Change Your Image
Sam_Gray
Reviews
Meet the Parents (2000)
Best comedy in years
I like comedies as much as the next guy, but I think that comedy as a genre tends to produce mediocre films more often than any other genre, and even the best of comedies aren't as likely as other genres to produce a film worth more than one viewing. It could be worse for comedy, though, as I think horror and action produce more outright bad movies than other genres.
Anyway, I think the mediocre tendency in comedy has been even more prevalent then normal in the past few years, as most of the major comedies releases have been, well, average efforts in my opinion, and I'm speaking of films such as: There's Something About Mary, both the Austin Powers movies, and Analyze This. You might notice I haven't included any of the "teen" comedies, but that's because I consider "teen" to be a genre onto itself. And, now that I think about it, "teen" is even worse than horror and action because it produces almost nothing other than terrible films, particularly if teen and horror combine without the word "scream" in the title. Comedy's looking better all the time.
But, alas, I digress. The point of the matter is that, with Meet the Parents, I've finally found a comedy that beats this mediocre trend. And, if you're anal about movie knowledge like I am, you're probably noticed that Meet the Parents includes, in its stars and director, people involved in each of the average films I mention above. In fact, that bit of trivia had made me somewhat wary of seeing this film.
Luckily for me, I crumbled. Meet the Parents is not only funnier that any other strict comedy in years, but it is also smarter. Part of my problem with a lot of comedies these days is the overuse of sight gags and toilet humor. Not that I have a problem with either, but I feel like movies insult my intelligence when they use either too often. Meet the Parents has its share of both, but most of the really funny stuff is verbal or situational. There's even an instance or two of choice satire near the film's end.
What surprised my the most about Meet the Parents, however, is how many of the laughs come from De Niro. He's definitely the straight man, but he's got some good lines. He's also well cast, and he has essentially taken a lot of his more prominent roles and toned them down into an overprotective father. At the same time, he's likeable, and that impresses me. His is the best performance in the movie and also his best in years.
True, Meet the Parents is a little over-the-top, but so what? It's also highly entertaining, and the fact that I would willfully watch it again, knowing the jokes, says a lot for it in my book. 9/10
What Lies Beneath (2000)
a well executed cliche
There's something about the horror genre that draws me in and makes me see lots of its movies. What's odd about that, though, is I almost always hate said movies or think them average at best (that are expections of course, such as The Sixth Sense, which is actually my favorite movie). Luckily, What Lies Beneath isn't a bad film, but it's only slightly above that average mark.
The most interesting thing about this film is the fact that Harrison Ford, despite getting top billing, is not the main character, and is very much secondary. What Lies Beneath is Michelle Pfeiffer's show all the way, and she provides it a good performance.
And thanks largely to Pfeiffer, the film is highly watchable. However, although I doubt this was his intention, it feels a bit like Robert Zemeckis is imitating other directors, namely Alfred Hitchcock and M. Night Shyamalan. I'm not the first to note comparisons to Hitchcock's Rear Window in the first half of the movie, and I'm sure I won't be the last. The pacing is much like that of Shyamalan's work. The problem is, when it comes to this kind of movie, Zemeckis is not as good as Hitchcock or Shyamalan.
However, I did enjoy watching What Lies Beneath. Obviously, it's nothing original or noteworthy, and it does have some horror movie cliches. Still, it is a competent film for the most part, and fans of the director, leads, or the genre shouldn't mind risking a rental on this. 7/10
Pay It Forward (2000)
the theme is uncertain
You know, I'm not sure I would have seen this movie if not for the actors in it. Sam Gray is not my real name and, as you might guess, a guy that uses "Gray" as the last name of his alias isn't going to be much interested in cinema fluff. However, Kevin Spacey is a personal favorite actor of mine, and I've seen all of his films since 1994. I've also enjoyed Hunt's work in her better movies, and I was tremendously impressed by Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense. But, this movie, along with Nurse Betty and Spacey's last film, The Big Kahuna, has convinced me that maybe actors alone aren't the thing to pay attention to when selecting a film.
But, there is some good news in Pay It Forward. Osment proves here that he's the real thing, and I'm looking forward to seeing him in Speilberg's hands for the upcoming A.I. I also think Spacey and Hunt give very good (even if occasionally overacted) performances. And the fluff isn't laid too thick, as the film is sometimes fairly depressing.
The problem, though, is that Pay It Forward isn't sure what it wants its audience to feel. Is the movie optimistic or pessimistic? It seems to want to be both, with great extreme in both directions; the ending is a wildly mixed message.
The movie's opening ten or fifteen minutes are pretty shaky, too.
Still, I must admit I found the film to be watchable, and it was more when I started to think about it afterwards that I really started to have problems with it. I credit the three leads for that, and so this film gets a higher rating from me than in probably deserves. 6/10
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Oh, yeah, it's really bad
But I expected it to be bad from the get-go. The only reason I actually found myself in a theater to watch this bomb was the insistence of my friend Michael, who somehow convinced me and, believe it or not, four of our other friends that this movie would probably be hilarious. I can't say he was wrong.
We had hoped the theater would be empty so that we could openly deride the film, and it basically was...but another group of four or five other people walked in just before the beginning of the film. I was expecting this would leave our cynical hopes dashed, but, to my great delight, as the film started, they proved to have the same intentions as us. I tell you with no less then ten people mocking every second of lameness in this movie, it made for many a hearty laugh.
And there are quite a few lame moments in Dungeons and Dragons. Even the tagline is lame: "Adventure hinges on more than just a throw of the dice." Sounds like an advertisement for the game.
What business does anyone have basing a movie on a game without plot anyway? I will admit to having played the game before (but only with great shame, as if I were admitting to clubbing baby seals), and it's nothing more than a set of rules from which the players are supposed to create a story. Not much meat for a film, eh?
But what really astonishes me is the presence of actors I recognize in this thing. I mean, Jeremy Irons is in this movie. What's going on with that? It's also got Marlon Wayans and American Beauty's Thora Birch. I suppose that's a little less weird, but still: huh? Irons and Birch give the worst performances in a movie filled with bad performances, too. Irons shakes his fists and grits his teeth continuously while uttering lines that our sometimes impossible to understand; it's as if he's having a seizure or something. Birch oozes so much artificial sweetness, one expects the ending may reveal her to be a gigantic PEZ dispenser.
Maybe this isn't all Birch's fault though. I mean, all she ever does in the movie is run around yapping about how the mages and commoners should be equal (class structure is apparently based on magic). She might start by not calling them "commoners."
Of course, the entire plot makes no sense, anyway. Something to do with Irons's character wanting a magical rod that controls dragons, but only if they're red...and depicted with B-rate special effects.
Like I said, watching this movie was funny because of the specific circumstances I found myself in. Otherwise, though, I think I would have been shaking my fist at the scene with all the anger of the Irons character. Avoid. 1/10
Nurse Betty (2000)
Not my speed
I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.
Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.
The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10
Unbreakable (2000)
woefully underrated
Even though this film has a relatively good rating as of this writing, I cannot help but feel it deserves much better.
I also cannot help but notice how many people are comparing Unbreakable to The Sixth Sense, which I suppose is inevitable. What I cannot understand is that many notice the similarity in style between the two films and levy objections - even some that enjoyed The Sixth Sense. My question is: what did these people expect? The fact is, many directors, especially great and memorable directors, do have distinctive styles that follow them from film to film. Consider Hitchcock, Lean, the Coen Brothers, or, to a lesser extent, Gilliam. All of them make films that are, in some ways, similar, and all of them make films that stand apart from each other. The same, thus far, is true of Shyamalan. I can only suppose he is receiving such a backlash because of his high profile, but I believe this is unfair.
That said, I must admit that I was worried walking into Unbreakable specifically because I did love The Sixth Sense so much. Indeed, The Sixth Sense is one of my favorite movies, but it was the first of Shyamalan's films that I had seen (though it was not his first film as many suppose). In similar situations, I have been disappointed, such as when Frank Darabont followed The Shawshank Redemption with The Green Mile and Bryan Singer followed The Usual Suspects with Apt Pupil.
Shyamalan, however, manages to retain the strengths of his style while once again exploring an established genre in a totally new way. Unbreakable is a super hero movie, but while most films of this type are pure escapism, Shyamalan infuses his movie with an interesting theme: the nature and necessity of dichotomy. What's really great, however, is that Shyamalan not only addresses this theme through character and plot progression, but also through the visual element.
Also, I must admit I love the ending. Indeed, I believe it's the only reasonable ending relative to the theme. For this reason, I don't know if I would even consider it to be a "twist." I do think the written epilogue is unnecessary, but that is a minor objection.
Furthermore, Shyamalan's able direction is aided by a great cast. As usual, Bruce Willis makes the perfect everyman and is easy to relate to. And I have long been a fan of Samuel L. Jackson, who generally stands out as a great performer even in his most average films (I also can't help but respect the fact that he looks different in almost all of his films, including this one). The two play well off of each other, Willis's average guy providing the perfect counterpoint to Jackson's eccentric. The rest of the cast is good as well, particularly Charlayne Woodard as Jackson's mother.
I admit that Unbreakable's has some flaws, particularly the convenient occupation of Willis's wife and the aforementioned epilogue. However, these flaws are greatly overpowered by the film's strengths, and thus I am more apt to forgive them then usual.
I do not often give films a "10" rating. Of the 335 films I have rated at this site thus far, this is only the thirteenth. But, I buy movies even less often, as rental is usually enough for me, and I already plan to own Unbreakable. It is a movie that I believe demands and deserves multiple viewings. I have already seen it twice, and I cannot wait to add it to my small personal collection. 10/10
The Watcher (2000)
The Plan 9 from Outer Space of serial killer movies
I'm really not bothered by the fact that The Watcher is one giant cliche from beginning to end. I'm bothered more by the fact that it's a badly executed cliche. Actually, in a sense, The Watcher is an amazing accomplishment because, let's be honest, it's got to take effort to make a movie this bad.
Okay, I'll be honest with you; I'm having some trouble thinking of what to say in this review because, well, there's so much wrong with The Watcher that I just can't think of where to begin. Or perhaps my mind has been permanently damaged by the incoherent and constant use of flashback in the movie, not the mention the slow motion. Don't get me started on the slow motion! Look! Keanu's dancing to Rob Zombie! Better shoot it in slow motion; it'll make him seem reeeaaal scary! What's that? A chase screen? Whip out that slow motion, raise the dramatic bar, yeah! Huh? Keanu's looking at someone? Make sure you use that slow motion because everyone knows that serial killers don't view the world at normal speed. Seriously, like half the movie is shot in slow motion, which only seems to make The Watcher seem even longer than it already is. And when you want a movie to end as badly as I wanted this one to end, you just don't want that, let me tell you.
And let's just leave the ridiculous plot and terrible acting out of this altogether and talk about the soundtrack for a moment. A lot of the film is filled with your pretty typical "scary movie" type of music, and it's overused and annoying in of itself. But what's up with all the techno rock stuff? In the middle of some really important, climatic scene, where someone's about to die or something, I'm not thinking it's a good idea to whip out the drum machine and turn up the bass.
And what's up with that phantom police car? I'm not kidding, at one point, James Spader's in the middle of a chase and a cop car appears out of nowhere, door open, keys in ignition, siren on, and Spader just hops in it and goes. Where did that car come from? I demand to know!
Well, needless to say, I hate this movie in a crazy, angry kind of way. There were points in the movie during which I was literally shaking my fist at the screen from the sheer irritation of it all. I should have just left the theater, and I'm not sure why I didn't. 1/10
The Cell (2000)
underwhelming in every possible way
There's a scene in The Cell, very early on, in which Jennifer Lopez is smoking a joint. It only happens once, isn't mentioned again, and isn't relevant to the plot in any way. It's as if director Tarsem Singh thought he could up Lopez's appeal to that valuable younger demographic if only he threw in some weed...along with a shot of Lopez's butt. I'm part of that demographic, by the way, and I'm not at all impressed by this film.
Now, let me be clear. The issue here is not that I have any particular problem with drug use in movies. I just think the scene sums up the entire film in general. Got a thin, generic plot? Throw in some marijuana and semi-nudity; the kids will love you for it. What, the characters don't have anything interesting to say? Better fill your movie with repetitive special effects instead. Huh, no suspense in your suspense thriller? Put some violence on the screen; they won't know the difference.
Really, at some point, The Cell represents just about everything that's wrong with the Hollywood machine. It has but three character focuses, yet all of them are about as generic as possible. Lopez is a sexy but capable and good-hearted social worker, Vaughn is a by-the-numbers FBI guy, and D'Onofrio is a completely typical serial killer. Not one of them much grows during the film. Not one of them is interesting.
And this is also one of those films that asks the viewer to accept every possible coincidence. D'Onofrio has an ultra rare mental disease, an ultra rare dog, and an ultra rare killing machine. I just find that to be a few too many "1 in a million" types of occurrences.
And don't expect impressive visuals to bear the burden, either. Granted, what effects the film has are good. But, after the first forty-five minutes or so, Sighn begins to repeat the same stock images over and over again. There's enough eye candy to fill a decent trailer but nothing more.
And, perhaps the worst part about it all is that The Cell is just watchable enough that Hollywood will continue to churn out more movies with the same flaws. As much as I hated it, I have to admit I wasn't bored during it. But I do regret paying $6.75 to see it. Wait for video if you still have to see it. 4/10
Road Trip (2000)
I was surprised...I usually hate this kind of movie
And I don't usually care for Tom Green either, but he's pretty funny here (much more overstated than usual). Also, Road Trip is less gross than most movies of its type. Though there are a couple gross parts, the film usually goes for humor in its dialogue, which is always the best way. Not an instant classic or anything, but an entertaining diversion, I'd say. 7/10
The Patriot (2000)
reminds me of another movie...
Comparisons to Braveheart are too obvious to make, but The Patriot also reminds me of another recent film - Gladiator. There's at least a few parallels: good visuals, convenient ending, lack of historical accuracy. So watching either of them is the same kind of experience.
So basically, if you like Gladiator, you'll probably like this movie and vice versa. Both are worth a viewing, both are somewhat moving, both are ultimately not that memorable. 7/10 (a point less than I gave Gladiator, true, but that's because I found The Patriot's score a little too generic)
Shaft (2000)
the casting makes this film
Shaft is a good example of how much good casting can help a film. Here, you've got a pretty generic plot (if a passable one), but Samuel L. Jackson and Jeffrey Wright breath a life into the film that doesn't come from the script. If you watch Shaft, watch it for the stylish acting; just don't expect to be amazed by the story itself. 7/10
The Perfect Storm (2000)
just atrocious...
I can't believe the incredible amount of buzz this movie received. It's just terrible. The first half is rather boring, giving us some background on the characters, true, but not bothering to develop them much at all. And the second half...ugh. The second half is pure chaos and nothing else. When the storm finally starts, you can give up any hope of being able to tell what's going on. People get thrown off the ship left and right and then get pulled back on again, but, much of the time, you can't tell just who it is that's in the water. The film goes on like that for like an hour. I mean, sure, Wolfgang Peterson does lots of impressive things with water in this movie, but it's a shame he doesn't bother much with the people. 1/10
Scary Movie (2000)
Ho hum
You've seen all the funny parts of this movie if you've seen the trailer, and that's the truth. Well...you've seen most of them anyway. For one thing, the Wayans brothers are relying way too much on sex-related jokes, here. None of them are funny and they're all pretty redundant after a while. Also, the death scenes quite easily could have been the funniest parts of the movie, but only one of them made me laugh much at all (it's the fifth one, but I don't want to give it away). In most cases, there's just too much standard horror movie violence for the movie to seem funny. All in all not a bad film, but a disappointing one. 5/10
X-Men (2000)
Not bad, but the top 250? Surely not.
Hmmm, I haven't been hanging around this site much lately, but I must admit some surprise at how highly this film is rated. I mean, I thought I'd have a higher opinion of it than most people because I used to read the comic book (which probably gives me a slight prejudice on the matter). Well, anyway, that said...
X-Men is not a bad film, but man, they could have done a lot more with it. I mean, here you have a movie that's basically guaranteed a profit, yet it's only a little longer than an hour and a half. I mean, there's not much character development here - for the most part at least; Wolverine and Rogue fans are in luck. However, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (as Mystique) has one line and Ray Park (as Toad) has two. Couldn't they do better than that? And Tyler Mane (Sabretooth) doesn't speak much either. In fact, outside of Wolverine and Rogue, Professor Xavier and Magneto are the only characters with much of a personality (flat as they might be), and yet Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen seem underused in the parts (especially Stewart). By the way, don't think that means there's lots of action because there isn't.
Which isn't to say that I didn't like the film. What action scenes it has are fairly good and the plot is passable enough. There simply didn't seem to be much to X-Men. When it ends, you feel like you've watched the first episode of a new TV series. And you have, basically, because you can pretty safely bet they'll be at least one sequel. 7/10
Gladiator (2000)
highly watchable, but not at all a masterpiece
Visually speaking, Gladiator is fantastic, the depiction of Rome being particularly impressive. Furthermore, even at two and a half hours in length, the film is never boring, and I can't complain about the acting, either.
It's too bad therefore, that the ending is so mediocre. The entire production seems to fall apart in the last twenty minutes or so, climaxing conveniently rather than realistically. And, of course, the film isn't historically accurate, but who would have expected it to be?
Now, I don't mean to say that Gladiator isn't worth watching. In the end, it's a good way to kill a few hours; just don't expect it to amaze you. 8/10
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
much better than the first
I thought the first Mission: Impossible was stupid. To be honest, much of this second installment is stupid, too, but it's so much more fun to watch. Sure, the relationship between Cruise and Newton is forced and laughable. Granted, most of the film's action sequences are unrealistic, and slow motion shots are used entirely too often.
But director John Woo sure knows how to make an exciting movie. Even though I was certainly aware of the impossiblity of Tom Cruise's Double Dragon style fighting maneuvers, I was nevertheless entertained. Really, the trick to enjoying this movie is simple: just don't expect to take it seriously (and to laugh occasionally). 7/10
The Big Kahuna (1999)
this type of play just doesn't belong on the screen
This is the worst Kevin Spacey movie since The Ref, and I feel I can say with some conviction since I've actually seen every Kevin Spacey since The Ref. I checked his filmography to be sure.
And, I've got to admit, the play on which this film is based is probably a good one; it just doesn't work as a movie. I've not read or seen the play, but, from the movie, I can tell you two things it with relative certainty:
1) It takes place entirely in one room.
2) It has three acts.
Why am I so confident? Well, because The Big Kahuna still looks like a play and not a movie, for it all takes place in a single hospitality suite, you see. Sure, on rare occasions a character is shown outside of the room, often depicted in a ridiculously unnecessary slow motion shot, but the two remaining characters (there are only three that matter) usually chatter on anyway. In fact, while we're on the subject of slow motion, let me mention that I really tend to hate it, especially in this movie. There's actually more than one shot of Peter Facinelli talking to another person in slow motion - more than one!
You can't blame the actors here, though. All three of them give quality performances, but the movie is incapable, by its very nature, of engaging an audience at all. It's the kind of play that would probably be absorbing if you saw it in a small community theater, but on screen, it's boring.
Worst of all, though, is the fact that the last two minutes of the film involve the three characters walking around while that intolerable Baz Luhrmann song (the one about wearing sunscreen) plays in the background. I mean, that song's annoying, and haven't they been using it in car commercials lately? 5/10, but strictly because the acting is so good
Screwed (2000)
calling it misguided is kind - calling it lame is accurate
What a disappointment. See, I found Dirty Work to be mildly amusing, and I like Norm Macdonald's work in general. Furthermore, I saw Dave Chappelle's stand-up act live a few months ago, and it was pretty funny. Thus, I really did expect to like Screwed, even though the critics didn't.
But, alas, those critics were right on target with this one. Almost every joke in the movie fails (the only particularly successful ones are near the end, too). Furthermore, one scene is unnecessarily violent for a movie of this type, making it all but impossible to laugh. The best moments usually belong to DeVito, by the way, but his part is pretty small (he's in like 5 or 6 scenes).
Incidentally, I'm really beginning to feel sorry for Chappelle, who just can't seem to do a good movie (I hated Half-Baked and Blue Streak, too). He's too funny to have this bad of a movie career. 3/10
28 Days (2000)
tries to walk the line between comedy and drama...and trips on it
I suppose I'll lay out the positive aspects of the film first, for it does have a couple. First, and most surprising, is the fact that Sandra Bullock actually holds this film together. It is the first time she's produced a serious performance since, uh, ever. Even better is Steve Buscemi, who, unfortunately, doesn't have nearly big enough of a part. A final plus is the fact that the film's heart is in the right place, even if it is misguided.
Which leads me to the negative. 28 Days attempts to tackle an incredibly heavy topic, but only with limited success. Primarily, there is a single reason for this, and it is because the film tries to be both a comedy and a drama at once. Few films pull this feat off very well (and they are usually romantic comedies), and 28 Days isn't one of them.
For example, the film goes to great lengths to demonstrate just how bad off Bullock's character really is, but it doesn't stick with that direction. Within the first five minutes of the film, she's destroyed a house and ruined a wedding - and she doesn't seem to care. Unfortunately, this does little to foster audience sympathy for Bullock, but that's besides this particular point.
The way I see it, if the film really focused more on Bullock's dark side, it would be better. But, alas, the movie adds several one-sided stereotypes that apparently are supposed to bring comic relief; all of them are distracting and only serve to rob the film of any power it might conceivably have. There's the angry-screw-the-entire-world type, the soap-operas-are-the-key-to-happiness-teenage type, the celebrity-baseball-player-playboy type, and let's be sure not to forget the eccentric-foreign-accent-man type (I particularly hate him). In other words, I couldn't care less about any of them. In fact, the only character outside of Bullock's that is even remotely interesting is Steve Buscemi's counselor. However, Buscemi's character is introduced, given more background than any other character in the film including Bullock, then dropped by the wayside completely. In my opinion, 28 Days could have been much more interesting had it analyzed a relationship between Bullock and Buscemi, but, hey, what can you do?
A final complaint. Director Betty Thomas seems to have attended the Blair Witch Project school of directing because every time Bullock's character has a flashback (which is often - let me say that again - often), the camera shakes as if the cameraman were suddenly overtaken by some sort of seizure. This same technique occurs during the unreadable opening credits. I'm sure Thomas is trying to make some sort of statement on alcohol's effect on memory and motor function, but she's not telling me anything I don't know and IS making me noxious.
Still, overall, despite my numerous complaints, 28 Days is watchable, and this is, again, largely due to Bullock's performance. Nevertheless, though, you could walk out of this movie and decide you want a drink, and I don't think that's the effect the filmmakers were aiming for. 5/10
Erin Brockovich (2000)
I would never have expected this to be a good movie
I remember thinking, from the first time I saw the trailer for this movie in theaters, that there would be no way that it could ever be a movie worth watching. For one thing, I've never been that impressed by Julia Roberts. In addition, the trailer made her look like she'd be playing a stereotype - a one-dimensional talk-to-my-hand-while-you-look-at-my-breasts type of character. But, most importantly, I was certain that there was no way, under the constant and unalterable laws that hold our universe together, that I would ever be able to sit through a film that associates itself with that accursed "Everyday is a winding road" song.
I guess I can't always be right.
I went to see Erin Brockovich because several people whose opinions I value promised me that it was actually good. Even then, I was skeptical, but I found this to be an extraordinary film. Far from being one-dimensional, Erin is an interesting, funny, and intelligent character and one of the best written female characters to appear in a movie in a long time. And, I must admit, Julia Roberts really sells the performance well. Depending on what else Hollywood has to offer this year, both Roberts and her movie may be looking at an Oscar nomination. 9/10
The Sixth Sense (1999)
I've seen it four times now...
And I still love it. I can honestly say at this point that The Sixth Sense is my favorite movie ever. In my opinion, it's better than The Shawshank Redemption, American Beauty, Dr. Strangelove, The Usual Suspects, and every other truly great movie I've ever seen. To use a common but appropriate cliche, The Sixth Sense is genius.
And it has so little to do with the ending, which seems a common fixation in this forum. I love the atmosphere, the low-key performance of Bruce Willis, the breathless acting of Haley Joel Osment, the brilliant usage of color and setting, and the overall quiet and meditative pace of the film. Shyamalan seems to have a real "less is more" philosophy of directing, and it works to this movie's advantage again and again. A superb movie, and still a 10/10 in my book. Do see it, if you haven't.
Keeping the Faith (2000)
not exactly what I expected
The previews fooled me on this one; I was expecting a comedy. And I guess I got one, though I only laughed in earnest a few times because, really, Keeping the Faith is sort of a serious movie - something of a romantic drama. But that works to its advantage, actually.
True, it is a little long, but this is a movie that makes you care enough about its characters to get past that. Stiller, Norton, and Elfman are all likeable, realistic people that have believable character flaws.
In fact, the only real problem I have with Keeping the Faith is its somewhat inconsistent (though at least respectful) treatment of religious relations. Sometimes, it's pretty grounded in reality, such as when Stiller, as a Rabbi, is concerned what his congregation will think if they find out he is dating a non-Jew. At other times, though, the film seems to enter a weird fantasy land where Catholics and Jews get along perfectly. I mean, is a joint Catholic-Jewish elderly hangout really that realistic?
But, even with its flaws, Keeping the Faith is worth a viewing. There might not be anything that profound here, but it's good for a few hours of escapism. 7/10
Fail Safe (2000)
quality TV, for a change
It's taken me a while to get around to commenting on this, but I have to say, this is the best thing to have hit TV in a long time. I can't remember the last time I thought that any feature-length, made for TV product was actually good. Knowing that this was done live only impresses me more.
And I've got a say, I've never been a big fan of George Clooney. I've never much watched ER, and From Dusk Till Dawn and Batman & Robin both left a bad taste in my mouth. But, knowing the prominent role Clooney played in getting this on TV, I'd actually be interested to see what he does next. This is that good.
If Fail Safe ever comes on TV again, I'll surely record it. I'd advise you to do the same. 10/10
U-571 (2000)
U-won't believe how stupid this movie is
*MINOR SPOILER, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO GIVE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT AWAY*
At one point during U-571, someone gets blown from the top of a submarine, having been hit in the head by some flying debris, lands a few hundred feet away in the middle of the ocean, then is still alive to yell something at another character hundreds of feet away on another submarine, who actually hears him, in the middle of a thunderstorm, while several other things go boom in the night around them.
But far be it from me to call U-571 unrealistic. Impossible is more the word. I would need no less than three hands to count how many times I said to myself, "Now that was stupid," during the course of this movie. In fact, there was one point when the entire audience, as an aggregate, basically screamed the words "Yeah, right!" at the screen.
The funny thing is, they actually had a military advisor for this film - a vice admiral, at that. Seems to me they couldn't have listened to him, though. I mean, granted, I don't know the first thing about military life, but I know enough about physics to realize that starting a diesel engine while underwater is a really bad idea.
True, the film could be worst. Parts of it are somewhat suspenseful, and the acting is passable. I wouldn't recommend you pay money to see it, though.
But, if you do, know this: there's no good reason to pay attention to anyone except McConaughey, Paxton, and Keitel. Anyone else in U-571 is important for maybe ten minutes - at best. In addition, this movie falls into the usual war movie trap of casting a whole bunch of people that look alike. And it doesn't help that they don't mention many names. For example, even knowing the name of Jon Bon Jovi's character from the credits, I can't place him in the film (granted, his fans will recognize him, I'm sure, but, no offense to the man, I'm not one of them).
Really, though, I should have known better than to go see U-571 in the first place. It's the type of movie that's usually rated "R" and usually released in the summer. So, if you think about it, the fact that it's "PG-13" and has come out in April speaks volumes in-of-itself. 4/10
Rules of Engagement (2000)
A great movie, but...
For my money, Rules of Engagement is the best movie so far this year. I wish that were saying more, because this film isn't great, but it should have been.
Rules of Engagement has a lot going for it, including a perfect cast and superb direction. Jackson, Jones, Pearce, Kingsley - all give great performances, especially Jackson, who is even more intense than usual (check out his eyes in this movie). Also, Jackson and Jones have a particularly good onscreen chemistry, neither overshadowing the other when they're in a scene together. Add to that Friedken, a director with a good sense of atmosphere (the scenes in Yemen are especially well done), and one would think the movie would be perfect.
And it almost is. So what kills it? The last fifteen minutes or so. I understand that this script went through several rewrites, and the story's original writer, James Webb, came close to completely denouncing the film. It shows towards the end of the film, at which point the movie suddenly makes incredible leaps in logic and realism that it has no business making. It's just another example of Hollywood pandering to its audience when it doesn't need to, and, in my mind, the entire rest of the film points toward an opposite ending. Rules of Engagement could have been a high 9 or a 10 if the ending had been better, so its good points still make it worth watching. Still, I can't help but wish the film had stuck to the real world a little bit more. 8/10