Reviews

I LOVED the old Walter Matthau film from 1974 -- one of my all time favorites. Wit, tension, drama -- everything this movie lacks.

First off is the directing. Why can't directors trust their actors any more? What happened to the long take? This was edited with many quick cuts -- as if the director and editor thinks everyone in the audience suffers from ADD.

Travolta is over the top -- not menacing or calculating like Robert Shaw in the original, just yelling and running around like a jerk. Denzel is in the Matthau role, and he's OK, but Matthau was a transit cop while Denzel is a train dispatcher. Two very different jobs -- so why does Travolta want to talk to Denzel? I didn't quite understand the plot point where, by hijacking a subway car, Travolta will increase his fortune. Stocks go down during hostage crises, but the price of gold goes up? I didn't see the connection.

This movie isn't a total waste of time, only about half of it.

Liam Neeson stars as a retired CIA agent whose daughter gets kidnapped by some bad guys in Paris, and he has 96 hours to save her.

First, good news. Liam Neeson is a very good actor.

Now, the bad news.

1) Recently, action films have terrible editing. Why do filmmakers think action sequences are more exciting with choppy editing? (See Quantum of Solace and the second Bourne film). This film follows in that lousy tradition. The editing served to confuse, rather than enlighten.

2) Some serious lapses in logic in the film reminded me of 1970's action TV shows, a la Starsky and Hutch. Some examples:

-- when Neeson chases the bad guy up the ramp at the airport and causes a traffic jam, no drivers leave their car to see what's happening

-- when Neeson brings a girl back to his hotel room, he somehow acquired medicine, plastic tubing, an IV, a syringe to help her get better. Did he have these medical supplies stuffed down his pants? Did he stop and buy them?

-- when Neeson confronts the bad guys, he gives one of them a card that says "Good Luck" in Albanian, and asks the guy to translate it. How'd Neeson know that that was the guy he spoke to on the phone?

I don't know how some folks thought this was a good film, but it wasn't. Except for the acting, not really worth seeing.

He's tough, and compassionate! He's Lon McQ, lieutenant for the Seattle Police Dept. His partner and best friend is murdered, and Lon sets out to avenge his death. McQ has his sights on a drug dealer, but everything isn't as it seems...

This is actually a fun movie, but a little dated. I thought John Wayne was just a little too old for this role -- I didn't know if his hair was a wig or dyed, but either way it didn't look natural. Aside from that, all the acting in this film was very good, and the action sequences were also pretty good.

The car "chase" after the heist really wasn't much of a chase, because the bad guys weren't really driving very fast. And the big "heist" wasn't really all that thrilling, either. It wasn't as complex as other "heists" in other films.

But the car chase at the end of the film was pretty cool.

I knew this film was going to be goofy when we first meet McQ. A "professional hit-man" shoots at McQ but misses (of course). The guy is running away, down the wharf (toward the water?), and McQ nails him with one shot. For a professional hit-man, he wasn't too good.

I also loved McQ's theme by Elmer Bernstein -- a little overused, but every hero has his own theme, right? I also liked Rosey the informant. He reminded me of Rollo from the TV show Sanford and Son. Very stereotypical pimp for the times. What a hoot.

This film isn't "art", but it is fun, and a good way to kill a Saturday night.

Kyle is under house arrest, so he spies on his neighbors to pass the time. He suspects that one of his neighbors is a killer.

This took about an hour of setting up the situation before the action started. There was about 15 minutes of genuine suspense, when the kids were following Mr. Turner at the hardware store. A lot of the action at the climax was lit very poorly, and I couldn't tell what was happening. Thankfully, I was able to guess, because this movie stole ideas from at least two other good movies.

I can imagine the writers and producers sitting around a conference table, thinking, "We should remake "Rear Window", but we should change enough of it so people won't think it's a remake". So they changed the Jimmy Stewart character from a photographer to a teenager. Then they changed the reason he couldn't leave his house -- Jimmy Stewart broke his leg, this kid was under house arrest. The Grace Kelly character was already Jimmy's girlfriend, but in this nonsense our hero meets the girl and she falls in love with him! Only in the movies, folks.

But then the writers must have thought, "Raymond Burr was creepy in "Rear Window", but we should update this film to have the villain more like a villain from "Silence of the Lambs"." The house they gave the villain had all these secret passages, and what looked like an operating room, and a pit filled with water so the bad guy can dump the bodies. How big was this house, anyway? How could he fit an operating room in it? This house is in the suburbs, yet it just kept going and going and going.

Disturbia is a silly trifle of a film, not worth your time, and certainly not worth mine.

Frank (Ben Kingsley) is a mob hit-man from Buffalo with a drinking problem. His boss sends him to San Francisco to clean up his act.

This film is very funny, and sends 12 step programs on their head. How does one make amends for killing people? What other glaring character defects can one have after murder? Ben Kingsley does a wonderful job playing Frank, the drunken hit-man who wants to get sober. Frank is a quiet, no-nonsense type of guy, who keeps to himself, and Kingsley is amazing showing Frank transform into someone who is "rigorously" honest and open at the AA meeting. I was surprised by Tea Leoni -- she's not one of my favorite actresses, and she did a very good job demonstrating her own "shortcomings" while dealing with the new (hit)man in her life. Luke Wilson is very good as Franks 'sponsor', and Bill Pullman is an underused actor who is Frank's contact in San Francisco to keep an eye on him.

My big problem with this film is the music. Not that it isn't a catchy tune, but it's variations were used ad nausea. The same music came on during, what I felt, were inappropriate times -- quiet, contemplative scenes. Even if music was played during those quiet scenes, it could have been different music.

I give this film 9 out of 10 stars, minus one for the music.

John Cusack stars as a mob lawyer in Kansas who steals two million dollars from his boss with the help of his friend Billy Bob Thornton.

I thought this movie was very good, but it lacked something. For one thing, my local library cataloged it as comedy, which it is not. Sure, it has some funny elements in it, especially Oliver Platt as Pete, Charlie's (John Cusacks) friend, but it is not a comedy. It was also directed by SCTV alum Harold Ramis, but again, this isn't a comedy.

What it is, though, is a thriller more along the lines of "A Simple Plan". I was watching this, and I was reminded of "A Simple Plan", only I think that "Plan" is a better film.

John Cusack takes up most of the screen time. He's a fine actor, but Billy Bob Thornton isn't on the screen more than fifteen minutes. Mike Starr, one of my favorite character actors, ever since Goodfellas, Dumb and Dumber, and Ed Wood, is on the screen for less than five minutes, and his name appears right after the title in the opening credits. Randy Quaid, another personal favorite, has also limited screen time in this film.

I think that the problem with this film is that the plot twists aren't very unexpected. There is a lot of tension, double crossing, people getting killed who I didn't expect to get killed, yet, at the conclusion, it's still a happy Hollywood ending. The conflicts get resolved in a "and they all lived happily ever after" fashion.

I give it 6 out of 10 stars -- mostly for John Cusack and Oliver Platt, but minus some stars for some very not well lit shots and lack of screen time for other actors.

"Capote" is about six years of author Truman Capote's life during the time he wrote "In Cold Blood".

This film is the antithesis to bombastic, mind-numbing Hollywood dreck aimed at teen age boys. "Capote" is played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who more than earned his Oscar for his portrayal. His portrayal reminded me of Dustin Hoffman's portrayal in "Rain Man" -- Phillip puts his whole mind and body into the role. A very difficult role, and very intelligently played. I was especially impressed with the acting towards the end of the film, where Truman says goodbye to Perry Smith.

The other actors are also terrific, and I especially liked Chris Cooper as the Kansas agent who brings the criminals to justice, but I'm sorry he wasn't seen more time on the screen.

The visuals are stunning -- wide open fields of Kansas, sun drenched Spain, and early 1960's New York City. I wonder how they got rid of buildings that were built since the early sixties. CGI, I suppose.

The music is understated, and sets the emotional tone of the film. Gentle piano and strings, it is poignant and underscores the tragedy of Truman and his relationships.

Truman Capote was a brilliant author, yet an alcoholic, so he was not above manipulating and lying to get what he wanted. My only negative critique of this film is that it left me wanting to know more -- what was Capote like before 1959, when he was already famous from writing "Breakfast at Tiffany's"? What was he like after 1965? I remember reading he threw "the party of the century" sometime in the later 1960's.

"Capote" is well worth the time, if you want to see something besides car chases and big explosions set to loud rock music and edited in three second shots.

Joe Bowers (Luke Wilson) and Rita (Maya Rudolph) are subjected to an Army experiment where they sleep for one year. Something goes wrong, and they wake up five hundred years later, in the year 2505. Because of the dumbing down of society and civilization, Joe wakes up to find out he is the smartest man alive.

I really had high expectations for this film, because I enjoy Mike Judge's other work ("Office Space", Beavis & Butthead, King of the Hill). This film starts out great, but I felt it was uneven in spots. Some of the jokes were repeated frequently, and I felt like saying, "Yeah, we got the idea, everyone's stupid." I felt the rehabilitation sequence went on a little too long, but besides these negatives, this is a pretty funny film but I can only recommend it Luke warmly.

John Triton (wrestling star John Cena) is a Marine who doesn't follow orders and therefore gets kicked out of the military. After coming home, bad guys led by Robert Patrick steal a lot of diamonds and later take John's wife (Kelly Carlson) hostage. John tracks them down and settles the score.

I saw this the other night, and after about 20 minutes of it, my family and I started talking back to the screen a la MST3K. The fault of this film really lies in the script. The writers, knowing John Cena can't act, build a story around him that takes advantage of his physique and athleticism. It's not really his fault that this film is so bad. Robert Patrick, as the head villain, is very one dimensional. Kelly Carlson, who plays Mrs. Triton, looks real good and screams. The other bad guys grunt and sweat. The action is totally unbelievable. The jokes aren't funny. The plot is ridiculous. The stunts and special effects were lame. And the directing was mediocre, at best. Why use slo-mo for some stunts and not others? Why use slo-mo at all? Don't waste your time, unless you want to laugh and MSTie this disaster.

I thought this was really good and really well made until the last half hour. Then it fell flat, really flat.

Superman/Clark Kent has been away for five years, and now he comes back to Metropolis and the Daily Planet. Since then, Lois Lane has gotten married and has had a little boy.

I thought Brandon Routh did a fine job, especially as Clark Kent. For a newcomer, he was actually pretty good. Kevin Spacey, one of my favorite actors, was very good as the bad guy Lex Luthor. I think he treated the role more as a comic role, like Gene Hackman did in the late seventies, than as a serious villain. Kate Bosworth, as Lois Lane, just didn't do it for me. Maybe it was the way the Lois character developed. Lois can sneak in to Luthor's secret lair, but she can't tell that Clark is Superman? What journalism school did she go to? I thought that the plot was a rehash of the first film, albeit with a different twist. There wasn't a lot of action in this film -- the first sequence with the airplane was very good, but after that, the action scenes get a little complicated and scarce -- but after Superman saves the day (we knew he would, it was just a matter of how), the film grinds to a halt. Just stops dead. No satisfactory tying up of loose ends. Nothing. That's why I give "Superman Returns" a six out of ten.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) must stop a banker, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who finances terrorists, by winning a game of Texas Hold'Em.

There's a lot of good things about this film, and some not so good.

First the not so good. After the "climax", there's a denouement, and another "climax". The second climax felt tacked on, as if the producers knew a building was going to be destroyed, and they thought, how can we fit this into the film? Also, the miniature scenes with the big airplane didn't look so good. After seeing the CGI effects of Spider-Man and the last Star Wars film, this effect comes up short.

Now for the good. The producers go back to the original source material. The last film that came close to using the same plot as the book was probably "Live and Let Die". (Incidents in later films appear throughout the books). This film adheres pretty much to the plot of the novel. Which is a good thing, considering the last film, "Die Another Day", rehashed elements from the other films, esp. the plot from the film "Diamonds Are Forever", and not the book.

The spirit of this film is closer to "Bourne Identity" than DAD. Bond is much much much much more believable than any previous incarnation. After a fight, he breathes hard(!). He gets hurt, physically and emotionally. He makes mistakes. Unlike any of the previous Bond films, where he was a sort of Superman in a tuxedo, when this Bond fights, he -fights-. Not like the 'one punch and it's a knockout' technique of previous movies. That same technique that was parodied so well in the Austin Powers movies where he yells, "Judo Chop!"

And the villain, Le Chiffre, is motivated mostly out of fear. Yes, he's greedy, but that's only a part of the reason why he has to win the big poker game. What a big difference from a megalomaniac trying to take over the world!

I'm so glad the producers got back to the roots and base material. The only problem here is -- where do you go from here? If they continue to keep it in the spirit of the "Bourne Identity", Bond will be around for a long, long time.

Steve Rogers (Matt Salinger) is a handicapped (he has polio) guy who, through a mysterious process, is transformed into super athletic Captain America by the military. His arch-nemesis, the Red Skull, transformed by the same process, is intent on world domination, and only Captain America can stop him.

Where does one start? I guess the script. Plot holes that you can drive a bus through abound in this film. So many inconsistencies -- I'm not going to watch this film again so you'll just have to trust me. Captain America is tied to a rocket that is launched from somewhere in Europe (Italy? Germany? France?) and headed towards the White House. How is he going to get out of this one? I thought. Well, he breaks the fins on the rocket right before he hits the White House and ends up in Alaska. How much fuel did this rocket have? Cap gets frozen in ice and reawakens fifty years later. He starts walking from Alaska to his hometown in California, but the bad guys and one good guy find him in the Canadian wilderness. I don't know too much about Canadian geography, but I do know one thing -- Canada is BIG. And how the good guys and bad guys come upon Cap -at the same time- is amazing.

The secret laboratory where Cap was created was underneath Roz's Diner -- fifty years later, Roz's Diner is in the same exact place. So was the secret laboratory. A poorly lighted and filmed fight scene takes place in the not used laboratory. The only action in the film, and we don't get to see it. In fact, we don't get to see a lot of stuff in this film. Cap has incredible athletic abilities, but these abilities are never totally filmed. The scene where the president is kidnapped is described to us by a television news reporter -- we don't get to see that either.

Other comic book films, in particular Batman and Spiderman, our heroes have psychological depth. Not Cap. He's like a big Boy Scout, and he's an American patriot, no matter what, because America is always right, right? Salinger's performance is wooden, but I can't blame him, I blame the material.

I wish I watched this film with my friends to MSTie it, but alas, I'm not going to sit through this again.

Bruce Willis plays a New York therapist who witnesses a patient of his commit suicide. This is so traumatic to him, he becomes color blind. He travels to Los Angeles to visit his old college chum Scott Bakula, who invites Bruce to sit in on his Monday night group session. Here we meet five neurotics, and later Bakula tells Willis that one of them have been threatening his life. Soon, Bakula is murdered and the cop investigating the crime (Ruben Blades) asks Willis to take over the group and try to find the killer.

This had to be one of the most ridiculous and unrealistic films I have ever seen. It started out interestingly, but very quickly soured. I don't know if a person can be traumatized into color blindness, but it seems unlikely. And the colorblindness had nothing to do with the plot or with Willis' character. Big deal, he's colorblind.

Ruben Blades was simply awful as the foul cop. To show how foul this cop is, Willis and Blades are walking along the street when a man accidentally bumps into Blades. Blades pushes the man against a car and frisks him, while never breaking his conversation with Willis. That's one tough cop! And why does Willis move into Bakula's very nice house after Bakula's murdered? I don't know if I'd want to stay in my murdered friend's house.

And the plot "twists" are so incoherent, so unbelievable, so ludicrous, that they are unintentionally funny. One of the neurotic patients is a boy who wants to be a girl. Or is s/he? This is truly a Razzie worthy winner. See it with friends to "MST"ie it.

To be honest, I only watched an half hour of this film, because it became unbearable. Everything about this film stunk. First and worst were some incredible lapses in logic. When Halle Berry meets Benjamin Bratt -- highly unlikely. He happens to be looking up when she's dangling on the ledge/air conditioner? And then runs up the stairs and catches her just as she's falling? Halle Berry is one of the most beautiful women in the world, and in the beginning they had to "ugly her up". She wore frumpy clothes, but she still wore makeup and hair extensions. Uglying up a women so she can become beautiful sometimes works -- see Cher in "Moonstruck". But telling Halle Berry to act ugly -- well, she just isn't that good of an actress. The editing was poor. The acting sucked. The guy who played Sharon Stone's husband chewed more scenery than Al Pacino. What was with the directing? The camera work was dizzying -- and it made me nauseous. What's with all the sweeps and pans? Deplorable, unwatchable, I would have given it a zero out of 10 in IMDb would have let me.