reporterman2000 Reviews

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

A masterpiece

[9/10 · 17 September 2003]

This may be my favorite Clint Eastwood movie. Clint is excellent in the title role, and I like Josey Wales as a character perhaps more than any other Eastwood incarnation because he's human, has a heart, and never pulls his gun on anybody who hasn't drawn a gun on him first.

The movie has aged beautifully. The DVD is the only version worth watching, thanks to the letterboxed compositions. God, does Eastwood know how to frame and shoot a movie. Visually and technically, "Josey Wales" is as good as these things get -- and it's almost 30 years old!

I was also pleased to discover that this isn't the typical revenge flick, a'la "Dirty Harry" and Eastwood's Man With No Name pictures. Wales does have a score to settle, but he has morals and regroups with a renegade community of social outcasts who end up saving his life (as well as his soul).

The whole movie, basically, is about how Wales goes about accidentally accumulating the companions he needs to overcome the bad guys (who are almost stereotypically bad). What's more interesting is that Wales' newfound saviors include an old woman, two Native Americans, and ... gulp! cringe!... Sondra Locke. Oh, well. Every movie must have its flaw, and she's definitely it.

There's also a lot of unexpected humor. I love the scene where Josey sends his Union tormentors on the "Missouri river ride," which is immediately preceded by the great moment where he asks the snake oil salesman how the elixir works on stains. My favorite moment in the film is the scene in which he rides out to meet with Will Sampson as Ten Bears, the mean Comanche who aims to slaughter Wales' crew. This powerful moment elevates Wales to the status of a true hero.

Oh, there are some annoying bits. Eastwood spits tobacco entirely too often, and the picture softens up and drags just a bit in the middle. But it's all worthwhile, building up to an exciting climax and a final scene that allows Josey to maintain his mystery while still riding off into the sunset. This is a great movie. Watch it and "The Patriot" as a double feature and see if you can find any similarities.

Waterworld (1995)

NOT the worst movie ever made

[7/10 · 9 September 2003]

I want the Costner bashers to sit down and watch "Rebirth of the Mothra III" on Sci-Fi Channel some time. Then they'll know that they have seen the worst movie ever made.

"Waterworld" is an escapist fantasy/action picture, not unlike the James Bond and Indiana Jones pictures. Costner's performance works on exactly the same level as the Connery/Moore/Brosnan portrayals of 007 and Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indy -- straightforward, grim, stoic, a little mean-spirited, a little cruel, unafraid of dirt, grime, death, or salt water.

It's not perfect by any means. I'm sure Costner hacked it to pieces in order to accommodate the two-hour-running-time maxim imposed by the studio, so that corporate could get their investment back. Now is the time for the extended DVD version; maybe that will explain where all those cigarettes came from, and how the Smokers converted raw crude into gasoline.

7 out of 10. Costner bashers should get over themselves and start giving Michael Bay and George Lucas what they deserve.

The Shining (1980)

It hasn't aged well

[6/10 · 7 September 2003]

I checked out "The Shining" on DVD and was disappointed to realize that it hasn't aged well since the last time I'd seen it. It had always been one of my favorite movies and probably my favorite Stanley Kubrick film, but several things troubled me on seeing it again recently. In fact, I shut the player off and didn't even finish the movie.

To be blunt, the movie opens in terribly boring fashion, a series of static head shots involving Jack Nicholson and two actors of zero charisma. I refer to the scene in which Mr. Ullman explains to Jack Torrance the horrific history of the Overlook Hotel. Frankly, today it looks like amateurish filmmaking as it is nothing more than people talking and reacting to what they're hearing. Given Kubrick's mastery of the image, couldn't he have found a more visual way of giving us the Overlook's backstory? I think of how Peter Jackson handled the backstory in "Fellowship of the Ring," and "The Shining" just looks so made-for-TV by comparison.

The movie is so static, so dialogue-driven, that I can't imagine how it played on the big screen. As I was 10 years old in 1980, I've only seen "The Shining" on TV. I'm afraid it might be more at home on the small screen, given Kubrick's curious preference for a locked-down camera and predictable editing style.

Something else totally kicked me out of the movie. As Ullman is touring the Torrances around the grounds, they come to the Snowcat, and he asks, "Can both of you drive a car?" What the hell? Why wouldn't Wendy be able to drive? Was this movie made in 1957? It's a tiny point, but I just couldn't go on with a movie that had aged so terribly over just 23 years.

Intellectually, I know this is a film of superior intelligence and great style. It's just that the style played better 15 years ago than it does today. Here's a suggestion: Peter Jackson should do a remake. He could really do a great job with the story, blending Stephen King's terrific characterizations and settings with seamless special effects that would terrify and enthrall today's audiences.

Too bad it'll never happen.

Bull Durham (1988)

Nothing else like it

[9/10 · 31 August 2003]

Just watched "Bull Durham" again for maybe the sixth or seventh time, and I have more respect for it now than ever. The Special Edition DVD is the perfect way to preserve Ron Shelton's funny, sexy, passionate, action-filled baseball masterpiece.

Movies aimed at grown-ups are a rarity, which may be why "Bull Durham" still feels like such an amazing movie. Not a moment of it is aimed toward the lowest common denominator. There is sex in this movie, and talk of sex, but it's not silly or gutter-minded, and never gross. You can feel the physical and emotional passion of the characters; baseball simply provides the philosophical backdrop behind the romance -- the reason the characters are together.

Kevin Costner and Susan Sarandon make my favorite romantic screen couple; they burn up the screen. Costner in particular is excellent, showing a knack for verbal comedy and physical heroism that he put on a shelf until "Tin Cup." And Tim Robbins turns in a memorable performance as Nuke Laloosh.

I see no reason in going into the plot details, as everyone who has seen the film knows what "Bull Durham" is about, and those who haven't seen it are in for a wonderful treat. Few movies approach perfection, but this one, set in a world of lovable losers where the game is just as much a job as selling appliances at Sears, joins that select handful.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

One of the great ones

[10/10 · 27 August 2003]

People who say this movie is long and boring have obviously never sat through, oh, "Lawrence of Arabia," "Patton," "Doctor Zhivago," "The Godfather," "Ran," "Seven Samurai," or probably even "Braveheart." Thank God that not every filmmaker believes that a car must explode every 10 seconds in order for his movie to be a success. Kevin Costner is one of those directors who prefers the long format. David Lean, Francis Coppola and Mel Gibson, to name a very few, also worked in that format, and produced lasting works of art that also packed theaters. There are plenty of options for people who don't like movies that take the time to build character, drama and suspense, movies like "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle," "Freddy Vs. Jason," and "Weekend at Bernie's." I don't think any of those movies has ever been called "boring," but they sure are crap cinema.

Onward. "Dances With Wolves" thrilled audiences way back in 1990 and made so darn much money precisely because people had forgotten the pleasures of the long narrative, the Western genre, and movies that weren't special effects schlock-fests. It remains an inspiring and moving experience, especially on DVD, which preserves the movie's theatrical sound and picture quality.

Costner's direction is first-rate. He's able to blend intimate drama with big, sprawling action that covers a huge canvas. I'm amazed at how smoothly the film segues from movement to movement -- action, alienation, suspense, social commentary, romance. Heck, Spielberg could take a lesson or two from this movie.

He also gets great performances out of his cast. I don't think of these people as actors, but as the characters they play. That's a compliment not just to the actors themselves, but their director. And, yes, Costner is terrific as John Dunbar.

Sure, it's easy to call "Dances" politically correct w/ reference to the Indians. But it also treats them as people and, better yet, as fictional characters whose lives are made part of a fascinating narrative. I just consider all the complaints about the politics of this movie as total hogwash.

Finally, the movie is beautifully shot, has an unforgettable score, and is very well-written. I've never thought of "Dances" as a Western, but a modern action picture/character study that avoids all the boring cliches of the Western genre. Here is a movie that stands for something, means something, and deserves at least as much respect as some of the overrated dreck we've gotten saddled with lately.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Excellent, but ...

[9/10 · 26 August 2003]

I gave this movie a rating of 8, only two notches down from the perfect 10 score for "The Fellowship of the Ring." With this film, there's little doubt left that Peter Jackson has surpassed the original "Star Wars" trilogy in terms of passion, excitement, visual originality, and storytelling power. What a great accomplishment is "The Two Towers." It'll be tough waiting another three months for "The Return of the King," which I'm sure will be the best of the three films. (The "LOTR" film cycle has one huge advantage over "Star Wars": Jackson won't be revisiting his original masterwork with any badly written, badly acted, unnecessary prequels.)

"Two Towers" does not follow the middle book in Tolkien's epic trilogy as closely as some might like, and does take a few liberties here and there, but overall this is a fine adaptation and, let's face it, probably the greatest sequel in film history. Jackson once again successfully creates a believable yet fanciful vision of Middle Earth; his special effects, while not quite as seamless as in "FOTR," are nonetheless impressive, and there's great magic in the cinematography, set design and music. The acting is also a level of magnitude above that seen in the last "Star Wars" picture. Each actor is able to make his or her character unique and believable within the terms of the story. This movie probably comes the closest of any to resembling a perfect marriage between art and blockbuster entertainment.

All of that said, "TTT" (as it is popularly known) isn't quite as smoothly paced as "FOTR." The first 15-20 minutes are a bit choppy; we're thrown from one end of the story to the other in a somewhat frantic attempt to bring us up to speed. And, more than "FOTR," the second film feels like it needs footnotes -- in fact, after seeing it in a theater, I went out and read all three books, just so I could have a deeper understanding of this particular film.

So I look forward to the extended DVD release, which I understand contains 40 minutes of additional footage. I think "TTT" will benefit from the restored footage; this is one of the few epics that might actually make greater sense with a more leisurely pace.

"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy is without a doubt the most exciting and important movie franchise of at least the last 20 years. I could give a rip about "Spider-Man" and "Harry Potter" ... what makes Jackson's films special is that they tell a complex, moral story in terms of a magnificent adventure. If the scenes dealing with Shelob in "ROTK" are anywhere near as good as the Balrog/Battle of Helms Deep sequences in the first two, then this beauty is only gonna get better.

Tin Cup (1996)

Costner's best movie? Maybe

[8/10 · 24 August 2003]

From an acting standpoint, "Tin Cup" may be Kevin Costner's best movie. Here he plays Roy McAvoy, a burned-out, washed-out, down-n-out golf pro a way out in West Texas. He's broke, drunk most of the time, and convinced of his own worthlessness -- hence his attraction to poetry and a puffed-up opinion of his own heroics on the golf course (he's got to have something hold on to). Roy is just this side of being a complete bum -- this is one of the few movies I've seen on any subject that actually addresses the financial condition of its loose-living hero.

"Tin Cup" is all about the dire straits of this character, and Costner is more than up to the challenge of playing this guy convincingly. Costner for once packs everything into his performance: charm, wit, sarcasm, hopelessness, bitterness, and more than a little arrogance. He is funny, laidback and shows remarkable athletic skill. He tops his career-best work in "Bull Durham" here (not surprising, since this is another Ron Shelton film).

The movie also works great as a classic heroic Quest story. McAvoy is on a mythic quest, not for the perfect 18 holes, certainly not for money, but for love. "Tin Cup" could easily have been titled "Quixote Jousts at Windmills in West Texas." Best of all, McAvoy KNOWS he's on a quest; when he refers to it in his dialogue, it sounds pathtically funny, but when you hold this story up to the ancient pattern of the heroic quest as described by Joseph Campbell, it really rings true.

Probably the most interesting aspect of "Tin Cup" is that it also works as a metaphor for what Costner has done with his career. Here's a guy who could have played it safe and easy after all those Oscars, but took off on crazy flights of fancy like "Waterworld" and lost badly. (He continued to play unsafe shots after 1996, with almost every movie that followed this one.) McAvoy plays the game his way, on a dare, on a bet, with outrageous egotism and a willingness to lose it all -- publicly. That's what Costner has done at his own game. Was "Open Range" the dreaded safe shot that corrected his course?

Chicago (2002)

Enjoyable, but who do we root for?

[7/10 · 22 August 2003]

"Chicago" is undoubtedly a dazzling, entertaining, energetic musical, well worth seeing. I had no reservations at all about it as I walked out of the theater, two nights prior to its winning the best picture Oscar. Seeing it again on video though left me with a doubt or two.

Rob Marshall did an outstanding job directing the movie. The photography is sensational, some of the best lighting and camerawork I've ever seen. (It looks as good on DVD as it did on the big screen.) The musical numbers are thrilling, esp. the "We Both Reached for the Gun" scene with Richard Gere manipulating both a mannequin-like Rene Zellweger and the media. And the acting is some of the year's best. Gere has never been better in a movie, and Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Queen Latifah turn in strong, hypnotically sexy work.

That's the good news, which there's lots of. Unfortunately, "Chicago" doesn't hold up well where characters and story are concerned. I just didn't have anybody to root for. Roxie Hart is essentially a heartless b---- who exhibits no growth whatsoever, just a greater hunger for attention and manipulation. Velma Kelly, well, she's just a hyper-sexual killer, and Gere's Billy Flynn is just another scheming lawyer who'd do anything to win a case. John C. Reilly's character, "Mr. Cellophane," ends the picture on a flat note -- just a loser, fallen victim to Roxie's celebrity. What are we to make of all this? That crime pays? That we should feel good about these characters?

The writing is also a little muted. There are few zingers outside the song lyrics, and the basic story seems trite and forced. I couldn't tell if the movie ended on a "realistic" note, or if it had morphed into some kind of crazy, surrealistic cartoon. You're sort of left wondering, what was the point?

A note about the songs: They're good fun during the movie, but I'll be darned if I can remember a single line or lyric, much less a whole chorus, from any of them.

Don't get me wrong: "Chicago" is a good movie. It just makes me want to go back and watch "Cabaret" and "All That Jazz" (also Bob Fosse productions) on DVD.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Hanks makes it all worthwhile

[8/10 · 22 August 2003]

"Road to Perdition" is a technical stroke of genius. Sam Mendes directed with great heart, great precision, and great attention paid to every detail. The story, while not as epic in scope as, say, "The Godfather," is strong and compelling. You can't help but watch this movie and get involved in it. People who say it's unemotional or that they felt "detached" from it have been reading too many books about movies; that, or they're big, big fans of the "Scooby Doo" movie.

Paul Newman is terrific here; how could he not be. Jude Law provokes chills as the photographer/killer. Tyler Hoechlin is a child actor who can actually act.

Another big star is, of course, Conrad Hall, whose cinematography goes beyond words into the realm of the fantastic. This is one of the best LOOKING movies of all time. I would love to have seen it on the screen, but unfortunately, Dreamworks did not release it to many theaters here in Texas. Shame.

Which leads us to Tom Hanks. Here is the Great Man, in a great role. Who would have thought the star of "The Man With One Red Shoe" (or, how bout this one, "Bonfire of the Vanities") would go on to become the De Niro of the Nineties, and now the 21st century? Hanks is a movie star on a par with Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson -- no doubt. He took over the Everyman slot once occupied by Kevin Costner and made it his own. But he brings to the role of Michael Sullivan the mythic presence of Harrison Ford, while becoming the character as thoroughly as De Niro became Jake La Motta.

I'm tripping over myself to heap praise on Hanks' work in "Road to Perdition." It's deserved. This is a performance to get stupid over. Strong, brooding, powerful, reserved, moral, conflicted, Hanks shows us a man trapped in a job that he hates (think Lester Burnham), a job he's nonetheless very efficient at doing. We believe he can handle firearms, we believe he can kill people, but Hanks never lets us believe he does it for fun. We don't catch him showing off. When Hanks shoots a guy in the head, he does it because he's forced to. When Hanks, as Sullivan, gives you an order, you carry it out because there's the impression that he's slightly more ethical than you are. I don't care that he's a hired gun; Sullivan just has that weighty, unspoken authority.

So, even if "Road" weren't excellent on every other level, Hanks would make it well worth seeing. By the way, the movie isn't "slow," but "well paced," which used to mean something in Hollywood, and to audiences. Thanks, MTV!

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Sexual film noir

[9/10 · 22 August 2003]

The only adequate description I can think of for "Eyes Wide Shut" is that it's a sexual film noir, an erotic mystery wrapped in an X-rated enigma. Tom Cruise is the befuddled detective, fumbling his way through the darkness searching for the light, and Nicole Kidman is the femme fatale whose sexuality holds the key to all. Or does it?

I never expected Stanley Kubrick to release a mainstream movie that contained graphic sex on the order of "Basic Instinct," though I would like to see the European version (minus the fake-looking digital forms). This is another intellectual film from the maker of "2001," and it's fascinating and in many ways appalling. It also has a seriously twisted sense of humor ... notice the way a ringing telephone almost always prevents Cruise from going over the edge into infidelity.

Martin Scorsese has said that the whole movie is a dream, that not a moment takes place w/in "reality." An interesting point of view. But who's dreaming? Both Cruise and Kidman, I say, with Kubrick weaving the two dreams together, and with Kidman emerging as the dominant partner at the end. (She has one of the best closing lines in all of movies, right up there with "Forget it, Jake ...")

Critics who say Tom Cruise is terrible here are way off base. Dr. Harford has gone into himself; his passions exist with his own imagination -- he is literally walking with his eyes wide shut, obsessing over the mental picture of Kidman having sex with another man, and he's terrific. Kidman, meanwhile, deserved the supporting actress Oscar for her performance here. The scene where she destroys Cruise with her sex fantasy is just outstanding. Rade Serbedgia is memorably creepy as the late-night costume salesman, and Sidney Pollack excels as the scary rich guy who may (or may not) be manipulating things behind the scenes. Every performance, really, is a gem.

"Eyes Wide Shut" is not a plot-driven movie; it's a story, and a character study. Some find it boring because a car doesn't explode every 5 seconds. They can watch "2 Fast 2 Furious." This was the final work of a master filmmaker, and it's as great as it is weird.

(Footnote: watch this as a double feature with "American Beauty.")

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Entertaining, despite it all

[8/10 · 19 August 2003]

The summer of 1991 was a lousy one for movies; there were only a few that stood out amid dozens of crummy releases. The only movies that summer that I admired were 'Terminator 2,' 'Thelma & Louise,' and this one, which still stands as one of the most entertaining action-adventure movies I've seen.

No, it isn't a masterpiece, on any level. Yes, I realize that Kevin Costner lacks a satisfactory British accent (he doesn't even attempt one). But the movie is still a fun, rip-roaring piece of escapism, sort of like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' only without the special effects.

Costner may seem miscast as Robin of Locksley, but there's no doubt that he had the physicality and screen presence to convincingly hold our attention as a larger-than-life hero. He'd just come off 'Dances With Wolves,' and so it was a thrill to see him on horseback again (it still is, in 'Open Range'). I'm willing to concede that he's no Olivier, but in the action hero mold, he still cut an exciting figure.

I also enjoyed Alan Rickman's great, over-the-top portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham. Out of place? You betcha. Fun? Funny? Wicked? Hey, that's why we pay admission.

The sets are all dank and gloomy and wonderful. The action is well-staged and had audiences on their feet all those years ago. Sherwood Forest is appropriately dense and spooky-looking. OK, so the movie has Christian Slater in it. I didn't say it was perfect.

'Robin Hood' marked the beginning of the end of Kevin Costner's unanimous popularity with audiences. Everyone started playing the part of Hollywood bean-counter and worrying about 'Waterworld's' budget. But you know what I like about both these movies? No CGI. I am sick and tired of CGI movies. Popping the deluxe 'Robin Hood' DVD into the old player is a refreshing treat and a thumb in the eye of digital junk like 'Pirates of the Caribbean.'

Field of Dreams (1989)

One weird trip

[7/10 · 19 August 2003]

"Field of Dreams" has to be one of the craziest, weirdest movies ever made. I own it on DVD, but man, is it nuts. It requires a huge suspension of disbelief. This is the "Star Wars" of baseball movies -- no, the "Close Encounters" of baseball movies. A total fantasy unconnected in any way with reality. That it works is a miracle.

I say it's like "Close Encounters" in that it's about an Everyman who has a brush with the otherworldly, and seems to lose his mind in a mad attempt to follow his passion. In the Spielberg film, Dreyfuss threw away his family to chase aliens. Here, Costner bets the farm, literally, on making contact with the ghosts of baseball legends past.

This movie is funny and charming and contains some wonderful baseball scenes. Kevin Costner carries it with a goofy grace that he has long since lost. James Earl Jones again demonstrates his sensitive intelligence. Amy Madigan grates a nerve, but she's kind of tolerable toward the end. Really liked Ray Liotta as Shoeless Joe. The cast is terrific.

But, geez, this guy plows under his cash crop, builds and lights a baseball stadium, and just sorta shrugs off the bank's attempts to foreclose on the mortgage. The whole movie is about Kinsella reconnecting with his dead father; he doesn't seem too worried about the living wife and child for whom he is responsible. "Field of Dreams" lands on the right side of movie magic, but in the real world, Ray Kinsella would have been divorced, thrown out of his house and ended up in the nuthouse for hearing voices. Not exactly a role model.

Open Range (2003)

An excellent Western

[9/10 · 17 August 2003]

I do not understand the resentment many people hold toward Kevin Costner. His harshest critics seem to react personally to "Waterworld" and "The Postman;" many go so far as to trash "Dances With Wolves." Costner does have some bad movies on his resume, but so does every major American star. Simply put, I would rather watch Kevin Costner in almost any movie (OK, with the exception of "Postman" or "Revenge") than sit through CGI junk like "Hulk" or "Matrix Reloaded."

I loved "Open Range," and was sorry to see that it debuted at a mere No. 3 at the box office. This is a real movie, with real characters, real structure, and a real story to tell. It builds slowly, carefully, so that we're emotionally involved in the violence at the end. I don't think any other movie in the sorry summer of 2003 can say that. Certainly not the "film" that bested "Open Range," "Freddy vs. Jason," which no one will be watching or talking about 10 years from now (the true test for any movie).

While I enjoyed Costner's performance as the lonely, conflicted, violent gunman/cowpoke, I especially admired his direction. It was clear and focused and quickly paced. The movie fits well within the same genre as "Unforgiven," but is its own thing, not a ripoff. Costner has a real director's eye for shot composition and draws beautiful work out of Robert Duvall and Annette Bening, not to mention Michael Gambon and Michael Jeter.

This movie shows that "The Postman" was a fluke, a true vanity project. But it is also time for us to move on and let Costner make movies. Too bad that if the movie underperforms financially, it will be more difficult for him to so. He's the real deal.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Highly disappointing

[2/10 · 17 August 2003]

I really, really wanted to like "The Matrix Reloaded," and had rather fond thoughts of it on my way out of the theater. Then it hit me, halfway home. I had not actually seen a movie. I'd seen a Mighty Mouse cartoon.

The flight scenes in "Reloaded." Were they really necessary? What does it mean that Neo can fly? That he's God? That he's Superman? That he is, in fact, Mighty Mouse? Why is there a Superman reference early in the film? Are the creators of the movie aware that they are ripping off a milestone in American popular culture?

I think Neo can fly because A) it presents the opportunity for more gee-golly special effects scenes and B) it allows for giant plot conveniences. Nothing more. Neo never flies when it might actually do him some good, say, to escape 250,000 or so replicas of Agent Smith.

Those replicas. Why the heck are they necessary? Why does Agent Smith keep making copies of himself? He still can't whip Neo! He still does the same ole chop-socky thing! And where do they all go, once Neo has "done his Superman thing"? Hang out at the mall? Shop for new sunglasses? Sip lattes? What?

The dude at the end, in the room w/ all the TV screens. I'm sorry, but he literally stopped the movie to make a speech that had me squirming with intense boredom. Frankly, I didn't know what the guy was talking about or why it mattered. Why didn't Neo just chop-socky him? Or fly away sooner, the better to escape the boredom?

I know. This is all just a set up for yet another sequel, which is refreshing, in this Year of the Sequel. But you know what? "Matrix Reloaded" was so bad, so incomprehensible, such a boring, story-free zone, that I don't care anything at all about "Revolutions." Chris Reeve could drop in for a cameo, and I wouldn't care.

If it weren't for "The Return of the King," my mantra would be "Death to CGI." THAT is how much I hated "Matrix Reloaded."

Gladiator (2000)

Over-rated schlock

[2/10 · 17 August 2003]

That this movie beat out "Traffic" for the best picture Oscar is the definition of idiocy. I admire Ridley Scott, and liked Russell Crowe in "The Insider" and "L.A. Confidential," but they're both responsible for the debacle that is "Gladiator."

The rest of the world must have seen a different movie. I saw a bloated, overlong, tedious, humorless, joyless, tired, boring, ugly-looking, cliched film with terrible digital effects and lead characters with zero personality. Scott has directed two of my favorite movies, "Alien" and "Blade Runner," but "Gladiator" is a dead zone. Anybody could have directed it. Alan Smithee may as well have done it.

Two movies show up "Gladiator," even as it strives to be like both of them. They are "Braveheart" and "Spartacus." Both Mel Gibson and Kirk Douglas showed more zest for life (and violent death) than Russell Crowe, who appears to be either A) sleep walking or B) angry with Ridley Scott for putting him in the movie. What a boring performance! To see this kind of savage, revenge-driven character done right, there's still no topping Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace. It was over the top, but by golly, you felt the man's passion.

"Gladiator" is a mess. I don't know any other way to describe it. Oscars and money don't always equal quality, apparently.

The Postman (1997)

a vanity project

[4/10 · 17 August 2003]

First things first: I think Kevin Costner is our most underrated and unfairly maligned filmmaker/movie star. People seem to conveniently forget that he starred in such popular hits as "The Untouchables," "No Way Out," "Bull Durham," "Field of Dreams," "Dances With Wolves," "Robin Hood," "JFK," and "The Bodyguard." I guess the moviegoing public took such great offense at the price tag of "Waterworld" that they decided en masse to shun him forever. Strange, since "Waterworld" was actually a hit that earned more than $300m. "The Postman" was his first real bomb. And I must say, it deserved to tank.

It's a vanity project, a big, slow elephant of a movie that lumbers just like an elephant from scene to scene, in search of a point. It does not work as science fiction because it's basically too much of a Western. But it doesn't work as a Western because the characters have knowledge of an advanced technological society (dead though it may be). Sorry, Kev, you can't have it both ways. "Star Wars" was a Western at heart, but dang, the Millennium Falcon sure was cool.

Then there's Costner himself. What a bad performance. He's overly sincere, drippingly earnest, cloying, sentimental, childish, buffoonish ... not the sort of heroic figure you want to look up to. As a director, he puts himself in laughable situations. Too much of the time, he just stands inert, his face rigid, impassive. A little of that goes a long way; as a director, Costner can be his own worst enemy.

Then there's the running time. I would gladly have taken a meat cleaver to this thing and chopped it down to a length the story would have supported... say, about 60 minutes.

No question: this is a terrible movie. But it's greatest sin is mere over-sincerity. Costner intends for us to feel really good about all the corny adventure-stuff in "The Postman," and to accept the goofy dialogue as heart-felt. You watch this movie and you don't feel bad, or depressed, the way some bad movies make you feel. You just sort of feel like you've spent a long time watching a movie that climaxes with the unveiling of a statue. Lesson, Mr. Costner: do not bronze your own character again. Not in any movie. Gibson had himself torn to shreds at the end of "Braveheart." Not a bad way to go.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Bad dialogue, great imagery

[22 January 2003]

"Star Wars: Episode II" finally gets around to hinting at what is to come in Episodes IV-VI. After about an hour, it starts looking, sounding and feeling like classic "Star Wars" - about the time Anakin Skywalker goes looking for the Tusken Raiders who kidnapped his mother, and Lucas frames his parting with Padme in shadow. Cue the original theme from "A New Hope" (blended with the villainous themes from "Phantom Menace") and you have the sense that Episode II is a blend of all of the ideas, conflicts and thematic elements from the whole series, setting us up for the final battles in Episode III.

In one sense, I love this movie for what it is: another chapter in an overarching saga, one more brick in the wall of a much-beloved master-myth. In another, it is a bad, bad, bad, almost incompetent film. The dialogue is obvious, labored and atrocious, existing only to speed the plot from one development to another (and written, irritatingly enough, in the passive voice and in past tense!).

But isn't it beside the point to complain about the dialogue (and the wooden acting ) in ANY "Star Wars" movie? Shakespeare, after all, did not write these films, nor did Quentin Tarantino or Paul Schrader or David Mamet or any of a dozen screenwriters better than Lucas. NO "Star Wars" film contains decent acting; "Return of the Jedi" is downright deplorable in that department. So why spend so much time concentrating on the new film's most glaring flaws? It's like complaining about the lack of digital special effects in "The Godfather."

We go to "Star Wars" to experience other worlds and see strange, beautiful, frightening, awe-inspiring sights. "Episode II" delivers. It is a catalogue of new planets, new settings and new situations that expand the "Star Wars" universe. The final 40 minutes or so - the Clone War and the lightsaber duels - are captivating entertainment, and on a screen, this movie rattles the senses.

As great drama, "Attack of the Clones" ranks far behind Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" adaptations. But as vital, spectacular, entertaining escapist fantasy, it is the equal of anything out there - vastly more important than any of the comic-book hero adaptations we've seen in recent years. So, despite the awful dialogue and the even worse performances, I'll still take the "Star Wars" saga over Harry Potter, Star Trek and Men In Black, any day of the week.

Frailty (2001)

A decent movie

[10 October 2002]

Bill Paxton's directorial debut is, in a strange way, more impressive than the film itself -- he handles the camera, the actors, the lighting, etc., in confident, intriguing ways. The movie itself contains perhaps one plot twist too many (if everything does in the end make sense, I'm still not sure that it adds up), but the acting is fine (the child actors are especially good) and the movie has an effectively creepy atmosphere.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

Great film

[9/10 · 2 October 2002]

"We Were Soldiers" is an excellent war movie and an excellent film, period. It is meticulously researched and based on a fine book of the same title. Read that book, and you will understand that A) the U.S. filming locations ARE realistic in portraying the Central Vietnam Highlands and that B) many of the "corny" or "sentimental" events of the film are straight from the actual battle and have been religiously incorporated into the movie. If WWS isn't clever and ironic enough for some viewers, well, Platoon wasn't very hip, clever or ironic, either, and this movie would serve as a good introduction to that film. Mel Gibson's performance here ranks with his passionate, zesty work in Braveheart. He is never anything less than convincing, and yet for a larger-than-life role, he never comes across as an invincible hero or a superstar. Frankly, I forgot that I was watching Mel Gibson and simply accepted him as Col. Hal Moore. One of the best movies of the year, if not the best movie of the year.