Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ronin (1998)
A Case of Unknowns
10 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Ronin (1998) being one of the late John Frankinheimer's final films before his passing is a much improved formulaic film to the disastrous turnout of the Marlon Brando led Island of Dr Moreau. The story contains a "McGuffin" being a plot device that the characters want very much, but the audience cares little or nothing about. The device of Ronin is a boxy Metal Case, with contents unknown. At the same time the film's title draws its name to the similarities of the leads....The Ronin were ancient Japanese Samurii warriors without Masters to serve. Mercenaries. Our film contains a group of former spooks of multiple nationalities turned freelance mercenaries without a master aka a Country to serve. Sam, Vincent, Gregor, and Deidre plus a handful of others whose names are unimportant. For this movie, our hodgepodge of Ronin are hired by parties unknown (accept that they have Irish and/or Russian connections), for reasons unknown to capture a case whose contents remain unknown in possession by French gangster whose reasons for possessing the case remain unknown. The Ronin do their homework and manage to snatch the case after hair-raising car chases and violent gun battles. But then the double cross begins and a new chase (both literally and figuratively) ensues for the now split Ronin the recapture the case and send it on its way to its unknown Desiree.

For all its splendor and suspense, Ronin, still lacks a clear direction to follow. Clearly, Frankenheimer's direction was utilizing a Hitchcock McGuffin (the case) to explore the characters. However, the script lacks a real clear direction for any of the characters, perhaps thats why the title was named Ronin. Despite all their combined acting talents and prestige Robert De Niro and company all come across as dry characters. All are basically amoral and suspicious of their fellows. The audience really has no like or dislike of what constitutes the good guys from the bad ones. None really show passion towards the Case beyond its perceived monetary rewards, which is what they are trying to obtain. Unfortunately, the McGuffin fails in this film because, the audience really cares more about the case than the characters. As if the Case itself had a personality and history. Clearly the Case's contents are of high value given all the trouble and time that the higher-ups are paying to get it. However what the movie lacks inward looking makes up for in high stakes stunts, car chases and gunfights, that makes the viewer more interested in the momentary safety of both the supposed good and bad guys. Well done on that part.

In an otherwise typical Hollywood way of illustrating things for the audience to understand better, occurs about 2/3 of the way in the movie after Sam performs surgery on himself, at the old man's house in the Mountains. This man had a hobby of designing and building diorama-like miniature sets of legendary battle scenes, complete with handcrafted characters in proper attire. On this particular day he was designing scenes of Japanese Feaudal Samuri, and he began a little monologue about how certain warriors who lost their masters were known as Ronin. In a sense he compared these ancient feudal warriors to the freelance spooks of the movie. This is how the filmmaker's tied the film's title to the film, which would otherwise be called something like "Hire, then Betray, then Die"

Possible spoilers below. On a footnote, at the movies conclusion during the little coffee shop scene between Sam and Vincent, a reporter mentions in a sound only byte that some new twist had occurred concerning peace negotiations in Northern Ireland...suggesting that the case's contents contained some sort of instrument of negotiation that the parties involved need to help in the peace negotiations...what that could be I couldn't tell you.

Provided you can look past the desire to learn about whats in that ubiquitous case, Ronin is a film that any action fan will rave about, but mystery fans might find a little lacking. My opinion...I enjoyed it but still left wanting to know more about the case and why all the destruction and death to get it, when the characters themselves had no desire to keep it permanently.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A movie with potential downed by too much attention to fx.
3 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, as an unofficial fan of Trekdom (and Star Wars, yes its possible to belong to both camps), i was letdown by this movie. I was expecting a great storyarc to wrap up TNG once and for all. Boy was i dissappointed.

There was much criticism from this movie, critics and fans alike...just about all of it was bad. The box office take...or lack thereof, clearly shows this movie was a dud.

At its root problem, the movie's screenwriter, Gladitor writer John Logan, was probably this movie's achilles heel. He publicly claims he is a huge fan of Trek in general. Perhaps he is, and he tried, he honestly tried, without success to bring us an exciting ending to our beloved TNG crew.

So what went wrong, to what is now described as a tired franchise? Lack of adequate background to the script. With a four year hiatus, you would think, this movie would have every last detailed downpat.

SPOILERS AND CRITICISM AHEAD

IMHO, Nemisis was one Trek chasm after another, with lots of smaller canyons in between, and by "canyons" I am not referring to the canyons on RHEMUS.

Even the most novice of trek fans, perhaps even nonfans, would notice all the gaping holes in the story and script. To name a few referenced in the movie: -What happened to the Romulan military after the coup -Why did we see Wesly Crusher in the background at Riker/Troi's wedding reception, but never again? -How did Data know the B4 was a sabeteur for Shinzon?

The above were just a few of the many holes left unanswered. Many trek fans (across the series), myself included, noticed all kinds of holes in the background story too...worf's previous courtship with Troi (not to mention his ill-fated marriage to Dax on DS9), Janeway's promotion to Admiral, Data's other brother Lore, what about Spock's underground unification movement (DS9 presented over time that Romulus and Earth became loose allies) The whole Dominion vs the Federation War, it was referenced just once, in which Rhemans took part. Countless other holes.

Other problems, this movie, again just like the previous two, turned into a Picard/Data movie, with the rest of the cast being squeezed out.

At its roots, Nemisis tried to bring one of Classic Trek's (TOS) villans back as a dangerous force again. During the earlier years of TNG, the Romulans played a big part as key enemy, while TOS's other force...the Klingons, were redefined as on/off/on allies to the Federation. However, the Romulans, got lost in the crowd as bigger and badder enemies such as the Borg (TNG, VGR), the Cardassiasns (TNG, DS9), The Jem'Hadar and the Dominion (DS9), etc got more TV screentime. In later DS9, the Romulans took an allied position with the Federation, this movie presented as if all those events never took place, that we are back to the "Cold War"/Neutral Zone approach. And where did these Rhemans come from? I don't remember them ever getting mentioned anywhere before now? If Logan's goal was to invent a new enemey, he went about all wrong. Although the movie tried to present the Rhemans as little known, i think their persona would have worked better had they been a completely new (new to the characters that is) race of bad guys.

The movies produers should've known better than to release this movie as unfinished as i see it. Even most of the mechanical special effects seemed cheap and used to much. The most interesting concept to me was the collision of the Enterprise E (I never liked E) and the Scimitar, but even it seemed tired...with Enterprise D crash landing in Generations and Original Enterprise blowing up in Search for Spock.

Just a busted movie. I now say, don't ever let a fan of any tv show, write a feature film. They just become contrived and inward looking, their only out for their own interests.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What could be wrong with this movie?
2 June 2002
At 24 years old, i am a self-described Harry Potter fanatic. I easily outwitted just about all the people i played Harry Potter trivia with. I love the books, I thouroughly enjoyed the movie! It captures the essence and story of the J.K. Rowlings first novel: Harry Potter and the Sourcer's Stone, aka...Philospher's stone, almost to the letter. Daniel Radcliff (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron) and Emma Watson (Hermione) play the characters perfectly. They fit the images in my mind precisely as I had pictured them, although I must admit, perhaps I pictured them this way was becauase I saw a photograph of the three actors before reading the books. Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Richard Harris (Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Snape), Maggie Smith (McGonagall), John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), etc all fit their roles perfectly.

This movie was funny and magical, just like it was in the book. Dudley and the boa constrictor, the trio and Fluffy, and all the sights Harry saw in Diagon Alley.

However, what this movie lacked overall was warmth and soul. Given that a 2.5 hour movie can only fit in so much, I was forgiving for this. We never got good emotional aspects of the characters, but then again, the first novel never really got that emotional either. For example, when Harry and the others lost all the points for their school house (Gryffindor), in the novel, Harry felt the ridicule and resentment quite clearly from his classmates, as their archenemies, the Slythrins took control of the standings. Also, I am pleased to that WB and the writers did not try to change around the plot, as screenwriters commonly do when adapting novels (even children's books) to cinema. LOTR's Fellowship of the Ring was another example of faithful film adaptation. But when changes were made to HP...Stone, they were subtle and largely plot inconsequential, a few minor characters were omitted, Peeves, for one, while their presence was missed as they would have given color and texture, I understand why the writers chose to omit them, as their presence was not critical to the plot, which I must reiterate was extremely faithful and similar to the novel. I believe Director Chirs Columbus had a diehard HP fan, his daughter!!!, looking over his shoulder, just to be sure!!!! Ironically, Rowling herself, had relatively little sayso, (by her own choice!!!) over the direction of the film. Many film critics were quick to decree that this movie may have been too faithful of the books. I wholeheartedly disagree with them. With literally millions of fans out there, who know these novels back and fourth, the writers understood that significant changes would infuriate, and potentially lose ticket buyers

I also had a problem with the writers uses of animals names. While the choregraphy and training was spectacular, the animals' personalities were a bit abrubt. They never verbally gave Harry's snowy owl her beloved name: Hedwig. Nor for that matter, did they give the caretaker's cat...Mrs. Norris. Yet, lesser animals were verbally addressed like Nevill's toad, Trevor, Hagrid's dog, Fang, and Ron's rat, Scabbers.

I must also critisize some of the special fx. At times, particularly, the Quidditch match (which they're should have been at least one more), and the Troll, were overly digitized and/or too cartoonish. Perhaps, Harry wrestelling a guy in a big troll suit and stilts would have been more fun. This movie was a learning process, and I am sure in subsequent movies, these problems will be rectified.

Some changes I must laud: The Quidditch stadium was a terrific alteration. Instead of a muggle looking football stadium as Rowling describes (albiet raised 50 feet high), the filmmakers, gave it a Roman gladitorial colliseum with a King Arthur jousting era look (The raised box towers for seating).

Overall this movie is one of a kind.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
JAG (1995–2005)
Law and Order meets Top Gun!
21 May 2002
JAG (Judge Advocate General) is one of my favorite shows. Week after week we see our invincilble-gungho hero and somewhat aloof romatic Harmon Rabb Jr (David James Elliot), pursue terrorists, prosecute, convict, defend and acquit: not-always-innocent scumbags, incompetent sailors and marines, and even his best friend. Its hard to believe Elliot is Candadian born, playing a top American Hero.

I first saw JAG (although I did not really care about it) way back in 1995 when it first aired on NBC, but after 21 episodes (out of 22) and less than spectacular ratings, NBC canned it in the Spring of 1996. NBC refused to air the (still somewhat unresolved to this very day) season 1 cliffhanger finale, although it did air in other parts of the world (More on this shortly). I was a late comer, only captivated by summertime boredom and thus watching reruns on USA network, I realized I loved the show's premise, Law and Order meets Top Gun. Harmon Rabb Jr (Elliot) is Mavrick (Tom Cruise), almost to the letter. He's a tomcat pilot, he's a gorgeous hunk to the ladies, and he's arrogant and reckless. But at the sametime he couldn't be more different from Mavrick: he's a topnotch investigator and litigator, he's determined, he's sophisticated, and he's calm, calculating and sometimes vengefull.

Ironically, JAG's creator, Donald P. Bellisario, himself an former US. Marine, had previous successes on NBC with the Miami Vice predecessor Magnum P.I., and the scifi adventure series Quantum Leap. CBS saw potential in Bellisario's dream, even if NBC did not, and picked it up for a 2nd season, which began airing in 1997, realizing that JAG had a large (and potentially lucrative) following. For years, CBS had been trying to pull itself out of the ratings shawdows cast down on it from NBC and ABC as well as staying ahead of the upstarts FOX, UPN and WB. Today, JAG is among the Top 15 highest rated shows on TV. NBC execs shot themsselves in the foot with JAG's cancellation and are still shaking the heads over.

The show contains stories of American hero's in the Navy, taking real events and writing them into interesting epiodes with war stories and POW tales from Bosnia, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Cold War with the extinct USSR. It also writes in media feeding frenzies such as Elian Gonzalez, protests involving live fire exercises in Puerto Rico, and last year's Spy plane incident with China. With the tragic events of Sept 11, and subsequent military involvement in Afganistan, JAG's latest season (season 7) now focuses almost exclusively on the continueing military effort to weed out world terrorists writing it into an intricate tale that could be very real in spirit.

The show contains plenty of fascinating film sequences which are often pulled out of cinematic features, to give the stories colorful and exciting action sequences, transitional scenery, and location. The show's producers also insert actual footage recored by the US Military from training exercises, sometimes sending their own photographers to on-duty warships.

Throughout, the show's first season, most episodes were straitforward and hostile. Rabb just did his job, with fire, on the run, never having any remembrance of the previous week's adventure, and a blond female partner, Meg Austin (Tracey something). The season ended with a cliffhanger that never aired in the US, as NBC cancelled JAG. But by the 2nd season, we never knew what really happened in the show's S1 finale (it was later explained, albiet badly in a "flashback" episode in S3). That explanation is: a female officer and lover of Rabb's is murdered, presumably by a stalker. What diehard fans know is that the woman who was murdered happens to be a "twin" of Rabb's new partner, except that they have no familial relations whatsoever to one another...that we know of at any rate. This twin is Rabb's counterpart and princpal character: Sarah "Mac" McKenezie (Cathryn Bell). At first, Rabb had trouble accepting Mac, but gradually a best friend relationship grew between them, for the uncanny resemeblance Rabb sees in Mac to that of his deceased love, but now its created a hell of a sexual tension between the two. Mac herself show's remarkable vulnerability and defiance to Rabb. She's tagged along on his personel "Mulder-like" mission to Russia to learn the truth about Rabb's father who dissappeared during the Vietnam War. In almost every way possible she has kept him inline whenever he screws up, yet when she screws up, she wants nothing to do with Rabb. An interesting tale of melodrama.

Great show, check it out!
73 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fight Club (1999)
Insominiacs 'R US
8 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** Fight Club is a movie unto itself.

When I first saw, I knew it would be something different. When I first saw it, I had seen recent thrillers and comedies with twists (The Sixth Sense, American Beauty, and Blair Witch Project), so I was in the mindset of twists and turns. But this one was something else. I will admit to having not read the book (a shame I know). At first I thought it would be basically a movie about a bunch of lowlifes in a basment boxing club who get messed with the wrong crowd and start some real mischief. In a way, it really did meet my expectations. But FC has something else...it attacks consumerism and corporate life all the way down to the food we order at lunch counters. In the end it destroys the very essence of capitalism (the highrises in a mythical city, presumably Los Angeles).

I was thouroughly shocked by D. Finchers "The Game" and awed (and grossed out) by "Se7en", but this was almost (key word almost) too much for its own good. For it preserves itself carefully.

The first half is really better, with Narrator (Ed Norton) battleing his own boredoms, insomnia and girl troubles with Marla (Helena Bohnam Carter), that he solidifies his alter-ego into Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). After getting butted out of his "therapy" sessions where he releases his pent up emotions to sympathetic ears by Marla, he meets his alter-ego in an airplane, blows up his apartment, and moves into a rathole near a reeking papermill. His alter-ego controlls him so much, that it literally causes Narrator to have two personalities (Tyler and Jack). "They" form a secret underground (both literally as its in basement of a bar, and figuratively) club that allows the participants to pummel, beat, and overpower each other to the spectacle and amusement of the other participants, all with no strings attached. Fighting to fight to belong" no grudges settled, no enemies formed, everyone is everyone else's friend but the catch is...you have to fight on a regular basis. We have Fight Club. Women of course are excluded, as its a catharsis for male suppressed rage.

The 2nd half instead starts to form a mission by Tyler Durdens Army, all active fighters in Fight Club, to destroy the foundation of consumerism, capitalims, and power, with narrator finally understanding that he, himself is the instigator of all the mayhem. The ending is silly, but it but it holds together long enough, contrary to opinions of others.

One thing I still haven't figured out yet...what did Brad Pitt mean by "Whats that smell" right as he "died"?

Soap, produced from human lypso suction treatments becomes the weapon of choice to manufacture the explosives.

The movie contains lots of quirky and entertaining scenes such as Narrator fighting himself in front of his boss; Tyler splicing pornographic images into family movies; and my personal favorite: Narrator having himself smothered (and crying) in the enormous swetty breast cleavage of a testicle-less Bob (Meat Loaf).

I plan to listen to the commentaries shortly.

Women especially will have doubts about this movie for its content can be somewhat blatantly offensive. Propogating the male ego...its testosteronic feel. The ultra-violence, the sexual dominance themes, the nasty behavior, the foul language. All things men love to think, but women can find repulsive. Definitely, not a first date movie, it would be better suited for a post-superbowl party.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hard Target (1993)
A wishy washy target o'fluff for John Woo-hoo!!!
4 May 2002
When Jean-Claude Van Damme was the name to be for sleeper action hits (no pun intended) for Universal Soldier (though Dolph Lundgren made that movie fun), Bloodsport and Kickboxer, this movie just ran out of gas. As a result his career took a nosedive (forgettable films like Sudden Death, Timecop, and Knock Off).

The action scenes were long, overdone and comical, the motorcycles on the bridge were just too much for me. The hand-to-hand combat was edited down for censors; the fact that the fightscenes looked so violent, yet we don't see it. and the most obvious fact...urban thugs with guns, money and trucks can just rampage through a major US city, after another urban drifter.

The story is basically about, Yancy Bulter searching for her deadbeat (and homeless) father in the Touristless New Orleans French quarter, and enlists the guideship of a Cajun drifter with a mullet and trenchcoat(Van Damme).

It seems the NOPD is on Strike, so crime is raging. A tough richboy (Lance Henriksen, in a memorable role), along with his guntoting sidekick (Arnold Vosloo with hair) and their goons participate in a sport of hunting down "unsuspecting" victims after chasing them up and down the streets.

After a series of explosions, car chases and trainjumpings, VD and Butler are now the new "hard targets". But why?

I saw this movie when i was 14 (way back in 1993), i was dissappointed then, the only scene I vividly remember was the "rabid" rattlesnake (and quite fake looking) on steroids. I recently saw it again on tv, and I remembered why I disliked it. John Woo tried so hard to give this what would otherwise be a high-octane bloodfest some heart and sole, but instead he gives it a mishmash of overacting, too many explosions, and not enough good guys to balance the bad.

On a positive note, I did like the little scene where Van D. "sees" all the innocent people die deaths that were not supposed to happen.

A good movie for TBS, but nothing more.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
King Ralph (1991)
Las Vegas meets Buckingham Palace
4 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** In a day when British pride in their Monarchs is so high, the people of the United Kingdom would do anything to preserve a costly and obsolete institution...The Royal Family.

Ralph Jones is sloppy, untalented Las Vegas Lounge Singer been hit with hard times. He's just been fired from yet another unsophisticated Las Vegas watering hole. Now's he out of work. Britain in general is feeling hard times. When a tragic accident electrocutes and wipes out the entire Royal Family, palace officials hit the books to try and restore a symbol of prosperity and hope. As chance has it, Ralph Jones is the sole remaining heir to the Royal Family to the Crown. But he doesn't know it, not until palace officials show up and tell him the whole story.

At first he refuses to believe his new found luck, for one thing he doesn't want that sort of spotlight responsibility. But after some pleading and convicing, he relents and is brought home to London to assume the Crown. There he meets Sedrick (Peter O'Toole, an Englishman whose roots ultimately give him the Crown). Back to Ralph, at first he just can't believe his luck, he has everything he's ever wanted and then some: Cars, servants, foods, castles, money, clothing. But after all this sets in he starts to dislike it. He ventures off, by himself, into London's nightscene and meets Miranda, a second rate stripper trying to earn an extra pound to help out her family, unfortunate victims of England's economic hardtimes. The Palace, not to mention, esteemed members of Britain's Parliament are upset at Ralph for his choice of women. Miranda herself isn't too fond of the spotlight either.

But Ralph's relationship with Miranda, along with Ralph's feeble attempts at limited policy making, only make him hate the Crown even further. One ambitious Lordsman (John Hurt) even goes so far as to sabotage Ralph's credibility with false charges of corruption and scandal. Actions that ulimately get bring him down when Ralph exercises a seldom used English Law about disgracing a Monarch. After too much public shame, political and economic disruption, Ralph steps down as King and passes it to his chief advisor and friend Sedrick (O'toole) who should have assumed the Crown from the begginning.

This movie is a funny movie that doesn't dissappoint. Scenes, such as Ralph's unlucky attempt at buying a BK Whopper only to be mobbed by loving and screaming English subjects; Ralph in Royal Headgear accidently smashing an expensive vase with a bowling ball.

Plenty of innuendo resutling from Ralph's lack of knowledge to Royal cuisine, and behavior.

While the movie was somewhat panned by film industry critics, it doesn't get all the credit it really deserves. King Ralph's true theme is a satire of Royal pride and position.

How they would go to any lengths to hold onto a useless institution. It also tackels issues that money and prestige doesn't always bring happiness, instead it brings loneliness, boredom and irritability. But the most important issue is that simple courtship has to be decided in order to satisfy the masses instead of the couple themselves, and how a media-driven, bloodthirsty presscore greatly exxagerates private moments.

Check this movie out, if for no other reason than to appreciate the value of friendship and honesty a common person can bring to another, even a person who status is determined by birthright.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cool Runnings (1993)
Bobsledding is the sport of the Future!!!!!
2 March 2002
This past year, Team USA did the previously unthinkable...we won not one, not two, but three Olympic Bobsleigh medals, a task not seen in 56 years (The women, including the first African American: Vonetta Flowers) actually won Gold in 2 woman bobslieigh (USA men, took silver and bronze in the 4 man competition).

I use the above example because bobsledding (or bobsliegh) is not for just anyone who can run and jump into a 500 pound sled and ride jt down a icy, hairpin-turning, half pike at 90 MPH. It takes intelligence, patience and above all courage. Vonetta Flowers, a young african-american female track runner failed to qualify for the 2000 Summer Games; somewhat dejected, as chance has it, she happened across a flyer asking for interested candidates for the first ever USA women's bobsled team. She tried out, less than 2 years later she is an olympic gold medalist! Chances are exactly what Cool Runnings is all about.

Inspired on the actual story, Cool Runnings, tells the tale of the first ever Jamiacan bobsleigh team. An event that shattered many long held rules of winter sports competition.

After pleading to no success to Jamaica's senior Olympic official to be reinstated on the 1988 Jamaican Olympic Track team, after failing to qualify to compete in the 100 meter run, defeated Jamaican sprinter Derice Bannock (Leon, in an above average acting performance) notices an old photo of his late father (himself a track star) at a Winter Olympics 20 years before. Seeing his chance again and determined to let nothing get in his way, not even Jamaica's utter absence of winter sports programs, Derice decides to try again for Olympic Gold in Bobsledding, using his highpowered running skills as his strategy for winning. He has little clue about what obstacles he will have to overcome.

Assembling a rag-tag team of equally defeated track sprinters, Yul Brenner (Malik Yoba) & Jr Bevil (Rawl Lewis), one patriotic loud-mouth "push-cart" driver, Sanka Coffie (Doug E Doug), and the long displaced and defeated bobsled champion (and former teammate of Derice's father) for a coach, Irv Blitzer (John Candy, in probably his last genuinely terrific performances before his untimely death in 1994), Derice and company make it to the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. They make it, despite misgivings from Jamaican Olympic officials who think the whole idea of competing in winter sports is ridiculous and refuse help them in any way.

History will always remember that the 1988 Olympic Bobsled compeition was won by the Swiss team, and that the Olympic medal count was dominated by the now defunct USSR and East Germany (USA only won 6 medals that year, Canada only won 5 with no golds). But a group of black men from a 3rd world carribean island nation, with no winter sports history or experience, come in and made heads turn with their speed and determination despite overwhelming and sometimes laughable odds.

Bobsleigh is a 2nd tier-sport that only recieves attention during the Olympics, just like so many other sports, but dreams of Olympic Gold drives atheletes of all races and natinoalities to excellence and fame...even a group of disenchanted Jamaican sprinters (and one pushcart driver).

They qualify for the Olympics, and then face an uphill battle just for respect from anyone, including Jr's father (a business men looking out for the best interests of his son). But despite all their determination, this movies namesake, Cool Runnings, which happens to be their thirdrate, handed-down bobsled (beautifully painted in Jamaica's traditional green, black and yellow banner colors) breaks a runner (the sled's skatelike blade) and crashes on their final run just as it would seem they have pulled off the upset victory (this comes after a rickety 1st run which didn't help the ethos of their critics, and a stunning 2nd run). Shaken and bruised, with no chance at victory, but determined more than ever to at least cross the finish line in spirit and leave their mark, Derice and the others pick up their sled and carry it across the finish to a thunderous applause including previously fickle and nasty competitors and bobsled officials, as well as countrymen back home.

All in all, a great family-feel good movie. It contains plenty of humor, jokes and gags such as Sanka's insistant kissing of his prized egg as well as the team's initial clumsiness with ice such as the particulary cute moment involving their first-ever sled run on ice. There is also fantastic photography of bobsled racing (some of which is archival footage from the 1988 Olympic Bobsleigh competition). But Cool Runnings most striking feature is that it never loses sight of the aspects of competition, which is the fundamental theme of the Olympics. Jamaica returns to the Olympic scene again, this time as equals.

Although the movie hints at social issues many would rather sweep under the rug, such as cheating, racism, and jealosy, Cool Runnings accomplishes what most sports related movies always lose sight of: that victory doesn't always come on the playing fields (or in this case the track) but victory comes from friendship and determination just to compete.

Check it out!!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Camp Cucamonga (1990 TV Movie)
Cliched camp story with songs sung by the likes of Urkel!
7 April 2001
After finding this movie, i have decided that, that while it wasn't a total waste of movie, it is an otherwise wast of movie for the actors, but it was good exposure when it first aired in Sept 1990 on NBC.

John Ratzenberger still in his "Cliff" mode, (then totally fresh and utterly underappreciated) Jennifer Aniston, an aging Sherman Helmsly ("The Jeffersons") etc, etc.

On to the plot, its about a contemporary Summer Camp somewhere in California in 1990 AD...when fluffy hair, wristbands, mutlicolored socks, and Pop music were popular; this movie was more about the clothing color, than about the camp.

Its a typical Cliched story where a camp loses its accredidation, councilors and campers first get a genuine taste of love, and kids bring all their belongings with them such as trophys, posters, stereos, and even an elaborate video camera!

But where this movie faults is in its shear campiness and predictability! The kids do produce a wrap video being the only surprise, albiet its very cheezy because its lead singer is the kid who played Urkell. But the rest is pure cliches: theres the customary intrapersonal feuds between rich and not-so-rich, kids go off alone and get lost in the woods, the camp's owner Merv (Ratzenberger) can't tell the difference between an inspector and the handyman (Helmsly) And Of course the sappy love story: the responsible councilor Ava (Aniston) who eventually falls for the party/womanizing Roger played by an unknown actor.

All in all a good "let's make fun of those idoits" movie, if you can ever find it!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed