Jeff-197 Reviews

Vanilla Sky (2001)

new face to: "and it was all a dream"

[1/10 · 15 December 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I was in grammar school, my friends and I went through a phase where all of our journal entries, the stories we wrote for class, would end in "and it was all a dream", or "and then I woke up". I'm sure you're familiar with this device... make a crazy scenario, make the audience wonder how the hero/heroine will escape, and then "wake up".

Suppose we had been able to, back then, replace "and then I woke up" with "and then I realized that I was cryogenically frozen and was experiencing a programmed brain-input deally". We'd have written Vanilla Sky.

Basically, that's your whole movie. Guy gets into weird situation, you think he's killed someone, you're teased with a mystery (who did he kill, and did he), teased with conspiracy (did they frame him), and then it ALL GETS THROWN OUT THE WINDOW for the same ending my pals and I used in the FOURTH GRADE!!

The advertisements for this film tease you into thinking it will be an action-drama with a murder mystery. Just when the film gets you compelled with this apparent plot development (not an easy task with drawn-out boring scenes, typically crappy Cruise acting, and a lead character that probably 1% of America can identify with)... just as it gets you into that, it says "gotcha", and goes into a laughable (people in my theater did groan and laugh) sci-fi bailout.

This could have been a good movie. I was expecting a REAL twist with a plot against David and a switcheroo of sorts with the women in his life. They could have gone so many interesting places with this situation, and then they throw it out instead of exploring it (and they throw it out fast, before we can even enjoy the suspense) and go into what equates to "it was all a dream".

And then they even spoon-feed you the details!! "When did the Lucid Dream begin?", David asks... AND THE GUY TELLS YOU!! "Well, it was when you woke up in the street". Why, oh why, couln't I have been left to at least try to figure that out for myself?? Why did they have to GIVE it to me?

And why wasn't the relationship with David and Sophia (which was actually a Lucid Dream) explored more? There was like 2 scenes, and then we got into the murder crap. Why was I supposed to feel anything for David and Sophia (and feel his pain) when they barely developed that relationship?

The reason they are saying that reviewers should "not reveal secrets" about this movies plot is because (a) if you said one or two sentences, the whole movies would be shot, as it takes only that one lame turn... and (b) if people knew that the ending was this cheezy, they would never come into the theater to see it.

Waking Life (2001)

pretentious garbage

[1/10 · 15 December 2001]

Let me begin by saying that reviewing this movie puts you into a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If you think it sucked, well, you're just too stupid to understand it, or you don't have the attention span. "Why don't you just go see Monster's Inc.", they'll rebut. So you are forced to say that you like it. I'd be willing to bet that at least 50% of those saying it is great (with no specificity) are just trying to avoid looking like they can't understand it.

Now, onto my review. I wonder if the people who call Linklater brilliant think that he somehow wrote all these theories? That he is some metaphysical genius that invented all these positions? I would hope not, as he obviously didn't. Which leaves me to ask, "What did he do that deserves my praise?" The guy went to a university with a tape recorder, got some real-audio of some Psychology 101 and Philosohpy 101 lectures, and paid some animators to draw someone saying them.

The theories discussed are not advanced. They are fairly common and easy enough to follow. Even the boy admits, "they sound familiar, like I'd heard them somewhere". They don't get more complex. They don't refute each other. They don't build. They don't reach a conclusion. They are just strewn together, willy-nilly. If you're going to make a film exploring all of these issues, at least do me the favor of taking a position on them... give me some insight, some enlightenment. To just present them without organization or taking a position just seems to translate to me as: "See how much I know??" Like a discussion with someone after their first philosophy class, when they recite theory to you, without questioning, challenging, or even favoring any of it.

I feel that the use of the plot being that the boy was dreaming (or dead) was to hide the fact that Linklater DIDN'T have any profound point to make. Only in a dream could he get away with an incomprehensible, poorly organized blob of discussion on a topic. Had this movie been set in the real, waking world, he would have had to go somewhere with this... to make a point or take a position. But as it was he could just let it be slop.

See this movie only if you'd like to pretend you and your friends are intellectuals for a night. Then log onto imdb.com and write about how profound and moving it was, but don't, whatever you do, say why. Just saying that it was deep and explored reality and the mind will suffice.

Did this movie make for a stimulating evening? It could. But don't think that this movie is intellectually superior to another just because it uses big words and discusses metaphysics. You can analyze pop movies and try to pull meaning from it, too. And at least the pop movies mask it in the DETAILS OF A STORY instead of just purely PRESENTING YOU WITH RAW THEORY. Is Moby Dick just about a whale? Is Star Wars just about rescuing a princess? No. These tales explore quite a bit of human dynamics and philosophy, but at least they have the sense of ART to present it in a masked way.

This is not an art film. It isn't even a film. It's an intro class lecture with pictures.

Meet the Parents (2000)

There's Something About Mary for the over-40 crowd

[1/10 · 10 October 2001]

Total crap. One more "Focker" joke and this juvenile slapstick would've made me leave. All the boomers in the theater seemed to find it hillarious, even after the 11th time, though. This movie was like a rerun of I love Lucy. Things go implausibly wrong, then turn worse as the lead character tries to fix them. Ha.

The Princess and the Warrior (2000)

Brilliant, Beautiful, Perfect

[10/10 · 10 October 2001]

This is probably tied for best movie I've ever seen. Very beautiful to watch, listen to, and "feel".

Has all the elements of a classic film - artistic shots (e.g., the wrap-around shot of Bodo on the bridge, the imagery of running faucet/running fuel at gas station), suspenseful silence (the breathing, dripping, footsteps, etc.), evoking of emotions, multiple elements and characters coming together in surprising ways (though not all were as surprising), great acting, and a great message.

Can't say enough good things about it. I wish to own a copy ASAP.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

I agree with Silent Bob - this was weak

[3/10 · 10 October 2001]

Everyone else seems to have already said my opinion, so I'll just run it down real quick: 1-Acting is cold and sterile 2-Too many direct parellels to other Star Wars (e.g., Jedi dying in front of student, escaping large animal in ship) 3-special effects look cartoonish, like "A Bug's Life". Lucas and his crew spent hundreds of Million to prove that computer graphics still aren't as lifelike as shooting real-life miniature models on film (like the other films). 4-Jar Jar 5-I STILL don't have a real good grasp of what the hell is going on 6-75% of the film seemed to be a Pod race 7-Anakin making C3PO is hokey 8-The force being something of a microbe, a physical entity in the body, blows it for me. I liked to think of it as a sort of Zen-like concept, an Eastern-religion feel. Let go of your normal consciousness and let "the force" take over. It was mystical, supernatural. Now it is a bacteria. Not quite as romantic.

I sincerely hope that Episode 2 and 3 are more thought out.

Singles (1992)

pretty crappy movie here

[4/10 · 10 October 2001]

Let's see. Movie from 1992 set in... oh, where should we set it? Seattle? That's the new "hip" city these days, isn't it?

Just b**tardizes the issues that 20 somethings (now 30 somethings) faced. Superficial things like relationships and Mr. Right take front stage over a lukewarm, pathetic depiction of political activism and liberal ideology. These could've been any characters, anywhere. They were plastic people with plastic problems. The setting was mere Hollywood hype and bandwagon-ing. Gee, a few shots of Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains ought to do the trick. I guess Nirvana was out of town in the 3 days it took them to shoot this tripe.

I also am growing way too tired of Crowe's overly conversational style of writing. So many words come out of his characters mouths, and 50% of them are fluff. It's like a dern episode of "Friends". Blah, blah, like soooo, blah, could we be any more, blah. There are so many throw-away lines in this film they should've just hired extras to do the film and had them say the 5 lines that carry the plot.

Angela's Ashes (1999)

made me want to read the book

[8/10 · 17 September 2001]

Unfortunately, I had not read the book before viewing this film. I thought that the acting was solid, the story was one that needs to be told, and the characters round and I could identify with them.

I was confused by the inclusion of the "sheep" scene and some others. I am assuming that this was because the film did not explore some sort of comment in the book on his adolecent sexuality, as in Anne Frank's diary, or so.

Good film.

Braindead (1992)

Only movie to ever make me literally vomit

[9/10 · 17 September 2001]

Absolutely tops in the "gore" category.

I lost my lunch with the "ear in the pudding" bit. And the intestines climbing up themselves, that's just sick.

The film drags a bit at the end, it's true, but the fact that it literally made me (and my friend, when he first rented it) puke... that's gotta be worth something.

I don't usually go for gore or gross-out. But this is what the movie set out to do, and, by golly, they did it very well.

Evil Dead II (1987)

Brilliant use of camera

[10/10 · 17 September 2001]

This film is creepy. The shot of the imageless "thing" chasing the lead character has become famous. It was the best way to portray sheer terror. The silence, the flowing movement of the unrelenting evil... brilliant. Done in the original, lower budget, it was a breakthrough.

Cinematography, comic-book style writing, and surprising acting make this "b-movie" one of the best films ever.

American Pie 2 (2001)

Gone is the social commentary

[2/10 · 16 September 2001]

What made American Pie work as much as it did was the commentary on teenage sexual activity. "Don't rush in", was the message, "it's not worth it. Fall in love instead, and things will come naturally". Peppered with some suggestion about how to be a better lover, it had a point in there somewhere.

"2" does not. At all. Ever. It is gratuitous, stupid, juvenile, and crude. The jokes (the ones that aren't blatant repeats of the first movie - e.g., trumpet in butt vs. flute in female genitalia -or- penis in pie vs. hand glued to penis) are more toilet humor than guilty chuckle. The worst moment was the "Petey" scene, during which I was mildly amused until Jason Biggs proclaimed "and I have gigantic balls!". It was as if the record stopped. It made no sense, and was ridiculous.

Also note that the women are conspicuously seldom in this film. Could it be that they saw the script, and gave little time to it? Could it have been that they thought a sequel was lame enough? For whatever reason they all but passed on this film (I assume they must've had obligations to appear, and so made the least of it), they were right in doing so. Let's see who gets better scripts in the coming years, Tara Reid and Mena Suvari - or Jason Biggs and Sean William Scott (of "Dude, Where's My Car" shame).

Blow (2001)

Doesn't even make sense while it glorifies criminality

[3/10 · 16 September 2001]

Okay, it glorifies a criminal, that's been established. It has really bad cinematography (lighting), direction (could they have flash-cut some more?), and effects (George's pillow, er, I mean, gut at the end). The acting, apart from some decent moments, isn't phenomenal. And George's accent stinks (exact same new england accent after speaking spanish for years?? Uh, no).

But after watching it a second time, I'd like to point out some things that to me are plot holes.

(1) Why does it take so long for George to get "screwed"? That is, why did it take so long for the drug producers to sell more directly? (2) Why does Diego try so hard to find out George's west coast contact? Once George "created the market" couldn't Diego have sold to any Hollywood bigshot? (3) Why, once Diego "screws" George, does he take so long to "screw" Paul Rueben's character? Again, couldn't he have just found any other rich person with California connections? What made this hairdresser/entrepreneur so darned essential to this whole cartel? There were evidently thousands of people wanting (and addicted to) cocaine... just sell them some! (4) why, when the Colombians are first involving him with a pilot, George didn't recommend to work with his old buddy "Dooley" (5) what I kept waiting for - whatever happened to TUNA, or any of his old friends. (Besides....) (MOST OF ALL, 6) Why, after George's party with the "cocaine buffet" would the police be the slightest bit interested in having George take the rap for all the possession of drugs at the party? Wouldn't they want names, info., state's evidence? Wouldn't George not having to name any be a deal for HIM??

This story doesn't even make sense!! While painting George to be a misunderstood hero, and oh, we weep for his loss of his daughter, it forgets to even be logical.

And "slipping" from the narrators memory are any explanations of: A) why he never paid child support B) why he couldn't get a real job ever in his life, even when sober, and even though he supposedly admired his Dad's work ethic so much C) why so many people evidently thought he was a schmuck (his mom, his wife, his daughter, Diego, etc.)

Had the movie made logical sense, I could have accepted it as a polemic. But it fails to even do that.

Rock Star (2001)

The worst part is having to hear those crappy songs

[1/10 · 16 September 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I'm going to assume that both A) nobody is serious about wanting to REALLY see this movie, and B) nobody who saw it was expecting it to be another Citizen Kane, so, having said that...

It still was horrible. Mark lays down an emotionless performance. Aniston is no more vibrant than her character on Friends, which isn't that different from the one in the movie, really. The best actor in the film was the old British manager guy, who wasn't stellar.

The worst part of this movie, apart from having to hear way too much of the crappy music (nothing like fake old metal songs performed by some studio artist and lip-sinc-ed by Marky Mark) was that there was only script for the half of it.

Here we go - boy likes band, boy tries to be like band, boy loses his band, boy gets to be in his favorite band. This much we knew... and after this point in the film - the little jokes leave, the vicarious excitement leaves, and the cliches take over. The film loses any momentum it had, and people start going to the bathroom, getting more popcorn, talking to their dates, etc. Boy parties too hard, boy loses girl, boy quits band.

Gee, who saw it coming?

Had the film been a true biopic, with legal rights as such, it might have been better. But the "oh, no, we're definately not talking about Judas Priest" act is a little lame. It left me wondering what parts of the film were fact or fiction, if they even interviewed, etc. And the effect was lost -- songs "performed" were (as far as I could tell) fake, not authentic rock songs, outfits were cheezy and lame (Dragons? They came up with Dragons?? Who wears a dragon?), and the viewers couldn't get into the falseness of it. It was as if they started making the movie using Judas Priest's name, songs, and look... then got sued, and had to whitewash it... leaving nothing much behind. That was my take on it. It just felt... awkward.

A more interesting story may have been the heartbreak and tribulations of the "kicked-out-largely-for-coming-out" lead singer.

But instead we get this tired old story that quits halfway through the picture.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

tied for worst movie I've ever seen

[1/10 · 16 September 2001]

Yes, this movie is the worst. The point was dragged out and beaten to death. It managed to make Anthony Hopkins look terrible. The rate of speech was... so... painfully... slow, and overdramatic.

Coolest part was Pitt getting blindsided by the van. Rewind that.

Vertigo (1958)

If oil-paintings came in video format...

[10/10 · 16 September 2001]

... this is what you'd get. I can't watch it enough. It's beautiful. Nobody ever used a camera like Hitch. Makes you realize how cheap modern films are. They do so much less with so much more (with exception to acting talent).

Every time I watch, I see something new. This should be required in school, like the Constitution tests.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

very well done

[9 January 2001]

This film is one of the better I've seen in awhile. This is what filmmaking is about, no need for the poppy Hollywood perfect cheesy ending.

If you are the type that likes to have everything explained to them, that feels the need for a story to be completely spoon-fed and tight, to know "why" everything happened in the movie, and to have everything come around full circle at the end - you will not like this film.

If you are the type that can enjoy a good story in and of itself, and enjoy the tale it tells, and think about your own answers to the questions posed without needing someone to tell you what is "correct" - you stand a much better chance of liking this movie.

The film isn't phenomenal, but it tells a good story, raises awareness of(without being blatant or delving into tonnage of theory, as if there is a single "cause") of teenage suicide, especially during the trying times of women's adolescence. It does so without suggesting that the writers have some monolithic explanation for it, it does it without being trite, overproduced (like so many with a top-40 soundtrack), or otherwise cartoonish.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Mr Mauve's justification is wrong. PLOT HOLES!

[1/10 · 3 January 2001]

The line that the poster below mentions may explain why Bruce Willis does not see other ghosts, etc. (SPOILER) But it DOES NOT explain how he "lived" for a year without wondering why nobody could SEE HIM! He lived for a year without ANYONE ever speaking to him? Without EVER trying to say anything to his wife besides "are you gonna get that?" I don't buy it. The twist ending is implausible, no matter how you slice it.

Furthermore, the romantic sub-plot is once again underdeveloped and secondary, just a filler for the erroneous twist ending. We could've seen a little more development of the lack of their marriage (showing how he was inhumanly busy for a year, etc.)

The script was recycled from "The Shining", a much better film as far as acting, cinematography, music, development of the characters, and most other aspects go. Save your money and rent that classic instead of this fluff.

Cast Away (2000)

spoon-feeding you pseudointellectual fluff

[27 December 2000]

This movie is the dumbest thing ever. If you are under 40 years of age, and are not currently experiencing a mid-life crisis, skip it. The message - too simple. We know that materialism is bad. I have a degree in Sociology, so maybe it was a little too remedial for me, but come on, aren't we all a little beyond this simple a life lesson? Unless you are a yuppie and are currently also on your cell phone, this movie will not enlighten you. The acting - too bad. Helen Hunt CANNOT ACT. Hello, Hollywood? Are you reading this? SHE CANNOT ACT!

(SPOILERS)

She shows no emotion when he comes back, when she says she cannot take him back, nothing. And the plot that she would not try to take him back is totally unsupported (since the creators thought we needed to see 45 minutes of footage of him trying to open a stupid coconut instead of developing her character, who only has about 5 minutes of screen time).

The movie will not surprise you ever. Everything... everything is foreshadowed! The film is as dry as toast. And spoon-fed. Did we need to see him play with the lighter to realize how much we take fire for granted? WASN'T THE 30 MINUTES OF FOOTAGE OF HIM RUBBING STICKS ENOUGH?

And why on earth did he keep that package? The 5 year-old in front of me asked out loud "HOW did it save his life", and the whole section turned to their partners and whispered, "yeah, how DID it save his life?"

The film was too cute, too perfect, and had a warmed over "you never know what the tide will bring in... maybe a box of chocolates" type moral. Gee, thanks, I hadn't considered that.

I still cannot believe that they had to "go there" and make a "happy" ending where he finds some new woman. In fact, the romantic subplot altogether seemed incomplete, undeveloped, secondary, and just added in because the executives' formulas say that movies need a romantic sub-plot, even if it adds nothing to a movie.

Instead of 2 hours of Hanks trying to eat a coconut and talking to a volleyball, perhaps the film could have given us some REAL insight to the metamorphosis in his mind. OR let us know what was going on in her life. They could have cross-cut scenes between the two to break the boredom and complete the film.

And lets face it, the volleyball was just a device so we could hear his thoughts, really, wasn't it? I know it was supposed to show him as crazy and needing companionship, but I think that they only really used it as a device.

The movie succeeds in two areas. 1) It really does make you go through what he goes through... the viewer feels bored, tired, exhausted, and starts to go crazy... just like he does. The director accomplished that task. And 2) the film displays human vs. nonhuman technology (Traditional Weberian theory) quite well. Before the crash, he uses nonhuman technology, things that control people: the clock, beepers, etc. On the island, he uses human technology, things that people control: a blade to cut coconuts, tree bark to make rope, etc.

But alas, I am a socialist, and realized a long time ago that the value of an item is decided by its usefullness, and not its so called "market price". Nothing new to me, or the Russians in the film.

I was most surprised that FED EX would use its name in a film that A) displays a crash and death of employees, and B) as mentioned in the above 2 paragraphs, is essentially anti-capitalism.

But hey, advertising execs are never too smart, and probably just thought, "there's a blockbuster, lets hop on it!"

A bit of irony, no?

Gossip (I) (2000)

another film to make my generation look stupid

[14 December 2000]

My problems with this film were many, but I guess I sort of liked it anyway, a little.

It opens comically - that college classroom is the least realistic thing I've seen since Mr. Bill. (SPOILER) The girl the prof. insults could file complaints at the office of civil liberties, professors don't have the right to criticize your hair! And the lead role's response to the "gossip" question, despite the professors pseudointellectual-sounding encouragement (e.g., "connect the dots", "but what's your thesis"), never does make any sense... yet everyone looks astounded as if it was really profound. Essentially he never says anything more sophisticated than what the (coincidence or subtle racism?) African-American girl says to open with... basically just that "gossip is fun". Gee, give him an 'A+'. Made the film sit with me funny right from the start.

Then the film progesses into an over-produced "high art" (yet really blatant) display of the plot. And I agree with the other posters, the apartment, their dress, the way they spoke like they were supposed to be intelligent (sorry to the one little poster who thought this actually was intelligent), it was just a little bit rich, wasn't it? Come on, this isn't Dr. Zhivago here. And the kid who said he was broke had only about $50,000 worth of multimedia equiptment in his room. AND WHAT was up with how that dude "found a way to make it art"? Did anyone follow his complex schematic for his piece that later sort of deteriorated into just a simple collage? Again, the people are "brilliant" because the story tells us they are, not because the producers, writers, etc. actually took the time and effort to MAKE them brilliant characters!!

Then the thing just gets silly and wierd, and implausible. Cops that don't arrest, roommates that fear their lives (or are key witnesses) but don't leave the apartment, confessions that nobody bothers to tape until (SPOILER) the very end of the movie (thus making at least ME, for one, ask... "why didn't they do that a long time ago?), and other acts of Hollywood stupidity made the film go from bad to worse.

However, the central theme of the movie (the title word) is intriguing enough that if you have intelligence of your own, and a sense of creativity beyond that of the monkeys that laid down this formulaic and trite film... you can do as I did, and sort of go off into your own little trance with the film... ignoring what actually happens (since it wouldn't really happen that way anyhow), and dreaming up your own little story.

This "food for thought" quality of the film is its only redeeming quality. Too bad the film doesn't take a bite itself.

Go (1999)

making my generation look dumber

[1/10 · 28 November 2000]

This movie is a lame attempt at trying to be Pulp Fiction. Only it lacked any real cajones, and was completely impossible in many points. SPOILER ALERT The drug dealer's character was a lame attempt at being a Samuel L. Jackson -type, only a skinny white boy with not even a tattoo to make him look tough. And what was up with that 30 second "take the shirt off and turn around while the music plays, then cut the music..." crap? Trying too hard, are we?

And the whole set-up thing with the girl! How dumb is she? A) don't deal a lot of drugs to new people, B) when you show up, and there's a 3rd guy there, DON'T SELL THE STUFF, C)when they say they're out of o.j., JUST WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR YOU CAME IN! They can't make you stay! Never would happen that way in real life. Just lacked reality, and thus the "drama" was lost.

Next, the strip-club thing. 1) a bouncer wouldn't be THAT upset that you used hands, I'm sure it happens all the time, they'd probably just throw you out on your ear. 2) THE BOUNCER wouldn't be armed? 3) a big truck slamming into the side of the car at that rate of speed would have killed them all, or at least moved the passenger door into the center of the car, killing the passenger.

These are just two major things that blew the movie for me. Add to it the fact that nobody could act, the flagrant use of drugs to appeal to kids and "look cool", the completely TOP 40 SOUNDTRACK (even from one year later the songs sound stupid and out of place... Macarena for Pete's sake?), and the wanna-be-Pulp-Fiction-but-I'm-too-weak editing style just made one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen.

I'm 22, and I hate what this movie makes my generation look like. We're not that stupid, even those of us who deal or do dope.

Nobody over the age of 16 should find this movie interesting.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Why is it called 'Eyes Wide Shut'? It is the best way to view it.

[2/10 · 19 July 1999]

Don't buy the hype. Too much drama in too little film.

#1-The film is impeccable visually, but I could've gotten that in a postcard.

#2- Neither Kidman nor Cruise can act. (note Kidman's one word per hour rate of hyper-drama ranting, her annoying "stoned" monologue, and Cruise's emotionless, "I'll tell you everything" weep.)

#3- You cannot make a DEEP movie about SHALLOW characters. Before you dismiss me as not understanding the art, or the symbolism, let me say that I got it... all too clear. The artsiness and high drama were unwarranted, slow, ornate, blatant, and overdone. A good half of the people in my theatre laughed out loud in several "high tension" scenes, due to the ludicrous overproduction. The film mocks itself.

#4- Three reasons for the hype: -Kubrick's last film... how do you spit on his grave and say this film was weak?? - Nicole and Tom's relationship... extra naughty since we're peering into their lives?? - It is pretty racy... legitimized porn sells.

In a nutshell, the film had a simple message, which was told through transparent, yet extranneous vehicles. There was nothing behind the jumbled mass of art (or as one reviewer stated well... nothing beneath the mask).

P.S. If I'd have had to sit through that God-awful piano track ONE more time...

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Just another way to do R&J

[2 April 1999]

The film is indeed a creative way to do Romeo and Juliet, but many viewers may see it as just that... another Romeo and Juliet. Indeed, the most emotional parts of the film are the direct quotes from Shakespeare's work. The rest seems almost like filler. Paltrow, Affleck, and others have commented on how "historically accurate" the film is. This seems to be true for the costume and set design, however, major historical mistakes seem to be evident. For example, Jamestown, Virginia (the first settlement in Virginia) wasn't founded until 1607, some years after Shakespeare wrote R&J (ca.1595). Even if this estimation is incorrect, Shakespeare would have to have been at least 43 when Virginia was colonized, much older than the young star of the film.

Also notable is the effort made to darken the Queen's teeth, showing how poor hygiene technology was. However, all the "main" characters have pearly whites. This condensing of time, and other factors made me feel that I was just watching another rendition of Romeo and Juliet, done yet another way. Television film critics have recently commented on the trend of modernizing Shakespeare, a trend I feel is unnecessary.