90 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/22/01 4:01am)
There are two types of Brad Pitt roles: ones that focus on his natural acting ability and ones that focus on his good looks. In 1995's "12 Monkeys," Pitt plays mental patient turned insane revolutionary Jeffrey Goines whose maddening genius is trapped inside a body and a world that don't seem ready for it. The film plays on the edge of insanity and shows how sanity is judged as majority thought. Pitt's character exploits that idea, while time traveler Jim Cole (Bruce Willis) is victim to it. \nThe only role to ever garner Pitt an Academy Award nomination, Goines is a man whose words seem only sane within a mental institution. His insight into the subject of insanity makes the definition of the word hazy and leaves the viewer wondering what to make of Goines' sanity. Pitt plays the role perfectly, combining long monologs with jerky body movements. \n The film takes place in several planes of existence, with Cole being sent from the year 2035 back in time to find a cure to a deadly virus that has killed more than 90 percent of humanity in 1997. Unfortunately for him, he is sent to 1990 instead of 1996, making it difficult to accomplish his goals. Of course, once in the past, the society around him dubs him insane because no one believes his seemingly "crazy" story. Cole is placed in the mental institution and meets Goines, who in his own crazy way explains sanity to Cole and tells him that what makes people insane is their inability to live like everyone else. He even has a rant about how people in this society are just consumers, an unintentional foreshadow to his Tyler Durden character in 1999's "Fight Club."\n The film is based on a 1962 French short called "La Jette" and is directed by former Monty Python member Terry Gilliam. With good performances from Willis and Madeleine Stowe, and an incredible one from Pitt, "12 Monkeys" is a sci-fi thriller that plays with time travel in a different way than other films. Unlike "Back to the Future" and "Time Cop," films in which the future can be changed by adjusting the past, Cole cannot change the future by altering the past. Instead, he can only use the past as a tool for learning, and the film's final act is a chilling example of how we cannot escape our own destinies.
(02/22/01 5:00am)
While winning a Golden Globe is indeed a huge honor, there is no question that when it comes to awards for achievement in film, the Oscars are the grand daddy of them all. While you do have to slosh through People magazine's fashion reports and Joan Rivers' annoyingly comical laugh to get to the meat of the night, this annual flashy event is without question film's biggest showcase. Like any award show, the nominations, announced Feb. 13 in Los Angeles, bring about as much question as clarity, and many questions are left to be answered. \n \n1. When is two less than one? \nYou're a Hollywood director who, during the past 12 months, captured the imaginations of audiences across America with two films on opposite ends of the spectrum: one a biographical tale of a single mother's conflict between maternal responsibilities and her duties to her community, the other a multilayered look at the war on drugs at home and in Mexico. Is your double nomination for best picture and best director a blessing or a curse? This is what Steven Soderbergh asked himself after his two 2000 films, "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic," made Oscar history. He also received a double direction nomination for the Golden Globes but lost to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" director Ang Lee, whom he again is up against. Many think although this double nomination is a testament to his hard work, his films will cancel each other out, making room for Lee's gravity-defying martial arts film or Ridley Scott's "Braveheart"-esque Roman epic "Gladiator."\n \n2. Will Miramax's efforts be rewarded? \nThe indie film company headed up by Bob and Harvey Weinstein made another serious Oscar push, this time thrusting "Chocolat" into the last slot for best picture. This marks the studio's ninth consecutive best picture candidate, starting in 1992 with "The Crying Game" and picking up best picture wins for "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare in Love" (1996 and 1998 respectively). In "Chocolat," the Weinsteins probably have their weakest candidate since 1995's "Il Postino" ("The Postman"), but they have shown once again just how much of a force Miramax is and will continue to be in the film industry.\n \n3. Will the academy ever recognize comedies as real films?\nWhile the Golden Globes breaks down major awards into drama and comedy, you're more likely to see Steven Spielberg go home empty handed than a comedy win best picture. I know "Shakespeare in Love" and "As Good As it Gets" were well represented in their respective years, but these were "heartwarming comedies" with two of the strongest foundations in film: William Shakespeare and Jack Nicholson. Unfortunately, the Coen brothers' "O Brother Where Art Thou" was virtually ignored, even though it was one of the top films of the year. Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" certainly was a heartwarming comedy and was the brainchild of the creator of "Jerry Maguire." But it's the voice of the Baby Boomer generation, and the gray hairs of the academy don't exactly relate. The prejudice against comedies does not end with the films but extends to the actors as proved by back-to-back snubs of Jim Carrey for "The Truman Show" and "Man On the Moon." \n \n4. Will you be watching when Steve Martin says "good night"? \nMaybe not. The show has become frustratingly long, forcing its viewer to wade through tribute after tribute, some good and some not. Without Oscar stalwart Billy Crystal, the show will have a different feel, but with Martin at the helm, we're sure to be in for some good laughs. One of the ways the show could easily be shortened would be to eliminate the best song category, or at least the performances. The category was appropriate in the days when lavish musicals owned the screen as well as the stage, but now it's hard to find five good songs and even harder to sit through them. Taking out the song award and adding a category for best comedy would make the presentation more watchable and allow the viewers to be more excited for "And the Oscar goes to" than \n"Good night everybody"
(02/22/01 4:31am)
While winning a Golden Globe is indeed a huge honor, there is no question that when it comes to awards for achievement in film, the Oscars are the grand daddy of them all. While you do have to slosh through People magazine's fashion reports and Joan Rivers' annoyingly comical laugh to get to the meat of the night, this annual flashy event is without question film's biggest showcase. Like any award show, the nominations, announced Feb. 13 in Los Angeles, bring about as much question as clarity, and many questions are left to be answered. \n \n1. When is two less than one? \nYou're a Hollywood director who, during the past 12 months, captured the imaginations of audiences across America with two films on opposite ends of the spectrum: one a biographical tale of a single mother's conflict between maternal responsibilities and her duties to her community, the other a multilayered look at the war on drugs at home and in Mexico. Is your double nomination for best picture and best director a blessing or a curse? This is what Steven Soderbergh asked himself after his two 2000 films, "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic," made Oscar history. He also received a double direction nomination for the Golden Globes but lost to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" director Ang Lee, whom he again is up against. Many think although this double nomination is a testament to his hard work, his films will cancel each other out, making room for Lee's gravity-defying martial arts film or Ridley Scott's "Braveheart"-esque Roman epic "Gladiator."\n \n2. Will Miramax's efforts be rewarded? \nThe indie film company headed up by Bob and Harvey Weinstein made another serious Oscar push, this time thrusting "Chocolat" into the last slot for best picture. This marks the studio's ninth consecutive best picture candidate, starting in 1992 with "The Crying Game" and picking up best picture wins for "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare in Love" (1996 and 1998 respectively). In "Chocolat," the Weinsteins probably have their weakest candidate since 1995's "Il Postino" ("The Postman"), but they have shown once again just how much of a force Miramax is and will continue to be in the film industry.\n \n3. Will the academy ever recognize comedies as real films?\nWhile the Golden Globes breaks down major awards into drama and comedy, you're more likely to see Steven Spielberg go home empty handed than a comedy win best picture. I know "Shakespeare in Love" and "As Good As it Gets" were well represented in their respective years, but these were "heartwarming comedies" with two of the strongest foundations in film: William Shakespeare and Jack Nicholson. Unfortunately, the Coen brothers' "O Brother Where Art Thou" was virtually ignored, even though it was one of the top films of the year. Cameron Crowe's "Almost Famous" certainly was a heartwarming comedy and was the brainchild of the creator of "Jerry Maguire." But it's the voice of the Baby Boomer generation, and the gray hairs of the academy don't exactly relate. The prejudice against comedies does not end with the films but extends to the actors as proved by back-to-back snubs of Jim Carrey for "The Truman Show" and "Man On the Moon." \n \n4. Will you be watching when Steve Martin says "good night"? \nMaybe not. The show has become frustratingly long, forcing its viewer to wade through tribute after tribute, some good and some not. Without Oscar stalwart Billy Crystal, the show will have a different feel, but with Martin at the helm, we're sure to be in for some good laughs. One of the ways the show could easily be shortened would be to eliminate the best song category, or at least the performances. The category was appropriate in the days when lavish musicals owned the screen as well as the stage, but now it's hard to find five good songs and even harder to sit through them. Taking out the song award and adding a category for best comedy would make the presentation more watchable and allow the viewers to be more excited for "And the Oscar goes to" than \n"Good night everybody"
(02/15/01 9:41pm)
Director Ridley Scott has bitten off more than he can chew in this less-than-stellar sequel to the 1991 Oscar-winning thriller, "Silence of the Lambs." \nEven with Anthony Hopkins back in top form as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, "Hannibal" falls well short of any expectations audiences might have. While "Lambs"' plot was driven by the relationship of Lecter and then FBI-trainee Clarice Starling, "Hannibal"'s characters are about as filling as a couple of Twinkies.\nTaking place a decade after "Lambs," "Hannibal" finds Starling an FBI veteran, disgraced after a botched drug raid. And Lecter is alive and well in Florence, Italy, keeping tabs on her through the Internet. \n"Lambs"' biggest strength was the contrast between Lecter's subdued genius and Starling's confident yet vulnerable facade. "Hannibal" relies heavily on inside jokes from "Lambs" as well as enough changes in Starling's character to force Jodie Foster to turn down reprising the role that won her a best actress Oscar. Julianne Moore does a great job imitating Foster's Starling, but without a good script to work with, she flounders helplessly like one of Lecter's victims. \nThe script also gives Hopkins and Moore precious few scenes together, the best of which is a cat-and-mouse carousel sequence, an obvious rip-off of Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." "Hannibal" also suffers in Scott's direction. \nFresh off his best drama Golden Globe for "Gladiator," Scott's direction constantly gets in the way of the plot as he takes painfully obvious steps to glorify Lecter. \nThe film will also turn stomachs with some particularly gruesome scenes, including one that gives new meaning to the phrase "brain candy." \nPerhaps the film's most unsettling aspect is the introduction of Lecter's only surviving victim, a decaying, faceless cripple (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman) who wants to catch Lecter and feed him alive to a pack of wild boars. \nAlthough he didn't have much script to work with, Scott did little to improve its quality and fell well short of the bar that Jonathan Demme set in 1991. The director's influence is noticeable throughout the entire film, and whether that is good is up to the viewer. \nWith a repulsive autopsy and the murders of Buffalo Bill, "Lambs" certainly shocked its audience. Hannibal succeeds at surpassing its predecessor in blood and guts (literally), but there is little substance to the style. \nThe film builds to a shocking yet illogical conclusion and shows that Scott really had nothing new to say about these characters. If you never saw "Lambs," don't bother seeing "Hannibal." But if you do see it, go on an empty stomach.
(02/15/01 5:00am)
Director Ridley Scott has bitten off more than he can chew in this less-than-stellar sequel to the 1991 Oscar-winning thriller, "Silence of the Lambs." \nEven with Anthony Hopkins back in top form as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, "Hannibal" falls well short of any expectations audiences might have. While "Lambs"' plot was driven by the relationship of Lecter and then FBI-trainee Clarice Starling, "Hannibal"'s characters are about as filling as a couple of Twinkies.\nTaking place a decade after "Lambs," "Hannibal" finds Starling an FBI veteran, disgraced after a botched drug raid. And Lecter is alive and well in Florence, Italy, keeping tabs on her through the Internet. \n"Lambs"' biggest strength was the contrast between Lecter's subdued genius and Starling's confident yet vulnerable facade. "Hannibal" relies heavily on inside jokes from "Lambs" as well as enough changes in Starling's character to force Jodie Foster to turn down reprising the role that won her a best actress Oscar. Julianne Moore does a great job imitating Foster's Starling, but without a good script to work with, she flounders helplessly like one of Lecter's victims. \nThe script also gives Hopkins and Moore precious few scenes together, the best of which is a cat-and-mouse carousel sequence, an obvious rip-off of Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." "Hannibal" also suffers in Scott's direction. \nFresh off his best drama Golden Globe for "Gladiator," Scott's direction constantly gets in the way of the plot as he takes painfully obvious steps to glorify Lecter. \nThe film will also turn stomachs with some particularly gruesome scenes, including one that gives new meaning to the phrase "brain candy." \nPerhaps the film's most unsettling aspect is the introduction of Lecter's only surviving victim, a decaying, faceless cripple (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman) who wants to catch Lecter and feed him alive to a pack of wild boars. \nAlthough he didn't have much script to work with, Scott did little to improve its quality and fell well short of the bar that Jonathan Demme set in 1991. The director's influence is noticeable throughout the entire film, and whether that is good is up to the viewer. \nWith a repulsive autopsy and the murders of Buffalo Bill, "Lambs" certainly shocked its audience. Hannibal succeeds at surpassing its predecessor in blood and guts (literally), but there is little substance to the style. \nThe film builds to a shocking yet illogical conclusion and shows that Scott really had nothing new to say about these characters. If you never saw "Lambs," don't bother seeing "Hannibal." But if you do see it, go on an empty stomach.
(02/06/01 10:15am)
Here we go. Vince McMahon's answer to the NFL burst into the national spotlight Saturday when the Las Vegas Outlaws were hosts to the New York/New Jersey Hitmen and the Chicago Enforcers went on the road to face the Orlando Rage.\nAs fans in Las Vegas awaited the opening kickoff, McMahon assured them the XFL would be different from any football league they'd ever seen. He wasn't kidding. Instead of a coin toss to determine possession, a player from each team sprinted 20 yards to recover a football, and that was just the beginning. With many inventive features, including gorgeous cheerleaders, the XFL is sure to be interesting.\nFirst Quarter\nThe two factors of a successful new sports league are originality and a television contract, and the XFL has both. When NBC signed on for the Saturday games, the league gained instant credibility. Everywhere you looked, you saw a contrast of traditional football and WWF attitude. The Outlaw-Hitmen game was announced by sports game show host Matt Vasgersian and the Minnesota Gov. Jesse "The Body" Ventura, a former WWF star.\nThe game started quickly when the Outlaws, carried by the momentum from the scramble for possession, took the opening kickoff to their own 40-yard line on a reverse.\nBut the pace slowed down, and much to McMahon's dismay, the season's first points came on a field goal.\nWith eight seconds to go in the first quarter and the Outlaws driving, Ryan Clement's pass was tipped and caught by tight end Ricky Brady. At this point I realized McMahon's influence spread to every facet of the game, including the announcers, as Vasgersian described the play as "sloppy seconds."\nMy next two lessons of the XFL came back to back. Instead of kicking extra points, the scoring team gets one play to get in the end zone from the 2-yard line. There are no two-point conversions. On the conversion play, Brady dropped a wide-open pass, and the Outlaws walked away with a 9-0 lead. While Brady normally could have waited until halftime to talk about his drop, the XFL has interviews on the field and the sideline, and because players are miked up to the stadium public address system, Brady was immediately held accountable for his miss.\nSecond Quarter\nWhat might be the most intriguing rule played out with 12:27 to go in the half, when Vegas' Mike Furrey had to field a punt without a fair catch. But a flag was thrown against the Hitmen for not allowing Furrey a 5-yard "halo." \nThe idea of no fair catches has excited fans, but what got the players excited was the prospect of putting nicknames on the back of the jerseys. Among some of my favorites were Ben "Baby Boy" Hanks and Rod "He Hate Me" Smart. After a field goal, touchdown and successful conversion, Vegas took a 19-0 lead into the locker room.]\nHalftime\nIn McMahon's efforts to give the fans an "all-access" pass to the game, cameras followed the teams into their locker rooms. This idea of having cameras and microphones everywhere has its ups and downs. While it was nice to have a camera in the huddle and to hear player comments, including play calling, the cameras became a nuisance when coaches felt they were being too intrusive on the sidelines. Hitmen coach Rusty Tillman even got into a shouting match with one cameraman during the third quarter.\nThird Quarter\nEven professional leagues must work out kinks, and so it was with the XFL. The "X Cam," which was suspended above the field to give the plays a video game feel, became increasingly annoying on long pass routes, because the camera was not equipped to quickly zoom to the ball, leaving the viewer clueless for a second until the play switched to a sideline view. The view was switched to a more standard camera during the third period. The best play of the quarter came on Kirby Dar Dar's punt return, during which the Hitmen blockers tattooed three Outlaws into tomorrow with bone shattering hits.\nFourth Quarter\nVegas was still leading 19-0 when NBC wisely switched to the game between the Enforcers and the Rage, which had Orlando up by five points and Chicago with the ball. Even with a good game, announcer and wrestler Jerry Lawler said he was "here for the cheerleaders," showing in this league, football isn't everything.\nAt least it's not everything to anyone not on the field, because when you stripped away the cheerleaders, fireworks, announcers and McMahon, the field was filled with men who love the game. These were all guys who were legends in high school, stars in college and were out there living their dreams to play professional football.\nPostgame\nAfter my first day of XFL football, I know one thing: The league caters to two basic loves, and they're not football and wrestling. The two loves are sex and violence, and no league has more than McMahon's concoction. But the presentation can take the game only so far, and when you get right down to it, it's the 22 guys on the field who are going to make or break this league.
(02/01/01 5:00am)
While most DVDs have special features that allow the viewer access into the minds of the filmmakers, the new "Se7en" (or "Seven") DVD allows the viewer access into the mind of its most frightening character, John Doe (Kevin Spacey). The film follows two detectives (Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt) as they hunt for Doe, a maniacal serial killer "punishing" those who have broken one of the seven deadly sins. While the film's graphic images are unsettling enough, the supplemental material on Disc Two of the recently released DVD explores the psychological side of the murders and the murderer in a way the actual film would never be able to.\nWe are introduced to Doe's demented mindset when the two detectives break into his apartment. Dark and dreary like the killer himself, the room is home to a wall full of Mead Composition notebooks, filled with Doe's writing. The bathroom acts as a darkroom, where Doe has made and kept hundreds of pictures of his victims. In the most alarming and terrifying feature on the DVD, detail after grotesque detail of the notebooks and photos are revealed, as the viewer delves deeper into the mind of Doe than one would ever care to. The words and images are absolutely repellent by nature; but if you can stand them, the features are worth watching, if only to see the degree to which director David Fincher went to fully create his killer's character and habits.\nThe rest of Disc Two is filled with less disgusting bonus material, namely extended scenes and a look at the making of the film. All of the alternate scenes, including an alternate opening, can be watched with commentary from Fincher. Of course, at the heart of any DVD is the film itself, and regardless of how many special features a DVD has, they will be worthless if not complimenting a great film. Well acted and well written, this psychological thriller unfolds at a steady pace, allowing its viewer enough time to put together each clue, but not enough to get bored. If you can stand the horrific images that drive the plot, this nail-biting mystery should not be missed.
(02/01/01 4:30am)
While most DVDs have special features that allow the viewer access into the minds of the filmmakers, the new "Se7en" (or "Seven") DVD allows the viewer access into the mind of its most frightening character, John Doe (Kevin Spacey). The film follows two detectives (Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt) as they hunt for Doe, a maniacal serial killer "punishing" those who have broken one of the seven deadly sins. While the film's graphic images are unsettling enough, the supplemental material on Disc Two of the recently released DVD explores the psychological side of the murders and the murderer in a way the actual film would never be able to.\nWe are introduced to Doe's demented mindset when the two detectives break into his apartment. Dark and dreary like the killer himself, the room is home to a wall full of Mead Composition notebooks, filled with Doe's writing. The bathroom acts as a darkroom, where Doe has made and kept hundreds of pictures of his victims. In the most alarming and terrifying feature on the DVD, detail after grotesque detail of the notebooks and photos are revealed, as the viewer delves deeper into the mind of Doe than one would ever care to. The words and images are absolutely repellent by nature; but if you can stand them, the features are worth watching, if only to see the degree to which director David Fincher went to fully create his killer's character and habits.\nThe rest of Disc Two is filled with less disgusting bonus material, namely extended scenes and a look at the making of the film. All of the alternate scenes, including an alternate opening, can be watched with commentary from Fincher. Of course, at the heart of any DVD is the film itself, and regardless of how many special features a DVD has, they will be worthless if not complimenting a great film. Well acted and well written, this psychological thriller unfolds at a steady pace, allowing its viewer enough time to put together each clue, but not enough to get bored. If you can stand the horrific images that drive the plot, this nail-biting mystery should not be missed.
(01/18/01 5:00am)
Before I begin, allow me a moment to breathe, because I wasn't really afforded a chance to do so between the opening title sequence and the closing credits. This tragic tale of four strung-out losers on a downward spiral is an orgy of sound, sight and cinematic achievement that shakes and shocks its viewers into a state of total understanding and total disbelief. \nPropelled by a dizzying array of intense images, trick editing and a great classical score, Sara (Ellen Burstyn), her son Harry (Jared Leto), his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and his girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) fall downward into the depths of a living hell while in pursuit of a hollow version of the American dream. \n"Requiem for a Dream" is at heart a film that puts its viewers into the heads of drug addicts. Even with the strong showings by the film's three young stars, it is veteran Burstyn who gives the most compelling performance. Sara, who is battling her own addiction with television, redirects her life toward getting on TV and finally "being someone." Burstyn fully conveys a sense of naïve desperation that makes her possibly the most pathetic and tragic character I have ever viewed on screen.\nWhile "Requiem's acting is great, the moods of its characters are often revealed through director Darren Aronofsky's cinematic techniques. Aronofsky has made a film that doesn't make its viewer sympathize with the characters, but instead empathize. As they stumble down their paths to nowhere, the viewer is forced into their heads and taken along for the ride whether they like it or not. The film dreamily floats between scenes and sometimes allows just the actors' facial expressions and the music to illustrate their feelings.\nLeto, Wayans and Connelly are magnetic as three young heroin addicts looking for a "big score." But as their dreams and Sara's slowly unravel, the viewer is taken on a journey that is both repellent and compelling in nature. A must-see for anyone looking for something new and original, but not for the squeamish.
(01/18/01 3:48am)
Before I begin, allow me a moment to breathe, because I wasn't really afforded a chance to do so between the opening title sequence and the closing credits. This tragic tale of four strung-out losers on a downward spiral is an orgy of sound, sight and cinematic achievement that shakes and shocks its viewers into a state of total understanding and total disbelief. \nPropelled by a dizzying array of intense images, trick editing and a great classical score, Sara (Ellen Burstyn), her son Harry (Jared Leto), his best friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and his girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly) fall downward into the depths of a living hell while in pursuit of a hollow version of the American dream. \n"Requiem for a Dream" is at heart a film that puts its viewers into the heads of drug addicts. Even with the strong showings by the film's three young stars, it is veteran Burstyn who gives the most compelling performance. Sara, who is battling her own addiction with television, redirects her life toward getting on TV and finally "being someone." Burstyn fully conveys a sense of naïve desperation that makes her possibly the most pathetic and tragic character I have ever viewed on screen.\nWhile "Requiem's acting is great, the moods of its characters are often revealed through director Darren Aronofsky's cinematic techniques. Aronofsky has made a film that doesn't make its viewer sympathize with the characters, but instead empathize. As they stumble down their paths to nowhere, the viewer is forced into their heads and taken along for the ride whether they like it or not. The film dreamily floats between scenes and sometimes allows just the actors' facial expressions and the music to illustrate their feelings.\nLeto, Wayans and Connelly are magnetic as three young heroin addicts looking for a "big score." But as their dreams and Sara's slowly unravel, the viewer is taken on a journey that is both repellent and compelling in nature. A must-see for anyone looking for something new and original, but not for the squeamish.