oldsaurora Reviews

Angel Eyes (2001)

One MAJOR problem

[5/10 · 1 October 2003]

I think there was only one thing really wrong with this film - however it is was a major problem and so really brings my rating down.

The problem was the character Catch played by James Caviezel, and the relationship between his character and the one played by Jennifer Lopez (Sharon). I understand Catch was supposed to be depressed after what happened, however by walking around like a zombie and not being able to carry a conversation in a logical direction he came across as just weird. He reminded me a lot of the villain in the movie Psycho (the original version).

Anyways, maybe his mannerisms would be understandable to Sharon if she knew about his past, but for most of the movie she didn't. And yet, she was all to willing to let this (crazy for all she knows) guy into her life. Sure she prodded him for information at times, saying she needed to know about him to continue the relationship, but when he didn't provide any the relationship continued anyway. At these points most sane people would have put a stop to it, for some reason she did not. Then at one point she told her partner that Catch is harmless. Harmless? The way he was acting I'd have leaned the other way personally.

She was supposed to be intrigued by Catch - well I didn't buy it. I may have if Sharon's interest would have been due to knowing she had seen him somewhere before. If she had only said to her partner "I can't let him go, I know I've seen him somewhere before, but I'm not sure where." That would have made her interest in him much more credible in my opinion. (Note: I watched this film on TV. Maybe she did say this sort of thing and I missed it, though I am 99% sure she did not).

For largely these reasons I felt there was next to no chemistry between the two characters, and in a love story that is pretty damning.

5/10

The Program (1993)

Better than I expected

[7/10 · 19 September 2003]

The Program is a mostly solid movie that takes us into the world of college football, and more specifically into the world of one particular team as it tries to overcome obstacle after obstacle on it's way to a bowl game after a few disappointing seasons.

First off I thought the football aspects were done very well. The action looked realistic and that is the least (and most) that I expect in a sports movie. And playing "Welcome to the Jungle" by Guns N' Roses during a football practice is surely worthy of some credit. All in all the game footage was pretty short, a few minutes at a time. What was more interesting, and what the film focuses on most, was what happened to the players between games as they dealt with their personal lives and game preparation.

I'm guessing the movie was trying to shock us with this part. Steroid abuse by one player; alcohol abuse, a bar fight, and suicidal tendencies by another; cheating on an exam by yet another and his subsequent expulsion then reinstatement; girl problems with a couple players; etc. The movie has a lot to say and it's a good message, but I didn't find this shocking. Rather this sort of things is really common knowledge among sports fans, although how rampant these issues actually are in real life I can only guess. Having said that, this part of the film is done well for the most part. The one exception is the relationship stuff, which I just didn't find very believable due to a lack of chemistry between the participants.

Addressing two of the criticisms that I have read others say about this film. Yes, it does tend to follow a lot of players and their respective issues, but I didn't feel that it spread itself too thin. I thought that despite this fact it did feel like we followed each player enough to get to know the issues he faced. The movie seemed to take a snapshot of one player and what he was dealing with, then quickly moved on to the next, and I thought in the context of this film it worked quite well.

The second criticism I have read is that everything ends up working out well for everyone in the end and everyone comes out a better person. This just isn't true at all.

**SPOILER ALERT**

The defensive end (Alvin Mack I believe) busted up his knee and at the end of the movie it appeared that he would never play again. This was surely the most poignant moment in the film. Lattimer, the one with the steroid problem, was back on the juice and you get the feeling he won't ever lick this problem. Even Joe Kane will likely struggle with booze indefinitely. So I actually give this film a lot credit for not choosing the cliched ending where everyone ends up happy.

**END OF SPOILER ALERT**

7/10 - for an overall solid effort

Beetlejuice (1988)

A stupid, stupid movie

[1/10 · 3 August 2003]

This was probably the worst movie I have ever seen.

The concept is quite original and could have been interesting if done well, but it wasn't. The story went no where even though they could have done some interesting stuff with it. As it is the film degenerated, as Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, into a series of gimmicks. It was supposed to be funny but I laughed maybe once or twice. Actually it was more like a chuckle. Most of the time I was in agony and bored out of my mind.

The characters were all uninteresting and I really didn't care what happened to any of them. There was no character development. The couple that moved into the house were annoying yuppies, and the bubbly giddiness at the start of the film followed by their stupidity later on made the Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin couple almost insufferable. Only Winona Ryder's character was tolerable. Beetlejuice inexplicably seemed like an afterthought, which is probably a good thing since he was more annoying than anything else. Pretty much every character was stupid, especially the married couple who couldn't find a way to scare anyone despite the fact that they were ghosts - their attempts were just pathetic, but I guess they had to be in order to keep the story going. What? Scare them right and the movie ends? Oh, how I wish! If the movie went one hour instead of two I would double my rating. Furthermore, the way characters reacted to the situations they were in was illogical to say the least.

**Possible Spoiler**

Late in the movie when the married couple speaks to the case worker at her desk, they show her what they plan to do to once and for all scare the new family away. They mutilate their faces, but why should we believe that will work, and better yet why did the case worker say "not bad"? At that point the new family was already not taking the ghosts seriously, despite the fact that they had tried something even more radical already (the dinner scene with the dancing and hands coming out of the table).

**End of Spoiler**

So this is all supposed to signify Tim Burton's genius? Umm, yeah, okay. I guess if you do something unique it will automatically be labeled as genius by a lot of people. Unique? Yes. Interesting? No. Genius? Definitely not.

The only redeeming quality of the film was Winona Ryder. Not for her performance mind you - not her fault, she had little to work with - but only because I think she's stunning.

A truly bad film - 1/10

The Fan (1996)

De Niro steals the show!

[8/10 · 9 July 2003]

The Worst Baseball Movie of All-Time? I don't know how anyone can say this with a straight face if they have also seen Major League.

It's true that the ending of this film is pretty bad, but when a film can do so much right for the first two hours that certainly makes it worthwhile, because the first two hours were truly entertaining. De Niro stole the show, he had to because this move was about "The Fan", but each character was played well.

Most of the criticisms I've seen are a case of people being way too picky. Wrong uniforms, wrong stadiums...I didn't even notice stuff like this and I am a baseball fan too. The film got a lot of the much more important stuff right, which is good performances from the actors and good, no great, character development and insight into these characters.

The film took us into deep the mind of the obsessed fan (De Niro) and that obsession grows in a logical fashion as the movie progresses. It was very easy to believe De Niro's obsession with Rayburn and the game of baseball, and the rationale for it, because of his unstable and violent nature which is often shown in his personal life. When things in the baseball world weren't going as he wanted them, it's not surprising to see him take action. His passion and intensity were on the front burner all movie long and made his character truly believeable and consistent.

The film takes us into the baseball player culture in the lockeroom, and into the workings of player and agent (which is what I really found interesting), as well as player and radio station personality. This is where the film truly excelled: the inner workings of the mind and the baseball player culture were believable and exceptionally well done. Nothing was made silly or outrageous, like in the aforementioned dud "Major League". Well, except for the ending perhaps, which is where this film loses 2 points.

8/10

My first De Niro movie, definitely not my last.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

A Great Suspense, Not Horror, Flick

[7/10 · 28 April 2003]

I for one can't understand all the people who bash this movie. Perhaps they had expected something different? On the surface it seems that most of the people who hate this movie are (cynical) horror fans, and maybe I Know doesn't live up to certain horror standards. Personally, I don't watch too many horror flicks so I have no preconceived notions going in. In any event, I think this movie seems to fit very neatly into the suspense genre, and as such it does a fine job.

I thought the acting was at the very least adequate all around. Hewitt's character (James) was the best. She was the smartest of the bunch and really the only one who exhibited any remorse, and as such had a depth the others lacked. Phillippe (Cox) also did a fine job portraying the other extreme. Both actors seemed to exhibit the emotions you'd expect from someone faced with such a difficult situation. Gellar (Shivers) and Prinze Jr. (Bronson) were a little bland considering the circumstances.

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!**

The story was solid in most places. It did fall apart a few times though. First, the situation called for the four main characters to stick together, yet many times it seemed that they wanted to have nothing to do with each other. When four people share a secret that they can't possibly tell anyone else, and when that secret is on the verge of ruining their lives, you'd expect they would lean on each other A LOT. Furthermore, being alone is not something I'd even consider if I had some psycho after me, and yet many times each of them would venture off by themselves. Once the very first attack occurred (I think it was the car scene with Phillippe) the four should have really begun to lean on each other. To some extent they did, but not enough. Second is the famous crabs and dead guy in the trunk scene. How could the killer remove the evidence so fast and not be seen? Third, when Prinze told the others that he had also received a letter, why did they not ask to see it? Certainly at that point I wanted to know what was in that letter, and you'd think they would too. And lastly, the ending was just flat out terrible as we all wanted the story resolved but it only raised a bunch of new questions. That's just aggravating.

To address a couple of points others have raised. First, about the villain not being scary enough - maybe you want something over the top, but on the whole the story was realistic and the villain fit that mold. Doesn't bother me as I'd rather have realism. And second, the comment that it wasn't scary when Gellar's hair was cut. I think you have to imagine how scared you'd be if you woke up and realized the guy who is stalking you was just in your bedroom as you slept. At that point the killer was not out to kill, he was out to scare them and mess with their minds. As such I think this was a very effective scene.

To enjoy I Know, you have to appreciate the dilemma these four faced and the inherent fear and suspense within it. If you do you will be pulling for them, and your adventurous side will want to be one of them just for the thrill of what they are going through and the bonds you'd have with the other three, and when two of them end up dying it really sucks. Why did the writers have to do THAT!? If you don't appreciate the dilemma, well then, I think you missed out on what the film has to offer.

**END OF SPOILER ALERT!!**

Anyways, the aforementioned dilemma is why I feel this is better classified a suspense flick. The gore factor is pretty low, but the level of mystery, intrigue, and suspense is high. The feeling of unease is not in the few gory action sequences, but in the fact that the four are stuck in this situation until the killer makes a move, and in the mystery of who is behind things and the uncertainty in what he will do next.

8/10