Change Your Image
Tucker_Keon
Reviews
Twister (1996)
Twister, not just a party game
Being from the west coast I never had a whole lot of interest in the natural phenomena showcased in this film. Where I live an inch of rain is headline news. I had absolutely no interest in Twister until I saw it was on late one boring night. Having nothing better to do, I obliged the television and payed attention. I found Twister to be what I call a nice bedtime movie. While it failed to anthropomorphize the tornado the way Backdraft successfully did with fire, the characters were well fleshed out, there was a healthy balance of comedy, drama and (at the time) cutting edge special FX. I found that as long as the viewer came in with no expectation, Twister would be a fun and easy to watch nappy time movie, perfect for watching on a rainy day, curled up with a blanket. So to sum everything up, don't expect an epic, emotionally charged extravaganza, but if you are willing to accept a decently woven story with reasonably believable characters, and have a rainy afternoon to kill, check out Twister. You shouldn't be too disappointed.
There's Something About Mary (1998)
There's something about the '90s, huh?
I was about 13 or 14 when my family and I checked this flick out at the theater (I have hip folks, what can I say!). Zippers, hair-gel, Ben Stiller, and that crazy bro. Mary had - it's the late '90s, so put on your zoot suit, and pull a comb through your coal-black hair! Much of "Something About Mary's" humor is about "sticky" situations, and I mean this literally and figuratively. . . It's crude (what other movie ends with the dialogue, "I was only bonin' you to get to Mary?"), you bet - but it also has a charming good-naturedness about it that later, more cynical exercises in gross-out comedy (i.e. the "American Pie" trilogy) would lack. In fact, remember that guy from high school who was always trying way too hard to be the class clown? "American Pie," and especially its sequels, are like that guy. His freshness wore out quickly, and he eventually became a self-conscious parody of himself. The plot of "Mary" essentially revolves around a group of love-hungry boobs who desperately want to hook up with Mary. Stiller was her high-school prom-date; Chris Elliot was her college boyfriend, etc. Each guy tries to sabotage the other guys, and Mary is stuck in the middle of their kooky antics. Simple? Yes - but "Mary's" not supposed to be a weighty Oscar juggernaut steeped in critic-baiting societal metaphors - it's supposed to be fun. And trust me, it totally succeeds, here. So, why should you check out "There's Something About Mary" now, instead of the more recent "Pie" movies, and such? "Mary" goes down like a bubbly can of sparkling Cherry Coke (or Surge, if you remember that! Damn, that was good stuff!), complete with a nostalgic buzz. Think blue skies, and an optimistic, pre-Bush America. "Pie," and recent movies like it, go down like hard swallows from a plastic bottle of some over-syruppy, hyper-commericalized energy drink. Think smart-allecky smirks, and greasy foreheads. Which would you prefer? So, check "Mary" out - She was hot then, and she's still hot today.
Rain Man (1988)
Rain Man Raymond
Raymond Babbitt(Dustin Hoffman) is what is called an "autistic savant". His brain does not function in the typical fashion. I must admit he is a superb mathemetician. He has difficulty communicating and learning. He is set in his own ways of acting,thinking,eating,sleeping,walking,talking,using the bathroom,you name it. Any sudden unprepared break from his daily routine and weekly rituals terrify Raymond. Raymond has a younger brother Charlie(Tom Cruise) who is a typical healthy human being. The Babbitt brothers' father passed away and when Charlie learns about the death,that's when he learned that he had an older brother. The Babbitts' mother died when Charlie was a toddler and Raymond was in his 20's. Charlie is bequeathed a vintage 1949 Buick Roadmaster convertible. That's what brought his relationship with his father to an end. Charlie tells his girlfriend Susanna(Valeria Golino) that when he was in high school,he took a car for a victory spin against his dad's authority. He brought home a report card with almost all A's. The father reported the car stolen,spitefully to teach his son a lesson. Charlie felt he deserved it although the car was his dad's pride and joy. Charlie and a few friends of his were arrested and all but Charlie were shortly bailed out of jail. So Charlie ended up leaving home and he never saw his dad again. Charlie also got prize-winning rosebushes. Raymond,who doesn't understand the concept of money,was left $3 million. Charlie does all he can to gain custody of his brother and get his rightful share of the monetary bequest($1.5 million). According to Dr. Bruner who's in charge of Wallbrook,Raymond's institution,says Raymond gets the best care there. Charlie felt Raymond would live his life civilly outside Wallbrook. When Charlie was a child,he was trying to pronounce his brother's name and it came out "rain man". During Raymond's temporary departure from Wallbrook,Charlie takes him to Las Vegas. They play blackjack and win a lot of money. They even receive a penthouse suite,complimentarily as a result of their winnings. At a diner one morning,after eating a pancake breakfast,Raymond immediately knew that 246 of 250 toothpicks fell out of a box onto the floor. "There's four left in the box.",the waitress says. Raymond even briefly drove the '49 Buick in one or two scenes. In one of the final scenes,a private hearing takes place regarding Raymond. Raymond can't decide whether to stay with Charlie or go back to Wallbrook. Director Barry Levinson plays Dr. Mardsen,who's in charge of Raymond's psychic evaluation program. Raymond kept saying,"Go back to Wallbrook with Charlie Babbitt". So Dr. Bruner took Raymond back to Wallbrook. This film was theatrically released on December 16,1988. It won three Oscars. Levinson took home a Best Director Oscar,Hoffman took home a Best Actor Oscar,and best screenplay.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
One little difference between the movie an the book
I loved Harry Potter and Sorcerer's Stone! It was absolutely wonderful to read as well as to watch. One little thing though: In the movie scene which Professor McGonagall goes to fetch Wood, captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, and tells him that she had found him a new seeker, Harry (after seeing him flying through the air, retrieving Neville's Remembrall that Malfoy threw into the air), the classroon Professor McGonagall enterred was the Defense Against the Dark Arts classroom, according to the book. But in the movie, the teacher was Professor Quirrell. In the book, it was Professor Flitwick teaching. Just thought I'd clear that up. Other than that, great book and great movie.
Brotherhood of Blood (2007)
Interesting story.
I was able to attend the advanced screening here in New York and must say I enjoyed myself. First of all the movie is cool. It has a great story line plus it is simple. There are no huge dramatical special effects because the dialog and the story line, in itself, hold there own. You are just thrown into the plot head-on and then given little chance to breathe as the movie takes you deep into a story so rich with characters. The cinematography was really nothing to write home about, pretty standard stuff for the most part. The score was unobtrusive. The story is what drives this film and makes it special. And the actors were well chosen to run with the story. This movie gets two thumbs up from me.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
3.5 stars--Good sequel
Jurassic Park is one of my all time favorite movies so it would be hard for The Lost World to measure up. However, taken on its own merits, LW is a good action movie. Jeff Goldblum is back as Ian Malcolm and finds out there is a Site B, a different island where the dinos were bred. he also finds out his girlfriend has gone down to the island to study them. Malcolm goes down to bring her home before she is eaten. While there, another group from Ingen arrive to hunt and capture as many species of dinosaurs as they can to turn them into a travleing sideshow. Once again the effects are tremendous and I don't really understand some people's complaints that the story isn't good. I didn't see anything wrong with the basic concept. It's not as good as the first movie because you don't have Sam Neill and Laura Dern and you don't have that same awe as the first time you laid eyes on the dinosaurs trying to put yourself in the place of the paleontologists. I think all in all though that this was a strong sequel and an enjoyable movie.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Weaker than the first
As a rabid Harry Potter fan, I eagerly awaited this movie and I couldn't help but be disappointed. Naturally, since I've devoured all of the books, I had some ideas about how this movie should be and, as a result, came away feeling let down. It can't be said enough that the casting of these movies is masterful. Snape was never a particular favorite of mine and although I initially felt that Alan Rickman was miscast, he soon did away with all of my apprehensions. He is masterful as Snape. With the simple curl of a lip or a subtle change in the slant of his eyebrow, he can convey the sinister nature of Snape and his expressions are every bit as inscrutable as the Snape from the books. It was a pleasure to see that Rickman was not the only wonderful cast member to return. The actors do a wonderful job of really inhabiting their characters and the child actors have grown since the previous movie. The fact that they're the same actors helps maintain the continuity that is so important to the HP works as a whole. Not only are Harry and his friends growing in the books, so are the actors who portray them. Another very strong point of this movie was Dobby, a character I loved in the books. In spite of his odd and rather ugly appearance, there is something sweet and endearing about him. He's loyalty personified--even though he can be a pain in the rear. His voice was wonderful too and it was such a treat to see him move from the page and into "real" life. Jason Isaacs is another welcome addition to the cast of characters and he infuses Lucius Malfoy with cold, elegant menace. He's every bit as intimidating as Snape but with a thin veneer of charm and elegance. Isaacs really made the character come to life for me. Yet in spite of all this, what I sorely missed in this movie was the delicious humor that permeated nearly every page of the book. I've long felt that Chamber of Secrets is the funniest of the HP books but much of the humor was stripped from the movie in order to move the plot along. I felt that this did the story a disservice as humor so often proves such a saving grace in Harry's world.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Wow! A big jump from the third movie!
This movie is by far the best movie so far. After getting used to all the changes that were made in the 3rd movie, the fourth movie is a blast. The first thing I have to say is "VOLDEMORT RULES!!!" Whoever played Voldemort did an excellent job and you really learn to hate him (which is a good thing if you learn to hate the character and not the actor). The special effects rock and the acting is much better than I remember it being in the previous movies. I can't say much about the story because there's nothing new under the sun. As usual the director cut things, added things, and shortened things so as to make it not nearly as good as the books, but that's to be expected with all films that are based off of books. All in all this is a great movie that deserves to be bought off the shelf and watched over and over and over again.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Entertaining
I particularly welcome the exposure the film gives to the denigration of women by the Catholic Church and the role of Mary Magdalene in church history. While The Da Vinci Code never reaches its full potential as a compelling work of art, it is solid entertainment that creates awareness of the differences within the early church and may spur people to read apocryphal writings such as the Gnostic Gospels and The Gospel of Thomas. Of course, the theory, first expounded in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, is out of the mainstream, yet, it is not as preposterous as Roger Ebert has claimed. Given the paucity of historical records referring to a historical Jesus and the passing of two thousand years, it is no more implausible than many other theological notions, widely accepted as the unvarnished truth. Anyway, all questions are answered and you are not left hanging. Whether you agree with the answers is up to you. Remember, it's only a movie, and it's never too late to become a history buff and you can do your own research.
Heat (1995)
Best Mann movie
Heat is a rare masterpiece. Mann tells his stories in such a unique and captivating manner. Heat is a movie with a somewhat implausible storyline, that is told with incredible realism. Every event in this movie is shown with such detail and with such a realistic, "in your face" feel, that every one of it's 3 hrs is intriguing. Maybe this is just one of those movies that only select few are going to enjoy, but I think it's incredible, with excellent performances by Pacino, de Niro, and a young Portman. (alright, her performance isn't anything special, but she is.) Each actor shows us a unique and believable individual, which is what should happen. At the very least, the shootout in L.A. is one of the best of it's kind in any movie, at least that I've seen. These are my thoughts on one of the best movies ever made.
The Green Mile (1999)
One of the most penetrating films
It's not everyday that a movie is able to change an audiences opinion on something. "The Green Mile" is a movie that made me think long and hard about supporting the death penalty. The film, based on a novel by Stephen King, contains such a variety of emotional events that it repels its audience away from its subject rather than glamorizing it. Only a handful of recent productions have been capable of such power. "The Green Mile" is truly one of the best films this year and is Oscar Worthy in many categories. It is a unique, three hour experience that must be seen to believe. "The Green Mile" contains so many vivid performances, I will not be able to honor everyone who deserves credit in my review. Michael Jeter, Gary Sinise, Doug Hutchison, James Cromwell, Bonnie Hunt, and David Morse are all superior in strength of their characters. Each contributes Oscar worthy performances, and if the Academy leaves these individuals out at Award time, they need to recheck their databases. Michael Clarke Duncan recently received a Golden Globe nomination for his supporting role, and he deserves it. Tom Hanks is just unspeakably brilliant in the leading role. He is right behind Kevin Spacey from "American Beauty" in the best performance of 1999.
Harold and Maude (1971)
A classic
HAROLD AND MAUDE is certainly one of the funniest movies of all time, but is also one of the most important human stories as well. I only saw this film quite recently but it hopped straight to my number one film of all time. It is beautiful. Bud Cort is charming as Harold and Ruth Gordon - dare I say cute? As Maude. If I look like her when I'm eighty I'll be out there nicking cars and fluttering my eyelashes at policemen too! Maude wrenches Harold free from his morbid and lonely existence to show him how lush and amazing the world can be and he emerges from his experiences a happy man. This is definitely one of the films that (along with say, Fight Club, American Beauty and The Rocky Horror Picture Show) show you can be who you want to be, and you needn't let anyone oppress you. It's brilliant.