kls13 Reviews

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

My all time favorite movie

[10 February 2002]

This is my all time favorite movie, and I have yet to write review on it, so instead of rehashing the plot and saying how fabulous it is, as many people before me have done, I'm going to take on some of the criticism, and explain it all to people who just `didn't get it.'

SPOILERS AHEAD

1. What does Reservoir Dogs mean? Quentin Tarantino used to work in a video store, and he saw the French movie Au Revoir Les Enfants and could never pronounce it. Reservoir Dogs evolved from that.

2. People say it's not a movie for girls. I'm a girl. Anyone who says this movie isn't for girls, is broadly generalizing the kinds of movies girls like. Sure, some of my girlfriends hate it, but others of them love it. Personally, it's been my number one ever since I saw it 9 years ago.

3. People say it's too violent. Let's see, who are we dealing with? A bunch of thieves who are robbing a diamond store. What do you expect? Yes, it's violent. Welcome to Tarantinoland.

4. People say there's too much swearing. Get used to it if you want to see a Quentin Tarantino movie. Again, we're dealing with a bunch of thieves. It would be completely unrealistic for them to be speaking proper English.

5. People say there's not enough locations. This movie was made for about a million bucks. Contrast that to Titanic, which was made for about $300 million. Enough said? Furthermore, that's the point of the movie, that it's set in one place. This is an independent film. Therefore, it's dialogue driven, not based on our heros moving around from place to place. Once Tarantino got some backing (i.e. Pulp Fiction), we get to see some more scenery.

6. People say there's too much conversation. If you don't like hearing witty dialogue, I feel very sorry for you. The dialogue in this movie is top notch, and only Kevin Smith can rival Tarantino when it comes to conversations between characters. The opening scene at the diner is one of the best scenes ever.

7. Someone questioned the police tactics in not breaking up the robbery before it was in progress. The law is tricky in this area, depending on what state you're in. If they haven't actually begun the robbery, charging them with robbery isn't likely. Attempted robbery (or conspiracy to commit robbery) are alternatives, but the cops were after Joe. If these guys were charged with attempted robbery, you're talking about a shorter sentence, and one that would make them much less likely to give Joe up. They couldn't have gotten Joe on attempt or conspiracy unless one of the guys talked. They had nothing on him. They had to wait until they started robbing.

8. Someone questioned that they knew there was an informant. No they didn't. They weren't sure. Did you watch the movie? Mr. Pink suspects, but none of them are sure. They've worked with Joe before and thought it crazy that he wouldn't have checked everyone out thoroughly. It's only as the movie progresses that they realize there is an informant. Of course they go to the rendezvous. What else were they supposed to do to get their part of the take?

9. Someone asked what was the point of the commode story. If you watched the movie, it was an amusing anecdote for Mr. Orange to tell his fellow thieves, so they could become better friends. It's all about sharing experiences. Personally, one of my favorite scenes.

10. Someone asked why Mr. Orange didn't shoot Mr. Blonde before he cut off Marvin's ear. He had to stay in his Mr. Orange role. He probably figured, so the guy loses an ear, big deal. At least we nail Joe and these guys to the wall. And he also risked himself getting killed if he displayed what side he was really on. He did not realize that Mr. Blonde was going to kill Marvin, just thought he was going to torture him a little.

11. Someone complained about the disjointedness. If you can't follow it, maybe you need to tune in to standard Hollywood fare. It's much more linear. The disjointedness is what makes the movie.

12. Someone complained about the abrupt ending. It's supposed to be abrupt. The shooting and then to Coconut. Fabulous work by Tarantino. And what's left to tell? Everyone's dead but Mr. Pink. And of course, we will all wonder about Mr. Pink, at least a little bit. At least this movie ends with a bang!

That's all I have to say. Everyone should see this movie. It is one of the best movies ever made.

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

Even more boring than the book...

[9 February 2002]

SPOILERS AHEAD! I have to admit that I am stumped over the love many people have for this trilogy of books. I plowed my way through The Hobbit, and have been trying to read Fellowship for about a year. Never made it past the Council of Elrond. Maybe I would have more of an appreciation if I read these books as a kid. The main problem I have with this story is that there is no suspense. You always know that someone or something is going to show up and save the day. But I decided to see the movie anyway, because everyone I knew raved about it. Plus, I did want to find out what happened at the end, since I could never make it through the book.

So, today I wasted three hours watching this horrendously boring movie. I first looked at my watch about 45 minutes in, and looked at it every fifteen minutes for the rest of the movie. I would've left, but I paid $9 and I kept thinking that it had to get better. What's the problem? Where do I begin...

1. No character development, as in the books. Who cares what happens to these guys? Not me. I was rather thrilled each time Frodo was stabbed, because I kept hoping maybe he'd die and throw a twist in the story. Nope.

2. The plot is based on the following: travel, battle, Frodo thinks he can't do it, someone tells him how important it is for him to do it, travel, battle, Frodo thinks he can't do it, someone tells him how important it is for him to do it, etc., etc., etc. Can you say boring? Furthermore, they never seemed to have any trouble during the battle scenes. I don't know, but those bad guys looked pretty tough. Doubtful that this goofy group could beat them.

3. Cheese factor is very high. Example: Arwen: "Do you remember the first time we met?" Aragon: "I thought I had strayed into a dream." Gag me. The rest of the dialogue is equally as corny. The women's voices (Arwen and Cate Blanchett) have a weird echo around them. Also lots of slow motion/close up scenes, that are supposed to tell us how the character is feeling, but instead are laughable.

4. The music was specifically placed to inform the audience when a dramatic moment was occurring. Without the music, it's doubtful we would have known, since the story simply kept repeating itself. With the repeat, it was difficult to know when a big thing was happening vs. a little thing.

5. 8 people have the power to kill an army of bad guys. This doesn't bother me in Star Wars, but it bothered me here, especially since the Hobbits have no fighting skills.

6. Stereotypical characters who mess things up and get the group into more trouble.

7. Too long. Way too long. Scenes were dragged out for much too long, for "emotional impact." This movie simply never felt like it got moving. When the first credit came onto the screen, I ran out of that theatre. Couldn't wait for this movie to end.

I will never watch this movie again, nor will I return to see the rest of the installments. Once was enough for me. Huge disappointment.

Rat Race (2001)

Easily the worst movie I've ever seen...

[8 February 2002]

I'm stunned at all the rave reviews of this movie. I didn't even think it was worth the $4 I spent at Blockbuster. The only reason I rented it was because I thought the previews looked funny, and it has such a great cast, that I thought it had surely been overlooked at the theatres. Wrong. This movie is absolutely ludicrous. The idea is great, however, the execution is terrible. Absolutely insane things keep happening to these people, and the thing is, absolutely NONE if it is funny. And the ending truly ruins it all. Awful, and I thought The Crow II was bad. Unless you have an hour and a half with absolutely nothing better to do, don't even bother. Seriously, it's that bad.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Can Jay and Silent Bob Carry a Movie?

[1 September 2001]

Sadly, the answer is no. Let me start by saying that this was my most highly anticipated movie of the summer. I love all of Kevin Smith's previous movies (even Mallrats) and couldn't wait to see what he would do for the finale of the View Askewniverse. There is a thin line between funny and completely distasteful, and Kevin Smih finally crossed it with this movie.

The thing is, Jay and Silent Bob are characters who are good in small doses. Their supporting roles in Smith's previous films kept them fresh and funny. Unfortunately, two hours of Jay's mouth running is a little too much to handle. Thought maybe these characters might be a little deeper than was let on in previous movies? Nope, not a chance. The entire movie talks about having sex, farting, doing drugs, etc. Literally every other sentence contains some kind of expletive. I should be used to it--after all, all of Smith's movies are like that, but in the past it's been done well. It felt natural. Here, it feels forced and becomes completely annoying, and it saddens me to see Smith joining the likes of the Wayons brothers with his writing skills and search for humor.

What's been so good about Smith's other movies is his amazing, quick, bantering dialogue. You see very little of that in this movie. After all, Jay is the one talking most of the time and he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. We rely on slapstick humor, and d*** and fart jokes. THere are a few scenes that I found extremely funny, but in the end I was disappointed with this one. It could have been awesome. It's not. All we can hope is that the old Kevin Smith returns for Fletch and the adolescent who wrote this movie disappears forever.

The Score (2001)

Standard heist movie, but pretty good

[14 July 2001]

I went to see this movie and shelled out $8.75 purely for the cast. As Edward Norton said, these guys could've been reading the phone book and I would've shown up to watch. Was it a good movie? Yes, in comparison to some of the other crap out there this summer. Was the script up to the standards of these three actors? No way. This is a very standard heist movie.

Caution, some spoilers ahead.

The opening scene is extremely anti-climatic. In fact, it's dull. You get a feel for the precision in which DeNiro's character works, but it didn't raise my blood pressure at all, nor really draw me into the movie.

The middle of the movie dragged in some parts. It was all set up for the final heist, but certain scenes got downright boring. DeNiro's character is the only one that really has any depth. While Norton's character has a lot of good lines, I never really got a good feel for what his story was and how he knew Brando's character and got into all this in the first place. And we really find out nothing about Brando's character. He seems to be there to deliver funny lines.

The final heist is, however, very exciting and very original. I was on the edge of my seat. And the ending is really good. You'll leave the theatre laughing at the cockiness of youth.

Nitpicks:

Angela Bassett's character was completely unnecessary, and her role was TINY. I heard many of her scenes were cut, so hopefully we'll get to see those when the DVD comes out.

All three actors give fine performances, but I had a hard time buying Norton's handicapped act. Even though I think he's a great actor, it felt very fake to me.

During the final heist, Norton's character had to know that Danny the janitor would eventually come looking for him because he was gone so long. You'd think that he would have covered himself a little better on that end. Was this because he was inexperienced? Possibly, but it felt like a huge and obvious slip up. And why on Earth did he let him live? Duh. Even I've seen enough heist movies to know what he should have done. And why didn't they loop the tape in the security cameras instead of shutting them off? They had to know that the security guards would come looking for them eventually if the cameras were off for that long.

End of spoilers!

I do recommend this movie, purely for the cast members. Don't expect a whole new idea, here. Like I said, it's a standard heist movie. There are some memorable scenes and good dialogue, and compared to a lot of the crap that's come out lately, this one's a keeper. I look forward to seeing the extras when the DVD comes out.

The Paper Chase (1973)

A must see for One-Ls

[14 July 2001]

So, you're planning on starting law school in the fall, are you? Even if it's not Harvard, you should definitely watch this movie to see what the Socratic method is all about and why you should carefully choose your study group members. Even though this movie was made nearly 20 years ago, it still rings true and feels current. John Houseman gives a terrific performance as the terrifying Professor Kingsfield. An absolutely outstanding movie!

Pearl Harbor (2001)

Don't Listen to the Critics!

[9/10 · 29 May 2001]

I'm not a fan of Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer (in fact, I usually laugh all the way through movies like Armageddon, The Rock, Independence Day, etc. at the sheer corniness of the dialogue and story.) I actively dislike most blow ‘em up movies, and am generally a fan of dialogue driven movies. I went to see Pearl Harbor because of its awesome preview and to see the special effects. That's it. Going in, I had already heard how terrible the dialogue was and the weak plot, but Memorial Day got to me and I decided to risk my 5.50 at the matinee.

Let me just say that I was VERY pleasantly surprised. (SPOILERS AHEAD!!)

Maybe they caught me on a good day, but there was only one line of dialogue that I laughed out loud during, and it came from Ben Affleck during the bombing. `Just get me to a plane!' Or something like that. Like Ben's going to take on the Japanese army. But really, that was the only truly bad line that I spotted during the movie. Even lines that COULD have been corny, from some reason didn't strike me as such during this movie. Maybe it was the setup, the scenes, the directing…who knows? But the dialogue isn't as bad as everyone is saying (and trust me, I'm a stickler for dialogue) and is light years above the dialogue in Armageddon.

People have complained about the weak plot in the love story. The central point of this film wasn't the love story. It was the bombing of Pearl Harbor, hence the title. Although, the title could have been (Ben and Josh save the day by shooting down 7 Japanese planes in) Pearl Harbor. Cheesy plot? Yes, absolutely, but for some reason it works. They needed something going on to build up to the bombing, nothing too deep or confusing, and they got it. They couldn't just start the movie with the bombing. We had to anticipate something, right? I actually liked the love story plot, even though it was reminiscent of a soap opera. (And I hated Titanic, by the way, so I'm not generally a fan of corny love stories.)

As for the lack of historical information, well, most of us, if we were paying attention in high school, learned about the history behind World War II. Hollywood shouldn't have to spoon feed us information that we can get from any history book. If there wasn't enough for you, go to Barnes and Noble and buy a book. I'm sure there are plethoras about Pearl Harbor now. It was a movie, not a documentary, not a history lesson. We got information relative to the bombing, and that was all we needed, not a primer on World War II. If you need more, tune in to the History Channel. They've been running Pearl Harbor stories all week. I know some of the information was inaccurate, but it's a MOVIE! It wasn't supposed to be a documentary. People are complaining about leaving out the Nevada. The movie was 3 hours long as it was. They couldn't include everything. I think the desired effect was achieved.

END OF SPOILERS!!

The special effects are amazing. It was emotionally wrenching to watch the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If anything, I think this movie will provide a lot of people with some information that they didn't have before about Pearl Harbor. Education of the masses is always a good thing.

As for the length, I thought the 3 hour running time of this movie flew by. All of the actors give wonderful performances, particularly Kate Beckinsale. I've never seen her in anything before this, but I'm a fan now. And Jon Voigt is great as FDR.

I really have no complaints, except that Kate Beckinsale and Ben Affleck are both such good looking people that it's a little distracting at times. (Josh Hartnett's not bad, but I'm more of an Affleck fan.) Oh well. And that it's going to be months before I can own the DVD, which is sure to be packed with cool extras.

Just don't listen to the critics on this one. I think that expectations outweighed being able to accurately judge what they really saw. You can't please all the people all the time, but I think Bay/Bruckheimer really did a great job with this movie. Sure, it's a little corny at times, but it's still an excellent movie.

Bounce (2000)

Surprisingly Good

[7/10 · 29 May 2001]

I'm not generally a fan of romantic comedies, but I was in the mood for something light so I picked this one out at Blockbuster. The good news is that I stayed awake during the entire thing. (Usually my video picks end up putting me to sleep.)

I'm surprised that so many people are trashing this movie. Sure it's predictable, but aren't all romantic comedies? I mean, was it any secret that Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan were going to end up together in Sleepless in Seattle or You've Got Mail? Or in any Julia Roberts movie? So, why is it okay in those movies and not okay for this one?

The plot of this movie is very unique, but I won't go into it since everyone else has. The dialogue is surprisingly good (not too corny), Affleck and Paltrow give great performances. (I thought they had great chemistry.) What's to complain about? I think that people who don't like this movie don't like movies like this in general. (Although, like I said, I normally don't, but for some reason I did like this one. I even watched it twice before I returned it to Blockbuster.) Give it a shot if you want something light and cute. It's certainly as good as any Hanks/Ryan or Julia Roberts movie that I've seen.

P.S. Check out Ben's blonde highlights for Pearl Harbor in the final scene. Apparently they had to reshoot it.

Blow (2001)

Typical make a jerk into a victim story

[9 April 2001]

Well, there goes Hollywood again trying to make us all feel sympathy for this character who is a total jerk. Of course, you would never get that impression from the movie. Depp portrays Jung as a poor guy who made a few bad decisions. Come on. I don't buy that for a second. Here is a guy who knowingly broke the law numerous times and introduced cocaine into our society, and yet I was crying at the end of this movie for him.

Then, as I walked out of the theatre, I got mad. He made all of the choices he made. I'm sorry if he realizes now the mistakes that he made, but he should've been clued in, oh, sometime around the first time he was sent to prison. **SPOILER** The biggest rip off to me was the text at the end of the movie stating that his daughter still has not visited him in prison. Good for her. I hope she doesn't, and I hope she doesn't watch this obviously biased movie. And he's scheduled to be released in 2015? If they do release him, they're crazy. He obviously never learned from any of his mistakes. **END SPOILER**

That said, I did enjoy watching this movie, but I probably would have liked it better if it wasn't a true story. Johnny Depp and Paul Rubens both give excellent performances, and I was entertained for 2 hours. I actually liked this movie much better than I liked Traffic. At least it didn't feel like an after school special.

My other nitpicks are (1) they presented way too much information, so there never feels like any depth to any of this. Every few minutes there were '3 years later' or '1 year later' subtitles. (2) The make-up they put on Depp at the end to make him appear older and fatter is terrible. A heartwrenching scene made me laugh because he looked so silly. (3) Penelope Cruz. What's the big deal about her? She looks beautiful in her first scene, but after that she looks terrible. Her character had absolutely no depth.

Anyway, I'd recommend seeing it, but don't feel sorry for this guy. We are seeing his viewpoint of all this, and I can't help but believe that they left out a few choice details.

American History X (1998)

Edward Norton was robbed!

[24 March 2001]

This movie stays with you...which is both a good and bad thing. Personally, I had to rewind it and watch it again immediately after it finished. I really wish I could have seen this in the movie theatre, but I hardly even remember it being out. (Why it didn't do better is beyond me.) This is one of the few movies that I've ever rented that kept me literally glued to the TV. It's rare that a movie is capable of bringing up so many emotions--disgust, fear, awe, laughter. Since that first viewing, I've watched this movie numerous times. Here are my thoughts:

Edward Norton is THE best actor in the business. He's like a chameleon, hardly even recognizable from role to role. His screen presence is amazing as Derek Vinyard. He absolutely should have won the Academy Award for this performance. He is mesmerizing! (Yeah, I'm a big fan.)

The most violent scene I have ever seen in my life is in this movie. Forget Reservoir Dogs, Braveheart, The Cell, etc. You'll know it when you get to it, and I still can hardly even watch it. It makes me nauseous.

Minor spoilers ahead!!

There are two scenes in this movie that completely stick out in my mind. The first is the dinner table scene where they are discussing Rodney King. The dialogue is stellar between Norton, Gould, and D'Angelo. D'Angelo gets kudos for the 2nd best line in the movie: "I can't believe that you came out of my body." The reason this scene is so good is because it feels so real, and you leave it feeling absolutely disgusted. The second scene is the scene immediately following the shower rape scene between Norton and Brooks. This scene has the best line in the movie: "Has anything you've done made your life any better?" No matter how many times I see this movie, that line never feels to stir up emotions inside of me. Yes, this movie is about skinheads, but that line applies to all of us, I think.

End of spoilers!

This is one of my all time top five movies. I can still watch it over and over again. I think that everyone needs to see it at least once. The overwhelming thought that hits me every time I watch it is "I can't believe that there are people in the world who are actually like this." There are, and I find that very sad.

Please don't miss this one! Be forewarned, it is violent, has bad language, and is painful to watch at times. (For subject matter, not topic.) But it is an excellent movie.

Hannibal (2001)

Wait for video

[23 March 2001]

If you're expecting a suspenseful, complex thriller like Silence of the Lambs, think again.

What to even say about such a poor sequel? Part of the problem is obviously the book that it was adapted from, a dull, plodding story with little tension or suspense that showed a 'softer' side of Hannibal Lector. Well, who wants to see that? My major problem with this movie is that Hannibal isn't creepy like he was in Silence. I don't blame this on Anthony Hopkins at all, but on the script that he was working from, full of cliched lines and gory violence.

Oh yeah, the violence. As I sat in the theatre, I couldn't help but feel that the people who made this movie got together and a room and thought about how much useless violence and gore they could possibly show us and still get an R rating. (Although, I have to admit that I'm not clear on how this got an R, and I'm not one who is usually offended by violence and gore.) This is a slasher flick, not an intelligently made drama, as it could (should) have been. The finale scene is laughable. (In fact, everyone in the theatre was laughing, and I couldn't help but wonder what has happened to our society.) When it's not violent, it's downright dull.

The acting was pretty good, although Gary Oldman came off much more over the top than the character in the book. Julianne Moore picked up Jodie Foster's role quite well, although her part in the movie is minimal. (She gets to whine, cry and scream a lot.)

I'm amazed at how much money this movie made. Oh well. I guess you should see it, but don't waste nine bucks at the theatre, and be prepared to be completely grossed out. I certainly won't be watching it again. I chalk it up to a big waste of time. You'd think that Thomas Harris could've come up with a better story.

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Movie of the Week

[23 March 2001]

Two words save this movie from being a Movie of the Week or a bad movie on Lifetime--Julia Roberts. With anyone else in this role, this movie would have been a brief blip on the movie horizon. But, you get Julia Roberts and you are guaranteed an automatic hit. I'm not here to tear apart her performance--it was fine. Fine, that's it, certainly not Oscar Worthy. So we get to see a 'different' side of Julia, a side that dresses trampy and swears. Great. Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream gets my Oscar vote this year.

I know this is based on a true story, and maybe that's the problem. There's no suspense. We know going in that they're going to win, so all we do is get to watch how they get there. Not very exciting, if you ask me. The plot plods along, we get to see some problems she has at home, problems with her boyfriend, blah, blah, blah. Albert Finney is enjoyable to watch, but other than that, nothing stands out as being spectacular. I just don't understand why everyone is raving about this movie. Can someone please help me understand? This sounds like another Hollywood snowjob to me. (Along with Soderburgh's other movie this year, Traffic. He's the new whiz kid, it seems.)

I like to get something out of a movie, and this one failed to deliver. So, I should relinquish my college degree, show some skin, talk trash, and I'll make millions? This must be the new American dream. I've watched this movie twice, because I was convinced I must've been wrong when I watched it the first time and hated it. Nope, still hated it the second time.

I don't recommend it, but you should probably see it anyway. I guess three bucks at Blockbuster isn't that much of a loss.

Pollock (2000)

Best film so far this year

[19 March 2001]

Finally, finally, finally. After 3 months of faithfully going to the movies and praying to God to see something worth my nine bucks, today I finally saw Pollock and was absolutely blown away.

I didn't know much about Jackson Pollock going in to this, other than seeing his paintings at various museums. Regardless of how 'factual' this is (since we know how Hollywood likes to take some poetic license), this movie was extremely well done. I was enthralled from the beginning and the ending is still with me. I seriously can't stop thinking about this movie and now I want to read more about Pollock's life.

Ed Harris. Oh my God. What an actor. I heard he watched tapes of Pollock painting and wow does it ever show. He is absolutely mesmerizing to watch. The painting sequences are absolutely fantastic. He won't win the Academy Award (I'm sure they'll give it to Tom Hanks or Russell Crowe, because they are so CLUELESS!), but he certainly deserves to.

For the gaps in time that some people are complaining about--this isn't supposed to be an epic. It already ran at 2 hours and showed us what we needed to see. For not seeing his later paintings--big deal. He is famous for his 'drip method.' His later paintings weren't important, only knowing that they critically were not as well received. For 'why' Pollock painted, why he drank, etc.--it doesn't matter! He was extremely talented, a genius, probably. He obviously painted because he needed to paint to express himself. And why does anyone drink? There doesn't always need to be a reason.

I highly, highly recommend this movie, especially if you are fascinated by painting, Pollock, or any other creative endeavors. This is the best film I've seen so far this year.

Magnolia (1999)

2nd best of 1999

[19 March 2001]

(Of course, the best movie of 1999 being Fight Club). Given that there are over 700 comments on this movie already, I'm not going to rehash the plot. I simply have a few things to say: (May contain some minor spoilers.)

1. You need to watch this movie more than once to really 'get it.' The first time I saw it there was so much going on that I found it hard to pay attention and decide what was important. I walked out of the theatre not really sure how I felt about the movie as a whole. When it came out on DVD, I bought it and proceeded to watch it a few more times. That was when it really clicked in for me. This is now one of my all time favorite movies. I could watch it over and over again. (And I do. Often.)

2. Yes, there are a lot of monologues. Just listen to them. (I happen to be a big fan of monologues.) Jason Robards' monologue right before the Wise Up montage is one of my favorite monologues ever. It seriously makes me cry. Everyone is always telling us not to regret anything, but he says the exact opposite. Brilliant. P.T. Anderson can write a heck of a movie.

3. This movie is about life and parent/child relationships. Jason Robards/Tom Cruise, Stanley/his father, William H. Macy/his parents, Claudia/Jimmy Gator.

4. The opening scene is extremely creative, I think. (Prior to the credits.) The first time you watch, you'll be wondering where in the heck it's going. Don't worry. It wraps up nicely in the end.

5. Claudia's smile at the end is a classic way to end. Given all the bull that we go through in life, there is hope. That's it.

Watch this movie. Then, watch it again. This movie beats American Beauty by a long shot!

Nurse Betty (2000)

Dark Comedy? Huh?

[19 March 2001]

After hearing the rave reviews, I finally broke down and rented this movie. Although it pains me to trash a movie that stars Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, I have to do it.

First off, this movie is not a dark comedy. Fight Club is a dark comedy. I hesitate to even call this a comedy because I didn't laugh out loud one time. The storyline is absolutely stupid and completely unbelievable. (No, I'm not one of those people that needs a movie to be realistic, but this is so ridiculous that it isn't even the least bit funny.) Everyone else has gone into the details, so I won't bother.

Second, Renee Zellweger. Ugh. She's definitely not one of my favorites. Her expression during the entire film was either confusion or drippy love. To me, this movie proves that she can't carry a film.

Now, I wouldn't say that this is the worst movie I've ever seen, but it certainly isn't worthy of all the praise it got. God, I'm so sick of the Hollywood marketing machine telling us what to think of movies. Obviously the ticket receipts showed that this movie wasn't all it was cracked up to be. It was mildly entertaining at best, but over 50% of me wishes I could get my hour and a half back. Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock both give good performances (of course).

Not recommended unless you have absolutely nothing better to do.

Fight Club (1999)

Best Film of 1999

[19 March 2001]

This is the kind of movie that you will either love because you 'get it' or hate because you don't want to face up to the truth. It's a dark comedy. It's supposed to be FUNNY. To all of the naysayers out there who put this film down because of its violence...look closer. (There's my jab at American Beauty...more later.) This movie isn't about fighting or violence. This movie is about the emptiness in our culture and how one man chose to deal with it.

Brad Pitt and Edward Norton give phenomenal performances. (Actually, I never cared for Pitt before this, but he is a great Tyler Durden.) The thing that I really liked is that this movie stays true to the book. I almost like it better than the book, which is a rarity for me. The scenes that were changed (i.e. Jack and Tyler's initial meeting) were done extremely well.

I saw this movie once in the theatres, three times in hotel rooms (I travel a lot for work and was dying for the DVD to come out!), and bought the DVD on June 6, the day it came out. (And trust me, buy the DVD. It's a great package and the commentary is wonderful.) God, I even bought the press kit on eBay.

This movie isn't for everyone, that's for sure. Most people will either hate it or not get it. I, however, think this is one of the most brilliant films ever made. The thing is, American Beauty got all this hoopla and acclaim and Fight Club got, for the most part, panned, and they have the exact same theme. (Think about it.) Lester could've been Jack in twenty years. (You know, married Marla, she got a real estate license, then all of a sudden he feels empty again.) Personally, I'll take the violence in Fight Club over the sicko crush on daughter's friend in American Beauty any day of the week, but that's just me.

I don't find the violence to be that disturbing in Fight Club. It's fighting. We've all seen it. I wouldn't even rate it as one of the more violent movies I've ever seen. (The Cell wins that prize.) I think that people were more upset with the content of Fight Club, but had to blame their distaste on something and chose the violence.

Anyway, it kills me that this movie wasn't better received and that it was basically ignored at the Academy Awards. Where was that Best Adapted Screenplay nomination? What about cinematography? What about directing? Acting? Anything? Then again, I can't remember the last time the Academy chose a Best Picture that I agreed with.

Watch this movie. Hey, I made my mom watch it and she loved it. (She said "I thought this was about fighting. It's not at all.") At least give it a chance. And keep an open mind.

Scary Movie (2000)

Absolute Trash

[17 January 2001]

It's a sad state of affairs when a movie like this grosses so much money and is allowed to make a sequel. People refer to 'the dumbing down of America', and after seeing this movie I think they might be right.

Why is it that a joke has to deal with either sex or farting in order to be funny? I yearn for the days when we could find other things to laugh at. One or two jokes is funny. Eight thousand is not. This movie is a rehash of the same tired jokes over and over again. After awhile it becomes tedious to watch.

If it was indeed trying to parody scary movies, shouldn't there have been more scary movie parodies? This movie starts out fairly good, but slowly starts to turn into the parody of a porno movie instead of a scary movie. There are some funny parts, I'll admit that, but there was nothing that had me laughing out loud. I think I laughed harder when I saw Scream. This movie is a blatant rip-off of Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. All the Wayans brothers truly did was add a few sex and fart jokes to a storyline that was already established, which creates a completely unoriginal movie.

I am not easily offended, but this movie made me sick. How many naked body parts do I need to see? It is absolutely not appropriate for anyone under the age of 18. This is a very good concept (although it was already done in Scream) and could have led to a very funny movie, but instead it stooped to a level so low that I am embarrassed for all of the actors involved.

Do not waste your money on this movie. Do not go and see the sequel. All you are doing is putting money in the pockets of two people who clearly have no imagination or talent.

Traffic (2000)

Yet Another Overrated Film from Hollywood

[15 January 2001]

I think I must have walked in to the movie theatre with my expectations set too high. I really had no interest in seeing this movie, based on the previews, but I gave in and decided to see it after the media talking heads blabbed about what a fantastic movie it was. Never again will I listen to them.

I'm not saying that this is a bad movie--it isn't. But it certainly isn't 'Best Picture' worthy. The directing and cinematography are fantastic, and I enjoyed the acting of all the players, but the story itself is seriously lacking. This movie is trying desperately to be important, yet I walked out of it and didn't feel like I got anything out of it.

(Warning: There may be some slight spoilers following.)

First of all, there is too much going on, yet nothing really happens. I actually had a hard time following the Benicio del Toro plotline--not sure if it was because of the subtitles or what, but my mind kept wandering. Del Toro's performance is awesome, though. (Salma Hayek's cameo is great, though--she's much better in Spanish than in English!)

The plotline involving Michael Douglas's daughter was laughable. They show her getting high with her friends a few times and then she's all of a sudden a strung out drug addict selling her body? Sorry, I don't buy it. That should have been explored a little more. Also, the portrayal of the 'inner city' drug zone seemed extremely racist, as if they were really trying to drill home the differences between Michael Douglas's world and the world of drugs. Yeah, we get the idea.

The Catherine Zeta Jones storyline was also quite unbelievable. Her about turnaround to take over her husband's empire was ridiculous. Some foreshadowing there would've been nice. First she's mad at him in prison, and then she starts doing the same thing he did? I don't buy it.

Also, how many times do I need to be preached to about the world of drugs? I know that's what the movie is about, but it was too much. It doesn't end with a bang, either. It just ends.

(End of spoilers.)

This movie really drags in parts. After about the first hour, I was constantly checking my watch. I don't know about this one. I don't regret seeing it, but it's not as phenomenal as everyone is saying. I think it just goes to show how lackluster the past year has been for movies when people are raving about this. It's not bad. It's just not great. A little more character development would have been nice. Go see it for the direction and cinematography only.

The Replacements (2000)

Same old story

[5/10 · 7 December 2000]

How many times is Hollywood going to keep presenting us with the same story? This movie is a remake of Major League, except with football players. You start out with the same goofy scenes of out of place, hardly athletes who couldn't make it in the pros and now have some other type of job. (Along with the token law breaker who has jut gotten out of prison.) They all fall into typical movie stereotypes. Yawn. Add that to the token has been (played by Keanu Reeves) who blew it in a game many years ago and refuses to get back into the sport, despite Gene Hackman's convincing argument. Oh no, he is content instead to sit on his fishing boat and wallow in misery. We've all seen this story before. Of course he changes his mind. Now this group of merry thieves is going to band together, play football, and save the day, despite the antics of the striking 'real' football players. Yawn again. This movie might've been better off a Movie of the Week.

This movie is mildly humorous at times, but the problem is that there isn't anything new here. Keanu is a shrewd businessman, getting 12 million to make this middle of the road comedy. Why Gene Hackman and Jon Favreau decided to sign up is beyond me. I wouldn't recommend this at all unless you have absolutely nothing better to do. As for me, I was stuck on a plane, so I watched it until the grueling end.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

Too much Jim

[7/10 · 7 December 2000]

While I found this movie very entertaining and well done, I couldn't help but realize during the entire thing that I was watching Jim Carey dressed up in a green suit. Before I attack the character of The Grinch, let me state that I thought many things about this movie were very good. The sets and lighting were wonderful, the little girl who played Cindy Lou was not annoying like most little kids are, and I thought that the story really moved along. All of the things that were added to make this 1/2 hour TV special into a movie worked very well.

Now, on to The Grinch. This character seemed to be a culmination of every other character that Jim Carrey has ever played. I saw pieces of Ace Ventura, The Riddler, The Mask, Andy Kaufman, etc. This made it hard to determine what the Grinch was really trying to be. Was he mean, nice, a comedian...what? I think that if Jim Carrey had been a little less Jim Carrey than this movie would have been much better. An understated Grinch would have had more impact than the overstated bumbling idiot that Carrey portrayed. I'm not the world's biggest Jim Carrey fan to begin with, but by the end of this movie I was even less of a fan. Three words: Tone it down.

I'd recommend seeing this movie, because it is interesting, and 'You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch' is a great song. But expect to see more Jim Carrey than you can stomach.

The Broken Hearts Club: A Romantic Comedy (2000)

Very entertaining, very funny

[30 September 2000]

Okay, the truth is that I ended up in this movie only because Best in Show was sold out. However, I am pleased to say that my hour and a half was not wasted. I tend to like movies about friends with lots of great dialogue, and this movie delivers on both counts. It was very refreshing to see gay characters portrayed as normal people and not the traditional, stereotypical drag queen/friend of a single woman/supporting character. The actors did a phenomenal job with their roles, to the point that I still want to know what happens next to these characters. I want to be friends with these guys! (Even though I'm a heterosexual woman.) Everyone was completely likeable, even the self obsessed Cole (Dean Cain).

This is by far one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. I saw it in a packed theatre and the audience was roaring with laughter. The difference is that the jokes are based on witty dialogue, not disgusting toilet humor that most comedies resort to these days. The directing is also very good, different from what I've seen before.

Overall, this was a super entertaining movie, especially in light of the awful options that most of the major studios are forcing on us these days. I highly, highly recommend it!

The Minus Man (1999)

Terribly Boring and Annoying!

[30 September 2000]

I've tried on two occasions to watch this movie, but both times I had to turn it off. First time was a rental from Blockbuster, and I'd been dying to see this movie (1) because Janeane Garafolo is in it and (2) it is about serial killers. Unfortunately, I found the plot to be so dull that I couldn't even finish watching it. Top that with the fact that Owen Wilson is completely annoying--horrible accent, constantly has his mouth open, just looks like a big loser. The thing is, I know that is part of the character, but it was extremely painful for me to watch. (Not sure why.) The second time was this morning, when it was showing on Sundance Channel. I decided what the heck, I'll give it another try. To my disappointment, I still hated it. You expect certain things out of a movie about a serial killer. Unfortunately, Wilson's character is completely uninteresting (not to mention still annoying upon the second viewing), and his story isn't all that thrilling either. I'm giving up on this one--it gets no more chances with me. I wouldn't recommend this to my worst enemy. Don't waste your time.

Almost Famous (2000)

Don't believe the hype!

[6/10 · 24 September 2000]

I must be missing something, because when the audience started applauding as the closing credits for Almost Famous hit the screen, I couldn't believe it. I had been waiting for the movie to end for well over an hour and thought about walking out more than once. This movie has been touted as `the best reviewed film so far this year' (which, in a lackluster year of movies really isn't saying much). Don't be fooled--this movie isn't a coming of age tale-it's a two hour episode of Behind the Music that isn't nearly as exciting as what VH-1 can put together.

Rumor has it that Cameron Crowe has been trying to get his ‘story' made for years now, and after watching what the story is, I can see why. It starts out fairly well, but once William hooks up with Stillwater it gets flat out boring. Every scene seems to drag on forever, and the movie simply does not move along well. There is virtually no character development, no explanation as to why Stillwater and the groupies would want to hang out with this total dork who doesn't have a clue about anything. Therefore, the characters were extremely one dimensional, very surface level stereotypes of rock stars and groupies. Nothing new going on here. The lowest point of the movie for me was the group singalong to ‘Tiny Dancer.' Sorry Cameron, P.T. Anderson can pull it off. You can't. The climax (if you want to call it that) is virtually nonexistent, a faint blip in what is already a very dull movie. Add to that extremely cheesy dialogue (I can already see that `I need to go home.' `You're already home.' Will be the next `You complete me.' Cringeworthy, definitely), and you've got a nothing special film here.

Frances McDormand and Philip Seymour Hoffman steal the show in the scenes that they are in, perhaps the only saving grace of this movie for me. Billy Crudup and Jason Lee do a good job as well. I had a problem with Kate Hudson (can you say bland?) and Patrick Fugit. He looks like a deer in headlights during the entire movie, and his dopey smile gets quite annoying.

Personally, you couldn't pay me to sit through this movie again. But, since so many people seem to love it, you should probably go see it and decide for yourself if you like it or not. All I have to say is that if this gets nominated for Best Picture, I will never watch the Academy Awards again.

6/10

The Cell (2000)

Not for Everyone...

[7/10 · 11 September 2000]

but I really liked it. Finally, an interesting plot that's not the usual Hollywood predictable story. I'm not going to rehash it because a lot of other people have already done that. This film is a visual masterpiece, one of the most beautiful and frightening that I have ever seen. Jennifer Lopez and Vincent Vaughn do a great job in their roles, although Vaughn's could have been explored a little more. This movie isn't about the characters, though--it's about the visuals. You will be on the edge of your seat during this entire movie, but be forewarned--it is extremely violent and graphic. That kind of thing doesn't normally bother me, but I have to admit that I was cringing throughout most of the movie. They certainly don't leave anything to the imagination.

The Way of the Gun (2000)

Disappointing!

[11 September 2000]

I walked into this movie expecting to see a good movie. I loved The Usual Suspects, the trailers for this one made it look like it was going to be outstanding, and all of the Tarantino comparisons had me really excited since he seems to have fallen off the face of the earth.

Then, the movie began. The first ten or fifteen minutes were phenomenal, and I really thought that I was in for an exciting two hours. Once Juliette Lewis was introduced, however, things went downhill. Two hours of Juliette Lewis whining, crying, screaming, and holding her belly and attempting to walk are too much for anyone to handle. I couldn't get a grip on what this movie was trying to be -- action/adventure? sympathetic tear jerker? violent? deep? introspective? It was a flat out mess.

There is lots of action, but none of it held my interest. This movie seemed to be a rip off of every other movie of this genre that I've ever seen. Many sight gags and funny moments, but that can't save this movie. There was nothing new or exciting going on here, just the same thing we've seen over and over and over again. It tries to be deep, which is a major mistake because no one can pull it off. The final shootout was reminiscient of the Wild West Show at Universal Studios. Honestly, it was that terrible.

To compare this movie to a Tarantino flick is a complete insult to Tarantino. The dialogue is forgettable, the action embarrassing, and the plot seriously lacking. And did I mention boring? I looked at my watch many times hoping that this movie was reaching the end, which it did eventually. And it didn't get any better. This is NOT The Usual Suspects, so don't walk in expecting to be captivated for two hours. The characters weren't built up enough to invoke any type of sympathy or likability. The plot was just stupid and predictable.

My views don't seem to be the majority here--I'm actually surprised how many people seem to like this movie. The crowd that I saw it with was loudly venting their disgust on the way out of the theatre. I'm seriously disappointed, because I normally really like this type of movie. I think that it was trying to be too many different things, and in the end couldn't pull off any of them.

I give this movie 2 of 5 stars. Don't waste $9 like I did to see it in the theatre--wait until it comes out on video.