spiritualone's Reviews

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

30 June 2001

A.I. is a futuristic tale that takes place well into the future. The story is set sometime after the polar icecaps have melted and flooded major cities and the world. Due to a law limiting births, the science of Artificial intelligence is in full swing to off set the Orgas (nickname for humans)population, give the earth a chance to replenish itself and sort of set the tone of the past. The Mechas (nickname for the robots), though they look very real, are still machines. They are only programmed for certain things. So one of the scientist, Professor Hobby (William Hurt) sets out to create a Mecha with the ability to perform the one emotion every being has. The ability to love. The end result is David, (Haley Joe Osment) a Mecha who, no matter how hard he tries, can't win the love of his mother after her son, Martin (Jake Thomas) whom has been cryogenically frozen with an illness is awakened. After being abandoned with his super toy, Teddy, he sets out on a journey to find the that which will make him a real boy so his mother will love him.

If you are looking for a movie that will make you think, then A.I is it. It is very easy to see Stanley Kubrick in this film. Like `A Clockwork Orange', it is chock full of social commentary. The film asks quite a few questions. Questions such as: What defines a family? What are the boundaries of love? What does it mean to be human (like we know)? What is the meaning of life? It deals with rejection, discrimination, hate, competition, and the one thing we all are trying to do, connect with the world. Like we humans, once he is abandoned, David is forced to see the world as it really is. The only difference is that he sees the world through the eyes of a Mecha and realizes, with the help of Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), that the house he lived in was the rose colored world humans speak of. The question David must answer for himself is would he rather live the lie of the rose colored fairy tale world or connect with the world that is Mecha and Orga.

As mentioned earlier, AI deals with discrimination and hate. Though the narration tells you that the Mechas were created for the support of human, Spielberg doesn't miss the chance to tell you that they were also created to be hated. There treatment is quite holocaust like in the flesh fair scenes and even reflects back on the slave days in the statements that Mechas are workers andnot to be seen in any other way. But like the slaves, the Mechas find ways to improve themselves and thus carve out a place for themselves in the world.

The picture is a visual masterpiece. Kubrick has the gift of taking something that isn't eerie and making it that way. For example the house that David lived in was amazingly white. Other than the wood and the boys room, the house is glowingly white. In theatre and literature, colors have meanings. White is reverent, clean, honest, antiseptic, void of evil. If that's true, why are the Swintons living there when they speak so ill of David and turn on him once their son returns. The contrast between David's fairytale and the real world is as sharp and sudden as David's abandonment. For the first time in a while, we have a complete script with strong lead and supporting characters.

I can't say enough about Haley Joe Osment in this film. The fact that he never blinks in this film is astounding enough but the way he portrays the robot boy is just wonderful. I'm more than sure it was hard to play a character with artificial emotion and make an audience feel for him. An equally superb performance is given by Jude Law as the woman pleasing Joe. You will have to see it to believe it.I haven't heard much about Francis O'Connor, but after her performance in this movie, I hope she gets more notoriety.

A.I isn't for everyone, you have to be willing to think to like this movie. A.I is a vibrant, bold,intelligent, and tragically written Opera de Pinocchio that makes you take a look at the world around you and wonder about the future. A truly exquisite piece of cinema.

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

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

Runs out of agas from the starting block

26 June 2001

Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) has a thing for Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster), who serves up tuna salad sandwiches at a vacant and failing open diner that only seedy, big burly thugs like her car mechanic brother Dominic (Vin Diesel) and his crew Vince (Matt Schulze), Leon (Johnny Strong), Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) and Jesse (Chad Lindberg) eat there. Dominic doesn't like the attention Mia is getting from Brian because he buys auto parts under the counter from Brian's boss. The parts are used to illegally enhance cars for street racing. Dominic and his crew bet on the races to support themselves. On the flip side of the racing coin is a Chinese gang led by Johnny Tran (Rick Yune). Unknown to the general populace, Brian is really a cop investigating a series of truck hijackings that he is trying to link to the street racers.

Working at a movie theater, I didn't expect this movie to do the business it did. But when the movie sold out every show on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, I had to see what all the hooplah was about so I dragged myself into the theatre. Before I went in, I read the synopsis the movie studios send us and said `Hmm, this may be good'. Guys, this movie comes nowhere close to that description. It starts with one of many implied truck hijackings. From there you are swept into what is suppose to be the story. Quite a few things bothered me about this movie. First, there is an air of fear associated with these street race gangs. They are buff and stuff and claim territory, but what I wanna know is what is so scary about a gang that race cars? Do theydo drive by honkings or something? What is this movie about? Is it about the illegally enhanced cars and the crime of street racing or is it about the truck hijacking sting. The script really never settles on one or the other. The love story between Brian and Mia goes no where at all. I found myself asking whether if they were together or not. There is one scene where I think the writer said ` Ooops, wait a minute, I forgot I was supposed to have a strong plot and make a point. I guess I had better clear some things up and make this one story.' He does this ( or should I say he didn't do this) in a diner scene between Dominic and Brian. The next thing that bothered me was the fact that even in the police scenes, you never know why the police suspect Dominic of the crimes. The movie gives you the impression that there are tons of street racing gangs and gangs of all types, so why did they focus on Dominic's gang. They try to hang the fact that he had been in fights as the reason but that is very weak

As for the acting, no one should call there mothers or anything because no one stood out. I will give Vin Diesel credit on one scene where in he reminisces on his father's racing days. He was cool and somber in this scene and it worked, but when he starts yelling, he isn't believable at all. His spontaneous rants are more like King Kong beating his chest rather than theatrical emoting. Other than the words, `I am a cop,' Paul Walker never proved he was a cop. Jordana was weak altogether.

I will give the camera guys credit for the racing scenes.

Ultimately it all depends on what you wish to see in the movie. If you want to see a lot of cool cars and hear Limp Bizkit's `My Way' blared loudly, then sure go see it, if you want cars and a plot, catch an episode of Knight Rider.

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

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

hollywood, we have a problem

16 June 2001

Tomb Raider tells the story of Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) a heroin that discovers a mysterious clock hidden in her mansion that holds a mysterious time piece that will give her the information as to the burial place of two sides of a power rewarding triangle. It turns out that the odd timepiece was placed there by her late father Richard Croft (Jon Voight), who realized its true power....it gives its possessor the ability to control time when the two piece are reunited during a planetary alignment that happens every five thousand years. Now Lara must search for the two pieces while fighting off the competition of Manfred Powell, a money and power hungry henchman whom is also searching for the triangle for the Illuminati (people of the light) but plans to keep it for himself and her male tomb raiding cognate Alex West (Daniel Craig). Helping Lara in her adventures Bryce (Noah Taylor)is a computer geek to the tenth power and Hilary (Chris Barrie)her butler.

Watching Tomb Raider is like watching Raiders of the Lost Ark, Batman and Star Wars at the same time. You have this heroin that lives in a Gothic mansion (batman), that is incredibly intelligent (batman), has connections around the world (batman), is mourning her dead parents (batman) a garage of cool cars and unique weaponry and a house full of cool gadgets(batman). When she goes in search of the triangle, she falls through the ceiling of a mystical tomb (some what like Raiders) and is later fighting for her life against mystical monkey statues and ticked off Hindu gods (some what like Raiders). Lara is also assisted by her dead father in his Obi Wan Kenobi after death scenes (Star Wars).

Visually, Tomb Raider is an eye catcher. The action scenes are superb and are very John Woo in style. There were a few actress' picked to play Mrs. Croft. Outside of Angelina, other actresses picked to kick butt were, Ashley Judd, Liv Tyler, and Shannon Elizabeth. The best woman won. Jolie was very good in this. She was so good that she almost made me forget this bad script and interrupted directing. She's sexy, cunning, and lovable at the same time. Whereas she was interesting, the other characters were boring. I found the butler more interesting than the hacker or the evil guys. As a matter of fact, the evil guys are written so stereotypically that you can guess there next move. What's funny about my adoration for Mrs. Jolie is that girlfriend rarely talks in this thing. She's this mechanical robot like heroin that speaks with her actions. I don't know if the director wanted her to remain a mystery or what but we know nothing about her what so ever, therefore we can't relate to her. The bland supporting characters have more lines than Lara does.

The script is in need of a lot of work. There is no humanity written in this thing. As I stated earlier, Lara is a robot, Bryce is a cartoonish geek, and Hilary is bland. There are no human attachments, or kinships in this movie. Apparently, the writer forgot to write in the peril or the danger that Lara faces. I felt like she was waiting on all the mishaps that got in her way. Even Batman got in sticky situations that he didn't know were there.

In closing, the summer is full of movies that are expensive, flashy, sexy, fast paced and explosive fluff that is written to be nothing more than a nice piece of shiny jewelry guaranteed to catch the eye of the movie going audience without stimulating their brains at all. Tomb Raider lives up to this definition. I will say that it, like Moulin Rouge, is a movie that plays better on the big screen. Tomb Raider isn't a travesty. It isn't shouldn't be put in the same category as `Swordfish' but it isn't `The Animal' either.

Out of four stars I give it **1/2

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

The Animal (2001)

Put the Animal to sleep

13 June 2001

Being employed by a major movie theatre company, I know that most film companies simply send their movie trailers (those things you have to watch for god knows how long till the movie starts) to the theaters to be placed on films free of charge. For those of you that didn't know, Sony did something very weird with this film. They paid theater chains cold hard cash to show the trailer for this movie. When I heard this I said `wow that's weird.' I have since seen the movie and I know why.

THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

There is no cinematic quality, no comedic elements whatsoever in this movie. Sony banked on the fact that by having Rob Schneider act ignorant for hour and a half, they could get the crowds busting their sides with laughter... yeah... right..DIDN'T HAPPEN! I compare watching this film to watching a bad comedian do a bad comedy set. He tells bad joke after bad joke and never gets a laugh. He gets nervous and figures he will pull out some off color jokes and even though they're bit of a shock they're still not funny. You get animal antic after antic and not one of them is funny at all. The only good parts of this film are the parts when Marvin is being beaten, kicked, and chased by a mob.

A movie can't be bad in the acting department unless it's leads are bad. Well guess what people, Rob Schneider is bad and is later joined by Norm Mc Donald, and Adam Sandler, the other members of the `I'm not funny brat on crack pack' They should have invited Tom Green to finished the group off. Colleen Haskell also played a game of suck and blow. If you remember, she was one of the contestants on Survivor. She was voted off the Survivor Island and she should have been voted off `The Animal' set. She couldn't sell the lip balm in her commercial and she doesn't sell this part either. I thought John C Mc Ginley was good as the obnoxious sergeant hell bent on being the best. Guy Torry's constant `It's because I'm black ` was funny, but you can only take so much of that before it gets boring.

I hated hated hated this movie. If you have the need to see animals, please wait till `Dr. Doolittle 2" comes out, or watch The Crocodile Hunter on TV, or wait for Tim Burton's `The Planet of the Apes'

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

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

CAN U CAN CAN

9 June 2001

I LOVED LOVED LOVED this movie. I will say this much for Bazz Luhrmann. The man is a stickler for detail. You may remember his directing style from `Romeo and Juliet'. He's a very vibrant director and very quick with the camera movements. Bazz directs movies to keep you on your feet and Moulin Rouge does just that. The movie starts out with a very lamented version of Nat King Cole's "Nature Boy and before you know it, you are drop kicked in to the world of the Moulin Rouge a spicy night club with every color in the sin spectrum with movements and pictures that are very Tex Avery in style. In my opinion, Moulin Rouge is a stroke of genius because it was told as a turn of the century demented fairytale where the juvenile and ingenue didn't live happily ever after. This is a movie to both love and hate. You love it because it is very funny, it uses popular music, therefore you can relate to it, it's about the one emotion that we all can't live without, and the fact that Ewan plays his character so down to earth that you cant help but relate to him. You hate it for a few reasons. Movie musicals and stage musicals share a common hate: they're not natural. You don't break into song in mid conversation to get your point across (wouldn't that be annoying) in normal conversation. Some guys will hate this film because it literally drips with love. The word is used more than any other word in the musical, the set design is littered with hearts and even Nicole's costumes have beaded work in the shape of hearts.

Luhrmann did a great job of mixing the elements of musical theater and motion picture to create this movie. Some have said that he was on a mission to reinvent the movie musical. If that is true, he is definitely on his way. So let's ask ourselves a question, why does this work and Evita didn't. Moulin Rouge reaches for that which is popular in society and reduces it to a certain level of humanity (which can be found in Ewan's performance and by the way, I am not slamming Evita at all and I love you Madonna, may you live for ever). Evita did it but lacked the portal of popular music and insanity to deliver it. Being that Christian was a poet, the dialogue is written that way. This could be a problem if it isn't handled right but the cast (mainly Ewan) handles it brilliantly.

I will say the same thing for this movie as I said about A Knights Tale before I saw it: Will the recent music work? YES IT DOES and what's cool about it is that the actors ease into the songs and if you're not paying attention, you will miss it. For example, when Zidler tell the Duke that Satine has sought the cleansing words of a priest before she offers herself up to him, he is charged on by the Duke. He immediately starts the lyrics to `Like a Virgin' by Madonna. I watched this in a theater that sat five-hundred people and I was the only one laughing. The other patrons looked at me like I was crazy, then they got it. Were the patrons that stupid? No, Broadbent was that good. Yet there was one dumb guy in the theatre that made the eloquently dumb statement `What was plot of this movie?' HELLO....the plot was given three times in the movie: 1) The love story itself 2) The plot of the play that was financially supported by the Duke 3) In the raunchy and growling version of Tango De Roxanne (yes the sting version)

Now we must ask ourselves a question. Was this a love story written around popular music or popular music draped around a love story. I'll let you figure this one out.

The actors make this movie work. Most of the acclaim has to go to McGregor for his excellent portrayal as the love ignorant poet in search of a muse. I loved him in Velvet Goldmine. He's just a fantastic actor and surprisingly a wonderful musical performer. I believed him every time he opened. It wasn't Christian that was in love with Satine, it was Ewan in love with Nicole. Nicole was very good in the acting department and I will even say that this has to be some of her best work. In the singing department (and being a singer myself), she might have had a stronger voice with some breath support lessons. I hated John Leguizamo...period.

Luhrmann definitely puts this film in your lap and weighs you down with it. It's new, it's old, it's off the scale but registers with you, it's both beautiful and tragic, romantic and playful and a full throttle trip down a demented psychedelic love canal.

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

Swordfish (2001)

The Magician shares his secrets

8 June 2001

Political villain Gabriel Shear (John Travolta) is a dangerous man with a problem. He has been hired to steal $6 billion in unused government funds. The problem lie in the fact that the funds are locked in a tangled cyber web that would make Bill Gates blush. Shear decides to seek the help of supercomputer hacker Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman). Stanley is also a man with a problem in that he is a felon, living in voided trailer-park , with no rights to his daughter Holly (Camryn Grimes). To further exert his power, Shear sends his femme fatale sidekick Ginger (Halle Berry) to seal the deal with Stanley. The deal was simple: crack the codes for us and we will get your daughter back and make you very rich.

This movie tackles two issues in film making:

1) what is the real definition of a happy ending

and

2) can we really believe what we see and hear in any situation?.

Sure we love to see the hero save the day and defend the common good; but in real life, that's not always the case. We love to root for the hero, see the problem through his eyes, and bank on his point of view. But what about the villain? When was the last time an audience left a theatre cheering the villain and deeming his actions as a `happy ending'. This is what Shear is pushing over and over in this movie. If the villain gets away, isn't that a happy ending for him him?

Shear also talks a lot about redirection using the famous magicians of the past. By directing the eye and ear at one thing, you totally miss what is really happening. This is directly related to film making in that a lot of films will turn on the explosions, cool stunts, and CGI's to cover the fact that the script is lacking or the actors are weak (for proof of this see the following movies: Batman and Robin, Battlefield Earth, Anaconda, The Rock, Broken Arrow). Unfortunately, Shear uses this theory to get away with billion dollar crimes.

While watching this film, I got the feeling that the writer was really infatuated with the Shear character because even though the trailers push Stanley as the lead, it is Shear that takes the limelight. The end result is a movie with a great secondary lead (villain) and the other characters existing around him rather than with him. I will say this: Travolta is very good in this. His character is well defined. But I didn't feel the script did enough to prove this to me that a man like Stanley, whom is trying to turn his life around so he can see his daughter, was trying to make the change. Even though the dialogue said he wasn't, he felt like a practicing criminal the whole time. Halle Berry was nothing more than a sexy pawn (redirection with a great body) with no essence. The acting wasn't bad at all. Director Dominic Sena assembled a great cast. It would have been better had he actually used them equally.

As far as the movie as a whole is concerned, It was good as hyped up fluff that practices what it preach. It used the theory of redirection quite a bit. It's full of spectacle and flesh to keep you pinned to the mat but ultimately you will realize that the plot doesn't satisfy your hunger for entertainment

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

Memento (2000)

great movie (slight spoiler)

3 June 2001

Warning: Spoilers

Leonard Shelby (Guy Pierce) is a troubled man. On one unfortunate day, his wife is brutally raped and murdered. In the process of trying to save her, he is attacked from behind and bangs his head into a mirror. find and kill the man who raped and murdered his wife. The savage attack gives him brain damage, and he now suffers from a rare and untreatable form of memory loss. He knows who he is and recalls everything up to the crime, but now he can no longer create new memories, meaning he can't remember people he's met, places he's been or things he's done even fifteen minutes ago. To help him exist and find the man responsible for his condition and his wife's death, he makes notes, take photos and get tattoos all over his body for the really important clues he discovers. All of the notes lead to one important mission: FIND HIM AND KILL HIM.

Memento is one of those films that you really have to watch. Like `The Sixth Sense' and `Unbreakable', if you daydream for one second, you are lost and getting back on the Memento highway is hard as hell. Christopher Nolan directs this movie in a way that we all feel like Shelby. Being that he can't retain a memory for a long period of time, he gets confused a lot and that is exactly how the audience feels. How can you solve a crime when you can't remember the clues and even though you have the clues written down, you don't thoroughly understand what they mean? Even though you remember your past, how can you exist in the present when you can't string enough minutes together to create one? That's the foe Shelby struggles against. Nolan creates a movie that is very M. Night Shyamalan in the essence that it exist in the present, flashback to the past, and foreshadows to the future all at the same time. I consider both director's movies to be like those seeing eye pictures. All the parts are there and if you pay attention and watch it, the hidden picture will reveal itself. If you take your eyes away, you have to start over again. This is supported by a statement by Shelby in which he is telling himself to just focus and he will remember a thought longer than he has before.

As for the acting, I didn't have a problem with anyone. Guy Pierce plays the human goldfish character very well. I describe him as a goldfish because a goldfish has a memory span of thirty seconds. So when a goldfish is looking at you, it's seeing you first time every thirty seconds. Never did he give me the impression that he wasn't confused. Carrie Ann Moss (MATRIX) plays yet another well acted pawn in this who did it game. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

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

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Can u can can (slight spoiler)

3 June 2001

Warning: Spoilers

Moulin Rouge" is set in 1899 Paris, where the young poet Christian (Ewan McGregor) arrives in Montmartre and falls for the gorgeous Satine (Nicole Kidman), a courtesan and lead performer at the Moulin Rouge. Satine promises her boss, Zidler (Jim Broadbent), that she'll sleep with the domineering Duke (Richard Roxburgh) in exchange for a face lift to and support for a new play at the Moulin Rouge. Mistaking him with the Duke, she falls for Christian and gets him hired as the writer of a stage extravaganza that will prove her worth as an actress. But there's a problem, (there's always a problem) Satine is dying, but like any die hard stage performer, she realizes that the show must go on.

I LOVED LOVED LOVED this movie. I will say this much for Bazz Luhrmann. The man is a stickler for detail. You may remember his directing style from `Romeo and Juliet'. He's a very vibrant director and very quick with the camera movements. Bazz directs movies to keep you on your feet and Moulin Rouge does just that. The movie starts out with a very lamented version of Nat King Cole's "Nature Boy and before you know it, you are drop kicked in to the world of the Moulin Rouge a spicy night club with every color in the sin spectrum with movements and pictures that are very Tex Avery in style. In my opinion, Moulin Rouge is a stroke of genius because it was told as a turn of the century demented fairytale where the juvenile and ingenue didn't live happily ever after. This is a movie to both love and hate. You love it because it is very funny, it uses popular music, therefore you can relate to it, it's about the one emotion that we all can't live without, and the fact that Ewan plays his character so down to earth that you cant help but relate to him. You hate it for a few reasons. Movie musicals and stage musicals share a common hate: they're not natural. You don't break into song in mid conversation to get your point across (wouldn't that be annoying) in normal conversation. Some guys will hate this film because it literally drips with love. The word is used more than any other word in the musical, the set design is littered with hearts and even Nicole's costumes have beaded work in the shape of hearts.

Luhrmann did a great job of mixing the elements of musical theater and motion picture to create this movie. Some have said that he was on a mission to reinvent the movie musical. If that is true, he is definitely on his way. So let's ask ourselves a question, why does this work and Evita didn't. Moulin Rouge reaches for that which is popular in society and reduces it to a certain level of humanity (which can be found in Ewan's performance and by the way, I am not slamming Evita at all and I love you Madonna, may you live for ever). Evita did it but lacked the portal of popular music and insanity to deliver it. Being that Christian was a poet, the dialogue is written that way. This could be a problem if it isn't handled right but the cast (mainly Ewan) handles it brilliantly.

I will say the same thing for this movie as I said about A Knights Tale before I saw it: Will the recent music work? YES IT DOES and what's cool about it is that the actors ease into the songs and if you're not paying attention, you will miss it. For example, when Zidler tell the Duke that Satine has sought the cleansing words of a priest before she offers herself up to him, he is charged on by the Duke. He immediately starts the lyrics to `Like a Virgin' by Madonna. I watched this in a theater that sat five-hundred people and I was the only one laughing. The other patrons looked at me like I was crazy, then they got it. Were the patrons that stupid? No, Broadbent was that good. Yet there was one dumb guy in the theatre that made the eloquently dumb statement `What was plot of this movie?' HELLO....the plot was given three times in the movie: 1) The love story itself 2) The plot of the play that was financially supported by the Duke 3) In the raunchy and growling version of Tango De Roxanne (yes the sting version)

Now we must ask ourselves a question. Was this a love story written around popular music or popular music draped around a love story. I'll let you figure this one out.

The actors make this movie work. Most of the acclaim has to go to McGregor for his excellent portrayal as the love ignorant poet in search of a muse. I loved him in Velvet Goldmine. He's just a fantastic actor and surprisingly a wonderful musical performer. I believed him every time he opened. It wasn't Christian that was in love with Satine, it was Ewan in love with Nicole. Nicole was very good in the acting department and I will even say that this has to be some of her best work. In the singing department (and being a singer myself), she might have had a stronger voice with some breath support lessons. I hated John Leguizamo...period.

Luhrmann definitely puts this film in your lap and weighs you down with it. It's new, it's old, it's off the scale but registers with you, it's both beautiful and tragic, romantic and playful and a full throttle trip down a demented psychedelic love canal.

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

Pearl Harbor (2001)

more bombs bursting in air and less drama

26 May 2001

Rafe (Ben Affleck) and Danny (Josh Hartnett) play childhood buds whom grow up to become top gun pilots. Before Rafe ships out for Great Britain to help in the battle against Hitler, he meets and falls in love with a nurse named Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale). When they receive word that the Germans shot down Rafe's plane, they console each other in ways that go beyond the limits of friendship. Now, I will go ahead and tell you that the love story in this movie plays out like a daytime soap opera. Therefore, unless you see the deceased person in the box as he or she is being lowered in the hole, you shouldn't assume that he or she is dead. What am I getting at? Just when Danny and Evelyn are getting hot and heavy and looking at each other with japanimation eyes, Rafe comes back from the dead like Lazarus. While the love story develops, the Japanese are fast at work planning their attack. Then without warning the battle starts.

Before seeing this film, I hoped and prayed that it wouldn't get the same script treatment as Titanic did. I can tell you that my prayers weren't answered. Apparently, Hollywood doesn't believe that stories of historical significance can hold their own when it comes to film making. The movie is called `Pearl Harbor' and it's three hours long but of those three hours, the soap opera...I mean the love story.... takes up and hour and forty-five minutes of it. Every once in a while, Michael Bay, the director, decides he needs to remind his audience that no, they aren't in the wrong theatre, this is Pearl Harbor and throws in old war footage or government officials discussing the European fisticuffs . I hate to say it, but the love story is very bland and I am willing to bet money that right now, on one of the daytime soaps, this storyline exist. If Bay and Bruckheimer thinks this story held more attention than the actual war story, then they are seriously wrong. I found the short snippets involving the Japanese and U.S. factions more interesting than the love story. Not to mention that the love story really didn't go anywhere. Personally I wanted to learn more about the officials that were trying to get into the head of the Japanese admirals and captains, yet it was only touched on. Like Titanic, the historical aspect of Pearl Harbor is put on the back burner for a very over done soap.

I will say this much, once the hour and forty-five minutes pass, and we're given a break from the love story, this movie takes off in a big way. I really appreciated the way Bay created a sense of ignorance before the attack started.. I use the word ignorance not in a bad way, but to show that the Americans had no idea the Japanese were going to attack. He used scenes with kids playing baseball, women enjoying afternoon naps, men poking fun at each other. Even the pictures of the Hawaiian landscape are romantic to look at to soon be muttered with the Japanese air fleet. The bombing scenes take on a life of their own which goes to show that Bay and Bruckheimer know how to blow stuff up and keep you glued to your seat. I think they achieved something very important in this film in that they made the audience feel as though they were on The U.S.S. Arizona. They did this with a sound roster that will give any theatre sound system quite a work out. They also allow you to see the film from the point of view of the weapons ( I know that sounds weird but see the movie and you will understand). Once the fighting is over and the Japanese forces retreat, you are swept into the infirmaries. I appreciated the way Michael bay used the shakey camera technique to give the sense of urgency that went on in the infirmary. Some voices were very loud whereas others were muffled and died away like the dying soldiers. To be honest, it almost look like horror movie footage.

As for the acting, to be honest, I didn't have a problem with anyone. It was good ensemble acting. I will say that Jon Voight leads the pack with a great job as President Roosevelt. This movie should do wonders for the careers of Kate Beckinsale and Josh Hartnett.

So my ultimate opinion of the movie is this: if you can stand the love story going on forever and a day then you will enjoy this movie. If you have the taste for some kick butt war scenes then this movie is definitely for you. Overall it's a good movie. I just wish they would have spent more time on the events leading up to the war rather than the love triangle that muffled it.

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

Shrek (2001)

A new Green Giant for a new millenium

20 May 2001

Shrek (Michael Myers) is an ogre who lives in a swamp by himself. He wants to be by himself because he is very insecure about his looks and the way he's perceived. Meanwhile, in the kingdom of Farquaad, many of the fairy tale characters that we all know and love including the three little pigs, the big bad wolf, fairies, the three bears and snow white are being banished. On the roster to be banished is one talking donkey by the name of....well, Donkey (Eddie Murphy). Donkey becomes a sweet and hilarious thorn in the side of Shrek. While eating, Shrek is horrified when his swamp is disturbed by the banished fairytale creatures, at the hands of Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow). Shrek learns that in order to get his swamp back, he has to talk to Lord Farquaad. Meanwhile, Farquaad keeps one treasured fairytale item, the magic mirror from Snow White, for himself. He uses it to find himself a princess. The dialogue between he and the mirror is hilarious because it switches to an episode of the dating game with the mirror giving him three choices: Cinderella, Snow "She lives with seven men, but she's not easy" White and Princess Fiona. The knights in full armor coach the prince to choose princess number three, the lovely Princess Fiona ( Cameron Diaz). Fiona is locked in a tower that is protected by a female dragon. When Shrek finally reaches the kingdom o' Farquaad, he is thrown in a WWF wrestling parody that is hilarious. Recognizing his strength, Lord Farquaad makes a deal with the ogre: get me the girl and I will give you the swamp back. Shrek accepts the deal and begins his journey with Donkey in tow.

Shrek is a very clever film on many levels. It's a fairytale in every sense of the word. Listen to the way the lines are written, the way the characters speak, the way the story flows. The guys at Dream Works did a good job with this in that you could close your eyes and the dialogue flows as though you're having a story read to you. What makes this movie clever is the fact that it's a fairytale that spoofs fairytales. For example, in most fairytales, the prince is a tall, dark, handsome, kind and dashing man that isn't complete until he finds his one true love to give his heart to. Yet Lord Farquaad is very short, sort of pale, not attractive, very evil, and lacking in the dashing department. Even his name is awkward in that he calls himself a lord when he is just a prince. In most fairytales, the princess is a beautiful, fragile, dainty and submissive young lady. That isn't the case with our Princess Fiona. She's an up front talkative young lady that kicks butt in a hilarious Matrix parody. The fairytale characters, unlike their particular stories, are at a dead end. Their stories can't end because they have no where to go.

Shrek is a pure stroke of genius. It's campy for the kids and sarcastic and hilarious for the adults. It has a voice ( which a lot of movies forget to include in the recipe these days ) in that it preaches the age-old adage that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. From a technical aspect, the movie pushes the technological envelope. While watching the film and watching Shrek and the other characters move and frown, I was quickly thrown back to the time I saw Disney's Dinosaurs. You will notice a lot of the same computer animation (deep canvas) used in this movie. As for the voice-over work, the best of the best were assembled. At first, I didn't like Mike Myers' voice or Scottish accent at all. It didn't it fit the look of the ogre that was created or the ogre we know from past fairytales. Then I realized that's what the guys at Dream Works were trying to do. They wanted an ogre that no one knew someone you would have to get to know. Once you get to know him, Shrek is very likable. His story is one that has the power to create sequels and spinoffs. The movie has been in the making for a long time. It was reported that Chris Farley was originally intended to voice the ogre. Never the less it is truly a great movie.

26 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Forsaken (2001)

you need more than a lot of blood to make a vampire flick

19 May 2001

Sean, (Kerr Smith) an editor of B-movie trailers, takes a road trip to Florida for his sister's wedding when he picks up a hitchhiker named Nick ( Brendan Fehr). Nick is hunting down the vampire gang responsible for infecting him with their deadly blood virus. On the flip side of the coin, the gang led by Kit (Johnathon Schaech) are on the hunt for fresh meat. Joining Sean and Nick for the ride is Megan (Izabella Miko) a pawn in this vampire game.

I remember seeing the trailer for this movie a while back and thinking this might be a good movie. Trailers can be deceiving. The movie starts with Megan in a great shower scene that is very eerie. This is the general tenor of horror films in that we get this girl in trouble from the get go and we're suppose to feel for her until she is ok. The movie didn't short change us on this element. You wonder what happened to her that she is covered with blood and babbling. From there, we are swept into the world of Sean as he takes off on the road and meets Nick and later Megan again. The writing and directing is the main problem with this movie. For example, when we meet Sean we get the feeling he had a well organized life. He takes off on a trip and now he's in the company of girl on the edge, a group of blood suckers, and one vampire hunter. Yet I never got the feeling that his life had turned upside down. True, he said it had, but it happened so quickly that it felt as though he was driving to it intentionally. The rest of the movie is filled with stagnant dialogue and cinematography that goes nowhere. Another thing that bothered me with this film is the way Megan is handled in the script. This girl is given morphine and is basically out of it for a major portion of the movie, then all of a sudden she is competent enough to drive away in a car. There is also another weird discrepancy in that when they get to a house, Megan is out of it again, so the lady that owns the house takes her in and put her to bed. The sick deranged Megan, after being of no help to the story and walking around in daze wakes up and does some very good, clear, competent story telling for a girl that just woke up from a drug induced daze. J.S. Cardone attempted to make an intelligent vampire movie free throw but missed the hoop entirely. You won't find any demonic faced vampires in this film. You get nothing more than the knowledge that they are vampires. I will give him credit on the history of the vampires and I will give him credit on casting a young hunter. It would have been very easy for him to cast an older hunter to give credibility but he didn't.

As for the acting, I think the script got in the way of the actors. Kerr Smith has done some very good acting in the past (especially on Dawson's Creek) and he doesn't suck in this, but I don't feel like he was given the room to go anywhere in this film partly because the film didn't go anywhere. Brendan Fehr (Roswell) told us why he was there and that was it. I didn't believe a word he said past that. Johnathon Schaech has to be the most boring vampire leader in the history of vampire movies. In the trailers, we are led to think that Cym (Phina Oruche) is the leader and you have no idea how much I wish she was. I actually found her to be alluring even though she had little dialogue. Miko proves that it doesn't take that much talent to make it in the biz these days. You must be thoroughly learned in the fields of yelling, crying, convulsing, screaming, and having a great bod.

In my film criticism class, we learned that you have to look at a few things when you review a film. The first being what genre is the movie in and does the end product justify it's placement. You also have to look at what the movie is trying to do and say and ask yourself if it is doing that. "The Forsaken" has one major problem. It plays itself as a horror film, yet it's not scary or suspenseful. You can't call it an action picture because there isn't any. As for what it was trying to do?....Well as I stated earlier, Cardone tried to make an intelligent vampire film and didn't reach his goal at all. This movie has nothing to say or a theme. The Forsaken leaves it's audience feeling intellectually drained and financially shortchanged. I hope the actors can redeem themselves in other projects.

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

Godzilla 2000 (1999)

why did they make this movie

20 April 2001

As much a travesty as this movie was, it did have some good points. I don't know how many of you were fans of the old Godzilla movies, but I'm sure you remember the grayish, grainy, depressed look to the films. That technique is used in this film which is sort of entertaining. I liked the design of Godzilla also, but I must say the years being absent from the camera hasn't been good to the lizard king. Yes, people Godzilla has gained weight. He has a double chin, wider hips, thicker thighs and he doesn't have the energy to run anymore. Then again, I suppose eating cities would do that to you. One thing I hated about the old movies that I liked about this one is the fact that Godzilla wasn't the friend of the city ( I mean come on, he was a monster). There wasn't some kid running behind Godzilla calling his name like the little boy in the movie "Shane".

I found myself comparing this version of Godzilla to the hipper (or so they thought) version released in 1998 which was directed by Roland Emmerich (INDEPENDENCE DAY). As much as I hated this movie, I must say I liked this one better than the hipper one. As I stated before, I like the look of Godzilla in this one as compared to the reptilian crack baby of the '98 version. This movie has flaws all over the place. The script leads you to believe things and even takes you in that direction, but when you get there, they completely change the angle. For example (and I have no qualms about giving this part of the movie away), after a land attack by Godzilla, the ocean's temperature rises. The scientists all say it's because of the lizard. Without warning (or an explanation), we see this big rock (which is an alien in drag) being lifted to the surface and later (much later) you get the impression that it was the rock raising the temperature. From here, the movie turns into Independence Day. I mean it literally turns into Independence day. If you remember the movie, you will see the similarities when the aliens ship cast the shadow over the city and the powers that be try to figure out how to kill it. It was so similar that I almost turned it off.

As a theatre major, I was taught that when you analyze a film or piece of theatrical work, you should never look for one sentence or paragraph to define the central thought of the work. The director of this crap tried to sum the movie up in a short monologue. The little girl in the film inquired as to why Godzilla appeared, defended the people and the retreated to the ocean "all the time". The doctor, whom was also the little girls father said that there was a little of Godzilla in all of us. That statement isn't supported anywhere in the movie. I'm still trying to figure out why they think Godzilla defends them. He spends a good portion of the film destroying the city. Ok so you're saying, "but he did kill the monster,didn't he?" Well yes he did but it wasn't for the sake of the city. He was on his way to destroy the city (again)and this monster got in the way. Godzilla never defended the city. As a matter of fact, he burned half of the city down before he left.

I hated hated hated this movie.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

spiritualone

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed