Change Your Image
MeBDev
Reviews
Hostage (2005)
Film worth seeing - be careful not to prejudge it
This movie is definitely worth seeing, and it'll really speak to you if you care at all about your family (or any children you might know). It's suspenseful and you never know where the plot will go--but not in a negative way; each scene logically follows the one before it, and the story flows smoothly with few holes.
One of the most compelling elements of the film is the repeated motif of young death and of watching a person die. The actors each handle these heavy issues with great mastery and precision. The close-ups of dead faces, dead eyes, are enough to dishearten even the most positive of optimists; in this way, the audience feels personally connected with the struggle and desperation of the characters. We, like they, see the injustice and the senselessness of it. We, like they, are emotionally destroyed by it. We can identify with the characters, and that's one of the most important things in film-making.
Overall, the movie is pretty great. Don't go into it expecting to find just another action movie; absent are the underdeveloped characters and the thrilling car chases. Also, don't go in expecting to find typical action star Bruce Willis; absent is the usual playfulness of his most famous hero-cop character. That is to say, don't judge a movie by its poster. There's far more to this one than you might expect. It's definitely a film worth seeing.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)
Too much, without going far enough...
In my opinion, "Sky Captain" was loaded with a lot of action and adventure and bits of mystery and romance, but there wasn't enough of it to be fulfilling. I left the theater still wanting more--more explosions, more mystery, more explanations to things. There was too much left unexplained for me by the end of the movie.
Furthermore, while I appreciated the style of the movie and the way in which the shots were put together, everything looked a little *too* fake for my tastes. So much CGI, but none of it even *tried* to look real. As a movie-goer, that bothered me. In this weird, anachronistic blend of futurism and pre-war Americana, there wasn't enough that looked real for me to latch onto, and so I felt alienated for most of the movie, unwilling and unable to immerse myself in the world. By such detachment, I lost interest easily and didn't enjoy myself very much.
On the whole, I'm glad that I saw it, but I'm more glad that I saw it on a discount movie night. Somehow, just as it blends the sentimental past with the technological surrealism of the future, the movie went too far without going far enough.
Drowning Mona (2000)
absolutely brilliant
This movie is simply amazing. It takes a rather simple premise and turns it into an hysterical movie without much effort. The casting choices were dead-on: Bette Midler as a controlling, hateful woman that even the viewer wants to see dead; Casey Affleck, with his baby face, as one of the prime suspects; Danny DeVito as the head cop in a backwoods, boring town in rural New York where nothing criminal ever happens. There were comic subtleties and clever visual jokes throughout the movie. It's an intelligent comedy, and although it sometimes relies on mildly juvenile jokes, its bizarreness on the whole does not disappoint the viewer. That's the word for it: bizarre. But it's a brilliant kind of bizarreness, absolutely brilliant.
When in Rome (2002)
give it a chance
I always feel strange and guilty saying it (because I'm a fairly well-educated non-teenager), but I actually sort of like the Olsen twins, and I respect the movies they make, even though I've never really been their target audience. "When in Rome" was a traditional Mary-Kate and Ashley movie, complete with the foreign travel, accents, motorbikes, adult romance as a "B" storyline, fashion orientation, and even the gag reel over the credits. I enjoyed myself. "When in Rome" and the other Olsen twin movies never pretend to be anything they're not; most of the time, they only premiere on video, and they never claim to be the next "Citizen Kane" or even "An Affair to Remember." My point is, people who watch this movie and expect it to be anything other than another Olsen twin movie will be disappointed.
That said, those who ARE fans of the Olsen twins will really enjoy themselves. For those of us who've watched them since the first episodes of "Full House," it's really great to see them growing into more mature roles. This movie provides important historical and geographical information, just like many of their other movies (remember 10 Downing Street from "Winning London" and the visit to the Louvre from "Passport to Paris"?) as well as providing good, clean fun that can be enjoyed by the whole family.
As long as I still feel like I'm on my soapbox, and as long as I can make it relevant to the movie, let me take a moment to challenge those who reject the Olsen twins: in order to be a fan of the Olsen twins, you don't have to be some pre-teen "valley girl" from California. In fact, that's not really the target audience. If it were, the MK&A fashion line of clothes and accessories would be run through Gap or some store like that, not Wal-Mart. "When in Rome," while it does feature "high fashion" and globe-trotting and two girls from a valley in Cali, isn't really ABOUT that... it's more about inspiring young girls who have initiative to let it take them places. If that means setting the movie in some glamorous foreign city with cute guys on motorbikes, so be it. That's called marketing--you take an idea and sell it by making it appealing. At least they're sending a good message, even if the means seem a little superficial.
Basically, don't knock the film until you've seen it, and then don't knock it until you've tried to understand what the Olsen twins do: they encourage young girls to be creative, intuitive, and driven young women. This movie does that, I think, just like their others. Kids - enjoy. Parents - do the same. If you like the Olsen twins, you won't be disappointed.
JAG (1995)
good, quality programming
I love "JAG." That's just about all there is to say. I got hooked on it one night after seeing the episode of "Maggie Winters" on which David James Elliott guest-starred. The show has given me a new appreciation for the military, and I really like the diversity of the characters and storylines. (Of course, being a "shipper," I love the UST between the two main characters, but that's not the only reason I watch the show.)
As I once said to a friend to whom I was recommending the show: "It will give you a new perspective on the military side of our socio-political system; it will open your eyes to the travesty around you, with storylines weekly pulled from the headlines; it will offer you several pieces of eye candy, varying in gender, age, and race; and it will broaden your horizons when it comes to what types of quality programming you permit yourself to watch. . . . With creative episodal writing, there are references to many past episodes, keeping the regular viewer constantly on his or her toes."
Really, though, "JAG" is a very enjoyable show, something that I can sit and watch with my parents and still talk about with my friends. It's really just a great show, and I'd recommend it to anyone.
Cherry Falls (1999)
only redeeming factor: Jay Mohr in drag
This movie was a complete bomb, but I was well aware that it would be before it aired. The killer was obvious, the plot was silly, the script was terrible, and the acting was barely mediocre. Yeah, okay, it was funny to watch all of the very unrealistic things happen in the movie, but my overall reaction to this movie was that it was bad, and for the reasons stated above. I sincerely apologize to those who think differently.
What Lies Beneath (2000)
It's at least worth your money to see it
I don't scare easily, but this one unnerved me a little. Although the movie was not boo!-augh! scary, it was fairly suspenseful and intense. There was a certain point toward the end of the movie where you just wanted it to be over, but it just wouldn't end. Like that little pink bunny, it kept going and going. Luckily, though, it didn't just drop you at one level for the climax and make you sit there for another twenty minutes; it did get slightly more intense. [note - Some may consider these comments spoilers] There were still a few things that needed to be explained (for instance, the neighbors just dropped out of sight after a few minutes), and the audience was still left questioning the actions of certain characters at certain times... as well as Ford's seeming immortality throughout the last half hour of the film. The ending was a little cheap, the one computer animation bit a little contrived... but all in all, not completely a bad movie. Interesting roles for both Pfeiffer and Ford, quite different from those traditionally played. It is an entertaining 126 minutes.
Random Hearts (1999)
Good enough plot, decent script, but way too slow.
To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.