Reviews

Yes, this is very much like The Wizard of Oz, among other things, but Mirrormask is much better and much deeper. Don't get me wrong, I love The Wizard of Oz, but I don't think Dorothy grew too much as a person, other than realizing there's no place like home. And I'm sorry, but I think Stephanie Leonidas is a better actress than Judy Garland.

Mirrormask is about growing up, and teenage rebellion, and very much about mothers and daughters, and the difficulty of one losing the other. There is the line in it 'But you can't run away from home without destroying someone's world'. This is literally true in the context of the movie, but it was later that the meaning of it hit me.

I'm usually against over-analyzing movies, and maybe Neil Gaiman and David McKeen did not intend this, but the line I think means you cannot leave a loved one without destroying that person's world. Your mother, father, friends, are too involved with you.

The mirrormask concept was more integral to the story than I thought, it was not just about finding it but about what it can do. The scene where it is put into use is as magical as you would expect.

I didn't see Kull when it first came out, not a fan of the Hercules TV show, or all the over-ironic self-parodies of the time, save Scream. But after becoming a fan of Robert E. Howard, and reading the original Kull stories, I decided to check it out.

Dare I say it, I liked it better than the John Milius Conan the Barbarian. Kull the Conquerer, parodic though it was, still used more elements from the actual Kull stories, right down to character names. Taligaro, Zareta, although no Brule, maybe they were saving him for a planned sequel. Plot elements were there as well, including the famed line 'By this Axe I rule!' The characters speak in hip modern dialogue, part of the joke. Usually, this kind of thing gets on my nerves. But thinking about it, in Howard's stories characters were always articulate. In the John Milius/Oliver Stone scripted Conan movie it was apparently decided that because the characters were barbarians they...must...speak...very...slowly. At least in Kull we have complete sentences.

Kull is still a very loose adaptation, but I found myself having fun during many of the fight scenes. From what I've heard, the new Conan movie in development is to be more loyal to Robert E Howard's work. I hope so. Until then, Kull, surprising as it is, will have to do.

I've never been that interested in seeing this movie, but I finally decided to watch it, to see what the deal was. In the opening scroll, as it described the glories of the Old South, it spoke of 'Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave...' My mouth hung open. I couldn't believe it was so overt about slavery. I expected it to circumvent the issue, much like The Patriot and Cold Mountain today. Instead Gone with the Wind glorified slavery, right in the opening act a character decries the North for telling them they can't have slaves.

We see Black children fanning napping White women, an abhorrent image. Blacks working in the cotton fields seem to be having the time of their lives. In the post-Civil War years, the character of Ashley talks of how well-treated he treated slaves, never mind that they were human beings treated as property. Ashley saying he would have freed them is a nice way to evade what he was.

As days went by and I couldn't get Scarlett always saying 'fiddle-dee-dee' out of my head, I realized I also hated this movie as a movie. As so many old movies, it was completely overacted. The colors were too good for their own good, bright to the point of being fake. The more realistic colors of today are a vast improvement over the gaudy colors of old.

I will admit Scarlett's escape with woman and child as Atlanta burns was well done. There is room for moral complexity in this movie. People fighting on the wrong side still have romantic entanglements, and still are devastated by the effects of war. Rhett and Scarlett could be seen as flawed characters not just because of personality but because of racism. But there is not much room for moral complexity in Gone with the Wind, it takes a clear stand.

Unlike DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Gone with the Wind does not have the KKK riding in as heroes in the last act, instead its last act was tedious and overly weepy. However its portrayal of Reconstruction South was not much different than Birth of a Nation, with Blacks as either newly wealthy bullies or animalistic rapists of White women.

Gone with the Wind does have important technical and artistic innovations, but so did Birth of a Nation. The difference is that with Birth of a Nation there is no separation. You cannot talk about Griffith's innovations without talking about his abhorrent politics. Gone with the Wind seems to get a free pass. The majority of IMDb reviews do not talk much about the racism. I found the usual digs at CGI in today's movies to carry an irony. The CGI alien character of Jar-Jar Binks is reviled as a racial stereotype, where as the flesh-and-blood racial stereotypes of Gone with the Wind are mostly ignored.

What is most shocking is that to this day liberal Hollywood, and liberal critics, celebrate Gone with the Wind as a masterpiece, while ignoring and apologizing for its overt racism, which went beyond the usual stereotypes of the time, but in fact idealized the slave-owning South. How can this be?

Whenever stars are selling sequels, they always brush off the original. 'Okay the first one sucked, but this one is actually good.' I actually liked the first one, and I really wanted to see this one, but I still went in somewhat skeptical. In this case it actually did turn out to be better than the original. The first Tomb Raider was a well-made action movie, but I would not put it on the level of The Matrix or Hard-Boiled. The Cradle of Life actually does stand with those movies, dramatic with good characters.

The story was fascinating, and Angelina was great as usual, as was every outfit she wore, especially the silver wet suit. I'd been following Gerard Butler's career for a few years, since his turn in the mostly forgettable Dracula 2000. He almost steals the show as the Han Solo figure. His character is in every way equal to Lara Croft. They work perfectly off of each other, and their fate is just the cathartic ending I look for in any movie. And I love the soundtrack.

Usually with a movie like this the complaint would be that it's too slow. But in Cold Mountain, things really move too quickly. I did not have much time to know these characters and build empathy. Jude Law's character survived so long because of so many people helping him, but he never seems to care about this. He was supposed to be broken down on his journey, but apathy by others would do this. Some people were uncaring, but so many were kind.

The scenes with Natalie Portman, the strongest in the movie, also show its weakness. She helps him and he just leaves her. 'Good luck with the sick baby, but I've got to get back to Cold Mountain. My girlfriend's there with that dude from The White Stripes.' Speaking of whom, Jack White is another of the film's strengths, along with all of the music. The soundtrack was good throughout.

Renee Zellweger on the other hand is simply annoying. And she won an Oscar? Holly Hunter was robbed! The movie simply seemed disjointed. Usually I love barren, gray scenery, but in this case it did nothing for me. And how is it that Liberal Hollywood keeps making movies sympathizing with the slave-owning South. From Gone with the Wind to The Outlaw Josey Wales to Cold Mountain, Glory being a notable exception, the Confederates are the heroes, or at least the ones who are supposed to hold our sympathies. Yes, most people in the South did not have slaves, but they were pro-slavery and wanted to keep it that way. And Hollywood seems fine with this.

I can't believe this show was gone so quickly. The computer animation was first and foremost much better than the usual blurred, corny re-enactments. You really had a sense of the scope of the battles, and what strategies worked best. I learned a great deal not only about the battles, but their effects on civilization, hence the title. From this show I know one of the things Oliver Stone got right in Alexander, as I said in another review, was the battle of Gaugamela. I was hoping as the show progressed it could go on from ancient warfare into medieval warfare, The Battle of Hastings in particular, and then maybe even modern warfare, such as The Battle of Normandy. But it was not to be. I still want the show on DVD.

I always remembered this movie took place in 2005, so now that it is 2005, I had to buy it and watch it again. The story and characters hold up well, and the animation is very well done. This was before computer animation took hold, so the fact that everything looks so good is saying a lot. What really struck me watching it today is the colors, the very bright 1980's colors that are stunning to look at, and the mechanical world of the backgrounds is stunning as well.

Watching it now I can really pick out Judd Nelson's voice. Lionel Stander, the voice of Kup, has a very familiar voice, but I have not seen any other movies he's done. I suppose I recognize him from childhood as the voice of Kup. I can kind of pick out Orson Welles as Unicron, although it is not as clean as his voice usually is. Maybe the technology changed it or his age affected it. But who else could voice the larger-than-life figure of a monster planet. (insert your own Orson Welles weight joke here) I used to worship the soundtrack. Today the songs are cheesy even by 80's standards, but I still like them. The sound effects of the movie stand out as well. Mechanical robots, lasers, explosions, almost as detailed as sound for animation today. This is all more than a nostalgia trip, this movie is really good. Now suddenly I'm hungering for the DVD's of the TV show.

When this show came on it blew my mind. It was dark, gritty, and at first better even than 24. David Paymer was a classic cold-blooded villain and Leslie Hope was great against type of her 24 character, nail-tough.

In one episode, everything changed. It was when the FBI was pursuing a criminal pregnant woman, who ultimately abandoned her newborn in a dumpster. The baby was found alive and well and the episode had a warm, happy ending. No, I am no sadist who enjoys the sight of dead babies, but the whole point of a series like this is to show us what we do not want to see, along the lines of Saving Private Ryan.

With each successive episode it lost its edge, the fate of so many good shows. In less than a season, really half a season, it went on the journey NYPD Blue took over the course of a decade, throwing in curse words and partial nudity to appear gritty, but really becoming all too soft. I loved the show, then I was glad to see it canceled.

Campbell Scott's character, Roger, is not only amoral but he's someone who feeds off of his amorality, loves it. Then he is confronted with his nephew, who wants help to have sex with women but still hangs on to his moral center throughout the movie, often desperately. Nick is a good kid put down again and again by his arrogant uncle.

In the end, at the brothel, the amoral Roger must make a moral decision. He sees his nephew for frail human being, someone who needs compassion. From this dark drama there is an emotional arc worth seeing.

It is not as if Roger sees the light and becomes a puritan, but he does become someone who wants to help people, teaching his greatest skill, talking to women. This is a morality play, and it is a very good one.

I came away from Alexander conflicted. Much of it was well-done, but not in such a way as to make a strong connection.

The first problem would be the dialogue, which was very overwritten. Give audiences a little credit, they can figure things out quickly. We understand there was tension among the troops when Alexander became immersed in Persian culture and when he invaded India, and we understand Alexander was conflicted about his mother's likely involvement with his father's death, and that he deeply loved Hephaistion, but minutes upon minutes of circular dialogue were unnecessary.

As for the relationship with Hephaistion, it would have been better to allude to it, not because of American Puritanism, but because Alexander's bisexuality/homosexuality is something historians suspect, but do not know. It is a mystery for the ages, as it was in Alexander's time. Worst of all, the Persian eunuch may be the most unnecessary and inadvertently funny characters in movie history. Yes, we all loved the Weird Naked Indian in The Doors, but such a character does not need to exist in all of Stone's movies.

The battle scenes were perfect, everything anyone could imagine them to be, especially the very accurate re-enactment of Guagamella. But it was only one of two. They were among the times when Stone's ambitious style works, along with the entrance into Babylon.

As for performances, Angelina Jolie is my favorite actress, but she could not be his mother, starting with the fact that she is younger than Colin Farrell. An all-out, A Beautiful Mind style make-up job may have pulled it off, but adding some gray and a few wrinkles around the eyes does not work.

Colin Farrell really shone well in the last act, with all the weariness of Alexander in his eyes. One thing the make-up crew did right was giving Alexander and his friends battle scars, rather than have them always looking perfect.

Still, there is one major flaw in Colin's performance and Stone's direction.

Historically, the real Alexander the Great was known for being fearless, or at least he never showed any fear. Alexander in this movie is too vulnerable, too afraid of his mother, his father, and all the images his father showed him in the cave. He is portrayed as a haunted man. He may have been in real life, but no one saw it in him, except in this movie where it is on constant display.

Gladiator, as much as some people out there may tear it apart, was that bombshell of a movie that gave people something they had not seen before, even in the Sword-and-Sandal movies of old. It and Russell Crowe's performance in it are remarkable. The movie Alexander has so much ambition but never quite got to be remarkable. I like it in spite of its problems but I did not love it because of its problems. But I would say it is worth seeing. Love it or hate it, it is a lot to think about.

Like a well-done special effects movie, (yes they exist) Rope relies on more than a technical gimmick. It was done almost entirely in one shot, save a few cheats and for characters blocking out the camera as it was reloaded. This makes for an interesting experiment, but what really stands out is the disturbing study of good and evil.

The acting is stifled at first, until Jimmy Stewart shows up. Hitchcock cleverly sneaks in Stewart rather than giving him the flourishing entrance of a star. Stewart plays a much darker role than usual, a morally ambiguous teacher who has unknowingly inspired his students to commit the perfect crime.

The conversation about cases of acceptable murder starts out comical but becomes darker and darker, especially when it turns to Hitler. So close after WWII, it must have been like discussing Bin Laden today.

The 'one shot' moves towards one of Hitchcocks's darkest and most troubling endings, up there with Frenzy and The Birds. I am someone who does not often think highly of any movie made before 1967, (save Citizen Kane and a number of Hitch's movies) Rope resonates.

This is the kind of movie that brings out anti-Hollywood, anti-American feelings in a lot of people. Yes, Chloe in the Afternoon is an artful, beautiful, philosophical exploration of love and morality, all without giant explosions. It is also very, very boring.

I admit I only rented it because I fell for the tease on its cover. I knew it was a tease, but I had to satiate my curiosity. It was almost funny in its sheer dullness. The last 10 minutes were not so bad, because it was finally over and something actually happened. But that hardly makes up for the rest of it.

Just before I watched this, I saw the first of the 3 minute Star Wars Clone Wars cartoons. In 3 minutes, the short said more about humanity, morality, and love than the entire hour and a half of Chloe in the Afternoon.

I'll just come out and say it. Cabin Fever, a movie I absolutely hated, was at least not boring. I'll take bad Hollywood over quality art house any day.

With Evil Dead, Sam Raimi made a good, solid horror movie.

With Evil Dead 2, Sam Raimi made a very funny horror parody.

With Cabin Fever, Eli Roth tries to do both, and comes up short either way. Cabin Fever has some intense moments, but they are undermined by too much comic relief. I think there was also supposed to be some social commentary in there, about the mistreatment of people with diseases, but that does not work either. Maybe the movie was just trying to be stupid. In that case, Eli Roth forgets the important rule: a movie is only bad enough to be funny if it is trying to be good. Try to make a bad movie and you just have a bad movie. Cabin Fever has a few shocks, a few laughs, but nothing that impressive.

I don't like musicals as a general rule, so I admit I am not being fair. I only saw this because Catherine Zeta-Jones has never looked better than in the 1920's style. I would not call her performance Oscar-worthy, but she does light up the screen. The revelation in the end of what Richard Gere's plan was all along was also something I found interesting.

Take away Renee Zellweger and the musical numbers, and this might have been an interesting movie. Zellweger gives a waxwork performance. She did not even look convincing as a dummy. The musical numbers are all tiresome and drawn out, especially the one at the end, which shows just how bad the chemistry between the lead actresses is. At least Moulin Rouge, a movie I both hated and loved, the music was quick and dramatic.

Finally, there was one major thing missing from Chicago, namely the city of Chicago. Where as Road to Perdition had glorious scenes in Chicago, the movie Chicago did nothing to showcase its namesake. It all looked like it took place on the same drab city street. It should have been called Street in Chicago.

Thirteen may be the best teen film ever made. It is the anti-after school special, not soft and soap operatic but harsh and brutal. Everything about it is dead on. Even if you have not gone through anything like this, it is easy to see how the characters do what they do. Catherine Hardwicke directs in a kinetic style, portraying sex, drugs, and stealing as a sudden descent. The entire cast is perfect, but co-writer Nikki Reid and star Evan Rachel Wood shine the most, giving us a look deep into the minds of troubled teens. The last scene left me very haunted, one of the most cathartic endings in the history of cinema.

Yes, there are plenty of Z-Vampire gore fests that are just terrible, but at least they're not pretending to be intellectual. The characters in The Addiction do nothing but name drop philosophers. "It's like Kierkagard said" "It's like Nietzche said." "It's like Sartre said." I am familiar with the works of Friedrich Nietzche, and I am in no way impressed with people who constantly refer to his work.

Christopher Walken, usually so cool, shows up for less than 2 minutes, and he has absolutely no impact on events, making me wonder why he gets such high billing for something so forgettable.

I suppose philosophy majors enjoy this, in between working where ever it is that philosophy majors get jobs. The Addiction is nothing but a self-righteous bore, and that's putting it mildly. I even liked Interview with the Vampire, and I still can't take how absolutely heavy-handed this waste of film is.

There are 3 different kinds of B-movies. Most of them are just bad. Horribly, painfully bad. Some are just the right kind of bad to be fun to watch. And a select few are surprisingly well done.

Cyborg 2, like the original, falls into the third category. Yes, it has uneven fight scenes and some terrible dialogue, but it also has involving moments. You probably wouldn't want to pay a lot of money to see it, but it's good to watch on TV, especially late at night.

And of course, it feature Angelina Jolie in her debut performance, not counting Looking to Get Out. She does very well with the sometimes spare material, as does Elias Koteas. Both of them always manage good performances with even the worst scripts, and this script is actually decent.

Non B-movie fans should avoid this, but the rest, and I know you're out there, might actually like it.

I loved this movie, but I am aware it has its detractors, even among Bond fans, who often prefer Goldfinger. Goldfinger was great, but I think Sick Boy in Trainspotting summed up Pussy Galore well. (I can't do it justice here, just see Trainspotting) Goldfinger's final fate was also more ludicrous than anything people complain about in Thunderball. In Thunderball, Largo may not be one of the best Bond Villains, but he is a good tough guy and a rare dose of grittiness in the elegant world of James Bond. Domino is without a doubt my favorite Bond Girl, sexy, voluptuous, and strong. She is also one of the few women with whom Bond seemed to form an actual emotional connection.

More than anything else, though, I absolutely loved the underwater battle sequence. As it started, with the para-troopers arriving, I felt this great rush of energy. That is what I look for in a Bond film, or any film for that matter, not some intellectual exercise. Yes, it was the old Calvary arriving to save the day, but Bond films have always excelled at re-inventing cliches. As far as I'm concerned, Thunderball's finale is up there with the D-Day scene in Saving Private Ryan or the helicopter scene in Apocalypse Now as one of the greatest battle scenes ever.

It also features one of the great dry Bond lines- "You're glad?" You have to see the movie for it to make sense, but in the context of the scene, and with Connery's delivery, it was very funny.

I hate to admit it, but I even liked the Tom Jones song.

I had never heard of this movie when I saw it in the video store, but I rented it on a fluke just because I'm a fan of Evan Rachel Wood. It turned out to be a fun and dramatic gem, cute without being too cute. It takes on a difficult challenge, making a kids movie adults can also enjoy, all without Shrek-style irony. The revelations in the end can be seen coming before they happen, but it is still enjoyable watching the arcs of all the characters, as well as the subtle lesson in truth. Recommended rental.