Reviews
Dinosaur (2000)
Unimpressive.
The worst and weakest of all films, "Dinosaur" isn't just profoundly bad, it's also stupid and incompetent. On the dramatic level, all Disney movies are held to generously lower standards and praised as masterpieces. Why, I can't imagine. It's just Disney, says everyone. You shouldn't expect a great script, the movie will be great anyway!
Material tailored to children will naturally have a vast adult audience--parents unfortunate enough to have kids who beg them to take the family out to see movies like these--so why not make something that adults can appreciate? That aside, I insist that the enormity of an unredeemably bad screenplay (Disney seems to have a patent on these) should not be dismissed simply because the movie is for children.
I say all this because "Dinosaur" is a horrible moviegoing experience in so many ways that it is probably considered torture in some parts of the world. For the life of me, I cannot see why everyone was so impressed by the visuals. The opening sequence, called "breathtaking" by many, is a ludicrous rehash of the far better opening of "Forrest Gump." The graphics are unrealistic, the characters' faces way beyond cartoony with hideous human tics and gestures. Why was everyone so convinced and drawn in by the artistry of the film that they were snapped out of a stupor when the animals started to speak? I just don't get it.
Perhaps the disappointment of hearing the dinosaurs and the lemurs talk stemmed from the fact that the dialogue with which "Dinosaur" tortures us for eighty minutes is so bad, it makes the "Godzilla" screenplay look like that of "L.A. Confidential." Yeah, I said it! And I meant it.
To begin, I was never impressed or convinced by the visuals. The blending of ridiculous, excessively cartoony computer models with live-action scenery was anything but seamless. But in comparison with the dialogue, the sights were near masterful. The plot is unoriginal. In fact, it's plain done to death. Disney fanatics, of course, package this phenomenon of recycled garbage as "tried and true" or "a new twist on a classic theme." Fair enough, except it's an old twist on a classic theme. Several classic themes, actually. The movie raises several ideas and just throws them in briefly, giving each the spotlight for a few minutes without dealing with a single one, then retreating back to the search for that darned mysterious valley. Issues are raised not to be resolved, but to interrupt the progress of the plot (possibly to eat up time, because the movie would otherwise have seemed too short, even though it feels too long).
There's that theme of the rivals, the new kid on the block versus the hard-hearted, iron-fisted leader of the pack. Then there's the romance issue, which never goes anywhere (hey, they're dinosaurs, not humans!). And the individualistic ideals raised by our hero as a humanistic thorn in the side of fearless leader's Darwinian methods. That's always good for a laugh. Not here, though. "Dinosaur" is the worst kind of bad movie. Not like "Mortal Kombat Annihilation," where it's so ridiculous that it's entertaining, literally laughable. This, I couldn't laugh at. It was just too painful.
And of course, in grand tradition, the carnivores are demonized and denied speech, which all herbivores are granted. It's the way Hollywood always cements the message that all meat-eaters are monsters from the depths of you-know-where. Nothing like a subtle touch. Interesting, though, that here the predators (carnotaurs, a real but little-known dinosaur) deliver in their roars a kind of dialogue more worth hearing than that of the veggiesaurs. I tell you, the script is BAD! And it really kills the whole movie, for those of us who didn't already find the look of the movie unappealing.
No children's movie is complete without the obligatory scene where the hero defeats the villain in a thoroughly implausible action sequence. Convenient that a solid rock footing would crumble to dust just when the bad guy steps on it, no? This movie takes what was passable in "The Land Before Time" (better by far) and makes it uniformly bad, copying everything and filtering out whatever had any charm, imagination, or credibility. With a never-ending parade of STUPID one-liners, "Dinosaur" is so bad that it almost seems like the product of a collaborative decision to make it stink.
For me, a movie is only as good as its script. Complaints of implausibility (a big problem here) die out where the drama is appealing or the action entertaining, two ideal strokes of luck facilitated in the first place by the words on the paper. No such luck with "Dinosaur," a movie whose unjustifiably good B.O. performance seems to have legitimized the studios' free-spending habits. So much for imagination. I don't care what else comes out this year; "Dinosaur" IS the Worst Picture of 2000. And so far, in my opinion, it's the Worst Picture Ever.
Two If by Sea (1996)
Simply historic
This film is the rightful butt of every bad-movie joke ever told. One of the worst and weakest of all films, it fails in ways beyond comprehension. Few movies have been any less funny or less emotionally involving for an unfortunate audience. At least with, say, Showgirls or Wild Wild West, you have something so bad it's funny. Two If By Sea does not have so lucky an audience. It's the worst kind of bad film, one that doesn't even have the decency to be humorously bad, so profoundly bad you can laugh at it. It is far, far worse. This movie makes Mortal Kombat Annihilation look like L.A. Confidential. I'm certain that watching Two If By Sea is considered torture in some parts of the world.
The Cider House Rules (1999)
What a piece of
Miramax is doubtless the most unscrupulous film--I mean, movie--distributor in the business. It puts a mediocre movie out, and come Oscar time, pours tons into a marketing campaign that gives them so much undeserved attention that those "masterpieces" walk away with scores of awards. Don't believe me? Last year they won TEN Oscars, and bought every single one of them. Life Is Beautiful was a fantasy, a remarkably offensive and ludicrously overrated Holocaust comedy (Roberto Benigni can't act his way out of a paper bag and we gave him Best Actor--no longer can anyone say this country is racist), and Shakespeare In Love didn't deserve Best Picture over Godzilla, let alone Saving Private Ryan.
Why do I bring this up? Because Miramax is threatening to do the same with this *deliberately* directionless, fragmented, zero-plot piece of oversentimental, underwritten and overdirected garbage. Movies like the remarkable L.A. Confidential, which create fascinating, diverse plot elements and actually manage to bring them together to add up to something, deserve Oscars. But the makers of this movie have the audacity to create a movie they know is episodic without even trying to bind the episodes together. It just introduces an event, deals with it a while, lingers to let the emotions of a stupidly captivated audience sink in, then moves on to another without bothering to connect them. It doesn't even bother to go anywhere significant with any event. Maybe real life is like that sometimes, but we don't go to the movies to see ourselves, to see the ordinary. We don't have to pay for it.
I'm pro-choice and I hated this movie! If The Cider House Rules wins even ONE award (and it looks like that's going to be Best Supporting Actor for Michael Caine, who worked with a dialogue coach for two weeks and STILL couldn't even keep his accent consistent), we'll know it was bought, not won. Miramax's success at the 1998 Oscars showed the world that there is no such thing as a sure thing--or a fair thing, for that matter--in an Oscar race. Who knows how many surprises it has left? One thing that didn't come as a surprise: They released a movie this idiotic and insidious and got seven Oscar nominations. Life is peachy.
Platoon (1986)
Did I miss something here?
It's ridiculous to compare Platoon to Saving Private Ryan, and idiotic to say that the former is better than the latter. Nevertheless, I will compare the two, if only to counter some of the more ridiculous user comments written on this site.
Ryan has a far better-written script than Platoon. Its storyline isn't all over the place (Platoon seems to take its group of soldiers and put them into every single situation faced by Americans in the Vietnam war, which is okay in concept, but not done too well here). Ryan's has a path and moves smoothly and interestingly from one event to the next.
Next: The combat sequences. I consider myself open-minded, but I have to seriously doubt the intelligence of ANYONE who says that in this category, Platoon is better. It cannot possibly be--Platoon is simply too low-budget. The visual effects are unconvincing (don't tell me those explosions look real) and the sound (which won an Oscar!) ranges from tinny to annoying.
And what's up with the tiny platoon? When we get to a lot of the combat sequences, there are hardly any soldiers. It's like there's Barnes and a handful of American privates. For that matter, the problem of not enough soldiers (was this supposed to be a WAR, or what?) exists on BOTH sides. Ryan outmatches Platoon not only in terms of intensity but in terms of scope as well, showing fights between large groups of soldiers, which made it look... REAL. Platoon makes a false promise to put you in the war. I've seen street gangs with more members.
And to anyone who says, "Oliver Stone was there. He fought in Vietnam. He knows what he's showing," just please stop. STOP. All you know is hearsay. Just because someone served in the war doesn't mean they saw everything that happened in the war, now does it? I guess Oliver didn't know that the Vietnamese frequently strapped time bombs to their own children during this war, then sent them out to American soldiers, who were promptly blown up because they couldn't shoot a child.
Where am I going with this? Well, a lot of the things that happen in this movie make no sense, and a lot of people will think they know something and say Stone must be right--after all, he went through it. No one platoon could have seen all the events (combat and otherwise) that this one does. It was like Stone was putting the platoon through the whole war in a week. Stone didn't see everything that they did. Not by half. The result is that Stone is directing what he DOESN'T know, what he DIDN'T see, which is, in part, why a lot of the movie doesn't make sense. An objective viewer will look at this movie and see a whole bunch of parts that are just plain stupid. (And the cinematography's not that great, either)
In addition, I'm really put off by the fact that this movie makes monsters out of the Americans and heroes and martyrs out of the Vietnamese, showing only the atrocities committed on our part and none of theirs. Didn't we enter the war because the people portrayed as innocent townspeople (and badly camouflaged soldiers) invade South Vietnam to put the populace under dictatorial communist control? We came there to save them and WE'RE the bad guys? If Stone were making a truly objective film, he'd show what crimes the Viet Minh and Viet Cong committed against us. This movie isn't anti-war, it's anti-American.
On a positive note, the acting is great, the good cast masking the inadequacies of a thinly written script that brings forth every possible kind of conflict with the flimsiest of segues between them. And the music is truly beautiful, unlike the overall film. I do not lambaste it because it's disturbing (my favorite movies include Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan), but because it's unconvincing. Best Picture? I wouldn't give this Best Picture over anything short of the 1998 American Godzilla movie.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
A masterpiece
Following the example of JAWS and L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, Steven Spielberg's cinematic masterpiece falls victim to the idiocy of the Academy Awards. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is arguably the best picture of the year and one of the best of all time. The performances are perfect throughout, and the characters are very well-written. This is doubtlessly the most historically accurate movie I've ever seen. Even the dialogue is perfectly written, with surprisingly close attention paid to the accuracy of even the mildest, most casual and briefly-dealt-with topics of conversation. The battle scenes are excellent, and the carnage is both realistic and necessary to add to the film's power. And the underscoring, subtle and sparingly used, is truly beautiful.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN will go down in history. It makes us both understand and appreciate the sacrifices made by our soldiers over 50 years ago. Thought-provoking, shocking, effectively dramatic, beautifully made, and highly intriguing, this movie is a brilliant example of cinematic art.
L.A. Confidential (1997)
Excellent
One of my all-time favorites. A brilliantly conceived mystery, well-adapted from the unfilmable source material and condensed to manageable proportions. Executed better than I could have possibly imagined it, this movie is not only well-done but entertaining to watch. The three leading men at the top of their form give trial Oscar-worthy performances as very different police officers who become entangled in an unsolved mass murder. Definitely better than the "Best Picture" of '97.
Schindler's List (1993)
The best picture of 1993... or any other year
One of the best and most powerful of all films, SCHINDLER'S LIST proves that movies don't have to be fun to be good. Brilliantly acted, masterfully directed, subtly-yet-beautifully written, and horrifically realistic, this excellent drama is one of my all-time favorite movies. Truly a showcase for the talent of all the people who worked on it, this is definitely cinematic art. A very important movie to see, and I do not use the word frivolously.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
How this movie ever beat JAWS... or anything else for Best Whatever...
...It's way beyond me.
I love dramas. They're my favorite kind of movie. But this is the single most boring movie I have ever seen in my life. It doesn't go anywhere. All it is is the product of good actors doing good work with a bad script. Its success at the Academy is proof that the Oscars are either rigged or run by idiots.
Chinatown (1974)
It's incredible all right...
And I don't mean that in a good way. Perhaps the most highly acclaimed feature of CHINATOWN is its script, which surprises me because of all the totally implausible elements written therein. Incredulity abounds. For one thing, I found the romance between the two leads to be unconvincing at best. Worse still was director Roman Polanski's rewrite of scenarist Robert Towne's originally happy, originally good ending. (Spoiler coming) Maybe it's just me, but I have a serious problem with the way this movie ends. The emotionally distraught Evelyn Mulwray, her life and mental health in ruins because of her father, is pointing a gun at this heartless monster and only succeeds in shooting a hole through the sleeve of his jacket. Oh, come ON. She got herself killed and all she had to show for it was a ruined jacket? Please! Plus, the fact that our hero keeps screwing up and repeats the past just defeats his own effort to help Evelyn. I'm sorry, I just don't like it. I think it's stupid. Granted, it's well-done overall, but there is just too much material here that stretches the limits of plausibility. The ending, which is supposed to be a very strong point in a film, is far too poorly done. Depressing does not make a movie a masterpiece, nor does its being a "classic."
The Graduate (1967)
Highly overrated. Really.
This movie doesn't deserve to be on any Top 10 or 100 list, unless it's a list of Horribly Overrated Movies. Movies like The Graduate are why I don't like low-budget movies. First off, the sound editing is so bad that occasionally you'll have serious trouble hearing what the actors are saying--and not when it's intended for you to be deaf to the dialogue. The film editing is even worse, and it goes hand-in-hand with lousy jobs in the direction and shot selection categories. This is probably the worst feature of The Graduate because it complicates watching it. The angles of the shots often go so close up to the actors' faces that you can't tell if they're walking or standing still. It looks ridiculous. The way it's directed and edited make the film annoying to unwatchable. The script is also a mixed bag, ranging from weak to implausible (the ending is just plain stupid). And Dustin Hoffman's performance is NOT that good. Definitely not indicative of the talent he'd later show in Lenny and Rain Man. This movie is seriously overrated. Do yourself a favor and see a more disturbing movie. They're generally better done. This comedy was about as funny to me as The Silence of the Lambs.
Lenny (1974)
Beautiful... powerful
This one has to be Fosse's best ever. Even better than All That Jazz. This is an incredible, riveting drama, with Dustin Hoffman's performance among the best I've ever seen by actors in film. See this movie--it'll be well worth your time.
Instinct (1999)
A masterpiece in every way
There's no fault to find here. While all of the performances (except Cuba Gooding, Jr., maybe) were just about perfect, Anthony Hopkins is clearly the star here. As with Jonathan Demme's unwatchable The Silence of the Lambs, Hopkins conveys in his character a presence of raw animal power just waiting to be unleashed... a chilling performance in his initial scenes (this is the only similarity to Silence). He touches on so many other emotional aspects in the rest of the film... We're looking at Oscar-nominee material. He really stands out in a film with so many good features. As for the rest of the film? Beautiful. The script is simply brilliant as it traces the past of Dr. Ethan Powell (Hopkins) through flashbacks as told to Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s Dr. Theo Calder. The music really adds to the mood. The plot and story are exceptional. This is not going to be the feel-good movie of the year, of course--when we actually see, via the final flashback, what drove Powell to commit the murders for which he was incarcerated, it is immensely touching. There were tears in my eyes from that point until the movie ended. And the ending was great, giving such a heavy, powerful drama a nice but surprisingly well-fitting feel-good touch. This is NOT a make-you-miserable movie! I HIGHLY recommend this movie--to anyone. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (1976)
A masterpiece!
This movie, brilliantly adapted from Nicholas Meyer's novel, combines top-notch actors in stunning performances with a superb script, a great director, and excellent production and costume designs. Nicol Williamson's portrayal of the cocaine-addicted Sherlock Holmes is one of the best performances I have ever seen in any movie. This one is a must-see.