Gen S2rt Reviews

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Lives up to its title, depending on how long you spent in line.

[8/10 · 19 May 1999]

This film is probably the most anticipated one in a long time, because its production was inevitable ever since the original trilogy became so popular. Some people have been waiting for its release ever since Lucas announced the trilogy of prequels was underway. Unfortunately, this much time of anticipation means many people may have gotten their hopes raised a little too high. Don't get me wrong--this film definitely works as far as the "Star Wars" movies go, but just not quite as well as the earlier films did. I hesitate to say this is the "worst" film of them, because I did like it, and I liked all the others. It's just that each of the other three were better, though not by too much. Not having ever had to wait for the release of one of the original films, I don't know how different they would have seemed to me if I did. But this film did have its share of flaws.

There were moments in the film that seemed put there for no other purpose than to get applause from the audience, though it may have seemed that way partly because it did get applause. There didn't seem to really be a point to having a cameo appearance by Jabba the Hutt, for example. Also, apparently someone couldn't resist the temptation to make "I have a bad feeling about this" one of the first lines in the film. Perhaps that will get it out of their system for the remainder of the trilogy. Another thing is that in this film, some of the action sequences seemed a little too segregated from the rest of the movie, as if it were a video game. When some action sequences started, instead of just letting it happen, it practically spelled it out for you before starting, as if they didn't give the audience enough credit. At one point in the film, Anakin Skywalker is told to hide somewhere safe, so he chooses the cockpit of a fighter. As if that's not obvious enough, Obi-Wan tells him whatever he does, stay in that cockpit, and there is a brief pause so people can figure out where this is leading, as if we couldn't tell. But the lightsaber duel definitely lived up to those scenes in the first films, with the twist of having it be a three-way fight, between Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor), Darth Maul (Peter Serafinowicz), and Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson).

Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson both do excellent jobs in their roles. McGregor faces the challenge of living up to the standards Alec Guinness left him, but I've always thought he was a good actor, and he does the job well. Anakin Skywalker is played by Jake Lloyd, who's about a nine-year-old. I tried to suspend a little disbelief for his sake, since this is his first role in a movie, and nobody is expecting him to be the best actor in the film, but there were moments where it was just too distracting because he'd say something that sounded like no more than a line-reading, and he seemed to have no emotion behind what he was saying. Hopefully it won't be as big of a problem in the next film. Darth Maul, this film's equivalent of Darth Vader, manages to strike at least almost as much terror as Vader did. He doesn't have many lines in the film, but it is made up for in the fight scenes, when he shows off his speed.

The film draws many equivalents to "A New Hope", with George Lucas back in the director's chair. There is a similar ending sequence, with the heroes standing before everyone and a celebration taking place. The climax consists of a lightsaber duel, a space battle, and a ground battle, sort of like the climax of "Return of the Jedi". It was almost as good a final battle scene, but didn't last as long. It is one thing that may have been a little disappointing to the people who have been eagerly awaiting the film for so long, because some might have been expecting it to dwarf all the other films' climaxes, but was as good a battle as those in the other films. Despite the fact that this is the film to follow the largest gap between release dates of the "Star Wars" films, the first film shouldn't be expected to be the greatest of them all anyway, because it is largely exposition for those people seeing it before any of the other films, but it does a good enough job to be Episode 1 of a 6 part (maybe more) saga. Like "A New Hope" this starts out with a lot of exposition instead of just plunging into battle as in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi", but because this film is at least almost as good as "A New Hope", I have a feeling Episode 2 will be even better, as was "The Empire Strikes Back".

Idle Hands (1999)

One FUNNY horror knock-off

[16 May 1999]

This film is a slap in the face of the '80's generation of horror films, such as "Friday the 13th" and "Child's Play". "Evil Dead" came to mind a lot while watching this, what with the hand crawling all over the place. The only other movie I've seen trying to be funny and scary at the same time was "Scream", but those films went for the scares more with incidental laughs. In this one, the comedy was put up front and there are some pretty scary parts to it too, though scary in an '80's horror sort of way.

I'm getting to be a fan of Seth Green, who is always good in the roles he's given, kind of like Steve Buscemi. He plays one of two friends of main character Devon Sawa, whose hand becomes possessed and kills them, so they come back as zombies. They are both pretty laid back as far as zombies go and try to help their friend with his hand problem.

The death scenes were very gory, and I couldn't help but laugh in a sick sort of way when someone is pulled away and gallons of blood pour out of there. I was relieved when nobody in the theater noticed, but I'm just weird enough to laugh at that sort of thing. As a horror fan, I never pass up an opportunity to see a good death scene, but I think the guy getting hit by a big rig in "Bride of Chucky" still holds the gold medal for the close-up gruesomely detailed Faces of Death-esque death scene in a movie. And Drew Barrymore still wins for intense I-don't-want-to-die death chase scene in "Scream", but this movie is full of very worthy runner-ups for each category. If you've seen "Scream", you'll notice that all three rules are broken and punished (Don't have sex, don't do drugs, no "I'll be right back".) For anyone who saw any of the '80's horror films, whether or not they liked them, this is a film you need to give a chance, if you can stomach the gore. If you know someone who can't, watch it with them. Their reactions are priceless. This movie, perfectly achieving what it tried for, gets a 10 from me.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

If you can make it to the ending, this movie is worth it.

[21 March 1999]

An updated adaptation of "Dangerous Liaisons", this film seems to concentrate a lot of the first hour on shock value. As a result, people who are offended relatively easily might not even bear with the film all the way to the end. From the trailers (which really didn't make me want to see this movie) it seemed as if the entire movie is like this and has no real point to it. As it turns out, though, there is. The film starts as a somewhat dark and tacky comedy, although it is entertaining if you enjoy movies like that, which I do from time to time. At the point at which you might start getting bored of the same sort of material, the film changes to where you actually start caring what happens to the characters. The film is about two step-siblings (Ryan Phillippe and Sarah Michelle Gellar) who are basically rich brats with too much time on their hands and who use sex as a tool for revenge, to humiliate anyone who makes them mad (therapists, deans, ex-boyfriends, etc.) The main plot-point is a bet that Kathryn (Gellar) makes with Sebastian (Phillippe) that he can't get the dean's daughter Annette (Reese Witherspoon) to sleep with him before school starts. If Sebastian loses, Kathryn gets his car, and if he wins, she will let him sleep with her. This plot can understandably offend some people, but not everybody is easily offended. I am one who isn't easily offended, and I even liked the film a little more because the film-makers weren't afraid to include something in the movie just because it might shock people. I think non-conformity is a really big plus for a movie. For the first half of the movie, Annette is really the only likeable character. But then comes the big turnaround, which is that Sebastian actually falls in love with her, and Kathryn turns against him. At this point, the movie becomes actually interesting instead of just mildly amusing. Until then I was really getting annoyed because it seemed Annette was coming out on the bottom of the deal. It also seemed as if there wasn't an ounce of morality in the minds of the film-makers, but as the movie approached the end, it seemed to say, "See, we were actually going somewhere with this one." I'm not going to say anything about the ending, except that it really made the entire movie worth seeing, and that it was neither a big Hollywood grand happy ending nor a complete downer with everyone losing everything. There are some very good performances, such as those from Gellar and Phillippe who were good in "I Know What You Did Last Summer", and Reese Witherspoon, who really did well as a character I can sort of identify with. Now I'm going to have to see "Dangerous Liaisons". I guess I wouldn't recommend this film to people who get shocked a lot by "adult" (?) language and sex, but if you can handle it, (which it seems the majority of teenagers like myself can) then you might want to give this one a chance.

A Simple Plan (1998)

The most powerful film I've ever seen

[3 February 1999]

This film would stand out as a truly great film even if it weren't released during a period of films that have no thought or originality in them. This may be the last film to be released for quite a while that has any sort of message in it, what with all the remakes and sequels that are headed toward theaters. Very often a film has a message that is either too obvious or too subtle, but this is one very big exception. The plot alone was enough to make me want to see it, even if it meant going 35 miles to the nearest theater playing it, which it did. It starts out with three men in the woods (Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, Brent Briscoe) who find a crashed plane in the forest with millions of dollars inside, and they have to decide what to do. Their decision is to hide the money, and if nobody comes looking for it, they split it up and move away. However, they realize that their plan isn't quite as simple as they might like to believe, and they have to decide at what cost the money is worth being kept secret. The story doesn't get unnecessarily complex, but the fact that you wouldn't expect anything to go wrong if it happened gives it a real feeling of reality when things do happen that weren't expected. You eventually realize that when it involves something as drastic as this, there is no such thing as a simple plan, thank you Murphy's Law. With most of the decisions the men make, you can really get an idea of what they were thinking, and some people may be thinking that they might even have done it too. Then there are decisions that the men are faced with that really seem impossible, which is one thing that makes this movie so dramatic. Although I'm sure many people would watch this movie and think about how they might have handled the situation differently, watching the movie it seems as though just about everything these characters decided to go through with is the only answer. The only one they really seemed to have a choice with is whether or not to take the money, and without the benefit of hindsight, it would seem almost crazy not to, although they appeared to be struggling to rationalize the decision. Then, with the way everything turns out, although you would never expect things to go this far, you realize that 4.4 million dollars isn't enough for it to be worth taking. Jacob (Thornton) even says "I wish we'd never found that money." When you are talking about this much money, it would be hard to imagine something that would make you say this. There were some very good performances in the film, especially from Paxton and Thornton. Bill Paxton can have a big smile on his face and yet still very clearly show how nervous his character really is, even while trying to hide it. By the end of the film, the main characters are starting to feel really bad about what the money has been leading up to, and you find yourself feeling just as bad for them. When Jacob started telling his brother Hank (Paxton) about how guilty he feels, I felt sorrier for a fictional character than I ever thought was possible. The overall message the film is trying to make is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and boy does it get that message across! This is one movie that is very powerful and haunting, and is very hard to forget. The only other film I can recall seeing that comes close to being as strong with emotion as this one is "Ransom" (1996). I am just really disappointed with the fact that barely anyone seemed to notice this film when it was released, while movies like "I Still Know..." are just barely leaving the theaters, and being replaced with all these other films that are based around ideas that have been done before. Hopefully, it will be re-released with a lot more publicity. Although I have never really thought out my own personal top 10 favorite films list, I know that this one is very high on that list, possibly number one. I very highly recommend this one!

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

I Still Don't Know Why They Made This Movie

[1/10 · 17 January 1999]

"I Know What You Did Last Summer" (1997) was a really good horror film. It had a good plot, good death scenes, and a good ending, that did not need to be changed. This film was just plain awful. I can't even say this is a typical sequel, since typical sequels don't usually manage to be THIS much worse than the original, except in extreme cases, such as "Exorcist II: The Heretic" (1977). This film makes the same first mistake as "Exorcist II" which is getting a different director AND a different writer. "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" abandons the whole revenge (or any) motive from the first film and uses a good movie as an excuse to make an incredibly bad one. It would probably be considered mediocre by the "Friday the 13th" standards, which were incredibly low. The only imaginable reason a sequel might be considered unnecessary is because the first one ended with Julie James (Jennifer Love Hewitt) getting killed by the supposedly dead killer. I can even understand why people wouldn't want it to end that way, although I really thought that was a cool and original way to end a horror movie to let the main character die AND letting the villain carry on. The first thing "I Still Know" establishes is that that was just a dream, which means that a sequel is not necessary, and then, as if to say "but now that we've gotten you into the theater", the killings start again. In "I Know What You Did Last Summer" the killer killed with a purpose, usually because someone stood in the way of him getting revenge. Even Max's death had a purpose -- letting the characters know he was serious. In this movie, the title of which isn't worth re-typing over and over again, someone who the main characters met for about 20 seconds get killed just because there are only two people who he really has a reason to be after, and on a standard horror movie setting of a remote island, he has to go out of his way to kill as many people as possible, and it has to stretch into two hours, which is kind of like trying to stretch a single pepperoni over an extra large pizza. The thing that I thought was creepy from the first movie was that whenever the killer was near, you'd hear the sound made by the locket thing that David Egan was going to give his fiancee before she died in the car accident they were in, and the killer took it. David Egan is never even mentioned in this film. The acting was really weak as well. Even the few who were in the first movie seemed not to be trying very hard, perhaps because they realized early on that it wasn't really worth the effort. My only other possible explanation is that the filmmakers were trying to make a very bad movie, which only seems plausible to me because I saw this and know just how bad it was. It just seems kind of hard to find someone who can make a film so bad by accident. I suppose the standard plot twist toward the end of the movie, the one I saw coming 38 minutes into the movie (I checked my watch) was supposed to justify the fact that this film was made. It didn't come close, and perhaps it took me 38 minutes to figure it out (this includes promos) because I was half-asleep by this point. I really was, too. After this film was made, basically the only way you can enjoy the first one again is by forgetting this was ever made. This was not based on a novel the way the first one was, and really had nothing to do with the story. With lame dialogue, about 7 false alarms before the first real one (the noise that turns out to be the roommate, the scene that turns out to be a dream, etc.) and little happening that you can't predict an hour in advance, this must be one of the worst films ever made .

Scream 2 (1997)

A good sequel, but not to outshine the original (what sequel does?)

[9/10 · 17 January 1999]

"Scream 2" is pretty good when compared to the original, which many sequels aren't, but like the man says, sequels are by definition inferior films, so at least this one wasn't THAT inferior. In this film, a series of copycat murders are happening around Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and the new killer starts coming after her and the other Woodsboro survivors. One thing I missed while watching this was the occasional laugh from the first one. This one had a couple of good lines, but "Scream" was definitely funnier, making fun of its own kind of movie. The funniest part in either film still remains as the moment in "Scream" when the killer is coming up behind Randy (JAMIE Kennedy) as he watches "Halloween" and says "Jamie, look behind you!" (referring to Jamie Lee Curtis). The acting in this film is not quite as good as it was in the original, but wasn't bad. Dewey (David Arquette) had a couple of moments of overdoing it, but not too many. The main problem with the film was the 'who's the killer' mystery. There are more suspects to deal with, and the filmmakers seemed worried that if the killer's character is developed too much before revealing that they are the killer, then people will figure it out prematurely. As a result, when the killer is revealed, perhaps you didn't see it coming, but you aren't really shocked that this person could be a killer because you don't really know much of anything about them. One thing you start to learn during the movie is that just because someone was involved in the first ordeal, it doesn't mean that they aren't a possible suspect now, nor does it necessarily mean they aren't a potential victim. Depending on how suspicious you are of people, there are countless numbers of suspects in the film, and to a really on-guard person, just about anyone in the movie is a suspect, which makes it really hard to identify the killer. There was one thing I didn't like about the movie, and one character was murdered who I still think should have survived. I really can't see from here how they are planning to make "Scream 3" after this film seemed to burn the bridge to another sequel. It isn't necessary, seeing as how the same characters (mainly Sidney) have gone through the same type of ordeal twice, which is just on the edge of plausibility. Maybe it's just so they can call it a "trilogy", but it really wouldn't be, because there really is a difference between a trilogy and a film with two sequels. In general, one sequel is enough and maybe pushing it, and a second sequel is almost always too far. "Scream 2" is still scary, and may even be as scary as the first, although the opening scene of "Scream" is still the scariest of it all. This sequel doesn't make the same mistake many sequels to good films make, which is abandoning suspense altogether when it is too busy going all out with what it may have held back on in the first film, which in this case would have been as much gruesome death as possible. While it does have this extra gore (obviously it's going to -- this is a horror movie, after all) it still manages to have the same suspense that made the first one terrifying. If you loved the first film, you'll probably like this one too. This is still a good movie, but the first one, as always, was the best.

Varsity Blues (1999)

A fun movie, with a little of everything.

[9/10 · 16 January 1999]

"Varsity Blues" is the type of movie you don't see very often, which is to say it isn't limited to just one genre, but an even balance of comedy and drama. It is the story of a football team, and the players start realizing that most of the people who are near to them only care about them playing football and winning football. The star quarterback is the first to see this when his girlfriend leaves him when he gets injured enough to have to quit. The new quarterback John Moxon (James Van Der Beek) also realizes that even his own parents care more about him winning and being the best player on the team than they care about him as their son. Jon Voight slithers on the screen as (SURPRISE!) the film's 'bad guy', the team's coach, who wants nothing but to win, and to win his way. Voight was a good choice for the role, because he's already gotten to where you despise him as soon as he's on the screen, which is basically the impression you get with his character, coach Kilmer. Although Kilmer has been coaching for years, this is the first team with someone who cares enough to actually stand up to him. This type of movie has been done before, but this still does a good job with this type of story. It has the typical girl-kisses-someone-else's-boyfriend-who-suddenly-realizes-his- girlfriend-is-watching scene which has been done so many times in cheezy sit-coms and dramas, but at least it doesn't follow up with a studio audience ooo-ing at it. It leads up to the final confrontation between the team and the coach, where we see how much guts the players have between them to stand up to someone like this, and how far they are willing to go. This film is lots of fun, with some laughs saved up for the right places, instead of just a bunch of random cheap laughs you find splattered everywhere in "The Waterboy" (1998), which was only enjoyable if you really wanted to like it to begin with. "Varsity Blues" is definitely a feel-good movie, although you probably shouldn't take the kids.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

...and the trilogy is finished with yet another great film.

[10/10 · 12 January 1999]

After "Star Wars: A New Hope" redefined science fiction, and "The Empire Strikes Back" redefined "Star Wars", it's hard to believe that the third and final film of this trilogy can manage to be as good as the other two, but this one really does a nice job. The first part of the film resolves the cliffhanger left by the previous one, with an elaborate escape plan that is in keeping with the incredible suspense and action of the first two films. Then the film moves back to the rebel alliance and what's going on in the war. There is a lot of action in the scenes building up to the rebellion's final confrontation with the Emperor. When the battle begins, the audience is already on the edge of their seats from everything leading up to it, and this final battle is even more intense than those from the other films. This climax is definitely more dense with action than any other part of the trilogy, with the most at stake for the rebellion. This is continually changing between a ground battle between the rebel strike crew on land (including Han Solo, Chewbacca, and Leia), the battle raging on in space (including Lando), and a confrontation between Luke and the Emperor on the new Death Star, which leads up to another duel with Darth Vader. It is really intense since the rebels constantly seem to be losing the battle that will determine the outcome of the war, and there seems to be no escape. Although I think the idea of Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers is a bit far-fetched, it didn't seem very unrealistic since they were more of a distraction that the rebels could use, rather than an actual threat to the stormtroopers, although they did have some luck fighting them. There is also a twist or two at the end that nobody saw coming, which may not be quite as stunning as that of "The Empire Strikes Back", but still complete a very spectacular trilogy very well. With the light tone of "A New Hope" and the more sinnister tone of "The Empire Strikes Back", this film really completes them by combining the two in this grand finale. The Special Edition for "Return of the Jedi" concentrated on what would have been nice to change, since not much of the original really needed it. Fifteen years of technology advancements didn't seem to make up for fifteen years of deterioration as far as the rancor scene is concerned, and there still is the occasional disappearing TIE fighter, but other than that it was good. The gaping non-threatening Sarlaac's mouth was given moving tentacles and a huge fly-trap looking head that emerged, which definitely added to the suspense. Also, the disco was taken out of Jabba's palace, and the lame ending of the original was replaced by a huge victory celebration spanning the entire galaxy, instead of just a small Ewok village, which was the case of the original and that didn't really end a story this big the way it deserved. It's hard to say which of the three films was the best, but since it's all part of the same story, the over-all trilogy is like one big, outstanding film. A THIRD must-see for film fans.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

This film is no less spectacular than "A New Hope"

[10/10 · 12 January 1999]

Of all the movies that have had follow-ups to the original, many just had sequels made only because the first was successful enough for it. First thing to know: "The Empire Strikes Back" is NOT a sequel. A standard "sequel" is simply the same or similar characters from one movie put in the same or similar situation to the one of the original movie, which is complete without any sequel (Jurassic Park, Speed). "The Empire Strikes Back" was pre-planned, and while "Star Wars" did seem like a complete story by itself, that was a result of creator George Lucas' uncertainty of whether or not they'd be given the opportunity to complete his saga of stories. "The Empire Strikes Back" did an excellent job as the film following "Star Wars: A New Hope", because it strived toward the same excellence the first one achieved, while the mood of this chapter contrasted that of the first entirely. The first one definitely had a lighter sort of mood to it, as far as the action among the rebels. This film concentrates more on the war itself, and how tough it is on the rebellion. It also has more establishment of the imperials and their ruthlessness, which definitely adds a darker tone to it. Score composer John Williams helps give this feeling to the film, with the now famous Imperial March that is so closely associated with villain Darth Vader (James Earl Jones). For a mood this dark, there sure is a lot of really nice scenery in the film, from the glaciers of the planet Hoth to the spanning cloudscape of Bespin. The special effects remain as amazing as those in "A New Hope", and have been re-done with a "Special Edition" as well as the first one, although not as much has changed in this film. The acting is also just as good as it was in the first one, with the addition of Yoda (Frank Oz) and Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams). The emotion of this film definitely surpasses those in "A New Hope", with the characters' personalities and relationships explored more deeply, such as between Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), and even Luke (Mark Hamill) and Darth Vader, who for the first time have an actual face-to-face confrontation with each other in the unforgettable lightsaber duel. This film is even more suspenseful and action-packed, with an incredible climax and other very high points as well. Of all the intense and breathtaking aspects of this film, the one that everyone has remembered since, and will be remembered for as long as "Star Wars" itself, is the revelation by Vader to Luke, which most people already know by now. If you are one of the very few who don't, don't do anything until you see this film (and the first one, too) and find out from the movie, not from some loud-mouthed friend, the way many of us did. As hard as it would be to make a film as great as "A New Hope" after it changed the standards of filmmaking forever, this film definitely meets and surpasses the first one. It will also leave you hanging for the trilogy's final film, "Return of the Jedi" (1983), which also does not disappoint in any way. A SECOND must-see for science fiction fans, or movie fans in general.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

The movie that changed the standards of film-making forever.

[10/10 · 7 January 1999]

Before the mid 1970's, special visual effects weren't really made to look as real as life, because it was just commonly accepted that it was not possible, so what are you going to do. In 1975, "Jaws" was a film with better special effects overall than anyone had seen before, and when "Star Wars" was released two years later, it took these latest advancements of special effects into space, where it would change the way people looked at special effects. Obviously it wasn't exactly as real as it would look if it were actually happening, and it may have had some noticeable flaws, but it did take the first step towards the realistic special effects we see today. If not for "Star Wars", people would have continued using the special effects that were just enough to give you the gist of what was supposedly happening. Because of the fact that these effects, though cutting-edge at the time, would be dated now, the "Special Edition" was released in 1997 in order to maintain its impressiveness, with updated special effects that are as impressive by today's standards as the originals were in 1977. Although some people thought the story itself was pretty corny, I think it appealed to people with open minds. After all, that has always been the basic purpose of science fiction. The "force" is the reason for the most part that some people feel this way, but I don't think it is as "out there" as some people do. One thing the force can supposedly be made to do is telekinesis, which has obviously been thought of before because there's a word for it. Not that anyone really takes the force seriously in real life, but I doubt anyone can go out and prove conclusively that it doesn't exist in any form, so it doesn't suspend THAT much disbelief. There is some really good acting in the film, such as Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Ben Kenobi (Alec Guinness), and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), but I believe the most notable performance is Darth Vader (James Earl Jones). Vader is one of not very many movie villains that has been remembered for so long, and he is one that can really scare an audience with his presence. John Williams' music for him does a good job of representing how ruthless he is, although the famous "Imperial March" wasn't introduced until "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980). "Star Wars", although it was the first to be released in the series, is actually part four of a six chapter saga. The reason this was the first film to be released is because it is really the only one that starts out in such a way that you can get away with not already knowing the story so far, and also has a happy ending with relatively few loose ends. It was because writer/director George Lucas was not sure how well it would do in the box-office or if he'd be allowed by 20th Century Fox to complete the trilogy since it was new ground for filmmaking that he made this decision. He did, however, leave enough loose ends that could be expanded into the rest of his already conceived saga just in case the film was as successful as his friend Steven Spielberg was confident it would be. As it turned out, despite the setback of having a pretty small budget, it was more successful than Lucas imagined. I don't understand the fact that so many people are obsessed with every little detail of "Star Wars" and know every little trivial fact about these films, nor do I with all the "Star Trek" fans, but I did think the movie was great, as well as the movies that followed it. It's too bad that a science fiction movie this spectacular will never win an academy award (or be nominated, for that matter) for "best picture", but it seems no science fiction or horror film ever will just because too many people consider such films automatically unworthy just because of its genre (especially horror), but if ever a science fiction film deserved one, it would be "Star Wars: A New Hope". If you're someone who doesn't like science fiction, then this film might not make much of an impression on you but if you are one of the few sci-fi fans who hasn't seen this film, then although you may have missed it in the theater where it was much more amazing than it could be on video, you'd better see this film, then the others if you want to know what science fiction has been all about all these years.

The Faculty (1998)

A good science fiction film for a change.

[29 December 1998]

This film is one of the science fiction films that have been coming out during the sci-fi hype that would be expected in the last year before the first of the new "Star Wars" films is to be released ("Episode one: The Phantom Menace" (May, 1999)). Others in the last year or so have included "Starship Troopers" and "Godzilla", neither of which seemed to set very high standards for themselves. This is the first one I've seen of these films that seemed to actually be going for something that might be remembered, instead of just a monster/alien film that people would see just to hold them over until May. Now, writer Kevin Williamson ("Scream", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") is fast becoming a current favorite of mine as far as movies targeted towards people such as myself (teenage, suspense fan.) He recognizes the things that would make the type of film he's doing a bad one, then finds ways around all of them. In "The Faculty" a small band of teenagers begin to suspect something I'm sure many people (myself included) have during high school: the teachers are alien beings. It sounds sort of lame when the plot is actually put into words, but the film manages to avoid that feeling for the most part. It includes brief references to many science fiction stories, such as "The Puppet Masters" and "Independence Day". This is a technique, also used in "Scream" of getting around the possibility of some people accusing it of not being original. In addition to making it different enough to be considered original enough by some people, the similarities to other stories are pointed out in the film so it doesn't seem to any people as if they are being deliberately hidden. The film avoids the predictable idea of having the hero figure it all out before seeing enough to really suspect anything really "out there". You do, of course, see what's happening basically from the beginning of the events on Earth, so even if you haven't seen the promos, you still know basically what's going on. If the film were done the way many lame alien films were, someone would see something strange for the first time, and immediately single out the idea of aliens as the only actual explanation, and be really surprised when nobody believed them. Something like this happens, but it isn't really extreme and is not noticeable enough to detract from the story. The film also avoids the standard scene where the first one to know what happens tells someone else, and based on just that, they BELIEVE him. Nobody in the film believes what's happening until they see it for themselves, and it takes really conclusive proof to convince them that this stuff is actually happening. As has been the case with most sci-fi films about an infestation of some kind, the entire problem, it is discovered, can be solved with one single, though very difficult step. This is the one thing about the film that I did not find very believable. Not only would this be highly unlikely in real life, but this fact is not really discovered so much as it is just guessed by someone who believes it's true because it's always the case in science fiction books. At the end, of course, it turns out to work, but I guess the alternative would be for the characters to try to kill everyone in the faculty, which would be impossible before it spreads further (although it might go over really well among the high school audience). Oh well, this minor flaw doesn't make too much of a big deal overall in the movie. It was definitely worth seeing, although I wonder if it will be remembered very much since it is in the shadow of the "Star Wars" prequels. I hope it is remembered, because this film definitely has something to offer for anyone who would be interested enough to see it in the first place. It even had some surprises that caught me off guard, and I am usually on the lookout for such surprises while watching a film like this one. I was also pleased to see that they didn't do what so many people are doing nowadays, which is to tack on something at the end which made it clear that the doorway was open for a possible sequel. This film being the first good science fiction film I've seen since "Independence Day", (I liked "Contact", but didn't think it was really GOOD) is a much welcomed change of pace, and I hope to see more films as carefully planned as this one, and no more of the quickly made, good-special-effects-and-that's-it films. Science fiction fans, see this one!

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

This movie deserves a second opinion.

[10/10 · 28 December 1998]

I am one of the only people I know of who liked this movie. I think many of the people who didn't like it were comparing it to "Scream" too much. This movie was NOT "Scream", and it wasn't trying to be, either. It just came out around the same time, and had Kevin Williamson, the writer of "Scream", writing it as well. It may not be as scary as "Scream", I'll give you that, but it was definitely creepier. The main cast, specifically Jennifer Love Hewitt, did manage to be convincing as people who were being watched by a crazed maniac. It also wasn't as predictable as many seem to think. Again, this is something commonly said mainly because people were expecting it to be more like "Scream". By the way, I've seen previews for "I Still Know", and I don't think a sequel is very necessary, and I can't imagine it being nearly as good as I thought the first one was. Although I did consider "Scream" a better movie, I felt this one really rivaled it, and I personally enjoyed this one more.

Scream (1996)

"Scream" defines horror films of its generation

[10/10 · 28 December 1998]

"Scream" is a film that did for horror films what "Star Wars" did for science fiction: it re-awakened the horror genre. In the 1970's, when horror films stopped being made well, people stopped taking horror films seriously for the most part. Predictable slasher films generated fairly strong followings, such as the "Friday the 13th" and "Halloween" films. When that general string of films died out in the late 80's, these films were still watched, mostly when people wanted a good laugh, the way people watch "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (Most commonly believed to be the worst movie ever made.) Now, in the late '90's, with the advantages of modern special effects and blood that doesn't have the texture of Kool-Aid, horror movies are being taken seriously, and are being well-made instead of just pumped out every five minutes, and "Scream" is the one movie that started this up. Writer Kevin Williamson and director Wes Craven do brilliant jobs of making the film interesting, even BETWEEN death scenes, a concept that completely escaped the makers of the '70's and '80's slasher flicks, which went no further than scenes of sexuality in those cases. One element that made "Scream" so brilliant was the strategy the filmmakers used to get around the standard-cliched-situation problem. Instead of trying to disguise the fact that a certain scene had been done numerous times before in countless horror movies and was predictable for anyone who has seen any of them, they took another approach. They explained these cliches used in older horror movies before or while they were supposedly happening, making the scene funny when you hear about how lame they are, and scary when you realize they are actually happening to the characters. Although the movie was good all the way through, the best part of the movie is the opening scene, especially the first time watching it. This is because it starts out with a seemingly harmless phone call from a seemingly harmless person which lasts long enough for you to get the feeling of tranquility, until the voice on the other line says something you didn't expect, and catches you, as well as the person he's talking to, completely off guard, and the only reason you don't wonder if you heard correctly is the fact that you know you're watching a horror movie. Although that line was in the trailer I had seen many times before seeing this film, I still got the chills when it came. The "slasher flick" idea is also combined with the idea of standard mystery movies, which is that everybody's a suspect. This really goes well with the slasher idea, and I believe this is the first ever film that has these two ideas paired together. Other films, of course, followed using this same idea, such as "Urban Legend" (1998), but just know that "Scream" was the first. There is also very good acting in the film, and the main characters all have very distinct personalities which are portrayed very nicely by the individual actors. My personal favorite is teenage film expert Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), probably because he was so much like me it's freaky. Neve Campbell does an excellent performance in the leading role of Sydney Prescott, the primary target of the killer. Other very notable performances include over-the-top Stuart Macher (Matthew Lillard), dweeby Deputy "Dewey" Riley (David Arquette), obnoxious reporter Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), and token main suspect Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich). No matter what you think will happen next and who you think will eventually turn out to be the killer, there is always one more surprise waiting, and a definitely unpredictable ending. Scream makes a great film to watch alone in the dark, or in the broad daylight if you are the kind who just can't handle it. A must-see for horror fans.

Psycho (1998)

Want a good horror movie? Watch "Psycho" (1960, Alfred Hitchcock)

[1/10 · 26 December 1998]

Skip this review if you haven't seen the original "Psycho".

From the time I first heard about this film, I recognized the fact that a remake was unnecessary. If the original was good enough to go back to the big screen, why not just re-release it? I had heard that it was shot-by-shot, word for word, a replica of the 1960 film. It does resemble the original more than most remakes do, but the differences, though few, make a tremendous difference, and were, for the most part, disadvantages to the film. There was, of course, the occasional omission/addition of a line that helped a little, but by no means did that compensate for the changes for the worse. The acting fluctuated from better to worse than the original; some lines were delivered more convincingly, and others less convincingly. The one line that was in my opinion the most important one the filmmakers should have concentrated on was Perkins'/Vaughn's line "We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?" The line lost all of the creepiness it had in the original. The biggest difference overall in the movie was the scene where Norman Bates (Vince Vaughn) is looking through the hole at Marion Crane (Anne Heche) in the bathroom. As it is explained at the end of the movie, Norman Bates is never completely himself, but what they did with this scene ignores that fact completely. In the original film, the person watching Marion is not psychologically Norman at all, but either the filmmakers missed the point of that scene or I did, not to mention the lack of necessity for the change. While director Gus Van Sant completely neglected the need to keep some details the same, he paid close attention to others, such as an Alfred Hitchcock look-alike in the background the same place he was in the original (scene 2, first shot, cowboy hat), the intentionally outdated special effect when Detective Arbogast (William H. Macy) falls down the stairs, etc. Basically, they neglected keeping the important details constant due to watching the minor ones too closely. Another example clashed with the date on which it took place, in December (since that's when it was released), because for a December in Arizona, Mr. Lowry (Rance Howard) sure did complain about the intense heat a lot. A nice touch in Hitchcock's version was that Marion Crane's underwear was white (white traditionally representing good, angelic) until she stole the money, in which case it was black, (traditionally meaning evil, sinister) which was a neat little symbol Alfred Hitchcock used. In Van Sant's version it goes from orange to green, a deep symbol for Marion Crane having weird taste in clothes. The biggest detail that they kept constant for the remake was including Bernard Hermann's classic soundtrack (how can the shower scene exist without the famous string section) which was helped along seamlessly and in keeping with the "strings only" rule by 25% of Oingo Boingo (Danny Elfman and Steve Bartek; Batman, Men In Black). The pseudo-nudity in the original became brief moments of actual nudity, which can truly be called unnecessary since it was successfully avoided in the original. The death scenes were intercut with different footage, which detracted from them rather than improving them. In the shower scene, it was footage of the rapidly moving clouds. In the stairway scene it was footage of a naked woman and a sheep. To clarify that footage as much as possible, that was what was on a television in the background, but there was no readily apparent point to having them there. Character development was also different, though not really a plus or minus for the movie. Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen) came off as being much more of a sleeze, for example. Julianne Moore does a good performance, as do Vaughn, Macy, and Heche, especially considering the fact that they were faced with having to live up to an existing standard set by the original. It was mainly the film itself that was the problem. As was the case with "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer", this movie did the original no justice. However, at least "Psycho" was a remake that can easily be forgotten and doesn't give the permanent scars a bad sequel inflicts on a good original film. If you want to experience "Psycho" again, make it the original.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

Deserves much more credit than it got

[10/10 · 23 December 1998]

The reason many people didn't like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" was because it came out not long after "Scream" (1996). Some people saw it expecting something much more similar to "Scream" than this was. Other people felt that this was just a knock-off of "Scream", trying to cash in on it. I will admit that it is possible that this is true to an extent, but it was written by Kevin Williamson (the same person who wrote "Scream".) Besides, most people didn't accuse "Scream 2" (1997) of doing that, and that was a standard sequel (Not continuing the story, just repeating it.) I thought "I Know What You Did Last Summer" was made well enough to rival "Scream". It had an elaborate back-story which I found very interesting. The group of kids who had to deal with being responsible for someone's death added realistic emotion to the movie. And for those slasher/horror fans, who are by now getting bored with this review, the blood in this movie was not the most abundant I've seen, but more realistic than anything else. If you've already seen it, remember when it is sprayed across the glass? I've never seen any moment in any movie where the blood was so realistic. The acting was also very good, in my opinion. Jennifer Love Hewitt did a convincing performance as someone who had been through all she had. One thing I don't get is how many people thought it was very predictable. They apparently weren't paying attention to the plot twist toward the end of the movie. Although the ending of the movie was not in the book, and although it was probably included for the sequel opportunity only, the way it ended was perfect for a horror movie. Not to give anything away, but that's a type of ending you won't find in too many other movies. That was perfect, and should have been left just the way it was. However, it was ruined by the fact that a sequel was made. Of all the horror movies that were made starting with "Scream", this was the one I liked the most, and its sequel was the one I liked the least, by far. In fact, "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" (1998) was so bad that not only was it a bad movie, but it was so bad that it completely ruined the first movie. Don't see that one, or even recognize its existence. If you want further details, I reviewed it. As for "I Know What You Did Last Summer", it gets a perfect 10. And just to avoid any confusion, I really liked both "Scream" and "Scream 2".

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

This movie deserves a second opinion.

[10/10 · 8 November 1998]

I am one of the only people I know of who liked this movie. I think many of the people who didn't like it were comparing it to "Scream" too much. This movie was NOT "Scream", and it wasn't trying to be, either. It just came out around the same time. It was not as scary as "Scream", I'll give you that, but it was creepier. The main cast, specifically Jennifer Love Hewitt, did manage to be convincing as people who were being watched by a crazed maniac. It also wasn't as predictable as many seem to think. Again, this is something commonly said mainly because people were expecting it to be more like "Scream". By the way, I've seen previews for "I Still Know", and I don't think a sequel is very necessary, and I can't imagine it being nearly as good as I thought the first one was. Although I did consider "Scream" a better movie, I personally enjoyed this one more.