Change Your Image
JasonS-5
Reviews
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
A Hard Movie
I will be very blunt. If you like Merchant Ivory films and other things of this genre, you will enjoy this movie because it has things which appeal to you: lavish sets, serious actors, a pretentious plot, and a long running time. If you like movies like "Men In Black" or "Independance Day" you will not like this movie, because it contains no explosions -- however, you will probably be dragged to see it because of your girlfriend.
I like movies in both styles, and so I went to see this of my own free will, with nothing but optimism. I found that the acting was superb, the filming was wonderful, the characters were utterly unpleasent, and the story was interminable.
The movie wasn't a fun experience, it was not a moving experience, it wasn't particularly entertaining, it was not morally improving, there was no message, and, in the end, nothing was resolved. I ended the movie thinking to myself, what was the point in making it?
Not only that, but the 2+ hours in takes to reach the denoument feel more like three. Here's where the film snobs will jump on me, so let me cut them off. Yes, I AM glad that films are being made for people *with* attention spans. Yes, I am glad films are still being made that deal with subtle plot developments, instead of explosions. But, really, so what? The people in the movie are so nasty (and here kudos go to the cast, because they portray the characters' unpleasentness admirably) that you don't want to spend the entire film getting to know them -- you want them all to die, and die a damn site quicker than they do in the movie.
So in summary, the movie was beautiful and tedious. It was extremely well-done, but the story just wasn't fulfilling enough to justify the great acting and scenery.
Se7en (1995)
Great Movie, Lousy Sound
This is an excellent, if sometimes disgusting, movie. It is intense, scary, and thought provoking. I even imagine that the dialogue is excellent. I say "imagine" because only about one in every three lines spoken in this movie are audible. When I went to see this movie in the theatre, I was on the edge of my seat, not just out of tension, because I was straining to hear what everyone was saying. I know they didn't have the volume turned down to low, because the soundtrack, and all other sounds in the movie were LOUD, its just all the actors sounded like they were mumbling. OK, maybe it was just the accoustics of the theatre. I rented it once on VHS, and there was the same problem -- you could barely hear anything that anyone said. OK, I had a lousy VCR, I thought it would be different when I got in on DVD. I watched it last weekend, and it was still the exact same problem. The sound editting on this movie is horrible, which is REALLY frustrating, because its an amazing movie. You'd think that someone else would have mentioned this to the producers by now, and they would have re-editted it for the DVD.
Still, if you have strong ears, and a strong stomach, this movie is well worth watching.
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
Total Disappointment
I usually remember movies for a very long time after I see them. I think its significant that I barely remember anything about this movie except that I didn't like it.
As interesting and exciting as the first Mission Impossible movie was, that was how dull and flat this movie was. It just seemed like they strung together a bunch of the bits that worked from the first movie and gave Tom Cruise's character long hair and called it a different movie.
There was a plot, I guess, I think, maybe. I remember it largely involved Tom Cruise being in Australia.
As appealing as the characters in the first movie were, that's how cold, and hard to relate to as they were in the second movie.
John Woo's style of film-making appeals to a certain type of person. I'm not entirely sure what type of person this is, but I don't know whether I'm anxious to meet any of them, because every movie of his I've seen has been cold, mean, and violent.
I think that the best way to sum up MI2 is this: Suppose you were good friends with someone. You liked their company, you shared the same sense of humor, and had the same moral value. Suppose several years went by and you didn't see him, then one day he turns up uninvited at your house. He acts like a total jerk, insults you, hits on your wife, and finally demands that you loan him money. That's how I felt about "Mission Impossible II"
Face/Off (1997)
Horrible
I rank this movie as one of the most awful things I have ever seen. Not only is it totally unbelievable, but the situations are so unpleasent, so cloying, so awful, that its more like a nightmare that just won't end. And when I say "won't end," I mean it. This movie drags on way past the comfort level. It keeps going from one improbable situation to another, linked by flashy chase scenes, until you're begging for some kind of resolution.
The acting of Nick Cage and John Travolta are just about what you would expect -- that is to say totally over-the-top. Chewing on the scenery is a polite term for what they do.
As for the talents of John Woo, well I've heard all about his "violence as opera" philosophy of film-making, but I just don't buy it. Every movie I've seen of his isn't scary, or exciting, or shocking -- its uncomfortable, like sitting on a sharp spike.
I saw this movie years ago in the theatre, but it still sticks with me -- I guess that should say something about its power, but years ago, I saw a dead deer sitting by the side of the road. It was rotting in the heat, its muscles had contracted, it smelled awful and it looked alot like a mummy -- that experience stuck with me too. Seeing "Face/Off" was alot like seeing that deer: unpleasent, nauseating, and unnecessary.
Heist (2001)
Mamet Doing Poor Imitation Of Mamet
I like Mamet's movies, I find them entertaining, and the dialogue rings true. For those of you unfamiliar with his work, David Mamet typically uses short, jerky, idiomatic sentences which bounce back and forth between characters, in order to simulate the way that people usually talk -- rent "Glengary Glenross" or "Wag The Dog" if you want examples of his writing style. While it might not always be true to life, it can be very entertaining, and I have to say that I enjoy it.
This style is SO overly done in "Heist" however, that it sounds like the studio brought in a ghost-writer to imitate (badly) the way that Mamet usually writes. It is so idiomatic that it reads like its in code. The characters don't talk to one another, they recite street-wise aphorisms, all of which are rich with double meaning. And, yes, I get it. That was the point, this is a movie about plans and counterplans, wheels with wheels, nothing is entirely as it seems. But come on! It would have been a relief to just hear one of the characters relax for half a minute, and tell one of the others what he really felt, and not just cleverly allude to it.
There is remarkably little violence in the movie, except at the end, where there is a big gun battle. I found myself beaking up laughing during the gun battle -- it was because there was so much clever subtext in the movie, I actually felt a degree of physical relief at seeing the characters do something forthright and direct.
This being said, though, its not a bad movie, though some people might find it hard to follow. Gene Hackman and Danny Devito give great performances, and the dialogue is entertaining.
Hannibal (2001)
A Butchering of the Novel
The novel, "Hannibal" was a truly brilliant book -- both terrifying and beautifully written, it actually gave the reader sympathy for Hannibal Lecter. The movie, however, had none of the beauty but all of the horror, depicting in loving detail all of the scenes of graphic violence, but including none of the back-story which gives such a well-rounded portrait of Hannibal.
About half the movie was remarkably faithful to the book, but then it began to stray, and the ending was discordant and bore no similarity whatsoever to the book. It was an ugly movie that transformed Hannibal from a stunning portrait of psychosis to nothing more than a horror-film villain. I regret going to see it.
The Flying Mouse (1934)
Keep To Your Station (Spoilers)
If there was any doubt as to Walt Disney's role as the benevolent dictator of American Popular Culture, "The Flying Mouse" dispels it.
In it, our protagonist, a mouse dressed in a hat and waistcoat, fantasizes about being a bird and learning to fly. Apparently this occurs in the far future, where mice have mastered the arts of construction and tailory, but have not yet developed the glider.
The mouse rescues the Blue Fairy (who had apparently abandonned Pinnochio and Gepetto) from a futuristic, hideously deformed spider with a badly soiled derby hat.
As a reward, the fairy grants the mouse the gift of wings. However, these aren't nice, pretty bird wings, they are nasty evil looking bat wings. The local birds look down their nose at him, and his brethren mice think he is evil. Instead of using his wings to fly away from the podunk town he lives in to someplace that is perhaps more urbane about these things, the mouse falls in with some bats, who are, of course, evil, and soon the flying mouse regrets his decision to wish for wings.
I won't reveal the ending here, but the message of the film that seems to shine through is: Mistrust new things. Don't aspire to dreams which are above your station. Change is bad. And buy your #$%*$ "Mulan" videos! Messages which shine through in Disney films to this very day, no matter how hard they try to sugar-coat them.
Lullaby Land (1933)
A Sociological Study Ruined By Someone's Absinthe Nightmares (Spoilers if you care)
At the beginning of this minor classic by Walt Disney, we see a child with a freakishly large skull being lulled to sleep by its mother singing "Rockabye Baby". We are then drawn into the bizarre dreamworld of the hydroencephelitic little tyke. It begins with a parade of baby bottles, "potties", and pacifiers which, while they are unbelievably Freudian, still provide the viewer with an excellent idea of child rearing in the thirties.
The dream then takes a nasty turn as the child wanders into "Nasty Sharp Object Land" (I cannot recall what it was called in the film). There, scissors live in nests, hammers grow in bushes, watches hang from trees, and fountain pens form (and I hate to carp on this) an INCREDIBLY Freudian ink fountain.
Big head baby ignore the warning of the cheerful, 1930's chorus of women not to touch anything in Nasty Sharp Object Land and begins breaking watches with a hammer.
This causes the boogeymen to come and torment the baby in a sequence I can only describe as terrifying. However, it does seem to emphasize the Disney Corporation's motto "Do as we say, or the consequences will be severe."
Finally, the kindly old Sandman comes out of a bush and gives the baby some powder (let's call it sand) that makes him go to sleep. OK, let's ignore the metaphysical question of whether someone can go to sleep inside a dream. I think its interesting though how times have changes to such a degree, that in the 30s this scene seemed not only palatable but wholesome.
At any rate, this short subject was profoundly disturbing, and I'd be very interested to find out how many toddlers who saw it are now in therapy. The animation, however, was gorgeous, which made it worse, somehow.
Gosford Park (2001)
Slow But Reliable
On the downside, "Gosford Park" contains far too many characters to be able to conveniently keep track of them all. Since most of the "Guests" look fairly similar in eveningwear, and since most of the "Below Stairs" characters look similar in uniform, it is virtually impossible to keep track of all the seperate storylines going on. The best thing to do is simply "go with it."
Another downside to the movie, is that with the multitude of storylines, there is not a concrete resolution to more than about a handful of them.
Despite that, once you learn to stop thinking of this as a traditional murder mystery (which, despite the ads, it is not) its a pretty interesting, well acted, portrayal of the dinstinctions between the classes in 1930s England.
Of all the characters, though, Maggie Smith really steals the show, giving a much less restrained performance than in "Harry Potter" and reminding me of some of her earlier works ("Evil Under The Sun" in particular).
Its not a mystery, at least in the traditional sense, and while it is frustrating to keep track of all the characters, it is a good character study, and fairly entertaining, with an ending which I feel is worth the wait.
I give it three out of five stars.
The Tailor of Panama (2001)
Really Bad (partial spoilers)
For my money, John LeCarre is one of the best writers of the twentieth century. He has a gift for dialogue, for suspense, and for creating mystery. In my opinion, though, his greatest fault is that his work is very inconsistant -- one book might be great, and the next, not-so-great.
Of all his books, I think that "The Tailor of Panama" has to be my least favorite. Its based on Graham Greanne's novel "Our Man In Havanna," and it is meant to be a tragi-comedy.
It is the story of Harry Pendel, a tailor who is a hopeless story-teller and an ex-convict recruited by a British spy named Andy Osnard to be the head of a spy network in Panama. The whole thing turns out to be a massive con-game with Harry lying to Andy about the so-called silent opposition in Panama, and the two of them raking in money from England. However, things turn sour when England and America act on Harry's "intelligence" and he loses everything he holds dear to him.
The movie fails on a variety of different levels. First of all, Pierce Brosnon is far too much of a pretty boy to play the role of Andy Osnard, who, in the books, is portrayed as fat, not-particularly handsome, but possessing a certain animal sexuality. The director tries to convey this by having him sweat alot, and walk around with his shirt tails out but it doesn't work. Also, casting Jamie Lee Curtis as Harry's wife (who was supposed to be half-Panamanian) was another absurd piece of casting. Although both Brosnon and Curtis are good in their roles, they just don't seem to fit.
Secondly, the ending of the book is VERY different from the ending of the movie. The ending of the book is tragic, but hopeful. Harry loses everything but goes off into the world seeking a kind of redemption. The climax of the book is very important to the story, in that everything has been building to this one moment. It is depressing as all get out, and since it also didn't jibe with recorded history (I think), they changed the ending to the movie to something much more up beat. In doing so, they made most of the movie irrelevant, since it was building towards something that never happens.
Since this got a very limited release when it first came out, I went out of my way to see it. I expected to be depressed, but not as bored as I had become after the first fifteen minutes. Had the theatre been less crowded, I would have walked out. It was an immensely unsatisfying movie.
Dogma (1999)
Over-rated
This is the only one of Kevin Smith's movies that I've seen. I found it to be very dialogue heavy. It went into many pointless digressions which didn't advance the plot in any meaningful way. Many of the plot twists were juvenile, and a lot of the story seemed to be thrown in for nothing more than shock value.
There were enough flashes of brilliance as far as characterization and story were concerned to make me understand why Kevin Smith has garnered the praise he has, however the story seemed disjointed enough for me to suspect that he could benefit from a good editor that could get him to stick to the point.
Dead Again (1991)
Great
This is one of my favorite films of all time. Brannagh's character is funny, and intense. Thompson is beautiful. Jacobi completes the mix perfectly. Its nice to see these three in something that isn't a classical adaptation.
The Russia House (1990)
Why Don't People Like This Movie?
I thought this movie was a great adaptation of one of LeCarre's best novels. Sean Connery and Michelle Pfeiffer both give great performances. The script by Tom Stoppard is excellent, and stays very true to the book.
Nevertheless, it got panned by the critics. I don't know why. Its a great spy story and a great love story. Go rent it.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
One of the best
Traditionally books converted to movies lose a little something in translation. I have to say that Harry Potter was one of the most faithful adaptations that I have ever seen.
Its a great children's book, and a great movie. Its exciting, has a very surprising ending, and all the characterization is wonderful.
The only petty criticism I can make, is that I found the CGI animation to be a lot cruder than the CGI used in other contemporary films, and much of it was unnecessary. But that is the barest of nitpicking.
Its a great movie, and I'm glad its such a success.
Charlie's Angels (2000)
Insultingly Bad
First things first, I get it. Ok, I get it. It was a dumb TV show, and the movie was meant to be camp as a way of making fun of that, and as a way of paying tribute to it. I get it.
This being said, it was still an incredibly bad movie.
All men were portrayed as spineless imbeciles who had no thoughts other than sex. All women were portrayed as manipulators who had no way other than showing their cleavage to get what they want. Yes, I know this was meant to be farce, but it was still an even more unrealistic portrayal of the world than in a James Bond movie (or even Austin Powers).
The plot seems nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse to glance on every sexual fantasy known to man. We sees the angels dressed as domintrices, geishas, German milkmaids, even as men. We see them drive race cars, doing stunts which were so obviously CGI enhanced they were ludicrous, and scaling walls in cat suits. What we don't see is any indication that they know why they're there.
We can't blame them, though, the script seems to have been written, on-the-fly as it were, as if the writers said "Hey, we've got these geisha costumes, let's have a seen where the girls pretend to be geishas!" What vestiges of plot exist are stolen, lock stock and barrel from Mission Impossible, and James Bond movies.
Let me just say this one more time, I KNOW! You don't go to this movie to see an original plot, you go there to ogle Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu, and Drew Barrymore. Well, great, couldn't they have been given a decent script to work with? It seems both sloppy and cynical to give three of the best actresses in Hollywood such garbage to work with, under the assumption that most people will just be there to stare at their breasts.
And while the actresses might have been great, the director was horrible. He had no discipline whatsoever. At the end they show out-takes, and a lot of the scenes looked completely different from the finished version. Its like he just let the actors get up there and do whatever they felt like doing. I've looked him up in the database and he's never done any other film, and I hope he won't.
My final criticism should speak more eloquently than any other about this movie: Tom Green has a speaking part in it. I like Drew Barrymore, I think she's a talented actress, but any woman who can actually get Tom Green a part in ANY movie has far too much power in Hollywood.
The Exorcist (1973)
Don't Believe The Hype
I took my Little Brother to see this movie when it was re-released in the theatres. We were both hoping to see an intense, psychological horror film. Instead, what we saw was a dull, tediously cloying film. The only way in which this film works at all is if you know beforehand that Linda Blair is possessed by the devil, otherwise, apart from the overbearing menacing soundtrack, there is almost no suspense.
There's next to no explanation as to why Blair is possessed, I had no feeling of warmth for any of the characters, and it feels like the director didn't either. Its an intensely ugly movie and I felt cheated by it.
I suppose that since it was one of the first movie's of this kind, then theatre-goers at the time viewed it very differently, but it really doesn't stand the test of time, and these days it seems like just an attempt by Hollywood to cash in on the commercial success of "Rosemary's Baby."
Lord Love a Duck (1966)
Ahead of Its Time
I put this movie in a category with other slightly anarchic anti-establishment movies such as "The Graduate," "If..." and "The Magic Christian." The only difference is that it pre-dates all of them. Being the first of its kind, its a slightly awkward film that doesn't always know what to do with itself. There are plenty of holes in the plot, and, if its a comedy the dramatic scenes are too strident, if its a drama then it is all done with too much flippancy.
On the whole, though, I really enjoyed it. I don't claim to be an expert on the culture of the mid-sixties, but it tackles a lot of topics that seemed to be taboo at the time, like Marie's death, and their rather self-conscious use of the word prostitute.
The acting is all excellent, I was particularly impressed with Tuesday Weld's performance. I had never really thought of her as anything more than the vapid lead to a bunch of teen movies, but I was really surprised at what a good actress she was. Roddy McDowall is excellent as Mollymauk, but the uneveness of the film doesn't do the character justice, and you get the feeling with a little more work on the plot and the pacing, he could have made the film hysterical.
Anyway, it was a good film, particularly impressive when you think of it as the prototype of a genre of film which is still being produced today.
Unbreakable (2000)
I know why I should like it, but I didn't
Since I'm a ENORMOUS fan of comic books, I thought I would enjoy this movie, however, I didn't.
The concept of a man suddenly realizing that he has superhuman powers is one that has been pursued before, but never quite so seriously as in this film, and I think this is what I find most unpleasent about it. There is an oppressive unrelenting aura of absolute despair which permeates all of the characters in the movie, and nothing is quite able to dispel it. I understand that the director was trying to create a mood here, but really, it was excessive. Even at moments when Bruce Willis should be really happy (like when he survives a train wreck without a scratch on him) he still looks like his puppy just died. In fact, Willis' character is so subdued, so broody, that for about the first twenty minutes of the movie, I honestly thought he was supposed to be autistic or something. Samuel Jackson is the only character who comes close to emoting anything other than pure despair, and you can just tell the director was holding him back. As it was played, the few comic moments of the film didn't even appear comic.
Added to this, all the actors, but Bruce Willis in particular, whisper all their lines. Again, yes, I know, its not an action movie, the hero doesn't neccessarily have to spend his time shouting lines like "Yippee-kay-ay mother-f***er," but this was absurd. I get it, these people are upset, people who are depressed don't shout, but this is ridiculous. Willis barely raised his voice above a whisper. Again, while it might have made parts of the movie more tense, it totally ruined any scenes in which any joy was present.
Despite the fact that the plot of the movie was extremely similar to "The Sixth Sense," it was a very interesting idea. However, the director, in trying to so artfully display the angst of his characters, really did not do the plot justice.
The Truman Show (1998)
Who expected symbolism in a Jim Carey movie
I just watched "The Truman Show" for the first time in about two years. Wow, what a great movie!
Its funny, symbolic, exciting, and philosophical. Just an all around great effort from all concerned. It ranks as one of my most favorite movies.
Bedazzled (1967)
Julie Andrews!
I have been a longtime fan of Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore, and was overjoyed when I found this out-of-print video at the video rental store. Now that I have finally seen it, I just wanted to make some comments.
In its plus column, Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore are a great comedy team, and while their acting is a little bit more stilted in a film than it was in their television or stage shows, their interplay is still excellent. Their characters are very well developed. Cooke is not a two-dimensional devil, he's not entirely evil, just flawed. Also, its obvious that Moore has a lot of fun going into the different roles throughout the film.
Also in the plus column, the story is very thought-provoking and intelligent. Most people describe it as "an exceptional re-working of the Faust legend" or words to that effect. As I have not read the story of Faust (nor do I really believe that most people who say that have), I can't honestly say. What I can say is that Cooke and Moore go into some fairly deep theological issues in a way that is WAY less heavy-handed than other films, such as "Dogma".
In the minus column: there is something decidedly irritating about this movie. Partly it might be the way its filmed, or possibly that its pretty dated, or possibly its that even though the characters are well-developed, they are still very wooden. Parts of the movie are tedious. Dudley Moore's first wish is that he's an intellectual, and what ensues is a fifteen minute pseudo-intellectual conversation with his would-be girlfriend, that is excrutiating. The most I can say for it is that the movie does get better later on. Also, there is a scene done when Moore has wished to become a rock star that is thoroughly unenjoyable. For one thing, its filmed all in black and white (I would assume, to simulate the Ed Sullivan show, rather than due to lack of funds, like the movie "If..."), and there is a jerky quality about it as the POV keeps switching between adoring fans, and the view of the rock stars on TV monitors. It was not fun to watch and it was a little bit creepy. At any rate, the only other thing I had a problem with is that Raquel Welch got very high billing in this movie, and she is only in two scenes, and in one of them all she does is dance.
To make a long story short, "Bedazzled" is a fun, somewhat dated movie, which, while tedious in parts, is generally quite entertaining and thought provoking and funny. If you can find it, you definately should rent it.
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
A Hard Movie
I will be very blunt. If you like Merchant Ivory films and other things of this genre, you will enjoy this movie because it has things which appeal to you: lavish sets, serious actors, a pretentious plot, and a long running time. If you like movies like "Men In Black" or "Independance Day" you will not like this movie, because it contains no explosions -- however, you will probably be dragged to see it because of your girlfriend.
I like movies in both styles, and so I went to see this of my own free will, with nothing but optimism. I found that the acting was superb, the filming was wonderful, the characters were utterly unpleasent, and the story was interminable.
The movie wasn't a fun experience, it was not a moving experience, it wasn't particularly entertaining, it was not morally improving, there was no message, and, in the end, nothing was resolved. I ended the movie thinking to myself, what was the point in making it?
Not only that, but the 2+ hours in takes to reach the denoument feel more like three. Here's where the film snobs will jump on me, so let me cut them off. Yes, I AM glad that films are being made for people *with* attention spans. Yes, I am glad films are still being made that deal with subtle plot developments, instead of explosions. But, really, so what? The people in the movie are so nasty (and here kudos go to the cast, because they portray the characters' unpleasentness admirably) that you don't want to spend the entire film getting to know them -- you want them all to die, and die a damn site quicker than they do in the movie.
So in summary, the movie was beautiful and tedious. It was extremely well-done, but the story just wasn't fulfilling enough to justify the great acting and scenery.
Frogs (1972)
YAYAYAY!!!!
I remember seeing this film classic way back in the early 80s, one hot summer day when my family was all huddled together in the family room (the only room in our house with A/C). We were flipping channels, and we came across this movie. "Man this is stupid!" was our initial thought, but we watched, and enjoyed the movie to the end.
In point of fact, this movie is stupid. The special effects are slightly better (but not much) than anything by Ed Wood, and the acting is horrible. Frogs, unless they are WAY larger than normal frogs, just aren't really that scary. In some weird way, though the lame plot, and stereotypical characters come together to make an extremely fun, and engaging movie. Maybe this is an example of the whole "so bad that its good" genre.
Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (1994)
A Little Too Well Done
This is one of the only films that I've ever had to walk out of. I didn't find this movie boring, as many others have. I didn't find Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance (or her accent) at all grating. In fact, I found everything about this movie very well done. That's what made it unbearable.
Knowing something about the tragic lives of both Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley (for my money one of the best humorists ever) makes watching this movie, more like watching a meticulously planned and beautifully executed suicide. They are the only two truly sympathetic characters in the piece (the rest of the Algonquin Round Table is what the title of the film suggests, vicious) and you know that they are the ones who are headed towards ruin -- Parker in her disastrous relationships, Benchley in his chronic alcoholism.
This flawlessly executed movie puts you directly into the lives of its subjects. The trouble is, this is a place that I didn't really want to go. Perhaps I'm an escapist, but I'd prefer to remember Parker and Benchley by their peerless writing, than by the awful turns which their lives took. I have not since been able to read their works without thinking about the movie, and this has tarnished their writings in my mind.
Batman & Robin (1997)
A Rape of Two Hours
I am one of the biggest fans of Batman and Robin in the Western World. In my baby scrapbook, my parents have drawings I did of Batman and Robin from when I was four (I'm 28 now). Even though the movies were TREMENDOUS departures from the comics, I thought that they were wonderful.
"Batman & Robin," however, was a travesty. If we manage to overlook the imbecilic storyline, the horribly designed sets, and the plot which can't seem to decide if it wants to be camp or serious, we are still left with the almost universally horrid acting by people who seem as nonplussed about the script as the audience is.
Sitting through that movie in the theatre was a truly horrible experience. I consider those two hours of my life stolen, and am holding Joel Schumakker personally responsible.
The Avengers (1998)
I couldn't like it
I am an enormous fan of "The Avengers" televsion program. I also have quite indiscriminate taste in movies, so, even though EVERYONE said "The Avengers" was awful, I had to go see it.
I really wanted to like it, really. And in fairness, I would have to say that the first fifteen minutes were excellent. However, with the addition of Uma Thurman, as Emma Peel, things went severely downhill. While she looked good in the cat suits, she had the face and acting talents of a dead fish.
Sean Connery was another major disappointment, giving a performance which was reminiscent of his work in that classic film, "Zardoz."
As to the plot, its inconceivable to me how anyone could take a show with plotlines as formulaic as "The Avengers" and botch a movie adaptation.
As I have said before, I really wanted to like the movie, but I couldn't. I just couldn't.