Reviews

I have just seen the Bruce Joel Robinson directed My Life on Starz, and all I can say is that it is the most formulaic and contrived piece of celluloid I have seen in a long time. That being said, I must also say that while it has to be one of the most contrived films I have seen, it also turns one or two of these contrived scenes and contrived performances into something special or effective.

The film starts off with Michael Keaton talking to a camcorder and telling it that he is dying of cancer. That first scene has been done before, but the way it was delivered was excellent and the first few scenes showed some promise, while they were still generic. As the film progresses we get to know more about Keaton, his wife played by Nicole Kidman, his spiritual healer played by Haing S. Ngor, and the rest of the familt. With a film that is so intent on trying to show where each character stands, you finish watching the movie feeling empty, like not one of the characters made a true impact on you. But you also have a feeling that something touched you in the film, which happened to me as well.

I think the thing that dissappointed me in these performances is that some of the material was good enough that the characterizations could have been done more realistically and more naturally. Michael Keaton plays Bob Jones (what's up with that name?) in about 4 different ways, shifting around from anger, depression, sadness, and happiness in such an unnatural manner. Although the way he goes about presenting Bob as dying was very true to life and poignant, his best work in the film. Nicole Kidman (Gail Jones) is probably in her most cliched role I have ever seen her in. She plays the sorrowful wife in such uninterested way, as if she is waiting to break out at a point in the film, which never comes up. Haing S. Ngor (Mr. Ho) is the same performance given from Pat Morita during his career rolled into one...in other words, the height of mediocrity. Michael Constantine and Rebecca Schull (Bill and Rose Ivanovich) bring their performances into the cliched zone as well, with the caring mother and the gruff father. Finally there is Bradley Whitford(Paul Ivanovich) who has about 5 lines of dialogue in the whole film, so I could barely rate his performance. I would also like to point out that a favorite character actor of mine, The West Wing's Richard Schiff appears in teh film as the younger version of Bob's father, but he says less then Whitford.

The direction by Bruce Joel Robinson is just straight-forward story telling, except for the odd off-ramps into holistic healing. The most clever thing about the direction is the handling of the healing scenes, until a sub-par lighting effect and shows how much these scenes really don't belong in the film when all is said and done. The straight-forward story telling is done in such a way that evokes memories of a "very special episode" of Blossom or Home Improvement. That is brought about the odd, almost cutesy, dealings with the devastating illness that is cancer. In addition, the screenplay, also by Robinson, is just downright stupid in some places. There are a pair of scenes that deal with rollercoasters that take away from the feeling of the film, an implausible scene in which Bob enters his old house, and the worst scene by far in the whole film that involves a circus. With all these flaws, it still got to some part of me, and the last 20 minutes of the film are truly effective in my view, while being very cliched at the same time. It is really all Keaton's way of going about these last scenes that really work. That is the reason I didn't completely blast this film.

It's hard to tell you if you should see this film or not. For some reason this film affected me, I still am confused about that one. But I could see how many would think this is a horrible piece of contrived film. If you are into Michal Keaton, "weepie" films, or have lost someone to cancer in you life, then you might want to catch this film on TV. If you disagree to all these things, then you might still enjoy some of it, but all in all you are better off skipping it.

My Rating : 3/10

I have just witnessed the William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) film Rules of Engagement. I went in expecting a generic "studio-film" that would seem so "blah" and have nothing memorable or of great value in it. I was hoping I would be proven wrong. Unfortunately I wasn't.

Rules of Engagement starts off relatively strong, although I was confused because I came into the theatre about 3 minutes late. The opening action scene, as well as the action scenes in Yemen, are all wonderfully done by Friedkin, which should be expected from the director of The French Connection. At the conclusion of the opening action scene, we begin the actual story of the film. I don't want to give to much away but let's just say that the film has to do with Samuel L. Jackson being indicted for slaughtering many innocents who are protesting against the American Embassy in Yemen. This sets into action the courtroom drama that basically is the remainder of the film. It's unfortunate the film turned out the way it did, but it should be expected. There really isn't too much promise behind the idea. It had already been done many, many times before, and much better (A Few Good Men by Reiner comes to mind).

I think that while there were alot of things that took away from my enjoyment of Rules of Engagement, there were a couple of plusses. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, the action scenes in the film were excellently constructed. They captured the intensity and insanity of the situations as well as any other war movie has, the only exception Saving Private Ryan. Unfortunately there aren't too many of those scenes in this film, which may have upped the entertainment factor in my mind. The other thing is that the screenplay by Stephen Gaghan isn't that bad at all, although it definitely lacks in character development. I mean there is nothing that is great about it, but it isn't offensively bad like many of the other commercialized, mass-audience films like these are (i.e. Double Jeopardy is the most recent example. That brings me to the final reason I didn't give this film a complete zero. The film at least tries to be entertaining and be a crowd-pleaser. Now that didn't work with me, but it works with the general audience, which makes sense. There isn't anything offensively bad, so therefore I can't give it that low of a grade.

Now onto the bad things about Rules of Engagement. First of all I have to say how disappointing every one of the performances in this film are! I don't think there is one memorable performance out of all of them. Tommy Lee Jones (Colonel Hayes Hodges) plays the same role he has played in the last 4 films he has been in, but he also shows the only intensity in the whole film. Samuel L. Jackson (Colonel Terry Childers) lacks every amount of intensity that he brings with him in every other film, plus he is barely in the film itself. Guy Pearce (Major Mark Biggs), so good in LA Confidential, gave my favorite performance, which isn't saying much, as the ferocious prosecution. Bruce Greenwood (William Sokal) gives the exact same performance he did in Double Jeopardy, which isn't a good performance to begin with. Philip Baker Hall, Blair Underwood and Anne Archer, all capable actors/actresses, barely register because of the 5 minutes allotted to each of them in varying roles. Ben Kingsley is also disappointing in the small amount of screen time given to him, he basically appears to be a back-stabbing enigma, very hard to figure out. While it isn't all the actors fault that their performances turn out the way they do, they aren't horrible performances. It has a little more to do with the screenplays worst flaw, which is the lack of any character development. All the characters seem to have one note and keep on that note the whole film. The other problem I had with this movie was the direction by William Friedkin. He still seems to be stuck in the 1970's school of directing on this film, with very old school camera zooms and over indulgent scenes, like the scene in which Jones walks through Yemen and the over-long opening of the Yemen riot scene. The editing by Augie Hess, is just downright awful in scenes, most evident in a scene where Jones is being chased by the Yemenians and then ends up in a bathroom somewhere. Just very sub-par effort on the most-part for many who are involved.

I guess while I was watching this movie I didn't know how to view it. At first I trying looking at it as a serious drama/thriller held in the ranks of many of the other courtroom classic dramas. As the film progressesed, I just sat back and tried to soak it all in, but I wasn't really entertained. I would say that this film would be best seen on VHS or DVD or even on a Premium Channel such as HBO, but it isn't bad enough to skip it entirely.

My Rating : 4/10

I was perusing through the premium channels at my house when I came across a 1996 Stephen Frears film, Mary Reily. I had remembered hearing things about this film, not exactly good things, but since I had nothing better to do, I sat back and watched this Julia Roberts - John Malkovich film.

Mary Reily is basically one big gimmick wrapped in a treatment of a classic tale. The whole film deals with house maid Mary Reily's dealings with Dr. Henry Jeckyl and Mr. Edward Hyde. The whole gimmick is the fact that this film is supposed to be the woman's take on the story. Let's just say that while this gimmick might have been a good one, it is pulled off in the worst way imaginable. Which is disappointing to me, because any film that starts off with an eel being graphically butchered would usually be alright in my book (kidding). I don't want to give anything away about the film, but you probably know the whole story anyway, if you have been paying attention to classic literature at all. I think it would just be easier going through everything that is wrong in this movie.

First of all, let me start on the performances in Mary Reily. It seems to me that literally every one of the actors/actresses took a seminar before shooting on one-note acting. Not one character in the film conveys more then one emotion in the whole film, even with Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde, amazingly enough. Julia Roberts (Mary Reily) is the worst of the cast, this was also during her dry spell before My Best Friend's Wedding brought her back to superstardom. I had no idea she was supposed to have an Irish brogue until 20 minutes into the movie, and after that her accent changes about every four sentences...downright horrid. In addition to the in flux accent, she is the second worst offender of the one-note acting. She expresses one emotion, sadness as depression, nothing more then that, although she does do this thing with her eyes alot that is supposed to show horror, I think. The worst offender of the one-note acting is John Malkovich. In one case, this sort of acting works, and his portrayal of Dr. Henry Jeckyl is one of the two redeeming values in this film. He plays Jeckyl as if he is a shell for a true inner being that lurks beneath his skin, and he does it with great subtlety. Then his Hyde comes out and you realize that his Hyde is almost the same performance as his Jeckyl, except kicked up a notch or two. Don't even get me started on Glenn Close as brothel leader Mrs. Farraday, who is in the film only a short time, but threw off every scene she was in, actually making the movie worse then it already was, with her acting style of sneering at anything said to her. When she leaves, you note that the film rises in quality only a little. The rest of the performances are of the same school, one-note acting to show their stance on Mary Reily's actions. That was the most upsetting thing in the whole movie, but trust me there are more flaws.

The screenplay by Christopher Hampton, is so unbelievably straight forward and boring that every line in the film is completely unimbellished. What I mean by this is that the majority of the dialogue consists of one to three sentences. Which really doesn't help with any character development, although there is a little, but you barely notice it because the performances hinder the development very much. It also doesn't help that the screenplay adds a completely unnecessary sub-plot involving Mary Reily and her parents, there was absolutely no reason for them to be there. The other thing about the screenplay that is very odd is the fact that while Dr. Jeckyl is the film a fair amount, Mr. Hyde is treated as cameo-length character, which just confuses me even more. There is one other thing that I liked about Mary Reily, that was the Set Design by Stephanie McMillan and the overall Production Design by Stuart Craig, this is the most impressive thing in the whole film, showing both gothic and classic styles at once. The final thing, which I really can't say too much about because of my lack of knowledge of Stephen Frears other works, but the pacing during the early scenes is just bizarre, but it straightens itself about a half hour into the movie. I am not sure how much of this film can be blamed on Frears himself, because other then the early pacing problems, I couldn't find too many glaring problems.

Overall I would say that everyone should avoide wasting about 2 hours on this film. It isn't even good for a laugh, because of it's overly serious tone. Even fans of Frears, Roberts, Malkovich and Close should stay far away from this thing and keep your respect for these professionals.

My Rating : 2/10

I just got back from a screening of the new Mary Harron (I Shot Andy Warhol) film, American Psycho. I am of mixed feelings when it comes to this film. I read the novel by Bret Easton Ellis before seeing this film, and I think that potentially changed my final opinion of this film. So keep that possible bias in your mind while reading this review.

When entering this film, I really didn't know what to expect. I really did enjoy the novel American Psycho and I didn't know how the point of the film could truly be expressed even by Harron, who had done only one feature to this point, although it was an amazing one. I settled in and began to take it all in. The film starts of with a relatively humorous tone...very light compared to the novel's strait-laced opening. It basically introduces Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) as your everyday-high-end-yuppie-who-kills-people-on-the-side kinda guy. It lets us get acquainted with Bateman's friends, loves, and co-workers as well. Not too far into the film though, it begins it's slight descension into surreality and nightmarish scenes (don't worry though, the violence in the film is a mere shell of the over-the-top-near-unfilmable violence in the novel, in fact nearly all the violence happens off screen. Toward the beginning of slide, the film keeps up it's satirical and very humorous look...then it becomes more dark and takes a more serious look at the goings on. By the end, the viewer has lost touch with what is real in the film and very confused about what to feel for Bateman.

I think that the most impressive thing about the film is the combination of the lead performance and the cinematography in the film. Christian Bale, as Patrick Bateman, is amazingly great. It is one of the most oddball performances I have seen, but it is also the most outstanding I have seen as well. The fluctuation between outright insanity to social restraint, with a melange of emotions in there, is quite simply remarkable. Now none of the other performances merit as much acclaim. William Defoe as Detective Donald Kimble,following Bateman's case, also registers to a lesser extent in a subtle performance that is the closest the film has to a real person. Chloe Sevigny has a role that some found impressive, but I find just lacking all around. Ditto for Jared Leto and Reese Witherspoon who barely register in basically cameo length roles.

The other aspect of the film that really got me was the cinematography of American Psycho. The lighting cast upon Patrick gives him "split-faces", kinda like Jeckyll and Hyde syndrome. In addition there are just peculiar, but catching scenes of cinematography..such as noir-ish looking cigarette smoke hanging in the air and various camera angles that just lend themselves to the feeling in the film. The direction on the other hand wasn't nearly as impressive. It seems as though Harron knows what to do to convey the feeling of the book for like the first 45 minutes, but then it spirals out of control, becoming a (too) dark fall of a yuppie. It doesn't help that the pacing toward the last 30 minutes is completely off...there is about 15 minutes of monologues about Bateman's flaws, then a horrific murder scene, then close with another 15 minutes of dialogue. The screenplay, while the pacing was off...the reason why the film's pacing was off, does really do the best possible job of getting the point of the book across, and comes very close to pinning down the exact feeling of the book, except for the self-indulgent finale.

Overall, I would say that it is a film that you could probably wait for video or DVD. But if you are a fanatic of "I Shot Andy Warhol" or of the book American Psycho, try to make out to the theatre as soon as possible.

My Rating : 7/10

I think it might help figure out how serious you should take my review by stating my stance on the Star Wars franchise to begin with. I am not a huge fan of the original trilogy (A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, The Return of the Jedi)...I think they are great films in their own right, I just am not that interested in the whole franchise. I also want to point out that I am basing my final grade of this film on it's own merits. This means I based my grade on how good of an action/sci-fi/adventure film.....not holding it in the same ranks as other films, aka dramas, comedies, straight out action, adventure, or sci-fi films...you get my point. Just wanted to make that clear as well.

When I first saw Star Wars:The Phantom Menace, I didn't really know what to expect. I mean I was just hoping to be entertained, not like others who expected this movie, along with every other film, to be a truly spiritual experience that grabs hold of your emotions and leaves you touched at the end. I just wanted to be entertained. Well when I saw the film in the theatre for the first time, I was relativly dissappointed...I didn't think it followed through on the standard set by the original trilogy and the dialogue,acting and direction were all sub-par for this form of movie. Well now that I have seen the film many times on VHS (bought it before hearing that Lucas was going to put out a DVD!!!) I think I can put up a good final opinion.

Now it is a rule of mine not to give anything away, so I will make my comments on the quality of the different aspects of the film. First of all,the performances.....or the lack thereof. Now I wasn't expecting much from these performances...but there is no excuse for how bad some of these are. Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn) and Ewen McGregor (Obi-Won Kenobi) as the Jedi are servicable, just "blah" acting but nothing too horrendous. Then there is Ahmed Best (voice of Jar-Jar Binks) who, when I first saw the movie, became the worst film character of all time, but after seeing it more and more, he isn't as annoying. The worst by far were Queen Amidala/Padme (Natalie Portman) and Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd). First of all, I don't see a whole lot of talent in either of these actors in the first place...and this film just solidified my stance. Natalie Portman who splits her "acting chops" between two characters (....sorta....) and neither of them have any inflection, emotion, anything remotely human about them...again that makes sense for one of her characters, but you'll see. She is at her worst with Lloyd, where she looks so uncomfortable trying to emote that she loves this kid who is 8 years younger then her. Then there is Jake Lloyd...could an actor say more lines wrong? He makes Anakin into a cartoonish tough kid...nothing that makes me care about him in the least. He is basically what to expect from many child actors of this time, but I think I am just spoiled by Haley Joel Osment's Cole from The Sixth Sense.

The other aspects of the film were among the same lines. The screenplay, by George Lucas, is very lopsided. Some parts of the film capture the semi-serious tone of the original trilogy, while other parts (i.e. anything with Jar-Jar or Anakin) are worse then many other scenes of dialogue in action/adventure/sci-fi films. The direction is much alike. The scenes that you would think the audience would like to linger over....the introduction to Otah Gunga City.....he speeds through, and the scenes that should be quick and to the point seem to drag on and bring the pacing down. All in all it is much better then a majority of these types of films though.

Overall, I would definitely recommend this film. Based on it's own merits, it really fulfills what it sent out to do...be an entertaining film that doesn't make you think, but just sit back and enjoy it.

My Rating : 8/10

I have just gotten back from my local multiplex and after seeing it all I can say is that before seeing it, recognize that what you are about to see is no sci-fi classic. That being said, it's also important to note that Pitch Black is still a very entertaining ride, even if you don't remember why you liked it after the film.

This film, directed by David Twohy (The Arrival), has a very good concept but it is executed in a way that makes the film fall below what it should have been. The film has an odd mix of trying to flesh out each and every one of the characters while trying to keep the momentum of the film going. Suffice it to say, that doesn't work to well, at least not in the context of this film.

Unfortunately I missed the first ten minutes of the movie, due to the fact that I was in line picking up a large soda, who knows those 10 minutes might affect my review, but I doubt it. When I got into the theatre, the main vessel carrying the cast of this film had just crash-landed onto a barren planet and the passengers were just noticing their surroundings. It appears that the ship was carrying passengers to the "New Civilization" in addition to carrying a maximum prison escapee Richard B. Riddick (Vin Diesel), but because of the crash, everything is messed up. The new captain, Fry (Radha Mitchell), is very unwilling to fulfil her newly appointed post, the officer that captured Riddick, Johns (Cole Hauser) is a hot-tempered morphine addict, and the aforementioned Riddick has escaped. Not soon after the crash, there is a huge twist. One of the crew members goes to explore a suspicous cave, and gets killed by something that isn't human. This begins to bring a whole new slant to things in the film and it introduces the nocturnal, carnivorous aliens. Even worse, to benefit the nocturnal aliens and to horrify the crew members, it has been 22 years since the last eclipse on the planet, and therefore, its about time for another one. From here on in everything goes crazy. The aliens appear on the surface, an allegience (or is it?) with Riddick must be made, and something has to be done to get off the planet before everyone gets killed.

I'll hand it to Twohy and Ken Wheat, the concept of the film is very good. On the other hand the direction of Twohy is very lopsided, the first 20 minutes are trying to flesh out characters and setup the rest of the flim, but it is a series of bizarre shots and milling around. From the first attack on, the film loses the look it had for the first twenty minutes and becomes a run of the mill action film, but with some very cool set pieces. The same could be said for Wheat's screenplay, which is lopsided throughout the whole film, giving some excellent lines to the truly menacing Vin Diesel, or giving cornball one-liners to the various others. The acting on the whole doesn't benefit the film either. Radha Mitchell, last seen in the great Ally Sheedy film High Art, gives a performance that could be comparble to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley from the "Alien" films. Cole Hauser, from Good Will Hunting, is the dark law official who gives the deepest performance of the film, but that isn't saying much. Far and away, the best performance in the film is Vin Diesel's. Well actually, it's really just the character that Vin plays that makes him standout, along with his gravelly voice and incredible strength. All in all, Diesel's Riddick is one of the most indelible sci-fi characters in quite a while,possibly since Schwarzeneggers Terminator.

My final say on this film is that it is recommended to someone who wants to be entertained by a movie that doesn't make one think that much, but to just witness explosions and violence. I would say to catch this film at a matinee bargain price, but it could be enjoyed just the same if you waited for it to hit DVD or VHS.

My Rating : 6/10