Change Your Image
Fred-146
Reviews
For Love of the Game (1999)
BORING!!
How many more flops will Kevin Costner be involved in before his career finally ends? "For Love of the Game" is just another step in that direction, after such recent bad films like The Bodyguard (which shockingly made a lot of $$$), Waterworld, and The Postman.
First of all, at 135 minutes, FLOTG, is WAY too long. Part of the beginning scenes are followed by a flashback that reappears later in the film. Kevin Costner gets involved with Kelly Preston in a relationship that cannot be better described than puppy love. It's stupid and ridiculous how these characters shift back and forth from being together and then splitting apart, and/or having their feeling hurt. I mean, when a relationship is this much of a roller-coaster ride, I'm sure its a strong bet that it won't work out in the long run. But the main problem is that neither one is these two is willing to *commit* to each other.
Then there's the whole matter of the "final game" in which Costner is determined to pitch the perfect game. But will he? Becuase he's so ticked off about being traded by his team, etc. I seriously couldn't care less, but since I was stuck in the theatre, I decided to make up some suspense of my own.
That moment came went a rookie player came up to bat. There was a brief scene in which Costner and this guy had a brief, but pleasant conversation. I was wondering since Costner was retiring, he would shift all the fame to this young rookie, who would *maybe* be the only player to make a hit in the game. Oh, the suspense of what he might do!
One thing though about Costner, is that he seems to be playing roles that cry out to the audience "Look at me! I'm this hero! Love me! Please, love me!" Whatever. We will only love Costner when he starts to make films again like the nonstop suspenseful No Way Out, where not only he is the MAIN attraction.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
A Brilliant, Original, Classic Horror Film
I just saw Blair Witch Project for the second time the other night and I was very surprised that the film had nearly the same effect on me as it did the first time I saw it. This is one of the most brilliant horror films I have ever seen!
For those of you this movie is BAD, I think your reasons are unjustified. I'm going to list the many reasons why people thought this movie was bad.
1. It was a home made movie-----The whole premise of this movie was to show the footage of three filmmakers who went into the woods and disappeared. The ads clearly said that this was "their" footage? What were you all expected. A glossy, high budget, special effects driven film, with lots of scary music and gore? Come on, these were film students!! The film remain true to that premise and did not deviate from it in any way. This was to look like a home video, and that made the film seem all the more real, therefore, much more effective.
2. Those kids were so stupid....Oh, as opposed to those brilliant teenagers we see in movies like Friday the 13th, I Know What You Did..., and countless other slasher films? Give me a break!!! Heather, Josh, and Mike were about as naiive as you and I, but they certainly were not stupid!! Many said they should have carried a cell phone with them. How many people in 1994 had cell phones compared to how common it is today for people to have one? Some said they should have been better prepared for camping. Hello! If any of you who said that had an ATTENTION SPAN would have learned that Heather is the type of person who goes camping and is familiar with navigating her way through the woods. Most importantly, these kids would have found their way out of the woods if they were not scared out their minds!! They were researching a legend, that they apparently believed was not true. Nothing these kinds ever did made me want to shout "STUPID! STUPID!" at them. I however have wanted to do that to many of the characters in several films. Plus, the characters in most slasher films have a choice to what danger they put themselves in. They know a killer is on the loose. In Blair Witch, the kids were lost in the woods before they realized something unexpected was hunting them down.
3. The acting was TERRIBLE!...There were many people who saw this film and thought it was real. Oh, but how could that happen if the acting was so bad? They should have known by that it was all fake, right? I think many of you have confused bad acting with "raw acting". The acting in this film wasn't meant to be dramatic, otherwise the film wouldn't have worked. The fact that the acting was so raw, made the film all the more realistic.
4. Nothing ever happens in the movie, it's so boring....Apparently you who say this do not know how to use your imagination. Plenty happens in this film. Imagine how you would react if you heard strange noises in the form of laughing in the woods, or if someone was attacking your tent, or if you then found and area of the woods with all these occultic symbols, or if you heard your friend screaming in the woods and you were unable to help him, and then find parts of his body wrapped in his clothing...Many of these things gave me the chills becuase I was able to put myself in their shoes.
5. They should run for their lives....What in the world do you think they were doing the whole movie?? They were walking, and running, and running, and going in circles and losing their mind. If you knew what it feels like to be lost, you'd understand that panic ensues and thinking your way out of a situation becomes harder and harder. And when they heard Josh's voice in the house I wasn't surprised they went in after him because that is something I would do in such a desperate situation.
I guess many of you still need to the graphic violence and gore for a movie to entertain you and simply can't use your imaginations. Go on and continue to be entertained by the brainless horror films like Friday the 13th. I guess the Blair Witch Project is just way out of your league.
This was one of the most original films of the decade and was so worthy of the hype. Many films used hype like TBWP. "Psycho" comes to mind as Hitchcock stated that NO ONE would be admitted after the beginning of the film. This sparked everyone's curioisity thinking that something happens at the beginning. There's nothing wrong with this as long as the film lives up to that hype. Psycho and Blair Witch both did that.
Face it, Blair Witch Project will go down in movie history as one of the greatest horror films ever made along with Psycho, Halloween, The Exorcist, Jaws, Silence of the Lambs, Seven, and Scream. All of these films redefined the horror genre and expounded the limits of what horror films could do at that time.
Stargate (1994)
Great Premise, Poor Execution--*1/2 out of ****.
Let's imagine you walk through a giant ring that is filled with glowing lights swirling around. The next thing you know, you are being warped through a wormhole to the other side of the known universe. And after all that, you arrive to your destination, and what do you say? "What a rush!"? That's line in "Stargate" that gives the perfect example of what is wrong with the movie. The filmmakers had an enormous opportunity to create a whole universe, but end up rehashing old action movie cliches and one-liners, instead of exploring the possibilities. Certainly, in a more intelligent film, the reaction of travelling across the universe would be much greater, and far more profound. All can give thanks to the Emmerich and Devlin team, who obviously believe that if you have lots of special effects, who needs a plot? "Stargate" had the potential to be a film like "Contact", a film filled with wonder that explored discoveries that would affect people all over the world. But no.
Dr. Daniel Jackson (James Spader) is an expert of Egyptian archaeology and hieroglyphics who is hired by the military to decode the writings on a mysterious artifact in the form of a stone ring known as the Stargate. I guess the military already read the script since they were ready to enter the Stargate before Dr. Jackson arrived to decode it, and there was no way for them to discover its purpose by themselves. What is also remarkable is how fast Jackson decodes the writings, and an expedition is under way--all in just a few minutes. The preparations for such an extensive and unexplored travel are handled on the same level as any of the adventures found at Disneyland. One of the crew members is Colonel Jack O'Neil (Kurt Russell), a curious case, since the first time we see him, he is sitting in his dead son's room with a gun in hand as if he's going to kill himself. At that same time he is admitted, surprisingly, back in the military.
After arriving on the "other side", they discover an Egyptian civilization that is ruled by Ra (Jaye Davidson), the Sun God. Dr. Jackson, is able to communicate with them, although I'm sure their language should have changed drastically from the Egyptian language 4000 years ago. Not much goes on here, except the usual boring scenes in which the military guys try to blend in the new culture, the scientist falls in love the beauty, and everyone plots rebellion against their evil masters. We also learn that Col O'Neil's mission was to blow up the Stargate along with himself. What about his wife we saw earlier in the film? Does he care how his wife is going to feel, especially after they lost their son not long before? Does the military really send suicidal people on secret missions, even for the purpose of killing themselves along with destroying a prized possession?
Let's go down the list of a few cliches in this movie: (1) the "loser" scientist who's hired for a special mission (Notice how when everyone walks out of his lecture, the one person who is interested hides and waits in the car outside, mysteriously, instead of just walking right up to him?), (2) a suicidal soldier in need of redemption, (3) a group of scientists talking a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about writings that they obviously know nothing about, (4) the love story between two unlikely people, who can barely communicate with each other, (5) a piece of jewelry with sentimental value, (6) a bomb with a read digital readout, (7) the action climax where all the good guys beat up the bad guys, and (8) the old line "Tastes like chicken".
The filmmakers obviously wanted (and have pretty much stated so) this film to be confused with great classics like "Lawrence of Arabia", simply because of the desert setting, I guess. If this film wanted to be an action film, why did it need to drag us all the way across the universe, only to end up in a fight with the bad guys? If it wanted to be a grand epic, why didn't it explore how the discovery of a Stargate could change the world? If a Stargate was actually discovered, do you think the military would be so casual in destroying it? Not a chance! It would be highly protected, and I'm sure many people would think of exercising the possibility of using it for colonization on other planets. What a difference the Stargate could make for humanity! The film, however, doesn't seem to even see this.
The acting in this film is mediocre. This film is perfect for Kurt Russell. He's used to playing such shallow roles. But I haven't a clue as to why Jaye Davidson, after "The Crying Game", would want to take part in this lame story. James Spader is also capable of much better roles. This film was just a huge waste of great potential. Indeed, its story is so cheesy and bizarre that I'm sure we'll be seeing it on Mystery Science Theatre 3000 in the next 20 years. This is a story that Edward D. Wood Jr., the worst filmmaker of all time, would have loved to film, and possibly could have written himself.
A Time to Kill (1996)
A socially irresponsible film--2 out of 4 stars.
I have not read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.
"A Time to Kill" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why "Dead Man Walking" had to be made independently.
The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.
Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.
The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.
And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.
Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in "serious" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.
But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line..."The girl is white". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.
In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling "He's free! He's free!". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?
This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is!
I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)
This was an absolutely awful,terrible,stupid,idiotic film!!
I'm looking at all of the positive comments made for "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" and I have one question: Where are your brains? This movie was absolutely horrendous, an insult to the intelligence, without any wit, logic, or reason for being.
Let's start with all the holes in the plot: How did Ben Willis know where Julie's boyfriend (Freddie Prinze Jr.) was going to be driving? Why did Ben Willis pay so much money to drag Julie and company all the way to the Bahamas only to kill everyone else there, and especially if he had access to kill Julie the whole time she was at school? Are there really exact days that resorts in the Bahamas have a hurricane season? How could the filmmakers believe that audiences are so witless as to not know that the capital of Brazil is NOT Rio de Janeiro? If Ben had access to Julie's room the WHOLE time, why didn't he just kill her? Why did that voodoo guy return to the hotel after we saw him start to escape off the island? Why didn't Julie ax Ben Willis when he was trying to break through the door? And what is with that pathetic ending?
Oh, there are so many questions I had about this movie and to no avail. After awhile, I realized that I was putting more thought to the film than the makers did! The filmmakers were so bankrupt of imagination that I guess they had to settle for just killing everyone off that wasn't essential to the story (a la Friday the 13th). This movie has no reason for being, only to pocket the money of those unfortunate enough to sit through this mess. If the movie was a bore to sit through, the ending was infuriating. It totally demonstated that the filmmakers have absolutely no regard for the audience and Jennifer Love's character all along. Nothing is worse than the old is a dream sequence or not? routine. The "surprise" in the film was only a surprise for people who lack the intelligence of putting a 10 piece jigsaw puzzle together.
In & Out (1997)
The most morally irresponsible film I've ever seen.
In & Out made me want to vomit. I have never seen such a shameless film! It seriously wanted to say that being gay is something wonderful and joyous, but has no idea how to say it. To me this was not a comedy, unless cruel,sick jokes are something to laugh at when a victim falls for it.
From what I saw, this film had four (4) major flaws starting with (A) Matt Dillion's character as he announces to the world that is former teacher, Howard Brackett (Kevin Kline) is gay. Never mind how unbelievable it is that Matt Dillion character won an Oscar for what looked like a serious role on the edge of a crack-up. But why would he say such a thing? After all, this was never an issue with Howard's students, his friends, family, nor his finace. Nobody. So why would he say something like it when it wasn't true? More to the point, why doesn't the movie supply us with an answer as to why he said it? The reason is because there is NO answer, and for the convenience of the plot none is provided. The second (B) flaw is with the fact the film seems to have forgotten what homosexuality is--the attraction and sexual relation to members of the same sex. In this movie, being gay is based on liking Barbara Streisand musicals and being passionate about literature. It's all based on stereotypes!
Both of these flaws are met up again at that must-be-seen-to-be-believed graduation ceremony. Matt Dillion finds out about the commotion going on in that small town and the film looks poised to let us know what made him say such a thing. When he arrives to the ceremony, he says nothing, and I wondered why in the world he then came there at all. He didn't solve anything. Then when all of the audience stood to announce they were gay, I was so moved I wanted to throw up! Those folks were standing up in defense of Howard being gay by mocking all of those stereotypes. What the film forgot is that it was using those stereotypes to show why Howard was gay. They filmmakers just shot themselves in the foot! But wait there's more!
During the ceremony,(C) Howard appeared to be on trial to lose is job as a teacher, because people believed that he would influence his students to be gay. What the film was trying to say is that homosexuals NEVER recruit, and that he wouldn't influence his students. But did we not see Tom Selleck's character endlessly pressure Howard over and over again, even to the point of kissing him unexpectedly, to come out of the closet when, in my mind, there was no closet to come out of? From that, the film clearly show that homosexual are capable of recruiting. The film, again, then shoots itself in the foot.
And (D) when Howard came out of the closet, did anyone not notice how the screenplay shut him up for the rest of the film? I counted only three lines he had afterwards: "Yup!" to his parents, "Hi there!" to a student, and "Are you ready?" to Tom Selleck before the last vomitous scene. I might be low by one, but the point is he is not allowed to tell us what made him decide he was gay. I wanted to know what was in his head, because I never for once believed he was gay.
As bonuses, the movie also includes several truly offensive scenes. One in which Howard is asking a priest in confession for advice about what to do for a friend (him), who is engaged and has not yet had sex with his fiance. "Does that make him gay?" he asks. The priest responsed "Oh yes, he's definitely gay". Uh-huh. Or what about the scene when all the old ladies are gathered around telling Howard's mother that she doesn't need to be sad about her son's deep, dark secret because, well...everyone has them. Then one the ladies confessed that she's never seen "The Bridges of Madison County". Funny? No! Becuase the film shows that it is insensitive and has no idea how devestating it can be to family to have one of its members announced that he/she is gay. I know. I have several friends that are gay, and none of their families took it well at all. That was a poor way to diffuse the whole situation.
The last straw for me was the last scene that gave they appearence that Tom and Kevin were getting married. The camera panned down very slowly to the front of the church when... It wasn't what you thought! I had been thoroughly disgusted by that point, and I never could forgive that sick joke. I have nothing against films about being gay or homosexuality. "Philadelphia" and "Longtime Companion" were very honest and true in what they had to say. "In & Out" is just screaming for political correctness, but has no idea of the corruption at its core. what I gathered from the film is that if you are 99% straight and 1% gay, meaning if you have the slightless doubt, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GAY. It's like gayness is becoming a dominant trait in genetics. In reality if everyone told you over and over that you were worthless and stupid, you would eventually believe it too, wouldn't you? This is what happened to Howard Brackett about being gay. I left the theater sad and angry. Angry the whole weekend, in fact. This was a seriously sick and cruel film, the WORST of 1997.
Graveyard Shift (1990)
Possibly the worst film EVER made!
I saw Graveyard Shift when it was released back in 1990 and was so amazed at its truly awful badness. I cannot recall seeing a film as bad as this one. The actors seemed to have been made of cardboard. Yes, this acting is SO bad that it has to be seen to be believed!! I read the short story by Stephen King, and I would advise him to sue the makers of this film. In his story there is no giant bat/rat, there are several rats and as the story progresses their sizes become larger.
I have no idea what the production people were thinking when they made this film. Every scene is as interesting as it is biting into a stale piece of bread. Near the end, there's a big a struggle in a pile of bones and a woman is killed senselessly. I had such a thoroughly unpleasant experience at this film. What I found most disturbing about this movie is that people paid good money to see it. This is NOT an exaggeration! This film is THAT bad.
Wanna know just how bad this film is? Before it started, they showed a trailer for another Stephen King film, Misery. I enjoyed that short trailer much more than Graveyard Shift. Heck, I would have rather watched the Misery trailer over and over for the same length of time as this disaster, and would have enjoyed myself immensely. DO NOT, under any circumstances, see Graveyard Shift.