Change Your Image
Tony-208
Reviews
Hunk (1987)
Awful film, but lives up to its title
The only thing good about this film is that it holds up a very good looking man as the object of voyeurism (refreshing, since typically in films, women are the exhibitionists and men are the voyeurs). John Allen Nelson certainly lives up to the title.
Other than this, the acting is atrocious. Of course, the script probably didn't leave the actors much to work with. The dialogue seems very stilted and uninspired.
The film is enjoyable in the "it's so bad it's good" vein, though. This is definitely a film for those who like bad movies or just like to see a cute guy in a small swimsuit. Not much else to offer.
Great Performances: Jesus Christ Superstar (2000)
Well, Simon was good...
And to be honest, Simon Zealotes (Tony Vincent) was all I liked about this version. He's a very talented pop singer, and probably the most vocally talented of the cast.
Both Judas (Jerome Pradon) and Jesus (Glenn Carter) have such thin, subdued voices. Judas also couldn't manage to stay on key very well. I think the Judas of the 1973 film version (Carl Anderson) has a much more powerful, emotional voice that 2000's Judas. Mary Magdelene in this version (Renee Castle) has a pleasent, if not sappy, voice.
This version preserves a very theatrical feel, which may work against it as a film. Theater and film show stories in different ways, and film adaptations of theater should be more than simply moving a camera through a theater stage. By keeping this staged feel, I didn't see a story unfold, but a play performed.
The costuming was original for this production of JCS, made more contemporary. Judas, however, looked like he was impersonating Sting's look in the "Desert Rose" video. Jesus meandered from the look of surfer boy to caftan-wearing hippie. However, updated choreography was well-done, greatly helping to distract from silly costuming and singing.
The film producers must have run out of money when it came to the film's musical adaptation. Overall, the musical arrangements sound too synthesized or too thin. Also, the vocal arrangements also fell flat of previous versions, quite literally in the case of Judas.
Tony Vincent as Simon Zealotes gives the film its highlight during his rendition of his song, also called "Simon Zealotes." His melodic pop voice, along with some wonderful choreography, helped give the film some freshness and talent it desperately needed. But then Jesus opened his mouth and ruined it.
The film has somewhat of an MTV feel to it in terms of set, costuming, and lighting. But much like some aspects (costuming, makeup) of the 1973 version do now, this film will probably look very dated in 20 years. As a theatrical production, it probably works okay. As a filmed version of a theatrical production, it's just not good filmmaking.
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)
Well-acted, but a bit meandering...
I honestly don't see what other people got out of this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche are truly brilliant in their roles, and the cinematography is well-done, but I found the script in bad need of a rewrite.
Certainly, not all artsy films are pretentious, but this one became quite so. I would agree that the length is unbearable, because I think the film fails to fully connect the personal lives of the leads with the historical back drop. I found much of the sex and nudity gratuitous, detracting from much of the movie. I also found the musical score distracting and awkward in places.
The cinematography was well-done, especially in the use of what looked like old news reel and home movies. Other than that, the cinematography was solid, neither innovative nor dated.
The main actors were all tremendous in their roles, and they truly made this movie worth watching. Nonetheless, this movie was slow, meandering, and perhaps not fully realized despite being as long as it is. I think a truly good movie (such as "Trois Couleurs: Bleu" in which Binoche is excellent) leaves you wanting more. I think this one left me wishing that someone else directed it.
54 (1998)
Burn, Baby, Burn, Disco Infernal
As you can see from my summary, I think this movie is pure hell.
Perhaps author/director Mark Christopher might have made a decent movie had he been allowed to stick to his original ideas. However, considering how contrived and threadbare the whole script as we see in the movie, I doubt this could have been anything close to a great movie.
The director seems to have assembled the worst cast possible, or at least made sure that most of them gave their worst performance possible. Ryan Phillipe proved in this movie that he is nothing more than something nice to look at. If your idea of a great actor is one who looks great in tight jeans or short shorts and a tight tank top (not that using acting ability would ever matter), he's perfect in the role.
His character is not a loveable one, but Phillipe doesn't even make us regard him in any matter. He does not develop his character's thoughts or emotions. He could have been a villian or some cocky bas**rd whom the audience loves to hate. Yes, Phillipe was limited by a poor script, but I can't say he has ever excelled as an actor in any movie.
Neve Campbell was also extremely dissappointing in her performance, in her battle with Phillipe for who could be the worst actor in the film. Her performance is also uninvolved and bland. She was better in the "Scream" movies and even "Wild Things." She failed to show us why Phillipe's character would even possibly be infatuated with her.
For the most part, the rest of the cast was also terrible. Salma Hayek proved why I don't like her acting once again, and the stoner from "Clueless" was also rather bland.
The "dirty old lady" bit is becoming too much of a bad Hollywood cliche these days. I liked Ellen Dow's character the first time I saw it--in "The Wedding Singer."
One great thing about "54" was Mike Myers' brilliant performance. He really threw himself into the role, and proved that he, as a true actor, might be more gifted than we have previously given him credit. He used the terrible script to his advantage, using the contrived, false dialogue to show the pathetic nature of his character. I only hope that Peter Weir will cast him in a movie and do for him what he did for Robin Williams (Dead Poets Society) or Jim Carrey (The Truman Show).
Perhaps if Mr. Christopher had the type of controll that Orson Welles had over "Citizen Kane," he might have had a decent movie. But to even mention the two in the same sentence seems sacrilege.
The Blue Lagoon (1980)
This could have been a great movie, but...
This movie had some of the makings of a truly great movie. The setting was beautiful, and the cinematography is very well done. The underwater shots were breathtaking, and the cinematographer has a brilliant sense for the use of light and shadow. I can easily see why the cinematography was nominated for an Academy Award. The film's score is also well done.
Two crucial elements fell far short, however. First, the script was horribly done. The dialogue sounds completely awkward. The other major element that fell short was the acting skills of the lead players. Certainly, they are both very attractive to look at. It's too bad that neither one of them knew how to act. Brooke Shield's Razzie for this movie is well deserved. Had both of the actors been given extensive acting lessons, or perhaps if the director were fired and replaced by one who could develop the acting abilities of the stars, this could have been a great film. Unfortunately, despite the beautiful cinematography and musical score, the horrible acting prevents this film from even being a good film.
Swoon (1992)
Wonderful cinematography, sub-par acting
The film "Swoon" gives an insightful view into the minds that went behind the Leoplod-Loeb murder case. The cinematography was very well done, looking as if actual 1920s film stock, yet using very progressive camera angles and point-of-view shots at times. The film was also very frank about how homosexuality (and prejudice against it)played a role in the murder and their conviction of the murder. It's interesting to think of it in light of Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope," (which is based on the same murder case) in which the homosexuality of the lead characters is only hinted at.
Another thing I found interesting was the use of anachronisms. You might notice whenever the Leopold-Loeb duo use a phone in the movie, they always use touch-tone phones, while every else has phones more fitting for the time period. Another anachronism is an homage to Hitchcock. When Leopold and Loeb meet in bed, they recite nearly verbatim the opening lines from a scene in Hitchcock's "Rear Window" in which Lisa Carol Fremont (Grace Kelly) kisses L.B. "Jeff" Jeffries (Jimmy Stewart).
My only major complaint about the film was the acting. It seemed as if the two leads were either melodramatic or stoic, most often at the wrong times. Even the bit part players seemed rather aloof in their acting. A better cast would have made this movie much better.
High Society (1956)
A Major Letdown on All Levels
This film at first glance might seem to have all the makings of a great film, with its main stars (Sinatra, Kelly, Crosby), as well as Louis Armstrong's singing, Cole Porter's songs, and Nelson Riddle's scoring. Which was why I wondered what in the world made this movie fail. It came nowhere near as close to the brilliance of "The Philadelphia Story," as well as failing to even be a good musical.
The script was not as tight as in the original. It came off as being far too contrived and an overall horrible redo of the original. They seemed to stretch the script a bit thin in an attempt to make the musical aspect of it seem logical, and fell flat on its face doing so.
The songs were not really that good in my opinion. I think a good musical leaves you humming the song after you hear it, or maybe even singing along of you know the song. The songs had no such effect on me this time, unlike a great musical like "The Sound of Music" or "My Fair Lady."
Perhaps the greatest disappointment was just how poor everyone's acting was in this movie. For one, there was absolutely no chemistry whatsoever between Grace Kelly and Frank Sinatra or between Kelly and Bing Crosby. To use my previous terminology, everyone's acting seemed far too contrived. The rest of the supporting cast was also highly disappointing, especially when compared to the original "Philadelphia Story Cast"
Grace Kelly's acting was outright horrible. She was excellent in "Rear Window" and in "High Noon," so I expected much out of her in this movie. Was I ever let down. Sinatra was great in "The Manchurian Candidate" and fairly good in "From Here to Eternity," but gave a horrible acting performance in this film (I also think his acting sucks in "Guys and Dolls"). I think the fault must be the director's fault, since I know all of the actors could have and have elsewhere done excellent jobs.
I gave this movie a 4 out of 10. I'd say stick to the original "Philadelphia Story," and look for a good musical elsewhere.
Godzilla (1998)
The worst acting I've ever seen.
Okay, I wasn't expecting Academy Award winning acting in this film, but everyone in this film did a horrible job at acting, including Matthew Broderick. He wasn't as terrible in his earlier films as he was in this film, so I think the director must be to blame.
Nonetheless, everyone else's acting performances made Broderick look like Lawrence Olivier. I think most porn films probably have better acting than Godzilla did.
I wish Godzilla did succeed in killing the entire cast of this film.