Reviews

'Sugar and Spice' is the only movie I've seen, at least in the last little while anyway, when I can recall have no discernable emotions watching it. Somehow I wasn't bored, but at the same time I wasn't all that interested. It's not really entertaining, but it won't put you to sleep. The acting isn't particularly good, but it wasn't particularly bad either. The whole movie is pretty much just there, and thats it. It doesn't go by too fast, but not too slow. I've never been on the fence more than I am on this movie. I can't really recommend it because it doesn't have any qualities that you'll take away with you. I dunno, its just mediocre and nothing else. 5 out of 10.

'The Legend of Hell House' is fairly good. There are some scenes that are laughable, at least to me. What the movie does well is use camera angles(and imagery) as well as sound effects to enhance the fear. We never get a computer generated monster to look at, and that works well for the movie. The acting is very good, as we have to believe that the characters could go crazy in such a situation.

It is mildly suspenseful, and thats fine. It didn't terrify me though. My generation is a little jaded when it comes to horror films and its hard to scare us. I like that there is little to no gore in the movie as well. It is good because it doesn't detract from the great atmosphere that is created with the camera work and sound effects.

This movie probably won't terrify you, but as a haunted house story, it is pretty good, and technically well done. It should keep you interested and might be worth a look. 7 out of 10.

This movie plays more like something Hitchcock would have directed in the thirties. It also have the misfortune of being released while he was in his prime, so it comes off archaic for the master. I rather enjoyed it though. I thought Jane Wyman had considerable charm and innocence to play her character and make us care for her. Marlene Dietrich plays her part well, and Alastair Sim gives nice comic relief as the father to Wyman's character.

Its true that the movie cheats and gives us a surprise ending that really doesn't play with what we're given. This is a flaw and will forever keep this movie from being a masterpiece. However, it is lite viewing, and it has some excellent and charming scenes. The scene of Eve and the Inspector in the back of the taxi was rather nice, at least I thought so. Plus it has more humor than some of his other works. It certainly isn't rear window, but its worth watching for Wyman's fun and interesting performance. Its nice to see a heroine more so than a hero in something of Hitchcock's. Plus you can find out a hazard of the safety curtain that we hadn't thought of. 8 out of 10.

This is a very entertaining film. Most of the characters are good, and there is a surprising amount of action and suspense. My biggest complaint, well, my only complaint is Ingrid Bergman's character, Maria. She has to be the least interesting character in the whole movie. She is supposed to be innocent, and I can respect that. The character is written as too naive and ends up coming off as to weak. Bergman should not have had to play a character that was so weak. This annoyed me to no end, and ultimately lead me to hate the romance between her and Gary Cooper. It me be a little old school, but there are stronger characters than Maria. Watch it for the action, but certainly not for the romance(which luckily doesn't take up a whole lot of the film). 8 out of 10.

I know no other way to describe this film than brutal. That doesn't mean that its bad. In fact it is an excellent film. It is not for the casual viewer though, and it certainly isn't Friday night popcorn fair. If thats what you want or expect, then leave it. But if you can take it, its a very worth while watch.

The film does start rather slowly. It put me to sleep the first time I watched it. But in the spirit of always finishing what I watch, I gave it a second chance. Good thing. Early in the movie, about the first half or so, there is some excellent editing. It was excellent, but at the same time it was over used, and thankfully was almost completely left alone in the second half of the movie. The image of the dilated pupil is a very common and strong one in the film. I do feel, however, that some of the camera work did take away from the humanity a bit. At times it was brilliant in that it disoriented the viewer and put us in the characters place, but at certain times I feel it was a little out of place.

The acting is excellent, and extremely brave. Burstyn, as mentioned many times before, is great. The big surprise is Marlon Wayans. Yes, he plays a drug addict again, but for once it wasn't in a spoof, and it wasn't for laughs. It was nice to see the change from him. Connelly is always good, so there's really nothing you need to say about her performance that wasn't expected anyway.

The one thing I usually don't mention in a film is the score. I'm usually indifferent to it. In this film, however, the score was not only brilliant, but it was used to perfection and captured the tone of the movie. It was necessary, and really heightened the downward spiral of all the characters.

Speaking of the downward spiral, I feel this film captured that really well. The beginning is slow, but with the characters lives beginning to spiral out of control, the pace gets quicker, much quicker. The second half of the film is very fast and dark, and you can't take your eyes off of it. I'm not sure if the pacing was deliberate, but if it was then it was executed to perfection.

To sum up, this film isn't an easy watch, but its a good one. The direction and editing are good, the acting is top notch, and the story isn't at all forgiving. I'm thankful that it never took the easy way out, and thats what makes it memorable. 9 out of 10.

Most of this film holds up entirely well by today's standards. There is excellent suspense and some extremely memorable scenes, specifically the one of the plane chasing Cary Grant. The only real problem with the movie is the famous Mount Rushmore sequence. Most of the time Hitchcock never relied on special effects to create suspense, and it doesn't stand the test of time here. We've been treated to some amazing looking things as of late, and its hard to believe that the characters are in any real danger while they are supposedly on the face(no pun intended)of the mountain. Its a shame, because up until that point the film was perfect. Cary Grant plays his part well, a very suave man, and his usual fast talking self. Eva Marie Saint is a great partner for Grant. Of Grant's Hitchcock movies (including 'Notorious' and 'To Catch a Thief') I feel that this was the best chemistry he had with the lead actress, and I mean no disrespect to Ingrid Bergman or Grace Kelly, who are both brilliant. Hitchcock's direction is superb, which should come as no surprise. The beauty of this film is that it is Hitchcock on autopilot. 'Vertigo', made the year before this film, was a movie that you really had to pay attention to to get all the details. It's nice to see that he made complex movies as well as great suspense movies that are extremely well paced and very entertaining. It was what Hitch liked the best I think, a wrongly accused man involved in an international plot he knows nothing about. Would have been perfect if not for the Mount Rushmore scene. 9.5 out of 10.

'Van Wilder' is a predictable movie that has gags that have all been done before, except for the fact that they push the gag a little bit further. Unfortunately the math doesn't add up here. Pushing something further doesn't equal something being funnier. In fact, the movie failed to make me laugh more than once. I think I guffawed a couple of times, and then that was about it. It was a rather predictable and uneventful ninety minutes. I don't blame Ryan Reynolds, who(just like in 'Two Guys and a Girl')is only as good as his material. Unfortunately, again, the material isn't worth the effort. National Lampoon movies used to be what we looked to for good laughs and gratuitous nudity. The problem with them now is that they have been bested by many other people who have taken what we see to the extreme. Not a positive trend in movies either. I'm not saying fart jokes never make me laugh, and I'm not saying that gratuitous nudity(which there isn't enough of in this movie)isn't good, because it's fine with me. The problem is that no one is clever anymore. If you want to laugh while still having your intelligence respected, I suggest you go out and rent 'Some Like it Hot', or really any comedy from the golden age of cinema. Please leave the Van Wilder's of the world on the shelf because they don't really deserve your time or effort. 3 out of 10.

I don't have a lot to say about 'Topaz'. It was towards the end of Hitchcock's career, and I imagine he was running out of steam. Bottom line is that the movie is surprisingly boring. The characters are dull as well. I believe that there is all of one good scene in the movie. What surprised me the most however, especially since Hitchcock directed it, what that the acting was horrible. Perhaps he couldn't cast James Stewarts and Cary Grants, but there must have been someone that could act. I don't know. All I can say is that is you only watch one Hitchcock movie in your life, please don't make it this one. Watch Notorious or Rear Window instead. 5 out of 10.

'The Apartment' plays out as a satire of ethics and big business. At least thats what I got out of it. It has razor sharp dialogue and well defined characters. Honestly, the first half is quite funny. What surprised me is how the movie takes a serious turn and becomes more dramatic in the second half. What makes the film brilliant, however, is how smoothly it makes the transition. The credit goes to the writing and directing of Wilder(who hopefully won't be forgotten by later generations).

It wouldn't be fair to talk about this movie without talking about the great performances, most notably by Jack Lemmon(who also did 'Some Like it Hot' with Wilder) and Shirley MacLaine. MacLaine's performance really delighted me. It delighted me because she was able to gain my sympathy by giving an always honest performance. She never plays the melodrama, and I am thankful for that. Her relationship with Lemmon is what propels the movie the best. The Christmas Eve scene is absolutely fantastic. 9 out of 10.

The first time I attempted to watch 'Vertigo' I fell asleep. That was mostly because I was tired. I made a small attempt to catch up on what I missed while I napped, and when the film ended I was not too impressed. Because of that, it has taken me some time before I decided to give this film another chance. Thank god I did.

The first thing I realized is that you have to pay attention when you watch this film because it isn't lite viewing. The characters have a lot of depth and if you don't pay attention you might miss it. That would be a tragedy because then you wouldn't get to fully experience the absolutely stellar performance by Novak, and the even more stellar (and extremely intense)performance of Stewart. Their chemistry is great, and it made for a very rewarding viewing experience.

The film is also quite lovely to look at. Much like 'To Catch a Thief', the cinematography is excellent. The sights are as much of the film as the performances. There is also a great dream sequence, kind of like the one you would see in 'Spellbound', in comparison. The color scheme is well defined, in the movie as well as the dream sequence, and that is a large amount of reds and greens.

Of course the direction is excellent, and that is no surprise. The first time I saw this film I hated it, the second time I loved it. The story is simple enough, but the characters have a depth that isn't all that common in Hitchcock movies. Usually there is mystery, but the humanity isn't always there like it is in this movie. A visually and psychologically compelling movie that is among the best Hitchcock ever did. A well deserving 10 out of 10.

Before I watched this movie I read a review by Roger Ebert who said the best way to explain this movie is to look at it as a dream. It is a bunch of events that somehow interconnect and yet never make much sense. So I watched it and I didn't expect it to make much sense. I expected a fantastic looking film that would be confusing and somewhat frustrating. It is confusing, but somehow it is never frustrating. What makes this movie great is the same thing that would make a poem great, and that is this:

If one hundred people read a great poem, all of them would have a different interpretation of what it meant.

Well, that goes for this movie. It isn't frustrating because it is consistent in its surrealism. From start to finish the images and happenings are all quite bizarre(especially the last half hour). That is what makes it all so captivating, and the consistency provides each viewer the opportunity to try and piece it together. You don't have to, but for me it is like a puzzle, and I want to solve it. I have my own theories as to what it is all about, but I bet whatever you come up with will be completely different. That is what makes this movie so unique and gripping. Normally I wouldn't go for a movie like this, but when its this well done you can't help but fall under its spell. 9 out of 10.

From what I've seen of Billy Wilder, his movies tend to have well defined characters and a clear course of action. Sometimes they are funny, and when they are funny, they are funny by virtue of being clever. As well, the pacing in his movies always seems to be one of a sense of urgency, as if every moment is important. There is really never meandering and wasted moments. At least in his best works. Unfortunately this movie is not one of his best works. It is just okay.

The problem with the movie is that it takes a while to get off the ground and there never really seems to be a sense of urgency and real tension, not until about the last half hour that is(and that saves this movie). The comedy is more infantile, and mostly produced by a character called Animal. However, Animal comes off as more annoying than funny, and is over the top. A poor directional choice from the usually outstanding Wilder. It seems that the movie tried to take itself seriously, without ever really doing it.

William Holden gives a fine performance, and was really the only character that came off as interesting. However, he was in another POW movie called 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'. All though the latter isn't a movie that makes the greatest philosophical statement, it is much more entertaining throughout than this movie is.

In all fairness, this is a fairly well directed movie, and if it was directed by John Hughes or Chris Columbus then it might be considered a greater achievement. As it stands, Wilder did work that was much better than this, so the expectations are high, and it didn't meet them. Still, the last half hour saves what would have otherwise been a wasted experience. 7 out of 10.

Okay, well, its not really a classic love story, but its your classic boy meets girl pretending to be a boy pretending to be a girl story, and probably the best one of those thats ever been made. Julie Andrews plays Victoria(and Victor) quite well, but sometimes its hard believing that people would believe that she is a man. There are some great scenes in this movie that are derived from this concept though. James Garner and Robert Preston are both excellent in their roles, Preston as Andrews gay friend, and Garner, the manliest man around. Actually, all of the performances are excellent, but a lot of this movies success has to go to Blake Edwards. There is classic Edwards comedy in this movie, and a very intelligent script that never insults its audiences intelligence. I won't give specifics, but I will say the there is a show stopping number at the end of the movie that is hilarious. Most of the music is excellent, and if its bad, its intended to be that way. Really though, I only have one question. Having seen "The Party", and now this movie, one has to wonder, what does Blake Edwards have against waiters? 9 out of 10.

I still love the Flintstones cartoon. A reminder of a younger, some would say simpler time in my life. This movie, on the other hand, is a reminder of a younger, some might say less intelligent time in my life. I watched this movie tonight for the first time in about six or seven years. First of all, I don't know how Halle Berry went from this movie to an Oscar winning actress. As far as the story goes, there are not really any complaints. Its expected to be simple, and I can respect that. The problem with this movie, which is essentially eye candy(well it was back then), is the acting. John Goodman, who has made some fine turns in films like "Fallen" and "The Big Lebowski", is just bad. It seems to me that he is doing his best Jackie Gleason impression, and its really not all that good. Rosie O'Donnell gives a stiff, and yet somehow melodramatic performance. Don't ask me how thats possible. Rick Moranis is just annoying as Barnie. Elizabeth Perkins is extremely one dimensional and fails to capture the fire of a cartoon character. In all fairness, this is also the fault of bad direction. All in all, I'm glad I'm older now because I can see the errors of my ways, and the errors of others ways as well. If you're over six, avoid this movie like the plague because its just bad. 4 out of 10.

"Lifeboat" is an excellent film. It is a great achievement by Alfred Hitchcock that he could create a film set on only a lifeboat interesting for its duration. Hitchcock had a knack for experimental films, such as "Rope", which seems to be one continuous shot, and "Rear Window", which features one small apartment and a man in a wheel chair. With so little, he is always able to do so much.

In "Lifeboat", we start out with the sinking of a ship and people gathering on the lifeboat. It's really that simple. This is a character driven film. There are no lush chase sequences, there are no gunfights, there is no mystery. Nope, its all about how this collection of characters interact with each other. Its a study of how difference of opinion can creat tensions, and how people can deal with those tensions. Its really fascinating to watch, and when its all said and done, you get the impression that it wasn't just an experiment, but that it had something to say, and it did.

The only slight flaw in the film is that we don't really get a sense of how long(exactly)they've been at sea. I "Cast Away" we saw Tom Hanks lost a considerable amount of weight and grow a considerable amount of hair. Well, that is the one thing you don't see with this movie. Its really a minor quibble anyway because it doesn't diminish the entertainment value at all.

Hitchcock was the master of suspense, but he was never afraid to try other things, from screwball comedy(Mr. and Mrs.Smith) to psychological thrillers(Vertigo). This film is definitely one of his best and most interesting experiments. 9 out of 10.

This is a very entertaining movie from the master. A little bit lighter than some of his previous works, "To Catch a Thief" is still a very good movie. What really makes this movie work however, is the amazing cinematography, and Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. The witty banter between the two lead actors is more than enough to keep this movie going. Plus there is some excellent suspense and that makes for some good movie watching. If you want Hitchcock, but you want lightweight Hitchcock, then I highly recommend this movie. Plus you can never go wrong with Cary Grant or Grace Kelly. Its not revolutionary, but you don't always have to raise the bar. Sometimes its just nice to get out to the riviera for a little r and r. 8 out of 10.

"The Lady Vanishes" was an entertaining movie that certainly falls into the realm of Hitchcock, mainly an innocent person falling into a web of international intrigue. In this case the person is Margaret Lockwood, who gives an excellent performance that doesn't indulge in the melodrama of the day. I like how Hitchcock keeps most of the action of the movie on a train, keeping character interaction to a maximum. However, the movie gets a little silly towards the end and doesn't have that trademark suspense we've come to know and love. There are shots that are reminiscent of his later works, like the close up of the cups that he has in "Notorious". It is also fun to see him working with miniature sets. His use of the train here is better than "Number 17", and it is clear that his learning process was a quick one. The only problem is that the story doesn't hold together as well as I'd have liked, but I might just be asking to much. Either way its still a good movie. 8 out of 10.

This movie is billed as the first British talkie. I can believe that. At times the dialogue seems clumsy and a bit awkward, and at certain times it is obvious that this movie was intended to be a silent. As well, it is unfortunate that Anny Ondra couldn't speak english and that someone did her dialogue from off camera while she mouthed it. It definitely hampered her performance. Even so, the movie was entertaining. I also liked some of the shots Hitchcock used, specifically the repetition of the laughing picture. As well, there are some shots that he would later utilize in other movies. Its not a breathtaking experience, but its solid for those of us that will appreciate it. 8 out of 10.

'Spider-man' is an extremely entertaining movie. It is well cast, acted and directed. This movie thrives not so much on action, but on characters, which is the ultimate strength of the movie. I am thankful that there is a good deal of dialogue because otherwise this movie would have been a lot less.

Tobey Maguire is a perfect Peter Parker. His early relationship(and awkwardness)with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst)is played out to perfection. We get a character we can relate with, in Parker. This is the relationship that drives the movie very well.

William Dafoe also plays his duel role to perfection. This is also a credit to Sam Raimi. The Green Goblin is captured beautifully, and the Osborns are portrayed true to the comic book form. The relationship between Harry and Norman is very accurate. Actually, every relationship in this movie is very true to the comic book, and I appreciated that, and they could set up the next movie quite logically.

What I didn't like were some of the special effects. I understand that it is near impossible to capture the movements of such a character, and this movie made a very noble attempt. It is obvious, however, when they switch between special effects and the live action actor. The movements of the special effects Spider-man are much to quick, without gravity, and at times, specifically in some fight sequences, a little to bouncy. The same can be said for the Green Goblin. At times though, they are quite stunning.

The effects are good, but the best parts of the movie are when the characters interact without the use of the effects. The final showdown is specifically well done, and one of my favorite parts of the movie. Sam Raimi did a hell of a good job directing this movie, and I am looking forward to a sequel. 8 out of 10.

This movie, for the most part(that is the most part of 90 minutes) wasn't funny. Woody Allen is quite annoying as Alvie Singer, and after a half hour of his predictable neurotic tendencies I was just getting tired of listening to his voice. I honestly didn't care about his relationship either, all thought Diane Keaton was respectable playing the title character. I can appreciate the fragmented time line, the animation and so forth, but Allen just grates on my nerves. Its certainly nothing I would jump for joy about. If you love it, great, but I can't see why. 5 out of 10.

I don't have a lot to say about this movie. Errol Flynn is excellent as Captain Courtney, and the rest of the cast is excellent in their roles. That didn't surprise me. What surprised me was two things. First, how the British flying aces in World War I contend with the harsh realities of war, specifically the deaths of their friends and the decisions that had to be made to send more men to their deaths (excellently portrayed by Basil Rathbone as Major Brand). Whats most impressive, however, is how engaging the air sequences were. They were ahead of their time and they hold up rather well today. I just saw Pearl Harbour, and I would say the Dawn Patrol is more exciting. It holds up well today, and if you get a chance, give it a watch. 8 out of 10.

I really thought 'Traffic' was an excellent film. It was inventive and extremely interesting. 'Ocean's 11' is the complete opposite. It is a constant waste of good talent. The direction is adequate, but it isn't Soderbergh's best work to date. In fact, it may be the worst thing he has done thus far. Julia Roberts is under used and her character is of no importance. She is obviously just in the movie for name sake. George Clooney is adequate as well, and he and Brad Pitt have excellent chemistry and timing. Unfortunately the dialogue isn't quite up to par with the talent that they bring to the table. The only thing in this movie that I loved was the poker game at the beginning of the film with Topher Grace, Joshua Jackson and Holly Marie Combs(I think thats her). That was the only thing in this film that stood out, and otherwise it was all fairly bland. A huge disappointment that I couldn't in good conscience recommend. 5 out of 10.

I had extremely high expectations going into 'The Fellowship of the Ring'. It is absolutely the greatest book I have read, and one of the greatest stories ever told. So to expect something short of it being one of the greatest movies ever made would be foolish. I wanted a film that would blow my mind, and I honestly thought they couldn't do it, and I thought they would disappoint me. When I left the theatre, however, the movie still had a strong hold on me and it is the best thing I have ever seen put on film. I thought my expectations were as high as they could be, and this film easily surpassed them all and took me along for the ride.

First of all, I have to say that Peter Jackson is absolutely brilliant. The direction in this film is astounding. He took what was probably the most difficult book to translate onto the screen and he excelled in a way that I didn't think was possible. The performances he got out of his actors was amazing. Even more amazing were some of the shots in the movie. The cinematography was absolutely amazing. Those of you who thought 'Crouching Tiger' was beautiful, well it doesn't even compare to the awe inspiring scope of this film. The whole sequence in Moria is breathtaking. I don't remember blinking when I was watching it. It is so astounding to watch it that you wonder how it is even possible that they did it. I've never seen anything as amazing as the Moria sequence and I doubt I ever will again.

The acting in the film is also fantastic. I was watching it and I did something I rarely do, I forgot that they were actors. Ian McKellan IS Gandalf. I never saw anything but a powerful wizard. He was so amazing and was how I saw him in my imagination. Elijah Wood IS Frodo. I assume you get the picture. I do have to comment on Viggo Mortensen as Strider and say that he is the absolute perfect choice. I always see Strider(Aragorn)as the ultimate hero, and Viggo captures my expectations in that character and made me believe in him. No one is out of place in this film at all, and Ian Holm is especially great as Bilbo is what portions of the film he is in. The casting director did the perfect job and I couldn't have, in any way, done it better myself.

Lets not forget to talk about the incredible sets and special effects. The Moria set is just astounding. I can't describe it to you, but when you see it, you'll get the picture. Lothlorien was beautiful. Different than what I pictured, but effective all the same. The Shire was perfect. You can tell that they paid careful attention to detail and finely crafted everything. The evil characters in the film were also great. The Nazgul were terrifying. There is really no other way to describe them. What amazed me the most was the Balrog. I had some ideas of how it could have been, but the image they gave me of it was great. I could also tell you how great Mordor looked, and how great the eye looked, and how great the two tower looked, but I won't. You just have to see it all for yourself.

At the end of watching 'The Fellowship of the Ring' a couple of thoughts occurred to me. First of all, it occurred to me that I HAVE to see this film again, and soon. And secondly, it occurred to me that nothing has even happened in the story yet. LOTR is of such a huge scope, and they have just touched upon it. This film absolutely blew my mind, and I am positive that the best it yet to come. That said, I have never in my life seen a film that was as good as this, and as a fan of the books, it was really powerful for me. It was not a film you sit in the theatre and watch, is it something you experience. The film sucked me in and it still has a strong hold over me. It is a very powerful film, one that everybody should see. Greatest story ever, greatest film ever(only until the sequals of course!!!!). Thank you so much Mr.Jackson and everyone else associated with it. And of course, thank you J.R.R. Tolkien. An astounding 10 out of 10, it doesn't get any better than this.