63 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
High Heat\nMajor League Baeball 2003\nRating: E for Everyone\nFor: Playstation 2, Gameboy Advance\nBy: 3DO\nThe best baseball game of last year was far and away "High Heat 2002." Thankfully, the game's makers didn't make any large changes for "High Heat 2003." Instead, they made small adjustments to fix "2002"'s mistakes, and have once again made an outstanding game.\nThe three most important aspects of sports games are gameplay, graphics and sports information. For whatever reason, the game of baseball translates very well into video game form. The batting, throwing, fielding and running are all very smooth. The only problem might be with base running, which is good but kind of hard. My roommate has no problems with it, so maybe it's just me. The graphics are dope, and the detail on the stadiums is incredible. The stadiums were good in "2002," but you couldn't change angles on the replays. "2003" allows you to look at the whole stadium. For outdoor stadiums, you can make the camera level even with the upper deck, go to the back fence and look down the street at buildings.\nThe game also has lots of little things that add realism. When the opposition hits a home run at Wrigley Field, the baseball is thrown back. If you hit consecutive batters, the umpire will toss your pitcher, and you can also get ejected for hitting someone after they hit you. The crowd is very realistic; it boos if the road pitcher tries endlessly to pick off a runner at first, and the stands empty during blowouts.\nAlong with exhibition, season and playoff modes, "2003" offers "2 on 2 Showdown," in which you play batter versus pitcher to practice hitting. You can create 25 players to use for season play, but you can also fully edit every player, which means fanatics with nothing else to do can have a season of all custom players. My only complaint is that it came out before the rosters were finalized, leaving some players unsigned and others on their old teams. However, this is combated two ways: 1. There is a list of players who weren't signed yet that you can place on a team. 2. If you've got proper equipment and you're smart, you can go online to www.sportplanet.com/highheat and download new players and pictures. All things considered, "High Heat Major League Baseball 2003" is hands down the best baseball game out right now.\n
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
A Season on the Brink - TV-Mature\nStarring: Brian Dennehy, James Lafferty\nDirected by: Robert Mandel\nPremiering: 8 p.m. Sunday \non ESPN and ESPN2 (edited for language)\nBob Knight is one of the most beloved, most controversial and least understood sports figures in the nation. His methods of motivation have been attacked by some and respected by others, but even his critics cannot argue against the fact that he is one of the greatest head coaches in the history of college basketball. In his 30 years at IU he amassed 763 wins (good for fifth all-time), 11 Big Ten Titles, five Final Fours and three National Titles. These are all impressive numbers and proof of his greatness. But for proof of his temper, you needn't look further than a list of transfers. More than 35 players left Bob Knight's Hoosiers, including nine since 1995. ESPN's "A Season on the Brink" looks at these aspects of Knight during the course of the 1985-86 season.\nThe film opens with Knight standing on Omaha Beach, speaking fondly of the D-Day invasion, setting him up as "The General" with a strong love for his country and a stronger love for discipline. It then ping-pongs between Knight's Gold-winning '84 Olympic Basketball Team, the chair-tossing incident and sound bites from loyal Hoosiers who love Coach Knight. Finally, we come to the '85-'86 season, one that ended with a sub-par record by Knight's standards and two students transferring. \nI had two big problems with this movie. First off, what was that season "on the brink" of? His firing, which came 14 years later? Another National Title, which came one year later? It's unclear. I would imagine that it's the former, and if I were ESPN, I would have made the movie about the 1999-00 season, his last at IU. That season featured the Neil Reed scandal, another first round NCAA exit and ended with his placement on the "Zero-Tolerance Policy" that would eventually lead to his firing. I understand that it's based on a book, but a film about his final season would have been more entertaining and meaningful. And they would not have lost the insight into Knight's explosive temper, softer private side or his relationships with and effects on his players. A modern setting also would have avoided the problems the filmmakers had with 1986 IU students who walk across campus wearing what appear to be North Face jackets. \nMy second problem was with Brian Dennehy, not for his performance but for his casting. Dennehy is a great actor, and is able to summon the rage necessary for Knight's outbursts. But he does not have that killer look in his eyes that Knight had. Looking at Bob Knight, I was never sure what he was going to do next. There was always a sense that he could blow up at any time. Dennehy's Knight is sadder, with less force, which is fine for his quiet scenes but feels untruthful in scenes with the media or in public outbursts such as the throwing of the chair. \nNot surprisingly, the movie was reminiscent of "Blue Chips," which drew parallels to Bob Knight. It is filmed in a pseudo-documentary style with "interviews" of Knight, former IU President John Ryan and townspeople who, for the most part, praise Knight as a coach and a man. The acting is pretty good, but the supporting characters are underdeveloped, and Dennehy's Knight doesn't have the presence that the real Knight seemed to have. Having seen "A Season on the Brink," I'd just as soon rent "Blue Chips" again.\n
(03/22/02 4:50am)
\"When you think about it, nothing makes sense in awards." -- David Lynch
(03/06/02 5:00am)
A Season on the Brink - TV-Mature\nStarring: Brian Dennehy, James Lafferty\nDirected by: Robert Mandel\nPremiering: 8 p.m. Sunday \non ESPN and ESPN2 (edited for language)\nBob Knight is one of the most beloved, most controversial and least understood sports figures in the nation. His methods of motivation have been attacked by some and respected by others, but even his critics cannot argue against the fact that he is one of the greatest head coaches in the history of college basketball. In his 30 years at IU he amassed 763 wins (good for fifth all-time), 11 Big Ten Titles, five Final Fours and three National Titles. These are all impressive numbers and proof of his greatness. But for proof of his temper, you needn't look further than a list of transfers. More than 35 players left Bob Knight's Hoosiers, including nine since 1995. ESPN's "A Season on the Brink" looks at these aspects of Knight during the course of the 1985-86 season.\nThe film opens with Knight standing on Omaha Beach, speaking fondly of the D-Day invasion, setting him up as "The General" with a strong love for his country and a stronger love for discipline. It then ping-pongs between Knight's Gold-winning '84 Olympic Basketball Team, the chair-tossing incident and sound bites from loyal Hoosiers who love Coach Knight. Finally, we come to the '85-'86 season, one that ended with a sub-par record by Knight's standards and two students transferring. \nI had two big problems with this movie. First off, what was that season "on the brink" of? His firing, which came 14 years later? Another National Title, which came one year later? It's unclear. I would imagine that it's the former, and if I were ESPN, I would have made the movie about the 1999-00 season, his last at IU. That season featured the Neil Reed scandal, another first round NCAA exit and ended with his placement on the "Zero-Tolerance Policy" that would eventually lead to his firing. I understand that it's based on a book, but a film about his final season would have been more entertaining and meaningful. And they would not have lost the insight into Knight's explosive temper, softer private side or his relationships with and effects on his players. A modern setting also would have avoided the problems the filmmakers had with 1986 IU students who walk across campus wearing what appear to be North Face jackets. \nMy second problem was with Brian Dennehy, not for his performance but for his casting. Dennehy is a great actor, and is able to summon the rage necessary for Knight's outbursts. But he does not have that killer look in his eyes that Knight had. Looking at Bob Knight, I was never sure what he was going to do next. There was always a sense that he could blow up at any time. Dennehy's Knight is sadder, with less force, which is fine for his quiet scenes but feels untruthful in scenes with the media or in public outbursts such as the throwing of the chair. \nNot surprisingly, the movie was reminiscent of "Blue Chips," which drew parallels to Bob Knight. It is filmed in a pseudo-documentary style with "interviews" of Knight, former IU President John Ryan and townspeople who, for the most part, praise Knight as a coach and a man. The acting is pretty good, but the supporting characters are underdeveloped, and Dennehy's Knight doesn't have the presence that the real Knight seemed to have. Having seen "A Season on the Brink," I'd just as soon rent "Blue Chips" again.\n
(02/28/02 5:00am)
High Heat\nMajor League Baeball 2003\nRating: E for Everyone\nFor: Playstation 2, Gameboy Advance\nBy: 3DO\nThe best baseball game of last year was far and away "High Heat 2002." Thankfully, the game's makers didn't make any large changes for "High Heat 2003." Instead, they made small adjustments to fix "2002"'s mistakes, and have once again made an outstanding game.\nThe three most important aspects of sports games are gameplay, graphics and sports information. For whatever reason, the game of baseball translates very well into video game form. The batting, throwing, fielding and running are all very smooth. The only problem might be with base running, which is good but kind of hard. My roommate has no problems with it, so maybe it's just me. The graphics are dope, and the detail on the stadiums is incredible. The stadiums were good in "2002," but you couldn't change angles on the replays. "2003" allows you to look at the whole stadium. For outdoor stadiums, you can make the camera level even with the upper deck, go to the back fence and look down the street at buildings.\nThe game also has lots of little things that add realism. When the opposition hits a home run at Wrigley Field, the baseball is thrown back. If you hit consecutive batters, the umpire will toss your pitcher, and you can also get ejected for hitting someone after they hit you. The crowd is very realistic; it boos if the road pitcher tries endlessly to pick off a runner at first, and the stands empty during blowouts.\nAlong with exhibition, season and playoff modes, "2003" offers "2 on 2 Showdown," in which you play batter versus pitcher to practice hitting. You can create 25 players to use for season play, but you can also fully edit every player, which means fanatics with nothing else to do can have a season of all custom players. My only complaint is that it came out before the rosters were finalized, leaving some players unsigned and others on their old teams. However, this is combated two ways: 1. There is a list of players who weren't signed yet that you can place on a team. 2. If you've got proper equipment and you're smart, you can go online to www.sportplanet.com/highheat and download new players and pictures. All things considered, "High Heat Major League Baseball 2003" is hands down the best baseball game out right now.\n
(02/13/02 5:00am)
Ghost World - R\nStarring: Thora Birch, Steve Buscemi\nDirected by: Terry Zwigoff\nAs DVDs go, there is nothing spectacular about the one for the film "Ghost World." With outstanding DVDs such as "Almost Famous," "Fight Club" and "Seven," as well as DVD box sets like "The Godfather Trilogy," the bar has been raised significantly. DVDs like "Ghost World" that only feature deleted scenes, trailers and a "making the film" are run-of-the-mill. The only reason to buy the DVD is for the film itself.\n"Ghost World" is the story of two disillusioned girls during the summer after their senior year in high school, and how they slowly split apart. It is not a movie with any special effects or action sequences, so the improved sound and picture that a DVD provides is basically inconsequential. There are only four deleted scenes, and they are pretty short, and you can tell right away why they were deleted. The trailers are standard, and there is a music video of sorts, but nothing mind-blowing. Unlike many other DVDs, "Ghost World" has no audio commentary tracks by the director or actors. There is, however, a making-of-Ghost World featurette, which is the best additional part of the DVD. It has interviews with director Terry Zwigoff, writer Daniel Clowes and stars Thora Birch, Scarlett Johansson, Steve Buscemi and Brad Renfro.\nEven though the features are kind of weak, the film stands by itself, and makes the movie well worth owning based on its merit alone. It is the second best film of last year. It is smart, funny, sad and most importantly, honest. Steve Buscemi has built a career around portraying odd, quirky characters, and the role of the pseudo-pathetic, record-collecting Seymour is right up there with some of his best work. It's not as far out as Mr. Pink from "Reservoir Dogs" or Carl Showalter from "Fargo," but it is overall the strongest performance of his career. Buscemi's performance is deserving of an Oscar nomination, and for this reason alone, the DVD is well worth a look, if not a purchase.\n
(01/30/02 5:00am)
I am Sam - PG-13\nStarring: Sean Penn, Michelle Pfeiffer\nDirected by: Jessie Nelson\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nSomewhere in "I Am Sam" there is a very compelling story. There is a story of a man with the intellectual capacity of a 7-year-old, and the struggles he faces raising his daughter. There is a story of a girl who will be smarter than her father by the time she gets to first grade, and the difficulties she will face in school and at home knowing that Daddy is "different" These two stories are played out in the film's first 35 minutes, at which point the filmmakers chose to abandon them in favor of a courtroom drama. It was an unfortunate decision, because it turned a very insightful and touching film into a frustrating yawner. \nSean Penn plays Sam Dawson, a man with a lower than normal IQ who is forced to take care of a daughter all by himself when the child's mother runs away just after she is born. It is later explained in the film that the mother was a homeless woman who just wanted a place to sleep. Sam raises Lucy (named after the Beatles' song) as best he can, and tries to operate under the advice of the Beatles: All you need is love. But while he has more than enough love, he does not always have the intelligence required to raise a child himself.\nGood intentions and a loving heart are not substitutes for food and a good place to sleep. But instead of showing all of these problems and how he and his daughter deal with them, the movie takes the easy way out by having lawyers and witnesses discuss how they feel Sam will deal with them.\nSean Penn does an outstanding job in this role, but unlike Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump" or Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man," Penn is not surrounded by great writers, directors or actors. That makes it difficult for his talent to really be appreciated, and it was frustrating to see a great performance go to waste. It was also frustrating to sit through a film that chose to fill its soundtrack with poorly done remakes of great Beatles songs.\n
(01/16/02 5:00am)
Royal Tenenbaums - R\nStarring: Gene Hackman, Anjelica Houston \nDirected by: Wes Anderson\nShowing: Showplace East 11\nDirector Wes Anderson and co-writer Owen Wilson have become masters at creating awkward situations for their characters and their audiences. Their movies are filled with moments that would be funny if only we were sure they were a joke. But we're not sure, and that makes the moment funny and sad at the same time. \n"The Royal Tenenbaums," Anderson and Wilson's follow-up to 1998's "Rushmore," is a film about an odd family and their interactions with each other over the years. Their movies have been called "dark comedies," but unlike the Coen Brothers who use humor to make fun of murders, kidnappings and other crimes, Anderson and Wilson tell complex stories about complex people wrapped up in the humor and sadness of everyday life. \nIn the film, Gene Hackman plays Royal Tenenbaum, a man who returns from solitude to live with his family. He tells his estranged wife (Anjelica Houston) that he is dying, and by coincidence, his three children all encounter circumstances in which they too must return home. \nThe family is one of the most colorful I've ever seen in a movie. All three kids were troubled child prodigies: Chas (Ben Stiller) was a smart investor who made a fortune as a kid, Richie (Luke Wilson) was a pro tennis champ and their adopted sister Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) was a playwright. While growing up in their household, their mother honed and encouraged their skills and ambitions, while their father stoked their troubles and insecurities. \nThe movie is more focused than "Rushmore" but has a similar feel, and the entire cast, including Bill Murray, Danny Glover and Owen Wilson is brilliant. It would have been easy for the filmmakers to allow their characters to stay within the bounds of their unusual personalities, but each one is fleshed out into a real person, and this character development lifts the film from just a witty comedy to a great character study. It is, thus far, the best movie released in Bloomington this year.\n
(01/09/02 5:00am)
How High - R\nStarring: Method Man, Redman\nDirected by: Jesse Dylan\nShowing: Showplace West 12\nIn the spirit of Cheech and Chong comes "How High," a new comedy about two stoners who smoke some magical pot before taking their college entrance exams. They ace the tests, earn scholarships to Harvard and proceed to turn the prestigious school upside-down. \n"How High" has a "Dude, Where's My Car?" feel to it, which I thought was a good thing. There's something comforting about a movie that's all about having a good time, and surprisingly enough, Method Man and Redman are up to the task of carrying an entire film.\nThere is a good balance between the two characters: Redman's Jamal is a carefree, tail-chasing pot head, while Method Man's Silas is smart, tough and somewhat romantic. Both characters are either smoking or eating in every scene, and like the cult classic "Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke," there is never a serious moment.\nMuch like "Up in Smoke," "How High" doesn't have any specific plot or conflict that carries on from start to finish. Instead, it takes a lead from its two main characters, doing whatever it can to have fun and maintain a high spirit. There is a fun randomness to the film, like a scene where a group of kids at a house party cheer on a horse as it chugs beer. Like the cops in "Up in Smoke," "How High" has the disciplinarian Obba Babatunde (Dean Cain), and in both films, these foes become fun loving when our heroes get them high. The movie is not as funny as "Up in Smoke" but has the same kind of energy and attitude as its predecessor. \nThis is a perfect movie for a boring nothing-to-do Friday night in a buddy's basement. I dug it, and even watched it sober.\n
(11/08/01 5:00am)
As I left "Monsters, Inc." -- the new computer animated film from Disney/Pixar -- I felt privileged that I had been able to watch it. In fact, that feeling began even before the film started, as I watched with delight the animated short that preceded it. As that film ended and the feature began, I could feel a collective smile growing in the theater. \nWe all know that monsters have been living in children's closets for years and years, scaring the daylights out of them during the night. But what we didn't know was that the monsters are just doing their job to help their town, Monstropolis. We also didn't know that monsters are more scared of us than we are of them, because direct physical contact with human children is deadly. \nChildren's screams provide the town with fuel, so scaring kids is a very important job. But the job is tough, and lately kids have been getting harder to scare. Sully (John Goodman), a kind-hearted monster-of-the-people, is the best scarer Monstropolis has ever had. Along with his crew chief and best friend Mikey (Billy Crystal), Sully is on pace to break the all-time scare record. Late one night, when Sully goes to investigate an open closet door on the scare floor, the unthinkable happens: the young girl (Mary Gibbs) who lives there wanders through her closet and into Monstropolis. \nMonsters everywhere hear about this child -- although authorities will neither confirm nor deny the alleged human -- and there is widespread panic. It turns out that humans and monsters are very much alike. Sully and Mikey have her and unwanted contact leads them to believe she is not toxic. \nMuch of the film revolves around the relationship between Sully and Boo (Sully names the child that because of her scare abilities). The chemistry between these two characters is wonderful. \nWith technology today, many movies have great special effects, but the story has to be good for the movie to succeed. Here, like "Toy Story," the audience forgets about the computer animation and becomes enthralled in the story. The film is funny, emotional and surprisingly honest and true to life for a movie about monsters. \nThe filmmakers constantly bring new surprises to the screen without ever seeming showy: everything fits. It very well could become the first full-length animated feature to be nominated for Best Picture since 1992's "Beauty and the Beast"
(10/23/01 3:47am)
What would you fight for? \nThe question has been posed to me by teachers and I have asked myself many times. Fighting is usually not an option for me because it is against my nature and I am small, skinny and not tough. But if my freedom or my life was attacked, I would defend myself. \nOur country has not been put in a position since World War II in which we had to defend ourselves, but we are faced with one now. The perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks are ready and able to wage war against us, and they can win. \nAs much as I hate to say it, I am beginning to come around on the prospect of war as a reasonable response to the attacks. Growing up, the first war I heard about was Vietnam, and listening to my parents and my parents' records, helped form my anti-war views. If the Vietnam War began today, I would still be against it. \nIn Vietnam, we were fighting an idea, but now we are faced with a situation that attacks our freedom and our lives -- the two rights for which I would fight. My hold-up still lies in the possibility of killing innocent people. I give my full respects and prayer to those who were killed in the attacks, but just because innocent Americans died does not give us the right to kill innocent people in Afghanistan. \nFor the past month, the IDS has been filled with columns and letters addressing the Sept. 11 attacks. I have enjoyed the different viewpoints, both those with which I agree and those with which I don't. But I am disappointed in the amount of anger that I have seen toward one another. \nLetters that attack other people's responses do more harm than good, because they lose focus of the real issues: helping those directly attacked and ending terrorism. One letter that chastised the verbal protesters went so far as to call them "anti-American traitors." \nDisagreeing with someone's ideas is acceptable and understandable, and stating why you disagree helps us better understand one another as humans. But because this is such a new situation, I don't think anyone is in a position to judge the validity of anyone else's response. For those who feel war is the proper course of action, I understand, even though I don't completely agree. At this point, I am against the war because I am not yet convinced it is our only option, although I am quickly reaching that point.\nIt is possible that President George W. Bush was right to react with war, because terrorists are not going to sit down in a boardroom and discuss the problem. I have been struggling with the question of the correct response since I first heard about the attacks. It is true that signholders will have no effect on the terrorists, but attacking them won't do anything either. This is not a time to judge one another as Americans; it is a time to listen and to understand. After all, if we are going to war, we have a better chance of defeating one opponent than we do of defeating two.
(10/11/01 4:00am)
\"Ghost World" is the story of how two high school grads see the world and their divergent paths. In a larger sense, the movie is a story about people and how they view others.\nEnid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson) were weirdos in high school. Looking through pathetic personal ads leads them to Seymour (Steve Buscemi). Enid and Rebecca respond by phone as the woman he is searching for and tell Seymour to meet "her" at a restaurant. He does, has a drink, waits and leaves. He is so sad and dorky that Enid is drawn to him, because he is the opposite of everything she is against. They begin to hang out as friends and bond while listening to old blues and ragtime records.\nMeanwhile, Enid and Rebecca are drifting apart. Rebecca is ready for a normal life: she wants an apartment and has a job at a Starbucks-like coffee shop. While Enid dyes her hair and dresses like a 1970s punk rocker, Rebecca seems ready to settle down.\n"Ghost World" is a difficult movie to interpret after one viewing, because many scenes are short vignettes that add up to one somewhat ambiguous conclusion. It is a welcome change from other films out right now because of its truth, thoughtfulness and unique sense of humor. Each character is filled with life and expression. It is also the first movie I have ever seen that uses racism as a tool to show the fakeness and robotic orderliness of day-to-day life. The film brings up interesting issues involving race, mostly to do with the way racism is still present but hidden under the surface of today's society. \nEven after the race issues come up, the film does not lose its focus. Instead, it continues with Enid, Rebecca and Seymour. It is funny and sad, perceptive and real, and for anyone who remembers their high school graduation and the time spent figuring out the future, it is a movie that will be easy to relate to. \n(By the way: Stay for an omitted scene after the credits.)
(10/04/01 4:00am)
The problem with reviewing movies is that you're not allowed to leave in the middle, no matter how bad a movie gets. Ben Stiller is in over his head with "Zoolander," a film he starred in, wrote, directed and produced. The best compliment I can pay the film is that it shows that some actors are still willing to take risks and leave behind what works. \nStiller has found success as the Woody Allen-ish, why-is-this-happening-to-me lover in "There's Something About Mary" and "Meet the Parents" as well as the regular guy mixed up in a love triangle in "Reality Bites"
(09/25/01 3:40am)
A funny thing happened this week at sports arenas across America. One team showed up at each game, and that team had one set of fans. Jersey colors were incidental. In fact, no one even noticed them. \nThe jersey colors that were important were the red, white and blue stitched in and stamped on them. The New York Mets wore hats on the field that said "FDNY" and "NYPD," and they embraced the Atlanta Braves on the field, the team that they had been chasing in a now inconsequential pennant race. \nMeanwhile, some 2,900 miles away, the Seattle Mariners had just clinched their division for the first time since 1997. It was their 106th win of the season, giving them a chance to win the most games in Major League Baseball history. But as the game ended, there was no Mariner celebration, but instead a group of Americans standing on the field holding an American flag. All week long, our heroes were proven human, while regular humans became the heroes. \nWhen the issue of canceling last weekend's games first came up, I was opposed. I understood the two sides of the issue, and regardless of the decision I felt that what was done would have both positive and negative effects. For me, sports on the weekend -- particularly football on Sunday -- is very American, and if people were serious about getting on with life, then athletes should too. I also felt that the games could serve as a break from what would be five days of suffering and prayer. \nBut football is an emotional game, and the players had their emotions in other places, just like the rest of us. Many players, including New York Jets quarterback Vinny Testaverde, did not want to play, and said they wouldn't, even if the games were on. Baseball players were caught out of town, and many had trouble getting home. So we took a week off from sports, and in that week we learned a lot about the people we admire. \nI saw the San Francisco 49ers giving blood as a team while the New York Giants and Jets helped rescue workers on the streets. I saw the Pittsburgh Pirates hand out "I love New York" buttons before a game, and I saw baseball teams across the country stand in unison as St. Louis Cardinal announcer Jack Buck addressed the nation. \nTeam cheers were replaced by team prayers, and team songs were replaced by "God Bless America." This week's games reminded me of the Jan. 27, 1991, Super Bowl, which was in the middle of the Gulf War. As during that game, there was a sense of patriotism and togetherness this week, with sports acting not as a diversion but rather as a unifier during hard times. \nThe tragedy was still in the minds of Americans while watching these games, but we had a week to grieve, heal, reflect and live. President George W. Bush wants to show the terrorists that they have not damaged our resolve. The fact is, however, that they have. What is important now is to band together as a nation and gain strength through one another. \nSports can be a great tool for healing, and when I looked at the field of play and the fans in the stands, I not only saw the athletes giving the fans strength, but also the fans giving the athletes strength. We have banded together as a people, and while we saw the true place that sports has in society, we also saw the true power that it has.
(09/20/01 4:00am)
The Glass House" is without a doubt the all-time worst movie I have ever seen. I am not saying this as an exaggeration, but as a plain fact. Nothing about it is good. It teeters on an agonizing line rarely seen in film today, being bad enough to agitate but not bad enough to amuse. \nThe trailers ruin any possible shred of suspense by giving away the evil-guardian plot, but perhaps that was in order to give the audience hope that the ambiguous nonsense of the film's first half would go somewhere. Unfortunately, right when the first half ended the second half began, and the audience's hope was cruelly dashed by an absurd but predictable "climax." In fact, I'm not sure an audience was even necessary, because I did not hear one laugh, scream, gasp or yawn that pertained to the film. A few people got up to leave, but that was it. The only audience that would appreciate it would be the two robots from "Mystery Science Theater," but even they might get too bored to be funny.\nAfter Ruby Baker's (Leelee Sobieski) parents are killed in a car accident, she and her younger brother go to live with the Glasses, who actually live in a glass house. One day, there will be laws against that kind of absurdity. To Ruby's dismay, she learns that her guardian father (Stellan Skarsgard) is in debt to some thugs, and he has learned about the $4 million inheritance from Mr. and Mrs. Baker. This sets off the inevitable battle between the guardians and the kids, as well as the obligatory struggle between the siblings, because little brother Rhett has been "bought off" with video games. But setting up this predictable storyline took so much time, that the writers found themselves in a tough spot with no action and no character development. \nThat was one of the film's many problems: it couldn't decide whether its main character would be explored psychologically as a suffering child who'd lost her parents or as a chess piece to move along the action of the plot. I felt a little bit sorry for Sobieski, because she is a much better actress than this film allowed her to be. Her character's feelings towards other characters shift from like to dislike and back again, even within the same scene. She doesn't seem like a real person, but the plot's action is so poor that we have no choice but to try and look at her as one. The movie also has difficulty deciding when to end: the kids seem to be safe with a policeman as the camera pulls back on a giant crane shot with sad music, but then three minutes later there is a "twist"
(09/13/01 4:00am)
Once upon a time, MTV was about non-conformity. It was a forum for many artists who had no other outlet, and it has been instrumental in making stars out of many artists, as well as bringing rap into the mainstream. Most of all, it was about playing music videos. \nBoy, have times changed.\nThe 2001 Video Music Awards were, for the most part, a showcase for mindless pop hits and shameless self-promotion. The show was not funny, uninspired and, unlike in past years, had no outrageous moments or anything that will make it memorable. \nThe closest thing to an interesting moment was Michael Jackson's surprise appearance during 'N Sync's performance, but it was way too short and he didn't sing.\nThe problems started with the host, Jamie Foxx. Hosts of huge award shows don't work unless they are huge themselves. They can't be looking at the show as a way to boost their careers' or reputations. The VMA's best hosts in the past were mega stars like Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Dennis Miller and the four-time host Arsenio Hall. Foxx, and last year's hosts Shawn and Marlon Wayans, were awed, confused and most of all, not funny. \nSo much of MTV has become style over substance, and a lot of the music reflects that. The performers onstage disappear into a slew of background dancers and elaborate sets. This year's brand new MTV2 awards honored the best music from the young station that plays only videos, and the two of the night's best performances were not surprisingly from new artists: Linkin Park and Alicia Keys. It was refreshing to see these two acts playing their own instruments with the spotlights on them and not their dancers. It was also nice to see Jay-Z, who has proved to have real staying power and who always sounds just as good live as he does on the record. This can't be said for Britney Spears, who didn't even try to match her mouth to her voice this year. Closing the show with her was a poor choice.\nAnother poor choice was letting Eminem walk away empty handed. In this age of stale, 12-year-old girl pop, Eminem is a real artist. He writes songs that are funny, thought-provoking and real, and he's not afraid of critics. Hopefully for the 2002 VMA's MTV will get its act together, and show everyone why it is still the fresh station people expects it to be.
(03/29/01 5:00am)
Ed Harris' directorial debut is also one of the best acting performances of his career, as he portrays the late Jackson Pollock, a drunk, manic-depressive and one of the finest artists of his time. \nThe film is arranged in much the same way that Pollock painted: beautifully and franticly. Pollock believed art did not have to have meaning but should be appreciated for what it is. \nThe movie feels like one of his famous "drip" paintings, as one scene is packed onto another, leaving the viewer with a full scope of Pollock's mood swings, home life and art but wondering what exactly to make of it. And that is the point. Harris' film and his performance bring Pollock to life, and each scene sheds new light onto this intriguing man.\nThe film opens with Pollock signing an issue of Life magazine for a fan in 1949 and then goes back to 1941, when his brother helps the drunk and enraged artist upstairs to his apartment. His brother and sister-in-law essentially baby-sit the grown man.\nThis is how many of Pollock's close relationships play out, including one with his lover-turned-wife and fellow artist Lee Krasner. Marcia Gay Harden received an Academy Award for the role of his loving wife who realized his gift more than anyone else. Harris' real-life wife, Amy Madigan, is good as the eccentric artist Peggy Guggenheim, who gives Pollock's career much needed exposure.\nAt the heart of the film is Harris' incredible performance as he brings Pollock to life both as a man and an artist. While Pollock did have many emotional problems, his biggest problem was when people criticized his work because it lacked meaning in their eyes. \nAs his fame grew, he was interviewed on a radio show, made the subject of a film and covered in Life. All three instances found him at odds with the reporter or filmmaker. When asked how he knows he is done with a painting, he responds, "How do you know when you're done making love?" Like many great artists, many of Pollock's contemporaries did not understand his talent and work. \nThis film is, if nothing else, a vehicle that society can use to better understand him. Like his art, "Pollock" is a simple film about a complicated man. It lets viewers judge for themselves.
(03/29/01 5:00am)
Boy meets girl, boy likes girl, girl cuts boy's ear off, boy and girl get engaged, boy and girl are siblings.\nJust another normal day in the twisted world of the Farrelly brothers, right? Wrong. Do not be mistaken: "Say It Isn't So" is neither written nor directed by the talented duo who made us laugh ourselves silly with "Dumb and Dumber" and "There's Something About Mary." They only produced it. That is the first problem with this ridiculously stupid movie. \nThere is a big difference between trying to be funny and ending up as stupid, and writing stupid in a smart way. "Dumb and Dumber" might have been "dumb" humor, but not any bozo could sit down and do it. There was real thought put into that stupidity, something that was missing here.\nAlso missing were Jim Carrey, Ben Stiller, Woody Harrelson, Jeff Daniels or any other good male lead. Gilly Noble (Chris Klein) is sweet, innocent and pathetic, but he just isn't funny. Gilly falls in love with Jo (Heather Graham), a beautiful but horrible barber who snips the tip off his ear. But Jo's parents tell them they are siblings so that they won't marry. When Gilly discovers the truth, he takes off and tries to keep her from marrying her ex-boyfriend. While the premise is good, the movie is not. And I wonder how it might have been had it been written and directed by the Farrelly brothers.\nThere is a lot of time to wonder in between the laughs, which are sparse. Once Gilly gets on the road, the movie loses its focus and just becomes a lot of gross-out gags that don't advance the plot. The writers have a sense of what could be funny but just don't know how to carry out the jokes. \nFor example, on the road Gilly meets Dig McCaffey (Orlando Jones), a heroic, legless pilot. This has funny written all over it. There are a million crude, tasteless things you could do with a legless man. The film just doesn't do any of them. Dig's and Jo's parents (Sally Field and Richard Jenkins) provide the film's funniest moments, but they are spread out and independent of one another. \nThe film is more frustrating than funny, but the really frustrating thing is wasting $8 to see it.
(03/22/01 5:00am)
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.
(03/22/01 5:00am)
The Oscar winners, like the nominations, are usually a product of politics and popularity. And as the five top categories show, this year won't be much different. With that in mind, my Oscar picks are not what will win, but what should win.