Change Your Image
aorman
Reviews
Do Over (2002)
Tries and fails
The biggest problem with this show is that it's supposed to be a sitcom, but actually isn't very funny.
The handful of episodes I've seen so far have been bereft of gags. The characters and situations bear painful resemblance to other sitcoms (Malcolm In The Middle, The Wonder Years) while still managing to avoid being humourous. The dialogue is dead.
The producers haven't been outrageous enough pointing out the foibles of 80s culture - fashion, music, the lack of social consciousness. And worst of all, the two offsiders to the main character can't actually act.
I suspect this is another great-idea-badly-executed that will disappear into the mists of television time.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
End of an era?
WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS! Sort of.
A lot of people have commented that they were disappointed with this film. I have to say I was too.
My sister commented that the script sounded like it was an unfinished draft. While there were a number of humourous moments, the dialogue was dull and monotonous, and the direction was flat and uninspired.
Further, character motivations seemed badly drawn and unclear. For example, exactly why did the villain want to destroy the Federation? Surely his quarrel was primarily and overridingly with the Romulans. And why was Troi's "mental rape" scene included? It had the feeling of a scene tacked-on after the fact to give Marina Sirtis something to do.
While I can't fault the film in terms of action or special effects, I go to see a Star Trek film to see my favourite characters being tested. And they weren't.
The film also felt like a rehash of earlier Next Gen films; In Generations, Captain Picard fights against a madman to stop the activation of a deadly device which will cost countless lives. In Insurrection, Captain Picard fights against a madman to stop the activation of a deadly device which will cost countless lives. In Nemesis . . . do you see a pattern here?
There are also (unfavourable) comparisons to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
On the positive side, the production design was excellent. The costumes and sets were first rate.
Disappointing - yes. However, maybe Paramount will be inspired to do another film and this time, give the Next Gen crew the send-off they deserve.
Ling (1999)
The way horror should be
Ring is the way horror film should be. It doesn't set out to startle you by having cats or axe-wielding murderers jump out of the darkness. And it doesn't attempt to horrify you with bloody stumps or entrails. Ring is good horror because it strikes at the very heart of our sense of safety in the modern world.
Asakawa is a divorced journalist with a young son. She begins to investigate a series of strange deaths, deaths that have been linked to the viewing of a videotape. The rumour at a local school is that whoever watches the tape will die within one week.
Restful moments, carefully considered colours and shot composition and excellent sound and music design all add to the suspense and sense of impending doom. The few minutes of the haunted video that we see are genuinely disturbing without being over-the-top or cliched.
(I am dismayed that Hollywood has decided to re-make this film using American actors. I am also appalled at another reviewer describing the original's Japanese heritage as a "hitch". When will Americans learn to appreciate other cultures' films as they are?)
Ring is an excellent film AND an excellent horror film. For best effect, watch it in a darkened room late at night, or a darkened theatre as it is still playing in many independent cinemas. But you might want to watch it with someone else.
The Score (2001)
Hits the mark
It could be easy to get tired of heist films, considering the number that have come out in recent years - Swordfish, The Thomas Crown Affair, Ocean's Eleven, to name but a few. But The Score does stand out from the bunch in storytelling, casting and direction.
The dialogue is relaxed and realistic, free of the cliches and one-liners that could so easily accompany it. This is helped no end by DeNiro and Norton's relaxed styles of delivery. None of the supporting characters seem stupid, foolish or annoying.
The Score is smooth and sophisticated, and while it does present the occasional cliche (such as DeNiro's character looking to get out of "the business") it is throroughly enjoyable. An excellent mix of the action and suspense of the heist itself, and the character interaction between Nick and Jack. Howard Shore's score is flexible enough to cover all the moods of the film. Frank Oz's direction is so slick as to be invisible, the seemingly slow pace at the start of the film matched by a racing climax. A good film.
Ringu (1998)
The way horror should be...
Ring is the way horror film should be. It doesn't set out to startle you by having cats or axe-wielding murderers jump out of the darkness. And it doesn't attempt to horrify you with bloody stumps or entrails. Ring is good horror because it strikes at the very heart of our sense of safety in the modern world.
Asakawa is a divorced journalist with a young son. She begins to investigate a series of strange deaths, deaths that have been linked to the viewing of a videotape. The rumour at a local school is that whoever watches the tape will die within one week.
Restful moments, carefully considered colours and shot composition and excellent sound and music design all add to the suspense and sense of impending doom. The few minutes of the haunted video that we see are genuinely disturbing without being over-the-top or cliched.
(I am dismayed that Hollywood has decided to re-make this film using American actors. I am also appalled at another reviewer describing the original's Japanese heritage as a "hitch". When will Americans learn to appreciate other cultures' films as they are?)
Ring is an excellent film AND an excellent horror film. For best effect, watch it in a darkened room late at night, or a darkened theatre as it is still playing in many independent cinemas. But you might want to watch it with someone else.
Don't Say a Word (2001)
Don't Say I Didn't Warn You
"Don't Say A Word" belongs to that group of films that, while they're not bad, do nothing to stand out from the crowd.
The surprise twists in the story are so over-foreshadowed that they end up being no surprise at all.
The casting of a Brit as the head villain was a cliche twenty years ago - now it is truly old hat and shows a lack of imagination on the part of the producers and casting agents. This is compounded by the lack of an interesting an original script for grade A actor Sean Bean to work with. Brittany Murphy is also shortchanged by the script, and what at first appears to be a promising performance is not allowed to blossom.
This is symptomatic of the film as a whole - truly dramatic events are underplayed, and as a result the film feels like it has no climaxes.
"Don't Say A Word" is a film with an interesting premise that has been produced as a run-of-the-mill thriller.
Panic Room (2002)
Home Alone for grown-ups it ain't
The point of this film is to ask yourself, what would I do in this situation? For the most part, Panic Room has us asking that question at a feverish pitch.
David Fincher has a wonderful directorial style that ignores the physical limitations of the world (walls, floors, etc.) when describing the spaces the characters operate in. There is also an intensity of character focus which is more prevalent in his earlier films than in Panic Room. Unfortunately this intensity disappears about two-thirds of the way through the film, and the final third becomes run of the mill and predictable in both writing and direction. Present however is Fincher's usual play with colour.
Despite several attempts at shoring up the main characters, the only one whose characterisation remains strong is Bhurman (Forrest Whittaker). Raoul (Dwight Yokam) changes from a frighteningly cold-blooded mercenary to a run-of-the-mill villain. Meg (Jodie Foster) seems weak throughout, and young Sarah (Kristen Stewart) is difficult to identify with as she portrays the stereotypical annoying teen.
The verdict: this is a good film, not a great one. The first two thirds are a delight to watch for Fincher's direction, the last third is disappointing.
Ice Age (2002)
Not quite an empty wasteland.
I was really looking forward to this pic, and I was slightly disappointed. What should have been an animated short entirely about the rat-thing and his acorn became an uninspired piece of schmaltz.
While Ice Age has a funny beginning, the middle is quite dull and the ending is deliberately and unsubtley emotionally manipulative.
Other than Sid the sloth (voiced by John Leguizamo) I found the character design to be unimaginative. The backgrounds, while very nicely coloured, were drab and uninteresting. I know this is supposed to be set during a pending glacial period, but a little background detail would be nice!
Not bad, but uninspired. A video rental.
Evolution (2001)
Science-fiction or comedy? Misses as both.
One can't talk about this film without referring to Ghostbusters (1984). And it's not hard, because a number of elements seem to have found their way from Ghostbusters into Evolution - the strong female lead, the wacky professional scientists, the "won't listen" man in charge, and Dan Aykroyd. Ghostbusters was an ensemble piece, three comedians who had worked together for a long time and who could play off one another. Not so with evolution. So much of the friendly banter seems forced and artificial, and Orlando Jones' cliched one-liners only slow the scenes down. Something was wrong with the editing, though I found it hard to put my finger on it - like the editors (both experienced people, I might add) had left a few too many frames on either side of a cut. Other scenes - such as the argument over the shirt between Duchovny and his ex in the cafe - felt like they shouldn't have been there at all. It was clear seeing the end sequence that great chunks of the film had been removed, but whether they were the right chunks you'll have to decide for yourself. The effect is a slow and choppy film. Now, it is supposed to be a comedy, but a little scientific accuracy wouldn't go astray. Not some argument over the atomic weight of Nitrogen, but something as simple as "these creatures can't possibly survive in our atmosphere..." We got some of it, but not much, and what we did get left me shaking my head in bewilderment. I assumed that was what Scott's character was there for - to have things explained so the audience would understand. As it turned out, Scott's presence was essentially a plot device. The best bit? Aykroyd's appearance. He waltzes onto the set and out-acts everybody on screen, and looks like he has a lot more fun doing it too. Only Julianne Moore manages to match his enthusiasm. Duchovny's character seems to pull the solution to their problem out of thin air, which grates badly. These characters aren't smart, they're lucky. Disappointing? You betcha. And not just because of the high standards set by Ghostbusters. This film has its own set of problems.