DomiMMHS Reviews

Into the Night (1985)

An idea of my disgust

[3/10 · 9 December 2000]

This is probably only an idea of my disgust for the so- typically- 80s- feel of this movie. I've already written this somewhere in a forum. Today I discovered it per chance and thought it would make a pretty cool mean-spirited review. Here we go!

It's not UN-bearable, but it's so very un-funny, pathetic and self-indulgent. It really embodies everything that ever annoyed me about eighties movie making. It's like a manifestation of a sickness that has haunted movies like "Something Wild" and yes, also a lot of quite acceptable movies in the 80s. And, if this sickness has really existed in (and dominated) society back then, I'm glad I'm too young (19) to know.

Of course this review will tell you nothing except to avoid the movie. On my old scale I used to employ here, it has been a 4 out of 10. I'm revising my scale though because it doesn't feel accurate to me anymore. If a ***** is to be read as "mediocre", "Into the Night" has to be a ***!

American Beauty (1999)

None of that annoying stuff! (plus, my thoughts on your rants, i.e. my own rant)

[10/10 · 20 April 2000]

I've only read "a few" reviews here (that is about 60) and well, and I don't know why people rant their souls out and almost kill each other for liking (more often) or disliking the film. It's neither somewhat revolutionary and unstandably truthful, nor is it stereotypical and fake, it's only good. But it's plain good, it's very very very good, actually. But that's all there is to it. It's very enjoyable, though the pace is rather slow, it's satire and the characters are intriguing.

I have to disagree with those who say the characters are one-dimensional, it's a lie. It's just that we are rather supposed to have fun with them than to examine their wounded souls until we can't sit straight because of the pain, if you know what I mean. (I guess I tend to express myself a little melodramatically, I'm sorry for that)

To start off with Lester Burnham, to all you stupids, he is not a pedophile! What are you thinking? In my world this word describes people who are very very much more disgusting in what they think and do, believe me. I don't think I have to go in further detail. Angela is almost adult, and she really asks for it... men lusting after her. She even says it herself that she likes it, and especially IF that's only the lie of an insecure little girl, the bitch shouldn't talk so big. Lusty Lester is what she gets in return for her behavior.

Much more than this bad word with a "p" some hysterical individuals apparently like to employ, Lester is a hero! Not because what he does is right or great, but because he tells all the jerks to p**s off and let him enjoy himself in his little ruts. He doesn't bother anyone so no one should bother him. He wakes up from his suburban zombie existence and finds something like inner peace. Two factors triggered this journey of Lester: his crazy infatuation with Angela, and even before that the absolutely unsupportable behavior of his wife, Carolyn, who is really such a jerk and such a phony.

Great performances by Kevin Spacey and Chris Cooper, and also the rest of the cast does very fine jobs. (It's good that Thora Birch is back!)

For what I wanted to express with my summary line: it's an all-American, all-Hollywood movie, but there's nothing of that typical Hollywood kitsch. Absolutely nothing! The emotions are rather restricted and true, and the dialogue is fantastic. Not those annoying "There is that guy and what does the guy do? He sees that door where you could ring the bell..." monologues that seem to be supposed to be cool. Only the things that have to be said, plus jokes that hit.

The amount of violence is okay, and for those who rant about the sexuality, vulgar language, teens smoking etc. (I've read some of the reviews from "Christian web sites" you can get linked to from here)... come on people, open your eyes! That's reality! Who of you thinks the 17-year-old kids in your neighborhood read the bible every evening before they go to bed at 9:30 and pray to the Lord above that they can keep their virginity until they marry?

Fine, the movie messes with the morals. But that's the fun about it. If not everyone would behave like such a jerk, no one would get hurt, believe me... maybe that's the tragedy about it. Well, I guess if all of us were like Lester it would all collapse. But on the other hand, if we all were like Carolyn we should all shoot ourselves. I hate her character, but I also feel sorry for her.

To draw a conclusion: it would be a nice change if things would have worked out for Lester. But why not dream. The tragedy of life is that there is so much beauty, but it's all bound to get so damn messed up. That's what the movie conveys in a very light and funny way and with very much irony of situation. It's hilarious, but don't look at it as intellectual or art. Just let Lester *rule* once in a lifetime. Rating: 10

The Exorcist (1973)

So genuinely horror, and still so much more than that!

[4 January 2000]

In the beginning of the movie I wasn't so pleased, but what it became turned out to be not only one of those storylines told so fluently and conclusively that you can surely watch it again and again, but also really scary. I was kind of excited when I watched it (on TV), and afterwards I was shivering and couldn't stop.

A problem was that I had to watch parts of it with my mother in the room who kept asking questions like whether I don't believe this crap or whether this isn't pure s**t in every commercial break. But that's because she doesn't see that the movies is more than just your all-day pleasant neurotic romantic comedy. There are so many possibilities, among them getting scared, getting angry, getting disgusted. I love these unpleasant emotions in movies if only they are strong enough, and "The Exorcist" is disgusting and scares the crap out of you.

So I was stunned and caught myself thinking it was perfect, though there were innumerable things about it that bothered me.

(*) It's actually a very cheap means to create terror, having a little girl uttering the words "f**k me" repeatedly in a strange, masculine voice.

(*) The ending is way too fast to make sense.

(*) The horrible emotions the mother must feel with her daughter having become such a THING are a bit overlooked.

(*) and so forth.

But after all the movie is a horror movie and what it achieves is just great. The impact on the viewer's emotional state is devastating. All performances are superb, though I don't really see why Linda Blair received an Oscar nominee, but she wasn't bad at all.

The peak of insanity, that makes this a horror flick, is left for the last couple of minutes, before that the storyline goes through normal every-day issues (medicine, death), keeping the viewer interested and also with that certain quality of pain, anguish and spookiness. There's a great second storyline with the Ellen Burstyn character's Hollywood friends; and along with the terror comes some enjoyable ridicule on the Catholic Church.

Not definitely, but probably a 9 out of 10 in my mind.

Washington Square (1997)

Top people not making it up to their potential!

[6 November 1999]

This is a decent movie directed by Agnieszka Holland, who made the beautiful 1993 version of Frances Hodgson Burnett's "The Secret Garden". It is remarkable that she succeeds to create the same calm tone for the movie. She shot some beautiful and peaceful pictures that reminded me of "The Secret Garden" in some way, though this is a completely different story.

Saying this I already scratched what became the problem of the movie for me. I watched it just because Agnieszka Holland directed it, and Jennifer Jason Leigh, one of my favorite actresses of all time, was in it, and not because I was interested in the story.

It's another story set around the beginning of this or in the last century, I don't really know. It's a love story, but also a character study of a young woman, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh. The role is way different from the things Jennifer did before; there is nothing of this hardness, dirtiness and squareness that usually inhabits her characters. She plays a very shy and not at all self-conscious young woman who depends on her father. She's sweet and stupid and on a superficial view the opposite of a Leigh-typical on-screen character. But then, such women who are more like little girls are one of Leigh's specialties. It's also not atypical that her character is a woman of whom people say she couldn't gain any man's attraction. And when she gets to know a man she gets very torn apart. It all turns into a long and entangled tale of bitterness, persistence, betrayal, overprotection, cruelty and, yes, also emancipation, and Leigh's efforts are without doubt worth approval, but the initial sweetness and dullness of her character is a bit disturbing (and I don't mean the good kind of disturbing) and the storyline is too epic.

A plus of the film is the (almost) incomparable Maggie Smith (a strong reminder of `The Secret Garden') who is an aunt, a housekeeper and a schemer. She gives us her share of an intriguing characterization and a funny storyline, but she's lost in the midst of a flawed movie. She's joined by the British acting veteran Albert Finney (who I, I have to admit, only have heard of by reputation) and the average newcomer Ben Chaplin. The film isn't bad and has its fair share of humor. Unfortunately, the humor is a bitter necessity to keep the viewer alive, because `Washington Square' will hardly keep you entertained for two hours. And despite of good acting by everyone, their acting is forgotten within a couple of hours. Rating: 6 out of 10

Great Expectations (1998)

Love and boredom

[13 October 1999]

By those like myself who didn't enjoy the movie, the title "Great Expectations" could eventually be seen as an irony or a warning. Because it doesn't live up to any expectations, maybe something one should have already e x p e c t e d.

I can easily sum up my ideas in four words: Sub-par acting, sub-par dialogue! Believe me I'm very eager to read Dicken's original novel, because I'm not willing to believe that he didn't want to tell a much better story. Maybe I might even try to think of a better way to adapt it to modern time.

Modern time requires moments of intimacy, these moments, the scenes of seduction, are always too flat or too predictable, maybe both.

It starts off quite decent when they are children, because it has some sense of a world apart. But then the two kids turn into Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow like nothing had happened at all. I see two young people, supposed to be maybe 17, 19, 21, I can't tell, acting like there hasn't been a change to anything in the past seven or more years. These strange people I haven't met before are now leaving a beautifully colored, eerily otherwordly castle to get into an ugly greasy car of the eighties, surrounded by crass metallic colors in an ambience that reminds me of McDonald's or something. Was it still the same movie I was watching?

They will go to New York and Paris, aging and obeying their fortune, for no particular reason. The storyline works quite decently but it goes there without excitement. Everything that happens serves the destiny of our two protagonists to meet again. That feeling doesn't work out however, it rather seems to serve the intention of the director to have his two co-stars together in as many scenes as feasible.

I'm not too impressed by the acting of any of the leads. Ethan Hawke doesn't portray anything more than an all-American boy type, Gwyneth Paltrow is straight, constant, unshifting and pale. I was expecting coldness and vulnerability from her character, I received nothing. Chris Cooper, who plays Ethan's loving brother-in-law, is in the picture like a radio DJ talking to people he neither knows nor sees.

I was feeling deprived of even the last little piece of magic I was hoping for. Then almost every single line of dialogue made me feel uncomfortable. Robert De Niro was nothing more than decent, but Anne Bancroft was shining like a lonely flower on a pavement with the films most complex performance. High above she was, but more real than most of its other aspects.

Probably the photography is indeed unusually beautiful in many terms, but it doesn't change a thing. The way this was filmed seems to me like making use of Hollywood's typical romantic comedy features without knowing how to use them. What comes out is forgettable and perhaps also regrettable. A "3 out of 10".

Flatliners (1990)

Schumacher's play with fire

[8 October 1999]

They made me watch this twice at school! Yes! In religion class! Back then I found it not too bad in some way, but as far as I could recall it, it sucked completely. Nevertheless, I decided to watch it again as a whole, in private, today, so I could tell everyone what a crime it is. Living out masochistic tendencies. :-)

The first twenty or thirty minutes made it up to my expectations: a real puke movie! Flat but still unsympathetic characters, cynical disgusting despicable would-be cool quotes under the most macabre circumstances, the worst and most annoying performance I've ever seen from Kevin Bacon and a patheticly recycled Julia Roberts stereotype character I wanted to kill.

But then it turned out, Joel Schumacher has the ability to get the maximum effect out of his (or somebody else's) sick ideas. His use of special effects, blue and red twilight, and his manipulation of our (my) emotions is masterful! Though I couldn't care less for any of the characters in the film, he almost makes me cry at terms, and though the story is completely silly and unrealistic, he somehow takes me to the edge.

Kiefer Sutherland and Oliver Platt are the only glimpses of light in the beginning of the film, as it continues, the both of them plus William Baldwin give very good performances. Even Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon are developing. Still, Bacon looks like an as*hole with his long hair and tight jeans, and was much better, much more of a character and much more of an actor in anything else I've seen him in, and I have a psychological aversion against Julia Roberts that not even an A-bomb of a movie could cure. And the most annoying part is a pathetic and Hollywood typical attempt to make the two of them look like heroes.

In reality, if the intention of the movie was to make all five characters despicable maniacs, so that you ask yourself why you go along with them, then it has quite a huge deal of power. Just make more tasteful and appropriate dialogues, plus replace Julia Roberts and Kevin Bacon, it would be a good and special movie. It starts out pathetic and disgusting, but the core is very dark, Kiefer Sutherland being the central point. His character is evil ever since being a child and remains evil by fate, played non likeable, but it's very worthy acting.

The macabre, disturbing basic idea, which speaks against the movie, also makes room for a very good, innovative and suspenseful horror movie!

My rating is 6 out of 10! From the artistic point of view, I say give it a chance whatever you think during the first minutes.

From my *moral* point of view, I say everything about it is cheap and if you want to have a nice or at least productive evening, avoid it.

To draw a comparison, it is better than both "A Time To Kill" and "Batman Forever", though it clearly has much the same elements as both. I'm tempted to claim here that Schumacher's work is temptation and manipulation.

Other People's Money (1991)

Danny DeVito at his best!

[5/10 · 5 October 1999]

The movie starts with a terrific monologue by Danny DeVito alias 'Larry "the Liquidator" Garfield', a ruthless moneymaking machine who thinks that the only purpose of the Wall Street and the system of stock markets is to make him richer. He's that kind of character you must enjoy: an evil, self-centered man who is turned on by money with a strange name. He's great, he's like Scrooge McDuck for adults! :-)

And Danny DeVito plays him like he was born for that role. You really believe that he is Larry Garfield. He conveys the character of that twisted man in a way no one else could and thus becomes the main reason to watch the movie, and the only one that would make it legitimate to say that you _must_ watch this movie!

As, despite a supporting cast including Gregory Peck and Piper Laurie, and many good and subtle jokes on our great central character, it hasn't much to offer. I don't like the world of high finance which plays a much too central part in the film. Though the movie is about money, I still think people are more interesting than money and business. It's so all-American, all-Hollywood: businessmen, brokers, stocks, auctioneers, old men in fancy black & white suits... it grows very boring eventually.

The included love story, well it lacks any fire, and is on the other hand acted out to seriously, and Penelope Ann Miller does not prove too much acting ability either...

So, for Danny DeVito's sake, it all comes down to a 6 out of 10 rating.

The X-Files (1993–2018)

"Scully, 're you coming on to me?" --

[26 August 1999]

Fox Mulder in episode "Quagmire". That's the big question. I think Scully is infatuated with Mulder ever since the "Steven Spielberg" line in the pilot episode, and Mulder at least wants to impress her from the very beginning. It's one of the greatest relationships of two people ever shown, but you know that all from the previous reviews.

The first episode I ever saw was "Chinga" from the 5th season, I guess what actually drew me in was the Simpsons episode with Scully and Mulder, and since then I've seen at least 80 of 117 episodes that have already been shown here in Germany. And I'm completely devoted to it. The conspiracy as the heart piece of the series is the greatest puzzle I ever tried to solve with my mind, and no single episode which reveals more about it and about the TRUTH can be bad. Among the others there are a few bad episodes, "3" being the worst (it felt like cheap soft sex stuff like the series David Duchovny used to be in, cut to a PG-13 rating), and the dozens of good, great and compelling ones cover a wide diverse range of funny, scary, spooky, ironic, enjoyable and disturbing episodes.

Sometimes I get tired of that Hollywood movie stuff, then I'm tempted to think that the small screen is the better one when I think of the "X-Files". The quality of the series is really tremendous and proves every "nah, that's just TV" theory wrong for me.

Few episodes feature well-known actors like Kurtwood Smith, Veronica Cartwright, CCH Pounder, Anne De Salvo or Cliff DeYoung, which is often a joy, but all in all the X-Files doesn't need any stars. To the contrary, the X-Files didn't use stars, it made big stars out of no-names David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, and also the names of Mitch Pileggi, William B. Davis, Steven Williams and so forth became known.

Gillian Anderson does great acting as Scully, and David Duchovny also is the only one I could ever imagine as Mulder. He is a very interesting character, and you could likely call him crazy, but somehow he is cool in everything he does. Scully's character has more facets than Mulder's, she's one tough lady when she goes into action on her own, like at the ends of episodes "Leonard Betts" or "Colony", and she's very convincing when it comes to her emotional life which she'd rather try to hide.

Other favorite characters of mine are Cancer Man, the villain played by Bill Davis, who is said to believe that he was the hero of the series. And truly from Season 3 on his character is more and more developed and made human for the show, immortal for its fans. Then the incomparable Marita Covarrubias, the young Samantha Mulder (now that Vanessa Morley is already 15 I guess we won't get to see her anymore), A.D. Skinnner (because under his strict, mean, hot-tempered surface he really is a nice guy with the most human frailties) and the extremely underrated character of Mulder's mother Tena, funny and emotional in every scene she appears.

There is so much crap on television, but this is all you need: A "family" of people to care for, a spider-web of stories, a could-be-true fairy tale of unknown powers, a gem and a classic.

PS: Mulder indubitably DID sing the Shaft theme !!!

Household Saints (1993)

Cheer me up

[17 August 1999]

I just wanted to say, that I personally, as a Christian, can only *survive* this movie by believing that it was not intended to actually be Jesus. I admit that it would be nice for Teresa (Lili Taylor). But you know, I think the idea of seeing Jesus on the screen is scary too me, as far as my understanding of my faith is, I can't help feeling offended having Him made an element of a fantasy story. It's difficult for me to deal with this kind of vivid imagination and also many other people might be disturbed. Last thing I wanna do is judge people who create those stories, I just can't relate to them in any way. I don't know how Faith and portraying Him on the screen can actually mix.

So for me it was a pity that they had to tell the story this way. Because it all started off so good. The movie has a great atmosphere from the beginning. I felt sorry when Tracey Ullman painted the walls in this crass yellow and took away this flair of Italian kitchen. I enjoyed most moments of the strange marriage of Tracey and Vincent D'Onofrio and I basically could buy their daughter's story, too. Though I think we've seen that story quite too often, most notably in "Mermaids", where I was more comfortable with it.

When I started to feel disturbed by the story, what cheered me up were Tracey and Vincent as the aging married couple. That was the ultimate prize, just grand!

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Failure!

[3/10 · 4 June 1999]

"Alien" was an original: suspenseful, haunting, claustrophobic. "Aliens" was the most popular part, but the one I didn't like because I just experienced it as very boring all in all. "Alien³" was very dark, but in its darkness it really had power. "Resurrection" is indeed much more suspenseful than "Aliens", but it's just too obviously just stupid.

It doesn't really seem to be a bad movie, because it is very entertaining. It's gloomy, creepy, suspenseful and very much action. But it's only visual, if you look at it as a puzzle, no piece fits the other. When it comes to a quiet scene and some dialogue, you get like paralyzed and "Huh?", "Explain?", "Come again?"... When you read a synopsis it sounds like it made sense, but... I don't know: We get too much and no time to make something of it.

The movie seems like very very much was just cut out and thrown away. There are many scenes that seem to indicate what kind of story should have been told. Like the one where the big alien creature seems to like Ripley because she's one of her kind. The whole Ripley with alien DNA idea was interesting, has always been announced and praised, but it's not worked out. Most of the time is running, facing the aliens, trying to figure out who is who and who is dead and who not, who is up to what. It seems like Jeunet wanted to tell a story, failed and did something different.

As in all Alien features, the cast consists of (up to date) rather unknown actors. But in "Alien", everyone was talented and everyone was to become a well-known actor. I hardly think anyone will speak of Gary Dourdan again, for example. The cast consists of Sigourney, Winona Ryder, Dan Hedaya, Brad Dourif, Michael Wincott (who looks a bit like Gary Oldman), many many un-known people and in one of the biggest parts one of the most unsympathetic and un-shining men in movie history, Ron Perlman. No good at all. Even Winona Ryder is just silly in this one.

It's visually stunning, atmospheric but: don't think, just watch! Maybe you shouldn't even listen.

Oh, and I read that there was some irony in the movie, and I have to agree, there is. But there's also a lot of dullness therefore. So if one would take it all *personally*, he or she would maybe both enjoy and suffer. Rating: 4 out of 10

Clifford (1994)

Where's my license to kill?

[1/10 · 29 May 1999]

I believe that "Clifford" was filmed in 1991 and a victim of that Orion Pictures crash or whatever it was, among others like "Blue Sky" or "The Favor". It was finally released in 1994, which was a mistake! People believe me: It is NOT funny and - even more obvious - Martin Short is NOT a 10-year-old boy! So this one is not even cutey cutey bratty bratty. It's nothing! Charles Grodin is not always sympathetic and can get very annoying very fast. It's stupid, it's disgusting, it's *craptacular*! In the beginning Martin Short/Clifford is a priest some time in the 21st century and tells his story to a nasty boy. And then, in flashbacks, the *hilarious* *comedy* unfolds. I HATE THIS FLICK! Rating: 1 out of 10

Alice in Wonderland (1999 TV Movie)

Colorful!

[8/10 · 25 May 1999]

To start off, Tina Majorino is 14 years old and thus unarguably too old to play Alice from Lewis Carroll's book. That's a little bit uncomfortable in the beginning and the reason why some lines or situations don't really work, e.g. why shouldn't she know what parallels and meridians are? But it is easy just not to look at the film as "Alice in Wonderland" that much. I actually felt automatically led there. And then it's just wonderful! Because Tina Majorino can do it all! She'd rather express too much than not enough, and she always seems truthfully.

Rather a pity is that the roles of interesting actors like Sir Peter Ustinov and Pete Postlethwaite are very small and quite insignificant. The only one who excels in a very small role is Peter Eyre, who plays the frog servant of the Duchess. Very delightful is to see Ben Kingsley as a dinner guest of Alice's parents *and* as Major Caterpillar. Now that's a parallel! I wonder if there are other Wonderland inhabitants at dinner, that I missed!

The film features many characters, that e.g. Harry Harris' 1985 film or the Disney movie didn't feature, like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum or the White and the Red Knight. This is because the movie combines "Alice in Wonderland" and "Beyond the Looking Glass", arguably wrong to do so. Still, it doesn't really have to be Lewis Carroll.

I'm not the one to say much about special effects, but they are fun. As the White Rabbit and the Griffin, the characters without the face of a human actor: real *creature shop* personalities!

The best scenes are those taking place at the court of the Queen of Hearts. Whenever I get in touch with Carroll's story, I'm laughing most about the Queen of Hearts, and - a bit less - about the first meeting with the Duchess. Miranda Richardson gives an innovative, but faithful interpretation of the shrill *monarch* who looks like a playing card. She's dignified and ridiculous at the same moment. The settings are very colorful and just lovely. Every location around the court is like a drawing book come to life. The painting of the roses and the flamingo scene seem as realistic as their nature allows it to be.

And the deliberately stupid dialogues furnish the rest. Miranda Richardson and Simon Russell Beale (an actor I never even heard of, in a delightful performance as the King of Hearts) make it an art.

Finish! In the middle of an attractive cast, maybe choosing Tina Majorino was actually the best thing to make it possible that "Alice" is less some children's movie and more some good fun for everyone who appreciates fine work at movie making. ******** out of 10 stars

(by the way clearly better than Harry Harris' more faithful and also quite good version)

Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (1994)

How can a movie with Jennifer Jason Leigh be this bad?

[3/10 · 23 May 1999]

It's simple: Because it is just plain boring. And besides, I used to think that the 80s were something like the *arrogant decade*, but then I saw this movie about the 20s, made in the 90s. I hate the attitude these people have, I can't bear it. And actually, most of the time, the movie made me want to sleep!

The whole 20s plot completely sucks, I couldn't care less. It's like one hour and a half without anything happening. But there are also scenes, filmed in black and white, from the 40s and 50s. And I must say, these scenes excel. And here Jennifer Jason Leigh almost saves it. She acts and suffers without any restrict and she is very good especially when she's suffering and when she's sarcastic. Actually she smokes and drinks and has sex all along, and I couldn't care less about it, and her face constantly tells you everything, without being too obvious. But I couldn't care less about any other character or actor in the movie. I really felt it's just awful, most of its running time. However, the final 10 minutes really saved it.

Still, Jennifer Jason Leigh is bitter to an extent that isn't easy to bear, and I don't understand why anyone bothered making a *movie* like this. For if you'd cut Ms Leigh's performance out, nothing would *move* at all! 3 out of 10 points.

The Secret Garden (1993)

Perfectly done!

[9/10 · 22 May 1999]

OK, I love the film! Kate Maberly is such a wonderful young actress and I would like to see more of her! When I saw the movie for the first time I was 14 and I was really astonished how she could make me identify with Mary Lennox, a 10-year-old girl from the beginning at the century, in a story line no one would give a damn about in our days. It has been an experience of its own since. Now I'm 18 and probably more cynical, so it has lost some of its magic to me, but I still like to try to get enchanted and I would urge everyone to ... well ... open his mind. It's a children's movie alright, but more important it is just perfectly done!

Mrs. Medlock, Mary Lennox's adversary, if you want so, is played by the excellent Maggie Smith. She rules the castle of Mary's tragic uncle, where she has to live. As if the castle weren't already a very eerie and uncomfortable place (you feel it), under her orders it becomes some kind of nuthouse as she's jerking around everybody - giving the movie very funny and very weird moments. It's unfair how she treats Mary and just plain crazy what she does to Colin, Mary's cousin. But she's not really evil, not a villainess, but she'll show us that she has a heart. I appreciate this attitude very much: how people are never really evil, only a bit sickened.

All characters and actors are really fine, but I want to lose a few more words about Mary Lennox. It's an extremely well-written character for a child and this allows Kate Maberly to carry the movie, make us want to accompany her. Originally, she actually is *egotistic*, but maybe only thus she can find her way and make things right. You'll find her cheeky, you'll like her and you'll understand her.

There is much more to say about the picturesque garden, music, friendships, attitudes and so forth... I'll leave it with my above feelings and thoughts. (If you know the movie, you'd find that I'm ignoring pretty much)

Because I'm *cynical*, it doesn't make the 10: so 9 out of 10, then!

Little Sweetheart (1988)

TV child vs bad guys

[8/10 · 6 April 1999]

"Little Sweetheart" is an extremely suspenseful and very odd movie, basically--- it's not handled that perfectly, that's some problem. As the third time I saw it, I noticed many things which didn't make sense to me, about the development of the plot, mainly. Also some of the suspense was gone, but I still enjoyed it much and I'm surely seeing it again.

The *little sweetheart* is called Thelma, is nine years old, and goes to a boarding school where *the others* don't like her, as we learn from herself. In the summer, she lives at some vacation place with her careless and rather stupid, widowed mother and her brother - rather a cartoon in a would-be mother-teenager-conflict, sorry film makers! She makes friends with another girl her age, Elizabeth. The both of them meet a pair of gangsters, played by John Hurt and Karen Young. Hurt seems to like Thelma, while his *mistress* Young sees her as a rival. She's so mad at the girl that it's only ridiculous. However, she seems to be kind of right, when Thelma decides that the two girls blackmail the pair. The blackmailing is no big deal and no big movie making - but it's only the prelude...

In some moments this movie is really chilling and eerie, because of its absurd and disturbing events and possibilities. I won't judge if the events in this movie are realistic enough, so that they could really take place, but the movie illustrates how kids are always underestimated in our society. Regarded as *cute*, *innocent*, *dull*, *can't do no harm*, they're not taken seriously. Therein lies the intelligence and the irony of the movie: To what point the kid may be *evil* and spoiled, she remains the good guy in a way, as she is just a little girl. And John Hurt is the bad guy, though he's probably the nicest character in the film.

There's one rather fake dialogue with Thelma speaking to Elizabeth. But as her brother tells us, the kid has been loafing around in front of the TV all her life, so that may explain much. The un-known young actress, Cassie Barasch, is very cute and smart in the film, so that you want to like her, on the other hand she acts her character spoiled enough that you want to hate her. Good job! Which part of you is likely to win?

Not a too caring piece of art, nor deeply psychologically analytic, but a convincing, entertaining, suspenseful film with an extraordinary story and a little ironical humor. 8 out of 10!

"Watch me!"

Crimes of the Heart (1986)

Three of Hollywood's best actresses in one hysterical movie

[3/10 · 2 April 1999]

But you may easily be disappointed, if you see Jessica Lange's performance here, whom I had so much respect for (well, there are few moments when she actually is believable, but most of the time she's just too fake, would-be cool and high above), and even worse, Diane Keaton's pathetic and unbelievable acting. And she was so good in so many other movies, what a shame...

What does make the movie worthwhile are the performances of a nasty Tess Harper and, before all, a wonderful Sissy Spacek. All in all, Lange, Keaton and Spacek don't deserve this film and it doesn't deserve them, nor can they save it. Oh yea, and the characters have rather stupid names and act in a too hysterical way. Though hardly enjoyable, Spacek and the better part of the story raise my personal rating to 4 out of 10.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Movie belongs to photography and actors

[7/10 · 28 March 1999]

The movie is a solid thriller, or I'd rather call it a crime story, but there's not so much that makes it special and I think all in all it's a bit overrated.

A good thing about it is that apparently much effort has been made to shoot it very beautifully, carefully and unobtrusively. I mean, you don't see any really brutal scenes. Basically, I really appreciate this. Nor is it up to shock effects and frightening scenes in any sensational way. I still hope it's possible to take away these features without taking away intensity... they didn't manage.

I wanted to get scared when I watch the movie but I didn't. (Nearly) All the scenes are good, the story isn't too bad, but it all lacks the connection, the fluent, flawless line. Thus we don't get worthy intensity, worthy suspense, worthy fright. After all, the movie is Jodie Foster, a bunch of other actors and beautiful photography.

I mention Jodie Foster because she carries the movie, if simply with her being Jodie Foster. I don't mention Anthony Hopkins because he is less a character and more the scenes he's in. The scenes are good and they are due to him.

The scene at the airport is given a flair of importance by the appearance of Diane Baker, the way she appears - that's for instance what I mean by the movie belongs to the actors - the surroundings - belongs to photography and yes, I guess I connect this to art direction.

It's a good movie. Its problem: 5 Oscars and a flood of highest praise. My vote: 7 out of 10

News at Eleven (1986 TV Movie)

How to be careful?

[4/10 · 5 March 1999]

I don't know. But most obviously, this movie shows us that any filmmaker who makes a movie with an issue like child or teenager abuse or seduction should be very sure of his/her qualities. One has to be able to remain tasteful, handle it with care and truthfully. (Dear filmmaker, if you're not sure how to do this, I'd urge you to choose another story. Thanks!)

Quite obvious - writing this I'm implying that this movie is tasteless. It surely is, but not only.

The relationship between Martin Sheen and Barbara Babcock is not very bright, but interesting. The scenes between Sheen and Peter Riegert have an extremely odd, cold and sober atmosphere and thus they are in a way special. Peter Riegert's (again) odd, cold and sober way of acting perfectly fits to the tone of this rather imperfect movie ("Network" (which also has its mistakes to my mind) for poor people?). Thus he's almost good...

The seduction issue is not told very believably, rather almost graphicly. (No not really visually, but there's just too much talking about it in a too cold and TV news-like way.) Additionally, all the girls featured here are neither believable nor sympathetic. I could make some spiteful remarks about them, but I wouldn't find the appropriate words.

I would feel happier if I hadn't watched it. Still it's not only bad. The movie is right about the media, but there is just no truth in dealing with the subject of seduction. I told you what is good about it. Maybe I forgot Sheree J. Wilson, as she's really not bad at her job. I give it 5 out of 10. I just wouldn't recommend it.

The Favor (1994)

Actually shallow - here's why I still give it 9!

[9/10 · 27 February 1999]

So how can I? The movie is rather shallow and all the scenes involving the kids are annoying, but you don't have to care about it. I remember having watched it several times always laughing and loving it. The main character is played by Harley Jane Kozak, who is really hilarious. Her character is almost neurotic but really very funny. Elizabeth McGovern is not really good, but you can still enjoy the pair. Bill Pullman is wonderful at his own very special terms, as he always is (or at least was before he starred in ID4) and Brad Pitt is also wonderful in this comedy. It was shot before he became this world-wide sex symbol or whatever and his role is the one of a pitiable, sensitive and slightly intellectual boy who has to bear quite a lot - of the gags. He's really likeable and laughable. I don't say that I didn't like him in other movies, but - check this out, OK?!

Though there is much cliche in the movie, the tone of most jokes is really different from common jokes. They all seem new and unique, so again: very good laughs.

And as I already mentioned, most of them are due to Kozak. Her crazy character offers so many opportunities for nice gags and the movie allows itself to exploit these opportunities. For example in dream sequences, both weird and lovable... in a way they're a class of their own.

Maybe it's a question of one's personal inclinations, but I can't see why one should not at least altogether enjoy "The Favor". 9 out of 10.

Blind Date (1987)

Kim Basinger - a successful actress!

[7/10 · 13 February 1999]

My rating for this movie is the clearest 7 out of 10. It's just too good entertainment though it's just too bad. The first point is much stronger.

Surprising that John Larroquette can make a nice psycho. I won't bother discussing whether his character is believable or not. But you can laugh very much because of him. Not in the very first scene he appears, but in all the later. It only gets better. The situations are absolutely absurd, but you can't help enjoying them. (Why should you?)

Nor do I want to discuss the credibility of Kim Basinger's character. But she is just too wonderful, as she is always. When her character starts to fall out of line, she makes me feel a small and bizarre deal of joy, she can really make you laugh in some scenes and she also works out real emotion in some scenes - in a movie of this kind. Apparently there are people who think of her as a dumb blonde (!) whose job is nothing but being beautiful or something like that. I can't understand this, she's actually a real good actress. She doesn't play a complex or somewhat character here, but it's her who manages to make much fun of it. She's successful!

So everything in the movie works. The madness of the plot, the showdown-like action scenes in that big and crazy house, and that one thing with the brandy... don't ask me why it works. And Bruce Willis...well he's not bad... but he can't really be but Bruce Willis, that tough, blood-smeared guy in his muscle-shirt, can he?

No, actually I liked him more in "Mortal Thoughts", "Death Becomes Her" and "Nobody's Fool" than I did in this one.

Patriot Games (1992)

Just well done!

[8/10 · 12 February 1999]

This one is no milestone movie, but it's very enjoyable. After having watched it twice, I taped it the third time. It's maybe the most enjoyable political thriller there is - not my favorite genre after all. Not an action fan after all, I guess I even like the action in this movie. It fits. It is not only action, you also have to think, some intelligence is required to understand the plot. But it's not too complicated or too realistic either. It's a good story managing to build up great suspense and to deserve the rating "well-done, intelligent thriller"(8 out of 10).

OK, there is something special about the movie - concerning the way Jack Ryan's (Harrison Ford) family is involved in the conflict. Commonly, when family matters and emotions are shown in movies they get so kitschy that it really hurts. Not so here. Instead this fake sentimental attitude towards family matters is made a subject in a few dialogues here. The Polly Walker character says something like "The Americans hold their breath when a little girl sprains her ankles in P.E. lessons" and Jack Ryan says (roughly)"Do you want me to give the media what they want? Let their camera teams into my daughter's hospital room?". That's the truth. In "Patriot Games" these emotions are acted out very unobtrusively, yet with no doubt touching and believeable.

It is not the main point of the movie, which IS an action thriller, but I think it's quite honorable.

Harrison Ford, as the main character, is a very believeable actor. Cast him and a movie that can't be perfect will be as good as it can get. Sean Bean makes a great psycho - there seem to be actors who are born for roles like this, he may be one. And now I have to make references to other movies: Thora Birch, who plays Ryan's daughter is a brilliant talent - I recommend you the movie "Paradise" in order to convince yourself. Always good to see her in a bit part. And James Fox is good as a likeable royal snob here and in order to conclude what a great actor he is - consider that this is the same actor as the wonderful villain in 1996's "Gulliver's Travels".

It Takes Two (1995)

So primitive, yet so perfect.

[8/10 · 16 January 1999]

I watched "It Takes Two" twice and I would watch it another time I guess, but I don't think I would ever tape it. It's just not good enough. But it works perfectly. The movie centers at two cute and smart little girls, who are put in different dresses, different places, different environments and different situations in order to create this common changing-your-identities-humour, this time involving children.

We also have a stereotypical villainess, played by Jane Sibbett, exactly this stepmother-in-spe from every child's nightmare. We've seen these characters plenty of times, but who cares, it's the character we want to see here. Another common device is to have one really good actor in a supporting role, why not in the role of a butler? Here we have Philip Bosco, doing all the things expected from the nice butler, doing a fine job. A good thing is that the movie also focuses on the Kirstie Alley character. Kirstie Alley is exactly the right actress to play a cool, slightly crazy and likeable female lead in harmless family entertainment.

The point is that the movie uses the same humour, romance and conflict as usual, but skillfully enough, so it doesn't seem like copying. And that the two little girls are so smart that they manage to solve the conflict and get to that happy ending they want. That's what some people want to see and it has often been made much worse. The Olsen twins are alright here, we don't need the best child actresses you can possibly find in a movie like that. Cute, sympathetic and funny as they still are and as the movie just is, my rating is 8 (7,6?) out of 10.

Forrest Gump (1994)

The most touching and lovable movie ever.

[10/10 · 16 January 1999]

Today I watched the original version for the first time, not having seen the German-dubbed version for some time. And I was really amazed how I couldn't hold back my tears. This movie is a masterpiece! I remembered that I had also cried the previous times I had watched that movie. But I wasn't really driven to tears by any movie during the last months and so I thought I might have grown kind of too tough to be really touched. And then I watched Forrest Gump again and at least five times a stream of water broke off in my eyes. Scenes like Jenny's return, Forrest naming his shrimps-boat "Jenny", the last conversation with his mother or the final scene by Jenny's grave - oh, and when he meets his son... Oh boy! I even started to cry before I saw these scenes because I already knew what happens and that sole expectation was enough to make me cry. I haven't experienced so MUCH and so TRUE and so INEVITABLE emotion in a movie for a very long time. I would go on enumerating all the scenes where I cried, because I love Forrest's pure love for Jenny so much, I love his relationship with his mother, I love his loyalty against Bubba and I love his friendship with Lieutenant Dan... I just love the movie!

But of course a really good movie as it is, is not only built on water. It's also a very funny movie. You won't laugh half as loud as you will during movies like "The Naked Gun"(if you like them), but there is no less humour. The appearance of icons like JFK, Elvis and John Lennon and the - more or less honest - intention to chronicle American history from the 1950s to the 1980s belong to this humour. All these events are made ridiculous and dealt with as though they were rather unimportant, but they also make up the movie. Things look less disturbing, when you see them through the eyes of Forrest Gump! He doesn't understand what's going on and doesn't take it seriously. But would you hate him therefore? No. Do you think you'd have to pity him? No.

All the characters are fantastic. Forrest, the moron, who is so wonderfully naive that he would deserve and obtain all the happiness of the world. The proud and unconventional mother, misguided but through and through good-hearted Jenny, dedicatedly silly-stuff-talking Bubba and especially Lieutenant Dan, who is such an interesting and wonderfully created character. Gary Sinise plays him as such a jerk in terms, but always likeable and understandable. All other actors are no less fantastic, but I don't want to extend this to far. My rating, of course, is a clear 10!

The Hotel New Hampshire (1984)

Characters who are allowed to be mad

[8/10 · 7 January 1999]

Slowly I realize what Homer Simpson meant when he said: "I wanna be John Irving!" No, seriously, that was just supposed to be a joke. The ONLY movie I know "The Hotel New Hampshire" can be compared to is "The World According to Garp" - as this one based on a novel by John Irving.

Sometimes this movie makes you think that it's a mediocre and senseless one. That it's gross and abnormal. But that is John Irving! Like in "Garp", sex plays a central role in "New Hampshire" - and it's turned upside down. In "Garp", Glenn Close *raped* a dying man. In this movie, Jodie Foster is raped, she and her brother (Rob Lowe) want to make love and know that they will eventually - and they tell each other. They also tell each other everything about their sexual relationships, they talk about whom they fancy and how they should make love with them. Sex is always present in the development of the characters, but at another level as normally, i.e. as the most normal thing of the world, basically.

The main reason why that strange movie works is that the characters are very interesting. They are grotesque, alright, but something makes them real. The point is, that the characters in this movie are allowed to dream and even to be really mad. However, there are frontiers to their freedom, it's just not the same frontiers as we know. They make the frontiers themselves. Their frontiers allow the siblings to make love - on ONE single looong afternoon. And that scene is not as disturbing as it is kind of beautiful and touching, because THESE characters CAN do this! It's the *radicals* in Vienna who bring us back to the real world - still in a grotesque way. Well, and there are sooo many important characters in this movie - that makes it!

The actors are fabulous. Jodie Foster can never be bad, Rob Lowe is believeable and Amanda Plummer is as good as always. A real stand-out is young Jennie Dundas. About twelve or how old she was then, she looks so adult in terms. She does not have to hide opposite stars of Jodie Foster's kind here, she is really great. What she does is make a quite unreal character come to life - quietly but impressive and likeable. Well, it's no normal movie and there should not be many more of its kind. But, though confusing and gross, there are so many things that you must see. The characters, the actors, the freedom to be mad. Almost as good as "Garp"; there may be worse movies that I rated 8 out of 10.

Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995)

You might object to it - nethertheless you must like it.

[8/10 · 6 January 1999]

I just wanted to choose one movie out of all the movies I've seen - per chance, I've got something like a list - and vote for it here. I happened to choose "Things to Do in Denver when You're Dead", I read a few comments, voted my 8 out of 10 and then I thought: Well, I guess I could easily write an own comment about this one quite quickly. So here is what I feel about it.

Generally, I'm a person who objects decisively to too much violence and obscenity, but still I like so much about this movie. I would have avoided many scenes and sure it is also a bit too pathetic, but it's also melancholic and poetic. Never before "good gangsters" have been as likeable as here - despite all that exaggerated kind of stuff they talk. As I told you, there is this dark poetry in this picture. The jeopardy of life in which the gangsters find themselves, their only hopes and the way they take it. There is also an unhappy love-story in this movie, no special one whereof you'd remember anything great or particularly touching, but it fits into the picture.

Already when you watch the opening scene of the movie - which you might feel quite uncomfortable about - you know that this is a unique and unconventional movie which doesn't like the word *taboo*. Therefore - there IS too much violence and obscenity in it. But also this is - depending on the way you look at it - fascinating: You don't care when someone is shot, but nethertheless you think you DID care for the main characters.

And finally the performances must be mentioned. They are really extremely fine and very charming. First of all Andy Garcia's in the lead. I've seen him in a few other movies before, but I didn't know what a good actor he is. In this movie he is absolutely brilliant, he's so very likeable - and melancholic when still full of joy. Christopher Walken of course is always fine, as is Christopher Lloyd as the leper (if he actually is one, tasteless but very very grotesque and funny!) and it's Treat Williams who stands out. Fairuza Balk also deserves being mentioned. And - it's some time ago that I saw the movie, so I can't actually recall why, but - I remember that I also enjoyed Jack Warden, who had a supporting role, very much.