RueMorgue Reviews

Cast Away (2000)

There's no Immunity Idol here... only man vs. nature. (Possible Spoilers.)

[9/10 · 16 June 2001]

While CBS's Survivor may be entertaining, it certainly is nothing like being stranded on a deserted island all by yourself, with no comforts of home. First of all, on TV, all the contestants have each other... other people with which to communicate, to fight with, to laugh with, and to cry with. They also receive various trinkets and surprises from the producers of the show. Survivors? Yeah, right... more like rats in a cage.

Along comes another superb Tom Hanks film. Somebody somewhere said that nobody could do this like Tom Hanks, and it's true. Where else can you find a film that you can watch for 50+ minutes with only a small bit of spoken word, and remain entertained? I've watched many a film late in the evening, with much more action than this film, and still fallen asleep.

So what is it about this film? You want to see what happens next. Tom Hanks pulls this off beautifully. The ups and downs, the trials and errors, the good and the bad, it's all in here. As a high-level FedEx employee, Chuck Noland (Hanks) knows about the passage of time... he lives by it. However, when his plane crashes somewhere over the Pacific, and he finds himself stranded alone on a deserted island, with nothing except his wits, an old watch containing a picture of his girlfriend, a rubber raft, and the contents of a few FedEx packages that have washed up on shore, he has to make the best of his surroundings.

This begins a quest in which Noland learns about himself, his surroundings, and his will to survive and beat the odds. It is a beautifully filmed story, with superb acting, and an excellent plot. This is a definite must if you are a fan of Tom Hanks, or if you like to rent movies which draw you into the story.

It is also an eye-opener for those of us who don't know how we would deal with the tremendous obstacle of being alone with little hope of rescue. Most of my time on this movie was spent afterwards, exploring how I felt about the film, and the situation. That, if nothing else, is worth viewing this film.

My Rating: 9/10

Final Destination (2000)

Don't watch if you are getting on an airplane any time soon!

[5/10 · 11 May 2001]

This "horror film" tries a bit too hard, but is fairly entertaining at the same time. It's certainly no Exorcist, but then again, I don't think that movie will ever be topped as far as the fear/intensity level is concerned.

Sitting in a plane waiting for takeoff for a school vacation, Alex (Devon Sawa) has a vision that the plane will explode shortly after takeoff. He goes nuts, he and some of his friends (and one teacher/chaperone) get kicked off the plane, and lo and behold, it explodes shortly after takeoff. Amidst suspicion, Alex watches as his friends are picked off one by one by the force that had intended to kill them all on the plane, if not for their untimely escape.

This one gets some points for special effects (the plane crash "vision" at the beginning is superb!) and gore, but loses points for storyline. This is just too contrived, and predictable. It's the old "we were supposed to die but we didn't and now it's coming back to finish us off" theme. I found that waiting to see who was going to die next, and in what fashion, was the most entertaining thing about this film. Some of the methods, while nothing new, are portrayed quite well with the use of special effects.

This is obviously an attempt to cash in on the recent return of teen-slasher flicks, with a slightly new angle. Over all, it's not too bad, but it could have been a little better in the storyline department. It's a cast of unknowns, too, so don't expect any Academy Award winning performances here.

My Rating: 5/10

Eye of the Beholder (1999)

Pure & Utter Trash

[2/10 · 11 May 2001]

What movie is this again? Oh yeah... high-tech private detective/spy type follows girl around unrelentlessly... how forgettable. How washed up. How blatantly stupid! Who really cares?! I certainly didn't. This film put me to sleep, I'm sorry to say, and it will probably do the same to you. There's no great acting, no great score/soundtrack, no great action... just bad dialogue and worse plot.

Basically, the private eye (played unconvincingly by Ewan McGregor) follows the same girl (Ashley Judd) around for a good long period of his life. Doesn't this guy have any other clients? Don't his friends worry about him? Does he even have any friends? Any life?!

After seeing McGregor in Star Wars Episode One, I thought he might have some promise. After seeing this, it wouldn't seem so. Is McGregor destined to go the way of most Star Wars actors, into oblivion? I think the only people of any stature we got out of Episodes IV-VI were Harrison Ford, James Earl Jones, and to a lesser degree, Carrie Fisher. (I would include Sir Alec Guinness, but he was already a mainstay.) It seems McGregor will now also go the way of the B-movie.

Perhaps the only thing that slightly improves this movie is the inclusion of Ashley Judd. She isn't too bad in this film, despite what she has to work with, such as terrible script, bad story, and flat co-stars. Over time, Judd has proven herself to be one of Hollywood's most diverse actresses, but she should have stayed away from this pig slop.

This one's good for the fireplace... or the garbage disposal... or the recycle bin, for you environmentally minded folk. Rent this at your own peril.

My Rating: 2/10

Center Stage (2000)

Girl gets guy, girl loses guy, girl finds another guy, girl dances.

[6/10 · 9 May 2001]

Being of the male persuasion, this isn't a movie I would typically go to the theater to see. However, not being the stereotypical male, I decided to rent it on video and watch it together with my girlfriend.

This movie is your typical teenage gal film. All the elements are there... good girl, bad girl, holier-than-thou girl, homosexual friend, domineering mother, bad guy, good guy... the list goes on and on.

Jody Sawyer (played quite well by newcomer Amanda Schull) wants to be a ballet dancer. She is already good, but she wants to be the best. She joins on with a famous ballet school, and commences auditions for the all-out ballet blast at the end of the school year, where the dancers will be watched very closely, and some of them will be signed with major ballet companies.

Along the way, she runs into some problems with the other members of the school, as well as the company director. She finds that ballet schools aren't all they are cracked up to be. (Who knew?!) They are more about politics than they are about dancing.

She gets burned by one guy, encouraged by another, and tries to be the best she can. Eventually, she finds the way to her dreams, but not in the typical way, the one the viewer may expect.

Acting here is a tad hollow. However, for a cast of unknowns, it's pretty

fair. After all, this movie is about dancing, not about acting. As might be expected, everybody here is gorgeous. (Are they trying to tell us there are no visually unpleasant ballet dancers... anywhere?!) Aside from that, the storyline is rather unbelievable, and contrived. This leads to a loss of major points.

The best thing about this movie is the dancing. If you are a fan of ballet, be sure and rent this video. It has some of the best ballet dancing that can be seen in any other movie. In particular, the dance exhibition at the end is magnificent!

If you are male, watch this one with your female significant other. (It's good for points.) If you are a gay male, watch it with your male significant other. If you are female, just watch it, you'll love it, especially if you are into cotton candy type films. Overall, it it's no Oscar winner, but it isn't too bad, either. Did I mention the dancing was pretty good?

My Rating: 6/10

The Cell (2000)

Jennifer Lopez a psychotherapist? Yeah, and I'm the fifth member of The Beatles.

[4/10 · 9 May 2001]

Why do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!

Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.

Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.

Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.

My Rating: 6/10

Blade (1998)

Hokey, but so what? A pretty entertaining ride nevertheless.

[8/10 · 9 May 2001]

Okay, sure, this movie is a bit on the hokey side. It's difficult to take characters from comic books and put them into movies with any credibility (Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, anyone?), but this tries very hard. I've never read the actual comic book, but that doesn't really matter, I suppose. I judge a film mainly on its merits, not on whether it is a faithful retelling of someone else's idea. (Unless its a film based on a true story, that demands at least some attempt at truth and accuracy.) So why will I give this movie a fairly high rating? Because it tries. It tries very hard. In my book, that makes it a fair attempt at an entertaining film.

Many films have been made with vampire subject matter being the main focus. It seems everybody has their take on vampire lore, be it the cross, the silver, the garlic, the aversion to sunlight, whatever. Some of those ideas are included here. The storyline is familiar... a group of vampires conspire to take over the world, with one person (mainly) standing in their way. Blade (Wesley Snipes) lives for the sole purpose of the destruction of the vampiric masses, who have slowly but surely moved into the world, and share it with humankind. For the most part, the human race is blind to the fact that vampires exist all around them. The vampires have even taken familiars, people who aspire to be vampires and do the vampires' dirty work for them to show how worthy they are of eventually being "turned."

Now that I think of it, there are many elements of this movie similar to the storyline of the Roddy Piper film, They Live. A hidden enemy, hidden group of people plotting against them, the fight to save human-kind... all that is present in Blade as well.

The acting isn't the best here. Snipes is, at best, only slightly better than some of his other roles; N'Bushe Wright, a relative newcomer, isn't too bad; Kris Kristofferson is forgettable as Blade's sidekick (he's to Blade what Chip is to The Punisher). Stephen Dorff does the best job of the whole cast here, as the "head" vampire you just love to hate.

I don't know, but I just loved the special effects in this film. From the blood-soaked vampire-style rave, all the way to the inevitable fight at the finale of the film, the special effects aren't half bad. There's certainly enough blood and gore to go around, but after all, this is a vampire movie, right? The various shapes and sorts of weaponry Blade uses are fairly unique, and not generally used in contemporary action films. Snipes has more flair with a decked-out sword than he does with, say, a machine gun. Plus, there's so much more thought that goes into fighting with a blade than just blowing someone away. (Unless, of course, you are Indiana Jones.)

Overall, this isn't the best action film ever made, but it's not half bad, either. As a bonus, the musical score & soundtrack are pretty cool, too. Tell me, in what other movies can you hear super drum'n'bass like Source Direct or Photek?!

My Rating: 8/10

Blame It on Rio (1984)

Michael Caine?! Good God, man!

[1/10 · 9 May 2001]

I could see Demi Moore in a film like this. (Striptease, anyone?) Moore has made more bad films than Ed Wood, and her acting is just as bad. So it doesn't surprise me that she can be found here, alongside newcomer Michelle Johnson. But Michael Caine? What were you thinking? For an award winning actor, this is too much waste.

As a matter of fact, Caine's performance here isn't half bad, which is what can be expected of him. He's pretty good in almost anything. But a stupid storyline, terrible acting on everyone else's part, and a ho-hum job at filming/directing all sink this one deeper than the Titanic.

Blame It On Rio? Blame it on Stanley Donen, for sure.

My Rating: 1/10

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Amazing film, with a truly amazing ending.

[9/10 · 8 May 2001]

To be honest, given some of the work that Bruce Willis has done in the past, I wasn't at all interested in seeing this film after watching the various trailers. In fact, I wasn't even one of the people in line at the video store the first Tuesday it was available. Even more surprising, I didn't see this movie until it was available on video for almost two months! It wasn't until many friends told me I absolutely had to see it that I caved in and rented it. Seeing this film again just last week brought back a lot of memories with the second viewing, and I felt that I should add my two cents (six cents?) into the mix here.

This film has one of the best story lines of any film released in 1999. Perhaps the best thing about it is that it isn't a movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time. It maintains a series of highs and lows, and then works up into a crescendo for the surprise ending. You will think you have it figured out up until the last 15 minutes or so, and then what you expected to happen doesn't, and the experience becomes something else entirely. I thought I had this film pegged... many of my friends had told me to be ready for the surprise ending... and my mouth hit the floor when it became painfully obvious what this movie was all about.

Having related what I thought about the story, I'll move on to the acting and more technical aspects of this film. First off, let me say that Bruce Willis simply shines in this movie. As the grounding force in this film, he does an excellent job, perhaps not seen since his work in Twelve Monkeys or Pulp Fiction, in my humble opinion. Usually known for his work in action films, he reminds us here yet again that he can be just as good in more dramatic and complex roles.

The award for "stealing the show" in this film must go to Haley Joel Osment, who had not done much of anything notable up until being cast in this film. I'm surprised that nobody else has used the talent this little guy has to its fullest potential. This is probably the movie that will be known as the one that made his career. Recently he turned down the opportunity to appear in the sequel to this film, and rightfully so. I doubt if he could repeat the performance he turned out in this film, that's how excellent his acting was the first time around. In all, I'm sure he made the correct decision, and has chosen to go on to bigger and better things, if that's possible. At any rate, his facial expressions and simple innocence add credibility to the story in ways you cannot imagine. He's unable to cope with the supernatural events in his life, until being helped through them by Willis, who plays his role as a child psychologist almost to the letter.

Toni Collette is superb in her role as Cole's (Osment's) mother. I had never seen Collette in anything before this, and I was very impressed. It always amazes me how a director/casting agent can take a cast of (almost) unknowns and put them together in a film where they click and create a movie that leaves a lasting impression on the viewer. In a role where she plays a woman who is nothing if not extremely pained by the problems her son deals with on a daily basis, problems which he refuses to talk to her about, she does a beautiful job. She is a very beautiful lady, and I can't wait to see her in more dramatic roles.

While not generally scary, there are some slightly gory scenes, and some which create a feeling of terror deep within the pit of your stomach. Of course, the use of the musical score within the film adds to the tension. I felt as though I was watching something I shouldn't be at some points in the film, and I'm sure you can relate, or will be able to when you finally see it.

If you haven't seen this movie, go rent it. Make sure you watch it on a Friday or Saturday night, and late. This will give you enough time to digest the film over the rest of the weekend, before heading back into the week on Monday. If possible, watch it Friday night and again on Saturday night, just to pick up on what you may have missed. After watching it once, knowing the ending will help you make note of a lot more the second time around.

Watch for director M. Night Shyamalan in a cameo role as Dr. Hill, who examines Cole after his experience at the birthday party. I must admit, I didn't see him the first time around.

My rating: 10/10.

The Emperor's New Groove (2000)

Unexpected Disney fare, but an unexpected delight.

[8/10 · 8 May 2001]

These comments are based on a viewing of the DVD version of this film.

Simply put, this is Disney, but it isn't the Disney we are accustomed to. David Spade is notorious for his sarcasm and snide comments, and they abound in this film. The storyline here is darker than previous Disney animated films. One of the special features on the DVD is a deleted scene in which Pacha's village is destroyed, and while it is shown in its unfinished form, it is obvious why it wasn't included. It is a very dark, violent, and foreboding scene, and it brings new light to the film, especially when watched after viewing the movie in its entirety. Simply put, this isn't your typical children's movie, and it seems to be aimed at a more mature audience.

The story revolves around Emperor Kuzco, an egotistical ruler with a heavy hand, who is turned into a llama by his nemesis Yzma and her faithful sidekick, Kronk. Kuzco is ends up on Pacha's cart, and is transported back to his village, and various hijinks occur as Pacha tries to help Kuzco return to his palace, and ultimately regain his human form.

In my humble opinion, Kronk steals the show here. Spade & John Goodman do a good job as Emperor Kuzco and Pacha respectively, but Kronk, while something of an idiot, brings comedic moments to this film which are necessary. Watch his facial expression on the way to the "secret lab," and keep an eye on him during the "jump-rope" scene at Pacha's hut later on in the movie. Simply put, it's hilarious. Patrick Warburton's flat delivery of lines for this character adds dimension (surprisingly) to the "typical idiot" character which appears in almost all Disney films.

Rumor has it that this film was originally a lot different, a lot darker, until Disney stepped in and took over. A viewing of the deleted scene gives some insight into what the film may have been like had it not been changed. I've always been amazed by the fact that Disney can make films geared at kids, but which also appeal to adults. However, more recently, and unfortunately, Disney has used its reputation for having excellent story lines and creating films which teach lessons to enter into the "direct-to-video" market, thus taking advantage of children and their parents, and disappointing Disney fans who would rather see films which are good enough for theatrical release. Even though these particular films are released by Disney, they are just like any other "direct-to-video" film. They should be avoided, and aren't anything to write home about.

While not as good as Tarzan or The Lion King, The Emperor's New Groove is a pretty good way to keep the kiddies quiet on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, and the adults might get something out of it as well.

Note: The DVD version contains, among other goodies, a neat little animated game, a multiple choice Q&A which you can play with the children after they watch the movie. To keep them extra quiet, tell them to watch close because they are going to be tested! :)

My Rating: 7/10

Drunken Master II (1994)

Jackie Chan takes the "Drunk" out of Drunken Master!

[8/10 · 8 May 2001]

Once again, Jackie Chan shows why he is truly a master of martial arts. This particular film, released domestically in the United States & Canada in 2000, is actually an older release from 1994. With Jackie Chan's rise in the USA, many of the major department stores (*ahem*) have taken to stocking some of Jackie's first films, usually putting them in their bargain bins. Thankfully, this movie rises above those productions of pure excrement. Obviously, everybody has to start somewhere, but let's watch Jackie as we know him now... not as he was back then, when he was just beginning to master the art of "acting" while bring primarily a martial artist. His acting still isn't the sort to win Oscars, but he is infinitely better than he was back then.

As with many martial arts releases, the plot line here is rather thin. There are more zany scenes and crazy hijinks here to keep the average Naked Gun fan happy. But who cares! I don't watch a Jackie Chan movie for plot... I watch it for the fight scenes! This movie doesn't disappoint!

While not up to the calibre of Enter The Dragon, Jackie Chan shows that he knows his stuff. Of course, you all know that Jackie does his own stunts, blah blah blah, he often injures himself while carrying out said stunts, yadda yadda yadda... and that's what makes him so amazing. Jackie flying through a plate glass window... Jackie fighting off six guys with a broken broomstick... Jackie falling down a flight of stairs... wait, that's Chevy Chase. I'm just glad there were no hovercraft in this film! When all is said and done, the fight scenes in this film are better than those found in most of his other films. They are quick, they are flawlessly executed, and they hit home. This movie doesn't have the big Hollywood multi-trillion dollar budget of Chan's recent films, so it has to rely on bare-bones, white knuckle martial arts.

Keep an eye on Anita Mui as Chan's step-mother. There never was such a kniving and deceptive woman in the history of martial arts films, and yet so innocent and absolutely hilarious at the same time. Excellent stuff!

Don't rent this if you are expecting a blockbuster martial arts film in the line of Shanghai Noon or Rush Hour. Rent it if you enjoy films which display excellence in martial arts, along with the typical martial-arts-style plot-line.

My Rating: 8/10

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Quite simply, the best story in the history of motion pictures.

[10/10 · 6 May 2001]

This is a story about the despair of life in prison, as well as the friendship and hope that can be found and maintained within its walls, against all odds.

As mentioned above, and as far as I am concerned, this movie is the best of all time. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen this movie, and it touches me every time I watch it. As a matter of fact, I just finished watching this movie on television, on a cable channel that cannot seem to get enough of showing this film. I'm sure you know the one I mean, because they have shown this movie dozens of times, usually back to back. If you are a fan of this film, I'm sure you watch it every time it is on, much like I do, and are always amazed, yet again, at the end of it.

This film is written so eloquently that I doubt much could top it. Having not read the original short story by Stephen King (which is titled "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"), I cannot comment on the accuracy of the movie in relation to his telling of story. However, I'm sure that it does justice to King's writing. Frank Darabont, who wrote the screenplay and directed Shawshank, also wrote the screenplay for and directed King's other prison film, The Green Mile, which also should not be missed.

The acting here is excellent, but I doubt anybody would be surprised at that, given the cast present here. Morgan Freeman (Se7en, Deep Impact, Kiss The Girls) has shown time and time again that he is one of Hollywood's best and most underrated actors, and he certainly shines here as Red, the man who "knows how to get things." Freeman's narration is superb, I doubt a better job could have been done by anyone else. In the history of film, people such as James Earl Jones and Martin Sheen never fail to provide narration that is highly eloquent, but this film shows that Freeman deserves to be in the same category as those two actors. Tim Robbins does a great job as Andy Dufresne, an innocent man who knows he will remain in prison for a long time to come, but refuses to give up hope.

Despite excellent writing and acting, however, I believe the most poignant thing about this film is the score. Present at the best times, and lacking when it should be, the use of the score for this film helps set the tone and the mood for almost every scene. Obviously, in a film set in a prison, there isn't much happiness to go around. However, certain scenes in this film are defined by the score that goes with them, making the viewer look twice at a scene which would otherwise be quite drab and seemingly unimportant, and making them appear different than they are, thus impressing the theme of hope on the viewer in an almost subconscious fashion.

Historically, of course, this film will never be viewed with the respect and honor it deserves, especially with newer, more appealing prison-based films available, such as the aforementioned The Green Mile. It is unfortunate that Shawshank didn't win the Academy Awards it was nominated for, because it certainly deserved them. However, during its Oscar year, it was up against a little Tom Hanks vehicle called Forrest Gump, a movie which held back most others that year, and deservedly so. As often happens, seemingly to avoid one particular film taking home all the gold, Oscars were awarded to other films over Forrest Gump that year in various categories, and it's too bad that Shawshank wasn't one of them.

I guarantee that you will love the characters of Andy & Red, along with the interaction between them; hate Warden Norton and his sniveling sidekick Captain Hadley; and be moved by the eloquent ending of this fantastic and unforgettable film. It truly is an experience not to be missed.

10/10, and I'd give it an 11 if I could.

Angela's Ashes (1999)

Unrelenting despair abounds.

[8/10 · 23 July 2000]

A film rarely comes along that plays with my emotions like this one did. One moment I would be saddened by the events depicted on the screen, and within a minute or two, I would be smiling or laughing at the portrayal of another event. Angela's Ashes is one of those films.

This movie is very well filmed, and brings the despair and zeitgeist of the times to the movie screen in a spectacular fashion. While other films based in Ireland, such as Michael Collins, have brought that country to the screen in terrific color and grand splendour, this particular film shows Ireland of the 30's and 40's for what it really was. Poverty and hard times abounded, and this movie makes no bones about it.

The acting in this film was spectacular. From the portrayal of Malachy Sr., to Angela, to Frank and the rest of his family, along with the other characters in the film, this is one of the best casts I have seen in a while. The father is a man with fatal flaws, but Robert Carlyle's portrayal just doesn't allow the viewer to hate him. Emily Watson (Angela) also does an excellent job with her character. However, the show is stolen by the three boys who play Frank at various ages. All of them have the perfect facial expressions and emotions, and I would love to see more films they are in.

As an auto-biographical tale, this movie works well. There are no special effects, no eye-candy, and this film wasn't made to be a blockbuster. This is part of the reason it works. To see a movie that is emotional, as well as true to its roots, especially in this day and age, is very special. While it is based on the book of the same name, I have yet to read the story. Judging by what many people have to say about the difference between the movie and the book, I will definitely make it a priority to find the book at the library and give it a look.

Overall, from somebody who has seen the film but hasn't read the book, I have to give this one a thumbs up. The acting is superb, and not since the movie 1984 have I seen filming that adequately portrays the times which the movie represents. Be on the lookout for the Holy First Communion scenes, they had me in stitches.

My Rating: 8/10

Being John Malkovich (1999)

An amazing portrayal of the weird and wonderful.

[9/10 · 23 July 2000]

To say this film is weird is an understatement. However, it is one of the better 'strange' films I have ever seen. John Cusack is excellent in this film, as is John Malkovich himself. After all, nobody but Malkovich could pull this film off to begin with. Cameron Diaz is all but unrecognizable in her portrayal of Lotte Schwartz, but her performance here is only ho-hum. I have learned not to expect much from her in anything but a comedy film anyways, especially after seeing Something About Mary.

I recommend this film to those who want to see something fresh, and who enjoy movies that call for some thought. I don't believe a story such as this has ever been tried before, and that makes the film more appealing. I passed by it for a few weeks at the video store before committing to it, and now I'm glad I watched it.

The premise is pretty simple. While at work one day on the 7 1/2 floor, Craig Schwartz (John Cusack), who is a puppeteer, finds a small door which allows him to enter the mind of John Malkovich and see through his eyes for a short period of time, and then be dumped out beside the New Jersey turnpike. As word of this spreads, various hijinks and interpersonal relations are played out amongst the characters in the film. Craig Schwartz finds his ultimate puppet, but at what cost?

By the way, I loved the film in which John Malkovich played a jewel thief. ;)

My Rating: 9/10

Mysteries of Egypt (1998)

If you like IMAX films, you will like this one.

[9/10 · 3 June 2000]

IMAX is steadily becoming a widely recognized form of large-format movies. Any film presented in the IMAX format is larger than life. Because of that, many documentaries have made their way to the big screen.

"Mysteries of Egypt" is an excellent film on the history of ancient Egyptian civilization. Centering around the architecture and religion of the times, this particular IMAX film covers the importance of the Nile, the building of the pyramids and other similar feats, the pharaohs, and in particular, the discovery of the tomb of the boy king Tutankhamun. It is a must see for anyone interested in Egypt, especially if you have been there before. It is also a very effective educational tool, something that educators should utilize.

The scenery in this film is amazing, with one of the early scenes taking the viewer on a trip down the Nile, complete with a map super-imposed over the beautiful photography of the flight (a good reason why you shouldn't view this film right after eating a meal). Other views, such as aerial shots of the pyramids, shouldn't be missed. As to be expected with IMAX films, the sound in this film is spectacular as well, and make sure you see it in a theatre that has DTS. You won't be disappointed.

Omar Sharif is the main character and narrator of this film, and Kate Maberly appears as a supporting character. Sharif is perfect for the role, and has an on-screen presence in this film that is superb, especially considering this is a documentary. However, I think that Maberly takes away somewhat from the film as a whole, as her character (and the lines provided) just seems so fake. They would have been better to put someone like Natalie Portman in this role, at least her acting would compliment Sharif's. However, seeing as IMAX documentaries aren't known for attracting major Hollywood stars, I guess we should be happy that Maberly at least has some movie experience.

Overall, this film is excellent, especially if you are a fan of the IMAX format. This is one of the best IMAX documentaries that I have seen so far, and I look forward to more in the future. While some IMAX films are limited to certain theatres, I suggest you see "Everest", "Grand Canyon: The Hidden Secrets", "Hail! Columbia", "Speed" (not the one with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock), and "Whales".

My Rating: 9/10

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Pretty good prequel, doesn't live up to expectations.

[7/10 · 3 June 2000]

Well, the critics have been up and down this film already, and I don't imagine that I am going to add anything huge to the debate, but I feel that I have to add my two cents in anyways.

As said in the summary, this film didn't live up to my expectations. I never thought it would, to be honest. Episodes IV, V, and VI were so far ahead of their time when they were released that they made movie history. It's very difficult to top something like that. While this film is packed with computer animation and has some very excellent action scenes (the pod race scene is excellent), I believe that the animation put the film over the edge. Put simply, there was just too much of it. I'm sure that every director and studio just loves computer animation, and this film had pretty good effects! But when compared to the earlier films, taking into consideration the fact that those films used a lot of models for their shots, the animation here is just saturating.

Having said that, this movie gives us the beginning of the history behind Episodes IV, V, and VI. The storyline here is actually pretty good, and follows well with the type of plot that should be expected of any Star Wars film. This movie certainly remains true to its "roots" , so to speak, and that was nice to see. I'm also glad that Lucas didn't stray from the art of telling a good story by showing us events happening in other areas. He also kept the usual Star Wars "scene change" of having the current scene replaced by one in a different place by having the new scene move in across the old one. While some believe that is a 'cheesy' effect, it still remains familiar, and I'm glad it's kept here.

Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn) and Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan) are good in their roles, and Jake Lloyd is excellent as a young Anakin Skywalker. However, I think that Natalie Portman (Queen Amidala) steals the show here. Her acting is above that of Carrie Fisher as the female 'lead' in the earlier Star Wars series, and it will be interesting to see how they develop her character in the rest of the prequels.

This film is mandatory for any Star Wars fan, but I'm sure it will have a lower appeal to the average person, which is the reason why Episodes IV, V, and VI were released earlier in the first place. However, "The Phantom Menace" carries on the tradition of one of the best science-fiction franchises in the history of film.

My Rating: 9.5/10

Jakob the Liar (1999)

Hope, when it was most needed.

[6/10 · 3 June 2000]

I was actually quite surprised that I enjoyed this movie as much as I did. The best film about the Holocaust by far was "Schindler's List", and I don't think that any film will be able to top that one. While this one doesn't come close (and it doesn't try), it is still an entertaining movie.

Jakob Heym (Robin Williams) is a man living in one of the many Jewish ghettos of the time. While outside the ghetto, he hears a newscast on the radio which tells him the Russians are about 400 kilometers away from his home there. This starts a chain of events which lead the occupants of the ghetto to believe he has a radio hidden in his apartment, something which the Gestapo certainly frown upon. This allows Jakob to bring hope to the inhabitants of such a dreary place.

Despite the darkness of the events that this storyline revolves around, this movie still contains some humor. Of course, with Robin Williams in it, we shouldn't expect any less. As Jakob says, "that was how we got by". Williams is above average in this film, but that's not to say that this is his best work to date. He is supported by an excellent cast, who are good in their roles, especially young Hannah Taylor-Gordon in the role of Lina.

What brought this film down a couple of notches for me was the ending, which you will see when you watch it. It just didn't fit for me, I thought it might have been done a bit differently, with better results. The subject matter doesn't particularly dictate a happy-go-lucky ending to this film in any event. It isn't a happy ending, but... oh, never mind. I'll leave it up to you to watch it and make your own conclusions.

My Rating: 7/10

Titanica (1992)

Came before James Cameron's "Titanic", and certainly not any better.

[3/10 · 3 June 2000]

One of the main reasons people see IMAX films is because of the size of the screen. This is especially true of IMAX format documentaries. However, in the case of this particular film, the size of the screen is the ONLY draw.

Filmed in 1992, this movie followed a wave of Titanic popularity that peaked when the ship was found on the ocean floor by Robert Ballard in 1985. In this film, one of the many film crews that have been down to Titanic since then brings back images of the Titanic that are huge, and the Titanic is certainly deserving of such a format.

However, that is where the point of this film ends. All of the images that are in this film have been seen before, and there isn't anything surprising contained within. If one was to watch the National Geographic presentation that was shown on television a short time after the wreck was found, they could have seen everything that appears here, albeit a tad smaller. Martin Sheen did an excellent job at narrating that particular presentation, and Leonard Nimoy does an adequate job here as well.

Being a huge follower of the whole Titanic story, I was just bored to tears with this film. I wanted to see it because I am also a huge fan of the IMAX format, but I wish I hadn't wasted my time. The least they could have done was try and find something original to show us, rather than the same old same old. The fact that Titanic survivor Eva Hart is seen in this film isn't even a draw (bless her soul), as she has been seen in almost every documentary ever done on the Titanic, and her story seems to change a little bit each time she tells it.

Overall, the best thing about this film is that it is presented in IMAX format. Along with this, the music that goes with the film is extremely haunting, and matches the whole story behind the presentation. However, I can't even recommend this film to Titanic buffs, so I wouldn't recommend it to the average layperson.

My Rating: 3/10

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

Excellent film about everyday life in the working world.

[8/10 · 3 June 2000]

I had put off watching this film for a long time. I have always seen David Mamet as an excellent screenwriter and director, and I look forward to seeing what he has done for the upcoming "Hannibal". However, this film didn't seem to be one that would hold my interest.

After finally viewing it, nothing could be further from the truth. This is another of Mamet's excellent efforts. I have always found Mamet's characters to be his strong point, and this is no exception. His representation of the average working man is right on par. This movie centers mainly on the characters, and not on outside events which they cannot control. Each of the main characters in this film are responsible for their own actions, and they each decide their fate. An excellent character study.

Jack Lemmon shines in his role, as do Al Pacino and Kevin Spacey. (In fact, Al Pacino was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.) Of course, we can't expect anything else from these actors, as all have shown themselves to be highly regarded in dramatic roles. Ed Harris makes a good showing, and Alec Baldwin is surprisingly effective as well.

As I have mentioned in other reviews, I often like to be entertained while having to think about a film at the same time. This film allows for this. However, while this is an excellent Mamet film, it's not his best. For one of his best in my opinion, have a look at "Homicide", but don't let young children watch it because of the excessive (but still not overdone) coarse language.

My Rating: 8/10

The Fan (1996)

Bogged down by a poor storyline.

[4/10 · 2 June 2000]

It never ceases to amaze me how you can take an excellent actor, and put him to waste in a film such as this. Robert De Niro is one of the best Hollywood stars of all time, but even he couldn't save this movie. In fact, his character is much the same as the one he played in Cape Fear, which was actually pretty good, but I can't stand it when actors do the same schtick over more than one movie. I believe it gets old, and that is the case here.

There's nothing surprising in this movie, but then, the story has been told a million times before. Wesley Snipes is your typical baseball player, and his conceit shows through in his characterization. De Niro plays the obsessed fan, but his role in this film is less than entertaining.

However, because De Niro is IN this film, that makes it a draw if you are a fan (no pun intended) who sees everything he does no matter how bad. But to see De Niro at his best, see "Midnight Run", "Goodfellas", or "Cop Land", or even go way back and check out "Taxi Driver" or "Godfather II". Don't waste your time with this drivel.

My Rating: 3/10

A Few Good Men (1992)

The search for the truth.

[8/10 · 2 June 2000]

An excellent courtroom drama, with the U.S. Military used as a backdrop. When PFC Santiago is found dead, a dramatic trial eventually begins to try the men who killed him. However, all is not as it seems at face value.

This is a very entertaining movie, with some superb acting. I mean, hey, Jack Nicholson's in it! In actual fact, while he is a top-billed actor in this film, Nicholson doesn't have a whole lot of on-screen time here. But that's not to say that he doesn't add to the movie... the scenes where he IS on-screen are some of the best ones.

Tom Cruise is also admirable in this film, especially during the climax. Kevin Pollack good too; in fact, I think that he is an extremely underrated actor to begin with. Demi Moore's performance is average, as usual, and Kevin Bacon and Kiefer Sutherland turn in their usual supporting role type performances.

Overall, this movie has a good storyline, and increasingly kept me on the edge of my seat for the duration. There are a few classic scenes in this movie, and for that reason alone, it isn't a film to be missed. In particular, the climax of this film is superb from all angles... well acted, somewhat surprising, and actually a tad bit humorous, from my perspective. There is definitely an on-screen adversarial chemistry between Cruise and Nicholson.

If you like "courtroom drama" type films, give this one a look-see, especially if you are a fan of Jack Nicholson or Tom Cruise at his best.

My Rating: 10/10

Enter the Dragon (1973)

Bruce Lee's Best Film, Ever.

[10/10 · 2 June 2000]

An excellent film. This is Bruce Lee's best film, ever. Actually, when CBS-Fox released a "Bruce Lee Boxed Set" of four movies a few years back, I was surprised that this particular title wasn't included. Shame on them!

This film is rather short on plot, and the acting leaves some to be desired. However, the main attractions behind this film are the martial arts sequences, and they certainly won't disappoint. This film has the best martial arts action in the history of cinema.

Bruce Lee is amazing in this movie, and there are even a couple of those famous "close-up" shots of his face after obliterating an opponent with some fantastic move or another, along with that howl of his that just kind of tapers off very slowly along with the slow-motion action of the sequence. If you are a Bruce Lee fan, or a fan of martial arts in general, you will know what I'm talking about. Nobody did it better than Bruce.

John Saxon and Jim Kelly are pretty good here also, and Bolo Yeung can also be seen in this movie, his first major motion picture. (He is credited as Yang Sze here.) Actually, some people don't know that Yeung was a student of Lee's. As well, this movie contains an uncredited entrance by Jackie Chan. IMDb lists Jackie as being an extra in the finale of the movie, but I believe he is also seen in the beginning of the film when Lee's sister is being attacked by Oharra and his gang of malcontents. (I think he is the one that Lee's sister first defends herself against.) Watch closely... I'm not totally sure it's him, but it sure looks like him.

Overall, if you are a Bruce Lee fan, or a martial arts fan, or just adore fabulous action sequences, be sure and get this movie. It has recently been re-released for the 25th Anniversary of the movie, and that particular version is the one you should see. I was a bit bothered by the fact that the sound still doesn't seem the best, there are some parts that actually seem to be dubbed, even when english words are being spoken. But, after all, what would a martial arts movie be without at least some dubbing?

My Rating: 10/10

Gang Related (1997)

Can these two do anything right?

[8/10 · 1 June 2000]

This movie is not too bad, once you get past the fact that it stars TuPac Shakur... I mean, after Poetic Justice, did anybody think he could act? I sure didn't. He was a great artist, but acting wasn't his forte. Actually, to be honest, I didn't expect great things after seeing Poetic Justice, but he wasn't too bad in this movie after all.

However, when watching this movie, the question I kept asking myself was, "How can these two fools make this situation any worse?" In fact, I think that's what makes this film work. I spent most of my time waiting to see what kind of crazy coincidence would pop up next. The film certainly doesn't disappoint if you like plot twists, even if you can see them a mile away.

Overall, this is a pretty good drama about corrupt cops. I recommend it for a Saturday afternoon when there's nothing fantastic on TV, or for a Sunday if you aren't a football or racing fanatic. Just don't waste your money on it for a Friday night, you should be watching new releases on Fridays.

My Rating: 8/10

The Jerky Boys (1995)

We knew it had to happen sooner or later.

[5/10 · 1 June 2000]

Well, the summary says it all. When the Jerky Boys got popular in the early-mid 90's, we could see "spoof flick" written subliminally all over their CD covers. Personally, I find the Jerky Boys crude and off-color humor to be pretty good, when unleashed on unsuspecting businesses and John Doe's at home. And it's rumored that they get releases from these people before a bit makes it to a CD, so that makes it somewhat acceptable. These guys are like Alan Funt in the 90's.

However, this movie, while containing stupid hi-jinks and some of the prank calls along the lines of those found on the CD, just isn't funny. It's not even "so stupid it's funny" funny! Frankly, it's a bore. The plot is terrible, and often non-existent, there are certain comedy sections in the movie that contribute nothing to the non-existent plot and probably shouldn't be there, and Kamal adds absolutely nothing. (In my opinion, he doesn't add anything on the CD's, either. Kissel doesn't even hold a flame to Sol OR Jack Tors!)

Overall, don't bother. Only if you are a rabid Jerky Boys fan, own all the CD's, or consider yourself a phony-phone caller needing some pretty poor material, should you rent this movie. Heck, the funniest part of the whole film is the prank call to President Clinton at the end! (In case you were wondering, my final rating is based half on this particular prank call... the rest of the movie, frankly, doesn't deserve to be rated.)

My Rating: 5/5

Kalifornia (1993)

WOW, this is another waste of time.

[3/10 · 1 June 2000]

Okay, okay, so Brad Pitt is in this movie. So what. That doesn't make it a blockbuster, and it's not. I think the only reason I rented this movie was because Michelle Forbes was in it, and she's usually not too bad. She wasn't bad in this movie, either, but her performance couldn't save it.

I found this movie to be extremely hideous. This road trip came before Natural Born Killers, otherwise I could try and say that it was riding NBK's coat-tails, and that's why it was so terrible. (To explain, I believe that movies which follow close behind other movies at the box office and have the same basic storyline, are usually terrible.) But since that's not the case, I can't come up with any other reason why this movie was even released in theaters. It only made just over 2 million, and it should have been a straight-to-video release.

Juliette Lewis was SO annoying in this movie, that I vowed never to see anything with her in it again. While I have seen a couple of movies she was in since (yes, I'm a glutton for punishment), she certainly isn't the reason why I rent any movie that might have her in the cast. In her defense, she was pretty good in "The Other Sister", but that role seems to be tailor made for her quirky style anyways. But I digress... In any event, I'm sure that if I had to hear her say, "Earrrrlllyyy" once more in this movie, or listen to that annoying laugh, I would have found the nearest bridge and dove off it.

I have already mentioned that Michelle Forbes was pretty good in this movie, and David Duchovny was not bad either. But those two couldn't carry this film if they tried, and I'm glad they didn't try too hard. Brad Pitt can be excellent when he wants to (ie. Se7en), but he was simply awful in this waste. Don't bother, unless you are a huge fan of David Duchovny or Michelle Forbes.

My Rating: 2/10

Whose Line Is It Anyway? (1998–2007)

A New and Updated Version of a Classic

[31 May 2000]

This is the American version of the original British improvisation show, with many recognizable faces from the first series. Drew Carey is the most recent host, and he does a good job, but nobody can do it like Clive Anderson once did. Apparently, Anderson has returned here as an occasional host, but I have yet to see him on the re-runs, something that I am looking forward to.

Ryan Stiles and Colin Mochrie, both of whom made the original show very entertaining in the latter years, have returned here to once again amaze and entertain with their on-the-spot comedy. As well, Wayne Brady has been added to the cast, and he is a heavy-hitter, especially when it comes to making up songs on the spot. Often pairing with Brad Sherwood or Chip Esten, his musical/comedic talents are second to none. Other past contestants such as Josie Lawrence and Greg Proops can be seen on some nights, which is a welcome gesture to fans of the show's older cousin.

Once again, the comedic talents of all the contestants are simply amazing, as they make up skits on the spot. Many of the games from the original version of the show have been kept, with the addition of some new ones that maintain originality. Much of the show's format remains the same, which is excellent, but unfortunately, the show is kept more mainstream by the American censors, as the original show contained more off-colour humour, and even some profanity, which added to the show in general. Despite this fact, the new WLiiA rises above many of the other comedy shows on national television.

My Rating: 10/10