Change Your Image
dharbigt-28632
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Newton Boys (1998)
Mens! Mens! Mens! And the chick from E.R!
Plot: 5 (Bank Robberin')
Diction: 7 (Charming)
Character: 4 (Not much going on here)
Extension: 9 (True story)
Spectacle: 7 (Whee-ha!)
Overall: 6.4
Here's a passable action-style good-old-boys bank-robbin' round-up that stays pretty consistently interesting all the way through. The major conflict (aside from the boys trying not to get caught) seems to be between Willis (Matthew McConaughey), and his brother Joe (Skeet Ulrich). Joe, the closest to law-abiding the family seems to get, is perennially hesitant to participate in the heists. Willis, on the other hand, as the convict brother, is the main impetus behind them. The conflict doesn't really go anywhere, but it's fun to watch.
Especially interesting are the real-life pieces during the credits. Joe Newton's interviewed on the Tonight Show starting Johnny Carson, and and old home movie of Willis Newton, posed against each other in sentiment. You can see Joe's regret and admission that perhaps he was a bit too crazy, while Willis' film is full of the same wild-eyed lawlessness that is portrayed in the movie.
There's quite a few funny parts, and Dwight Yoakam, though he doesn't sing any songs (I think I'm glad for this) does a surprisingly good job as the likeable and rational Glasscock.
Overall, it's a high-energy look at some friendly, funny and well-written vehicle for watching some bank heist scenes.
Mercury Rising (1998)
Waste of time.
Plot: 5 (Dumb)
Diction: 5 (Goofy)
Character: 3 (Formulaic as hell)
Extension: 5 (Mighty predictable)
Spectacle: 5 (Disappointing)
Overall: 4.6
I finally get to give a definitive thumbs-down on something. This movie was suck. The premise was absurd, the action was carried out stiffly and poorly. Even after the autism fad spawned by the success of Rain Man, we've got a poorly-researched autistic role. But let's not stop there: there was the weakest female lead I've ever seen in my life, (Stacie), plus an almost annoyingly stock "special forces guy who dies in Beirut" assassin. Lame.
Not even the action scenes were choreographed passably in this movie, and not even Bruce Willis' little smiles could lighten it up. There were lost plots about his family, his drug addiction and his hatred for Kudrow. If you want an action film, go see The Big Hit. If you want a Bruce Willis film, go see Hudson Hawk. If you want a crypto movie, go rent Sneakers. This movie is a waste of time.
Memento (2000)
Excellent
Plot: 9 (Excellent)
Diction: 6 (Believable, but somewhat trite)
Character: 7 (Shallow, but motivated)
Extension: 9 (Enthralling and insightful)
Spectacle: 8 (Consistently interesting)
Overall: 7.8
This movie exceeded my expectations by a long shot... a lot of movies propose an innovative device or theme and then abuse its novelty by reducing it to a show-pony. This movie is not only respectful of its own subject matter, but you get the sense that the director and writer are both very intimately identifying with the main character. This is not one of those movies that heavy-handedly uses a mental illness to evoke sympathy. It is a stoic commentary about the human condition and our ability to cope with change.
The metaphors of amnesia, confusion, and what motivates us as people play a big role in this movie. It's refreshing to see the kind of depth that this movie devotes to subjects that might bore modern shock-fix moviegoers-- and it's very rewarding to see an attempt at a succinct, immaculate and effective movie succeed so enjoyably.
Lola rennt (1998)
Landmark
Plot: 9 (Innovative and fun)
Diction: 8 (Humorous and very real)
Character: 7 (Engaging)
Extension: 9 (High marks for possibilities)
Spectacle: 9 (Lola runs so beautifully)
Overall: 8.4
This movie transcends the simplicity of its plot in so many ways, it's almost hard to describe. The editing and music (also by the director, Tom Tyckwer) are very well-suited to the subject matter and carry you right along with the action, but they are by no means necessary. There are a number of novel devices and spectacular cinematography that make this movie an intaglio of innovation.
Part of the magic of this film is that the plot is played out in such a way that you are forced to consider the consequences of not only the main characters, but also secondary personalities that would normally remain static in the movie. This picture also provides a meticulous continuity of plot, by which the interconnectedness of events and our wills becomes obvious. This is always a good thing to be reminded of.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Solid Joy
Plot: 9 (Excellent detective story)
Diction: 9 (Every line a gem)
Character: 8 (High Comedy)
Extension: 8 (Very solid)
Spectacle: 7 (I don't know about the dance numbers)
Overall: 8.2
I can only imagine that the Coen brothers have been able to maintain such a high standard of quality because they put as much effort and ingenuity into one film as the next, and The Big Lebowski is no exception. Jeff Bridges pulls off a marvelous incarnation of Gary Trudeau's "Zonker" in Gulf-War Los Angeles. I'm passionately in favor of Jeff Bridges working with the Coen brothers again. The only thing I wasn't crazy about were the spectacular dream sequences, which used huge sets combining Gotterdamerung with bowling and porn movies in what ended up being a little too much for my kitch sensors.
John Goodman plays a Vietnam-veteran Jew-by-choice, and John Turturro creates a remarkable performance (as usual) as the fashion-conscious pederast, "Jesus Quintana". It's entertainment of the highest order and a detective plot that probably won't disappoint you. And remember, they're nihilists: there's nothing to be afraid of.
L.A. Confidential (1997)
Polished but Flawed
Plot: 6 (Somewhat predictable)
Diction: 7 (Lots of unrealistic but well-written dialogue)
Character: 5 (Formulaic and two-dimensional)
Extension: 4 (Quite a few unfortunate decisions)
Spectacle: 8 (Lots of good action and brawlin')
Overall: 6.0
The most disappointing and distressing part of this movie is the irresponsible treatment of its primary theme. The impressions of justice contrasted between Bud White and Ed Exley are resolved in a most unsatisfactory manner.
What I find most distressing is that the movie resolves the conflict by seemingly saying that both methods of law enforcement are equally valid. The question of whether either of them is wrong, the question of what happens when the innocent are wrongly punished is not only glazed over, but ignored. We have to labor under the assumption that every accused person is guilty, and that every guilty person deserves swift and ample punishment.
Even when some Mexican prisoners are horribly beaten, in what seems like it should be one of the most powerful scenes in terms of its thematic implications, the issue is used as a vehicle for the focus on the each of the policemen's watered-down internal issues, which are all conveniently always rooted in something wrong that happened when he was a child.
If the intention of this movie is to provide us with some solid cop-drama, why is it necessary to confuse and distract us with a half-assed treatment of its central theme?
He Got Game (1998)
Light Message Movie
Plot: 7 (Simple, but full)
Diction: 7 (Nothing special)
Character: 8 (Deep and broad)
Extension: 6 (Predictable and unrewarding)
Spectacle: 7 (Consistently interesting)
Overall: 7.0
I left this movie dazed, but positive that I enjoyed it. The simplicity of the plot and the breadth of the characters are probably the reason for this. One of the things I like best about Spike Lee joints is that he assumes that the audience will be able to infer some of the factual elements of the characters from the hints he offers. Exposition doesn't come out and hit you over the head, but rather, insinuates itself into the expanse of the movie. This makes the experience quite a bit more pleasurable because it is subtle enough not to be distracting.
For basketball fans, there's not a lot of basketball, but at the same time, there is an intimate look at the kinds of pressures that can affect star-quality players. Jesus Shuttlesworth's concerns seem very real. He's one of the few people who doesn't come under the avaricious spell that seems to come over his relatives at the prospect of these high-dollar college deal. It's also an important antidote for the starry-eyed children who look at a life in sports as a carefree life of money and women, etc. I think it's an important part of this movie's extension that one gets the sick-feeling that some of these sugar-deals offered to Jesus were too good to be true.
Of course, there is the traditional modicum of african-american culture, including put-downs I always seem to enjoy for quite a long time after the movie, but like any Spike Lee joint, this movie is only designed to entertain you long enough to get the message across.
The Big Hit (1998)
Contrived but fun.
Plot: 7 (Formulaic)
Diction: 7 (Helps the plot a bit)
Character: 7 (Formulaic, but funny)
Extension: 7 (Hilariously unreal)
Spectacle: 8 (WOO WOO!)
Overall: 7.2
(ratings given on a scale of 0-9)
It's hard to say that a movie was good and sucked at the same time, but I'll have to say it about this one. I was talking to a friend of mine the other night and he told me how Siskel and Ebert really hosed this one. Since Siskel and Ebert are uppity lackeys for the Establishment, I'll have to defend this movie more than I would have ordinarily. Still, this is not a "film". It's a high-energy romp into a complete fantasy world where fire doesn't burn, glass doesn't cut, and magazines and clips don't run out of bullets. So what? We've been pretending that hit-men were actually attractive people for decades, is this such a leap?
Mr. Siskel, Mr. Ebert, chill back a little and suspend a little disbelief: The dialogue may be juvenile, but it is not trite, and it IS funny... The gags are, by and large, fresh ones, mostly owing to the lack of assassin comedies out there, especially feature films that straddle the line between spoof and serious-action.
Mark Wahlberg does a good job of being oppressed and repressed, I give him that. Through much of the movie, I was feeling the need for a little Maalox myself. Maybe I just see too much of myself in the little guy.
Was the dialog contrived? Yes? Silly? Yes. But it was funny and memorable...once you switch to straight jackin'.
Belly (1998)
Distinctive
Plot: 7 (Slow ending)
Diction: 6 (Not always clever)
Character: 7 (Engaging)
Extension: 6 (Distinctive but sometimes dry)
Spectacle: 9 (Excellent art direction)
Overall: 7.0
In my view, Belly represents the best of black cinema in the 1990's. In many ways, it is also the Goodfellas of the 1990's, personifying gangsterhood in another cultural light. The scenes are shot with great attention to color and form, using the music of some of the cast members to drive the action. While the final message of Belly is a positive one, this movie is no less brutal than some of its less artful cousins.
I also can't help but be taken in by some of the unique touches in this film: The Kansas City gangster with the huge Mary Tyler Moore flip, the white-felted pocket-billiards table, or the spectacular hit scene at the beginning of the movie-- not to mention an obligatory salute to Allah. My personal admiration goes to "Power" Grant for scoring a role as a character named "Knowledge".
As Good as It Gets (1997)
Not quite as good as it could have been.
Plot: 7 (Slight predictability)
Diction: 8 (True-to-life)
Character: 8 (Well thought-out)
Extension: 7 (Fairytale-ish)
Spectacle: 6 (Nicholson goes off)
Although this movie lacks a prominent theme beyond the capacity of different people to relate despite their own reservations, this is still a funny, involving and somehow educational cross-section of the intersection of three very different lives.
Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) is one of the best screen examples of a undercover emotional basketcase so far this century. It's hard to deny how painful and yet consistently interesting it is to watch Melvin cope with his own insecurities. It's almost impossible not to identify with him trying to maintain his rickety structure of self-control despite all the countercurrents of his supressed emotions. Also, watching Nicholson go off on people is pretty funny, even if it's cruel.to realize their commonality far outweights their disparity. Special extra points for Kinnears quick-but-hilarious Nicholson impression, complete with Cheshire grin.
Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)
Mediocre Movie
Atlas Shrugged is a great book - it is also a thousand-page straw man argument that is full of holes, but it is a great book.
The movie is mediocre at best. The production values are kind of on-par with a TV movie and the acting is okay, but the good scenes, the challenging scenes are pushed through like it's a table read.
The characters may be delusional but they are passionate, but the cardboard acting and directing made this almost unbearable to watch, and really undercut the possible impact of the philosophy.
One prominent review of this movie indicates that it was suppressed by (presumably) a liberal cabal. It's laughable to me that Randian sycophants cannot see her philosophy, and this movie for what they are: mediocre at best. They are not the transcendent "creator" narratives that they believe themselves to be - there are the stories of unexceptional people with a good measure of hubris who believe they can lord over others simply because fortune gave them an advantage.
It is those same unexceptional people that made this movie.