kidwltm Reviews

Onmyoji: The Yin Yang Master (2001)

Terribly Cheap & Generic Wuxia Fiction

[1/10 · 31 August 2003]

In the tradition of countries getting pigeonheld for certain style of film (ex: American and it's Hollywood action films), Japan and it's surrounding nations have became too well known for bad wuxia fiction (and the occasional John Woo knock off, though not as common as they used to be). Wuxia fiction is a style of story telling rooted in the wealth of Asian Mythology, generally more concerned with fantastical elements and not emotional (Like say Greek Myth). This is not an ailment to film's when shown in their homeland, where the audience is cultured to know certain things about their mythology. Problem is, if you are a foreign viewer, there are quite a few things that seem muddled and unexplained. It is up to the writers to create the story in an accessible manner to all audiences. Some films have done so, and others like this one have not. It does not help when you are already trying to follow a story containing a bevy of underdeveloped characters and subplots. On to that issue; The film, like most wuxia, is too concerned with grandiose things to focus on it's characters. Not to say no attention is payed, but it is not in a beneficiary amount. It sets up tenuous relationships that evoke no emotional response from the viewer and thus nullifies any moving moments between the characters. Too many scenes loses any chance of impact because of this and in turn become boring and annoying to watch. Along with a jumbled story and poor characters, the film lacks in the technical aspect as well. Costumes are nothing we have not seen in other film's from the culture, and the make up and special effects are so horrible in quality it is almost regressive to the film industry. As with most Asian films, you have to expect the acting to be over the top. It's the lingual patterns and dialect that make it this way, but it no less enjoyable watching people scream and shout during moments that should be emotionally overwhelming. There are no redeeming elements in this movie. It is too indulgent in it's own culture to be enthralling without a doctorate in Mythology (and even then the story is still too cartoonish to be enjoyable), the action is a mix of trashy f/x and sloppy swordplay, and the acting only elevates it to new melodramatic heights. There are a few shots that are quite gorgeous, but these are but a few, and the rest are just as bland as the rest of the film. Unless you are a die hard Asian cinema freak, or you get off watching cheap and unstructured fantasy, avoid this abomination at all costs.

1/10

0 Stars

Dirty Pretty Things (2002)

Good Movie That Only Skims The Surface

[7/10 · 24 August 2003]

So, like ever so many indie movies, "Dirty Pretty Things" revolve around the less fortunate in life, the ones who have to do demoralizing jobs to scrape by a living. This time, our protagonist works in a hotel and eventually discovers his boss isn't the nicest of guys. It's a slow developing plot that eventually concludes with the expected twist ending. It basically follows a man who is a crusader of goodness in a awful world and divides the (many) scenes of him helping people out with interludes of him and his girlfriend. The film concentrates on these characters, which works and doesn't. Firstly, and apparently I'm in major discord with most, but I don't feel Frears did a good job of exploring the poor lives these people live. It's by no means candied, but I never truly got the sense that these people were struggling to survive, especially considering the main character gets help at every turn from a multitude of forgetful supporting characters. As for the two main characters, they are well written. The film does make you develop a sense of sympathy and hope for them, that is not overwhelming. I'm usually not one to complain about lack of back story, but the fact they never bother to explain how they came to meet each other and decide to live together irked me. I think starting the film's time frame earlier would've benefited the characters. Some scenes between them are sublimely sad, but some push the melodrama envelope a little dangerously. Also, the fact that key elements of the characters life were left to last minute explanation, I think, could've been more effective placed earlier in the movie. If we had known his motivation and why he was doing all these jobs, it would've created a better character and ultimately movie. The film also wastes too much with scenes reminding us that our hero is nothing but a virtuous do gooder.

Frears chucks his sense of identity out the door and gets sucked into to using the hand held and washed out visual scheme most indie movies used. Some may think it's used to focus the film in a more realistic manner, but it probably due to them needing to maintain a low budget. Still, Frears knows how to balance his characters, and though one is usually the main center of attention, he keeps close watch of the surrounding elements. He made the movie pretty like it was "High Fidelity" in the London underworld (not to give the impression this film is a comedy).

The film slowly builds from a character piece to a soft thriller. It's repetitive at times, very compelling at others, and thanks to Chiwetel Ejiofor's excellent acting, it's at least never boring. But there have been better movies about the subject of poverty, ones that don't bring you to an unfulfilling ending.

6.5/10

* * ½ / * * * *

The Medallion (2003)

Chan's Age Is Showing

[22 August 2003]

The Medallion, as most Chan flicks, features an absurdly stupid plot with some horrendous dialogue and acting thrown in. See why do people go and see them? Because most feature some top notch fight scenes highlighting the incredible talents of Chan. But the Medallion fails to deliver to this core expectancy. Most of the action comes from finding new ways for Chan to jump over objects. The fighting is supremely sophmoric and poorly choreographed. On top, The Medallion feautures some ghastly looking f/x. You'd think in this age that 40 million would get finer effects than this, especially when it looks like little money was spent elsewhere. Most acting in Chan films is bad, but Lee Evans sets a new standard. His acting is painfully petrified and unfunny is apparent from the get go that he will be nothing but a burden. Claire Forlani does what she was paid for, which is too look hot, but you'd think maybe she could have decided if her accent was going to be Irish or American, instead of switching several times between the two. Chan is Chan. It's still mildly fun to watch him perform, even in such a shoddy film as this.

See it if you absolutely love Chan. Otherwise, stay away. If your deadset on seeing a terrible film, go see Gigli. Trust me, it's better.

1.5/10

Open Range (2003)

Love Letter or Rip Off?

[21 August 2003]

"Open Range" is a western in the oldest sense of the word, but it is far from the greatest. Like most movies of the genre, the film seems too occupied trying to find ways to spout off hackeneyed dialogue about the beauty and freedom of the western life, and other poorly drawn Cowboy philosophies. Heard them before, don't need to here them again. When that's not going on, the characters are talking in the slightly annoying old timey style. Some westerns can avoid this, but that is rarer these days than the actual number of westerns they make. Some can recover with a good story and characters, but "Open Range" only partially delivers in that area. The characters are for the most part typical western characters. Stern old trail bosses and young bumbling cowhands are pretty much all we get. The romance subplot was also poorly written, very melodramatic and delivered too late in the movie. The relationship between Costner and Duvall is the only one worth mentioning. It works so well probably because the actors seem to be very comfortable with each other. It's more of an underlying connection but no less important.

If you've heard the film has excellent cinematography, you heard right. It is quite beautiful, and though it seems to wan a bit in the second act, it is still no less impressive. It seems though that Costner used a little digital grading on a few of the shots, not a bad thing by any means, but it seems some people are under the impression Costner and crew sat around until the perfect sunset came along. Costner's style can be a bit too theatrical at times, and he also was lax in setting up a good villain. The shootout was also great. Terrificly shot and choreographed with some amazing sound editing to boot. It's what we sat through all the mediocre material for, and it delivers, but not matter how good it was it can't erase the film's blemishes.

It seems they only make westerns once every few years these days, and it seems that when the do people acclaim them beyond deserve. Maybe it has to do with the fact that these films are rare today, and in this generation we've been denied a stream of wealthy westerns. But don't forget, these films were the action movies of their time, with a few attaining greatness. If Costner's latest had been released in the hey day of westerns, some might not be so smitten with it. A good film for it's time, but by no means a classic.

5.5/10

* * / * * * *

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Not What It Appears To Be

[4/10 · 19 August 2003]

Trust me, don't listen to all the people rambling on about how the film has deeper psychological meanings and breaks all these horror cliches. It doesn't. Most people are probably fooled by this because they've been jaded by a horror climate made up of mostly cheap teen stalker films. "Jeepers Creepers" is a throw back to the old 80's horror films. A little fresh in these times, but FAR from original. Fact is, the film sets up a good film and fails to deliver. The first half is a slower, more Hitchcockian thriller. We don't see the Creeper, we don't see people needlessly killed. It works the "Duel" angle greatly for awhile. Then it goes down hill. The creeper is introduced in a more frontal matter, and we begin to realize he isn't all that scary or threatening. This is conveyed by a bunch of by the books sequences where the main characters fight back and win all too easily. Then of course there is the psychic lady. She seems to have absolutely no place in the story. Salva just threw her in to try and give the film a mystical element, which a). doesn't work, and b). makes every scene with this character painful to watch. Then of course comes the Creepers big attack scene at the jail, which is cheap in the aspect that it isn't exciting in this least, and shies away from any blood/gore shots, which at the very least would have spiced this dull movie up a bit. The two main characters are flat. A bickering brother and sister team that are always at each other's throat until something bad happens, then they couldn't love each other more. And of course the girl is this typical modern horror star (not blonde with big tits, likes to point fun at horror films, i.e., an exact rip off of the girl from Scream). The actors possessed some chemistry together, but it never works due to bad writing.

The film is solid for the first part, and then slowly slides into the darkness of bland horror conventions. On the outside it would appear as a nice love letter to the old monster films, but it is really just another late 90's teen horror film.

3.5/10

* ½ / * * * *

Power (1986)

Muddled, And With No Edge

[3/10 · 17 August 2003]

The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere.

Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman.

3/10

* / * * * *

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

A Decent Event Film

[5/10 · 15 August 2003]

Basically I'm going to say what most people will say. If you go in with expectations for a B horror film with blood, breasts, and bad dialogue, then you won't be dissapointed. Horror movies, for the most part, have been the low denominator in the popcorn film genre. It's something to see if your bored and have nothing better to do. Since "Scream", 90% of mainstream horror films don't carry themselves to be as serious as they did back in the 80's, and this movie definitely is that. It knows its target audience, it knows what they want to see, and it delivers in spades. If you want to know if you'll like the movie, just as yourself if you like the last "Nightmare" or "13th" movie. if you did, chances are you'll like this. Personally, I'm lukewarm on it. Some slashers films can be real fun, some such. For me, Freddy Vs. Jason walked a thin between the two. The basic plot actually isn't too bad, and for the most part the dialogue is tolerable (i.e., bad but not terrible). Expect the typical characters and plot developements, so on and so forth. It, as always, becomes tiresome, but it's not a severity, at least not this time around. The carnage was great. Lots of classic hacks and decapitations, but some more gruesome and cool ones too. The film, as one would expect, draws a lot of the fun from just seeing the two icons on screen. I don't think main characters of movie franchises (no matter how low on the echelon) have ever crossed paths before, at least in this medium. If you're not a fan, you have to admit it's kind of cool to see these two duking it out.

it's horror. Some despise, some love it, I'm usually in between. This is a summer popcorn/horror film to the fullest, and I thought it was a pretty good time. It's not amazing, but nobody thought it would be. At the end of it all, it could have been a whole lot worse.

5/10

* * / * * * *

Dark Star (1974)

Craftily Unfunny

[2/10 · 12 August 2003]

Comedy is as subjective as anything gets. It all depends on the persons preference of humor. Personally, I never laughed once during this movie. I get the fact they were playing off of cheap effects and sci-fi cliches, but humor is just really thin and bland. It came to the point were the film became bothersome and ultimately boring, as I was waiting for something amusing to slip through. It wasn't completely terrible, being because John Carpenter, even in 1974, possessed an good eye for camera work and visual shots. The f/x isn't bad for it's time, and Carpenter at least makes the film nice to look at.

Some may find it funny, but I found it dreadfully repetitive, boring, and void of anything funny. Stay away unless your interested in seeing how Carpenter got his start.

2/10

0 / * * * *

Irreversible (2002)

Over Hyped

[7/10 · 9 August 2003]

Seriously, the rape scene and nightclub beating aren't that shocking. There has been worse in movies before. Not much worse, but it's not like violence is a new thing to movies. My problem is with Noe's blatant shock tactics. I understand he uses it to present us with a clear message of how horrible rape is, but it is my opinion that shock tactics is the last resort of a filmmaker. A film's message shouldn't have to be shoved in our face. It should come from your characters and its effects on their life. Noe doesn't know how to transcend his message in such an artful matter, so he puts in some graphic violence instead. There is nothing wrong with ultra violence per say, but with it's use, and I think here it is a result of Noe not knowing how else to get his point across. Also, the novelty effect of doing it backwards is pointless. If anything, it makes the movie worse. It makes us hate Marcus instead of feel sorry for him, and it makes the rape scene much less powerful. Would have been better to just do it chronologically, so we might care that Alex gets raped. That said, the dramatic scenes were alright. Don't look for amazing dialogue, but the acting and directing are enough to make you feel sad, knowing what will happen to them (still think those emotions would have been amplified with events in sequence). Vincent Cassel was the performance that really impressed me. Just raw and uninhibited, but handles the more dramatic stuff nicely as well. As big of a fan as I am of Ms. Bellucci, so doesn't really have much to do here. The camerawork is solid in the second half. It goes the typical `indie' route, doing the hand held style to make it more realistic, and as cliché as that is, Noe does express talent with the camera. It does get annoying for the first 30 minutes when he can't keep it still for more than 2 seconds, but he thankfully rectifies this.

Ultimately, Noe simply didn't have the talent to get his point across without resorting to gratuitous violence. It does make the movie interesting, and at the very least entertaining. Cassel gives a great performance, and there is some good cinematography in the second half, but it's just not written well enough to be the great movie some claim.

6.5/10

* * ½ / * * * *

S.W.A.T. (2003)

Thoroughly Mediocre

[6/10 · 8 August 2003]

SWAT is not the worst action movie to be spit out by Hollywood, and it sure ain't the greatest, but it provides enough shootouts and chases to satisfy some one looking to kill time. There was no real jaw dropping stunt or scene you'll remember, but at least it doesn't overload on CGI enhanced ones either. The cast was solid. Sam Jackson has one mode, and thats bad mother******, Farrell is a decent hero, he can at least act, unlike most action stars. Jeremy Renner and Olivier Martinez are also good villains, but no Hans Gruber here folks. The only person I didn't like was Michelle Rodriguez, but then again, I've never liked her in any movie. If you stomach some flat dramatic scenes and attempts at character development until the shooting starts, you shouldn't have a problem here.

5.5/10

* * / * * * *

Swimming Pool (2003)

One of "Those" Films

[6/10 · 7 August 2003]

Okay, it's not unnecessarily a problem if a director leaves certain elements vague and provide little closure to a story, but when we have to dredge through an hour and forty-five minutes of mediocre storytelling, it's the least they could do. The first half hour or so plods until the entrance of the "daughter". For the next hour, it's pretty much just sex and the two females arguing. For the last act, things get a little better, but not too much. It rushes into a ending that is not all too surprising. It's very anticlimatic, and as I said before, leaves question to answer. It's not very difficult to figure what was going on (some of the other reviews here have touched upon it, so I won't). The acting was alright. Rampling just has too look bored, and Sagnier just has to take off her clothes, but both pull it off well. Ozon is a very subtle director, and his films always feature very still, almost painting like cinematography, which looks very nice.

So, a one of those films that leaves the audience to figure out the meaning of the story. Fine, but at least make the story and buildup more interesting. It's nothing more than a mediocre Indie thriller.

5.5/10

* */ * * * *

White Heat (1949)

A Good Noir, But Not The Greatest Film Ever

[7/10 · 6 August 2003]

If anything, `White Heat' is a one-man show, and I'm not saying that because that's how it's written or even made, but because James Cagney reaps attention whenever he's on screen. His performance is a mixture of fierce, subtle rage and over the top antics, the same mix that helped Al Pacino become so popular. And like Pacino, Cagney's over acting is not a blemish to the film. It's used to make a character larger than life, and Cody Jarrett is most certainly that. The supporting cast doesn't stick out, even though there are some good performances. Cagney overshadows them all, which is both a good and bad thing, because it leaves the film without strong supporting characters. Walsh's favors wide shots, and him and cinematographer Sidney Hickox set up some great looking shots. It was the first gangster film to really have that epic scope along the lines of `The Godfather'. Overall though, it feels as if Walsh was afraid to stretch the noir boundaries too much, and there a few scenes that suffer for it.

Besides a classic Cagney performance and good directing, the movie isn't much else. The story is pretty much a by the books noir film, which had reached it's peak by the end of the 40's. They only real atypical element of the film was Jarrett, who is written to be basically a stone cold nutzo without the palest hint of what motivates him, a new idea that I think didn't work to the best of it's potential. I never really hated Cody Jarrett, and the screenplay doesn't given anything else besides that option. It has some snappy dialogue here and there, but for the most part it's rather bland noirish stuff.

Cagney's great, sure, but it is a performance that walks a thin into being too overblown, which thankfully Cagney never does. Walsh's is a great director who wasn't valiant to bring this to the level of rawness it could've been (the element is present, no doubt, but it feels too restrained). Everything else is rather average old Hollywood noir stuff, neither great nor terrible. See it for Cagney, but don't expect the revolution some think this movie is.

7/10

* * * / * * * *

Gigli (2003)

Don't Believe The Hype

[3/10 · 4 August 2003]

Seriously, people are slamming into this movie in such exaggerated ways simply because of the media attention the two main stars attract. It's the little guys sad little way to get back at the celebrities. This is far from the worst movie ever made, or even 2003 (Bulletproof Monk takes that title). That said, it is also far from being good. It's just a sloppy story with some very unfunny and silly jokes. At least there are a few moments that are slightly funny, which is more than I can say for some movies (i.e. Superstar & Beverly Hills Ninja). The retarded guy definitely gets on your nerves after awhile, and Ben and Jen's bad accents don't help. The film is actually slightly decent during the cameo performances by Christopher Walken and Al Pacino, who I bet is regretting doing this favor for Martin Breast right about now. The chemistry between the two leads isn't electric, but there have been worse couples in film history.

Basically, it IS a bad movie. But people are just inflating the terribleness because they have a bias against tabloid stars. Don't believe the hype, but don't see the movie either.

3/10

½ / * * * *

A League of Their Own (1992)

Too Much Of A Soap Opera

[5/10 · 4 August 2003]

The film is about the all American girls professional baseball league, and that is definitely the demographic this appeals to. It's way too much of a melodrama to be an effective drama, the same problem most `dramadies' run into. It's a combination of hackneyed writing, poor directing and less than average acting. It follows the `how to create drama' handbook to a T. Never once did I care whether these people succeeded or not. It fails as a drama. Thankfully, it was at least able to provide a few laughs. Most of it is female driven physical humor, which can get old after a while, but there are two shining beacons in the movie, and tying into the sardonic ways of the world, they just happen to be men. I'm of course speaking about Tom Hanks and Jon Lovitz. Both turn in brief, but hilarious performances. It's a real pleasure to watch Tom Hanks, who should have at least gotten a Golden Globe nomination (if not win) for his efforts. It's a great character and Hanks pulls it off beautifully.

It's a mediocre comedy with two real great performances, sadly being too brief. The drama aspect it was too sentimental and over the top. I'm sure certain people love that, but it's not for me. See it for Hanks if for anything.

4.5/10

* */ * * * *

Sullivan's Travels (1941)

Great Message, But The Humor Is Too Typical

[7/10 · 3 August 2003]

I think my overall opinion of `Sullivan's Travels' would be higher if the film was a but funnier. Sure, there are a few very sharp and sardonic notes of dialogue here and there, and there are quite funny, but the film (at least for the comedy aspect) retreats into old Hollywood clichés, namely physical humor and bland banter between the two sex leads. It's just my opinion, but I don't find Sturges to be particularly funny or probing. The concept of this film is great and sets up the best aspect of the film, which is the subtext about the naivety of the rich and the struggle of the poor. It's a classic character arch, but it's pulled off with such deft style that we the message is delivered with a smile of your face. The last act seemed a little over the top, in the bad way. All those nice little coincidences that fit together perfectly to drive forward the plot. It's essential to Sturges message, true, but there are other ways he could have take the film through the home stretch. Also, I guess I was the only one that didn't feel too much chemistry between Lake and McRae. There relationship was a little stale and never fully realized.

If Sturges had made a drama, I think it would have worked beautifully, which is ironic considering the entire point of his film. If you go in for typical humor along the lines of Howard Hawks, but with a little more depth, this is a great movie for you. Unfortunately, I stopped laughing at most of that stuff a long time ago.

6.5/10

* * ½ / * * * *

American Wedding (2003)

A Fond Farewell (hopefully)

[6/10 · 1 August 2003]

The studio has been using the old marketing technique of boasting this as being the last in the series of movies, and I hope that comes true. Firstly, I think "American Wedding" is slightly worse than its predecessors, whom I thought were both of the same quality. It just begins to get thin here. The second did the same, but I guess I just found it funnier. Things here just don't seem as funny. Stifler still gets me everytimes, but even he started to get a little stale by the end of this third entry. It's still a pretty funny movie, though. Stifler and Finch do a little role reversal in this one, and it's hilarious. And if all else fails, you can always count on Eugene Levy for some laughs. There is at least something in here that's bound to get a rise from you (haha, get it, "rise". Okay, I'll stop now). The film is more like the first in that there is a little more coming of age wisdom than just pure out comedy. It's not the deepest of material, but it helps numb the effect of going for one joke after the other. I was a little peeved that Chris Klein didn't come (obviously due to his blossoming career). It felt funny seeing all the friends together without Oz by there side.

So, the humor is low brow sure, but if you saw the first two and enjoyed them you shouldn't find a problem liking this one. It's not as consistently funny as the other two, and as with any comedy some of the other story elements are lacking, but I think it's a nice way to end the trilogy. Jim came full circle, and I'd like to see it stay that way.

6/10

* * ½ / * * * *

Deep Cover (1992)

Yet another early 90's urban drama, but this time with action

[5/10 · 1 August 2003]

Bill Duke just rehashes messages that more powerful and raw films like "Boyz N the Hood" had already said not too long before. Urban life is terrible, who get it, we don't need preachy speeches about crack babies and so forth. These things have been said before, but with more tact. Duke's urban nightmare is seen through the eyes of an undercover cop, we runs into all the same problems undercover cops before him run into. There a few situations where we can feel the pressure he is facing, but it's mostly due to Lawrence Fishbourne's acting. I guess this was supposed to be a character study of an undercover cop in the hood, but it just runs into the same generic pitfalls that most cop films runs into, and never really gives us anything juicy. The dialogue is mostly plain, but there are moments when characters suddenly begin to spew off poetry. This feels very out of place, and makes the film seem very pretentious. The action is neither gritty or heart pounding, but it's enough to keep you awake, and provides a few slightly exciting moments. As I said before, Fishbourne is only the real cast member of worth here. It's not an awe inspiring performance, but Fish convinces you at the very least that his character actually cares about his job and you can see the dilemma in Fishbourne's face in certain scenes. I'm a fan of Jeff Goldblum, but I just wasn't buying him in this film. It too over the top to be believable. Goldblum just isn't a tough guy, and there's nothing he can do to change that.

The film is recycled from other urban dramas. The message is more in your face, and still important, but doesn't have the lasting impression other films of the same brand have. There's enough action to keep you interested, but it is ultimately just another mediocre cop drama.

5.5/10

* * / * * * *

Seabiscuit (2003)

Forced

[6/10 · 31 July 2003]

Seabiscuit is a film that will find a lot of appraisal from critics and audiences, and for good reason: It was bred for that exact purpose. It's the kind of film that is a by-the-books "How to Win An Oscar" film. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but it leaves the door open for a lot of problems to come. And quite a few slip through in Seabiscuit. The screenplay dances between being melodramatic and corny to thoughtful and well-written. It's the kind of story that says "Okay, be inspired....Now". It tries to force the hope and inspiration aspect on the audience instead of letting it flow naturally. This results in a few too many hokey scenes. And I know this is based on real events, but all the characters and their trials and tribulations are presented in a very drab and generic manner. There wasn't a real great character in the story.

Gary Ross is a good director. There is some very good cinematography in the movie. Okay, at times Ross pulls out the old slow motion during the races, but it's forgivable. Ross is obviously a better director than he is a writer.

The film's strongest factor, and the only reason it was as good as it was, was the excellent cast. True, they don't have too much to go with, but each does an exceptional job. I'm not the world's biggest Tobey Maguire fan, but I was really impressed with his performance. Cooper seems to be walking through his role, but an actor of the caliber Chris Cooper is can do that and make it look great. Jeff Bridges is provided with the most challenges emotionally, but he graces through them all with the performance of a true craftsman. The real story, and single best element of the movie, is William H. Macy's vaudeville sports caster. H. Macy fits the role to a T, and brings to a life a truly fun character. A scene stealer, indeed.

The movie features very good cinematography, and a phenomenal cast. The presentation of the film is just too melodramatic for my tastes.

6/10

* * 1/2/ * * * *

Spider (2002)

A great exercise in technique, but the writing brings it all down

[6/10 · 31 July 2003]

`Spider' is a darker and bleaker outlook on mental illness, but you'd expect nothing less from David Cronenberg. The film bears Cronenberg's traditional grungy look, very gloomy and murky, which gives the film an atypical (though not wholly original) atmosphere. Cronenberg demonstrates very good framework and lighting techniques, adding even more to the visual element of the film, definitely the movie's strongpoint. It's probably Cronenberg's greatest achievement as a director, probably because he seemed more concerned with the characters and the story and not over the top splatter scenes. In the catalog of Cronenberg's career, it's very similar in structure to `Dead Ringers'.

Unfortunately, the writing is not as good as the directing. It gets itself into a pattern that begins to get bothersome. It just goes back and forth, back and forth, over and over until it reaches a rather dull conclusion. It doesn't even try and tackle why Spider is the way he is (and no, it wasn't the stuff with his father/mother. He is obviously disturbed before that happens). Ultimately, the movies purpose is to go back to see what caused Spider to be the way he is, and provides us with nothing but an afterthought to that, something that happened after he was already ill. I never felt like we ever came close to seeing what was really inside Spider's head. The movie has no real purpose and is only marginally entertaining.

Along with the great directing and cinematography, there is one other element that makes the movie good: The acting. Most notably is Ralph Fiennes, who gives a very subtle and delicate performance. He was able to make me feel sad for Spider. The story didn't make me feel that way, Fiennes did. His performance is not strikingly different than the others who have tackled similar characters before him, but it is definitely one of the best portrayals of mental illness around, made even more impressive from the drought of good writing he had to work with. Miranda Richardson and Gabriel Byrne are also very good, but nothing really impressed me with them.

See the movie if you're a fan of Cronenberg or Fiennes, or prefer style over substance, because it has plenty of the former and little of the latter. I only give it the rating I did for the amazing technique and performance by Fiennes. I only wish it had been written better.

6/10

* * ½ / * * * *

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Better Than The First, Still Not Good

[5/10 · 25 July 2003]

I'll give it to jan De Bont. he has balls signing on to the sequel to the panned 2001 film Tomb Raider, when he didn't direct the first one. he's done terrible sequels before, but it was a follow up to a great action film he had directed. He came in to try and clean up director Simon West's mess. And he did a alright job. It's definitely more adventurous in spirit, and utilizes the use of it's locations better. Some of the geological cinematography is excellent. But as with the first, the film just has no story. This film is plot is much more like Raiders of the Lost Ark than the 1st Tomb raider was. I mean, pretty much exactly like it, at least in the basic premise (Replace the Ark of the Covenant with Pandora's Box and there it is). The dialogue is not as cheesy this time around, they the still try to Force Angelina Jolie to be a superhero with bad one liners and superfluous scenes of her training. Gerard Butler is a solid actor, but his character wasn't interesting at all. The film also lacked a strong villain. A fat business man is not a good villain unless his smart and menacing. This character is just flat. He doesn't even have a cool Lead Henchman to make up for it. The film is also a little too long, mostly for redundant, though entertaining, action pieces. And thats all the film is good for, good (but not amazing) action scenes and sequences. De Bont directing his good, and the stunts are solid, but it is hardly enough to make this film fun. And some of the f/x was really poor.

Overall, an improvement on the disgrace of a film that was Tomb Raider 1. Action junkies will love it, and same for any one interested in photography, but the story and script are just too bad to allow this to be good.

4/10

* / * * * *

Cube (1997)

Slightly Above Average

[7/10 · 25 July 2003]

Cube is nothing more than a decent way to kill time. The general plot is not innovative in any way, but it is a least more creative than most horror/ sci-fi films these days. Though the film itself suffers from one serious problem: Repetition. It's people walking through a series of booby trapped cubes. It's cool at first, but after a while it begins to get tiresome. The writers probably figured you wouldn't notice because the film is supposed to be a character study of people placed under pressure, but that aspect of the screenplay is terribly cliche. All the characters are generic and possess no real traits we can latch onto as an audience. The screenplay is not necessarily bad, it's just not good. It fits nicely in the average category. The acting wasn't that bad. I don't know what you people want, but I can think of tons of actors who could've done worse in the movie. They are a bunch of unknowns, sure, but that doesn't mean they are bad actors. It's not oscar material, but it's far from bad. I like and am annoyed by the lack of closure in the film. On one hand, it lets you the viewer develop your own decision about the meaning of the cubes, but it also demonstrates an element of languor on the part of the writers.

It's a nice idea that burns itself out too quickly. The screenplay is average, and the acting likewise. It has some nice cinematography, and it entertaining enough to keep you awake. It's not a masterpiece, but it is a little better than average.

6.5/10

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Final Destination 2 (2003)

Worked In The 1st Movie, Fails Miserably In The 2nd

[4/10 · 22 July 2003]

Final Destination is exactly the same idea as the first (obviously), and that's not bad. But the execution, unlike the first one, leaves us with another bland horror film. First off, this time the survivors are complete strangers, so there is no bond between characters, and we feel nothing for one based on the outcome of another. They tried to fill it in with some hokey love story, but it just wasn't working. And brining back Clear Rivers was a bad idea. It made it way too simple for the people to understand what was going on, and was pretty much put in there to help speed up the writer's poor idea for cheating death. It's also another movie in a long line since 6th Sense that just uselessly throws plot twist after plot twist at you in order to convince you it's really a smart and deftly crafted thriller. It's not. The "big twists" are anitclimatic. The death scenes were much more far fetched than last time, but some are still fun to watch. It's a little gore happy, but that's expected from a horror sequel. They have to make up for the lack of story from the predecessor, so they just whip out the 'ol ultra violence. The cast is nothing better than average. The lead girl was pretty bad though. Sadly, Tony Todd is still gives the best performance, despite being the movie for about 5 minutes. David R. Ellis is just a bland director. Capable, sure, but bland.

It's a throwaway sequel. It takes a the good idea the first one had and throws it away in favor of violent death scenes, which are cool at times and a part of any good horror film, but should not be the main focus. Sure to give teenie boppers a good scare, but any else should think twice about seeing this.

3.5/10

*/ * * * *

Get Carter (1971)

70's Gangster Film, British Style

[7/10 · 20 July 2003]

Get Carter is one of the better 70's action imports around. It's not the most well-written movie, but it provides some great action and acting. It spends a little too much time setting up the twists and turns of who really killed Frank, and there are a few scenes that were just extra fat and slowed down the film. The directing is solid. Some real nice shots, especially during the action scenes, but Hodges can be rather bland at times. Michael Caine really carries the film. it was back in his heyday as an actor, he is just as uber-cool in the role as any other gangster in film at the time. I liked the idea for the ending, but I didn't like the execution of it.

It's standard 70's action stuff. It has some good acting and directing thrown on top, but it's still not the greatest in the world. I would recomend it, though.

7/10

* * */ * * * *

Final Destination (2000)

Butler, PA

[7/10 · 19 July 2003]

Around the time of Final Destinations production, teen slasher films were very popular. The film was made to capitalize on that fleeting market, but I've have to give recognition to the writers and director for trying something a little bit different, at least for the time period in which it was made. James Wong did a good job directing. His style is far from innovative, but it provides the film with a nice tone. The screenplay could have went better. Though better than an average example, FD still suffers from lack of character developement and some mediocre dialogue. There are far worse examples in the genre, though. The acting was also good. Ali Larter was the only one I really didn't care for. She just seemed rather uninterested in what she was doing. There really wasn't that many parts I found to be particularly suspenseful or scary, though they will keep you from slipping off into boredom. The final 15 minutes or so was also rather dull.

A good example of later teen horror films. There are evident negative elements, but there are some good ones too. If you don't take yourself too seriously, you should find it at least decent.

6.5/10

* * 1/2/ * * * *

48 Hrs. (1982)

An Action Film, 80's Style

[7/10 · 19 July 2003]

48 Hrs. is one of the first, and best, examples of the 80's action genre. Walter Hill's style set up a structure a lot of films would borrow from for a long time. It's also was the first time the "buddy" system was applied in such a way. It had been seen before, but not with characters like this. Not with the same banter and chemistry by Nolte and Murphy. They are a great team, which is something a lot of recent buddie cop films have been missing. Their performances together was the foundation for a lot of other buddie cop films, including anothe black & white pair, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon. The movie provides some good action scenes, but at the time they could only do so much. It's better viewed with the frame of mind that this has a comedy foreground and action background. There are some weak spots, like with any action film. Some scenes drag a bit. The thing with Nolte's girlfriend is underdeveloped and thus it's inclusion in the film at all is a waste of time. And the film lacks a great villain. Hey, I love James Remar as much as the next guy, but the entire second act goes without an appearnce by the main baddie.

Overall, it has flaws. But the Nolte/Murphy combo combined with Walter Hill's directing makes this a worthwhile venture.

7/10

* * */****