MovieLuvaMatt's Reviews

Jersey Girl (2004)

A change for Kevin Smith, but not necessarily for the better

9 December 2004

I'm a big Kevin Smith fan, but this is definitely not his best work. People tend to emphasize the fact that the movie is PG-13, and that audiences are not used to seeing a Smith movie that doesn't contain the "f" word used in every other sentence. I can adjust to the lack of profanity. As a matter of fact, I have "Clerks: The Animated Series" on DVD, and I think it's hilarious! Smith has a great sense of humor that transcends his obsession with the profane. Anyone who has seen his recurring "Roadside Attractions" sketch on "The Tonight Show" should be fully aware of that. The problem with "Jersey Girl" is it's like every other Garry Marshall-type sappy romantic comedy that has come out over recent years. Other than the element of a video store clerk who's studying man's obsession with pornography, there is very little that helps break the mold of your standard romantic comedy. Aside from the romantic element, the storyline between Ben Affleck's character and his daughter (played by Racquel Castro) is an utter cliché. Let's put it this way: I never thought I'd ever see a Kevin Smith movie with a climax that involves a character rushing to see his daughter perform on stage. What makes Smith such a talented writer/director is not just his "d*ck and fart jokes." If that were the case, any eight-year-old can write just as good a film as "Clerks." His humor also has a certain intelligence and wit. It's not just raunchy for raunchiness sake. Many of the gags in this movie are lame and predictable. Who in the hell still thinks the diaper-changing gag is still funny? And the joke about Affleck thinking Will Smith will never have a movie career doesn't pan out, because by 1996, Will had already done "Bad Boys" and "Six Degrees of Separation" (of which he received much critical acclaim for his performance). And I'm sure at that stage, people weren't still referring to him as "The Fresh Prince." A real publicist would be privy to that.

The cast is full of talented people. I've always been more complimentary towards Affleck than most people. Almost any director will tell you that there are performers and there are actors. Affleck is definitely a performer, who plays an extension of himself in almost any role, but that's what he's good at. He's a movie star. His job is to play handsome leading men roles, and not character roles like, say, Gary Sinise. Affleck does a fine job in this movie, although there are moments where he seems bored with his role (as in "Gigli"). You have to consider the fact that him and Kevin Smith have been friends, even before he became an A-list star. So if Smith were to hand him a script for a gay porn movie, he'd probably agree. In the commentary, Affleck mentions that this is the best movie he's ever done, but I'm sure he was just saying that to butter up his buddy Kev. Newcomer Racquel Castro is cute and adorable, and quite the natural actress. They say it's impolite to criticize child actors, but I've never had any shame about doing so. But this girl definitely has screen presence and she could have a promising career when she enters adulthood. George Carlin steals the show as the foul-mouthed father (though the movie couldn't get away with showcasing the "f" word, Carlin got away with using the "s" word quite often). There are some amusing cameos as well. Most of them are from Kevin Smith's regulars. I will say that Matt Damon and Jason Lee pop in cameos, but I won't give away the very amusing cameo at the end.

To sum it up, "Jersey Girl" is an example of Smith going mainstream. There are some comic moments that contain a bit of his edge. For example, the opening scene has a group of schoolkids each approach the front of the classroom to talk about their parents. One of the kids says, "My mom says that my dad's eyes are so brown, because he's so full of..." The problem is those moments are few and far between. I know being a husband and parent has softened up the director a bit, but hopefully he snaps out of it soon. We want you back, Kev! Would I compare this movie to "Chasing Amy"? Not in the least. First of all, it puts a twist on the classic romantic comedy by the main character falling in love with a lesbian. Second of all, it's a much less sappy and much more realistic film that doesn't abide by virtually every Hollywood convention. I'm not saying "Jersey Girl" is a bad film, but it is bland and didn't satisfy me all the way--especially being a fan of Smith.

My score: 6 (out of 10)

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

Hell Night (1981)

2/10

The ultimate hell is sitting through this movie!

7 July 2004

This has all the elements of a bad horror movie, but unlike some so-bad-it's-good low-budget fright flicks, this one takes itself seriously--and therin lies the problem. I always say the sign of a bad horror movie is when you want every character to die, just so the movie can end. That was definitely the case with "Hell Night." I was literally counting how many characters are still alive, so I'd know how soon it'll all be over. Even at approximately an hour and 40 minutes, I felt the film went on way too long. That goes on to prove that a good movie is never too long and a bad movie is never too short. The acting is decent, though nothing special. But I'd rather watch a fun horror flick with bad actors than a clunker like this with decent actors. This is the only movie, besides "The Exorcist," that I've seen of Linda Blair's. Apparently, she made a consecutive series of bombs after gaining fame from that debut role. Aside from one exciting scene where one of the characters tries to climb over a pointed gate, the movie is devoid of any real thrills. Most of the scenes are composed of characters walking through dark locations for about 5 minutes before something actually happens. The movie itself has almost no originality. The score is cheesy, and so are the horrendously dated 80's hairstyles and wardrobe. Even for low-budget horror standards, this is one awful flick!

My score: 2 (out of 10)

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

Final Examination (2003 Video)

5/10

Not bad for Showtime late night movie quality cinema

5 July 2004

This is definitely no masterpiece, but it is halfway decent. Considering the fact that it looks like something you'd see on Showtime late at night, it is fairly well done. And the car chases are good for a film of its budget. The acting, on the other hand, is atrocious. The very pretty Kari Wuhrer is a good actress, but the rest of the cast seem to be delivering their lines in their sleep. Brent Huff, who plays the lead, is especially horrible. He's so stonefaced that he makes Vin Diesel look like a Shakesperean actor. Other than Kari, the women aren't terribly attractive, but they have nice bodies. It's basically softcore porn. Not all these types of actresses are beauty queens. As long as their bra sizes are at least C-cups, they qualify. But unlike most of these softcore movies, there is a storyline and it is semi-interesting. And that's what makes this film adequate entertainment. Plus, as a side note, there is a Jim Wynorski in-joke that should amuse B-movie fans.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

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

Full Frontal (2002)

4/10

A failed experiment

5 July 2004

Steven Soderbergh is a talented director, and I respect his decision to do a low-budget picture, but this movie didn't do it for me. I am a firm believer that visuals take a back seat to script, when it comes to making a good movie. You can shoot a feature-length movie on a home video camera with bad lighting, and it can still be good as long as the script is well-written and the characters are engaging. In this case, the characters aren't engaging. First off, it's harder to make an interesting film about wealthy Hollywood types. It's better to make movies about ordinary people, with whom the audience can relate. I just felt distant from these characters, and I found it hard to get wrapped up in their lives. The director throws the audience a couple of curve balls, but they come off as more pretentious than nifty.

The film's strong points lie in its concepts, but the execution is poor. I like the idea of an ensemble of A-list actors working for little money, and not having the luxury of trailers or craft service. The ensemble cast of popular film and TV actors is definitely talented, but good acting can't save bad material. One of the reasons why I was interested in seeing the movie is because I heard that all the dialogue is improvised by the actors. Well, either I heard wrong or I was lied to, because in the DVD commentary (which is very good, by the way) Soderbergh explains that only the scenes between Nicky Katt and Enrico Colantoni are heavily improvised.

If you want to see a better film that uses a similar style of filmmaking in a more successful way, watch Mike Figgis's "Timecode." That film is all improvised and shot on video in real time. In that case, the experiment was a success. I'm not a big fan of experimental films in general, because in most cases the directors are simply being self-indulgent and pass their work off as high art, simply because they're being different (or "revolutionary," as the more pretentious directors phrase it). Hell, making a whole movie that centers on an hour and 30 minutes of a fat slob watching TV is something different, but who would watch it? There's nothing wrong with being artistic in the process of making a film, but you must make the material at least somewhat interesting to the audience or it's simply cinematic masturbation. There are more self-indulgent films out there than "Full Frontal," but this just wasn't my cup of tea. If the script were good, I wouldn't even notice the poor visual quality, but since it wasn't, I was able to notice it and as a result it hampered the film.

My score: 4 (out of 10)

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

White Chicks (2004)

7/10

Why the low rating?

3 July 2004

There have been much, much worse comedies out there! I tend to be very picky when it comes to comedies, but this one (against my initial expectations) worked for me. However, any viewer of this movie must keep in mind that political correctness is the enemy of comedy. How else do you explain the massive success of "All in the Family"? Why are some movies and TV shows praised for being politically incorrect while others are bashed? When the humor is mean-spirited, I understand, but "White Chicks" is not one of those cases. In the days of minstrelsy, whites had a grudge against the black people, and that's what distinguishes minstrels in blackface from the Wayans in whiteface. Besides, the Wayans are equal opportunity employers when it comes to irreverence. They crack on Latinos, Asians and even people of their own race. Have you ever watched that little show called...hmm..."In Living Color"? The show (featuring a big chunk of the Wayans family) thrived on racial humor, but it proved to be a big success. It also brought in big laughs. The Wayans (even in the case of the eldest brother, Keenan) aren't exactly masters at humor, and this movie is no "Annie Hall." 'Til this day they depend on crude sexual references, bodily functions or both to get laughs. But you know what? It often works.

The film opens with a hilarious gag involving an undercover operation at an inner city bodega. Shawn and Marlon pose as the Hispanic owners of that bodega. I repeat, political correctness is the enemy of comedy. The gag contains every Hispanic stereotype you can think of, but I was cracking up.

As several other people have pointed out, it's hard to find it credible that anyone would believe that Shawn and Marlon are really white girls. That is true, but the low credibility factor didn't ruin the film in my opinion. It's meant to be a silly, slapstick farce and not everything in a farce is meant to be realistic. As I said, we're not watching "Annie Hall." Some films are meant to be realistic and others are meant to stretch the boundaries of reality. And the movie definitely stretches those boundaries, but it doesn't abandon them.

Terry Crews, who I previously saw in "Friday After Next" (in a much more thankless role), steals the show as a rich black man who lusts after white women, and ends up lusting after one of the Wilson sisters (who is really Marlon in drag). Seeing him, a huge muscular black man, singing "A Thousand Miles" is worth the full price of admission. I honestly didn't see that joke coming, and the gag serves as proof that the Wayans aren't talentless hacks. I mean, he not only ends up singing it, but he sings the whole song! That's the kind of payoff you would only get in a Farrelly Brothers movie! So kudos to the Wayans and the hilarious Terry Crews for that scene.

Undoubtedly, there is a share of gags that elicit simple groans instead of laughs, but the hits outnumber the misses and that's what counts. Many of the gags are predictable, but funny nonetheless. As long as you don't enter the theater with a PC mindframe and expecting biting social commentary, you should enjoy this film.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Station Agent (2003)

10/10

Proof that there are still masterpieces in American cinema!

3 July 2004

I just got finished watching this movie, and it captivated me from start to finish! This is the definition of a great film! God bless independent cinema, because you would never see a major studio film that centers on a dwarf, a Hispanic man and a woman in her 40's. Yes, people like this exist in the world and they have feelings too.

Peter Dinklage gives a pitch-perfect, topnotch performance. It's unfortunate that it's hard for actors like him to get good roles in the movie business, because he possesses as much talent as every popular movie star combined. He plays a man of extremely few words, yet you can read his emotions with every facial expression and piece of body language. The actor who plays his buddy, Joe, also gives a wonderful performance. It helps that he plays a hugely lovable character. But he's lovable in a believable way. He's doesn't serve as some tool to elicit giant "awwws" from the audience. You see people like him everyday. People who live lonely lives (in this case, he's a man confined to sitting in a lunch truck day-by-day), who are simply looking for folks to talk to and make friends with. The minute he sees that our main character is living close to his lunch truck, he finds an opportunity for friendship. It's frustrating as we watch our main character, Fin, brush off people who are trying to make friends with him, but at the same time you understand his reasons. A close friend of his just died and he has to deal with the baggage of living his whole life as a dwarf, and being the object of ridicule. So when he sees people so eager to make friends with him, he doesn't know whether their feelings are genuine or they're just patronizing him because of his condition. And the beautiful thing about this movie is none of those character motivations are laid out on the table in a heavy-handed, expositional way. The writer-director made the film in such a way that you're able to interpret these details from their normal, everyday activities. The cast of brilliantly talented actors help us interpret those details as well. Aside from the two actors I just mentioned, Patricia Clarkson gives a wonderfully subtle performance. I'm guessing she achieved most of her fame from the hit show "Six Feet Under." Unfortunately, I don't have cable and am not too familiar with her work, other than various supporting roles she has played in the past. There is not one bad apple in this bunch of actors. Even the girl who plays Cleo (who was previously in "Lovely and Amazing") does a wonderful job, though her role is moderately small. Then again, there are no small roles, just small actors--and she certainly doesn't fit that bill.

I can't say enough about this gem of a motion picture. As I always say, good films come more often than I think, but great films are rare. This is one of those rare, great films that is deserving a perfect score. "The Station Agent" serves as further proof that it doesn't matter how little a budget you have; great films can be made for little or no money, and sometimes money even ruins films. Independent cinema rules!!!!!

My score: 10 (out of 10)

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

Bad Santa (2003)

5/10

A disappointment

2 July 2004

I feel like people were describing to me a totally different movie. I knew this film was going to be dark, but it turned out much darker than I expected. At times it doesn't even feel like a comedy. The main character is a totally downbeat fellow, and as a result the film takes on a downbeat tone. There are some absolutely hilarious moments, like when Tony Cox quips about what he was doing with Bernie Mac's wife last night. But those moments are few and far between. I honestly don't see what the critics and audiences found so special about this movie. The plot is slow-moving, and the vulgarity gets repetitive and dull after a while. Not to mention the premise could've been put to better use. I always wanted to see a movie about a department store Santa who's a complete whack-job. I think it's a premise that deserves a broad treatment, whereas Terry Zwigoff tries to make it into a realistic character study. If it were, say, a Farrelly Brothers movie, I think they would've made better use of the premise. Zwigoff directed the hugely impressive "Ghost World," and the two films possess a similar tone, but in that film it was more useful. Though also a comedy, "Ghost World" is meant to be a human depiction of what it's like to be an adolescent outcast. "Bad Santa" isn't meant to have any sort of touching commentary on life. And that's what bothered me about the subplot between Billy Bob and that chubby kid. It felt so forced, and the director seemed desperate to tug at the audience's heartstrings between the barrage of offensive gags. The cast is great, but none of them are used to their full advantage. Bernie Mac is given an uptight, unfunny role and John Ritter was wasted in his last film appearance. He's only in the movie for about 20 minutes, and plays such a thanklessly dorky role. Don't believe the hype. Why this became the sleeper hit of last year is beyond me.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

10/10

One of my favorite movies! Rarely am I so moved by a film!

24 June 2004

This ranks as one of my favorite films of all time, and for good reason. First of all, any movie that can make me laugh hysterically, cry and fill up with anger is something very special. "Bowling for Columbine" made me experience a rollercoaster of emotions, and it should be seen by everyone!

I've loved Michael Moore ever since I saw "Roger and Me." When I was told, in my class, that I was about to watch a documentary about the closing of a GM plant in a Michigan town, I was prepared to be bored out of my mind. But Moore constructed the film in such a way that it was funny, entertaining and touching. He made the subject matter relatable to the average human being. In the case of "Columbine" I was already interested in the subject matter, and Moore's treatment of it heightened my interest.

The movie explores all aspects of violence in this country, and how it compares to violence in other countries. It makes a great argument about violence in the media. Moore shows that in Canada young people play the same violent video games and watch the same violent movies, yet the country manages to be generally non-violent. So take that, all you dummies who attribute every violent crime in the U.S. to what we see on TV and in the movies.

The Charlton Heston interview at the conclusion is one of the film's highlights. From now on, I will never be able to watch a Heston film the same way ever again. The guy is the Antichrist! The animated sequence is another great moment. It's a hilarious, yet truthful sequence that sums up the cycle of violence dating back to the very, very early days.

The movie also touches on some other provocative subjects, like the portrayal of minorities in the media. Moore intercuts an interview with the creator of the show "Cops," with a comedy sketch that gives us an idea of what the show would be like if it fixated on white-collar crime.

To sum it up, few films have moved me more than "Bowling for Columbine." People criticize Moore for being "manipulative." You can't be manipulated into something unless you at least somewhat believe in it. He's not a Fascist dictator. He's a simply working-class Joe who wants to express his views. If you don't agree with his views, that's fine. But don't stop the rest of us from appreciating his work. Because I believe he deserves every bit of recognition he gets. He truly is a genius!

My score: 10 (out of 10)

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Son of the Beach (2000–2002)

Utterly devoid of any intellectual value, but funny and entertaining

17 June 2004

I just bought Volume 1 of the "Son of the Beach" DVDs, which contains the first 21 episodes, and I was quite impressed. I pretty much got what I expected: gorgeous women gratuitously roaming around in skimpy bathing suits and a nonstop barrage of cheap sex jokes. But since the show doesn't aspire to be any more than what it is, it works. I can't doubt that the double entendres get repetitive at times, but most of the time I can't help but laugh. Both Jaime Bergman and Leila Arcieri are extremely hot. Timothy Stack, who I've been a fan of since his talk show parody "Night Shift," is great at playing a dim-witted takeoff on David Hasselhoff's character in "Baywatch." His name is Notch, which is somewhat similar to Hasselhoff's character "Mitch." And since his last name's Johnson, that purposely opens up many opportunities for cheap sex jokes. I don't usually like dumb blonde characters, since they're way overused in movies and TV shows, but most of Bergman's airhead one-liners are quite funny. There are gratuitous montages which feature the beautiful female characters strutting their stuff wearing next to nothing, but in a show like this it's pretty much appropriate. Plus, it also works as a sendup of "Baywatch," a show that uses those montages very often, but still tries to pass itself off is tasteful. "Son of the Beach" is in the poorest of taste, and isn't afraid to show it. But if you buy the DVD set, don't watch all the shows consecutively, because like video games this stuff could rot your brain.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane (1990)

5/10

Not as enjoyable as it used to be

16 June 2004

When I saw this movie for the first time, I was just getting into Dice's comedy, so I guess my point of view was more biased. Plus, I was much younger and found it entertaining enough to watch a movie with a good deal of profanity and sex jokes. Naturally, I was also less critical of movies back then. I still like Dice's humor, and don't participate in the bandwagon of people who think he's the Antichrist. Reason why? I don't believe he really is the sexist pig he portrays himself as on stage, and his whole intention is to poke fun at the stereotypical Italian-American from Brooklyn who thinks he's hot stuff and believes he can treat any woman like a piece of meat. It's a cliche when someone says a celebrity is nice and sweet in real life, as opposed to the character he plays on the big or small screen, but with Dice I believe it's true. I mean, he's a married man with two children, and isn't even Italian--he's Jewish! I could understand why people would be offended by his material, but I feel I have more of an understanding of who he really is and as a result, don't take his profane and misogynistic comments seriously.

With all that said, I was disappointed watching this movie for the first time in about 5 years. First of all, I'm a firm believer that when a comedian stars in a movie, his job is to be a good actor first and then be funny. In Dice's case, he's a good comedian, but he definitely possesses very little acting talent. His trademark gestures and expressions that are amusing to watch on stage became annoying to watch on screen. I wasn't able to buy him as the character he was portraying. All I saw was Dice for 95 minutes! Not Ford Fairlane. So when I criticize comedians-turned-actors like Mike Epps, I'm not just being prejudice against them because I don't find them funny, but because they're simply not good actors--and when they're not funny, it makes matters worse.

I was still able to get a few chuckles here and there, and during the first 20-minutes-or-so, I found myself imitating Dice's expressions. But after a while, the welcome was worn out. There are other actors in the cast who possess more talent, like Ed O'Neill and Robert Englund. Even Wayne Newton showed that he can be a fairly natural actor. Unfortunately, their roles are small and moderately thankless (even though I liked Gilbert Gottfried's cameo), and to be totally honest this isn't much more than a star vehicle for Dice. Judging by the poor box office, I guess it was proven that he's better on stage than screen. I enjoyed him in certain supporting roles like the one he played in "One Night in McCool's," but he certainly isn't star material.

It also kind of bothered me that all the women in the film were portrayed as either ditzes, villains or sex objects. Plus, the film gets plot-heavy at times, which doesn't help since the plot isn't all that interesting. However, if you decide to buy or rent the DVD, it contains a good commentary by director Renny Harlin.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde (2003 Video)

7/10

Great for TNA, which I assume was its intention

10 June 2004

I'm not going to lie and say this movie is good for anything for than softcore porn. One of my friends told me that this is not like most softcore flicks, because it actually has a good story. I don't happen to agree one bit. I could spend weeks dismantling this movie aesthetically. I understand it was shot on an extremely low-budget, but even skin flicks usually contain sets that are dressed up to appear like certain locations. The movie opens on a talk show set, and it literally just shows close-ups of the host and interviewee against an anonymous background. They don't even face each other and they're individually framed, not even hiding from the audience the fact that they shot each woman separately. I'm guessing they shot the whole movie with one video camera, because there are moments where you see a woman's body and her face in isolated shots, even though there were no body doubles involved. If there's anything good I can say about the movie aesthetically, it's that the acting is not bad. The actresses are actually fairly convincing.

I once saw Richard Roeper review an erotic foreign film, and he said that, "If I rave about a comedy because it makes me laugh, then I guess this movie makes me feel proud that I'm a man with 20/20 vision." The moral of that statement is that men are often afraid to admit something is erotic and a turn-on to them, with the risk of being called perverts. I'm not afraid to admit that this movie is very erotic, and it succeeds on that level. The first 30-minutes-or-so contains softcore oral sex scenes, which are obviously simulated and something laughable, but the rest of the movie really takes off. And just my good luck, 95 percent of the sex scenes involve girl-on-girl activity. That's right, no men involved. And I can honestly say that I found every actress in the movie attractive, especially the lead actress who looks even more sexy in glasses and a business suit. Unlike many girl-on-girl scenes, the actresses looked like they were really into what they were doing, and not like they're just anticipating reactions from the horny guys in the audience.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

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

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987)

3/10

Let's face it! It's half a movie!

10 June 2004

People constantly complain about sequels that are practically clones of the originals. Well, for those of you who are extremely judgmental about sequels, you're going to have a field day bashing this flick. This movie LITERALLY lifts 40 minutes of footage from the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night" and uses it to fill the whole first half! Now this seems like something only a really dumb student filmmaker, who is too lazy to shoot the quota of footage for a feature-length project, would do. Audiences of this movie must've felt gypped when they spent money to see a movie that they already freakin' saw! They should've at least charged half-price, when selling tickets for this movie in theaters. And the second half is nothing to brag about either. First of all, the man they chose to play the lead is about as cheesy as B-movie actors come. He mugs and overacts to the point where you wish somebody would just kill him! There's nothing else I can say about this movie, because there's nothing else worth mentioning. It's a forgettable piece of trash that belongs in the 99-cent bin of your local supermarket.

My score: 3 (out of 10)

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

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

6/10

Decent B-horror movie

10 June 2004

I had the same reaction to this movie as I do to most B-grade horror flicks. Overall, I was able to enjoy it for what it was, but the constant death scenes became repetitive and a bit dull after a while. I was even able to forgive the ridiculous premise. Why would the main character become a killer just because he's forced to put on a Santa suit, and had to witness his parents being killed by Ol' Saint Nick? Maybe if he killed everyone who was dressed in a Santa suit, I'd understand. But this is a low-budget horror and you're not supposed to ask those types of questions. The film is dated with some extremely corny music in the soundtrack (especially during the montage of Billy working at the hardware store) and awful 80's hairstyles and fashions. The acting is one-note, but pretty good for B-movie standards. Robert Brian Wilson is fairly convincing in the lead. I saw the uncut version on DVD, so if you can please get your hands on it, instead of the R-rated version in which the gore factor is lessened quite a bit. I can understand why the movie received controversy in its initial release. Though I can take it for granted now as an adult, if I were still a child believing in Santa and saw a poster of him carrying an axe, I'd be pretty darn terrified. However, a good solution would've been to ban all the advertising, except for maybe TV spots late at night, so little children wouldn't be exposed to the horrible idea of Santa as a killer. Because if any parents were to take their children to see the movie, it would be their faults for taking them to an R-rated movie in the first place. They didn't have to ban the movie from theaters altogether. But hey, no publicity is bad publicity and the movie did receive a moderately wide audience on home video.

My score: 6 (out of 10)

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

Malibu's Most Wanted (2003)

7/10

Surprisingly funny

8 June 2004

Like many others, I had very low expectations of this movie. I just think the premise of a white man acting black has been done to death. But for some reason, this movie worked for me. As you can expect, there are some lame moments and I absolutely hate that gibberish vocabulary that Snoop Dogg created (hizzle fashizzle and all that crap). Of course, some of that vocabulary pops up in certain parts of the movie. However, for the most part the gags work. I enjoyed Taye Diggs and Anthony Anderson as two white-collar (no pun intended) black actors, who have to learn to be "ghetto" in order to get into character. Anderson isn't totally convincing in the role, since some of his ghetto slang pops up even when he's not playing the part of a stereotypical black man from the hood, but he's still very funny. When is he not funny? That's right, the answer is never. Diggs, on the other hand, is much more convincing in his role. But the two actors have great chemistry, and they create a Laurel-and-Hardy-esque comedy team. Jamie Kennedy co-wrote the script, so I have to give him partial credit for the effectiveness of the material. Kennedy can be funny when he works up to his potential, as he has shown in his WB series "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." He plays the role with a certain charm, and the movie itself is not mean-spirited, which is another reason why it works. Ryan O'Neal is entertaining as Jamie's father, and has some funny moments of his own. However, I don't understand why Bo Derek took the role of his wife, since she barely has anything to do. I didn't grow up in the seventies, so I'm not too familiar with her work, but I'm pretty sure she was big in her hayday and it's a shame that she took on such a thankless role.

If your expectations of this movie are low, don't let that prevent you from checking out "Malibu's Most Wanted." I always enjoy it when a movie supersedes my expectations, and this is one of those cases. I know this is a clichéd line, but this is not the type of film that deserves any awards. But it is a lot of fun. And thankfully, Snoop Dogg has only a 3-minute voice cameo as a talking rat, because I stand by my word when I say that he should be banned from movies altogether. I'm sure if Tom Cruise were to make an album, people would be ticked, yet Snoop Dogg is able to receive acclaim for his movie appearances without having acting talent. Snoop is the poster boy for the statement, "Don't quit your day job."

My score: 7 (out of 10)

9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Bring It on: Again (2004 Video)

3/10

Horrible sequel!

25 May 2004

The first "Bring it On" is no masterpiece, but it has charm and manages to be very entertaining. In this direct-to-video sequel, the talented cast from the original is replaced by second-rate actors and the script is brooding with everything I hate about teen movies in general. Maybe I'm biased because I'm from New Jersey, but I've never heard any of my peers use the phrase "Shut up!" Give me some characters and dialogue I can relate to for God's sake! Enough of these Barbie and Ken Dolls! Aside from the ultra-lame dialogue, almost every gag falls flat. And the stupid plot involves a couple of cheerleading outcasts training a ragtag team of students (who know NOTHING about cheerleading) in a limited amount of time! I'm not going to give away the outcome, but the premise alone makes you want to puke, right? Bree Turner is a hot actress, but she doesn't match up to Gabrielle Union. And that Reese Witherspoon lookalike who plays the lead definitely doesn't match up to Kirsten Dunst! Don't see this movie! Just another lifeless sequel to serve as fodder for the video shelves.

My score: 3 (out of 10)

23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Wild Things 2 (2004 Video)

3/10

Another lame direct-to-video sequel. What else is new?

19 May 2004

The ironic thing about this movie is Susan Ward starred in "The In Crowd," an enormous box office bomb that came out way too soon after the original "Wild Things"--the earlier being like a bargain-basement version of the latter flick. I just thought I'd throw out that hint of trivia. Since I tend to take these movies with a grain of salt, the first 30 minutes had me engaged, but once I was introduced to the barrage of outlandish plot twists I was no longer able to offer forgiveness. Sure, one of the trademarks of the original movie is the outpouring of plot twists, and not all of them made perfect sense. But they made much more sense than the twists in this movie. After I was done watching the movie, I checked out the featurette on the DVD. As it turned, the director (Jack Perez) meant for the film to be outrageous and far-fetched. According to him, he chose to have the actors play it out like a campy thriller/horror flick/soap opera. However, that's not what I saw on screen! I saw a film that's too dumb to be taken seriously, and too serious to be taken as a dark comedy. About the only asset this film possesses is a cast of attractive performers. Yes, Susan Ward is a very attractive woman, but she isn't a great actress and certainly doesn't have what it takes to play a lead role. You may recognize her from her supporting role in "Shallow Hal," and she did a fine job in that movie. But "supporting" is the key word. Isaiah Washington has proved his acting chops in past films like "True Crime" and "Clockers," both of which he gave very impressive performances. However, he seems miscast in the role of a no-nonsense detective. He's just way too calm and low-key to pull off this type of role convincingly. Like the original "Wild Things," the film contains a 3-way with two girls and a guy, but it's not nearly as steamy with moments where one of the actresses was obviously switched with a body double. Even for direct-to-video standards, this one's a complete snore!!!

My score: 3 (out of 10)

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

Beverly Hills Cop II (1987)

7/10

Even better than the original!

19 May 2004

Though I'm sure many disagree, I enjoyed the sequel even better than the original "Beverly Hills Cop." Both are good movies, but this one has more laughs, in my opinion. Eddie Murphy goes into more of his hilarious improvisations and since Tony Scott is in the director's chair this time around, the action scenes are more elaborate. Taggart and Rosewood loosened up in the end of the original, so their characters are much more fun to watch. I love Taggart's line at the end of the climactic shoot-out. I still can't say John Ashton and Judge Reinhold match up to Laurel and Hardy, like Martin Brest (director of the original) said, but they do make a great team. And as much as I loved the music in the first movie, the music in this soundtrack is even better! The song during the opening title sequence, "Shakedown," is perfect as it really got me pumped up for what was about to come. Like the original, this movie also has a strip club sequence and as an added bonus, shots of scantily clad "Playboy" bunnies. So how can I complain? Well...other than the fact that Bronson Pinchot (who stole the show in the first and third movies as the hilarious Serge) doesn't make an appearance. I still stand by my word in saying this is the best in the "Cop" series! This is yet another reminder that Eddie Murphy used to make funny movies. What happened to you, Eddie? We want you back!

My score: 7 (out of 10)

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saturday Night Fever (1977)

9/10

Definitely lives up to the hype!

10 May 2004

This was my first time watching the movie, and I was more than impressed! I was curious about checking it out, since I love the music that the movie is associated with and I like John Travolta. But aside from the great music and Travolta's winning performance, "Saturday Night Fever" is a realistic, well-written, character-driven film that is unlike no other. Travolta's character isn't perfectly sympathetic, but there's nothing wrong with that. He still has a very human side to him that he's simply afraid to show since he grew up in a tough part of Brooklyn, surrounded by the unrelenting machismo (and misogynism) of his closest friends. I kept getting frustrated whenever he wouldn't agree to go out with Donna Pescow's character, who is likable and pretty, but it made sense in terms of his character's motivations. With many movies nowadays that involve a guy pursuing a girl who is out of his league while giving the cold shoulder to the girl who has wanted him along, the guy eventually falls in love with the latter girl. It makes the audience happy, under most circumstances, but that's not how it always goes in real life. This movie doesn't contain any sentimental contrivances, and ends on a tragic note.

Despite the fact that this was a landmark film of the 70's, I don't feel it has shown its age. I enjoyed the dance sequences, mostly featuring the great songs of The Bee Gees. And though Travolta was a sex symbol during this decade, he showed that he was much more than a pretty face.

My score: 9 (out of 10)

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

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

7/10

Entertaining

30 April 2004

Like "Desperado," the film offers nonstop action and a gargantuan body count. Robert Rodriguez knows how to please his audience, and the movie does work for the most part. As expected in a Rodriguez film, the action scenes are very well-choreographed and all possess a certain slickness and originality. Johnny Depp steals the show in his supporting role, and seems to be having the most fun. I actually looked at him as more of an action hero than Antonio Banderas. Then again, Banderas seems to be going through the motions. After all, he has played roles of this type many times before and is probably almost bored. I like how most of the movie is in subtitles. As I heard in the commentary, the reason for that was because most of the cast only spoke Spanish. But I'd rather see Mexican characters speaking in their native language, and having to read the subtitles, than them speaking in a second language that they obviously haven't mastered totally. Hollywood appears to have a fear of subtitles, and it's a stupid fear. Now onto what I didn't like about the movie...I'm not exaggerating when I say that it has nonstop violence. I'm not one of these people who gets bothered by excessive violence, but after a while all that action and killing can get a little dull. You just sit there waiting for the next body to fall to the ground. The story isn't non-existent, but I think if Rodriguez paid a little more attention to developing characters and story, his films might be even more interesting. But altogether, I was entertained. You don't view a film like this in the same way you view a Kubrick film. So what you see is what you get.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

59 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Chinatown (1974)

5/10

Didn't appeal much to me

30 April 2004

I can't really list a ton of flaws with this movie, but for some reason I couldn't get engrossed in it. I don't consider myself to have a short attention span, yet I had problems following the detective story. Maybe I just didn't find it too fascinating. So my thoughts on the film are more subjective than objective. But the film is a little too slow-going at times. I did like Jack Nicholson's performance, as I always do. He's one of the best actors of all time. What can I say? And I liked the slick dialogue that's typical of film noirs. For example, I like when Jack says, "You're right. When you're right, you're right. And you're right." Another one of my favorites when one of the other detectives asks what happened to his nose. He replies, "Your wife got a little too excited and crossed her legs too fast, if you know what I mean." I also liked the tragic ending, but other than that I can't say any other good things about the movie.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

8 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

10/10

QUENTIN TARANTINO IS A GENIUS!!!!

22 April 2004

I've been looking forward to this movie for such a long time, and it not only fulfilled my expectations, but surpassed them. I was initially afraid that since I'm none too familiar with the martial arts flicks of the 70's, I wouldn't be able to enjoy it. Well...I was wrong! There's even a Japanese anime sequence that I loved. I am by no means a fan of anime, yet I enjoyed the sequence. Hell, I enjoyed every minute! Tarantino uses every trick in the book to keep his audience fascinated. First off, he uses all the lovely trademarks from his past films--long takes, non-linear narrative, sharp dialogue, etc. There's even some subtle touches that I'm sure Tarantino fans, like me, will pick up on. For example, there's a part where Uma Thurman says, "Everything's square," and goes on to do a gesture of the shape. She did the same thing in "Pulp Fiction." Also, there's an advertisement for Red Apple cigarettes, a made-up brand that popped up in his past movies. We even have Michael Parks as a sheriff. He played the same role in "From Dusk Till Dawn," which Tarantino wrote.

I can't say enough to compliment this movie. Everything works! Rarely do I give a movie a rating of "10." As I always say, there's a lot of good movies, but very few "great" movies. And I don't take the word "great" for granted. Uma Thurman is perfect in the lead role. I've never had a problem with her as an actress in the past. She's no beauty and isn't much to look at, but I never remember showering her with praise for any of her performances. In "Kill Bill" she carries the whole movie on her own two shoulders and does it perfectly. The role required a lot more skills than simply being in great physical shape. I know she didn't receive an Oscar nomination for this movie, but hopefully she'll at least be considered for Volume 2. But as Oscar politics go, the Academy tends to overlook actors in comedies and action movies. Everyone else in the cast is terrific as well. David Carradine has a very commanding voice, and that helps since he's never shown on screen. It's nice to see that Tarantino is not afraid to use actors who have talent, but simply because of their faltering popularity they're considered to be "has-beens." You know who else was considered a "has-been"? John Travolta. And look where he is now, all thanks to the great Quentin Tarantino.

The cinematography is brilliant. There's all sorts of weird and unique camera angles that I'm guessing were inspired from the 70's martial arts flicks. Tarantino even makes great use of black-and-white footage. The effects are cheesy, but they were meant to be and they added to the fun. We're supposed to laugh when we see characters' heads sliced off, and fake blood squirts out of obviously fake bodies. I'll tell ya what, I'd much rather see effects like that than CGI. The soundtrack alone is absolutely brilliant. Tarantino loves to use great hits from the 70's and put them to good use. That was most evident in "Reservoir Dogs."

As much of a Tarantino fan I am, I didn't think he'd be able to make a better film than "Pulp Fiction." Once again, I was wrong. I can't say that "PF" pales in comparison, but "Kill Bill" even surpasses that movie's brilliance. There's absolutely never a dull moment! Not only are the action scenes spectacular, but the story is fascinating. The action is by no means used as a crutch. We get to learn a lot about each of these characters. Even though there's many fast-paced moments, there's also many slower, quieter moments. Tarantino achieves a perfect balance in the film's pacing. I will just give one warning before I conclude: this movie is incredibly violent! I know people have mentioned that before, but they say that about all of Tarantino's films. Yet do we ever see the actual ear getting severed in "Reservoir Dogs"? No. Do we ever see blood squirting out the man's head in "Pulp Fiction"? No. But this movie is jam-packed with blood and gore. All I have to say is now I can't wait to see "Volume 2"!

My score: 10 (out of 10)

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

Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star (2003)

3/10

Annoying and obnoxious

21 April 2004

David Spade is the type of comedian who can be either really funny or really annoying. I was pleasantly impressed with his last movie, "Joe Dirt," so I decided to give this one a try. The first 30 minutes are quite funny, and I liked the little parody of "E! True Hollywood Story." It starts out with some pretty funny satire about child stars who grow up and become nothing but has-beens. I also liked the "Celebrity Boxing" scene between Dickie Roberts and Emmanuel Lewis. Unfortunately, once Dickie moves in with the new family, the comedy all goes downhill. That's when Spade goes overboard with his annoying, smart-aleck humor. After that point, I only remember laughing a couple times. Once was when Dickie was watching a dance recital by a little girl, who's an adversary of the little girl he's living with and mutters under his breath, "Slut," after she leaves the dance floor. Another was when he confronted the neighborhood bully, who's really fat, and said, "How much do you weigh? 2,000?" And of course, there's the predictably feel-good moments that you'd expect in a dopey comedy of this type. However, I must say that the film ends with a bang, with a hilarious musical number featuring all the has-been TV stars of the past, including Todd Bridges, the three brothers from "The Brady Bunch," and Rerun from "What's Happening?" So as agonizing as this film gets as it goes along, please stay for the closing credits.

My score: 3 (out of 10)

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

The Real Cancun (2003)

6/10

Surprisingly good

16 April 2004

Warning: Spoilers

********POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD********

Even though I don't think this movie deserved as bad a rap as it received, the people who rented it were better off than those who spent the money to see it in theaters. I had an unusual urge to see this movie, yet at the same time was quite hesitant to do so. Reason why? I've never watched an episode of "The Real World" or "Road Rules" or any of those types of shows in my life, because they simply don't hold my interest. Though I'm more inclined towards movies that are realistic, I'm not a fan of the concept of the reality show. I believe art should be a depiction of reality, and not an exact imitation. So when I heard about the first "reality movie," I wasn't too impressed. However, there's a reason why sex sells, and I can't deny that the poster art for this movie, which displays a scantily clad woman splashing in the water, didn't lure me in. I knew since the movie's setting is spring break, there would be some nice footage of wet T-shirt contests. And that was no false advertising. There is some great wet T-shirt footage and shots of bare-breasted hotties.

It's true that the characters are real and the situations are real, but even documentaries are rarely totally real. There's always some sort of manipulation involved. Plus, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people never act the same when a camera is rolling. The movie "Ed TV" does a great job at elaborating on that concept, but you can easily figure that out simply by watching your family's home videos. And if the people in front of the camera know that whatever they do will be seen on TV or on the big screen, they'll definitely behave differently. That is not to say that people in this movie are complete phonies. I'm simply saying that what you see in this movie isn't going to be a lot more real than what you'd see in a work of fiction. That's why I still regard many reality shows as "so-called reality shows." Of course, if there were hidden cameras rolling, that would be a different story, but that's violating privacy laws. Not to mention the characters in "The Real World" and "The Real Cancun" don't look like everyday people. When do they ever show people with facial blemishes or weight problems? This goes back to the media purposely expressing to its audience that THIS is how people are SUPPOSED to look like. But that's drifting into a whole 'nother issue.

I was interested in these characters for the most part, though I didn't feel an extremely close connection to any of them. But some of the characters were two-dimensional and I had a hard time believing they weren't putting on performances. I have to admit that I was rooting for Alan throughout the movie. How could I not root for someone who most people would consider a loser, and suddenly becoming a major stud? At the same time, I felt like the arc of his character was like that of a character in a fictional movie. He starts out a "loser" with glasses. I don't know why glasses always have to be associated with unattractiveness. Plus, he miraculously loses the glasses somewhere into the film (plot hole, plot hole). What happened? Did he get contact lenses or was he like Mr. Magoo throughout the rest of the vacation? He starts out with no confidence, he gets forced to drink by his fellow housemates and suddenly he becomes a totally different person with much more confidence. As I said, I couldn't help but root for him, but I find it hard to believe that he actually won that contest for the guy with the hottest body. Out of all the guys, he had the least muscle and he goes up on stage doing the most dorky dance you can think of. Yet he wins. Seems like something straight out of a movie, not reality.

The movie is by no means deep, but it does teach a few things about letting loose and having fun, and not caring what people think of you, especially when you're in Cancun and everyone there is never going to see you again. Sure, the characters drink and have promiscuous sex. Is there anything wrong with that? That's what people in their early 20's are supposed to do. I love how middle-aged people look at this movie and think of it as a wake-up call for how young people make such wastes of their lives. None of the characters are on drugs. They're not doing anything "illegal." What are you supposed to do during spring break in Cancun? Lie on the beach and read a book? The movie even taught me a few things about loosening up.

Now, onto what didn't work for me. Like episodes of "The Real World," the movie primarily deals with relationships between these young people. I'm sorry, but I don't get easily fascinated by people cheating on one another and stabbing each other in the back. Of course, if I knew these people personally, I might be more interested, but that's not the case. There's a scene where one of the girls catches her boyfriend in the shower with another girl, which looks straight out a soap opera. Bor-ring.

I wouldn't give this movie any awards, but it is worth watching. The men will enjoy the scantily clad women and the women will enjoy the shirtless men. There's eye candy for everyone. After watching the movie, I feel like taking a little trip over to sunny, beautiful Cancun myself.

My score: 6 (out of 10)

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

Demolition Man (1993)

7/10

I still enjoy this movie

31 March 2004

I liked this movie when I first saw it, back when I was about 10 years old, but I wanted to see how much I'd like it now that my taste in cinema has heightened. As it turned out, I did. The premise is original and there's some great fish-out-of-water humor. I love the scene where the police approach Simon Phoenix after he just murdered someone. Since they're not used to arresting people for murder in this peaceful future, the police are instructed in a very elementary manner about how to approach the killer. And I still like the gag about the three seashells, and Stallone instead deciding to curse over and over again, so he could use the tickets as toilet paper. Stallone is always enjoyable to watch, and it's fun to watch him belt out his one-liners, like all good action stars do. Wesley Snipes is completely over-the-top as Phoenix, but his intention was to play a villain straight out of a comic book, and he seems to have a lot of fun with the role. Plus, the theme song, by Sting, is way cool and it sucks how they don't show the credits during TV viewings, because I don't get to hear the song. If you're looking for good, fun action entertainment with laughs to spare, this is the movie to watch!

My score: 7 (out of 10)

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

Knockaround Guys (2001)

7/10

Decent action fare

21 March 2004

This is what I call a standard "guy flick," and it works. Every once in a while, I do enjoy movies where the male characters beat each other at the drop of a hat and use the f-word like punctuation. Now, I'm sure the majority of the reviews (though I haven't read them yet) are horrible, because there's always an added stigma to films that end up sitting on the shelf years after production has wrapped. The plot of "Knockaround Guys" is far from original, yet I wasn't bored. For one thing, the central characters are worth rooting for. Barry Pepper is a good, underrated actor and I liked his role in this movie. As for John Malkovich, he's always fun to watch, even in a role like this where he was severely miscast. As much as it hurts me to badmouth a performance by Malkovich, I barely found him convincing as a tough-as-nails gangster. First off, he puts on a ridiculous accent. I'm guessing he was trying to do some sort of Brooklyn accent, but comes off sounding like an old Jewish lady. Yet I still liked him in this movie--that's how much screen power Malkovich has. Dennis Hopper is another actor who's always reliable, and he does a great job in this movie. Seth Green obviously doesn't have much range as an actor (as of yet), but he does a good job at playing...well...Seth Green. As for Vin Diesel, I still don't believe he has any talent as an actor, but since he doesn't play a huge role, I can't say I minded much. This isn't a movie I can rave on and on about, but it makes worthy entertainment--in my eyes at least.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

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

MovieLuvaMatt

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed