paulmg Reviews

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Destined to be a classic

[10/10 · 27 October 2012]

Most films exist purely for pleasure, to occupy your mind for a couple hours: take you to another world, let you forget about your problems, and you leave the theater $11 a seat poorer (not to mention what you spent on consumables), yet no richer for the experience. You paid for nothing more than a memory that, more often than not, is not particularly memorable.

But every once in a while you do see something extraordinary. Something that makes you want to tell all your friends about the movie you just saw, and look askance at someone who says they didn't like it, as if to say, "What movie did you just watch?" Or, perhaps, "Oh, I'm sorry, were you expecting Transformers 4?" What Cloud Atlas does that is most impressive, to me, is that it asks us, as an audience, to expect more from our movies. Most of the movies we consider great have done this: Citizen Kane pioneered, among its almost innumerable technical advancements, non-linear storytelling; Psycho had the guts to kill off its main character 1/3 of the way into the movie, setting up similar shocks in future films like Alien and Scream.

Perhaps Cloud Atlas's closest comparison, however, is 2001. Both were ravaged by some critics and fiercely embraced by others. Both asked questions about the universe and our existence in it without giving us answers, asking us only to ask questions of ourselves. Neither have neat endings that wrap everything up. Cloud Atlas will probably fair the same as 2001 commercially: that is to say, make little at the box office but have a long and rich life on video. (2001 ultimately played long in theaters, but in today's industry it's unlikely Cloud Atlas will have the opportunity to stick around as long.)

This film is a singular experience. I can only speak about it in hyperbole, a language previously unknown to me. People will be watching this movie and discussing it for decades. People will become filmmakers because of this movie. It will be taught in film classes. I know I myself will see it at least twice more in the theater. And thirty years from now we'll look back at the list of films that were nominated for Best Picture for 2012, and we'll say, "I can't even remember half these movies. Can you believe Cloud Atlas didn't win that year?"

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Imperfect, but misunderstood ***Spoilers***

[8/10 · 8 June 2012]

I don't know how to properly review this movie without giving spoilers. It's like trying to describe the color yellow to a blind person. There will be spoilers in this review. Once more, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

From here read at your own risk: This film tries to deal (at times obliquely and at other times directly) with the creation of human life itself. It turns out we are the products of a science experiment gone wrong. Some unspecified time in the past, an Engineer, so they are called, popped by Earth and tried some special drug cocktail he'd made for himself. As we find results with other Engineer creations, it goes badly for him.. He dies, but not before leaving some of his DNA in our primordial soup for us to crawl from. Humanity develops, and the Engineers apparently find us worth hanging out with for a while, and even leave their contact info painted on cave walls, until about 2000 years ago, when they moved on to more interesting experiments. Aforesaid 2000 years later, a couple humans find the contact info and decide to pay a visit.

Meanwhile, humanity itself have become Engineers. We, too, have developed new life in our own image, just as the Engineers did. David, played impeccably by Michael Fassbender, is the "son he never had", as Peter Weyland, his creator says. Problem is, Weyland does have a child he doesn't consider worthy: a daughter, Meredith Vickers, played by Charlize Theron. This triptych of Weyland, David and Vickers really represents the core theme of the film: a creator trying to play God, and disavowing the life he's already created.

Our intrepid crew arrives at LV-233. (It's worth noting that this is not the same planet from Alien and Aliens. That was LV-426. So if you're expecting this movie to directly set up Alien, it won't.) There they find a hologram of Engineers fleeing something unobserved. We find a room filled with canisters that turn out to be a bio-weapons cache. And like a child with a new chemistry set, crew members become exposed to various elements, each reacting differently, yet always violently. Like an accelerated natural selection.

People begin to die. Nastily. Someone has an abortion. Nastily. Violent things happen to people we barely recognize. My main problem with the film is this aspect. There are 17 crew members on the ship. We get to really know 5. The rest are just cannon fodder. That and the final act requires some suspension of disbelief as far as how quickly people can recover from certain situations, like being knocked unconscious and having abortions. I felt like a good 20-30 minutes had been cut that could have made the film more complete.

The tie-in with the Alien films really is just the question of the nature of the Engineers. Like Weyland with David, the Engineers had moved on from their offspring and were ready to concentrate on a new life form. And like Meredith looking to her father for approval, the humans look to the Engineers to tell them why. Why did they move on? There, of course, is no answer. How could there be? The Engineers don't care. In fact they want to return to Earth and wipe out humanity, which they meant to do 2000 years ago, except apparently someone turned off their alarm clock. What we learn about the Engineers is that they like to experiment with biology, with creating life. And interacting with that new life can cause rapid permutations. At some point in their past, this caught up with them. Or, at least, with the ones at this location. And, of course, the one that crashed on LV-426. Apparently it's a recurring problem for them.

Thematically, Prometheus has more in common with 2001 than Alien. Imagine the Discovery had 15 crew members and the monolith turned 1/3 into monsters who tried to kill the rest until only one person was left.

I did like the film. I enjoyed it, and hope the blu ray has an extended cut. I think the film needs it. But it's best not to go in expecting anything like Alien, because it's not.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

May be the best Harry Potter movie yet

[10/10 · 20 July 2009]

There is a story that tells when the great Fred Zinnemann, director of such classics as High Noon, and Walter Murch were editing Zinnemann's Julia. Two test screenings had gone disastrously, and cuts had to be made. They realized a certain sequence had to go. As editor Murch went to make the cut, Zinnemann spoke that when he read that particular scene in the script he knew he could make this movie. Murch froze. Was he about to cut out the heart and soul of the movie? Murch turned to Zinnemann and made a motion, as if to say, "Well?" Zinnemann nodded. "Do it."

No matter how important a scene may be to you personally, sometimes you have to let it go for the sake of the film. The book is not the movie. It, by rights, should be different. It's a different medium, with different rules. It's important to be true to the spirit of the work even if not the letter. Half-Blood Prince is true to the spirit.

As for two major changes that were made from the book, I'll address them both. I believe the attack on the Burrow was added for two primary reasons: firstly, it seems at this point that the attack on Bill and Fleur's wedding will be cut from the seventh film. I believe the attack on the Weasleys was moved here and placed under different circumstances. It also serves a dual purpose of placing the main characters in danger. Frequently in the books we see the heroes reading about other wizarding families under attack by Death Eaters, but here they've placed the main characters in harm's way. It's much more effective when it happens to people we care about than when we hear about it happening to someone else. A tertiary purpose of this is to further the relationship between Harry and Ginny, as she literally leaps through fire to come to his aid. She's no longer the little girl who needed Harry to rescue her from the Chamber of Secrets: she's now a very capable young woman who is not afraid to stand up against Death Eaters.

Another big change is the lack of a battle at Hogwarts at the end. It's a basic rule of film-making: you don't do the same action scene twice. In Ben-Hur a lot of talk was made about other chariot races the title character had won, but you only saw him race in the one pivotal race, for that very reason. Therefore it's logical to cut the battle from this film, since book seven has such a large, epic Battle of Hogwarts. What's important is what happens before the battle, not the battle itself.

Another change that I enjoyed was the different manner in which Harry and Ginny's relationship developed. Here it starts much earlier than the book, and as a result it allows the relationship to develop through the course of the film. There's an early moment where Harry spies Ginny through a window, and it's that classic moment where the man sees the girl he's known for years but as if he's seeing her for the first time. Harry's attraction to her is immediate, but unfortunately she's not only Ron's sister but also dating Harry's friend Dean. What's impressive about the way their romance plays out is that it's done almost entirely without dialog. A momentary glance carries a heartfelt confession, a single gesture moves mountains. One particularly great moment is during a dinner party when Ginny enters late in an elegant dress, and Harry makes the gentlemanly gesture of standing as she seats herself. Everyone at the table looks confused as to why Harry's suddenly standing, except Hermione, who sits smirking. It's not the first time she's seen him notice Ginny. And their first kiss, rather than a spontaneous, unexpected gesture on Harry's part, is initiated by Ginny, in a very sweet, romantic moment.

It's this heart of the film that really carries it. There's a great deal of teen angst, as Hermione accepts her feelings of Ron, who still hasn't accepted his feelings for her and instead decides to prance around with another girl, which drives Hermione to fits of rage and tears. But amidst it all there is great humor to be found. For all the weighty events going on, and even for the devastating conclusion, this is probably the funniest Potter movie yet.

Gambon has grown nicely into Dumbledore, eclipsing the late Richard Harris. Rickman is delicious as the ambiguous Snape: for six films now he's walked such a fine line between villain and good guy that you're still not sure which one he actually is. Unless, of course, you've read the books. Broadbent as Potions Professor Horace Slughorn is a delight. He's enormously funny, yet carries within him the great secret of a tremendous guilt. The moment of his confession is heartbreaking as he finally comes to terms with the result of a mistake he made years ago.

Most impressive among the young actors is Watson, who perfectly portrays the heartbreak of losing not only a friend, but the love of someone greatly desired. It is also her moments of realizing what is going on between Ginny and Harry that helps to sell that other relationship to the viewer: it's a small thing, but successful movies are made of thousands of such small things.

This is a much more mature Potter film than we've had before. The characters are struggling to deal with grown up decisions and situations in a grown up manner. As the characters have grown up, so have the movies. The result may be the best Harry Potter movie yet.

WALL·E (2008)

Not just the best animated film of the year, but the best film of the year

[10/10 · 1 July 2008]

Minor spoilers ahead. Beware.

Wall*e begins unlike any other Disney film I've ever seen. From the beginning the filmmakers are telling you this one is going to be different. From space we see the Earth. A song from "Hello, Dolly!", of all things, makes its arrival. The happy-go-lucky tune about a better world out there somewhere is contrasted with the Earth the camera pulls in on: a world consumed by trash. The song drifts away like you're falling underwater and a slightly eerie cue from composer Thomas Newman, in one of his best works, takes over.

We then begin to follow Wall*e thru his day-to-day ritual of compacting trash and building towers of the little boxes, some as high as skyscrapers. He's been alone for hundreds of years, and his only real company are a cockroach pet and a video of "Hello, Dolly!" from which he learns about holding hands.

Much has been said about "propanga" in this film, to which I call foul. The story premise is that a lonely robot has been left behind on Earth. He's the only thing left. Everything else in the story comes out of that premise naturally. Why people were forced to flee Earth, what happened to them once they left, their dependence on machines and consumerism: it's all a natural product of the one basic story premise: What happens if humans leave Earth and one robot is left alone to clean it up? Anti-consumerism and environmental concerns, while present in the context of telling the story, are not a sermon to the audience. That's not even the message of the film.

The real message of the film is connecting with others. Wall*e, the little robot time forgot, desperately wants someone, something to connect with. Meanwhile, the humans on the ship have become completely disconnected from one another. They've forgotten that the most important thing in the world is each other. It takes a little robot who's never had anyone to remind people of the importance of the person next to them.

This isn't simply a great animated film, it's a great film. Period. It would be a shame if this got only Best Animated Film Oscar consideration, because it really does deserve nominations for Best Picture, Andrew Stanton for both Director and Writer (yes, I believe he should get a director nomination, which would be the first for an animated film), Sound and Sound Editing, Original Score and Original Song for Peter Gabriel's wonderful credits tune.

It's difficult to put into words how extremely well made this film is. A good portion of the film is, essentially, a silent film, in that there is very little dialog. Most of the character depth is developed in looks, sounds, and minor voice inflections using the few words the robots possess. Walking out of the theater, I was reminded of Chaplin's powerful "City Lights," the beautiful love story of the blind girl and the homeless man who falls in love with her. Like Chaplin, Stanton and Pixar have managed to tell an engaging and powerful love story about two unlikely characters who happen to find each other, using few if any words. Wall*e so unabashedly loves Eve and is willing to go to any lengths to be with her, and you understand exactly what is going on in his head and in his heart at all times, even though he hardly speaks.

As for kids, at first my thought was that it might not be the best for kids, that it might be aimed more at adults. But I must admit that at the end of the film, which I saw on a Saturday afternoon showing that was packed with kids, all that had been restless or talking to mom and dad early in the film were complete still like all the adults in the audience, staring at the screen, completely gripped in the final moments. In fact, more than 3/4 of the audience stayed through the credits. They simply didn't want the movie to end.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

A great adventure

[9/10 · 2 June 2008]

The initial moments of my first time seeing "Crystal Skull" reminded me very much of my first time seeing "Last Crusade." I grew up on Indy and Star Wars. One of my earliest memories is of going to see the original "Star Wars" in '77 at the age of 4, a good couple years before it had "A New Hope" attached to its title. Likewise I saw "Raiders" in '81 at the age of 8, and it has since become my favorite movie of all time.

But a funny thing happened on the way to "The Last Crusade." I sat there for most of the movie feeling as if it weren't an Indiana Jones film. Perhaps because I'd watched the two previous films so many times and they were so familiar, but I didn't take to "Last Crusade" immediately. It took me multiple viewings. In fact, it wasn't until well after it was on home video that I began to feel it was an Indy movie. Which seems to be the reaction that many are having to "Crystal Skull." I did initially as well when the film started. But about five minutes in something happened. Doors opened revealing a familiar setting from the original "Raiders," and I was immediately transported back into the world of Indiana Jones. Only this time the world is not about Nazis and religious artifacts. At least, not any religion we're familiar with. It's no longer the 30s, the world has moved on. This is exemplified by a shot of Indy standing on a hill as a mushroom cloud billows in the distance. The world has changed. The man who has always made it up as he went along is in a world where it's hardly safe to do so anymore.

A great deal has been made of the Maguffin of the film, and the fact that the supernatural element of this particular installment owes more to some other films Spielberg has made than to other Indy films. While I agree, I believe people are completely missing the point. The Indy films have always been throwbacks to the period in which the films occur, mimicking the popular culture of its time. The 50s was a time of McCarthyism, Communism, alien invasion films such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "Day the Earth Stood Still" (both of which "Crystal Skull" references), Tarzan, Howdy Doody and Elvis. The film is a product of the 50s, not the 30s. The world has moved on to new threats, and so has Indy. The film is true to what the series has always been while moving Indy into a fantastic and over-the-top yet real exploration of the media of the time.

The film is a great adventure. The action is some of the best of the series, it has a great deal of humor and warmth, the chemistry between Shia and Harrison is fantastic, and as always it's great to see Marion back. As a huge fan of the original, I am perhaps a bit biased, but I would place this as my second favorite in the series after "Raiders." Listening to the soundtrack and thinking about the film I frequently find myself smiling thinking about it, and look forward very much to seeing it again.

Superman Returns (2006)

By far my favorite movie of the summer

[10/10 · 30 June 2006]

I should preface this review by saying I'm a big fan of the first two Christopher Reeve Superman movies, but pretty much hate the other two. So the fact that this one is being made as a sequel to Superman 2 while ignoring 3 & 4 was just right up my alley.

This film really gave me everything I wanted from a Superman movie, everything I'd hoped I was going to get. I thought all of the performances were great, I loved the story, I loved the fact that the action grew out of the story rather than the other way around. I can't think of anything I didn't like about the movie, to be honest. I can't fathom why so many people are giving it negative reviews.

The biggest hurdle for any Superman movie is that he is so strong and so unstoppable that finding a credible threat to him, a hurdle for him to overcome, is very difficult to find and make entertaining. This film accomplishes that difficult task. It also gives a great love story, and some incredible action sequences. I haven't seen Pirates 2 yet, but this is by far my favorite movie of the summer to this point.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

A Brilliant Finale

[8/10 · 8 November 2003]

I cannot imagine the series ending any other way. The resolution,

not only for the plot, but for each individual character, is completely

fitting. As the films repeatedly state, it's all about purpose.

Everyone has a purpose. Morpheus's purpose was to find and

train Neo. Trinity's was to love Neo, and to help him along his path

(though she does, in Reloaded, get in his way; this sets him on yet

another path that she must help him to complete). Neo's purpose

we all know. But even Smith has a purpose. And all complete their

purpose exactly the way they were meant to from the beginning.

Were any of these characters to have found themselves at different

places at the end of the film, it would not have worked.

I felt that the only solution was peace, not military victory, since I

first saw The Second Renaissance in The Animatrix. It occurred to

me then that there was no way the humans could defeat the

machines. Certainly not in one movie. If the entire human race was

defeated in a true World War that saw the death and/or

subjugation of every living inhabitant, then the possibility of this

small band of freedom fighters triumphing was nil. And then I

recalled the Councillor's dialogue from Reloaded: the machines

need the humans just as the humans need the machines. The

only solution was compromise. The two would have to find a way

to peacefully co-exist. Only then would the war be over. It was what

the humans could not do in The Animatrix. The fear the humans

had for the machines drove them to war against them, and led

ultimately to their own destruction and enslavement. It is only when

Trinity, Neo and Morpheus are able to put aside their fear and face

the machines as equals in Revolutions that peace is possible.

The movie wraps up the themes from the previous films brilliantly,

at the same time telling an engaging story layered with exciting

action set pieces.

28 Days Later (2002)

Boring and derivative

[7/10 · 30 June 2003]

The worst thing I can say about this movie is that I went in

expecting a truly bad movie, and was disappointed: it was even

worse than I had thought it would be. This is unusual, as I am

typically pleasantly surprised by movies that I have low

expectations for. This is the first time I went into a film with low

expectations only to discover my expectations were not low

enough. The best thing I can say is that the performance of Megan

Burns as Hannah is truly wonderful. But I cannot recommend a

bad film for one good performance.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

One of Spielberg's best

[10/10 · 26 December 2002]

Though "Minority Report" seems to be generating the most talk

this year, it is this "little" film from Spielberg that is the real

highlight of his recent body of work. Spielberg takes what would be

a slight story in any other director's hands and turns it into butter: to

paraphrase Walken in the film, Spielberg is the second mouse.

Stealing the show is Walken as DiCaprio's IRS-plagued father.

With his few scenes he displays a tremendous range, and brings

depth to an underwritten character. But that takes nothing away

from the best performance of DiCaprio's career, as a teenage

conman who can make anyone believe he's something he's not.

Both performances, and the film, should be remembered come

Oscar time.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

A worthy, enjoyable ride.

[6/10 · 4 May 2001]

I liked the new direction they took Evie, making her more like a

Cameron woman: tough. Very different from how she began in the

first film, but it still works. I like strong women in film. I hate the

"Help me, James," you so often get in Bond movies. So seeing

Rachel come out as this tough broad willing to risk her neck and

not afraid to get down and dirty with the boys in order to save her

family was very cool.

Rick's a bit older, and more cautious. He's got a family now and

doesn't want anything to happen to them. His best moments are

when Evie or his son, Alex, are in danger.

Speaking of Alex, the kid (Freddie Boath, I think) who plays him is

really good. A fine addition to the cast.

The rest of the returning cast is fine as well, especially Oded. He

gets beat up pretty good, but he's got some great scenes.

Acting-wise, the film is strong.

It's the effects that really mar the film. You can tell the movie was

rushed into theaters, unfortunately. They really should have

pushed this back till November. The old Mummy effects and

assorted returning tricks from the original look fine, but a great

many of the new stuff looks bad. The hot air balloon, in particular,

looks fake in almost every shot. And the final CG for the Scorpion

King, not too give too much away, is almost laughable. It really

looks silly. I've heard complaints that Anubis's dog warriors looked

fake, but hey, they're dog warriors - how real did you expect them to

look? They're fine. They get the job done.

There's also much less humor this time. The film is darker. The

gross factor has been pushed up a bit. What humor there is

depends a great deal on having seen the first film.

What works, though, are the personal relationships of the

characters. I really bought into Rick and Evie's relationship, and

that these people care for each other, and were willing to die for

one another. There is a very interesting juxtaposition of their

relationship and the one between Imhotep and Anck-Su-Anum,

culminating in a final moment for all four. The way each reacts to

their corresponding counterpart in that one moment is the real

resolution of the film, despite anything else that may occur after it.

As for the action, everything has been turned up a notch. While the

first had a fairly long passage in the middle with only one short

action sequence (on the boat), this film races from one action

sequence to another. It never really stops to take its breath. Some

may say this is a bad thing, but it never loses sight of the principal

characters along the way, and the action is strong.

The threat is also more real this time, culminating in the death of

one of the returning leads, rather than a side character like Beni

from the first film. It's a shock that works for its immediacy and

potency.

Like its predecessor, the film is driven not by the men, but by

women (and, in this case, children). It is Evie and Anck-Su-Anum

who propel the story forward, along with young Alex, and who force

things to their eventual conclusion. Even The Mummy himself

almost takes a back seat on the ride, as the O'Connells are forced

to deal with myriad bad guys. But he pops up every once in a while

to muss their hair and make up. To see an action film driven not by

men but by women is a rarity, and even more rare is one that

works for a male audience. But this one does.

All in all, the film is a fine sequel. I missed the humor of the

original, and the effects should have been given more time, but the

action is good, and the characterization is strong. This isn't just a

remake of the original. They took the story in a new direction and

turned things up a notch. The core of the film is the O'Connell

family. If you buy into them and their relationship, and care for them

as they care for one another, then you'll live with the occasional

awful CG and won't bemoan the lack of humor too much. If not,

then it's going to be a very long film.

Unbreakable (2000)

Entertaining and cerebral

[10/10 · 24 November 2000]

Many will walk out of this film disgusted for one of two reasons:

1. The film failed to be The Sixth Sense 2.

2. The film was trying too hard to be The Sixth Sense 2.

In fact, it is the audience that wants so bad to see The Sixth Sense 2 that many are not going to be able to appreciate this film for what it really is, or understand the comments it makes about our own fascination with and need for heroes. This is a much more cerebral film than its predecessor. It is slow-moving, deliberate, and cautious. This is very much a drama with strange, supernatural undertones. And those undertones are very subtle. While the previous film was a mind game with the audience, this is a mind game between the characters.

The ending does have a twist, yes, but nowhere near the kind of twist The Sixth Sense had. It doesn't even try to duplicate that. It does change the way you look at the events you saw in the film, but not so much that you want to race back in and see it again to see if they pulled a fast one. It simply forces you try to make sense of the psychology of a certain character in the film.

The one flaw to this film is the very end, where we are told the fates of two major characters. Perhaps, since the film deals with comic books, this was intended to be comic, but I don't think the filmmakers actually intended for the audience to laugh at this moment, which is what happened when I saw the film, with an audience that had, up to that point, been enjoying themselves.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

If you want to jump out of your seat, go see this film.

[7/10 · 24 July 2000]

Yes, it's filled with horror movie cliches. Yes, the marketing campaign effectively gives away the first half of the movie. Yes, it throws everything at you, even the kitchen sink.

Is it still entertaining? Yes. Are there still surprises? Yes. Would I recommend the film? By all means.

Harrison Ford gives one of his best performances since Witness. Pfeiffer is also particularly good. The only fault I can find with the film is that it tries too hard to make the audience jump, and too often. Otherwise, my biggest complaint is the marketing campaign, which makes the first half of the film a pointless exercise, but that's not the film's fault.

If you want to jump out of your seat, go see this film. It is derivative, yes, but that by no means makes it a bad film. The Matrix is derivative. Star Wars is derivative. But they're also entertaining and effective films, as is What Lies Beneath.

X-Men (2000)

A Solid Adaptation

[9/10 · 14 July 2000]

With the auspicious arrival of the new X-Men film, things are looking up for the comic book world in its increasingly unpropitious history at the movies. Joining Donner's Superman and Burton's Batman on the shortlist of truly fine comic book adaptations, X-Men looks to become the next major franchise. (Hopefully, it will fare better in the sequel department than the other aforementioned Warner Bros franchises.)

Though Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan may have lead billing as far as the credits are concerned, this film really belongs to Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin, as fan favorites Wolverine and Rogue, respectively. Though Stewart (Professor Charles Xavier) and McKellan (Xavier's old friend-turned-nemesis Magneto) form the intellectual core of the film, the emotional aspect, the connection to the audience, is conducted by Paquin's sense of alienation, her growing fondness for Wolverine, and his developing friendship for his new, young charge.

Much praise will be heaped on Jackman for his portrayal of Wolverine, but kudos must also go to James Marsden (Cyclops) and Famke Janssen (Jean Grey), for it is their by-play and chemistry that gives Jackman his best and most memorable moments. Had they not played so well off Jackman, Wolverine would not have come off so well as he does.

How does the rest of the cast fare? Halle Berry (Storm) is the only X-Men to stand unconvincing in her role. Although it's not entirely her fault: she is simply given very little to do, and as a result fails to convince the audience of her capabilities. Marsden and Janssen are good in their roles, but more time should have been spent on showing us that they are in fact a couple. We are told that they are, but we never see it. Considering that much of the mood of the film and is derived from the triangle of Cyclops, Grey and Wolverine, it would have been nice to have been provided a glimpse into their private life.

The only big failing is the score by Michael Kamen, which falls flat on its face. It's not merely inadequate; it's just plain bad. Had a good composer been brought in who could have developed motifs for the important characters, such as Rogue, Wolverine, Professor X and Magneto, things would have been considerably improved. Just a few notes would have been enough; somewhere between three- and seven-note combinations, to connect the audience sonically to the characters.

Still, I highly recommend the film, and not just to fans of the comics. I think non-fans, people who've never even heard of the comic let alone picked up an issue, will enjoy it just as much. On a scale of 1-10, X-Men gets an 8.

Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

Is it possible to give a movie a 0 rating?

[1/10 · 6 July 2000]

This is one of those movies that convinces you that studio heads really don't know what they are doing, that it's all a big crapshoot. It's hard to believe that someone looked at the treatment for Jaws 4 and said, "Yeah, this is a good idea. Let's go with this."

A real head-shaker.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Better than the original

[8/10 · 24 May 2000]

Though it's become increasingly obvious that the Mission Impossible films have little to do with the television show they're derived from, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

This film focuses less on action and more on the characters than the previous entry; or, for that matter, most action films of this day. Some will find this difficult to swallow, like a foreign food that the throat refuses to accept not because of a bad taste but because of the unfamiliar sensation it causes, which is too bad, because it actually makes for a great film, though not necessarily the one viewers will walk into the theater expecting to see.

At center stage is the romance between Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and Nyah (Newton), the latter a thief whom Hunt is assigned to acquire for his next assignment. Their by-play and chemistry forms the heart of the film, and the manner in which the rest of the plot plays out really depends on how these two characters care for and react to one another.

For action fans, there are, of course, the great stunt and set pieces that one would expect, the majority coming at the end of the film. Those looking for a mind numbing experience with as little thought involvement as possible might wish to skip the first half of the film and go straight to the big finale. But for those who want a bit more from their action films, the film should amply satisfy. Recommended.

The Matrix (1999)

Derivative and unoriginal

[9/10 · 11 January 2000]

A lot of people are going to think this film is original, which is unfortunate, because it's not. It doesn't have anything new to say that hasn't been said going back to Fritz Lang's silent classic "Metropolis". It also takes itself way too seriously for a film that is really little more than eye candy and popcorn.

Its effects have been done before but just on this scale, which the film should be commended for. However, the film feels like it was made with the story servicing the effects and not the effects servicing the film. It's like they had this idea for a really cool effect and figured out a story to write around it. That combined with the fact that it can't decide if you wants to be a pretentious drama or an action movie ultimately bogs the film down under its own weight.

Recommended for people that like mindless action only; for people that think Lethal Weapon originated the buddy cop film and not The French Connection.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932)

Vivid and exciting storytelling

[10/10 · 5 January 2000]

Made by the same production team that brought us the original King Kong (while the giant ape was in pre-production, and using some of the same sets), this is excitement of the old, grand order. There are no special effects to speak of; the only special effect is the excitement generated by a very simple yet original story. The drama is in the characters, and the fact that you grow to care for them in a remarkably short period of time. The movie is propelled by the characters, not the characters by the movie.

This is a remarkably short film. At just over an hour long, it might seem too short to some viewers, but you more than get your money's worth.

Many movies have imitated this film over the years. But make no mistake, this is the original, and still the best of the bunch.

Beauty and the Beast (1946)

Beautiful, poetic, and haunting

[10/10 · 4 January 2000]

Cocteau was a poet. Make no mistake. First and foremost. Not only in history's mind, but in his own as well. We are truly blessed that he was a filmmaker as well, and a brilliant one at that, marvelously weaving together a tapestry that mystically incorporated both words and sounds with the beautiful visions that lay captured in his mind.

Cocteau's vision of "Beauty and the Beast" is a visual marvel. To explain these marvels for you would be to ruin the experience. And it is an experience. But it is one of the poet: borne of symbolism and mythology. This is a fairy tale that a child could appreciate for its romance and beauty, and a parent for its intelligence and use of symbolism and metaphor. I recommend this film unreservedly. If you like classics and consider yourself a serious filmgoer, Cocteau's film is essential to your education.

The Green Mile (1999)

Good, but not great

[10/10 · 10 December 1999]

"The Green Mile" will doubtlessly be nominated for Best Picture. Which is unfortunate, as it doesn't deserve to be.

Comparisons to "The Shawshank Redemption" are inevitable, but, despite their similar origins, they are entirely separate entities, and deserve to be graded as such. However, "The Green Mile" probably would have been better served by being a bit more like "Shawshank".

Michael Clarke Duncan (in the role of John Coffey) and Tom Hanks as Paul Edgecomb are the only fleshed out characters here. Doug Hutchison as a particularly nasty prison guard certainly stands out, but he is a caricature, which is the unfortunate truth of almost the entire supporting cast. Barry Pepper and Jeffrey DeMunn as fellow guards could have played each others' characters, and doubtlessly it would have gone unnoticed.

The performances are not bad, by any means, but the performers themselves are given little to do. It isn't helped by the fact that every significant moment is announced to the audience by slow motion photography, swelling music, and sparks of light coming from the damndest places. Which is what the entire movie boils down to: manufactured emotions. People will certainly come away from this movie teary-eyed, with visions of Oscar dancing in their heads. But if you were to ask one of those people why they were weeping, they probably wouldn't be able to tell you. And not because it's indefinable. The movie simply does such a thorough and subtle job of pushing the right buttons that people don't realize they've been pushed.

This is a good movie, and if you want a good cry, I certainly recommend it. But it's not one of the best films of the year, despite what others may tell you.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

One of the best and most complex Bonds

[7/10 · 19 November 1999]

There's a lot to like about this Bond. Brosnan has finally grown comfortably into the role. And his is one of the best turns of the series. Bond isn't a superman here. He's mortal. He feels pain. Often.

Also showing her stuff is Sophie Marceau as heiress Elektra King. She easily stands apart from most Bond girls, ranking among the most memorable, alongside Honore Blackman, Diana Rigg and, more recently, Michelle Yeoh. Her chemistry with Brosnan is palpable, and the developing relationship between the two during the film is entirely believable (a rarity for a Bond film).

The only real weak link is Christmas Jones, portrayed by Denise Richards. She is fine in the part, but the character itself is entirely wasted. She's given little more to do than stand around and look like Denise Richards. It would have been nice if she could have come in handy by the end of the film, but there's very little that she does that Bond could not have done for himself. After all, he has deactivated bombs before (Octopussy).

However, the plot is a real knockout. It's not your typical point-and-shoot Bond plot, where he somehow seems to miraculously know who the bad guy is right out of the gate. Instead, he finds he has his work cut out for him, as well as a surprise or two in store along the way; not only for him, but for the audience as well.

The opening sequence is also a stunner. It's probably the longest opening sequence in the franchise history: a chase covering air, land, and sea. Unfortunately, the rest of the film never manages to reach the same level of intensity in its action, but there is real character development to be had, a sacrifice I, for one, was more than glad to make.

If you're at all inclined towards seeing this film, I highly recommend it.