At last! I just got back from seeing the new spiderman movie and let tell you-it was da bomb! This is the movie to see this summer!Its a rare blockbuster that will deserve its status cause unlike other movies of this genre it relies on good old fashioned story insted of shoddy cgi effects. And what a story it is! A crowd pleaser done right!With any luck the sequels it won't go the way of the Batman series! Oh and one more thing-like Christopher Reeve,and Micheal Keaton before him, Tobey Mcguire IS SPIDERMAN. Sure, the villan lacked a little, but he was sufficiently...hissable. A 10/10!
Reviews
17 Reviews
The Insider
(1999)
Terrific
21 March 2002
An absolute nail-biter of a film, I am so taken that I cannot go into deep, objective analysis. It has great performances all around, great direction, very mature and intellgent screenplay(is it a wonder it flopped?). The ending is not a surprise(as if it matters,as Raymond Chandler once said about mysteries " the really good ones will keep you going even if you knew the last chapter had been torn out", or spoiled in this case), but Mann and company manage to enthrall you anyway, creating an atmosphere so tense you feel as though anything could happen to the characters at any time. The cinematagraphy is excellent, very cool, very artistic. Plus, if you think Russell Crowe is just a hotheaded frat boy with all looks and zero talent, see his turn as Dr.Jeffrey Wigand here. It'll turn you around, it sure did me. Bravo!
The Shining
(1980)
A masterpiece of psychological horror
19 January 2002
Stephen King may have said the master director knew nothing about horror, but that simply is not true. That is a too biased opinion for anyone to go on given that he wrote the book, which Kubrick based his wonderful film ever so loosely on. And at any rate, faithful or not, KUBRICK's Shining-the BEST crafted genre film of the 80's- performs it's duty as a fright flick, and then some.
There are appropriately no words strong enough to convey the haunting beauty of the visuals showcased throughout the movie, from the drive to the Overlook to the final chase in the hedgemaze the movie is a feast for the eyes as it is for the mind. And it IS a feast for the mind as The Shining is as psychological as horror gets, toying relentlessly, and expertly with your emotions and expectations(some could even say SADISTICALLY), throwing something in that's completely out of left field and never, ever letting you catch your breath between the now classic shocks as the movie speeds toward it's memorable conclusion in the last half hour.
Kudos are in order for Kubrick, a director of the old school style, who builds an eerie atmosphere by exercising total control over the filmic environment, manipulating everything down to the tiniest detail to suit the needs of the picture, yet filming with a coldly detatched, objective eye, as though Kubrick were making a documentary about these events. This would account for the dialouge, which-thankfully-is not the typical phoney balloney Hollywood banter (Kubrick detractors/King purists usually bitch about this the most, having been weaned on the phony nature of 'Hollywood talk', which is usually nothing at all like real talk. Many of us speak 'on the nose', and do not try to convey subtext through use of carefully chosen words that articulate our state of being without being direct.) In this light, Shelley Duvall must be commended for her performance which is very naturalistic. It does not seem like acting at all. She is not concerned with glamour, nor does she clutter her performance with typical acting chops, but rather she is solely focussed on hitting the emotional highpoints of her character as 'Wendy' gradually comes to realize that her husband is a madman. And let's face it folks, how many of us would like a million bucks when placed in a situation like that? Who does NOT look like a blubbering idiot when they are hysterical? That's what I thought, so what did you expect? She was great. To say nothing of the rest of the cast.
There are appropriately no words strong enough to convey the haunting beauty of the visuals showcased throughout the movie, from the drive to the Overlook to the final chase in the hedgemaze the movie is a feast for the eyes as it is for the mind. And it IS a feast for the mind as The Shining is as psychological as horror gets, toying relentlessly, and expertly with your emotions and expectations(some could even say SADISTICALLY), throwing something in that's completely out of left field and never, ever letting you catch your breath between the now classic shocks as the movie speeds toward it's memorable conclusion in the last half hour.
Kudos are in order for Kubrick, a director of the old school style, who builds an eerie atmosphere by exercising total control over the filmic environment, manipulating everything down to the tiniest detail to suit the needs of the picture, yet filming with a coldly detatched, objective eye, as though Kubrick were making a documentary about these events. This would account for the dialouge, which-thankfully-is not the typical phoney balloney Hollywood banter (Kubrick detractors/King purists usually bitch about this the most, having been weaned on the phony nature of 'Hollywood talk', which is usually nothing at all like real talk. Many of us speak 'on the nose', and do not try to convey subtext through use of carefully chosen words that articulate our state of being without being direct.) In this light, Shelley Duvall must be commended for her performance which is very naturalistic. It does not seem like acting at all. She is not concerned with glamour, nor does she clutter her performance with typical acting chops, but rather she is solely focussed on hitting the emotional highpoints of her character as 'Wendy' gradually comes to realize that her husband is a madman. And let's face it folks, how many of us would like a million bucks when placed in a situation like that? Who does NOT look like a blubbering idiot when they are hysterical? That's what I thought, so what did you expect? She was great. To say nothing of the rest of the cast.
Hannibal
(2001)
I don't give a Godda*m about this movie, and you shouldn't either.
22 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
It's garbage, just pure utter garbage. Not 'cuz of the gore, mind you, but for several reasons, which because this isn't a damn school paper, I will state them in list form:
1. Utterly disjointed. This friggin movie is all over the place, with no handy dandy subtitles telling you where it is now, except in one measly incident when they cut to Sardinia.
2. Clarice is horribly underused. Come on, this isn't Jodie Foster's Clarice, or even the one from the book Hannibal. That Clarice was full of depth and imbued with interesting little nuances here and there. This Clarice is white paint on a backyard fence. No fault of Juliane's though. She was given nothing to work with.
3. Hannibal Lecter's character has been transformed into a Freddy Kruger with class. Before he was real. He was a genius. He was dangerous. And he was endlessly fascinating. Here he's diminished; bogged down by too many lame ass "wise"cracks that simply don't fit the character. Anthony, I know how much you hate the profession that has made you so rich, but really this is too much!
4.They changed the ending. Now the characters created by Harris do not follow their correct paths as laid down by their Creator. So what you get is not the true Hannibal, and Clarice, but rather Bodysnatcher types that only look, and sound like them, but they're not. *spoiler for book*
As many of you already know, in the book, Clarice was finally freed of her father fixation, and dined on the brains of her nemisis. Her character arc was complete. Here, there is no character in the first place. Stephen Zailian botched the job. They should have hired some one with more respect toward the source material. That would have been proper.
There are probably more reasons you should avoid this dreadful, needless sequel made quickly, if not cheaply, to cash in on Hannibal's name brand value, and nothing else. WIthout quality, or craft, or passion. It's a nothing little scrap of celluloid that will forever toil in the shadow of it's superior predessecor for it's utter lack of thematic ambition, or courage.
Any one can show guts, but it TAKES guts to take beloved, well known characters like Hannibal, and Clarice, and show another side of them with which audiences are unfamiliar with, and may not be comfterable with. This movie is spineless.
1. Utterly disjointed. This friggin movie is all over the place, with no handy dandy subtitles telling you where it is now, except in one measly incident when they cut to Sardinia.
2. Clarice is horribly underused. Come on, this isn't Jodie Foster's Clarice, or even the one from the book Hannibal. That Clarice was full of depth and imbued with interesting little nuances here and there. This Clarice is white paint on a backyard fence. No fault of Juliane's though. She was given nothing to work with.
3. Hannibal Lecter's character has been transformed into a Freddy Kruger with class. Before he was real. He was a genius. He was dangerous. And he was endlessly fascinating. Here he's diminished; bogged down by too many lame ass "wise"cracks that simply don't fit the character. Anthony, I know how much you hate the profession that has made you so rich, but really this is too much!
4.They changed the ending. Now the characters created by Harris do not follow their correct paths as laid down by their Creator. So what you get is not the true Hannibal, and Clarice, but rather Bodysnatcher types that only look, and sound like them, but they're not. *spoiler for book*
As many of you already know, in the book, Clarice was finally freed of her father fixation, and dined on the brains of her nemisis. Her character arc was complete. Here, there is no character in the first place. Stephen Zailian botched the job. They should have hired some one with more respect toward the source material. That would have been proper.
There are probably more reasons you should avoid this dreadful, needless sequel made quickly, if not cheaply, to cash in on Hannibal's name brand value, and nothing else. WIthout quality, or craft, or passion. It's a nothing little scrap of celluloid that will forever toil in the shadow of it's superior predessecor for it's utter lack of thematic ambition, or courage.
Any one can show guts, but it TAKES guts to take beloved, well known characters like Hannibal, and Clarice, and show another side of them with which audiences are unfamiliar with, and may not be comfterable with. This movie is spineless.
Ehhh...
13 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
THE GOOD: Maggie Burroughs is perhaps the only interesting character in this movie, and is likably played by Liza Zane. If Freddy's Dead had centered more around her than the runaway kids(read obviously doomed Freddy-fodder) the movie would have been greatly improved. Yapet Kotto also plays the role of the dream therapist well, although he like all the actors is not given much to do, other than pontificate on the nature of dreams, and how to get Freddy. The few scenes the two share are the best, as they have- dare I say- a good chemistry together. Their scenes feel REAL in contrast to the cheesy Freddy scenes that really bring the movie down. The special effects are as usual pretty good, even though they invoke a been there done that feeling in anybody who's familiar with the series and seen previous episodes. The soundtrack is a plus for me, as well as the montage at the end, capturing all the best Freddy moments from the series. And at least we got to explore some of his past before he got the 'final' sign off. THE BAD: I didn't give a damn whether any of the characters lived or died, which certainly didn't help a terrifically unscary so-called horror movie. I will consent that most of the actors did a good job ( the girl who plays Tracy reminds me of a young Sigourney Weaver), but their characters were either not very interesting, or just plain annoying. They had nothing to work with, and so sunk. The structure of the film and many of the fx gags were also derriative of parts one and three, excusable since the movie wasn't a total copy, but also a pretty good sign that not much thought was put into this not-quite-final nightmare. *****SPOILER****
Add to minus column an end that was already done before in part one (get Freddy out into real world), and also pales before his best death in part four when the souls of his victims all burst out of him. SO much for that tag-line.
Add to minus column an end that was already done before in part one (get Freddy out into real world), and also pales before his best death in part four when the souls of his victims all burst out of him. SO much for that tag-line.
A very cool movie that just happens to be poorly written drivel
20 July 2001
Okay, it need not be said that the Jurrasic Park movies rest firmly on the shoulders of the dinosaurs. The human characters are the merest of ciphers, which was fine in the original when the technology was relatively new. By now however, Hollywood-in it's infinite wisdom*cough*stupidity*- has beat this old horse to death. And then gave it a few extra licks. Flashy CGI effects are cool, I concede to that much, but unsupported by a solid storyline and interesting characters they simply fall flat on their face. This is the main problem with Spielberg's follow up to box-office champ Jurrasic Park. In a word, the screenplay sucks. Suck major a***. It's little more than a series of attack scenes strung together by the flimiest of narrative threads. Not only this but plot holes too many to count abound, diminishing what little credibility the premise had to begin with leaving the audience with not much else to do but wonder "how do they do that?" for the majority of the running time. Don't get me wrong, I knew full well walking in that this was a leave-your-brain-at home type picture, but really guys, a little more competence on the film makers part would have been appreciated(you can, for example, see the kid in the "t-rex attacks suburbia scene" look off screen for direction a second before he pulls back the sheets on his parents bed. The scene, in addition to not being necessary, also makes no sense. According to Dr. Harding aka Dr. Dipsh*t, the T-Rex was in need of a water source to quench his mammoth thirst. Well he needn't have left the dock for that, which-duh!-was completely surrounded by water. Salt water maybe, but that's hardly less tasty than chlorinated water, as appears to be the Tryant Lizard's preference in the movie). As all summer blockbusters tend to do, this flick does have it's ups, along with the downs. The Godzilla-esque finale is cheesy fun, and the finale is totally spielbergian in a good way. Some funny lines abound(all of which are obvious, but nevermind). That however is it.
Oh and the music sucks. The original JP theme was dignified yet stirring. The new anthem is a dumb elephant march.BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-LA-LA-BOOM-BOOM...you get the idea.
Oh and the music sucks. The original JP theme was dignified yet stirring. The new anthem is a dumb elephant march.BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-LA-LA-BOOM-BOOM...you get the idea.
Jurassic Park
(1993)
Magnificent
20 July 2001
Never fails to inspire a sense of awe, and fear. There's a sort of mythical grandeur prevading every frame of this film that is by and large absent from The Lost World(I have not seen part three, so I cannot comment on that, though I doubt a change in directors has helped much). I remember that year very clearly. Sitting the theater waiting in anticipation for dinorsaurs. It was just like my first trip to the zoo. Then they did show up after an hour(I think) and it totally blew me away. The sound, the sights! It was too real. Now, of course the movie has flaws(mainly the lack of a real ending, the movie simply stops) but I'd rather not focus on these; Jurrasic Park is a classic adventure movie in the best Spielberg tradition rivaling even Jaws. There is something eeire, wonderous, yet mysterious about the mist shrouded jungle where the movie is set. The leaves moving in the wind to a portentious soundtrack boom is an image that will never leave my mind. I wanted to believe this is was a real place I could travel to, and see the dinosaurs lurking just behind the palm fronds(from a safe distance of course!). Simply a 10/10!
Moulin Rouge!
(2001)
A HOLLYWOOD ALLEGORY!
21 June 2001
This movie is not about Moulin Rouge. Or even love at all. This is the director venting frustration against Hollywood.
Ewan's character is repeatedly told to avoid Montramarte(I know that's wrongly spelled-sue me) because it is a place of sin-something we hear about HOLLYWOOD oh so often.In a distance the words 'Moulin Rouge' glow like the Hollywood sign, promising a glamorous underworld of illicit pleasures.
He's repeatedly told by his father that he'll never make it, a sentiment that I, as young author am quite familiar with.
And the part where they tell the idiotic, supercillious Duke(read:Studio head) about the story, looks like it could be the world's flashiest Studio pitch. Its no surprise that he decides to change the ending of the play Ewan has written, destroying the writer's artistic vision, for personal reasons totally unconnected to the work itself.
The part of perpetual liar Harry, Moulin Rouge's 'ringleader', resembles a director kissing up to save his hide. Always saving the star's butt, who's off doing something she shouldn't be, brilliantly covering so the business deal he stands to profit from is not endangered.
The good guys and bad guys are clearly drawn with the studio head, sworn enemy of art and originality(the latter being Baz's forte), emerging as a throughly hissable character who's eventually deafeated and the 'underling' ,writer Ewan emerging a victor, more or less. Lest we not forget that writers bear the brunt of studio head's contempt more fiercely than any other person in the biz.
Could this not be Baz and Craig Pierce's sly satire on the goings on behind the camera, and in Hollywood's broad rooms?Perhaps I'm reading too much into the movie. I know I did enjoy it very much, and I rushed
out to buy the soundtrack immeadiatley afterward.
If you liked this movie, you should try 'The Player', 'S.O.B.', and 'Willian Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet'.
Kudos to Baz,Pierce, Kidman, McGregor and all of those who collaborated
on the making of Moulin Rouge.
Ewan's character is repeatedly told to avoid Montramarte(I know that's wrongly spelled-sue me) because it is a place of sin-something we hear about HOLLYWOOD oh so often.In a distance the words 'Moulin Rouge' glow like the Hollywood sign, promising a glamorous underworld of illicit pleasures.
He's repeatedly told by his father that he'll never make it, a sentiment that I, as young author am quite familiar with.
And the part where they tell the idiotic, supercillious Duke(read:Studio head) about the story, looks like it could be the world's flashiest Studio pitch. Its no surprise that he decides to change the ending of the play Ewan has written, destroying the writer's artistic vision, for personal reasons totally unconnected to the work itself.
The part of perpetual liar Harry, Moulin Rouge's 'ringleader', resembles a director kissing up to save his hide. Always saving the star's butt, who's off doing something she shouldn't be, brilliantly covering so the business deal he stands to profit from is not endangered.
The good guys and bad guys are clearly drawn with the studio head, sworn enemy of art and originality(the latter being Baz's forte), emerging as a throughly hissable character who's eventually deafeated and the 'underling' ,writer Ewan emerging a victor, more or less. Lest we not forget that writers bear the brunt of studio head's contempt more fiercely than any other person in the biz.
Could this not be Baz and Craig Pierce's sly satire on the goings on behind the camera, and in Hollywood's broad rooms?Perhaps I'm reading too much into the movie. I know I did enjoy it very much, and I rushed
out to buy the soundtrack immeadiatley afterward.
If you liked this movie, you should try 'The Player', 'S.O.B.', and 'Willian Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet'.
Kudos to Baz,Pierce, Kidman, McGregor and all of those who collaborated
on the making of Moulin Rouge.
Popular
(1999–2001)
confused c**p
3 June 2001
I think that sums up this dumb show which can alternate between weepy, self-important melodrama, and campy self-important farce on any given episode.
What's worse is that the people behind this sh*tfest think us teens are sheep. Witness the recent "alcholoism" subplot which was perhaps the least subtle piece of right-wing political propaganda every shoe horned into a teeve show. I can just picture the producers yelling at the writers to spoonful feed us this rhetoric.
What's worse is that the people behind this sh*tfest think us teens are sheep. Witness the recent "alcholoism" subplot which was perhaps the least subtle piece of right-wing political propaganda every shoe horned into a teeve show. I can just picture the producers yelling at the writers to spoonful feed us this rhetoric.
Batman Returns
(1992)
I voted a ten for this movie based on childhood memories
3 June 2001
SILLY ME.
Baaadd sequel. It leaves you feeling cold, and unsatisfied. This is a comic book movie-shouldn't we come off feeling like Batman indeed saved the day, and all might be well? That's the feeling we got at the end of the original Batman, and one that is badly missed here. The only thing we feel by the time the movie has reached it's pathetic (anti)climax, is that perhaps Batman SHOULD join Mr.Freeze, Riddler, Posion Ivy, and all the others in Arkham Asylum.
Michelle Phiefer is the only point of interest in this dreary mess, and she is given FAR too little screen time. Catwoman deserves her own movie (although not the one Daniel Waters scripted, which was pure 1960's era Bat-campiness), and indeed one is in the works. Too bad the lesser Ashley Judd will play her, according to the latest news. With a better, more fleshed out Catwoman to play Michelle could really SHINE in a role she made, and has yet to top.
Danny Devito is awful. Every second he has onscreen is a waste of celluloid. Bury this flick(except for Catwoman's scenes).
Baaadd sequel. It leaves you feeling cold, and unsatisfied. This is a comic book movie-shouldn't we come off feeling like Batman indeed saved the day, and all might be well? That's the feeling we got at the end of the original Batman, and one that is badly missed here. The only thing we feel by the time the movie has reached it's pathetic (anti)climax, is that perhaps Batman SHOULD join Mr.Freeze, Riddler, Posion Ivy, and all the others in Arkham Asylum.
Michelle Phiefer is the only point of interest in this dreary mess, and she is given FAR too little screen time. Catwoman deserves her own movie (although not the one Daniel Waters scripted, which was pure 1960's era Bat-campiness), and indeed one is in the works. Too bad the lesser Ashley Judd will play her, according to the latest news. With a better, more fleshed out Catwoman to play Michelle could really SHINE in a role she made, and has yet to top.
Danny Devito is awful. Every second he has onscreen is a waste of celluloid. Bury this flick(except for Catwoman's scenes).
Batman
(1989)
Wonderful
3 June 2001
The one that started it all. The movie captivated me from start to finish as a child, and even today. The theme by Danny Elfman is unforgettable, and mesmerizing(and definitely unreplacable.*snort*nice try, Goldenathal).
Keaton IS Batman, and himself will never be replaced in a role to which only HE has been able to bring any nuance, or complexity. The others were practically wooden planks, bereft of emotion.
It is a truly awe-inspiring moment when we first see the Batman descend from above on his enormous leather 'wings'. That scene alone conveyed all the mythic grandeur that is Batman, and as an entrance will never be one-upped. No over the top, neon spectacles Schumacher can contrive could replace the mixed feelings of fear and fascination I first felt when saw Micheal in his suit for the first time.
Joker is an awesome villain fantastically played by the unfailable Jack Nicholoson who delivers an oscar winning preformance(he was robbed). None have come close to matching him for sheer, wicked villany save Michelle Pheifer as Catwoman(the one bring spot in the otherwise awful Batman Returns). He's the one future Bat-villains tried to emulate, and failed.
The Batmobile, the batwing, the set design-all of it is take-your-breath-away fabulous. That its used to patch holes in the story didn't matter then, and perhaps not now. The movie zooms along at a steady clip, while managing to mix in serious drama, and themes such as fate, and duality. Admittedly it does not go into these very deeply, but its something that would never have occurred in Schumacher's Batman movies(and haven't), which try repeatedly in vain to susbstitute brains, and character development with "clever" quips. Here you get a feel for all of the main players.
Keaton IS Batman, and himself will never be replaced in a role to which only HE has been able to bring any nuance, or complexity. The others were practically wooden planks, bereft of emotion.
It is a truly awe-inspiring moment when we first see the Batman descend from above on his enormous leather 'wings'. That scene alone conveyed all the mythic grandeur that is Batman, and as an entrance will never be one-upped. No over the top, neon spectacles Schumacher can contrive could replace the mixed feelings of fear and fascination I first felt when saw Micheal in his suit for the first time.
Joker is an awesome villain fantastically played by the unfailable Jack Nicholoson who delivers an oscar winning preformance(he was robbed). None have come close to matching him for sheer, wicked villany save Michelle Pheifer as Catwoman(the one bring spot in the otherwise awful Batman Returns). He's the one future Bat-villains tried to emulate, and failed.
The Batmobile, the batwing, the set design-all of it is take-your-breath-away fabulous. That its used to patch holes in the story didn't matter then, and perhaps not now. The movie zooms along at a steady clip, while managing to mix in serious drama, and themes such as fate, and duality. Admittedly it does not go into these very deeply, but its something that would never have occurred in Schumacher's Batman movies(and haven't), which try repeatedly in vain to susbstitute brains, and character development with "clever" quips. Here you get a feel for all of the main players.
Batman
(1989)
Wonderful
3 June 2001
The one that started it all. The movie captivated me from start to finish as a child, and even today. The theme by Danny Elfman is unforgettable, and mesmerizing(and definitely unreplacable.*snort*nice try, Goldenathal).
Keaton IS Batman, and himself will never be replaced in a role to which only HE has been able to bring any nuance, or complexity. The others were practically wooden planks, bereft of emotion.
It is a truly awe-inspiring moment when we first see the Batman descend from above on his enormous leather 'wings'. That scene alone conveyed all the mythic grandeur that is Batman, and as an entrance will never be one-upped. No over the top, neon spectacles Schumacher can contrive could replace the mixed feelings of fear and fascination I first felt when saw Micheal in his suit for the first time.
Joker is an awesome villain fantastically played by the unfailable Jack Nicholoson who delivers an oscar worthy performance(he was robbed). None have come close to matching him for sheer, wicked villany save Michelle Pheifer as Catwoman(the one bring spot in the otherwise awful Batman Returns). He's the one future Bat-villans tried to emulate, and failed.
Also of note is the music by Prince, which while not up to his usual standard serves the movie rather well, particularly in the wonderfully irreverent musuem sequence and the parade scene
Keaton IS Batman, and himself will never be replaced in a role to which only HE has been able to bring any nuance, or complexity. The others were practically wooden planks, bereft of emotion.
It is a truly awe-inspiring moment when we first see the Batman descend from above on his enormous leather 'wings'. That scene alone conveyed all the mythic grandeur that is Batman, and as an entrance will never be one-upped. No over the top, neon spectacles Schumacher can contrive could replace the mixed feelings of fear and fascination I first felt when saw Micheal in his suit for the first time.
Joker is an awesome villain fantastically played by the unfailable Jack Nicholoson who delivers an oscar worthy performance(he was robbed). None have come close to matching him for sheer, wicked villany save Michelle Pheifer as Catwoman(the one bring spot in the otherwise awful Batman Returns). He's the one future Bat-villans tried to emulate, and failed.
Also of note is the music by Prince, which while not up to his usual standard serves the movie rather well, particularly in the wonderfully irreverent musuem sequence and the parade scene
Network
(1976)
Gloriously dark satire indistinguishable from reality (tv)
3 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Paddy Chayefsky's brilliant satire offers a no-holds barred look behind the scenes at the unscrupulous goings on at a low rated teevee network that will plumb any low for ratings-even murder.
Peter Finch stars as Anchor/mad-man Howard Beale, whose on-air rants,"decrying the hypocrisies of our times", cause a sensation.
His marvelously scripted (and delivered) speeches are sardonically funny, yet depressingly true:"Bullsh*t is all the reasons we give for living," he tells us," and if we can't think up any of our own, we always have the God bullshit. We don't know why we go through all this pain, humiliation, and decay so there better be someone somewhere who DOES know! THAT'S THE GOD BULLSH*T!" And of course everyone knows his most famous one that's featured in every movie montage ever shown, as another reviewer has stated. That allowing the rants to air uncensored goes against the FCC, and Standards and Practices is not important to the network; millions of people are tuning in, fascinated by this "Mad Prophet of the Airwaves" as he's later dubbed, and that means big business.
The late, great William Holden (Sunset Blvd) stars as Max Schumacher(unfortunate that his character shares his name with the man who ruined the Batman franchise given that his is the only really likable character in the movie, but what are you gonna do?), Howard Beale's long time friend, and boss. Little by little, his influence is diminished when a conglomorate named CCA takes over the news division, and slowly the evening news is converted into a literal showcase for gossips, and soothsayers. "Television is show biz, Max, and even the news has a little showmanship" says exec Diana Christensen(played wonderfully by the gorgeous Faye Dunaway)an irresistably cynical career climber who lusts after ratings with an unnatural, cold blooded zeal. The only joy in her life she tells Max(with whom she begins an adulterous affair) is her work. "I'm inept at everything else".
See this movie. It has more relevance now, than ever before, and the end-***SPOILER***
is gleefully, and purposefully unsatisfying. No, the bad guys don't get caught, and yes, the voice of the masses will inevitably be oppressed. After Hoffa, and the Martin Luther King assassination can anybody argue that that's what life is really like?
Peter Finch stars as Anchor/mad-man Howard Beale, whose on-air rants,"decrying the hypocrisies of our times", cause a sensation.
His marvelously scripted (and delivered) speeches are sardonically funny, yet depressingly true:"Bullsh*t is all the reasons we give for living," he tells us," and if we can't think up any of our own, we always have the God bullshit. We don't know why we go through all this pain, humiliation, and decay so there better be someone somewhere who DOES know! THAT'S THE GOD BULLSH*T!" And of course everyone knows his most famous one that's featured in every movie montage ever shown, as another reviewer has stated. That allowing the rants to air uncensored goes against the FCC, and Standards and Practices is not important to the network; millions of people are tuning in, fascinated by this "Mad Prophet of the Airwaves" as he's later dubbed, and that means big business.
The late, great William Holden (Sunset Blvd) stars as Max Schumacher(unfortunate that his character shares his name with the man who ruined the Batman franchise given that his is the only really likable character in the movie, but what are you gonna do?), Howard Beale's long time friend, and boss. Little by little, his influence is diminished when a conglomorate named CCA takes over the news division, and slowly the evening news is converted into a literal showcase for gossips, and soothsayers. "Television is show biz, Max, and even the news has a little showmanship" says exec Diana Christensen(played wonderfully by the gorgeous Faye Dunaway)an irresistably cynical career climber who lusts after ratings with an unnatural, cold blooded zeal. The only joy in her life she tells Max(with whom she begins an adulterous affair) is her work. "I'm inept at everything else".
See this movie. It has more relevance now, than ever before, and the end-***SPOILER***
is gleefully, and purposefully unsatisfying. No, the bad guys don't get caught, and yes, the voice of the masses will inevitably be oppressed. After Hoffa, and the Martin Luther King assassination can anybody argue that that's what life is really like?
Scream 3
(2000)
Generic piece of trash
25 January 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Totally unmemorable movie,chock full of tepid one-liners(the only good zingers in the flick were the ones Deon Richmond ad-libbed,and they certainly are not worth the ticket price!),'impact-less' deaths,cartoon characters for leads,a host of extras who arrive out of the blue to deliver an important plot point,and then just as suddenly disappear again,it goes on,and on- In short,this is a very cold,prefunctory movie,folks-a paint by the numbers,cash-in sequel to a series clearly no one has their heart in anymore(most especially not Craven,and Campbell who's Dinner theater theatrics-'sob,sob'-grow less amusing with each installment).And the characters are all such annoying caricatures,we feel nothing when they die-well,maybe gratitude,but I don't think that was intended. Worst of all,neither Gale,nor Dewey,nor Sidney die!Call me cruel,but this excruciatingly formula movie could have used it.All during the length of the movie,I begged for a surprise,a neat twist-anything!To no avail.It's just a dumbed down version of scream(a not too smart movie itself,as it only serves to point out VERY obvious slasher movie conventions!)without that movie's suspence and scares(few that there were after the famous opening with Drew Barrymore). And of course the killer could be anyone-the butler,the cook,the best friend,the neighbor.It's the luck of the draw.No clues are ever given as to who it could be-and of course when we finally find out whodunit,the movie inevitably looses the meager credibility it had to begin with,as none of the dastard's behavaior prior to his unmasking make any sense when put in context. SPOILER******
Early in the film,the killer is whining about how the studio wants to shut down production on his film,because of the killings.He's very obviously p***ed,but then we find out he's the one pulling the strings(not to mention,Sid's half brother is a very soap-opearish 'twist').Is her sabatoging his own flick intentionally or what?The question,and many others,is raised,but never answered.Perhaps to allow room for (God forbid)Scream 4.
END SPOILER******* AVOID THIS STINKER,and watch Scream 1 again instead(or better yet wes Craven's New Nightmare,which takes the same premise and does more with it than any flick in this series ever did).1 out of 10.
Early in the film,the killer is whining about how the studio wants to shut down production on his film,because of the killings.He's very obviously p***ed,but then we find out he's the one pulling the strings(not to mention,Sid's half brother is a very soap-opearish 'twist').Is her sabatoging his own flick intentionally or what?The question,and many others,is raised,but never answered.Perhaps to allow room for (God forbid)Scream 4.
END SPOILER******* AVOID THIS STINKER,and watch Scream 1 again instead(or better yet wes Craven's New Nightmare,which takes the same premise and does more with it than any flick in this series ever did).1 out of 10.
American Beauty
(1999)
Look Closer
22 December 2000
The penultimate journey into the upper middle class hell of suburbia! Kevin Spacey stars as dead pan cynic Lester Burnham-a self proclaimed 'loser' who tell us right off the bat that he has only one year left to live(then again,in way he's "dead already"...). Masturbating in the shower is the high point of his day he tells us,"it's all down hill from here". We then meet his bitchy,career driven wife(the great Annette Bening,who's Carolyn is like the psychotic flip side of every 50's sitcom mom-watch for her show stopping "Shut up,you weak baby!" scene 25 minutes into the movie!It will take your breath away!),and his perpetually sullen,tart tongued daughter Jane(Thora Birch in a great performance),who's like a ticking time bomb ready to blow any second.She outright hates her mom and dad with a passion seldom seen on the screen. Voyeurism,homosexuality,pedophillia,adultery,heart,laughs,wit-this movie has it all!A ten all the way!
Mama's Family
(1983–1990)
GREAT!
22 December 2000
And I thought lester burnham and his family were screwed up.... mama has to have the most dysfunctional family in tv history.Eunice in particular comes off as a psycho...still,even though the acting-and in particular the affected southren accents-may be a little over the top,the stories are great,the one liners are hilarious,and Vicki Lawrance shines as a "cranky blue haired old dragon" as Naiomi once put it. A ten!
Tell Your Friends