Change Your Image
plu4085
Reviews
Cube (1997)
The good, the mediocre, and the very bad
"Cube" has gained a sizable cult reputation, and I was pretty curious when I finally got to see it now, in 2008. Although I expected a certain amount of rough edges from its indie/low-budget background, I have to say the edges were rougher than I expected. There is a giant chasm between what is good about this movie, and what is bad about it. Personally I can handle movies that are "wrong" in some ways, if they have other things going for it. "Lawnmower Man" is an example of a movie where viewer forgiveness may go to such extents that the movie becomes enjoyable. "Cube", unfortunately, didn't pass this threshold with me.
To summarize my thoughts, top-down:
1. the basic premise of the movie is excellent, as is the set design
2. on a synopsis level, it's still pretty good, though some aspects (like the "Rain Man" type character) look contrived
3. on a script/chain of events level, it's decent, and explores the basic premise well. The complete lack of character exposition is problematic though.
4. on a script/DIALOGUE level, I think it's pretty damn weak, and the acting makes this problem worse.
I don't think I've seen a promising movie with such awful dialogue in a long time. The characters, trapped in a hostile environment, start hating each other after about 2 minutes. Idiotic, and bizarrely lacking in psychological realism. And those lofty philosophical exchanges about society, responsibility, existence and so on -- which the characters launch into as if someone had suddenly pressed a button on their backs? If you want to insist on metaphors, why not use your brains and be elegant and original about it?
The actors didn't help much. The "cop" guy lost all credibility after an OK start, but the female doctor was beyond belief from the first minute. I'm not sure the actors are to blame, as much as the director... but they sure didn't help.
I wasn't very impressed with "Saw" (the first one), but "Cube" made that one look like "The Shining". This movie should be re-made with a completely rewritten dialogue, strong actors, and a much improved opening and ending. Too bad.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Good genre movie that could have been better
It's interesting to see how popular a movie can get despite being derivative to the extreme. I guess this simply means that not enough people have yet seen George Romero's zombie trilogy, or classic British apocalypse TV such as Day Of The Triffids or the mid-70s "The Survivors". Making a good genre movie doesn't simply mean patching together all the familiar elements of the genre; you have to add a new twist or a new aesthetic to it. I can't say that "28 Days Later" does any of this.
The first 1/3rd of the movie is excellent, gaining strength from the predictable yet very spooky images of a London completely empty from people. Cillian Murphy immediately wins the viewers sympathy, and carries the whole movie in a way that the director & writer should be quite grateful for. Unfortunately I think there is a slackening of pace and narrative grip in the middle third, which is the encounter and northbound car journey with another couple of survivors. The two female roles aren't properly developed, and I personally think the actors can't match Murphy & Gleeson... it really does feel like an old TV series here, briefly.
The last third is very uneven; it covers familiar territory while making some interesting points; the direction is alternately confused and inspired, and there is a definite weakening from insufficient exposition of the soldiers as group and individuals. A lot is asked from the viewer here, and it seemed sloppy and B-movie like, compared to the first third.
Basically, the movie tries to combine two powerful (yet familiar) themes into one, and a proper balance is not achieved. A different editing of the storyline would probably have improved things, but ultimately it is a case of a well-known and thus predictable story, whose first hour or so still works well thanks to atmosphere and acting, which cannot maintain its strength until the end. All in all, I was a little disappointed, but still found the movie worth watching.
Dude, Where's My Car? (2000)
This was a very funny movie
I have to agree with those who don't understand why this movie has such a poor IMDb rating. I just watched it and thought it was really funny... very stupid, but funny. The thing that can sink this type of stoned, suburban, Jeff Spicoli style movie, is if it starts going into places where it doesn't belong. Like getting too serious, or introducing a different type of humor. "Dude, Where's My Car" sticks to its aesthetics -- stupid as they are -- throughout, and never sells itself out. Therefore I think it works, and is in fact a well-made teenage comedy. I think this will only appeal to a very specific audience, but you can say the same thing about a Kieslowski movie.
So... if Jeff Spicoli, Bluto & Stifler are your heroes, you're going to enjoy this movie a lot. I sure did, and cracked up several times.
PS nice to see David Herman in a small part. He's a brilliant comedian, best seen as "Michael Bolton" in Office Space. People need to
The Fury (1978)
Typical De Palma, worth seeing with the right approach
One of Brian De Palma's lesser known works, at least around where I live, I recently watched "The Fury" for the first time in 25 years. I had actually forgotten I'd seen it before, but as the movie progressed, I began recognizing certain scenes, while a lot of the rest seemed completely unfamiliar.
This is I think typical of this movie, and a lot of De Palma's films -- there will be long sequences with dull dialogue where you wonder why they weren't edited down, and some dubious acting and bizarre plot twists, and then suddenly there will be a sequence of 5 or 10 minutes that is just dazzling. De Palma here had a finalized story-line to work with (from a novel), and didn't script himself, which is good news for those familiar with some of his auteur derailments.
At the same time, the script of "The Fury" shows some of the director's typical weaknesses (lack of logic, inconsistent characters, etc), and it's too bad that a third party wasn't brought in to tighten up the narrative flow, strengthen the logic, and remove weak dialogue. So, ultimately, it looks very much like a typical De Palma work, a B-movie with some dazzling cinematography and a few quite powerful scenes.
*** some spoilers from here on *** The good news is that the basic premise of the story is pretty interesting and at least to me in 2007, one of the assets of the movie. The notion of the two young psychics, both victims rather than masters of their powers, is an arresting idea, and while the terrorist angle is unnecessary, I could imagine someone turning "The Fury" into a pretty good movie today.
The second asset is, to my mild surprise, Amy Irving, who delivers a terrific performance, and actually seems a little too good for this occasionally hokey movie. She's believable, convincing, and often moving. I read some snide comment about her over-preparing for B-movies, but for "The Fury" at least, I am grateful for this commitment. Her shock at her own uncontrollable powers is brilliantly performed, and makes for those sudden jumps in your attention, when the movie has dragged on for too long. Very nice work.
The other actors seem to work on routine; Kirk Douglas acts as if he's in a B-movie about spies, and has some bad dialogue to deal with. Andrew Stevens looks right for the part, and while not a convincing actor, his creepy hunk presence seems appropriate, especially towards the end of the movie. Cassavetes is OK, but not more, and looks somewhat uncomfortable with his black suit and busted-up arm.
Some of the camera-work is excellent, and as always with De Palma, there are a few show-off pieces where he goes into long complex montages that aren't really motivated by the context or narrative development, but are nevertheless exciting too watch. The feeling is, as often, that a lot of the other stuff in the movie he doesn't really care for, as long as he can deliver these 5-minute masterpieces of cinema craft here and there.
Ultimately, thanks to the arresting basic premise, the occasionally masterful direction, and the performance of Amy Irving, I enjoyed "The Fury" a little more than I expected to. I can see how it may appear ludicrous or bizarre to others, but that wide range of responses is what you get most of the time when the director is Mr De Palma.
Timothy Leary's Last Trip (1997)
Charming fare for fans of psychedelia
The first half of this 55-minute documentary is a recap of the early/mid-1960s LSD scene, when both Tim Leary & Ken Kesey rose to prominence. There's lots of Prankster 60s archive footage, some of which I didn't immediately recognize, and which may be unique to this feature. There's also some interesting old Leary footage, the bulk of it from a circa 1974 interview also seen in "Timothy Leary's Dead". There are some minor errors to the chronology and presentation, the most amusing (possibly a Prank?) assigning Wavy Gravy's name to a photo of Tiny Tim! The second half of the movie concerns Leary's last trip, which turns out to be 2 trips -- one to a Hog Farm get-together in 1995, with some historically important footage of Kesey & Leary hanging out together. There's also contemporary interviews with George Walker, Wavy Gravy (looking great, like an old Polynesian tribe chief), and Kesey & Leary. Interspersed throughout is an interview with Leary from a studio (or his home), which I think is unique to this movie. There's some on-stage footage with Dead type music and Pranksters in costumes, and Leary giving the event his benediction.
Leary's "second last trip" is a meeting on Internet between himself and Kesey, shortly before he died. It's pretty amusing to see the funky connection and very old-skool Netscape browsers 10 years later. Not much of importance is said, it's mainly an exchange of greetings.
The director O B Babbs (Merry Prankster legend Ken Babbs' son) appears as a narrator here and there, and does a good job; and his handsome male-model looks are no drawback. There's a certain student film feel to this, but those familiar with what's been coming out of the revived Prankster nexus in Oregon will recognize and enjoy the home-made charm. Sentimentality is present, and may have been given a boost by the passing away of Jerry Garcia around this time, but considering who we are dealing with, there's certainly room for, and a need for, documentation.
Like "Timothy Leary's Dead" this movie has some specific, minor flaws, but combining these two fan-oriented DVD features you get a terrific view of Leary, the modern (post-1960) history of LSD, and a substantial dose of the equally important Merry Pranksters.
The Cell (2000)
Well worth watching
This movie disturbed me enough to write an IMDb comment, which is probably an indication of above-average qualities.
Negatives: - Jennifer Lopez character (and to a certain extent acting) did not seem properly developed, and some crucial info may have been lost in the editing. Despite radiating warmth and compassion she remains a puzzle, and not a terrbily intriguing one. - Ditto for Vince Vaughn, though I think he did a better job in terms of acting. - The computer graphics at the beginning of Vaughn's trip weren't bad, but far from the visual imagination of the other trip scenes, and mostly yet another extension of the old "2001" stargate.
Positives: - Extraordinary visuals in terms of sets, colors and photography for the trip scenes, excellent on every level. The focus on reduction, instead of overkill, is especially impressive. - Awesome costumes and makeup. - Vincent D'Onofrio displays his extraordinary range as an actor once more. - The sense of closure at the end was unusually rewarding for this type of movie, as Lopez' resolution of the serial killer's internal torture is multilayered and ambiguous.
The other aspects of the movie, such as the race against time, the Fed investigation etc, were neither particularly good nor particularly bad. The commercial considerations reduce the full power of "The Cell" somewhat, but then what else is new?
I liked and was partially very impressed with this movie, though it was unpleasant watching - I mean, REALLY unpleasant - at times.
Lost in Space (1998)
Future turkey classic
There are movies that get a bad reception but turn out to be pretty good, or at least original, when actually viewed. "Waterworld" is one such item. Could "Lost in space" be another? No. It's a disaster. Man, it was worse than I expected it to be. Here's why:
1. Incredibly bad script with holes so big you could lead a 30-feet Ed Wood robot through it. Especially the last 20 minutes were an unbelievable mess. I can't recall seeing such an abundance of logical errors, contradicting developments, and inexplicable behavior by the main characters since "Plan 9"
2. Terrible casting. The choices are either too obvious (Gary Oldman, the annoying brat from "Party of 5"), misguided (William Hurt, Matt Leblanc) or bizarre (Mimi Rogers). Heather Graham might have worked, but spends the movie like on a Valium OD. The only thing that worked was the little kid.
3. Terrible acting. You get a feeling after only 5 minutes that this is one of those movies where the director hasn't decided if it's supposed to be ironic or serious. The actors automatically throw in the towel and walk around in a sleepwalking daze... William Hurt and Heather Graham in particular. Mimi Rogers is just embarrassing, as is "Joey" from Friends who tries HARD in his first (last?) major movie part, and contorts his face into various cool/annoyed/dedicated/sly/horny/etc disguises, hoping one of them will be appropriate for the scene. I felt sorry for the guy.
4. The annoying brat from "Party of 5" is given a Generation Y (or Z) part which is supposed to close the generation gap between little girls who'll want to see this movie, and their parents who remember the LIS TV series and think it might be fun. Clever, yes? No. It stinks. After she pops up for the 8th time to rattle off some cool "as-if" phrases into the camera you just want to scream. Not to mention that the little Gen Z girls may not exactly enjoy seeing a Spider God being eaten by its own baby spiders.
5. Here are a few questions to the director and the people who approved the script: - The older Will in the cave has built a time machine through which he can go back and put an end to the Jupiter 2 mission before it starts. Fair enough. But instead, he puts his father in the machine, and sends him onto the ship in terrible peril, thus negating the premise of his whole work. Why? Why? WHY? - Dr Smith has apparently turned into a "spider god" at the end. His goal is to jump into the time/space machine and take over Earth. The older Will kills him off by... throwing him into the time/space machine. Why? Why? WHY? - As the Robinsons make it back to the ship from the "bubble" they make sure to take the super-evil Dr Smith with them, rescuing him from a certain death. Aargh! Why? Why? WHY? 6. 15 years from now, when all the actors and the hype and backlash are forgotten, this movie will be viewed as a major turkey classic. People will scratch their heads and ask HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? Beats me. It was sort of entertaining to watch, and some effects were neat.
Magnolia (1999)
Major disappointment
I can't really list all the things I thought were wrong or misguided with this hyped-up movie, and it amazes me that so many critics have fallen for it. Most of all it was terribly uneven, with some parts that worked, and others that were on a TV soap level. The "frog rain"... well, what can I say. To me it signifies the movie. Not in a good way.
I will say this: if it hadn't been for the brilliant performances of 3-4 actors (Tom Cruise, Melinda Dillon, Philip Seymour Hoffman), this movie would have been a big fat TURKEY. It made me think of Lawrence Kasdan's old "Grand Canyon" failure; and was clearly inferior to both "Short cuts" and the much less-hyped "Playing by heart".
I expected a lot from this, but didn't get it. I gave it a 3 out of 10.
Mission to Mars (2000)
Sense of wonder triumphs debatable flaws
I'm not sure why this movie has produced so much dislike. Most of the supposed flaws - the stiff, mannered 1950s style acting, the highly dramatic music score, the plot clichés - should be regarded as deliberate references to the cinematic history of Science Fiction, which is exactly what one would expect from de Palma. My conclusion would be that this movie went over the audience's heads, esp the ones who were expecting another dumb "Armageddon"-type blockbuster. Bad for them, I thought M2M was an excellent SF movie with a lot of the key ingredient that genre fans often refer to as "Sense of wonder".
On the plus side then, was an interesting plot idea, presented in a backward fashion and revealed towards the very end; some stunning visual effects and camera work that are trademark de Palma, several intense and dramatic scenes also typical of Mr dP:s self-confident direction, and the aforementioned "sense of wonder" (not unlike "Contact") which is something that cannot be nailed down but needs to be experienced.
On the minus side, the exposition was very weak, especially by de Palma standards (recall the dazzling openings of "Bonfires..." or "Snake Eyes"). Also the stereotyped acting of Sinise and Robbins in particular, though humorous and appropriate from a genre history viewpoint, can't help but diminish the dramatic impact of the movie, especially as de Palma simultaneously asks us to care for these characters.
But in total, this movie's merits by far outweighs it flaws, and it's unfortunate for Brian de Palma that he again seems to suffer from the audience's misconceptions and ideas about SF movies, rather than being judged as the talented, serious filmmaker that he is. I loved this movie, and gave it an "8".
The Ninth Gate (1999)
Tongue in cheek Polanski
Roman Polanski making an occult movie seemed fairly intriguing to me, and for the first half or so I really enjoyed this movie. The concept of the devil's engravings was spot on for the genre, and the use of various European locations added to the atmosphere. Unfortunately - like so many have remarked - the last 10 minutes didn't really work out, and this affected the impression of the entire movie which sort of fell apart in retrospect.
On the plus side, there were some striking images - like Frank Langella's fire scene, or the wheelchair/fire scene - that only a first-rate filmmaker like Polanski could come up with. Like other viewers I thought about "Eyes Wide Shut" during some scenes, but that was a much more serious and developed movie. I liked Johnny Depp's performance, though his character was unsympathetic and he wasn't as focused as in "Donnie Brasco" for instance.
Someone called this a "lazy" movie by Polanski, and I guess that's a good description - you can see the talent and the fun he had, but there was no real commitment. I gave it a weak 7 / 10.
Red Dragon (2002)
A worthy variation
"Red Dragon" was clearly better than I expected. At least around here its reception was lukewarm, both critically and commercially, and I assumed it was a case of tired Hollywood recycling. As a great fan of Michael Mann's "Manhunter" the idea of a lame remake annoyed me quite a bit. But when I finally got around to view "Red Dragon", I have to say that the lack of enthusiasm for it is more puzzling than the fact that someone remade a less than 20 years old classic.
The 2002 movie plot line follows the Thomas Harris' novel more closely, which is most obvious in the much more detailed account of the serial killer's background and profile. The William Blake theme is almost entirely buried in Mann's movie (perhaps too buried) while "Red Dragon" uses it, and the strong visual power of the painting, to great effect. The storyline is different at some crucial junctures, which makes it easier to regard them as two different movies.
In favor of the original "Manhunter", Michael Mann's direction has a lot of flair and self-confidence, while "Red dragon" is less stylized and, at times, direction-by-numbers. Mann skipped the NYC museum excursion altogether, while "Red dragon" retains it, and it's bordering on over-plotting with this tangent. On the other hand, "Red dragon" benefits from a more detailed account of the FBI investigation techniques, which Mann didn't care much for.
The casting isn't perfect in either movie; William Petersen was a little bland, while Edward Norton seems too young. Ralph Fiennes is an interesting choice for the "tooth-fairy", but despite some make-up is still too ordinary-looking for the part -- I prefer Mann's more radical choice (this point is arguable). Joan Allen was great in Mann's movie, while Emily Watson does OK, but seems a little lost.
I was happy to see that Brett Ratner had the courage to retain and closely parallel the beautiful scene with the tiger; it's a highpoint in both movies, and could make for interesting detailed comparisons.
All over, "Red dragon" stands very well on its own, and is only slightly less successful (due mainly to conservative direction) than "Manhunter". Those who haven't seen Mann's movie may find "Red dragon" even better than I did. Over time, both movies will be seen as fine works, working from a terrific novel, and taking it down somewhat different paths.
Resident Evil (2002)
Why get so sloppy?
I was really disappointed with this movie, which had a pretty good reputation and "buzz" upon release. It started out well, but about 30 minutes into it a feeling of cheesiness came creeping over me. There were just too much illogical behavior, sloppy acting and derivative ideas that the original promise fell apart. This continued throughout the movie, so that towards the end I pretty much hated it.
Some nice visual touches and an interesting premise, but all the movies it rips off -- Aliens, the Romero zombie trilogy, Outbreak, The Relic, etc -- are better than this, which adds to the exploitation feeling. The lead characters are unsympathetic or incomprehensible, and given no support by the weak actors.
This movie follows the exact same pattern and weaknesses as Anderson's "Event Horizon", which however suffered less from its problems.
15 Minutes (2001)
Satire requires control
I was disappointed with this movie, which had garnered pretty good reviews (at least where I live). It reminded me a bit about "Wag the dog" (also with De Niro), in that it was based on a simple, appealing idea which unfortunately isn't enough to make a movie on.
"15 minutes" was occasionally funny and smart, but a lot of the "satire" was so blatant that it seemed aimed at 10 year-olds rather than an adult audience. There was also a strong disconnect between the presentation of the main characters, where the Russians were goofy comic book parodies, while De Niro's super cop had a very different depth and presence. It could be argued that De Niro's superb performance threw the whole movie off-balance, especially the second half. Edward Burns' character might have been interesting, and he played off well against De Niro, but again towards the end everything about him went out the window.
There was something almost desperate about the last 20 minutes, which didn't make much sense and was both overstated and unrealistic, even within the framework of a "satire". The movie had a certain energy but was amateurish and lacking in both balance and center.
Constantine (2005)
Good one for genre fans
I really liked "Constantine". I think it was a worthy addition to the Daemonology genre, kicked off by the Exorcist and Omen back in the 1970s. These movies often promise a lot, but too often fall apart due to poor internal logics, failure of realization, or just plain old cheesiness. "Constantine" evolved along a clear narrative path, where all characters had a certain consistent part in the storyline, yet still surprised here and there. The Daemon & Occult motif was well done, bringing in the typical paraphernalia in a working way.
In addition, it was a delight to see Peter Stormare as the big L, a match made in heaven. Keanu Reeves was solid as always in his stone-face non-acting "Neo" style.
I gave Constantine an "8"; I think it was clearly above average for the genre.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
pure war movie excels
I just saw this for the first time and found it engaging and impressive, although with little of depth or originality. It is an old-school war movie of the type that have gotten in vogue again, where comradeship and battle action are the main things. The movie is essentially one long battle sequence, and as such it's pretty outstanding. The editing and the sets are extraordinary, reminiscent of the last 1/3rd of "Full Metal Jacket" or the first 10 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan". Big cities and structures shot to pieces make for excellent cinema, although the direction does border on a computer game-like showpiece at times. There were some strong scenes involving dying soldiers, not terribly original but effective in the context.
The first thing I had to check out was who played "Hoot", and it turned out to be Eric Bana who I didn't recognize. His character and performance is the best thing in the movie, apart from the superb action scenes. Great screen presence, and also a thankful role as the cool uber-soldier. I can't say I think Ewen McGregor's part worked, except as comic relief. Josh Hartnett was OK, but seemed a bit underdeveloped. Tom Sizemore, Jason Isaacs and William Fichtner are *always* a delight to see, and I admire the casting department that brought in these charismatic supporting actors into the same movie.
Racist? Well, if I was Somalian I wouldn't have appreciated this movie. But, it's an old-school war movie, so it goes with the territory.
I gave it a 7 / 10, for a couple of very specific reasons only, detailed above.
American Psycho (2000)
Not as good as the novel, but still...
*** Some minor spoilers below ***
I'm a great fan of Ellis' novel, which I recently re-read, and after seeing the movie adaptation for a 2nd time recently, here are some thoughts.
The movie's main problem is that it seems to lack a bit of self-confidence; both in direction and script. It does seem to want to take Ellis' labyrinthine, non-linear (except for sheer chronology) work and turn it into a "normal" 90-minute movie with a beginning, middle & end. Yet it doesn't go all the way there either, which would have required substantial overhaul of the whole storyline and characters. Instead it's a middle route that selects choice material from the novel, and expands some angles to create a narrative arch -- the latter being most obvious in the much expanded part for Detective Kimball, vs the novel where his part barely exists. Unfortunately, Bateman's psychological complex is so vast that it cannot be squeezed into a story about a psychopath scared of getting caught.
While Ellis never fully explains what Bateman is about, he says so much about him in the novel that you feel that it's as close as we're going to get. In the movie OTOH, Bateman is still enigmatic, but with a feel of simplification. On the first view I remember thinking that the movie was too short, and that it had been brutally edited, but on the 2nd time round I see it more as an effect of the choice made for the presentation of Bateman. It may work better if you haven't read the novel, but I doubt it.
OK, on the plus side: Christian Bale does a terrific job, with lots of work put into it. He has developed a whole set of deliberately artificial faces which help illustrate the emptiness of Bateman's inner life. His voice is terrific, and manages to convey contempt and hate even while the face is looking jovial. He's good in the "horror" segments too, truly primitive and more real, as he should be. Very good casting, and an excellent, unusual performance.
The clothes, the hairstyles, the restaurants etc, all look much like they appear in Ellis' novel. I miss the hilarious rundowns of what people are wearing (the single most notable feature of the novel on the first read), but they look right and it's no great loss. Bale in particular is extremely well dressed, even for a "Wall Street" movie, like he should be. His apartment, and Owen's/Allen's look just right too.
One case where I think the movie is *superior* to the novel is in the portrayal of Bateman's female friends, Evelyn and Courtney. In the novel they never become more than shadow creatures, interchangeable despite appearing on many dozens of pages. Thanks to great casting and well-written parts, both Reese Witherspoon and Samanta Mathis manage to give these rich-but-messed up ladies true identities. Bateman's secretary's part is much like the novel, though I think Chloe Sevigny overacts slightly in her mousiness. Another element where the movie may surpass the novel is near the end at the club, where Bateman confronts the lawyer with his confession -- this is a scene that works better as film than literature, and the movie exploits it brilliantly.
Some more complaints: the Kimball cop-hunt angle doesn't really work as stated above, and I also think the gay love angle of Luis Carruthers (which is pretty effective in the novel) becomes meaningless in this drastically shortened version. The part with Christie being chased and having a chainsaw dropped on her is NOT in the novel, and seems wrong for Bateman, who thrives on physical *closeness* to his victims -- this was a real mistake in the script, IMO, esp in such a crucial scene.
All over, the movie is complex and challenging, just like the novel, which is obviously very difficult to adapt. I don't think it holds a candle to Ellis' work, but I still enjoy seeing it. The second half in particular is strong, with the director finding her stride and Bale's carefully developed Bateman fitting in just right.
Hollow Man (2000)
Verhoven, Bacon & Shue down the drain
I just saw this and don't have much to add to the (negative) comments already posted. First 20 minutes were good, special fx during the transformations were AMAZING, and the rest of the movie was surprisingly awful. I can't believe 3 such great names could be involved with this, which looks like someone's FIRST Hollywood movie, not 10th or whatever. I agree with the poster who said that the wanted to see all the characters in the movie dead, that's just how I felt too, thus violating one crucial Hollywood rule... shallow, unsympathetic and poorly acted... embarrassing dialogue too. What a waste. 4/10.
The Devil's Advocate (1997)
Could have been great
This is a frustrating movie, in my opinion. You can tell that it has potential of being a truly great movie; the basic theme, several plot twists, the casting and the costumes and sets all point in direction of a "classic".
But I think it falls short, and it does so because of a few flaws that needn't have been there. I've read praise of Al Pacino's performance in earlier comments, but I think it's one of the major problems. He's given completely free reins, and in fact must have been encouraged to go all out. And so he does, with obvious pleasure. The end result is overblown, overstated, crude, lacking in nuance. He laughs like the devil and smiles like the devil... over and over... adding nothing to the character after the initial impression. There is no growth in Milton's character, or in Pacino's handling of it.
This is the second problem - the Milton part is badly written. It contains long, literary and completely artificial monologues on the state of the world, that doesn't work at all on the screen. No person, not even the devil, talks like that. You lose interest, because the basic direction of the monologue is clear from the beginning, even though it goes on for another 30 seconds.
Putting these two problems together and I think that you have a bit of a turkey inside an otherwise very interesting movie.
Of course, Pacino is great in the movie when he works with small gestures, and the Milton part is sometimes intriguing -- a fine example of the RIGHT combination of the two is in the subway scene with the two hispanic hoodlums. I wish there would have been more of that and less loud, maniac monologues. Oh, and that false teeth prosthetic looks really strange on Pacino... in some scenes he looks like a real doofus. Weird.
Keanu Reeves was very good (as he sometimes is), as is Charlize Theron. The movie has lots of clever ideas and memorable scenes. It's also pretty unpleasant. I like the triple ending, though I can see how people may feel ripped off.
Could have been truly great. Too bad. I gave it a 7 / 10.
The Spanish Prisoner (1997)
Spellbinding paranoia
Just saw this for a 2nd time, and my wife & I were as impressed as the first time around. The script is very clever (of course), but what I really like is how the direction inserts an *additional* layer of mystery on top of what's already there... through the casting, camera angles, half-hidden facial expressions (used repeatedly), and more. This could be called the Hitchcock touch, although there is a mercilessness and a lack of sympathy for the main character which is not Hitchcockian. As a viewer I feel lost in the intricacies of the movie, which seldom happens.
(minor SPOILER) As for the ending, I view this clearly as a dying dream, or wishful thinking. It's just too strange, and unlikely. No explanation on how they got on the trail, or how they were there before everyone else... as a viewer you can choose the ending yourself, and I'll go with a more bleak interpretation.
I gave it 9 / 10.