RLove Reviews

Howards End (1992)

Unimpressive

[5/10 · 21 September 2002]

I had heard a lot of good things about Howards End and I love Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins was great, (as was the rest of the cast) but the movie wasn't. There wasn't anything of real depth in the movie. The lives of the three families interwove and demonstrated contrast between passion and coldness and their application to class, but it was all surface clamoring. Ultimately, Howards End rings hollow. The vast number of links between the characters are far from plausible and would give even Charles Dickens pause. The social commentary comes from these links and juxtapositions provided by the plot. While it's obviously an element, the film never seems to be driving toward it. Criticism seems to come as a merely byproduct of the rambling story, and just didn't work for me. It was too obvious and felt ham-handed.

I know I'm in the minority here, but this one is nothing special. The acting is superb, but for a film that deals with class conflict better, watch Gosford Park. 4/10

Chinatown (1974)

Explanation of the title

[13 September 2002]

I'm not going to bother to do a full review. Suffice it to say that it is brilliant, and is even more enjoyable on a second viewing so that it is easier to follow. This one is a 10.

****STOP HERE TO AVOID POSSIBLE SPOILERS****

One of the common remarks is that the title is nonsensical and has nothing to do with the movie. For people who expect the title to be part of the explicit plot, this is true. But Chinatown is a metaphor. It's the seedy side of humanity, a place that Nicholson descends back into. As a result, he ends up getting burned. The idea is that there's not much he can do, it's just the way it is. Hence, the brilliant line "It's just Chinatown." Since, on a level deeper than the action itself, the movie is really about this ugly side of humanity, the title is more than appropriate.

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

Rather good movie, spectacular adaptation

[7/10 · 26 August 2002]

I'd been meaning to read the book for years, and I made sure to actually do it prior to viewing the film. I was impressed...there is an absolute wealth of story in the book, and no movie could even come close to including it all, but the feel of the book was there. The first 20 minutes of the movie seemed pretty rushed, but it successfully drew me in. The characters had come to life.

However, it's far from a perfect movie. On my second and third viewings the poor dialogue started to show up in some places. And it's really, really bad. In particular, there's Aragorn speaking to Legolas and Gimli..."Let's hunt some orc." That has to be one of the most horrendous lines I've ever heard.

Still, the film is beautiful to look at, wonderfully directed, and a better adaptation of the book than I would have thought humanly possible. It doubtlessly doesn't deserve the #4 rating on IMDB, but it's still an excellent movie. Numerous people will hate this movie, but most will be swept into Tolkein's beautiful and epic fantasy world. 7/10

High Crimes (2002)

Conventional yet entertaining court drama

[5/10 · 25 August 2002]

The husband has hidden a past identity from the wife and is tried for murder, and the best lawyer for the case is a former drunk. Together, the wife and the lawyer she hires uncover a conspiracy.

No, it's not original by any stretch of the imagination, but when the end of the movie rolled around I felt entertained. I knew where each plot "twist" was headed, but it didn't seem to matter. The main reason for this is Morgan Freeman...his character may be more commonplace than a pigeon in a park, but like the pigeon he's fun to watch anyway. He worked fairly well with Ashley Judd, who (much to my surprise) did not get on my nerves.

If you haven't seen a movie exactly like this one you must be a hermit, but I would still have no problem recommending it. It's certainly not impressive with regard to anything, but it's well worth a rental, especially for lawyer/investigation junkies. 5/10

Dude, Where's My Car? (2000)

Self-consciously stupid and very amusing

[7/10 · 25 August 2002]

Let me begin by saying that I don't like things like "Scary Movie," I consider the wasted time I spent on "Corky Romano" to be probably the most depressing 90 minutes of my life, and I intentionally avoid watching garbage like "Jurassic Park III" so that when people at my video store ask for a recommendation I can't give it. All of that being said, I thought "Dude, Where's My Car?" was hilarious.

There is a very big difference between this movie and things like "Joe Dirt" (which is rented way too often for me to still believe in human intelligence). The difference is that "Dude, Where's My Car" knows full well that it's stupid. Most bad comedies like to masquerade as an actual film, but this one was written with the mentality of creating the absolute stupidest movie ever created. It takes intelligence to be this amazingly dumb and, by virtue of new levels of moronic entertainment, original.

There are numerous jokes about drugs (which occasionally wore on me), lots of jokes about the female anatomy, and the two idiots to end all idiots. On my first watching the initial twenty minutes were painful, but it was all so ridiculous and stupid that I couldn't help but laugh. This isn't "Annie Hall" or Monty Python, and it knows it. And that's why it's so freaking funny. 7/10

Scarface (1983)

The little epic that couldn't

[5/10 · 21 August 2002]

I had never seen "Scarface" before but of course had heard a lot about it. After watching it I have to say that it's a very good vicious gangster movie. The problem is that it's a very bad epic.

The first part of the movie is good, but eventually the movie switches out of the rise of Tony Montana and becomes a sort of morality tale that just doesn't fly. Every time that the "truth" about Tony's world was shown by one plot device or another, my reaction was "yeah, I know." There wasn't really anything interesting in all of it, just a pretentious effort determined to make itself an epic. The most blatant evidence of this comes in the tagline: "the world will remember him by another name...Scarface." This is what I would refer to as epic cheese. You can't sit down and say "I'm going to create an epic now." The good movie comes first, and if it is done well enough the epic feel results.

Scarface has some great stuff in it, but in the end it rings hollow. There's a great deal of high-minded thought and not enough real substance behind it. The sister is a good example, seeming to transform for no apparent reason, as the character isn't really given enough scenes to develop. Scarface is the same way--much of it feels more like a highlight reel than a film. It's what would have happened if all three Godfathers would have been condensed into a single 3-hour film. The result is disappointing, but it's still something worth watching, if only to get to say hello to Pacino's little friend. 5/10

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

Ugh

[2/10 · 15 August 2002]

I recognize that I'm definitely in the minority here, but I thought this movie was terrible. It's pretty rare that I shut a movie off, but I didn't think that this one was worth my time.

To me, the movie's pace seemed to be at cross purposes with its subject. There seemed to be more frolicking than terror. It just rapidly leaped from sequence to sequence, maintaining a very light-hearted feel the entire time. There was far too much romping for me to feel any suspense, and the only horror that the story was capable of producing came from its God-awful quality.

***SKIP NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID SPOILERS***

Let's see here...there's an investigator whose new methods are contrary to his superiors. He's a person that has lots of fun little gadgets of his own design. His mother died because she was wrongly accused. Is there anything even remotely resembling originality here? Not even Depp could rescue this cardboard character. And I will grant that there was an original treatment of the actual legend by going with crime investigation, but this was also terrible. The investigation seemed to move forward by very, very thin strands of logic that struck me as ridiculous. Finally, this movie has a love story even worse than the one in Pearl Harbor. Depp and Ricci meet, and by the third scene together they are in love for no apparent reason.

I'm not particularly familiar with Tim Burton, but between this and the disgusting remake of Planet of the Apes, I don't think I want to. The story is ludicrous, the characters shallow pieces of trash, and the mood right out of a Ren and Stimpy cartoon. I have nothing against Ren and Stimpy, but that's because they weren't trying to be scary.

This one was too busy trying to be hip to be any good. 2/10

American History X (1998)

Racism hitting you in the gut

[9/10 · 12 August 2002]

I love this movie. I'm not going to declare it "perfect" or one of the best films of all time, but it's nevertheless truly great. About the first 20 minutes are pretty bad...the story is set up in a clunky manner reminiscent of after-school specials. The all-wise principal is also artificial, but he is a minor enough character that he doesn't detract too much from the film. I also had a problem with the music in a couple of places, particularly on the basketball court. I recognize that the usual term is "dramatic score," but this score heaped the drama on way too early in some places. Like the movie itself, however, the music recovers and begins to simply fit.

Ed Norton is the one who made this movie brilliant. Sometimes when one actor dominates the screen so much the other portions of the movie suffer (personally, I'm thinking of Washington vs. the Canadians in "Hurricane"), but in this case Furlong was compelling enough to avoid this problem, as one of the two was almost always on the screen. The Eds are great, and Norton's nomination was well deserved.

****SKIP NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID SPOILERS****

The most common complaint about this film seems to be that the character's turnaround was not believable, that it was "overnight." I couldn't disagree more. It was not overnight, but over the 1095 nights of his sentence. Derek had a lot of time to think, and that's what undercut his ideology. His Nazi brethren were ignoring the tenets of his belief system, exposing them for what they were--people latching on to an idea for identity, not for the merits of the idea. As a thinking individual and former honors student, Derek needed to justify his feelings of hatred with logic. Cameron's teachings fit the bill nicely. Then he realized that people didn't care about the ideology so much as the image. Shortly after that his Nazi friends rape him. As he lays unconcious on the shower room floor, the word that came to my mind was "wreck." Derek was completely wrecked and destroyed. In his fragile state, who comes to visit him? A black man. He initially questions why his former teacher bothered to come, but as the shivering and tearful mass that he is at that point, the friend is sorely needed. Does it all feel slightly contrived? The emotional content of the sequence prevents the viewer from feeling the artificiality, but a cerebral examination of the events ends with an answer of "yes." The teacher is too wise and saintly not to be questioned. Disbelief of the teacher's character suspended, is the transformation believable? Yes.

American History X doesn't just tell you that hate is bad. It may overtly state that "hate is baggage," but it's a message of summary, not instruction. The movie lets those who watch it truly FEEL that hatred causes pain, and does it as well as I have ever seen it done. Ordinarily a beginning as poor as this movie's first 20 minutes would greatly lower my opinion of the remainder, but not here. The rest of the movie is just that good. 9/10

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

Tired, shagged out series. PS: Woody Allen?!?

[3/10 · 11 August 2002]

The first two Austin Powers movies were funny. The third one is a pretty bad rehash. The jokes are just tired now. Some of the parts were rather funny, but this just wasn't up to par with the rest of the series. The humor has slipped further and further down the scale, ending (I hope) here with Goldmember. This one is almost exclusively toilet humor. That, of course, is exactly what most people want.

And I have to respond to the person who thought Goldmember parodied Woody Allen. I'll grant that Austin resembles Woody Allen with his glasses, but I don't think it's an intentional parody. The subtitle humor was NOT a parody of Annie Hall--parodying requires some sort of resemblance to the original work, and aside from the subtitles, that is non-existent. The scene in question was not showing their thoughts, only an understandable version of the words. It is, however, still derived from an earlier film: the original (and better) version is in Airplane. If anywhere, I think that's where the reference lies. I haven't seen Purple Rose of Cairo or Stardust yet, so I can't comment on those. Personal opinion, while there might conceivably be some references to Allen (from what the user said, the end is close to Stardust), there is very little Woody Allen influence in Goldmember. Allen's humor was a LOT better, and I couldn't help but feel a little sad when his name was mentioned along with this movie.

A few funny moments keep Goldmember from being a complete waste of time, but I really wish I had waited for video. 3/10

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Best Picture 1956, and meant to stay there

[6 August 2002]

I didn't enjoy this movie at all. There wasn't much of a plot and character development was essentially nil. But I can't really write it off as a bad movie, just a movie from a much different time. Some of the shots are still very beautiful, and combined with a dainty little score, they provided the entertainment that was there. But unlike other movies from the era (Bridge on the River Kwai came the next year), this is definitely not a timeless classic. Personally, I found there to be almost nothing there. According to my 2002 standards, this movie is awful. Watch it only if you want mid-fifties excitement and humor.

I would usually end my comments with a rating, but here I will refrain. Years later, it's just not meant to be judged.

Original Sin (2001)

Been done before, been done better

[3/10 · 5 August 2002]

Predictability=bad. Some movies can be predictable but still so enjoyable that you don't mind. "Original Sin" is not one of them. The characters are cut and pasted from any similar movie you've ever seen, with nothing to redeem them. Considering the talent involved, this was rather disappointing. The plot was just as one dimensional and predictable.

Aside from the blah characters and blah plot, my biggest pet peeve was the film editing. I don't know enough technical stuff to ascribe a name to it, but the movie was edited similarly to "Traffic," with a couple random seconds of film tossed out here and there. In "Traffic," this worked really well. It just seemed to fit. In "Original Sin," I got a mental picture of a twelve year old with a reel and pair of scissors shouting "whee." When the movie is (I think, though I couldn't be sure) going for a deadly smooth kind of mood, jerking the film around doesn't help anything.

There are a couple of funny moments in this movie, and in one or two places there is a palpable sense of eroticism that is excellent. In particular, the first love scene is very well done. Still, this movie is bad. Unless you have a desperate desire to see Angelina Jolie out of her clothes, leave "Original Sin" in the video store. 3/10

Signs (2002)

1/4 part Hitchcock, 2 parts SNL, 3 parts disappointment

[5/10 · 4 August 2002]

I don't regret going to see this movie and was entertained by it, but it should have been an awful lot more. It's been promoted for more than a year now in previews, and the recent cover of Newsweek displayed M. Night Shymalan. The headline: The Next Spielberg. The truth: yeah, right.

The opening credits felt like a Hitchcock movie to me: plain black and white credits, the suspenseful (though already familiar) theme song playing. That was where the similarity ended. The first half of the movie had suspenseful moments, but every single one of these was diluted by comedy to the point of becoming meaningless. The most egregious example came early, when Gibson and Phoenix invesigated a possible intruder outside the house. The scene began with a moment that I will confess made me jump. It proceeded to become one huge joke playing off of Gibson's docile nature (more on that later). The audience should have been on the edge of its seats; instead it was laughing. The viewer remembers the scene, but only as a cerebral memory, not as a gut feeling. The mood is completely killed. Shymalan doesn't even try to recover the mood: the next scene features a recounting of the events meant to evoke more laughter. I understand that people thought "Unbreakable" too slow and somber, but this was not the answer. Imagine Will Ferrel narrating "The Others" and you'll get the idea.

Without the accompanying mood, the suspense was lost. The last third of the movie was designed to make me jump a few times, but it was ridiculously predictable and failed. There was also supposed to be a great deal of conflict over Mel Gibson's faith, but this was also ineffective. The conclusion seemed contrived, but I won't complain about that because its artificial nature was part of the point. Nevertheless, it was far from a great ending.

***SKIP NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID SPOILERS***

The characters were extremely disappointing. Early in the movie, Shymalan makes a big point of Gibson's inability to be angry. Later, he flips out on his children during the dinner scene. I understand that he's under stress, but what he does amounts to psychological abuse. But since Shymalan's so concerned with family relationships, his son of course walks over and gives his dad a hug so they can cry together. Given that his son is at oldest ten, this is beyond precocity. Considering the treatment his dad gave him, the kid would have been much more likely to throw a plate at him, and it would have been deserved. As for Joaquin Phoenix, his part was more of a clown than a real character. After his brilliant performances in "Gladiator" and "Quills" (side note, despite Phoenix, stay away from the latter), his talent is sadly wasted in "Signs." The little girl was also disappointing. In the basement she talks about "this was in my dream." There has been next to no setup to this, and there is no followup either. She just sort of hangs in the wind. Lastly, the alien was disappointing. The only suspense that the movie actually has comes from NOT knowing what they look like. As soon as we get a good look at one, the entire effect is blown. In the Newsweek article, Shymalan cites "Psycho" as one of his favorite films. Perhaps he should consider what damage would have been done to the shower scene if we saw the knife actually strike.

The movie shows humor, displays conflict in the former priest, and is occasionally suspenseful, but only the first of these is done well. Instead of weaving all of these elements in one masterpiece, Shymalan made "Signs" into three different movies, and I was never quite sure which one I was supposed to be watching. Wait for video on this one. Without expectations: 5/10 With expectations: 2/10

Quills (2000)

Such good acting, such a bad movie

[3/10 · 4 August 2002]

Joaquin Phoenix is amazing, and Geoffrey Rush is nothing to sneeze at either. But the movie is garbage. Many people have commented on it being thought provoking. It could have been. Instead, the viewer is beaten over the head with the theme of "we're no better." I usually love things that deal with that theme, but this was beyond ham-handed. We could have easily gotten the point without all of the pretension. My biggest problem with the movie, however, is that its main attraction is simply being ghoulish. As the movie continues, it falls deeper and deeper into "shock the audience" territory without any need. Some would argue that its showing its theme, but there was no need to pound it in like that. And given the brutal violence of the last tale, how can anyone POSSIBLY identify with the Marquis? The movie's success hinges on that one point. The viewer MUST recognize that there is a part of the Marquis in everyone. But he is too ghastly to possibly evoke such empathy, and the movie fails.

Great individual scenes, great acting, but great movie? Far from it. 3/10

Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2001)

The best movie you never thought you'd actually watch

[8/10 · 23 July 2002]

Admittedly, I am a sucker for "finding yourself" movies, so I am predisposed to like "Hedwig." But that doesn't mean that it isn't a great movie. A lot more people should watch this than ever will, for fairly obvious reasons. To be honest, it's something that I usually wouldn't bothered with. But once you get past it being a movie about a transexual rock star you realize that "Hedwig" is about as touching a movie as they make. Besides featuring great songs, the movie features an EXTREMELY impressive acting job on the part of John Cameron Mitchell. He gives Hedwig (near) universal appeal and allows the audience to identify with her in a way that I wouldn't have thought possible. Given the absurd scenario presented in "Hedwig," most people will expect a zany musical. But this one is so much more...

Not everyone is going to like this film, but if you would ever contemplate renting this movie it means you should. It's original funny, and strangely moving. Even if you're not a vegan art student with a nose ring and pink hair.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Good, but over-hyped

[7/10 · 22 July 2002]

Road to Perdition is indeed a very good movie. I definitely agree with everyone that has praised Hanks and Newman, and I would be very surprised if they didn't receive Oscar nominations. This is NOT, however, the Godfather, and isn't really even in the same league as it. People have been talking about an ensemble cast, but I would be inclined to disagree. Yes, there were numerous good performances, but Hanks and Newman steal the show. Everyone else in the movie is dwarfed by them. This isn't really the fault of the other actors, it's just the nature of the story and the roles. Nevertheless, I think this factor held the movie back a little. The standard of comparison seems to be to the Godfather, and in this department it's not even close. As many viewers have said, yes, Jude Law is creepy. He played the part very well, but I don't consider it to be anything special. Creepy villains are fairly standard, and although good, this is just another one.

SPOILERS AHEAD IN NEXT PARAGRAPH

The thing in the film that bothered me most was the scene on the beach following Sullivan's death. The kid is standing in front of the ocean, which is a trite scene if there ever was one, but that was still OK. Then he spoke. "I realized that my father's greatest fear was I would be like him. I never touched a gun again" (or something close to that). These lines were ridiculous. The action and previous dialogue already made this very clear. When Micheal Jr. was pointing a gun at Jude Law, everyone in the theater knew why it was a big moment, particularly after Newman's "make sure he can get to heaven" line. Making Michael overtly make that statement was the cinematic equivalent of beating the unobservant audience members over the head with a stick. Admittedly, this is a minor thing, but it's once again a minor thing that The Godfather stayed away from. I have absolutely no problem with the father theme, and I loved the line about "I say he was my father." But that was enough.

Despite my complaints, this is a very good movie that everyone should see. Watch it for a good story and for Newman and Hanks. Just don't watch it for another Godfather or, for that matter, American Beauty. 7/10

American Beauty (1999)

Still my favorite

[10/10 · 22 July 2002]

It's been a few years since I've seen American Beauty now, and I've seen a lot of movies in that time span (it's what happens when you work in a video store). This is still my favorite. It's not a style of movie that everyone can enjoy and is largely a love it/hate it film. But it's got amazing acting in a well-written script that includes not only a great deal of humor, but a depth that is almost unheard of in movies. With the numerous layers incorporated in the film, you can spend days thinking about this movie, and there's still no beating the feeling that comes to you during the final words. 10/10