eddie54 Reviews

Old School (2003)

Will Ferrell left Saturday Night Live...for THIS?????

[9 March 2003]

Not enough laughs. Lazy writing, directing, and acting. Even Jackass the Movie was better than this. At least it didn't try to pretend it was something else.

Old Man Blue was an inspired touch, though. I'd like to see him used more often in comedies. The only other place I've seen this guy was on Conan O'Brien under the name of Olie Olsen.

Sunshine State (2002)

Has John Sayles lost his touch?

[2 March 2003]

I almost feel like crying. John Sayles has proven time and again that he's the best independant film maker working today. I love his work. However, I must admit that Sunshine State is a major disappointment. The characters and plot are uninteresting. A very sad situation.

Usually a movie makers gets seduced by Hollywood before they start making turkeys. Maybe I'm being too critical. I'm just going to walk away whistling and wait for the next great John Sayles movie.

Go get 'em, Tiger!!!

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Anderson's lame attempt at romantic comedy

[1 March 2003]

An embarrassingly juvenile effort. Anderson establishes no sense of intimacy or understanding of his main character. We don't know how he thinks or what he's thinking of. The only thing that makes sense is his desire for psychotherapy. Anyone who is this screwed up mentally would not be on the street. In addition to that, almost everything that happens in the plot is nonsense. Once again, Anderson is asking us to buy in to impossible situations. He's seems to be getting worse and worse as a writer/director. His best film was his first: Hard 8, probably because he played by the strict rules of character development and storytelling. He did this to get his foot in the entertainment door. Once inside, he felt he could indulge in his wacky whims as a writer/director. The result? Bad movies.

Adam Sandler in a dramatic role. Shocker? No. He's an actor. He should be able to pull this off. But as usual, everyone considers it a revelation because of this past pigeonholing. Emily Watson, a supreme professional looks totally lost in this film. I can actually read regret in her eyes, regret for taking this role.

Anderson, get back to basics. Maybe you'll get my respect back.

The Pianist (2002)

Polanski is the Mozart of film makers

[15 February 2003]

Efficient and economical telling of yet another first hand holocaust experience. Unlike Schindler's List, however, The Pianist contains no distracting sentimentality. I would have like to see more scenes involving the father, played by Frank Finlay. He's such a wonderful British actor who played such a great Iago to Lawrence Olivier's Othello.

Trivia: Steven Speilberg had originally offered to let Polanski direct Schindler's List.

2001: A Space Travesty (2000)

Did Janet Reno direct this film?

[10 February 2003]

Totally humorless and offensive. Movies that go straight to video are like movies that critics aren't allowed to review: they suck. My advice: hang a right, step on the gas and keep going! When a comedy just goes and goes and goes producing no laughs, my body enters a kind of zombie state where time seems to have stopped. Has this ever happened to you? A time comes when you stop asking yourself "What's funny about that?" or "Is that supposed to be funny?" That's the time when you realize that even the attempt at humor is gone and things just start to happen quickly. These "things" can only be described as surreal or even dada-esque. They make NO sense.

Full Frontal (2002)

Robert Altman creates, Steven Soderbergh masturbates

[9 February 2003]

I downloaded this curiosity off of Kazaa and it was so boring, I decided to read every user comment WHILE I WAS WATCHING IT!!! In fact, it's still playing as I write this. It's just another comment about the declined of the Hollywood movie. Soderbergh was the darling of independent cinema. He has since been seduced, then corrupted by the Hollywood system til he himself is the corruptor. "Audiences will enjoy anything I chose to put up on the screen," he thinks. It happened to David Lynch. It happened to Woody Allen. Massive egos and shallow personalities of movie entertainers are NOTHING NEW TO THE MOVIE AUDIENCE!!! Robert Altman can pull this off and he did in The Player. Soderbergh is just pulling his own chain..............and ours.

Men in Black II (2002)

Tired, lifeless, and sad

[11 November 2002]

If Men in Black II was a toaster, I would return it as defective. It's Pat, the movie had more laughs than this. Will Smith's top priority was looking cool. Being funny was secondary. Tommy Lee Jones just looked like a constipated old man. The script seemed like it was written by the concerted efforts of your average elementary school class. All in all, it maintains Hollywood's latest commandment: Originality is a sin!

Message to Will Smith and Barry Sonnefeld: I hope you guys enjoyed the money that you made from this film. As far as I'm concerned, you took it under false pretences. Respect for you is futile.

Last Year at Marienbad (1961)

A true science fiction classic

[16 October 2002]

Human-like aliens on a earth-like planet in a parallel universe. Life forms consist of about 50 or so replicants living in a luxurious hotel. They speak French, wear tuxedos and evening gowns, but their emotions are all but drained. They're very stiff and robotic. No one is seen eating food although they're always making plans for dinner. They enjoy posing, especially in gardens.

The actual story involves a "rebel" known as X. He is the only one that exudes anything resembling human romantic desire. He takes a shine to a femalien known as A who is in residence with her lover/husband M. X realizes that M doesn't love A, so he feels it's alright to steal her away. All he had to do is convince A that she promised to go away with him a year ago and that she wanted one year to prepare. A doesn't remember the promise and X's efforts to convince her are like trying to unlock a door with a wet noodle. Love finally triumphs in the end as A eventually runs away with X in the night leaving M standing alone on the staircase with a blank expression.

The director, Alain Resnais, is firmly quoted as saying that the film has no meaning. However, with so many people arguing that the film is loading with symbolism and is indeed much like a game or puzzle to be solved, I interpreted the film in a way that entertains me the most. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Hope you like it.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Hanks does Rambo!

[12 October 2002]

The biggest problem with the Road to Perdition is the film makers attitude. They convinced themselves that this was a classic film even before the cameras rolled. Also, the success of it relies on two things: good cinematography and star power. By star power, I don't mean acting talent, because I thought that very little acting talent was on display here.

The direction was, "OK guys, take as much time you want saying your lines. We're making a serious movie here, dammit!"

Cliche after cliche. And the biggest one was the most damning: the last scene where everyone thinks the movie's over with a happy ending. Then bang. Good Lord, couldn't they have staged it differently?

With that said, there's nothing more to do but sit back and wait for the Oscar campaign. Because we all know, there's no bigger Oscar beggar than Tom Hanks.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

As bland and safe as any Tom Hanks movie

[24 September 2002]

An alarm should have went off in my head when I saw that Tom Hanks produced this safe, bland, and unoriginal movie. I just kept waiting for it to kick in and be funny, but it never happened. Michael Constantine was the ONLY funny character in it. Other than that, it was basically a sit-com disguised as a full length feature. No wonder it's being picked-up by CBS AS a sit-com. Go figure.

A prior commentator was appalled that the leading character had pre-marital sex before marriage. I felt it was wrong for the character to do this, but commentator KNEW she was wrong to do it. It was an important point to be made.

Bottom line: if you saw Moonstruck, you've seen this movie. Bye.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Cleverness before character **a few spoilers**

[12 January 2002]

I really wanted to love this movie because Rushmore was my favorite movie of 1998. However, I only liked it. There never seemed a great urgency in anything the characters did. There was never any crisis and very little conflict. Royal was broke and kicked out of his hotel. I always knew he'd survive. Even when he was inexplicably stabbed by Pagoda, I knew he'd be OK. There were some very funny scenes played very deadpan. The humor wasn't spelled out like other "comedies". You had to be sharp, for instance, to realize that the doctor that comes to the house to treat Royal was actually the elevator operator at his hotel.

The film was VERY good until Royal was "unmasked" and kicked out of the house. The it just rambled for a while. Just an addition of wacky scene after wacky scene. The romance between Margot and Richie was just so freaking DULL that not only did I not care that they got together, it almost seemed like THEY THEMSELVES didn't care. Again, no urgency.

The film didn't blow me away like Rushmore did, but it is STILL better than any other comedy this year.

Freddy Got Fingered (2001)

Steamboat Bill Jr. for the today's audience

[2 November 2001]

Despite the gags that work AND the gags that don't, this is a story about a son's desperate need for his father's approval much like Buster Keaton's film Steamboat Bill Jr. It's certainly not as refined as Keaton's effort, but that is the foundation for the story. It even has the old "house falling on the hero but doesn't get hurt because the window crashes over him" gag.

I'm not praising this film. I did laugh quite a bit, though. I applaud its bold "don't give a s**t if the audience likes it" attitude. Try finding that attitude in a Julia Roberts vehicle.

The Killing of Sister George (1968)

She's the lesbian you love to hate

[9 October 2001]

This movie is SO over the top that it has become a guilty pleasure much in the same way as Showgirls and Valley of the Dolls. As a kid, all I remember was the ad in the paper and the X rating. When I finally saw it, I found myself laughing whenever Beryl Reid flew into her tantrums. It just seemed to me that EVERYTHING that was done in the movie was done for sensationalism. I found it hard to believe in the characters because the situations lacked credibility. However, it was just fun to watch what Sister George would do next.

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

Where human greed is concerned, this is as good as Treasure of the Sierra Madre

[22 September 2001]

I sincerely believe that this is a comment on human greed first and a comedy second. I take this movie as seriously as I would The Treasure of Sierra Madre. Greed is the theme of the film. Even Dorothy Provine's character who is the only one it hasn't touched, gives in to it right after she finds the big W.

To me the funniest shot of the film lasts less than a second. It's the close-up of Spencer Tracy hanging on to the palm tree leaves, gliding through the air before being thrown through a glass window. His expression is one of total bewilderment. The look on his face seems to say, "How could this happen? All I wanted was to steal the money and retire in Mexico and here I am dangling three stories in the air and about to die."

Billy Liar (1963)

Strange Revelation

[13 July 2001]

I first saw the film in New Jersey when I was a young teen. The character of Billy Fisher was a dreamer (good) and a liar (not good). He juggled two girlfriends which I thought was cool. He acted out his fantasies which I enjoyed. I was really starting to relate to him as a future role model.

**spoilers** Then came the end of the film where he agrees to go to London with the luscious Julie Christie. The two of them are sitting on the train waiting to pull out of the station. Billy gets cold feet and invents a reason to leave the compartment. He goes to the milk machine which is located on the platform. Does he hurry? No. He gets the milk and stands there holding the two containers with his eyes closed, waiting for the train to start rolling. When he hears it moving, he makes this totally pathetic attempt to run for it. He will not catch the train. He does not WANT to catch the train. It was at that point that I completely hated his character. Why did he bother to run for a train he had no intention of catching? Could he really be that delusional? Did he feel that if he made the lamest attempt to fun for the train that it would be erased as a mistake in his own mind?

It was a lesson for me, a character builder. I, under no circumstances, wanted to BE that person. The movie helped me.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Does Speilberg have a brain tumor?

[4 July 2001]

That's the only reason I can come up with to explain this movie's zigzagging story line. The Kubrick touches were there, but who cares? You either do it exactly the way Kubrick would have wanted it, or you do your own interpretation. You can't have it both ways and end up with a satisfying film.

The biggest problem is that no one at Warner Brothers had the guts tell Lord Speilberg that he had a movie with a meandering plot. How can you tell God that He's doing something wrong? Speilberg must have been running around the Warner lot like Nigel Hawthorne in The Madness of King George spouting nonsensical plot points. All the executives must have been smiling and nodding politely. "Yeah, Mr. Speilberg, that's a good idea. Isn't that a good idea, fellas?"

Another user said that if you leave after the ferris wheel drops, you'll be satisfied with the film. I must disagree. Even though I can handle a sad ending, it still wouldn't have fit.

Lone Star (1996)

Another feather in John Sayles's cap

[27 June 2001]

Yeah, I know. I live in Wichita Falls, TX, but I first saw Lone Star when I was living in New Jersey. Now that that's out of the way...

I think, next to Men With Guns, this is the best John Sayles movie. There are very few directors who can pack this much plot into a film and make every aspect work. Rekindled romance, social issues of whites, blacks, and mexicans, and a murder mystery that would make Raymond Chandler jealous.

I like to lump Sayles right along side John Huston. They were probably the best in the business, but becaues neither one worked in a specific genre, they are more or less forgotten. How about a John Huston double feature of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Annie!

Dance, Little Children (1961)

Herk Harvey does it again!

[24 June 2001]

This was yet another social conscious documentary from Centron, directed by Herk Harvey who gave us Carnival of Souls. In this outing, children and young adults are warned about the dangers of venereal disease. The acting is OK, with Herk playing an insensitive father of a teen boy. There's a very funny scene in a doctor's office where our heroine has just left. She had a rash and the doctor left alone has an internal argument with himself on whether it could have been sex related. I can't help thinking that with a little more guts, it could have been truly scary to kids rather than coming off as a Dragnet episode. The film is included as part of the supplementary material on the Something Wierd Video title Teenage Gang Debs/Teenage Strangler Drive-in Double Feature.

Panic (2000)

So much potential...

[24 June 2001]

I gotta stop buying DVDs sight unseen. It happened with Affliction and now with Panic. I bought into the rave reviews and felt disappointed after watching it. This could have been a truly great film...if ONLY they had focused on the father/son relationship and left that godawful May/September romance on the cutting room floor. If only Neve Campbell's character had some smarts, maybe even a little class to separate her from the rest of the LA airheads it MIGHT have worked. She was nothing but a tease and it distracted from the movie greatly. She and Macy had NO chemistry together and their scenes were a total waste of time. Every time they were on screen together, you keep asking the same thing: When are we going to see Sutherland again? I'm a child of the 60's when movies were VERY good. So, when I hear some young person praise a recent movie as great, I must remember that "great" movies made today would have been only "good" in the sixties. I refer back to what I call the John Carpenter Syndrome. It works like this. John Carpenter made some good thrillers/horrors back in the seventies. But compared to the crap being produced today, they seem like GREAT films. People must remember that they're good films existing in a garbage heap of crap will seem better than they are.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Worthless

[28 May 2001]

A lot of people keep saying how faithful the book is to the movie. Fine. Does that excuse it from being mean-spirited? boring? ugly? anti-female? aimless? incomprehensible? unentertaining?

The first scene has our two heroes hitching a ride in a red cadillac convertible. Because of all the drugs in their system, they hallucinate being attack by bats. The scene went on and on with no pay-off. Well, that scene didn't work, I thought to myself. And it went on from there. Like grown up children, these two bums feel they can get away with everything, from harrassing/threatening every female they meet to destoying their hotel room.

It's just another one of those movies where the central character is really "cool" and everyone else is a jerk. Much like any Robin Williams flick.

I almost could excuse this mess...IF IT WAS FUNNY!!!! BUT IT'S NOT!!!

Every scene is the same. Duke and Gonzo appear on the scene (no matter where) and either insult or injure the people there. And it goes on and on and on like that.

There's a short scene in the desert between Duke and a highway patrolman played by Gary Busey. You can almost imagine Gilliam thinking, "Now how can we make this cop look like an ass AND get a laugh? Of course, he'll ask Duke if he can kiss him. Haw Haw"

It doesn't work.

Coming Apart (1969)

Never a dull moment

[28 May 2001]

Like Blair Witch, this could seem like an authentic documentary for the less informed. However, it's a clever piece of film making. Rip Torn plays a psychiatrist with emotional problems who feels he can solve them if he secretly films himself with his female patients/lovers/pick-ups. There are those who may not have a lot of patience with the program as it's shot entirely in a small apartment room. Other viewers won't be able to watch it without experiencing memories of their own romantic life because Torn's character isn't to different from most men. I see a lot of myself in him. He's always on the prowl for a new conquest. He grows tired of the women who fling themselves at him and he constantly desires the ones who don't.

This is the only movie made by Milton Moses Ginsberg.

Candy (1968)

MY NEED!!! MY OVERPOWERING NEED!!!

[28 May 2001]

Yes, folks. Those are the words that McPhisto (Burton) schrieks again and again while molesting our poor young herione in the back of a limo. It has to be one of the funniest scenes in film history. However, matching Burton all the way on the laugh meter is Marlon Brando as a phony guru who lives in a tractor trailer. He, too, has his way with teenaged Candy. She's not too bright, you see and all the males in the film jump her bones either through trickery or downright rape. This picture would not have been made today. Too many women's rights group would put a stop to it. It was obviously made for "the man who reads Playboy."

The biggest mystery to me, however, is why this little movie with HUGE stars has never made it to home video until now.

In Harm's Way (1965)

Didn't think it would be that good

[28 May 2001]

No, I didn't go to see Pearl Harbor this weekend. I stayed at home and watch my new DVD of In Harm's Way. The DVD cover is quite misleading. It sports a color photo of Wayne and Douglas, but the film is black and white. Their smiles would indicate a comedy.

Like From Here to Eternity, the human drama is set against the Pearl Harbor attack. Unlike, From Here to Eternity, the attack starts the film. And what a drama it is! Romance, infedelity, poor father/son relationship, honor, courage, rape, suicide. Never maudlin or schmaltzy, the performances are excellent, but low key. Back in 1965, taking the time to develop character was the norm, so to most young people, this movie would seem slow. Pity.

The battles scene are very good and the cinematography was Oscar nominated. There are some really breathtaking black and white high angel long shots of Hawaii with leaning palm trees and dark skies filled with billowing clouds.

And the cast! Your face will light up with every new character that appears. George Kennedy, Stanley Holloway, Hugh O' Brien, Dana Andrews, Bruce Cabot.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

A downward spiral to destruction with no reason or warning

[27 May 2001]

There's a scene in Kurosawa's High and Low that depicts a sick drug addict at night in a Tokyo slum. To make us feel the agony of this poor woman, Kurosawa has her scraping her fingernails on corrugated metal. It's torture to the audience to listen to. I've never seen a more effective way to make an audience feel a characters pain than that.

Aronofsky comes very close. His method is to alter time. What's so effective and scary about this film is that there is no comfortable turning point in the script that triggers the descent into destruction. It just happens. And when the audience realizes that they're are being dragged down into hell along with the characters without any warning, it could result in a number of reactions and emotions. There was one point when I realized that my fist was clenched.

I can highly recommend this film to most anyone. It should be seen by every junior and high school student. The party/sex scene should be cut for that though. But if it can scare kids away from drugs, I would label it as an IMPORTANT film.

Lastly, I wish to address the controversy concerning Ellen Burstyn's performance being head and shoulders above Julia's Robert's in Erin Brockovich. Well,........it is. However, anyone with a brain in their head can see that this is not a film that the AMPAS can give their blessing to. Jeremy Irons didn't impress them with his role as a drug addict in Dead Ringers either. Just be grateful that we have this wonderful performance on DVD to watch as often as we want. We intelligent movie lovers who demand stronger stuff in our entertainment can fully and emotionally embrace this courageous woman for literally altering her physical appearance to play this pathetic character. It will only be with the passing of time, that she will be revered and recongnized for giving the best performance by an actress in 2000. Remember in 1941, the Best Picture Oscar went to How Green Was My Valley and the curiosity piece was a strange little film called Citizen Kane.

Erin Brockovich (2000)

How did it get to theaters? Lifetime Channel at best.

[26 May 2001]

Moral of the story? The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Could someone please tell me what was so EXCEPTIONAL about this woman's performance? And if it is, indeed, Julia's BEST performance, than why is she the most valuable actress in Hollywood? She did an ADEQUATE job. It was good to see Albert Finney. His reaction shots were THE only humor in the movie. And why did they find it necessary to alter the truth of the story? And why did they feel they needed to stretch a 90 minute story into a movie that was over two hours? I don't get it. The Oscars may have meant something long ago, but today, as a barometer for measuring quality film making, they're worthless. The yearly Oscar ceremony is a party, period.