pmoney13 Reviews

Beat the Devil (2002)

Brown and Oldman chew lots and lots of scenery

[22 November 2002]

The new BMW film is, as these things go, wildly energetic and bizarre. It stars James Brown as himself, Clive Owen as his soft spoken driver, and Gary Oldman as the devil. Now, any time you can get either Brown or Oldman to mug for eight whole minutes, it's great stuff...but here we have both actors flat out going nuts onscreen, and brother it's the stuff that cult film magic is made of.

BMW films tend to be short and sweet, and Beat the Devil is no different. Tony Scott brings his usual hyped up style to the proceedings, which contrasts nicely with Clive Owen's downplayed lead character, a guy who doesn't say much, but when push comes to shove, he will kick the devil's a** in a drag race down the Vegas strip. Brown, once again, is over the top, but Oldman is way out of control, playing the prince of darkness as a wired nut in tights who sports a British accent. As usual, though, Oldman's hamming is the highlight of the proceedings.

All in all, Beat the Devil is a terrific waste of 8 minutes. It didn't make me want to buy the new BMW but it did make me want to take on Lucifer himself in a street race.

xXx (2002)

run of the mill, and pretty boring

[4/10 · 25 August 2002]

Vin Diesel proved with Pitch Black that he could carry a film on his broad shoulders, but XXX just isn't a worthy "breakout" role for him. The film is being hailed as a James Bond picture for the next generation, but fails to give us anything different. The film isn't really bad at all, just somewhat dull. It's a movie in which every action scene and every plot device is one that has been used in hundreds of movies before, so we basically know everything that will happen in the movie, therefore it really isn't that exciting. Let's see some originality, some inspired filmmaking. Diesel has the charisma to be a major action star, but let's get him in something better.

When you have a popcorn action movie like this, there are two absolute essentials you must have to pass as quality entertainment: good villains and memorable one-liners. XXX strikes out on both of these counts. The villains are typical slimy Euros who talk under their breath and glare so that we know that they are evil. The best action movies have great villains, and that usually means having a recognizable actor in the villanous role. Here we have a bunch of no names. Where's John Malkovich? Or Christopher Walken? The one-liners are bad, very bad. "I want all this...in here" doesn't exactly rank with "Yippie-Kay-Yay Mother F***er" or "Hasta Lavista, Baby" in the annals of great action film quips. Without these two elements to raise it from the rest of the pack, XXX is basically another toss-into-the-pile spy flick, a forgettable vehicle for it's star, Diesel.

Aliens (1986)

Now this...this is an action movie.

[10/10 · 25 August 2002]

Aliens has my vote for best action movie of all time. It's such a great piece of filmmaking, starting with an almost subdued opening 45 minutes, then plunging us into an all-out rollercoaster ride of pure, kick-ass action and adrenaline. Movies today like the crap Jerry Bruckheimer spews out have made movie audiences forget what a real action film is. This isn't a cliched buddy cop pic or a yawn-inspiring spy movie....this is a testosterone-charged, relentless catapult into the best that sci-fi thrillers have to offer. James Cameron followed up the brilliant "Terminator" with this masterpiece, solidifying his claim as one of the stronger directors in Hollywood (yeah, I know he made Titanic, but we all make mistakes). Bottom line: Aliens is better than any action film made since it was released in 1986. If you want to know what true, pulse-pounding action is: for God's sake rent Aliens.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

The top critics can't figure this thing out, so why the hell should we?

[8/10 · 18 April 2002]

Mulholland Drive is a movie so complex and incomprehensible that even the cream of the crop in American movie critics (Ebert, Maltin, etc.) can't tell us what is going on, so I'm not even going to try to decipher it myself. However, I will say that among the confusion and disorientation, David Lynch's latest film comes away an exercise in pure, twisted imagination, a film so filled with haunting and seductive imagery that we hardly care when the narrative takes a turn for the muddled. It lingers in the mind and has us thinking days after viewing, like a good mystery/thriller should. It starts off by hooking us in with an engrossing plot and interesting characters and ends up playing our emotions like a puppet on a string.

The plot starts off with a beautiful brunette (Herring) who is involved in a car accident on the title street overlooking Los Angeles and loses her memory. She winds up in the apartment of a young, rather naive blonde (Watts) who hopes to make it big as an actress. Together the two women begin to put together the pieces of Herring's true identity. Other subplots in the film that eventually end up connecting concern a director who is told by sinister producers to cast "their girl" or else bad things will happen, and a man who dreams of a bum behind a Winkies shop that "runs it all". The film's highlights include a wonderfully creepy scene in a nightclub known as Silencio, featuring a terrific Spanish rendition of Roy Orbison's "Crying"; a dwarf in a wheelchair who intimidates his suited minions with brief commands, and Herring and Watts' uh...budding relationship.

This movie was set up like a dream (as evidenced by the blurry shots of a pillow at the beginning) and, like a dream, it makes little sense. But despite this it succeeds where other Lynch films don't: it's a film that pulls us in with its weirdness and excess, instead of repelling us as his "Blue Velvet" and "Wild at Heart" did. He manages to bombard us with his usual out-of-left-field imagery, but keeps us interested because the material is so hypnotic. When a character known only as The Cowboy pops up with cryptic words for a young director, I didn't laugh at the apparent absurdity but instead grew more intrigued. Lynch also manages to sustain a creepy tone throughout the entire proceedings, even during times when we don't expect it. There shouldn't be anything disconcerting about a lone female singer lipsynching to "I've Told Every Little Star", but for some reason here it is.

All in all, Mulholland Drive is like a dream that sticks with you when you wake up. You can't get it out of your head, and the more you think about it the more confused you get. Lynch's last great film was "The Elephant Man", and now, in between a series of much less competent works, he scores again. Mulholland Drive is a memorable film experience, a truly fine piece of work that deserves a mention on anybody's Top 10 list of 2001.

Phantasm (1979)

Just doesn't make any sense

[3/10 · 23 October 2001]

Phantasm had a lot of potential. The premise is scary: two kids fighting a wicked mortician and his evil drones. Unfortunately this low-budget horror outing (that spawned, incredibly, two more sequels) is way too confusing to be frightening. I watched as characters disappeared for long stretches before reappearing for no good reason. People die then are miraculously alive again in the next scene. Some characters are evil, then good, then evil again. Not to mention it's all directed so that the action zooms along at a brisk pace, not bothering to explain anything. All in all the movie inspires more headaches than fear.

The film focuses on two (uninteresting) kids who investigate weird goings on at the local mortuary, where their deceased friend was just buried. They come upon the Tall Man, an evil fellow who kills people with flying silver spheres and turns corpses into his zombie minions. Most of the film has the Tall Man chasing the younger boy around after the kid learns of his secrets.

As low-budget horror movies go, I've seen far worse. Phantasm is imaginative, if nothing else, and has some memorable scenes (the first appearance of the flying orb is great), but in order to scare people you must have coherency. Phantasm plays like the filmmakers know everything that's going on, but they feel like keeping the viewer in the dark.

Possession (1981)

Ridiculous

[2/10 · 17 September 2001]

Possession is a silly, often repulsive French-German co-production that is interesting only as an early vehicle for Sam Neill. The film is bizarre, to say the least, and seemingly could have become a cult film if it were any good. The American release is obviously butchered from the 120 minute European version, rendering it incoherent. Events and characters pop up randomly, making us confused instead of scared. The acting is way over the top (I hear Adjani actually won a Best Actress Award in Europe for her performance, which is basically her running around screaming and slashing both herself and other people).

Possession ends in a twist that is too idiotic to even bother spoiling. Whoever thought this subject matter could pass as watchable entertainment, much less be scary, was sorely mistaken. Maybe if they release the full version on DVD soon I would have a better opinion. Then again, I'd have a better opinion of the film if it were thrown in a bonfire.

Memento (2000)

Waaaay Overrated

[2/10 · 9 September 2001]

Memento is a film recieving great praise for being a new and highly original idea. While it is original, that doesn't make it a good movie, nor does it make it any fun to sit through. The movie stars Guy Pearce as a man who is looking for the thug who killed is wife. The problem is, he has no short term memory, and has no idea of who his allies are and who is trying to manipulate him. The story is told backwards, with the film beginning at the end, and ending at the start. Unfortunately the novelty wears off after about ten minutes and the film becomes excruciating to sit through, and soon the characters become boring and the plot uninvolving.

Memento reeks of a script that tries too hard to be fresh and original. I must commend this film for avoiding cliche and formula, but at the same time I criticize it for being overly complicated and pretentious when it should have been entertaining. The final word is: Memento is a bust; don't believe the hype.

The Seventh Sign (1988)

Could have been better

[6/10 · 9 September 2001]

The first scene in the film is a super one. In the middle of a small Haitian village, through the impenetrable crowds of people, walks a man who is clearly out of place with everything else. He walks toward the sea and stops before a beach. In his hands he holds a scroll and a seal. He breaks the seal, drops it on the surf, and walks away, leaving a small boy to watch as the sea begins to boil and the fish wash up on the shore. It is clear what is happening: the first sign of the apocalypse.

Thus begins "The Seventh Sign", a supernatural thriller that only partially works, and should be better than it is. Demi Moore is a pregnant woman who begins to believe that the boarder in the apartment next door may have some bizarre, end-of-the-world plans for her baby. The boarder is the aforementioned stranger with the seal, as played menacingly by Jurgen Prochnow. The strength of this film is the sense of impending doom that pervades throughout. The film is stylish, and very effective in managing an apocalyptic tone.

The main flaw of the movie, however, is that the supporting characters are so much more interesting than the featured couple. Prochnow's boarder is very creepy, and we realize that this man means business (although his role and his motives are never really made clear). The Father Lucci character is a fascinating one, and when we hear of his true identity, we are further gripped, although at the end he is made into a routine maniacal villain, and his fate is never told.

This movie might have worked better if the Moore character were not so bland. She is put forth as a woman destined to save the world, yet she comes across as a talking head who is endlessly impressed by Prochnow's cryptic stories. She never really comes across as anything interesting. Her husband is the typical disbelieving clod who refuses to accept what his wife is saying, even when all hell is breaking loose around their ears.

Despite the flaws, I enjoyed "The Seventh Sign" and would willingly watch it again. There are several powerful moments, and other scenes that are memorable, like the opening shot. I would recommend it, but I'm not sure if I'd do so as a serious movie or as silly weekend fare.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Enjoyable B-movie

[7/10 · 23 July 2001]

I walked out of the theater to JP3 last week and got exactly what I wanted: entertainment. There are many reviews out there criticizing this film for its lack of plot and character development, but that's nitpicking. The simple fact is that Jurassic Park 3 is a fun film. It's no work of art, just a good, thrilling 90-minute ride that delivers all the goods.

The second sequel has Dr. Grant going along with a divorced couple to find their son, who has disappeared somewhere in Isla Sorna, an island populated by dinosaurs. They crash land their plane and the inevitable dinosaur carnage ensues, with all of the minor supporting characters getting eaten very quickly. The surviving group soon has to battle vicious raptors (who can now communicate with each other, in order to set up elaborate traps for the human victims) and battle with the gigantic Spinosaur, who is even more deadly than the T-Rex.

As you could probably tell from the summary, the film doesn't waste too much time with plot. It goes full bore into the action and doesn't let up. The most exciting sequence in the film is when the group stumbles into a giant birdcage for pteranodons. This part of the film is very intense, and the flying dinosaurs are truly menacing. Another highlight of the film was the Spinosaur, a huge and frightening dino that provides for some tense scenes. Sam Neill returning as Alan Grant helped, and they don't turn his character into a soppy mess as they did with Ian Malcolm in The Lost World. One other thing I appreciated was that the kid didn't turn out to be some obnoxious plot device, like the girl in Lost World. You actually like the kid.

Let us now compare two movies: JP3 and Tomb Raider. Both films have the same apparent distaste for plotting and story, and both films have several plot holes and confusing moments. The only difference is that Tomb Raider was boring as all hell, and Jurassic Park 3 was exciting. This is the way to make a summer movie. I could harp on and on about the inconsistencies in the script or the flaws in the plot, but I don't need to because the action scenes pay off, and I was entertained. And that's all that matters.

Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1995)

Why, oh why was this piece of crap made?

[1/10 · 23 July 2001]

To get an idea of how bad this movie is, the stars of the original, Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey, wouldn't even return to reprise their roles. And its no wonder why they refused: the whole thing is a disgrace to movies everywhere. For starters, it contradicts the ending of the first film, and since Fahey wouldn't return, they had to make up some dumb story about Jobe having plastic surgery.

I had the misfortune of seeing this movie in the theaters, and I was truly in awe of what I was seeing on the screen. It was like a nightmare. You know, the one where you're trapped someplace and you can't move, then you wake up. Only I couldn't wake up. I was frozen in terror at this...this excrement of films. Let me detail the more ridiculous points of the film:

1. When all of the people of the world are flocking in herds to worship, through cyberspace, a bald, crippled goof who talks mumbo-jumbo.

2. When the young kid and some woman track down the scientist from the first film to help them find Jobe, only to realize that he has become some wigged out crackpot who looks like an indian.

3. A ridiculous chase scene in the middle of the film, as an evil tycoon and his guards race our heroes to find some chip or something.

The first Lawnmower Man was an okay film with great special effects. This sequel is a bad film with bad special effects, characters, visuals, etc. etc. etc. I could go on, but that would simply be wasting your time, just like, coincidentally, this movie.

Slipstream (1989)

Underrated sci-fi fare

[6/10 · 11 July 2001]

A lot of people have panned Slipstream because it is boring and lumbering, which is true to some extent. The movie is pretty good for the first 45 minutes or so, then hits a wall and gets really stupid, until finally it ends well. I enjoyed this film, flaws and all. I liked the look of the film, and the atmosphere. I liked how the characters moved through this broken down civilization where cops are more killers than anybody else. The plot involves an adventurer who kidnaps a fugitive from a bounty hunter in hopes of turning him in and collecting the ransom for himself. What he doesn't know is that the bounty hunter (Mark Hamill, in his best post-Star Wars role) is now coming after him. If the movie had stayed on this storyline the entire movie it would have been a truly enjoyable film. Unfortunately, it goes off in many different directions and becomes convoluted. I just wish that the writers could have come up with a better script, one that didn't wander and one that was clever and interesting.

Nevertheless, I did like this film. I really got into the characters. The late Bob Peck plays the fugitive, who doesn't seem the least bit dangerous, despite the fact that he supposedly killed a man (There is a twist pertaining to this character, but I won't reveal it, even though nobody will care). Peck will be recognized by most as the hunter from Jurassic Park. He was a good actor, and I'm disappointed that he was not in more films. Bill Paxton's character is a little shallow but still likable. Hamill is also good as the bounty hunter. These characters prevent the film from becoming an all-out bore. The haunting score by Elmer Bernstein also helps.

My favorite scene was when Paxton first captures Peck and both are flying through the Slipstream for the first time. This scene is full of wonder and is shot perfectly. I only wish the rest of the film were like this. I would really have liked it then. It could have been a classic. As it is though, it is just a lesser known vehicle with moments that are better than the whole. I recommend it to anyone, but it might be too boring for some. If you fast forward some stuff, then it might help.

Legend (1985)

Lavish but uninvolving

[4/10 · 11 July 2001]

Legend is fun to look at but a chore to sit through. I wonder if I watch it again with the sound muted I might like it better. The visuals in the film are stunning. Ridley Scott has always been a director who focuses on dazzling imagery, and this is no exception. The way he paints the forests around Mia Sara and the unicorns is sensational, and we soon wish we were there, prancing along in the trees and rivers. Alas, there is one thing that ruins it, and that is the story. The story is a clunky, disjointed mess that makes us turn away just when we are getting interested. It involves a young kid who must rescue his lover and a unicorn horn from the demon Darkness, or else light will be obliterated forever. This is a good setup, but unfortunately the movie goes nowhere, and provides us with so many uninteresting characters that we stop caring about anything. Tom Cruise's little friends, especially the little boy/pixie thing are the worst things in the film, and we root for them to come to harm somehow.

Tim Curry has the best role in the film as Darkness. He makes the most out of a thankless role, where he is stuck under pounds of makeup and is barely recognizable. Curry is sinister and charming at the same time, and you kind of like the guy even though he is kinda evil. Which brings up another point. It's always a bad sign in a movie when the villains are more appealing than the heroes. Shouldn't we be rooting for the good guys? Why do they give us pixies that we hate so much, then make the villain a badass?

If this film had had a better story it could have been great. I'd watch it again just to see the brilliant imagery. Ridley Scott made Blade Runner, a film in which the visuals were more prominent than the story. But what made that film great was that, even though the story was secondary, it was still interesting and it still supported the film. In Legend the story sucks, so the visuals are all alone.

Scary Movie 2 (2001)

Just not funny

[2/10 · 6 July 2001]

This sorry sequel to the original spoof might have been okay if it had not had the problem of being unfunny. The first movie was okay, mixing gross-out gags and parody of the Scream movies, but this movie is simply a stinker. The jokes are obvious, and can be seen a mile away. The dialogue isn't funny (arguably the worst thing in the film is a foul-mouthed parrot that repeats expletives at everybody within earshot). The movie spoofs are bad (why anyone would want to send up garbage like the Haunting and Charlie's Angels is beyond me). When the jokes were being doled out at a surprisingly clunky pace, I found myself staring blankly at the screen instead of laughing.

The gross out gags in the film are not funny, just nauseating, and most can be sniffed out very quickly (unlike the bathroom scene in the original, which was a shocker to everybody). Gross out gags can definitely be very funny, as in There's Something About Mary or American Pie. But here the writers (for lack of a better term) want us to laugh at someone sitting on a toilet just because its gross. It doesn't work that way.

The fact that this film makes the original look like a comedy classic just about sums it up. When I saw the original, I was surprised to hear audience members laughing at even the worst jokes. In Scary Movie 2, though, the audience didn't go for it. I heard lots of courtesy laughs and nervous laughter, like some felt they had to laugh because the film was billed as a comedy. Aside from one dinner scene featuring Chris Elliot there are no scenes that inspire raucous laughter, like a good comedy should. If you're looking for a good time, look elsewhere. This film should be avoided at all costs.

Hostage (1992)

dull and boring

[4/10 · 30 June 2001]

It seemed that this movie might be a steamy, sexy action thriller with Talisa Soto, but I soon found out after ten minutes of watching that this was just another boring spy flick with people shooting faceless villains and guys in suits looking mean. The plot is boring and so is most of the action. The romance isn't very steamy either, and there is no cache of naked babes as the box art would imply. Hostage tries too hard to be James Bond, and fails miserably.

When a Stranger Calls (1979)

Could have been an all-time great...

[5/10 · 30 June 2001]

but instead it simply merits a rating of "OK". The opening segment of this film is one of the most thrilling, frightening sequences I've ever seen. Kane is terrorized over the phone by some lunatic who turns out to be a deranged babysitter killer. After this memorable sequence, the movie goes downhill in a hurry, turning into a dumb hour-long segment featuring the killer after he is released from prison. He is beat up in a variety of ways as the filmmakers try to make us feel sorry for this guy, a kid killer and rapist. Finally, the film redeems itself a little with a solid conclusion. When a Stranger Calls could have been a triumph in the caliber of Halloween if it had kept up the strangling, gut-wrenching suspense of the first half hour. Unfortunately, the middle segment (the longest part) does the film in and renders it utterly forgettable.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

a very good movie, but...

[7/10 · 29 June 2001]

a dumb ending nearly ruins what could have been an epic sci-fi masterpiece. I won't give anything away, but I will say that there is a point where the movie should end, but doesn't, and instead goes on for almost another (unnecessary) half hour. Despite this, the new Spielberg film is a story well told, sort of a futuristic (and demented) Pinochio. The first half of the movie may turn some viewers off because of its leisurely pacing, detailing the young android's integration into a family that has just suffered a tragedy with their son. The second half is clearly the movie's strong suit, what with its astounding visuals and special effects. The production design (which includes the burlesque neon nightmare Rouge City, and New York submerged) is incredible, maybe the most impressive since we witnessed smog infested L.A. in Blade Runner. The performances are memorable, also. Osment is great as the young child android who yearns to be real, and Jude Law is sensational as Joe, the "love mecha", but it's the little "supertoy" Teddy who steals the show.

Anyone thinking that this film is a schmaltzy Spielbergian kids flick is sadly mistaken. This film is definitely not for kids. It can be endearing at times, but also very creepy and possibly unnerving. Scenes in which androids are ripped apart for game are genuinely disturbing.

All in all, Spielberg has created a memorable flick, although not of the caliber of, say, Jaws. Anyone sick of the usual tiresome summer fare like Mummy Returns and Tomb Raider should see this. It offers something with actual imagination and substance, something lacking in many recent films.

The 6th Day (2000)

unfortunate mess

[4/10 · 18 June 2001]

The premise of this movie is good: What if you came home one day and found out that a carbon copy of yourself was invading your home and family. The general cloning premise of the film also leads to the opportunity for social comment, especially in the light of the recent sheep cloning and such. Unfortunately, this film soon gets caked down into a stupid illegal cloning plot and becomes just another paint-by-numbers action flick. Even at their worst, most Schwarzenegger films have something to offer in terms of memorable lines or action scenes (hell, even Last Action Hero had its moments). But this one just sits there. I usually love Arnold's action flicks, because the big guy has a monstrous and charming screen presence, but in this one he's just kind of dull. If you're looking for a better sci-fi Schwarzenegger film, see Predator, and skip The 6th Day.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Might have been good...

[2/10 · 16 June 2001]

if it weren't so damn boring. Here are a few questions that I must ask about this movie. These are questions about moments in the movie that left me perplexed, so if you can answer them, please do:

*spoiler alert* *spoilers* *lots and lots of spoilers*

1. Near the end, when the bad guy is lying on the ground, a knife in his shoulder, dangling Ms. Croft's beloved locket in front of him and taunting her, why doesn't she just shoot the guy in the head and take the locket, thus avoiding the inevitable and tiresome fight scene?

2. Who was the old guy who mumbled "please forgive me" while looking at a picture of Lara's father? Wait, better question: What was his motivation for screwing her over?

3. Was the fellow tomb raider a hero or a villain? In a classic case of poor character development, there is no way to tell if this man is good or bad. First, Lara writes "traitor" on his shower stall, then at the end he's a love interest. Somebody please explain this.

4. Why did this movie consist of dubious homages (or, more likely, rip-offs) of older, better films? I saw awful references to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "The Fugitive", and "The Matrix", just to name a few.

5. Why was it necessary to have Jon Voight in league with the Illuminatis (or whatever the hell they were called)? Couldn't he have just been their foe, a fellow tomb raider whom they all wanted killed? This would make it unnecessary for them to include a dumb betrayal twist.

6. Why does Lara Croft like to suspend herself from the ceiling of her mansion from wires just before she goes to bed? Doesn't her butler consider this a bit odd? There is no rational explanation for this ever in the movie, and the only reason I can think of is so there is an excuse for her to do some acrobatic stunts when the bad guys come flying through the windows.

and finally...

7. Why is this movie so BORING??? It's an action movie, for god's sake. It could have at least been done with some pizazz or a little more style. Jolie is perfectly cast and makes a good Lara Croft, but she has nothing to work with. It's just her saying something witty and then shooting some poor robot. Tomb Raider is not as bad as the loathsome "Mummy Returns", but it does make one wonder if Hollywood even tries anymore.

The Matrix (1999)

Incredibly overrated

[3/10 · 15 June 2001]

The directors of "The Matrix" mistake style for dark, depressing sets and gloomy-looking people uttering mumbo-jumbo about "The One". The film has an imaginative and wonderfully paranoid premise: What if the world we live in is not what we think it is, but an illusion created by malevolent beings. Unfortunately, we are subjected to stupid training segments for Reeves by the resistance (an ill-concieved concept all in its own), complete with an inane kickboxing sequence, in which the combatants fly through the air, impressing the half-wits in the audience, while we with IQ's over 50 just sit and yawn. The special effects are more laughable than spectacular. Seeing a bullet fly by some guy in slow motion is certainly not amazing. The movie could have been so much better if it had had a better script, and omitted every scene "outside reality" I guess. All in all, this is science fiction for cavemen.

Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

This movie is unbelievably bad

[1/10 · 15 June 2001]

Where to start? Geez! How about the fact that the shark is supposedly seeking revenge against the living family of the man (Roy Schieder) who killed it all those years ago? If you think this sounds implausible, you're in for one hell of a treat, because this sorry third sequel makes one yearn for the groundbreaking original (heck, I was scrambling for Jaws 2!). At one point in the movie the heroine is stricken with flashbacks to events that occurred in the original (curiously, she was not present for these events, and therefore could not be remembering them, but the filmmakers think we're stupid I guess.)When we see these flashbacks, we feel not nostalgia but pity, because the brilliant piece of work that was the original JAWS is being desecrated by even appearing in this vile excuse for a movie.

Blade Runner (1982)

My favorite movie of all time

[10/10 · 15 June 2001]

What I love about Blade Runner is that it takes its time telling the story. It doesn't rush around at a frenetic pace, with bad guys flying everywhere. It moves on its own time, and lets us take in the brutal experience of what it must be like to live in L.A. 2019. The opening shots are astounding, and every other shot showing the massive corporate towers belching flames and smog into the dark sky are equally impressive. Blade Runner is, quite simply, a triumph. The story takes a backseat to the visuals, but that is certainly not a fatal flaw. Blade Runner is a great example of original filmmaking, and anyone who appreciates something with style should see it.

The Mummy Returns (2001)

this movie is awful

[1/10 · 14 June 2001]

I went to see this movie expecting a fun, stupid, and entertaining time-waster that I could at least enjoy. But thirty minutes into it I realized that this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot was obvious, the special effects were terrible, and I was crying for this movie to come to an end. I just wish Hollywood would make some movies with a little imagination these days, for this one had NONE. At least the first one was entertaining.

The Hitcher (1986)

A haunting, almost surreal nightmare

[8/10 · 14 June 2001]

The movie used to be notorious for its scenes of violence, but these days the mayhem seems downright tame, especially compared to recent horror films. What makes "The Hitcher" work is not the gory violence but the haunting atmosphere of the film. Jim Halsey picks up a homicidal hithchiker and is soon sent spiraling deeper and deeper into a bizarre sadomasochistic battle with the killer. What we react to is not the violence but Halsey's reactions to Rutger Hauer's evil. The shots of the vast Texas desert give us the feeling that Jim is alone and vulnerable to this maniac. Mark Isham's brilliant score adds to the dream-like feel of the movie, and we become more and more convinced that this is truly a nightmare. "The Hitcher" is one of the best horror films I've ever seen, and is worth a look for anyone who loves a memorable flick.

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

wow

[1/10 · 14 June 2001]

This is one of those movies that is so incredibly bad that it's not even enjoyable as trash. This movie is really unpleasant, even to look at. Ugh. Without Joel and the robots this movie is unbearable, even with Torgo. Torgo, however, is great. The goofy looking innkeeper with the huge knees and the "haunting" theme music, how can you possibly dislike this guy. I just wish they had seen time to make a name for Torgmeister, and feed Mr. Warren some of his own fertilizer.