Reviews

Any documentary on The Beatles which is only 2 hours long is obviously not going to really be "compleat". You could make an 8 hour documentary on their amazing career & it still wouldn't seem like too much.

With that said, this documentary is extremely well done. One of the things I really like about this documentary is that it spends its 2 hours very well. It uses those 2 hours to show the aspects of The Beatles which had long-term effects upon music and culture, such as depicting the evolution of their music from simple pop to more complex album-oriented music to even more experimental music. It also does a great job in painting a picture of how and why the four of them were growing apart - and why their breakup was all but inevitable by the time they reached the end of 1969/beginning of 1970.

The documentary is not perfect. More detail could have been spent on such aspects such as the making of their albums - especially The White Album & Abbey Road. Having seen this documentary several times, it now seems like they only sketch out the details of those albums, especially Abbey Road. But ultimately, this documentary does an extremely good job of showing the important details of The Beatles career in just 2 hours. It also does a good job in showing George Martin's importance in their career.

Final word : Show this documentary to anybody who has medium or even above average knowledge of The Beatles & they will learn a great deal about The Beatles in just 2 hours.

I've always felt this movie was extremely overrated by fans of SNL at the time. By the time the movie came out, people were so in love with the whole Blues Brothers phenomenon on SNL, that it really wouldn't take too much of a quality movie to capitalize upon that.

The script, which included some of the most idiotic chase scenes in cinema history, seems like it was written in a single night of chemical indulgence. By the time you get to the end of the movie, you get the feeling that John Landis knew the movie wasn't really working - so he decided to just make the scale of the chase scene completely ridiculous in order to try and make someone laugh at something.

The music numbers are what saves the movie from being a complete failure. They're so good that they will make you forget about just how stupid the rest of the movie actually is.

Side note : I think it's worth noting that John Landis is completely overrated in himself. Sure, he directed "Animal House", and "American Werewolf In London". But, his failures FAR outweigh his successes. Just to name some of his other flops : "Spies Like Us", "Three Amigos", "Oscar", "Beverly Hills Cop 3", and of course "Blues Brothers 2000". I've always felt that "Trading Places" could probably have been a better movie with a different director.

Having grown up with Star Wars as a child & being introduced to Mel Brooks films as a young teen, this movie seemed like a dream match when it was announced in my late teens. I mean, Mel Brooks was going to make a spoof of Star Wars !

It had been a while since the last Mel Brooks movie, and even though History of the world Part I was not even close to what I had come to regard as up to par for a Mel Brooks film, I was excited over all of the possibilities that Star Wars would provide for Mel Brooks' parody. But I soon realized in the theater that this is simply not a funny movie. The humor in this is so shallow & unimaginative that I still have trouble believing that this came from the same person who brought us Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles. Those films featured witty and clever type of slapstick comedy. It was the type of comedy that knows no time period. At times those films would incorporate risque humor that actually worked. Here, Mel Brooks' comedy seems so umimaginative. It's grammer school kid humor. He actually spoofed the Jabba the Hut character with a character named Pizza the Hut...and for as stupid as that sounds, it's even more idiotic & unfunny on the screen. It's just not funny. What was once Brooks' risque mind is now pre-puberty humor : "My schwartz is bigger than yours." I remember sitting in the theater just waiting - HOPING - for a scene that would even hint at the genius of Blazing Saddles & Young Frankenstein. There isn't one in this film.

Even the cast is hopelessly unhappy. Jim Candy, Rick Moranis, and Bill Pullman seem poised for humor - but everything that comes out of their mouths is just predictable & childish. Every character in this film seems like it was conceived within a 5 minute idea session where all the writers and Brooks got together & said things like "What's a good spoof for Darth Vader ? How about um....Lord Dark Helmet ! HAHAHA ! Yha we'll use that ! So, what's a good idea for Chewbacca ? How about a half dog/half man character ? YHA ! Let's use that ! What should we name him ? How about something stupid like Barf ? Yha ! Let's do that !"

There is such a wealth of material to spoof in Star wars that I still can't believe someone (especially Mel Brooks) could make such a shallow spoof such as this. What I had hoped would be a return to form for Brooks turned out to be confirmation that his comedic ability had indeed seen its best days. AFter this, Brooks only made more and more hopelessly tired spoofs such as Robin Hood : Men In Tights, and Dracula : Dead and Loving It. Mel Brooks' humor is indeed gone. Nowadays when I see him make guest appearances on Curb Your Enthusiasm he seems like that old uncle who tries to make all the kids laugh at family get togethers. The uncle was probably a funny kid back in high school - but now the years have caught up with him & his humor is just tired, dated, and boring.

Did this movie really need to be made ? Apparently it did, because Rob Zombie went through all kinds of trouble to get it out to the public. It basically serves as his little homage to horror movies. However, that very fact itself serves as the film's first flaw : It has no originality. It's almost like Rob Zombie thought it would be a really cool idea to make a movie that didn't have anything new to it. Instead, he would just take all these scenes from his favorite movies and just re-shoot them. It doesn't matter how many obscure horror movies he references in this scene or that. In the end, the whole flick is just a stylized ripoff of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

So, that kind of brings me back to my original question : Did this movie really need to be made ? It's not scary. It's not really what I would consider "gory". Hell, it's not even that creepy. The characters are so cliche, that by the last 30 minutes of the movie you're just hoping the victims will just die or escape.

Super Troopers was a total sleeper. I didn't even hear about that movie before it came on cable. Then one day it came on cable & I was bored - and I watched it. It took a couple of minutes, but I suddenly realized that it was an amazingly funny movie. It had very silly, yet sometimes witty humor. I watched it over and over. Everytime I watched it, I found something new that was hilarious. I started to notice even the really little subtle humor that was going on in the background. I couldn't believe that it was a huge hit when it came out.

So, I was very excited when I heard Broken Lizard would be coming out with a new movie - Club Dread. These guys were so naturally funny, that I couldn't imagine their next movie being anything less than a laughing-until-I-am-crying type of experience.

Boy, was I wrong. Club Dread is so UNfunny that, as a Super Trooper lover, it was actually painful for me to sit in the theater and watch. This is an extremely EXTREMELY unfunny movie. I remember watching it in the theater, and wanting to laugh. I just kept waiting for something - ANYTHING - that was somewhat funny to make me laugh. It never came. It was literally that bad.

This is a movie that will actually make you wonder if the guys in this film are even the same guys who appear in Super Troopers. I couldn't believe these guys who were almost effortlessly making me cry with laughter during Super Troopers, were now making the type of lame and tired humor that would probably have been mocked in Super Troopers.

What happened to Broken Lizard ? After watching Super Troopers, I actually thought they could be one of the funniest comedy teams in the past 10-20 years (I was THAT impressed with their style of humor on Super Troopers !). Now, after watching this sad excuse for a movie, I can only hope that they will somehow make a comeback in a couple of years.

Avoid this movie at all costs. It is a complete waste of time. Watch Super Troopers. I consider it to be one of the biggest sleepers in recent times. You'll watch it over and over.

How dumb can Hollywood be ? Watch this idiotic comedy & you will find out.

This movie employs every possible stereotypical & boring humor of our time & actually tries to pass it off as "funny". You've got your manipulative "ghetto" black lady who comes across a very successful middle aged white man.

Of course the middle-aged white man is completely defenseless when it comes to her highly witty & clever means of accomplishing her goal. He can't think for himself. This type of person just bewilders him. What will she do next ? He's completely at her mercy. If he could only have help with this.

Oh, but wait, his friend (Eugene Levy) is also at this black lady's mercy. His strong fetish for large black women makes him completely defenseless against her as well. They have no choice but to help her in her quest. Gee, I can't stop laughing !

I could go on & take apart the rest of the tired & boring stereotypes that are used in this sad excuse for a movie - but that would just require more energy by me. Let's just say that if you actually thought this movie was funny, then maybe you need to get out more.

Note to Steve Martin : You did a good job in this case of actually "becoming" your character. You basically just threw your already sinking career into the dumpster for the benefit of Queen Latifah. I guess Hollywood is pretty desperate for a new black female star these days, because they just love giving that talentless big mouthed bitch publicity.

Sure, it's 70's Sci-Fi at its best. However, calling something "the best of 70s Sci-Fi" is kind of a backhand comment. It's a rather limited category - especially when you are considering films made before "Star Wars". I start thinking of films like "Rollerball", and even the "Planet of the Apes" movies. They're the type of movies that were conceived with a type of socio-political statement & theme in mind (mostly revolving around a futuristic Utopian world), and in the process of showing that futuristic world, managed to date themselves by showing off their state-of-the-art 70's technology. Even discreet things like the font used for public billboards screams out "THIS WAS MADE IN THE 70's !!!". They have that really cheesy curvy quasi-futuristic type of font that was so popular in the 70's for a while. Now you see that font, and you think to yourself "damn, people actually thought that looked 'futuristic' at one time ?"

Still, at the base of this movie there is indeed an interesting underlying story. Sure, it's a bit ridiculous (you can live in a Utopian world - but you can only live until you're 30), but it's still an interesting idea.

I remember watching this flick when I was 7 and being completely fascinated with it. I just loved this world. It was amazing to me. I mean, did you see how they could just go into those cars and get taken anywhere they wanted automatically ?!?! WOW ! It reminded me of my family trip to Disney World the summer before !

I just watched "Logan's Run" again for about the 6th or 7th time last night. It's still an entertaining flick. I enjoyed it. But all I kept thinking while watching it was "This movie needs to be remade." If they can remake "Rollerball" and "Planet of the Apes", then they need to remake "Logan's Run". This is a story that can truly benefit from a remake today. This is especially true when you consider the elements of this movie which are keeping it from being a "great" movie are fixable.

When I say that, I'm not just referring to improved special effects. I'm also talking about the pacing of the movie & the focus. This movie was best when it was focusing on the futuristic Utopian world, during the first hour or so. It started to go downhill after that. I think a remake that focused on that futuristic world, and its interesting society, would be much more entertaining. Obviously, an improved ending will elevate a remake as well.

I'm sure someone will eventually remake it. If it's done right, then it will be a better film than "Minority Report".

After being thoroughly blown away by the American adaptation of Ringu in the theater, I was determined to see this original Japanese edition. So I was very disappointed when it turned out that the original didn't have the storyline depth or intense creepiness of the American remake.

One of the most creepy aspects of The Ring was the video itself. The images on it were surreal, abstract, yet meaningful. In Ringu, the video was much, much shorter - and far less creepy. Because it was a shorter video, it had much less clues to the curse - and became part of the reason it was a shorter movie.

As a matter of fact, if I had watched the two versions of the film back to back with no previous knowledge of which was made first, I would have guessed the American version was the original. The American version had much more depth concerning the history of Samara. These type of details (which I felt added to the American version) were left out of the Japanese version - so the original seemed like an edited version of the American version. It actually felt like a shorter remake of The Ring.

I really was hoping for Ringu to blow me away even further than The Ring had. Instead, I hold this as one of the prime examples that Hollywood can indeed improve upon a foreign movie.

I really didn't know what to expect when I went to see this film. I had been told that it was worth seeing, but nothing more. The two main reasons behind me wanting to see the movie were :

1) It was around Halloween & I wanted to see a scary movie 2) I had seen Mulholland Dr. and really liked Naomi Watts' performance

With that in mind, I expected the film to be decent.

But the film was much more than decent. It was downright creepy. Very creepy. It's important to understand the difference between "scary" and "creepy". Scary can be accomplished in a matter of seconds (someone jumping out from behind a wall with a knife). Creepy is something that takes a while to accomplish in a film. It takes a long time on the part of the director. It requires more attention and time on the part of the viewer. This film managed to accomplish creepy very well. It reminded me of the older generation of horror films, which managed to grab you in a way that was very psychological ("The Omen", "Rosemary's Baby", and of course "The Exorcist"). Those types of horror are the ones that always stick with me. They are the ones that endure. They are the ones that I inevitably have to watch for at least a little bit when I pass them on late night cable even though I have seen them countless times.

creepy film

very well made

one of the best films of 2002

George Lucas made two films that will always be known as breakthrough & defining films.

One is obvious : "Star Wars".

The other is almost just as important : "American Graffiti".

By seamlessly intertwining the soundtrack into the movie, Lucas made this simple film into a breakthrough cinematic experience. It opened the doors for the usage of music in the future of film.

But the great thing about the way the music is utilized is that it isn't just used for the sake of filling in otherwise dull spots of the film. It is used in a way that fully capture the whole 50's experience. Of course there are so many other aspects of the 50's that help Lucas accomplish his snapshot of the 50's experience. There are the cars, the fashion, the trends...and of course there's Wolfman Jack acting as a type of narrator throughout the night.

Besides capturing the 50's experience on film, "American Graffiti" also acted as a catalyst for the "50's revival" in TV shows & music - another reason this is such a landmark film.

For me personally, after viewing this film, and listening to the soundtrack as a child, I too felt that I had experienced the 50's in a way.

Bill Paxton just continuous to impress me with his career. I mean, can't you just remember when he was in "Weird Science" as the jerk brother? Then he was in "Aliens" as Private Hudson screaming "They're all over the place!". Since then he got even more popular with roles in "Apollo 13", "Twister". But even more so, he has progressively taken on more demanding roles, and he has delivered. "A Simple Plan" showed him in a new light, as did "U-571".

Now there's "Frailty". Besides the possibility of this being his best acting performance, this is without a doubt one of the most impressive directorial debuts by an actor I have seen in recent times. Paxton really grabs the viewer and leads him down an intriguing path in which you really don't know what to believe and disbelieve. He even makes references to the likes of Hitchcock.

Most of the criticisms I've read regarding this film center upon the writing of it. Some didn't agree with the use of the twist at the end. I liked the twist(s). I liked them a lot! Either way, whether you liked the twists or not, you still have to agree that this is a very impressive directorial debut for Paxton. He's definitely made me a believer - no pun intended.

The summary says it all : This is literally the funniest standup I've ever seen (or heard) in my life, hands down.

I could give snippets of his performance, but that wouldn't do it justice. Just watch it.

I needed a little bit of time to ponder upon this installment of Lord of the Rings after seeing it. I wanted to think about how it would be viewed in the grand scheme of things for this trilogy years from now. Because basically, I don't view Lord of the Rings so much as three different movies, as much as one giant 9 hr movie that we just happen to see in three 3hr segments. Looking at it from that perspective, I think this "segment" had two main goals :

1) have more action than Part I 2) set up Part III as the mac-daddy ending-to-end-all-endings

This one does have more action scenes than Part I - though the majority of the action scenes are grouped together towards the end of the movie.

As far as setting up Part III to be an ending-to-end-all-endings, well, I think this film accomplishes that because it really kept some key parts from "The Two Towers" book. Because of that, Peter Jackson is basically going to have a ton of material to put into Part III. I mean, there's probably about 45-60 minutes worth of material that's going to have to appear in the movie "The Return of the King" that is from the book "The Two Towers". So, the third part should be pretty interesting.

So, I'll admit it, I was slightly disappointed at first - but when I started thinking about what Jackson has set himself up for in part III, I realized that it's all a matter of telling the tale in a way that will make for the most successful trilogy possible.

Part I : has to be awesome, make sure the entire audience wants to come back for Part II Part II : give everyone their action fix & those big battles that movie goers love Part III : make sure the audience leaves this one thinking it was a home-run on all levels

Knowing what all material Jackson left for Part III, he definitely has set up the trilogy to end with a home run.

I will have to say this : The second time was much better than the first! MUCH BETTER! Somehow, the movie seemed to move along much smoother & the pace was more tolerable & balanced.

On the other hand, certain aspects of the film that caught my attention in a negative way stuck out even more noticeably the second time. The best example of this was Aragorn's "dreams" that he was having of Arwen (which were NOT part of the book). Because of the awkward change of pace to the rest of the film, these scenes felt slightly out of place - and the fact that they are not part of the book makes it look like a bad call on Jackson's part to add them. I'm convinced Jackson is viewing this whole epic as a giant stew that he wants to be able to look at 10 years from now and never have to worry about saying to himself "hmmm...I should have put this in there when I had a chance". I mean, after all, is anyone going to care that there are 10 minutes of mushy dream scenes between Aragorn & Arwen when they view these films back-to-back on DVD on a 11 hr Super Mega Platinum Edition years from now ?

Gollum was especially impressive to me the second time around. They just couldn't have done a better job with him. They don't overuse him in the scenes and they make sure that when he says something it's memorable. Inevitably there will be comparisons to Jar-Jar, but in reality there really is no comparison. I think this is another example of how LOTR has shown up the new Star Wars in yet another way. Lucas was determined to have Jar-Jar be one of his shining accomplishments with the new trilogy (have a completely CGI character play a supporting role in the movie). Instead of having Jar-Jar viewed as a great cinematic accomplishment, Lucas has people begging him to get rid of the character. Gollum, on the other hand, is actually a very interesting character that actually brings something to the story, and you enjoy viewing on screen.

I'm a little worried about what all Jackson has left for Part III, though I do understand why he left it for Part III. However, he has so much material to cover in that movie that it could be quite overwhelming to those that didn't read the books. "Return of the King" is definitely going to have to be the longest of the three films if he is going to cover the material the way it needs to be covered.

When I wrote comments on "Fellowship" on IMDB, I said it was a good start for what could potentially be the greatest trilogy in cinematic history. I think this installation of LOTR does a proper job in bridging the trilogy & setting us up for what should be the proper ending to the greatest trilogy of all time.

This film just has so many things wrong with it starting from the very opening sequence. In that sequence we see Cassius Clay preparing for his upcoming title fight with Sonny Liston in Miami. While seeing him prepare, we see Liston destroying an opponent in the ring. We also see the hints of racial tension going on in southern USA, 1964. The entire sequence lasts approximately 8-10 minutes. It is long, drawn-out, and boring. It's the perfect opening sequence for this film.

That's because that's exactly how this movie feels : long, drawn-out, and boring.

How could someone make a film about Muhammad Ali's life & manage to make the film boring ?!?!? Here's some ways : have long (and unnecessarily drawn-out) scenes (ie : the dance scene where he meets his first wife), or simply have recreations of now-famous media scenes (the Cosell scenes ; the pre-fight scenes). I understand the need for these scenes, but I would rather watch the actual scenes than a recreations of them.

By concentrating on such aspects of Ali's life, Michael Mann totally bypasses what I feel could have been more interesting aspects of Ali's life. For instance, I would have liked to see more of the conversation between the newly-named Ali & his father, as they argue on the significance of the "Clay" name. That scene had the potential to be very revealing. I also would have liked to have seen more of Ali's first visit to Africa, when he went on his Muslim pilgrimage. Instead, the whole event is used as a way to say goodbye to Malcolm X in the film. To me, that whole part of the film could have been very significant. What did Ali see when he went on the pilgrimage ? How did it affect his life ? Did he recall any of Africa when he went back there to fight Foreman ? We'll never know from this film.

I would like to have seen more scenes such as him and Joe Frazier in the car together. That was one of my favorite scenes in the movie. It gave me a chance to see more of something that is impossible for me to ever see : an actual private conversation between Ali & Frazier.

But there are tons of other things that are left out of the film as well. For instance, after Ali loses to Frazier in the first fight, we don't really even get a chance to see how his first loss as a professional affects his life. This is Muhammad Ali ! How did it feel to him to lose for the first time in his life ? Eventhough Ali played it off in the media as if it didn't affect him, did it in reality ? We'll never know from this film.

The pacing of the film was just terrible. As I said, the opening sequence was long, drawn-out, and boring - and was the perfect opening sequence for this film. That's because it is a microcosm of the entire film.

You want bad pacing ? Try this : It actually took the entire first 55 minutes of this film for Cassius Clay to actually defeat Sonny Liston ! The opening sequence was all about him prepping for the fight, and it continued on to the weigh in of the fight, and the prefight comments etc. Then the fight itself was actually quite boring.

More bad pacing : The film goes into the mid-sixties in a daze. It doesn't really start to show anything until finally Ali has his now-famous interview with Cosell. In this scene Cosell tells him behind the scene how the government is worried of black militant groups. That is when I felt the film MIGHT start to become more interesting. I looked at my watch to see that nearly 2 HOURS had passed in the film !

Even MORE bad pacing : Ali gets his fight with Frazier. Ali loses the fight. But we as the audience never really get to see the true level of brutality of that fight. Between that and the "Thrilla In Manila" (which was completely dropped from the film) we never really get a chance to see the true damage that those two fighters endured and delivered in their fights against one another. Instead, we see glimpses of the fight, Ali's knockdown, and a few other aspects. But really it just goes straight to the next scene after that, which has Ali & his crew watching Foreman defeat Frazier. (Like I said, no concern is given on how Ali's first loss affected his psyche). After that, it is straight to Ali-Foreman. Full "Rumble In The Jungle" : Don King, Africa, Zaire etc etc.

This was actually probably the best part of the film. The film takes on a more "personal" look at Ali when he is prepping for the fight in Zaire. We get to see him connecting with the people. Again, I would have liked to see if he recalled anything from his previous visit to Africa - but that was not to be.

Even worst, the Foreman fight managed to look boring ! Still, while the fight itself looked boring, I will admit that Michael Mann did a brilliant job with showing the now-famous Foreman knockout punches by Ali. The angles he uses are different with each punch, and it is a very good perspective.

Other aspects of this film bothered me. For instance, was Ali REALLY on the phone with someone who was with MLK a second before he was assassinated ? That seems far-fetched to me.

The only thing keeping this film from being a complete waste of film is Will Smith's performance here. Smith does indeed do everything that one can hope from someone who is portraying Ali. However, when you get right down to it, I think there are simply some people who it is more exciting to watch in a documentary or biography, rather than a Hollywood film production.

So with that in mind, watch "When We Were Kings" for anything you would want to know about "The Rumble in the Jungle" or HBO's documentary on Ali-Frazier I. If you want a more interesting perspective on Ali's life in general, then watch ESPN's documentary on him - they didn't name him the Athlete of the Century for nothing.

Having read LOTR as a child, I was of course very interested to hear that it was in the works to be adapted onscreen. I began following the news about the production, following casting choices, and reading comments from Peter Jackson, and his feelings towards Tolkien's writing - and what he felt were the most important aspects to capture from the books. I then discovered that Jackson would be filming all three films simultaneously, and releasing them one year apart. He would also be using the same production crew for the entire trilogy. I became even more intrigued. The closer the release date of the movie came, the more information I heard, and feelings towards what to expect from the upcoming film. The more I heard, the more excited I was. My expectations on opening night were ridiculously high. After all, this was the novel that was voted as "The Novel of the Century".

The film did not disappoint !

Peter Jackson does such a brilliant job in completely creating a world that really does seem to be Middle-Earth. The landscapes are huge, lush, and photographic. The architecture is just enough off-kilter to make it seem like a different place - a different type of reality, just as you might envision it in the book. That is where the root of the brilliance of this accomplishment is - details. When you watch this movie you can just tell that Jackson and his crew were not making this film for the money they earned. They did it out of passion for their work.

But every aspect of this production just feels so right. The casting is so perfect. There's no overwhelming superstar in the film, whose performance will cannibalize the other players on the screen. Everyone plays their role perfectly - nobody does too much, and nobody does too little. Another aspect that is so perfectly utilized for this production was special effects. Nowhere in the film are special effects excessively used. They are only used when needed in the production. That is it. Sometimes, special effects are needed a great deal (the Balrog scene). Sometimes a small CGI "enhancement" perfectly captures something Tolkien first described (Bilbo's face suddenly altering when he sees the Ring again at Rivendell).

Also, the pacing of the film is brilliant. You just feel like Jackson is taking you on a long journey - not one that is going to end at the end of the first film. I believe this was accomplished because of the approach to the whole project in the beginning. Instead of taking the George Lucas route of literally filming the movies individually, Jackson made all three movies simultaneously. Since I am writing this before The Two Towers is released, I cannot say conclusively that each film will have the same "feel" to it, but I can guess that it will carry certain aspects on continuity because it is the same production crew and actors working at the same period in time. I believe this is important in the pacing of the films. It allows Jackson to approach the 3 films as one giant project, and to pace it accordingly.

After The Fellowship Of The Ring delivered on every possible level I had hoped, I am even more excited for The Two Towers, and The Return Of The King. After seeing how faithful Jackson has remained to the story, I have no doubt in my mind that they will be film classics on the day they are released, just like this film.

The greatest trilogy of all time ? It's off to the right start.

A very cliched & predictable script leads the performances, and the rest of this film straight into the land of boredom. The dialog is predictable. The scenarios play out like deja vu, ruining any possibility of this potentially great cast to have any kind of success here.

I was quite disappointed with this one. When I was sitting down to watch it, I was expecting a movie similar to a Farrelly Brothers movie ("Dumb and Dumber" ; "Kingpin" ; "There's Something About Mary").

The similarities are there with the somewhat raunchy comedy, femme-fatale character, and extreme over-the-top characters in general (Matt Dillon was in "There's Something About Mary"), and with several other aspects.

But in the end, it kind of comes off as a cheap rip-off of a Farrelly Brothers movie.

v

Off-kilter style doesn't always work.

Wes Anderson's directing style was the perfect touch for "Rushmore". With the extremeness of the Tennenbaum family, Anderson was probably the perfect director for this movie as well. He showed weird little aspects of each character's life, yet kept them mysterious enough to keep you interested.

However, I expected this movie to be more than just "interesting". I expected it to be hilarious as well. Now, granted, it had its moments which were truly hilarious - but those moments are few and far between.

I understand that this film's objective is not to make you constantly laugh, but there were times when I felt that the film could been funnier than it was, and a little dry.

Somewhat disappointing.

After being thoroughly disappointed with "The Phantom Menace", I had come to the conclusion that Lucas was in a very undesirable position of having to deliver a knockout punch with Ep II - or possibly face a failed trilogy.

So, I came into "Attack of the Clones" with extremely high expectations - knowing Lucas had to deliver.

After watching the movie, the very first thing that came into my mind was that this was easily the most complicated Star Wars plot of all of the Episodes - easily. If I had been 8 years old in the theater watching this film (as I was when viewing the original Star Wars), then I would definately had been confused during this movie - and I have NEVER been confused during a Star Wars movie. The plot is quite complex.

However, that is a good thing. The plot needed to be complex when considering the nature of the storyline. This film is taking on the difficult task of explaining how the Star Wars universe went from being a democratic Republic to a hardened dictatorship-based Empire. That's not something you can explain without deep plots that might not make immediate sense. However, the more you think about the plot and the more you realize the level of political back-stabbing that is going on by Palpatine then you realize this is very well written script.

Sure, there are awkward moments. The romance is clumsy & extremely awkward. But who cares ? I mean, is that REALLY what you go to see a Star Wars movie for ? The only reason the romance is so prominant here is because it carries such important consequences in the next trilogy (Luke & Leia).

As far as the action scenes go, I just do not see how anyone could ask for more in a film. The visual effects are just overwhelming. Even two viewings of this film would not be sufficient in appreciating the effects. They are just that extensive.

So, in the end when judging this movie you have to ask yourself : am I looking forward to Episode III ? I believe after seeing this film you will be, and therefore Lucas succeeded.

The outlandish, comic-book atmosphere that was just perfect in the first movie, just seems to be, well, old here. This movie should never have been made. That's all there is to it. The whole Austin Powers concept just should not be made into sequels. The initial shock value that we got from watching that rediculous world simply cannot be maintained by seeing it recreated on the screen over and over again.

I felt the original was one of the most brilliant comedies of all time. It had a completely original concept, with its own style and even its own language at times. But I don't want to start growing used to that concept ! It inevitably will become dull after a while because the shock value will be gone.

This movie has its own fun moments. But let's admit it folks, they could have come out with a sequel that had an even funnier script than the original, and we still would not have laughed as hard.

The fact that the third one is coming out this summer is even more sad. They should have just left it alone and the name "Austin Powers" would be legendary today.

With Hollywood fully embracing CGI special-effects, and the audiences eating it up like the Twizzlers from the concession stand, the stage was definitely set for one of the most visually challenging comic book interpretations in film history.

Spider-Man is not an easy character to put on screen. He doesn't simply fly through the air to his destination. He swings from one web to another, sticking to walls, jumping towards open windows, and grabbing whatever he has to grab in the mean time. The Green Goblin himself is difficult, riding on a jet-coaster that hovers and shoots off at great speeds, as well as fire a large arsenal of weapons.

With this said, the special effects were impressive. Sure, they looked kind of cartoon-y at times, but hey, after-all it's a comic-book interpretation, right ?

It wasn't the special effects that disappointed me in this movie. It was other elements. When I first heard that Willem Dafoe would be playing the role of the Norman Osborn\Green Goblin, I was excited. Here was an actor who had the talent to pull off the role, and the sinister grin to keep it consistent with the comic-book character.

However, and this is important, there's a plot alteration in the movie that makes it different from the comic-book. Because Norman Osborn is trying for a military contract for body armor, the Green Goblin ends up wearing this armor and a helmet\mask throughout the movie. This ends up making him look like a Power Ranger on a gliding coaster ! Worst, it doesn't allow us to see that sinister grin that Willem Defoe has. The same grin that initially got me excited about him getting the part ends up being molded on the front of a plastic mask - and the viewer doesn't get to see Dafoe as the Green Goblin, only Harry Osborn. Dafoe's Green Goblin had potential to be better than Nicholson's Joker, before they put a mask on the Green Goblin. Even worst, it introduces a very bad plot hole : Wouldn't you think the military would know the true identity of the Green Goblin upon sight, if he is flying around in recently military-demonstrated body armor ? That is a VERY big flaw in the script !!

One of the pleasant surprises in the movie was J.K. Simmons' performance as J. Jonah Jameson. He played the role perfectly, right down to the toupee.

Like others have said of this movie - it doesn't completely "blow". The film and story definitely lacked something as far as originality goes. This is especially true when you consider more interesting drug-related films have been made that are completely fictitious.

That's probably the main disappointment here. The film is actually TRUE - and it could have been a "definitive" drug story - on America's hopeless drug epidemic. However, "Blow" never even approaches those heights. If you want that "definitive" film on the American drug epidemic, then watch "Traffic".

Two points worth noting :

1) Much has been said about how great Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) is in this movie. It's all true. He really makes alot out of what easily could have been just another forgettable character in the movie. Great performance on his part.

2) Having said how great of a job Paul Reubens did with his role, let me still ask this : WHO CAST THIS MOVIE ??? In the film, Ray Liotta & Rachel Griffiths play Johnny Depp's father & mother. Both actors did a respectable job in the movie. However, in reality, Ray Liotta is only 8 years older than Depp - and Rachel Griffith is 5 years YOUNGER than Depp !!!!! Are you going to try and convince me that there were not two different older actors who could have played those roles ? It just makes for another hurdle to get around as the viewer - and this movie does not need more hurdles. It has enough of those in other aspects of the production.

For all intensive purposes, this is Steven Soderbergh's directorial debut. That fact is never apparent once throughout the movie - not once. Soderbergh applies his great touch to this movie in very discreet ways. I think the most effective is in the way he sums up an entire relationship by showing quick sequences which feature exchanged glances or small, but revealing, interactions between two characters.

That's what I mean about "discreet". He never gets up in your face with this film. He gives the viewer more of a fly-on-the-wall type of point of view. Which is perfect for the subject matter.

Soderbergh also wrote (and was nominated for) the script.

With all that said, I don't want to overlook the four great performances here by the main cast (James Spader, Peter Gallagher, Andie MacDowell, Laura San Giacomo). For all four of them, I feel it is their best performance ever. Each one of them really nails the character. This is especially true for Spader. At times he's confident, and self-righteous. At times he is desperate and pathetic.

Great movie.

This movie is the ultimate sleeper for me. What kept this movie from exploding into the theaters ? It has great direction, outstanding music, and career-defining performances !

"The Idolmaker" truly has everything. It is set during the time when Elvis was in the Army and everyone was looking for the Next Big Thing (Fabian, Frankie Avalon etc.). It shows how a man who is a great songwriter can turn guys who "have the look" into superstars.

This is the role that Ray Sharkey was born to play. It is almost as though he was the person who wrote the script, and had himself in mind for the role all along. You can just see the way he delivers his lines, dances to the music, and sings, that he truly is Vincent Vacarri.

Besides the fact that the acting is great, the musical performances are flawless. The songs just explode from the screen with catchy tunes. It gets especially interesting towards the end when Caesare (Peter Gallagher) gives his giant production live number.

Folks, if you haven't seen this movie (and I highly doubt that you have) - do yourself a favor and see it ! Like I said, it is a hard to find movie - but it is worth the time to track it down.

This is what happens if all the elements are clicking properly for a film with musical numbers.

Like I said, it's the biggest secret in film. Now that you know the secret, do yourself a favor and rent it. You'll thank me afterwards !