Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A unique look at the entering of the real world ...
27 May 2002
There is something unique about The Sterling Chase; it is almost devoid of any cliches. Oh sure there a couple of cliches in one of the romances (but when is romance not a cliche?), but usually a story involving young adults calls for lazy, lazy writing. Everything is black and white, the author's attempt to gray areas end up being transparent and obvious, etc., not in this film. Something is brutal and honest about this fictional college for the rich, elite, and intelligent. Each one the characters up for the school's most prestigious award is no carbon copy. Their turmoil is not your simpleton's teenage angst. Dawson's Creek never saw problems this realistic. It isn't so much in the originality of their problems because of course, teens and young adults all suffer similar problems, but it is how they react and deal with these problems. When the story can go the soft, predictable way, it takes a sharp left and drops another bombshell on these troubled kids. I wouldn't go as far to say it is unflinching, because it is not. But the script doesn't pull all of its' punches either.

The most impressive thing about the script is that these kids don't talk like idiots, they talk like bright kids, aware of many things but unaware of true and honest human relationships and the real world. All of these characters are at a crossroads in their lives as they finally leave all of their securities behind, it shakes them to the core and they all have to find a way to deal with it. But in their quest, there are no truly stupid actions, immature decisions, or contrived conflicts. It is so rare to have a "teen movie" rely on character development, but this film attempts to focus on how these kids are feeling, why they are feeling it, and use that feeling to feed the story and move it along. For the most part, the film succeeds.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If only it weren't a remake ...
21 February 2002
The real problem with Wild Wild West is that it is a remake of a successful TV series that looked absolutely _nothing_ like this film. The characters from the TV series really don't even come close to being anything like the characters in this film.

The truth is that the actual film, while sometimes clunky and silly, is somewhat of a guilty pleasure. The dialogue, sometimes is sharp witted and hilarious. The storyline, while outrageous, actually has a beginning, middle, and an end. And the ending, is not dragged out an extra half hour longer than necessary.

I feel funny standing up for this film, it's not that good. But then again, it's not that bad. It won't kill you to watch it. And there is one really good reason to watch it, Kenneth Branagh.

I'm definitely a fan of the actor besides this film and I find it ridiculous that he never got higher crediting in ads than Salma Hayek (although he might be thankful). All of that aside, his portrayal of Loveless is hilarious and well balanced. Branagh knows the character is ridiculous, he may even be aware the whole film is an exercise of spending and wasting money. He therefore feels free to play Loveless as cheesy as they come and still he lends credibility to the role. If only someone had told Smith and Kline not to take their roles so seriously ...

Speaking of Smith, the film seems desperate to explain away West's skin color. I mean in these times, a black hero, uh-uh. Since the film felt it impossible to just ignore it, they constantly refer to it. This works on some level, it gives Smith's West reason for anger and revenge. It also results in probably the best banter of the film while West and Loveless trade digs at each other by sliding in comments that alluded to West's color and Loveless' lack of legs. But it gets mentioned once too often.

As for Kline, the writers didn't even really try with his Gordon. Kline spends the movie walking around with invention after invention and while at some moments it works, Kline could have been asleep at it would have made no difference.

But the most worthless thing about the story is absolutely Hayek. Forget every other negative or positive thing about this film ... Hayek is more than unnecessary, she's absolutely ridiculous. Why? She really has no purpose besides her body. I mean you absolutely scratch your head and wonder why she's there. She doesn't hurt the story, but once you've picked at the obvious flaws of this film ... the dust will settle and you'll ask yourself, "what did Salma do?"

Is it a good movie? Well, no. But to me, what really matters is, was it a waste of time? I say no.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Say Anything (1989)
8/10
You Say it Best, When You Say Nothing at All ...
3 June 2001
The magic, the heart of Say Anything, is that it dares to be normal. You remember the 80 teen romantic comedy genre. It was a nice idea that became an epidemic, but once and awhile there was a gem like Some Kind of Wonderful. But here is the major difference, the lack of cliche, the lack of formula, the lack of cute dialogue, and saying things without any words. Instead it is said with a look, a touch, a smile, and a tear falling down a face. It allows these talented young actors to _act_!

John Cusack plays Lloyd and it is the fact that Lloyd dares to be normal that explains why the film works. Lloyd is just a regular guy who dares to just call the beautiful class brain Diane (Ione Skye) after they graduate. It is the genuine "niceness" and persistence of Lloyd's phone call, that is responsible for her caving and saying yes. And it goes from there. What is a friendship, a respect for each other, grows into "friends with potential", and then goes even farther. Writer-director Cameron Crowe is famous for not pushing it and he perfected that style here. He doesn't try to make John and Ione look and feel "hot", he lets them continue to play young adults, who would by all rights still be awkward, nervous, testing the waters of life, love, and trust.

In a brilliant parallel, we learn of Diane's relationship with her father Jim (John Mahoney) which she has always been sure of, even when she needed to chose between her parents after their divorce. The subtle and detailed scenes between Diane and Jim are important to the twists in the story when Diane grows to trust someone other than her father and finds deceit with something she had faith in. Jim, is not your typical teen movie father. He's real and normal as well. His car is not backed into a house, he is not thrown into a great body of water, and he is not a typical ogre. He is allowed to be a three dimensional character, a driving force and an obstacle in the teen romance. Jim runs a nursing home and wants the best for Diane. He holds their relationship very dear, as it is all a part of Diane being the best she can be. That desire will end up being a double edged sword as Diane's growing pre-occupation with Lloyd the summer before she is set to go to England, threatens his plans for her. And although Jim seems to respect how Lloyd treats his daughter and him, he is bothered by Lloyd's lack of drive, that the only thing that drives Lloyd is the then almost unheard of sport of kick-boxing and Diane.

When the story comes to important moments that changes Jim, Diane, and Lloyd's world, this is when the story shines. This is when Lloyd's rambling and desperation to re-define his life due to his despair is a welcome change from the overbearing or over brooding of most teen flick "heroes". This is when Diane's confusion and discovery is so wonderfully done with little dialogue. This is when Jim, feeling his world is spiraling out of his control, grows quiet, and the power of un-showy direction from Crowe says all we need to see.

The supporting characters as well are gems, who are true supporting characters. Joan Cusack appeared uncredited as Lloyd's single mother sister who, once a blast is now uptight, but is still a supportive guardian for Lloyd. Lloyd's girl friends D.C. and Corey are like salt and pepper for Lloyd. Corey (played by Lili Taylor) is terminally depressed. She previously had attempted suicide due to fellow classmate, Joe, playing with her heart like a yo-yo and is always being the voice of negativity for Lloyd, always telling him what will go wrong, what can't happen, what should happen, and how he is different from Joe. D.C. is practically dwarfed by Corey, never being allowed to talk and never being able to steer Lloyd in a much more sane direction which Lloyd usually discovers on his own anyhow. All of the supporting characters of friends, former classmates, and residents at Jim's nursing home, are important, none are cardboard cut-out cliches. They all have dimension, depth, feeling, and we can understand their motivation, what drives them with carefully crafted scenes and dialogue.

When the ending comes, it is the subtle way they foreshadow the future instead of the standard frantic pacing most romantic comedies have when it comes to a conclusion. That in itself pretty much sums up the beauty of the film.

It is pure genius, this film is pure genius.
127 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Rainmaker (1997)
8/10
Don't judge a movie based on a book, by the book's cover
4 September 2000
John Grisham is an acquired taste. Many in the film industry do not like his books and especially don't like the clichéd way the stories develop. Fans of his books, however, want the exact same excellence, in the film.

So it goes with The Rainmaker. If you didn't like the book, odds are you enjoyed the movie, if you never read the book, odds are you found it a refreshing underrated film, if you were a huge fan of the book, seeing a condensed version of it, put you off severely.

As a rule, I avoid reading a book before seeing a movie based on it. They are two separate things. If one can separate the book from a movie that went over the usual 120 minute formula as it was, you can see this film for what it is, refreshing, unique, and hardly as clichéd as any other lawyer story or movie.

What makes this one tick so well? Fleshed out characters other than the lead, different levels of supporting characters, some that help hold up the story, some that help hold up the main character, and some that could be considered incidental. Then there is the lack of court clichés. There is no rambling speech, not by the main character, the "evil" opponent, or the judge. No speech. Perhaps because the seamless narration of the story provides a nice subtle speech throughout the film. Everytime the story seems on the edge of the predictable court drama twist, it surprises.

Our hero, Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon), has absolutely no idea what he is doing. He chose the law because he idolized the civil rights lawyers who stood up for what was right. A shame that isn't the law he is pursuing. Instead, he is the part of the law lampooned the most, ambulance chasers, suing someone for a bloody nose, a broken arm, hot coffee spilled on one's legs ... you get the drift. Rudy loves the law. It is apparent from the beginning of the film, the law does not love Rudy. His main case, a leukemia patient who did not get a bone marrow transplant because his insurance company, Great Benefits, had the gall to deny his claim eight times, call the patient's mother "stupid, stupid, stupid", and call the treatment, "an experimental procedure" in open court. As a result, the patient eventually dies and Rudy, the lone lawyer in his firm, takes on Leo F. Drummond (Jon Voight) and his band of merry stuffed shirts for the insurance company. Rudy is outgunned and he knows it. His partner in his firm, Deck Schifflet (Danny DeVito), knowledgeable about the law, but has failed the bar five times and has just as much court experience as Rudy ... zero. Rudy also gets distracted with an abused young wife named Kelly Riker (Claire Danes). His attraction to the girl and how her abused past mirrors that of his mother and himself, reveals little insights into Rudy that we will not see in the courtroom.

It is the realness of Rudy and Deck, their imperfections, the fact that they are obviously fallible, that makes the movie so refreshing. Drummond too is an enigma; He is merely the lawyer, not a member of the company. There is no specific reason to hate him, he is good at what he does, he overpowers Rudy mainly based on the law and experience, not on money and power. It is never even clear where Drummond's false sincerity begins and ends in his dealing with Rudy. By making Drummond the opponent, it gives the viewers a rare treat. Drummond is doing his job, he is doing it well, and is a rarity in court films, a worthy opponent, who could realistically, crush our hero like a bug. Kelly also has more than one dimension. Being abused does not make her whiny, co-dependant, and unable to think on her own two feet, and make crucial decisions. She is a rarity as the damsel in distress, when it really counts, she is as strong as her hero.

Then it goes without saying the acting is also done in a subtle and successful manner. DeVito especially is superb with his delicate balance of humor as the ambulance chasing Deck. In the middle of an important deposition, Coppola's script relieves the tension by showing us Deck preying on a boy with a broken arm for his business. DeVito may be best known for his over the top character in Taxi, an obvious little troll with few redeeming qualities. Contrast Deck, also a troll with few redeeming qualities, but with great subtleness, it is those qualities that shine through and Deck is anything but over the top. It shows DeVito's amazing skill and control and should have earned him an Oscar nomination. Voight, plays once again, the villain, but unlike his pandering and embarrassing role in Anaconda, with a hear through accent, and little effort, as Drummond, he becomes the role. You forget the actor is not really a southern little worm. Danes, also does a strong job. But it is the actors in the smaller, more thankless roles, like Mary Kay Place, as the victim's mother, Mickey Rourke, as Deck and Rudy's former sleazy employer, and especially an uncredited Danny Glover, as the judge, who bring color and extra depth to characters that could have easily been cookie cutter clichés when Coppola found the need to par down the book's plot.

Coppola took a rare, unique, and stylish gem by Grisham, one so different from his other books it was either deemed an overwhelming success or failure, in comparison to his other work, and did a good job trimming the fat, without trimming the dimensions of the book's most crucial characters. He takes out what won't work with his vision, without taking out who the characters are.

Something about this movie just works in all the necessary places. While it is not a movie of the year, it is a solid film. All films have perceived imperfections by the viewers and critics, and this one is no exception. It, however, does not have major missteps in any important part of the film. The acting is practically flawless, the direction is practically flawless, and the writing, is amazingly, for a court film, incredibly absent of major flaws.

It is certainly worth the less than four dollars it would take to judge for yourself.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doing Time on Maple Drive (1992 TV Movie)
9/10
A masterpiece like Best Picture winner Ordinary People
24 October 1999
A movie in the company of Ordinary People and American Beauty as it focuses on a suburban family and the veil of happiness that the parents have created. The family has gathered for the celebration of youngest son Matt's wedding. Unfortunately things are not what they seem in the case of any of the children. Throughout the film, the pressures of perfection begin to unravel each child's life. An excellent film with an incredible script and superb direction from Ken Olin. Wonderful performances from all of the cast especially William McNamara as Matt, Bibi Besch as mom Lisa, and Jim Carrey who is hauntingly excellent as the oldest son Tim.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed