F6Pilot's Reviews

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

9/10

20 March 2001

Note to my fellow history buffs: No movie set during an historical event is 100% accurate, no matter how good it is. Not Saving Private Ryan, not Glory, not Apollo 13, not Gettysburg, not Titanic. Stuff gets condensed, stuff gets left out and some stuff is added on in the interests of drama. Once you can deal with this, you'll not only have a much better time at the movies, you'll also be less likely to annoy the people you go to the movies with. That and you get to have the fun of e-mailing all the little goofs in to IMDB.

You know a movie has to be good when the biggest gripes people have about it are the accents. Yes, all the major Russians seemed to have studied at Oxford, and an accent coach would have been nice. And yes, in the many scenes when it's sniper vs. sniper, the huge Russian and German armies seemed to have disappeared completely. Other then that, there was very little to groan about in this movie. Ed Harris had a powerful screen presence, and the major Russian characters played by Jude Law, Joeseph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz played well off each other, even without the benefit of Russian accents.

The story is an excellent balance of excitement and suspense. There is an explosive, in-your-face action battle scene which the only half armed Red army gets clobbered in turn by German Stukas, tanks, and machine guns, and tense, uptight sequences where the two expert snipers stalk each other.

I'll recommend this for any WWII fan, suspense movie fan, Harris/ Law/ J.Fiennes/ Weisz fan and any movie historian who's starting to get the feeling that Hollywood has been giving a just little too much credit to the US contribution in WWII recently (U-571, Saving Private Ryan). Enemy is a welcome movie that gives the sufferings and the heroism of the Soviets their due.

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

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

1/10

The Best Movie Ever Made ...

5 March 2001

... was probably Casablanca. Or maybe Gone With The Wind. Perhaps one of Godfather or Star Wars movies. Whatever cinematic achievement holds this pinnacle in your personal top ten list, you'll almost certainly place the wretched "Manos: the Hands of Fate" at the other extreme.

When a movie really and truly sucks, the actors and actresses are usually the last ones I blame, since even the best performers can't do much with a stupid plot, dumb premise, poor direction, and nonexistent continuity. But in this case the talent-deprived actors should have realized halfway through the project that they'd be better off having gone back to their day jobs, whatever they may have been.

Are there any bright spots in this abyss? The only performer who displayed any recognizable talent was John Reynolds as Torgo. I write this under the assumption that the late Mr. Reynolds was not mentally handicapped, and that his pauses and stutterings were him desperately trying to bring his ill-conceived character to life.

Even Joel and the 'bots, our fearless bashers of stupidity, had trouble making this movie entertaining. What's there to say about a movie that takes ten minutes of dialogue-less driving? The Ultimate Raspberry award goes to "Manos: Hands of Fate", which should be placed in the condemned spot of Worst Movie Ever.

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

Where the Heart Is (2000)

8/10

A Must See

26 February 2001

If you aren't already a fan of either Natalie Portman or Ashley Judd, this film stands an excellent chance of making you one. If you are, this flick belongs on your "Must See" list. The two female leads soar through a witty and engrossing script, and are much aided by the stylish directing. A pluses go to Stockard Channing, James Frain and Keith David in their supporting roles, and Sally Field and Dylan Bruno also deserve mention for making their audience hate their despicable characters.

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

Mission to Mars (2000)

2/10

Soooooo Disappointing!

26 February 2001

I'm usually easy to please when it comes to special effects movies. I can even enjoy the 1998 Godzilla because of it's good looking lizard. But this movie left even me saying "huh"? Here lies a problem with execution. The premise was good, the actors talented. But they were saddled with a ponderous screenplay that somehow managed to make exciting sequences boring and plodding. The action was disjointed, and the story didn't even begin to really get underway until there was only a half hour or so left on the clock. By that time, my interest, (and the interest of most people I've talked to on this show) had long since evaporated. In addition, the less said about the soundtrack, the better. I rented this movie because I missed it in the theater, and I usually rent films so I can check out what passed me by. It turns out that I didn't miss much.

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

7th Heaven (1996–2007)

Uplifting, if schmaltzy

26 February 2001

Okay, yes. 7th Heaven has a cast sheet filled with whitewashed and sometimes silly characters. My own personal gripe is the character of Lucy who, in the last scene of almost every show, understands the moral of the episode with a Yoda-like wisdom that easily makes her the most ridiculous character on the show. Many critics have pointed out the need for suspended disbelief that is required to enjoy this show, as though this was a new phenomenon on TV.

That aside, this is one show that's packing some guts.

TV dramas that attempt to put a moral slant on real life problems are true diamonds in the rough, and people either like them or hate them. Some of the criticism, I feel isn't so much based on flaws that the show has, but on the attitude that religion and God have no place on the TV airways. "Touched by an Angel" has to endure the same flack. Although the show may be unrealistic, it tries to do justice to serious issues like drunk driving, peer pressure, teenage sex/pregnancy, and drugs. Unlike most shows it looks at them from not only a legal/health angle but also from an ethical/moral standpoint, a view which is too often overlooked on TV.

"7th Heaven"'s credibility suffers a little because, like all dramas, it has to introduce a problem and wrap up its solution all in a one hour slot. Still it is good, wholesome, funny, and not afraid to take one serious issues in today's world. Worth a watch.

8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Space Mutiny (1988)

"Nice of you to give that dead girl another chance."

17 October 2000

If you watch this with Mike and the 'bots, you'll roll on the floor laughing. The SOL guys were able to produce a beautiful flower of an episode, using the manure "Space Mutiny" as a rich fertilizer. Don't miss the breathtaking armored golf cart chases, the bevy of witches who got lost wound up in this movie, and above all the beautiful continuity screw-up where Lt. Lamont gets killed by the bad guy, only to appear on the bridge in the next scene. Those are just the bad points that make the movie unique. The rest of the plot is cheap props, stunt men falling from railings, Grand Theft Visual from Battlestar Gallactica, and Grand Theft Audio from Star Wars and Star Trek. A bounty of riffing material for our intrepid heroes in MST3K, but I would never touch the stuff without their help. You VCR would probably take it as a personal affront if you tried to watch it without Mike and the 'bots.

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

Reindeer Games (2000)

At least it was free for me.....

16 September 2000

Okay... everyone confess. Almost all of us have one or two or maybe a handful of actors and actresses that are our favorites. Anytime they come out with a project we're curious, sometimes to the extent that we go forth, as though in a trance, to the theater and to see what they've done, even if the critics, previews, and even friends and family try repeatedly to warn us away.

I was likewise curious about Reindeer Games. Charlize Theron has been one of my favorites since I saw "The Devil's Advocate", and when Reindeer Games opened early this year I figured that if Gary Sinise is in it, how bad could it be?

I didn't have time to see it in theaters, but when my college offered it for free this semester on cable, I decided to tune in. Fortunately, about an hour and a half of my life were all it cost me. The above critics are all correct on their observations about plot holes, unlikely premise, silly twists, and 2nd rate dialogue.

There are some bright spots. Fans of Charlize Theron (read: males aged 13 through dead) are treated to watching her character change gears more often then a NASCAR driver trying to weave though lower Manhattan. Her character of Ashley goes from warm and inviting to helpless looking and frightened to ice hearted and displaying a mean streak. And yes she has one or two scenes without wardrobe.

Also, fans of Ben Affleck (read: females aged 13 through dead) get a right mix of fear, sarcasm, and looks of I- can't- believe- this- is- happening- to- me throughout the film.

Unfortunately, we can't believe it's happening either. Gary Sinise's character tried so hard to be menacing, but he always seemed to be more clownish then anything else. Also the bad guys seem to hit the jackpot too many times in a row when they predict the hero's next tow or three or fifteen moves. With a crystal ball like that, they could have just dumped the whole casino heist and played Power-Ball for the rest of their days. It's usually not a good sign when the audience mumbles, "Oh, come on!" too many times during the flick.

Still, for every "oh, come on!" there was a clever moment of "ah-ha!" and the twists, while contrived, had me grinning from ear to ear.

I'd call Reindeer Games enjoyable so long as you don't take it as seriously as the movie takes itself.

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

April Morning (1988 TV Movie)

10/10

Starting the Revolution ...

27 April 2000

Warning: Spoilers

This summary contains spoilers.

For Revolutionary War buffs (yes the species does exist) the pickings in the film industry are pretty slim, this winter's "The Crossing" and this summer's "The Patriot" notwithstanding. Medieval movies are easy to find, WW II movies are everywhere, and Civil War movies are always an on screen favorite. Yet for some reason, the American Revolution is largely ignored by Hollywood.

One of the excellent films in this small genre is April Morning, a Hallmark hall of fame presentation that was aired in 1988. The film focuses on a 15-year-old lad named Adam Cooper who lives in the sleepy little hamlet of Lexington, Massachusetts Bay Colony in April 1775. Life for Adam consists of doing his farm chores, courting his sweetheart Ruth Simmons (Meredith Salenger), daughter of Joseph Simmons (Robert Urich), and desperately trying to win the approval of his gruff, temperamental yet good-hearted father Moses (Tommy Lee Jones - before he was ultra-famous). Other characters include Adam's mother Sarah (Susan Blakely), his Granny (Joan Heney) and local firebrand Solomon Chandler (Rip Torn). Lexington is a quiet town, and would remain so if it didn't have the misfortune of being the halfway point along the main road from Boston to Concord MA, where patriot militia groups have been stockpiling arms and gunpowder. On the night of April 18th 1775, the British launch a secret raid with the goal of surprising Concord and securing the contraband. Col. Francis Smith commands the expedition of 1000+ red coated soldiers. Nothing goes right for the redcoats. The surprise is blown even before the march begins as Paul Revere and his co-riders ride through the countryside and warn every little town, including Lexington.

When the morning of April 19th dawns, 70 or so men are drawn up on the green as the British march through the town. Inexplicably, Maj. John Pitcairn, commanding the advance party, picks a fight with the men, even though they do not block his path. He demands their dispersion and the surrender of their weapons. Refused, he forms a line of battle and advances on the minutemen. Someone, somewhere fires a gunshot. To this day his (or, for all we know, her) name is unknown. For dramatic purposes, the movie has Chandler pulling the trigger. Believing themselves under attack, the soldiers charge and shoot down Lexingtonians left and right. 10 are killed and 8 wounded. Moses is one of the fatalities, Adam, Joseph and Solomon running for their lives.

The English reform, and continue their already much-delayed march to Concord. Solomon predicts that "It'll be easier for them to go down that road then it will be for them to come back." He's right. The soldiers find almost nothing of value in Concord, the contraband having been recently removed. After skirmishing with more militia there, the British return to Boston via the same route they came. What follows is an English slaughter. The road is practically walled with farmers with guns, whipped up into a bloodthirsty and lethal rage by the carnage at Lexington. The colonists, including Adam, Solomon, and Joseph fire on the redcoats from every tree, rock, fence, and bush. The British take most of the casualties, but not all. By the time the day is out, Solomon is dead, and Adam and Joseph return to Lexington, quite aware that quiet peaceful days are gone forever for Lexington, Massachusetts, and the 13 colonies.

To the best of my knowledge this movie stands with Disney's ancient "Johnny Tremain" as the only two films to depict the beginning of the Revolutionary War. True, the body count at Lexington wasn't much, but for starting a war, it was enough.

The battle sequences are well set up and photographed, one of the most striking audile effects being the drums of the advancing English force, which we hear through the trees for a full minute and a half before the lobsterbacks come into view. The steady increase of fear in the militia is palpable. So too are all the details of the mighty British host preparing to advance. From the rasp and clank of bayonets being fixed to the shouts of hurrah, every effort was made to make the British army look as scary and mechanical as possible.

Tommy Lee Jones and Chad Lowe both went on to successful careers, and this movie proves that they had their acting chops down long before they were famous (April Morning Pre-dates Life goes on and Under Siege). This movie also serves as notches in the acting guns of Urich and Torn.

Meredith Salenger of "The Journey of Natty Gann" and more recently "Lake Placid" is lovely and wholesome as Ruth, and portrays her character with an excellent blend of support, worry, faith, and horror for the two men in her life - her father Joseph and Adam. Ruth is what any man who is forced into a war so desperately wants to come home to. The fact that Ms. Salenger is not as recognizable in the movie world as her costars of this film are is proof to me that there is not enough justice in Hollywood.

This movie is a treat for all fans of history, Lowe, and Jones. Contrary to what this database says, it IS available on home video, if you look hard enough. Check out your nearest Blockbuster or Movies Unlimited and find the guy/girl who most looks like he knows what he's doing. They'll probably be able to set you up. It's worth the search.

16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

U-571 (2000)

7/10

Enjoyable, despite holes in the sub plot.

21 April 2000

U-571 has been taking a few hits on this page about the historical inaccuracies, cardboard characters and implausible facets that are in the movie, but all things considered, it was a fun film.

There's very little in the way of characterization, but once the Americans board the U-boat, there's not much time for that anyway.

This film is NOT the true story about how the Enigma was captured, and it never claims to be. Indeed the movie dedicates itself to the real life Allied heroes that actually captured the German code machine, even going so far as to give a list of the real live events in which the Allies deprived U-boats of their precious little Enigmas. The real life exploits would more then likely make for dull or clumsy cinema, hence we have this flick.

The U-571 takes part in an underwater duel with another submarine, which was exciting, but nearly impossible for WWII submarines to do. Subbies back then had to see what they were shooting at in order to do any good. Made for a nice action sequence though.

For all the above, U-571 is a fun and enjoyable film, loaded with non-stop action and suspense I spent most of my time on the edge of my seat, and the climactic confrontation was satisfying and spectacular.

Pretty much any action or WW II fan should see this movie.

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

The Bone Collector (1999)

9/10

A Creepy, Spooky Crime Drama ...

26 March 2000

Warning: Spoilers

I just saw this movie a few hours ago for free, since it just came to my college's theater. I remember wanting to see this flick when it came out, but I never got around to it. I honestly don't know what all the criticism is about. I liked the movie a lot.

Why? Well, here's a short list.

1. Denzel Washington was his usual excellent self, playing the quadriplegic New York forensic investigator. His quiet kind of determination and humor, considering his condition, was really part of the heart and soul of this movie.

2. I'm a sucker for most movies that have Angelina Jolie in them. Her character swung between tough as nails and vulnerable, and she made it look very believable. My only beef is her job on the story. More on this later.

3. The villain is a brutal, sadistic, macabre, and utterly ruthless bad guy, who is excellent, lacking in only one quality - surprise. More on this later as well.

4. Excellent shots of the New York City landscape.

The movie has two major downsides, but in my case they were easy to overlook.

1. The NYPD has a LOT of Forensic investigators on it's staff. There was never any excuse for sending an untrained patrol officer (like Angelina Jolie) as the first one into every crime scene. Lincoln Rhyme can't do it? Fine. Send one of the other dozen or so forensic teams. Talented or not, possessing great instincts or not, Amelia needed a lot more training before she could be trusted to be the first one on a crime scene, with or without Lincoln's endorsement.

2. SPOILER ALERT. The producers and directors apparently wanted to keep the killer's identity a secret, showing no hint of either his inspiration or motivation behind the crimes (much less the killer's identity) until it's close to the end. That was while they were filming. Then, to promote the movie, they do what? GIVE THE KILLER AN IMPORTANT LINE IN THE TRAILER!! Think back to a sentence that went something like this: "I gave you so many clues and you still failed! " C'mon, folks! I couldn't be the only one in the whole country who recognized that voice as Lieutenant DeWindt the glider pilot in "Saving Private Ryan", or that poor guy from the massage parlor in "Se7en". All I had to do was look for Leland Orser (yes, that actor has a name) and bingo! The killer's ID was no longer a surprise.

2. Even if I haven't seen those movies, The Bone Collector goes out of it's way to give it away. All of the victim's have surgical cuts in their bodies.. Hmmmmm. How many characters that we know about have a medical background? In this movie the killer was supposed to be a surprise. But it wasn't.

Also, a mini-beef. I guess there was some sort of semi-romantic subplot with Amelia and Lincoln, but the scriptwriters thought it would be best to wait until the flick's almost over to introduce it. Why? I dunno. Didn't like that part. I mean, c'mon. If they're gonna pair off, pair off! If not, don't try to make the story more interesting with half-baked love plots.

I call it 8/10 for the Bone Collector, an excellent suspense thriller in the tradition of "Se7en" and "Copycat" that drops the ball in some very easy places.

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

George Washington (1984)

9/10

The Story of America's Greatest Hero

9 February 2000

This mini-series is without a doubt the best depiction of the life of George Washington that has ever been put to screen. From the acting, to the battle sequences, to the music to the montage of paintings that open each episode, the mini- series shows the life and times of Washington and his experiences in the French and Indian War, and the American Revolution.

The mini Series is divided into 3 episodes. In general, part 1 covers Washington's life in the French and Indian War, part 2 shows the coming and commencement of the Revolutionary War, and part 3 is victory and Independence from England.

Barry Bostwick (Rocky Horror Picture Show, Spin City) gleams in this image of the adventurous, courageous Virginian whose thirst for excitement and knowledge of the wilderness lead him on his career in the Virginia militia. When hostilities break out between England and France for control of this wilderness, it is Washington himself who sheds the first blood. Washington is personally involved in several battles during the war, earning a reputation for courage, competence, and cool-headedness, this despite the fact that most of the battles he fights are complete British disasters.

After the war, Washington wants nothing more then to live in peace at his new home, Mount Vernon with his new wife Martha. Fate however has different plans. Hostilities open up between England and her 13 colonies. When Washington rides north to Philadelphia to pledge support of the Virginia House of Burgesses to Congress, he is immediately voted into command of the ragtag Continental Army in Massachusetts. Throughout the Revolutionary War, Washington leads his poorly disciplined, ill fed, badly shod army into battle after battle. Several times the army, and the dream of independence teeter on the brink of total annihilation. Of course, the day is always saved more often then not by Washington's stubbornness and courage alone.

After 7 years of destructive conflict, the War is over and the United States of America is created. Recognizing that the military must be the servant of the civil power he restrains his angry soldiers from marching on a negligent congress, and resigns his own commission to congress, his duty done, and his assigned task complete.

I have almost no complaints for this mini series, just a regret that they couldn't have made it 4 episodes long, to show more battles. The series has large and frequent time gaps, and the battles that took place in these gaps (that Washington was present for) are explained away in a few lines of dialogue. To a student of history, the battles of Harlem Hights, White Plains, Fort Washington, Brandywine, and Germantown are missed. Other battles that were important despite Washington's absence, such as Lexington, Bunker Hill, Saratoga and Camden are mentioned for their impact on the war, and we learn about them at the same time Washington does.

The mini series reenacts the battles of Fort Necessity, and Braddock's defeat in the French and Indian War and also the battles of Brooklyn Heights, Trenton, Monmouth and Yorktown. The action sequences are broad, lengthy, and exciting, calling together a cast of thousands of reinactors to play British, American, Scottish, Hessian and French soldiers.

Washington's life consisted of more then battles, of course. the mini series also examines the other hardships and triumphs in his life. Pay close attention to the agony Washington goes through watching his men freeze and starve to death at Valley Forge, and the personal trauma he experiences as Benedict Arnold, one of his most trusted and courageous generals turns traitor. Washington also endures the Conway cabal, a sort of coup by jealous officers to oust him from command.

Truly heartwarming scenes involve the idealism of Lafayette (Philip Casanoff) and Von Steuben, the strength and supportive cheeriness of Martha (Patty Duke) the farewell Washington gives to his officers at the end, and any scene involving Sally Fairfax, (Jaclyn Smith), wife of Washington's best friend Will (David Dukes).

Washington's alleged forbidden attraction to the lovely Sally is examined in a family friendly way and depicts Washington in the most flattering and virtuous light possible given what little evidence there is about what did/didn't happen. The series puts any flirtatious and teasing behavior on Sally's shoulders, which may or may not be accurate. Portraying it any other way, however would be out of step with the heroic deeds that Washington accomplished in his life.

This show is probably the only project that studies the Washington story with such attention to detail. It's available on video, if you know where to look, and belongs on the shelf of every flag-waving patriot. I wish it were a 4th of July tradition to show it on networks the way The Ten Commandments is around Passover/Easter time. George Washington is the story of America's Greatest Hero.

30 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gettysburg (1993)

7/10

Excellent, not perfect, but excellent

6 February 2000

With a few notable exceptions Schindler's List, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and Glory, history based movies usually die quick and quiet in the movie theater (The Messenger, Ride with the Devil, Cobb) History flicks cost a bundle to make with the costumes and the challenge of finding a place to shoot that's nowhere near highways, bridges, and cities, and they don't always appeal to mass audiences.

So it's not that often that really good historical film comes around. As a result, it's good not to be too fussy when one does. Both Gettysburg and the Killer Angels, the book it was based on, were stuffed with historical inaccuracies, the grossest of all being the presence of the 20th Maine regiment anywhere near Pickett's charge (this happens in both the movie and the book).

For all the lengthy soliloquies, historical misses, whitewashed violence, and the fact that only about 30% of the battle of Gettysburg is shown on film, Gettysburg remains as the best effort to capture the sprawling battle of July 1863 on film. Where the movie lacks in realism, it makes up for it's dialogue, and in the scope of the battle scenes, which are on a scale so grand, that the bloodless body count and the inaccurate tactics can be forgiven. The sheer numbers of soldiers taking part in Pickett's charge was breathtaking. Kudos to the reenactors.

Martin Sheen and Tom Beringer were they're usual excellent selves as Lee and Longstreet and for me, their ongoing debate of the strategy of Gettysburg helped make the movie. Other highlights include the disenchantment of Union soldiers at this stage of the Civil War, and the personal trauma Richard Jordan's Lewis Armistead felt at having to fight his friend Winfield Hancock not only in the same war, but in the same sector of the same battle of that war.

Much of Gettysburg has to be viewed with a grain of salt, but until a Stephen Speilberg or other directing genius with a knack for war footage comes along, it's one of the best we have. And it's pretty good.

75 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Scream 3 (2000)

7/10

Some rules still apply, some rules don't.

5 February 2000

---The taglines for this third installment of the Scream movies told you to "Forget the Rules", and Patrick Dempsey in the trailer tells you that "All bets are off." The obvious idea of the buildup was to get you psyched for a completely original capstone to the Scream movies, but in truth Scream 3 still contains a lot more of the same.

---Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Some of the key (and I'll admit -fun) ingredients of the Scream movies are still there. Phone-stalk-chase-and-kill-a-few-minor-characters-in-the-beginning-before-t he-opening-credits-roll?

Check.

Give-the-condemned-a-few-prophetic-lines-about-their-own-death-before-their -slaughter?

Check.

Fill-the-cast-with-a-whole-bunch-of-blade-fodder-so-we-can-raise-the-body-c ount-without-hindering-the-important-characters?

Check.

Show-our-black-robed-white-masked-killer-from-as-many-different- camera-angles-as-can-be-imagined-before-during-and-after-he-strikes?

Check.

Even the Have-Randy-Meeks-explain-the-rules-of-the-movie-to-us ingredient is here, despite the scripting challenge of having the late Randy come back from the dead. Personally I loved the way they wrote this one in. Obviously, not all the rules are forgotten.

Not that the movie doesn't have it's moments of originality. In fact it has several. The movie is rife with moments when you think the characters are in danger but they're not, and of course with moments when you think they're safe but they're REALLY not.

Far more common however are the elements that would have been boring and predictable had they been in another movie line, but for some reason come off smelling like a rose here. I think there's an odd form of originality in this movie. Most of the horror-slasher clichés that the first two movies spent so much time tearing down are now resurrected. Many have critiqued this as "being in a rut" and falling in line with other slashers, and perhaps they're right. But it comes off as surprising and unexpected since the audience was never counting on a Scream movie to act like a regular cut-'em-up.

Example? The "stalking the girl in the shower and butchering her either in or just after she gets out" bit has been done so many times, you'd think we were done with it. Screams 1 and 2 were so unconventional that I didn't expect the writers of 3 to touch it with a 10-foot pole. They did. Just as some animals can be so-ugly-they're-beautiful I thought Ehren Kruger's script was so-cliché-it-was-original. I choose to believe that was the point, rather then an accident.

All and all, I say it was a good movie, and this is from a person who doesn't watch many horror movies. Scream 3 is a worthy ending point for the genre and if the packed theater I was in last night is any indication, it'll make it big.

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

Double Jeopardy (1999)

7/10

Maybe I'm just too easy to please ...

30 January 2000

I just saw this movie two days ago, as it came to our college's theater. Since I'm a student, I didn't have to pay a dime. I had wanted to see this movie a few months ago when it came out, but time didn't permit.

Previous writers have written in on the gaping plot holes in this movie, the recycled performance of Tommy Lee Jones, and even the absurdity of the title, considering that the "Double Jeopardy" clause to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with wrongful convictions, only acquittals. They're all right. The premise of the film started out as ridiculous, and the plot was contrived beyond believability. I read the comments above and shrugged and said "So what?" In most of the movies I've seen Tommy Lee Jones in, he is essentially the same character, with just a few tweaks here and there. Take a good long look, and you'll notice that Travis Lehmen in this movie is a carbon copy of Brad Little from "Firebirds", Sam Gerard from "The Fugitive" and "US Marshals", Mike Roark from "Volcano", Agent Kay from "Men In Black". Jones CAN stretch his style when his scriptwriters give him something that calls for it, (see "Under Siege", "Batman Forever", "JFK" and "April Morning"), but most casting people seem to want to give Jones the gruff and taciturn roles. Scriptwriters meanwhile bless him with lines that can be hilarious, inflammatory or dead serious, but will all be delivered in Jones' trademark semi-bored voice, usually without his face cracking a smile. If Jones is okay with this trend, I'm okay with it. It doesn't do much for variety, but a little familiarity is good every now and then.

As for Ashley Judd well, I thought she was enjoyable to watch while she was hyperventilating on the dock. Granted she might get sick at any minute, but she'd look good doing it. I'll refrain from commenting on her acting, since I'm obviously biased, sucker for a pretty face that I am. Whether it was good or bad, it will almost always be good to me. Bruce Greenwood played his part well, as an utterly contemptible money grubbing scoundrel. By the time the action moved to Louisiana, I was actively rooting for his violent death.

The movie has a heroine that's lovely to watch, a hero that's fun to watch, and bad guy that's easy to hate. Couple that with a few good one liners, and nice photography of the boat and of Louisiana, and I think it's an enjoyable movie. Granted it's silly and unrealistic, but I for one can look past that, given it's assets. I'd recommend this movie for Judd fans and Jones fans, just not for serious crime drama fans.

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

Ladyhawke (1985)

Three cheers for the movie, Boos for the music.

22 October 1999

I'm a major fan of all things fantasy and Michelle Pfeiffer, and this '85 flick was one I missed. Went to the video store and remedied that I believe this movie to be one of the most fun fairy tales set to screen. Michelle Pfeiffer is radiant in her Isabeau role, despite the relatively small amount of screen time she has. Matthew Brodrick is perfectly cast in his impish little thief character of Phillipe. Praise is also due to the stoic Leo McKern in his crucial role as the monk who explains the curse that is the central story. My only character gripes are with Rutger Hauer's wooden portrayal of the hero Navarre, and John Wood's equally mannequin rendering of the evil bishop. But without a doubt, the worst blemish on this well conceived, not-as-well-executed fantasy flick was the dreadful music, which practically screams "Early to mid 80's!" If any good came from the music it was that the sonic disaster which is the Ladyhawk soundtrack probably destroyed the movie careers of John Dowland and Andrew Powell. Look them up on the database and you'll see that neither of these guys worked that much after this movie. I'm convinced that it's not a coincidence. My recommendation would be to rent this movie, put on the closed captions on your TV , then mute it so you can spare your senses the confusion of trying to associate the image of knights in shining armor galloping to techno-pop music.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

F6Pilot

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed