Hypotheses's Reviews

Spy Game (2001)

6/10

Uninvolving, immeasurably slow, predictable, & flawed

29 November 2001

What is wrong with some of you people? Hollywood feeds you the same crap over and over and yet you gobble it up indiscriminately just the same.

1. Robert Redford is friggin' 65 years of age for God Sakes. No amount of soft lighting is going to change that.

2. Use some Goddamn makeup. If we are to believe that Brad Pitt's character was back in Nam, he shouldn't look EXACTLY the same many decades later.

3. Just because Redford's character is "old school" shouldn't mean that all of his "new school" superiors should be posed as complete idiots.

4. I neither give a damn about the cliche of Pitt's character risking it all for a woman.

5. Nor do I give a damn about Redford's character coming to the realization that he's become emotionally hardened by the spy game and should make an attempt at redeeming himself.

6. Flashbacks are rarely a convincing plot device. Hence, don't use them!

7. This film creeps at a snail's pace.

8. Mr. Scott, we already saw all of that amazing (but frenzied) aerial camera work in Enemy of the State (1998). There it was creative and useful. Here, in Spy Game, it's just silly and distracting.

9. In all, I found Spy Game so totally uninvolving, I was ready to walk out the theatre after the first 20-minutes. Too bad I didn't.

6/10

19 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

9/10

Enchanting

19 November 2001

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

I've never read the Harry Potter books and probably never will. But as for the movie, I found it surprisingly good. I certainly didn't expect much from Chris Columbus, the director of Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, but his version of Harry Potter is quite a success. I must admit, however, that Columbus could hardly foul things up because the film contains about two-thirds of the book, much of Rowling's dialogue verbatim, and brilliant casting.

The over 153-minute running time of the film is a result of Chris Columbus' slavish faithfulness to book. But don't misunderstand me; I barely felt it. In the opening scenes with Harry's horrible stepfamily, the pacing is a little slow, and so I did start to worry. But that was for naught. The first third of the movie is actually a kind respite doled out to those, like me, who haven't read the book. Rather, this film later hustles and bustles along at an action film's pace. (One critic, referring to the action and look of the film, called it a kind of Indiana Jones for kids.)

That leads me to one of my few quibbles with Harry Potter. I urgently wish the film had slowed down a bit more. By the film's end, I doubt that much of the non-fan audience was aware that one year had passed on screen, had it not been announced by one of the characters. Yes, we receive important visual cues, such as the jack o' lanterns for October and the snow and Christmas trees for winter, but signaling the passage of time in a film is not merely limited to those sorts of things. It's a minor point nonetheless.

All the way through, I didn't feel like I was watching a painfully dreadful kid's film. Instead, I got something that was thoroughly entertaining for both adults and children. Mainly, what worked for me was the completeness of Rowling's world. It seemed as though every possible detail of her imaginary world was fully realized to point that I was convinced--within the confines of the movie theatre, of course--that Harry Potter's magical world was real--more than mere make believe. Frankly, I was enchanted.

This kind of film, of course, relies heavily on special effects. They, unfortunately, were only adequate at best. In these days of Jurassic Park realism, the bar of what's acceptable is now amazingly high. But no matter.

Besides a well thought out story, Harry Potter has a wonderful cast. Of course, the excellence of the Who's Who British cast of celebrities (the adults) is a given. But the emphasis of the story is on a trio of unknowns who did a damn good job. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson are superb together. Their chemistry is just right. My only worry about these three, as they stand atop a billion dollar empire, is what torture they'll have to endure while make-up and costuming try their darnedest to keep these pubes looking like innocent--well, on second thought, not-so-innocent--young wizards for at least another couple films.

In all, I was surprised to no end. While shaky at first, the film showed itself to be a clear winner.

Worth seeing a second time.

9/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Unbreakable (2000)

7/10

So Much for the Hype

19 November 2001

Unbreakable 7/10

<11/27/00> I expected to rate Bounce and Unbreakable just the opposite of how I actually ended up rating them. I thought that Bounce would be this straight "chick flick", which it was, but amazingly enough it still turned out to be decently entertaining. With Unbreakable, my expectations were way too high. The trailers, which showed the audience virtually nothing, had me eagerly anticipating something dark and mysterious, but what I got instead was slightly less than adequate schlock. I am not saying that Unbreakable was horrible; in fact, it was far from it and I would see it again. It's clearly a movie for comic book lovers, which I am, BTW, but that doesn't negate basic film analysis. It just wasn't invigorating when it clearly needed to be, had a lack of basic momentum, was too concerned with odd camera angles, wasn't very thought-provoking, and concluded with yet another cheap, gimmicky ending a la The Sixth Sense that doesn't work. That said, I still liked the film. It was brooding and dark, Twilight Zone like. Too bad general audiences will probably bad-mouth it to their friends for certain.

Still, worth a repeat viewing.

7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

6/10

Lackluster

19 November 2001

O Brother, Where Art Thou? 6.5/10

I didn't laugh out loud once. The Coen brothers should've went back to the drawing board on this one. Or, perhaps, they should have actually READ Homer's Odyssey rather than Cliff Notes, or not relied on it at all. The whole acknowledgement to Homer is just insulting.

The characters were simply too weird even for a Coen brothers film. How many blind men were there? Three or four? While I admit that Clooney had the best dialogue, he was simply too handsome--or out of place--for this film. I wanted to laugh whenever he went into one of those pseudo-intellectual riffs, but I couldn't. Something was wrong about them. (The film tried to explain it away later--Everett went up for practicing law w/o a license--but I wasn't convinced. That was just way too convenient storywise.)

The only genuine thing I saw in all of O Brother was the Klan scene. When it came, I couldn't believe it. I was right at the edge of thunderous laughter, but after 2/3rds of squat, just I couldn't do it. I did, however, rewind the scene. It's probably the only thing I'll remember about the film. I'm not counting the backward trio's engaging song "I'm a Man in Sorrow", though. While I certainly liked it, it was an obvious plot device at its introduction.

Everything felt haphazard, truncated, predictable. I just couldn't get into it, which is unusual, because I'm a Coen Brother's fan. So, I don't think it was me. They (the Coen Brothers) were simply off the mark this time. Go see Blood Simple or Fargo instead.

6.5/10

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The One (2001)

6/10

The One to Avoid, unless...

8 November 2001

Although The One is total crap, I found it entertaining nonetheless. Basically, I went in to see a lot of cool fighting and SFX and that's exactly what I got. But I must admit, that after leaving the theatre, my higher brain functions kicked in. And all I could think about was how they pitifully wasted a good nucleus of a story. The director/writer/producer had lots of SFX, an intriguing Sci-Fi premise, DeRoy Lindo and the action star Jet Li. All they had to do was write a decent script. That's all. And this film truly could have been the one. (I apologize for that, I just couldn't help myself.) Instead, everything we learn about the multiverse is expository. They could have, at the very least, showed us the incident that got Yulaw started on his maniacal quest to begin with. Never before have I had so much respect for DeRoy Lindo. It was obvious that he was the only real actor in the bunch and that he did the best he could with the campy material. Everything in the story with the exception of the fight scenes is derivative. I could go on and write something about the horrible script, plot holes, obscene use of the soundtrack, movie cliches, and one-dimensional characters, but I won't.

Instead....

The fighting was kick-ass! My only quibble is that I wished they would have instant replayed fight scenes at normal speed to make Gabe's/Yulaw's powers appear more realistic (despite being impossible, of course). Slowing things down gets annoying actually. The coolest fight scene wasn't even the predictable show down, but the one with the police motorcycles. Too bad, even that felt truncated.

In sum, all of the criticisms that I heard about The One were totally valid, but I simply liked the film for what it was, an ass-kicking vehicle. What can say?

6/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hannibal (2001)

7/10

Lowest Common Denominator

7 November 2001

Hannibal

How many times have I got to say that style over substance is sacrilege?

Before his movie-making career, Ridley Scott directed TV commercials. His work, even then, was very characteristic, for Scott obviously had a keen eye for visuals. But that talent does not necessarily translate into good film making. This leads me to point out a common criticism of Scott's films: great visuals, but no character development. This certainly applies to Hannibal.

In all of its 131-minute running time, Hannibal seems unable to reveal anything of real value about Agent Starling and Dr. Lector, despite having a decade both in the film and in reality to put it there. The film is nothing but a pleasing menagerie of slow-motion shots, grand scenes, luscious music and costumes. Unforgivably absent are the mental foreplay and psychological terror of Silence of the Lambs. Instead, we're given filler.

Its predecessor, Silence of the Lambs, was essentially a stark, static film as far as the camera was concerned. The main emphasis there was on the characters Agent Starling and Dr. Lector. Hannibal, by contrast, works so diligently to globe trot and dazzle us with pretty pictures (sunsets, mist , slow-motion, staging, hue effects, etc.), that the story and characters seem hardly important.

The plotting and motivations of the characters are simplistic and formulaic compared to that earlier film. We basically get a sandwich structure of scenes slapped together that don't really make a coherent film. The first slice is the disgrace of Agent Starling and the reawakening of Lector. The meat is nothing but endless back and forth scenes, lightly reminiscent of that awful The Specialist. And the bottom slice is the inexplicable return of Hannibal to America just to "save" Starling, kill a few people, let an unrecognizable Gary Oldman exact his revenge, only, of course, to end with Lector getting away.

I'm tiring of writing about Scott's crappy film. The deal was simply slow, predictable, favoring the LCD, and not really worth the effort.

6/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

9/10

Kung-Fu Theatre, but with Heart

24 October 2001

CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON

--01/13/01

This Year's Best

CROUCHING TIGER is the most satisfying movie I've seen in years! It is definitely on my TOP TEN LIST for 2000. I honestly haven't been this affected by a film since QUILLS, BOYS DON'T CRY, MAGNOLIA, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, FIGHT CLUB, or THE MATRIX. CROUCHING TIGER's not just incredible gut wrenching eye-popping action, but two tender love stories that made me tear up, especially at the film's end. Go see CROUCHING TIGER now. Believe me, you will be clamoring to talk to someone, anyone, about it. I am. I just it saw one-hour ago.

9.8/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

9/10

An imaginative, dark blend of reality and fiction

24 October 2001

SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE

-- 02/05/01

If Dafoe doesn't get nominated for this, there'll be hell to pay.

I saw SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE this past Friday. I thought it was excellent, emotionally gripping. But there was this rowdy group from the very start that finally left after 30 minutes into the film. I am so glad they left. As they were leaving one of the fools mumbled, "I want my money back. Fake-a** vampire movie!" I retorted aloud, "Good riddance" and enjoyed the rest of the film in peace, as did everyone else.

Clearly--and I think that you'll agree--Dafoe deserves a Best actor Oscar nomination. He has always been good, but I've never seen him in such superb form. While I, too, felt that the ending was quite disturbing--at the closing credits, the entire audience was absolutely silent--that in no way hindered my over all rating.

The movie was so well-done that I'm going to see if I can find the faithful 1980-something re-make of Murnau's NOSFERATU at the video store. I might even go see it again after a few weeks, just like CROUCHING TIGER when I get a chance.

My only quibbles are that the film clearly slowed down towards the last 20 minutes and that I wish the film had delved deeper into Dracula...er...I mean Count Orlock. ;-)

8.8/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Quills (2000)

8/10

Entertaining, engaging

24 October 2001

QUILLS

-- 01/07/01

As for QUILLS, I don't know what to say. I'm going to have to see it a second time to get a handle on what I think about it critically. But push that aside and I'll tell you that, emotionally, it's one of the most intense movies of 2000. (REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is probably the most intense.) Unfortunately, Rush's performance does not come close to anything that he's done before, but no matter (e.g., see him LES MISERBLES).

QUILLS actually engaged me and made me feel more than a mere tingle here and there for this whole sorry year in film for 2000. The writing is good, but not excellent. The story is adequate, but nothing new. The acting is acceptable, but not exceptional. Yet, this movie is still somehow in the top ten of 2000 for me. Both its characters and sexual proclivities ACTIVELY ENGAGE YOU. That's the key, I think.

8/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cast Away (2000)

8/10

Third act fails the movie

24 October 2001

CAST AWAY

--01/13/01

It's a great Hanks performance vehicle ruined by a seemingly tacked-on conclusion. The film could have ended with Hanks' character being either rescued or Zemeckis could have shown us those conveniently missing four weeks. Those alone could have been a movie within themselves. But all in all, I enjoyed my time with the film.

Serious film-goers will note that one beach scene _obviously_ gives a nod to Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, Hanks' self-professed favorite movie and mine as well.

7.5/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Happiness (1998)

9/10

A Near Masterpiece

24 October 2001

HAPPINESS

-- 01/08/01 Tsk. Tsk. This one never showed up at the theatres here (Arkansas) because of its ludicrous NC-17 rating, but I kept it in the back of my mind and held out for the video with stupendous results.

This next effort after Solondz's fine A DOLL'S HOUSE is simply a masterpiece. I watched it alone at first and was then inspired enough to invite a mutually film savvy friend to see it with me. He was jaw-droppingly awed. This film is not for filmgoers who simply watch movies for entertainment. HAPPINESS is fine art. While it may be disturbing and depressing, that doesn't negate its fine script and story interplay. The fact that one of the film's characters is a pederast is hardly relevant as far as the film's MPAA rating is concerned. That character could have easily been rewritten into someone with a less disturbing problem. He is simply there to add strength to the film's argument.

What is the film trying to say? That, IMHO, many of us in America are so befuddled, selfish, and/or dysfunctional that we are wholly unfit to make choices about what's in our best interest, about how to attain true happiness. Instead we go seeking with our off-kelter minds what we think will make us happy only to end up ruined, because true individual happiness stems not from short-term gratification and desires, but takes long and hard thought about who and what we are. First Know Thyself. Then Fix Thyself. And if you can't objectively know yourself or seriously help yourself, ask someone or seek help.

While the pederast did seek help, his problem was such that willpower was not enough. He needed serious help. Even so, I can understand why this film wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea. If you didn't like it, that is, of course, fine. But some of us were able to glean a most serious message from HAPPINESS. Not that we didn't already know the message, but that the message needed to be raised and kicked over, as do most issues from time to time. So, we look at a film like HAPPINESS and WE are reminded of that which we'd rather keep hidden or rather forget, but that is only to our detriment.

9/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Insider (1999)

8/10

Who knew Crowe could act? Good Docudrama.

24 October 2001

The Insider

-- 11/20/99

Good Docudrama. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN it is not, but THE INSIDER is certainly a fine attempt that's as close as any big-budget commercial Hollywood release is likely to get in these days of unforsaken unduly graphic, formulaic, impersonal and overblown mega blockbusters.

8/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Iron Giant (1999)

8/10

Surprisingly Wonderful

24 October 2001

THE IRON GIANT

-- 11/26/99

THE IRON GIANT was a total surprise. I usually skip animation at the theatre, but I made an exception on this one and I am glad that I did. I would even go so far as to put this film in my Top 10 list for 1999.

THE IRON GIANT not only had a positive message, but was funny and heart-warming too. As a guy who is totally at odds with the unduly graphic, formulaic, impersonal and dumbed-down movies of this era, it was a unique experience for me to walk out of a movie feeling good about what I just saw. For example, although FIGHT CLUB (8.5/10) is easily one of the top five movies of the year, I must admit that I did not feel particularly good when I left the theatre that day. Shocked is the word that comes to mind, but "good" is not one of them.

After thinking over the films I had seen so far this year, not unsurprisingly, almost none of them made me feel good. Oh, I may have been intellectually stimulated, but was I encased in a field of positive energy? No.

If you want a big, warm fuzzy, this film, THE IRON GIANT, is certainly the one to watch.

8/10

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Titan A.E. (2000)

7/10

the Wonders of Animation

24 October 2001

TITAN A.E. -- 01/07/01

Very good. I was surprised by this one. Had I known that it was that good, I would have seen it in the theatre. It's all very Star Wars-like as far as the story, but the images are stupendous. Only thing, I hated how they never credibly explained how the Titan worked. Just Boom! and we've created a planet now. Obviously, the ice field was somehow important in the process, but none of the characters said a word about it.

7/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

6/10

Completely Laughable

24 October 2001

M.I.2

-- 05/29/00

I must say this for all of you who loved the first MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, please _do not_ waste your time with MI2. Believe you me, if you have any usable brain cells at all, you will find this film slow, slight on content, and unintentionally--I hope--hilarious (as far as the action sequences of the third act go). I mean, come on, the glowing, pearly white dove was ridiculous! The female co-star spent the entire film in career enhancing close-ups and slow motion. And the chicken scene on the motorcycles was laugh out loud funny.

My friend had to hold his head down in shame once the movie was over, but I did not tease him. There was no way in the world that he could have known the depths of stupidity and hokiness that MI2 would go.

Was directoral control taken away from the Great John Woo or what? I most certainly enjoyed his THE BIG HIT (7/10) more, yet I did not even think that that was all the good either. But at least THE BIG HIT in no way took itself seriously. I found MI2 to be so obviously bad that I was ready to leave after the first ten minutes (and I never walkout on films).

6/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

From Hell (2001)

6/10

FROM HELL, Yeah right.

23 October 2001

Warning: Spoilers

FROM HELL 6/10

THESE COMMENTS CONTAIN SPOILERS. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW SPECIFICS ABOUT THE FILM

FROM HELL was better than say SLEEPY HOLLOW, but that isn't saying much. Like that other film, this was all style and no substance. What is the point of having a pretty picture when it means absolutely nothing to the viewer? This oft-told tale needs something fresh to get a jaded, *UH-HUM*, experienced viewer, such as myself interested.

The Hughes brothers went to obsessive-compulsive lengths to get the historical details of the murders right and to create a unique Gothic sense of 19th century London, but they did so at the cost of involving the audience with an actual story.

I don't mind the fictitious elements, in fact, I welcome them, because despite what is known about the Ripper murders, a lot remains a mystery. But what I cannot stand is the conspicuousness of someone like Heather Graham in this kind of film, much like Milla Jovovich in THE MESSENGER. I simply could not get over the incongruities of Graham's perfect white teeth and statuesque body with the absolute wretched squalor of her environs and prostitute friends. My other technical quibbles have to do with the directors themselves. Specifically, I'll certainly be glad when the Hughes brothers mature, because right now (through either naiveté or insecurity), they feel the need to use every camera shot they ever learned in film school to show how clever they are. All of that gets old very quickly.

As for the story itself, like I said, nothing new or interesting is presented in FROM HELL. The choice of the Ripper is anybody's guess and frankly does not matter. (Although, I have to admit that making the Ripper a Mason was certainly fresh and different.) The relationship between the Inspector (Johnny Depp) and Graham is surprisingly rushed, cliché, and truncated. And finally, this film just isn't gory or scary. Maybe that one's just a horrible reflection upon me or the times in which we live, but MTV-like flashes of blood and horror do not register well with me.

In all, I found FROM HELL to be well-made but nothing more than that. It was certainly worth the $4.50 I paid but I strongly recommend not paying more than that.

FROM HELL 6/10

______________

--Hypotheses

______________

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

9/10

A Flawed Ambitious Piece, But Great All the Same

9 July 2001

Warning: Spoilers

*******WARNING SOME SPOILERS**********

By the first 20 minutes, I was mesmerized and enthralled by A.I. or "Artificial Intelligence". And my interests continued all the way through despite the Spielbergian sentimentalism and heavy-handedness.

While no one can deny that both Kubrick and Spielberg are supreme masters at their craft, the two are inherently at opposite ends of the artistic spectrum; thus the overall consistency of purpose and vision of A.I. is somewhat mixed. Nevertheless, the end result is still one of the most spellbinding and innovative movies of the summer.

The main problem: Spielberg's undying need to inject emotionalism and optimism at the end, killed the relentless, cold logic of a distinctly Kubrickian first act. (Hey, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one of the greatest films of all time in my mind.) A similar problem is that A.I. isn't one film, but a gigantic sprawling film of at least three to four highly charged issues that were only superficially explored by the film. There were also a few technical and scientific fluffs (Physics 101 mistakes), but I won't get into that here.

The Ben Kingsley narration, the roaring dog-like motorcycles, the blue fairy stuff, shafts of light, menacing men of authority in silhouette, and other small things are clearly Spielberg. It seemed as though, Spielberg reached into the vault of the past and tried to combine elements of E.T., Close Encounters (third act), and the fairy tale quotient of Hook with some clearly Blade Runner-ish stuff by Kubrick all in an effort to call off questions about A.I. being his film in the final analysis. Still, the film has a lot going for it. The haunting modern score of Williams is on target; the casting of Frances O'Connor as the mother, Osment as the "boy" (Osment was so good that it was scary), Jude Law as the giggolo mecha, and Hurt as the paternal god-complexed scientist was without question flawless; and the production values were top-notch as well as the special effects, of course (this being a Spielberg film).

Clearly, A.I. was a labor of love for both directors. Stanley Kubrick is many a director's director and it is well known that Kubrick is one of Spielberg's favorites, yet Spielberg couldn't help but be Spielberg and completely take A.I. in a zany direction that Kubrick most certainly would not have. For example, David could have somehow self-destructed or de-activated, once he painfully realized that he was not unique, but a mere commodity, an automaton that would never have been accepted by Monica, or most humans for that matter. The point at which he falls off the building would have been perfect for wrapping up the story. Instead, the film CONTINUED with more blue fairy stuff, which wasn't all that bad in of itself, just totally incongruous with the preceding story.

Even so, A.I. is still a wonderful serio-fantasy. I highly recommend it to any Kubrick, Blade Runner, or hard-core sci-fi/fantasy fan. I promise that you will not be disappointed with A.I.'s parts and that you will certainly have a lot to discuss.

And if you don't mind me, I think that I'll go see it again next week.

Ken-202

Rating: 93/100

3.25 stars out of four

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

9/10

A Flawed Masterpiece, But Great All the Same

8 July 2001

Warning: Spoilers

*****A FEW SPOILERS*******

Clearly a Masterpiece Until Spielberg Stepped in at the End, But Works All the Same

By the first 20 minutes, I was mesmerized and enthralled by A.I. or `Artificial Intelligence'. And my interests continued all the way through despite the Spielbergian sentimentalism and heavy-handedness.

While no one can deny that both Kubrick and Spielberg are supreme masters at their craft, the two are inherently at opposite ends of the artistic spectrum; thus the overall consistency of purpose and vision of A.I. is somewhat mixed. Nevertheless, the end result is still one of the most spellbinding and innovative movies of the summer.

The main problem: Spielberg's undying need to inject emotionalism and optimism at the end, killed the relentless, cold logic of a distinctly Kubrickian first act. (Hey, `2001: A Space Odyssey' is one of the greatest films of all time in my mind.) A similar problem is that A.I. isn't one film, but a gigantic sprawling film of at least three to four highly charged issues that were only superficially explored by the film. There were also a few technical and scientific fluffs (Physics 101 mistakes), but I won't get into that here.

The Ben Kingsley narration, the roaring dog-like motorcycles, the blue fairy stuff, shafts of light, menacing men of authority in silhouette, and other small things are clearly Spielberg. It seemed as though, Spielberg reached into the vault of the past and tried to combine elements of E.T., Close Encounters (third act), and the fairy tale quotient of Hook with some clearly Blade Runner-ish stuff by Kubrick all in an effort to call off questions about A.I. being his film in the final analysis. Still, the film has a lot going for it. The haunting modern score of Williams is on target; the casting of Frances O'Connor as the mother, Jude Law as the gigolo mecha, and Hurt as the paternal god-complex scientist was without question flawless; and the production values were top-notch as well as the special effects of course (this being a Spielberg film).

Clearly, A.I. was a labor of love for both directors. Stanley Kubrick is many a director's director and it is well known that Kubrick is one of Spielberg's favorites, yet Spielberg couldn't help but be Spielberg and completely take A.I. in a zany direction that Kubrick most certainly would not have. For example, David could have somehow self-destructed or de-activated, once he painfully realized that he was not unique, but a mere commodity, an automaton that would never have been accepted by Monica, or most humans for that matter. The point at which he falls off the building would have been perfect for wrapping up the story. Instead, the film CONTINUED with more blue fairy stuff, which wasn't all that bad in of itself, just totally incongruous with the preceding story.

Even so, A.I. is still a wonderful serio-fantasy. I highly recommend it to any Kubrick, Blade Runner, or hard-core sci-fi/fantasy fan. I promise that you will not be disappointed with A.I.'s parts and that you will certainly have a lot to discuss.

And if you don't mind me, I think that I'll go see it again next week.

Rating: 97/100 3.25 stars out of four

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

8/10

Children, can you say Brilliant Satire?

8 December 1999

FAIR WARNING: Southpark contains over 340 obscenities, racial slights a-plenty, sacrilegous material, graphic sexual content and violence, and enough satire to make Swift raise an eye brow.

Tell me that you've seen this movie! (It certainly picked me up after that abysmal EPISODE I.) If you love the show, just believe me when I say that you'll literally choke with laughter during the film. It's easily the best comedy I've seen so far this year. If I had to describe this film in two words "Brilliant Satire" would effortlessly come to mind.

My only real concern is that half of the audience will probably miss the satire and especially the film's overall important message against censorship and intolerance. That is exactly why this raunchy film should not be seen by children. (It's rated "R" anyway.) The only thing that the kiddies will come away with is a warped-mind full of profanity. Adults, on the other hand, will be either too busy laughing at or being appalled by Southpark's nastiness, which is fine, but to do so at the exclusion of getting the point is an insult to the brutal satiric genius of this work. That said, Southpark is not for the squeamish, religious, easily offended, those impenetrable to satire--who could easily be part of the former--and especially not for young children under 17 years-old.

Quibbles: Other than exploding the brains of unsuspecting children who see this film, and they _will_ see this film (not unlike the boys of the film itself!), despite being explicitly prohibited, South Park is maybe ten minutes too long. I'm sorry, but after about twenty minutes, small, rotund, and badly-animated characters spewing expletives gets ever so old, which is exactly why the movie needed either more satire or simply _had_ to be shorter.

-------8/10

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Being John Malkovich (1999)

10/10

Exquisite Madness

22 November 1999

Foregoing my usual three-paragraph summation, all I can say is WOW! "Being John Malkovich" is exquisitely controlled madness. This film has several layers of discussion-worthy material beyond that of even Fight Club! Being John Malkovich waxes hypnotic on personal identity, celebrity, control, and so much more in so completely an original and entertaining manner, that its skill somewhat masks the sad and depressing conclusions it makes. Come Hollywood pageant time, if the Academy does not nominate this for film for the Oscar, complete and utter cynicism has yet another reason for being.

-----9/10 stars

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Insider (1999)

8/10

Good Docudrama

8 November 1999

I'll be brief:

"All the President's Men" it is not, but "The Insider" is certainly a fine attempt that's as close as any big-budget commercial Hollywood release is likely to get in these days of unforsaken unduly graphic, formulaic, impersonal and overblown mega blockbusters.

8/10 stars

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

8/10

Brilliant Satire Effortlessly Comes to Mind

4 October 1999

FAIR WARNING: Southpark contains over 340 obscenities, racial slights a-plenty, sacrilegous material, graphic sexual content and violence, and enough satire to make Swift raise an eye brow.

Tell me that you've seen this movie! (It certainly picked me up after that abysmal EPISODE I.) If you love the show, just believe me when I say that you'll literally choke with laughter during the film. It's easily the best comedy I've seen so far this year. If I had to describe this film in two words "Brilliant Satire" would effortlessly come to mind.

My only real concern is that half of the audience will probably miss the satire and especially the film's overall important message against censorship and the prevention of freedom of speech. This is exactly why this raunchy film should not be seen by children. (It's rated "R" anyway.) The only thing that the kiddies will come away with is a warped-mind full of profanity. Adults, on the other hand, will be either too busy laughing at or being appalled by Southpark's nastiness, which is fine, but to do so at the exclusion of getting the point is an insult to the brutal satiric genius of this work. To know for certain, you'll just have to see it for yourself.

Again, I must warn that Southpark is not for the squeamish, religious, easily offended, those impenetrable to satire, and especially young children under 17 years-old.

Keep in mind this is from a guy who never intended to see this movie.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Patch Adams (1998)

Choking with Sentimentality and Predictability

4 October 1999

Maudlin sentimentality is a weakness in most films. It is an illogical, childlike emotion. It shows humanity in its most fractured and flawed way; nevertheless, it has no place in the realm of serious filmmaking. Mature films display feelings of emotion in a genuine, more lucid manner, that gets at the heart of empathy without making one shutter from overwrought saccharine sweetness, as does the film "Patch Adams."

Although not a worthless failure, I found Patch Adam's effort barely acceptable. The film repeatedly violated My Rules to Film Enjoyment:

*Never use maudlin sentimentality. It is a cheap effort used by those who lack originality in script writing. e.g. "Patch Adams"

*Never use cliches without novelty. "Patch Adams" labored on three film cliches.

Never create major characters that the audience will not relate to on some level. e.g. "Enemy of the State" or "Titanic"

*Never revel in superfluous throwaway humor. e.g. "Patch Adams"

Never use gratuitous Tarantino-like violence for its own sake.

Never let profanity dominate the script unless it is indicative of the character(s).

Never let characters have coitus after their first meeting, unless it is indicative of the character(s) or essential to the story. "Titanic"

Never use narration without deft skill or originality. e.g. "Patch Adams," "Payback" or "The Think Red Line"

Never use the soundtrack in such a way as to distract the viewer from what is on screen. E.G., "Patch Adams"

Never use special effects for their own sake. e.g. "Lost in Space"

Never let the audience know a great deal more than the major character(s) as to avoid predictability.

*None of the above need apply to big budget summer movies.

Anyone of sound mind will understand that all of these rules are not completely arbitrary. That they are the result of one who is experienced in movie-going. That they are, in effect, a body of guidelines that rile against the unconscionable, unforgivable, and unHoly Sin of wasting my time.

Despite all of that, "Patch Adams" is an acceptable and, most importantly, entertaining movie, yet it simply does not rise to the occasion of ever being more than that.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Three Kings (1999)

8/10

The Film's Look Has a Purpose

4 October 1999

In response to those of you who do not understand or do not like the bleached-out look of Three Kings, there is reason behind the cinematographer's view: First, the washed out look of the film lends to it a documentary style and feeling. Second, this view does well to physically harshen the look of the desert locale and visually remind us how barren, unforgiving, and seeringly hot that place can be.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Three Kings (1999)

8/10

Kings Deserves to Be a Classic

4 October 1999

Three Kings is clearly one of the most original, fresh, and provocative films of this year. First, there was Rushmore, The Matrix, Southpark, The Sixth Sense, The Iron Giant, and now Three Kings. Although not nearly as great, Three Kings is thoroughly set in the vein of Great, absurdist warfare movies like M.A.S.H. and Apocalypse Now. Had I been someone who solely relied on movie trailers to encourage or discourage me from seeing a picture, I would have regrettably missed out on this exciting film. For me, George Clooney has yet to be a successful leading man at the box office, and Ice Cube . well, Ice Cube is Ice Cube. So, a movie having those two in it wouldn't exactly make me salivate at the chance to part with my time and money to go see it. In fact, before seeing Three Kings, I had more respect for the talents of Mark Wahlberg than either of those two. Nonetheless, my doubts about the film were for naught!

Three Kings is so multi-faceted that it cannot be pigeonholed into a 60-second vision byte. Yes, there is action as the movie trailer overemphasizes, but if that is all you're interested in, then this film is not for you. The action in Kings is not for its own sake, but is merely another element in the story, just like dialogue and visuals. Too many times, persons who make movie trailers cater to the lowest common denominator - as though no one the audience has ever seen a truck blow up before. How misleading! Instead, Three Kings is hilarious; action-packed; thought-provoking; cynical; balletically violent; at times, beautifully sorrowful; bitingly sharp in its commentary on American consumerism and materialism, and mercilessly critical of the Bush administration's Gulf War policies. It's the best film I've seen since The Sixth Sense. Only, Three Kings is wholly more apt, and deservedly so, at becoming a classic.

Rating: 7.5 to 8/10

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hypotheses

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed