greenie Reviews

The Bone Collector (1999)

Circuitous and pointless.

[6/10 · 6 May 2000]

While the film begins interestingly enough with its premise and initial character development, it settles into mediocrity thereafter and provides decreasing interest with each scene.

The actors in this film plod their way through the story; this is not to say that a different cast would have done better, as the film's dialogue is so basic that even over-the-top performers would draw a yawn out of the audience. Rather, no role is a challenge, no character illiciting any degree of love or hate out of the viewer.

Where this film suffers the greatest is at the root of the plot. A twisted, murderous psychopath is one thing; one with mission and purpose is another. There lies the difference between a slasher flick (Friday the 13th, Halloween) and a psychological thriller (Seven, Silence of the Lambs). The Bone Collector instead lies somewhere between. The villain here is twisted, calculated and smart, yet for all his plotting and planning they have no effect whatsoever on his ultimate goal.

By the time the credits roll we care nothing one way or the other about any of the characters that died, regardless of whatever amount of plot development they received. We care only that the movie made little sense and over the course of 2 hours, took us nowhere.

Dogma (1999)

Brilliant and thought provoking look at organized western religion

[10/10 · 4 May 2000]

ck note -- According to director Kevin Smith on his View Askew website, later this year (2000) will see the release of a fully-loaded DVD with all the extra goodies DVD owners have to demand, especially for quality movies... the current DVD is entirely without extras (I don't count trailers as "extras")]

This is a brilliant movie for those of you that choose to look towards western, organized religions (regardless of the denomination) with a questioning glance. If you're not the one that can take "isms" lightly -- in this case sarcasm, symbolism, criticism, witicism -- then why bother watching?

But if you can watch a movie objectively and listen to the point of view it's taking, you'll be at the very least by Dogma's very original look at the Catholic church and what drives the followers of Catholicism (and for those of you out there that think Smith is a heathen, be aware that he is Catholic, goes to church every week pays his tithe on a weekly basis).

And if you were already fan of any of the original Jersey Trilogy (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy), you'll be delighted by Dogma. It's as fresh and blunt (oh, a pun!) as Clerks, as biting and sterotype-smashing as Chasing Amy, while still building on the heroic qualities [smirk] of Jay and Silent Bob from Mallrats.

The Alarmist (1997)

Qurkiness can't carry bland acting or a meandering script.

[5/10 · 26 January 2000]

There's really not that needs to be said about this movie, except perhaps that it is little more than an unbelievably average attempt by all parties involved, from scriptwriters to actors to the film crew Stanley Tucci within a tight timeframe, and this was the only project on the shelf. But how any producer could look at If there's one good thing I can draw from this movie is the increase in respect I offer towards the Cohen brothers; even in their weakest attempts, the characters themselves remain interesting and unique due to a successful blend of writing, acting and directing.

Why Evan Dunsky was handed this film to both write and direct is beyond me. One must imagine that the producers had to use Dunsky's record and see "My Demon Lover" as his career highlight is beyond me.

My guess is that Dunsky is stuck filiming commercials for the collect-calling companies, as his only use for David Arquette is to count the angles at which he can capture his smirks. Still, credit does go to Dunsky for making a feature length piece that is easier to watch than those 30-second commercials.

The rest of the cast is utterly forgetful; no surprise, as their characters are bland and without the ability to utter anything that might deamnd out attention.

The movie's strongest points lie in what starts out as the plot for the film -- residential alarm and theft-detection salesmen -- and the small tributary tales that grow from it. Unfortunately, many of these branches are severed quickly (most simply dry up and disappear) while the heart of the plot meanders onward.

As this film originated as a play, ultimate judgment must fall on Dunsky. His screenplay adaptation is as snappy as a train-of-thought piece written while on Riddelin, his direction little more than a poorly-lit theatre production taken outside and put on film.

in this case, with the Dunsky behind both the typewriter and camera, it's easy enough to point the blame. Still, this movie did not fall victim to the channel flip... perhaps it was because I was too busy counting the 20-odd members of the Arquette family involved.

Any Given Sunday (1999)

Same old, same old.

[5/10 · 24 December 1999]

I was hoping Oliver Stone would at least come up with something new and/or different when using American Football as his subject matter. Perhaps he was too concerned with his more-than-a-cameo role as a broadcaster to pay attention to the fact that he was making a bland movie with uninteresting characters and a recycled plot.

In this film we're blessed with: - The old coach who many think is past his time - Veteran players who forego injuries for one more win - Young hotshots who don't care about the team - The meddling owner who cares only about the bottom line - The zany defensive players - Flashy offensive players - The must-have-drugs-to-kill-the-pain attitude - Sardonic, overly critical sports reporters - Cameos from football players and coaches, past and present... pretty much playing themselves

With uneven editing and writing, incongruous dialogue and the total lack of ANYTHING fresh in this film, the only saving grace of the movie is that the football sequences are filmed quite well, with both accurate and creative sound editing to help the atmosphere. However, even these sequences fail to fulfill completely, as they are too replete with a fast-cut, MTV-style of editing with the audience bombasted throughout by loud, obtrusive music. No original score here, the film's "score" is merely a marketing machine to sell CDs.

Stone makes the world of professional (American) football seem so cut-and-dry by using every cliche there is; each character and action is nothing we haven't seen before in another movie, or every week on TV and in the newspapers.

And at 165 minutes, one wonders why some scenes weren't cut entirely, as many of them do little, if anything, to either further the plot or offer a closer look into this world.

5 out of 10.

The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

Gorgeous production design and brilliant plot twist

[7/10 · 13 December 1999]

Perhaps one of the things that most endears me to this movie is that it deals with a very techie subject -- virtual reality -- without coming across as a techie film. Combined with a brilliant plot twist, this is a movie that will leave most with a desire to view it a second time.

It's also got to have the biggest effects budget of any movie that doesn't involve space, creatures, explosions, or some kind of massive disaster. The effects are blended in so smoothly that even the most astute fans of movie magic don't instantly think "wow, what great effects." This is in large part due to the meticulous detail coming from the production designers, who put just as much effort and detail into their sets and costumes (and extras).

On the down side though, the movie does suffer a bit from somewhat bland acting; the three leads (Bierko, Stahl and Mol -- sounds like a vaudeville troupe) are so subdued that it's easy to lose interest in their part of the plot. The two most interesting characters are brought out in large part because of the actors themselves: D'Onofrio and Haysbert, who in every movie seem to become the focus of every scene they're in.

Still, this movie is serious proof that content is king with a plot that well overcomes the bland acting. At points the storyline is shuffled into the background for a moment, and the bland characters take over with simiarly tasteless dialogue. However, the visual design of the film keeps your eyes glued to the imagery.

For me, a 7 out of 10.

On a final note, the DVD version of this film is worth checking out, as it provides a lot of information and visuals (including interactive before/after sequences) with regards to the production design.

Something Wicked This Way Comes (1983)

Mature and intriguing thriller for adults and kids alike

[17 September 1999]

This film is well made in all regards; the cast is top-notch, the cinematography and direction drive the tone of the movie, the effects inventive and wonderful (even by late-90's standards) and best of all, the storyline superb.

That said, this is arguably the best film made from any of Ray Bradbury's works. I first read the book years ago as a 13-year-old and remember the images the tale concocted, and the questions about myself that the storyline propose ring as true today from the film as they did then from the page.

Owing much to the casting of the film, the director marvelously weaves the story around the principal leads by allowing a score of tertiary characters to guide the plot's tone, mood and motion. Each person, whether major or minor, is an intriguing part of the tale with their own tale to tell. With great efficiency we understand what drives each of the townspeople, and grow more curious and suspicious as to the background of the carnival folk.

Sympathy -- or contempt -- for each of the characters is developed throughout, and best the film's two supporting actors, Jason Robards and Jonathan Pryce. While neither is exactly cast against type here, both provide a driving stability for the film. The two boys that serve as the film's protagonists do an admirable job in portraying both the fear and delight that is part of youth, and inherent to coming of age.

This movie is a fine example of how an effective thriller can be made without resorting to language, blood, sex, or violence. While I am not all opposed to films that use any or all of those conventions, it is a refreshing change from what is otherwise the norm.

One of the greatest benefits is that the resulting film is one that you can watch with your children, a film that will provide them a healthy scare and stimulate their mind as well. As the film does contain some dark and frightening imagery, it could certainly serve as a source of nightmares for younger children.

Wing Chun (1994)

Full-contact Cirque de Soleil, on the Shakespeare tip

[30 August 1999]

Asian action movies, especially those of the martial arts genre, have yet to truly grasp the importance of a plot. No matter how dizzying and spectacular the choreography of the fights and death-defying the stunts, it all turns into a blur without a compelling story.

Credit WING CHUN for at least trying to break this pattern by molding itself around Shakespeare, rather than Schwarzenegger. Using the play "A Comedy of Errors" as a loose backdrop, the movie ambles from fight scene to fight scene, doing whatever it can to fill up 93 minutes of screen time. Unfortunately, the acting is merely average, and with the exception of Michelle Yeoh, the characters uninteresting and the comedy little more than overexaggerated goofy faces and toilet humor that would do well to amuse a 12-year old.

Of course, nobody in their right mind would ever sit themselves down in front of this movie for the plot, the acting, or the comedy. So enough about the plot, the caracters and dialogue. You come for the action, which WING CHUN doles out in abundance.

In its martial arts choreography, WING CHUN is quite original. Heavy use of wire harnesses allow for wide array of creative attacks and counters, with the film appropriately sped up to emphasize the acrobatic feats of the actors.

WING CHUN presents us with an array of various fighting styles to differing weapons to "prop" fighting, the highlight of the latter coming in a scene where an opponent is challenged to smash a tray of soybean curd (tofu). The timing of the actors is brilliant, with astonishing timing and accuracy with every punch, kick, chop, jab, jump, flip, toss, tumble... you get the idea.

However, the feeling and attitude of the fights themselves are not too varied, and the range of fighting styles a bit limiting for so many scenes, so many opponents. As the movie wears on, so wears the willingness to watch the use of wires in every fight scene, to the point where the final battles seem little more than a full-contact version of Cirque de Soleil.

However, it's not the marionette fighting that left me somewhat unfulfilled by this film; it's the obscene devotion to what can only be described as general goofiness. People kick the living cr** out of each other, yet the only character who is visibly injured in this movie is left without the use of his member. Aside from a few bloody noses a plasma-filled cough or two, nobody ever gets truly hurt... kind of like first-graders duking it out at recess, while dangling from their swing-set wire harnesses. And just like the aftermath of a toddler brawl, the villains never get angry for losing; they're all forced to shake hands, after which they smile, laugh and become friends.

And finally, while I don't need, or always expect to see scenes in which the Master trains the student or fights (often losing to) an adversary, with WING CHUN I felt this was a poor omission. It's very rare to have a leading martial arts role played by a female; it's more rare still that it's one with the grace and charishma of someone like Michelle Yeoh. Combined with Wing Chun's unique fighting style, the filmmakers could have spent more screen time showing inventive training techniques, and less involving the plot.

WING CHUN is worth a good look for fans of the genre, or for those whose only exposure to Michelle Yeoh has been Supercop or Tomorrow Never Dies.

But for those looking for harder action, varying choreography, fewer laughs (and wires), you would be served better by a number of other period pieces -- such as FIST OF LEGEND, featuring Jet Li.

She's All That (1999)

Unoriginal, but watchable

[6/10 · 28 August 1999]

SHE'S ALL THAT has a plot we've seen dozens of times, and there's little originality in the way it's carried out; yet it retains a level of watchability due above average writing, a likable pair of leads and fleeting moments of original camera work.

Detroit Rock City (1999)

Remember going to your first rock concert?

[7/10 · 14 August 1999]

For many of us growing up, the experience of going to your first BIG concert is an unforgettable, fantastic experience. In many cases it's not the concert itself that we remember, rather the days and hours leading up to the concert, the excitement of the crowd, and sharing the experience with your friends. Perhaps the most memorable experience however, was the simple fact that you made it to the show, a true coming of age for many teens.

DETROIT ROCK CITY reminds us of all these obstacles and emotions with a 1978 rock-and-roll backdrop. While the KISS concert may be the ultimate goal of the four friends in this movie, the band (and thankfully, its music) takes a backseat to the characters themselves, and what they're willing to go through to make it there. KISS becomes little more than a piece of scenery, really.

While this movie will be enjoyed by anyone who has experienced this -- or are currently -- those who grew up through the 70s will enjoy it the most. Exceptional attention to 70s detail is everywhere, with particular attention paid to 1978 itself. The soundtrack is full of songs released in 1977-1978 (and almost entirely non-KISS) and the selection works well to supplement how the characters feel and the situations they encounter.

While no movie may ever compare to DAZED AND CONFUSED when it comes to capturing the life of a teenager in the 70s, DETROIT ROCK CITY is a very welcome, funny, and enjoyable addition to this genre.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

A frightening, suspenseful, and enjoyable experience.

[10/10 · 1 August 1999]

All that really needs to be said about this movie is that it succeeds where nearly every other movie in its genre fails.

"Blair" derives its best chills from those that everyone has experienced at some point in their lives -- and many will experience again. There is no fear like that of the unknown. Add in hopelessness, despair and an inability to instantly remove onesself from a situation, I really don't see what could be more frightening, nor could I imagine a film that portrays these feelings any better.

Payback (I) (1999)

A watchable, but not too original amalgamation of anti-hero genres

[6/10 · 1 August 1999]

This movie is a realtively weak, although very watchable attempt to recreate a combination of the anti-hero genre; films such as the classic anti-hero films that made actors like Cagney a star; the 70's anti-hero-tough-guy-out-for-himself movies (the coa la Bronson); and the modern day, noir-ish anti-hero of Tarantino, Cohen, and Rodriguez.

The plot never attempt to bring anything new to the idea of the anti-hero, nor any of the genres themselves. Furthermore, the plot and its characters seem torn between black comedy and the "grit" of the tough-guy action-drama.

Characters played Cagney, Eastwood and Bronson were often made more appealing by inserting terse, clever lines of dialogue that managed to illicit chuckles while maintaining the character's persona. In "Payback" however, the humor is based around the complete buffoonery of every non-Gibson character in the movie, who follows each display of bumbling with a flat, predictable one-liner.

Some of the more interesting characters in this movie such as "Pearl" and her asian mafia/triad/whatever group are never developed enough; other characters are developed more than necessary.

And finally, Gibson himself brings nothing new to this role. Like any other film of his, he's beaten up repeatedly, yet manages to do more damage to everyone else. As a result there's little to no surprise, let a lone drama or even comedy, when Gibson gets himself into one mess after another.

Gibson fans will likely enjoy this movie; undemanding viewers will find it watchable. Fans of the anti-hero, noir or tough-guy genres of movies however, will find it flat and bland.

For Gibson fans, this movie may indeed be a rare

Still Crazy (1998)

Much more drama than comedy, but thoroughly enjoyable

[7/10 · 10 July 1999]

An excellent cast makes this movie work; all of the characters are developed exceedingly well and it's clear that the actors enjoyed filming this movie.

It's not quite the comedy I expected, much more a lighthearted look at the attempt to reclaim youthful glory than bawdy humor. For music fans there are quite a few subtle references that in themselves are intelligently funny.

I hate drawing direct comparisons to other movies, but so much of this movie reminded me of Alan Parker films I can't help it: imagine if The Commitments actually did make it big -- and then tried to recapture said glory 25 years later.

A Simple Plan (1998)

A character study par excellence

[9/10 · 10 July 1999]

Sam Raimi has such a talent for filming and developing interesting characters, and it shows through throughout this film.

If you're interested in dialogue-driven movies that focus on character interaction and response, this is one of the best you'll find from the last 10 years.

While I enjoy the silly camp present in Raimi films like Evil Dead and The Quick and the Dead, I'm glad to see that Raimi has matured beyond visual gimmicks and cheap laughs. This is his first true great film.

Six-String Samurai (1998)

Moderately interesting, but that kid drove me nuts.

[4/10 · 10 July 1999]

It took me two separate viewing periods to watch this movie, simply because I was so annoyed by the co-star with the annoying whine from hell.

I'm sure it was meant to be grating, pathetic and irksome... in which case the kid and the director did a fine job. However, it still makes watching this movie difficult, kinda like hearing the dentist's drill on your teeth and smelling the smoldering enamel.

Too bad because the premise was quirky, original and very interesting, and the lead character is one of the better comic-book-style heroes of recent cinema. He is the personification of alt-country (as No Depression magazine would put it, "whatever the hell that is"), kind of a young Johnny Cash meets Elvis Costello with some Miyamoto Musashi thrown in.

Death as an antagonist was interesting as well, although he looked too much like Rob Zombie to be a personifcation of "heavy metal." Then again, I guess making your bad guy look like Ozzy Ozbourne wouldn't have been nearly as fun.

The Siege (1998)

Gets worse and less interesting by the minute

[5/10 · 5 June 1999]

This film took an interesting (albeit fairly implausible) idea and simply allowed it to spiral out of control. The characters themselves change so much that the actors don't know how to play them, the plot gets less plausible with every scene, and the ending is a complete waste.

I'm glad I didn't see this in the theater. Watching on my system at home, it was quickly apparent that this is the kind of movie that makes you think about fixing things around the house, maybe re-grouting the tile in your bathroom... you're willing to keep it on as background noise, but that's about it.

For those that feel this is a great idea turned into a bad movie -- it's not. The idea is flawed with problems that make it impossible to suspend disbelief. This is one of those things that you discuss with your friends in a bar some night. It falls into the same "what if" category that Red Dawn falls into. Interesting to talk about for a beer, but after about 45 minutes everyone agrees it would NEVER HAPPEN.

Forget the Army occupation. Look at the terrorism itself as portrayed in the film. It misses the entire point, the reason, the insanity behind the act itself. It's obvious the writers of this film did little, if any research into terrorist acts themselves, rather focusing on technical details such as how Mossad criminal reports look.

And in the end, we're supposed to be left with this Care Bear attitude that "look, even in America we can see Arabs, Jews, Blacks and others all getting along. Isn't America great?"

Give me a break.

ps: Oddly enough, someone is credited as "Hairstylist for Ms. Bening" -- this goes beyond bad hair day. (if you see it, you'll know what I mean)

Ishtar (1987)

A reunion of cast & crew from another awful movie.

[3/10 · 2 June 1999]

OK. After watching this dreck the other night on HBO, I had to research the thing to find out why the heck it was made, let alone why Hoffman and Beatty agreed to do this.

It all goes back to another waste of celluloid called "Heaven Can Wait." Same principal actors, producers and writers.

What I can't figure out is what made Hoffman decide to be in this one.

At least Heaven can wait had a (somewhat) better cast and at least an innocuous script. Ishtar's cast highlights include a wasted Isabelle Adjani and a number of others we've never heard from since (except for Matt Frewer, whose career could only go up after this mess).

Elaine May (writer, director) wrote "Heaven," which also starrted Beatty and Grodin, as well as Jack Warden. I'm convinced that there were many other minor-role players that were in both films, who all changed their names after filming "Ishtar."

Dave Grusin wrote the original music for "Heaven" as well as the forgettable, "non-ethnic" background annoyance in Ishtar (the "ethnic" side was written "Bhajwa").

At least Buck Henry had the sense to stay away from Ishtar.

Bulworth (1998)

Says what we want to hear, but...

[6/10 · 30 May 1999]

This movie pushes the right buttons in giving the audience what they want to hear, but doesn't give them what they want to see.

The idea of a straight-shooting politician is an inspiring one, indeed. And Beatty does this fairly effectively and quite humorously, as Senator Bulworth spouts on with everything we want to hear.

My problem with the flick is that Beatty does so through the persona of a man who's lost his mind. Repeated references to the lack of sleep or nutrition, combined with the general air of confusion that he shows makes one wonder what attitudes are genuine and which are not. For this movie to work, you need to believe in the lead character, and it is difficult.

Additionally, only one side of the coin is really played out before us on the screen. We see how everyone surrounding Bulworth is only interested in personal advancement, positioning and sucess, whether it's the media (nice cameo by Larry King), fellow politicians, advisors or tag-alongs.

But what we don't see enough of is the people that are truly affected by his message, primarily the black, urban characters within the film, from Halley Berry and Don Cheadle on to their families and associates. We see this sudden transformation onscreen, but they are only given brief dialogue and insight as to why. I can suspend disbelief only so far; to see a drug dealer make a 180-degree turn simply because of hearing 5 minutes' of Beatty's political "rap" just makes no sense.

Finally, there are simply too many tertiary characters in the film. We're introduced to many characters that could possibly prove to be interesting but are rushed offscreen before we learn more about them or even care that they exist.

At times I found myself wondering just who they were supposed to be, anyway, such as Nora Dunn's erratcally-portrayed reporter who at one point seems to be from a tabloid, then another point connected with the networks.

Among the fine actors wasted on undeveloped characters are Christine Baranski (his wife), Richard Sarafian (his dark deed do-er), Paul Sorvina (insurance lobbyist), and Jack Warden (his... friend? advisor? who knows). These aren't cameo appearances, mind you; they're characters that are pulled into the plot with seemingly little to do.

Aside from my criticisms, the movie is still somewhat enjoyable, and the performances of Halle Berry, Oliver Platt and Beatty himself are charismatic and fun to see them go through their own drastic changes throughout the movie.

There are additionally some priceless lines/quotes in the movie, many of which were played during the trailers.

6 out of 10.

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Enjoyable, but some real plot holes

[7/10 · 29 May 1999]

An overall enjoyable flick. When in the theatres this one definitely suffered from being branded as a "chick flick" but instead does well to replace all the sticky sap of any Julia Roberts or Meg Ryan movie with a strong-willed, likable lead character.

Angelica Houston does quite a nasty turn as a real bitch of a stepmother, and other supporting roles are played admirably. DaVinci was played as it should have been, and wasn't portrayed as the typical crazy coot - cum - genious seen in most of such characterizations (although he was horribly misplaced in time, see below). The French King was a bit too oafish for my tastes.

Location filming and costumes were fantastic, and the photography of the film adequate enough to allow for a few postcard sequences. Otherwise, direction was pretty much straightforward.

There were some heavy plot holes that distracted from the movie however, namely the lack of reasons that Danielle (Barrymore) was suddenly forced into a life of servitude and the utter disappearance of her royal lineage.

Personally, I also had some trouble getting around a few of the anachronisms; the mention of "a recent war," the presence of DaVinci, the appearance of the Brothers Grimm, and references to Thomas Moore all in the same movie and time period was well, a bit disturbing.

Oxford Blues (1984)

An 80s Rob Lowe movie without a key 80s Rob Lowe movie scene

[4/10 · 29 May 1999]

OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.

Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:

I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.

The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.

Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

A stunning achievement in visual flim making.

[9/10 · 20 May 1999]

All Lucas ever wanted to do is tell a good story and use every facility within his disposal to do so.

He accomplished that amazing well with A New Hope in 1977. He does it again today with Phantom Menace.

This movie is not made for the critics, nor for those who choose to judge it based on its stand-alone ability. It's made for those who already know the stories, the characters, and the universe.

As such, it is an absolute joy not just to learn more of the beginnings but to actually SEE them. To see so many different worlds, different creatures and different situations is an absolute dream. To me, this is the first Star Wars movie that allows us to get a true scope of Lucas' vision of this far, far away galaxy.

To those who criticise the dialogue, I can't argue. There are no snappy one-liners -- thankfully so. Jar Jar's lines can be annoying, but that is his character. Hell, C-3PO always annoyed me too, I never liked his dialogue. Young Anakin's dialogue is weak, but perhaps that's because it's written as a 9-year old (Jedi or not) would actually speak. Trust me, listening to all those yapping kids in line gave me insight as to how idiotic they'd sound while flying pod racers around.

As for the plot of this movie and the pace of the storyline, I don't need dialogue or specific action to help me with this. The perfection and beauty of the visuals -- effects, costumes, paintings, sets and CGI -- are so remarkable they are a story onto themselves.

And since when did Star Wars have a "human" element in it? The core of the series -- The Force -- is something that transcends species, that has both good and evil. Like the immersive audiovisual experience of this film, it's the thing that surrounds us and binds everything together.

If you're a Star Wars fan this movie is nothing short of a joyous experience. If you're a moderate movie fan who enjoys adventurous, escapist fantasies then it is a delight to watch.

The only people that I can't perceive enjoying this film are those who never liked other visually-driven movies and even storybooks, such as "Where The Wild Things Are."

The Matrix (1999)

Fantastic blend of thinking sci-fi and action

[9/10 · 2 April 1999]

The usual formula: Cyberpunk thriller + Keanu Reeves = Slop

Somehow the directors and writers of The Matrix make it work, and incredible well. A strong plot and tight screenwriting benefit from believable character performances that are built up strongly.

One of the best things about this movie is that it doesn't throw you right in to the Matrix itself. Naturally you're given a slight tease at the start of the movie, but you're taken on the tour along with the characters as their realities begin to unravel and expand.

Initially I thought I might criticise the movie for too action that goes a little too far over the top; after a day's thought however it's understandable that should the Matrix itself actually exist, most anything would happen over the top.

Some incredible groundbreaking special effects and photography, pushing the new field of stop-motion rotophotography to limits that have never been seen before. While the Phantom Menace will surely walk away with this year's awards for FX, the Matrix deserves a spot in the hall of fame for pushing the field beyond any other movie -- even the subtle shots are brilliantly composited, lit, and animated.

The art direction in this movie is also extremely well done. Imagine mixing the look, feel and martial arts of The Crow with the futuristic vision of Metropolis and Dark City. Most every shot is filled with fantastic detail, from set direction to matte painting and cgi backgrounds.

There should be a lot of talk about this movie, and I'm sure many will detract it. There will surely be a lot of sci-fi fans that will choose to look for holes in the plot, inaccuracies and conflicting concepts. Of course, these are the same fans that can see none of the same in movies from Star Wars to Blade Runner.

I will admit I walked in with extremely low expectations, but I have since waited on writing this review and prolonged thought on the film has provided me with a great appreciation.

Besides, any sci-fi movie with such a strong plot and fantastic effects that manages to throw in a fantastic homage to Return Of The Dragon (the Bruce Lee - Chuck Norris fight, to be exact) will long sit in my memory.

Species II (1998)

Amazing. People say this stinks, but then rate it a 4?

[24 December 1998]

Watch it for what it is. BAD movie. Not an enjoyably bad movie, but by this point you should be able to rent it for a buck, in which case it's only about 90 minutes of good FX and great nudity. If you would rate the first one a 5 out of 10 or -- gasp -- higher, then you'll do fine by this one.

Touch of Evil (1958)

No amount of re-editing or restoration can fix this poor film.

[3/10 · 23 October 1998]

To say that Touch Of Evil is a must-see for fans of Welles' work isn't far off. After all, if you are a fan of one's work, you need to see the bad along with the good.

Although the film was somewhat improved by the recent discovery of Welles' 58-page memo on the preferred editing of the piece, it suffers horribly from miscasting, bad acting, and an even worse script.

At times the scripted dialog coupled with bad accents (whether ethnic or simply "colorful") is so grating that it causes one to laugh. The uninteresting, overly stereotyped characters are only emphasized by the unemotional acting. In some films this could be seen as satire, as a witty commentary. In this film it's just plain pap.

About the only plus side is Welles' fantastic use of lighting, something that is greatly improved in the restored and re-edited cut of the film. The little border town feels much like it is portrayed: an empty, dark enigma, with something hidden in every shadow.

However, surrounding the whole film is a story that just simply isn't very interesting. A few of the surrounding sub-plots aren't too bad, but as the film fails to generate any interest in the characters themselves one quickly loses interest in the simple plot.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

There are many better "war movies," but not as visual

[8/10 · 12 September 1998]

Yet another movie that is considered great simply because the name Spielberg is attached. If not for the hyper-realistic combat scenes, this film would simply be average.

On the plus side, the movie takes full advantage of today's audiovisual technology to provide the most immersive film experience dealing with war - - any war. The violence is so realistic and plentiful it's at times desensitizing, a common feeling among soldiers in World War II.

On the negative side, the movie revolves around the gore and the combat, and as a result fails to resolve many of the questions the movie raises -- namely whether risking an entire group is worth saving one man.

There are many other movies that more strongly illustrate the wide range of attitudes, emotions, and pure brutality of war; among those, All Quiet On The Western Front (the original), The Big Red One, and Platoon involve the viewer on a much deeper emotional and intellectual level than this film.

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Incredible effects, good action, good humor, great fun!

[7/10 · 12 September 1998]

To heck with the critics. I'm convinced they've forgotten how to have fun at the movies.

For some reason the intellectuals of the world have decided to trash all over 1998's Godzilla, while extoling the virtues of the originals. They somehow manage to use the same comments to do both.

This version is just plain fun. Incredible special effects don't get in the way of some classic action, and it's clear that even the movie doesn't want to take itself seriously.

Plus, any movie that makes blatant fun of Siskel & Ebert can't be all bad.