Change Your Image
rowe-4
Reviews
Meet Joe Black (1998)
good with 2 exceptions
semi spoilers...
The only problems with this film were:
(1) the rushed Nora Ephron style ending (there should have been a week before the 'reunion' took place)
(2) the weird acting of the female lead, who appeared to have attended the Renee Zellweger acting school, whose main prop is a huge bowl of lemons which have to be eaten whole prior to every scene. This constant squinting, nodding, and gulping caused my face to be in pain by the end of the movie.
If you can stand a somewhat imperfect resolution, and 3 hours of Zellweger face pain, then I can recommend the movie.
Shooting Elizabeth (1992)
delightful
I found the film delightfully funny. I fell in love with Goldblum's style and felt that other roles (e.g. the Fly, the horrible Jurassic Park and the farcical Independence day, and one really bad film whose name I don't recall) never quite matched this one for allowing him to showcase his humor. (the fact that he could even give a whisper of that style to the Fly--a movie tragic enough to provide a difficult medium for any humor--is much to his credit as a naturally funny person). I highly recommend it.
Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams (2002)
commercial mess
This non-sequel is a whopping mess of commercialism: nothing but gadgets and bad dialogue. It was not a spy film (aside from a bit of computer hacking, there was no espionage), it was a fantasy adventure, and it didn't even do that well.
Not even good enough for straight-to-video genre. Rather, it should be filed under "straight-to-the-trash-can."
George Washington (2000)
abysmal
This may be the worst movie I've ever seen. Billed as an art-school film. If I'd been the prof, it would have gotten an F:
1- Contrived plot. They were trying hard to be weird, macabre, and david-lynchian, but they failed miserably.
2- Bad acting. I had the feeling these non-actors were cajoled into taking the parts, or did so as a personal favor to the film makers. But it may not be their fault, because of...(see 3 below)...
3- Terrible script. The script was so contrived that the actors were laughing even while trying to deliver their inane lines.
3- Cheap use of death, gross-out effects and gross-out events for sensationalistic purposes
4- Poor representation of the South and of NC and of Winston-Salem where the filming took place.
and finally,
5- Anything that can make a film bad that I haven't thought of was probably in the film.
The only reason for anyone to see the film:
Could be shown by a film prof to the film class on how NOT to make a film.
Independence Day (1996)
"It's so lame, it's cool"
This film is absolutely goofy. If it were food, it would be "cheese-corn". Just when you think they had omitted a movie cliche, it turns up- usually stolen from every fantasy or sci fi imaginable (star wars, close encounters, among others)-- ultimately by the end they throw in everything but the kitchen sink.
Fortunately, the makers of this film took a tongue in cheek approach and were clever not to take themselves too seriously. They even threw in a few overt references to other films (e.g. 2001 in the virus scene),which I relished.
A rolicking good time, as long as you don't expect 'serious art'. See it and take a load off your brain!
Monsoon Wedding (2001)
beautiful
A beautiful film. The acting and script are trememdous. The characters have much depth and are wonderfully portrayed. Background family relations and relationships are subtly revealed through the clever script and careful and skilled acting and directing. A delicate snapshot--at wedding time--of the life and culture of one Indian family .
Last Orders (2001)
Flimsy
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen: boring, flimsy, and weak. The otherwise excellent actors were challenged by the weak, insubstantial script, so how could they be expected to perform well? The only good thing about the movie was the cinematography of the 40s flashback scenes: the color was warm, cozy, lush, and beautiful with just the right amount of softness that gave the immediate signal--even before you note the hairstyles and clothing--that the 40s were being depicted. I have to credit the actors who played the characters in the 40s flashbacks- they managed to make something out of the poor script, God only knows how.
The Opry House (1929)
A gem
Lovely short that transports you back in time. Luscious and delightful!
The Hunt for Red October (1990)
uninteresting and unreal
I agree with imdb-user anatoly that at least another negative review is needed of this movie. I found the movie uninteresting until the end (say, the last 30 minutes), even then, it was just another war-type movie with the usual setup. My main problem, though, was with the u-boat style dialogue ("Pull the main thrusts!" "The main thrusts are jammed, sir!" "Go weapons hot!" "Bullseye!" etc.). I don't think military people in real life doing their job really sound like little kids playing a video game, with really cocky-sounding intonation. These men would have been scared to death, but you couldn't tell that by their voices. Mundane tasks should be accompanied by matter-of-fact intonation, and dangerous tasks should show nervousness and tension. I guess it's mostly a movie for war-movie aficionados.
Chuck & Buck (2000)
Great film with depth, creativity, and heart
This is an excellent piece of film. Well-shot, well-edited (I was on the edge of my seat for the entire picture). The story was well-told, it unfolded well, and the viewer got insight into the main characters. With respect to the latter, the script and acting were subtle enough that the viewers are allowed to come to their own conclusions about the characters' individual psychologies. No cookie-cutter stuff here. Great aspect: the story seems to invent itself as it goes along. A beautiful film about taking hold of life. See it with an open mind, and enjoy.
All About Eve (1950)
Wonderful film, great acting
This film is a masterpiece, full of great acting (hurrah esp. for bette davis!) all around, and a wonderfully written script. The background info is given subtly and gradually (e.g. Margo's relationship with Bill, the critic's reputation, etc.) and the dialogue is sharp (always) and witty (where needed). Wonderful poetic justice tale and not-the-usual romance relationships. A real bite of life throughout. A true classic.
Croupier (1998)
clever film
This film is subtle and clever, and always interesting. Good character study. A far cry from the usual blockbusters (thank goodness). See it if you love artistic filmmaking, good plot work, etc. I also loved the acting- clive owens was perfect as the ennui-filled writer/croupier with a good head on his shoulders. Great twist at the end.
Sliding Doors (1998)
good theme wasted
This movie is flimsy, trite, and insignificant. Zero camera work of merit, zero perspective, zero script, zero plot, and so-so acting (possibly not the actors' faults since they had nothing to work with).
A skilled director could have done much with this, but as it stands, a good theme is wasted in this do-nothing film. Anyone who wishes to see a well-done film with a similar theme should see Me Myself I instead.
Joe Gould's Secret (2000)
Miss it unless you enjoy being annoyed
This is the most annoying, if not the worst movie I've ever seen. Miss it if you have low tolerance for annoying actors who overdo it, especially if very fake and inconsistent southern accents drive you batty. Tucci needs to hire a real southerner, or get a voice coach, if he intends to make his character plausible. That's not a Tennessee accent, Stanley, it's from Mississippi (and Mississipians should be insulted by his performance as well). The only decent actors in the movie were everyone BUT Holm and Tucci. (Sorry to disappoint their fans). The movie was so annoying I took an unnecessary bathroom break which I extended by gazing at the clock at the concession stand and looking at the movie posters in the lobby. Finally I plodded back to my date (who was also hating it but was determined to use up the $7) and let myself be tortured for the remaining hour. The only good things about the movie were Susan Sarandon and my box of popcorn.
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Boring and ineffective
I found this film boring and ineffective- Sophia, I wanted to like it, but it left me with little to chew on. It seemed as though everything had been thrown together with little thought of making it cohesive. There was potential for depth but it was never reached. You can be subtle and still give some clues (see _The Graduate_). Supposedly it's true to the book, but maybe this was a time to take some liberties with the original story, and/or be creative with the script. Neither gender was well represented either. The music was good; buy the soundtrack but skip the film.
Notting Hill (1999)
Lightweight rehash of four weddings
I fail to understand why anyone liked this film, even if they haven't seen FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, which the writer clearly modeled it after (same writer, I guess he thought he could make a quick buck). The chief difference: four weddings was wonderful and comedic, this was lightweight fluff with a couple of cheap unfunny gags aimed at shock effect (e.g. who could confuse mayo with yogurt??, give us a break!).
*SPOILERS COMING UP, I GUESS*
The writer didn't even try to make it different from FOUR WEDDINGS. look at the similarities:
US girl with southern accent goes to england and experiences mutual love at first sight with hugh grant. hugh grant surrounded by motley support group, including one quirky funky girl with weird hair and bizarre wardrobe and heart of gold. quirky funky girl ends up with tall blond foreigner and dances with him at wedding by his picking her up off the ground. girlfriendless friend of hugh grant meets girl in last scene. hugh and love interest go back and forth on the relationship issue. hugh says 'bugger' throughout the movie. boy gets girl and vice versa in climactic final scene.
the main (and only) essential difference between the two movies is substance. in FOUR WEDDINGS, there is character depth and development. in notting hill, not. why don't we get to see julia's relationship with her career and her past? either that, or let her act and show something of the star's personality so we can see what hugh sees in her. in FOUR WEDDINGS we didn't know much about carrie, but she was a mystery and played it off well, with no explanations. in notting hill, there was a little tinkering around with the notion but it ultimately went nowhere. I mean, here is a movie star who is constantly on the verge of tears, always dresses down, and never wears makeup and never washes and styles her hair- there has to be a story in there somewhere, right? and we got nothing about hugh grant's character, though hugh played it as best he could with such a poor script and no real plot.
it's as if the writer just meandered down a path picking posies and then finally picked a predictable ending and went with it. come on, scriptwriter, don't get hung up on an earlier success! go out there and do something different, would ya!
I gave this a 3 because I was feeling generous and I like hugh grant. don't waste your money on it, not even on video, that's my best advice.
Keeping the Faith (2000)
clever dialogue for all but jenna elfman; overall enjoyable
Let's get to the point: norton and stiller are great, so is bancroft (of course), and so is milos. And the writing for their parts is great--clever, witty, and all that. Really funny and entertaining. But... the big mystery for me is: who is this anna character? norton says during the movie that she has 'more spirit than a lot of people in robes', but how are we supposed to accept that--on faith?? all we get are closeups of jenna elfman's toothy grin (not that there's anything wrong with her grin, but do I need to see 2 hours of it and nothing else?) and of her face in general. Come on, camera-people, she's not the only thing to look at on the screen! granted, the makeup job on the entire cast was just beautiful, but let's keep things equal, ok?
* MILD SPOILERS AHEAD*
the main problem is that the script for anna's part is really drab--what are we, back in the 20's when men acted and women were supposed to just grace the screen? how is she so great? why are these two holy men fighting over her??? maybe if, instead of one scene after another of her tumbling into bed with stiller, she had a few clever lines herself, we fathom what's so great about her other than her figure.
come on, scriptwriter, give her something to sink her teeth into--some nice dialogue on her part rather than just a bunch of flirtatious glances, sheesh!
unfortunately, the non-dialogue between anna and stiller, especially, leads to non-plot and non-action wherever it occurs. norton says in the film that he wishes he could have seen them together-- well me too! they weren't 'together', they were just playing in the same scenes!
my only other problem with the movie is stiller's quick turnaround in the street scene where he changes his mind and goes back to anna; come on! you'd think a dyed-in-the-wool relationship-avoider would put up a little more fight than that! he could have at least been a little non-committal about it and changed his mind when he got to the building!
well, it's no _when harry met sally_ (meg ryan and billy crystal actually get a great script together); no, it's not "tight" enough to have achieved that. but it is worth seeing, a good first attempt and overall enjoyable.