Reviews

"Pay it Forward", the concept, is a brilliant idea. For skeptics not taken aback by it, consider that the plan takes into account the (highly likely) chance that 2 out of 3 people on this planet are scum. In fact, this is conveyed in the story, when Trevor gets frustrated doing good things for not-so-good people. The movie pits geometric growth against sustainable success rate. I liked that.

No less brilliant are the performances of Hunt, Spacey and Osment. Actually, if not for them, I might have gagged quite early into the film. The three took on a gargantuan challenge and somehow turned a sickeningly hyperbolic (read: CHEESY) script into an enjoyable, touching experience. ANY other trio in showbiz (in 2000), and this movie would be sentenced to 1001 nights of MST3k-style ridicule. It's pretty evident the film suffered from a lack of plot; it's really not much more than a great idea with a movie (complete with love triangle) built around it.

That said, I did like the movie, but I do know the difference between my taste and good quality. If you appreciate great acting and want a change from the steady diet of force-fed, cookie-cutter action flicks like "Pearl Harbor" (the Bruckheimer version), this movie will be enjoyable and refreshing. But aside from smatterings of awesome dialogue, the "PiF" concept and brilliant acting, and as much as I liked it, this movie is pretty bad. (Again, bad plot. You know, the core of a movie?)

In a nutshell: If "Pay it Forward" won't move you in real life, it probably won't on the screen, either.

Okay, let's ignore the meticulously detailed, paradigm-shifting "Star Wars IV-VI" trilogy. Let's also ignore the fame of Lucas, and the "only in America" mammoth budget. Hey, I liked this movie! I DID enjoy it. It was action-packed. It had some new looks. It was everything I expected out of a "Star Wars" movie, and then some.

Okay, amnesia trip over. Yeah, this was a nasty belly flop, eh? The plot made no sense, Jar-Jar was a migraine, and of course all the actors were cast for looks, not talent. The only thing worse than the cast was the corny script they had to work with. I fantasize that Haley Joe Osment turned down the role of Anekin out of self-respect. Of course, this wasn't exactly a prequel to "Citizen Kane", so I wasn't expecting spiritual enlightenment. But just as an example, there's a big similarity between freedom-fighting (not council-bench-warming) jedi and U.S. presidents, isn't there? Yep, all clean-cut white boys. Okay, so the council had Sam Jackson there as the token black guy, but were any of the bug-eyed aliens female, then? (Lucas' heroines can be spunky royalty or jedi baby factories, but not true jedi. Hmmm. . .)

Well, one way or another, I got my six bucks' worth at the theatre; it was an enjoyable afternoon. Of course, I only saw it once, and don't plan to again. A fun ride, but I seriously doubt this is what film critics and "Star Wars" fans waited over a decade for.

A minor point: in ant colonies, males exist only to mate with the queen, then are discarded. By human standards, they are literally sex slaves in a female-dominated society. As for the movie, I count a whopping three females in the cast. The hero, of course, is male. Technically, "Antz" is the most sexist movie ever, implying the most highly successful species on Earth is run and operated by males, when the exact opposite is true. Its critique of ant social structure is likewise so badly thought out that I wonder if the creators are illiterate.

And why not? All the detail in "Antz" went straight to computer graphics, even though the cinematography is second-rate. The voice actors are unskilled, the characters cardboard (even the spunky princess and bumbling hero give that "been there done that" feel), the humor bland, and the plot idiotic. It's possible Hollywood simply abhors admitting to children that female-dominated societies can be successful, but it's more likely that the creators were too stupid to know and too apathetic to care.

Why are Americans so uneager to show children quality material? If you want a good children's film, try "My Neigbor Totoro". No CG, but plenty of beautifully detailed art and elegantly simple themes. If you want wow-wow computer graphics or social critiques, "Ghost in the Shell" offers oh so much more, albeit not for kids. "Antz" is cash-cow Hollywood.

"Titanic" has all the elements of a smashing movie. Unusually high level of detail (comparable to "Star Wars"), a respectful tribute to Titanic's researchers, and plenty of money. The cast is skilled, the soundtrack beautiful, and the cinematography masterful. Now all we need is a plot. After all, because history betrays the ending, the ship's fate alone will not draw audiences. Something needs to turn the beautiful documentary into a gripping movie. A love story does the job nicely; it was a good idea. But then, Cameron takes over.

Good Lord, what a nauseating soap opera. The farm-boy hero, spunky maiden and evil villain trio, all but used up in "Star Wars", is disgustingly uncreative. Some of the lines ("And he saved me, in every way a woman could be saved") are so cheesy even the masterful thespians DiCaprio, Winslet and Stuart can't save their characters from being reduced to cardboard cutouts. What was Cameron thinking?? Anyone sharp enough to appreciate the detail would vomit from the recycled storyline, and anyone naïve (or stupid) enough to fall for the fairy-tale romance wouldn't acknowledge the historical faithfulness.

In any case, everybody ought to see this movie at least once; it's not bad for a brainless love story and beautifully crafted. But if you're an educated movie connoisseur, bring a barf bag.

GITS is a storm of ironies. First, the plot criticizes the very advanced computer technology used to create the film. Its mature themes (nudity and violence) all have relevance, yet draw hordes of immature viewers who end up disappointed by a deeply thoughtful social critique. And as high-tech as it is, the science it probably explores most deeply is anthropology.

Cinematically, it's a masterpiece. The alliance of Kawai's music (Blue Seed), Kawamori's mechs (Macross Plus), and Oshii's directing meld to create stunningly beautiful work transcending their "Patlabor" movies. Its quality and detail make Disney's best look like laughably tasteless scribbles, even though GITS cost a scant $4 million. Oshii's political themes and "still life" sequences are trademark, but to those with no stomach for his tastes, I argue his creative license is a fair compromise for compiling a LONG-running manga into a gripping, self-contained movie. "Akira" is a lot less successful in this aspect.

Watch this movie subtitled. The emotion-starved melancholy Tanaka tastefully infuses in Motoko's voice cannot be replaced with a third-rate American voice actress. Anyone smart enough to understand this movie is smart enough to read, anyway. I don't recommend this movie to everyone; only those with the open-mindedness necessary to stomach, digest and appreciate what it offers. To those people: It's GOOD.

Ancient formulas creatively mix with new elements. In particular, the humor is wonderfully tasteful. Overall, this is a darn good movie; I could go on for hours about it.

Unfortunately, it's tainted with a some rather disturbing elements. The movie closes out with a tasteless 80's-style love song. (Viewers of "The Hobbit" know that adopting music popular to an era is the surest way to kill a classic soundtrack.) Also, the sexism is disturbing. Buttercup, complete with the cheesy name, can be forgiven as the typical "bait chick". After all, as bait chicks go, she does have a few redeeming qualities and some individuality. However, even with her excluded and the time period considered, the cast is disturbingly male-dominated.

These offenses are not coincidental and hence inexcusable, but they shouldn't deter anyone from enjoying the film. It's just worth lamenting that this movie, as good as it is, could have been so much more.

When I first saw "Charade", I was convinced for the longest time this was a Hitchcock movie. Small wonder; Hitchcock all but set the standard for quality mystery films. Still, I give director Donen my sincerest apologies. Anyway, where did this film go?? Its tasteful humor, colorful characters and intelligent plot make "Charade" one of the best mystery movies ever made, but it's not well known even among classic films.

"Look for it. Look as hard and as fast as you can." This film ranks with "Clue", "The Name of the Rose" and "The 39 Steps" as one of the most enjoyable mysteries of all time. Makes a great dating/party movie.

I was raised around musicals, but I could never stomach the concept of people breaking out into song and dance at the most inconceivably awkward moments. Still, the musical-within-a-musical premise allows "Singin' in the Rain" to set up the numbers better than any other musical. For that, I tolerate it.

As one of the best musicals ever, I rated it above-average as a movie. For me, that's an impressive feat. After all, like I said, musical numbers tend to abuse the creative license offered by telling a story on a screen. But this movie tied together the music and the plot as good as anyone could ever hope to.

I am usually wary of hyped-up films, but I usually regard old films exempt. Given the technical difficulties they had to overcome, I strive to not take modern cinematography for granted. Yet, I dare call "Citizen Kane" overrated.

A movie, to be a movie, needs to be a movie. This is not as simple as it sounds. "Citizen Kane" has a solid plot, realistic characters, deep themes, thoughtful dialogue, and good cinematic effects (for what they had to work with). To one who hasn't seen it, that sounds like a darn good film. Unfortunately, on the last part, it goes overboard. I.e., the story falls secondary to cinematic sequences so overt (even cheesy) they spawned countless parodies. If one accepts my definition of a movie as a system of plots, themes and characters enhanced by its portrayal on a movie screen, Wells has this system of movies and special effects completely backwards!

Maybe it's personal opinion, but I believe cinematic effects should subtly enhance the story, not drown it. Yet some of the sequences in "Citizen Kane", such as the mirrors images and jigsaw puzzle sequences, scream at my eyes. I may not catch everything, but what I do catch sure insults my intelligence. If technology indeed forced Wells to be this blatant, he may just as well have given up and omitted the scenes instead.

This is not the best movie ever made. To earn that title, a movie has to be more movie than effect. It's an impressive piece of work, but it also shows how old-timers are just as vulnerable to movie hype as today's youngsters.

Miyazaki is never perfect, but man, he gets so close.

Setting the record in Japan for the highest-grossing film of all time, "Mononoke Hime" -> "Spirit Princess" beat out everything Spielberg and Cameron ever made. While the scenario somewhat resembles Miyazaki's earlier work "Nausicaä", even as a re-make this movie is a marvel. The characters (both human and not) are strong and colorful, unlike Disney's one-dimensional cash-cow arsenal of clowny sidekicks and sappy heroes. The animation quality that exceeds Disney's best is combined with artistic skill and rich music to sculpt scenes of intensity and beauty mainstream America has never seen. The end of the movie and return to reality creates such a sharp sting of nostalgia ("dump shock") that no one can see this movie only once.

Disney and its horde of 2nd-rate translators are releasing this movie in April 1999 in a meagre 4000 screens. Hardly respectable treatment for the Japanese all-time blockbuster that beat the best of the best.

*Stereotype: Akira is a gratuitous bloodbath.

Maybe, but it's also a hard-nosed societal critique. Gore fans get what they want, but they have some morality shoved down their throats, as well. Most people who hate this movie watch it with a predetermined mindset. . . It takes thought and patience to piece together its sophisticated story.

*Stereotype: Akira rocks!!

The animation equals or exceeds Disney's best, the music is awesome, and the characters are complex, but "Akira" has its flaws. Chunked together from a long pre-existing storyline and filled with gritty violence, "Akira" draws fanatics too bloodthirsty to appreciate its message, and scares away critics intelligent enough to understand it. It takes a very open mind to enjoy this movie.

All in all, be careful with this movie; it's not for everyone. Just ignore the hype on BOTH sides and judge for yourself. I recommend the subtitled version; the dub's voice actors suck and anyone who'll understand this movie is obviously smart enough to read.

I never met a single person (out of hundreds) who hated this movie. Bet that anyone who votes it down is a petty saboteur, or a victim of one. This film has everything. Ask yourself, "Are you a fan of. . . ?" Then go see "Laputa".

It's not my favorite movie, but my favorite IS directed by the same person (Hayao Miyazaki). In any case, this one ranks among my top five. And I've seen a LOT of movies.

Potentially the best movie of all time, "Nausicaä" has been historically so butchered, underrated, and badly translated that its director, the Japanese household name Miyazaki, withheld distribution rights to his movies outside Japan for over a decade. In Japan, "Nausicaä" has enjoyed continued popularity for fifteen years now--a longevity equalled in America only by the "Star Wars" trilogy.

Imminently to be released by Disney's unskilled, apathetic translators, I fear this movie will never get the worldwide appreciation it deserves. To edit Miyazaki's work is arrogant stupidity; to dub over Shimamoto's angelic voice of Nausicaä is a travesty, and to prejudge the movie undermines the most detail-oriented animation studio in the world.

No, the movie's not perfect, and unbutchered copies are very hard to come by. But for me, blessed with a proper introduction to the "Nausicaä", this movie exceeds both "Citizen Kane" and "Star Wars". Just make sure you watch the real thing.

Hilarious comedy, tasteful romance, intense action, and colorful characters.. . No one who sees this movie would believe it was a low-budget 1979 flop. With world name director Miyazaki (few of his movies rank under 9 even on this database), the highly successful Lupin cast and the angelic Shimamoto as Clarisse, who WOULD believe it failed? This movie is the most underrated movie of all time.

Just make sure you acquire a GOOD translation, if one exists. Carl "the Butcher" Macek's Streamline Pictures release got horrible ratings due to his unchecked editors, unfaithful translators and third-rate voice actors. Fan-made subtitled copies are far more enjoyable, but quality is still not guaranteed. Good luck hunting; this movie is gold.