Since a previous reviewer did a little recap on the background of the true events of the movie, I'll comment more about the movie itself... I just saw this movie tonight and I'd have to give this movie 3 and a half stars. The reason it doesn't get a full four is because while it is excellent, something just felt...missing. Was it too grand or not epic enough for me? I'm not sure. I know that, in my opinion, it isn't worth any Best Picture nominations. It's not even worth any actor nominations, although they are all very, very good. If anything, I think it should get a nod for direction and sound... The best thing I liked about the movie is that I forgot I was watching a movie. It sucked me right in (once the obligatory exposition in the beginning was done) and never let me go. Now don't get me wrong, it's not one pulse pounding minute after another--but it is action packed-- but it's simply engrossing. I agree with another reviewer that it is similar in its graphic-ness to "Private Ryan" in that you feel like you are in the trenches with these guys. Also, here's a kicker: half the cast is English or Australian, so it's funny to hear McGregor, Bloom, Isaacs, etc. talking like Bob from Arkansas. To sum up: Well worth your 8, 9, 10 bucks. It made me want to research more about the Somalian conflict and I don't doubt that was a goal of the filmmakers. And you will walk out of the movie respecting the heck out of our military men and women. The movie couldn't have been timed better if they tried. Don't listen to the hype, just see this excellent movie.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Serendipity
(2001)
not awful, but...
11 October 2001
....but it's not great either. There's something missing.
One night while shopping at Bloomingdale's for their respective boyfriend and girlfriend, Sara Thomas (Beckinsdale) and Jonathan Trager (Cusack) both want the last pair of black cashmere gloves in the store. After some flirting, and telling a lame story to a guy who also wants the glove, they hit it off, decide to have a cup of coffee, and end up having the best spontaneous date in the history of film (BUT THEY BOTH HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OTHER. too funny to me). Sara believes that things are predestined, happen for a reason, but Jonathan's not buying it. To prove that if it's meant to be, they should continue this, she has him write his name and number on a five dollar bill and promptly puts it "out into the universe" by buying some breath mints. She writes her name and number in a book she just bought and will sell the next day to a bookstore. If she finds the bill or he finds the book, it's meant to be. To push their luck (as if this other scenario wasn't crazy enough) they get in separate elevators at the Waldorf Astoria and if they meet on the same floor, it's got to be fate they're together. Well, they don't get off on the same floor (close though) and this gets the ball rolling to where we meet these characters years later, where they've moved on to other relationships, but still thinking about each other. We find out how intertwined their lives really are and spend the rest of the picture seeing if fate will indeed bring them together.
I liked the movie but didn't love it. It's great acting, especially by Jeremy Piven as Cusack's best friend and Eugene Levy as an annoying, but still helpful, Bloomies clerk. This movie tries to capture that whole "Sleepless in Seattle" old school romance thing, but it just doesn't have the magic of earlier romantic comedies. Now whether this is simply b/c it wasn't there in the movie or I(and we as moviegoers) have seen this formula way too many times, I'm not entirely sure. It's probably both b/c this isn't a new concept [romantic comedy], but it was the filmmakers' job to sell us this idea and in my opinion they didn't. While there's definitely good things about this movie, there weren't enough for me to recommend this movie beyond rental status. Now I will say this would be a great first date movie, as it raises a bunch of good questions: is there fate? Will fate bring you to your soulmate? Is there a such thing as your soulmate and would you know it? It even goes into how to keep the love/romance alive in a prolonged relationship.
The romantic in me wanted this movie to be much more than it was, and it wasn't that my expectations were so high. It's just that this movie is so low.
One night while shopping at Bloomingdale's for their respective boyfriend and girlfriend, Sara Thomas (Beckinsdale) and Jonathan Trager (Cusack) both want the last pair of black cashmere gloves in the store. After some flirting, and telling a lame story to a guy who also wants the glove, they hit it off, decide to have a cup of coffee, and end up having the best spontaneous date in the history of film (BUT THEY BOTH HAVE A SIGNIFICANT OTHER. too funny to me). Sara believes that things are predestined, happen for a reason, but Jonathan's not buying it. To prove that if it's meant to be, they should continue this, she has him write his name and number on a five dollar bill and promptly puts it "out into the universe" by buying some breath mints. She writes her name and number in a book she just bought and will sell the next day to a bookstore. If she finds the bill or he finds the book, it's meant to be. To push their luck (as if this other scenario wasn't crazy enough) they get in separate elevators at the Waldorf Astoria and if they meet on the same floor, it's got to be fate they're together. Well, they don't get off on the same floor (close though) and this gets the ball rolling to where we meet these characters years later, where they've moved on to other relationships, but still thinking about each other. We find out how intertwined their lives really are and spend the rest of the picture seeing if fate will indeed bring them together.
I liked the movie but didn't love it. It's great acting, especially by Jeremy Piven as Cusack's best friend and Eugene Levy as an annoying, but still helpful, Bloomies clerk. This movie tries to capture that whole "Sleepless in Seattle" old school romance thing, but it just doesn't have the magic of earlier romantic comedies. Now whether this is simply b/c it wasn't there in the movie or I(and we as moviegoers) have seen this formula way too many times, I'm not entirely sure. It's probably both b/c this isn't a new concept [romantic comedy], but it was the filmmakers' job to sell us this idea and in my opinion they didn't. While there's definitely good things about this movie, there weren't enough for me to recommend this movie beyond rental status. Now I will say this would be a great first date movie, as it raises a bunch of good questions: is there fate? Will fate bring you to your soulmate? Is there a such thing as your soulmate and would you know it? It even goes into how to keep the love/romance alive in a prolonged relationship.
The romantic in me wanted this movie to be much more than it was, and it wasn't that my expectations were so high. It's just that this movie is so low.
Driven
(2001)
Schlock
9 May 2001
Why, Sly, why?!!!! This movie is a waste of both Renny Harlin and Sylvester Stallone's talents. I'm shocked Sly thought this was okay enought to keep his name on the Screenplay credits. This movie is the standard cracked-up-mentor-comes-back-to-teach-the-hotshot-rookie-he- used-to-be, but as we've seen in the genre before, it can be done well. The dialogue in this film is poor. And worse than that, the performances by everyone, except Burt Renoylds who I think does a good job (but looks horrible), cannot transcend the material.
By the end you're supposed to be cheering on Jimmy Blye, but I felt nothing except pleasure that I used a gift certificate to see this piece of junk. No character made me want to invest in them. Even Gina Gershon, nor the scantily clad random women peppering the film, could save sitting through this movie! (but the fellas must've had a hell of a good time shooting it though) If you're going to see this movie for the stunts and driving effects, it's pretty worth it, but even some of the CG in it was outrageously poorly done. I'd give the movie an Oscar for Sound Editing/design, but the rest of it is beyond saving. Mr. Stallone, be glad that in the later months the marketing dept chose not to push your name on the film so much, cause it could only bring you down, despite the money it's made so far. It's not the worst movie I've seen ever, but it sure is in the top 20...
By the end you're supposed to be cheering on Jimmy Blye, but I felt nothing except pleasure that I used a gift certificate to see this piece of junk. No character made me want to invest in them. Even Gina Gershon, nor the scantily clad random women peppering the film, could save sitting through this movie! (but the fellas must've had a hell of a good time shooting it though) If you're going to see this movie for the stunts and driving effects, it's pretty worth it, but even some of the CG in it was outrageously poorly done. I'd give the movie an Oscar for Sound Editing/design, but the rest of it is beyond saving. Mr. Stallone, be glad that in the later months the marketing dept chose not to push your name on the film so much, cause it could only bring you down, despite the money it's made so far. It's not the worst movie I've seen ever, but it sure is in the top 20...
From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money
(1999 Video)
BAD BAD...BAD!
13 November 2000
I rented all 3 "From Dusk Til Dawn" movies to get the overall story. I had, of course, seen the original and wanted to get into the sequels since I'd heard about them being made, but that's the last I'd heard about them. Well, my review of #3, "The Hangman's Daughter" can be found with that movie, and as for this...a TOTAL waste of film. TOTAL waste of actors who seem talented (although I've only seen Robert Patrick's and Cruz's other work really)but are stuck in this horrible movie. It's so bad I won't even get into the plot, but let's just say it happens some time after the first one, has a very weak tie to the first one (Micheal Parks' character's son), and is just bad from conception to execution. It looks as though it was made just to capitalize off the success of the first and was put together in a jumbled, hurried mess, something I would hope two great filmmakers like Rodriguez and Tarantino would be above and not shove shotty material down our throat...BUT THEY DID.
The only thing I can say good about this movie is the special and CG effects. But the first-person camera the director, Spiegel, utilizes WAY too much and it's annoying as hell anyway? Useless. If they thought of the concept for "Hangman's Daughter" first, they should've stopped there. If they thought of this first, I'm glad they got the bugs out here to make "Daughter" a far superior movie. Avoid this monstrosity at all costs.
The only thing I can say good about this movie is the special and CG effects. But the first-person camera the director, Spiegel, utilizes WAY too much and it's annoying as hell anyway? Useless. If they thought of the concept for "Hangman's Daughter" first, they should've stopped there. If they thought of this first, I'm glad they got the bugs out here to make "Daughter" a far superior movie. Avoid this monstrosity at all costs.
From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter
(1999 Video)
if you HAVE to see these characters again, see this one
13 November 2000
I have a problem with the whole fact of Rodriguez and Tarantino doing a sequel, let alone sequels, of a highly original, totally off-the-wall movie like From Dusk Til Dawn. But where #2, "Texas Blood Money," was a waste of film, #3 "The Hangman's Daughter" is the ONLY one they should've attempted. It tells the story of Salma Hayek's character in the first one and actually has a plot, good acting, lasts just long enough and has enough content to be entertaining and not exhausting. I also want to add that Ara Celi is a GREAT substitution for Salma cause she is just as FINE! :)
The movie does suffer from some of the hokey tricks that plagued Texas Blood Money and is campy, but that's half the appeal of these types of movies. They're not Shakespeare, they're to entertain...and bringing back Michael Parks was a stroke of genius and if you want to see how diverse an actor he is, watch this movie and the first moments of the original where he's featured. If you're jonezing to revisit some old friends at the Titty Twister saloon, rent this one and TOTALLY AVOID the second sequel.
The movie does suffer from some of the hokey tricks that plagued Texas Blood Money and is campy, but that's half the appeal of these types of movies. They're not Shakespeare, they're to entertain...and bringing back Michael Parks was a stroke of genius and if you want to see how diverse an actor he is, watch this movie and the first moments of the original where he's featured. If you're jonezing to revisit some old friends at the Titty Twister saloon, rent this one and TOTALLY AVOID the second sequel.
Scary Movie
(2000)
Why Keenan, why...
12 July 2000
Like some others, I had hopes this movie would be funny based on the trailer which was hilarious, but the movie fell WAAY short. This isn't one of those movies where the trailer showed the best parts but it's pretty close.
They had a good premise and a good framework and just hacked it to death. The jokes would start out funny, but then they jumped off the cliff with it and went on and began to not be funny but sick. The humor of the movie relied primarily on gross sight gags and pushing that envelope. Most of it could've been really funny if they didn't have genitalia popping out of she-men or an EXTREMELY runny nose parodying Blair Witch, and stuff like this. If you thought the Farrelly brothers were bad, you haven't seen this movie.
I'm still a fan of all the Wayans' works, and the direction of the movie wasn't bad, but cleverly satirical this isn't. What could have been a good movie got too caught up in topping every other grossout out there. Don't spend your money.
They had a good premise and a good framework and just hacked it to death. The jokes would start out funny, but then they jumped off the cliff with it and went on and began to not be funny but sick. The humor of the movie relied primarily on gross sight gags and pushing that envelope. Most of it could've been really funny if they didn't have genitalia popping out of she-men or an EXTREMELY runny nose parodying Blair Witch, and stuff like this. If you thought the Farrelly brothers were bad, you haven't seen this movie.
I'm still a fan of all the Wayans' works, and the direction of the movie wasn't bad, but cleverly satirical this isn't. What could have been a good movie got too caught up in topping every other grossout out there. Don't spend your money.
A Soldier's Story
(1984)
One of the Best of All Time
12 June 2000
I can't even say this movie is underappreciated and overlooked b/c it did get a nomination for Best Picture...but I'll say it is anyway! :) This movie is not just a great "black" film, it's a great film, period. Howard Rollins shows the great actor he once was (and makes you saddened by how his later career after "Heat of the Night" turned out) and you cannot beat the who's who of the rest of the cast: Robert Townsend, Denzel, Adolph Caesar... I'm glad I found out it's on DVD with commentary by Mr. Jewison cause it deserves the format (although more goodies would've been great). If you haven't seen it, you must. For excellent acting and story it rarely gets better than this one...
Tell Your Friends