44 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/24/04 12:36am)
Go ahead, accuse me of breaking what has to be the cardinal rule of reviewing a movie. Come on, really. Tell me that I shouldn't have walked out before "Johnson Family Vacation" ended and tell me that, as such, I have no business discussing it in a public forum. You know what I think? That damn movie had no business wasting such a beautiful Saturday night. \nSit there and think about it for a second. What were you doing this past Saturday night? Porches? Frisbees? Beers? BBQs? Well, you know what I did? I watched Cedric the Entertainer pile his family of music industry detritus -- Vanessa Williams, Bow Wow (who's still "Lil" in my book) and Solange Knowles -- into a pimped-out Lincoln Navigator and drive from California to Missouri. \nGuess what? All sorts of wacky antics ensue. Ha, ha, ha. Bow Wow pees in a cup and Cedric almost drinks it. Ha, ha, ha. He throws the cup out of the window and it hits a cop on a motorcycle. Ha, ha, ha. They get thrown in jail and Williams gets them out by doing the cop's taxes. Get it? That's funny. She's Vanessa Williams and it's funny if she doesn't do the cop "favors" but instead uses her seductive accounting powers. The whole movie is like this.\nAs I am to understand it, the Johnson's were eventually going to make it to their family reunion in Missouri. Steve Harvey was waiting there -- which means a couple good laughs between two of the "Kings of Comedy" were fairly likely. But you know what? There is no way in hell it was worth waiting for. \nSure. I walked out. I didn't see what happened in Missouri. But come on, do you think that I needed to? The troubled family makes up and drives back to California -- lessons learned, hearts salved. I wasn't going to sit through the comedic equivalent of a puppy snuff film to see Cedric the Entertainer make up with Harvey and out with Williams. I made it 70 minutes. I'm being a coarse, incensed and callous bastard. But I don't care. You wouldn't make me sit though an entire puppy snuff film to tell you that it's a bad idea to watch it, would you?
(04/22/04 4:00am)
Go ahead, accuse me of breaking what has to be the cardinal rule of reviewing a movie. Come on, really. Tell me that I shouldn't have walked out before "Johnson Family Vacation" ended and tell me that, as such, I have no business discussing it in a public forum. You know what I think? That damn movie had no business wasting such a beautiful Saturday night. \nSit there and think about it for a second. What were you doing this past Saturday night? Porches? Frisbees? Beers? BBQs? Well, you know what I did? I watched Cedric the Entertainer pile his family of music industry detritus -- Vanessa Williams, Bow Wow (who's still "Lil" in my book) and Solange Knowles -- into a pimped-out Lincoln Navigator and drive from California to Missouri. \nGuess what? All sorts of wacky antics ensue. Ha, ha, ha. Bow Wow pees in a cup and Cedric almost drinks it. Ha, ha, ha. He throws the cup out of the window and it hits a cop on a motorcycle. Ha, ha, ha. They get thrown in jail and Williams gets them out by doing the cop's taxes. Get it? That's funny. She's Vanessa Williams and it's funny if she doesn't do the cop "favors" but instead uses her seductive accounting powers. The whole movie is like this.\nAs I am to understand it, the Johnson's were eventually going to make it to their family reunion in Missouri. Steve Harvey was waiting there -- which means a couple good laughs between two of the "Kings of Comedy" were fairly likely. But you know what? There is no way in hell it was worth waiting for. \nSure. I walked out. I didn't see what happened in Missouri. But come on, do you think that I needed to? The troubled family makes up and drives back to California -- lessons learned, hearts salved. I wasn't going to sit through the comedic equivalent of a puppy snuff film to see Cedric the Entertainer make up with Harvey and out with Williams. I made it 70 minutes. I'm being a coarse, incensed and callous bastard. But I don't care. You wouldn't make me sit though an entire puppy snuff film to tell you that it's a bad idea to watch it, would you?
(12/05/02 5:00am)
So it's Friday again, and who would have guessed it, Craig (Ice Cube) and Day-Day (Mike Epps) are behind on their rent. The only difference this time is that the two perennial slackers had their rent money swiped by a ghetto-Santa-Claus-thief (that, as they often remind you, is how it goes in the 'hood...ha).\nWhat's more, their naggy old landlady won't bend on the rent deadline and has promised the duo an encounter with her recently paroled nephew, a former jailhouse acquaintance of Craig and Day-Day who would love to "get to know them better" on behalf of his dear aunty. \nAnd now it's just like any other Friday. Our slacker heroes have 24 hours to come up with cash to protect their precious "dignity," and as you can imagine, their journey for the dough will run them into all sorts of trouble, create all sorts of excuses for fart jokes and introduce them to all sorts of madcap ghetto caricatures (well, maybe just a bunch of busty women, a mini-pimp and some good, old-fashioned 'hood-rats).\nAll in all, it's not the excruciatingly painful experience it could have been, and there are some funny moments. I always hate saying this sort of thing about a movie, but "Friday After Next" is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Besides the holiday motif there isn't much that separates this cookie cutter exercise in bland storytelling and bad directing from the previous sequel, "Next Friday." If you've seen the other two, you know exactly what to expect. It is still painfully obvious that the formula just doesn't achieve the same effect and is memorably without Chris Tucker. Just like "Next Friday," it's hard to not hope for a bit more out of nearly every aspect of the film. \nI guess that about sums it up, really. This is by no means a good film; I didn't particularly enjoy myself and I certainly don't condone dropping $7.50 on it, but I think everyone out there knows whether this sort of thing is your cup of tea or not. That, in the end, is really all that matters.
(12/05/02 5:00am)
I find it pretty hard to know what to expect out of Disney these days. While I'm not sure that the company has completely switched its attitude toward what kinds of movies to make, there does seem to be a push toward a new style of storytelling and a new approach to crafting the animated feature. Maybe this has all been brought on by the success of animated films from Pixar and Dreamworks, but like "Atlantis" before it, "Treasure Planet" represents a new form of Disney, one that trades the spontaneous musical numbers for a more kinetic action-adventure pace. \nThere is a lot to appreciate about some of the things in "Treasure Planet." Basically a sci-fi, George Lucasified version of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic "Treasure Island," "Treasure Planet" tells the story of a young and troubled (in the Disney sense of the word) boy, Jim (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who finds himself wrapped up in an adventure across the universe to uncover the Treasure Planet, to which he holds the only map. \nProbably the most interesting thing about "Treasure Planet" is that it never lets go of the whole pirates/boats/high-seas-adventure thing that made "Treasure Island" what it is, and because of the skillful welding-in of the makings of epic sci-fi adventure, the whole thing feels like something entirely new. There is a reason that Stevenson's tale is so timeless, and "Treasure Planet" does a decent job of not letting that feeling slip.\nWhen the story and animation are good, they're really good, and when the script and characterization go bad, they go really bad. It's a pretty frustrating film to watch, as it is easy to let the oft-induced awe of the story get swept away by a monster speaking "flatula," a montage sequence set to a terrible Goo Goo Dolls tune or an altogether forgettable bunch of characters.\nIt seems clear that Disney is honing its skills at this new formula and has created a pretty decent (sometimes terrific) film in the process. But one cannot help but hope that Disney learns what turned "Treasure Planet" into a forgettable experience, and in the future resolves to work the kinks out.
(12/04/02 5:13am)
I find it pretty hard to know what to expect out of Disney these days. While I'm not sure that the company has completely switched its attitude toward what kinds of movies to make, there does seem to be a push toward a new style of storytelling and a new approach to crafting the animated feature. Maybe this has all been brought on by the success of animated films from Pixar and Dreamworks, but like "Atlantis" before it, "Treasure Planet" represents a new form of Disney, one that trades the spontaneous musical numbers for a more kinetic action-adventure pace. \nThere is a lot to appreciate about some of the things in "Treasure Planet." Basically a sci-fi, George Lucasified version of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic "Treasure Island," "Treasure Planet" tells the story of a young and troubled (in the Disney sense of the word) boy, Jim (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who finds himself wrapped up in an adventure across the universe to uncover the Treasure Planet, to which he holds the only map. \nProbably the most interesting thing about "Treasure Planet" is that it never lets go of the whole pirates/boats/high-seas-adventure thing that made "Treasure Island" what it is, and because of the skillful welding-in of the makings of epic sci-fi adventure, the whole thing feels like something entirely new. There is a reason that Stevenson's tale is so timeless, and "Treasure Planet" does a decent job of not letting that feeling slip.\nWhen the story and animation are good, they're really good, and when the script and characterization go bad, they go really bad. It's a pretty frustrating film to watch, as it is easy to let the oft-induced awe of the story get swept away by a monster speaking "flatula," a montage sequence set to a terrible Goo Goo Dolls tune or an altogether forgettable bunch of characters.\nIt seems clear that Disney is honing its skills at this new formula and has created a pretty decent (sometimes terrific) film in the process. But one cannot help but hope that Disney learns what turned "Treasure Planet" into a forgettable experience, and in the future resolves to work the kinks out.
(12/04/02 5:03am)
So it's Friday again, and who would have guessed it, Craig (Ice Cube) and Day-Day (Mike Epps) are behind on their rent. The only difference this time is that the two perennial slackers had their rent money swiped by a ghetto-Santa-Claus-thief (that, as they often remind you, is how it goes in the 'hood...ha).\nWhat's more, their naggy old landlady won't bend on the rent deadline and has promised the duo an encounter with her recently paroled nephew, a former jailhouse acquaintance of Craig and Day-Day who would love to "get to know them better" on behalf of his dear aunty. \nAnd now it's just like any other Friday. Our slacker heroes have 24 hours to come up with cash to protect their precious "dignity," and as you can imagine, their journey for the dough will run them into all sorts of trouble, create all sorts of excuses for fart jokes and introduce them to all sorts of madcap ghetto caricatures (well, maybe just a bunch of busty women, a mini-pimp and some good, old-fashioned 'hood-rats).\nAll in all, it's not the excruciatingly painful experience it could have been, and there are some funny moments. I always hate saying this sort of thing about a movie, but "Friday After Next" is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. Besides the holiday motif there isn't much that separates this cookie cutter exercise in bland storytelling and bad directing from the previous sequel, "Next Friday." If you've seen the other two, you know exactly what to expect. It is still painfully obvious that the formula just doesn't achieve the same effect and is memorably without Chris Tucker. Just like "Next Friday," it's hard to not hope for a bit more out of nearly every aspect of the film. \nI guess that about sums it up, really. This is by no means a good film; I didn't particularly enjoy myself and I certainly don't condone dropping $7.50 on it, but I think everyone out there knows whether this sort of thing is your cup of tea or not. That, in the end, is really all that matters.
(11/21/02 6:45am)
You probably don't remember, but way back in August I took a look at the first, two-disc release of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" and spouted off about the money-grabbing marketing weasels at New Line Cinema who decided to torture poor, helpless fans by putting out two different versions of the film.\nI was excited knowing that the "Extended Edition" would include a half-hour of extra movie and boat-loads of special features, but that financially-burdened, anti-corporate college cynicism kicked in, and through it I channeled my anger, longing for the days when the decisions regarding movies went little beyond, "Do I see it in the theater or do I rent it?" In some weird way, I wanted to be disappointed in this huge DVD release, because then I would be justified in my frustration.\nBut damn it all, this is the coolest DVD that has ever been made. Ever.\nOK, similar to the film, this review is going to be hefty (there's tons to discuss), so lets talk about how this DVD is organized, as it seems to me that such a discussion will be the most illuminating and natural way to organize the meat and potatoes of my review.\nLike I said, there are four discs in the set. The first two are dedicated solely to the film and the four commentary tracks with which you can choose to view it (all of the tracks contain dialogue from nearly every important player in the creation of the film). I'm serious: two discs just for the movie and the commentary. The other two discs are the most densely packed collection of behind-the-scenes information that I have ever seen, titled, respectively, "From Book to Vision" and "From Vision to Reality." \nFirst of all, regardless of the physical demands required of your butt, the 208-minute "Extended Version" (Jackson is vehement in not calling this a "director's cut") is quite entertaining. In almost every case, it seems, a re-inclusion is primarily of an event detailed in the book that, for temporal and pacing issues, was cut from the theatrical release.\nSo having gone through this version of the film a few times, I'll say this: they are all good scenes, and some are really great to see back in the film (particularly scenes cut from the Fellowship's experiences in Lothlorien), but for the most part, it is clear that the overall pace of the film is slowed by their inclusion. It's cool, but by-and-large, it's for the fans.\nAnd then there are the special features -- two discs/appendices that, as a whole, represent the most interesting, in-depth and awe-inspiring look into the filmmaking process I have ever seen. No joke. Seldom in the history of film production has such an ambitious project yielded such a remarkable result, and never before has it been so well documented. In watching any section of either disc, rarely do five minutes go by that some little tidbit of information is not divulged, warranting by its very utterance a relieved sigh of "Ohhh! That's how they did it." \nTackling this DVD may be an insanely large viewing experience in which to engage yourself, but without reservation I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoyed seeing the film the first time. Surprisingly, it is not difficult to find this huge set for less than $30, and in terms of the dollars-to-entertainment-time ratio, that's quite a deal. Now, I suppose, the only trouble is finding the time to watch it all.
(11/21/02 5:00am)
You probably don't remember, but way back in August I took a look at the first, two-disc release of "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" and spouted off about the money-grabbing marketing weasels at New Line Cinema who decided to torture poor, helpless fans by putting out two different versions of the film.\nI was excited knowing that the "Extended Edition" would include a half-hour of extra movie and boat-loads of special features, but that financially-burdened, anti-corporate college cynicism kicked in, and through it I channeled my anger, longing for the days when the decisions regarding movies went little beyond, "Do I see it in the theater or do I rent it?" In some weird way, I wanted to be disappointed in this huge DVD release, because then I would be justified in my frustration.\nBut damn it all, this is the coolest DVD that has ever been made. Ever.\nOK, similar to the film, this review is going to be hefty (there's tons to discuss), so lets talk about how this DVD is organized, as it seems to me that such a discussion will be the most illuminating and natural way to organize the meat and potatoes of my review.\nLike I said, there are four discs in the set. The first two are dedicated solely to the film and the four commentary tracks with which you can choose to view it (all of the tracks contain dialogue from nearly every important player in the creation of the film). I'm serious: two discs just for the movie and the commentary. The other two discs are the most densely packed collection of behind-the-scenes information that I have ever seen, titled, respectively, "From Book to Vision" and "From Vision to Reality." \nFirst of all, regardless of the physical demands required of your butt, the 208-minute "Extended Version" (Jackson is vehement in not calling this a "director's cut") is quite entertaining. In almost every case, it seems, a re-inclusion is primarily of an event detailed in the book that, for temporal and pacing issues, was cut from the theatrical release.\nSo having gone through this version of the film a few times, I'll say this: they are all good scenes, and some are really great to see back in the film (particularly scenes cut from the Fellowship's experiences in Lothlorien), but for the most part, it is clear that the overall pace of the film is slowed by their inclusion. It's cool, but by-and-large, it's for the fans.\nAnd then there are the special features -- two discs/appendices that, as a whole, represent the most interesting, in-depth and awe-inspiring look into the filmmaking process I have ever seen. No joke. Seldom in the history of film production has such an ambitious project yielded such a remarkable result, and never before has it been so well documented. In watching any section of either disc, rarely do five minutes go by that some little tidbit of information is not divulged, warranting by its very utterance a relieved sigh of "Ohhh! That's how they did it." \nTackling this DVD may be an insanely large viewing experience in which to engage yourself, but without reservation I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoyed seeing the film the first time. Surprisingly, it is not difficult to find this huge set for less than $30, and in terms of the dollars-to-entertainment-time ratio, that's quite a deal. Now, I suppose, the only trouble is finding the time to watch it all.
(11/07/02 5:37am)
Oh joy, just what we needed -- another uninspired, underwhelming and overblown classic-TV knockoff splatter-painted together with respectable stars and a big budget. Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think that those crackpot writers over in Tinseltown are running pretty low on ideas. \n"I Spy," the latest in the long, sad line of TV-shows-turned big-screen-clunkers, should really only be called an adaptation based on its name and its overall theme. While most people consider Bill Cosby and Robert Culp's TV "I Spy" to be a groundbreaking, stylish, first-rate series, Owen Wilson and Eddie Murphy's pedestrian revisiting is nothing more than a splotchy, passé and teasingly inconsistent dud with two stars who should have known better.\nContrary to the original (which pitted spy Cosby with tennis star Culp), the film tells the story of a boxer, Kelly Robinson (Murphy), who is recruited by President Bush to help second-rate secret agent Alex Scott (Wilson) recover a stolen spy plane from the "evildoer" Gundars (an uninspired Malcolm McDowell). And that's pretty much the extent of it.\nApparently, even with a team of four screen writers, the best anybody could muster was this lame collection of painful action sequences and howling buddy-flick clichés. What's more, the bad action and story are all the more difficult to watch while trying to wait for the next dialogue scene, where the two comedians can start riffing away from the lousy script and actually garner some hearty laughs from the audience.\nWhen it's funny, it really works and everyone begins to laugh all the stupidity of the film away, but, sadly, it's only really funny for maybe four of its fidgety 96 minutes. It almost feels like the writers and director forgot why people were at the movie in the first place. Nobody wants to see horrifically staged action and cheap explosions; they want to see Wilson and Murphy do what they do best.\nYou know, it's kind of sad when I think about it. There are some really funny parts in this movie, and the hints of what could have been flutter away with every stretched-out bit of action between them. Let's only hope that one of these days we'll get past this notion that the only way to sell tickets is to use a name people recognize.
(11/07/02 5:00am)
Oh joy, just what we needed -- another uninspired, underwhelming and overblown classic-TV knockoff splatter-painted together with respectable stars and a big budget. Call me crazy, but I'm starting to think that those crackpot writers over in Tinseltown are running pretty low on ideas. \n"I Spy," the latest in the long, sad line of TV-shows-turned big-screen-clunkers, should really only be called an adaptation based on its name and its overall theme. While most people consider Bill Cosby and Robert Culp's TV "I Spy" to be a groundbreaking, stylish, first-rate series, Owen Wilson and Eddie Murphy's pedestrian revisiting is nothing more than a splotchy, passé and teasingly inconsistent dud with two stars who should have known better.\nContrary to the original (which pitted spy Cosby with tennis star Culp), the film tells the story of a boxer, Kelly Robinson (Murphy), who is recruited by President Bush to help second-rate secret agent Alex Scott (Wilson) recover a stolen spy plane from the "evildoer" Gundars (an uninspired Malcolm McDowell). And that's pretty much the extent of it.\nApparently, even with a team of four screen writers, the best anybody could muster was this lame collection of painful action sequences and howling buddy-flick clichés. What's more, the bad action and story are all the more difficult to watch while trying to wait for the next dialogue scene, where the two comedians can start riffing away from the lousy script and actually garner some hearty laughs from the audience.\nWhen it's funny, it really works and everyone begins to laugh all the stupidity of the film away, but, sadly, it's only really funny for maybe four of its fidgety 96 minutes. It almost feels like the writers and director forgot why people were at the movie in the first place. Nobody wants to see horrifically staged action and cheap explosions; they want to see Wilson and Murphy do what they do best.\nYou know, it's kind of sad when I think about it. There are some really funny parts in this movie, and the hints of what could have been flutter away with every stretched-out bit of action between them. Let's only hope that one of these days we'll get past this notion that the only way to sell tickets is to use a name people recognize.
(10/31/02 5:40am)
Let's get something straight before we do anything else: "Jackass: The Movie" isn't a narrative film. In fact, while it might be its most suitable categorization, to call it a documentary is even a stretch.\nQuite simply, "Jackass: The Movie" is just an 80-minute version of its parent MTV show or, more precisely, a version of the show that follows only in its format, theme and cast. You see, the insane stuntmen man-boy jackasses knew what medium they were dealing with this time, and in what they refer to as the grand finale of their now-cancelled TV show, they pull out all the stops, let it all hang out (often quite literally) and subsequently leave the audience somewhere between stunned nausea and tearful hysteria. \nFor those of you who aren't familiar with the "Jackass" concept, it basically boils down to this: a group of stuntmen, skateboarders and daredevils, all with seemingly insatiable penchants for pain, poop and beer, run around city streets and hotel rooms filming each other performing outrageous stunts, practical jokes and revolting acts of recklessness. That's it. They take the footage, give each segment a title (i.e. "Off-road tattooing" or "Panda attack"), edit it together, and turn it into one of the most side-splitting theater experiences I've had in some time. \n"Jackass" is as unabashedly far from high-brow entertainment as you can imagine, and going into this movie it is necessary to keep that in mind. Certainly the marriage of shock-value and nether-regions of slapstick is not a treat for everyone (I'm not kidding when I warn you that this movie really works the gag reflex).\nIf you hated the show, you'll hate the movie -- there is no doubt about that. Some may be outright appalled by everything "Jackass" represents and hail it as downfall of popular comedic entertainment, citing snobbish critics and arguing that what these guys do requires little talent or creativity -- but that may be missing the point.\nSure, there is no sense in arguing that they aren't the dumbest SOBs to ever electrocute their "gooch" on the silver screen, but credit should be given where credit is due. "Quality" or not, I laughed my ass off and expect that many of you will too.
(10/31/02 5:00am)
Let's get something straight before we do anything else: "Jackass: The Movie" isn't a narrative film. In fact, while it might be its most suitable categorization, to call it a documentary is even a stretch.\nQuite simply, "Jackass: The Movie" is just an 80-minute version of its parent MTV show or, more precisely, a version of the show that follows only in its format, theme and cast. You see, the insane stuntmen man-boy jackasses knew what medium they were dealing with this time, and in what they refer to as the grand finale of their now-cancelled TV show, they pull out all the stops, let it all hang out (often quite literally) and subsequently leave the audience somewhere between stunned nausea and tearful hysteria. \nFor those of you who aren't familiar with the "Jackass" concept, it basically boils down to this: a group of stuntmen, skateboarders and daredevils, all with seemingly insatiable penchants for pain, poop and beer, run around city streets and hotel rooms filming each other performing outrageous stunts, practical jokes and revolting acts of recklessness. That's it. They take the footage, give each segment a title (i.e. "Off-road tattooing" or "Panda attack"), edit it together, and turn it into one of the most side-splitting theater experiences I've had in some time. \n"Jackass" is as unabashedly far from high-brow entertainment as you can imagine, and going into this movie it is necessary to keep that in mind. Certainly the marriage of shock-value and nether-regions of slapstick is not a treat for everyone (I'm not kidding when I warn you that this movie really works the gag reflex).\nIf you hated the show, you'll hate the movie -- there is no doubt about that. Some may be outright appalled by everything "Jackass" represents and hail it as downfall of popular comedic entertainment, citing snobbish critics and arguing that what these guys do requires little talent or creativity -- but that may be missing the point.\nSure, there is no sense in arguing that they aren't the dumbest SOBs to ever electrocute their "gooch" on the silver screen, but credit should be given where credit is due. "Quality" or not, I laughed my ass off and expect that many of you will too.
(10/24/02 4:00am)
When it comes to horror movies like "The Ring," there are a handful of brief, salient questions that should be answered without ambiguity. And instead of spending the next 350 words trying to get all the questions answered, we'll just get the big ones out of the way now.\nOK, here we go: Is "The Ring" scary? Yes. Is it gory? No, not really. Is it campy? No. Is Naomi Watts good? Yes. Is she hot? Yes, very. Are there plot holes? Yeah, but it's horror, and plot holes come with the territory. Is it well made? Yes. Is it better than the original? I don't know. Will my review be very interesting if I keep doing this? No.\nOkay, deep breath, focus, let's return to normal reviewland, shall we?\nYeah, so there's this videotape and it's killing people. Right after watching what looks like a combination of the quintessential surrealist poster child, "Un Chien Andalou," and Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" video, stunned viewers of the freaky VHS receive a prompt phone call informing them that they will die in seven days. And then they do. \nIt strains credibility, I know. But that's exactly the attitude that gets a young, inquisitive reporter (Watts) in front of the TV, and subsequently, marked for death and in a one-week race to uncover the secrets behind the mysterious tape.\nA remake of a successful 1998 Japanese film called "Ringu," the film is a surprising and stylish directorial effort from Gore Verbinski, whose previous efforts include "Mouse Hunt" and "The Mexican" (a strange combo, no?). While it often fails to provided adequate explanations for its porous plot, "The Ring" survives on skillful aesthetics and pacing and a thrilling performance from Watts.\nAll in all, it's a nice specimen of the genre, with plenty of well earned squirms and shrieks from a satisfied audience. And what's more, it gives all you DVD-philes out there another excuse to avoid VHS. \nOh yeah, I need to answer the important question, the one I deftly avoided above: Is it worth your $7? Yeah, I think so, considering the alternative. Anyone who waits to watch this on frightening flick on video ought to give it a second thought.
(10/23/02 5:11am)
When it comes to horror movies like "The Ring," there are a handful of brief, salient questions that should be answered without ambiguity. And instead of spending the next 350 words trying to get all the questions answered, we'll just get the big ones out of the way now.\nOK, here we go: Is "The Ring" scary? Yes. Is it gory? No, not really. Is it campy? No. Is Naomi Watts good? Yes. Is she hot? Yes, very. Are there plot holes? Yeah, but it's horror, and plot holes come with the territory. Is it well made? Yes. Is it better than the original? I don't know. Will my review be very interesting if I keep doing this? No.\nOkay, deep breath, focus, let's return to normal reviewland, shall we?\nYeah, so there's this videotape and it's killing people. Right after watching what looks like a combination of the quintessential surrealist poster child, "Un Chien Andalou," and Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" video, stunned viewers of the freaky VHS receive a prompt phone call informing them that they will die in seven days. And then they do. \nIt strains credibility, I know. But that's exactly the attitude that gets a young, inquisitive reporter (Watts) in front of the TV, and subsequently, marked for death and in a one-week race to uncover the secrets behind the mysterious tape.\nA remake of a successful 1998 Japanese film called "Ringu," the film is a surprising and stylish directorial effort from Gore Verbinski, whose previous efforts include "Mouse Hunt" and "The Mexican" (a strange combo, no?). While it often fails to provided adequate explanations for its porous plot, "The Ring" survives on skillful aesthetics and pacing and a thrilling performance from Watts.\nAll in all, it's a nice specimen of the genre, with plenty of well earned squirms and shrieks from a satisfied audience. And what's more, it gives all you DVD-philes out there another excuse to avoid VHS. \nOh yeah, I need to answer the important question, the one I deftly avoided above: Is it worth your $7? Yeah, I think so, considering the alternative. Anyone who waits to watch this on frightening flick on video ought to give it a second thought.
(10/17/02 4:00am)
You'd think that, with its respectable cast and decent writers, "Knockaround Guys" could have at least been entertaining. Not that Vin Diesel and Seth Green are the best of actors working in Hollywood today, but with the team of writers who conjured up the enjoyable poker flick, "Rounders," behind the helm and John Malkovich on board, I was hoping to see something adequate, maybe even pleasantly surprising, out of "Knockaround Guys." \nBut now, having waited through this uninteresting celluloid identity crisis, I know the reason it has been shelved for nearly three years after shooting wrapped in 1999 -- it just isn't any good.\nThe biggest problem with "Knockaround Guys" is that it just can't make up its mind about what type of movie it wants to be. Sometimes, and most importantly, it's a coming-of-age story. Right from the get-go, "Knockaround Guys" focuses in on Matt Demaret (Barry Pepper) and his struggle to emerge from his notorious mafia boss father's (Dennis Hopper) shadow. So with a little help from his uncle (Malkovich), his father's hardnosed right-hand man, Matt is able to convince Daddy that he is ready for his own assignment.\nSo with a crew of his junior-varsity mafia buddies (Diesel, Green and Andrew Davoli), Demaret is given the task of retrieving a bag containing a half-million dollars cash from way out West. But you know what happens when you get a cokehead pilot (Green) to fly the bag for you? Well, as we all know, he'll probably lose it in Montana. Now the four junior wise guys have to go to Montana, and now it's a fish-out-of-water story. And boy oh boy, you've never seen a better excuse to open up a Pandora's Box of clichés than four mobsters in Montana (ha, ha, ha, they don't know who Brooks and Dunn are).\nWithout doubt, "Knockaround Guys" is about as predictable as they come. There are really only two sources of suspense in it: wondering how Malkovich will pronounce his next line and trying to guess whether the next scene will be an impotent comedic attempt or a ho-hum moment of "heavy" drama. There might be a couple things here and there that keep "Knockaround Guys" from being a complete flop, but by and large, it struggles to be anything besides a forgettable bore.
(10/16/02 5:10am)
You'd think that, with its respectable cast and decent writers, "Knockaround Guys" could have at least been entertaining. Not that Vin Diesel and Seth Green are the best of actors working in Hollywood today, but with the team of writers who conjured up the enjoyable poker flick, "Rounders," behind the helm and John Malkovich on board, I was hoping to see something adequate, maybe even pleasantly surprising, out of "Knockaround Guys." \nBut now, having waited through this uninteresting celluloid identity crisis, I know the reason it has been shelved for nearly three years after shooting wrapped in 1999 -- it just isn't any good.\nThe biggest problem with "Knockaround Guys" is that it just can't make up its mind about what type of movie it wants to be. Sometimes, and most importantly, it's a coming-of-age story. Right from the get-go, "Knockaround Guys" focuses in on Matt Demaret (Barry Pepper) and his struggle to emerge from his notorious mafia boss father's (Dennis Hopper) shadow. So with a little help from his uncle (Malkovich), his father's hardnosed right-hand man, Matt is able to convince Daddy that he is ready for his own assignment.\nSo with a crew of his junior-varsity mafia buddies (Diesel, Green and Andrew Davoli), Demaret is given the task of retrieving a bag containing a half-million dollars cash from way out West. But you know what happens when you get a cokehead pilot (Green) to fly the bag for you? Well, as we all know, he'll probably lose it in Montana. Now the four junior wise guys have to go to Montana, and now it's a fish-out-of-water story. And boy oh boy, you've never seen a better excuse to open up a Pandora's Box of clichés than four mobsters in Montana (ha, ha, ha, they don't know who Brooks and Dunn are).\nWithout doubt, "Knockaround Guys" is about as predictable as they come. There are really only two sources of suspense in it: wondering how Malkovich will pronounce his next line and trying to guess whether the next scene will be an impotent comedic attempt or a ho-hum moment of "heavy" drama. There might be a couple things here and there that keep "Knockaround Guys" from being a complete flop, but by and large, it struggles to be anything besides a forgettable bore.
(10/10/02 6:47am)
Though it may look like your average star-studded, soft-spot, string-pulling tear-jerker, Moonlight Mile is certainly a pleasant surprise of a story. Loosely based on writer/director Brad Silberling's own tragic loss of his girlfriend Rebecca Schaeffer (an up-and-coming TV star who in 1989 was murdered by an obsessed fan), the film takes a quirky yet earnest look at the taxing and complicated process of grieving and the rearrangement of life after grief.\nWhat stands out most about the story in Moonlight Mile is its reluctance to be just a tale of sorrow and recovery. In many ways, the film is more about ordinary people trying to find their place in a knotty and unpredictable world. \nAfter the tragic and random murder of his fiancé, Joe Nast (Jake Gyllenhaal) finds himself wedged in the leftover circumstances and expectations that preceded the untimely tragedy -- and he's not sure that's where he wants to be. Living with his late love's brokenhearted parents, JoJo (Susan Sarandon) and Ben (Dustin Hoffman), Joe's life has become eddied in the staus quo in which the three key players find themselves swimming in circles, rudderless in their own confusion.\nBut like I said, it's not the sappy cry-fest it could have been. At times, in fact, Moonlight Mile is tremendously funny. Silberling's well-crafted but flawed script seems sincere and real, as the performances of Gyllenhaal, Sarandon and Hoffman really hold the film together where it might have otherwise gone astray. In fact, Moonlight Mile is yet another solid career choice for the immensely talented Gyllenhaal. For me, watching his brilliant performance next to Hoffman seems like a changing of the detached-and-conflicted youth guard, as the parallels between Gyllenhaal's Joe and Hoffman's legendary role as Benjamin in The Graduate can't be ignored.\nAll in all, Moonlight Mile does not disappoint. It may not be perfect, but it is sincere, and that, at least, is something to be appreciated. If nothing else, it's the acting in Moonlight Mile that deserves a look. And seriously, if you're still not convinced about Gyllenhaal, well, you're wrong, becasue you probably haven't seen "Donnie Darko"
(10/10/02 4:00am)
Though it may look like your average star-studded, soft-spot, string-pulling tear-jerker, Moonlight Mile is certainly a pleasant surprise of a story. Loosely based on writer/director Brad Silberling's own tragic loss of his girlfriend Rebecca Schaeffer (an up-and-coming TV star who in 1989 was murdered by an obsessed fan), the film takes a quirky yet earnest look at the taxing and complicated process of grieving and the rearrangement of life after grief.\nWhat stands out most about the story in Moonlight Mile is its reluctance to be just a tale of sorrow and recovery. In many ways, the film is more about ordinary people trying to find their place in a knotty and unpredictable world. \nAfter the tragic and random murder of his fiancé, Joe Nast (Jake Gyllenhaal) finds himself wedged in the leftover circumstances and expectations that preceded the untimely tragedy -- and he's not sure that's where he wants to be. Living with his late love's brokenhearted parents, JoJo (Susan Sarandon) and Ben (Dustin Hoffman), Joe's life has become eddied in the staus quo in which the three key players find themselves swimming in circles, rudderless in their own confusion.\nBut like I said, it's not the sappy cry-fest it could have been. At times, in fact, Moonlight Mile is tremendously funny. Silberling's well-crafted but flawed script seems sincere and real, as the performances of Gyllenhaal, Sarandon and Hoffman really hold the film together where it might have otherwise gone astray. In fact, Moonlight Mile is yet another solid career choice for the immensely talented Gyllenhaal. For me, watching his brilliant performance next to Hoffman seems like a changing of the detached-and-conflicted youth guard, as the parallels between Gyllenhaal's Joe and Hoffman's legendary role as Benjamin in The Graduate can't be ignored.\nAll in all, Moonlight Mile does not disappoint. It may not be perfect, but it is sincere, and that, at least, is something to be appreciated. If nothing else, it's the acting in Moonlight Mile that deserves a look. And seriously, if you're still not convinced about Gyllenhaal, well, you're wrong, becasue you probably haven't seen "Donnie Darko"
(10/03/02 4:00am)
When it comes to Jackie Chan movies, I'm generally inclined to cut them all the slack I can muster. There is no sense strolling into the theater hoping to see Academy Award fare. It's Jackie "Drunken Master" Chan and that's just not the point. Chan films exist because he exists and, in most cases, succeed only because he has his own brand, a charming mix of innocent humor, physical comedy and some serious one-on-20 martial-arts madness. \nYeah, and then there's "The Tuxedo."\nThe debut film from Kevin Donovan, the award-winning director of a beer commercial (that's right, I said "a beer commercial") and a Sammy Hagar video, "The Tuxedo" is nothing more than a blasphemous excuse to stick a camera in Jennifer Love Hewitt's cleavage. Granted, I'm sure some of you are thinking there could be worse excuses, but I thought the excuse to make a Jackie Chan movie was supposed to be Jackie Chan.\nBasically (and I'm still confused about the details), cab driver Jimmy Tong (Chan) is recruited to become the limo driver of a suave millionaire, Clark Devlin, who -- you guessed it -- is a key player in international espionage and intrigue and the proud owner of a sentient, high-tech tuxedo that gives its wearer super-physical ability.\nBut after a car bombing that leaves his boss hospitalized, Tong decides to wear the suit himself and stand in as Devlin, a decision that propels the unsuspecting Tong into a battle against a bottled-water tycoon with plans of world domination. Painful, isn't it?\nUsually, as long as Chan kung-fus plenty of henchmen, it isn't hard to let the plot slide. But in the "The Tuxedo" there are only vague hints of the Chan we know. I mean, let's get a couple of things straight: Chan does not need wires to kick people and Chan does not need computer FX. Even the editing of the already-pathetic fight sequences is a total disgrace. Sadly, this might be the worst yet of Chan's U.S. films, with only "Mr. Nice Guy" to rival it, and that, at least, had some decent fighting.
(10/03/02 4:00am)
I had almost forgotten why I love movies so much. In a time when remakes, sequels and regurgitations routinely dominate the Hollywood landscape, it's been more than easy to lose sight of the cinematic spirit and the very reasons, I hope, we all go to the movies. As an art form, film has the unique ability to completely transform the world around us, commanding, for those few hours, all of our awareness and emotion. \n"The Fast Runner," the first film ever made in the Inuit language, tells the epic tale of a man, Atanarjuat (Natar Ungalaaq), and his struggle against an evil that has shaken the roots of his nomadic Inuit community. Caught in a bitter conflict of jealousy, deceit and violence with Oki (Peter-Henry Arnatsiaq), the short-fused son of the camp leader, Atanarjuat is forced to flee naked into the Arctic emptiness and begin a struggle for his life and the fate of his people.\nStrikingly "filmed" in the glorious landscape of Canada's Arctic Circle (something only made possible using digital video), "The Fast Runner" is director Zacharias Kunuk's first-ever motion picture, a landmark achievement that has already earned numerous awards (including the Camera d'Or at Cannes). Though it's hard to say enough for the film's dazzlingly simplistic, but no less stunning, imagery, it is certainly the enthralling story and the genuinely talented cast (many of whom are making their screen debut) that turn the "The Fast Runner" into one heck of a mesmerizing experience.\nThough at first it may be difficult to see "The Fast Runner's" grainy video quality as anything but a minor setback, in the end it may very well be one of the movie's most interesting qualities. It's like lending a sense of reality and documentary-like attachment to a legend whose ability to transcend cultures, languages and environments rivals that of Shakespeare or Homer. \nSimply put, "The Fast Runner" is one of the most fulfilling movie experiences I've had in a long time. It really is a treat that Kerasotes has brought this film to Bloomington, an opportunity, I assure you, that should not be missed.