hype. Overall, "The Fellowship of the Rings" was good, enjoyable, and fun. More than anything, it was visually beautiful. It was like seeing the artwork in a storybook about the Middle Ages come to life. And the battle scenes were great to watch. Also, Ian McKellen gave a fantastic performance, as the wizard Gandalf. But now that I have seen this movie, I don't think it would've made a difference if I had chosen to wait till it comes out on video. For its running time of three hours, this movie holds up pretty well. I've seen several three-hour long (and longer) movies ("Gone With The Wind", "The Last Emperor", "Doctor Zhivago", "Titanic", etc.), and I have felt bored while watching them because of the length of those movies. That was not the case with "The Fellowship of the Rings". I did not feel bored at any time during the movie, nor did I think that the movie was too "slow". Nonetheless, I'm not sure if I want to go see it again. *** out of ****.

Gia (1998 TV Movie)

Fantastic performance by Angelina Jolie

[17 November 2001]

The very talented Angelina Jolie shines in this tragic story of a drug-addicted star model. I personally like biographies a lot, especially when they are very realistic. This movie, as a biography, manages to be very realistic in retelling the life of Gia Carangi and in showing the unglamorous side of the fashion industry. Angelina has both the beauty and the talent to take on a challenging role like this one. Angelina's performance will mesmerize you as you witness how Gia becomes the model-of-the-moment, only to end up as a doomed heroin addict. This movie should definitely be seen by all who admire biographies.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

What an ATROCITY!

[1 June 2001]

Just because a director does something daring with a movie, it doesn't mean that the movie is worthwhile (or worth its ticket price). That's the case with Baz Luhrmann's highly anticipated (and highly disappointing) "Moulin Rouge". I went to see this movie in the afternoon--I paid five dollars for the ticket, and those are five dollars I wish I would've spent on something else! I don't know anything about Luhrmann or his career as a director. But, if he hasn't been a music video director, then he should be...and that's exactly what this movie should've been--a music video instead of a movie. I mean, modern-day songs mixed into a movie about late-nineteenth century Paris??? The performers in the Moulin Rouge were actually singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Lady Marmalade". Nicole Kidman was swinging on a trapeze actually singing "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend". And that was just the beginning. Then there's all the love songs sung by Ewan McGregor (he even sings the love song from "An Officer and A Gentleman"). Both he and Kidman can sing well, but c'mon! When I first heard that this movie was being filmed, I thought that it was going to be a remake of the 1952 film of the same name. No way can you compare that drama masterpiece to this musical-gone-mad. This movie is nothing more than a visual showcase...a spectacle. It's pretty to look at. It contains terrific sets, beautiful color schemes, dazzling costumes and hypnotic cinematography. This movie's charm does not go beyond its visuals. I actually walked out of this movie in the middle of it--and I have sat through some really terrible movies before, till the very end. In the case of this movie, after I had to listen to the umpteenth million modern-day song, I couldn't take it anymore. I realized that the best thing for me to do was to just get up and leave...even though I wouldn't be getting back my five dollars. Mind you, I'm only 26 years old and I consider this movie an overdone disaster. The director aimed for too much high energy in this movie. If you want to see a worthwhile musical, rent one (let me suggest "Cabaret").

Mission to Mars (2000)

Good production

[12 May 2001]

I didn't get to see this movie when it was playing in theaters. For some reason, I knew I was going to like this movie, and I did. I'm surprised that many people have trashed this movie. I didn't think that it was a bad movie. It was slow at first, but then it got interesting. From early on in the movie, it was evident that the inspiration for this movie was "2001: A Space Odyssey". The "2001" influence was obvious in the look of the space station and the ships (which are all similar to those in "2001"), and in the presence of an advanced intelligence. Like "2001", this movie contains fantastic visual effects. The way that Mars was projected to look is great. The production design was of top quality. The story might be considered lame and perhaps it could have been told better. But then again, the same thing can be said about countless other movies. One that comes to mind is "Contact". Now THAT was a good-but-disappointing science fiction movie--the story started out one way and then it took a sharp turn. Like I stated before, "Mission to Mars" is not a bad movie. It's an absorbing science fiction movie, with good action and some shocking scenes. I enjoyed watching it. I especially liked the theme of an extraterrestrial connection to us humans. I certainly would see this movie again.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Dreamlike

[9 March 2001]

What can I say about this movie that hasn't already been said? This is certainly one of the most amazing movies ever made. As a movie, it bridges the gap between an epic and a full-fledged action movie. This movie contains some of the most dazzling scenes and breathtakingly beautiful images that I've ever seen. The gorgeous Ziyi Zhang (or is it Zhang Ziyi?), as the character named Jen, graces this movie with her striking presence. The cinematography, the editing, and the choreography are all phenomenal. Furthermore, this movie has a visually stunning and haunting ending. It astonishes me that anyone would have anything negative to say about this movie. The people who downgrade this movie must be people who actually think that "Gladiator" was a good movie. "The Fall Of The Roman Empire", the 1964 movie that "Gladiator" was nearly a remake of, was definitely more deserving of any accolades...yet it was ignored by all of the award-giving organizations back in the day. Anyway, you can't compare a masterpiece like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" to a disaster like "Gladiator". "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is a remarkable movie experience. **** out of ****.

The Exorcist (1973)

Worth seeing (contains spoilers)

[8 October 2000]

...the re-release, that is. Around fifteen minutes were added to the original version of this movie. Not very much new material to see, but it was great to see this movie on the big screen (especially for someone like me who was born after this movie's original theatrical release). I consider "The Exorcist" the scariest movie ever made. No other horror movie has been able to top it. Perhaps it's the subject matter of the movie that makes "The Exorcist" so scary. I was eight years old when I saw this movie for the first time and it scared the daylights out of me. I wasn't as scared now, seeing the re-release. I was more focused on seeing the added scenes and improvements that were made to the movie. The print has been cleaned up (no grainy appearance). The new sound is great--it helps to make the movie scarier. Plus, you get to see Linda Blair's scene of a "spider walk" down a flight of stairs, which was not included in the original version of the movie. The "spider walk" down the stairs caught me by surprise because it was spooky and it occurred at an unexpected moment in the movie. I've seen this movie several times before, and believe it or not, I found some of the more graphic scenes in the movie amusing. I laughed during the crucifix-masturbation scene. However, the scenes of the actual exorcism had my eyes glued to the screen. It's still shocking to see the possessed Regan rise in the air, and then later seeing her sitting on the corner of the bed, giggling mischievously after she has just killed Father Merrin. And of course, seeing Father Karras forcefully jump out of the bedroom window, down the flight of stairs is more shocking. Even if you've seen "The Exorcist" many times before, I highly recommend seeing the re-release, especially if you're a young person who has never seen this movie on a theater screen.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

One of the greatest horror movies

[8 October 2000]

Whenever I watch this movie, I nearly forget that this is a horror movie. It's because this is such a well-made movie...there is actually a story in this movie and it is told in a captivating way. Nonetheless, the director, Roman Polanski added just the right amount of suspense and shock to make this a definite horror film. He did not need to include any gory or intensely graphic scenes in this movie. Yet, the movie is scary enough. This movie stars the great Mia Farrow in an awesome, amazing performance. Angel-faced Mia, turns in a marvelous performance as the tragic heroine, Rosemary. It was quite a feat for Mia, who was only 22 years old when she made this movie. She's wonderful as the leading character in this movie, and her transformation in the movie from a doe-eyed beauty to a gaunt waif is startling. John Cassavetes also does a good job playing Rosemary's ambitious husband who's willing to sell his soul to achieve success. And, Ruth Gordon is superb as their eccentric, devil-worshipping older neighbor. You can't help but feel for poor Rosemary. She initially believes that those closest to her are people that she can trust. Little by little, she discovers that all those people are plotting against her, and that she's basically on her own. It's horrible to know that she's surrounded by all of those occult-practicing people, yet she can't really do anything about it...she can only accept it. One of the best things about this movie is the editing--I really liked the way that certain images were superimposed on some of the scenes. It was like seeing a collage come to life. The editing is especially noteworthy during the rape scene. The rape scene is outstanding, frightening, and spellbinding all at the same time. It's also worthy to point out that sometimes music can do a lot for a movie. If a movie is good, the right music can make the movie even better; it can set the appropriate mood for the movie. That's the case with this movie and it's theme song, "Lullaby". Overall, "Rosemary's Baby" is a terrific movie. One of the greatest horror movies ever made, and one of Roman Polanski's best movies. **** out of ****.

Moulin Rouge (1952)

A genuine masterpiece

[5 August 2000]

It's colorful, it's inspiring, it's striking....it's an artwork come to life. "Moulin Rouge" is an extremely well-made movie about the life of the famous French painter Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. The first time I saw this movie it automatically became one of my all-time favorites. John Huston, the director of this movie, did an excellent job in depicting the life of Toulouse-Lautrec, a painter who lived a life of hardships yet became one of the most respected painters in the world. The twenty minute opening sequence is outstanding, showing a night at the Moulin Rouge, with its diverse performers. The sets throughout the whole movie are wonderful; you get to see everything from the brightly-lighted Moulin Rouge to the dark alleys of late 19th century Paris. The cinematography is just as wonderful; the shots perfectly capture the dance sequences. The performances are amazing. Jose Ferrer is great in the lead role. In fact, he plays two roles: as the painter Toulouse-Lautrec, and the painter's father--two great performances in one. Also, the actress named Collette Marchand gives a fantastic performance, playing the prostitute named Marie in the movie. Furthermore, it was interesting to see a then-young Zsa Zsa Gabor in this movie. She was actually pretty when she was young. I think that the most notable thing about this movie is how the director focused on Toulouse-Lautrec's sadness. In his moments of deep sadness, the painter was able to produce some of his greatest works of art....in spite of his alcoholism and his overall gloomy life, he made some very colorful paintings. 1952 was a very interesting and noteworthy year for movies. This movie was one of the motion picture highlights from that year. **** out of ****.

X-Men (2000)

Entertaining, but nothing extraordinary about it.

[15 July 2000]

There was so much pre-release buzz surrounding this movie. As a result, I think that going into the theater I expected too much from this movie. I thought this was going to be a movie that would rival "The Matrix". I thought that I was going to walk out of the theater feeling so inspired by the movie that I'd want to go to a store and purchase X-Men action figures (and I'm 25 years old). Well, I wasn't disappointed. It just wasn't as good a movie as I had hoped it would be. What can I say about Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? He did a great job, he was excellent in that role. I liked seeing Ian McKellen as Magneto. It was great to see him play a villain. I also liked seeing Patrick Stewart as Dr. Charles Xavier. They both were perfectly cast. I especially liked their chess-playing scene together. I didn't like Halle Berry as Storm though. She had little screen time and ANY attractive black actress could've played that character. I didn't like the Mystique character all that much either (and why cast Rebecca Romijn in the role?). Although she kicked some butt, she was just basically there to be looked at and to wiggle her nicely-shaped body. I wish Anna Paquin's character, Rogue, would've been given SOMETHING to do; all she did was spend her time moping. I would've liked to see her extract the energy from one of the villains. But I liked seeing Anna all grown up. She has come a long way from the cartwheeling little girl in "The Piano". I also think that the Jean Gray character should've been given a lot more to do with her telekenesis (but I certainly enjoyed seeing the very beautiful Famke Janssen in that role). Much was said about this movie's special effects prior to the movie's release. I found the visual effects to be rather fake-looking. They were certainly disappointing--nothing that we haven't seen before. In fact, the fight sequences themselves (the moves that the characters had) were a lot more notable than the visual effects. The movie's biggest plus? That for an action movie, it actually had a story, and that the director focused on the story. I thought that the ending was very interesting, and so was the music that accompanied the final scene. Overall, "X-Men" is good as a summer movie, and it's a good way to spend two hours. It did rekindle my interest in comic books (reading them, not collecting them). Hopefully the sequel will be much better. I would like to see a different set of "mutants" with superhuman abilities that are even more amazing. It's going to take a lot to top "The Matrix".

Grand Hotel (I) (1932)

Excellence all around

[8 July 2000]

Picture this....a Russian ballerina, in Berlin to perform, is going through a deep depression. On the night of her performance, at the theater, she becomes too discouraged to perform. She leaves the theater on her own. Her personal maid and the theater promoter frantically search for her and dash to her hotel room, but she's not there. They are stunned to see her arrive there shortly after them. She stands in the doorway and mutters out one line: "I want to be alone...."

She's just one of the characters whose lives are about to change drastically within the next couple of days while they stay at Berlin's Grand Hotel. This movie, made nearly seventy years ago, is one of the best movies ever made. It boasts an all-star cast headed by the phenomenally beautiful Greta Garbo, who plays the Russian ballerina. Her whole presence in this movie is astonishing, and I feel that she was the most beautiful actress ever. Although she alone makes this movie worth watching, the performances of the other actors are brilliant. John Barrymore (Drew's grandfather) plays a sophisticated Baron with a dark secret. His brother Lionel Barrymore plays a factory worker who's terminally ill and wants to "get something out of life." A fresh-faced Joan Crawford plays an ambitious secretary; Joan demonstrates just how pretty and talented she was. Lionel and Joan give the two best performances of the movie. I really liked their scene together, near the end of the movie. What I like most about the story is that it's really interesting to see how the main characters all have different lives, different agendas, and each is in their own predicament....yet their paths cross and their lives become intertwined. Ironically, one of the characters is convinced that the hotel is merely an establishment where people go about their business and really don't get a chance to interact with each other. As he puts it: "Grand Hotel....always the same....people come, people go....nothing ever happens." I'd like to point out that when I first saw this film, it seemed like if I took a step into another world. Everything back in the early 1930s was so different--the hair and clothing styles, the Art Deco decor. It's all so different from the way things are nowadays; I was inevitably glued to the screen. Additionally, I was very impressed by the shots of the hotel lobby. I liked the shots taken from the top looking down onto the lobby floor. What more can I say about this movie? Everything about it is excellent. **** out of ****.

Glory (1989)

One of the all-time greatest movies.

[22 June 2000]

I don't even know where to begin in order to describe how great this movie is. It's not necessary to say a lot, because this is the type of movie that will leave you speechless, out of words. "Glory" is a deeply moving and extremely well-made movie. It's a movie about the bravery of a troop of black Union Army soldiers during the Civil War. Everything about this movie is spectacular. I can't think of anything wrong with this movie. Everything about it is just so right, everything fits so right. The cinematography is dazzling. The score is outstanding. The battle scenes are astonishing. It also contains fine performances by Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, and Morgan Freeman. I'm stunned that this amazing and haunting movie is so underrated. This is one of the greatest movies ever made. Hands down, this is the best movie of 1989. **** out of ****.

Ivanhoe (1952)

A fascinating adventure movie

[21 June 2000]

An engrossing movie about 12th century England. It has everything you would want to see in a movie about medieval Europe: knights, fair maidens, jousting tournaments, battles, and feuding crowns. Yet the movie is not boring in any way. I enjoyed every minute of it. The title character is an Anglo-Saxon knight who's on a mission to return the imprisoned king, Richard the Lionhearted, to his throne. Along the way, Ivanhoe encounters some obstacles that may endanger his own life and threaten the future of England. Everything about this movie is enchanting. The movie is very colorful, the score is outstanding, and it's exciting to watch the battle scenes. I really enjoyed seeing one of my favorite actors, George Sanders, playing yet another villain. It was also great to see the always ravishing Elizabeth Taylor (at a very young age), who plays a jewish maiden. I liked the way the movie demonstrated the persecution of jews living in England at the time, and how they were looked down upon in spite of the different ethnic groups that made up the English population. Above all, I really liked the ending--it was awesome. Interestingly, this movie (which is from 1952) is more entertaining than and not as theatrical as some of the historical dramas that were made AFTER this movie.

The Mission (1986)

Could've been a perfect movie

[18 June 2000]

Everyone should see this movie. It is a very well-made and satisfying movie that takes place in South America in the 18th century--a movie about conquistadores, native indians, and Jesuit priests. It stars two great actors, Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro. The costumes and production design are excellent. Pretty good depiction of life in 18th century South America, with its class distinctions and mistreatment of the native indians. The score is wonderful and memorable--it's one of the best scores from a movie. In addition, the cinematography is breathtaking; this is certainly one of the most beautifully photographed movies. However, all of the different speaking accents ruined this movie: Jeremy Irons speaks with his proper British accent, De Niro speaks with his New York accent, Aidan Quinn speaks with his regular American accent (and his monotonous tone of voice), and then there are all of the other accents. It would've been nice if the director of this movie had required that all the actors speak only with an American accent, or only a British accent. Plus, the movie just moved along too slowly. For a movie of this subject matter, the emphasis should've been placed on making the story as interesting as possible, rather than making the movie just a visual spectacle. Overall, it is a very good movie with a nice message....were it not for its notable flaws, it could've been a perfect movie. *** out of ****.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

Let me tell you a story about this movie...

[17 June 2000]

In the past, I was never able to watch this movie in one sitting. For some reason this movie seemed boring. I remember when this movie was playing in theaters, though I didn't get to see it back then. Whenever it aired on tv, I usually just watched the first few minutes of the movie and then I'd stop watching it. Or I'd watch fragments of the movie. But never the entire movie. A few days ago I decided to check out the video and watch this movie--the whole movie, just for the sake of watching it. I wanted to see why this movie is considered so great. It's quite notable that this movie was such a hit at the box office. The fact that this movie made nearly 250 million dollars in the 1981-1982 period says a lot. Back in the early 1980s only about four movies had grossed over 200 million dollars; that was before the time of the box office blockbusters of the late 1980s and the entire 1990s. Well you know what? After watching the entire movie, I enjoyed it, thoroughly. It was not as boring as I originally thought. I guess the reason why this movie thrilled audiences so much back when it was playing in theaters is that there really had not been an action/adventure movie like this one before. This movie's success turned Harrison Ford into a full-fledged movie star. Although this movie was made twenty years ago, it has aged pretty well. The special effects look good, even in this age of computer animation. The action sequences are great. I love it when Marion tells Indiana, "Till I get back my $5,000 you're going to going to get more than you bargained for. I'm your goddamn partner!" And needless to say, the score is outstanding. Also, the movie's ending is shocking--and it has been copied in "The X-Files" series. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is an all-around entertaining movie. It is the perfect movie to watch on a Saturday evening. It is one of Steven Spielberg's greatest movies. It is also definitely one of the greatest movies ever made....though I wish there had not been any sequels/prequels. ****out of ****.

Little Women (1994)

Perfection

[12 June 2000]

I'm amazed at how great this movie is. I'm even more amazed that this movie was not praised or honored more highly. This is a fascinating movie about a family of four sisters. There are many reasons why this movie is so great. From the very beginning to the very end, this movie is elegant and radiant--even the opening and the closing credits are regal. The movie's music score is fantastic--I loved it. The cinematography is awesome; it did a lot for this movie. The shots captured the landscape beautifully. In spite of the fact that a large portion of the movie takes place in the wintertime, the movie is very colorful. The costumes are spectacularly beautiful. The performances are extraordinary. Winona Ryder gives one of her greatest performances as the leading character, Jo March. She's marvelous in this movie. Claire Danes is remarkable as the frail Beth. But my favorite performance in the movie is that of Kirsten Dunst as Amy, the youngest of the four daughters. Her performance is a delight to watch. She completely steals the show. Furthermore, the ending is terrific. Gillian Armstrong, the director of this movie, did a magnificent job. A movie like this one serves as testament to why I like movies a lot. This is a movie that anyone can enjoy and be entertained by, whether you watch it alone or with someone you love. If you haven't seen this movie, rent it and let this movie dazzle you. This movie is perfection. Absolute perfection. **** out of ****.