Reviews

I did laugh a handful of times during this movie but, at the moment, I don't remember when. A totally banal and insipid comedy with labored setups and meager payoffs. Nearly every punchline is predictable and, thus, spoiled. Spoofs of "The Matrix", "The Usual Suspects", and that idiotic "Whassup?" beer commercial are just plain dull. And whenever the filmmakers run out of material they rely on their secret weapon--male genitalia!

I really have to rank this spoof below the likes of "Spy Hard", "Loaded Weapon I" and "Fatal Instinct".

There's a scene in an episode of Deep Space Nine where Chief O'Brien's newborn baby is brought to the command center of the space station and left alone for a few moments. The next shot we see is from the baby's point of view, looking up at the ceiling from O'Brien's sunken work station. Slowly, a bunch of smiling Starfleet and Bajor officers begin to crowd around to get a look at the little bundle of joy. It's such a perfectly human response that I couldn't help but be stunned by it. These weren't the dry automatons of ST:TNG, isolated in their ship and pontificating about the moral-of-the-week. These were people that lived in a real universe, with real problems and possessing real emotions, thoughts and feelings.

DS9 got real good at nailing those small human touches--the little moments of quite understanding--but it was the lengthy recurring story archs that lent the show its weight. Very rarely did the show go in for the gimmick-of-the-week mentality of the previous Trek shows. Instead of deftly dispatching a problem a week, some obstacles remain on DS9 for many seasons. Take a look at Louise Fletcher's Kai Wynn. She's a Bajoran religious leader--with substantial influence and power--who has deluded herself into thinking her quest for power is really helping Bajoran while actually bringing it to the brink of destruction. Captain Sisko, in his role of the Emissary, has to closely work with Kai Wynn but he has no easy answers in dealing with her. He can't shoot her, he can't remove her from power and he has no way to discredit her. Sisko has to live with her. Kai Wynn proves to be a thorn in Sisko's side until the end of the series.

I think Kai Wynn is a good example of the philosophy of the DS9 creators. Problems aren't solved with a timely contrivance such as a phased-tachyon emission or one of Picard's after-school special-style speeches. Characters on DS9 have to honestly deal with problems and occasionally (shockingly!) make sacrifices. Characters compromise their own codes of ethics for the good of the galaxy or their loved ones and face the ramifications of all their decisions.

Also, the characters in DS9 don't live in a vacuum as they do on the other Trek shows. There are an incredibly number of secondary characters that make DS9 seem like the only Starfleet posting occupied by more than seven people.

The creators also figured out that they could alter the tone of individual episodes to strengthen the series as a whole. The inclusion of occasional comedic and romantic episodes allows the series to really broaden its appeal.

Finally, the character interaction is written (and acted)extremely well making it one of the best ensemble series of TV. Characters evolved over seven seasons and their relationships with each other and evolved as well. The writers put the characterization first and didn't use them as mere mouthpieces for moral arguments and meaningless techno-bable as was so often the case on ST:TNG.

I was sad when DS9 ended, knowing that the future of televised sci-fi was bleak, but I guess seven seasons is enough for any series. With the original Star Trek a little too dated and corny, TNG a little too stuffy and Babylon 5 (not Trek but often compared to DS9) a little too pretentious DS9 easily ranks as the best sci-fi series ever made.

Full Contact is passable Hong Kong action film that doesn't really go anywhere. There are a few good action scenes and that's about it. Chow Yun Fat is good, but doesn't really have much to do and most of the plotting and characters are just silly. Director Ringo Lam doesn't seem so much a master of his craft, than as an eager apprentice with a bag of tricks (i.e. the way to gimmicky "bullet POV" shots). He doesn't quite have the depth or artistry of John Woo, HK's reigning action director (though, thankfully, his film's aren't nearly as shoddy as Tsui Hark's).

I must state that I am a fan of Battlefield Earth - the book. I find it to be one of the more readable science fiction epics with a great story, plenty of action, and interesting characters.

The film, however, dumbs-down the story, characters and action so much that all the good qualities of the book are completely lost. Very rarely do screen adaptions match the appeal of the book, but Battlefield Earth's concoction of idiotic characters, plot holes, bad acting, and lapses in logic came from ineptness and not from any demands of the film medium.

With this one film director Roger Christian has shot to the top of my "Really Bad Directors List", easily replacing the likes of Michael Bay and Simon West. Christian's reliances on wipes and tilted camera angles doesn't cover up the fact that he has no clue how to frame a scene or how to get his cinematographer to use more than a 40-watt lightbulb to light the picture.

Critics long feared that this movie would have been a Scientology propoganda flick due to the author of the book. From what little I know about Scientology I can't find any of it in this picture and I think that's a shame. Such a picture would be far more interesting than this waste of time.

I saw Hudson Hawk in the theater on opening weekend and I loved it. It instantly appealed to my warped sense of humor and my love of heist flicks.

While certainly not a masterpiece (as many of the jokes fall flat), Hudson Hawk was vastly different from other action/comedies out in 1991. It was a silly story told in an absurd way with very weird characters. I think Hudson Hawk's closest cinematic cousin is Buckaroo Banzai in that both movies don't care about traditional story-telling techniques and conventions of their respective genres.

For me, who will always love the odd and bizarre (such as 1999's Being John Malkovich), Hudson Hawk will remain a personal favorite.

Where else can you find such a cool quip as:

HUDSON HAWK (after decapitating a villain): I guess you won't be attending that hat convention in July!

Need I say more?

I can't find very much redeeming about this movie. The characters are all one-dimensional (despite decent acting), the dialogue is corny and full of cliches ("..It's like looking for a needle in a haystack!"), and the ending is a 2001 ripoff (maybe not an identical clone, but a thematic and cinematic one certainly).

I got the feeling that the opening party scene was inspired from a similar (and much better) scene in Apollo 13. Only a couple of scenes (notably the sandstorm/vortex scene and the spacewalk scene) ever raise to the level of "Hey, at least it's pretty to look at".

If you're in the mood for intelligent sci-fi, you'd be much better checking out the aforementioned 2001 (along with 2010, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Apollo 13 or Contact). If you already have, don't bother with Mission to Mars, 'cause you've already seen it.

I didn't like Arlington Road the first time I saw it--when it was called the Parallax View and starred Warren Beatty. The lameness of the third act was only outdone by the dullness of the first act and the boring stuff in between.

The acting was fine, but the story was totally implausible. Since when did terrorists develop the ability to read minds? Everytime a scare is needed one of the terrorists shows up out of the blue to give Jeff Bridges a good fright (even though there's no reason for them to be there).

The "shocking" ending is only shocking in how idiotic it is. The movie does such an obvious job setting up Jeff Bridges' character as an anti-government type that I knew the ending by the second reel. The terrorists' plan is so silly it could only happen in films such as this one (and The Game and The Parallax View). At least The Game was entertaining and the Parallax View had a really good director to "sorta" save it.

Arlington Road's competant performances have no chance of saving it. Rating 1 out of 10.

The Matrix is not a perfect movie. I thought the religious symbolism was a little amateurish and I didn't really buy into the evil robots using humanity as a power source plot. And if Morpeus said "He is the One!" once more I would have walked out of the theatre.

However, despite these flaws The Matrix is easily one of the best action films of recent years. It accomplishes this mainly by style. The Brothers Wachowski live up to the promise of Bound and prove that they see things in an atypical way. Every frame of the Matrix is saturated with their own unique vision and style. This makes the Matrix a good cut above the manufactured and overly processed studio entries over the past few years (from Wild Wild West to the horrible End of Days). Audiences are tired with convention and the success of the Matrix is proof of that.

And, of course, the Matrix features the best kung-fu choreography outside of Hong Kong. The Brothers Wachowski really know how to make a fight scene look good with nice flowing camerawork and numerous long shots. I, for one, like to know what's happening in my action scenes--enough of that rapid editing and those idiotic extreme close-ups!

I fell in love with this series from the very first opening frames. After having seen countless animes with interchangeable characters, plots and visual styles, Giant Robo was an unexpected masterpiece. At first glance it looks retro, but nothing can be further from the truth. If anything, Giant Robo is ahead of its time (or perhaps one of the only ones on time). Highly stylized (to say the least), Giant Robo eeks every scrap of possibility out of its animated format. There is no attempt to recreate reality here. Characters have incredibly long, thin legs (and--in one case--nose), run faster than cars and have super powers way cooler than anything else I've ever seen. The soundtrack is outstanding in an original sort of way (opera!) and the pacing keeps viewers on the edge of their seats.

My biggest gripe with the anime is with the characters. While I found many of them to be interesting and likable a few of the main characters were a bit too typical for my tastes The protagonist boy, female lead and the master villain all seemed to be characters I had seen before. However, nearly all of the secondary characters make up for this single flaw.

What Giant Robo does have is great style and enough audacity to try something new. In each of the seven episodes there are numerous breaks from anime convention that set this anime apart from most others. Unfortunately, to go into details would spoil just about everything. Plot twists abound and Giant Robo does feature one of the most powerful endings I have ever seen.

I could go on and on about this anime, but that would be pointless. If I haven't convinced you by now to see it, I'm not going to. And if you've already seen it, you'd just agree with me.

Personally, it ranks as my second favorite anime (following the flawless Mononoke Hime).

I hate being the lone voice of searing ridicule in a throng of glowing adulation, but I must say that I found the Godfather: Part II to be dull, predictable and pointless. The Godfather is a wonderful film with a compelling story arch of a good American war hero being pulled into the depths of organized crime due to his loyalty to family. While Part II makes an attempt to elaborate and deepen this theme it does very little to bring anything new to it. Michael's loss of his family and the fate of his brother Fredo is obvious by the end of the first reel. Such a predictable plot undermines what would otherwise be an interesting sequel to a great film. Only the flashback scenes with Robert DeNiro as a young Vito Corleone has any of the emotion and energy of the original Godfather. If only the rest of the film was written and directed with such flair. I was so disappointed by The Godfather: Part II that I haven't even bothered to see Part III and I have little interest in Coppola's other work to this day.