DennisH Reviews

How I Met Your Father (2022–2023)

There are no hooks.

[3/10 · 25 January 2022]

The signature of How I Met Your Mother's pilot was, "Have you met Ted?"

The signature of this show? A canned laugh track. Every show in HIMYM had a novel feature to it that made it unique whether it was a pineapple or a new code. This one had nada.

I wanted this to be good, but I didn't laugh once during the pilot and I didn't see anything that would carry it further.

I like Hilary Duff and Kim Cattrall; they have been better in better shows. But they cut to Kim continuously and that throws off any rhythm that they had. Also each scene seems cramped, from the opening Uber to her meeting with her friend, it seems like they are a bunch of close talkers. All dialogue scenes were rushed too, like they had to fit the entire first draft into the 23 minutes.

It's too bad. It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle, but this premise could have worked with better writing, acting and direction.

How I Met Your Mother: Last Forever: Part Two (2014) Season 9, Episode 24

The ending that was meant to be.

[10/10 · 28 May 2021]

My firm belief is that people who rate this finale poor never understood the show.

From the first episode, Ted says, "And that kids, is how I met your Aunt Robin."

The entire show was about Ted getting back with Robin in the end. Its only problem is the show was too popular, and hence too many storylines complicating that relationship for others to forget there were six years for Robin to be part of his life again.

Further making it harder, Tracy was perfectly cast, lovable, and it is disappointing when you love a new character and she passes away.

But life isn't fair sometimes, and the show was true to this idea the entire time. Future Ted never referred to the mother in the present tense; she was always talked about in the past.

So some people can complain about the ending the wanted, but instead they should have appreciated the ending that was meant to be, Ted holding a smurf penis as a gift to the second love of his life.

The Rental (2020)

The ending is worth the wait, but you do have to wait.

[7/10 · 29 August 2020]

The Wife wanted another boo movie, and I tentatively agreed. I really like Alison Brie and Dan Stevens, and assumed it would be good enough with both of them.

You have to watch the entire movie for it to really make sense, and there is some misdirection (or missed direction) in what the theme of the movie is. It starts off as a stiff relationship drama with characters that aren't sympathetic...the only one that is even modestly likable is Alison Brie's character (I had to look up her name Michelle). A few exposition scenes and they have an awkward interaction with the renter of the house.

Then there are jump scares and red herrings, and at about the hour mark you begin to think that maybe the evening's movie choice should have been different. I admit throughout the cinematography was well-done and the music was good.

But then things start to take off quickly and almost every thriller/horror trope is ignored. Okay, maybe this was worth it but holy crap this is getting dark.

Without giving spoilers, the last few minutes of the movie make the whole thing worth it, it's a montage that reveals the entire story and everything that went behind it. In a way it reminded me of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer in its motif.

So the first two-thirds of the movie was a slow burn with unlikable characters, but the resolution was freaky, powerful, and made it worth the time.

Relic (2020)

Definitely a slow burn, but there is a payoff.

[7/10 · 11 July 2020]

The Wife wanted to watch a 'boo' as she calls them, and sometimes I give in.

This one was worth the time. 'Relic' is based in Australia, so there it a bit of the exotic already. It opens with a butt shot of a lady just standing in a puddle of water from an overflowing bath, and then cuts to the daughter/granddaughter team looking for the grandmother. Trying not to spoil too much, but she's alive.

It takes a while to get where it's going, but the directing is tight and the acting by the actresses is solid. The behavior of the grandmother surprises in a variety of ways. The final third of the movie is a trip, and definitely makes up for the lull of the first hour. That it wraps up nicely (and strangely) in slightly under 90 minutes without a lot of horror cliches makes it worth recommending.

The Leisure Class (2015 TV Movie)

I wouldn't call it great, but it was the best Project Greenlight by far.

[6/10 · 22 February 2016]

I have a feeling that the crucifixion of this movie in the user comments is from PGL viewers who didn't like Jason on the show, didn't get their film selected, or were sticking up for Effie. The most difficult part of enjoying the movie was the fact that most of the scenes were shown out of sequence during PGL, so you already knew the ending before the movie started.

I would call this a dark humor movie, but not necessarily film noir. It does try to shine the light on the troubles of the rich family, but a lot of that doesn't come until the third act. There were a few plot holes, and frankly some of the scenes don't quite ring true. The acting was good though and there were more than a few lines that I laughed at (in particular towards the end).

Normally the brothers would have had a flashback to develop their characters more, but as the movie was effectively a one location picture, they had to do all of it with dialogue that worked for the most part. The Fiona character was developed well enough, I think; however, the sisters and the mother, while competently acting, didn't have a lot of dialogue to offer except for the third act. Bruce Davison was spot on, as usual.

There were a few uncomfortable moments in the beginning, but maybe I adjusted or perhaps the tone became more even because I liked it a lot more at the end then I did in the beginning; the final shot is excellent. Give the director and writers credit, that is a strength that most movies don't have even if they had ten times the budget.

The Hunger Games (2012)

As good as can be expected given MPAA and time restrictions.

[8/10 · 2 April 2012]

Spoilers of book and movie ahead.

I enjoyed the books and I've been looking forward to this movie for some time. I'll go straight to the highlights (and relatively few lowlights), but overall, they did a damn good job given the forced constraints.

I can only imagine what it would be like to be the director (the very talented Gary Ross) in a pre-production meeting where the studio head says, "Gary, I need you to take this novel written in first person narrative about a futuristic society that has teenagers killing each other with swords, knives and arrows over a three week period and film it. It must be PG-13 and under two and a half hours. Plus, we're a small studio and can only fund it for 80 million dollars."

POSITIVES

-Everything up to the start of the Games was well done. The pacing was good and necessary decisions were made regarding characters (e.g. Madge omitted) and events. I would note that while it was clear how poor District 12 was, it was hard to see how hungry they were.

-The story of the Games was motivated well, especially using news room panels and historical footage of previous games.

-The Reaping was perfect, both Jennifer Lawrence's volunteer line and Prim's shrieking. Nice touches on the Capitol film, and how the crowd would not respond with enthusiasm to watching their children taken from them. The look of realization on Josh Hutcherson's face when he was picked was perfect.

-The Capitol was visualized wonderfully, and the Chariot entrance was almost as I imagined it.

-The training sequences (except for Katniss'individual interview that only had a bow and arrows in the room) were perfectly realized.

-The casting overall was excellent. Stanley Tucci was great as Cesar, and the interview scenes were perfect. Lenny Kravitz was awesome as Cinna, although they didn't have much time to talk. Foxface, although speaking only five words it seemed, really filled her role. Rue and Prim were also perfect, although they never had a chance to talk.

-The start of the games was so tense, the sound choices hit the mood perfectly. That they had the violence on shaky cam was probably wise, but you saw enough of kids dying in the Cornucopia to feel the depression.

-I liked that they had Game Control room sequences, as well as dialog between Snow and Crane. While not in the book, it was good to see how the Gamemaster would control it. I also thought using Cesar and other commentators to add notes (tracker-jackers, etc) helped explain the action well when the book had it in first person.

-Nice to introduce Katniss' father's explosion through the hallucination sequence.

-Some of the changes in dialog helped more than hurt (for example, Thresh saying only, "Just this once 12, for Rue" was much less awkward than the book).

NITPICKS

-The pacing made it hard to understand the passage of time during the Games. You never knew that Katniss was thirsty or hungry, none of them looked worse for wear except for the cuts. They were there for almost a month.

-Gale wasn't developed enough either, every shot was him upset with Katniss and Peeta, how about a reaction shot when she survives?

-There was very little development of Rue's character and the relationship between her and Katniss. It was hard to understand her grief with 2 minutes of screen time.

-I never saw any mention of Peeta getting injured, then Katniss is tracking him down and finds him with no explanation...there must be some film on the cutting room floor that would have made this more clear. This was probably the biggest goof.

-Haymitch was far too sympathetic, which I'm guessing was driven by test audience response. I was dying to hear his first advice, 'Stay Alive!' while laughing, then 'Stay Alive' in all seriousness.

-Why not explain that Cato tracked down Thresh for the backpack? They made it sound like Thresh was killed by mutts.

-The mutt sequence at the end was choppy, although I liked that they ended it for Cato quickly instead of dragging it on for a day.

Again, I really liked the movie. There is no way it could be made to the standards that you would have for the book, but given the imposed limitations they did a marvelous job. Looking forward to the sequels.

Strangers on a Train (1951)

More holes in the plot than a golf course

[5/10 · 13 January 2009]

I know it's Hitchcock, I know it's considered a classic, and I know it's near 100 on the IMDb Top 250.

But that doesn't mean it's a good movie.

The setup is perfect; the psychotic Bruno Anthony follows a local sports hero (Guy Haines) onto a train, and strikes up a one-sided conversation about trading murders. The tennis pro wants nothing to do with it, but dismisses the conversation out of hand.

The murder of Guy's wife is also done well, although it is here where things get murky...how did he follow them for an hour without the other two men noticing him? After that, the premise falls apart completely. How could Guy not go to the police immediately? Why didn't he go after Bruno sent the evidence to his house? Why didn't the cops ask the man running the Tunnel Of Love about Guy, or anyone else for that matter? Why did the whole expected frame of Guy depend on his lighter being taken to the exact place? And finally, why the hell would a police officer SHOOT DIRECTLY INTO A CHILDREN'S RIDE AND KILL THE OPERATOR! Which led to the inevitable deus ex machina with Bruno being killed as the calliope fell to the ground, holding the incriminating cigarette lighter...

As I said, the setup was perfect, and I will admit Bruno is one of the most disturbing characters I've seen on film (as Guy is perhaps the stupidest), but the second and third acts were so bad, it couldn't make up for a great beginning.

The Break-Up (2006)

Spend an evening with The Bickersons...

[6/10 · 10 June 2006]

I can't take credit for the summary name, that came from a friend, but there cannot be a more appropriate subject for these comments.

This film is a collection of some well-delivered funny jokes surrounded in a quagmire of contrived fights, dreary supporting characters, and a series of unrealistic decisions.

Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston are both charismatic in their performances, but the screenplay diverts their personas to those of rather ugly people (especially Aniston).

The fights are started by the standard rom-com arguments that the man doesn't understand what the woman wants, and that he is too insensitive to her needs. The trigger of the argument is ridiculous. Vince forgets the number of lemons she wants for a table centerpiece, and for this atrocious reason, Aniston says we need to break up. Fights ensue where they play their friends against each other, while secretly confiding to their friends that they want each other back. Both use other people to make the other feel worse, and their friends provide absolutely horrid advice until it's over, and then the friends say how they should have been more understanding of their partner.

Notice I use the actor's names, one facet I could not ignore was that I never differentiated the stars from their parts. The supporting characters, in general, were awful. Even Vincent D'Onofrio (one of my favorite actors). Cole Hauser was rather funny, but whoever played the owner of the art gallery, as well as the receptionist, were miscast and not needed.

In short, save your time, the jokes, though funny, are not worth the incredibly slow third act that had a tacked-on denouement (try typing that word) to satisfy the test audiences.

6/10 stars, and that's only for Favreau's funny asides.

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

30 minutes each of self promotion, fear mongering, and interesting, but poorly interpreted, data.

[5/10 · 4 June 2006]

Let me start by saying that energy conservation and incentives to stop pollution are A Good Thing.

Too bad the film isn't about that topic until the final credits are rolling.

Al Gore is on a mission; however, it's not to save the environment. He's on a mission to get elected president. He says he's retired, and opens with a comment of how he used to be the next president of the United States and continuously makes comments about his opponents administration. His tactics are scaring us into believing that he will save us; however, he doesn't even acknowledge the one technology that would actually reduce carbon emissions (nuclear power), except for showing the bomb.

Okay, first, about the 'facts':

-The graph of the 300,000 years of carbon dioxide and temperatures. Brilliant data, poorly interpreted. Gore smugly states the obvious 'fact' that the changing carbon dioxide is what changed the temperatures over the seven ice ages. He does not mention the possibility, or probability, that the changing ocean temperatures affected the gaseous solubility of the carbon dioxide in the ocean water and resulted in varied CO2 concentrations. Read that carefully, it is just as likely the temperature change over the known history caused a change in CO2, not the reverse.

Then he gets on a scissor lift to show the change in CO2 spiraling out of control, without acknowledging the zero of the concentration axis would be ten feet below the floor.

-The 'hockey stick' graph--Gore neglects to mention that the authors of that figure did not release their methods for analysis, nor did they release the raw data to others for critical analysis. Subsequent analysis had shown the data are sharply skewed to reflect a stronger contribution from recent temperatures.

Then there were tons of pictures showing the earth is getting warmer by the melting (see how beautiful they are) glaciers; however, there are no timestamps on them showing what season they are. Maybe they are permanently iced, maybe they aren't

Then he tugs on heartstrings. He shows pictures of the Antarctic glaciers melting, and follows up with a CGI polar bear swimming and drowning. Then he shows the World Trade Center memorial being flooded from Greenland ice melting. He barely acknowledges that those are absolute worst case scenario predictions.

It is probable that the global temperature is increasing, just like the temperatures increased before all of the other ice ages. And, it's true that the CO2 is increasing at this moment. Those are facts, but as I have seen dozens of times in my career as a chemical engineer, two variables trending does not define the dependence of one on the other, nor if there is a dependence, it does not define which variable is dependent.

In short, Gore oversimplified a global phenomenon that he does not understand, and tried to scare the world. If, because of this film, people drive slower and use less electricity, then the effect of the film is not bad overall, but to make those statements with such ignorant smugness is irresponsible.

That's why I gave it 5 out of 10 stars.

Bad As I Wanna Be: The Dennis Rodman Story (1998 TV Movie)

Laughably bad acting, directing, and production values. Story is okay.

[3/10 · 23 October 2005]

Oh this movie is bad. Real bad. I can't explain the number of ways in which it stinks. I'll point out the highlights of it's awfulness.

1. The re-creations of the NBA games, uniforms, and stadiums are hilarious. The jerseys look like they came straight from the screen printers, and the basketball clips shows Rodman scoring like Jordan.

2. Both of his mothers take the word over-acting to new levels. His black mom in Dallas and white mom in Durant appear to be reading the lines from the cue cards.

3. The intermissions where Dennis explains his feelings about the situations often involve mirrors; maybe they are supposed to be cool, but I found them to be annoying. They also seemed to point out that he approved this version of the story.

But, there were a few intriguing story lines. Oklahoma can be rough for minorities, and I believe that he did befriend a family and spend a lot of time at the family ranch. The Madonna story was plausible and genuine. The brief interview with the psychiatrist was surprisingly entertaining.

However, this was a train wreck of a film, I would prefer to read something about him later.

3/10

Stay (I) (2005)

More about the journey than the destination

[8/10 · 22 October 2005]

It would be cruel to reveal anything about the story before seeing this film because most of the enjoyment is learning which path the story will choose.

The film has masterful visual style. At times it appears to be a normal picture until the surreal aspects make themselves known with subtlety. The editing is seamless, almost but not quite confusing, and the callbacks to earlier scenes are never overused.

It is not a spoiler to state that early on Something Isn't Quite Right, and there are story elements that the avid moviegoer will know to be central to the conclusion. However, it's the path that leads to the end that makes the time enjoyable.

Naomi Watts, as usual, is perfect, and Ewan McGregor has again picked one of the scripts that was for the art and not the money. Ryan Gosling is effective, and Jeanine Garafolo's three minutes were eerie. I'm certain that Elizabeth Reaser will be seen again.

Not a perfect movie, but definitely worth the time if you enjoy surrealistic stories.

8/10

Crash (I) (2004)

'Magnolia' + racism - one hour = 'Crash'

[8/10 · 13 October 2005]

'Crash' is well-made ensemble film with a racism theme that only slightly preaches to the audience. In an effort to avoid the thousands retellings of the story, I thought I'd write the Things I Liked.

1. It told the story mostly how it could be--I have met people who are as more or less racist as the movie suggested, it didn't exaggerate the character traits to advance the story.

2. The performances were excellent--Especially Cheadle, Tate, Phillipe, and Dillon. Certain lines were spoken in certain ways that rang so powerful my jaw almost dropped.

3. The continuity was clean--the timeline moved around a bit, which was interesting, but I liked that there was time given between the door lock problem and it's eventual resolution. Not everything was explained as much as it could have been, but there weren't too many loose ends.

4. It was human--It seems to have taken a page from the Alexander Payne films where people aren't always good or always bad, they just respond to what they see.

To me, the ending is a clear nod to 'Magnolia.' The only criticism is that the subplots could have used a little more development and closure, for example, the DA's subplot ended with no firm conclusion except a very brief press conference.

8/10

The Festival (2005–2006)

Surprisingly watchable, entertaining even

[24 September 2005]

-Minor Spoilers

I caught the first episode of 'The Festival' on a lazy Saturday morning, where IFC was showing all of the episodes sequentially...twice. I think I understand why, this is one of the better shows to grace the IFC screen in some time. The quality of the show kept me watching for all of the episodes.

It's a mockumentary (probably inspired by 'This is Spinal Tap' and 'The Best In Show') where first time film-festival entrant director Rufus Marquez blazes into the Mountain United Film Festival (MUFF) with his feature film, 'The Unreasonable Truth of Butterflies.' The show focuses on the encounters between Rufus, the star of his film, the festival coordinators, the potential buyers, the other directors, and the IFC documentarian.

These story lines proceed as expected, and the talking-head interviews with the festival coordinator (Jean Nicolai) had me smiling. But while the characters are interesting, the gem of the show is the interference of the documentary producer with the film screenings. A little bit of over-acting ensues, but it's mostly believable and provided insight about how modern reality television is developed.

The third act gets a little repetitive, and the conclusion seems like an independent movie denouement. However, all of the characters were engaging, especially Nicholas Wright as Rufus, and frankly, I couldn't change the channel until I learned about The Unreasonable Truth of Butterflies.

Pretty good in general, really good for IFC.

Flightplan (2005)

'Suspense of disbelief' has it's limits

[5/10 · 24 September 2005]

Serious spoilers, don't read if you haven't seen the movie.

Overall, the setup was a good time, and for the first half of the film I was entertained and vaguely hoping Jodie Foster would wind up frothing at the mouth in a straitjacket before the end. But it didn't, and instead the director tried to make the ending plausible. Plausibility is impossible because the following questions came to mind during the movie and ruined the whole experience. I have about 100,000 flight miles this year, so pardon me if I sound a little jaded.

-How did they know she would fall asleep?

-How did she get past the gate without running the girls boarding pass through the machine?

-How did they know which flight she would take home, and how could they guarantee the flight attendant would be on board?

-How could the air marshal get that seat? His flight attendant girlfriend has no control of the seating.

-Why would she be boarded early unless she was a 'special needs' passenger (i.e. with children)?

-Just how did the air marshal know this plane so well, and how could he get past the galley without disturbing one passenger or crew member?

-Why did they only call the morgue? Why not the police?

-Why didn't they shoot her in the head when she stood at the door?

I really wanted to suspend disbelief, but all of the bull drove me crazy. Cap it off with everyone saying "That's her daughter!" and the politically correct ending, and you walk away feeling like you ate an ice cream cone that only had one scoop on the top and nothing but an empty waffle at the bottom. 5/10

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Threw itself at the ground, but didn't quite miss.

[7/10 · 1 May 2005]

First, my relationship to the source material; loved the books, liked the BBC series with it's flaws, and never heard the original tapes. I've been waiting for this film since 1990, so I'm sure that I would never be completely happy with any result. But I had hope for this movie because of something Hammer and Tongs said, they felt that the reason why the books were so popular were because everyone believes that they 'get it' better than anyone else. So true, sadly not everyone gets everything the same way.

That being said, and acknowledging that Douglas Adams had a hand in most of the major script changes, I have to admit that I enjoyed the parts much more than the sum of it's whole.

If you are not familiar with the HHGG Universe, I wouldn't recommend this to be your inaugural visit. It's too compressed and kinetic (Garth Jennings did just leave the video venue) to soak in the storyline. It has it's merits, and I'll discuss them by act.

The Opening: The one consistency between all of the H2G2 scripts is how Arthur woke up one morning to find out from Ford Prefect that the world was about to end, so you better drink your three pints in a hurry. Well done, classic, and the transition to the Vogon ship was nearly perfect.

When they made it to the Heart of Gold is when I felt the American influence was a little too strong. I've never seen Sam Rockwell be less than excellent until now; not that he was bad, but his performance seemed a little forced. Zooey was good as Trillian, although I always pictured her to be a little colder. Marvin...well, Alan Rickman's voice was more than adequate, but I never could see the robot model as Marvin.

The Humma Kavula/Vogon Planet: To me, this is where the movie lost me for a while. Bits and pieces of the almost always inconsistent 'trilogy' were fit in for the fans, but the flow of the story went somewhere I couldn't fathom. Complicating it was that while I know Adams approved the Trillian/Dent relationship; it didn't feel right.

Third Act, Slartibartfast and the mice: Okay, back to 'normal.' Things took a big change but oddly enough, except for the ending with Trillian and Arthur, the story culminated reasonably well (if you include So Long and Thanks for All The Fish). Thankfully they never mentioned the Planet Kricket.

Overall: The directors clearly loved the books, and they brought individual pieces together in a respectable, if not brilliant, homage. The Voice and Graphics of the Guide were perfect, as was Martin Freeman as Arthur. Mos Def as Ford and Zooey Deschanel as Trillian worked better than I thought they would, Rockwell as Zaphod worked worse (which surprised me).

For a fan of the books, see the movie, you won't be laughing like you do at the text, but you will smile in acknowledgment that the filmmakers laughed as hard as you did. If you haven't, I would recommend saving your money until the DVD.

7/10

Ultimate Film Fanatic (2004–2005)

This show is bush league

[19 November 2004]

I've watched it twice, and both times I say, 'Come on...' about a dozen times.

The problem with this show is that the format is completely arbitrary; the best contestants usually get booted.

A contestant can be eliminated by getting one question wrong, and the questions are inconsistent. For example, in one round, a question was 'name one of two Spielberg films that are in the top 20 grossing movies' while the next question was 'name the top three grossing animated features...' If you get it wrong, you're gone.

And that's the most fair section of the game.

The next round are the 'debates' that are 'judged' by the noted film scholars such as Richard Roundtree, Jason Mewes, and Traci Lords. The debates are designed to advance the contestant the producer chooses to advance. For example, one of the debate topics was why a contestant hates Kevin Smith movies. Like Jason Mewes could be objective about that.

Then comes the obsession round, where the film fanatics show their souvenirs to the judges. Why? What does this have to do with film knowledge? I have no idea.

Also, the host is a tool. He's not good enough for a Carl's Junior commercial, much less a game show. The only appealing thing is the rack on the girl that gives the tickets home. And believe me, you'll see better than those on your walk to work.

Contact (1997)

An exceptional adaptation of a brilliant book

[10/10 · 9 October 2004]

There are spoilers of both the book and the movie. Read with caution.

Everyone compares how well a movie adapts a book to the screen, and they may rightly complain if the adaptation didn't follow the book. My estimation of this movie is that while they only modestly follow the plot (The Message, The Machine, The Galaxy) and highlight only the key story points, the screenwriter and director actually captured the 'essence' of the book. So much that I'm certain that if Carl Sagan had been alive for the final edit, the 'For Carl' at the end of the film would have been welcomed by the author.

The book is 431 pages of small font, extremely deep material. Yet Robert Zemeckis, Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, James V. Hart, and Michael Goldenberg constructed a movie that tells a similar story that can be understood by all that spend the time to understand it.

Regarding the book and movie differences. Did they change the number of people to travel in the machine? Yes. Did they change the political climate? Yes. Did they slightly demonize and trivialize Drummond, while making Ellie appear a little more sympathetic? Yes. Was Palmer Joss' role increased? Yes. Was the full journey described? No, but close.

So what. My only real complaint is the 'pi' storyline omission, but they covered their bases with the final scene between Angela Bassett and James Woods (great character performances, by the way).

I almost never see an adaptation of a book that lives up to the brilliance of the source material, but this one does. The effects supplement the story well, as opposed to dominating the screen.

Robert Zemeckis has made two of my top ten movies, the other being Forrest Gump. Should I ever meet him, my only word would be...

Thanks.

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

Watch the Director's Cut, trust me.

[8/10 · 24 July 2004]

'The Butterfly Effect' is a pretty good alternate timeline movie. Not as good as 'Lola Rennt' (a.k.a 'Run, Lola Run!'), but a bit better than 'Sliding Doors.' It's rather intelligent, has good continuity, and has enough surprises to keep you interested.

First, let me qualify that I rented the DVD and enjoyed the movie very much (which surprised me considering the reviews). The reason for this was that I chose the director's cut, and found a story that was tight and ended properly with all holes closed.

Then I checked 'Alternate Versions' on this site, and found out they had a totally different ending for the theatrical release. I'm not sure what the studios forced on the directors, but based on the summary and the scenes that were cut, I wouldn't watch it.

Who would have thought that Ashton Kutcher wouldn't be bad...oh hell, I guess I'll say it, would be good in a movie? Melora Walters is impressive, as usual, especially given her limited screen time. Amy Smart is turning into a real actress, she hit the notes just perfect in her different roles. Hopefully she'll get a few good roles before Hollywood thinks she's too old.

I was expecting a weak movie with bad acting, but instead, I found about two hours of solid entertainment. Definitely worth the rental.

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)

Proof that talent does not equal skill

[3/10 · 10 July 2004]

Man, this movie was torture. The rating and everyone's comments are a good indicator that this movie is crap. Pure crap.

What amazes me is that if you look at it from a technical standpoint, McG actually knows what he's doing. He clearly knows color, camera angles, composition, and given a good budget, he is a special effects wizard.

It's just that his choices and taste are awful, and notably, he has a glaring weakness for directing actors.

I'm amazed from a visual standpoint that he knows what's good, how could he think this movie was?

3 out of 10, and that's just for the effects.

Super Troopers (2001)

The whole is less than the sum of it's parts

[7/10 · 30 May 2004]

This is not really a great movie; the story is weak at best, and at times the pace doesn't flow well at all. The concept of the movie was probably developed while the writers were in a car, stoned, and wondering what they would be like if they were highway patrolmen. They exploit that idea for what it was worth, but then the extra time needed to fill the movie got in the way.

However, when viewed as a series of related sketches, it is often hilarious, and usually at least very funny. The opening scene with the troopers is prodigious in it's timing and content, as is the Cat Game. Then there are the subtle scenes where the setup is not given enough time for the payoff to be hilarious (the extra gas in the trash, the radar gun pointed downwards...), but on second viewing, one recognizes that Broken Lizard understands comedy at it's core, and emphasizes subtlety as well as farce.

Each member of Broken Lizard has their forte, but they all are talented comedians that clearly enjoy their work. Marisa Coughlin is, to use the vernacular, one hot momma! I wish should could find work that better demonstrates her talent, 'Freddy Got Fingered' just doesn't do her justice. She is gorgeous, but believe it or not, she also has considerable acting talent. Comedy is supposed to be the hardest genre of acting, and she was holding her own quite well with some of the best.

In the end, when I view a comedy, I ask myself if it made me laugh. Hell yeah it did, many times. But there were a few duds, and sometimes the lulls had me checking the watch. I do recommend it for the hilarity, but don't expect a great story.

Mister Frost (1990)

Goldblum is excellent, premise is very good, third act weak

[7/10 · 15 February 2004]

Minor spoilers below.

I saw 'Mister Frost' for the first time when it came out on video back in 1991, and then several years later. The first time I saw it I was enthralled by Goldblum's performance as The Devil, and I didn't notice the film's weaknesses. Not so with the second viewing, but it still leaves an impression.

First the positives: Goldblum's portrayal of Satan (as well as the script he recites) is as close to my view of the true Devil as I've seen on screen. The Devil would not appear on earth with a tail, horns, and a pitchfork. He would be intelligent, mocking, frustrating, elusive, and malevolent; all the while doing his best to appear human. The story is also well-motivated and developed. The first interview between Dr. Day and Lucifer was the most tense scene in the movie, and one of my all time favorites.

As to the negatives: Others will mention the less than stellar performances of the supporting cast and the generally pitiful score. These are significant flaws, especially Alan Bates as Detective Detweiler, but not crippling. What I didn't care for was that the Devil didn't follow his own rules; he made it impossible for Dr. Day not to believe him. For example, he melts Dr. Day's ring in his hand and heals a spinal chord. These things cannot be done by a typical psycho in a ward, the melting point of gold is a bit higher than the burning temperature of flesh.

A lot of people didn't care for the conclusion. I thought the final fate of Dr. Day was perfect, but the acting and general meandering of the third act was poor and really slowed down the movie until the final five minutes.

I recommend the movie to people who enjoy reasonably intelligent supernatural stories that are not laden with special effects.

21 Grams (2003)

Masterful editing and performances

[9/10 · 28 December 2003]

Minor Spoilers:

One of the most discussed features of the movie is the non-linear timeline. I've read several reviews stating both the positive and negative attributes of the technique, but as of right now, two hours after I've seen it, I have to admit the story would not be as effective if told in a linear fashion. However, I had guessed the ending long before it happened, they gave away a little too much before the climax to maintain the mystery.

I think I am beginning to see a trend...any movie that has a shot of Naomi Watts' nipples is probably very good (ref Mulholland Drive). But I'm not trivializing her performance, IMO, she acts with much more talent than her contemporaries.

Sean Penn gave a subdued performance that actually was more convincing than anything I've seen him in before (I haven't seen Mystic River). I usually find him talented, but I always feel like that I'm watching Sean Penn act like a stoner, retard, drug-addict...in this movie I was watching a math professor who survived a heart transplant that looked like Sean Penn .

Benicio Del Toro, as usual, delivers the goods. His religious intensity, pain, as well as his mood shifts, are entirely believable.

One little note about the ending monologue of the movie. A nickel weighs exactly five grams, so the comparison to four nickels instead of five would have been more precise.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

An A-movie with a B-movie script

[7/10 · 8 November 2003]

Many people will have detailed reviews about every point in the movie. All I have to say is that the production, effects and even the story were simply brilliant, but the dialog is plain goofy. The word cliche is not strong enough; at certain scenes I literally rolled my eyes and hoped for it to end quickly. I don't understand how the first movie could be so intelligent, while the other two were so weak.

But don't get me wrong, The Matrix Revolutions is a visual masterpiece, and the conclusion of the story is satisfying.

28 Days Later (2002)

A familiar story well told.

[8/10 · 30 June 2003]

Minor spoilers.

'28 Days Later' doesn't break new ground. Several pictures (Romero's Dead series, Omega Man, etc.) have discussed the exact same plot, which is some type of contagion causes people to become non-human and kill humans.

There are also some obvious plot holes such as; the security at the lab was clearly inadequate for that type of virus, the reaction by armed forces would have been faster, the incubation time of the virus was so short that it couldn't spread across the world (they acknowledged that possibility), the infected did not attack each other, and the main character, Jim, would have died of thirst before waking up.

All that being said, I felt that the pace was kinetic and the characters were believably human (even if there were a couple of 'YOU IDIOT!' moments).

The writing was a strong point, the people discussed what would come to my mind, and the sets, direction, and camera were good.

To sum it up, I was entertained throughout the whole movie, which is why I rated it 8 out of 10.

The Fountainhead (1949)

A skeleton missing some flesh, but still supporting the body

[7/10 · 30 June 2003]

It's very difficult to separate the movie version of Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' from the book. Those who have read the book would fill in the blanks and find the film a reasonable adaptation of the novel, where viewers who have not read the book would probably not be impressed.

The story is a fictional tale about a resolute architect who is unwilling to compromise his values to the will of the masses. The story also serves as a primer to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy that promotes the virtue of selfishness and creativity over the collective agreement of the masses. That message alone will either enthrall or enrage most viewers; the subject matter is edgy, even for today, and most likely the message of the story will be the determining factor in whether people like the movie or not, regardless of the production.

Adapted for the screen by Rand, the structure of the story is held more or less in tact, except for the notable omission of a few minor characters and events. My personal opinion is that the movie presented her Objectivist views reasonably well, but they do not have the impact of the novel.

Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Robert Douglas were very effective in portraying Howard Roark, Dominique Francon, and Ellsworth Toohey respectively. However, I was very disappointed in Kent Smith's portrayal of Peter Keating, he came across as a weak-willed anyman instead of the clever and malevolent 'second-hander' who would arrange to fire or kill people to get what he wants. Raymond Massey's Gail Wynand...I didn't find his personality strong enough; however, he did have the expected somberness.

Ignoring that several of Roark's structures were fundamentally unstable (namely, a multi-story building supported by two columns only, as well as another structure with the center of gravity clearly outside of the building base), the production was very good. The camerawork, superimpositions, and music were thoughtful and quite innovative for the times.

Devout followers of Objectivism are sure to give this movie a '10,' which would explain the bimodal distribution of the IMDB users with a peak at 10 and 7; however, many of them blindly support any word Rand has written. Of course this flies completely in the face of Ayn Rand's writings, be yourself people!

As a person who enjoyed her work without agreeing with everything she said, I'll recommend the book without whole-heartedly endorsing it, and that coincides with my opinion of the movie. Good story, thoughtful insights into human nature, but not as perfect and clear-cut as the author might have thought. 7/10