Reviews

Well, as most of you already know, this movie blows like a sperm whale that has been submerged way too long. Okay, let me back up on that. I would actually like to wait around two plus hours to see the whale. As for Waterworld. . . nah!

Let's get to the basic flaws. We know it is a sort of Mad Max rip off, right? Well the funny thing is that Dennis Hopper plays his bit as a big joke. And he is damn funny. I'm sure the Costner crowd was trying their mighty best to convince Hopper that "Waterworld" was serious social drama. Hopper made them look the monkey's uncle. I can only guess as to why Dennis Hopper made the Deacon into a cartoonish freak. Well, my guess is that Hopper read the script and realized the whole concept was a freak. I might add, there is nothing wrong with any of this.

Unfortunately, Costner, and the rest of the cast continued to play their characters straight. The Mariner remained tough, aloof, and above all, serious. In fact, the Mariner's seriousness was often portrayed as nothing more than murderous cruelty.

I posit that the Deacon had more sense of purpose than the Mariner. Although, the filmwriters, probably reaching the same conclusion, added comic lines for the Deacon near the end of the film when he describes why he wants to get to dry land. Succinctly, it is to churn up land and chop down trees. Please! On the contrary, what does our Mariner in fact do when he finds the paradise? Well he pack up and leaves of course, back to the desolation of endless water. Well by default, churning up land and chopping down trees is the wiser course.

It should also be noted that the bad guys are "smokers." This cryptic title is reinforced by the fact that these folks constantly chainsmoke. No, I am not making this up. It seems, cigarettes and pure hydro are the barter items of choice. Of course, with the bad guys (i.e. smokers) they just crave smokes.

Another point of contention lies with the smokers' choice of vehicles. They opt for mid '90's Jet Skis (imagine that), replete with combat paint that tries to makes them look like they are made of steel (they don't). The Jet Skis' mother ship is the redoubtable, Exxon Valdez (isn't that clever), with the patron Saint of the smokers hanging prominently in the Deacon's cabin. Who is it? Why it is the Captain of the Exxon Valdez himself who was on duty when Alaska was wiped off the map in the worst ecological accident of all time. Please note the hyperbole and sarcasm in the previous sentence. Again, I ask you, is this clever or rather, environmental sentiment run amok.

Fortunately for this film, Hopper's comic appearances save this wreck from the notorious rating of one out of ten. Hopper really is funny in this one, and it must still crank Costner's Jet Ski that the production company cast him to give a non-comic preformance. I could go on and on and on. . . but why. This film rates a two out of ten. This may improve with camp value.

Hapless Frank Chambers happens into the Papadakis roadhouse and mayhem ensues. Apparently, Frank discovered and exploited the lusty Cora into a disturbing affair. Remarkably, the ex-con, yet low key Frank is taken aback when Cora decides it's time to rub out the husband, played expertly by John Colicos.

Colicos' Papadakis is everything that Frank and Cora are not. He is hard working, simple, and foreign. Our malevolent protaganists are homegrown, lusty, and starwandering. However, when they decide to rub out Papadakis, they do it in such an imbecilic way as to warrant failure. Despite initially feeling remorse for the botched job, their supposed "love" is worth a second try.

After succeeding, Frank and Cora end up in the slammer, for a time. A sharp lawyer, Mr. Katz, played well by Michael Lerner amazingly gets them from facing the gallows. In fact, they walk.

You would expect a happy ending at this point. Well no, not exactly. It seems trouble follows Frank and Cora like the plague. Of course, all of this trouble stems from their own poor decisions. I had to keep reminding myself, "hey don't root for these folks, they are killers and conspirators." Unfortunately, they are so pathetic, compelling, and desperate for happiness that I could not help but rooting for these rotten apples.

The thirties atmosphere is shot exceptionally well and adds to the positives of this film. Also, look for a very exotic looking Anjelica Huston in a brief appearance. I rate this film at 6 of 10.

[Warning: Spoilers Ahead.]

This very rarely seen gem is the brainchild of Hoskins, Caine, and other financial sources who thought it a good thing to present the political realities of World War II in the form of a close up drama. The result, if you are lucky enough to find this film is your own private play available in the comfort of your living room. It goes without saying that the cast is spectacular, or should I say the film was spectacularly cast.

Hoskins delivers perhaps the best Churchill as I've ever seen. Audiences might recall that he also portrays another giant of contemporary history, Nikita Krushchev in Jean-Jacques Annaud's, "Enemy at the Gates." Likewise, Caine delivers a poignant and striking "Uncle Joe." As for Lithgow, I am amazed at how much he looks like F.D.R. in makeup, when in real life he looks nothing like Roosevelt. His performance is also excellent. My favorite scene involving Lithgow is when he is receiving very dire news from his allies and they wonder if the U.S.A. can provide just a little more aid per month. Lithgow interrupts the request and deadpans, "double it," invoking the limitless pocketbook of American resources.

Normally, I abhor the use of films as educational tools for high school students. I will make an exception with this film. This is not an action packed, mindlessly scripted, Hollywood explosion fest. On the contrary, this is more akin to watching an Arthur Miller play, with the exception that the script in this one in non-fiction. I do not pretend that a high schooler will walk away from this epic with a complete knowledge of World War II. On the contrary, hopefully he or she will be left with more questions than answers. I do hope they realize that the Allied cause was a full partnership between the Big Three.

This movie rates eight out of ten and should not be missed.

WARNING: Spoilers Ahead.

Sam Elliott stars in this "horror" movie which also features Joan Van Ark, Ray Milland, Adam Roarke, and Judy Pace. Sam Elliott's character, Pickett Smith seems to know that something bad is going to happen, though we are never told why. Apparently, rowing around Milland's island and taking pictures is enough to convince him of an animal conspiracy a la Hitchcock's "The Birds." Yes, this makes no sense, nor does anything else in this film.

The inevitable killing off of lesser characters is done in a chore like fashion. Most of these death scenes will have you in stitches from the laughter.

Surprisingly, the leads take their roles seriously and perform well. Not surprisingly, it doesn't matter. The film is too much of a wreck to save.

The positive highlights for me were seeing Milland act plus Joan Van Ark running around in a Terry Cloth jumper.

I would rate it a bit higher, but for the awful editing in which we go from night to day and day to night. Additionally, there are way too many stock scenes showing various reptiles wandering around. As such, I give this mess a big "2 out of 10."

Warning: Spoilers ahead.

Marginal film which shows U.S. Marines trying to have a ball in Japan. They chase girls, drink booze, and con a local hotel owner into letting them room. Most of the film's fun is watching our various marines get into trouble. Two thirds of the film is all fun. The film turns serious towards the end.

Could have been a lot better, but I was entertained for most of it. Six out of Ten.

This is considered by Fields devotees to be one of his finest. Perhaps it is. Most likely, this comedy is more famous for trailblazing the genre.

I found myself most enamored with the sets. Looking at his small grocery and seeing boxes of Kellog's Corn Flakes was a treat. The pratfall and gags were not that bad either.

Field's character of Mr. Bissonette constantly jousting with his unrelenting wife provide most, but not all of the laughs.

Sound all around, I rate this film at 7 out of 10.

This film concerns various womens' quests for the meaning of their collective angst. To be sure, the scapegoat is found, and he his man (i.e. male).

This silly tripe masquerades as an "art" film. It is not. Rather, "Perversions," is a polemic which uses tired dream sequences (poorly done), and suppressed memories (silly in their recreation) to create artificial sympathy from the audience to the women leads. I'm not buying it.

A poignant example is the confused youth who has recently begun her period. She marks each monthly occasion with faux burials of non-existent children. How is she cured? With a hug of course. And she is probably the sanest of the bunch.

Please don't be fooled by the bizarre plot line. You are apt to laugh through many of this movie's zany scenes. I was constantly thinking of Ed Wood. He would have loved this film. Had he made it, it would have been better.

This joker of a Berkely masterpiece for me, rates the dubious film one out of ten. I think, after thousands of reviews, I've doled out the infamous one rating only twice before. Well, "Perversions" is in good company now. This film is bunk extraordinaire.

WARNING: Spoilers Ahead!

Tom Green is one of the funniest comics to come around in a long while. His unconventional approach at comedy has led to his phenomenal success. However, this film is a manufactured shell in which Green is more of a narrator rather than a real actor in the story. In short, the joke is on you the viewer.

In "Road Trip," Green plays the eighth year college student who opens the film giving an orientation tour of mythical Ithaca U. During the tour he relates a story which becomes the basis of the movie. Apart from that involvement, Green has little more to do with the film despite occasional cameos. I was shocked that Green wasn't even on the road trip in "Road Trip."

The rest of the story is okay for late night friday movie cablevision, but nothing worth paying for. The funniest scene occurs early on when our intrepid road trippers decide to jump a downed bridge in their Ford Taurus. While funny, the scene appears heavily borrowed from 1985's "Fandango."

Three out of ten is generous. Beware Tom Green's next release it may be the same formula con.

WARNING: Spoilers ahead.

John Cusack has been portraying the nice, cool, yet loveless underdog, for almost twenty years. Enough!

Yes, these films work on a basic level. After all, they are formula tested and proven. However, I'm enraged when I see such films garner wide critical acclaim. The reason is because the storyline of these films are the result of dumpster diving for old material.

Let's take a look at Mr. Cusack's similar films. They include; "The Sure Thing (1985)," "Better Off Dead (1987)," and "Say Anything (1989)." I am sure I am leaving some out but I think you get the drift. John Cusack has made a good living out of being the nice guy seeking a nice girl.

"High Fidelity" is no different except to say that even at thirty something, nice guys have trouble meeting nice girls. Perhaps so. However, I find it troubling to grant such movies some deep meaning mandate. This is not "Dr. Zhivago." Peppering the film with pop culture and anti-pop culture music references may be "hip" with some generation x-ers, who seem to love this kind of crap (see also "The Wedding Singer"), but it does have real limitations, which Mr. Cusack reached long ago. Alas, a paycheck is still a paycheck, and folks are still driven into delirium by the bozo formula. The lonely Cusack in the night rain might drive you nuts if you notice how abused it is in this movie.

I was impressed by Jack Black's performance as the die hard devotee to the cause of "music appreciation." The viewer see's that Black's character, Barry, is going to love the eighties and the past to the death. Barry is meant to be the juxtaposition of Cusack's character. While Barry is content to wallow in the past, Cusack seeks to gain a future. Unfortunately, Barry is funnier and more believable. This is because Cusack's real dilemma is not whether or not he will look to the future or the past. Rather, he only worries if he will find true love. I could care less if he ever does or doesn't and neither should you.

The bottom line is that this film is hopefully the end of the John Cusack unloved puppy series. Jack Black delivered well and he has a bright future in film. I rate this rot at three out of ten.

Warning: Minor Spoilers.

Made for T.V. used to be synonymous with "crap." Not anymore. Since Hollywood abandoned adult audiences and instead made movies for thirteen year old boys, serious subjects have been left to the 13", 19", and 27" television of most modern households. 'A Glimpse of Hell,' is one hell of a film that supports my contention.

I wasn't expecting much when I decided to view this "television" version of the tragic happenings aboard the Battleship IOWA back in 1989. I remember hearing the news accounts of the events at the time they happened, plus the Navy's story, and subsequent retraction. It was a sordid mess.

Unfortunately, this mess has not been sorted out. The movie hints that the BB IOWA was mothballed because of the accident which killed over 40 sailors. Truth be told, all of our BBs were decommissioned after the Gulf War.

The reason why these last capital ships were pulled out of service are probably several. First, the Battleships were old (dating back to WWII) and excruciatingly expensive to maintain. Second, the 'Mighty Mo' (BB MISSOURI) was almost struck by an Iraqi Silkworm during the Gulf War, which would have been an extreme embarrassment to the United States. Third, BB IOWA's turret no. 2 explosion was unexplained and unknown. This proved that the big guns were unreliable in the modern age. In fact, IOWA's destroyed turret was built in World War II and could not be rebuilt.

It seems, that in their haste to exculpate the IOWA, Navy personnel sought to invent a reason for the vessel's turret destruction. Investigation quickly became an inquisition. Fortunately, we see some nasty allegations countered by honest men in this film. I have no doubt that the Navy will come around at some future date. This is truly cold comfort to the families of the slandered.

Until that day comes, this film serves as counterbalance to harm done. Patriots will have to dab their eyes at the end of this well made, non-Hollywood movie which rates a 7 out of 10.

Warning: Spoilers Ahead.

The "I feel your pain," generation reaches its climax with the over the top, 'Magnolia.'

If Mel Brooks ever wants to make, 'Springtime for Hitler,' as a serious drama, he might want to hire on the writers, directors, and producers of 'Magnolia.' I heard so many positive things about this film that I virtually thought it bulletproof from criticism. In fact, halfway through this movie, I still thought I was watching something profound. That is, until the end didn't materialize.

The misery and discomfort, which is treble midway through 'Magnolia,' offers no release, just more tension. Well, I shortly realized I was viewing a propaganda piece on how truly fragile we all are. Duh!

Of course we are fragile. We are human beings. Tell me something I don't know. Every single character in this mess is a blubbering, self loathing victim. The viewer is deluged with the inadequate cop, misogynist guru, dying cad, alcohol addicted game show host, sexually abused and drug addicted daughter, etcetera, ad nauseum.

To be sure, some fine acting exists in this movie. Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, Jason Robards, Philip Baker Hall, and Jeremy Blackman deliver stirring performances. Unfortunately, the material, as related above is tripe. And no, I didn't think the frog shower was clever.

Despite its high rating and popularity, this film is unique in its time only. This is not "The Graduate," which has a timeless message at its core. Certainly, everyone will be able to connect with this film's message of despair and feeling of hopelessness. Normally these feelings are salved in private. Only the adolescents or those who don't wish to grow up, fly that flag of despair high in the air as their national banner. Makes me wanna cry, but I won't, at least not in front of you. I rate this pity party a three out of ten. Don't despair people, happiness is out there.

WARNING: May contain spoilers.

This film is a disaster, unless you are eighteen years old or younger. It might help if you have not seen any previous incarnations of the unseen one.

Most of the action occurs in the ridiculously scripted labyrinth that serves as the laboratory. After a sleepy start, the film pours on the special effects, hollywood explosions, and the old saw of victims tracked down one by one. This movie is a wreck.

I wonder what on earth, Shue, Bacon, and especially Verhoeven were thinking when they signed up for this one. But I think I know. They were thinking, "For Deposit Only," as they or their underlings put those fat checks in the bank. The studio got the short end of the stick on this one.

WARNING: May Contain Spoilers.

How does one take an interesting concept, handle it adroitly, make it engrossing for the first hour, and then completely crush it and throw it to the wind? Easy, hire lousy writers, "artistic" directors, and somehow lose all sense and reason along the way.

I'm sure this film was a dead duck on arrival because of the stupidity of the plot. I suppose, though it's hard to be sure, that the "message" of the film was that all things are relative, and hard ass de-programmers are really just as flimsy as are their clients' impressionable teens and young adults.

What a loss. Cultists and de-programmers are both interesting and topical. In addition, their interaction should make for great drama. Personally, I'm wary of both groups. I think the foundation on which this film rested was relevant and intriguing.

Unfortunately, this film treated both groups not as true similes, but as carbon copies of each other (their is a difference). In other words, the cult follower and the de-programmer were equally weak and devoid of true independent strength. When this motif was approached with subtlety, there was still hope for the film. However, subtlety was replaced with brash comic abandon which failed miserably and made me regret investing time in the film to begin with.

I want to give this film a two, but Winslet's bold performance inches it up to three out of ten. This film IS to be missed.

WARNING: May Contain Spoilers

Despite its veneer of fiction, this film more resembles an autobiography of tragedy. And, to be sure, this is a cautionary tale. At least it should be. If you ever wanted to see how ugly a "beautiful" person can be, watch this movie.

Viewing this movie is akin to watching a train wreck in slow motion. It is terribly interesting, yet awful at the same time. The underlying story involving the league of "drug" pushers, "alien" manipulators, "quack" doctors, and self serving hippies does not mask the gritty reality underlying this film. Frankly, fame, drugs, and the Warholians ruined a beautiful young woman's life. I'm sure the critics of the day appreciated this film's message of moral relativism and the supposed hypocrisy of the "normal" world. Thirty years later, it is clear that the destructive, callous, and cavalier attitude of the social experimenters wreaked havoc with those bold enough to be "different." I think it is fair to say that the survivors of that lifestyle don't have a bit of regret about that fact either. The proof is in the pudding, and Warhol and his cult are still celebrated.

I give this film a generous 4 out of 10 ranking because the subject matter is fascinating. If this footage was reworked as a true documentary, dropping all of the psychic garbage, this could be an 8 out of 10 piece. Of course, the rework would have to be made by historians rather than art historians.

WARNING: Contains spoilers.

Selena's fate continues the sad tradition of Texas music legends meeting tragedy. There have been others. Hank Williams and the Big Bopper for example. But Hank made his own fate and the Big Bopper wasn't quite as big as Buddy, Janis, or Selena. To be sure, this movie didn't dwell on Selena as a tragic figure, it was more of a celebration of her life. But, those who know her story, sense the horror coming. It kind of heightens the sadness.

A lot of reviewers have complained that the movie was overly positive and didn't show the dark side of Selena. Well, Selena was an enigma. While she was not the Virgin de Guadalupe, she wasn't a wild child either. She was a goody goody. Her family life was strict and regimented. This was probably the reason for her y los Dinos' ultimate success.

The film itself has some laughs and quite a few tears. The audience sees a family that works and plays together. Think about it. The father is the manager, booking agent, bus driver, etc. The mother makes the clothes, supports her kids and is their surrogate teacher. A.B. is the lead musician and peacemaker, while his sister is drummer and best friend to Selena. My point is that this was no easy life. Especially considering how far these gigs are from the family's Corpus Christi home. For example, driving from Corpus to El Paso is like driving from Richmond, Virginia to Canada.

This brings up another point. While most of the USA and Canada was inundated solely with pop music a large part of the southwest was taken with an altogether different form of music called Tejano. Tejano is a bit like norteno mixed with polka and germanic rhythms. In real life, even at her young age, Selena appreciated music history and knew her style of music was a type of time capsule waiting to be rediscovered.

Rediscovered it was, too. When Tejano and Selena became mainstream here in Texas and North Mexico, the genre enjoyed critical praise. Her grammys and crossover album proved the greatness of Selena. Sadly, even her murder evidences her greatness. In the years since she has been gone, Tejano has regressed in popularity. Where Buddy Holly had proteges to form the Beatles, none has assumed Selena's mantle of authority.

The bottom line is that this film does a fine job at portraying a good girl gone good, and tragically cut down by a nut. Jennifer Lopez does so well as Selena that she is almost indistinguishable from the real McCoy. Her father, Abraham Quintanilla is well played by actor Edward James Olmos. The rest of the cast is commendable and no one seems out place. I give this film a strong 8 out of 10 rating.

Spoilers Ahead:

While most of us worried about nuclear war between capitalists and communists, Norman Jewison and William Harrison depicted a future of corporate monoliths which ran society. War and poverty were abolished and the masses need for bloodlust was satiated by the gladitorial sport of Rollerball.

Jonathan E. was the champion of "powerful Houston," the "energy city." The "executives" around the globe, fearing Jonathan E.'s popularity decide to set him up for the fall, the rest is the plot of the film.

What strikes me is how insightful this film was. I know many people who live where their corporation tells them. Congratulations, you are going to love Columbus. And they go! As for Jonathan E., it sounds like an e-mail address to me (e.g. JonathanE@www.corp.com). In addition, all information in the film is kept on a central computer. Sounds like modern servers to me. I personally know people who buy books based on their appearance, not content (i.e. "that book will look nice in my new bookshelf").

The drama and acting by Caan, Adams, Houseman, et. al., make for a top shelf film. Why they are remaking this film, I haven't a clue. The original is par excellence. I should hold back, but I won't. Rollerball ranks 10 out of 10.

[Warning: May Contain Spoilers]

The "good hearted" greedy g.i. as a vehicle for story has been around a long time. Its a harmless tonic that serves from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and alas the Gulf War. This movie was no different except in one regard. It resurrected the genre and gave it new life. "Three Kings" is a solid film.

Stealing gold from Saddam is just as palatable as seizing it from the Nazis. This is why we are behind the protagonists in their illegal endeavor.

The "kings" use the imposing weapon of American intimidation in a very real sense. It is believable.

Of course, the Iraqis slowly realize that the "kings" are actually renegades and that is where things get tricky. Intimidation turns to deadly force and our heroes are forced to back up their actions with killing.

The greedy Americans rehabilitate themselves by finding a moral cause. The rest makes for good cinema. I won't give away anymore.

George Clooney, not one of my favorite actors, delivers a strong performance. Ice Cube, Mark Wahlberg, and others also do a good job.

The Bush bashing, which is founded on valid arguments is somewhat disingenuous. Face it, if it were up to the Hollywood crowd, Kuwait would still be under Saddam's thumb. Sure, maybe we didn't do enough, but if it were up to them, we would have done nothing. Despite the annoying moralizing of not doing enough, "Three Kings" rates 7 out of 10. Not to be missed.

[WARNING: May Contains Spoilers]

I liked the premise of "Brokedown Palace." Succinctly, teenage Americans have no business treating the world like their own personal Disneyland. When they do, as does Alice, played by Claire Danes and Darlene, played by Kate Beckinsale, calamity ensues. The two girls meet a charming young Australian, whom they both become enchanted with.

The Aussie is more interested with making money in a most sordid way. He uses naive girls to smuggle drugs, with or without their knowledge.

After the bust and seeing our leading ladies sent off to a third world prison, the viewer is given interesting glimpses of friends and family abandon the convicted girls. If the film had quit with a depressing yet striking tale of languishing westerners in a Thai prison camp, it would have been successful.

Oh no. The end produces a "Tale of Two Cities" scene in which friend takes the fall for friend. To be sure, it is completely unconvincing. I'm probably being too generous, but I give "Brokedown Palace" 5 of 10. And oh yeah, if you are under twenty, stay the hell out of third world Asia.

WARNING: May Contain Spoilers

"The Cowboys" serves up traditional western values in gritty reality. John Wayne acts as Wil Andersen, the hard pressed livestock owner who needs to get his cattle to market. All of his ranch hands have deserted him, leaving him with 1500 head of cattle that he can't support through the winter.

Well meaning, Anse, played by Slim Pickens reluctantly convinces Andersen that local schoolboys can manage the job the "menfolk" have abandoned by chasing gold dreams.

Andersen is a recalcitrant taskmaster, not happy with taking on boys, a mexican and a black cookie, expertly played by Roscoe Lee Browne.

As the drive progresses, we see Andersen become more comfortable with his band of misfits.

Disgruntled ex-cons track the green trailhands and calamity ensues. When Andersen is incapacitated, the young cowboys seek to finish the job and exact revenge.

All told, "The Cowboys" is a fine movie, although the boys actions against the rustlers is somewhat cheesy. Bruce Dern provides some of his best acting as the cowardly evil villain, "Long Hair." This movies rates an enthusiastic 7 out of 10.

WARNING: May Contain Spoilers.

What's next for Robin Williams? How about, "Throttle Up," in which Williams plays a slapstick NASA engineer on the day that shuttle Challenger blows up? Doesn't sound like a good idea, does it?

Well neither does "Jakob the Liar."

This tale may have made it if it were approached in the same vein as Bill Murray's, "The Razor's Edge." In that film, we saw a comedic giant act in a purely dramatic role. While no box office success, it was a good film.

The problem with, "Jakob" is that drama is often sacrificed for really senseless and unfunny comedy. These scenes are accompanied by stereotypical music that reminds the audience the ghetto community is jewish. DUH! To make matters worse, several of the American cast members, drift in and out of ridiculous accents.

Unfortunately it doesn't end here. One of the characters in the ghetto happens upon a pistol. One would think the film would triumph his incredible luck. Oh no, the politically correct crowd who makes movies these days, had to impose nineties' anti gun fervor on the ghetto victims of the forties. It seems if you ever needed a gun, it just might be at the moment you are about to be hauled off to a death camp in a cattle car!

In sum, "Jakob the Liar" is a film made in incredibly poor taste. There were some good parts, but I refuse to discuss them.

[WARNING: May Contain Spoilers]

The premise of "Matchmaker" probably set the bar a little high for success. A Massachusetts' Senator finds himself in a tight race while scandals aiding his opponent, rage in the press. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Well, Sen. McGlory sends his trusted staffmember, Marcy Tizard, effectively played by Janeane Garofalo, to a small Irish town to dig up ancient roots to help the Senator score points at home. She encounters difficulties in finding any of the Senator's relatives and embarks on romantic adventures of her own.

Tizard finds herself in the midst of a matchmaking festival, in which everyone is searching for love. Tizard, not looking for love herself, of course finds it in the distant land of Ireland.

You can guess as to how things turn out. In fact, the audience can see it coming from the beginning of the film.

Overall, this film is nice and cute, but no more. Laughs are rare and some scenes seem disjointed from the main action (the vandalism of the car comes to mind). It isn't all bad though. I give it a mediocre 5 out of 10.

[WARNING: May Contain Spoilers.]

This film had a fine cast and an interesting setting. However, the plot and its nuances are just a tad too cliched to merit a favorable review.

The silver screen has rarely (if ever) portrayed the underbelly of America's presence in West Germany during the Cold War. In "Cadence," the audience is introduced to a group of misfit G.I.'s who have run afoul of the law. Some are supposedly innocent, while others, including Private Bean are not. A well thought out screenplay could have capitalized on this unique angle. What does the audience get instead? Windmills and psychotic superiors. Say what?

The prisoners' handler, played by Martin Sheen, who also directed this film goes nuts after being dissed by his son. I feel the old formula of "superiors are always nuts" is a bit tired.

A lot more could have been done with the subject matter of "Cadence." Unfortunately, it wasn't. Four out of Ten.

[WARNING: May Contain Spoilers.]

If you've ever had a favorite athlete in whatever sport, you've probably noticed that you never tire of his or her remarkable mastery of their sport. Whether its a figure skater, running back, or basketball player, the jumps, runs, and dunks never get old. Alas, the same is not true for the storyteller.

Repetition in story telling is a death knell. I'm very familiar with the Star Wars universe as a setting. I don't have a problem with that. Once you create a fictional universe, you must operate within the confines of your creation to tell other stories which reside in that universe. However, you don't have to tell the same story with different characters.

I was absolutely shocked to see young Skywalker blowing up the Trade Federation ship by destroying its power supply with a lucky shot from the inside. Echoes of the past passed through my mind. "Luke, what's wrong, you turned off your targeting computer?" See my point? Well, at least Anakin had the help of a friendly droid named, R2D2. Oh yeah, so did Luke. Good lord George, is the force with the cute little droids too? Do they have little midichlorians running around in their non cells?

Did you also notice that in The Phantom Menace we have a young royal in trouble. I think I've seen that one before with Princess Leia. Well this time it is Queen Amidalia, approximately the same age as Leia was in Star Wars IV. I also found it odd that Queen Amidalia was the elected leader of Naboo. A seventeen year old elected queen? Hmmmm. This just doesn't make sense. Who elected her?

The absolute worst aspect of this film is with Anakin himself. Acting is a serious profession. I've never seen an eight or nine year old pull it off with any sense of believability. To be sure, the script doomed Anakin even further. The attack on the Droid control ship contains three separate instances within ten minutes in which Anakin's lines include an elongated, "Ooooops." This is both sloppy writing and horrendous editing. It doesn't get much better though. When the ship spins or rocks, Lucas gives us a comic shot of Anakin yelling, "whoooooaaa." Once might be forgiven, but he does it again and again.

Don't ask me how Anakin penetrates the shield. This is never explained. To be sure, the grown up pilots couldn't do it.

There are good points to this movie, however. Ewan McGregor did an outstanding job mastering the accent and mannerisms of Alec Guinnes' Obi Wan Kenobi. In addition, Liam Neeson delivers well as the individualistic and somewhat weary defender of the universe, Qui Gon Jinn.

In addition, I thought the supporting cast performed well. Although, they had limited roles, Terrence Stamp as Chancellor Valorum and Hugh Quarshie as Captain Panaka performed exceptionally well. I feel that Panaka will be back in the next installment. In fact, I'll bet he becomes Boba Fett. Ian McDiarmid is probably the most memorable of all of the supporting roles. He plays Palpatine remarkably.

And finally, the shining triumph of the film; the swashbuckling at the climax. Simply, it is the finest sword fight scene ever to make it to the screen. Darth Maul was played to perfection through facial expressions. How unique to give life to a character without lines. Bottom line is that it worked. Ray Park is not a physically imposing fellow. Darth Maul was. Unfortunately, three different action sequences are occurring during the Sith v. Jedi action, and Lucas constantly cuts from the gem of the movie, to show Gungans and Anakin accidentally blast their separate ways to victory.

In the end, this installment falls far short of being a good film. The genre is quickly becoming the self fulfilling prophecy that Lucas told us it always was, a 'Saturday Serial.' I guess I'm feeling generous. 5 out of 10.

[Warning: May Contain Spoilers.]

This film depicts the lives of a few soldiers, both officers and enlisted men into the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

The tale is told from the perspective of British soldiers trained in the art of warfare, yet unfamiliar in the art of diplomatic do-nothing. This is evidenced best in the scene in which a Geneva based technocrat scolds a professional soldier when his column is halted by Serb forces. "Oh yes, you're the British Army, you just want to blast your way through." Of course he's right because that is exactly what they want to do, but they can't. It turns out that their U.N. mandate is to not take sides, simply observe, and help when they can.

However, they can't help people to safety using their vehicles. This would equal ethnic cleansing and is of course beyond their mandate. Simply, they have to leave people to die. To do otherwise would leave the Serbs, Croats, and/or Bosnians to use the U.N. as some sort of bus service to rid regions of certain ethnic groups.

While this may be coldly logical, it is also somewhat mad. And there lies the paradox. By not allowing innocents to escape, these soldiers consign them to death.

The good consciences of the soldiers are not left unaffected. After witnessing so much carnage, they go back to England suffering from P.T.S.D. They are patted on the back for a job well done by a populace uninformed on just how bad the situation is back in the republics formerly known as Yugoslavia.

This movie left me with a feeling of disgust. I was disgusted by the cowardice of the U.N., the imbecility of the government of the United Kingdom for sending warriors to do a job "not suited for a dog," and I was also disgusted by the wanton killing carried out by the Serbs.

Often, film-makers attempt to arouse the emotions of the viewer. This was successfully done here. I had a few problems with the continuity of the film, but I give it a hearty 7 out of 10.