palm21 Reviews

The Tower (1993 TV Movie)

Tv rubbish in it's worst form(*SPOILER*)

[3/10 · 16 January 2001]

This movie shows Paul Reiser in one of his worst roles ever. He usually plays in comedy movies and after this attempted thriller should definately never consider doing one ever again. The movie is a simple ripp-off from all the other "Man vs. Computer" movies we have seen in the last years("The Terminator" springs to mind). I got the feeling that the people who wrote and produced this movie just decided that they wanted to make some money and hoped they could join the hype, thereby making those big bucks... Unfortunately this meagre attempt resulted in a movie which seems to be no more than just a loose bundle of scenes joined together in no particular order. This is probably because of the lousy script and the way the camera is used(which must have seemed creepy to the makers, but looks ridiculous to me). The cheap love story could be summerised in 1 line: Man finds the love of his life in fight against machine. His 'girlfriend'(Susan Norman) acts annoyingly bad and spoils most of the scenes. But all this set aside the real problem is this: This is supposed to be a thriller and therefore should be exciting. The viewer should be starteld and feel connected to the main character in his fight against his enemy. Too bad none of the afore mentioned happened to me... Conclusion: TV rubbish of absolutely no interest to any one.

Barbarella (1968)

Easy science-fiction in a beatnik universe...

[6/10 · 9 January 2001]

That's just what this movie is and luckily it just doesn't pretend to be anything else. Unfortunately it's gotten a little aged (not just the special effect, but also the `free love philosophy'). While viewing this movie one must keep in mind that it was created in 1968 and therefore has a lot of beatnik influences. The story is of course ridiculous and extremely over the top (take her spacecraft with luxurious carpet as an example). All of the characters have little psychological depth and are therefore so-called flat characters. For example Barbarella (Jane Fonda) is just a force of the good and never has any doubts about her mission. Her enemy Duran Duran(Milo O'Shea) is obviously completely evil with the usual intent to conquer the universe. In our time it does strike me as a little weird that Barbarella is from a part of the universe that doesn't know war and where weapons are relics that are kept in a museum. This is of course exactly the beatnik philosophy and this also explains why Barbarella sleeps with various men (including one with obviously fake chesthair, yeww!) during the movie. Conclusion: The movie's setting, story and special effects have definitely gotten out of time, but this all set aside it is still a fun science-fiction movie.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Another television remake....

[7/10 · 20 December 2000]

Yes, it is true(sadly), scriptwriters have finally run out of ideas and now they are converting all the old televisions series into movies. If done properly this can be fun(Mission: Impossible). But what about this movie? Charlie's Angels is just what it pretends to be: A fast packed fun action movie. The martial arts scenes are fun to watch and well choreographed. For some reasons the scenes involving Crispin Glover as "The Thin Man" remind me strongly of the Darth Maul scenes from Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace, but maybe this was done intentionally. It is also obvious that some scenes were explicitely ripped from other popular movies from the last decade(The Matrix and Mission: Impossible for example). Also the actress that plays Vivian Wood(Kelly Lynch) reminds me strongly of Madeline from the Nikita series. As usual within the Charlie's Angel's series the movie is a little over the top, but never becomes annoying. All three of the actresses play their respective parts well, but none really stands out(which would spoil the movie, since they are supposed to be all equal). Bill Murray is funny as usual, but seems to be getting old fast(he's not half as funny as in Ghostbusters for instance). The special effects are done well, but none of them are really spectacular. The music really adds something to the movie. Blind by Korn really improves the martial arts scenes. Conclusion: This movie is fun to watch , but also predictable. If your going to the cinema just to be entertained you're at the right address here. If you want a movie with real depth, go to another movie.

The Relic (1997)

Jurassic Park in a museum...

[3/10 · 20 December 2000]

I watched this movie on television for the second time last week and was again disappointed by the extreme bad acting in the movie. The main characters(Penelope Ann Miller and Tom Sizemore) really spoil the movie. Miller keeps playing the standard scared female who clings to an even worse acting heroic cop(Sizemore). Both of the characters have absolutely no depth and do not evolve through the movie. There are also the horrible special effects and computer animations to be mentioned. You would say that two years after Jurassic Park(a breakthrough in the computer animation industry), it would be possible to create a convincing monster in a movie, especially if you can keep him in the dark and the rain most of the time. But unfortunately this doesn't seem to be possible for the computer animation crew of 'The Relic'.

Another problem is the way the director keeps killing the tension in the movie by constantly switching between the chase scenes within the museum and the(completely useless) scenes outside the museum(people cutting through doors, etc.) Conclusion: This movie is definitely one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. These people should be ashamed of themselves...

Revenge (I) (1990)

Cliche or Masterpiece?

[7/10 · 20 December 2000]

The reviews about this movie seem to be kind of divided. Some people find it to be a meagre movie with a predictable storyline and simple plot. On the other hand I've heard people talk about an epic masterpiece.

I think I'm somewhere in between. Usually I'm not a big Kevin Costner fan. Don't get me wrong I'm not one of these guys who hate actors just because they're loved by the ladies(I liked Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Basketball Diaries"). Costner neither annoyed me in this movie, nor did he impress me with his fantastic acting. He just acted.

Anthony Quinn on his other hand was in his element again. I haven't seen him in too many movies, but every time I do see him he never fails to impress me.

Ofcourse the plot was kind of predictable and the love story a little cliche, but I like the way in which it is all filmed(the Jerry Bruckheimer-like yellow light).

Conclusion: In spite of the predictable storyline, I still recommend this movie, even is it just because of Anthony Quinn.

Sleepstalker (1995 Video)

Lame idea, lame special effects...(*SPOILER*)

[3/10 · 14 December 2000]

I decided to watch this movie, because there was absolutely nothing on television(25 channels and nothing to watch, sigh...). I didn't really expect a good movie, but in the end it even exceeded my expectations. SPOILER ALERT It was WAY worse. The story is so simple you get bored of it in approximately 5 minutes. The movie is full of stereotypes(the fat policeman, the weird writer and his photographer girlfriend). The sand man himself is absolutely not scary(c'mon he kills people by drowning them in sand). Also the scenes in which he chases them are really lame, since he never runs and still somehow always catches up with them. The acting is so poor that it's really annoying. The ending is also enormously weird. It gave me the idea that the main character's actor suddenly decided to quit with the movie, because suddenly he's dead and then never seen again. Most of the movie is involved in keeping the main character away from the sandman and then suddenly he's dead! The part of the sandman being his brother is just so cliche. Conclusion: B horror movie, with the lamest special effects in years and really really poor acting...

Rear Window (1954)

Can a movie that dates from 1954 still be as good today?

[9/10 · 11 December 2000]

*SPOILER*(You should really have seen the movie by now anyway)

My anwser that question is: Yes! I expected to see a movie with long tedious dialogue, but instead Rear Window is a movie filled with suspense and psychological threat. I thought that because the movie is more than 45 years old, there would be a real timebarier, but unlike "The Birds" in which I sometimes found the dialogues very tedious, this movie's dialogue is pretty fast-paced even by nowadays standards. The really interesting thing about the movie is the psychological aspect. At first the main character sees certain suspicious things and he(and with him the viewing audience) is convinced that the salesman has killed his wife. Then the detective negates almost all the evidence and the viewer is (almost) convinced that it's just the main character who WANTS to see a murder and therefore sees one. But in the end guess who's right... What also appealed to me is that the main character's girlfriend and his housekeeper area at first disgusted by him spying on the neighbours. But later on it is them who want to go look what's burried in the garden. It probably shows that we all have voyeuristic sides. Conclusion: A very good movie, which will always be up to date, because of the suspense that only Alfred Hitchcock could create.

Coyote Ugly (2000)

This movie contains more than just girls in a bar!

[7/10 · 6 December 2000]

When I saw the trailer for Coyote Ugly I couldn't really believe it was a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. He usually makes action movies(with strange yellow lighting and a catchy piece of music) and I wouldn't expect him to create romantic movie on how tough life in the big city can be, even if you pursue your dreams. I liked the fact that they picked Piper Perabo as the main character. She has the potential to become a pretty good actress. The problem with the movie is that it's not really heading anywhere. It's just a story about a succesful bar in the "Big City". Of course there is the love story, but I found that fairly predictable. John Goodman is a real cool father by the way, without him the movie wouldn't have been as funny. Despite the lack of storyline it's still a pretty nice feel-good movie!

X-Men (2000)

What's left of the old(comic book) X-Men?

[6/10 · 6 December 2000]

I didn't really know what to expect from this movie. Would it be as violent and bloody as the original X-men comic books, or would it be as soft as the TV cartoons? It turned out to be somewhere in the middle. There is some real violence in the movie and Wolverine does use his claws(come on he doesn't really have them just to open doors, now does he?) several times. It may sound weird, but I would have liked the movie to be little bit more violent, a bit more like the original comics. What I especially miss is the dark feeling the original comics gave(but that also goes for Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, etc.). My problems with the movie are that it's really full of cliche's and therefore really predictable.

Example(*SPOILER*): The way Wolverine is introduced in the movie. First he is shown beating a guy in a cage fight(shows how tough he really is), but then when the little girl sneaks along in his van, he first kicks her out(he's stubborn), but then takes her along(heart of gold).

The other problem is that the movie really focuses on the fact that there might be a sequel. Did you see any of the bad guys really die in the end? No, Magneto is locked up, Mystique still lives(video footage) and Toad and Sabertooth are simply blown into the bay(a thing which Toad especially should be able to survive since he's half amphibian). The end is completely spoiled by this sequel thing. I think it's a pretty lame movie, considering what great material they had to create a script with...

Boogie Nights (1997)

Great cult movie with an interesting topic!

[8/10 · 6 December 2000]

When I tuned in on this movie(it was on dutch TV), I didn't know what to expect. A comedy-drama about the porn business in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Well at least it's an original topic. What I really liked about the movie is the cult way it is filmed. Not too much steadycam, keep it a bit shaky. It is also interesting to see what goes on around the 'actors' in a porn movie. I especially liked the way Burt Reynolds played a porn director, who wants to make a porn movie with storyline, good acting and style(not the usual garbage). The movie has some strange twists, but that comes with the genre I guess. I think it's a must see!

American Beauty (1999)

Great movie, a must see!

[9/10 · 5 December 2000]

I first was kind of sceptical about the movie, since it was such a hype. But how was I wrong! The movie is great. It just shows how a messed up american society creates messed up people. It also adresses important issues like guns, violence in schools, drugs and gay-hate. I really like Lester's way of dealing with his mid-life crisis. The movie was directed excellent. I really like the way the red roses keep reappearing in Lester's "dreamscenes". The music is great too(sounds really Himalayan). Just a damn' good movie!

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Good action movie, but it can't beat an old bond movie!

[6/10 · 5 December 2000]

I watched the film last week on VHS and found it to be a nice action movie. Just like GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough. I like Pierce Brosnan as James Bond(he's better than Timothy Dalton, but he can't beat Sean Connery or Roger Moore). The only problem with the newer Bond movies (this started with Moonraker) is that grand special effects and decors are more important than storyline. Jonathan Pryce is a good Bond bad guy though. He's not like all the other badguy who do it all out of revenge or simply want to posses the world(why one would want that I cannot imagine...). Maybe this movie should be an hommage to Desmond Llewelyn(Q), who sadly died short after this movie... Conclusion: A good action movie, but not a real bond...