Raskolnikov Reviews

Men in Black (1997)

Surprisingly enjoyable

[20 March 2000]

I delayed from watching this movie for a LONG time. I've never been a Will Smith fan, and I'd been put off by the hype. I basically caught it on HBO when I had nothing better to do and was pleasantly surprised.

It's just a really fun movie. I like SFX films like this that present something close to reality, but just twist it a little bit to give us something a bit perculiar. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones make the perfect pair, it's easily Smith's best vehicle yet. Right before his ego got TOO big. Linda Fiorentino makes the most of her role too.

The visual effects are original and fun, and the story has enough momentum and impact to keep you interested for it's length, but at the same time doesn't take itself seriously at all. Men in Black is one of the few big budget Hollywood movies that I'd actually look forward to a sequel from.

• 7/10

Emma (1996)

Sets new levels for the term "Lightweight".

[19 October 1999]

This was VERY disappointing. The whole thing is just lacks any weight at all and thus it never becomes remotely engaging. I couldn't have given a damn about any of the characters which makes for very dull viewing.

Gwyneth Paltrow knows all the acting tricks but she delivers a performance without any substance or soul. I grew more and more tired of her as the film went on. Her performance is also far to self contained, she makes no connection at all with her cast mates.

The rest of the cast just wander around going through the motions with only Jeremy Northam making any sort of impression with his far to little screen time. He's an actor on the rise and much better than this film.

The makers of Emma seems to think that simply because it's a period film somehow alone makes it 'worthy', but the film is just a piece of emptiness.

If you want to see a film version of Emma then rent Clueless. It's just as lightweight as this film but at least it's funny, and even if Alicia Silverstone doesn't have the technical skill of Paltrow, at least she put some charm and feeling into her performance.

Beautiful Girls (1996)

Deeper than you'd think

[10/10 · 7 July 1999]

I thought this film was moderately satisfying the first time I saw it but it wasn't until the second time, that I realised how good it really is. It's one of those rare films that is entertaining on a base level, and actually improves the more you think about it. It's very moving and meaningful with just the right amount of humour. It presents a very down-to-earth representation of life and love that you don't often get in movies.

I have read all the comments praising Natalie Portman here, and I have to say, that while she was good, she did not dominate the movie the way some are implying. I have a feeling there are a lot of teenage boys making these comments. She was just one of a great ensemble lead by a wonderful Timothy Hutton who for some reason, doesn't get enough good work anymore. Other standouts are a career best turn by Michael Rapaport, and Uma Thurman in a radiant cameo appearance. Recommended.

Les Misérables (1998)

As good as could really be expected

[10/10 · 11 June 1999]

Les Miserables is a huge book with a multitude of exposition and subplots. Quite frankly it's impossible to film in it's entirety. Billie August has made a valiant attempt at stripping the story down to it's core, but in the process has left a film that is too empty and rushed. A film that just needed to take the time to look at it's character's more, but instead was forced to speed on with the next part of the plot.

Having said this, it's a film that will still appeal to most fans of period drama's. The production is of a high standard. The actors all give first-rate professional performances. The script is tight and thankfully free of the 'mush' that you expect in Hollywood films. The only people the film won't appeal to as far as I can see, is diehard fans of the novel who can't bare to see their treasured piece of art stripped so bare. This is evidenced by some of the other user comments here.

Liam Neeson gives a worthy performance as Valjean. In fact he is probably the best actor in the world right now for this role. It's tough to get involved in any of the other characters in the film though as they are given so little time to develop.

Rush's Javert is largely a two-dimensional character, something he could do nothing about. At the final resolution of the character it's hard to feel any emotion for him as we never really knew him. It's good to see Uma Thurman back in a dramatic role, it's where she belongs. She gives a totally consummate performance, but like Rush, she's playing a two-dimensional character. All I can say is give this girl a decent role, she's got great talent.

Claire Danes and Hans Matherson as Cossette and Marius have a fleeting romance that is brief even by film standards. It's hard to get any feelings going for them.

That's the problem with the film. August fails to get any feeling into it. What should be an emotional journey is merely a pleasent one. As a filmmaking exercise this is quite interesting in proving the pitfalls of adapting epic novels. A classic book does not translate into a classic movie.

Rating: 3/5

Henry & June (1990)

Hidden Treasure

[10/10 · 6 June 1999]

Phillip Kaufman's loving examination of Anais Nin's relationship with Henry and June Miller is an enthralling journey. In the film Anais is inspired by Henry and June to descend into a world of debauchery that fuels her erotic writing. We the audience see Henry and June through the eyes of Anais, which may mean it's not exactly as they really were, but rather a romanticised version of them. This is NOT a biopic of Henry Miller, which is the foolish mistake that some reviewers seemed to make on the films release.

The script tends to meander a bit, lacking any real plot. Each scene lives for itself, some more successfully than others. But in the torrid climax when Anais' wild ways have finally caught up with her, it all comes together nicely to leave a feeling of completion.

The cast is first rate. Maria de Medeiros, despite not having top billing, get's the bulk of the screen time as Anais. She has a captivating look, and embodies a sense of innocence throughout, despite displaying the most promiscuous nature. If at times she overdoes the melodrama, she should be commended for managing to purr out some rather flowery dialogue without sounding silly. Many lesser actresses would have faltered.

In what is undoubtably the highlight of his film career, Fred Ward instils Henry with some old styled charisma and gusto. While he gives us a throughly entertaining Henry, I still however have trouble seeing this character as a writer of erotic fiction. He seems too much like a man's man. The original casting choice of Alec Baldwin would make more sense in this case, but I doubt in the end he would have been as entertaining in the role as Ward.

Uma Thurman, as June, gives a memorable performance. It's the most showy character in the film, and Thurman gets the chance for plenty of legitimate scenery chewing. She uses the full scale of emotions and performs a transformation of the character from menacing seductress to pitiful emotional wreck. Despite the surprising comments of one of the other posters here, it really is one of the best performances of her young and promising career.

In support, Richard E. Grant is awkward (probably purposely) as Hugo, Anais' well-hung and faithful husband. Jean-Philippe Écoffey is adequate as Anais' cousin and brief lover. Kevin Spacey is amusing in what now looks like a cameo, but then was quite an important role for him.

Philippe Rousselot's cinematography is beautifully done. He creates an almost surreal feeling of Paris in the 1930's. The music is also well placed and adds to this mood. Kaufman and Rousselot make the numerous sex-scenes things of beauty rather than titillating, they get creative with them. In fact, the film is surprisingly unarousing considering the amount of sex occurring in it. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I guess you can decide for yourself. Why on earth it got an NC-17 rating I don't know. I doubt it would if released today.

Not everyone will like this film. It is 'arty farty' so to speak. It's maybe even a little pretentious. But I find it to be a fascinating and just plain absorbing trip. I have managed to find the time to watch it quite a few times, and it seems to improve with age. I recommend it to any thinking filmgoers.

9/10

The Age of Innocence (1993)

Infuriatingly restrained.

[19 May 1999]

I had really high hopes for this film. Being as it was directed by Martin Scorsese, starring Daniel Day Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer, and set amongst the treacherous social climate of late 19th century New York. Unfortunately, it turns into little more than an endurance test.

It's starts off promisingly, with a lush period setting being viewed with Scorsese's characteristically sweeping camera, and voice over narration. The complex world of New York socialites appears fascinating. But the film never delivers on its promise.

The story turns out to be painfully simplistic. Newland (Day Lewis) falls in love with the Countess Alenska (Pfeiffer), but he is alas engaged to marry another much less interesting woman

This wouldn't have mattered if the characters had been vibrant and interesting, but alas it's only a radiant Pfeiffer who supplies a character with any spark whatsoever. We can totally understand why Newland would fall for her. Pfeiffer anchors the first half of the movie, but fades out in the second half, leaving us to put up with a stuffy performance from Day Lewis, and the annoying presence of Winona Ryder as May, his wife.

I don't want to be too harsh on Day Lewis, he's a gifted actor, but here he gives a performance that makes Ralph Fiennes's performance in The English Patient look over-the-top. This typifies my problem with the whole movie. The film is excessively restrained. Emotion is implied, but never supplied. No one ever really shows sadness, or happiness, or anger. It's no wonder people call this film boring, because virtually nothing happens in it.

Ryder, who is so good at quirky outcasts (see Heathers) is totally out of place here. It seems she watched Uma Thurman's prototype naive innocent in Dangerous Liaisons and tried to copy it. She does not succeed and gives a very unappealing performance.

This film is exquisitely made, so it's very hard to put it down. But this sort of tale has been told so much better on so many other occasions, that The Age of Innocence can really only be recommend to die hard Scorsese fans, and die hard Pfeiffer fans.

**/****

The Avengers (1998)

A perfect piece of light-hearted entertainment.

[10/10 · 25 April 1999]

As a mild fan of the original series, I was looking forward to this film. Luckily it didn't disappoint. Lying somewhere between Bond and Austin Powers, The Avengers, for mine, captures the best elements from both.

Stylish to the extreme, The Avengers never lets trivial things like plot and reality get in the way of having a good time. Steed and Peel seem more interested in where the next cup of tea is coming from, than saving the world from a diabolical baddy.

The protagonists are provided wonderfully by Fiennes and Thurman. Not so much like the originals, but rather exaggerated versions of them. With their arch delivery and restrained manner, it isn't so much about what they say, but how they say it. Both cut stunning figures in (and out) of various costumes. Their roving eyes are subtle but unmistakable.

Connery turns up for over-the-top bad guy duties and relishes the chance to act like a complete loon. When uttering such priceless gems as; "one should never fear, being wet", Connery is as strangely disturbing as he is funny.

As previously mentioned, The Avengers is on style overload. This is provided across the board from the polished cinematography to the snazzy music. Check out the marvellous credit sequence, for just a taster.

Trouble only strikes the film, when as Hollywood necessitates, the climatic fight between Fiennes and Connery comes around. In reaching for big spectacle, the result is unfortunately sluggish. The charming closing scenes recover what was lost however, and left me thirsty for more.

The Avengers has certainly proven to be a film that doesn't please everyone. The public and critics alike, unsure how to take it's quirky, low-key nature, have reacted with vitriol. But as the many wise and thoughtful comments on this message board (in amongst the inane) prove, there is an audience for this film. An intelligent audience, that will be enjoying this film long after the majority of vacant, big budget, Hollywood nonsense has been forgotten.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

The most ambitious and rewarding film of 1998

[22 April 1999]

There are a couple of interesting things I want to look at while discussing The Thin Red Line. My own feelings on what the film means, and the fascinatingly varied reactions the film has received.

I think the many 'boring', 'hated it', type reactions have pretty much emphasised why Hollywood is making the type of films it is today. A lot of people, who consider themselves film fans, complain about how Hollywood is turning out things like Armageddon at the expense of artistic expression. Hollywood is only doing this because that is honestly what the people want.

I'm sure that there are many execs and producers in Hollywood who want to make quality films, The Thin Red Line is proof of this. But it's clear from the general response to this film, that the greater majority of people don't want a film that challenges them to use their mind. They don't want a film that requires some philosophical and emotional input. They don't want a film that doesn't bring in the crowd-pleasing clichés. They don't want art, they want entertainment. People WANT Armageddon. The execs and producers have no choice but to make that sort of film, because if they don't make profits, they'll lose their job.

I feel The Thin Red Line is the most ambitious film of the year because someone has had the guts to make a large budget art film for once. The Thin Red Line is proof of what can be done with the medium of cinema if one puts their mind to it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some arty-farty pretentious git. I proudly say that I enjoyed Batman and Robin. But that is base level, dollar driven entertainment at the best, it's certainly not art. It's only when a film like The Thin Red Line comes along, that you truly realise what a great medium cinema can be.

Enough rambling, what did I think of it? This is certainly one of the most beautifully crafted films, perhaps ever. The camera work/cinematography, the editing, the art direction, the sound, the costumes, the music and everything else all come together wonderfully. The film is worthy on that alone. Certainly, you must see this film at a theatre with a big screen, and superb sound. I'm not sure how successfully it will transfer onto video.

The performances deserve a mention. They were uniformly perfect.

Now of course, it's the philosophical meanings of the film that are most important. What was Malick trying to say? Well here's my interpretation. I think perhaps a lot of people have misread this as an anti war film. With his constant comparisons of the battle to nature, I feel almost certain that Malick feels that war, is merely part of nature. Part of human nature. It's in our instinct to war with each other. Even more so, we have it built into us how to survive a war emotionally intact. He shows us that war is hell, but then shows us, that despite this, it doesn't destroy men. Most, in their own ways, find a way to cope.

He does strongly put forward however, that despite being an undeniable part of human existence, it is undoubtedly the worst part of it. The most loathsome part. He compares the idyllic life (as seen by one soldier) of the native inhabitants on the island as perhaps, the good side of human nature. Indeed, in order to make it through the horrors that occur during the attack on the Japanese outpost, all the soldiers examined try to find a little bit of what's good about humans to focus on. Whether it be the idyllic life of the natives, a lover back home, by turning to religion, or just observing the wonders of the jungle and its wildlife. There's much more to this film that can't really be touched on here. I've already gone on too long.

This film is not perfect. Some of the script doesn't work. But it is without doubt something to be admired and revered. It gives the mind more to chew on then a dozen or more of the usual Hollywood output. After Saving Private Ryan came out, some foolish people claimed that no more war films need be made. I think that notion has already been shattered, and I expect there will be many more great films dealing with war to come.

Four Rooms (1995)

I agree with the last guy.

[1 April 1999]

This film is the very definition of 'patchy'. It comes across like the directors responsible were just filling in free time between their real movies - which is probably true. Only Rodriquez's piece has any real merit.

Tim Roth plays the bellboy who is the link between all the stories and subsequently the main character. I think someone should have slapped him and told him to sort his act out. I love Tim Roth usually but here he was just way too over-the-top. If he had exercised a little bit of restraint, the whole film could have been improved. Instead, his overly exaggerated mannerism's really began to test my patience.

Now to the stories. The Missing Ingredient by Allison Anders is peculiar to say the least. Now peculiar is a good thing in my book, but after promising to be amusing this just goes nowhere . It's just dumb. The only thing that sustained my interest were the somewhat unnecessarily bare breasts of two to the actresses.

The Wrong Man by Alexandre Rockwell unfortunately doesn't have breasts to sustain interest. I think this is the piece most affected by Roth's overtly comic acting. If he had played it straight, maybe, just maybe, this situation might have come out alright. But it lacked any of the requisite tension or nervous comedy required. Like the first story, it just comes out dumb.

The Misbehaviors from Robert Rodriquez is the real standout. If I didn't know better I would have guessed it was by the Coen brothers - which is a compliment to Rodriquez - there are obvious parallels to Barton Fink. The climax is a simply superb culmination of black comedy and stylish camerawork. Antonio Banderas is terrific as the father of the two little 'misbehaviors'.

The Man from Hollywood, while better than the first two stories, is probably the most disappointing, only because it's from Quentin Tarantino who I expected more from. He takes the lead role himself here. Now Quentin gets a lot of knocks for his acting, but I find that when he plays obnoxious (like in Pulp Fiction) he is fine, that's what he plays here, and he's fine. The problem is, somewhat surprisingly, in the script. The whole thing is a purposely long winded set-up for a quick punch line at the end. That's fine, but the set up is just too inconsistent. At times it's entertaining, at other times it is just dumb, which typifies too much of this whole film.

I'd give the film 6/10 on the whole, mostly on the strength of The Misbehaviors story alone. Don't pay to watch it, and certainly don't expect for your life to be changed by it and you won't have a bad time.

The Truth About Cats & Dogs (1996)

Worthwhile

[10/10 · 29 March 1999]

The Truth about Cats and Dogs stands out as one of the best romantic comedies of the decade for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it's actually funny, and remains funny throughout the whole film. It's amazing, but this type of film often seems to forget that it's supposed to be a comedy. The comedy comes in varied styles too, from razor sharp dialogue to full-blown slapstick.

Secondly, the film is tremendously romantic. When Abby finally gets her man, it's wonderfully satisfying. I think the main reason for this is because Abby is a person that most people can relate to. She's not the Julia Roberts/Michelle Pfeiffer/Sandra Bullock mega babe that could get any man she wanted. She's a normal woman, with normal fears and insecurities just looking for a normal relationship.

The third reason this film stands out is its wonderful leading ladies. Abby must have been written with Janeane Garafalo in mind. She is superb, a natural comedian with biting wit and surprisingly effective at the emotional moments in the film. Uma Thurman is the perfect foil as dim witted Noelle. It would have been easy for Thurman to play the stereo-typical 'dumb blonde' (ala Romy and Michelle) but she plays Noelle with complete sincerity, comfortably ditching her cool, sophisticated reputation. The relationship and growing friendship between Abby and Noelle is perhaps the most pleasing element of the movie.

The last reason this film stands out is it's message. This film would have been a joy without a point, but it has one anyway. It's not a new idea and it's not particuly subtle in the way it's presented, but there's no harm in being reminded of it in such a pleasing way.

If the film has its weak points, it's only in comparison with its strong ones. Ben Chaplin doesn't really create a strong enough impression opposite Garafalo and Thurman, but there is nothing inherently wrong with his performance, he's just outshined. The film also stretches credibility to breaking point if you stop and think about it, so it's best not to do that.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you'll go away happy. This is a film I wholeheartedly recommend.

Event Horizon (1997)

Scores high on Horror but low on Sci Fi.

[19 February 1999]

I'm sick to death of all the 'postmodern' so called horror films coming out lately that think they're being 'ironic' so I thought I'd check out this good old fashioned science fiction horror flic. I chose it over Sphere basically because it didn't have Sharon Stone in it.

After half an hour I was almost ready to turn it off. It's not that it was dragging out cliche's - I was prepared for that - it was just the lacklustre nature in which it was doing it. The explanation of space-time travel was completely unconvincing. But about the time that Sam Neil begins to show that there is more to his character than at first seemed, my interest started to perk up. By the time 'baby bear' was in the airlock with his insides trying to escape his skin, I was finally drawn completely into the film.

From that moment on it's basically a thrill ride to the end. With various members of the crew seeing gruesome images and experiencing gory deaths. It's the gore that makes this film standout from more artistic ventures like 'Alien'. It may be a base level approach, but it worked effectively on me. There is always the threat of unimaginable horror that awaits the crew throughout the film. I think it's this threat more than the actual gore that is scary.

It's a quality ensemble gathered to deliver the script, but only two of the actors really stand out. Sam Neil enjoys the chance to play on the duality of his character in the role that Gary Oldman usually seems to play. He has the sort of character that can transcend the dialogue, and he does well.

Talented English actress Joely Richardson - who was moving in 'Hollow Reed' and naked in 'Lady Chatterly' - is the other that stands out. She manages, where the others fail, to almost make her character three-dimensional and believable, despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of a trite back story that the other main characters have.

6/10 - The unconvincing science fiction build up lets down what is actually quite an exciting little horror movie.

Bound (1996)

Taut Thriller

[19 February 1999]

I went into this with caution. I can't really think of two actresses that appeal to me less than Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon, so it's a testament to the quality of this film that I still enjoyed it so much.

The first half hour of the film is pretty mediocre as Tilly and Gershon both try their hardest to act sexy but only succeed in making themselves more and more annoying. Their exageratted come hither demeamour is laid on thicker than Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, but without the irony. The opening scenes are still watchable though, because of some surprisingly stylish direction from the Wachowski brothers.

When the girls' plan to rip off the mob kicks in, the film lifts to a completely new level. Their plan is much too complicated to work perfectly and each new development and twist heighten's the excitement. This is an edge of the seat ride for most of the second half. The tightness of the script and tension supplied by the perfect camera work and editing overcame my dislike for the actresses to the extent that they became irrelevant.

The actor who this film really belongs to is Joe Pantoliano. It's a performance in the tradition of high strung gangsters like Tommy DeVito and Mr Pink. Pantoliano's may in fact be the best. He is totally immersed in his character. You can see his mind working out every possibility and his mood swings as he switch's from being on top of the situation to losing control. I feel sorry for him that he wasn't nominated for something.

It's no exaggeration to say that the Wachowski's are the new Coen brother's. I can't help thinking how much I would have enjoyed 'Bound' if it had starred two actresses I actually liked! Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman maybe. I digress.

8/10 - Recommended, add a point or two if you don't happen to dislike the actresses as much as I do.

Dark City (1998)

Mind bending

[11 February 1999]

Dark City is destined to become a cult classic and is definitely one of the best sci-fi films of recent years. The film is of course ultra-stylish, and the quick editing keeps it ticking along at a rollicking pace - even when nothing much is happening.

Dark City reminded me a lot of the works of Terry Gilliam (in particular Brazil and 12 Monkey's) and Stanley Kubrick (2001) in that it examines/attacks our perception of reality. While this is not a new idea, it does this in a fresh way. It basically asks the question "is the world we 'believe' in, really the world we 'live' in"? There is some wildly imaginative stuff as the city moves and changes shape around our hero as though in a dream.

This whole notion culminates in a mind blowing moment when the main character (and the audiance) discovers exactly the true nature of the city and that there is no escape. This is done with an incredible sequence. However I was disappointed with the film from this moment on, instead of sticking as a psychological thriller, the climax turns the film into a SFX extravaganza resembling a 'dark' version of one of those lame old Superman movies.

Acting wise the film is nothing special, but that's not really what it's about, the acting is certainly sufficient. Rufus Sewell is adequate but nothing special. William Hurt gives a solid performance as you would expect. Keifer Sutherlands over-affected mannerisms make his character increasingly annoying. A well cast Jennifer Connelly graces the screen with her presence but her character lacks any real weight.

8/10 - Some great ideas can't be spoiled by some naff ones.

The Fifth Element (1997)

Fun

[7 February 1999]

The Fifth Element is extremely patchy, but the good bits add up to make an ulitmately satisfying experience. It has an over-the-top cartoon like quality that makes the unrealistic nature of the film easy to take.

The plot is contrived and trite. It's B-grade to say the least. But this film isn't about plot, it's about presentation, and in that respect it's a great success. Visually the film is very bold and risky. Bright colors and skimpy costumes abound. Bruce Willis forsakes his white action vest for a bright orange one. Milla Jovovich parades around in nothing but carefully applied bandages. The film looks and sounds LOUD!

The film is also very very funny at times. It's constantly poking fun at itself.

The acting is mostly good. There is a fine line between great Bruce Willis and terrible Bruce Willis, and here he is great. He isn't really the dominating leading man like in most of his films, here there are many important characters. Gary Oldman is funny but barely used as the villain. The always reliable Ian Holm delivers yet again. Chris Tucker's radio show is appalling, but he is funny when running around screaming during the action segments.

The real star though is Milla Jovovich. She totally steals the movie. She is so completely perfect and so gorgeous that you can't help but fall for her. She shines above the material. She manages to inject her mostly jibberish dialogue with so much warmth, humour and irony. Her entire screen presence is captivating. If I had my way, she would have won a best supporting actress Oscar, but of course the academy would never be so daring.

I often read what a bad year for 'big summer' films 1997 was. But I disagree totally. With the action packed Face/Off and Con Air, the campy cartoon fun of The Fifth Element and Batman and Robin and the antics of the Men in Black, it was a great year for blockbusters. Certainly much better than 1998's dreary bunch.

8/10 - Loads of fun. The self parody makes up for a few dicey moments.

Anaconda (1997)

Z-Grade

[31 January 1999]

Anaconda for the most part is a really bad movie. I tuned in expecting some mindless fun, but it was just plain awful. The sad thing about it is, with the possible exception of John Voight, it was actually taking itself seriously.

This film was obviously trying to be Jaws with a snake. Unfortunately it resembles Jaws 3 more than the original masterpiece. I think it was supposed to be scary, but it most definitely was not. The main reason for this was that not for one second did the Anaconda look remotely real. We were either presented with some really lame looking animatronics sort of thing, or an even more lame CGI version. And it was always completely obvious which one. Neither of these snakes moved anything like any snake I've ever seen. And how many big snakes were there? One snake, even of that size, surely couldn't have digested all those people that quickly. The only remotely chilling part in the film is when their boat gets covered in 'real' snakes. Not nearly enough is made of this moment though.

Well enough of the SFX, let's trash the acting. Bland, Bland, Bland, Bland. It really is one of the worst ensembles you could come across. It wasn't really their fault though, De Niro would have had trouble with that script. Only Jennifer Lopez escapes with any dignity with an earnest performance despite the ludicrous situations. Luckily for Eric Stolz he's unconscious for most of the film. Voight must have been paid a hefty sum for this role, because his character is just plain stupid.

Reading what I just put down, I'm wondering why I watched the whole film. Basically it was because of Lopez's outfits. But because I made it to the end I did witness the film change from bad to merely mediocre. This happened in the finale when it stopped trying to be scary and turned into an action movie, with explosions and so forth.

3/10 - Skip the first 80min and watch the finale.

Striptease (1996)

Endurance test

[31 January 1999]

Well, this film was sold as a chance to see Demi Moore naked, and I'll be honest, that's why I watched it. I wasn't prepared for one of the dullest films I've seen in a long while though. It's not that the film is bad per se, it's just that it's so damn boring! I'm told it's a comedy, well there were more funny jokes in Schindlers List.

Acting wise, Demi gives her usual bland stock and trade. She's not bad, but she's not good either. Burt Reynolds and Robert Patrick ham it up completely which conflicts badly with the 'straight' performances from nearly everyone else. I wouldn't call Reynold's performance great, it's a long way from it, however it is still the high point of the film. Ving Rhames just mumbles his way through his part, looking like he's wondering how he went from 'Pulp Fiction' to 'this'.

So let's get to the meat of the matter, I don't think anyone was really expecting a great film, if your're going to watch it, it'll be to see Demi strip. Now there are several striptease scenes throughout the movie, and Demi shows off her impressively scupltured body to great effect, stripping right down to a skimpy g-string. Now I'm sorry, but people who say her dances aren't sexy are not human.

5/10 - Worth a look for the thrill of seeing a famous celeb naked and seeing Burt Reynolds covered from head to toe in vaseline.

Miss Rose White (1992 TV Movie)

Moving

[31 January 1999]

It's really cool when you find a hidden jem, and Miss Rose White is definitely one of them. There are too few good character dramas released, but with this film we have an intelligent, moving, and very well acted addition to the genre.

Set in the 1940's it's the tale of the relationship between two Polish Jewish sisters. Kyra Sedgwick is a career woman was taken to America by her father as a girl and has done her best to hide her roots (going so far as to change her jewish name). The other sister played by Amanda Plummer stayed in Poland with her mother awaiting their father to send the money so they to could come to America. Before he can however she and her mother were interned by the Nazi's in a concentration camp during WW2. The mother dies there. After Plummer is released she comes to America and reminds Sedgwick of the past she tried to forget. Both sisters have serious issues with their father to sort out too.

All the characters in this film are very well rounded and imperfect. It is really a story about a disfunctional family. The acting is very impressive. Sedgwick shines and gives a perfectly natural performance, she is totally believable. Throughout the film I kept asking myself why she isn't a bigger star? Plummer is excellent, especially when dealing with the relationship with her father. Maximilian Schell too is superb as the father.

I congratulate the writer, director, cast and everyone else involved with making this picture. Whatever recognition you got, wasn't enough.

9/10

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Instant Cult Classic

[25 January 1999]

I feel there is a lot of debate on meaningless things to do with this movie (is it too violent? is it a rip off?) bottom line, it is a terrifically entertaining film from start until finish. It does not have the same all encompassing size as Pulp Fiction, but it's much more instantly accessible.

All the things that would become Tarantino's trademarks are there in Reservoir Dogs; the gritty rawness of the film, the witty and natural dialog, the brilliant use of popular music, his ability to generate tremendous tension, his unnerving ability to make us relate to immoral characters, his wickedly funny black humour etc. etc.

Unlike Pulp Fiction there are things resembling holes that pop into the script at times, but these are totally covered over by the tremendous and committed performances from the entire cast. I'm not going to single out anyone, because every single character was portrayed excellently.

One comment made about Reservoir Dogs that I will never understand is that it glorifies violence. If anyone thinks that violence is cool after seeing this film, then they are mentally ill. The violence really 'hurts' in Reservoir Dogs. Mr Orange spends most of the film in agony. When Mr Blonde squirts fuel over Marvin, you can feel the sting. People actually bleed when shot. They bleed a lot. And besides that, most of the violence is only implied, not seen. This shows the skill of Tarantino. The fact that only a few people getting killed, usually off the screen can have such a deep effect on an audience while fifty people can be killed in an average Hollywood action flic without the audiance batting an eyelid.

9/10 - Extremely powerful film.

Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)

Lightweight

[25 January 1999]

I have to say I expected more from this film. It's credited as cementing Julia Roberts as a star, but I can't see why. The whole set up is an intriguing idea, but it is delivered in such an unconvincing and lacklustre fashion that it leaves little impact.

Roberts gives a typical performance for her. She's a capable actress, but she never seems prepared to go the extra yard with a role that is the sign of a great actress. So she does her usual routine here, basically going through the motions and resting on her looks. The director makes a lot of use out of her beauty, in fact, that seems to be the only reason this film exists. As a showcase for Julia Roberts admittedly spectacular beauty.

Patrick Bergin tries hard in what is really a silly role as the abusive husband. The stupid thing about this character is; the things he does are often unbelievable of a real person, and yet nothing he does is especially terrible. He assaults his wife, for which he should serve a jail term no question. But I think he is understandably angry when he finds out his wife isn't really dead. When he tracks her down, she murders him in cold blood. As far as movie bad guys go this ones is a mouse. I hardly think he warranted a death penalty.

So, what I'm saying is that characters aren't that great. But that's not the real problem for the movie. Thing is, for a thriller, it is criminally dull. It doesn't really get exciting until the last 5-10 minutes. Half the move is spent watching Roberts romance some guy that is totally inconsequential to the plot. Aside from that, it has the usual nice, glossy Hollywood production values to try and cover over the lack of substance.

5/10 - Silly and forgettable, only watch for the beauty of Roberts.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Absorbing

[23 January 1999]

Jackie Brown is proof positive that Quentin Tarantino is all he's hyped up to be. I think with Jackie Brown, Tarantino has also found out who his true fans are, and shaken off those that were merely drawn in by the hype surrounding Pulp Fiction.

Jackie Brown, even more so than 'Pulp' is sustained by conversations. Tarantino is not afraid to let his characters just 'be'. Nothing much happens in the first hour of the film plot wise, he just introduces us to the characters. And what a great collection of characters they are, superbly acted by an unlikely cast mix. Robert De Niro having a smaller part than B-Movie star Robert Forster? Middle-aged Blaxploitation star Pam Grier headlining an 1990's A-list movie? Tarantino has again proved his skill of spotting unlikely talent, and then getting the best out of them.

Grier and Forster both do a great job. Samuel L Jackson and Robert De Niro are also predictably flawless. Bridget Fonda is surprisingly great as beach bum Melanie, both with her pitch perfect performance and with her unexpected sexiness.

Other's have talked about Tarantino's obvious love for his characters. But he also has an obvious love for his plot. Take a look at the care and length he goes to to show us every angle of the money swap.

Jackie Brown doesn't have the same inventiveness or visceral thrill to stand up next to Pulp Fiction, but it may very well be Tarantino's coolest film.

9/10

Batman & Robin (1997)

Mindless fun

[10/10 · 23 January 1999]

I really quite enjoyed this movie. Its completely over-the-top bravado impressed me. Be warned though, if you take Batman seriously then you shouldn't watch. But for the majority of us, the non-anally retentive people, then this movie is a lot of fun and well worth a rental.

The villains were very cool in this one, and we had FOUR!! Arnie got better as the film went on. He was a real hoot. Uma was totally over-the-top and crazy as Poison Ivy. She was funny and extremely hot! There was also Bane as Ivy's sidekick who was funny whenever he appeared even though (and probably because) nothing he said ever made any sense! Then there was Bane's creator, Dr Woodrue played by John Glover with probably the best performance of the film. I wish he could have been in more of it.

The heroes weren't so flash though. Alicia Silverstone was spunky as Batgirl but the title characters, Batman and Robin as played by Clooney and O'Donnell were pretty lame. Batman was made to say too many corny one-liners. This should have been left to the villains, it suits them. It definitely didn't suit Batman. Robin was just flat out annoying. Michael Gough as Alfred actually gives quite a good dramatic performance in amongst all the campiness, I'm not sure why he bothered.

The SFX were great. The weren't at all realistic which was the way it was intended to be you fools! The whole film is dazzling on the eyes, whether it be the sets or the aray of good looking actors and actresses. Too put together a film of this large of a scale is quite an achievement. Anyone who says that Schumacher isn't a good director, doesn't know anything about directing films.

This is definitely one of the best no-brainer films of recent years. To all you people who are pining for the miserable Burton Batmans, get stuffed. Burton made his two movies, if you like them so much, then go and watch THEM. Schumacher has now made his two films to appeal to a different audience. Now it's probably time to see what someone else will do with the franschise. I can't wait.

8/10 - Terrific fun.

Dead Man Walking (1995)

Riveting

[10/10 · 23 January 1999]

Dead Man Walking is one of the most truly superb dramas ever put to celluloid. Unfortunately I feel it is largely misunderstood. Yes it is an examination of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment. But it is also (and I feel most importantly) about the repercussions of a heinous crime.

Like a lot of people, this is one of the few films I have ever cried at. What I was crying at was not that Poncelet was going to be killed, but that he had committed such a terrible crime. This is what Poncelet himself was crying over, he was totally appalled with himself that he could have done this act. He was not crying because he was afraid to die, he was crying because at that point he wanted to die.

I'm struggling to convey here just how profound an emotional journey this movie really is. No film has brought home the emotional impact of violent crime to an audience quite as well as this one. In an age where movies often glamorise violence, this is a strong reminder of the repercussions both on the victims and the perpetrators.

Dead Man Walking is brought to life by two unbelievably fine performances from Susan Sarandon and especially Sean Penn.

10/10 - Highly recommeded.

Donnie Brasco (1997)

Humanising the Mafia.

[10/10 · 17 January 1999]

After the hip, razzle dazzle glamorising of the Mafia that was 'Goodfellas', Donnie Brasco is a breath of fresh air. While watching Donnie Brasco I was so appreciative of the realism that the characters have to them, this is what stood out to me most in comparison with other mob films.

This feeling is summed up beautifully early on in the film when we see Lefty (Pacino) sitting in front of the TV, watching a nature program, in an ill-fitting red tracksuit, in a 'lived in' looking chair. This simple and brief moment has the effect of humanising Lefty. He isn't the larger than life figure that 'wiseguys' are usually depicted as in film, but a real person, who does the normal banal things that all people do in their lives.

The believable characters are not the only fine thing about this film however. Donnie Brasco is as close to perfectly executed as any film you will see from 1997. Not a minute is wasted in the slowly unraveling story. Every scene is worthy and important. The performances are rock solid. With this Depp has graduated to the top grade of leading men, which is quite an achievement for one still so young. Pacino too is superb, offering his best performance in years as the tragic Lefty. The overlooked Anne Heche and Michael Madsen are both fine in support.

I have little hesitation saying that this is the best mafia film since 'The Godfather Part II'. Its realism and moving characters place it a notch above the tragically hip 'Goodfellas'.

10/10 - The best film of 1997.

Goodfellas (1990)

Good, but not the best.

[17 January 1999]

Mob films are a popular genre, and a lot of very gifted filmmakers have turned their talents to them. Scorsese's best attempt so far has indeed been 'Goodfellas'. It is a very well filmed, very well acted and very entertaining crime movie. It's the sort of movie that film students like. However I feel what it lacks is a heart. 'Goodfellas' just isn't moving or emotional enough. I don't believe it's the best, or even _one_ of the best crime movies of recent times.

If you want an elaborate tale of several decades in the life of the mafia then watch the 'Godfather' movies. If you want a realistic look into life for the average 'wiseguy' then watch 'Donnie Brasco'. If you want a hip crime flic with great dialogue, then watch 'Pulp Fiction'. Goodfellas is simply outclassed by these three films.

8/10 - An imperfect but honorable addition to the genre.