gino_theworldjournal Reviews

Insomnia (2002)

A detective story, great actors, great directors, great script, and an interesting new setting, all the elements I needed to really dig `Insomnia' are right where they should be.

[28 May 2002]

Pacino has been missing for a while, having last been seen in what was a forgettable but entertaining film, `Any Given Sunday'. I am glad to announce that he returns to multiplexes in the somewhat familiar role of detective, having famously played one in `Heat', `Sea of Love' and `Serprico'. Like those films he is fantastic and manages to create yet another original performance that sets it apart. I expected a great deal going into this movie, fueled further by the thought of seeing what Chris Nolan would manage to do with this follow-up to the brilliant `Memento', and the equally impressive film `Following'. This one doesn't play by the same rules his last film did, but it still succeeds in delivering a sharp new story told in a solid cinematic fashion.

Will Dormer (Pacino), along with his partner, is sent to a small town in Alaska to investigate the brutal murder of a local teenage girl. Almost as quickly as he shows progress in the case things begin to go sour for Dormer when he accidentally shoots his partner while chasing a suspect through a foggy environment. He pins the death on the suspect they were chasing only to find him self tangled in a complicated web of blackmail. This is only just scratching the surface of the plot so hopefully you have a good indication of just how intense this story becomes… in the character driven sense as opposed to the sudden loud soundtrack music most films use to trick you.

Chris Nolan is definitely the great `new' director whose career must be followed. I look forward to how he progresses as a filmmaker and what his future choices will be. His story-telling has been successful up to now with his clever use of shifting narratives, but proves with this film that he can tell a `straight' story and still maintain our attention throughout the whole movie. Having said that, if you were to ask me which of his films I truly love the most I would have to say his first feature `Following'. What does it for me with that movie is how inspiring it is to watch something so well made in every sense with such a small budget, proving that a talented person can create something amazing out of just about anything with anything.

As I mentioned earlier, Pacino delivers! He's always been a great actor and for all I can remember has never faltered in a role. It's truly impressive that he can bring something new and fresh to playing yet another detective, and at the same time I like to think that he brings a part of himself into the role, almost as though we are watching his past detectives age on screen. Well it's a complicated feeling, so it's better I just say I'm impressed and move on. Robin Williams character is one that I prefer not to say too much about because so many surprises are linked to him, so go ahead and think what you will. What I will say about Williams is that he is stretching, playing the opposite of all his roles, quiet and calm and overall low-key. As for that other Oscar-Winning actor, Hilary Swank, she plays her role just right, using her eyes and unexaggerated expressions to convey her thoughts. She plays the pushover cop who spends her time doing little useless things, but dreams of catching the big fish.

The Alaskan setting gives this pot-boiler a clean cut difference from most thrillers that depend on the mood and disguise that the dark night brings to the story. Here instead everything is in full light all the time, which surely enough aids the story, at most times causing me to second guess myself thinking that from they are telling me or showing me I must still be missing something. Because of that feeling I identify with the main characters and this plot, with my uncertainty only making this viewing better.

My one disappointment with this film had to be it's ending, which I will not spoil for you, but will say that it made me sigh when I realized what was going to happen in the last 10 minutes. I accept it for being part of the film, but I still wish it would have offered something different instead. Don't get me wrong the ending does suit the story and it does offer some nice surprise, but overall could have been better. I just loved so much else in this movie that it would be ridiculous not to give it my highest recommendation. I love detective movies, and I love them even more when they're done right. So though I don't love this film more than `Seven', it is still well worth my while to see it again, knowing that even that won't be my last viewing.

This was a great night at the movies for me. A detective story, great actors, great directors, great script, and an interesting new setting, all the elements I needed to really dig `Insomnia' are right where they should be. Go see what I'm blabbing about for your self.

Insomnia (2002)

Chris Nolan is definitely the great `new' director whose career must be followed.

[28 May 2002]

Pacino has been missing for a while, having last been seen in what was a forgettable but entertaining film, `Any Given Sunday'. I am glad to announce that he returns to multiplexes in the somewhat familiar role of detective, having famously played one in `Heat', `Sea of Love' and `Serprico'. Like those films he is fantastic and manages to create yet another original performance that sets it apart. I expected a great deal going into this movie, fueled further by the thought of seeing what Chris Nolan would manage to do with this follow-up to the brilliant `Memento', and the equally impressive film `Following'. This one doesn't play by the same rules his last film did, but it still succeeds in delivering a sharp new story told in a solid cinematic fashion.

Will Dormer (Pacino), along with his partner, is sent to a small town in Alaska to investigate the brutal murder of a local teenage girl. Almost as quickly as he shows progress in the case things begin to go sour for Dormer when he accidentally shoots his partner while chasing a suspect through a foggy environment. He pins the death on the suspect they were chasing only to find him self tangled in a complicated web of blackmail. This is only just scratching the surface of the plot so hopefully you have a good indication of just how intense this story becomes. in the character driven sense as opposed to the sudden loud soundtrack music most films use to trick you.

Chris Nolan is definitely the great `new' director whose career must be followed. I look forward to how he progresses as a filmmaker and what his future choices will be. His story-telling has been successful up to now with his clever use of shifting narratives, but proves with this film that he can tell a `straight' story and still maintain our attention throughout the whole movie. Having said that, if you were to ask me which of his films I truly love the most I would have to say his first feature `Following'. What does it for me with that movie is how inspiring it is to watch something so well made in every sense with such a small budget, proving that a talented person can create something amazing out of just about anything with anything.

As I mentioned earlier, Pacino delivers! He's always been a great actor and for all I can remember has never faltered in a role. It's truly impressive that he can bring something new and fresh to playing yet another detective, and at the same time I like to think that he brings a part of himself into the role, almost as though we are watching his past detectives age on screen. Well it's a complicated feeling, so it's better I just say I'm impressed and move on. Robin Williams character is one that I prefer not to say too much about because so many surprises are linked to him, so go ahead and think what you will. What I will say about Williams is that he is stretching, playing the opposite of all his roles, quiet and calm and overall low-key. As for that other Oscar-Winning actor, Hilary Swank, she plays her role just right, using her eyes and unexaggerated expressions to convey her thoughts. She plays the pushover cop who spends her time doing little useless things, but dreams of catching the big fish.

The Alaskan setting gives this pot-boiler a clean cut difference from most thrillers that depend on the mood and disguise that the dark night brings to the story. Here instead everything is in full light all the time, which surely enough aids the story, at most times causing me to second guess myself thinking that from they are telling me or showing me I must still be missing something. Because of that feeling I identify with the main characters and this plot, with my uncertainty only making this viewing better.

My one disappointment with this film had to be it's ending, which I will not spoil for you, but will say that it made me sigh when I realized what was going to happen in the last 10 minutes. I accept it for being part of the film, but I still wish it would have offered something different instead. Don't get me wrong the ending does suit the story and it does offer some nice surprise, but overall could have been better. I just loved so much else in this movie that it would be ridiculous not to give it my highest recommendation. I love detective movies, and I love them even more when they're done right. So though I don't love this film more than `Seven', it is still well worth my while to see it again, knowing that even that won't be my last viewing.

This was a great night at the movies for me. A detective story, great actors, great directors, great script, and an interesting new setting, all the elements I needed to really dig `Insomnia' are right where they should be. Go see what I'm blabbing about for your self.

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Unlike movies such as `Independence Day', this film knows that human nature is much more terrifying then the chance of aliens attacking our planet.

[28 May 2002]

Based on the bestselling Tom Clancy novel of the same name, this latest instalment in the Jack Ryan franchise manages to not only stand alone, but stand out from its predecessors serving us a story that parallels the real life tragedy of 9-11. For this reason I insist you keep in mind while watching this that you are in fact watching a movie, developed by some top Hollywood players to entertain and perhaps cause you to think a little. Be sure to understand that the book, and most importantly this film, was made prior to that infamous day, and certainly does not mean any harm. So in all fairness I will rate this movie based on my viewing experience which in fact was a good one.

The story revolves around Jack Ryan struggling to uncover a terrorist plot to trick the United States and Russia to go to war against each other. Falsified information between countries is what ultimately leads to the ego trips that bring this film to a climax. Things certainly move quickly for Ryan, who goes from a desk job to being the only man with the right information that will stop what could possibly be World War III. I liked this story quite a bit and found myself munching down on my nails, a good sign. There is a lot of serious tension going on here and it hits quite close to home these days,

Ben Affleck is turning his career around completely, going from `Forces of Nature' and `Reindeer Games', to carrying `Pearl Harbor' on his shoulders, and turning in fine performances along the way with `Changing Lanes' and here (not to mention his under-rated work in `Chasing Amy'… one of my all-time favourites). He steals the show though he is not really on his own, making up what is a strong ensemble cast. His wit, charm and boyish looks suit this `fish out of water' Jack Ryan just fine, never once making me think about the `Ryans' of the past. With a slew of interesting films along the way (Daredevil should solidify him as a bankable star if everyone does there job right) it seems Ben is finally showing the presence many thought he had.

As for the rest of the cast, featuring acting heavy weights such as Morgan Freeman (Seven, Along Came A Spider), James Cromwell(Babe 1-2) and Phillip-Baker Hall (Hard Eight, Magnolia), as well as some up and comers like Live Schreiber (Scream 1-2-3) and Bridget Moynahan (Serendipity, Coyote Ugly), all look comfortable in their parts and never make this film feel like it belongs to them. Perhaps that is a testament to this films director, Phil Alden Robinson (Field of Dreams), who had managed a similar feat when he directed Sydney Poitier, Robert Redford, Dan Akroyd, and River Phoenix to name a few in the spy film `Sneakers'. Personally of the two I got a bigger kick out of `Sum'.

Unlike movies such as `Independence Day', this film knows that human nature is much more terrifying then the chance of aliens attacking our planet. Plain and simple, these situations can really happen, we humans can destroy ourselves, we have that power and it is proven to us everyday without looking any further than a news broadcast or headline. These issues are well exploited to keep us in our seats and leave us with a message, though we all know this message.

I thought the Harrison films were fine, and Alec Baldwin did a great job in `Hunt for Red October', but here and now seeing Ben in this role taking place at the very birth of Jack Ryan, I know that there is more exciting stuff to come. This is an entertaining film, a smart reintroduction to the character, and I am glad to say that the story doesn't take the back seat. I'm in for the next one.

Following (1998)

It's odd how many similarities I can draw between the feature film debuts of some of today's most gifted directors.

[10/10 · 28 May 2002]

It's odd how many similarities I can draw between the feature film debuts of some of today's most gifted directors. Take for example Darren Arrenofsky, Quentin Tarantino, and of course Christopher Nolan. Each of their respective features was shot in black and white (Tarantino originally intended to shoot `Reservoir Dogs' in b&w but things changed when he got a real budget for the film by attracting talents like Harvey Keitel, but still maintained his high contrast palette of Black, White and Red), which is something they do in order to save time and money in setting up the scenes to have the right colors and contrast. Also, black and white film is cheaper. What they manage to do is concentrate on telling the best story in their respective genres, getting the best performances they possibly can out what is usually friends and acquaintances. They show at this early stage that they what counts, that being a fantastic script, the finest performances they can get out of their actors, and the best cinematography their visions can get from their tiny budgets. Not surprising that I find myself greatly enjoying these first time features, sometimes even more than the great films they make afterwards (Tarantino = Pulp Fiction, Nolan = Memento, Arrenofsky = Requiem for a Dream), which, by a hair, is the case with this one.

`Following' tells the story of a writer whose hobby is to follow strangers around simply to see what they do in a day. Things suddenly change when he is confronted by one of the people he is following, a thief by the name of Cobb who convinces him to break into an apartment without the intention of stealing but rather to rearrange certain things in such a way as to affect their lives. If I go any further I may spoil to surprises to come, and there are many. This movie only gets better as time passes, almost transforming into something else by the time it is done. I was so shocked by the ending that I desperately rewound to see what I had missed. Should have known, what I saw here was the early development of the technique he used in `Memento' telling its story from different points in time. Both these films are different, so don't think he just re-made `Memento' from this. He's obviously got more tricks up his sleeve.

Another plus about this movie is in not knowing who the actors are, and watching them simply be these characters. In no way did I second guess their performance, instead I believed they were who I saw on my screen, watching as people stab each other in the back, wondering the whole time how things will add up and who's going to do what. Playing at a tad over an hour you will not believe just how much they manage to fit into this story, a perfect example of a well labored script, not wasting anytime on useless filler nor rushing us in and out of important scenes.

Visually I found `Following' to be gorgeous. It is not over ambitious in its appearance, knowing at all times that its substance is much more important than its style, yet it perfectly captures the scenes moods and the feeling of its characters. I loved the editing, which combined with the overlapping voice-overs completely had me entranced, pulling me deeper into this tale of deceit. I leaned forward towards the t.v. many times throughout this picture, almost wanting to look harder even though I knew that would only get me in more trouble. With films such as this that has always been the case, the harder you try to figure things out the harder it is to follow.

Do yourself a favor and rent this if you're able to find it. Knowing that most of you out there enjoyed `Memento' then you should definitely give `Following' a chance, and you might find yourself liking this film as much as that one. Again great praise to Mr. Nolan for giving us all something to aspire to as storytellers and for keeping me guessing, now having managed to do it 3 times. (`Following', `Memento', and `Insomnia'… seems like he enjoys using one word disorders as titles).

The Scorpion King (2002)

If only there were a team of people to stop movies like this from being green-lit

[16 May 2002]

I never had expectations for this film. I knew the plot wouldn't really matter, and in that case I was right, but it doesn't end there. This is one of those films created solely to make money, and still I can't understand how it would earn enough to make a profit, because aside from kids that don't know any better and that are willing to see their `Rock' on screen, why would anyone pay to sit through this? The jokes aren't funny and the actors know it, the action is second rate as are all the other elements that make for a good action/adventure film. Slap together some second hand sets, lame costume design and shallow characters and you have your self a boring time at the movies.

The Rock has enough presence to carry a film this big; the thing is it's all an illusion, perhaps suiting the dessert setting. Watch as what you believe is plot and character development; vanish before your very eyes. The dialogue, like photocopies, just gets worse and worse with every line. How and why people go see this I cannot understand. Tell me what entertained you? Please!! E-mail me and tell me what exactly you got as a form of enjoyment from this film.

Is there really a need to explain the story? I don't even think I can remember it properly, and in fact why should I if they don't even apply enough effort in attempting to create one. Anyhow, The Rock plays Mathayus, an Arkadian (like it matters), who has been trained to be a serious bad-ass, and now must go after Memnon (the villain, like that matters), a bad guy who's invading all sorts of territories. Along the way The Rock meets a handful of silly characters; most noticeably is former Academy Award Nominee Michael Clarke Duncan. It's a shame his size limits him to roles like this one, for though I'm sure his pay was fine, he'd prefer to be doing something else.

As far as effects and action goes this film has plenty, but again it is second rate. You have seen it all before and then some, and to top it all off you have seen it done better. The love interest in this movie is played by Kelly Hu who has been on the cover of every magazine these past months, and unfortunately doesn't really impress me in this film even if she is barely clothed in the slim 94 minutes of this film. Actually the run time is a plus, but believe it or not, it actually felt longer and I checked my watch 4 times before it was over.

I somehow feel I always pick on the story or script when a movie goes sour like this, and most of the times I'm right, because after all that is the basis for 90% of most films (just took that percentage for example so don't hold me to it, but I'm pretty sure it's ballpark). In this case it would be fair to say that it was an ensemble of reasons, no one was really doing there best from the beginning. The actors are all fairly new to the screen and just don't all have the experience to know better than the performance they are giving. The director, Chuck Russell, has delivered crap like Eraser (starring past action-hero Arnold) and Bless This Child. I loved `The Mask' (also directed by Russell), where you can see quality in that film, from the look and feel of the sets and make-up and effects, to a pretty funny and off-beat story. In `The Scorpion King' you just don't have those elements coming together.

If only there were a team of people to stop movies like this from being green-lit (I hope I don't have to use that line for my `Minority Report' review). So what I suggest is watch something else. If it's within the genre, just rent `Indiana Jones' films, or better yet, spend your bucks on something different like `Y Tu Mama Tambien'. Unfortunately the damage has been done; Scorpion King is America's number one movie. We'll have to put up with a sequel.

Spy Game (2001)

Redford was great in this film and carried it completely.

[16 May 2002]

OK. Now you've seen the trailer for this film. Right? And you probably have seen the poster? Well so have I, and as usual whoever put these ads together did a horrible job. At first the only reason I wanted to see this movie was because of the pairing (pitt and redford), and with the hopes that Brad redeems himself for the last big duo pairing "The Devils Own" (which sucked). Well I'm glad I saw this film. I'm glad I ignored my disgust at those ads and took a chance to see it. I really liked it!

The film begins with the capture of Tom Bishop (Pitt). He was on a mission, which remains unknown for the most part of the film, and is held in a chinese prison with 24 hours left he is executed. After those first 7 minutes i was sold on the rest of the film. I love spy films, although I have to admit I've never been a fan of the 007 films, but was always keen to the theme. What's cooler than being a spy? Batman?.. but thats a whole other story. So the opening sequence... it's quickly paced like most Tony Scott films, and is very slick. Even in the most dirty environments this film looks great. That's one thing that you just can't help in this film, there is plenty of style. Does it work? Sure.

We then cut to an asleep Robert Redford. He is awakened by a call filling him in on Bishop's capture. Today is Nathan's (Redford) last day at the CIA, but this situation is going to stir things up. You see, Nathan Muir was the one that brought Tom Bishop into the CIA. He taught him everything he needed to know. We learn this through a series of flashbacks as Nathan is asked to discribe his relationship and events that took place while knowing Tom. There are some heavy political issues at hand here, and so the CIA is willing to have the Chinese do as they wish with Tom. Do we ever really get a feel of these politics? Not really. But it doesn't matter. What does matter is the realtionship between Tom and Nathan. What matters is that the clock is ticking and that throughout the film, you want to see what happens.

Redford was great in this film and carried it completely. I've never been a big fan of his, but I loved his performance in this. His relationship and chemistry with Pitt was great and completely believable. It's a good thing too because otherwise the film just wouldn't have worked. The scenes are pretty tight and have a nice weight to them. The blend of past and present could not have worked better, although the characters just don't show the periods well as they never seem to age. But it's a minor detail.

Now there are plot holes, but none that I ain't willing to forgive. Let me tell you, I loved the Mission: Impossible movies. You just have to believe it to a certain extent to really enjoy it, and when performances are well executed thats exactly what they allow you to do. How can you refuse the serious look on Redford's face.

I sometimes feel a story that is unbelievable looks more believable if it's told in a more realistic style. I'm sure I would have liked that more in this case, but I certainly didn't mind the style. I recommend the movie, but had the studio released better promotions I wouldn't have had to. Got it?

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Open your eyes. There isn't any better advice.

[16 May 2002]

Open your eyes. There isn't any better advice. Take it all in and in some way you will love this film, maybe so much so that you may even want to see it again. This film may even change your life!!... Or than again maybe not, but that's only because I somehow believe we've all become uncapable of even trying to know ourselves and what we want. It's an important realization I came to when seeing this film. </font>

David Aames (Cruise) has the life we all think we want, the life he thinks he wants. He's rich, he's handsome, he sleeps with beautiful women, and above all, he lives as he pleases. That is until his luck runs out one day when Julie (Diaz), a women he has casual sex with, purposely drives her car off an overpass with him in it. He does not die, but rather awakens after a month-long coma with his face mangled, and left to live a tortured and tormented life. Gone are his looks, his confidence, his power, but above all he has lost touch with the women he fell in love with one day before the incident... her name is Sofia (you'll adore Penelope Cruz in this part, not to mention believe that a man can fall in "love" at first sight).

Did I have any problems with this movie? Not one. I let it take me where ever it was going and sat there with my eyes open wide (it wasn't just a clever tag line). I took it all in, and at the end let out my feelings in a sigh that seemed to last minutes. Seeing this film triggered something in me. It made me feel as though I, myself had been offered a second chance, much like David (‘nuff said, I don't want to spoil this for you). If David "living the dream" is what the average Joe out there hopes to achieve, then seeing him lose it all after that crash should help you put things in perspective. This is more than a mere film, from the very first frame to the very last. It is an experience. It is what I feel very few movies, or any at all, achieve, and that is to motivate you to want to somehow change your life, somehow make it better. My saying this may seem a little corny to you, but make no mistake that what I write is exactly how I felt.

I just want to briefly talk about the actors in this film, and the director. Everyone did there job right. The message they carried across to me is one that we may each see differently, and they leave it all up to us to figure that out. Performances by Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, and Jason Lee, are some of the best in each of their respective careers. Cameron Crowe manages to surprise me as I am accustomed to his dramatic-comedies (Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, Say Anything), but proves here that he can tell a story no matter how large in scope and emotion. In my opinion this is his crowning achievement, one that I fear will be over looked by many.

"My hearts going boom boom boom"!! The soundtrack for the film which plays throughout really gave the scenes an extra boost. All of those songs are very personal tracks, playing over a very personal story. They are all about lives changing, thoughts changing, or at least that is how I interpreted it. Take for example "Last Goodbye" by Jeff Buckley, or "Everything in its Right Place" by Radiohead, or even "Solsbury (check spelling, could be Salsbury Hill) Hill" by Peter Gabriel, they are all, as I have heard from friends who know these artists far better than me, about turning points in there respective lives. The film plays on that, to the point where you are completely lost and find yourself reflecting on David's life as though it were your own. By the end of the film you find him questioning everything leading to the discovery of what he really wants.

That's about as far as I'm willing to go with an explanation. You really need to see this for yourself. Do not watch it to try and figure out the ending, or try to figure out who did what and why, because I guarantee that you will not enjoy it. What you must do, and of course this is only my opinion, is just sit down and watch the screen. Let the story unfold. When it's over you will see what I mean, but what that feeling you have at the end is, and how long it lasts, all depends on you. This film will be what you want it to be. Perhaps, so can you.

The Sweetest Thing (2002)

Should never have been made, but on the bright side, it's definitely a front runner for worst movie of the year.

[16 May 2002]

`The Sweetest Thing' never shows promise, from the first scene to the last, but I somehow hoped throughout the film that things would pick up or turn around. My prayers were never answered and what we have as a final result is a movie that leaves its stars embarrassed and characters with no interesting place to go. Give me my 84minutes back!!!

The film opens with a lame montage of guys that have crossed the path of `too good for any man' Christina (played by Cameron Diaz). Of course it immediately cuts to a shot of Cameron doing something cute and free spirited that shows just how all these men fall for her… She's shaking her fine package up a street in San Francisco. Well they don't waste any time introducing the rest of the characters, for seconds later she runs into her best friend/roommate (played by Christina Applegate, playing this role as though it's make or break time for her career). Their 3rd and final roommate is played by Selma Blair whom you might remember from Roger Kumble's previous effort `Cruel Intentions'.

The plot (or, you guessed it, lack there of) revolves around Cameron Diaz's character, a woman who never gives any man a chance to get to close, that is until one night at a club, her failed attempt to dump a stranger (Thomas Jane) on her younger horny roommate (Selma Blair) leads to a brief (and I mean brief!!) conversation with the man, a perfect set up for him to be charming and charismatic in ways only a scripted scene in a film as bad as this would allow you to believe. They part ways and later in the night bump into each other again… This must be the man of her dreams right!! Anyway, the night ends without either continuing their progress in being together. Cameron spends the night dreaming this might have been the perfect man for her (the dream features the 2 in bed and the man pleasuring her at every whim. He even proclaims men don't enjoy oral sex… funny right??). Her roommates realize that Cameron may be down about having lost him, so they bolt off to the brothers wedding in hope of seeing him again.

This whole brief and sudden road trip they take to go see this guy is unbelievable. Why are they going? Why such a rush since it isn't him that's getting married? Why do they stop for what seems like hours to try on clothes to wear to the wedding since they dirtied their other clothes in an unnecessary bathroom mishap?? Why do they show a shot of Christina Applegate imitating Julia Roberts in `Pretty Woman' 10 times?? Is any of this stuff supposed to be funny or entertaining? In my case I just simply felt embarrassed, for myself and for Cameron Diaz mostly. She's the only reason I am giving this film even ½ a star (and that's solely based on the fact she looks the best she ever has, but it ends there).

Aside from there being no point to this film, it is worth mentioning there is no reason what so ever to feel for this main character. She doesn't really deserve any sympathy, and her realization that she should perhaps be easier on guys isn't one we really care for her to come to. This is one of those stories about people that have it all and still complain, makes me want to roll my eyes just thinking about it. And how about the dialogue?... some of the worst ever written! What are they trying to do here, show women talking dirty and acting independent? I wish they could have really succeeded in doing that, perhaps would have made for an interesting film, but here it all feels a little forced and very fake. The banter between the 3 girls is never quite as shocking as the writer hoped it would be, and for all their efforts all we have is something to mock when describing the movie to friends.

That's about as much as I care to say about this movie. It got terribly annoying and worse as time passed, and still worse by the time it was over. What a god awful ending. You know what I change my mind, this film deserves a BOMB. Should never have been made, but on the bright side, it's definitely a front runner for worst movie of the year.

And Your Mother Too (2001)

Before you read any further I would like to strongly suggest that you go see this film.

[16 May 2002]

Before you read any further I would like to strongly suggest that you go see this film. Do not read my review and just go see it. Find out where it's playing and buy yourself a ticket, in fact bring as many of your friends as you can, such as I did, and I promise you will all somehow have enjoyed it in a way films are rarely enjoyed. I do not feel that I will be able to describe exactly what I felt having seen this film, but if you would like to see my effort then read on.

This is the story of 2 teenagers, Tenoch and Julio, best friends their whole lives, which have indulged in many of life's guilty pleasures. We meet them at a point when their respective present girlfriends are leaving to study in Italy, leaving the 2 friends on their own for the summer. In the short time after their departure we see a whole new side of the boys. They masturbate to the thought of Salma Hayek, smoke weed, drink hard, and flirt with another man's wife. She is a beautiful older woman named Luisa at a wedding, who in turn is Tenoch's cousin's wife. They flirt with her and invite her to come with them to the fictional beach Heaven's Mouth. She is of course reluctant, but takes them up on the offer after her husband one night calls her to confess he cheated on her. This is the beginning of the road trip to the non-existent beach that will change their lives.

An unidentified man narrates the entire film, and when he speaks all goes silent in the scenes serving as a moving freeze frame if you will. He speaks the future of the lives we are watching these people interact with, and ultimately you begin to worry what will be of there own future. During this road trip to the fictional beach, all 3 main characters meet new and interesting people in new and interesting parts of Mexico. It makes them ponder life as their own past experiences begin to unravel in their intimate and personal conversations. Not before long the compounded sexual tension between them is in a way relieved, but to mixed consequences. All of the subtle characteristics of jealousy, anger, passion, naivety, become completely real.

These characters are so believably acted, that when you see these actors in interviews or in other films you'll almost feel cheated. Relationships like this simply don't seem like they can be cheated; yet through some form of skill and humanity every element comes together just right, never distracting or deterring you from the story.

Featured are some of the best-shot sex scenes ever (as one of my friends pointed out as a matter of fact). `Y tu Mama Tambien' finds a way of making all of it's moments feel intimate and genuine, yet never in bad taste. Alfonso Cuaron makes it difficult for us to believe what we are seeing at times is only movie, which serves this tale all the more. The shaky `Road Film Style' cinematography used here is perfect in capturing this uncommon, and unbalanced relationship. You are kept on your toes at all times, expecting something or someone to break. The dialogue is fresh and funny, the kind you just know cannot be faked, that in fact somewhere somehow the writer or actors uttered those phrases. I am convinced that a great majority of this film was improvised, whatever the case may be.

This film is obviously more than flesh, more than experimenting youth. Take some of your favorite moments from mediocre mainstream movies like `American Pie 1 and 2' and remove all the slapstick value. You will realize that there is much more there than you ever saw before. That is what I think in small part this film strives to achieve. It succeeds. We can sympathize with theses characters every step of the way, because as we first get to know them you realize that they either are like you, someone you know, knew, or maybe someone you always wished you could be. By the time things begin to happen to these characters you yourself begin to feel part of their journey.

This is an experience many of you won't take part in, and that is the sincere shame. Instead a great majority of people have been walking out of `The Scorpion King' unchallenged and un-entertained. `Y Tu Mama Tambien' offers a true form of escape, one that no blockbuster will dare. It's the lives few of us will ever live, for better or worse. What transcends from the screen to your hearts and minds is as eye opening as anything you'll ever see, and as effecting, if not more, as your own personal life experience. Bold words? Go see it and you tell me.

Note: Please feel free to contact me and share your thoughts on this film or on my review of it.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

It was fun, funny, exciting, enchanting, imaginative, charming, sweet, genuine, wild etc..

[16 May 2002]

The lack of good entertainment in theaters has been becoming more and more noticeable. That sounds silly actually considering it is a fact that most of what we see in a darkened theater is flat out terrible. It tries to please us and no more, and constantly fails. We accept it since we often need distractions, and with DVD's out on the market films have a great opportunity to be repackaged and sold in a whole new light, making decent films seem great, and shitty films seem decent. We all seem to think we're enjoying ourselves but the sad truth is we don't. Or at least I don't. We take what they give, and not only that, but we pay top dollar for it. Well it's an absolute wonder that Ocean's 11 exists.

This film has been heavily hyped from the day Clooney attached every star he could find to it. Then Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Erin Brokovich) signed on to direct it and shot my standards for this film way beyond any I believed could be met. Safe to say I finally saw the film today and it delivered. Everywhere I thought it was going to go it didn't... a very rewarding feeling. It was fun, funny, exciting, enchanting, imaginative, charming, sweet, genuine, wild etc.. At first I thought at the very least I was going to watch a fun film. I thought Clooney and the gang would just be up there having a good time and the film would just play itself out to simple satisfaction, but in retrospect what the hell was I thinking! Soderbergh was responsible for having his last 4 films become some of my all time favorites. Make that the last 5.

I can't believe I haven't mentioned the plot. Basically the film revolves around a heist that is set up by the freshly paroled Danny Ocean (Clooney), to rob the vault of 3 las Vegas casinos on night of an event boxing match. Along with Rusty (Pitt) they put together there team (better known as Ocean's 11..get it) and proceed to set it up. The twist and motivation for this heist is Danny's attempt to simultaneously get back his ex-wife Tess (Roberts) who is dating the owner of the 3 casino's (Garcia). Now every single character in this film is perfect. No one tries to steal the show, Clooney leads and they follow and in turn every performance shines. I don't know what I should describe to make you understand how truly enchanting this film is. Perhaps the fact that the scenes between Clooney and Roberts made me feel warm and somewhat breathless is a good way to start. For the few moments they shared on screen I felt as though I had been witness to something I hadn't seen in a film in a while... romance. The dialogue, the look and feel, and the actors... God I felt great. Those moments are sure to become classic (or already are seeing as they do borrow heavily from the classic romances Hollywood once made... also I forgot to mention if you loved the scenes between Clooney and Lopez in Out of Site, be ready to smile at these ones).

Soderbegh definitely knew what he was doing with this film, and has again crafted a masterpiece. I can't stress just how surprised I was with this film. I just wouldn't understand someone not loving it... or at very least liking it. There was passion and sentiments behind the making of the movie. It's right up there on screen, and it is that which makes it great. It put a smile on my face, and though it is just a movie I am glad to have spent a few hours of my life to watch it. I would gladly do so again.

Memento (2000)

Have you been waiting for a film to demand your attention and leave you with questions that can only be answered by multiple viewings? Then your prayers have been answered.

[16 May 2002]

Have you been waiting for a film to demand your attention and leave you with questions that can only be answered by multiple viewings? Then your prayers have been answered. Memento ends as it begins, and the ending you see, before the credits roll, is chronologically the middle point of the story you watch unfold before you on screen. Confused? Well it is being shown to you in 5-10min. segments, progressing…or digressing I should say, from the end to the beginning. You are completely immersed in the life of Leonard Shelby, a man that suffers from short-term memory loss, and lives his life by following the photos and messages he has made for himself. The script is based on a short story by Johnatan Nolan. Christopher Nolan, his brother, wrote the script and directed the film, this being his second feature. It is difficult for me to go on about the plot, because it truly is an experience to walk in there not knowing anything. This was not the case for me. I read a few reviews, many better than the one you are reading now. I knew what to expect about the backwards storytelling, as well as a few key points about the main characters, but nothing that was really crucial. There is really nothing that can prepare you for this film. I can honestly say I have never seen anything like it, and was happy to walk out of the theater with my mind pacing through the many possibilities. It sucks that I can't blab them out all here, but no spoilers, don't worry. I wouldn't do that. If you liked movies like Se7en, and Usual Suspects, than I definitely recommend the film. The similarities Memento has to those films are mostly in the overall tone, and that it is without a doubt a part of the Detective/Crime thriller genre. Leonard Shelby (played by Guy Pearce to a "T", he is Leonard Shelby!!), becomes the ultimate hard-boiled detective. He's got drive, that being to find the man that murdered his wife, and he's got his short term memory loss which makes his task go from difficult to near impossible. But, unlike those other films, Memento shocks you at the beginning of every segment, where you are once again left to figure out where you are and whats going on, to the point where you may eventually lose track. By the time you reach the climax ending, you will probably be frustrated having tried so hard to outsmart the film. So, what am I trying to say? Well I'm not to sure how clear I have made myself, reviewing this film by saying anything other than "Just go see it!!", is pretty hard. I myself need to see it again, which would make it my third time. What I suggest is that you absolutely go see this film, sit back and just watch things unfold. Just watch, and the best I can promise you is that you won't feel so stupid when you WANT to buy a ticket to see it again.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

This film is relentlessly unforgiving, letting what you see before you on screen feed on every last emotion you have within, and allows you to feel what the characters feel.

[16 May 2002]

Usually, having seen a great film will leave me shaking. It's funny I know, but this is the case. I shook after I saw Traffic, Cast Away, and Memento, just to name a few recent films. I don't know why exactly I shake, it's an uncontrollable reaction to something so moving that it can't be expressed through words. Well, it's not always as deep as that, but with Requiem for a Dream, my shaking turned to complete abandonment. This film is relentlessly unforgiving, letting what you see before you on screen feed on every last emotion you have within, and allows you to feel what the characters feel. This is the most powerful film ever made about the affects of drug addiction. The film is based on a book by the same name, in which four characters, whom for there own reasons, become addicted to drugs. There's the old Jewish woman, played all to real by Ellen Burstyn, her son (Leto), his girlfriend (Connely), and his best friend (Wayans).

It starts harmless enough, these are all everyday characters we have seen before in some way or another, the old lonely mother watching t.v. and gossiping with neighbors. The young couple in love, and the best buddies trying to score some dope. But I can promise you, never have you seen the consequences these characters face at the end. I know a few friends that have seen the movie, and they all, one way or the other, felt the loss of something inside. That may sound a little exaggerated, but then again you haven't seen the film. You will come out of that theater affected. This does not have a happy ending, be well warned. I have heard people speak about Requiem for a Dream, having hated it. The reason for this is exactly the reason why you should see it. They hate it because it stays with them long after the credits have passed. If you consider that a bad thing then this is probably a film you won't want to see. These are probably also the same people that loved the forgettable film, BLOW (see review). I hated how I felt once the film was over. I hated what those characters went through, and believe me, you wish through out the whole movie that they would make different choices. This is a great film, it's important, it's real, and it's probably the best work no ones seen.

Wag the Dog (1997)

This was absolutely one of the best movies of 1998

[16 May 2002]

This was absolutely one of the best movies of 1998, and remains one of my favorites. It is a perfect example of a film working in all aspects, script, acting, directing...name it, it's all done right. The story begins during the current president's re-election campaign, and we are almost immediately swept into the behind-the-scenes look of things. We soon learn that the President has been accused of sexual assault on a young girl. Enter Conrad Breen(DeNiro). His job is to find a way of keeping the American public distracted from that story as long as possible. So, he goes to Hollywood super-producer Stanley Motts(Hoffman), and together they will lead America to war. Are you interested yet? Hmmmmm, still not sure. What if I were to tell you that the war they have the public believing is going on in Albania, is actually all taking place on a Hollywood sound stage? Yup. It's all been set-up through press leaks, gossip, and fake video footage, to make the President seem...well...presidential. And believe me when i say that that is just the beginning of this fast and funny flick. Dustin Hoffman received a well deserved Oscar nomination for his performance in this film, this being his second nomination under the direction of Barry Levinson(Rain Man). DeNiro is equally fantastic in this film, so funny and laid back, a way I hadn't seen him since MIDNIGHT RUN. You will, I promise, love these performances. Even the supporting cast, most notably Anne Heche as the frantic press secretary helping De Niro and Hoffman do what they got to do, is perfect. You can't take your eyes off it from beginning to end. Sometimes the film may seem a little impossible, but it just looks so serious and believable that you will be second guessing yourself the whole way through (much like the characters in the film). Even the final consequences leave you wondering about what goes on in your everyday life that you really don't know about. By the end of this film, you have not only experienced some funny, and unbelievable situations, but gotten to know the main characters in a personal way. You'll know exactly what motivates each one of these characters through this whole situation, and exactly what they plan on getting out of this cover-up. I think that by the end of this movie, you probably won't care much about the outcome of the presidential election, but more of what these characters must now deal with. I won't spoil it for you, but this film definitely works, and you will love it if you give it a chance. So don't shy away from the political twists in this plot, there's definitely nothing there you can't handle. I think that anyone over the age of 13, with at least some kind of sense of humor will dig this flick. Then again, even I enjoyed it:).

About a Boy (2002)

Mr. Grant is funny as ever playing yet another shade of shallow

[14 May 2002]

`About a Boy' comes to North American theaters this weekend hoping to make off with some box-office bucks as an alternative to that ho-hum sequel to `Phantom menace'. Hugh Grant did the same with `Notting Hill' back when `Episode 1' came out, quite successfully I might add, though I am sure the lack of Julia Roberts in this film may affect those box-office numbers a bit. All that useless info aside, I am happy to report that this film is a complete success! Mr. Grant is funny as ever playing yet another shade of shallow (Bridget Jones' Diary) until a young unpopular boy comes into his life to change all that. Believe me it's not as cheesy as it sounds, in fact aside from the necessary happy ending, it is anything but.

This film is based on Nick Hornby's (High Fidelity) novel of the same name, and though I've never read any of his books, I have seen and loved `High Fidelity' and can clearly see where all the original and funny dialogue comes from. Will (Grant) is depicted so well I mostly laughed out loud at just how low he went (pretending to have a child in order to get a date is a distant second to most of the other things he does here). You see the film offers narration from both Will and Marcus (Nicholas Hoult) `the boy', and is used mostly to contradict whatever impression it is they are giving to the people that surround them, the funniest scenes being near the beginning particularly during Will's dates. My quoting them here won't do justice, but surely you can imagine what the combination of Hugh Grant's character from `Bridget Jones' with dialogue and development by the guy that wrote `High Fidelity' would be like. Funny!

So, what is this film all about? Will, a man who hasn't worked a day in his life because he is still receiving `royalty fees' off his dad's Christmas Carol, and instead has spent his whole life trying to buy the perfect everything to replace human-comfort. His dates, mostly with single moms, go nowhere since he can't stand competing with their children, yet he is always right back wanting another of the same. Then we have a young boy named Marcus, highly unpopular in school, so much so that even the other unpopular kids don't want to hang with him. His mom (Collete) is suicidal but at heart loves her son it is herself she cannot live with. Will attends a single mother's support group as a desperate shot at scoring a date, he succeeds. On that date the woman announces that along with her child she will be bringing along her friends boy. And so it begins.

Will and Marcus play off each other well, Will not wanting to know anything about him and Marcus pushing to have him hang out with his mom, eventually succeeding, they become friends. It's usually at this point most films would take a predictable turn, surely a sign of relief that I could enjoy the rest of this movie when they didn't, by which I mean the boys mother and Will don't hook up. It's almost at all times a very fresh and entertaining film, casually dishing insight into the male psyche and hilariously depicting the birth of many uncommon relationships. Rachel Weisz (beauty from those `Mummy' movies) has a small but well cast role as the single mother that Will wants to hold onto.

Behind the lens we have the directors (Chris and Paul Weitz) of `American Pie' and `Down to Earth', the latter being absolutely unwatchable, which manage to shed all signs of their past few flicks. I wonder how they managed to come to such a wonderful result and in fact how much input producer Robert De Niro (surprise) had. Cinematography and editing here blend well and comedic timing is at its best.

So their you have it, charming, unexpectedly funny and smart story, and nice acting the whole way through, what more can you ask for. Indeed it goes further than that but surely you can go see for yourself. I definitely feel as though Hugh has won me over once again. `Notting Hill' and `Bridget Jones' Diary' are 2 of my favorite movies (not all time, but I definitely love them), and `About a Boy' is now part of that list. He has personified another great character, yet one that is different enough to show his skill as an actor, deserving more attention then he gets. No more `Mickey Blue Eyes' please, this guy is `A' list material.

The Cat's Meow (2001)

There is certainly something about Kirsten Dunst that I can't put my finger on.

[14 May 2002]

There is certainly something about Kirsten Dunst that I can't put my finger on. Her on-screen persona is oddly appealing, and surprisingly, she manages to deliver a consistently fine performance each time out. Unlike most of the actresses in her age group she likes playing against type with each outing, (such as her self destructive character in `Crazy/Beautiful', to the aspiring model Mary-Jane, in `Spider-Man'), and manages to deliver time and time again. Here we see her as silver screen movie star Marion Davies, in a film that is as brilliant as her smile.

`Cat's Meow' is based on one of the many rumored possibilities of an event that took place on-board the yacht of William Randolph Hearst (Hermann), an all and mighty media tycoon much like what Ted Turner is today, in 1920's Hollywood,. Just as the film advertises on its poster, this is simply a dramatization of the `whisper told most often'. The event was in fact a gathering of some of the most successful figures in the film industry, to celebrate the birthday of Hollywood film producer Thomas Ince (Cary Elwes). Shady dealings, gossip, and forbidden lust ensue, all of which lead to the death of the birthday boy. The rumor this film decides to bring to light is that in fact William Randolph Hearst was responsible for killing Thomas, having mistaken him for Charlie Chaplin (Izzard) who he discovers is wooing his beloved young star and lover Marion Davies behind his back. Believe me I have not spoiled this for you for you will find that there is more too this tale then that. The characters play off each other so naturally in a story so tight it will seem impossible that this retelling was based on a rumor.

The cinematography is splendid as are the sets and costumes, stunningly recreating these moments. I often find it hard to believe that budgets for films such as this are so small considering how decadent everything looks. Fades between scenes are well-used, serving the story all the better. A beautiful example of this can be spotted in the early moments of the film, when the camera fades from the present shot of Thomas Ince's empty coffin, to the past shot of the yacht as it awaits the arrival of its famous passengers to be.

I have been complaining about the lack of good scripts in most films for quite some time, but here we have another rare one that works all the way, in this case fleshing out each legendary character by giving them their own place on the ship instead of their own lines in the script. Of course this film is being steered in all the right directions by director Peter Bogdanovich (I wonder why he's been stuck making such bad TV. movies prior to this), who adds another dimension to these characters by allowing us to see hidden expressions and suspicious looks. The cast isn't comprised of novices either, they know just what to do with the material, delivering in all the right tones and ticks, making this production a full circle success.

I often admire the under-rated work of Cary Elwes, who has starred in films such as `The Princess Bride' and `Robin Hood: Men in Tights'. He has also performed along with Eddie Izzard in `Shadow of the Vampire', and had parts in `Bram Stoker's Dracula', and most noticeably `Liar, Liar' playing Jim Carrey's competition. I love his delivery, his pace and mostly his expression. He shines in this film, perfectly suiting the period. To be honest though, there is not one flawed performance in this film. Just thinking of them now makes me smile. I loved them all so much, I can't help but plead that you go see this if only to take part in silent admiration for these actors.

This movie definitely made for a nice evening at my favorite theater Cinema Du Parc here in Downtown Montreal, one of the only theaters showing this film because of its ultra limited release. I say if you can find it go see it, it obviously has my highest recommendation, being that it was way more entertaining, therefore satisfying, then most films will allow.

Extra Note: Hopefully the studio does a good job with the film come Oscar time like they did with `Shadow of the Vampire'. It would be a serious waste if this talent went un-rewarded. Again watch out for Kirsten, if she continues like this she may just be the next Julia Roberts.

Frailty (2001)

Safe to say this story is not you're A-Z thriller.

[14 May 2002]

I honestly didn't think this movie would surprise or shock me in any way, after all it is Bill Paxton's first directorial effort, and it's a thriller no less!! The most I expected out of this was an interesting story and perhaps some nice camera work, but I can honestly say that Mr. Paxton has done his homework. He must have been taking notes while working with Sam Raimi (director of Paxton's disturbing `Simple Plan' and the Evil Dead series), because this film really got under my skin.

Visually it does borrow from Raimi's films, but add to that a narrative that plays to the tune of `Usual Suspects' and you have yourself a close idea of what we got going here. This film is suspenseful, intriguing, and when you least expect it, jump out of your seat surprising. The film begins with Matthew McConaughey in a sheriff's office a town away from his own. He is there to submit important information that may lead to the capture of the `God's Hands killer', a wanted fugitive for the last 20 years. The story he tells is of his upbringing, which we see in long flash backs of him and his brother as children being raised by their single father (Paxton). One night Paxton wakes the boys up in the middle of the night to explain to them that God came to visit him in his sleep and gave him a mission to kill demons, which in actuality walk among us as humans.

Safe to say this story is not you're A-Z thriller. It did not make me jump out of my seat with loud, sudden sounds, or throw cheap and cheesy effects my way to try and scare. What it does is take it's time, and much like the skeptical Fenton child in the story, I had enough time to second guess myself and forget that something scary might possibly happen. After all what I was watching for most of this film is a loving father spending time with his children, enough for me to let my guard down.

Pacing in this movie was key. At first I found the shifting narrative to be quite tedious, as though it didn't really serve the story, but I now realize that this fit perfectly into what is the bigger picture, the surprising ending, and well placed climax. I understood why the story was told the way it was, and I can't imagine it any other way. Paxton deserves a great deal of praise for what is a near perfect film. Beautiful cinematography, lighting, sound, pacing, exquisite acting all around, especially by the young children. The details in this film were beyond impressive. 1979 was brought back to life, and though I have no recollection of that period (the year I was born) I did not doubt for a second that what I was seeing was from that period. Each shot was filled with little details, from the food, to appliances, to cars, backgrounds, to scribbles on papers, and all of it seemingly placed together.

I have no doubt in my mind that this film was a labor of love for Paxton, and he certainly has created something he can be proud of. Absolutely one of the best films I have seen. Sincerely. It took me where I didn't care to go and when it was over it left me wanting more. A film that can achieve that is one definitely worth praising.

Note: A gang of 6 `loud-annoying-hate to sit in front of at the movies' guys sat behind my friends and I while we watched this film, and cracked jokes through most of the movie. All I can say is that I was incredibly impressed that a key scene in the film shut them up for the rest of the movie.

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

I myself loved the dialogue, and with that the overall mood and tone of the film.

[14 May 2002]

To say that I was completely, well, delighted is probably the word I'm looking for, is a definite understatement. It's hard to believe that this film, with a cast of characters that use the word "FUCK" more frequently than any of the characters in Tarantino's films combined, be so romantically charming, but much like Bridget's weight, it oozes right out of its' seams. The charm, that is. I did not intend for that last remark to be offensive in any way, but it is a fact that Bridget (Renee Zellweger, whom I never really cared much about as an actress, but man was she great in this film!!) is overweight. What also is not meant to be taken to offense is the use of the "F" word in the film. These are everyday characters, having everyday conversations. I myself loved the dialogue, and with that the overall mood and tone of the film. This film allows you to unbutton your pants, and relax. Bridget makes you feel comfortable in your skin by allowing you to see her in just about every embarrassing situation possible...and there were plenty of those. From her being continently fixed up and dressed by her mother, to forgetting to change into her normal sized underwear before she got lucky(these being the most tame examples), Bridget takes it all in. I found myself laughing the whole time, but I realize that I was in fact laughing at myself. She is a character that in one way or another you sympathize with, because we all have had moments in our life that we were embarrassed about, but by seeing her we feel at ease. Now the performances... there is definitely some great acting in this film. It starts with Rene Zellweger's "Raging Bull" Bridget performance, and carries through with almost every character in this film. They are all acted the way acting should be, so that you can't tell they are acting!! I was definitely surprised at how great Rene played Bridget, the accent is right on, so much so that you leave thinking she is British and plays all her past roles faking the accents. Hugh Grant also gave a great performance, one that I was happy to see. In the role of Bridget's low-down-sex-crazed sleaze of a boss, he acts against type. We are used to the Hugh of films like Four Weddings and a Funeral, or Notting Hill(another film I loved), but in this film he sheds all that proves he's got something more to offer. You'll hate him and love him, something only the finest leading men can accomplish. I also must give a quick mention to Colin Firth, whose performance ties in neatly to the whole story, and does a great job being part of what could have become a messy love triangle story. I really would have given this film 4stars (and secretly I must admit, I love it beyond that), but it does rely on the romantic/comedy clichés in the end, or a spin on them at least. For example, the final chase scene for the one you love, how many times have we seen that? Don't get me wrong, I love that stuff. It's the best, and man it works in this film as much as it did in Notting Hill. I'll leave that 1/2 star out because in a way I wish it had found another way to work its self out. So if your girlfriend/friend/whatever wants to go see a movie tonight, make sure you skip the Freddy Prinze Jr. crap, and beg her to go see this. You'll both love it, and I expect all of you to thank me when you leave that theater with a smile on your face.

Blow (2001)

You want to see Johnny Depp in a powerful portrayal of real man, rent Donnie Brasco.

[14 May 2002]

This was a film I'd been waiting to see. I had great expectations, but I must say I never let them decide the experience of watching a film. I check 'em at the door!!, sit back in my cozy Cinema Guzzo, or Famous Player's chair (actually, recently I've been trying to save money so I go see what I can at Cinema Du Parc...anyway!!), and just watch. By now your asking yourself why I have told you all this about my movie going experiences. Basically, anything I might have to talk about is more interesting than this film. Before describing BLOW, let me just say that I saw this film a week prior to its release, so I was not affected by any reviews, as I ever am anyway. Actually, it has surprised me that this film has been getting some great reviews, not that there are that many. Ok, ok, let me explain myself. I did not care, or give much thought to any of these characters once the film ended. Blow is the true story of George Jung (played by Depp, in a wasted performance) the first major cocaine dealer in America. Now it seems as though a lot goes on in this film, and it looks fabulous(nothing we haven't seen done a million times by Scorcese), but the sum of all those little parts that make up George Jung's life(at least the ones they show in the film), don't add up to much. This must have been the most exciting, most interesting life there was. If that's exciting, then I really missed something. The whole film is narrated by Jung (Depp), much like Liotta narrated "Goodfellas", except in this case it doesn't work at all. What we see on screen through out the picture is pretty straight forward, nothing we haven't seen before!! Sorry, but I must stress that point. So when you have Jung (Depp) repeating what you clearly see happening on screen, best example being the scene at the end of him old and in jail. I won't spoil it for you if you actually go see the film, but I promise you if you do see it you'll know exactly what I mean. If you want to see a powerful film(s) about drugs, go see Traffic or Requiem for a Dream. You want to see great cinema style, rent Goodfellas (totally ripped off this film!!). You want to see Johnny Depp in a powerful portrayal of real man, rent Donnie Brasco. Any and all of these films will deliver in one way or another. Blow falls short and never hits its mark.

George Jung has a way of dealing with obstacles, he doesnt care much about the consequences, and let's us know by saying "F*$% it". This is now what I say when people ask me if they should see the film:).

Behind Enemy Lines (2001)

It serves its purpose as fluff and filler. No more, no less.

[14 May 2002]

Behind Enemy Lines follows a shot-down pilots' struggle to stay alive and ultimately get rescued from... well, behind enemy lines. The premise is as simple as that, and so is the story. Don't expect much character development for anyone you see in this film because you will be disappointed. But, and it's a big one, if you want to be entertained and are willing to sit through an hour and a half of rehashed storylines, then you'll probably actually find yourself liking this movie.

Owen Wilson (Shanghai Noon, Bottle Rocket) plays the pilot whom is in severe danger throughout the film. There is absolutely no doubt that had this movie actually been written to take place in the real world, or even follow basic proper storytelling, his character would not have lived to see the last 50 minutes of this film, but that is not the point here. The point is strictly to keep the audience interested for it's full length and it succeeds. I can't say that I recommend this film but I definitely was not bored while watching it. Wilson did a great job here in making his character sympathetic, all the while forcing us to not ask so many questions about the plot since really the story (if you want to call it that) doesn't allow much time to stop. He is on the run.

The film begins with a cliche setup of a hotshot Navy flier who has had enough of his 7 years doing nothing onboard the Navy Aircraft. He has done no more than routine checks and excersises and was hoping to see and serve for the real deal...war. The scene would have been laughable, but is reduced to mere smirks while watching Gene Hackman (Admiral Reigart) delivers his lines. Shortly after, and right in time for X-mas dinner, Owen and his partner must do one of those routine checks. Owen, having been given permission to be dismissed in 2 weeks, feels he has nothing to lose so decides to break the rules and fly over a restricted area which is supposed be empty anyway. Well I couldn't believe it when they found trouble lurking there (I'm being sarcastic).

So now the plane is shot down in Bosnia, Owen's partner is the one injured when they land from having ejected from the plane. Moments after, Owen leaves to get to higher ground where his communication devices work. I don't know why I even bothered explaining this much of this so called plot, frankly it doesn't matter. Here's my advice, don't go see this film if you want a story that will amaze. It's all about action; it's about close calls, and unbelievable plot twists and outcomes. It's about good and bad, and the American hero. And its first time director, John Moore, delivers in a "close, but no cigar" level of Bruckheimer Films (Armageddon, Top Gun). That's not really a good thing.

So if your a regular movie goer and have little taste for a challenging film experience, then by all means go see this. It serves its purpose as fluff and filler. No more, no less.

Bottle Rocket (1996)

It's hilarious, and fun to watch.

[14 May 2002]

I'll dig in to this one right away... First off, this is my first time viewing the film and I have already seen Rushmore (director/co-writers second film, this one being his first). I had not been able to find this to rent anywhere up until yesterday, and my interest to see it was at an all time high considering my adoration for Rushmore and heavy anticipation for the creative teams latest, THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS.

I went into this film knowing it was a low budget, indie film, and in that respect it fully delivers. In fact it reminds me how funny and simple films could be. It begins with a successful escape from a Mental Institute where Anthony (Luke Wilson) is staying. The mastermind behind the operation is Anthony's not so bright friend Didnan (Owen Wilson, proving his comedic timing in this film). You'll see why this is funny when you watch the movie, and it sets up the main characters perfectly.

Wes Anderson co-wrote the film with Owen Wilson, as well as directed. I absolutely loved Rushmore and would say that it is one of my all time top 10 favorite films...ever! Watching this film was a treat (excuse the use of that word, but it really was). I smiled and laughed at the situations, all spread out and paced perfectly (perhaps a little too slow for others tastes, all depend on how you look at the film). Bottle Rocket is as beuatifully filmed as it is funny. The cinematography really helped this simple story develop and added depth to the situations. For example, the bookstore robbery scene, in which everything looks vacant...really vacant. You'll know what I mean, and why this scene works when you watch the movie. So watch it!

There's also the introduction of James Caan's character, whose presence I seemed to find distracting at first more then anything else, but there is a pay off, and his low-key performance was right on. The dialogue is hilarious, and all the characters in this film have great chemistry. It's no wonder the director used many of them again in his latest efforts. I also enjoyed the odd romance build-up for Anthony, and it showed that the director truly enjoyed the subject matter since he went on to explore it further, and with much more importance in Rushmore.

All in all this film follows a simple narrative leading to simple pay offs. The pace serves the story and its characters. These are people that just want to talk and live and do...something...anything. So they rob. It's hilarious, and fun to watch. I recommend you see it if your a fan of the creative teams present work. If not you should probably give these movies another chance.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

I openly admit it: I have never been wild about the `Star War' films.

[13 May 2002]

I openly admit it: I have never been wild about the `Star War' films. I watched them as a child and saw them again when they were re-released on video. Part 4 was cool, 5 even better, and 6 I found a little annoying to be honest, but still they were over all satisfying. `Star Wars Episode 1' on the other hand proved to be a so-so introduction to this franchise, with an alright storyline and further more beautiful special-effects, it kept me watching and somewhat interested the whole way through. I admire the complex universe George Lucas has created, and can completely understand how it has captured the imagination of it's legions of fans, after all it goes without saying this film franchise was a milestone for modern cinema. I hope you have an idea of where I'm coming from. Having said that, I can't say this installment offered much aside from more effects, more battles, and another half-assed script.

I will have some spoilers in this review, nothing crazy but I know `Star Wars' fanatics will want to stay pure until their first viewing. Here goes, it's been 10 years since `Episode 1' and we find out that someone is attempting to kill, Amidala (Portman), now a senator. Enter Obi Wan (McGregor) and Anakin (Hayden Christensen), whom are ordered to keep the Senator safe. Upon re-introduction after such a long period of time Amidala is taken back by how `grown up' Anakin looks, and he, now having gone through puberty, can appreciate the beautiful woman Amidala has always been. Shortly afterwards an intruder's plans to again assonate the senator are foiled by the Jedi's, leading to their decision to split up to better protect her.

From that point on I found it useless to even try and make sense of all their political discussions but I did keep up, even if it did drag on for what seemed to be more than half the film. Now supposedly in that time Anakin and Amidala manage to fall in love, proving this film just doesn't have any strength other than its effect montages. Dumb-ing down the script with lines such as `I can't breath' when Anakin describes his affections, or when he says `I wish I could wish away my feelings' in response to his love denied, is something that occurs throughout the film and in fact gets worse. I find it funny that even in such a vast and unknown universe filled with such varied and amazing creatures and characters, people still manage to speak so pretentiously. Obviously these are Lucas' words, not the characters. In the later parts of the film it is almost non-stop action ranging from a not so spectacular Gladiator-Style spectacle, to a full fledged civil war, and a fight scene between the Big Bad Villain and… Yoda?? This guy had been limping the whole movie, it seemed like a joke he would suddenly whip out into action (expect this scene to be parodied in a 4th installment of `Austin Powers').

Did I mention how bad the dialogue was? Man was it bad!! Here are a few more lines from the film. `I truly, deeply love you' says the Amidala to Anakin in the midst of hectic battles, and with that he finally realizes it. Great! What does Mace Windu (Jackson) say when he comes to save the imprisoned Obi Wan, Anakin and Amidala… `This party's over!' Are you laughing yet? I surely was, and definitely was not alone. Now do I think that this dialogue will ruin your experience while watching this film? I highly doubt that, seeing as we've become accustomed to such crap by now, most of you will easily let it slide and let the hype of finally seeing the movie take over. I want everyone to watch it again in a year and then tell me what you all really think.

Now for the cast, comprised of fine actors, does a very good job with this sloppy material. Hayden Christensen is great as Anakin and shows us his inner pain incredibly well, definitely not given enough to do here, but expect to see far better work from this guy in the future. Natalie Portman lit up the screen and is cute as ever, hopefully she uses this exposure to get herself into better pictures. Sam Jackson is slick and cool but doesn't do much else, and Ewan McGregor has some nice action sequences but that aside he is just giving Anakin advice the whole movie.

This story just never came together for me, and I found myself laughing about it once it was over. Will Star Wars fans be satisfied just because they get to see a continuation in this franchise? This film needed more work where films like this always do, in the script!! The visuals will surely blow you away; though some scenes are so full of CGI I began to get sick of them. Still I will go back to see this film with my friends and see what their reaction is to this movie. It definitely kept me entertained, but mostly for all the wrong reasons.

Unfaithful (2002)

The story of a chance encounter between a beautiful older woman (Lane) and a sexy stranger (Martinez) that leads to a smoldering love affair is but the superficial layer in this tale.

[12 May 2002]

The story of a chance encounter between a beautiful older woman (Lane) and a sexy stranger (Martinez) that leads to a smoldering love affair is but the superficial layer in this tale. To truly appreciate this movie I had to accept this film for what it was and not for what else I wanted it to be, and for that reason I am very satisfied having seen it.

First off, full attention should be given to Diane Lane, for not only carrying this film, but rather because she does in fact give an outstanding powerful performance. Her performance speaks volumes about her character. There are no scenes where we see her character confide in anyone, be it in the movie or with the audience, and yet you can see the unsatisfied woman she is becoming subtly expressed on her face and in her manners. She is of course actually a beautiful woman, which serves her character and this story all the better.

At first the film goes through the motions, playing out the standard elements of a tale of infidelity. In this case we have a view to the Sumner family's present day situation in their now 11 year old marriage. The couple Connie (Lane) and Edward (Gere), are happily married as they raise their child away from the city in the suburbs. One windy day in New York, while attempting to flag a taxi cab, Connie is blown to the ground and lands atop a handsome French stranger. As faith would have it the incident takes place right in front of his apartment and so she accepts his offer to come up to his place to fix her scraped knee. His name is Pierre (Martinez), a book collector who is house-sitting for one the owner of this huge apartment. He fixes Connie a cup a coffee and before she leaves directs her to a specific location on one of the many bookshelves to retrieve a book he will give to her. This moment ultimately puts the wheels of this story in motion.

The film is given an edge by its perfect cast. Olivier Martinez is slick and suave yet maintains an air of intelligence, which is perhaps what makes him so believably irresistible. Richard Gere, manages to come through as a man that is slowly beginning to suspect his wife's affair. Certainly had it not been for these actors the movie would not have worked so well. An unexpected twist that comes half way in the film would usually have caused my eyes to roll, but surely enough I was shocked. These characters had nicely developed scenes, enough so to understand what they are going through. Now don't get me wrong, I did have some problems with this film as it does at times feature silly coincidences, and perhaps even a few too many clichés, such as the coffee shop scene where Connie is coincidentally given incite on why love affairs end in disaster. There were a few more moments such as this, but again it was not the biggest deal, simply a pet peeve.

Adrian Lyne certainly loves directing stories that leave the audience talking long after the credits, and I for one am thankful for that. She has in the past delivered to that result with `Fatal Attraction' and `Indecent Proposal'. I can't say that this film is as good as those, but certainly will fuel discussions of its own. I too took part in dissecting certain parts of this relationship with my girlfriend upon exiting the theatre, and for moments afterward. Be sure that that was not the last discussion I will have in regards to having seen this movie.

From its symbolic `winds of change come blowing in' beginning, through it's beautifully shot and steamy love affair, right back to the paranoid relationship of its central characters, `Unfaithful' keeps you watching. You definitely need to sit back during this one, being that it is one of those movies that almost demands you shift in your seat while you ponder how or why these characters are behaving the way they are. Still, it had enough charm and intrigue to keep me entertained and involved the whole way through, and thinking and talking about it long after it was over. Looking forward to Diane Lane's next.

Spider-Man (2002)

I am completely surprised with the fact that I did not enjoy this film.

[12 May 2002]

I am completely surprised with the fact that I did not enjoy this film. Did I hate it? No, although it does reuse, recycle and remix key plot points and storylines from the super-hero films that precede it. Spider-man never fully takes off, and rather is content on being a fluff introduction to its title hero, filled with some campy style, dead-end dialogue, and matinee drama.

The film does stay true to most of the origin of Spider-man from the original Stan Lee comic (in a blink and you'll miss cameo). Peter Parker, a teenager that is picked on by his classmates and who has in fact been in love with his next door neighbor Mary-Jane for the longest time, is suddenly endowed with spider-like powers as a result of being bitten by a radioactive spider while on a class field trip. As he discovers the powers, his best friend Harry's dad, Norman Osborn, a brilliant scientist who's experimental project to create a new weapon for the army is in financial trouble and thus decides to test it out on himself, but in result becomes the villain dubbed as Green Goblin.

Tobey Maguire is a nice choice for Peter Parker, as are most of the casting choices for the film. By far the most entertaining role belonged to J.K. Simmons who plays the cigar-smoking J. Jonah Jameson from the Daily Bugle, a paper which Peter Parker sells photos of Spider-man to. Those scenes made me smile and remember some moments from the early cartoon. In fact Sam Raimi kindly inserts nostalgic elements from the early 'toons and comics throughout the movie, perhaps to satisfy the purist of Spidey fans. Now I don't know about you, but I would much rather watch a great Spider-man story told on screen rather then a few live-action recreations. In that respect the script had a lot to do with why this film just didn't deliver as well as it could.

I always wonder why it is in super-hero movies that the unstoppable villain is always created at the same time as the all mighty hero. Now I understand that the film may need a villain otherwise this just leaves Spider-Man discovering his powers the whole movie while fighting `regular' criminals (then again would that have been such a bad thing? This is a movie about Spider-man). I think about movies like `Unbreakable', `Batman' and even `Batman Returns', where the villains are handled much better in the storyline, and I feel as though they have a reason to be there, more than just to be part of the movie.

This is big budget pop-corn film not unlike any you've seen before. It drags to make up for what should be story-telling and the special effects come up short many times throughout, and that's unbelievable when you figure they had a 120 million dollar budget for this thing. I just didn't see the value on screen. They should have cut some of those out and made room for more character development, after all they do set up a sort of love triangle between Peter, Harry and Mary-Jane. I would have loved to actually feel some tension in those scenes instead of just having them involved because the script called for it.

If by now your thinking this thing is filled with plot-holes, then your right! And please don't say that it's just a comic film and that it's ok. Sure, some of the hero stuff you just have to let slide, but I know that this story could have been told much better than it was, but this is not why I gave it 2 out of 4 stars. I actually found myself getting annoyed when scenes between characters we're cut short by some lame explosion and/or action sequence. Enough already! I want to know more about these people. Willem Dafoe actually managed to have a great scene, where he argues in front of the mirror with his Goblin counterpart. Well done, but scenes like this we're way to few and far between.

The ending of this movie, especially the battle scene between Spider-man and Green Goblin, is near laughable and goes by so quickly it makes you wonder what we'd been building up to exactly. I would love to openly say the problems and plot holes they leave at the end, but as always I attempt to keep my reviews spoiler free. Just know that I was in complete shock by the behaviors of these characters in reaction to each other based on the way they'd been behaving the whole time. And Green Goblin's dialogue is pure recycled garbage villain dialogue from a million other films before. Sheesh!

Basically there is some nostalgia involved when seeing a comic hero I read, drew, and role played in my early years growing up, finally make it onto the big screen. It's larger than life itself. The medium of film has perfectly evolved to make a character like Spider-man shine, and knowing that adds to the disappointment of watching the end result. This could have been an instant classic, but here and now it is happy with simply being the flavor of the month.

Extra Note: I actually liked the fact that they made the webbing come out of Spider-man's wrists, seemed much more logical than him creating those incredible web-shooters and fluid like in the original comic. But I wonder; since they filled this film with so much ridiculous stuff, why not just leave them in. They could have been used to put him in all kinds of other dangerous situations, like he could be in a situation where he runs out of webbing, so on. Ah I can go on forever, but this isn't relevant to the film.