PatrickH-2 Reviews

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking (1988)

Why??

[1/10 · 20 September 2000]

This movie . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation.

Back to the Beach (1987)

This is too bad to be the worst movie ever made

[28 May 2000]

This movie . . . whew, where to begin? It seems to be some sort of parody, but it is so self-conscious in its pastiche - yet at the same time oblivious at how stupid it is - that it fails on all levels. It is basically a love letter to the the worst elements of pop culture in 1987, with a layer of kitschy 1960s references on top. The lowlight is surely the Jamaica Ska number, in which Fishbone humiliates itself as Annette instructs the beach-goers in jazzercising. It is reeeeeallllly painful.

Rainbow War (1987)

Ummm . ...

[19 September 1999]

I can help the other commenter find out where this movie can be found. I was forced to watch it during my freshman orientation in HS (no joke.) It is one of the biggest running jokes in my school, since everyone had to watch it and everyone was left with their jaws on the floor due to its ridiculousness. Although, I have to say the part at the end with the paint war was pretty cool.

Wait Until Dark (1967)

Not Especially Thrilling Thriller

[28 August 1999]

The set-up of this movie is pretty interesting- a group of criminals (led by the extremely nasty Harry Roat - Alan Arkin, in a terrible performance) have to find a dope-filled doll which accidentally ended up in the hands of a young woman. The catch is, she's blind- so as long as they can get her alone, and concoct a story, they can look all they want for the doll. It was originally a play, and boy is that obvious- all the action takes place inside one apartment. Actually, all the action is locked inside one apartment. There is a definite claustrophobia to this film; its essentially just a series of people going in and out of the place, enacting a ludicrously overcomplicated plot to find the doll. The movie is basically relentless exposition, and the only thing that staves off boredom is the knowledge that Something bad is going to happen. No script could get away with such tedium and not deliver a payoff, and this one doesnt. The infamous "shocker" ending so many people talk about is nowhere to be found. I imagine the ending would be much more effective live onstage, though I cant imagine sitting through the entire thing in a theater.

In any event, Audrey Hepburn's performance is very very good, as is Richard Crenna as another of the criminals; but Arkin's misses the mark completely. And noone is helped by the amateurish script, which is long on plot machinations but short on realistic dialogue. Really, the only good scenes are the first- a brilliantly conceived scene in which Hepburn walks around her bedroom not realizing there is a dead woman hanging in her closet- and the last, in which Hepburn and Arkin do battle in near-darkness (lit only by the refrigerator light.) But again, I was sorely disappointed that the payof- promised by the film's very atmosphere- never came. (I would have been much more interested if Hepburn's husband turned out to be one of the criminals, and he killed her after the police left.)

Nightbreed (1990)

Absolutely Fascinating

[26 August 1999]

Fascinating is an excellent word to describe NIGHTBREED: it doesn't necessarily mean it is good or bad, just interesting. Indeed, Im still not sure whether or not this film is good or bad.

On the credits side, the sets, costumes, make-up, special effects, even the matte paintings are gorgeous, grotesque, perfect for what is required. I was amazed that such fantastic production values could be found in a movie that on the surface seems so schlocky. There is such a wealth of imagination here that one can hardly take time out to think about the flaws. I was so amazed by the knock-out apocalyptic finale that I could barely think about how silly the context is (a bunch of redneck Canadians blow-torching a cemetary.)

he film's biggest flaw is it's sheer magnitude- there are SO many characters, plots, subtexts, overlays, and so on, that no really coherent or involving center emerges. It can be interpreted as: a story about how love conquers the supernatural (a la Dead Again), a Silence-of-the-lambs-like psychodrama about a serial killer; a dreamy horror flick reminiscent of Nightmare on Elm Street and especially Little Monsters; a Gilliam-inspired fantasy (the teeming underworld city is strongly reminiscent of Brazil and the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness in Time Bandits, while other parts are reminiscent of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen); a symbolic tale of racial tolerance; and on and on. So much happens, so many characters are involved, so many subtexts present themselves, its hard to know what is going on at all.

Still, one really does have to see the film to believe it. The underworld city is stunning, its atmosphere created perfectly by both the production design and a series of bizarre tableaux of its residents. It is a mark of Barker's screenwriting talent (so often evident in his other films if you can look beneath the shlock) that all the characters, even monsters seen only briefly, ring true in some strange way. The many stories are actually touching. Also, the ending is cleverly conceived; it doesnt go out of its way to leave the door open for a sequel, rather the open door is integral to the plot. I would love to see a follow-up just to know how Barker carries through the mythical aspects he introduces in this film's last part.

Perhaps the film could have been more focused, with fewer subsidiary characters; perhaps the completely inappropriate (but obviously intentional) humor could have been dropped; perhaps the entire serial-killer sub-plot could have been excised completely. In any case, this film is a knock-out.

Slaughterhouse-Five (1972)

Brilliantly Adapted

[9/10 · 23 August 1999]

This is an all-around excellent film, made even better by the fact that it is such a good adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's novella. It not only faithfully recounts the plot, but it manages to bring out the book's inner logic (which is diffficult to follow in print.) In other words, the outrageous sci-fi-tinged story makes sense. Also, the visuals are wonderful, especially the scenes in Dresden. The fire bombing scene is handled very well, as are the Tralfamadore scenes (which could have been very very silly, but are not.) The entire cast is extremely good.

Beauty and the Beast (1946)

Dazzling

[10/10 · 14 August 1999]

This is without a doubt one of the most gorgeous films I have ever seen. The lavish costumes, boundlessly imaginative sets, and wonderfully soft-focus cinematography are trully amazing. Yet there is more here than just eye candy; the sheer imagination of the production is overwhelming, but there is a touching story here as well. Josette Day is ravishing, but she also gives a great performance; we truly feel her transformation from disgust to curiosity to affection to love. Jean Marais, too, gives a remarkable performance, allowing us to see the damaged man beneath the beast. Even the special effects are dazzling, all the more so when one remembers this film was made in 1946. A truly wondrous experience.

Heavenly Creatures (1994)

Truly one of the most disturbing films ever made

[9/10 · 3 August 1999]

I can't remember shaking so much after watching a movie as i did after watching this. Kate Winslet's performance is a model of just-barely-controlled hysteria, and Melanie Lynskey gives a stunning performance. All the roles are well-handled. The screenplay is brilliantly constructed; it is a measure of its quality that the bizarre fantasies of the girls are totally believable, even when accompanied by distracting special effects. The cinematography, too, is gorgeous (at times perversely evoking The Sound of Music). A truly great film.

Strapless (1989)

Bizarre, ludicrous, yet mesmerizing

[4/10 · 3 August 1999]

Bizarre is probably the best word to use when describing this film. The plot lazily, and arbitrarily, bounces back and forth between totally under-written characters and indeterminate settings (at one point I thought some scenes were taking place in Monte Carlo), with barely a nod to coherence. Blair Brown, always fascinating, doesn't have too much to work with here; her character is woefully undeveloped. The mysterious stranger is nothing more than a stalker, and no reason is given for her falling in love with him other than the luxury he can offer her. Bridget Fonda has nothing to do; the scenes in the hospital seem straight out of another movie (or an episode of St. Elsewhere). Despite the flim's almost dizzying lack of sense, I could not, at times, take my eyes away from it. This film is redolent of the sort of warm-shadowed, color-flecked rococo headiness (just look at the title sequence) that is often associated with the culture of the late eighties (watch Bonfire of the Vanities- dont turn up the volume, or pay attention to the characters, just look at the sets). Perhaps the incoherence of the film added to this mysterious gauziness. In any case, I still cant believe this came out of David Hare (despite the presence of Blair Brown). A playwright I usually admire, Hare can go off track, and this is a definite instance of that. There is even a gratuitous, non-sequitur joke about actors, done in a set that includes a poster for a Hare play. This sort of in-jokeyness is completely out of place in a film that sets itself up as a psychological mystery/romance. Also, Nick Bicat's score is distracting, often building into pointless crescendoes in the middle of talky scenes. This movie is . . . . well, lets just call it a curiosity.

Young Einstein (1988)

Whew . . . This movie . . .

[6/10 · 3 August 1999]

Young Einstein bounces back and forth between the heights of imagination and creativity and the absolute depths of ludicrous vulgarity like no other film I have ever seen. The plot, in which the eponymous character- transplanted from Germany to Australia- Discovers the theory of relativity in the process of making beer, and "invents" rock and roll (despite the fact that it's only 1906). Im sure there was some sort of satire intended when this was written, but it was definitely lost in the transition from script to celluloid. What remains is a series of scenes that almost amount to a narrative, some of them funny, some definitely not. The only thing that is consisten is the scope of the production- the sets, costumes, and cinematography are all devastatingly beautiful. How so much effort (and, from the looks of things, money) came to be lavished on a story this ridiculous, I will never know. Despite this, I have to applaud the sheer imagination evident in the script, which includes Charles Darwin and Marie Curie as major characters; nonetheless, the elegance and creativity do not compliment the more ridiculous aspects of the film. It certainly is a weird combination, however.

The Joy Luck Club (1993)

Could have been better

[6/10 · 29 May 1999]

This movie is crippled by its structure- bouncing aimlessly between a number of different story lines gives it an unfocused feeling. Also a problem- the characters aren't especially well-drawn. The older aunts bear only a tenuous relationship to their younger selves; the girls in the younger generation are totally uninteresting. Cliches abound- the arranged marriage, the competitive mothers living vicariously through their girls, etc. The real problem is that there are too many stories, characters, narrators, etc. to properly draw each one. What is left is something of a hodgepodge. The performances of the older women are good, though.

A Private Function (1984)

COMPLETELY pointless

[29 May 1999]

This movie is so uninteresting I sincerely doubt it would have made a passable 30-minute sitcom episode. Nothing happens in the whole thing! I didn't find it vulgar, ridiculous, funny, anything- it is simply a waste of time.

On the Town (1949)

A HUGE disappointment

[6/10 · 28 May 1999]

ON THE TOWN is probably one of the best musicals ever written. Leonard Bernstein's score is truly astonishing, and Comden and Green's book is quite good. You'd never know it from this movie, which shreds the score, adding far inferior songs, and totally ruins the spirit of the source. This should never have even been a movie. A shame.

Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie (1996)

a disappointment

[10 April 1999]

I am a religious fan of MST3K; I have been ever since the third season, and I have seen nearly every episode. Despite this- or because of it? - I was disappointed by MST3K:the movie. THIS ISLAND EARTH provides surprisingly little good material- it would have been good fodder for an okay episode, but not a full-fledged movie. I honestly thought the folks at Best Brains would have searched harder for the perfect bad movie. Nonetheless, MST3K: the movie is a good deal more funny than most comedies with actual plots and characters. It's a shame the writers couldn't match their usual standard.

As Good as It Gets (1997)

Lame and deathless

[6/10 · 6 April 1999]

I can think of few other times that I was more bored in a movie theater than while watching this film. A script borrowed from a slightly-better-than-average sitcom is not the stuff of great movies. The performances- vastly over-rated. Jack Nicholson has never given more than one performance- he is exactly the same in every single film. Helen Hunt is little more than pouty, and what's with her come-and-go accent? Greg Kinnear- dull as dishwater. Cuba Gooding Jr. was thrown in for no other reason than to give the film some brief instants of energy, but even that energetic performer can't pull off such a feat. The whole film- a solid mediocrity.

Good Will Hunting (1997)

Over-rated

[4/10 · 6 April 1999]

This is undeniably a character-driven film, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed it much more if the eponymous character was a little more realistic. Matt Damon clearly knew he would be playing Will Hunting- he and co-writer Ben Affleck crafted a self-indulgent character that actors dream about. First of all, he's great looking. Secondly, he's wild and rebellious. Thirdly- and best of all- he's a genius! Any flaws in the character are created only to give Damon opportunity to display himself as an actor. Robin Williams is totally uninteresting- how'd he get an Oscar? And Minnie Driver- why is this woman an actress? Had this movie been written by someone with any sense of character, it could have been great; as it stands, it's barely good. (Gee- a closing line almost as cute as the movie's title!)

The Witches (1990)

A gem

[9/10 · 6 April 1999]

This is a truly delightful movie. Only its scariness keeps it from being a children's classic. Anjelica Huston is really terrific, as is the entire film.

Noises Off... (1992)

a terrible blunder

[2/10 · 5 April 1999]

NOISES OFF may be the funniest play written in the past fifty years, but you'd never know it from this botched adaptation. The very nature of the hilariously bad sex farce almost precludes a properly executed film- rather than communicating a sense of organized chaos, Bogdanovich only succeeds in giving the audience a headache. Another mistake- moving the setting from England to the USA. As Frank Rich pointed out in his original Broadway review, the farce in the film is a sort of theater without a real equivalent in America; moving the setting- for example, in the first act, to Iowa- is laughable. The cast doesn't fare well. Michael Caine is too whiny, Marilu Henner is boring, Ritter is bland, Denholm Eliot and Julie Hagarty are overdone, Reeve is just plain bad. The normally reliable Carol Burnett is left with nothing to do. Even the set is messed up- it's too pretty! Where's the chintz? Anyone who has seen this film ought to go out and see the play immediately- chances are it's being done by three local theater companies within twenty miles of you, no matter where you live- and judge for yourself the true merits of the film.

Dead Poets Society (1989)

Manipulative

[6/10 · 5 April 1999]

The first time I saw this movie, I was struck by its poetic quality, and the emotions it drew from me were surprising. The more I think about it, however, the more I realize how emotionally manipulative it is. The plot- especially in the last third of the film- seems contrived just to pull the maximum amount of irony, pathos, and tears from the viewer, when in fact it is really just artificial. The entire ending is meant to make the audience as mad as possible. It works every time I see it, even though I see through the trick.

The Last of Sheila (1973)

Best "puzzle movie" ever

[9/10 · 5 April 1999]

This great film could be looked at as a terrific mystery, but it's more than that- it's one of those few mysteries that actually allows the audience to play along. Who else could have come up with such a complicated plot other than Stephen Sondheim, whose talent for puzzles is evident in everything he does? Sure, the movie is cold and the characters are all reprehensible, but these flaws are overcome by the sheer complexity of the plot. Well worth seeing. (I actually had to see it a few times just to see again how Sondheim and co-writer Anthony Perkins pulled it off- although I did manage to figure out the killer the first time.)

Cape Fear (1991)

a subversion of a great film

[3/10 · 4 April 1999]

What ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

bad movie for many reasons

[3/10 · 4 April 1999]

OK, some of the direction is imaginative. The music is great. But that's about it. The performances are embarrassingly bad. And why is it that when a book or movie comes out that dumps on a historical figure, it's hailed as an "honest portrait" regardless of its true merits (or lack thereof?)

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

A stunner

[8/10 · 3 April 1999]

What a movie! Something for everybody: action packed, very well-written, emotionally engaging (a rarity for films of this genre), and superbly directed. Even the art direction is top-notch! (I won't carp about the improbability of the setup.)Probably the greatest war movie ever made, and surely the the best since FULL METAL JACKET back in '87. An instant classic.

The Sweet Hereafter (1997)

A chilling experience

[8/10 · 3 April 1999]

The Sweet Hereafter is one of those films that has me torn. I very rarely say this, but I agree that it is well-made and all that stuff, but it is virtually without energy. It is a cool, understated painting that can only be viewed from a distance. Sure, the cast is pitch perfect- Ian Holm turns in the performance of his or any career- and the image of the schoolbus accident is one of the most chilling I've ever seen; but no matter how much I think about the high points, I can't escape the total lack of emotion. The film is wonderful to look at and does indeed give you much to think about, but it is exceedingly cold to the touch.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

One of the greatest mediocre films ever made

[5/10 · 3 April 1999]

I really can't explain why this movie does absolutely nothing for me. It has a great cast that turns in some good performances, and the story is compelling; however, I always feel so empty after I see it. I get a similar vibe from FORREST GUMP and TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, to name a couple others. I can't really figure out why.