Change Your Image
nicardo
Reviews
Seinfeld (1989)
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
The fact that people who claim to hate the show and say they
never found it funny have to post messages about it shows how
much of an important impact the series continues to have. Please.
I think they doth protest too much. It's just an opinion that will
always remain in the minority. I guess they'll never get it, but the
characters being so shallow and absurdly selfish, doing such
ridiculous things was the whole point! The concept was not really
new and fresh, but was executed with such abandon that the
approach has been blatantly copied by countless other sitcoms for
the past 12 years. I don't think you make #1 in TV Guide's Greatest
Shows of All Time simply by being "over-rated." I remember all the
furor when the final episode aired. Like it, don't like it, no need to
get your panties in a bunch. Like a wise person once said, "Hey,
it's just TV."
Jerry Seinfeld "a loser"? Well, if you could created the number one
TV show of all time based on your life, and made about a billion
dollars in the process, some little dorks online calling you "a
loser" would probably mean less than nothing.
What Women Want (2000)
Cut some slack
I can't believe that I have to tell you to go see this movie because of Mel and Helen. Their past work should be enough to get you in the seat. No, this isn't a milestone in film. No, this isn't a grand statement on the Mars/Venus theory. Good grief, it's escapist fantasy. Man reads women's minds, hilarity ensues. Women want Mel, men want Helen, end of story. All I expect from a movie is to get my money's worth. My view is that I did. I actually went to see Helen and Tom, but it was sold out and I saw Helen and Mel instead. (I always still think of Helen and Paul) I was much more satisfied that when I saw Helen and Kevin, but not as much as when I saw Helen and Jack. No awards will be won here, but that's not my problem. Those who wish to argue some battle of the sexes point, or bring up Freud, need to get a grip and a life. Movie, people. Just a movie. The deepest thought that occurred to me during the two hours was something about why men and women are such a mystery to each other. If you want to know something, ask. End of mystery? Ha. We are hard wired differently, so we think differently. I guess that's bad, and it's also good. Viva la difference, I suppose.
Shanghai Noon (2000)
Tai'm Travel
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of Shanghai Noon
I liked this movie. It is entertaining. It will make you laugh. It does not matter that it is a remake, of sorts, of `Rush Hour,' another Jackie Chan movie from two years ago. Instead of the annoying Chris Tucker, Jackie is paired with Owen Wilson, and the story is set in `The Olde West.' You got cowboys and Indians, robbers and sheriffs, physical comedy, and predictable plot lines, misadventures, and lots of humor and craziness. Everything you could want. Compared to MI2, this is a work of art. I would have to list it with Blazing Saddles, Little Big Man, and Cat Ballou as far as having fun watching a western. You might feel that way too, when you see a saloon brawl fought to the music of ZZ Top.
Let's see... Next time Jackie will play an Imperial Guard who travels to Rome in 87 A.D. on an impossible mission to rescue a kidnapped princess, and becomes a gladiator, fighting his way out of the coliseum, and through the matrix of time, back to the present to make many more enjoyable movies, which is, the main thing.Comments and e-mail welcome.
Shaft (2000)
30 years later...
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of Shaft
Samuel L. Jackson. Good Grief. If ever there was a role that an actor was born to play, Shaft is Jackson's. I don't think it will limit his career or anything, or that he's peaked, but he sure makes it look easy. He wears this movie like his fine set of threads.
Since the cool, no-nonsense attitude is timeless and always in style, they only had to update the character's wardrobe for the current decade. It's just as important as the costumes of Batman, Superman, Maximus, or any of the impending X-Men. The Detective John Shaft of the 70's has been reincarnated for the present. No wide bell bottoms, wide lapels, wide ties, or wide hairstyles. He still has his trademark turtlenecks and black leather coat, only these days he has a $5000 three quarter length Armani version on his six foot-two inch frame, topped with an Isaac Hayes-esque shaved head, fashionable facial hair, and 24/7 shades. `Dressed to kill' has never been more chic. The theme song has been re-recorded by `Chef' Hayes, as well.
He has the look and the attitude pulled together. Now all he needs is a script that's just as tight. This one sags here and there and could benefit from a few alterations, mostly in the police department. The obligatory crooked cops appear as screw-ups, or misfits. They're about as dangerous to the steely eyed Shaft as a windy day. We get Vanessa L. Williams also on the force. Since when is it Vanessa `L.'? Actually, there's another Vanessa Williams, the same age, and both started working in 1987, but the other one registered her name with the Screen Actors Guild first, and Vanessa L. must have just heard about it. I didn't know. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I cannot see why she should keep making movies. They just needed a pretty face, not an actor. Maybe it was her costumes, but her body seems to be encroaching on Delta Burke territory. She's not given much to do, but that's about all she can handle, I think. (I wasn't impressed with her work in `Eraser' either.) She isn't really a love interest, either. She just serves as someone to hit on. `No one understands him but his woman.' Was that her? It wasn't clear. There's also the Captain and another cop whose roles are just written and performed without adding a great deal to the whole. Alterations, please!
Since we talkin' bout Shaft, we have to have not one, but two bad guys. That was cool. One you hate, (Christian Bale, as a racist murderer) and one you can't take your eyes off (Jeffrey Wright, as a drug lord). I read a newspaper story about Wright where they praised him for getting the accent right, and actually having the proper mannerisms! Well, he's an ACTOR. They can do these kinds of things. He's good at it. His performance adds a lot to the film. He previously played Jean Michel Basquiat in a 1996 film about the doomed artist. He's also done another dozen movies, but I know you will see much more of him in the future. He'll be in the next Stallone movie. Good addition. Nice fit.
It is not without its flaws, and it could have been better, but if you like Samuel L. (and/or Vanessa L.) and lots of guns and violence, there are worse ways to spend a few bucks and a couple of hours. Expect another Shaft movie, too. I don't know if it will be titled Shaft 2, or Shaft 3, Shaft Takes Manhattan, or John L. Shaft, but this one made $42M in two weeks, so the next one is certainly in the works. To the producers, that's the main thing. Comments and e-mail welcome.
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
Tommy's Next Big Paycheck
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of Mission: Impossible-2
The most impossible mission in Hollywood, if you choose to accept it, is very clear. There seems to be no way, even spending many millions of dollars, to create an action/adventure movie that is actually believable. Can't seem to be done. I know movies are fiction, but how come when they push that envelope, it ends up bursting at the seams? Do they think we won't go see it unless it's a comic book on celluloid? Super-humans with powers far above those of mortal men battle brains and brawn for the safety of mankind. Give me a break.
One of the things you have to admire about the old TV series was that no matter how difficult the situation or how impossible the odds, the IM Force always stayed within the bounds of reason. They used brains, skill and luck to accomplish their goal, often with last second timing, but they never caused this viewer to remark, `Uh, yeah, right...'
This movie not only provokes such comments, it seems to encourage them. `You think that was impossible? Watch this!' Scene after scene we get subjected to things that would not and could not ever happen. Who asked them to take the title so literally??? Yeah, it's escapism. Just suspend your disbelief and sit back and `enjoy' if you can.
Tom Cruise, actor/producer had to make a sequel to the confusing previous effort because it made more money than any movie he's ever done. He must have been in a hurry, too. He replays Ethan Hunt the super spy, and master of disguise, and master of weapons, and hand-to-hand combat, and computers, and motorcycles, and mountain-climbing, and master figuring out everything the bad guy is going to do before he does it.
The team? He only needs a couple of guys in the background (Ving Rhames and John Polson) and one female to serve as bait (Thandie Newton) in order to thwart the plans of a vicious ex-agent (Dougray Scott) his right hand man (Richard Roxburgh), and AN ARMY of henchmen. Newton's character is also the ex-girlfriend of the bad guy. Clever, huh? (yawn) She's some kind of professional thief. Just perfect for a save-the-world-type mission, huh? Since Ethan doesn't get out much, and most of the women he meets end up dead before the last reel, he quickly falls in LOVE with Nyah (Newton). Maybe because it's rated PG-13, but does this falling in love so quickly bother anybody besides me? I saw the same thing happen in `The World is Not Enough,' where Pierce Brosnan fell for Sophie Marceau in a matter of minutes. Then later, he falls for Denise Richards in a matter of seconds. Lust? Okay. Happily Ever After? Please...
If you want senseless, pointless, violent, comic book style action, then this is your cup of TNT. Cruise joins Arnold and Bruce in the realm of action, noise and indestructibility, seeking only big box office totals, rather than excellent, intelligent, admirable film-making. Just as long as you know what you're in for. That's the main thing. Comments and e-mail welcome.
The Big Kahuna (1999)
3 White Guys Sittin Around Talkin
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of The Big Kahuna
"Every young man would do well to remember that all successful business stands on the foundation of morality." --Henry Ward Beecher (1813-87)
You should soon realize when watching The Big Kahuna that you are seeing theater on film. If not, then you have probably never seen a stage production in your life. It is a one-set, three character play in two acts. The story is not a huge one. If the characters go through any big changes, we don't really see them, but, what we do see is a series of conversations. In them we that we learn what these three guys are doing there, and how they feel about things such as work, marriage, dealing with people, human character, truth, and God. Boring, you say? I have to disagree.
It is often possible to sum up the plot of a movie in a single sentence. While it may be truthful, it may not do the story justice. `Marketing reps wait in a hospitality suite during a convention in Wichita seeking to do business with their biggest potential client ever.' Sounds exciting, huh? What could possibly make you want to see this? Mostly the fact that Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito are in it. What could possibly make them want to do this? Nothing more than the opportunity to perform the aforementioned conversations. They both have major credentials in taking on the roles of a salesman and businessmen (Other Peoples Money, Tin Men, Swimming With Sharks). We get to see them do what they do best, with minimal directing and camera tricks.
As the president of a manufacturing company in the Midwest, they want to be `El Kahuna Grande's' supplier of industrial lubricants. It's the account of a lifetime. This is their only objective. Phil and Larry have been on the road for years. Bob (Peter Facinelli) is six months out of school, six months with the company, and six months married. He's only there to represent research and development and to learn. As they teach him what they can, the movie unfolds. Trouble is, Bob thinks talking about Christ is more important, which it is, but after all, this is a business convention. Nobody says don't talk about Jesus, just remember to get some work done.
Scenes with well written dialogue and monologues are hard to find in screenplays these days, I guess. This movie is all talking. It's an acting challenge to hold the audience with not much more than words. The kind of challenge found mostly on stage rather than screen. Some actors can do both. DeVito has the more sympathetic role. Older, recently divorced, and tired of the road, he questions continuing in the business, and wonders about the bigger things. He is wonderful as the patient, encouraging, and understanding guy. Spacey has the blunt, sardonic, fast-talking, self-confident, aggressive type of guy down pat. He also has true moments of sincere concern and honesty. It's too bad that everything he does from now on will be compared to American Beauty. Now they expect to see `Lester Burnham' every time out, and when they don't, then `it shouldn't have been made.' If this movie had unknown actors, and opened at Sundance, it would be hailed as `a wonderful small film.' It's not really a comedy, yet there should be room enough for everything, right? It's something different. Not the action, romance, thriller, sci-fi, or gross-out slapstick playing next door. That is a good thing, if not the main thing.
Center Stage (2000)
Shut up and dance
Every now and then there's a new movie about dancers, or dancing, or one with a lot of dancing in it. From Astaire to Kelly to Hines, it's the poetry of motion. If you have any appreciation for the art form whatsoever, the one to see right now is Center Stage. It's about a school year in the life of three teenage girls who are roommates at a ballet academy in New York. They pass the auditions to get into the school, but then have to work as hard as possible to move on from there. At the end of the year is a workshop performance where they can be seen by most of the people in the industry who could hire them, including the resident company. They work toward and hope for a career in the most demanding pursuit imaginable, facing gifted competition, and placed on a limited schedule. "A dancer has ten years, maybe fifteen if they're not injured" in order to peak in their career and be the best they can ever be. A singer can sing most of their life. An actor can act all his life. A dancer's clock is ticking. It's only a matter of time before they can only teach and choreograph, so there's a unique sense of urgency to start young, study hard, and survive. All that might make a good movie. Might not.
Along with the good, you have to take the less than good. The characters are nothing new. There's the naive female ingénue (Amanda Schull), the bad girl (Zoe Saldana), the favorite girl (Susan May Pratt), the cocky lead boy (Ethan Stiefel, "hailed as the most advanced male dancer in the world"), the nice guy dancer (Sascha Radetsky), the nice guy non-dancer (Eion Bailey), the gay friend (Shakiem Evans), the pushy mother (Debra Monk), the demanding teacher (Donna Murphy), and the dictatorial company director (Peter Gallagher). How'd he get in there? There's even a Russian figure skater (Ilia Kulik) in the cast as a dancer. By the way, everybody is amazingly good-looking. Kind of like, Friends as done by George Ballanchine. Only in the movies, right? The story is nothing new either. Will everything work out? Will their dreams come true? Will they survive the heartbreaks of love, and the bodyaches of dance? Well, it's the movies, isn't it? Since the cast features some of the youngest and best dancers in the world, the acting comes second. Often a distant second. Or third. Don't expect any awards to be handed out in that area. Some parts are surprisingly weak, but then they move on and get back to letting their feet do the talking.
Did I mention that the only reason to see this is for the dancing? The way it's filmed here is excellent, without actually having to go to a ballet. The beauty of movement, the grace of the girls, and the strength and skill of the boys is captured as well as any other movie in the subject you're likely to see. The big dance numbers at the end are worth seeing by themselves, including more modern styles. Beforehand, there are a couple of dance scenes without ballet. The kids go to a club one night and salsa, and later we see a bunch of Broadway hoofers in a jazz class lead by Priscilla Lopez (original cast of A Chorus Line) that reminded me of scenes in All That Jazz. Those were the most fun. Other scenes will remind you of The Turning Point, White Nights, and even Dirty Dancing. The comparison to Fame is inevitable. That was then, this is a new century. The natural talent, dedication, motivation, support, and ass-busting hard work needed to succeed at this kind of life is touched on here, but also touched on is the sheer love of the game. For dance itself. That's the main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
Gladiator (2000)
As the Crowe Flies
Okay, I haven't seen a gladiator movie in a long time, but, I thought they were all rather simplistic. Sword and sandals epics, they're called. Togas and tigers. Chariots and fire. Arenas and amphitheaters. Columns and colosseums. The new movie, Gladiator, is chance to see all that stuff. That was about what I expected. Not a day at the beach.
You have to remember the genre. The filming expenses became greater than the box office totals, so, they haven't made this kind of movie in almost 40 years. The subject matter is violence. Got that? A gladiator fights to the death. Therefore, the main course here is bloody, hand-to-hand combat, served with war, duty, ambition, murder, injustice, betrayal, and revenge, with small side orders of politics and philosophy. And for dessert, more blood and death. A friendly word of advice? Don't sit in the first two rows. By today's standards, it has to come out different than what's been done before. It comes out dark, somber, dour, gloomy, and computer-generated. Yeah, I really miss those light-hearted films about ancient Romans and barbarians, too, but what do you think it was really like? I know I wouldn't want to live back then. Neither would Kirk Douglas, Charleton Heston, nor the late Victor Mature, nor the late Steve Reeves, I'm guessing.
This movie is getting mixed reviews. I suppose it could have been better in some ways, but that really depends on what you're looking for. It's a tragedy, not `the feel good movie of the summer.' Do some people just not get that? This may be the reason for the conflicting opinions. It doesn't matter if you know the story ahead of time. Just don't expect to be uplifted and spiritually renewed. All I expected was good acting and some entertainment value. I spent $4.50 at a 1:30 p.m. matinee, and can say I was entertained at times, and certainly didn't feel it was a waste of time and money. Not at all. The ones who get short-changed are women. Their roles in these kinds of movies are nearly always dumb. No exception here.
Russell Crowe is always good. He is the movie. If I didn't know any better, I could have sworn that at times he sounded exactly like Mel Gibson, especially in a rare split second when a line of dialogue was delivered with his back is to the camera. Must be the Aussie influence. His committment to his work, both physically and mentally, is amazing to watch. We have far too few, and can never have too many actors like that. Somebody said they'd pay money to watch him stand around and drink beer. What greater compliment is there?
Somebody has to play the bad guy. Joaquin Phoenix has the perfect look for the part, and seems committed, but ends up looking like he's in over his head. Okay, he got this acting job to do a movie with none other than Crowe, Oliver Reed and Richard Harris. That might be a bit intimidating, no? It would be hard for most of us not to look like we suck sharing the screen with those guys. It's a part for a young Roddy McDowall type, and Phoenix did provided the insipid total psychopath needed, but nobody in this movie was even allowed to have any fun.
The late Oliver Reed's farewell performance was excellent. I loved him in the Musketeers movies of the 70's, and was glad to see him working until the end. That's one way to go, isn't it?
I thought the special effects were rather seamless, though some of the landscapes do look like gorgeous computer paintings. Though no doubt it makes Rome look better than it was, I thought it strange that I never saw an aqueduct, nor any sunshine. I couldn't tell that England wasn't Germania, and Malta, where a lot of this was shot, is really one awesome-looking place. As far as the action, I noticed from the first battle scene that they had so many fast cuts and too-close close-ups, and so much shaky camera crap that it was mission impossible to actually follow what was happening physical-action-wise from moment to moment. That bothered me, but I doubt they wanted to be too graphic too soon, and figured they first wanted to give a basic feel for the violence, rather than glory in the bloody details. Maybe it was a ratings thing, too. It wasn't quite as guarded later on, though still sometimes challenging to watch.
This a must-see, even if it's just to make up your own mind about the highest-grossing movie of its opening weekend. You can decide for yourself. That's the main thing. e-mail and comments welcome.
Center Stage (2000)
Shut up and dance
Every now and then there's a new movie about dancers, or dancing, or one with a lot of dancing in it. From Astaire to Kelly to Hines, it's the poetry of motion. If you have any appreciation for the art form whatsoever, the one to see right now is Center Stage. It's about a school year in the life of three teenage girls who are roommates at a ballet academy in New York. They pass the auditions to get into the school, but then have to work as hard as possible to move on from there. At the end of the year is a workshop performance where they can be seen by most of the people in the industry who could hire them, including the resident company. They work toward and hope for a career in the most demanding pursuit imaginable, facing gifted competition, and placed on a limited schedule. "A dancer has ten years, maybe fifteen if they're not injured" in order to peak in their career and be the best they can ever be. A singer can sing most of their life. An actor can act all his life. A dancer's clock is ticking. It's only a matter of time before they can only teach and choreograph, so there's a unique sense of urgency to start young, study hard, and survive. All that might make a good movie. Might not.
Along with the good, you have to take the less than good. The characters are nothing new. There's the naive female ingénue (Amanda Schull), the bad girl (Zoe Saldana), the favorite girl (Susan May Pratt), the cocky lead boy (Ethan Stiefel, "hailed as the most advanced male dancer in the world"), the nice guy dancer (Sascha Radetsky), the nice guy non-dancer (Eion Bailey), the gay friend (Shakiem Evans), the pushy mother (Debra Monk), the demanding teacher (Donna Murphy), and the dictatorial company director (Peter Gallagher). How'd he get in there? There's even a Russian figure skater (Ilia Kulik) in the cast as a dancer. By the way, everybody is amazingly good-looking. Kind of like, Friends as done by George Ballanchine. Only in the movies, right? The story is nothing new either. Will everything work out? Will their dreams come true? Will they survive the heartbreaks of love, and the bodyaches of dance? Well, it's the movies, isn't it? Since the cast features some of the youngest and best dancers in the world, the acting comes second. Often a distant second. Or third. Don't expect any awards to be handed out in that area. Some parts are surprisingly weak, but then they move on and get back to letting their feet do the talking.
Did I mention that the only reason to see this is for the dancing? The way it's filmed here is excellent, without actually having to go to a ballet. The beauty of movement, the grace of the girls, and the strength and skill of the boys is captured as well as any other movie in the subject you're likely to see. The big dance numbers at the end are worth seeing by themselves, including more modern styles. Beforehand, there are a couple of dance scenes without ballet. The kids go to a club one night and salsa, and later we see a bunch of Broadway hoofers in a jazz class lead by Priscilla Lopez (original cast of A Chorus Line) that reminded me of scenes in All That Jazz. Those were the most fun. Other scenes will remind you of The Turning Point, White Nights, and even Dirty Dancing. The comparison to Fame is inevitable. That was then, this is a new century. The natural talent, dedication, motivation, support, and ass-busting hard work needed to succeed at this kind of life is touched on here, but also touched on is the sheer love of the game. For dance itself. That's the main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
Small Time Crooks (2000)
Small time my a**
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of Small Time Crooks
"What I was going for was a funny movie. Although I guess you could say if there's a theme to the film, it might be 'be careful what you wish for." -- Woody Allen
Woody Allen is one of America's best, most original, and prolific masters of comedy. You have to go back to Chaplin and Keaton to find another film maker who's in such total control of his work. He writes, directs, and acts with such skill and success that he has no equal today. It's hard to find anybody who doesn't have an opinion on him. People either think he's hilarious, or just not funny, or that he's (shudder) not as funny as he used to be. To each his own. The guy's still an enigmatic genius. One of the most revered and most imitated film makers of any generation. He may or may not be past his prime, but on his worst days, he's still better than most.
Small Time Crooks' is no masterpiece, if that's what you're looking for, but a gentle, amusing farce, complete with laughs, and more of Woody performing his film persona as only he can. If I compared it to all his previous work, I'd end up telling you what it's not. Let me tell you what it is, or at least what I thought I saw. I saw shades of the younger Woody (he's 64 now, okay?) surrounded by newer people trying to entertain in a light and silly story that has a twist, or turn.
Ray `The Brain' Winkler (The Wood Man), is an ex-con dishwasher with a scheme to rob a bank. Frenchy (Tracey Ullman, who was born to do this kind of thing), is his manicurist wife who also bakes cookies. He talks her into sinking their life savings into a plan he's devised with his buddies (Michael Rapaport, Jon Lovitz, and Tony Darrow). Frenchy's cousin May (the legendary Elaine May), becomes involved, and serves as the family's weak link. Usually, you expect that Allen's characters only success to be at failure. Expected him and his dim-witted gang to botch the robbery somehow. Maybe not so quickly. I expected them to... I don't know, not become rich and learn that they're better off that way. But Allen, in his unique way, asks the questions, `What if they got what they wished for? What would they do? What might become of them?' Some people should not be rich. They just aren't cut out to have wealth. Frenchy enlists the aid of David (Hugh Grant), a snobbish art dealer, to help her become cultured and refined, hence, the conflict and comedy. With all that talent involved, expectations run pretty high.
There are some funny moments, some clever dialogue, and some reminders of scenes past, but this is not the best Woody Allen movie ever. It lacks a certain overall `oomph.' Not a lot of big laughs. The gang of crooks disappear in the middle, Elaine May has very little to do, and it never really turns wacky, zany, dangerous, outrageous, or totally hilarious. It becomes centered on Ray and Frenchy's relationship, and settles into a sentimental look at the couple. We're supposed to think that money is a real threat to their marriage, I guess. Allen and Ullman have great chemistry, and that's sweet, but it seems like it could have been put to better use. I'm not saying don't go see the movie. Just don't expect to be blown away by Woody's finest effort in years. We still have him, though. After 47 years in the comedy profession, he starts at least one new original project every fall. He's still at it, writing, directing, and acting. That's the main thing. Believe me. E-mail and comments are welcome.
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Ride that vehicle, girl.
This is another movie for all the really big Julia Roberts fans. Hey, I like her as much as the next guy. She's easy on the eyes, and never plays dumb. Girls like her, guys like her, and so do parents. Seems like she hasn't got an enemy in the world. We love her. We root for her. We're on her side. We have to get our Julia fix three or four times every twelve months to get through our movie-watching year. Everything you could want in one of her pictures is played for all it's worth in Erin Brockovich. It's the kind of movie that defines the term `star vehicle.' Not only is she the main character, but she's in every single scene, and everybody else is just there to make her look good. This is the way to market your star-power and rake it in at the box office... again.
It's based on a true story, if you haven't heard, and is about a plucky, twice divorced, mother of three, who dresses like a hooker, but manages to talk her way into a job working for a lawyer, played perfectly by Albert Finney. I guess she figures all women would dress slutty if they looked as good as she does. At work, she finds out there's more to one of his neglected pro bono cases than first thought, and they eventually file suit against a big California power company for poisoning the water in a rural community with hexevalent chromium and trying to get away with it. With no law degree or training, she works very hard and uses her `charms' ("They're called boobs, Ed.") and `people skills' to fight for what's right. She's bitchy to almost everybody (`Bite me, Krispy Kreme!') except the people of the town, to whom she's as sweet as can be. George, played admirably by Aaron Eckhart, is her only romantic interest (next door neighbor/babysitter/biker dude boyfriend) who gets the good and bad of both sides of her personality. The real Erin B. has a cameo role as a waitress.
There's talk about Julia being considered for another Academy Award nomination because of this movie. I don't know, that's a possibility, but I'd rather see her actually win an Oscar in a more complete film. I'm sure she has her pick of scripts. I'd like to someday see her in a gritty human drama where she doesn't care what she looks like and just acts her buns off. I think she can do it. The director, Steven Soderberg, concentrated so much on keeping the camera on her and the wardrobe, that something about the rest of it didn't hold up. I wonder which is better, getting a 20 million dollar paycheck for one movie, or getting an Oscar. That's something most of us will never know. I did enjoy much of the movie, maybe a little more than when I saw her play herself in Notting Hill. I never felt it was a waste of time or money. And I did get my Julia fix, and that's the main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
Frequency (2000)
Ten-four, Daddio.
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Frequency review
I have avoided seeing this until today because Dennis Quaid hasn't made a good movie since Enemy Mine (1985). Is it just script choices, dumb luck, or is it who you know? Haven't seen all his movies, but, out of the 24 he's made since then, I saw eight. Anyway, you pretty much know what to expect. He's not exactly a chameleon, the camera really likes him, and he's a working movie actor with a genuine career, though I haven't quite been able to figure out exactly why. I would never ever pay to watch him stand around drinking beer, like I would Russell Crowe or Gary Oldman, but I have to admit that sometimes he comes through. Frequency is one of his times. Even as the plot turns to Swiss cheese, at least the actors believe it and give solid performances. You can always count on Quaid if the part calls for a grown man who never grew up. He plays a loving father and husband, a hard-working fireman in Queens, NY, and `a big kid.'
The story is tricky, to say the least. There must have been a Twilight Zone episode similar to it. Though the movie doesn't start there, the first thing to accept, is that a young homicide detective, John Sullivan (James Caviezel), has lived in the same house for all 36 years of his life. Mom moved out, but, he's still there. Okay. Second, because of abnormal atmospheric conditions in October 1969 and October 1999, radio signals get bounced all over outer space, and John starts talking to his own father (Quaid) on the same ham radio set reaching 30 years into the past - just days before fire-fighter Dad dies in the line of duty. All right. They share information that changes the past, present and future. Of course, everybody knows that when you do that sort of thing bad things happen, too. So, you have to fix the mess you created. If you change one thing in the past, all the possible futures change, too. Don't think too hard about it, or you'll get a headache. You just have to watch the movie and not ask too many questions, especially in the last 30 minutes. They end up trying to stop a serial killer and trying to keep the family together. Dad is in danger. Mom's in danger. Nurses are in danger. Hey, mom's a nurse! Everybody's in trouble but the killer. He just keeps at it, whoever he is.
Besides fire-fighters, the rest of the characters are cops, neighbors, and best friends, and everybody really loves baseball. That was back when it was still a game, the Mets won the World Series, and soccer moms hadn't been invented yet. We played baseball every chance we got. It unified us. It was so American, and our love for it was passionate, innocent and pure. That's another thing they make movies about.
The heart of the story, besides what we'd do if we had a magic ham radio, is the relationship between a father and son. The male bonding that never happened before happens on the radio and we feel their closeness. The value of family is the main message. What if your father died when you were six years old, but as an adult, you could ignore time and call him on the phone back when he was alive? I guess we've all had dreams of going back into the past somewhere, sometime, somehow. I know I have. Ever since before the days of H.G.Wells we've liked stories about people who cheat time because we never will. What's the best reason to do it? No, not baseball. Family. Most of us have families. Don't we want everybody's family to be happy? The script keeps the family as the most important thing. The nearest and dearest thing. The main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
The Bottom Line
What kind of movie-goer am I? I'll tell you. I go to the bargain matinee. Saturday Night Live better do a sketch about this movie. It's already reached cult status.
Anyway, I'm the kind of movie-goer who decides, in that moment when getting up out of my seat at the end, after watching for the ENTIRE 82 minutes, whether or not I got my money's worth.
I had visited the movie's official web site beforehand. I even heard word-of-mouth about the flick from people who had seen the Sci-Fi Channel's coverage on it. I knew it wasn't true. I knew that this movie created a buzz at Sundance, and in movie circles in print and online. I realize that these neophyte filmakers wanted to produce a successful movie. I don't know if they actually think this work is any more than performance art, or if they think it's a milestone in cinematic expression. By any standards, one that puts the asses in the seats to the tune of over $36M in less than a week of its nationwide release, especially when it cost only $25K or $60K to make, (depending on what article is correct) qualifies it as a HUGE success. I only wish that it had been a better movie. I can't help but feel I've been taken by the gimmick. The hype is rarely ever matched by the product, is it? It wasn't supposed to be a real movie was it? Just "documentary footage" that was found and put together. That would cover a multitude of cinematic sins, wouldn't it? Doesn't hurt to cover your bases, does it? It could even be bad, huh?
Ingenious as it is, the marketing of this production-on-a-shoestring delivers a first effort that left me unsatisfied. I agree that there were a few great moments that were genuinely creepy, but they were separated by far too much tedious repetition included for the sake of "realism." The fighting, yelling, and screaming at each other came quite quickly, it seems, for a movie that went so slowly. After only a couple days in the woods they mentally "fell apart." The "improvised acting" suffered a bit there. The things that went bump in the night promised something more that never came. The distant unknown sounds and voices were as scary as it got, and could have led to something else, but never really did, beyond the blurry images inside the house, maybe. The ending was actually a relief. It finally put an end to the crying, the yelling, the shaking camera, and the almost endless asking, "What was that??!!!" We never do find out, and have to figure it must've been the wicked witch of Blair. It WAS something. Right? I have to laugh at the people who say they're the only one who "got" the movie. Many people are reading things into this movie's ending, but if it makes you feel better...
You can discuss whether or not the actors are hotties, thanks to the previous "Scream" and "...Last Summer" movies, and talk about the ticket sales and statistics, but why not talk about what makes some movies really good, others really great, and some a waste of time. I can't say this one was a waste. You should see what the fuss and hype is all about, but don't expect a classic. There are people risking fortunes every day who think they know what would make a good movie. These particular guys accomplished something imaginative that will certainly be imitated. They tried to scare us without using a big bank roll, special effects, gore, monster costumes, puppets, guns, explosions, or gratuitous nudity, sex and violence. That alone is a novel idea. They used sticks and stones and sounds and darkness. I consider that an extremely brave approach when you're aiming at the cynical, computer-literate, self-absorbed, seen-it-all, mostly 17-34 year old, MTV Generation movie audience member who just forked over $4.25 to $9.00 per person and said, "Okay, now scare me."
Hey, if I could make a better movie I would. I'm only speaking from an actor's perspective, and as a person who likes movies. They're the ones who had the guts to turn a few good ideas into millions at the box office, not me.
I'm the kind of movie-goer who is hopeful. Since Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick will have a bigger budget to work with on their next project, which they claim will be a wacky comedy, I hope that it will do a much better job at making me laugh than The Blair Witch Project did at scaring me. It would be nice to get my money's worth. I wonder if they need any more unknown actors...
Wait a minute... did you hear something? What was that???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gladiator (2000)
As the Crowe Flies
Okay, I haven't seen a gladiator movie in a long time, but, I thought they were all rather simplistic. Sword and sandals epics, they're called. Togas and tigers. Chariots and fire. Arenas and amphitheaters. Columns and colosseums. The new movie, Gladiator, is chance to see all that stuff. That was about what I expected. Not a day at the beach.
You have to remember the genre. The filming expenses became greater than the box office totals, so, they haven't made this kind of movie in almost 40 years. The subject matter is violence. Got that? A gladiator fights to the death. Therefore, the main course here is bloody, hand-to-hand combat, served with war, duty, ambition, murder, injustice, betrayal, and revenge, with small side orders of politics and philosophy. And for dessert, more blood and death. A friendly word of advice? Don't sit in the first two rows. By today's standards, it has to come out different than what's been done before. It comes out dark, somber, dour, gloomy, and computer-generated. Yeah, I really miss those light-hearted films about ancient Romans and barbarians, too, but what do you think it was really like? I know I wouldn't want to live back then. Neither would Kirk Douglas, Charleton Heston, nor the late Victor Mature, nor the late Steve Reeves, I'm guessing.
This movie is getting mixed reviews. I suppose it could have been better in some ways, but that really depends on what you're looking for. It's a tragedy, not `the feel good movie of the summer.' Do some people just not get that? This may be the reason for the conflicting opinions. It doesn't matter if you know the story ahead of time. Just don't expect to be uplifted and spiritually renewed. All I expected was good acting and some entertainment value. I spent $4.50 at a 1:30 p.m. matinee, and can say I was entertained at times, and certainly didn't feel it was a waste of time and money. Not at all. The ones who get short-changed are women. Their roles in these kinds of movies are nearly always dumb. No exception here.
Russell Crowe is always good. He is the movie. If I didn't know any better, I could have sworn that at times he sounded exactly like Mel Gibson, especially in a rare split second when a line of dialogue was delivered with his back is to the camera. Must be the Aussie influence. His committment to his work, both physically and mentally, is amazing to watch. We have far too few, and can never have too many actors like that. Somebody said they'd pay money to watch him stand around and drink beer. What greater compliment is there?
Somebody has to play the bad guy. Joaquin Phoenix has the perfect look for the part, and seems committed, but ends up looking like he's in over his head. Okay, he got this acting job to do a movie with none other than Crowe, Oliver Reed and Richard Harris. That might be a bit intimidating, no? It would be hard for most of us not to look like we suck sharing the screen with those guys. It's a part for a young Roddy McDowall type, and Phoenix did provided the insipid total psychopath needed, but nobody in this movie was even allowed to have any fun.
The late Oliver Reed's farewell performance was excellent. I loved him in the Musketeers movies of the 70's, and was glad to see him working until the end. That's one way to go, isn't it?
I thought the special effects were rather seamless, though some of the landscapes do look like gorgeous computer paintings. Though no doubt it makes Rome look better than it was, I thought it strange that I never saw an aqueduct, nor any sunshine. I couldn't tell that England wasn't Germania, and Malta, where a lot of this was shot, is really one awesome-looking place. As far as the action, I noticed from the first battle scene that they had so many fast cuts and too-close close-ups, and so much shaky camera crap that it was mission impossible to actually follow what was happening physical-action-wise from moment to moment. That bothered me, but I doubt they wanted to be too graphic too soon, and figured they first wanted to give a basic feel for the violence, rather than glory in the bloody details. Maybe it was a ratings thing, too. It wasn't quite as guarded later on, though still sometimes challenging to watch.
This a must-see, even if it's just to make up your own mind about the highest-grossing movie of its opening weekend. You can decide for yourself. That's the main thing. e-mail and comments welcome.
Keeping the Faith (2000)
Somebody's Fantasy
The previews and trailers try to make Keeping the Faith look like a "zany comedy." Thank goodness it's not. Some have made a joke about a priest, a rabbi, and a scientologist. Now, that's funny. The movie is a story about two guys and a girl who grew up together and then meet 15 years later as adults. One's a Catholic priest, (Edward Norton) another is a rabbi (Ben Stiller), and both still live in New York City. The girl (Jenna Elfman) is now a workaholic businesswoman in San Francisco who comes back on a temporary assignment, and looks up the boys to catch up, and renew their friendship. Apparently, all three were too busy with their careers to ever keep in touch after the 8th grade. The reunion sparks attraction, jealously, and the expected complications.
Stiller seems to have taken another break from doing the highly successful broad-stupid-gross-out-slapstick-comedy-thing, and chose a more gentle and intelligent choice for a script. This is the kind of light fluff that I didn't feel embarassed watching, though. There IS the occasional pratfall, and that robe catching on fire bit, but that's not the whole movie. Stiller has done a lot, TV comedy, romantic comedy, big screen drama, wacky gross-out stuff, and just oddball humor, all with varying degrees of success. His strong suit seems to be in the romantic comedy realm. A rabbi? I don't think so, but we accept it anyway.
Elfman is A-dor-a-ble. She's bound to be getting offered every script Meg Ryan turns down, but will henceforth be on the A-list. She just glows, and has such Dharma-like enthusiasm for life that I suspended my disbelief about her working in her kind of job enough to follow the story, which is really about these relationships. Even if you hate to love her, she's very watchable in this `shiksa' role. Good casting. I can't picture another actress in it.
Norton is very good, as well. You couldn't find an actor more suited to play an idealistic young Irish Catholic priest. The big surprise is that he also directed the movie. Who says you can't have it all? Instead of the story turning in outrageous directions, it actually keeps an even course and contains what seems like realistic, believable reactions, and intelligent writing. Another nice surprise.
So, go see it if you're in the mood for something light. These three main characters are so likable, as far as blondes and the clergy go, that I actually did care what happens to them. With supporting cast members like Anne Bancroft, Eli Wallach and Ron Rifkin, you know they're doing something amazingly right. It's no spoiler to mention that you DO expect the story to be obligated to follow the ancient formula of the boy meets girl, gets girl, loses girl, etc. premise, which does get stretched a bit, but it's forgivable. That's the main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
High Fidelity (2000)
Not a Comedy
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of High Fidelity
Do I watch movies because I'm miserable, or am I miserable because I watch movies?
At the beginning of High Fidelity, the main character poses the same question about his passion for music. `Do I listen to records because I'm miserable, or am I miserable because I listen to records?' he asks, but it's a rhetorical question. Since Rob Gordon (John Cusack) owns a vintage record store, he listens because he has to, it's what he does, it's part of him. He has no choice, really. Anyway, what he does is only the backdrop here. It's not really about his job. It's about a regular guy attempting to figure out if he wants to grow up and accept change and responsibility. Go see it if you want to see someone, who may be more screwed up than yourself trying to get a grip.
As far as we're concerned, what he should have asked was, `Do I get into relationships because I'm miserable, or am I miserable because I get into relationships?' That is actually what the rest of the story is about. His current live-in girlfriend is Laura (Iben Hjejle). She's gorgeous, smart and ambitious. Well, she just moved out, so he digs up memories of his personal top five break-ups of all time, and tries to figure out what the hell went wrong. That's right. Rather than focus just on his present relationship, he delves into the past and looks up these old girlfriends to find out where they are now in order to feel better about himself. Why do we care? Well, it's John Cusack. Isn't he good? And because Rob has a very big... record collection. He owns a record store. You'd go there, right? And because he's `hip.' How do we know? Well, he knows way more about records than you ever will. He loves records. He would like to have been a reporter for Rolling Stone magazine. He doesn't understand about love and commitment, but he listens to music.
When I saw it, I was distracted for a couple of hours, saw some decent acting here and there, but felt that if this movie were a song, they were singing at me, rather than to me. It's a situation where there was a good novel (by Nick Hornby) that had trouble being made into a good movie. Cusack is very talented. Even with all his romantic comedy film experience, I'm not sure that his helping to write the screenplay adaptation made it funnier. This is not really a comedy. That's okay, but I don't like to be mislead. There are a few funny scenes, only not enough of them. Like when Rob has a major confrontation with his rival for Laura's affections, Ian (Tim Robbins), he plays the scene several times in his head. We're not sure which scene is real until they end. That's the kind of quirky thing that works in a movie. The replay button in our mind that we wish we had in life. Since music groups, songs, albums, liner notes and lyrics are the most important things in their lives, Rob's two employees in the record shop (Jack Black and Todd Louiso) are either funny, cruel, pathetic, or all three, depending on the scene and your personal point of view. Lisa Bonet plays a local struggling night club singer and recording artist. It's a role that must have been more interesting when the story was set in London rather than Chicago. She's really just an object of Rob's lust.
Cusack spends a lot of time mulling things over and talking directly to the camera explaining to us his confusion. I can see where a book can be like that, but, I felt like he often held things up rather than moved them along. When exactly do we get caught up with the history lesson and get on with the story? So, what's the point? We just look at him suffer because she walked out and he doesn't know why. Well, it's obvious from the start. There are big questions every man has to face at some point in his life. Are you serious about your woman or what? Is she the one, or are you just spinning your wheels and using her? Who do you want, and what kind of person do you want to be? That's the main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
Return to Me (2000)
Cardio-Soap Heart to Heart
The Main Thing by nicardo@bigfoot.com Review of Return to Me
Was this movie even advertised? I was the only one at the 4:30 matinee. I caught it at a one-screen theater the week after it left the multi-plex cinema, and probably ten minutes before it goes to video, destined for the `New and Recommended Chick Flicks' shelf. That's a shame, because it's not a bad little `heart-centered' romantic drama, and deserves a bigger audience. Yes, it's rather maudlin, but, worth a look anyway.
Bob's wife, Elizabeth, passed away. Later on, he hesitantly starts dating. Thing is, the girl he likes, Grace, `has Bob's dead wife's heart' from the transplant. `What was God thinking?' Grace asks. Really. It's the kind of thing we know could probably happen these days.
David Duchovny plays Bob exactly the way he plays `Mulder' on The X-files, except that he's in construction and cries on his dog's shoulder after the tragedy. If he ever cried on TV, he'd have to come up with a second facial expression, which I don't think is in his contract.
Minnie Driver plays Grace very self-conscious because she's `had some work done.' She does want to live life to the fullest, but even has trouble finding the courage to mail a thank you note ...a year later. She's got the most supportive extended family in Chicago. They run an Irish-Italian restaurant where she waits tables. Carroll O'Connor, Robert Loggia, James Belushi, David Alan Grier, and Bonnie Hunt are among the supporting cast, and are the most fun to watch.
Bonnie Hunt, who I last saw play Tom Hanks' wife in The Green Mile, is the talent behind this project. She plays Grace's best friend, Megan, but she also co-wrote and directed the movie, and didn't even look that tired. She proves what Meryl Streep has said for years, that actresses in Hollywood should stop complaining about the lack of good women's roles and write their own scripts. I think it was Meryl who said that. When they do, the result will be less profit-oriented, and more of a personal story that doesn't rely on special effects, various weapons and car chases. It will also show other talented women that they can make movies, too. That's the main thing. E-mail and comments are welcome.
Meet Joe Black (1998)
Whattaya know, Joe?
This could have been a really good film if there had been some consistency with the character of Death. He is powerful and all-knowing when need be, and totally clueless the rest of the time. Death's work is to end every human life at their appointed time, but he has no idea what he's ending. So, for reasons unknown he has the time and ability to find out. Pitt is handsome and charming as a doomed young man in a coffee shop, and handsome, boring and charmless as Death. Hopkins can do great work even in a flawed film. Forlani is believable and beautiful, despite looking as though she is about to fall asleep every five to ten minutes. Not a good quality for a character in a nearly three hour movie. Harden and Tambor (both wonderful talents long before Larry Sanders existed) do some top-quality film work. The message seems to be that family is most important, lots and lots of money is really good, and that death and taxes are still inevitable. I think they also ask the cinematic question, "Just how long can we get away with keeping the camera focused on a well-groomed Brad Pitt in total silence?"
The Elephant Man (1980)
If You Like Movies About Humanity
I saw this film on video in the summer of 1985. Anthony Hopkins had done many things, mostly in Britain, but I remembered "The Bounty"(1984 with Mel Gibson) and "Peter and Paul"(1981 TV) and knew about "Magic" (1978) and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"(1982 TV). He was not yet a big star, but you'd never know it from his high calibre work. He gives one of his best performances of his distinguished career in "The Elephant Man," regardless of his later Oscar-winning roles.
David Lynch seemed to be making a movie about people, rather than just a strange story (as in almost everything else he's done before or since). Shooting it in black and white gave it both an odd feeling of authenticity, and a surreal artistic look. These are words and worlds Lynch is famous for.
The movie is based on the play by Bernard Pomerance, which remains one of the most moving pieces of genuine theater there has ever been. Since the story of John Merrick is mostly true, with some dramatic license added, of course, it affects us even more. We can't imagine having to live a life with such deformity. We can't imagine how he did it. The film moves us by showing that there was a real human being much like ourselves in the body of a side show freak.
In the play, the title character is performed without the aid of make up. Slides are shown of what he actually looked like, and we use our imaginations from there. In this movie, John Hurt is in full make up and prosthetics which is eventually shown on screen. Until then, we only see the other actors' reactions to his looks, which builds tension and piques our curiosity. Amazingly, both actors have an incredible task: Play a freak in human form, and to play a man in freakish form. Each calls for an actor of immense talent. You will not be disappointed.
The Elephant Man (1980)
If You Like Movies About Humanity
I saw this film on video in the summer of 1985. Anthony Hopkins had done many things, mostly in Britain, but I remembered "The Bounty"(1984 with Mel Gibson) and "Peter and Paul"(1981 TV) and knew about "Magic" (1978) and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"(1982 TV). He was not yet a big star, but you'd never know it from his high calibre work. He gives one of his best performances of his distinguished career in "The Elephant Man," regardless of his later Oscar-winning roles.
David Lynch seemed to be making a movie about people, rather than just a strange story (as in almost everything else he's done before or since). Shooting it in black and white gave it both an odd feeling of authenticity, and a surreal artistic look. These are words and worlds Lynch is famous for.
The movie is based on the play by Bernard Pomerance, which remains one of the most moving pieces of genuine theater there has ever been. Since the story of John Merrick is mostly true, with some dramatic license added, of course, it affects us even more. We can't imagine having to live a life with such deformity. We can't imagine how he did it. The film moves us by showing that there was a real human being much like ourselves in the body of a side show freak.
In the play, the title character is performed without the aid of make up. Slides are shown of what he actually looked like, and we use our imaginations from there. In this movie, John Hurt is in full make up and prosthetics which is eventually shown on screen. Until then, we only see the other actors' reactions to his looks, which builds tension and piques our curiosity. Amazingly, both actors have an incredible task: Play a freak in human form, and to play a man in freakish form. Each calls for an actor of immense talent. You will not be disappointed.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
The Bottom Line
What kind of movie-goer am I? I'll tell you. I go to the bargain matinee. Saturday Night Live better do a sketch about this movie. It's already reached cult status.
Anyway, I'm the kind of movie-goer who decides, in that moment when getting up out of my seat at the end, after watching for the ENTIRE 82 minutes, whether or not I got my money's worth.
I had visited the movie's official web site beforehand. I even heard word-of-mouth about the flick from people who had seen the Sci-Fi Channel's coverage on it. I knew it wasn't true. I knew that this movie created a buzz at Sundance, and in movie circles in print and online. I realize that these neophyte filmakers wanted to produce a successful movie. I don't know if they actually think this work is any more than performance art, or if they think it's a milestone in cinematic expression. By any standards, one that puts the asses in the seats to the tune of over $36M in less than a week of its nationwide release, especially when it cost only $25K or $60K to make, (depending on what article is correct) qualifies it as a HUGE success. I only wish that it had been a better movie. I can't help but feel I've been taken by the gimmick. The hype is rarely ever matched by the product, is it? It wasn't supposed to be a real movie was it? Just "documentary footage" that was found and put together. That would cover a multitude of cinematic sins, wouldn't it? Doesn't hurt to cover your bases, does it? It could even be bad, huh?
Ingenious as it is, the marketing of this production-on-a-shoestring delivers a first effort that left me unsatisfied. I agree that there were a few great moments that were genuinely creepy, but they were separated by far too much tedious repetition included for the sake of "realism." The fighting, yelling, and screaming at each other came quite quickly, it seems, for a movie that went so slowly. After only a couple days in the woods they mentally "fell apart." The "improvised acting" suffered a bit there. The things that went bump in the night promised something more that never came. The distant unknown sounds and voices were as scary as it got, and could have led to something else, but never really did, beyond the blurry images inside the house, maybe. The ending was actually a relief. It finally put an end to the crying, the yelling, the shaking camera, and the almost endless asking, "What was that??!!!" We never do find out, and have to figure it must've been the wicked witch of Blair. It WAS something. Right? I have to laugh at the people who say they're the only one who "got" the movie. Many people are reading things into this movie's ending, but if it makes you feel better...
You can discuss whether or not the actors are hotties, thanks to the previous "Scream" and "...Last Summer" movies, and talk about the ticket sales and statistics, but why not talk about what makes some movies really good, others really great, and some a waste of time. I can't say this one was a waste. You should see what the fuss and hype is all about, but don't expect a classic. There are people risking fortunes every day who think they know what would make a good movie. These particular guys accomplished something imaginative that will certainly be imitated. They tried to scare us without using a big bank roll, special effects, gore, monster costumes, puppets, guns, explosions, or gratuitous nudity, sex and violence. That alone is a novel idea. They used sticks and stones and sounds and darkness. I consider that an extremely brave approach when you're aiming at the cynical, computer-literate, self-absorbed, seen-it-all, mostly 17-34 year old, MTV Generation movie audience member who just forked over $4.25 to $9.00 per person and said, "Okay, now scare me."
Hey, if I could make a better movie I would. I'm only speaking from an actor's perspective, and as a person who likes movies. They're the ones who had the guts to turn a few good ideas into millions at the box office, not me.
I'm the kind of movie-goer who is hopeful. Since Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick will have a bigger budget to work with on their next project, which they claim will be a wacky comedy, I hope that it will do a much better job at making me laugh than The Blair Witch Project did at scaring me. It would be nice to get my money's worth. I wonder if they need any more unknown actors...
Wait a minute... did you hear something? What was that???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Meet Joe Black (1998)
Whattaya know, Joe?
This could have been a really good film if there had been some consistency with the character of Death. He is powerful and all-knowing when need be, and totally clueless the rest of the time. Death's work is to end every human life at their appointed time, but he has no idea what he's ending. So, for reasons unknown he has the time and ability to find out. Pitt is handsome and charming as a doomed young man in a coffee shop, and handsome, boring and charmless as Death. Hopkins can do great work even in a flawed film. Forlani is believable and beautiful, despite looking as though she is about to fall asleep every five to ten minutes. Not a good quality for a character in a nearly three hour movie. Harden and Tambor (both wonderful talents long before Larry Sanders existed) do some top-quality film work. The message seems to be that family is most important, lots and lots of money is really good, and that death and taxes are still inevitable. I think they also ask the cinematic question, "Just how long can we get away with keeping the camera focused on a well-groomed Brad Pitt in total silence?"