Change Your Image
Stevenuccj
Reviews
The Time Machine (2002)
full of adventure but lacking in depth
The Time Machine was all that I expected it to be, for the most part. It is a magnificent adventure into the past. That being said, it is not as exciting as, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark. The Time Machine is a nice 1 1/2 hour diversion from the real world that will be enjoyable as long as you don't expect it to be the next great adventure pic, or the groundbreaking work that the original Time Machine was.
I like Guy Pearce as a male lead. He has an honest, do-good face and seems to be a man of intelligence. He appears stiff at times throughout The Time Machine; some more emotion and wonder would have been appropriate. Still, he does his part in the film to my satisfaction.
Jeremy Irons plays a villain-type but, as has been mentioned before, takes precious little screen time in the film. This is a shame because his character is by far the most intriguing out of the entire film. I would have loved an extended monologue by him, and more verbal exchange between his and Pearce's characters.
Besides that, there is not much to note here. The Time Machine works as an adventure film, but does not achieve emotional or even intellectual depth on any level. Near the end, when we see Irons' character, we feel the movie may be attaining a higher meaning, but the ending dashes any hopes of this. Instead of giving insight into the dangers and benefits of time travel, or into the brilliant mind of the horrific, all-powerful Uber-Morlock, we simply get a physical contest between 2 characters. A boring ending to what was an intriguing picture.
Return to Oz (1985)
Underrated fantasy classic
This film was doomed from the start. There is simply no way you could follow the Wizard of Oz successfully. If you made another musical with happy characters and silly munchkins, it would be criticized as just a rehash of the original. So director Walter Murch went down a different path with this one. A VERY different path. But one that is true to the Oz books, unlike The Wizard of Oz.
Return to Oz is a dark film that chronicles Dorothy's journey back to the land of Oz. The film may come off frightening to children. I was scared the first time I saw it. But the film also contains beautiful scenery, remarkable special effects, and memorable characters. The symbolism from real world to fantasy world is well done; there are at least 3 actors who play dual roles.
The villains in Return to Oz are especially memorable; it makes sense that in The Wizard of Oz we have popular heroes (Lion, Tin Man, Scarecrow) in a joyful film, while in Return to Oz we have memorable villains: the savage, insane Wheelers, evil Princess Mombie and the powerful Nome King in a dark film. One of the chief reasons why Return to Oz is not a popular movie is that our heroes, excluding Dorothy, are all creatures we cannot identify with. In The Wizard of Oz the lion, tin man, and scarecrow were each searching for something (courage, heart, and a brain, respectively). As people we could identify with these things. And it helps that in The Wizard of Oz we have a good portion of the movie devoted solely to development of these characters (the journey through the forest). In Return to Oz Dorothy's faithful friends are: Tic-Toc, who is a mechanical creation that needs to be wound up to work. This may sounds similar to the tin man but while the tin man was a human turned to tin, Tic-Toc is a complete robot. Tic-Toc does not have feelings or emotions, so we can't care a whole lot if he is destroyed because after all he is just a pile of nuts and bolts. Still, Dorothy meets Tic-Toc before the others in Oz, so we probably care about him more than the others except perhaps Billina. Billina is a chicken. She basically takes the place of Toto as the farm animal Dorothy takes with her to Oz. But it's hard to feel for a chicken. Must harder than, say, a DOG. Jack Pumpkinhead comes into the story when Dorothy ventures into Mombie's palace. He is tall, thin creation with a pumpkin for a head that speaks with a high, quivering voice. By the end of the movie you will be glad to be rid of his voice. He is very kind to Dorothy and a loyal friend, but because he is so silly-looking and sounding, he comes off as something similar to Jar-Jar Binks from the recent Star Wars Episode I. A memorable friend who is not QUITE as annoying as Jar-Jar, but no Scarecrow or Cowardly Lion from Wizard of Oz. Dorothy's other friend is a contraption out of ferns, a sofa, and a moose head named Gump who is also a good friend but a monstrosity to look at.
Back to the villains for a second: The wheelers are scary as hell. Interesting how their real-world counterpart, the drones at the mental hospital who push gurneys, are emotionless and mute, while the wheelers laugh at everything and are complete free spirits. But listen to their wheels squeak and you will find it is the same (or very similar) as the hospital workers pushing the gurneys. Princess Mombie also makes a great villain. Did you catch Aunt Em introducing Dorothy to her hospital counterpart? "The HEAD nurse" The all-powerful Nome King is great in the last sequence; pay attention for many connections between him and Dr. Worley.
Fairuza Balk as Dororthy gives a performance better than Judy Garland's in the first Oz, and unfortunately for her, 16 years later she has yet to give a performances on par with this one. Dorothy invokes alot of emotion from us; she is resourceful, intelligent, polite, kind, and we the audience really believe her when she expresses strong emotions. One such instance is when she sees the yellow-brick road torn up, or when she first notices the Emerald City in ruins. There is genuine hurt in her voice as she soaks in the destruction of these once-landmarks of Oz.
The claymation effects are fantastic; to this day it is still impressive to watch eyes appear out of the rocks. And the Nome King's lair and the Nome King himself looks quite amazing.
Return to Oz is a vastly underrated classic. It will likely never get widespread acclaim. And since it is following one of the most beloved movies of all time, it will continued to get blasted. But watch the film and decide for yourself. Just don't expect The Wizard of Oz all over. Expect a fantastical magical journey into a dark and dangerous world filled with beautiful images, haunting villains, and memorable characters. And don't forget to check out the symbolism between real world and Oz.
Space Cowboys (2000)
works well as a comedy, partially as a thriller
Let me say beforehand that I am very partial towards Clint Eastwood. The man is a legend, and I consider him my favorite film star of all time. Therefore, I will always look at his movies with good thoughts in mind while likewise raising my expectations for the movie significantly. That being said, I think it is clear from this film that Eastwood, even at his advanced age, still is a worthy director and actor. He is not likely to win any best actor oscars, but he will give a strong and consistent performance, and knows what to do when behind the camera.
The first half of Space Cowboys is film entertainment at it's best. We have an exceptional cast made up of the 4 geriatric astronauts: Eastwood, a brash yet sympathetic Tommy Lee Jones, a smaller role played with alot of fun by Donald Sutherland, and a barely noticeable James Garner that we don't care much about. In one scene, the old timers go on Jay Leno's Tonight Show. Leno quips about their military background: "North or South?" In fact, the first half of "Space Cowboys" is funnier and more consistent than most recent comedies.
The second half of the movie, during which the boys finally do go into space, introduces a vicious plot. We are taken by surprise by it, and it is fairly interesting, but it just isn't as much fun as the first hour. Old guys going into space is funny, but them saving the day isn't so believable. Nonetheless, the space scenes look great, and the second half manages to hold our interest and invoke at least some emotion from us.
Space Cowboys is required viewing for fans of Eastwood, and to a lesser degree it will appeal to fans of Jones and Sutherland. But, while being a lot of fun, it falls well short of being in the "great movie" category.
Spy Game (2001)
Excellent; best espionage film in years
Spy Game is a superior espionage film that succeeds because of it's two leads, Brad Pitt and Robert Redford. Pitt gives a great performance but the star here is Redford in his best performance in a while. The plot is great, full of exciting happenings, twists, and sly dialogue. Still, the two leads are the reason the movie works. I saw it at a theater and I plan on buying or renting it a soon as it is out on video.
The Matrix (1999)
The most overrated film ever
Yeah, the effects were good. But the story was just your basic, run-of-the-mill futuristic action script. The character development is virtually non-existant, the acting is weak, and their are non plot twists that cannot be spotted a mile ahead. The only reason this film is praised so much is because of the martial arts sequences and the effects i.e. the famous slow-motion bullet shots. But the fact remains that this is a poor effort. There is no outstanding reason to see this movie; there is no great acting. The story is intriguing to sci-fi fans at first, but later on boils down to cliches and shootouts. The ending is a cop-out just so more sequels can be milked out.
If you want to see a great futuristic sci-fi film, see The 13th Floor. You will notice the plot is very similar to that of The Matrix, except it is much more inventful about it, much better executed, and the ending will leave you thinking for months afterwards. The ending in the Matrix, however, will leave you thinking "What was so great about that?" The answer, simply and disapointingly, is nothing.
The Fly II (1989)
Very poor, nearly unwatchable sequel
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It seems like this film was doomed from the start, when David Cronenberg (director of The Fly 1) signed off and Chris Walas signed on to direct this one. This film chronicles the life of Seth Brundle's only offspring, Martin, a young boy played by Eric Stoltz. He is exploited by lab scientists who somehow seem to own him, and he evantually starts morphing into a Fly a la The Fly 1. The first of this film's numerous problems lie in the fact that the main character (Seth Brundle's son) realistically never would have been born. In the first Fly his mother, Geena Davis, firmly decides to have an abortion, after having a dream in which she bore a disgusting larvae. Yet the first scene in this film is her delivering the baby. And, behold, the baby turns out to be covered in a oozing gelatin-like mold upon birth. Fine. So she has the baby and dies. What follows is a series of events that are both improbable and uninteresting at the same time.
** SPOILERS BELOW **
Martin lives his entire life under the dictatorship of 2 crooked scientists, who are a**holes to him every chance they get, for no good reason. He meets a love interest (weakly played by Daphne Zuniga) who just happens to appear about 15 years older than him. And since he has grown at an accelerated rate, she is ACTUALLY about 20 years ahead of him. In the 2nd half of the movie, he unexplicably goes into a cocoon-like state, after which he emerges as a ridiculous-looking sort of creature that could have come from some B-Horror film. (On second thought, this is a B-Horror film, isn't it...)
The only fun part in this whole movie is a brief visit by Martin and his babe with the surviving doctor from The Fly 1, Stathis Borans (John Getz). Borans has a great camio filled with some wonderfully ironic lies.
The film's conclusion is just as ridiculous as the rest, with Brundle going on a vengeance-filled murder spree before jumping in the telepod. What comes out is simply ludicrous. Both parts of it.
Cast Away (2000)
Not incredible but really hard not to like
Simply put, this is a pretty fun movie to watch.
My main complaint is that I knew the whole story beforehand, from watching the trailers on television.
*** SPOILERS START ***
These trailers showed 1) Hanks saying goodbye to his wife, 2) Hanks ending up on the island, 3) Hanks on the raft trying to escape, and 4) Hanks arriving back with his wife.
*** SPOILERS END ***
Hanks is the one who makes this film happen; because of his incredibly realistic and moving portrayal of a man living on a deserted island for years, we are drawn into it. His humor keeps us interested, and the obstacles he overcomes gives us a sense of awe.
Overall this is not a candidate for movie of the year, but it is an above average film that I would recommend to everyone.
The Others (2001)
Best supernatural thriller since 1999's 6th Sense, BWP, Stir of Echoes
This movie succeeds on a number of levels, but also fails to overly impress us with it's story or it's climax.
First off, it is very refreshing to see a movie such as this at a time where recent horror movies have been the pathetic "Forsaken," and the mediocre slasher rip-off "Valentine." What do we have to look forward to? "Jeepers Creepers" (sigh).
In this company, The Others may well go down as the best horror film of the year.
The acting in The Others is one of it's strengths. Nicole Kidman, contrary to what I heard prior to seeing it, gives a strong performance as the authoritarian parent who doesn't know how to deal with the freaky happenings in the house. The kids both give good performances, especially the daughter, in what may be the best performance of the movie. The housekeepers are decent but not outstanding.
The lighting in The Others is really quite amazing. The whole movie is lit by candlelight, and it plays out very realistically and adds to the atmosphere. The cinematography is done flawlessly. Director Alejandro Amenábar has shown he can film better than most directors today.
The movie takes a long amount of time getting to the climax, but it keeps us interested. Had it taken just a few minutes longer in getting there, the audience likely would have lost interest. The problem with the movie lies with the climax and resolution, which doesn't quite make the trip getting there worthwhile. There are good twists at the end, which I will not reveal, but at the same time we expect something more to happen which never does. Part of the blame for that must go to the lack of important things happening leading up to the climax.
Overall a decent but not great movie, which seems like a godsend to horror fans at a time like this.
The Score (2001)
Refreshingly excellent, if not perfect, film
No, this movie is not perfect. It could have been; it certainly had the acting talent. The film doesn't have quite enough gripping scenes and isn't consistently great throughout. However, that all being said, this is one of the top movies of the year thus far (only "A.I." is arguably a better picture, but I think "The Score" is more enjoyable). Building off of a sufficient but relatively weak opening which establishes De Neiro's character, the film introduces Brando and Bassett who both turn in excellent supporting roles. Bassett for some reason is getting crucified for her role in this movie, but she plays out her role well. Film-goers must remember that she is not playing lead here (which she has proven she CAN do), but she is playing a role, and she plays it very nicely. Brando is entertaining as the "big rich guy" for lack of a better term; he doesn't steal the show, but helps contribute to it.
That brings us to Norton and De Neiro, who prove in this movie that they are each at the top of their respective generations of actors. Norton is nothing short of breathtaking to watch as he plays both a mentally challenged janitor and an arrogant young thief. On par with Norton is De Neiro, turning in a great performance in a role he knows very well - the tough, crafty, fearful veteran who runs the whole affair. Seeing these two stars interact with each other - whether it be live, over a phone, or over a two-way radio - alone makes this movie worth seeing.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Flawed but still an exceptional achievement
This film is certainly carried by the acting of Haley Joel Osment and, to a lesser extent (him not being the lead), Jude Law. Had these two performances been any lesser than what they were, and they were amazing, the film would have likely flopped. Osment beautifully portrays a robot who looks like you and me, and loves like us, but ultimately is still just a robot, not one of us. He is not a shy, scared boy who can't fit in (6th Sense), but he is an outsider who really IS different from other boys, and he is desperately seeking approval from his mother in the form of her love.
The plot of this movie has been summarized numerous times, so I will avoid repetitiveness (?) and just comment on specific portions of the film. I have mostly good things to say about the first two thirds of the movie; Osment anchors the movie and his performance evokes feelings of desperation, compassion, and hurt from us along with moments of comedy and a sense of wonder and anticipation throughout. When Law joins him, the comedy and entertainment picks up while still advancing the story at a slow but deliberate pace. The scene where we see haters of the machines in massive numbers destroying them plays out as too long and rather boring; it manages to at least advance the two characters, but Speilberg should have seen how weak the scene was and deleted/ replaced it. The final third of the movie is the most controversial, and the most criticized, for good reason.
** SPOILERS BEGIN **
The first 2/3rds of this movie, and especially the first third, is very dark. We consistently feel uncomfortable, and scared for what might happen to Osment; more specifically, what other PEOPLE might do to him, because he is a machine and he doesn't learn how to act "normal" in routine social situations. We learn early on that this is hands-down Spielberg's darkest movie, and it is most certainly not for kids. But the ending, no matter how much you like, hate, understand or are confused by it, enjoy it or are frusturated by it, It Is A Happy Ending. It is really a Disney/Twilight Zone ending, if there ever was one. David gets his mother's love, only in the not-too near future. The ending negates the darkness of the movie (no doubt it is only dark due to Kubrick's influence on it). The ending represents where Spielberg tries to tie in his own "successful long magnificent journey" type film with Kubricks "dark human nature" exploits. The result, as you have seen, is a muddy ending to a magnificent story.
** SPOLIERS END **
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
If you like Tom Green, you will like this movie ALOT
Despite taking a bashing from critics worse than that of any cheap horror flick, includng the infamous bomb rating from Maltin and 0 Stars from Ebert, THIS IS A VERY FUNNY MOVIE. If you think Tom Green is hilarious, like some of us, you will find this movie, for the most part, hilarious. It's gags are very similar to his show, but going heavier than usual on the gross-out. The plot is weak, but no weaker than a standard comedy; anyway, the plot doesn't matter. Green comes at you nonstop with gags, lines, sausages, penises, and even fetuses. This movie should be given a chance; in my opinion it is the best comedy so far this year, and it certainly is the most original.
Memento (2000)
near perfection
Memento is a completely original and strikingly well-done film. I will not summarize the plot, as I am sure it is easily found elsewhere on this site. Guy Pearce gives a career performance as the lead. This film keeps the viewer both captivated, surprised, and amazed throughout the picture. This is by far the best film yet released in the new millenium. I certainly place it in the top 5 I have ever seen. It is a shame Memento has not received the media coverage and advertising that other, far worse films have received. Whatever it takes, SEE THIS MOVIE!
The Omen (1976)
far better than most satanic/Catholic horror films
Interesting piece of work concerning the birth of the supposed antichrist; its best points are the Oscar-winning creepy music, the horrific and fairly original death scenes, the performances of the "father" and the nanny, and the good use of religious imagery while not getting over the top with it. Film's script is average; performance of the "mother" is weak, although it isn't a big deal. After watching, this film will make you think that maybe all that garbage about the antichrist and armageddon isn't really garbage... 8 out of 10
Jacob's Ladder (1990)
Full of well-used symbolism and excellent cinematogrpahy
This is a great film; what makes it great is the light-dark imagery, the use of biblical symbolism, and the cinematography in general. The only thing I would like to add is that the DVD version includes 3 extra scenes; in the third scene, titled The Antidote,
*** START SPOILER ***
Jacob's chemist brings him a bottle which supposedly will cure him if he drinks it. What follows is a horrific nightmare.
*** END SPOILER ***
Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (1990)
Terrifying if watched alone late at night
One of the top horror-story anthology movies out there (albeit that isn't saying much). Will scare the pants off you if watched late at night by your lonesome. Stories are cleverly placed from least terrifying first to most terrifying at the end. Acting leaves much to be desired, however, with the first story containing the most watchable cast (Steve Buscemi, Christian Slater). Wraparound story is cliched and predictable, but it doesn't really matter.
First story is one of the more interesting mummy tales out there, with Buscemi playing an outsider in a yuppie university who discovers "Lot 249." Lot turns out to be ancient preserved mummy who, of course, wrecks havoc. Twists at the end are good but not exceptional in any way.
Second story is a fantastical tale regarding a vicious cat that never seems to go away. Old man hires hitman to kill cat. Tale is entertaining and unnerving but altogether ridiculous as well. Only for fans of horror, really.
Third story is gem of anthology. Concerns a young man who witnesses a gargoyle savagely kill a man in a dark alley. Man makes vow to never speak of gargoyle to anyone in exchange for his life. Romantic tale ends in shock and horror. Likely to give nightmares.
Overall, this movie is laughable and boring in daytime but can be terrifying at night. Personally I have a tough time choosing favorite tale; each one brings something different to the table. Horror buffs be sure to check this one out if you haven't already.