|
|
|
Movie
Reviews
A-G These movies aren't the best of the best, it's true. But they aren't bad. They've got more merits than flaws, and they're worth a look, and maybe even a purchase. The Aviator (2004) Cellular (2004) Criminal (2004) The Butterfly Effect (2004) 8 Mile (2002) Clockstoppers (2002) Big Trouble (2002) A Beautiful Mind (2001) Cats and Dogs (2001) The Emperor's New Groove (2000) 12 Monkeys (1995) Groundhog Day (1993) (Movie Reviews Links Page) (4 AMHB: H-O) (4 AMHB: P-Z) The Aviator (2004) Martin Scorcese directing a brooding period drama? What will they think of next? After the success of “Gangs of New York”, which was supposed to have been his final directorial work, Scorcese helms “The Aviator” Set in the 1930-40s, this biopic focuses on Howard Hughes (Leonardo DiCaprio), the Texas oilman who became a Hollywood sensation with the war epic “Hell’s Angels” (one of Scorcese’s favorite movies) and went on to buy the airline TWA, which was a pioneer of commercial aviation. In the meantime, Hughes becomes romantically involved with such Hollywood starlets as Kathryn Hepburn (Cate Blanchett) and Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale). The film follows Hughes’ struggle against Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin) the CEO of PanAm, and Senator Ralph Brewster (Alan Alda). Hughes also struggles to hide a personal secret, but its effects eventually become apparent as he and his company fight for survival against PanAm’s influence. Leonardo DiCaprio does well in the role of Howard Hughes. I wasn’t sure what to expect from him. I enjoyed him in “Catch Me If You Can” (2002), but wasn’t impressed by “Gangs of New York”. Luckily, the role of Howard Hughes, the “risk-taking visionary” type, is more suited to his style of acting. Cate Blanchett is just fine as Kathryn Hepburn. No complaints. She doesn’t overdo the famous Hepburn accent, which is much appreciated. Kate Beckinsale is good, but she kind of just fades into the background with all of the other actors on screen. She doesn’t show why she signed up to play the role in the first place. Alec Baldwin is excellent as the suave antagonist. But then again, when has Alec Baldwin not been excellent as the suave antagonist? Finally, there’s Alan Alda. The kids these days, they love the Alan Alda. They just can’t get enough of him. He’s got a certain je ne sais quoi. In any case, he fills the role of the bribed senator very well. Audiences will no doubt like his performance. Overall the movie was good. It was very long, but it was good. Scorcese sets up interesting shots that many directors wouldn’t bother with. No new cinematic ground is broken here, to be sure. But the movie is visually pleasant. The writing is also to be lauded. John Logan, of “Gladiator” (2000) fame, lives up to his reputation. He introduces various important plot points early on and runs with them to nice payoffs. The ending is interesting. It’s what you would expect from Martin Scorcese, to be sure. On the whole, it’s a serviceable biopic of a remarkable man that many people don’t know anything about, but they should. Cellular (2004) It's a suspense thriller, oh huzzah! Not only that, but it measures up to what I expected it would be, with some laughs along the way at that. Ryan (Chris Evans) gets a call on his cell phone. A woman named Jessica Martin (Kim Basinger) is on the other end. She's been kidnapped and is using a smashed-up phone to try to contact someone. Ryan has to get help before she's killed, and if he loses the call, Jessica loses her life. Ryan must also save Jessica's son and figure out why Jessica was kidnapped in the first place, and what the lead kidnapper Ethan Greer (Jason Statham) is after. On the side of good is Officer Mooney (William H. Macy), who slowly but surely figures things out about 20 minutes behind everyone else. The chase is on, as is the Suspension of Disbelief-O-Matic. I liked it. It was fast-paced, funny at times, and both cleverly written and acted. William H. Macy, I mean, what can you say about the man that would do him justice? Chris Evans was a nice pick for the lead, and I hope to see him in more action-packed movies in the future. I liked the premise from the beginning, and thought it had a lot of potential. Well, director David Ellis (of "Homeward Bound 2: Lost in San Francisco " fame (truly this man knows what action/suspense is)) pulls it off. I predicted the ending, but it was clever nonetheless, which means I am clever. Take that people who think I'm not clever! Criminal (2004) It’s a smooth caper flick. I should be head over heels. But sadly, this one contains some flaws that put it on a lower level than “Ocean’s Eleven” and “The Italian Job”. The movie is an English language version of an Argentine flick “Nine Queens” (2000) by Fabian Bielinsky (“Bielinsky” being the most Spanish name…ever). This one’s directed by Gregory Jacobs (who was first assistant director on “Ocean’s Eleven ”, so you’d think he’d know a little something about perfect heist flicks). The original was, I hear, much more suspenseful and better done. Oh well. Here’s the skinny: Con man extraordinaire Richard Gaddis (John C. Reilly) helps newcomer con man Rodrigo (Diego Luna), AKA Brian, get out of trouble at a casino. Richard needs a partner for a job because his usual partner is unavailable. After teaching Brian some basics, he decides to let him be his partner for a few days. Richard’s sister Valerie (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who works in a hotel, calls Richard to tell him a forger friend of his is sick in the bathroom and needs his help. Richard goes to help and learns of a con he can pull. It seems he has to sell a counterfeit of a rare bank note to a wealthy Scottish man named Hannigan (Peter Mullan). This one’s worth $200,000. As the con goes on, however, each person Richard asks for help to pull off the con wants a cut of the prize. Eventually, you begin to ask yourself “Who’s conning whom?” The film is enjoyable. John C. Reilly, who rarely plays a lead character, does his job and does it well. He makes you both love and hate his character, which is what the film requires. People who saw the movie will tell you they enjoyed Diego Luna better, but his is not the true pleasant surprise performance of the film. The ending, as in so many flicks of the genre, makes or breaks the film for most people. Many will like it, and many will have seen it coming. For my part, I saw it coming but wasn’t disappointed. “Criminal” just makes me want to see “Nuevas Reinas”, the original, more. I walked out feeling like the movie was good, but that it could have been better, especially considering the same writer did both the Spanish and English versions. If you want to see John C. Reilly be awesome, see “Criminal”. If you want to see the more suspenseful of 2 heist flicks, see “Nuevas Reinas” with subtitles. The Butterfly Effect (2004) So, it falls to me to write the review for "The Butterfly Effect" starring Ashton Kutcher (of "That 70s Show" fame) and Amy Smart (of "(That) 70s" Miniseries.renown.). The movie's title references the essence of chaos theory, whereby a small alteration in an event can affect incalculable changes in the long-term outcome. The name comes from the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings can eventually cause storms elsewhere on the planet. In the movie, Evan Treborn (Kutcher) would have some very traumatic memories of his childhood, most especially involving his once best friend Kailey (Smart), if he didn't have blackouts during the most pivotal parts. Worried that it is a genetic trait transferred from his father, Evan's mother takes him to the doctor, who suggests that Evan write journals of his experiences. 13 years later, Evan is a psychology graduate student who still has his journals. One night, while looking at one of them, he discovers that he can go back to the lost time during his blackouts and change the past. He decides to attempt to change his and his friends' futures for the better, but discovers that the more he tampers with the past, the worse his future becomes. Can he pull the wrongs from his past without toppling the Jenga tower that is his future? Ashton Kutcher is.not bad in this movie. There are moments where his acting could use improvement, but otherwise he exceeded my expectations. Some may argue that he isn't right for the part, but I would argue that he made the part right for him. Amy Smart is OK, but nothing to be excited about. The plot is interesting overall, although it is a synthesis of The Simpsons' time-traveling Homer plotline in "Treehouse of Horror V" and the Outer Limits episode "A Stitch in Time". The movie set up rules for time travel and for the most part followed them, which is a key issue I have with any such movie. The ending was unexpected and, to my surprise, original. I recommend seeing this movie if you are a fan of time travel, because it does the genre justice; much more so than "Timeline." 8 Mile (2002) Jimmy "Rabbit" (AKA, "B. Rabbit") (Eminem) is a white rapper in Detroit, Michigan. Despite his host of troubles; he's in the lower-class, his mother is with a man he despises (mostly because the man is waiting on a court settlement that would get them plenty of money.), his car is a piece of junk, and it doesn't seem like he'll ever break into his one true passion: rapping. He's certainly got many a problem, which is only aggravated by his fear of taking part in a rap battle-a contest in which rappers insult each other through rhyme and the winner is voted for by the attending audience. After meeting an understanding soul in the form of girl named (find that out later), he begins to bring his life into focus and by the end overcomes his fear of rapping in front of an audience. I have simplified the plot of this movie for obvious reasons, but you get the main point. The fact is, if you are anything less than indifferent about Eminem, you aren't going to see this movie anyway, so it's not those Eminem-haters I talk to when I say "Wow, Eminem can act." It may have been my expectations of his performance that were surpassed instead of definition of good acting, but taking his entire performance into account, I can say without a doubt that Eminem showed that he was able to play a character based totally and obviously on himself rather well. I am giving this movie 4 AMHB not only for Eminem's better-than-expected performance, but also for the extremely enjoyable rap battles that took place in the film. Who can deny that seeing two people fight through rhythmic insult-hurling isn't both hysterical and amazing simultaneously? It is certainly not something I could ever hope to do. One part that I thought was amusing in particular was the sequence when B. Rabbit is looking over lyrics he'd written down in preparation for the rap battle. I understand the point of the sequence, but it's funny to think of someone studying up for a battle of words in the fashion B. Rabbit did. Right? Eh? Eh? Meh, fuhgeddaboudit. And the name Papa Doc will be possibly the one name I remember from this movie, for reasons that you couldn't possibly understand. Wha if you could slow down your personal flow of time? Wouldn't that be pretty awesome? I think so. That's why my curiosity finally got the best of me when I decided to see "Clockstoppers", the Nickelodeon movie about a watch which can accelerate the molecules of whoever wears it in such a way that it seems to the watch-wearer that time is standing still. This slowdown of time is known as hypertime. This watch was developed by a scientist named Earl Dopler (French Stewart) for a company called QT Labs. The Department of Defense has cancelled the hypertime project because of the danger of the technology falling into th wrong hands. The head of the project, Henry Gates (Michael Biehn), wants to take the watches for his own purposes. However, Dopler has sent a watch to his former math professor, George Gibbs, believing that if anyone can solve a problem with aging super-fast in hypertime, he can. George Gibbs's son, Zak (Jesse Bradford), finds the watch and keeps it, believing it to be just another watch. In the meantime, he is courting Francesca (Paula Garces), the new girl in town. He soon finds out that the watch can accelerate his molecules so that it seems that time is standing still after raking Francesca's leaves in under 2 seconds and seeing her frozen in time while she's trying to spray him with water. Once Francesca discovers this too after being in contact with Zak when he goes into hypertime, the two teenagers go on a rampage throughout the town, performing pranks on all the bad people in the town. Later, when Zak goes home, he discovers people from QT Labs are in hypertime looking for the watch. Following a chase in hyper-time, Zak gets the watch wet, and it breaks. Meanwhile, Henry Gates orders that Zak's father be kidnapped in order to lure Zak into a trap. Francesca and Zak seek him out at the Congress of Applied Science, but only find Earl Dopler. Or should I say, Earl Dopler attempts to take them hostage unsuccessfully. Zak gets Earl to fix the watch, and they attempt an assault on QT Labs using liquid nitrogen to incapacitate the guards in hyper-time. Can Zach and Francesca save Paul's father and defeat the evil Henry Gates? I would suggest a viewing in order to find out. The concept was what lured me into seeing this movie. Undeterred by my knowledge that Nickelodeon was the production company behind the movie, I decided to trust the script and possibly the acting. I can say that my trust paid off because the concepts explored in the movie intrigued me. There were several scenes that caught my interest, Most especially the chase scene in hypertime and the scenes where they were talking about the hypertime technology. Plus, the thought of having such a watch for myself was interesting to me. The love scenes weren't overly bad. The chemistry between Jesse Bradford and Paula Garces was acceptable. French Stewart, despite Fuv Ma' Poppin's hatred of him, did well in the part of Earl Dopler. Overall, the movie is entertaining and worth a viewing, if you are interested in the fictional ability to stop time. However, be prepared for a blatant "Star Trek" reference after the town square hypertime prank scene, as the director is none other than Jonathan Frakes, TV and cinema's Will Riker. Premise:
This is only the first 20 minutes of the film. There's a lot of other stuff. Apparently, a suitcase containing some high-explosives is in Miami and several parties are searching for it. They chase after it and several humorous cameos ensue. The movie is basically about 20 strangers who never would have met if that magic suitcase hadn't come into their lives. A relatively new concept, I will give the film that. Comments:
Jason Lee is one of my favorite actors. His role in this film is...well...confusing. He's in it. I just don't know why. I like his character, I think his character's workable. I just don't know why the character had to be there. Maybe it's just me. Don't get me wrong. I'll take Jason Lee wherever I can get him. I just wish he'd gotten a more prominent role in this one. This movie was based on a book written by Dave Barry of the same name. I have not read the book, although I would like to. Another interesting note is that this movie was supposed to come out a little after September 11, but was postponed due to a scene where Tim Allen has to get rid of a bomb on a plane. I think the move back hurt the movie's box office take, which is a shame because "Rat Race" made a lot more money than "Big Trouble" and was probably ten times less funny. When I went to see it on a Saturday night, it was only my friends and I and about 5 other people in the whole theater. I felt really bad. Anything without John Cleese saying "There are no rules. GO!" is an OK ensemble cast movie as far as I'm concerned. "If you really liked it, why are you giving it only 4 Annoyed-Monkeys-Holding-Balls then?" you ask. Well, there was something missing from the movie. Some inexplicable "something" that I can't put my finger on that would have made it the funniest comedy I'd ever seen. It wasn't that it was predictable (because it wasn't), it wasn't the fact that Tom Sizemore was in it, it wasn't the sexual tension between Janine Garofalo's character and Patrick Warburton's character. It was something completely different. Something intangible. Luckily, I have an intangible goods supermarket down the street from me, so next time I'm there I'll pick up a bottle of the secret ingredient. Until then, make sure to see "Big Trouble" on VHS and/or DVD, because it is worth a least a viewing of it. You might not like it, but at least you'll know where I'm coming from. Favorite Lines:
Random Caller: I'm a Gator fan,
and you said no Gator fans would call, and here I am.
A Beautiful Mind (2001) Premise:
I won't give away anything after that. The movie has a bit of a twist middle that isn't really revealed in the commercials, so I won't ruin it for you. All I'll say is that the movie goes from a tail of intrigue, espionage, and code-breaking to a tail of drama, sadness, and the resillience of the human spirit. Comments:
The film spans about 45 years in the actual real-life story of John Forbes Nash Jr., the actual mathematician who came up with an actual gaming theory at Princeton. See, I didn't know going in that it was a true story. I expected intrigue and espionage the whole way through, but that all ended about halfway into the movie with a startling revelation. If anything, I think the advertisers should have informed me (yes, me personally if necessary.) of what I actually had to expect, because I didn't even know John Nash existed before I saw this movie. The movie is a tad long, as well. It's about 2 hours and 14 minutes long. That's not-quite "Titanic" long. I like getting my money's worth, of course. But let's just say that it's a good thing I was sitting in a comfortable seat. But, overall it was a great movie, I thought. Maybe the emotional parts in the third quarter of the movie were a little much. That's when the movie dragged, I thought. But I have seen far worse this year. And besides, the acting was fantastic, the plot was coherent, the cinematography was nice, I believe I might have found a goof though. Nash asks a Pentagon official who "Big Brother" is. He asks this in 1953. "1984" was published first in 1949. While Nash could have heard the expression somewhere else, he was a mathematician and probably would not have read the book. Not much of a goof, I realize, but it piqued my interest. Favorite Lines:
Russell Crowe: Your solution, although elegant, is ultimately incorrect. Russell Crowe: Have you met Harvey?
Premise: The movie "Cats and Dogs" has a simple enough premise. Since ancient times, cats and dogs have been in the middle of a bitter tepid war unbeknownst to their human counterparts. At the start of our story, the tepid war is about to heat up when a maniacal cat by the name of Mr. Tinkles unleashes his plans for world domination. The center of his plans, a scientist known as Professor Brody who works in a laboratory under his house. Professor Brody is attempting to perfect a chemical that will cease the allergies caused by dogs in people. The dogs want Brody to perfect the formula so that they will have an advantage over the cats, but Mr. Tinkles has other plans (wow, I never thought I'd be typing that last sentence) Through a mix up, a pup named Lou is pushed into the role of secret agent in an attempt to see that Professor Brody perfects the formula. Along the way, he meets several humorous characters, such as Butch, Peek, and Ida. Comments The film also features the voice of Jon Lovitz as an uncooperative henchcat of Mr. Tinkles, Jeff Goldblum, and the best mice ever put into a cinematic production. I kid you not, the mice were a major point of goodness in the film. The screenwriters did a good job of keeping the actions of the pets from the humans until necessary, and several good lines include: Voice of Jon Lovitz: "Why can't I come
with you?"
I would add that kids will love this movie, but the amusement level for adults might vary a small amount. In general, the movie is acceptable, worth the money, stuff like that. At least, at the very minimum, it is not as bad as "Monkeybone" (Wow, I have to sit down just thinking of that movie.) Favorite Lines "Son of my mom!"--A dog "Bad...talking...cat"--Jeff Goldblum "Is the game afoot?"
"No, silly puppy, it is you who will be sorry"--Russian cat. "You shall gain 16 pounds of Monterey Jack...and the continent of Australia!"--Mr. Tinkles. Premise: Kuzco (David Spade) is a self-centered but powerful emperor. All in one day, he gets an old man thrown out a window for throwing off his groove, tells a peasant named Pacha (John Goodman) that he wants to destroy his house to build his summer home called Kuzcotopia, and he fires his Imperial Advisor Yzma (Eartha Kitt). Yzma, to be sure, isn't very happy. So, she and her assistant Kronk (Patrick Warburton) decide to do away with Kuzco, leaving her in charge. However, they mix up the poison with a potion, and Kuzco is turned into a llama. Through a series of bizarre circumstances, Kuzco ends up with Pacha and they start off on a journey back to the palace. On the way, Kuzco comes to realize the err of his ways and becomes friends with Pacha. Can Kuzco get back and reclaim his throne? I'll never tell. Comments: This movie is all Kronk. Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong. David Spade does very well. But all the truly funny stuff originates from that wacky Kronk. Overall, I liked the movie. It had heart. It didn't feel manufactured and spit out by Disney, even if perhaps it was a spin on another idea. I could not begin to speculate on that, however. I laughed quite a lot during this one, and I'm happy to say it's what I needed. Favorite Lines: Pacha: Someday, you're gonna
find yourself all alone, with nobody to blame but yourself.
Yzma: A few drops of this in
his drink and he'll be dead before dessert.
Yzma: Tell us where the talking
llama is and we'll burn your house to the ground.
Kuzco: Let me guess. We're about
to go over a huge waterfall.
Yzma: Take him out of town and
finish the job now!
12 Monkeys (1995) Premise: James Cole (Bruce Willis) is a worker in a post-apocalyptic underground surreal society. He's selected to gather information in the past about the people behind a virulent holocaust that took place on Earth in 1996. His bosses suspect the Army of the 12 Monkeys, a secretive organization with ties to a biological research company. They need a pure form of the virus to find a vaccine, so that the human race can live on the surface again. Unfortunately, he ends up in 1990 instead of '96 (womp womp), in an insane asylum after fighting off police officers and drooling. Fortunately, a psychiatrist named Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) believes his time-travel story. You see, she knows quite a bit about past instances of people preaching virulent holocausts around the turn of the 21st century, for some odd reason. Not exactly something you learn in a general course in college when you're still undeclared. Anyway, he also meets an interesting specimen named Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) a paranoid schizophrenic who helps him escape from the asylum. But he's taken back to his own time and sent back again to the right time: 1996. There, he meets an older Kathryn and makes her think he has a gun so she can drive him to Philadelphia. Along the ride, Kathryn copes with James' strange behavior and James desperately searches for the pure form of the virus and clues to who is behind the virus' spread. I won't give away any more. Needless to say, you eventually come to some realizations about parts of the movie and the sorta twist-ending ensues. Comments: The movie "12 Monkeys" is based on another French movie called "La Jetee" ("The Pier" for all you Englishers) written by Chris Marker. However, David Webb Peoples wrote the screenplay for this baby. It's good to finally see a movie that doesn't even attempt those tricky "paradoxes" associated with nearly every time travel movie. The key to any time-travel story is to set up a reasonable set of rules for changing history (if applicable) and stick to them. "12 Monkeys" sets up one rule that fixes everything. You can't change history, which Bruce Willis neatly sums up when talking about the virulent apocalypse by saying "It's already happened". Thus the movie doesn't become a "change history" thing. He knows that he can't because it would go against what he knows to be the case in the future. Head hurting yet? Don't worry. It's easier from here. This is a very surreal movie, but for what it's worth, it was a well-acted one. Brad Pitt does well, and Bruce Willis does...pretty well. There are some storylines that aren't exactly cleared up in the end, but many of them can be attributed to the madness that James goes through in the movie. I enjoyed it, to say the least. It was something that's very different as far as movies go and I like how they worked with what they've got. It leads you one way and then shifts direction close to the end, taking you off on an interesting and even more surreal tangent. The only real problem I have with it is that the characters are always tuned to the news, where many a plot point or backstoryline is portrayed. What is this fabulous newstation, WPLOT? Doesn't anyone watch "Moesha" or whatever show was popular back in 1996? Sheesh! Favorite Lines: James Cole (Bruce Willis): Oh, wouldn't it be great if I was crazy? Then the world would be okay. Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe): Cassandra in Greek legend, you recall, was condemned to know the future but to be disbelieved when she foretold it. Hence the agony of foreknowledge combined with the impotence to do anything about it. Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt): There was this guy, and he was always requesting shows that had already played. Yes. No. You have to tell her before. He couldn't quite grasp the idea that the charge nurse couldn't make it be yesterday. She couldn't turn back time, thank you, Einstein! Now, he was nuts! He was a fruitcake, Jim! Premise: Snooty cynical weatherman Phil Connors (Bill Murray) is forced to go to Punxatawney, PA to cover the ceremonial emergence of Phil the Groundhog from his hole in order to predict whether winter will stay around for another six weeks. He hates doing a story for so many years about a little "rodent" but what can he do? He complains his way through the day, and falls asleep. The next day, he wakes up and discovers much to his dismay that it's Groundhog Day again. He must repeat his steps again and again. Not even death can save him from his ultimate fate of changing his life for the better. By the end, he gets the girl and changes his disposition for the better. Comments: This movie is a very personal one for all of us because it centers on something that we wish we could experience: doing a day over and over again until we get it right. With no consequences to worry about tomorrow, we could center on what our real goals are and perhaps learn a lot about what we've been missing. Without the ability to do our days over again, we are forced to center on perhaps one thing at a time. In the movie, Phil is able to better himself in one day, albeit the same day over and over and over again. God knows that I wish I could redo a couple of days in my life. Maybe even get the girl too, who knows. In any case, the idea of the repetition was dealt with very well by the screenwriters and director. Bill Murray is very good in this movie and plays Phil Connors the way I think we would all be if such a situation would happen to us. Phil's excuse is that he never has the time to stop and smell the roses. Well, now he has gotten his chance and--after a little hesitation--he chooses to take advantage of it. I enjoyed it. I sympathized with Bill Murray's attempts at self-betterment and marveled at how much I wished such a situation could happen to me. Favorite Lines: "What if there is no tomorrow? There wasn't one today" - Phil (Bill Murray) "I think he'll swerve first" - Phil playing "Chicken" with an oncoming ttrain. "I am A god. Not THE God...at least I don't think" - Phil "Did he just call himself 'the talent'?" - Larry (Chris Elliot) Go back to
the Movie Review Links Page
|
