yulie-2 Reviews

Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)

The book was better

[20 March 2004]

Girl with a Pearl Earring is a beautiful movie. It's beautifully designed, gorgeously shot, has a lovely score and a beautiful performance by the incredibly talented Scarlett Johansson in the lead role.

Unfortunately, it is also a very boring movie. While the slow pace was perfect for the novel, here it seems as though we are treated to scene after scene of the characters doing, well, nothing - or at least, nothing interesting.

Also disappointing are the performances by much of the rest of the cast. Tom Wilkinson was good but underused; Colin Firth, who is normally very good and occasionally entertaining as well, sulks about the lovely sets, looking as bored as I felt. He also looked eerily like David Boreanaz in the Buffy and Angel flashback scenes. I was half-expecting him to bite into someone's neck - which would have at least made things somewhat more interesting. Alas, no neck-biting this time.

Worse yet is what happened to Alakina Mann. Excellent in "The Others", she is given nothing to do here - and that's just criminal. If memory serves, the book-Cornelia was a spiteful, jealous, and ultimately very vindictive little girl. Here she's just a typical annoying brat. Miss Mann can do better - she certainly deserves much better.

Overall, I'd give this a weak 6, because although the movie was boring, at least it was pretty to look at.

Swordfish (2001)

Maybe it seemed like a good idea when they pitched it?

[4/10 · 2 August 2002]

I have a new theory. I think an evil being has taken over John Travolta's body and is deliberately trying to wreck his career to the point where even the next Tarantino won't be able to salvage it. I have no idea why said being is doing this, but consider the following evidence:

1. Swordfish is a truly horrible movie, pointless, overlong and predictable, with a strange yellowish tint to it which I have not been able to account for. Yet most of the cast managed to do rather well in it - how exactly, I cannot imagine.

2. But not Travolta - he's doing the traditional over-the-top performance he seems to have patented on the set of Face/Off. It serves no purpose here, or most anywhere else.

3. A quick look at his credits reveals he has not made a decent movie in four years, unless you're into Scientology and believe BE was a misunderstood work of cinematic brilliance/genius. I do not subscribe to this theory.

Now, I actually like Travolta, and think he can be a pretty good actor. I liked him in Grease, Saturday Night Fever et al., and in his early post-PF movies. And maybe he should have gotten an Oscar for Pulp Fiction. But something has gone horribly wrong the last few years. So now I want the old Travolta back, the one who had fun and didn't take himself so seriously. The one who made good, or at least enjoyable, films.

The one who wouldn't have gone anywhere near this movie. And neither should you.

Amélie (2001)

The little movie that tries (too hard)

[5/10 · 9 May 2002]

"Amelie" has two major assets: fabulous cinematography, and the delightful Audrey Tautou. It's not enough.

Here is a movie that wants people to like it, really, really like it. It seems as if the whole thing was put together just so the audience would think it's the cutest, most charming and (my favorite) heart-warming little flick ever produced. This leads to constantly dumbed-down situations and behavior. Why?

With Amelie, one either goes with it - my guess is, that's the way to enjoy it, and what most people do - or look past the cuteness to ask, what's there? What's all this really about?

Not very much, in my opinion. Amelie is currently no. 10 on the IMDb's top 250. Like the movie, that's not heart-warming. It's just plain silly.

The Others (2001)

creepy and intelligent - gets your attention and keeps it

[9/10 · 1 February 2002]

I was so impressed with this movie. It's smart, you don't get anything handed to you - it requires that you make an effort to figure out what's going on, and pays off beautifully. It's not just the story, because that by itself is not that original. It's the way the idea was expanded and executed by a very talented writer-director.

Nicole Kidman handled her role extremely well, but I was expecting her to, having read a ton of positive reviews. Also, I've always considered her a very talented actress. But I was just amazed by how well the two children did: they were simply brilliant, especially the girl. In fact, The Others was well acted all around.

Some reviews claimed this movie was slow. Huh? Maybe in that there were no explosions or video clip editing. So what? If the writing, design, cinematography, music, and everything else mentioned before work so well, who cares? The pace suits the movie just fine. I'll take The Others over fast paced junk any time.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

boring and flat

[15 December 2001]

I found Pearl Harbor impossible to watch all the way through. I read a review of it which suggested that in terms of plot, it could have easily been a soap opera called "The Pearl of the Harbor" and I have to agree. Plus, I felt as if someone simply forgot that even megabucks productions need a little editing. Or in this case, a lot. It would have been much more tolerable at 100 minutes.

Editing or not, the script was the biggest weakness. No depth, no real character development, no decent dialog for much of the time, and no fun moments at all! Come on, even the Big Boat movie had some fun lines! Few, but still... Of course, I should have realized what I was in for considering Randall Wallace also wrote the ridiculously overrated Braveheart, which was an even bigger waste of time than PH. (Though high in terms of unintentional comedy, something Pearl does not have going for it.)

All actors - including those who can't act - are sadly wasted, ranging from Hartnett who's been better in every movie I've ever seen him in, to Affleck who's usually more entertaining, the underused Cuba Gooding Jr. (where have you gone, Rod Tidwell?) and on to the rest of them. Well, not everyone, actually, Alec Baldwin had an okay part, much better than what I've been seeing him in lately.

Rent something else. Watch something else. 4.5 out of 10, and all of them for production and design, and because I've still got to rate it higher than Braveheart.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

Useless Movie

[11 October 2001]

Why useless?

Because it wasn't good enough to enjoy and not bad enough to have any fun with. Because despite the potential to at least be a good "quotes movie", it wasn't good, or interesting, or satisfying on any level. Just very, very mediocre.

Random thoughts while trying to figure out why I was watching such a lame movie:

1. "Scream" was fun and a pretty good film, but considering some of the movies that followed it (and there are ones far worse than this), I wish it had never come out. Or at the very least, that it would've done worse at the box office.

2. How long will it take for people to realize that Freddie Prinze Jr. can't act? Maybe then we'll be spared another "look mom, I'm in a movie!" performance, and Freddie would go find another job. He'll live happily ever after with Sarah Michelle Gellar (who can go on acting for as long as she wishes) - and movie audiences worldwide will be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

3. Yeah, something like this could happen in real life! Sure! Highly believable!

4. SMG is surprisingly good in her lame pre-Buffy role (she must have filmed this before Buffy premiered). And that's a lot more impressive than it appears at first. I knew she was talented, but this was a clincher. Anyone who can do this well in something so one dimensional has my respect.

5. And then, they managed to make a sequel that was even worse than this! Wow! Now that's a real achievement.

6. Actually, Ryan Phillippe wasn't half bad, either.

So, the bottom line: Only as a totally last resort.

Notting Hill (1999)

disappointingly flat

[5/10 · 2 August 2001]

Notting Hill is, basically, a remake of Four Weddings and a Funeral without the original's charm, wit, or chemistry. Hugh Grant even plays the same character (though with a different name)...

Good supporting actors are just not enough to save this one. Best to watch it only if there's nothing better on. 5/10.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

What were they thinking???

[1/10 · 3 June 2001]

Actually, was anyone involved with this total disaster thinking at all? My personal guess: no, and if they were, I'd rather not know about what.

None of the reviews have done BE justice. Having heard what a start to finish mess this was, my brother and I decided to watch it, just for fun. It was horrible beyond all our expectations - and not in a fun way. And so I can now tell anyone who's interested: You must see this movie yourself to realize the sheer magnitude of its badness, stupidity, and ineptitude.

I've heard that BE cost about 70 million dollars to make - though how anyone could have greenlighted it is a great mystery. Since there was nothing on screen to indicate why it had cost that much, my brother and I have also worked out how the budget was allocated:

* Travolta's salary, plus assorted managers and hangers on: 40 million.

* Special effects, film, sets, costumes, makeup and hair extensions: 25 million.

* all other salaries: $4,999,888.

* script: $112 and change.

Though that still doesn't begin to explain the end result. I give up. I'll never understand how Travolta managed to get BE made, or released, for that matter. Why is he tanking his career again? Who knows? After this, why should anyone care? Ah, well. I hope he finds something better to act in in the future; I honestly can't see how he could come up with something worse.

I never thought I'd give anything a 1, but this is indeed as worthy a candidate as I've ever seen. So, * is my vote, and I'd rate it lower if it were possible. Just... incredible. Watch and learn.

Braveheart (1995)

Don't waste your time

[4/10 · 28 December 2000]

I finally got around to seeing Braveheart more than two years after it came out. Sure, I read the great reviews, saw it get all those academy awards. I believed the hype, and so I made the huge mistake of watching this movie, which I must say is absolutely ridiculous start to finish, in my opinion. This refers to plot, dialog, acting and everything in between. I don't care if it's based on a true story - it felt fake. After I realized that I would not enjoy it on an artistic level, I started noticing its more amusing aspects, so it wasn't a complete waste of time, which is why I did not rate it a 1.

I have now seen many, many Mel Gibson films, and have reached the sad conclusion that he's not much of an actor (or a director, but never mind that). Now, this saddens me, because there is a vast quantity of Mel movies that one can (unfortunately) be exposed to, few of them any good - and strangely enough, the LW series is one such exception. Perhaps he should have brought Danny Glover along for this one as well?

I console myself with the thought that members of the academy must have forgotten to watch the many, many movies that came out and were better than this one. Otherwise I can find no explanation for their votes.

Gladiator (2000)

Overrated

[5/10 · 1 November 2000]

I don't live in the States, so by the time Gladiator got here, I had a fair idea of what to expect - an impressive, well acted, well directed historical spectacle. And since Russell Crowe is had impressed me in the past, I went and saw it. About five minutes in I got a strange feeling that I'll end up disagreeing with the reviews.

Wow, did I ever. Let's start with the acting: inconsistent best describes it. Crowe was good, though not up to his L.A Confidential and Insider standard. Derek Jacobi and Oliver Reed turned in decent performances as well. Joaquin Pheonix overacted a bit but for the most part I thought he did an okay job. Richard Harris was ridiculous and Connie Nielsen was very pretty, but calling what she did acting would be a stretch. The kid was very annoying.

Now, the other problems: Many sequences in the movie were so dark I couldn't see the actors' faces. Obviously not a good thing. Is this meant to convey the darkness of Maximus's predicament? The oppressiveness of the Roman Empire? The treachery of Commodus? I wonder...

Still, the biggest problem was the screenplay. A lot of the dialog was plain silly, and I spent much of the movie wondering what motivated some of the characters. The whole thing seemed horribly one dimensional and contrived.

Maybe it's just me? Well, I went with four friends, all of us with very different tastes. None of us enjoyed Gladiator, and I think my friend summed it up best when she said she was very impressed, but she doesn't think she liked it.

Despite my rather negative opinion, I'm going with a 5/10 on account of the movie's better performances and some nice cinematography. But as for Crowe films, I'll take L.A Confidential any day.

Life Is Beautiful (1997)

an interesting premise sadly wasted

[5/10 · 24 October 2000]

Life is Beautiful is based on an intriguing idea. The problem is that somewhere in the transition from brainstorm to actual movie the whole thing seems to have lost all sense of direction. Is Roberto Benigni trying to make a statement? Raise some questions? Or is it all an excuse for another overdone "oh I'm so cute and funny" performance? Sadly, I suspect it's mostly the latter. Has anyone noticed he won't deal with this movie seriously but rather resort to chair hopping, "I love you"s and other spectacles? Benigni's refusal to really discuss this movie and some of its more disturbing aspects bothers me. In fact, the whole movie bothers me. It could - and should - have been SO much better.

Saved (barely) by its clever idea, the sweet kid, and the scene with the tank at the end, this is really not great cinema.

The Princess Bride (1987)

always fun to watch

[9/10 · 1 August 2000]

I've read some rather negative reviews of this film here and I don't understand why. The Princess Bride is the type of movie that I can watch over and over, despite its imperfections. Normally these things (technical goofs, average story, etc.) would bother me, but I think the key here is that it's a movie aware of its limitations.

Everyone involved in this film seems to have had fun without taking themselves too seriously. I mean, really, how can you take a movie with lines like: "you rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles." seriously? Are people expecting high art? Please... I wish people who watch this movie would just try to have fun with it instead of looking for the various flaws.

9/10 for sheer fun & entertainment value, and for the great lines, of course.

Face/Off (1997)

Could be the most overrated film of the 1990s...

[3/10 · 30 July 2000]

...And it wasn't even that well-reviewed!

Face/Off is one of those movies that make me wonder if I somehow saw a different film from everyone else. Most people I know love it - I can't imagine why. I've made repeated attempts to watch it but have never managed to actually sit through the whole thing. So I've seen a bit at a time.

Maybe I missed out on some things by watching it on video and TV instead of going during its theatrical release. But I don't think that's it, either, as the whole doves, flower petals, slow-mo walking and flapping jackets concept really doesn't do much for me. I fail to see what's so brilliant about the story. I thought it was completely lacking in credibility on almost every level. If there was a deeper meaning, I must have missed it. Travolta's performance was so over the top I found it difficult to watch most of his scenes. I did think there were some bright spots: Cage was pretty good after the "switch", and the supporting cast did fairly well, though most of them were given little to work with. The action scenes were fairly impressive, but I felt at least half of them had little to no relevance to what was going on. Now, I'm not familiar with most of Woo's work, but if this is the best he can do, that is sad indeed. I'd have expected more from a director who's so highly regarded.

L.A. Confidential (1997)

One of my all time favorites

[10/10 · 29 July 2000]

Wow, where do I start? I saw this film before reading the novel and loved it. I thought it was well written, directed and acted, and of course it's visually stunning. After reading the book I was even more impressed by it - amazing that someone actually managed to put together such a great film out of a very complex novel. Sure, some of the storylines and characters were left out, and it's not as dark, but the movie stays true to the spirit and atmosphere of its source. The casting was superb, and the entire ensemble is excellent, with Crowe, and obviously Spacey, the best of the bunch. I've since recommended it to many of my friends, all of whom really liked it. The best movie of 1997, and against some very good competition.

Titanic (1997)

Not as bad as I expected - but still none too brilliant

[6/10 · 28 July 2000]

Well, I'm not going to completely bash this movie. For what it's worth, it's decent entertainment, moves along at a fairly good pace - impressive, considering this is a three hour flick - and Kate and Leo were okay (though both can do much better). I expected worse, knowing it had been horribly over-hyped and that James Cameron was evil (one can argue about how evil). Also, the sets and Kate's dresses were very pretty.

That's about it for the positives. The story is shallow and full of holes, most of the dialog is plain silly, and the whole movie is, basically, spectacular kitsch. I honestly think Titanic is probably one of the least deserving Academy Award winners ever - and in the same year as LA Confidential, Good Will Hunting, and even The Full Monty. Unbelievable.