Reviews

Vanilla Sky is disappointing on so many levels.

I like Cameron Crowe. I've liked every one of his movies so I was really looking forward to this one. But ultimately I feel like this material was better served by a different director and a different cast. At times it feels like a music video and at other times feels like a terribly miscast David Lynch movie.

The dreamy quality of the story and the lack of answers up front beg comparisons to Lynch. But unlike Mr. Lynch who, in his recent movies, has provided some pretty dense and meaning-laden (or meaningless? - up to you) stories, utterly and totally lacking in overt explanation, Mr. Crowe feels the need to justify all of the weirdness of all we've been watching with (what feels like) a tidy 15 minute monologue near the close of the film. You can argue that Lynch's films suffer from the weirdness and lack of explanation, but you can't deny the conviction with which the movie is made - Lynch doesn't seem to CARE whether or not you get it. Crowe, it seems, WANTS you to get it and as a result, Vanilla Sky's explanation feels like a second, borderline-unrelated movie that only serves to hedge on the movie's buildup and make the movie that much more frustrating.

I was honestly bored throughout the film, not caring much about the characters or their relationships. Most of the characters had only as much dimension as was required to tell the story - never fully busting out into rounded people. The film's explanation may explain this lack of character depth, but not in a way that serves the story while you're actually watching it. So in spite of these problems, what kept me in the theater was the anticipation of the mind-blowing ending that was promised - an ending that could potentially make me reexamine and appreciate everything that had thus far bored me. That ending was never delivered. Instead of being thrilled or invigorated or inspired by the ending, I was simply relieved it was over.

In all fairness, this movie is remade from a Spanish film that I have not seen. I don't know if it's a truly faithful adaptation and the problems I have with the story were inherent with the original, or if perhaps Crowe made choices that bogged down the original's intent.

I will say without hesitation that with original material, Crowe still has a solid batting average, but this movie is a slow-rolling infield groundout. Disappointing.

The fact that "Hannibal" has a Best Picture-winning predecessor only serves to make this unimaginative gore-fest look that much more pathetic when held up to the original. Wooden acting, characters and situations, a disjointed plot that never gains any momentum, topped off with gratuitous, stomach-wrenching gore make "Hannibal" one of the most disappointing films to come around in some time. Its hollow recreation of the cat-and-mouse banter of the first film (which benefited greatly from the chemistry between Hopkins and Jodie Foster) rings false, presenting the audience with no new wrinkles in their relationship. Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling seems painfully aware that she has big shoes to fill after Jodie Foster wisely passed on the script. She never seems comfortable in the role, while Anthony Hopkins, reprising his classic role, seems like a guy doing an extended imitation of Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter. I wish I could say something more positive about this film, given that I've really enjoyed the work of everyone involved previous to this film, but man, this movie sucked.

What's unfortunate is that people might look at this film as a 'gory romp' or a 'bloody thrillride' while a film like, "I Spit on Your Grave" or "Friday the 13th Part IV" would be held in the lowest contempt by the same people. For all intents and purposes, "Hannibal" is nothing more than a low-end slasher flick with a whiff of window-dressing intellectualism and higher production values. Truly awful.

Sure the subject matter is disturbing, competitive men and their confused and sometimes evil relationships with women. Even more disturbing is that I wasted two hours of my life watching this badly written, badly directed and poorly acted excuse for a 'thought-provoking' film. I say poorly acted instead of badly, because I hate to rank the acting as low as I hold the writing and directing. The actors have the excuse of a crummy script. Here's an exercise. Take every pretentious thing you ever heard a self important 18 year old ramble about and write them all down. There you go: you've written a script as good as Hurlyburly. Character voices blend, dialogue rambles unchecked and some of the actors haven't even got the fundamental concepts of who their characters are. 1 out of 10. Dreadful.

An enjoyable film for 80s buffs and fans of the not-for-everybody 80s screwball comedy. Often juvenile, often exploitative, never meant to be taken seriously, an uneven performance from its lead (particularly an inconsistent accent) and occasional sloppy sentimentality drag the movie down. There are some great turns from bit players, including a young Charlie Barnett and an old Whitman Mayo. Max Gail is solid and Marsha Warfield is thin! The film features some classic lines in addition to allegedly funny lines that will make you cringe. Mostly, the movie is a harmless goof with a touch of idiotic 80s energy. 6.5 out of 10

The stories and art direction for the series more than make up for its spare animation. These cartoons were made when companies understood that translating a comic to the screen requires keeping intact the elements that make the comic enjoyable and successful. If you enjoy the Lee/Kirby era of the Fantastic Four, you'll enjoy these faithful adaptations. Series is a lot of fun.