Reviews

I am an intelligent, well-read person. I enjoy good literature, good music, and good films. I understand symbolism, and I can recognize powerful acting. I have a good feel for the ways film directors make decisions.

Still, "The Door in the Floor" left me thinking, "Huh?" Let me be clear: Basinger and Bridges were stellar. As several reviewers here have said before, they inhabit their characters masterfully. With their performances, I find no fault. With their characters, and with the overarching story arc, I am satisfied The main agent undermining this film is its uncertain, self-conscious direction. Williams seems uniformly unable to navigate Irving's idiosyncratic blend of dark, heavy melancholy and farcical comedy. Truth be told, this movie may have worked better if the director/screenwriter had simply excised Irving's "works-on-paper" episodes of bizarre comedic reprieve. As he handled them, those scenes were just plain incongruous with those surrounding them, and they destroyed the film's pacing.

I'm on the fence about the young actor (Jon Foster) who played Eddie O'Hare. On the one hand, he did a fine job of inhabiting his own body -- that of a gangly, awkward teen. But, then, is this the work of an accomplished actor, or simply a distillation of Foster's real-life persona? Ultimately, Foster was responsible for much of the odd emptiness that repeatedly derailed the film's brief stretches of momentum.

I just don't know what to make of "The Door in the Floor." I "get" this movie, and I'm not lost in its rather sparse story or its dense symbolism. But I was disappointed enough in its directorial inconsistency (and the uneven performance of one of its three main characters) to give this one only a mediocre rating.

I'll cut to the chase -- this movie is flawless.

The direction, cinematography, and writing are all significantly better than "Mystic River," with all three leads (Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and Morgan Freeman) turning in Oscar-worthy performances. "Million Dollar Baby" is an intimate triumph, and could legitimately be called an "instant classic." The specifics of the story are available everywhere, so I'll spare those details. Less often discussed is the skill with which Eastwood treads the razor-thin border between "been there, done that" and perfection.

A look at this film's basic premise might make it appear rife with potential cliché, and the finished product may have lived down to that expectation in the hands of a less insightful director. Watching Eastwood evade the unintentional humor of Hollywood's traditional "underdog-made-good" stories (and soaking up the leads' brilliant performances) comprises much of the appeal of the film's first two acts.

The third act is simply arresting. The acting is one hundred percent flawless throughout the film's last thirty minutes. The pacing remains perfect. To a man, the sold-out audience of which I was a member was utterly, silently transfixed after the beginning of the film's third stanza.

As soon as you possibly can, see this movie. There is good reason for the unilaterally glowing reviews it has received from the "big" critics: "Million Dollar Baby" is a masterpiece.

If you're looking for gratuitous, full-frontal nudity, you've come to the right place. Other than that, this movie has nothing else to offer. This movie tries hard to be a quality B-film, but that effort in itself disqualifies the movie from consideration for that category. So, if you're into semi-attractive girls getting naked and fooling around with a wriggling, rubber optic nerve, by all means -- check this one out. If not, rent "Troll 2" instead. You'll see what I mean.

This is it, folks: the worst movie ever made.

I know, I know, there are many who argue that "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and "Manos: The Hands of Fate" are worse "films" than this one. Well, I'd advise those people to give "Troll 2" another viewing, this time with an open mind. As something of a self-made authority on the worst of the worst in modern cinematic torture, I feel qualified to make the bold assertion that "Troll 2" is the cream of that particular crop.

From its laugh-inducing soundtrack (apparently recorded using only a vintage 1980s Casio keyboard) to its unilaterally awful acting, "Troll 2" is a life-changing experience, similar to the Middle Ages' trials by fire. If you succeed at ingesting this festering piece of cinematic detritus in one sitting, you will emerge a new person, like a phoenix rising from its own ashes. The watching itself may be painful, but it is ultimately worth the pain to be able to say, with conviction, "I survived 'Troll 2,' and I'm still technically alive."

The special effects in this movie are, indeed, special -- like a one-legged blind woman with Alzheimer's. Trivia: one of the various Emmanuelles from the infamous "Emmanuelle" series of soft-core porno movies designed this movie's pitiful costumes. That should give you some indication of their quality.

The acting -- my God, where do I start? Suffice it to say that, if you set any cast member on fire, I would lay down even money that he or she would have a hard time convincing onlookers that it hurt. They're really that bad. More trivia: One of Elliot's "boys" in this movie would later go on to reprise his role (Disposable Character in Bad Movie) in the Lou Diamond Phillips classic "Bats." Even more trivia: The father in this movie was a local dentist, and most of the extras were bona fide Utah residents, as well. Talk about low-budget.

Back to the soundtrack -- There's not a single scene in the movie where the music is appropriate to the on-screen action. I get the impression that the "composer" employed for this stinker was, in fact, a failed auditioner for Def Leppard's still-vacant keytarist position. Seriously, it's rare, even in straight-to-video dogs like this one, to hear music of this woeful caliber.

What more can I say that hasn't already been set forth in previous reviews? This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that's saying something. It's physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausting to watch this film -- I recommend doing it alone, at least the first time you see it...that way, you can concentrate on its truly majestic badness -- and on feeling your brain cells die off, one by one, until you are no longer able to speak.

Good luck to you, if you decide to watch this one. It doesn't get any worse than "Troll 2."

ADDENDUM (October 2007): This is still the worst movie of all time. Its status as such will never change. "Troll 2" is simply the perfect storm of bad writing, casting, direction, cinematography, costuming, score, makeup, effects, acting, editing, and inspiration.

UPDATE (June 2010): I just watched it again. Alone. In one sitting. God help me, some component of my brain must be fundamentally defective.

POSTSCRIPT (September 2013): This film continues to alter the life of each man, woman, and child with the good fortune/taste to bathe in its glory. I could not recommend it more strongly.

CODA (February 2021): This magnum opus infests my soul still. Daily, I am haunted by its indelible essence. I will never escape.

Don't bother. I'm a self-made authority on "good" B-movies, and this ain't one of them. It might have been alright were it not so self-conscious in its clearly purposeful attempts at badness. In other words, if the stuff in this straight-to-video yawner were unintentional (as in "Troll 2," for example), it might be worth a look. But, since it's not, neither is this movie.

"Pearl Harbor" is a movie that should be seen in the theatre. From the $140 million-plus-budgeted explosions and lavish sets to the endless barrage of movie-script one-liners (often encroaching on cliche territory), this is a film tailor-made for the summer-movie crowd. And who better to direct such a prepackaged blockbuster than Michael Bay, a man whose resume (Armageddon, The Rock) speaks for itself? I've got to admit it, the man knows how to blow things up, and he knows how to entertain the average American moviegoer.

But that, unfortunately, is also the downfall of this movie. "Pearl Harbor," in the hands of someone more proficient with human emotion, subtletly, and cinematic nuance, could conceivably have rivaled "Saving Private Ryan" in of subject matter and significance. Instead, while remaining generally quite faithful to history, Bay steers "Pearl Harbor" in the direction of big-budget action. The "tenderness" and emotion he attempts to tack onto his visual, action-oriented film are the main casualties of Bay's directorial style.

The first third of the movie unwinds as expected, with tensions mounting and anticipation for the now-infamous attack on Pearl Harbor building. Even in this, though, Bay goes the extra mile to plainly "foreshadow" Japan's plans, and the results often induce eye-rolling ("This is the hospital, and as you can see, no one's ever in here," a nurse informs a group of newcomers to the base.).

Also in the early goings of the film, we are introduced to the principals in a textbook war-movie love triangle, played here by Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale. As you've likely read by now, the trio is physically attractive, natural in 1940s costume, and fun to watch. They are also, however, placed in some ridiculously unnatural environments meant to showcase the period's innocence, and their dialogue borders on verbal saccharine at times.

Not a single actor in this film is given the freedom (or screen time) to stretch him- or herself, and the result is a collection of characters who develop little and basically move from episode to episode of W.W. II action. Again, in the hands of a more human-oriented director, perhaps some true emotion could push through the scenery and effects, but in this film, none of the actors is capable of breaking Bay's grasp on the wheel steering this film.

But in the center of this film, the actual bombing of Pearl Harbor allows the actors to take a backseat to Bay and let him do what he does best: frenetic action sequences, showcasing improbable feats and incredible explosions. This extended action sequence should, in my opinion find its place among the best in war cinema, and the film is worth seeing for this reason alone. Bay made it a point to meticulously recreate the real-life bombing as accurately as possible -- and if what I was in this film was accurate, then I understand some of the emotions Americans must have felt in 1941. It is THIS emotion that is most significant when discussing this movie -- not the canned "feelings" that Bay and his cast struggle to provide.

In the end, the film does drag a bit. And the third act in this drama, while entertaining, does appear to have been tacked on for the sake of furthering a love story whose relevance is almost erased by the movie's "main event." But on the whole, "Pearl Harbor" is, indeed, a summer-movie spectacle, and it does rekindle the viewer's contemplation of wartime America. So, while I could only offer the film 2.5 out of 4 stars, I will still recommend it to anyone able to make the trip to a theatre to experience it.