scubergmu Reviews

The Mist (2007)

Dark Mist

[8/10 · 12 December 2007]

I'm gonna be up front about this, my review will give away certain things about the ending. Stop reading right now, if you have not already seen The Mist.

Okay, this movie is one for serious horror buffs. I just got out of a showing, and as we were filing out, a guy across the isle looked at me and said, about the ending: "Wow, that's messed up." This movie possessed a signature King quality, in that it managed to creep you out with both human and supernatural elements. And it brought both of those elements big time.

The Mist really had a far greater quality to it that your standard horror movie out these days. I had expected that when I saw that the director was Frank Durabont. He's now taken on three very different Stephen King stories, and I think made the three best, out of the dozens of King adaptations made over the years. The endings were all very different as well, one being blissfully happy and optimistic, another subdued and somewhat bittersweet, and the third incredibly intense and dark.

As for the cast, if you're a fan of Durabont's movies, you've seen a number of these people before. Jeffrey DeMunn and Bill Sadler were excellent as always. I'm sure that Marcia Gay Harden had the most fun during filming, she really was a scene-stealer playing an outrageous religious fundamentalist woman. Actually though my favorite performance was turned in by English actor Toby Jones. He doesn't look like an action star, but his character really was, and I just loved his style. Tom Jane and Laurie Holden were perfectly fine as our main characters, but to be honest, they're both just so incredibly attractive, I was kinda distracted by that the whole movie. Neither of them really look like anybody you'd actually see in a small town store.

So anyway, as high quality as this movie is, I don't see it as possessing a lot of cross-over appeal. It was among the most intense Stephen King adaptations, and it is not a date movie, unless you're both big fans of the King. This is a dark horror movie, not for beginners. The ending is chilling and leaves you thinking about it over and over again. Stay away if you like to walk out of a movie singing a happy tune.

Primary Colors (1998)

Politics as Hollywood Wishes

[9/10 · 20 October 2007]

First of all, I gotta say that I love it when Hollywood takes on political subject matter, because it almost is always so rife with liberal wishful thinking. Maybe Bulworth wasn't, but when I think about this movie, The Contender, & The American President, its always so cute to see Democrats in charge & the only question of which way to proceed is one made within the party's ranks. I'll be honest, I sure wish that things were more like that. However out in the real world, the actual American President doesn't care about guns or global warming, there could never be an atheist contender for the Vice Presidency, and getting the Democratic nomination is not THE major obstacle to becoming the next President.

Did you notice how that last fantasy listed was the one that occurred in Primary Colors? Republicans were never even shown in the movie, just mentioned a couple of times. By the end, we saw a candidate have the Democratic nomination in the bag, and then it flashed to a scene of him dancing at his inaugural ball. When you look back over the last 40 years (as of 2008), you see that Democrats have occupied the White House for 12 of them, or 30% of the time. So when are these Hollywood writers gonna start acknowledging that fact?

As I watch the film now, I am just constantly reminded of how very different everything is in politics from the 90's to today. This movie was all about Democrats vying for the White House. And how much of the policy talk in this movie involved national security and military issues? None as far as I could tell. As long as the Democrats continue to be the mommy party, talking about nothing but education & health care, they're going to be either the minority party, or really close to it, forever.

Now I did enjoy the movie, and the performances were excellent, especially from Adrian Lester and Kathy Bates. The whole film was essentially a chronicle of how a politician could be so brilliant and such a bright, shiny hero to the people at times, and also a low-down lecherous screwup at other times. I like that sort of depiction of people in stories & movies. And it is truly the Bill Clinton story. One biographer called him the Michael Jordan of politics, and yet most people remember him more for his womanizing. Bill Clinton may have been a flawed guy, but at least he was an interesting and brilliant political figure. And he does make for an interesting character study. It is just a shame that in this country, interesting Democrats hardly ever get elected President. They just don't appeal to the American people the way cookie-cutter Republicans can.

Runaway Jury (2003)

Entertaining, but Flawed

[6/10 · 9 September 2007]

Have you ever seen a movie that you find entertaining, but also ridiculous at the same time? People usually refer to those movies as guilty pleasures. Well with its very accomplished cast, good production quality, beautiful setting & perfectly fine acting performances, this movie is not a typical guilty pleasure, like say Road House or Iron Eagle. No I put The Runaway Jury in that category despite all the positive qualities listed. For it was all nevertheless centered around a court case that's just mindless and insulting.

Aside from the details of the court case, I did like all of the other elements of the movie. Gene Hackman made for an awesome villain. John Cusack was well cast, with the actor's oddly likable persona being a key element of the character. I also love how John Grisham always sets his novels in the south, in places like Memphis and Savannah. The movie versions always do a great job of establishing the beautiful look and feel of these places, and it really does add something. It is a nice break from the big, urban settings of most legal dramas. The few action scenes in the movie were well done and pretty intense. I even found myself pretty choked up at the end, as we heard stories of awful gun violence, and the families that they affected. But that just brings me back to the conclusion that I am supposed to draw, that the gun companies are liable. And I just don't go along with that. The original John Grisham novel "The Runaway Jury" was all about a civil case against some big tobacco company. But before they could turn that bestseller into a box office hit, the amazing, unprecedented, groundbreaking scenario of the book actually happened. The screenwriters then had to change the villains to keep it original, and they settled on gun manufacturers. But guns are not chemically addictive like cigarettes are, and that is the crux of the whole case against big tobacco. What on earth were they thinking making gun manufacturers the bad guys? Look I'm all for gun laws that order background checks on buyers, to keep guns from people with a history of criminal records or mental illness (like Cho Seung-Hui). But at the same time, I don't see how gun makers should pay millions of dollars to victims of gun crimes. I also don't believe that companies producing forks should be sued when people die of obesity-related illnesses.

So hey, at least we can all agree that we hate cynical, well-funded bad guys who try and control the judicial process by manipulating the formulation of juries. Those people deserve to go to jail. People who pick up guns and fire them at innocent people deserve to go to jail. The people who made the gun involved in such a crime didn't do anything wrong. The Runaway Jury had a lot going for it, but its central message was just off the wall. What ever happened to personal responsibility, huh?

A Time to Kill (1996)

I Do Not Get It

[4/10 · 3 June 2007]

Contains spoilers -- contains spoilers -- contains spoilers

You know it doesn't happen very often, which is probably why the experience is so memorable. How often do you see a movie, and by the end you think that the "good guys" are just flat-out wrong? Matthew McConaughey's character is wrong, and Sam Jackson's character did not deserve to go free. What is wrong with this country that we think that this is an example of a court delivering justice? Kevin Spacey's DA character was exactly right when he addressed the jury about Carl Lee Haley, and said "He's taken justice out of your hands, and put it into his own.".

You see, in the movie, we the audience are given the knowledge that those two racist, loser, rednecks actually did the crime. WE know that. So when we see Carl Lee Haley (Sam Jackson) conclude that they may go free and they have to die, and then storm into the courthouse and kill them, we're to feel that it is righteous and deserved. But in real life, you almost never get to know with such certainty who did and did not commit a crime. That's why the lady justice is wearing a blindfold. What if some other loser redneck who had a beef with these guys, did the crime and then tossed the evidence into their truck to frame them? What if some serial-rapist had set them up because he knew they, as drunken losers, were an easy mark? Do these scenarios sound so crazy?

But this is what we are so often served up on TV and in movies these days. We the audience get to KNOW, not think or suspect, but KNOW that some suspect is in fact the killer. And then the writers make our blood boil as they get set free on a technicality or something. But again, that's not real life. Sometimes the person that everybody KNOWS is guilty, didn't actually do anything wrong.

Of course we all hate racists and rapists, but this movie's message that some crimes are so heinous that vigilante justice is the right choice, is dangerous. I believe that there are bad guys out there who deserve to die, but since there is no way of undoing such an act, we need to be as sure as possible that we're punishing the right person. And that's why we have trials, judges, juries, Miranda rights, etc. When we start side-stepping all that from time to time, then there isn't anything separating us from the criminals. And John Grisham is a lawyer?!

National Treasure (2004)

Entertaining & Exciting. Surprisingly Good Movie.

[8/10 · 7 April 2007]

I was actually pleasantly surprised with this movie. After just one viewing, I'm forced to admit that you'd really be hard pressed to have a real problem with National Treasure. I really cannot stand Nicolas Cage generally speaking, and the same goes for producer Jerry Bruckheimer. But in this case, they managed to come up with an entertaining, yet informative film, that actually managed to be rife with American history lessons & pro-American sentiment, without being intensely sappy and cloying. Perhaps even more surprising was the fact that they kept the violence and death in the film to a minimum. As a result, families could actually watch this movie without the kids getting inundated with killing and gore. Of course, those same kids will get their daily dosage of that when they go home that night and watch CSI, but that's not the point. At least this film isn't part of that problem.

I guess for me, another appealing aspect of this movie was the fact that it gave me a good feeling regarding my country for a change. In my opinion, our country's leadership today is a cruel joke. So to have a film that takes us on a look back at the great & unique achievements of leaders like Franklyn, Washington, Jefferson, & Madison, that was kinda cool.

Even though National Treasure was only intended to be an entertaining summer popcorn flick, I feel that it was still impressive in its ability to teach us about our country's past & wrap that into a vibrant action movie that could be equally good as a family outing or a date movie. Check it out.

The Sentinel (2006)

Flimsy, Forgettable Action movie

[3/10 · 24 September 2006]

This movie serves as a sharp reminder of how paramount it is to the success of a film to have decent writers on board. I know it may sound like like an utterly trite, common-sense lesson, but the fact that this movie turned out the way it did shows that there are people out there in Hollywood who have not yet learned. This movie had a really solid cast, a big budget, and an exciting premise. And yet, from beginning to end, viewers are served up forgettable characters with poorly-developed back-stories, going through the motions in a plot that never hooks their interest. I watched the whole movie not giving a damn about Michael Douglas's fugitive character. This one does not measure up to the level of The Fugitive (1993). It is definitely more on par with say, U.S. Marshals (1998).

In fact, the only thing about this film that is worthy of discussion is which of its many facets was the most one-dimensional? There is a serious competition going on between: the main-character's relationship with the first lady, his feud with Keifer Sutherland's character, the secret plot to kill the President, the rookie agent played by Eva Longoria, and finally the question of which member of the Secret Service is a mole.

The film's climax and subsequent resolution one finds boring, banal answers to all of those questions that they never really cared much about to begin with. The overall impact on the viewer was virtually non-existent. This movie was lighter than air. Even if one were to watch it on HBO, they would still feel ripped off. Do not bother with this one, for it is terrible.

The Great Raid (2005)

Inspiring, Under-appreciated Film

[8/10 · 19 April 2006]

It is truly a shame that "The Great Raid" was such a bomb at the box office, given that it was such a powerful and insightful telling of a truly amazing event in American history. I was particularly impressed with the way the movie paid service to so many different players in the event. Not only were the struggles of the prisoners and U.S. Army Rangers planning the raid told, but also those of the Filipino freedom fighters, and the underground resistance leaders, helping the POW's at great risk to their own lives. I thought the movie was an honest, unglamorous, yet incredibly compelling re-telling of the sacrifices of heroes in the midst of a brutal war. Heroes are individuals who put themselves in harms way in order to protect others, and you will find so many different examples of heroism in this incredible, true tale.

And yet the movie was a financial bomb. The sad fact is, if "The Great Raid" had been released in July instead of August, with a star such as Tom Hanks in the cast, it would have maid ten times as much, easily. I am not judging the movie based on its box-office performance, I am just detailing the melancholy truth that the story shown in this movie, every bit as inspiring as "Saving Private Ryan", reached a far smaller audience because its stars, James Franco, Benjamin Bratt, Connie Nielsen, and Joseph Fiennes, are not quite as well known as those found in that other movie. I hope that this movie attracts a large following in video form, because an amazing story, told with such passion and conviction as this, inspires people to be better, to have greater perspective on their world situation, and maybe believe in something larger than themselves. I hope everyone who sees this film takes away as much from it as I did. And I also hope that it finds a much greater audience in time.

Philadelphia (1993)

Compelling, but over the top

[8/10 · 22 April 2005]

To me this movie is both a relevant and compelling story, as well as a model of overcompensation. I feel as though Philadelphia was trying desperately to show a touching, human side to the AIDS epidemic, but at the same time overly conscious of the lack of compassion much of middle America has for homosexual victims of AIDS. As a result, our protagonist Andrew Beckett is made to be a virtual superman. I would have had more respect for the film if they'd made him more like you and me. If he had been a bright, successful lawyer with friends, a loving family, and a serious relationship that would have made him someone we could really relate to. Instead, Andrew was a legal phenom, THE rising star, future senior partner, the future leader of the law firm. And in his personal life, he was the most popular person at his firm, beloved by all. More than that, he was the most popular member of his whole family, he was brilliant, affable, going straight to the top, simply AMAZING!!! Doesn't it seem like they tried too hard to get us on his side? To show the human story of AIDS, show us an actual person, not superman. That is problem with Philadelphia.

Having said that, Tom Hanks was fantastic, as usual. Denzel was also rock solid, his character basically representing all of us, the general public, the ones who don't empathize with gays because they either don't know any, or aren't conscious they know any, and fail to appreciate that they are real people and not merely stereotypes. His enlightenment with regards to this is one aspect of the movie I felt they came through on exceptionally.

Philadelphia was an important story to be told, for just like so many other human tragedies, for us the unaffected to be able to see just one example up close and personal, it carries so much more weight than all the news reports and statistics in the world. I hope it had some positive impact in creating compassion among the general public. I just wish the film makers hadn't felt it would be necessary to go to superhuman lengths to give us a character we could feel for.

The Fugitive (1993)

Rock Solid Thriller

[8/10 · 16 April 2005]

The Fugitive was in my opinion the most successful example of Hollywood's ongoing efforts to strip-mine the culture of the past. So many of the old TV shows re-done these days on the big screen are backward and silly, precisely because they were never intended to be two-hour movies, just laugh-tracked escapist fare for a more innocent time. The Fugitive on the other hand, is a silly old TV premise, that works great in the form of a movie. So, having taken an old show with some real promise, the film makers then managed to surprise us all by really delivering where it counted. From the jarring, disjointed opening sequence, to the white-knuckle chase scenes, the Fugitive is never boring. And even better than that, they came up with the brilliant idea of making the crew of U.S. Marshals to be the most engaging, entertaining part of it all. The Fugitive was an effort where everything came together flawlessly. In trying to spin off a sequel with U.S. Marshals (1998), we see how without the great writing, the same bunch could headline a movie that sucks.

King Arthur (2004)

Vapid and empty. Classic Bruckheimer!

[26 March 2005]

Jerry Bruckheimer's KING ARTHUR is a shining example of the standard Bruckheimer formula played out, nothing more, nothing less. While I will admit that he managed to resist setting the majority of the movie during the orange glow of sunrise or sunset for a change, everything else was true to form. The stars were beautiful, the film's heavy emphasis on style helped the to make its notable lack of substance more palatable, the action scenes were interminable and over-the-top, and not one single thing that happened surprised me one bit. Yea Bruckheimer! Watching King Arthur was like watching Braveheart or Gladiator, but fast-forwarding past all those "boring" scenes where people are just talking. There was no character development, none of these characters were interesting, or relatable in the slightest. And consequently when one's life was in peril, I didn't care in the slightest.

The best thing you can say about King Arthur, is that it was just loud, explosive, escapist fun. That is also the best thing you can possibly say about The Rock, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, Con Air, Top Gun, Gone in 60 Seconds, and so on. So this is what I mean when I say it is the standard Bruckheimer formula played out. Do not bother watching King Arthur. Demand more from your movies than "cool" characters and huge explosions. Bruckheimer films make us all dumber.

Iron Eagle (1986)

And you have to deal with me, Doug Masters

[7/10 · 6 February 2005]

I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher "Ride the Snake" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)

Pretty solid case, I hope somebody is paying attention

[9/10 · 25 December 2004]

Outfoxed does an excellent job of diagnosing why people talk so much about the Fox News network. For while Fox has some of the highest ratings of any of the news networks, it is also commonly criticized for its not so "fair and balanced" programming. It is chronicled in this film how Fox succeeds in bringing in the viewers the same way that best-selling polemics and political talk radio do, they serve up to their audience heroes and villains. This method is so effective because the major issues facing this country and the world are generally very complicated, and require a reasonable amount of background information in order to make a sober judgments. However, most people have neither the time, nor the inclination for anything like that. Most do not follow politics to learn, to be challenged, or to take action, they simply want to feed their outrage. If their anger about the world around them can be explained away by blaming the people they already have ideological differences with, well that's just awesome. So, they often take refuge in the consistent, simplified, outrage-inducing commentary of their oh-so familiar talking heads. This, to me is the essence of Fox News. From its on-air discussion groups, to its choice of stories, as well as its evening talk shows, it is all about spoon-feeding people with stories of heroic conservatives, fighting to strengthen America against its enemies, both foreign (terrorists) and domestic (liberals). The film demonstrates how Fox news achieves this through a steady feed of news reporting that is highly regulated, intentionally biased, and aligned around a predetermined ideological slant.

As far as I'm concerned, to explain the behavior of FoxNews by saying that it is simply "standing up for the conservative perspective in a sea of mainstream media liberalism" as many conservatives do, is highly misleading. I believe one can rightfully stand up for any perspective they want, just so long as they aren't forced to resort to dishonest, intentionally biased reporting in order to make or bolster their case. In Outfoxed, director Robert Greenwald makes a very compelling case that Fox News, in the interests of carving out that niche for itself, does that far more than the other news networks.

However, since it is exposing the methods of a successful conservative organization, the conservatives who hear of Outfoxed will most likely write it off as nothing more than liberal propaganda. That to me is the ultimate problem with the polarized American political scene. Just about anyone who would be interested in the subject matter of this film as politically oriented as it is, has probably already made up their mind about Fox News one way or the other.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Not Enough Respect for the Audience

[6/10 · 13 September 2004]

Okay, I have one big problem with this sequel to Die Hard. The movie was entertaining at times with McClain taking on more bad-ass terrorists and their ultra-elaborate plan. But unlike the first film in this series, this particular entry was utterly preposterous. Sure, the action of the first was huge and explosive itself, but in the scheme of the movie it always basically made sense. In Die Hard 2 though, there were individual scenes that made no sense, and a plot with holes so big you could fly a 747 through them. I do not mean to be the overly discriminating film reviewer who knit-picks at technical details and writes the movie off as a result. No, if you see one or even a handful of discrepancies, things that violate reality, you dismiss them. But this movie is just a series of them, over and over and over. I mean, how can you shut your brain off that much and just sit back and enjoy the action, when the movie couldn't happen in a million years for reasons that you don't even have to be some kind of expert to be conscious of. For example, at the beginning of the movie, National Airport is shut down because of the snow and you hear airport controllers discussing how they will be taking over its flight load. So my question is, if the terrorists disable Dulles, couldn't the reverse occur? How could the terrorists have counted on National being shut down for a snowstorm when they'd been planning for months? And then of course there is Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI), which was never even mentioned of course, that may have come in handy for people trying to land planes circling over DC. Also, how can they expect us to believe that the planes circling overhead are doomed to crash in two hours when they run out of fuel, when a flight from DC to Memphis, Philly, New York, or Atlanta takes less than that. And of course, why couldn't the controllers have transmitted to the planes using radios in planes that were already on the ground? My point is, you just can't sidestep reality in such a plethora of ways and expect an audience to follow you through the whole plot. If you have to do that so much to make your movie work then perhaps it never should have been made. Oh yeah, and having John McClain simply say at one point, 'How can the same thing happen to the same guy twice?', doesn't successfully negate the fact the odds on that are too infinitesimal to even be contemplated. So, bottom line, it had too many holes to be enjoyable, even though it was only trying to entertain with a series of explosions. The first movie was so much more plausible, and that's why people actually buy the first one by itself. I have a feeling the vast majority of Die Hard 2 owners bought it as part of the trilogy set, mostly as a means of seeing the other two.

P.S. I almost forgot about the grenades that took 20+ seconds to explode. Riiiiigghhht.

U.S. Marshals (1998)

Great Idea, Lousy Execution

[11 July 2004]

Spinning the crew of U.S. Marshals from The Fugitive (1993) off into their own movie was a great idea. The guys were a big part of a very well-made, highly successful movie, they could easily be placed in any number of exciting situations. They had great camaraderie and it was fun to watch them do their thing the first time around, so why not bring 'em back? But, here's the thing with this movie, and this is something that studios in Hollywood predominately don't care about; if the script is thoroughly nothing special, there is not much the actors or the budget or the special effects can do to redeem the venture. This was a classic example of a sequel that was guaranteed to make money right off the bat, so the quality was a secondary consideration.

It would also appear as though the screenwriters did as much sampling from The Fugitive (1993) as possible, from the innocent main fugitive, to the big crash on a prison transfer, to the out-in-the-s**t instigation of a hard-target search by the Gerard, to the thorough lack of possible villains among the characters, and so forth. None of this lead anywhere particularly interesting though, and after it was done, I felt like popping in The Fugitive for the fiftieth time. However, nothing since the initial viewing has ever made me want to see this movie again. Just don't waste your time, because U.S. Marshals does not have it where it counts.

Eraser (1996)

Explosive and Exciting, but no True Lies

[1 May 2003]

For some of the lesser action stars, you know Seagal and Van Damme, this sort of movie would have been some of their finest work. As for Arnold, he has actually headed up some of the best action vehicles out there like Predator (1987), T2 (1991), and True Lies (1994). Eraser is not in the same league as these action films. Though it certainly tried to follow in their traditions of mega-budgets and mega-violence, there was just something missing. To its credit, Eraser did come equipped huge special effects, a half dozen major action sequences each more explosive than the last, decent comic relief, and a cool villain. But it just didn't have that distinctive edge plot-wise that those other ones had. As far as characters go, only James Caan managed to stand out, even though the character he was playing was thoroughly over-the-top. But of course, so was the rest of the film so it was all good. It is always entertaining to watch a villain with real panache, and he had that going on here. So bottom line, Eraser was a solid Summer action movie, the kind worth seeing, but not necessarily worth buying. Better to get a copy of Predator instead.

Dreamcatcher (2003)

Why Bother?

[6/10 · 14 April 2003]

Dreamcatcher, like so many other movies that have been adapted from best-selling novels by well-known authors, fails simply because it tried to bite off more than it could chew. Its just is not possible to adequately relate a story of 700+ pages from a novel in a 2 hour movie. And because of this, you get many parts of the story introduced into the movie, but never adequately used, explained, or concluded. In this case, virtually every character was underdeveloped, from Col. Curtis (Morgan Freeman) who seems thoroughly extraneous, particularly towards the end, to Jonesy (Damian Lewis) and his struggle within his own mind, which was cut to pieces from its form in the novel and thus left rather insignificant. And at the same time, the other three members of the main group were all just one-dimensional. They're just a bunch of regular guys that we hardly know anything about.

Dreamcatcher from what I've read seems like the worst Stephen King story to have been made into a movie. Even in the novel, it was convoluted and difficult to follow. But at least with that, you got a chance to get to know the people involved. For all of its big-budget bravado and horror movie cliche scenes, when this movie is over, it seems as if no particular character or relationship stands out as memorable. It had to fly through so many scenes to explain enough of the complex story to get us by, that it made the characters act and realize things too quickly to be believable.

All in all, it would seem that a movie like this one pays a heavy price to have a big name like Stephen King in the credits. It actually has to remain somewhat faithful to a story it doesn't have time to really follow through on. I mean, if you have to edit down and change a best-selling author's work this much to put it on the screen, then why bother to adapt their work at all?

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

Seriously Missing Something

[7 August 2002]

I tell you this movie had everything going for it, big budget, big stars, proven director, a cool 60's flick to remake, and everything just seemed to fall flat just the same. I really had high expectations for this film, seeing as how I'm a huge fan of Steven Soderbergh, George Clooney, heist movies, ensemble casts, Las Vegas, and The Rat Pack. Amazingly it was still two of the least entertaining hours I've spent at the movies in years. Given what I am used to seeing from Soderbergh and Clooney (at least recently), I would have expected this film to be so more much more than it was.

Honestly I think that Ocean's Eleven suffered the most because it lacked restraint in the most superficial areas, leaving the rest of the movie severely lacking. They didn't seem to feel the need to present interesting characters because it had so many of them to take up the screen. Most of the eleven aren't all that important, they just have their little part of it and that's it. The two important ones outside of the eleven, are naturally more ubiquitous. Still quite disappointingly, those played by Julia Roberts and Andy Garcia, remain a mystery throughout. They were simply there, one character to be gotten and one to be beaten. Would it have been too much of a task to show us why Harry Benedict (Garcia) is supposed to be such a loathsome villain, or why Tess (Roberts) is supposed to be so desirable? These two are as one-dimensional as they come in movies, and that is a far cry from what we've seen in Erin Brockovich (2000), Out of Sight (1998), or Traffic (2000).

Surely the biggest disappointment however was the lack of restraint involving the heist on the casino itself. I mean honestly, one has to admit that too much of anything is a bad thing and too much elaboration is no exception. The heist that the gang sets up and attempts crosses the line from clever and cool to way-too-complicated-to-be-real long before its done. I found myself rolling my eyes a lot as I watched it played out. If Danny Ocean (Clooney) could come up with a scam like this, as intricate as it is, you wouldn't think he wouldn't be just getting out of prison. You'd think he'd be running an organized crime family, or he'd be in Congress or something like that. Watching the scam, it was all simply too much. It was like watching a clever rant that runs on and becomes long-winded and you find yourself checking your watch and staring at the floor (see Good Will Hunting). In this case, less certainly would have been more. If I am going to give the movie any praise it would have to be directed almost completely at Elliot Gould's character who provided the only funny scene with his re-telling of the most successful heists in Vegas history. That was amusing and that was about it.

I fully understand there are movies out there that just serve to entertain and do not deserve to be scrutinized because there's really nothing there but style and show (see the whole Bruckheimer collection). If only Ocean's Eleven could have deviated from this formula a little more. If the audience could have gotten into the characters and legitimately related to them, empathized with them, rooted for them, whatever, then the events of the movie would have carried some real weight. Ocean's Eleven, in devoting so much time to showing this ridiculously complicated scam play out, didn't have any time left for the fine points like that. All in all, it was too-big, too-stylish, and seriously too-forgettable. Damn, what a disappointment.

Under Siege (1992)

The Best Movie of 1992!

[6 June 2002]

There are three main reasons why I consider this to be the greatest film of 1992, perhaps of the 90's altogether. First of all, Steven Seagal is a terrific actor. When he is at work, the man is an artist. Clearly he must have spent months intensely studying other special forces commandos serving as cooks in the United States Navy in order to better prepare. Hell when he comes onto the screen he appears with such an intensity that one is immediately reminded of a young Marlon Brando. Coincidentally, with his steady weight gain all through the nineties today he more closely reminds one of an old Marlon Brando, but that's straying from the topic. How Seagal was passed up at Oscar time when this movie was released is beyond me. In my mind the only thing more impressive than his performance was the realism of his character. Don't ever venture into the kitchen of one of America's warships, because all of our fry cooks have previously served in special forces units were they'd been vigorously trained on how to kill a man ten times before he hits the ground. Its important to remember that.

Secondly, the movie was such a winner because it was just so damn realistic. I mean, they have seldom addressed this in movies before, but our naval surface fleet is just ripe for the picking from international terrorists. When you get right down to it security on these ships is so poor it may be easier to break in to a K-Mart after hours than to lock a battleship crew in the ship's basement and start selling off their cruise missiles that very night. Also, everyone knows that Navy SEALs are easy enough to take out. Hell with the exception of the film Navy Seals (1989), I can't think of a single movie in which a SEAL unit wasn't decimated long before the closing credits. Clearly all of Hollywood has keyed into the fact that these guys are incompetent, and lambs for the slaughter at the hands of well-trained bad guys. But, Americans can still sleep well at night, for we've got our military's kitchens well stocked with highly trained killers. The terrorists may be able to take over the ship and take down the SEALs, but if they head downstairs for a sandwich, they're likely to lose their life.

And finally, this movie proves even today to be the gold standard by which all of the action movies are judged, because its plot every bit an original. The idea that a group of well-funded, highly-trained, armed-to-the-teeth international terrorists-for-profit could seize control of dozens of American hostages and have their entire complicated scheme slowly become unraveled by the one man they didn't count on, a man who happens to have found himself right in the middle of things...yes that came all right from the brilliant mind of Under Siege's writing staff. Kudos to them for finally coming up with an original idea in Hollywood. After all, this is a town whose denizens more and more only seem interested in making a cheap buck by either ripping off whatever hot idea just hit it big in entertainment, or by strip-mining the original ideas from decades past thereby inundating us year after year with needless, uninspired remakes and sequels. But that certainly is not the case here!! Everything came together flawlessly, most notably with Tommy Lee Jones playing a bad-guy mastermind with such flamboyance, such panache!! I thought bad guys were all supposed to be jerks, but he was really cool. I still can't believe what a craaazy guy he was. Oh how he just lit up the screen. But that's not to say he took anything away from Seagal, who made us laugh, cry, and most of all think.

What does he lead us to think about? Well, most all he led me to ponder just how safe the free world really is. I mean if the taking of a battleship can be shown realistically to be a rather simple task, what will these terrorists take over next! My money is on the Space Shuttle. Or even worse, maybe the Space Needle! Considering how likely this all is to happen, it's certainly scary to wonder about, so I just try and concentrate on entertainment. Most of all I concentrate on first class entertainment such as this. I feel like I am a better person for having seen it. I highly recommend it to any persons who call themselves Americans. God Bless this nation and all of its heroes...most notably the creators of Under Siege. But more than all of that, God bless Steven Seagal. Amen.

City Slickers (1991)

Perfect In Its Own Way

[28 March 2002]

City Slickers was the rare kind of movie where everything came together flawlessly. It was so thoroughly enjoyable and allowed its stars to shine so successfully, it still bothers me that they followed it up with such a lackluster sequel. But that's a rant for another review.

In looking at the movie one has to appreciate the unique premise and the choice casting, as well as the impressive visuals. Director Ron Underwood really takes the time to give us some amazing shots of western country that's just as purty as heaven. Above all of this though, the real beauty of this movie lies in its fantastic dialogue. It is having a script that gives us insight into the amusing, three-dimensional characters simply through their subtle comments, reactions to each other, and personal anecdotes that make it such a champ. This distinctive character development is the kind of stuff we do not see nearly enough in movies, especially comedies. Here, virtually all of the main characters are given a chance to shine comedically and dramatically. With Billy Crystal, Daniel Stern, and Bruno Kirby, we're given an awesome trio of friends. You never have trouble believing that these characters have been best of friends forever ("Remember Mitchie the Kid?"). Watching them together, arguing, reminiscing, laughing, whatever, is definitely one of the elements that makes this movie so excellent, and City Slickers 2 so without. Furthermore, Jack Palance, in his role as tough-as-nails trail boss Curly is great as the counterpoint to our group of city slickers. He and Crystal both played off of each other so well, with the stark contrast between their characters serving as the basis for so many laughs.

City Slickers was a huge hit for many reasons, but mostly because it made us laugh and did so with characters that for the most part, we could actually believe. These were characters we could relate to, there was virtually nothing about them that seemed "only in the movies", as it is with so very many others these days. This movie in its own way leaves very little to be desired. Clever, original, and always funny, City Slickers is a real winner. Go buy a copy on DVD, its worth it. Just try and stay away from the sequel.

The Net (I) (1995)

It Couldn't Happen to You

[9 February 2002]

Wow, when I first saw this movie, I was blown away at what a waste of money it was. Shame on Sandra Bullock for signing on for this tired, predictable, hideously unrealistic mess of a film. Oh yes, I know that when I picture a reclusive computer nerd, Sandra Bullock is the image pops into my mind. And I also am quite impressed with the whole "It could happen to you" premise, which only makes sense if you happen to know exactly three people, like the protagonist in this film. I suppose it really wouldn't be too hard to erase someone who hardly exists to begin with. I am also definitely blown away by the whole "if it's plugged in, its under their control" setup, which makes total sense when you think about it. In this film, even computers which would have no reason to be anything but a stand-alone, are totally under the control of the omnipotent bad guys. Right on. I hate this movie on so many levels that in writing about it my biggest problem is that I simply don't know which element of it I want to complain about first. Now maybe if they'd set the whole thing in the future, at least we could write it off as totally science fiction, but since we're set in the good old present, its totally open to criticism and boy does it deserve it.

To sum up, the entire plot is centered around the hope that the audience knows absolutely nothing about computers, the main character is incredibly miscast, the conclusion is horribly convenient, and once again, the premise is horribly unbelievable. What luck that the protagonist has virtually no friends, and only one family member who is so stricken with Alzheimer's disease that she doesn't even know her own name. Yes, this further reinforces the scary, "It could happen to anyone" premise. Because when you get right down to it, who in this world really has more than three friends? No one as far as I see it, so yes, Sandra Bullock's plight in this film is universal. So thank you, Sandra, for touching all our lives with a story that not only informs us as to the dangers of incredibly fictional, only-in-the-movies type cyber-badguys, but it also lets us know how close we all are to being erased.

When I retire some day, I'm going to devote all of my free time to seeing that ever single copy of this worthless film is stamped out of existence. Until then however, all I can do is recommend to potential viewers that they watch a more believable computer-based film, something like Hackers (1995), for example. At least that one was laughably ridiculous. The Net, on the other hand, is good for absolutely nothing. It is absolutely useless. How did this film ever get made? What a pile of s**t. Damn.

Deep Impact (1998)

Realistic, Entertaining, Underappreciated

[8/10 · 25 June 2001]

The film "Deep Impact" often draws a lot of comparisons to 1998's other Earth vs. Celestial Body film, "Armageddon". Aside from that concept however, the two could not have been more unalike. While Armageddon got by on its big-time stars, rampant sense of humor, and the best special effects $140 million could buy, Deep Impact managed to be much more substantial with an ensemble cast of Hollywood midlisters, life-like earthbound drama, just roughly one half the budget of its summer competitor. What is impressive and interesting about Deep Impact is the way it manages to present a reasonably realistic depiction of people dealing with a situation such as a possible apocalypse. The ensemble cast from all walks of American life is reminiscent of other worldwide disaster pics such as "Independence Day" and "The Day After".

Although the film is not exactly free of technical flaws, (such as my personal favorite) the suggestion that the largest spaceship ever built could be completed, in secret, over a period of just eight months. As well as casting mistakes, such as Tea Leoni, who is given a major role, but in the presence of such real Hollywood pros as Robert Duvall and Morgan Freeman comes across as a lightweight. Morgan Freeman, by the way, with his wonderfully dignified performance as the President, is not used nearly enough. Even in its limited capacity though, his role was one of the most memorable Presidential performances of recent years.

Despite a number of minor problems, overall Deep Impact is the rare big-budget Hollywood movie that manages to be an entertaining summer popcorn flick, but at the same time finds a way to be semi-realistic and avoid completely insulting the audience's intelligence. The dramatic element of the film was effectively played out, especially where the astronaut crew is concerned, all in all making it a powerful sci-fi drama. Unlike some other films of that summer, this one didn't constantly try and make you laugh your ass off with the threat of total destruction looming.

To sum it up, Armageddon may have been a bigger hit in the summer of '98, but it was simply getting by almost solely on Bruckheimer style. Unfortunately for the makers of that film, it is substance that endures, and that is why people will still be watching substantive films like Deep Impact, long after hokey fare such as Armageddon has been forgotten.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

How the hell did this movie get made?

[2/10 · 20 June 2001]

(This is a corrected version of the review already submitted)

I wonder if John Woo or Tom Cruise, or anybody associated with this film is actually proud of the product they created? Do you think they were all tied to some contract and had to make it, or some guys from the studio would come and cut off their thumbs or something? I'm really at a loss on this one. This was just about the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Now I'll admit, I haven't gotten around to seeing Battlefield Earth yet, so that distinction may change, but for now, yes, the worst. This movie embodies all the things that are wrong with big budget action movies in Hollywood. To start, it was nothing more than a vanity project on behalf of Tom Cruise. Like a lot of highly-paid leading men, his contract clearly stipulated that he not be in the film unless his character is the ultimate bad-ass of all time. Forget the fact that there was no character to play, he doesn't even need a name, Ethan Hunt, forget it, just call him "hero". That's all there is to it. And wasn't the "romance" of the film so well done as well? I mean, he did know this woman for a whole weekend before he was madly in love and willing to risk his life for her, so it all works.

Then there's our bad guy played by Dougray Scott, who, like our hero, is so generic and predictable he can just be called "villain", nothing more. Like all action movie bad-guys, he's only interested in money, and he'll just keep on blowing up busloads of nuns and clubbing baby seals until he gets it. And he looks just like Tom Cruise when he's wearing a Tom Cruise mask, even though he, like most men, is a half a foot taller than Tom Cruise! But hey, its an action movie, it doesn't have to make sense. Oh but there's more... The plot of MI2 was so weak and subordinate to the action scenes that most reviewers at the time simply described it as "having something to do with a virus". Yes that is definitely the way to put it, there's nothing more than that. But since they had to pay $20 million for Tom Cruise's salary, they couldn't afford to hire anyone who knows anything about viruses as a consultant. So we get a movie that's on par with Armageddon where realism is concerned.

I could write a book about why this movie sucked, so let me just try and wrap it all up:

The plot was almost non-existent, the characters were derivative, one-dimensional, and uninteresting, the action was over-the-top, ridiculous, and generally an insult to the audience's intelligence (particularly at the very end). Oh yes, and I almost forgot, occasionally brilliant actor Anthony Hopkins was in a couple of minutes of the film, further revealing to us that he'll act in absolutely anything, just so long as the check clears.

To put it mildly, all people associated with the production of Mission Impossible II should be deported to third-world countries that do not yet possess the technology to make motion pictures so they can't waste 125 million dollars on s**t like this again.

Hannibal (2001)

Too many problems to count

[5/10 · 19 February 2001]

This movie had so many things wrong with I'm not sure where to begin. The biggest flaw in my mind is simply that Anthony Hopkins wasn't scary as Hannibal Lector in this one. In The Silence of the Lambs he was like a wickedly intelligent, caged animal who'd strike horribly if given any opportunity, not necessarily to escape prison, but just because he was a psychopath. In Hannibal, as a free man he spends almost all of the movie just being a normal person, attending shows, working, travelling, drinking his Espressos, etc, and there's just nothing intense or creepy about any of it. Given the fact that Anthony Hopkins is also visibly a decade older and a good bit heavier than he was in the original, he seems rather harmless, just like any guy you'd pass on the street.

Another somewhat major problem with Hannibal is that the plot was really lacking. It seemed as though the events of the movie were just an excuse to reunite us with the two characters. You do have to appreciate the lengths with which the film=makers went to, to make sure that every person killed in the movie was done so in some uniquely, and often outrageously gruesome way. But what left me the most disappointed however, was the fact that director decided to scrap the book's somewhat cool, albeit far-out ending in favor of... basically no ending at all. What they gave us here as far as I can tell, didn't answer anything, didn't resolve anything, didn't sum anything up. The movie just kind of stopped going after two hours and they rolled the credits.

Hannibal the movie was totally style over substance, almost a complete reversal from The Silence of the Lambs. Here again, we have a highly anticipated sequel that costs about 8 times as much, but totally doesn't live up to the original in terms of the finer points, like possessing a little meaning, depth, or intensity.