...is for this movie to end. It was a good premise, a great performance by Mel Gibson, but a poor script. They just didn't know how to end this, and when, finally, it staggered to a halt, the satisfaction of a good wrap-up was long gone. All loose ends were tied but not cleverly or cleanly. And some of the scenes were so desperately put together that it would have interrupted the flow had the movie not been so drawn out. It's worth watching the first hour and a half, but don't be afraid to use the fast forward button during the last half-hour.
Reviews
5 Reviews
The Bone Collector
(1999)
A Clue For The Audience - Did you get it?
17 April 2000
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, another predictible follow the clues and catch the serial killer movie. It is a watchable movie, holds interest well enough, and if you can turn off your intelligence long enough to ignore the glaring gapes in the plot then it's a good enough time.
This is one of those movies where the clues were all-important and where, had it been better written, everything would have meant something. What interested me from the very beginning was the presence of that dangling monkey in the killer's taxi. I kept thinking: there must be a reason. And there was.
The dangling monkey is a clue for the audience of what's to come. I won't give away the ending of the movie, but the monkey does represent what happens. Note: the following is a vague spoiler, so skip it if you don't want to know anything:
One of the final scenes from the film is borrowed - okay, stolen - from another movie featuring an individual with quadriplegia and a monkey. So while the serial killer leaves clues with all his victims, the director has left a clue with the serial killer as to his fate.
This was a very clever device. And if you want to see how it was done the first time, watch "Monkey Shines".
This is one of those movies where the clues were all-important and where, had it been better written, everything would have meant something. What interested me from the very beginning was the presence of that dangling monkey in the killer's taxi. I kept thinking: there must be a reason. And there was.
The dangling monkey is a clue for the audience of what's to come. I won't give away the ending of the movie, but the monkey does represent what happens. Note: the following is a vague spoiler, so skip it if you don't want to know anything:
One of the final scenes from the film is borrowed - okay, stolen - from another movie featuring an individual with quadriplegia and a monkey. So while the serial killer leaves clues with all his victims, the director has left a clue with the serial killer as to his fate.
This was a very clever device. And if you want to see how it was done the first time, watch "Monkey Shines".
Stuart Little
(1999)
Adoption is treated inappropriately - parents beware!
8 January 2000
Warning: Spoilers
I'll dispense with comments on the general qualities of the movie, since there are plenty of reviews that address these already. What I would like to address is the treatment of adoption in the movie.
Once again, the mindless of Hollywood treat adoption as a "not real" and impermanent institution. Adopted children who watch this movie may be uncomfortable with the treatment of this issue.
For those who haven't seen it, below is a spoiler about an early plot device.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Stuart Little is a mouse adopted by human parents. At one point, two mice purporting to be his "real parents" (read: biological) show up on the doorstep. His adoptive parents, thinking of his "best interest" just hand Stuart over to these two strangers, despite his protests. What kind of message does this send to adopted children? That their parents are just temporary custodians until the "real deal" shows up to snatch them away? That the best thing for children is to be with their biological families? Is that really a message that reflects the REALITY of adoption?
The creators of Stuart Little dropped the ball big time with this issue. When will Hollywood get it right?
Once again, the mindless of Hollywood treat adoption as a "not real" and impermanent institution. Adopted children who watch this movie may be uncomfortable with the treatment of this issue.
For those who haven't seen it, below is a spoiler about an early plot device.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Stuart Little is a mouse adopted by human parents. At one point, two mice purporting to be his "real parents" (read: biological) show up on the doorstep. His adoptive parents, thinking of his "best interest" just hand Stuart over to these two strangers, despite his protests. What kind of message does this send to adopted children? That their parents are just temporary custodians until the "real deal" shows up to snatch them away? That the best thing for children is to be with their biological families? Is that really a message that reflects the REALITY of adoption?
The creators of Stuart Little dropped the ball big time with this issue. When will Hollywood get it right?
Dune
(1984)
Required more concentration than a title chess match.
18 January 1999
I saw Dune when it came out, on opening night in our community. I had never read any of the books so I was unprepared for the movie. Which is the point of this review: you shouldn't have to prepare to see a movie. The movie should do all the work.
I was a little uneasy when, upon entering the theatre, I was handed a legal size paper with small type, front and back, explaining the terms used in the movie. Little good this did me in the dark. When movies use terms that the average viewer wouldn't know, they usually use subtitles. This is the only exam - I mean movie - I've ever attended where I was given a crib sheet.
The movie itself had some pageantry, but most of this was lost on not being completely sure what was going on and what was being said. And - Curse the darkness! - I just couldn't find all the secret code words on my sheet. Also, my attention was often diverted by the parade of moviegoers packing in their popcorn and making a quick exit.
And even what action I could follow was ruined by the nagging feeling that I was missing something.
Friends and family who were fans of the trilogy generally enjoyed the movie. But a movie is its own medium. It shouldn't take the preparation of three novels to enjoy it.
I think Dune stands as an example of how not to make a movie. Definitely a winner of "All-time worst screenplay from another source". Dune took "Based on the book" to frighteningly new depths. Sorry sci-fi fans. Dune may be a good companion piece to your books, but as a stand-alone movie, it's a dud.
I was a little uneasy when, upon entering the theatre, I was handed a legal size paper with small type, front and back, explaining the terms used in the movie. Little good this did me in the dark. When movies use terms that the average viewer wouldn't know, they usually use subtitles. This is the only exam - I mean movie - I've ever attended where I was given a crib sheet.
The movie itself had some pageantry, but most of this was lost on not being completely sure what was going on and what was being said. And - Curse the darkness! - I just couldn't find all the secret code words on my sheet. Also, my attention was often diverted by the parade of moviegoers packing in their popcorn and making a quick exit.
And even what action I could follow was ruined by the nagging feeling that I was missing something.
Friends and family who were fans of the trilogy generally enjoyed the movie. But a movie is its own medium. It shouldn't take the preparation of three novels to enjoy it.
I think Dune stands as an example of how not to make a movie. Definitely a winner of "All-time worst screenplay from another source". Dune took "Based on the book" to frighteningly new depths. Sorry sci-fi fans. Dune may be a good companion piece to your books, but as a stand-alone movie, it's a dud.
Every Which Way But Loose
(1978)
Guy gets girl, guy loses girl, guy gets ape. Happy ending.
18 January 1999
Fun flick. Caught it for the first time on video. Though it was obviously aimed for the redneck, teenage drive-in crowd, the stellar performance of Clyde raises this to the level of an art house flick. Clint did what Clint does best: fights and wins. The one distraction was the startling unappeal of Sondra Locke. Her lack of talent in acting is only surpassed by her lack of talent in singing. Other cast members included a loyal buddy, Orville, a swearing granny, two blundering cops, and a gang of wimpy bikers.
Tell Your Friends