gkmt50 Reviews

The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat (1974)

Not worth my time

[7 March 2003]

I woke up at a strange time and was flipping channels. I found NINE LIVES OF FRITZ THE CAT on the Showtime FAMILY channel. Anyone who reads this, please go to www.sho.com to complain. I'm no prude, but to imagine a 5 year old tuning into this is horrible.

Anyway, I only watched 5 or 10 minutes of this film. The animation is good for it's era, but the comedy & satire is worn and dated. Here's what the first few scenes entailed. A "big mama" cat with huge boobs is yelling at a stoned Fritz cat, telling him he's good for nothing, goes out all night looking for love, and she doesn't know why, 'cause he's bad in bed. Then we flash over to Fritz walking down the street, grabbing his crotch, lets out a fart and offends Juan, the stereotypical Hispanic Cat. Juan won't talk to Fritz because Fritz farted in his area. Fritz makes a lame comment about why doesn't Juan speak English so he can understand him? They talk about Fritz's plight to cash his welfare check. A few seconds later we see some black "thug" cats outside Fritz's house, talking about robbing this house in 'this' (white?) neighborhood. Fritz is sitting on the couch (yes, he's back home now, I guess? Flashback to earlier years?) about to light up a joint, and he's staring at his little sister's kitty butt. He's trying to get her high so he can "get with her." She smokes some, and we get a psychedelic menagerie of images that tries to be creative, but really, someone needs to take some lessons from "The Wall"'s animators. It was a stupid sequence. Flashback to the big mama cat yelling at Fritz again. Now that I read a few other reviews, I suppose the the whole time Fritz is supposed to be listening to big mama yelling at him, but zoning out to these different places while she's yelling.

Anyway, my description of this is probably as funny as the cartoon itself. I didn't waste anymore of my time, I don't recommend you waste your time either.

Insomnia (2002)

A different kind of thriller (SPOILERS)

[8/10 · 8 June 2002]

I can understand some of the complaints of the movie being boring. It's not one of those action packed thrillers, or who-done-its. What I liked about the movie is how it seemed to me that the lines between good and evil blurred. They blurred more and more as the movie went on, to mimic the clouded state of the insomniac's perception.

I normally get irritated by weird cinematic flashing back and forth, jiggling cameras, etc, but again, I feel this really worked for a movie about a cop who is unraveling from guilt. Just like the jiggly camera worked out for Blair Witch Project, in its appropriateness.

This is not a movie for someone who wants a nice quick fix at the theatre. Yeah, sometimes I want a brainless thriller or comedy, or blockbuster film. But if you want an intelligent, kinda heavy psychological thriller, I think this one is great.

Also, I think Robin Williams was successful in underplaying the role. In fact, I called his role Satanic. It's cunning and convincing evil that sneaks up on you...I almost believed him when he said what he did was an accident. His mild misdemeanor fits in with what Dormer says regarding a guy who has crossed the line and can remain calm (this comment also indicates why Dormer, who recently crossed the line, doesn't think twice about tainting evidence now.)

I think Chris Nolan's work is very tight - in that everything that happens does so for a reason and propels the story forward.

To the one confused person regarding why they went to the boy's house to find the gun...the fact that the gun matched the one that was missing and used to kill the partner...the police "knew" that the person who killed the partner had killed the girl. I did find it a tad awkward there, and also when Dormer knew how to get to the boy's house, like he was some local. I am going to say that probably there was some poor editing on those points.

Anyway, I recommend this film, and give it at least 8 / 10

How to Kill Your Neighbor's Dog (2000)

Fantastic & Original

[3 June 2002]

My dad bought this at Blockbuster for a few dollars, as a previously viewed DVD. He highly recommended it to me, and amazingly enough, dad was right! This movie was hilarious. You may find yourself laughing so much you have to backup to catch the other funny parts you were laughing too loud to hear :)

I agree with the commentator above who suggested this movie in lieu of a sappy romantic comedy.

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Disturbing; worth watching.

[8/10 · 30 May 2002]

I'm still trying to sum up how I feel about this movie. I watched it sometime between 2am and 5am today. It's 5pm now. It's been all I can think about since I finished watching it. I'm gravitating around a 7 or 8 out of 10.

I'm a woman that doesn't cry at movies. Really! Ok, Beaches had me almost there, but I honestly don't let films manipulate me into crying.

This movie disturbed me. When I say disturbed, I mean rattled me out of my conventional thoughts and emotions. At times I felt like my heart was breaking. (I still didn't cry! But it was hard not to.)

I hoped when I arrived at work today, someone would have seen this too and I could pass the time discussing it. No such luck. It's nice to come to IMDB and read the other comments. It helps me come to terms with my feelings!

And yes, I feel like I need to "come to terms" with them.

One comment said the dialogue was horrible. Hmm...recently I have criticized other films of the same thing. In this case, I didn't notice the dialogue as bad. Ok, I think back to Kurt Russell's role, and some of his lines weren't stallar. But, I wonder if the character was one-dimensional on purpose? Hmmmm.

Another comment on this board said Mulholland Drive was better. Sorry, I didn't like Mulholland Drive. I thought it was a perverted, overly long "Twilight Zone." Ok, I "got" that movie, but still didn't like it. I "get" this one too, um, I think ;) After I saw Mulholland Drive, I wanted those 2 hours of my life back!!! I don't have the same feeling after watching Vanilla Sky.

I definitely want to see the original (Spanish) version of this movie.

Tape (2001)

Unsatisfying

[6/10 · 26 May 2002]

I try to like Independent movies, I really do. I mean, at least I do *watch* them, giving them half a chance. This movie left me wishing my hubby would have found something else to rent.

The acting in this isn't bad, with Ethan Hawke as my personal favorite. However, I am sick and tired of movies with interesting or edgy ideas, and fairly good actors, getting acclaim when the dialogue is such crap. It seems filmmakers want to pull off the whole Pulp Fiction type of dialogue, but that's a rare talent. Few actors or writers could hold your attention for five minutes talking about a foot massage. Anyway, back to TAPE.



SPOILERS

When we first meet Ethan Hawke's character, we're not sure what to think. He's in a dumpy motel room. Soon, his "best buddy" comes over to greet him, thanks him for coming to town to see the premiere of his new movie.

Soon, the "big movie guy" starts cracking on his loser buddy, who is *only* a fireman, oh and a drug dealer. Mr. Loser gets all defensive, and then eventually the conversation steers to a former mutual love interest. Blah blah blah. Gradually Mr. Loser gets Mr. Big Guy to admit that he date-raped the mutual love interest 10 years ago.

Mr. Loser pulls out a tape and shows off the fact he has evidence of the indescretion. Mr. Loser says the girl (rape victim) is on the way over, and Mr. Big Guy ought to apologize to her.

Uma arrives. More boring conversation, blah blah blah.

The funniest part about the whole movie in my opinion is when Uma's character tricks Mr. Loser to flush a ton of drugs down the toilet.

END SPOILERS



Having good actors in a good story with poor dialogue is just as bad as having poor actors in a multi-million dollar production of the same lame story we always see. At least the latter might make me laugh. For instance, Black Knight. Not going to win awards, but still entertaining. To me anyway :o)

Speaking of laughs, this subject matter is nothing to laugh at, yet I found myself laughing in a couple (inappropriate) spots.

One more thing; I had to listen to the movie a lot, rather than watch it, because the constant swinging back and forth between the characters faces while they gave one or two word replies in conversation was dizzying. Ick. Ok, that's not "artsy," it's sickening.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Somewhat satisfying

[8/10 · 18 May 2002]

Action scenes and special effects - 10 / 10

Dialogue - 1 / 10

Storyline - 7 / 10

I was reading other user comments, and saw one where a conversation was overheard that "Great special effects can make a great movie regardless of the script," or something along those lines. I guess I have been brain-washed to believe this too, since I still gave the movie 8 / 10 !

The movie has three storylines it bounces around in telling, a little too quickly for my tastes; approximately every 2 minutes. However, after you witness the scenes between Anakin and Amidala, you'll be grateful (like me) that they don't last too long. Those scenes are painful to watch. My mom and I were gagging at the schmaltz, and we're both women who enjoy a little romantic story...but their scenes aren't romantic, just stupid. The chemistries between R2-D2 & C3-P0 and R4 & Obi-wan are better than the chemistry between the two young actors. In fact, you might be like me, and long to see more Jar-Jar!!! I'm not kidding here :o)

Another stupid element: The constant wardrobe changes for Amidala. The Senator is supposed to be in hiding / on the run. Why does she have the most incredible wardrobe around ?! (So there can be 10 different action figures sold, each with a different outfit?) Natalie Portman is a good actress, she should be used as such, not just a model for sexy-cute clothing.

As far as the acting, at first I thought it was not too great. I thought Hayden (Anakin) may have been doing a cruddy job, but a friend pointed out that he was in "My Life as a House," and I thought he did a fine job in that movie. Also, there's Samuel L. Jackson...it's pretty much accepted as fact that he's a great actor, but his character in this movie seems wooden. That's why I blame the dialogue for what seems to be poor acting performance.

Now, my husband tells me that some critics have been putting down Ewan's portrayal of Obi-wan. This is one of the things I thought was flawless! Obviously, the other thing I enjoyed was the special effects!

Overall, I'd say the movie is definitely worth seeing; not worth waiting in line for more than an 1/2 hour though. If you can't get to a theatre / showtime that isn't packed (I was able to), then see it in a couple weeks when the crowds settle down.

Saving Silverman (2001)

Was I just in a silly mood?

[16 February 2001]

I was laughing hysterically in this movie! I don't know why other people hated it so much. Maybe I just need to get out more? Anyway, don't expect too much, maybe you'll actually enjoy the silliness of it :) One reviewer said only Beavis and Butthead would laugh at this...one reason I laughed is because Silverman's friends seemed to embody Beavis and Butthead! They were so stupid, it had to be funny. But if you don't like Beavis and Butthead type humor, than I suppose this movie wouldn't be for you :)

The Haunting (1999)

Ok, but not scary.

[6/10 · 25 July 1999]

I saw the movie tonight, after just finishing the book by Shirley Jackson "The Haunting of Hill House." The movie was ok, but certainly not frightening. I don't understand why the film was even based on the novel. The only things that stayed the same were a few character names, and the name of the house. Why not just change the names of the characters and house, and then have a completely original film not based on a book, or a previous movie? I haven't seen the original movie, but I hear it is very good, and scary. Why should this film even set out to compete?