Change Your Image
drhoffman-85815
Reviews
Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988)
It's NOT that bad!
You have to establish that every sequel has "the curse" in that seldom in history has a sequel ever lived up to his predecessor. The same is unquestionably true for Arthur 2 which had the formidable task of doing right by the classic original which might rank as my all-time favorite film. There's no denying the sheer brilliance and magic of the original Arthur from the impeccable writing to the perfect cast to the beautiful and endearing love story. The untimely death of screenwriter and director Steve Gordon meant the odds of striking gold twice were slim at best.
I'm sure they tried and tried as best they could to make a movie that was pleasing to fans of the original. I know many were disappointed with the result. But I have to say I am surprised at just how much hate and flack this film has received. its truly not that bad!
Dudley Moore still shines as the world's most loveable drunk, Arthur Bach. Liza Minnelli delights as Linda and their chemistry remains solid. I liked the storyline of how Arthur isn't as lucky this time around and has to choose between love and money. When last we left him, he got to marry the woman of his dreams and keep his money. This time, we see Arthur forced into a situation where he truly does have to grow up and make changes to his life. The story has a real heart to it. And the return of John Gielgud as Hobson is perhaps the best part of the movie makes the whole film worthwhile. This movie will still make you laugh. Dudley Moore brings the character to life and there are scenes in this movie, while not quite as brilliantly written as the first, will still give you a good belly laugh and leave you with a smile. The ending is touching and sentimental. There's even a great cameo by Kathy Bates in an admittedly obscure but still fitting role.
Are there awkward moments with lackluster jokes and one-liners? Of course. Can you tell they tried a little too hard at times to be Steve Gordon? Absolutely. Will you laugh nearly as much as you (hopefully) did with the original? Doubtful. But - if you want a decent sequel with a nice story and good performances, you could sure do a lot worse! Check it out!
Scent of a Woman (1992)
Underwhelmed... I must have missed something.
Al Pacino's performance was by far the highlight of this film. He played a blind man impressively and convincingly. The charisma he brought to the role made the movie worth watching. I liked the overall idea behind the story, but the plot itself left much to be desired. I felt the movie was way too long at 2 1/2 hours. It really dragged especially toward the end. Also, in my opinion it lacked sufficient character development particular with "Charley" (O'Donnell). I did not have a good sense of who he really was, what he was about, and why I should even care anyway. His character had very little depth and no personality save for a shy, timid student who is intimidated by the Colonel (Pacino). I did not see how their characters really complimented one another even with the well-written monologues delivered by Pacino. And Charley's storyline seemed dull and his plight insignificant. He witnesses a prank on the headmaster by some classmates and is conflicted on whether or not he should blab - so what?
All in all, I felt "Scent of a Woman" was rather overrated but Al Pacino fans should definitely check it out because he definitely delivered an Oscar-worthy performance in my opinion. Besides that, you're not missing much.
8MM (1999)
A vile piece of Satanic trash
This quite possibly is the worst film I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe it has gotten as many good reviews as it has. I only saw it once when I came out in the theaters but it had no redeeming value whatsoever. Seven (1995) was "disturbing" - this was just demonic. The kind of movie I wish I could un-see.
Love Affair (1994)
An empty remake that fails on almost all fronts
Granted, I never saw the original "An Affair to Remember." Still I was hoping for an enjoyable and love story; I left disappointed. This was just an overall bland and uninteresting film. It felt forced, weak, lame and contrived. I didn't care about either of the main characters in this movie. For one, Warren Beatty was totally unconvincing as a former football player. The manufactured chemistry between Beatty and Bening was not believable. There was no "there there." I didn't see the connection and what made them fall in love. They went from sharing a fleeting moment on the cruise ship, to her accompanying him to see his aunt who just so happened to live on a nearby island - and that scene between Katherine Hepburn and Bening's character was just awkward - to them going back to the cruise ship and suddenly starting a "love affair." No character development and no depth. This movie was a waste of talent = Pierce Brosnan, for one. He's a fine actor who was totally wasted in this plot. They did not give any explanation or background as to why his relationship with Terry (Bening) did not work. The same was true of Kate Capshaw's character who we never really got to know. This was a very poorly-written film. The second half was slightly better than the first but it's hardly redeeming as the bar was set very low. I think the only two good things I can say about this movie was that Annette Bening looked gorgeous and the score was beautiful. Other than that, don't waste your time.
Proof of Life (2000)
Great thriller, flawed casting but an ending that makes it all worthwhile
This is a great "B Movie" thriller that will hold your attention. Russell Crowe makes a charismatic lead. However, i thought the casting of Meg Ryan was terrible; she was not right for this role at all. She needs to stick to the Tom Hanks rom-coms. The film's climactic rescue sequence will keep you on the edge of your seat with spellbinding suspense. It's worth watching the whole movie just for the end. It makes you appreciate the heroes out there who do this in real life, putting their own lives on the line to save others. Definitely recommend this movie!