Rhino Rover Reviews

The Last Castle (2001)

good acting but some plot problems

[7/10 · 25 November 2001]

What can you say about Robert Redford? He's been in a lot of movies and has dabbled in some directing too. I've always liked him as an actor and although the movies he's directed don't always appeal to the masses, they've always appealed to me. They have a beautiful cinematic feel and the storylines are excellent but I'm digressing here. The Last Castle was not directed by Redford but he was the primary character and to make things interesting, he's playing opposite `Mr. Soprano' himself, James Gandolfini. Gandolfini has made a living being a bad character on the popular TV series and he gets to do it again in this movie.

The Last Castle is about a well-decorated General (Robert Redford) being convicted for a war crime and sent to a military prison. Colonel Winter (James Gandolfini) is the warden overseeing the prison and is a no nonsense type man. Although General Irwin is convicted of a war crime, he's no less respected and the moment it is made known to Winter that this great war hero is coming to his prison, Winter quickly gets his establishment `cleaned up' and his personal war memorabilia collection polished up to impress this man. Things don't quite turn out the way Winter hopes as General Irwin alludes to the Colonel's collection as a sign of a soldier never having seen combat. This comment basically sets up the remainder of the movie as the two battle wills and wits with ultimately one left standing.

The interesting thing about this movie is that there really isn't a `bad' character in it. Gandolfini has refined the art of playing a character that does bad things occasionally but still being likable and he carries that into this movie. Although some of the things his character does can be out right despicable, you find yourself still occasionally rooting for him or at the very least sympathizing with him. Redford's character is likable throughout and he has always had a way of exuding a quiet strength and charm that is difficult to ignore. But this movie seemed to show what a talent Gandolfini is.

As much as I liked the performances of the main actors, there were some flaws with this movie…namely some of the plot events. The stunts were interesting but a bit on the ridiculous side and in the context of the characters and the personalities they exude, I'd have a hard time believing that Gandolfini's character would allow a mutiny to occur in his prison. There's one scene where the prisoners were able to build a catapult out of common building materials and essentially use it to bring down the guard towers. Now as interesting a concept as this is, it does sound rather ridiculous and all the more so on the screen.

Overall, I liked the movie but there are some plot events that you have to take with a grain of salt. Suspend reality for a bit and you'll enjoy the movie.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)

wondrous adventure but long

[9/10 · 25 November 2001]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was a much-anticipated movie and not just for children but for adults. It's a fantasy story that created a world of magic and wonder for children and for adults it brought back something that many of us have lost; our imagination.

For those of you who have never read any of the books and have no idea what this movie is about (what rock have you been under?), this movie is based off the first book that J.K. Rowling wrote, `Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'. The story revolves around a young boy that discovers he's a wizard. All throughout his life, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has never been able to explain strange things that happen around him in times of distress. Living with his aunt and uncle, Harry was forced to be nothing more than a servant boy. Although they knew what the cause of these happenings were, they never told Harry and did everything possible to hide his origins. He was never given any kind of attention except when something was needed of him. In fact, his bedroom was the `room under the stairs' and if something strange happened that his aunt or uncle found out about, he would get locked in his room for days or weeks. On his 11th birthday he receives a letter indicating that he's been accepted into Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Magic. Up until this point, Harry had no idea that he was a wizard or that he was the cause of these `strange' happenings. From this moment on, his life changes dramatically as he begins a wonderful journey into the discovery of his abilities and the world of magic.

Harry Potter is distinctly British and the worst thing that could have happened is for Hollywood to get a hold of it and make it through their own eyes. So when J.K. Rowling rejected the idea of Steven Spielberg directing it without having British actors (especially the lead actor), it was the first step to a successful picture. Nothing against Spielberg and I'm a huge fan of his but this movie depends greatly on the atmosphere that it creates. And part of that atmosphere was having an old British feel to it. What really worked well for this movie was that it followed the book very closely. But then again, anything that strayed from it would have caused mass criticism from children around the world. However that has never stopped directors and producers before but in this case, this was a critical factor and they were true to the book.

I was quite surprised to find out that the three lead child actors are unknowns. In fact, none of them have ever acted and considering that this is their first movie, I think they did an admirable job. Radcliffe, who plays Potter, fits the physical description of Harry Potter to a `T' and his acting is not bad. The young lady who plays Hermione Granger (Emma Watson II) plays the `Miss Know-it-all' quite well although at some points she goes over the top a bit but that's something you have to expect from inexperienced actors. Rupert Grint plays Ron Weasley, the goofy, smart mouthed friend of Potter and Granger. I actually found him quite entertaining to watch. With the way the books are written and the success that this movie has had so far, we can all assume that there will be other Harry Potter movies so I'm sure we'll see these three actors again and only see better and better performances as they gain experience.

The rest of the cast is a `who's who' of actors. With seasoned actors like Robbie Coltrane, John Cleese, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, etc. it is near impossible to have poor performances. All of these actors played their parts beautifully and true to the characters developed by Rowling. It also helps that they looked like they really got into their parts and the world they were trying to create. I was especially impressed with Rickman's role as Professor Snape, the dark, brooding teacher of potions. The books description of this character is mysterious, moody and a bit slimy and Rickman pulls that off flawlessly.

The one last element that really made this movie was the computer graphics. This is one movie that really required computers to create this world. Like Star Wars, this movie is in a time and place that is unfamiliar to the audience hence its ability to create reality is imperative.

There is one thing about this movie that I have to mention. It is long. At two and a half hours, this will be a long sit for children so make sure they have gone to the bathroom beforehand. The other thing is that for those adults who have read the books, the movie will feel long. Because the movie follows the book so closely, you know exactly what is going on and how much further the story has to go before the movie comes to an end. I was watching this movie with my sister and brother in-law and their reactions to it were quite different. My sister, who read the book beforehand, while still enjoying it immensely, like I found it rather long. For my brother in-law who's never read the books, found the two and a half hours flash by. So my advice is that for you adults who haven't read the book but are thinking about it, watch the movie first before you read the book or else the movie will feel really long. It won't really matter for the children if they've read the books or not; they'll be fascinated by everything they've read about come to life on the see on the screen.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It was magical and wondrous and definitely suitable for children and adults. In fact the show that I went to was mostly adults. Happy wizarding!

Dr. Dolittle 2 (2001)

not great but not bad either

[6/10 · 25 November 2001]

Another sequel…is this the summer of sequels?? Well it's not that bad. Actually, this movie is rather funny and in a way better than the first one as the storyline was more interesting.

Dr Dolittle 2 brings back Eddie Murphy as Dr. Dolittle. He has come to grips with his special ability to speak to animals and opens a practice devoted to helping animals as well as people. Not too soon into the movie, he is summoned by `The Beaver', a sort of God Father like creature of the local woods. Dr. Dolittle is asked for help, as the forest creatures fear that they will loose their homes to developers. So begins a journey where Dr. Dolittle tries to rehabilitate a circus bear in an attempt to have the forest declared a protected site by reintroducing a rare species of bear.

What made this movie entertaining? Good writing and a bigger role for Eddie Murphy. The animal characters are also given some very humorous lines and the banter that exists between themselves and him are very cute. Also quite well done was the ability to capture the necessary expressions on the animals and the voice actors' abilities to deliver the lines appropriately. I particularly liked the relationship that existed between Dr. Dolittle and Archie the circus bear.

If there was one thing that really took away from the movie, it was Raven Symone's performance. I watched this young lady when she started acting on The Cosby Show and after seeing this movie I wonder what happened. She seems to have taken a step backwards in her acting skills and to further take away from her performance, she is caked in makeup throughout the whole movie with the impression that she's got something better to do. Hopefully this isn't what to expect from her in future movies.

Overall, the movie was pretty entertaining with most of the humor coming from Eddie Murphy and the animal characters. But would I recommend going to a theatre to see this? No, this is a renter and not something that I would see more than once.

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

cute, amazing, very good

[9/10 · 25 November 2001]

It's amazing how far CGI acting has come. I've accused some movies of having gone too far with the use of Computer Generated Images (CGI) and leaning on it a bit too much but in this case, the movie was all CGI and so it should be. Monsters, Inc. is basically a good old-fashioned cartoon, just tens times better than anything we used to watch as kids. And the interesting thing is that cartoons are no longer for children. More and more of these animated movies are appealing to the adults as much as they are to the children.

Monsters, Inc. is about something that every child knows about…monsters in their closet. We've all had our own monsters that we were terrified of as a child and they always seem to come from that spooky closet in our room. How did these monsters get here? What are they doing here? Monsters, Inc. takes us into the world of bedroom monsters. Every closet in every child's room in the world is connected to the monster world. While the children don't really get anything out of having the daylights scared out of them, the monster's world is powered by the screams they generate out of children. Everyday, some monsters' jobs are to go and generate power by going around to the human children of the world and scaring them…but the one thing that is absolutely not permitted is for a child to enter the world of monsters…

Why was this movie so good? Lots of things. They have fantastic actors as voices for the characters. John Goodman plays the main character of Sulley (big blue furry monster) with Billy Crystal playing Sulley's buddy and sidekick, Mike Wazowski (one-eyed gumball looking fellow). With actors like these two fellows, it's hard not to have good material to work with and I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Crystal adlibbed some of his lines.

What also added to the quality of this movie was the ability to capture the emotions and expressions of these characters. Unlike animation of the past, computers have been able to mimic human emotions and expressions with great accuracy. This has allowed for the audience to feel closer and relate to these fantasy actors and create an overall more enjoyable experience.

Sometimes technology gets in the way of storytelling. It's happened in lots of movies where Hollywood thought that it could rest on the crutches of technology in place of a good storyline. Monsters, Inc. doesn't have this problem. On a basic level, the story is simple. The monster world is turned upside down when a little human child accidentally enters their world. But what the movie has been able to achieve beyond that is create a story that has good believable characters, even if they are fictional. The characters carry the emotions of what they face across the screen to the audience and the more the audience believes them, the better the story is. It's also nice to see that the humor is not just targeted at young children. I quite often heard adults laughing louder than the children and that's a good sign that the movie is appealing to everyone. I don't have any children but the friends that I went with all enjoyed this movie.

Overall, this was a very good movie. The animation was amazing, the voice actors were excellent and the story was entertaining. Go see it.

Hearts in Atlantis (2001)

beautiful movie

[7/10 · 14 October 2001]

What happens to the lives of a young mother and son when a strange old man comes to live in the suite upstairs of theirs? Their lives change in ways they never imagined.

Hearts in Atlantis is about a man who has his world turned upside down when he finds out that two of his childhood friends have past away. In a trip back to his old neighborhood to see the house where he grew up, Robert Garfield (David Morse) begins to reminisce about his younger years, in particular a time when a strange old man by the name of Ted Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins) moves into the suite above his. The old man is quiet and a bit reclusive yet Robert and Ted build a friendship that is stronger than most life long friendships. At the time, Robert's life primarily revolved around two friends. His relationship with his mom is almost non-existent as she is preoccupied with furthering her own career and lavishing herself with new clothes and socializing with corporate types. The old man becomes a more of a parental figure than his own mother but to make things even more interesting, the old man possesses psychic powers that seem to affect those around him, especially Robert.

What made this movie good? Well for one, Anthony Hopkins. There is no doubt that this man can act. He plays every character as if he has spent years researching the subject. He has a peculiar rhythm to the delivery of his lines yet it works and makes the character all the more believable. It's seldom you find something to criticize Anthony Hopkins about and in this movie there is nothing but good to say.

David Morse is another wonderful actor. Although he rarely has the lead role, his presence is never missed. In this movie, he is in the movie briefly at the beginning to establish the direction of the story and at the end to wrap it up but like Hopkins he immerses himself in the character and delivers a beautiful performance however brief it was.

However, my loudest compliments go to Anton Yelchin. This young man plays the young Bobby Garfield and plays it well. I have to be honest and admit that when I first saw the actor of young bobby Garfield, I wasn't sure about this young man but as the movie progressed, he grew on me and I found his performance to be very convincing. This is quite the achievement when you realize that this young actor is a major character and must practically carry the movie since most of the story takes place around him. Very good performance.

The pace of the movie was a bit odd but it fell in line with the plot line. If you were looking for a bit of action, you're not going to find it here. But if you want something that is intriguing this is the movie for you.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It's a slower paced introspective type of a storyline but it's beautifully done. You'll find yourself intrigued by Hopkins's character and be amazed at young Yelchin's acting.

Training Day (2001)

Dark and intriguing

[8/10 · 13 October 2001]

I've always thought that Denzel Washington was/is a wonderful actor. He's proven it time and time again but he has always played morally true characters or the typical Hollywood `good guy' so when the `Training Day' trailers first came out I was really looking forward to seeing Washington portray a completely opposing character.

Training Day literally takes place over the span of one day. A young patrol cop, Jake Hoyt (Ethan Hawke) gets his big chance to further his career goal of becoming Detective by working with the legendary Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington). This man's reputation precedes him and has been responsible for over 15,000 man years of incarceration based on his investigations and Hoyt is now getting his chance to work in Harris's squad. Hoyt finds out that Harris is as tougher than his reputation and quickly begins learning the ropes of street justice but to the contrary of everything he's learned and devoted his life to. `To Serve and Protect' now takes on an entirely new meaning.

You know I really hope that Denzel Washington does more of these types of roles. I'm always amazed at his acting skills but he always plays the same type of character. Whether that was a career choice or not, it was very refreshing to see him finally play a more `evil' character per say. In this case, the role was even more amazing in that Harris isn't so much evil but that he has his own outlook on how justice should be handled. In some instances you actually begin to agree with his outlook and root for him. I have never seen Washington give a poor performance. He acts with an intensity that very few other actors have and dives into his character with reckless abandon.

What surprised me even more was Ethan Hawke. I've never been a huge fan of his and I sometimes find his characters hard to believe because of his boyish looks. But in this movie they seem to work. He comes across as a young ethical patrol cop trying to make his way to Detective. Throughout the movie he has his morals and ethics challenged by Washington's character and frequently he caves into Washington's dominance. This worked very well and made the movie interesting but more importantly Hawke make his character believable. I was impressed by his performance in this movie.

There was a nice little scene with Cliff Curtis (Smiley). I saw this actor in `Blow' and really like his performance there. Hopefully he doesn't get typecast but he was very good in the character he played here. I guess if there's on thing to get picky about was the storyline. It seems a little extreme to have only one day to make or break making a new squad but in the context of the story, this works. Especially when you know the motives behind Washington's character.

Overall, this was a dark entertaining movie. If for nothing else, see this movie to see Denzel Washington play a bad character. You'll be surprised and impressed.

Rush Hour 2 (2001)

Yahooooo!!

[10/10 · 14 August 2001]

Hahahahaaaaa! I'm stilling laughing about this movie and I've seen it two times already. Whatever you do, do not read professional film critics' reviews. I've seen a few of them now and have no idea what movie they were watching. And the criticisms they had, don't know what they were talking about. I loved this movie! I may be the only one who thinks this but I think this movie was even better than the first one.

Rush Hour 2 follows on the footsteps of Rush Hour with Inspector Lee (Jackie Chan) and Detective Carter (Chris Tucker) joining forces again except this time, they reverse the `fish-out-of water' scenario. Carter is in Hong Kong on vacation but all that's happened since his plane landed is that he's followed Lee on different cases. Getting a little frustrated and wanting to get some `mushu', Carter threatens to head back to the US. Lee gets a last minute call on a new case (Carter doesn't know about this) and they head off to a nightclub to Carter's delight. And off we go on a wild, hilarious ride with these two oil and water characters.

What was so funny about this movie?? Everything, but a lot of it had to do with the writing and the genuine liking these two actors had for each other. You'll see it at the end of the movie with the famous Chan outtakes but even without them, you can see that they really enjoyed making this movie together. The opening 10 minutes really sets the audience up as it is nonstop laughter and you can't but help feel good for the rest of the movie.

Jackie Chan is getting older. There's no doubt about that but he's also like fine wine. The older you get, the better you get. He has always been an incredible action/stunt actor but his comedic acting is no sack of potatoes either, especially with this movie. He seems to have picked up some things from Tucker and the two just go at it nonstop. There's also no doubt that Tucker is the comedic relief but Chan holds his own. But talk about letting the horses loose here with the material that Tucker gets to work with. I have to admit, I found Tucker a bit annoying at times in Rush Hour but in this movie, his outrageous behavior fits in very well. There are obviously going to be racist jokes in this movie and they don't reserve it for one race or the other. All races are fair game and that may be what some critics don't like. But if you take this movie that seriously, then you shouldn't be watching it in the first place. The humor goes beyond the quick quips and outlandish lines. It also falls into the physical realm too as they made sure that some of the physical comedy falls inline with the character too and you definitely see evidence of this throughout, especially towards the end. Ziyi Zhang is an up and comer. You saw her in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and as her English improves you will definitely see her in more Hollywood movies. She has a bit of a Lucy Lu quality and will definitely appeal to the North American audience.

The one thing that I was really glad about this movie was that they didn't show too much of it in the trailers and commercials. You got a glimpse of the humor but they didn't give it away which quite often a lot of trailers do. If you put the best stuff in the trailer, the rest of the movie kind of seems anticlimactic but they didn't do that here.

On a pure entertainment level, I give this a 10/10. It's fun, fast paced, well-written, well acted and just plain entertaining. Guys, this is a GREAT date movie. Take someone, she won't be disappointed. Gals, ditto…and he'll think you're pretty cool too.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Not quite the same.

[7/10 · 14 August 2001]

You know I was a bit surprised that Steven Spielberg didn't direct this installment of Jurassic Park. I thought that this series was his little pet project (no pun intended) and that he would have liked to have been heavily involved in the making and direction of all of them. Having said that I wasn't disappointed with what I saw but it definitely lacked the `Spielberg' feel. I guess in a way making sequels becomes infinitely harder to do as the surprise element is gone and it's especially true of the Jurassic Park series. Prior to the first movie, no had ever seen a dinosaur on screen so realistically portrayed and that element created a buzz. The subsequent movies had that `been there, done that' feel so where do you go from there? In this case (and Lost World) it means more dinosaurs, more gruesome scenes and more running, which isn't bad as long as you're not expecting anything more.

This installment brings back Alan Grant (Sam Neil) with a bit of a cameo from Laura Dern. Other than that, the rest of the cast is basically new. The movie revolves around Grant being persuaded (promise of huge funding for his digs) by a couple to be their `dinosaur expert' on an alleged vacation fly-by of Isla Sorna (the island from the Lost World). Reluctantly Grant complies, mostly for monetary reasons, and he goes on this supposed fly-by with his research aid. Little does he know, the couple (played by Tea Leoni and William H. Macy) have plans of rescuing their young son who about a 2 weeks prior crash-landed while parasailing near the island and hasn't been heard from since. Grant soon discovers that he's been duped into something he has absolutely no interest in doing and basically does what he can to get off the island as quickly as he can. His morals kick in and he does the right thing but reluctantly.

The storyline is there and was basically well told. Sam Neill has always been a superb actor and he does a very good job here but for some reason or other I felt it wasn't quite up to his level in the first movie. It might have something to do that he's really nothing more than a baby sitter to a bunch of ignorant city folk and if I were in his shoes would have left these people to fend for themselves if they displayed the level of ignorance they did. William H. Macy has always been a good actor and there really isn't a lot you can say negative about his performance, however, I've never been a big fan of Tea Leoni and she really doesn't do anything here for me. She portrays the distraught mother in search of her lost child but comes across dumber than a stick. Who in their right mind, knowing that they're on an island full of vicious prehistoric animals the size of large buildings, goes crashing through the forest aimlessly yelling?? Any sane person would never do that, no matter how distraught they were. Self-preservation would be the first instinct to kick in, especially after surviving a crash landing and a beating from a large vicious dinosaur.

While I wasn't real fond of some of the human actors, the dinosaurs were pretty darn good. The special effects were quite well done and they didn't rely completely on CGI. The mechanic dinosaurs held their own and in a lot of ways made the scenes more real as the actors had something to work off of. I particularly liked the one scene where the mighty T-Rex fought the Spinosaur; something we really haven't seen in the other two movies and it gives us a bit of a possible look at what living back then would really be like.

Overall, I liked it and would recommend it as a matinee but like I said in the beginning, it doesn't have that `Spielberg' feel to it even though he produced it.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Consistency please...and a different ending.

[6/10 · 14 August 2001]

Where should I start? The hype for this movie came out months before its release and generated a lot of interest, including mine. Mind you I've never really seen the original movie, at least not all of it. But from the promos and interviews, this was Tim Burton's version of the movie, which was basically a bit more up-to-date, realistic, and cutting edge. But I couldn't help but wonder what or who would allow the ending they chose to be shown. Let me warn you that there may be spoilers in this review.

The basic premise to this movie revolves around a scientist (Mark Wahlberg) getting stranded on a planet years into the future. The situation arises because of a strange anomaly they encounter in space and at the time, humans were using chimps as test pilots to send into unknown or high-risk situations. Their test pilot was sent in to examine the anomaly (which was to do nothing more than to do a fly-by) and suddenly vanished. Wahlberg's character, being the softhearted scientist, against wishes flew in to rescue the test pilot and himself disappears only to reappear hundreds of years into the future to crash land on a strange planet. He discovers very quickly that humans are not the dominant species on this planet but apes are and he is quickly rounded up to be a slave. His only driving goal from that moment on is to escape and somehow get back to his crewmates.

To be honest, the storyline isn't very strong, nor is it overly intelligent. The audience is given a very basic premise and is told to go along with it. However, if it weren't for the ending, I think a lot of people wouldn't have minded. There are little things throughout the movie that make you wonder how it's possible that something could happen. One of the major ones is that in the future on this strange planet, apes have evolved into intelligent speech cable creatures. But they allegedly came from the science station that Wahlberg's character came from as a result of them coming to search for him and crash landing on this planet. However, the science station was using chimps as their test pilots so where did all these apes come from?? As well, there are humans on this planet, which the movie at one point indicates that the entire crew of the science station was killed by the chimps when they turned on them. Where did all these humans come from…and the horses?? Yes there are horses! It seems for the sake of making this movie they made a lot of assumptions and conveniences but the audience is not that dumb. They will pick it out and they will remember when the sequel comes out. There's no doubt about the sequel. The ending was left in such a way that a sequel would be created.

Was there anything I liked about this movie? Well they did remain accurate on ape movements and that element created a sense of fear and menace that the apes in the original movie didn't quite have. The make-up and special effects were pretty good but then Tim Burton has always been good at those areas.

Overall I wasn't overly impressed. The movie was acceptable up until the ending and after what I saw for an ending, it kind of ruined everything prior to that. It sounds like I'm being harsh but if you don't believe me, go ahead and see this movie. Just don't write back to me complaining about it because I warned you. On a scale of 1 – 10, I give it a 5. I thought it could have been much better. Not enough time spent on developing a reasonable and logical plot line.

The Fast and the Furious (2001)

Who needs good writing when you have fast cars and big crashes??

[6/10 · 26 July 2001]

Depending on the age group you fall under, you may or may not like this movie. But then again, that's true of a lot of movies but this one seemed to have a very specific target audience and it seemed to be between the ages of 17 to 23 and predominately male. I fall outside of this age group but it doesn't mean a bad review…it just means that it's not going to be a good review either. Well, it might. I guess you'll just have to read to the end of the review to find out. Typically movies aimed at this target audience tend to be high on the stunts and low on just about everything.

Fast and Furious is about cars. Fast cars to be specific. And not the type that belongs on the race track but the kind that gets you arrested for going a zillion miles an hour down a city street in the middle of the night. This movie is about a young man that enters the underground life of street racing. Something that happens in every city. But apparently this past time is rather cliquish and getting in with the `in-crowd' isn't always easy nor does everyone accept you. It's not that different than belonging to a gang it seems. Get in with one group and you're the enemy of another group, which means that you're going to have the typical `turf war' issues. You're also going to have your `boy meets sister of big bad brother' side story and all the other issues that go along with it. There's a bit of a twist but nothing that I haven't seen in other gang/drug related movies that have something to do with young people. In fact this movie reminded me a lot of `Point Break' except I enjoyed that movie.

If it sounds like I'm not really all that enthused about the plot line it's because I'm not. There was really nothing that was too terribly original about the storyline. In fact, if you look at the trailers, you'd think this movie was based on the video game `Need for Speed'. The colors used and the cars involved could have easily come out of that game and the characters? Definitely could have been taken out of a video game. The writing was full of clichés and the delivery of them wasn't overly well done. At some points I thought to myself `Did he actually say that?? That's so cheesy!' or `Please don't say that next line, please, please, please!' but they did. Not enough time was spent on developing the relationships we see. We're just kind of told about them but not in a way that really enlightens us, just that this relationship exists so accept it.

So far this review is sounding pretty negative isn't it? Well, I have to say that the stunts were kind of interesting. The car chase scenes (and there's a lot of them) were pretty well done and some of the scenes they do with the semi-trucks were interesting but not all that believable.

So you're wondering, is there anything worth seeing about this movie? Hmmm, maybe depending on if you fit that target group I was talking about. If you have a hot car and like to see some hot cars with neat toys and some street racing, then this movie's for you. Other than that, I wouldn't really see it. The dialogue alone would make you want to get pulled over for road rage.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

acting was fantastic but story....

[7/10 · 14 July 2001]

This was one of the more anticipated movies to come out this summer. Partly because of the fact that it was directed by Steven Spielberg but also partly because of the concept. It also helped that it was a Stanley Kubrick story, which have always been somewhat off beat, controversial and thought provoking. What was this reviewer's impression?

The world is heading at breakneck speed towards artificial intelligence. We've seen this for years and it's always been a goal of science to be able to bridge the organic human to the artificial human. For what purpose? To understand humanity perhaps or for financial gain or even arrogance? This movie shows what it may look like if artificial intelligence came to fruition and the affects that it may have on humanity. The story revolves around a robot boy, David (Haley Joel Osment) that his creator made in what was basically a test to see if humans could actually feel emotions towards an artificial being. What results is a journey that not only the human parents travel but David travels as well. They learn things about themselves, each other and society but in the end, it is David comes out with the most…or does he?

If for nothing else, see this movie just to see Osment's performance. I saw him in `Sixth Sense' and thought he was fantastic but there was a part of me that was wondering if he could only show a minimal range of emotions, mainly fright and terror. Boy was I wrong. Osment's performance in A.I. was phenomenal. Not to knock the other actors in this movie but Osment carried this film, which is quite a task if you think about it. Most films usually have 2 or more ADULT actors that share the load, typically a protagonist and an antagonist but this movie really revolved around Osment's character and his experiences as an artificial intelligence. He showed a tremendous range and surprised me quite a few times, leaving me amazed at how talented he is at such a young age. The only thing that I hope does not happen is that he burns out before he reaches 18 or that he succumbs to the temptations of fame like alcohol or drugs but seeing the level of maturity that he exhibits on interviews, I don't think this will happen. Jude Law is also quite good in this movie but Osment overshadows him quite often. Law's character is thought provoking though when you think about the occupation that his character has (male escort).

However, there is a very heavy `Pinocchio' element to this movie, partly because the story weaves itself with the fairy tale but also because of the nature of the story. In a way, I didn't really like it, as it just seemed to me at certain points that this was just an updated/futuristic version of the fairy tale, maybe even lacking in creativity. The movie was long and the ending I thought was a bit over done. There was a certain point that I thought would have been a fantastic way to end the movie but it would have meant that Hollywood would have to break one of it's cardinal rules; having a happy ending. This seems to be a big crutch that Hollywood seems to lean on and I'm willing to bet that there would be a bigger appreciation for movies if they stepped out of those restraints once in a while and had a controversial or sad ending. The ending in this movie seemed to well wrapped it and showed that Hollywood had a big say in how it `should' end and not how the story was `supposed' to end.

Overall, see this movie just to see the kid act. It is a bit long and a little weird but you should find it thought engaging nonetheless.

Shrek (2001)

Whacked out and fun

[9/10 · 12 June 2001]

This movie has been getting rave reviews and doing phenomenal numbers at the box office for weeks now. I wasn't really sure why as the commercials for it weren't showing a whole lot. Until recently I wasn't sure I was going to see this movie but on whim, I decided to go and now I know why it's been doing so well. This movie is charming, funny and well told.

Shrek (Mike Myers) is a giant green ogre that lives by himself in a swamp. He likes his privacy and is thrown into a fit of despair when all the forest's fairy tail creatures show up at his place. They're there because the evil Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow) sent them there after he banished them all from his land. Having his privacy intruded by all these creatures and by a particularly annoying fast talking donkey (Eddie Murphy), he sets off for Farquaad's castle to rectify the problem. And so begins a journey of adventure, love and self-discovery for not only Shrek but also the princess he rescues, Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz).

I've read some other reviews and there are those that think this movie was over hyped, insensitive to short people and just not very good. I think if you look hard enough you will find almost anything to pick apart. If it's not short people, then it's big fat bald people or the abuse that a donkey takes so I'm not going to put a lot of stock in those who pick things like these out. Look at any Saturday morning cartoon and you'll probably see far worse things. It's a Hollywood movie so put your issues and beliefs aside and enjoy it for what it was, a fun summer movie.

The animation was incredible. Animation technology has been advancing at lightning speeds and we saw some of it here. Toy Story 1 & 2 were incredibly well done but Shrek seemed to be a bit better in the emotions department. The character of Shrek exhibited a lot of emotions that I haven't really seen before and the donkey must have been an animator's dream to create. Talk about artistic freedom and as a result, a thoroughly entertaining character. You really do feel a sense of connection with these characters because of how well they were able to exhibit emotions. In some ways I thought that the evil Lord wasn't quite evil enough. I thought that he could have been a bit more menacing but I guess there are some restrictions considering the movie was meant for children. I loved the spoofs they did. I've seen them before in other movies like `Scary Movie' but it was kind of funny to see it in an animation. The real world and fantasy world seemed to have merged with these spoofs and it really created a sense of summer fun.

To be quite honest I didn't see many things that I didn't like or thought were weaknesses and judging by the dollars it's doing, a lot of others think the same way. If you want to see a sweet, charming and very funny movie, see Shrek. And guys, this is a great date movie. She'll love it and think you're the `Shrek' of her heart.

The Tailor of Panama (2001)

In the right frame of mind, this is good.

[6/10 · 13 May 2001]

The name Pierce Brosnan is synonymous with James Bond now, wouldn't you say ol' chap? So when I heard that Brosnan was doing a movie as another British agent I thought it would be along the same lines but I couldn't be more wrong. This was one of the few movies that I did not know anything about before I went but I have to say that I was impressed and amused with what I saw.

The Tailor of Panama is about a British agent, Andy Osnard (Brosnan) that fouls up his previous mission so badly (Brosnan fouling up?? Is that possible?) that his boss decides to send him to the backwoods of international espionage, Panama. What could possibly go wrong in Panama? There hasn't been anything of any international significance in years…until Osnard shows up. Unimpressed with being sent to Panama, Osnard decides to create something of his own by finding himself someone of British background that is fairly well placed in the upper echelons of Panamanian society. The unfortunate chap to cross paths with Osnard is a tailor by the name of Harry Pendel (Geoffrey Rush). Having found himself a plump target, Osnard begins to pick this gentleman for information and what ensues is an intricate story full of deception, blackmail and skullduggery.

You're probably thinking right about now that this doesn't sound like the suave, controlled characters that Brosnan has played in the past. And you're right although you still do see some of that suave demure that he exudes but this time with a bit of a mischievous twinkle in his eye. This movie couldn't be pulled off without a strong counterpart for Brosnan's character and Rush does not disappoint. I've seen Rush in other movies (Shakespeare in Love) and he is definitely a talented actor. In fact, you could probably argue that he's more integral to this movie than Brosnan is and you wouldn't be far off. Rush plays his character so well that at times you can't help but feel sorry for the predicament he's in and Brosnan plays his character so different from 007 that it's just a pleasure to watch.

If you're expecting stunning explosions and incredible action sequences, you're not going to find them here. This movie is about scheming, planning and manipulation. What a character says is of utmost importance, which means that you have to pay attention. This could be a weakness of this movie too however. If you see Brosnan as the main bill and you're expecting an action filled movie you're going to be disappointed. The dialogue is intricate and what someone says is not always what they mean and this could turn off some viewers if they have to pay that much attention.

I've never been a big fan of Jamie Lee Curtis' but she doesn't do a poor job here but then again she doesn't do a good job either. It just seems like a job to her and she does it. The ending scene with Rush and Curtis doesn't seem believable considering all that has happened up to that point and it did take a bit away from the overall movie.

Overall, the movie was pretty good. It's probably safe to say that this movie isn't going to do huge numbers but for those who do go see it and realize that it's an intellectual thriller, you will enjoy it.

A Knight's Tale (2001)

Medieval Times + Rock'n Roll = Funny

[8/10 · 13 May 2001]

Historical accuracy? Throw it out the window. There's not much that's going to be historically accurate about this movie set in medieval times but then again I doubt that was a very big concern when the decision came to make this movie. That much is very clear in the first minute of the movie. But if you want to thoroughly enjoy yourself at the movies, then this is the one to go to.

A Knight's Tale is about a young man's desire to better himself by changing his status in society. How you ask? By becoming a knight. It's not just a simple matter of declaring yourself a knight and that's it…well actually in this movie it is that simple but there are complications towards then end of the movie but then you probably could have figured that one out without me telling you. William Thatcher (Heath Ledger) is a page to a knight by the name of Sir Ector. By a strange turn of events, we find out that Sir Ector has died not too long before his final match of a tournament. In a panic, William and the other servants of Sir Ector are frantically trying to figure out a solution. They are in desperate need of money just to feed themselves and with nothing to lose, William decides he's going to take Sir Ector's place in the final match. All he has to do is stay on his horse and they win the tournament. So begins the journey of a servant masquerading as a knight. With the help of his friends, William manages to learn how to joust and actually become quite proficient at it. So much so that he becomes the favorite at many tournaments and also the enemy of a Count Adhemar, the undefeated knight at jousting. Throw in some romance, a bunch of crazy characters and some action and you have a fun summer movie.

What I liked most about this movie is that it doesn't take itself very seriously. It's no Monty Python but it is light and humorous and it exudes a charisma that not many movies do. You get a sense that the actors realize this and act for the fun of the situation. Come on, how serious do you think a movie is when they put a Nike symbol on the armor of our hero and the audience is clapping to the beat of a Queen song? I know there are those out there who are going to cringe and criticize at all the inaccuracies but if you're going to be picky, then go watch a documentary.

Heath Ledger is an up and coming young star. I last saw him in The Patriot and thought he did quite a good job opposite Mel Gibson but then again, it's hard not do learn a thing or two from the veteran actor. Heath gets to exercise his comedic skills in this one and does a decent job but much of the comedic credit has to go to the supporting actors, Mark Addy, Paul Bettany and Alan Tudyk. For many of these fellows, this will be their first major Hollywood movie and judging by what I saw, you'll probably see more of them. They were absolutely hilarious especially the bantering that goes on between Bettany and Tudyk's characters. You will probably also begin to see more of Laura Fraser who plays a female blacksmith that eventually becomes part of William's little gang. I previously saw her in Titus (with Anthony Hopkins) and found her good in that movie but it was hard to tell considering how unusual Shakespeare's story was but after this movie, I expect good things from her. The movie turns a bit dramatic towards the end but it works in the context of the movie although I would have liked it more if they kept the lightness through to the end. Don't take this movie seriously or you will have missed its point completely.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It was light, funny and entertaining. A great summer movie!

The Mummy Returns (2001)

Action packed but...

[8/10 · 7 May 2001]

I'm starting to see a trend in the new action/adventure movies and it may not be for the better. CGI (Computer Generated Images) is becoming one of the primary tools of many filmmakers but is it coming at a cost? We began to see CGI come into movies quite a few years ago but they were usually as enhancements to the story or to the set. Now CGI is becoming more prominent and taking a center stage role. The Mummy Returns is a very good example of this.

The Mummy Returns is a sequel to the very popular The Mummy that came out in 1999. The story basically takes place several years later after our hero, Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) and Evie Carnahan (Rachel Weisz) have gotten married and have a young son (Freddie Boath). The couple are still the adventurous archeologists they were in the first movie but now they have a young son to take with them on their adventures. This story revolves around the resurrection of our arch villain, Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo), but with a slight twist. This time around he's to kill the Scorpion King (The Rock) that will be making a reappearance after 5000 years to take over the world. But as noble as that sounds, his motives are less than desirable.

Was I entertained? Yes, definitely BUT, this was a case of too much CGI. The blending of reality and fantasy together with CGI can be a tricky thing, especially when the two worlds meet. The audience whether consciously or not, will instinctively pick up on things when they are unable to identify with it. In this movie, we see many instances where the two worlds meet and quite a few times, my eye was attracted to something that didn't move naturally. Unlike the movie, Matrix, where we were basically told to suspend all beliefs about the law of physics and such, this movie incorporated characters that behaved human-like yet movements and detail gave them away. Mind you, I do not often see walking wolf-like creatures but their mannerism and general body shape was humanoid so the natural instinct was to identify with what you know and in too many cases, it didn't look right to the eye. The decision to generate a complete CGI of the Scorpion King at the end of the movie I thought was a big error. The looks were too cartoonish and resembled something you see on Saturday morning cartoons. It was too distracting and took away from the events at the time.

However, I really enjoyed the fight sequences between the female leads (Weisz and Velazquez). They were quick and well choreographed. It's refreshing to see that directors are not afraid to show female leads as strong characters that are just as capable to fight as their male counter-parts. Fraser and Weisz played their parts well and like the last movie, Oded Fehr is outstanding. The Rock however is something else. In his movie debut, I found his performance a little bit extreme and probably not too far from his wrestling persona. Whether this will be the beginning of a film career or not, I cannot tell but hopefully his acting improves.

Overall, this was a very entertaining movie to kick off the summer. It was full of action and fast paced but I've seen much better computer graphics in other movies.

Someone Like You (2001)

Was this a romantic comedy??

[15 April 2001]

Someone Like You had so much promise. The trailers looked so charming and funny yet when you actually sit down and see the movie from start to finish you're left wondering what happened. You have an incredibly talented actress in Ashley Judd and Hugh Jackman is going to be the next big star from Australia. The rest of the cast is no slouch either but I can't help but believe that this movie lost out on writing.

Someone Like You is about finding out what makes men do the things they do in relationships (or the beginning of relationships) and of course falling in love. Jane Goodale (Ashley Judd) is a producer for a talk show that can't just seem to find a long lasting relationship. We meet her at the beginning of the movie as she meets the new executive producer, Ray Brown (Greg Kinnear). Sparks instantly ignite between the two and they soon enter into a serious relationship that has them moving in together. No sooner than that happens, Brown breaks up with Goodale, plunging her into a depressive state that has her searching to find out why this happened.

Did you notice that nowhere in that little summary did I mention Hugh Jackman's character, Eddie Alden? And that's the odd thing about this movie. The trailers clearly show that Judd and Jackman are the main characters of this movie (and of course, end up together) but when you actually see it, Jackman isn't in it nearly as prominently as the trailer indicates. For most of the first half of the movie we see Judd and Kinnear and we're introduced to Jackman's character as the resident playboy of the company but that's about the extent of it. There's enough dialogue that we get a sense of what Eddie's like but not a lot. After the break-up between Judd and Kinnear we begin to see more of Judd and Jackman but only as roommates, nothing more. There are little hints here and there that something is developing but it isn't nearly enough to cause them to fall madly in love with each other by the end. For a romantic comedy there wasn't enough interaction between the characters that are supposed to fall in love with each other.

There's not much to say about Ashley Judd. She's an incredible actor and does well with the material she's given. Marisa Tomei is in this movie as Judd's best friend and she does a wonderful job with the amount of screen time she's given. She seems to be making a bit of a comeback in the movie industry and hopefully we see more of her. Kinnear is good as the consummate `nice-guy' but we've seen him do this role many times before, so much so that I'm getting the feeling that he's getting type-cast, you think? Jackman's last movie was X-men and he's turning out to be quite the good actor. He doesn't have a large number of lines and in many of the scenes, he just gives a look or a quirky smile but he's able to say a lot with those looks. He also has a talent for American accents, which will help him with his career in Hollywood. Look for big things to come from this actor.

Overall, this movie is mediocre. The potential was there but somewhere along the way, it suffered a bit of an identity crisis. Is it a romantic comedy or a drama or maybe even a dramatic comedy??? Who knows? This is a good matinee to go to but not worth full admission.

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Sort of good.

[7/10 · 15 April 2001]

The last war movie I saw was `Saving Private Ryan' and although it was an excellent movie I wasn't sure if I wanted to see another one. For anyone who has seen a war movie, you have to admit that they can be a bit depressing, especially the more real they are. Enemy at the Gates is based on a real person, which means that a certain amount of the events are real or based on similar events. And knowing this, some of the things I saw definitely fell within the emotional category of depressing.

Enemy at the Gates is based on the life of Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), a young Russian soldier in the sniper division. The movie focuses on Vassili's time in the war and his rise to heroism as Russian papers detail his heroic feats as a special divisions sniper. As the war progresses and as Vassili gains notoriety, he begins to draw the attention of the German high command. To put a stop to this, the Germans send in their top sniper, Major Koenig (Ed Harris) to deal with Vassili.

I'm not usually a stickler about movie consistencies but there were some that were quite noticeable. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this movie but the story was about the Germans trying to overtake Stalingrad so the characters are all either German or Russian. Hence it reasons to believe that there should be German and Russian accents. I don't really mind if the accents are off as long as the attempt was made to be somewhat authentic but instead, most of the characters either had British or American accents and when watching the movie, I had a hard time getting really into it. In addition to this, there was one point where we see Vassili writing a letter to some of his supporters, which in itself is fine but we see him being told how to spell a word by Joseph Fiennes character, Commander Danilov and he spells out the word in English. Maybe I'm getting picky but this seemed quite obvious and odd to me in the context of the scene and the overall movie. Little things like these took away from the authenticity of the movie and overall enjoyment level. On another note, some of the dialogue was a bit cliché ridden and in some situations seemed to be added for drama and Hollywood sake.

The acting was quite well done, especially Ed Harris's character. The one knock I have (not against him but the direction of his character) is that the end scene with Commander Koenig and the little boy, Sasha, seemed completely out of line with the character we're given up to that point. But maybe that was the point the director was trying to make. I quite enjoyed Jude Law's performance. I haven't seen many of his films but I enjoyed this one. I really enjoyed the sniper scenes. Unlike many war movies where directors feel that it's necessary to have lots of movement and action (which is a natural part of war), I really did like the sniper scenes where there was little movement. We're still able to feel the tension that these men feel and the subtleties of being a sniper.

Overall, I did like the movie but it could have been better if they paid a bit more attention to the things I mentioned above. But, like I said, maybe I'm just being picky. I'm just a guy who watches a lot of movies so what do I know.

Hannibal (2001)

The book wasn't so good, neither is the movie.

[6/10 · 6 April 2001]

The last movie that received this much hype and promotion was Star Wars Episode I. And was it worth the hype? Not really. It wasn't a terrible movie by any standards but the hype actually raised expectations beyond what was realistic and I felt a little bit disappointed afterwards. Hannibal suffers from a similar fate. It's not a bad movie but the hype raised expectations a bit too high. For this particular viewer, I actually had read the book before seeing it so already knew what the hype was all about and after it was all said and done, didn't understand what the hype was about.

Hannibal takes place several years after `Silence of the Lambs'. He has spent some time in Florence living a `normal' life and has been able to hide from the public by becoming a temporary curator for a local museum. Mean while back in the United States, Clarice Starling has resumed her life as an FBI agent and while never really rising to the promising career that she was heading for after her brush with the infamous Hannibal Lector, she has been able to carve out a relatively successful career with the Bureau. However, her life takes a dramatic turn when an operation she leads turns into a disaster. Although not her fault, she has become the scapegoat for the FBI and it is her name that is splashed all over the news and media. This unfortunate event begins to unravel a series of events that lead to the `re-emergence' of Hannibal Lector as his infatuation with her draws him out.

To be quite honest, the book wasn't that good and they based the movie on the book so there was bound to be some problems with it. The book was slow and plodding…the movie was the same. The movie was aptly named as it does focus around the character of Hannibal and we see much of him. The audience is given a better view into Hannibal Lector's personality and idiosyncrasies but the storyline was so slow that there wasn't any real suspense built up and in the end, the ending kind of fizzled out. The main problem with this movie was that it seemed like two stories jammed into one. It starts out with the Starling character and sets up the scenario around her and then abruptly drops it and jumps to Florence. A large portion of the movie then revolves around Hannibal and his time in Florence and then the movie brings it back together towards the end with the Starling character meeting up with Hannibal. The movie just didn't have a good flow to it.

Much of the hype the movie received revolved around the gore and there was some of it. The majority of it came at the end with the dinner scene but the rest of the movie was pretty standard stuff. It wasn't anything that we probably haven't scene on a Schwarzenegger movie and compared to the book, it was pretty watered down.

Although the story was a bit weak, Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance was quite captivating. He seems to genuinely enjoy playing the role of Hannibal Lector and the role fits him quite well. Another really good performance was by Gary Oldman. He played the character of Mason Verger, the obsessed, deformed and only surviving victim of Hannibal looking for revenge. I found his character the most enjoyable to watch as he truly gives the impression of a sick, twisted man consumed by his desire to capture Hannibal and tortured him to death. Juliana Moore as Clarice Starling I wasn't so impressed. Jodie Foster created the character in SOTL and gave her character a quiet, strong and yet vulnerable character. Juliana wasn't quite able to bring that across in this movie. Rather the Starling character came across as a bit rigid.

Overall, this movie wasn't worth the hype and the final dinner scene while shocking and a bit gratuitous could have been better. I actually found myself bored at some points and if I had a remote, probably would have just fast forwarded it to the gore stuff just to see what it was all about. My suggestion? See it as a matinee, or wait for it to come out on video but don't pay full price for it.

Cast Away (2000)

Some very good acting

[9/10 · 6 April 2001]

This is one of the most unusual and enjoyable movies I've seen in a while. For almost 95% of the movie there's only one actor, two if you want to count a volleyball…and in a way he/it does become a very significant character. Why did I enjoy this movie so much? Tom Hanks. Need I say more? Ok, maybe Wilson the volleyball. He was pretty good too; strong silent type. Actor of few words.

Tom Hanks plays a FedEx executive sent to Russia to setup the first courier operation the country has ever seen. His life revolves around the clock and following very specific rules. There is no such thing as basically being on time. You're on time or you're not…and you better be on time. He comes back from this trip and we're briefly introduced to his personal life. We meet his fiancé (played by Helen Hunt) and get a very brief glimpse of the life he leads away from FedEx. Shortly after his arrival to the US, he is called away again on another trip. After a hasty good-bye, he's on the plane to his next destination. We all know what happens next and basically for the rest of the movie so I'm not going to go into any more detail about the story. Making a movie with primarily one character in it is kind of a risky venture but this movie proved that it can be done. Tom Hanks is proving why he's one of the best actors in the business with this movie. It's amazing the amount of stress he puts on himself with the physical changes he goes through to make this movie look authentic. There isn't a lot of dialogue either. Hanks has been able to marvelously show the transformation a person goes through when isolated from the rest of society for a long period of time. There are many moments in the movie where Hanks doesn't say a word but is able to communicate so much to the audience. My favorite is when he's sitting on his haunches looking at the remains of a port-a-potty that washed up thinking of how to best use it. It's a very simple scene yet Hanks is able to say so much without ever uttering a word.

The few weaknesses that I did see revolved around the ending. I guess with a movie of this nature, there are only so many ways to tie it up. Either the character remains stranded on the island forever or he gets rescued. They chose the latter for this movie but to me, it seemed anti-climatic. The ending was tied up a bit neatly but they did try to incorporate a bit of a human interest into it by having a problem arise between Hanks character and Hunts character. It's not overly interesting and I won't spoil it for you but trust me when I say that you will be amazed by the portion of the movie that revolves around Hanks time on the island.

Overall, I'd say this movie is definitely worth seeing on the big screen…and it should be seen on a big screen. There are too many quiet, subtle instances that you will miss if you watch it on a TV. It's worth the price of full admission.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Excellent but not a martial arts film

[10/10 · 5 April 2001]

You know what I find so appropriate about the title of this film? It has managed to stay hidden in the background from critic eyes and yet it literally crouched up onto the competition and take everyone by surprise at the last minute. If you look at all the films selected for Oscar nominations, every one of them has been playing in the theatres for a long time or has been a major box office hit. The only film that is remotely similar in feel is Chocolat and at best it is a long shot to win Best Picture. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came onto the seen not too long ago and not with a lot of marketing hype and yet it has managed to garner the second most Oscar nominations next to the goliath film, Gladiator. This alone should say a lot about the film but if you want more, just ask anyone who has seen the film. Chances are they will say they liked it.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is not a martial arts film despite popular belief. There is martial arts in it but it is not a martial arts film. The movie is about love, honor and loyalty. Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun Fat) is a legendary warrior and the guardian of a powerful sword. In preparation to retire from military life Bai decides to put the sword in the protection of a governor. Intertwined with this storyline is Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh), Bai's long time friend. The audience is allowed a glimpse of the underlying love that exists between the two but an archenemy, Jade Fox (Pei-pei Cheng) complicates life by trying to steal the sword. To help her is her apprentice Jen Yu (Ziyi Zhang) who we find has a history of her own. The film revolves around the sisterly relationship that develops between Lien and Yu but the director (Ang Lee) lets us see the love stories that revolve each of these characters. If it sounds like a complicated storyline, I apologize but Lee has been able to tell it beautifully and has also done what few directors dared to do: make women the strong central characters.

The cinematography is beautifully shot. The audience is given a sense of the magic about the land and the history behind it. The fight scenes are more of dance sequences than pure fights and I have to say they are quite dazzling. Although for many, the wirework will be a little hard to get used to, it is integral to the feel of the film. For those who think that the wirework was a bit far fetched, keep in mind that this is a fable. Nothing about it is meant to be real and don't forget, nothing about Matrix was real either but to use state of the art special effects on a film like this would only take away from the story. I've been watching films like these all my life and I can say wirework has always been a part of films like these.

This is a beautiful film but for you hardcore critics out there, if you look for flaws, you will see them whether they're really there or not. Take this film for what it was meant to be…a story about a legend, inner strength and undeniable honor.

Alan

The Pledge (I) (2001)

Doesn't live up to opening scene

[6/10 · 15 February 2001]

This is an unusual film at best. I saw it recently and I'm still not sure how to comment on it. There were things that I liked and things that I didn't like but overall it didn't make a huge impact on me. For the most part, when I sit down to watch a movie the most important thing is entertainment value. The movie could have cheesy lines or law defying stunts but if it entertains me, then it achieves its goal. This movie was like a roller coaster ride that never really delivers on the thrill scale. It hinted it at the beginning but fizzles out and leaves an unsatisfied feeling.

The Pledge is about a retiring detective (Jack Nicholson) that takes on a final case that turns out to possess his life. On the day of his retirement, a body is discovered that hints of a serial killing. Detective Black chooses duty over retirement and gets involved. A suspect is apprehended and all the signs point to him being the killer despite Black's doubts but a quick confession and conviction closes the case and puts an end to Blacks insistence that the killer is still loose. Accepting his retirement, Black lies back to a life of fishing but a nagging thought in the back of his mind brings him to reopen the case and pick his investigation where he left off.

What can you say about Jack Nicholson? He's a fabulous actor and rarely have I seen him give a poor performance. He doesn't disappoint in the Pledge but the story is weak. Sean Penn has never been a conventional storyteller and although he has some smart twists in this storyline I left feeling rather annoyed. The movie began full of suspense. In fact, Penn teased us with a brilliant opening scene and it filled me with anticipation but as the movie progressed I could feel it slow down and by the time the end came I was disappointed although in a way the ending was interesting from a psychological standpoint. From an entertainment point of view, it failed its goal.

There is an enormous cast of actors here and all of them accomplished. They all do an incredible job but one in particular stood out. I usually sit and watch the credits to see all the people involved and was very surprised to see Benicio Del Toro had a role. I remember seeing his name at the opening credits but never really noticed him. It wasn't until the end credits that I realized which character he played and was absolutely stunned! He played the character so well that it never occurred to me that it could have been him. He doesn't have a huge role in this movie but after watching it I have to say that it's worth at least the cost of a matinee movie to see his performance.

Would I recommend someone to see this movie on full fare? No but it is potentially a good matinee movie. Nicholson is great and Del Toro's performance is scene stealing but the movie on an overall level is not worth full fare.

Alan

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Very good

[10/10 · 15 February 2001]

You know what I find so appropriate about the title of this film? It has managed to stay hidden in the background from critic eyes and yet it literally crouched up onto the competition and take everyone by surprise at the last minute. If you look at all the films selected for Oscar nominations, every one of them has been playing in the theatres for a long time or has been a major box office hit. The only film that is remotely similar in feel is Chocolat and at best it is a long shot to win Best Picture. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came onto the seen not too long ago and not with a lot of marketing hype and yet it has managed to garner the second most Oscar nominations next to the goliath film, Gladiator. This alone should say a lot about the film but if you want more, just ask anyone who has seen the film. Chances are they will say they liked it.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is not a martial arts film despite popular belief. There is martial arts in it but it is not a martial arts film. The movie is about love, honor and loyalty. Li Mu Bai (Chow Yun Fat) is a legendary warrior and the guardian of a powerful sword. In preparation to retire from military life Bai decides to put the sword in the protection of a governor. Intertwined with this storyline is Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh), Bai's long time friend. The audience is allowed a glimpse of the underlying love that exists between the two but an archenemy, Jade Fox (Pei-pei Cheng) complicates life by trying to steal the sword. To help her is her apprentice Jen Yu (Ziyi Zhang) who we find has a history of her own. The film revolves around the sisterly relationship that develops between Lien and Yu but the director (Ang Lee) lets us see the love stories that revolve each of these characters. If it sounds like a complicated storyline, I apologize but Lee has been able to tell it beautifully and has also done what few directors dared to do: make women the strong central characters.

The cinematography is beautifully shot. The audience is given a sense of the magic about the land and the history behind it. The fight scenes are more of dance sequences than pure fights and I have to say they are quite dazzling. Although for many, the wirework will be a little hard to get used to, it is integral to the feel of the film. For those who think that the wirework was a bit far fetched, keep in mind that this is a fable. Nothing about it is meant to be real and don't forget, nothing about Matrix was real either but to use state of the art special effects on a film like this would only take away from the story. I've been watching films like these all my life and I can say wirework has always been a part of films like these.

This is a beautiful film but for you hardcore critics out there, if you look for flaws, you will see them whether they're really there or not. Take this film for what it was meant to be…a story about a legend, inner strength and undeniable honor.

Autumn in New York (2000)

Yuck, blechhh, get the message?

[3/10 · 19 August 2000]

Of all the movies that I've seen over the last 12 months, there has only been a handful that made me regret paying for. Autumn in New York brought me one step further. I almost decided to leave half way through but decided to stay in case things turned around plus I thought it would have been unfair to review a movie that I only saw half of.

Richard Gere plays a successful restaurant owner that has a reputation of being a bit of a womanizer. Winona Ryder plays a young woman that Gere pursues (and gets) only to find out that this young woman is dying. As you guessed, Gere falls in love with her and does everything in his power to save her. There's a bunch of stuff mixed in there but you get the gist of the plot line.

What made me almost want to leave? There are some amazingly cheesy lines. I've seen quite a few romance type movies and have to admit that I do like them but this movie had some really bad lines. A few times there were scenes that just made me shake my head and wonder if Hollywood execs ever did any test screenings. In my opinion, they should have redone the writing for the first half of the movie.

You wonder why I say the first half? The second half deals with Ryder's character's health declining so the focus of the movie moves from romance to drama. The movie gets slightly better but not much. I guess the decision to not have any interviews before the release date was a good one…from a business perspective but from an audience perspective, I feel like I've been suckered in.

I've seen Richard Gere and Winona Ryder in much better movies and if I were their agents, I'd screen scripts a little better. It was painful watching them deliver some really, really bad lines. This one was not worth the price of admission. For you Gere and Ryder fans out there, see this as a matinee or wait until it comes out in the dollar theatres. This way, you won't feel AS cheated out of your money.

The only thing I liked was the cinematography. There are some nice shots of New York but other than that, not much else. Sorry folks, this was not a very entertaining movie.

The Replacements (2000)

Entertaining

[8/10 · 12 August 2000]

I've seen a few football movies over the years and most of them don't really entertain me that much. The last one was `Any Given Sunday' and that one turned out to annoy me more than entertain me. `The Replacements' I liked.

The story is simple. Professional football players go on strike and the team brings in replacement players to finish the season. That's it. There's no subplot or tricky twists that try to make the movie more than it's out to be. Mind you the replacement players turn out to be either misfits or just guys who never made it to the pros but then, that's the charm of the movie.

The movie focuses on the characters and the situation they're placed in but it's not entirely testosterone filled (although there's quite a bit of it). There's humor laced throughout that I really enjoyed and it wasn't a two hour movie filled with swears every second word. In fact, I don't even recall hearing any now that I think about it.

Keanu Reeves plays the replacement quarter back and it seems that as he gets older his acting becomes better. I still occasionally find it hard to not associate him with `Bill and Ted' but I do respect the fact that he's always gone after different roles. I've rarely seen Gene Hackman give a poor performance and he doesn't disappoint in this movie. He's done a few other `coach' type roles so this shouldn't be anything difficult. There were a couple peripheral actors that really did grab the spotlight when they had it. Rhys Ifans plays the Welsh kicker and he definitely draws a lot of laughs. I first saw him in `Nottinghill' as `Spike' and he definitely is one of the character actors that's hard not to like. Orlando Jones plays Franklin and plays him well. He's very hard to ignore when he's on screen.

Overall, I liked this movie and would recommend it to anyone wanting a good laugh but don't come to me and say that it was predictable…what else were you expecting from a football movie?

Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (2000)

pretty good

[7/10 · 30 July 2000]

I think we all have relatives, in-laws and family members that we could identify with in `The Nutty Professor 2'…although they may not be as extreme as some of these characters.

This movie is basically the `Eddie Murphy Show' as he plays the entire Klump family. The basic story line revolves around Sherman Klump developing the formula for age reversal. Somewhere along the way, Buddy Love (Sherman's alter self) gets his hands on it and decides that he's going to be the one to reap the benefits of this youth formula. I don't want to give away too much of the plot and ruin it for you.

The makeup in this movie was fantastic. The fat suits that Murphy wears are so realistic and follow his movements so well that you think these characters were real. He plays all the characters so differently but at the same time with a hint of similarity that it's not hard to believe that they're all related to each other. He particularly plays Grandma Klump well. She is such a riot and so is Mother Klump. It seems that Eddie Murphy's career is starting to turn the corner.

Janet Jackson plays Sherman's girlfriend moderately well. It wasn't great but it wasn't bad…just ok. At times she seemed to look like she was struggling to find the right way to display the emotion the particular scene called for but otherwise she was fine. She will get better as she gains more experience.

The one thing that may have taken away from this movie was that it may have had one too many crude toilet jokes. Most of them were inserted at the right moment but there was the odd one that wasn't really necessary and could potentially have been annoying.

Overall, this was an entertaining movie. If nothing else, see this movie just to see Eddie's different characters.